Posted on 02/24/2015 7:04:16 PM PST by redleghunter
Yes Sir, the answer is there. However, your definition of ‘invisible’ is not. The correct terms as revealed are in the ‘block of Scripture’ by God’s Grace I provided.
The real line of questioning to your proposal is:
“Who adds to God’s church?”-—Answered in the NT
After the above the next is:
“How do those who are added to the church recognize each other?”-—Answered in the NT
Finally,
Application:
“What were the conditions in which the apostles/disciples baptized a person?”-—Answered in the NT
http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php
Again, you impeach your own Popes, and the supposed apostolic tradition which wears the mitre today. Bloody Popes who murdered Jews.
With each key stroke you condemn your own church.
Funny that - It had the exact opposite effect upon me. I am 'deep in history', and if anything, it has absolutely galvanized me against the Roman church.
I am obviously interested in what "Mac" has to say and to explore the ramifications with those who give him credence. I have no interest in your rabbit trails.
Your post: Church History 101
Thank you for posting that link!!! I am amazed to see a protestant source that acknowledges Oral Tradition. In response to my comment, your reference source concurs but with an incomplete response:
The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. His reference states that these are the only recognized writings to be read in a church service. The first time a church council ruled on the list of "inspired" writings allowed to be read in church was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. No document survived from this council - we only know of this decision because it was referenced at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not "list" every single document. For example, it reads, "the gospels, four books…" The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are "sacred" and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon.
Notice the reference is to Canon 24. They neglected, however, to include (for obvious reasons) Canon 36 which reads::
[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)
Two key points should be noted. First, while the names and divisions of some Old Testament books differ from contemporary usage (for example, the four books of Kings are, in modern Bibles, divided into 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings), the canon is that of the Catholic Bible, not of the Protestant. Second, this canon was to be confirmed by the "Church beyond the sea"--which means Rome.
Perhaps you should bring this oversight to their attention.
Wheat and tares. Invisible?
No doubt you ignored the main point ... your assertion that the council in 397 was the first to publish a list of the canonical books has been falsified.
.
God’s word is always a “rabbit trail” to those that refuse to live by it.
.
The below Biblically and logically answers your questions:
“Who adds to God’s church?”-—Answered in the NT
After the above the next is:
“How do those who are added to the church recognize each other?”-—Answered in the NT
Finally,
Application:
“What were the conditions in which the apostles/disciples baptized a person?”-—Answered in the NT
I see where my post misled you. I’ll try to clarify my position by revising my comment.
I believe God does not lie and God does not change. You could ask; how do I know?
Thanks. I always heard is described as an apocryphal text and assumed it to have been a part of the apocrypha.
Again with the Nazi propagandist, strong witness. Why do you use a Nazi? The popes did, Luther talked. The Popes did for 1500 years, Luther talked a short percentage of his life. Please continue though,the more exposure of the Catholic Vicars' anti-semitism, the better. It helps to explain the close relationship the Vatican seeks with Muslims, of the same mind towards Jews as it were.
Are you referring to the following from your source?
The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. His reference states that these are the only recognized writings to be read in a church service. The first time a church council ruled on the list of "inspired" writings allowed to be read in church was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. No document survived from this council - we only know of this decision because it was referenced at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD.
Not only, but the logic behind this polemical assertion is that the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation are the infallible interpreters of it, which are to be submitted to. And you know what this leads to.
The Nazi propagandist Streicher was also a fan of your false apostle Luther. "A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants’ dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the prosecution. In the book, “The Jews and Their Lies”, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them… " - See more at: http://alphahistory.com/holocaust/julius-streicher-evidence-nuremberg-1946/#sthash.SHmBIJmn.dpuf
~br> He kept his book, was found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed.
With each keystroke you impeach your own words.
"If you want to discuss the Holy Spirit Inspired Holy Scriptures, I will continue this dialogue. If not, we have no more to discuss."
I impeach your false apostle Luther, whom you are drawn to defend.
Complete utter bull. It’s bad poetry at best.
Consensus of what?
What's the need for *consensus* anyway?
Where is he making that assertion? I see the people of God within the visible churches overall progressively establishing certain writings as being "Divine classics" by them being on their "best sellers list" (essentially due to their excelling qualities and attestation) without an infallible magisterium?
If I were a Christian living in that time and place, how would I know how to find the invisible church so I could participate in building the consensus?
Does this presuppose the people of God can correctly discern both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium.
Or is Cardinal Avery Dulles right in saying, "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received it from on high.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72;
...It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
And is your argument that being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ means they are the infallible interpreters of it, and thus we must submit to them, or is it possible these instruments and stewards (via the magisterial authority) can sometimes be wrong?
And how critical is an infallible canon?
Hope your wife is doing better, and resting in Christ as Savior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.