Protestants and Sola Scriptura. Bible without table of contents

[PathDiagnosis]

How do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura if the Bible itself did not come with a table of contents? Didn’t the early church,supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, create the cannon of scripture? From the outside, the Catholicism and Scripture+Tradition makes more sense.

Somewhere in Acts, early church leaders were confused in the Gentile converts should be circumcised. They didn’t refer to scripture to answer the question.
Thanks.

 

[SimplyGreen]

How do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura if the Bible itself did not come with a table of contents? Didn’t the early church,supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, create the cannon of scripture? From the outside, the Catholicism and Scripture+Tradition makes more sense.

Somewhere in Acts, early church leaders were confused in the Gentile converts should be circumcised. They didn’t refer to scripture to answer the question.
Thanks.

It does not make sens.
But what puzzled me was: are you a former Catholic converted from Protestantism?

 

[PathDiagnosis]

It does not make sens.
But what puzzled me was: are you a former Catholic converted from Protestantism?

I’m just interested in religion. See the other thread I started for answers to your puzzle

Peace

 

[AmateurPianist]

How do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura if the Bible itself did not come with a table of contents? Didn’t the early church,supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, create the cannon of scripture? From the outside, the Catholicism and Scripture+Tradition makes more sense.

Somewhere in Acts, early church leaders were confused in the Gentile converts should be circumcised. They didn’t refer to scripture to answer the question.
Thanks.

It depends on what you consider “Sola Scriptura” to mean. Two Latin words without a verb do not even a complete sentence make.

 

[JRKH]

How do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura if the Bible itself did not come with a table of contents?

The Bible DID come with at table of contents. The "Table of contents was compiled at the same time as the canon…
As to “How do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura” - basically, they are taught this by other protestants as part of the protestant faith Tradition

Didn’t the early church,supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, create the cannon of scripture?

Perhaps a better expression would be that the Church…compiled…the canon…This occurred around 400 AD.

From the outside, the Catholicism and Scripture+Tradition makes more sense.

Yes it does.

Somewhere in Acts, early church leaders were confused in the Gentile converts should be circumcised. They didn’t refer to scripture to answer the question.

This is not entirely true. In making the decision to set aside the mosaic law for the gentiles, the Apostles DID actually refer to Scripture.
However - what is of note in the events leading to the council recorded in Acts 15 was that that the Church came together for the purpose of resolving a sticky and divisive issue rather than each side going their own way.
Thus we see the Church in action - acting in council, with authority through humility and obedience to the Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[PathDiagnosis]

The Bible DID come with at table of contents. The "Table of contents was compiled at the same time as the canon…
As to “How do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura” - basically, they are taught this by other protestants as part of the protestant faith Tradition

Perhaps a better expression would be that the Church…compiled…the canon…This occurred around 400 AD.

Yes it does.

This is not entirely true. In making the decision to set aside the mosaic law for the gentiles, the Apostles DID actually refer to Scripture.
However - what is of note in the events leading to the council recorded in Acts 15 was that that the Church came together for the purpose of resolving a sticky and divisive issue rather than each side going their own way.
Thus we see the Church in action - acting in council, with authority through humility and obedience to the Spirit.

Peace
James

Yes, this mirrors Catholicism today. Scripture with Tradition and the Magesterium (Pope and Bishops).

Thanks

 

[JonNC]

=PathDiagnosis;8620930]How do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura if the Bible itself did not come with a table of contents? Didn’t the early church,supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, create the cannon of scripture? From the outside, the Catholicism and Scripture+Tradition makes more sense.

It depends on what one means by sola scriptura. Tradition is fine, and Lutherans accept much of it, for instance the three ancient Creeds and the early 7 councils. We just require that be accountable to scripture as the final norm.

Somewhere in Acts, early church leaders were confused in the Gentile converts should be circumcised. They didn’t refer to scripture to answer the question.

They certainly had a council, which is of course now part of scripture, and that is exactly the right model. And they all accepted the results, something that hasn’t happened since the 7th council.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

PD, are you asking if Protestants, particularily evangelicals, understand the Bible was not written like James Michner novel, chronologically like TV mini-series?
I would say most evangelicals/fundamentalists do not. They are locked into a post-enlightenment POV and cannot concieve of a Christianity without a Book. They cannot comcieve of a historical period in which people communicated orally, not necessarily with a ***written ***word.
That does not belittle Scripture, it simply puts it where it belongs, with the entirety of Sacred Tradition.
Sola Scriptura is like taking the engine out of your car, placing it on the garage floor and saying: ‘Behold my car’.
In order for that engine to work, it has to be placed into the correct automoble. Without a car around it, the engine doesn’t go anywhere.
The Bible only works when attached to the Church. Without it, you have caos and it goes nowhere. That’s why my town has a church on every corner with it’s own ‘Pope’ with a Bible.