Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | Emmaus | 48397 | ||
Joe, In other words you can not defend your assertion from scripture! Emmaus |
||||||
2 | 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! |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||