Sola Scriptura Question

[Stuart_Pace]

Many Fundamentalist Protestants are completely blindsided by their inadvertant appeal to Catholic tradition in their assertion of the Sola Scriptura doctrine. They act as if the Bible as they have it is a divine artifact handed to them “as is” by God, rather than a product of the Catholic tradition. The canon as we have it is a carefully selected anthology of only those early Christian writings which did not contradict dogmatic orthodoxy. The tradition did not grow out of those writings, the tradition was the touchstone by which those writings were judged. Countless writings and gospels were rejected, and it is a testament to the unacknowledged “buy in” to the early tradition that the rejected writings are almost universally considered doctrinally bizarre by all but the most extreme outliers of the Protestant tradition–even Mormons

 

[Strevel]

First let me say that I have no doubts that “sola scriptura” is a false doctrine so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me it’s wrong. I already know that.

I was listening to Chuck Swindoll on the radio today and he said something that started me thinking of sola scriptura. As I was mulling it over in my head, I came up with a question that, if I were asked, I wouldn’t know how to answer.

I know of no doctrine held by the Catholic Church that is not, at least, alluded to in Scripture. It may not be clearly defined there but it’s there in seminal form. I’ve heard Catholic apologists say that there are no Catholic doctrines that are not present in the Bible to some degree. When I talk about Catholicism with non-Catholic Christians, I stick to the Bible since it is the only thing that convinces them.

Given that why do we need Sacred Tradition?

Gary

Those that believe in Sola Scriptura give themselves a problem. As a convert, I can share that if everything, stress the word everything, comes from the scripture then what comes from prayer?? If you cannot recieve answeres from God unless it comses from the scriptures there are serious issues. You do not then believe in answers to prayer. You blieve I guess that you will find it in the Bible. And then, how does that work?? You lay the Bible down and the wind blows the pages untill you see a scripture that moves you… That is not God or an answer, but superstition.

We call it “tradition”. The way things have been successfully done in the past is important to the present and future accomplishments in that arena. My old faith, Mormon, has not been around long enough to even have traditions. It is not hard to be against something you do not have.

Don, in Las Vegas.

 

[Strevel]

That’s my point. If Sacred Tradition is nothing more than an interpretation of the Bible, why do we need it given that we have the Bible? An interpretation isn’t going to contain anything that isn’t in the text it’s interpreting.

I’m not sure I agree with your definition of Sacred Tradition. I’ve always believed it to be the sum total of all that Jesus taught the apostles and which they passed on to us, in other words, public revelation.

Gary

In non Catholic structures one person may call it red, another maroon and another mauve. We have authoratative statements that do not allow for individualistic and, ~ very convienient interpretation aka situational ethics.

An interpretation will see various aspects of an issue, and it will all be seen through the glass darkley / spectacle of ones past experience. This is not of God, but sociological in nature.

Don in Las vegas

 

[Strevel]

Many Fundamentalist Protestants are completely blindsided by their inadvertant appeal to Catholic tradition in their assertion of the Sola Scriptura doctrine. They act as if the Bible as they have it is a divine artifact handed to them “as is” by God, rather than a product of the Catholic tradition. The canon as we have it is a carefully selected anthology of only those early Christian writings which did not contradict dogmatic orthodoxy. The tradition did not grow out of those writings, the tradition was the touchstone by which those writings were judged. Countless writings and gospels were rejected, and it is a testament to the unacknowledged “buy in” to the early tradition that the rejected writings are almost universally considered doctrinally bizarre by all but the most extreme outliers of the Protestant tradition–even Mormons

As an ex-Mormonmay I chime in and share…especially the Mormons.

Don in Las Vegas

 

[Rev_Kev]

Regarding your first paragraph, this is where protestants differ from the early church. The early church operated on Sacred Tradition as passed down by the Apostolic Succession of the Church heirarchy. Any number of early church writers can and do atest to this. The Written Tradition came into existence only after and even then it was not until a period of 300 years had gone by that there was agreement on which writings were inspired. Athanasius in 348 AD was the very first one to list the 27 writings we have today in the NT. Until then churches in different locales had their own canons which excluded some inerrant writings and included other writings that were not inerrant. Yet doctrinally the church remained intact because the Written Tradition was not the one relied on rather it was the Oral Tradition.

As for your second paragraph I agree that protestants follow a tradition whether they claim to or not. The problem is that they follow a man made tradition that Jesus warned about in the gospel. There is a huge difference between tradition [small letter “t”] and Tradition [capital letter “T”]. The Tradition with the capital letter refers to the teaching of the Apostles as passed on to their successors. It was very important in the early church to ascertain the pedigree of anyone who sought to teach.

I’m quit familiar on how the canonization process worked. Point is, we now have a sacred canon, so let’s use it.

This is another area where Protestants differ from Catholics: we tend not to trust the Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic church - to my way of thinking it’s a pretty human thing too.

I’d probably be a Catholic today if it weren’t for the absurd abuses of the Middle Ages. I simply can’t trust the doctrine that is passed via crooks, murderers, nepotists, and other really bad people (I’m fully aware that not all of the clergy elites were corrupted but massive quantities - including popes were). The current sexual abuse scandals point to the all too humanness and sometimes corrupted nature of the church hierarchy - a Bishop that would turn a blind eye to pedophilia is not the sort of person who can be trusted with sacred doctrine.

Could it be that the church decided to canonize certain texts because they recognized that doctrine would stray the further that the church got from the apostles? Like that old game where something is whispered in one ear and then the next and by the time it’s at the end of the line it’s nowhere near what it was at the start. It only takes one bad self-serving pope to promulgate a corrupted doctrine to set the church on a wrong course.

The biblical record is the best record of the faith of the Apostles.

 

[estesbob]

I’m quit familiar on how the canonization process worked. Point is, we now have a sacred canon, so let’s use it.

This is another area where Protestants differ from Catholics: we tend not to trust the Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic church - to my way of thinking it’s a pretty human thing too.

I’d probably be a Catholic today if it weren’t for the absurd abuses of the Middle Ages. I simply can’t trust the doctrine that is passed via crooks, murderers, nepotists, and other really bad people (I’m fully aware that not all of the clergy elites were corrupted but massive quantities - including popes were). The current sexual abuse scandals point to the all too humanness and sometimes corrupted nature of the church hierarchy - a Bishop that would turn a blind eye to pedophilia is not the sort of person who can be trusted with sacred doctrine.

Could it be that the church decided to canonize certain texts because they recognized that doctrine would stray the further that the church got from the apostles? Like that old game where something is whispered in one ear and then the next and by the time it’s at the end of the line it’s nowhere near what it was at the start. It only takes one bad self-serving pope to promulgate a corrupted doctrine to set the church on a wrong course.

The biblical record is the best record of the faith of the Apostles.

You are very blessed to belong to a church that does not have any crooks, murderers, nepotists, and other really bad people in it.

BTW;

ALL the Doctirnes of the Church were set over a thousnad years before the middle ages . the cannon of ths scripture was likewise set over 1,000 years before the Middle Ages. The question you have to ask yourself is why did God allow his church to be in error for nearly 1,500 years and why are there so many differerent denominations having so many different , contradicory, docitrines? Protestants cant even agree on what is necessary for salvation! Would God leave somethng as important as our Slavation up to personal interpreation?

 

[inkaneer]

I’m quit familiar on how the canonization process worked. Point is, we now have a sacred canon, so let’s use it.

We do use it. The entire purpose of having a canon of scripture was liturgical so that churches would know which writings were to be used in the worship of the Divine Liturgy.

This is another area where Protestants differ from Catholics: we tend not to trust the Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic church - to my way of thinking it’s a pretty human thing too.

Why, because your denomination doesn’t have Apostolic Succession? Apostolic Succession was the only way the early church knew who was teaching the truth. The early church would have rejected all of protestantism as heretics. Irenaeus speaks of this in his writing *Against Heresies *:

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vain glory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against Heresies, 4:26:2).

And Tertullian would write in his *Demurrer Against the Heretics *:

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 32).

I’d probably be a Catholic today if it weren’t for the absurd abuses of the Middle Ages. I simply can’t trust the doctrine that is passed via crooks, murderers, nepotists, and other really bad people (I’m fully aware that not all of the clergy elites were corrupted but massive quantities - including popes were). The current sexual abuse scandals point to the all too humanness and sometimes corrupted nature of the church hierarchy - a Bishop that would turn a blind eye to pedophilia is not the sort of person who can be trusted with sacred doctrine.

Could it be that the church decided to canonize certain texts because they recognized that doctrine would stray the further that the church got from the apostles? Like that old game where something is whispered in one ear and then the next and by the time it’s at the end of the line it’s nowhere near what it was at the start. It only takes one bad self-serving pope to promulgate a corrupted doctrine to set the church on a wrong course.

The biblical record is the best record of the faith of the Apostles.

Well, I think you are being a little hypocritical and a lot unscriptural to boot. Does not scripture tell us that Jesus said that hell would never prevail over his church [Mt 16:18]? Does scripture not tell us that Jesus promised to remain with His church till the end of the Age [Mt 28:20]? And did not Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth [Joh 16:13]? With these promises how could the church ever teach error?

As for the abuses of the middle ages or any age, I say, so what? I am not trying to be smart alecky by saying that either. I say that because I cannot find anywhere in scripture where Jesus promised that members of His church would not commit sin. We sin, OKAY? Are you casting the first stone? Do you demand that Catholics be impeccable? Something that you are not? Why do you think that the Holy Spirit can guide the writers of scripture to write inerrantly but yet is incapable of guiding the successors of the Apostles inerrantly especially when Jesus promised that the Spirit would do so. where in scripture do you find that? I can’t find it anywhere. One more point on this. With all the abuses that are alleged to have been committed by Catholic popes, bishops, priests, deacons religious, or the laity through 2,000 years can you show me just one doctrine of the Church that contradicts scripture? I ask this for two reasons. First, because protestants like to confuse infallibility of doctrine with impeccability of person especially when it comes to Catholicism. Second, I can easily show you one doctrine of protestantism that is contracted by scripture. [Actually I can show more than one but one is sufficient.] That is the doctrine of sola scriptura, one of the two legs on which all protestant sects stand. For Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

That is the inerrant word of God and as such is immutable. It is as good today as when Paul first penned it 2,000 years ago.*

 

[JKing]

If the Bible had never been written, would Christianity have survived until today? Absolutely, and it wouldn’t be Protestant.

 

[eric51]

Actually, I would phrase the statement even more strongly. Were the bible not compiled, Christianity would be better off today than it is. I think the Early Church underestimated how human beings have a proclivity always to expand the envelope of pride and stupidity. When the bible was compiled it was logically assumed that interpretation of it would be left to the Church. They didn’t forsee a society of political and cultural liberalism, where virtually every individual assumes his interpretation is no worse than anyone else’s, including that of the Church.

In Christ

 

[inkaneer]

Actually, I would phrase the statement even more strongly. Were the bible not compiled, Christianity would be better off today than it is. I think the Early Church underestimated how human beings have a proclivity always to expand the envelope of pride and stupidity. When the bible was compiled it was logically assumed that interpretation of it would be left to the Church. They didn’t forsee a society of political and cultural liberalism, where virtually every individual assumes his interpretation is no worse than anyone else’s, including that of the Church.

In Christ

The purpose of developing a canon of scripture was to have a list of books to guide local churches as to what writings could be read in liturgical worship [The Mass]. It was to combat Gnostic writings that caused some confusion in the early church. Never, was the idea that the canon would become a medium of individual study and interpretation and for 1100 years it wasn’t. It was the protestant rejection of the authority of Oral Tradition in the 16th century that suddenly not only left them with no authority other than the written Tradition but also left them prone to different interpretations and no authority to combat them. So what started as only three “Reformers” has now grown to over 40,000 protestant denominations in just 500 years.

 

[Garland]

Hello everyone., I guess the best thing to do is always listen and follow what HOLY MOTHER CHURCH teaches. Read your bible and pray without stopping but look to the Church for defining dogmaand doctrine. We have his promise that the church can never lie to us. Love to all. His will be done. Garland

 

[JKing]

Actually, I would phrase the statement even more strongly. Were the bible not compiled, Christianity would be better off today than it is. I think the Early Church underestimated how human beings have a proclivity always to expand the envelope of pride and stupidity. When the bible was compiled it was logically assumed that interpretation of it would be left to the Church. They didn’t forsee a society of political and cultural liberalism, where virtually every individual assumes his interpretation is no worse than anyone else’s, including that of the Church.

In Christ

I don’t think I’d go that far. The Holy Spirit DID inspire the first century Christians to make a written record. I think that Christianity is better off with the scriptures than without, (at least up until the notion of Sola Scriptura began to spoil things). It sure is rewarding to read the words of the evangelists and have this window into the workings of the early church. Even with all the problems Sola Scriptura has caused, I’d still much rather have the Bible than not.

My point was that the Church was commissioned to spread the Gospel to all places and to all times. She preserves the faith and passes it on in each generation, bringing up the little-uns, forming the faithful, instructing the ministers and through the liturgy, imbues the social atmosphere with a sense of the presence of God. (Especially in the Holy Eucharist.) She doesn’t really need the Bible to do that, but it is a wise Spirit that inspired the Church to write, compile and preserve it.

To add to your point, though, I think when the Bible was compiled, it was for liturgy, but also for scholarship, more or less. They never dreamed that there would ever be technology that would put it into the hands of every Christian. Bibles were kept in churches, libraries, universities and monasteries. They were read in the Liturgy in order to share them with the general populace, which was, for the most part, illiterate for most of history. The greatest writings of the Church are commentaries on the scriptures that were originally read as homilies.

Anyway, that’s what I think.

 

[JRKH]

Actually, I would phrase the statement even more strongly. Were the bible not compiled, Christianity would be better off today than it is. I think the Early Church underestimated how human beings have a proclivity always to expand the envelope of pride and stupidity. When the bible was compiled it was logically assumed that interpretation of it would be left to the Church. They didn’t forsee a society of political and cultural liberalism, where virtually every individual assumes his interpretation is no worse than anyone else’s, including that of the Church.

In Christ

While I appreciate your sentiment her I cannot agree with your logic.
The Problem is not that the Bible was compiled for it was a thousand years before the “Sola Scriptura” Split occurred and the idea of individual interpretation took hold.
The Problem occured when the Bible was ripped from the Church by the Reformers.

The Holy Spirit inspired the compiling of the Bible canon. We should not wish it undone but rather pray for reunification of the NCC’s to Holy Mother Church.

Peace
James

 

[dawid]

I’m quit familiar on how the canonization process worked. Point is, we now have a sacred canon, so let’s use it.

This is another area where Protestants differ from Catholics: we tend not to trust the Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic church - to my way of thinking it’s a pretty human thing too.

Jesus chose the apostles who were the weak men who deserted Him in the Garden of Gethsemane - this was not an error on His part as He knew that this could happen and that satan would target those in positions such as the apostles and clergy.

We see this today in clergy of the Catholic and other churches eg in cases of paedophilia and philandery - His Gospel still remains true as do the sacred Scriptures’ integrity!

Given that several of the popes (and other clergy) acted in greviously sinful ways and that the sacred Scriptures and Tradition have survived for 2000 years, it would appear to be a miracle, but He did say that the gates of hell would not pervail against His Church!

The biblical record is the best record of the faith of the Apostles.

Sacred Tradition is also supported by historical evidence.

 

[JRKH]

I’m quit familiar on how the canonization process worked. Point is, we now have a sacred canon, so let’s use it.

This is another area where Protestants differ from Catholics: we tend not to trust the Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic church - to my way of thinking it’s a pretty human thing too.

I’d probably be a Catholic today if it weren’t for the absurd abuses of the Middle Ages. I simply can’t trust the doctrine that is passed via crooks, murderers, nepotists, and other really bad people (I’m fully aware that not all of the clergy elites were corrupted but massive quantities - including popes were). The current sexual abuse scandals point to the all too humanness and sometimes corrupted nature of the church hierarchy - a Bishop that would turn a blind eye to pedophilia is not the sort of person who can be trusted with sacred doctrine.

Could it be that the church decided to canonize certain texts because they recognized that doctrine would stray the further that the church got from the apostles? Like that old game where something is whispered in one ear and then the next and by the time it’s at the end of the line it’s nowhere near what it was at the start. It only takes one bad self-serving pope to promulgate a corrupted doctrine to set the church on a wrong course.

The biblical record is the best record of the faith of the Apostles.

If I may ask a question relating to the Bolded section -
Do you not see abuses, even grevious abuses among the Protestant community of ministers?
Are their not Pedophiles and Greedy men (and women) among these “shepards” as well??
Are there not minsters who preach doctrines and ideas, based on bible passages, that you find completely in error?

In other words, we can see the same “humaness” in the Protestant world as you see in the Catholic. Errors and sins made by those minsters who are charged with teaching the flock the Gospel message of Jesus.
However, I am sure that you see your protestant world as more secure because it is grounded in “The Bible” as interpreted throught the Holy Spirit. you see Christ’s teachings as secure in the Bible regardless of what a sinful minister might do. In other words you choose to not look at the sinners but at the teachings of Christ. Well - so do we.
In choosing to be catholics we choose to be so because of the teachings of the Church. We, like you, recognize that there will always be sinners even in positions of authority, yet it is the teachings that are true and remain - in spite of the sinful men.
I will never defend the abuses within the Church either past or present. They were wrong and those people must answer to God. But that does not change the teaching of the Church.

I would ask you to try and get over the “absurd abuses of the Middle Ages”, as you put it. If that is the only reason you are not catholic I suggest it is a rather poor excuse. No offense intended. Look at the Church’s teaching today. Read the Catachism and don’t worry about who did what in the middle ages.

Peace
James

 

[Garland]

REV KEV, I think I can add a little to this train of thought. I was born into a small protesrant church that forsook all creeds but the knew testament. I was unaware that I was even a protestant untill I left the mountains of eastern Ky. to attend the University of Ky. I was licesened to preach the gospel at 17 yrs. old. The gospel as defined by my tradition in the church of the brethern. I was taught there was a catholic church but it was not christian. The other churches in my area were as many forms of baptist as you could name.,all different and all to be avoided because they were wrong.The one thing that bothered me most was, is Jesus happy with all these different groups infighting an always changing to suit the present pastor. That was my road to Damascus. The answer came in a blinding flash that I was hurting Jesus by being a part of things that broke and splintered his body “the CHURCH” into so many pieces that it was not recognized as wha he prayed for in the garden. Father That They Be One As You And I Are One. I came to the realization that this could not be what he wanted. I prayed, Holy Jesus please lead me where you want me to be. The very next day, I met a class mate who was catholic and he wanted to take me to a mass to show me that the catholics were indeed christian. For the first time in my life I saw people actually on their knees worshiping GOD., not just reading scripture and sining, but crying holy,holy,holy. The effect was to start an avalanch in my soul. I stood to lose a lot by becoming catholic, my pastorship and my good name, for becoming catholic was being a traitor to all I had been raised with. The more I studied, the more convinced I became that Jesus wanted the whole world to be in the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church he founded and protected from then to the present. I challange you to look where you are and see if Jesus is really happy because you are there ,or is it you who are pleasing yourself. I am not trying to be a smart alleck, when i say this, but if you really want to please HIM, study history, and as Cardinal Neuman once said To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant. An excellent example of a Rev. comming home and bringing most of his church with him is Alex Jones. I think St. Joseph Press has a couple books about him. Any way know that you are loved and prayed for daily, and what a party when you come. It took me 9 years ,but the journey was wonderful. His will be done. Garland

 

[geekborj]

Those that believe in Sola Scriptura give themselves a problem. As a convert, I can share that if everything, stress the word everything, comes from the scripture then what comes from prayer?? If you cannot recieve answeres from God unless it comses from the scriptures there are serious issues. You do not then believe in answers to prayer. You blieve I guess that you will find it in the Bible. And then, how does that work?? You lay the Bible down and the wind blows the pages untill you see a scripture that moves you… That is not God or an answer, but superstition.

We call it “tradition”. The way things have been successfully done in the past is important to the present and future accomplishments in that arena. My old faith, Mormon, has not been around long enough to even have traditions. It is not hard to be against something you do not have.

Don, in Las Vegas.

Good answer Don! Indeed, prayers can answer those not written: Acts 11:5. I would also add that God does not limit His “inspiration” to those Apostles and writers of the books and letters in the Bible.

 

[Crumpy]

First let me say that I have no doubts that “sola scriptura” is a false doctrine so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me it’s wrong. I already know that.

I was listening to Chuck Swindoll on the radio today and he said something that started me thinking of sola scriptura. As I was mulling it over in my head, I came up with a question that, if I were asked, I wouldn’t know how to answer.

I know of no doctrine held by the Catholic Church that is not, at least, alluded to in Scripture. It may not be clearly defined there but it’s there in seminal form. I’ve heard Catholic apologists say that there are no Catholic doctrines that are not present in the Bible to some degree. When I talk about Catholicism with non-Catholic Christians, I stick to the Bible since it is the only thing that convinces them.

Given that why do we need Sacred Tradition?

Gary

Neither Jews nor Christians ignore tradition. The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic (if I’m not mistaken) and that is to say, without vowels. Someone quipped the other day that reading Hebrew is like being on “Wheel of Fortune” because you always have to “buy” a vowel.

We are all too glib about the Bible, when we open it up and read the OT when the decisions about which vowels to use has all ready been made. It’s already “tradition” how to translate the Bible. And, then, when we get to what we commonly call “interpretation” of scripture, we need faith, that is, a faith tradition to use to approach the scripture in the first place.

Jews and Christians obviously approach the OT from different points of view. Christians approach Scripture from the point of view that they already know and believe in Jesus Christ.

Jesus did not merely give an unrecorded Bible study lesson on the road to Emmaus. His teaching was a re-interpretation of the Torah. “He spoke as someone with authority” the gospels say. The scripture that he was interpreting was the OT.

Pope Benedict gave the introduction to an important Catholic position paper which you ought to read in its entirety.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…braico_en.html
THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION
THE JEWISH PEOPLE
AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

Not only did Christianity have to define itself as distinct from Judaism, for theoretical and practical reasons, but it also had to define itself from the many heresies that occurred in the first centuries of Christianity (and which persist even to this day).

 

[eric51]

While I appreciate your sentiment her I cannot agree with your logic.
The Problem is not that the Bible was compiled for it was a thousand years before the “Sola Scriptura” Split occurred and the idea of individual interpretation took hold.
The Problem occured when the Bible was ripped from the Church by the Reformers.

The Holy Spirit inspired the compiling of the Bible canon. We should not wish it undone but rather pray for reunification of the NCC’s to Holy Mother Church.

Peace
James

I have a problem with using the Holy Spirit to cast God’s imprimatur on this or that act or event. Protestants claim the Holy Ghost supported them in the 16th century; Joseph Smith says he knew that he had found another testament of Jesus Christ, because the Holy Ghost told him so. Who are we to say these people are liars? Leave the Holy Ghost out of it.

Teaching and passing on to succeeding generations the Truth went on wonderfully before the compilation of the texts that go into the bible. The period of time from 30AD to 400AD witnessed a dramatic growth and strengthening of the Church.

Compiling different works that now make up the NT and calling it a canon has the fundamental weakness of allowing individuals outside of Church Tradition to lay claim to the bible by giving it their own unique interpretation. Without a textbook so to speak, such individuals would be at a serious loss to challenge the Church.

In Christ

 

[dawid]

I have a problem with using the Holy Spirit to cast God’s imprimatur on this or that act or event. Protestants claim the Holy Ghost supported them in the 16th century; Joseph Smith says he knew that he had found another testament of Jesus Christ, because the Holy Ghost told him so. Who are we to say these people are liars? Leave the Holy Ghost out of it.

Compiling different works that now make up the NT and calling it a canon has the fundamental weakness of allowing individuals outside of Church Tradition to lay claim to the bible by giving it their own unique interpretation. Without a textbook so to speak, such individuals would be at a serious loss to challenge the Church.

I am sure we all believe in the inspiration of the holy Spirit, however not all discoveries are (name removed by moderator)ired.
A simple example of this is the amount of Christian denominations (maybe 30,000?) outside the Catholic/Orthodox fold.
With their differing beliefs, they cannot all be due to divine Inspiration without there being multiple gods - as Christians, we believe in one God, then most if not all of their claims are false.