Sola Scriptura quesiton

[Hieronymi]

And I was just poking you in the ribs. Happy New Year.

 

[zz912]

See the following which is a long list of Catholic practices not supported by the Bible:

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

Was this post supposed to be sarcastic?

You are aware that Paul prays for and asks for prayers for a person who had died, right?

 

[dronald]

Originally Posted by nmgauss View Post
“Since the Catholic Church decided what was canon scripture and what was not, is there any effort among Protestants to look at apocryphal writings as scripture? If St. Thomas and St. Philip wrote religious pieces touching on Jesus, why are they not also used in Protestant teachings? What kind of treatment do the writings of Arius and the Gnostics receive among Protestants?”

I can’t see a particular reason for a cutoff at 100 AD, for instance. Scholars have changed their opinions wildly over the age of particular works. God could inspire a holy work in 200 AD, and a heretical work might be written in 60 AD. Even if a work is now labeled as obviously gnostic, so what? The Gnostics didn’t claim to be heretics, they claimed to be Christian. The Catholics (Christians in union with the Pope) were one movement, the Gnostics were another Christian movement, and there were a few more, each with their own theology, and their own canon of scriptures, which overlapped with the Catholic canon. In hindsight, it’s not obvious to all that the right canon was chosen. A Christian who rejects the Magisterium today is not bound to the Magisterium’s canon; he could choose to identify the Gospel of Mary, for instance, as “scripture for me”. He might decide that Philemon is “not scripture for me”.

A few liberal Protestant denominations are now gradually introducing some of the “other” scriptures into church services and other programs. This will spread. Refer to the book “A New New Testament”, especially, look at some of the church leaders who helped put it together.

Let’s not throw aside all logic for the sake of argument.

 

[John_Jerpe]

I got a stiff neck and a headache reading about “sola scriptura”. God remains in the driver’s seat as the human community continues to evolve towards the Kingdom, and He is not a book.

John J.

 

[Michael_Francis]

**http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Off-Topic--Alert.gif

About 18 posts have been removed for having departed from the topic.

Please insure that all posts are on topic or this thread will be closed.

As per the Forum Rules if anyone wishes to discuss a different topic, they should open a new thread on it.

Also note that all linked sites must be directly related to the thread topic.**

 

[John_Jerpe]

dronald:

I’ve always understood that the Emperor Constantine decided what was to be kept in the canon and what was not around 315. (I’m almost afraid to quote this, but I think it was where the Nicean Creed came from). Anyway, it doesn’t sound to me like the catholic church made the decision as much as the emperor did. You owe it to yourself to consult a competent [church] historian. I think you would learn that a number of bishops actually walked out of the Council because the Emperor would not include the writings they submitted.

John J.

 

[nmgauss]

We’re all familiar with the “it’s not in the Bible” argument. I’ve read the Bible, I don’t remember a verse or passage stating the Bible as the end all be all of God’s message for us (granted when the books were written there WAS no Bible)…

My question; what verse or passage has been misinterpreted by Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura? Because I can’t find THAT in the Bible.

Thanks!

Sola Scriptura was adopted by the Protestants because of Martin Luther’s refusal to accept everything the Church was teaching without support of scripture.

Actually the early version of the Old Testament had been written by the time St. Paul wrote his first epistles. Certainly when St. Mark wrote his Gospel, he had the resources of the Old Testament to draw on.

 

[commenter]

Let’s not throw aside all logic for the sake of argument.

It is not illogical to draw “sola scriptura” one step farther: if each individual or congregation can interpret Scripture without any magisterium, the next logical step is that each interprets which scriptures are Scripture - for that person. It already happened in the past, Luther tried to drop several books from the Catholic canon of the New Testament. His followers didn’t accept any changes. The Mormons put other books - with actions and sayings of Jesus - up to the level of scripture. Other US groups in the late 1800s did something similar. Those U. S. groups were all thus labeled cults by America, and had little impact on religion in general. Protestants in general denied the Magisterium, but in effect accepted the Magisterium’s 27 book NT Canon.

America is different now. Leaders of mainstream Protestant denominations and influential scholars are saying we need not just new translations but new, non-Roman, inclusive canons, responsive to needs of today. For instance the Gospel of Mary was supposedly suppressed by the “patriarchal” Church because it shows a strong woman; so put it in. Some mainstream churches, and colleges, are starting to treat this as a regular gospel. It gets printed, not in an appendix, but right alongside the familiar ones. The Gospel of Thomas is heavily promoted as “Scripture” gospel, sometimes placed before Mathew in the NT, because it focuses on Jesus the moral Teacher, without the miracles, divinity, exorcisms, or any mention of sin, Heaven or Hell. This is modern Sola Scriptura happening on a small scale - so far. I foresee individuals, or congregations, adopting this or that mix of books as their “own” canon, rather than being bound by the Magisterium’s canon.

I agree what is happening in American religion is illogical; there’s a lot of illogical things happening now.

 

[dronald]

It is not illogical to draw “sola scriptura” one step farther: if each individual or congregation can interpret Scripture without any magisterium, the next logical step is that each interprets which scriptures are Scripture - for that person. It already happened in the past, Luther tried to drop several books from the Catholic canon of the New Testament. His followers didn’t accept any changes. The Mormons put other books - with actions and sayings of Jesus - up to the level of scripture. Other US groups in the late 1800s did something similar. Those groups were all thus labeled cults by America, and had little impact on religion in general.

America is different now. Leaders of mainstream Protestant denominations and influential scholars are saying we need not just new translations but new, non-Roman, inclusive canons, responsive to needs of today. For instance the Gospel of Mary was supposedly suppressed by the “patriarchal” Church because it shows a strong woman; so put it in. Some mainstream churches, and colleges, are starting to treat this as a regular gospel. It gets printed, not in an appendix, but right alongside the familiar ones. The Gospel of Thomas is heavily promoted as “Scripture” gospel, sometimes placed before Mathew in the NT, because it focuses on Jesus the moral Teacher, without the miracles, divinity, exorcisms, or any mention of sin, Heaven or Hell. This is modern Sola Scriptura happening on a small scale - so far. I foresee individuals, or congregations, adopting this or that mix of books as their “own” canon.

I agree what is happening in American religion is illogical; there’s a lot of illogical things happening now.

Obviously you’ve noticed this going on in the Church’s around you then; I have not. I can’t discuss this point with you because it seems as if you’ve taken our lack of faith in Rome to the extreme. If I see this happening (really happening) we can discuss it then.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve always understood that the Emperor Constantine decided what was to be kept in the canon and what was not around 315. (I’m almost afraid to quote this, but I think it was where the Nicean Creed came from). Anyway, it doesn’t sound to me like the catholic church made the decision as much as the emperor did. You owe it to yourself to consult a competent [church] historian. I think you would learn that a number of bishops actually walked out of the Council because the Emperor would not include the writings they submitted.

John,

With all due respect, one might suggest to you that you consult a competent church historian. Nicaea concerned itself primarily with the Arian controversy – that is, the nature of Christ and His divinity – and not with the contents of the canon of Scripture… regardless of what Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code cohorts might claim.

In fact, Constantine did not influence the contents of the canon, either at Nicaea or elsewhere. Rather, he simply called for a council in order that the bishops of the Church might reach a consensus on the Christological controversies of the day.

If, however, you feel that you are correct in asserting that Constantine’s actions led “a number of bishops [to] actually walk out of the Council because the Emperor would not include the [Scriptural] writings they submitted,” I’m sure you’ll have no problems providing us with a citation that supports your claim, right?

Blessings,

G.

 

[John_Jerpe]

G.

Thank you. If I’m mistaken about that, then I’m mistaken about it.At the very least, maybe I got the dates wrong and the purpose of the Council. I only remember what I read years ago,
at least I think I do. It’s just that on the whole issue of Sola Scriptura, I can’t see why so many people claim that they believe that God is still in charge of the universe, and then
worry so much about the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as though the Scriptures were God Himself. Sometimes I feel like some of us are saying, in effect, that God simply “wrote a book and left”!!!

John Jerpe

 

[John_Jerpe]

G.

I went to Wikaperia after I heard from you. You are correct. The Council dealt with a number of controversies and the article makes reference to “an often mistaken belief that the decision re. the canon was made then and there”. I’m sure that that is where my (mistaken) understanding came from. When I suggested that the other member consult
a “competent historian” I meant to be understood as saying that I’m not one myself. Any-way, have a good nite. It’s late here.

Blessings,

John Jerpe

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sure that that is where my (mistaken) understanding came from. When I suggested that the other member consult
a “competent historian” I meant to be understood as saying that I’m not one myself.

John,

No problems! Unfortunately, Constantine has become a whipping-boy of sorts; all kinds of inaccurate anti-Christian ‘conspiracy theories’ have sprung up about him: he took over the Church and spuriously created a theology of Jesus’ divinity… he dictated the contents of the New Testament… he re-formed the Church in his own image and for his own benefit. The implication is that Constantine quashed the ‘truth’ about Jesus and created his own false religion.

As far as Sola Scriptura is concerned, these untruths attempt to discredit the inspiration of Scripture. Dan Brown’s made a pretty penny co-opting these stories…

 

[JRKH]

Obviously you’ve noticed this going on in the Church’s around you then; I have not. I can’t discuss this point with you because it seems as if you’ve taken our lack of faith in Rome to the extreme. If I see this happening (really happening) we can discuss it then.

I had not heard of these things either but I was intrigued by commentor’s reference to the “new New Testament” So I googled it. Not surprisingly there is a website on it…HERE…I post this link simply for anyone interested in seeing what commentator was talking about.

Of course this does not equate to it’s becoming widespread…but it’s does seem to show that commentator’s “extreme” may not be so extreme after all.

Peace
James

 

[nmgauss]

G.

It’s just that on the whole issue of Sola Scriptura, I can’t see why so many people claim that they believe that God is still in charge of the universe, and then
worry so much about the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as though the Scriptures were God Himself. Sometimes I feel like some of us are saying, in effect, that God simply “wrote a book and left”!!!
John Jerpe

Are you referring to Deism?

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism. Deism does not ascribe any specific qualities to a deity beyond non-intervention. Deism is related to naturalism because it credits the formation of life and the universe to a higher power, using only natural processes. Deism may also include a spiritual element, involving experiences of God and nature

 

[dronald]

I had not heard of these things either but I was intrigued by commentor’s reference to the “new New Testament” So I googled it. Not surprisingly there is a website on it…HERE…I post this link simply for anyone interested in seeing what commentator was talking about.

Of course this does not equate to it’s becoming widespread…but it’s does seem to show that commentator’s “extreme” may not be so extreme after all.

Peace
James

I looked it up too and apparantly there are Catholic Bishops that gathered and helped… I really don’t take it seriously and I doubt any Church is going to adopt this.

 

[bogeydogg]

G.

I went to Wikaperia after I heard from you. You are correct. The Council dealt with a number of controversies and the article makes reference to “an often mistaken belief that the decision re. the canon was made then and there”. I’m sure that that is where my (mistaken) understanding came from. When I suggested that the other member consult
a “competent historian” I meant to be understood as saying that I’m not one myself. Any-way, have a good nite. It’s late here.

Blessings,

John Jerpe

The Council was convened by the Emperor but he did not dictate the Canon. The fact is that you can find Church Father making lists of Canonical Books as far back as Iraneaus (around 150) and Justin of Lyon (around 180) and these lists are quite complete. The fact is there was very little conflict about the Canon because the Church had been using the writing it considered Apostolic all along. It is not as though there was no Bible and everyone was preaching off the top of their heads what seemed basically right to them. They were already using the Apostolic writings to teach the Gospel and to preach the Word of God to the Laity.

The Council of Nicea chiefly was against the Aryans and the heresy that Christ was not always God but became God in time by obedience. It also dealt with the questions concerning Church order and the roles of Bishops etc because you must remember that until the rule of Constantine Christianity was an illegal religion. So there had to be a standardizing of the structure to ensure the doctrines of the Apostles were preserved. And in this concern came a list, a canon, of books to be included as the New Testament. But there was no great controversy about the list. The only books that got in about which there was any controversy were Hebrews and Revelation and the only books excluded about which there was controversy were the Shepard of Hermas, the Didache, and the Epistle of Clement to the Ephesians. The reason for the inclusion or exclusion was due to Apostolic authority or lack thereof.

So you see the notion that Constantine ordered a Bible to be created is just specious. It is not and never was anything like what happened at the council. The biggest problem facing the Church was not which books would be included but rather the attack on the eternal deity of Christ by the Aryans which was far more dangerous to the Christian Faith than whether or not there was codified list of books.

God Bless

 

[commenter]

I looked it up too and apparantly there are Catholic Bishops that gathered and helped… I really don’t take it seriously and I doubt any Church is going to adopt this.

I have read the actual “New New Testament”, the only baptized Catholics I am aware of who were on the board are a former priest, and 2 former presidents of the LCWR. There are bishops and the head of one denomination, but no Catholic bishops or priests.
The former priest has taken many positions in opposition to Catholicism. Neither he nor the two sisters was representing the Catholic Church when they joined with the great majority of Protestants, none of whom identified with traditional or evangelical Christianity.
The book itself is disrespectful of Catholic beliefs, and the Magisterium.

There are other initiatives that set out to redefine the canon, none of which are approved by the Catholic Church, for instance, the Jesus Seminar. Historically Christians were called to read the Bible, then mold their individual lives, and as best they can their community and whole culture, to correspond to that template. The modern process of developing your own canon allows people to take their personal and national life, not just as the starting point but as the template. You then choose, like in a cafeteria, which scriptures are the best fit for you, right now, and for your culture. There’s no need for conversion. You choose the epistles that inspire YOU, just the way you are now, just like you choose your own music.

At present, the Gospel of Thomas is the strongest “politically correct” addition to the NT in the US. There also is a trend to omit certain passages from the epistles, such as those referring to homosexuality, and slavery, but there also is pressure to remove the miracle passages from the NT overall, so expect that to happen later on in many NT versions.

 

[dronald]

I have read the actual “New New Testament”, the only baptized Catholics I am aware of who were on the board are a former priest, and 2 former presidents of the LCWR. There are bishops and the head of one denomination, but no Catholic bishops or priests.
The former priest has taken many positions in opposition to Catholicism. Neither he nor the two sisters was representing the Catholic Church when they joined with the great majority of Protestants, none of whom identified with traditional or evangelical Christianity.
The book itself is disrespectful of Catholic beliefs, and the Magisterium.

There are other initiatives that set out to redefine the canon, none of which are approved by the Catholic Church, for instance, the Jesus Seminar. Historically Christians were called to read the Bible, then mold their individual lives, and as best they can their community and whole culture, to correspond to that template. The modern process of developing your own canon allows people to take their personal and national life, not just as the starting point but as the template. You then choose, like in a cafeteria, which scriptures are the best fit for you, right now, and for your culture. There’s no need for conversion. You choose the epistles that inspire YOU, just the way you are now, just like you choose your own music.

At present, the Gospel of Thomas is the strongest “politically correct” addition to the NT in the US. There also is a trend to omit certain passages from the epistles, such as those referring to homosexuality, and slavery, but there also is pressure to remove the miracle passages from the NT overall, so expect that to happen later on in many NT versions.

The Gospel of Thomas as the most politically correct? Have you read the ending?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Council was convened by the Emperor but he did not dictate the Canon. The fact is that you can find Church Father making lists of Canonical Books as far back as Iraneaus (around 150) and Justin of Lyon (around 180) and these lists are quite complete. The fact is there was very little conflict about the Canon because the Church had been using the writing it considered Apostolic all along. It is not as though there was no Bible and everyone was preaching off the top of their heads what seemed basically right to them. They were already using the Apostolic writings to teach the Gospel and to preach the Word of God to the Laity.

That’s true, but there was no consensus on the exact makeup of the New Testament canon for a few hundred years, and it was not just Hebrews and Revelation that were disputed. For example, some doubted the authorship of 2 Peter due to its apparent stylistic differences from 1 Peter. Luther revived these concerns and questioned the authority and apostolicity of several New Testament books. My understanding is that even today, these “antilogomena” occupy a position of a sort of secondary canon, which is considered of lesser authority than the other books, among certain Lutherans if their canonicity is not questioned entirely.