Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48207 | ||
You wrote: "Parts and all of the apocrypha have been incuded. In fact the Old Testament that we now have is bigger than the original Jewish canon." The Protestant Old Testament is different in size than the Jewish Tanakh? And you neglect the fact that it was not Luther who took the Apocrypha out of the Bible (it was actually in the appendix of his translation, just like it was in the Vulgate), but rather the Council of Trent who declared dogmatically that they were canonical as a response to the Reformation. You are absolutely correct that the extent of the canon has varied over time, but the books of the Apocrypha were never universally considered to be canonical, while the books which both Protestants and Catholics agree upon were pretty much settled by the turn of the 6th century. You wrote: 'Here is a question for you; when did the "protestant" church ever officialy declare it's canon?' Good question! The Protestant churches were pretty much universal in their recognition of which books were canonical. We see in Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith the 66 books listed as the Holy Scriptures. It is also found in Article 4 of the Belgic Confession, Article 7 of the Thirty-nine Articles, etc. "Again, my question was how do you or anybody else determine the authority to decide what is scripture?" The church of Jesus Christ RECOGNIZES what is Scripture. How do YOU determine that the RCC has the authority to determine what Scripture is? --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 48260 | ||
"The church of Jesus Christ RECOGNIZES what is Scripture." ...Joe! Joe, How about some EXPLICIT scripture which excludes the possibility of the Church recognizing the books outside the Protestant canon for that rather dogmatic statement? Emmaus |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48340 | ||
Emmaus wrote: "How about some EXPLICIT scripture which excludes the possibility of the Church recognizing the books outside the Protestant canon for that rather dogmatic statement?" How about some EXPLICIT scripture which excludes the possibility of my Aunt Mabel recognizing the books outside the Protestant canon for that rather dogmatic statement? In other words, is it the common practice of the Roman Catholic Church to claim for itself any authority unless it is specifically forbidden to them in the Bible? Bottom line: either the Apocrypha is divinely inspired or it is not. No amount of affirming its inspiration or denying it will change whether the apocryphal books are an infallible, divine revelation from God Himself. The Jewish people have not recognized them as such. The early church had never authoritatively recognized them as such, while within the first several hundred years there was nearly universal agreement on the 39 books we both have in our Bibles. In fact, there was much more disagreement over what to include in the New Testament than what to include in the Old. And the Catholic and the Protestant New Testaments are the same. Again, it is not to say that the Apocrypha is useless; it just isn't authoritative and "God-breathed." --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 48397 | ||
Joe, In other words you can not defend your assertion from scripture! Emmaus |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48419 | ||
I cannot defend my assertions from Scripture. All assertions regarding the canon of Scripture must by necessity be extra-biblical, since the table of contents of the Bible is not divinely inspired. However, your question, "How about some EXPLICIT scripture which excludes the possibility of the Church recognizing the books outside the Protestant canon for that rather dogmatic statement?" does not address the assertion I made, in any case. Your argument that the church defines what is inspired or not is quite simply an argument from silence based on a flawed notion of infallibility. My argument for the Protestant canon is based on the Jewish canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (or did God change His mind on what He inspired when He moved from covenanting with one nation to covenanting with all tribes and tongues and nations?) and based also on the debate that developed in the Church as the apostolic age faded into the distant past. Even Jerome agreed with me. Which doesn't make Jerome right, of course, but at least demonstrates that the issue was not one that had been settled and only codified as a matter of formality in the 16th century. Especially considering that Jerome's Vulgate was THE BIBLE for the RCC for over a milennium. So can you defend the assertion that the church infallibly can determine which books are canonical and which ones aren't, since it took them 1550 years and a Protestant Reformation to suddenly make its infallible decision? --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 48473 | ||
Joe, I never made an assertion. I simply challenged you to defend yours with scripture, which is what happens to me every time I make an assertion with which someone on the forum disagrees. And the demand is usually for something "that says exactly that." My main point was to show the double standard I have encountered and to show that many assertions made by "Sola Scriptura" propnents on this forum can not be defended on their own terms. The point made is that often those pushing "Sola Scriptura" on others, without even being conscious of it, argue from their own traditions and what they have been taught, which is extra-biblical. Which may or may not mean that the assertion is correct. You at least have always acknowledged tradition although understood in some significant ways differently form me and others. I just thought I'd reverse the current a little. Some people may get a little static shock. No sense in picking on the weak ones Joe. You are usually honest, up to the challenge and well versed on more than your own position. Emmaus |
||||||