S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Nope, tradition , helps to interpret Scripture, but is not sacred , although it is authoritative.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
It is Tradition that told you that there are 27 books in the NT.
If Tradition is subject to Scripture, then you’ll have to tell us how Scripture confirms which books belong in the NT.
That is, can you tell us what Scripture verse affirms that Hebrews is theopneustos, and the Epistles of Clement are not?
P
Porknpie
Guest
And I do like the question(s)…if Tradition is subject to scripture:
- where does scripture affirm or state that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
- what did Christians do for the first 400 years or so, prior to there being the recognized bible?
- and the “Bible Alone” in me wishes to know what scripture verse says this is true?
J
JMM1957
Guest
Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to his apostles, who in turn handed it down to their disciples (the early Church Fathers), and then to the next generation, and then finally to us. How do we know this? Well, for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the apostles and disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. Yes, you might say, but didn’t Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., write everything down in their epistles and gospels? Yes, they did, but none of it was widely available to geographically separated disciples and it wasn’t part of “The Bible” until the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage put the 27 books of the New Testament together in 382 AD, 393 AD, and 397 AD. At that time, it took on the mantle of infallible scripture with the Old Testament. Interestingly, Protestants today accept this Catholic “Tradition” of these 27 books of the Bible being divinely inspired.
P
PRmerger
Guest
There is no evidence that the wrote “everything” down in the gospels and epistles.
In fact, common sense tells us that they didn’t/couldn’t have. For Scripture tells us that Paul was in the temple, preaching, “for 3 months”.
There is no way that the Epistles of today contain everything that any man could have preached for 3 months.
J
JMM1957
Guest
This was meant to be sort of a hypothetical question that** someone else** would ask, not necessarily me. I realize that not everything Jesus or the NT writers said or did was written down. Just wanted to clarify this.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This was meant to be sort of a hypothetical question that** someone else** would ask, not necessarily me. I realize that not everything Jesus or the NT writers said or did was written down. Just wanted to clarify this.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Is the NT sacred? If yes, who said so?
For every person that accepts the NT as scripture, did you arrive at that conclusion on your own? Anyone who says they came to the conclusion that those 27 books, and only those 27 books are inspired scripture, congratulations. You have now given yourself authority over the bible. You yourself determined the canon. You cannot claim sola scriptura, for by determining the canon, you have more authority than scripture, as it cannot tell you what the canon should be. And as such, if someone says that John does not belong in that canon, so what? That person has just as much right to determine the canon as you.
If you accept the canon because the Church determined this was the canon in the deeps of history, guess what? You have now given that Church authority over the bible. For once again, in any determination of what is scripture and what is not, the one determining what is scripture, exercises authority over that writing.
Sola scriptura is untenable. It only works for people if they agree with each other. If scripture is so clear, why have there been arguments over what it says since scripture was written down? If it is not clear, how can it be the final authority? For if it is not clear, then one needs someone to interpret it for them, and as soon as you do that, then you have given the interpreter authority over the bible.
For every person that accepts the NT as scripture, did you arrive at that conclusion on your own? Anyone who says they came to the conclusion that those 27 books, and only those 27 books are inspired scripture, congratulations. You have now given yourself authority over the bible. You yourself determined the canon. You cannot claim sola scriptura, for by determining the canon, you have more authority than scripture, as it cannot tell you what the canon should be. And as such, if someone says that John does not belong in that canon, so what? That person has just as much right to determine the canon as you.
If you accept the canon because the Church determined this was the canon in the deeps of history, guess what? You have now given that Church authority over the bible. For once again, in any determination of what is scripture and what is not, the one determining what is scripture, exercises authority over that writing.
Sola scriptura is untenable. It only works for people if they agree with each other. If scripture is so clear, why have there been arguments over what it says since scripture was written down? If it is not clear, how can it be the final authority? For if it is not clear, then one needs someone to interpret it for them, and as soon as you do that, then you have given the interpreter authority over the bible.
D
dronald
Guest
Hebrews was a close companion of Timothy and it’s really incredible. Clement has that weird pheonix error, but I do enjoy it.
Now that I’ve answered your question answer this. Would you take Hebrews out for any reason besides the CC accepting it?
D
dronald
Guest
J
JMM1957
Guest
Beautifully said.
J
JMM1957
Guest
No, not at all, it’s a good thing. Now that you understand who gave historic Christianity the Canon of Scripture infallibly, maybe we can work on something else that bothers you.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Not sure what you are talking about. If we agreed on something, it would never bother me.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Where do you get that from? You mean the author of Hebrews is a close companion of Timothy?
If so, please cite your source.
And Clement was a close companion of Timothy
And Ignatius of Antioch was a close companion of John.
Why don’t you consider those books theopneustos?
What does this mean? It contains doctrinal truth?
Ummm…ronald? You can’t dismiss something as “not Scripture” because it contains things that are “not Scriptural”.
That’s circular, right?
I mean, if the Epistle of Clement were inspired, you wouldn’t call it that “weird phoenix error”. You would just say, “Scripture mentions a phoenix.”
Unless there is some OTHER source of info you have that says that a phoenix isn’t Scriptural?
If so, then you are…NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA, right?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I would never, ever, ever, EVER, claim the authority to take a book out of the Bible.
Never.
This is a novelty that is now being pushed about in Christian circles–“we get to decide the canon, not defer to the Catholic Church.”
Please, God, this paradigm doesn’t take off.
For then, in addition to having tens of thousands of differing denominations each reading, at least the same NT, yet coming to different interpretations…
what we will then ALSO have, if the Devil has his way, is a multitude of different canons.
“We believe only in the Pauline epistles! The rest of the books of the NT can be thrown out because they contain weird things like people walking on water and virgin births!”
“We believe only in the Words of Jesus! Everything else is man-made and isn’t Scripture!”
“We believe only in the apostle who wrote to the Jews. For only the Jews are the chosen people!”
etc
etc
etc
to the obscenity of a million different denominations with a million different canons.
Just what the Devil ordered.
God forbid!
J
JMM1957
Guest
All this could certainly happen with the way things are going.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Dronald, how do you know that the pheonix text is in error?
P
Protestor
Guest
I think this answers all the question I was given.
I see that a bunch of people were not happy with my word choice. I do not think that subjugate is as negative a term as you guys are making it out to be though it can be used in that way. Roman’s I am pretty sure calls us “slaves to righteousness” slave is a extremely negative term in our modern context.
“I’ve asked for some Scriptural resources that support your view that this is possible.” I don’t think any exist, and I am not sure that they would need to.
“And I’d like to know if you think all other Christians have this special power, and what are we to do if some Christians say that God told them that the Gospel of John is not inspired?”
I haven’t the foggiest, and I have answered this many times over now. So I won’t answer it again.
“Isn’t this heretical even by Protestant standards?” It isn’t heretical in any system of faith that I know of. I am still waiting to see how it could be. Clem seemed to touch on ways that my proposition could be heretical, but even he/her didn’t outline specifically how it is an anathema or heretical.
“Incidentally, do you allow your children to have this same disdain for authority?” I am not exactly sure what you mean by “allow”. I think the best way not to allow these thoughts would be to use preventative measures.
“Protester , the Scriptures were inspired by God , and the church approved only that which was inspired , I’ll say this as lovingly as possible , you cannot change the scriptures.” I am not trying to change anything as far as I can tell.
“What protestor is suggesting is heretical.” How?
I also believe that PR asked for quotes from the reformers that would support my case. I looked and didn’t find anything explicitly stated.
I see that a bunch of people were not happy with my word choice. I do not think that subjugate is as negative a term as you guys are making it out to be though it can be used in that way. Roman’s I am pretty sure calls us “slaves to righteousness” slave is a extremely negative term in our modern context.
“I’ve asked for some Scriptural resources that support your view that this is possible.” I don’t think any exist, and I am not sure that they would need to.
“And I’d like to know if you think all other Christians have this special power, and what are we to do if some Christians say that God told them that the Gospel of John is not inspired?”
I haven’t the foggiest, and I have answered this many times over now. So I won’t answer it again.
“Isn’t this heretical even by Protestant standards?” It isn’t heretical in any system of faith that I know of. I am still waiting to see how it could be. Clem seemed to touch on ways that my proposition could be heretical, but even he/her didn’t outline specifically how it is an anathema or heretical.
“Incidentally, do you allow your children to have this same disdain for authority?” I am not exactly sure what you mean by “allow”. I think the best way not to allow these thoughts would be to use preventative measures.
“Protester , the Scriptures were inspired by God , and the church approved only that which was inspired , I’ll say this as lovingly as possible , you cannot change the scriptures.” I am not trying to change anything as far as I can tell.
“What protestor is suggesting is heretical.” How?
I also believe that PR asked for quotes from the reformers that would support my case. I looked and didn’t find anything explicitly stated.
P
Protestor
Guest
There were, I assume we can agree, many more letters sent between the apostles than just the ones that we posses today wether they be in scripture or not. So how did the church in Rome know that this one letter from Paul was theopneustos and all the others they received were not? Or how would they know that the copy of the letter to the Philippians was theopneustos?Or how would they know that 1 Clement was not? Basically how did the early church discern what was theopneustos and what was not?
C
clem456
Guest
Impossible question for us to answer with specificity
You ask, how did they know? The problem is, your question assumes
“knowing” = “head knowledge”.
Knowing what is inspired is not merely an intellectual decision by the early apostles, or a spoon feeding of scripture from God into the head of man. Knowing is based in a person, Jesus Christ.
You are familiar with the biblical context of “knowing”? It is a relationship between persons, not merely the accumulation of knowledge. Through the charisms given to the Church, the Holy Spirit breathes life where God wills. Through the Church’s cooperation and obedience to the charisms given to it by Christ, the Holy Spirit can work. There is no understanding of inspiration without first acknowledging this deeply personal relationship between God and his people. This is “knowing”.
Without this docility, you end up with denominations looking for their own proof, and silly circular arguments that deny the obvious role that Tradition must play in the Church. As if Christ was never a person at all.
- Status