But who will interpret it for you?We can be “certain we have it”
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.by believing the words of the One who commanded John to **“Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” **(Rev 21:5)
It doesn’t have to. Scripture does explicitly state that we obey the revelation of God and not doctrines invented by men which contradict or are absent from God’s revelation. Revelation is principally revealed in the Person of Christ (Heb. 1). When a Catholic or any other group with doctrine they claim is not revealed in Scripture but comes from the apostles argues for their position, the burden on them is to demonstrate that the doctrine is apostolic. We don’t have to disprove it, because a negative cannot be disproved.Where in scripture is it said that teaching is based on scripture alone?
The Holy Spirit was with the church, yes. Not giving new revelation, however. When did the Spirit depart the Eastern churches, stew?So… the Holy Spirit was never with the Church, or left the Church in the 16th century…?
I’ve said repeatedly that the church witnesses to the canon.[PS - again, you trust the Church’s authority on this matter of God-breathed Scripture, as PR has demonstrated].
I don’t deny that. The gospels and epistles deemed heretical were not. Were the communities that used the Didache wrong about its inspiration? Yes. But it did not affect their doctrine? No.Of course Scripture existed before the canon was established - do you deny that there were other “gospels” and “inspired” letters (not included in the canon) used as scripture by certain Christian communities?
Low. It didn’t have to be high because the Scriptures were read aloud continually. It was a part of the communal, liturgical life of the church. We fail to realize the significance of receiving a copy of something written by Paul. It wasnt “meh I don’t need this, I have tradition.”Okay - what was the literacy rate for European rural peasants in the 4th century?
You are still saying that everything must come from scripture. Where does the Bible say this?It doesn’t have to. Scripture does explicitly state that we obey the revelation of God and not doctrines invented by men which contradict or are absent from God’s revelation. Revelation is principally revealed in the Person of Christ (Heb. 1). When a Catholic or any other group with doctrine they claim is not revealed in Scripture but comes from the apostles argues for their position, the burden on them is to demonstrate that the doctrine is apostolic. We don’t have to disprove it, because a negative cannot be disproved.
Everything must come from revelation. Therefore, we have to determine if something is revelation. The other source must be demonstrated to be theopneustos.You are still saying that everything must come from scripture. Where does the Bible say this?
What you’re saying is not making any sense to me at all. I intend no offense, but it can be difficult for a Catholic to understand a Protestant viewpoint, because a Protestant viewpoint can be based on an individual’s interpretation of just about anything scriptural, or from Church teachings (especially early Church teachings) and manifest in a great variety of ways and means; it can be based on anything from various written sources I already mentioned, or what the Holy Ghost has supposedly told them (completely subjective), or from non-Catholic written sources. The list can go on and on, and it can become quite complicated. Being complicated can sometimes give an aura of being authoritative, when it’s not. It’s just someone’s opinion.Everything must come from revelation. Therefore, we have to determine if something is revelation. The other source must be demonstrated to be theopneustos.
None taken. What I am saying, ultimately, is that every teaching must be able to be demonstrated as apostolic. The prophets and apostles are the foundation, with Christ as the cornerstone. They laid a foundation to the building which is the church. Nothing can be added to or taken away from the foundation or the structure collapses. The faith has been deliverED to the saints. This is why every teaching must be subject to that which is God-breathed. If it is not, then the yeast leavens the whole lump. So when soneone comes along and says “I have this piece of sacred tradition which is not mentioned by any apostle anywhere,” it has to be checked against that which we know is apostolic. That is simply the rule of sola scriptura.What you’re saying is not making any sense to me at all. I intend no offense, but it can be difficult for a Catholic to understand a Protestant viewpoint
I hear you. I’m not advocating that kind of silliness.because a Protestant viewpoint can be based on an individual’s interpretation of just about anything scriptural, or from Church teachings (especially early Church teachings) and manifest in a great variety of ways and means; it can be based on anything from various written sources I already mentioned, or what the Holy Ghost has supposedly told them (completely subjective)
The rule according to whom?That is simply the rule of sola scriptura.
Exactly. The rule of Scripture…according to Scripture…despite Scripture speaking the exact opposite against doing so.The rule according to whom?
1 John 4:1; 1 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:1-2, 4:3-5; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 1:3; 2 Cor. 11:13-15The rule according to whom?
How do you know that everything must be checked and demonstrated against those parts of scripture?1 John 4:1; 1 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:1-2, 4:3-5; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 1:3; 2 Cor. 11:13-15
The pattern is clear; revelation comes from God to the prophets and apostles. The apostles teach it. Everything must be checked against and demonstrated to be from those teachings.
I didn’t say those parts of Scripture, as in, those verses. Those verses demonstrate that everything must be checked to see if it is apostolic; i.e., must be demonstrated to be revelation from God.How do you know that everything must be checked and demonstrated against those parts of scripture?
I take it that it is your firm belief that the Baptist Church is the Apostolic Church (or comes closest to…)?None taken. What I am saying, ultimately, is that every teaching must be able to be demonstrated as apostolic…
I believe that Baptist teachings best reflect apostolic teaching, yes. Of course, it’s a bit loaded (which good Baptist preachers never get…ahem…but I digress) statement since the fundamentals of Baptist belief are not any different from what Christians believe generally.I take it that it is your firm belief that the Baptist Church is the Apostolic Church (or comes closest to…)?
To whom do the verses grant the authority to know for sure that something is demonstrated to be revelation from God?I didn’t say those parts of Scripture, as in, those verses. Those verses demonstrate that everything must be checked to see if it is apostolic; i.e., must be demonstrated to be revelation from God.
To the church, by examining what has been entrusted to the church (see also 1 Tim. 1). That is to whom the NT is addressed.To whom do the verses grant the authority to know for sure that something is demonstrated to be revelation from God?
So… in the 3rd century - who would’ve felt more at home in an early Christian Church: a Catholic or a Baptist?I believe that Baptist teachings best reflect apostolic teaching, yes. Of course, it’s a bit loaded (which good Baptist preachers never get…ahem…but I digress) statement since the fundamentals of Baptist belief are not any different from what Christians believe generally.
You mean to say the Catholic Church? I can’t look up you’re specific scripture quotes, because my Bible (Douay-Rheims) is formatted differently.To the church, by examining what has been entrusted to the church (see also 1 Tim. 1). That is to whom the NT is addressed.