Posted on 03/15/2004 6:40:12 PM PST by narses
Surely you can see that you are merely demonstrating that my assertion is correct. You are referencing material outside the Bible to claim such and such about the Bible. Whether that is unbiblical, extra-biblical or something else is beside the point, because it certainly isn't "using only the Bible" or demonstrating that "the Bible is enough." Seeing that nowhere in the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today is there a decree to "close up shop," per se, and bind up the volume, the early fathers were either acting on their own initiative, acting on guidance by the Holy Spirit, acting under some directive from someone or whatever, but they certainly weren't acting on anything in scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today.
No, Sir! "This law" is the Mosaic law. Christians are not bound by that law, lest we practice Judaism. There is a difference between God's Laws and the laws of Moses.
Me: Fact is, you have to some authority other than scripture to tell you which books are inspired and which books are not.
You: Yes, indeed ... and we have one ... God.
Well, well! If you've had some special revelation from God on this matter, you should share it with us. Pray tell us.
Oh ... I was sure that we agreed that God inspired the collection and selection of the New Testament canon ... that the entire process was led by the Holy Spirit.
Do we agree that this was the case ?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Bible is considered “God breathed”, divinely inspired created by the Holy Spirit through the men of God who lived the moment. It is from the Bible, and the Bible only, we derived our doctrines and theologies. No extra writings are used. Consequently, we do not create or base doctrine or theology on any part of the early church fathers’ writings. These writings, like other non-church sources of the time, are viewed for historical purposes only.
The church fathers had their share of disagreements (the Septuagint is just one) and issues of their own. But what these writings contain is information on the thoughts, life, and doctrine of the early church and serves as a guide or commentary in understanding the scriptures. They were not perfect men and they differed in interpretations on some issues. But they were solidly united in the core beliefs from which many of the creed came about.
As far as whether it was "scriptural” to “close the books” I’m not sure. However, given there was much heretical writings flooding the market (and since I might add) the church fathers were united in this to preserve the purity of the original text.
Did they make the right decision in closing the book? Given these were the church leaders who sacrifice all that they had and, in some cases, gave up their lives for the gospel and our Lord Jesus, I’d say that qualifies for a BIG Holy Spirit inspired effort.
I cannot get past point 1. I don't think the author realizes he is at once rejecting the bible and accepting the bible as the sole source simultaneously. This is an example of circular thinking that I assume this and similar logical errors are made by the author through out.
That wasn't the issue. The question was, who told you which belong in the canon and which books don't?
That wasn't the issue. The question was, who told you which belong in the canon and which books don't?
Did not God speak through the canonization process ?
You: True indeed! But they can also fall prey to unprofitable hair-splitting and dithering over issues upon which the scripture is silent.
We were talking about the doctrine of transubstantiation. Neither Catholics nor your Protestant brethren would consider that "hair-splitting and dithering over issues upon which the scripture is silent."
You: A definition (as opposed to a caricature) of "Sola Scriptura" would benefit our discussion. For our purposes lets use this definition: Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. Scripture is infallible, sufficient, and clear in all it's major doctrines.
As I have pointed out, you can't say you believe that doctrine without a logical inconsistency. You have to have some authority, call it "Authority X," to tell you which books belong in the Bible and which books don't. "X" could be your church, your tradition, your personal opinion, etc. "X" then, is your real authority, that is, your authority behind your other supposed authority.
Here is another one for you to consider. You claim that sacred tradition is true, inspired and authoritative. On what extra-scriptural authority do you basis your belief in the legitimacy of sacred tradition?
Secondarily on the authority of the Church. Ultimately on the authority of Christ.
Now will you tell us who told you which books belong in the Bible and which books don't?
Translation: "We read the Bible, and then we derive doctrines from our opinions and interpretations of what we read."
Translation: "The church leaders read the Bible and tell us what to believe."
Rather hard in "finding truth" IMHO.
What is the biblical foundation for considering the Bible is anything of the sort? There is nothing in the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today that talks about the Bible. Yes, there are references about scripture in general. You seem to be referencing 2 Timothy 3:16. This particular verse does indeed seem to be explaining something about scripture in general, but it certainly isn't identifying the Bible as a volume of scripture, let alone that the Bible the end all of scripture. Again, you are simply making my earlier point about how, for some reason, many believers automatically seem to assume that scripture and Bible are interchangeable terms. If we buy into the assumption that scripture equals Bible and that Bible equals scripture, then yes, we will start to build on that assumption to interpret things much differently than had we not accepted that premise to begin with. My point is that the premise that scripture equals Bible and that Bible equals scripture is not found anywhere in the Bible as we have it today. So, in order to subscribe to such a premise, you have to go outside the Bible.
It is from the Bible, and the Bible only, we derived our doctrines and theologies. No extra writings are used.
If this is how your personal belief paradigm functions, fine. I am merely pointing out that you are presuming things about the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today that simply can't be found within the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today.
As far as whether it was "scriptural" to "close the books" I'm not sure. However, given there was much heretical writings flooding the market (and since I might add) the church fathers were united in this to preserve the purity of the original text. Did they make the right decision in closing the book? Given these were the church leaders who sacrifice all that they had and, in some cases, gave up their lives for the gospel and our Lord Jesus, I'd say that qualifies for a BIG Holy Spirit inspired effort.
Again, if this is how your personal belief paradigm functions, fine. However, it isn't supported by anything in the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today. You may want to ask yourself why you feel the need to make conclusions about such and such when the Bible itself has made no attempt to do so. There are a lot of open ended issues if we view just the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today. As such, we certainly don't need to rush to conclusions. The serious disciple, in my opinion, is more than willing to await further light and knowledge rather than rush to conclusions that certainly don't need rushing to in order to continue in one's discipleship to deny oneself, take up one's cross and follow Christ.
If this is how your personal belief paradigm functions, fine. However, I hope that you can stop to consider that you seem to be presuming things about the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today that simply can't be found within the scripture contained within the Bible as we have it today.
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.