Posted on 03/15/2004 6:40:12 PM PST by narses
You seem to refuse to acknowledge that the Church Fathers developed theology, and decided what is to be canonized based on their understanidng of the faith, which helped them establish orthodoxy and catholicity, as well as which of the written texts and gospels are to be canonized as the Bible based on unwritten, Sacred Tradition, the oral Teachings of Jesus Christ
So ... is it your claim that the scriptures are 'of men' or ... 'of God' ?
I think it’s a little disingenuous to say that you haven’t stated a position one way or another and then consistently argue against sola scriptura. I see on your bio that you’re a LDS so it is quite understandable why you would feel it is necessary to add to the Bible.
kosta
As far as your statement:
"That is completely inaccurate. Look up when the Bible was canonized and what major revisions and changes it underwent before it took the form you know of.
That's rubbish and nonsense. Today, thanks to the Internet, even the most novice student of the Bible can go back and look at the Greek and Hebrew text and the precise meaning of words. And with a good multiple search engine and a little salve' you can pull up just about any type of doctrine or theology, argument to and against, on just about any subject. (It amazing how many times Free Republic comes up.) The Catholic Church needs to update this 19th century argument.
pseudogratix bio has raised a curiosity in me as to who believes in sola scriptura and who don't. This has led me to compile the following list. This list is based upon those who either claim they don’t believe in sola scriptura or use other materials along with the Bible to supplement their doctrine.
For Sola Scriptura
Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Luthern, Episcopalian, (In short any mainline Protestant denomination.)
Against Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholic, LDS, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Islam
Rather interesting I thought.
Like what? Predestination? Consubstantiation? Baptism?
All your "meanstream" Reformed, the majority of whom are Lutheran, are but a third in number compared to those two major churches.
What 19th century argument?
"The mind must be enlarged to see the simple things... or even to see the self-evident things... it nevers seems to occur to the critic of the Church to do anything so simple as to compare what is Catholic with what is non-Catholic" GK Chesterton
That knowledge allowed the Church Fathers to distinguish genuine from heretical teachings, profane from inspired writing, acceptable worship and all the other practices and teachings of what constituted the Church, of which the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed the least externally and internally.
As far as I know, the OT was not reduced to writing until much later. God's revelations were kept in the Judaic oral tradition until that time.
"Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan who read it." 2 Kings 22:8
The Hebrew text was written down for ages. It was translated into Greek in about 200-400 BC for easy reading by the populace who by this time spoke Greek. However, because of the differences in language, some of the word meanings did not translate easily. (Like translating Greek to English.)
The quotes used by the apostles in the New Testament either used the Hebrew text, the Greek text, or as was common among Jewish scholars, quoted the Greek scriptures with commentary to add clarification to the text. That is why if you compare some of the NT quotes against OT quotes there is not always a one-for-one correspondence.
Protestants are agreed upon the essentials of their faith
Like what?
The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.
Such as these sustained the church for hundreds of years.
Predestination? Consubstantiation? Baptism?
What of any of these doctrines (excepting baptism), is essential ?
All Protestants baptize, in obedience to the command of Christ ... what more than this is needed ?
Scriptures states that God predestined the elect to salvation ... and that one must believe to be saved. What more is essential to this, other than believing the scriptures ?
Once again, in obedience to Christ, all Protestants celebrate the memorial of the Lord's Supper in the way that He prescribed that we celebrate it.
Scripture doesn't speak of Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation.
What in regard to these do you consider essential.
The New Testament is based on the spoken word of God Jesus Christ to the Apostles, some which -- but not all -- was written down and later canonized.
Amen ... and all that was needful for life in Christ was written (per John 20:31).
As far as I know, the OT was not reduced to writing until much later. God's revelations were kept in the Judaic oral tradition until that time.
Moses, Joshua, Josiah, Ezra, and Jesus all are recorded as reading publicly from the writings of the Old Testament.
The essential is this: Jesus Christ. All I want to know is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. That is it. If you have that, you are well to do. If you believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and rose on the third day, then you are my dear brother in Christ. No other qualification is necessary. Those who believe are the Church, the Body of Christ.
And ... this is the Protestant position.
No schism.
Thank-you, my brother.
Quester
Against Sola Scriptura Roman Catholic, LDS, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Islam
Another way you could look at it is that 75% of Christians reject Sola Scriptura. It's the minority position.
Another way to look at it is that Catholics and Orthodox Christians reject Sola Scriptura. The remaining 25% of self-identifying Christians which accept Sola Scriptura account for an additional 30,000 denominations. How does this doctrine conform with Jesus' desire that "they may be one"?
Another way to look at it is that the Apostles weren't "Bible Christians" because there was no New Testament after the Ascension! In fact the canon of the NT wasn't determined until around the year 400 A.D.
Jesus didn't command the Apostles to write the New Testament. The Great Commission is to "go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." If Jesus had commissioned a New Testament, why didn't the Apostles begin writing it immediately?
In fact, the Apostles were expecting Jesus' return in their lifetimes. After a couple of decades they realized that it would be wise to write down Jesus' life and sayings. The last book of the NT (Revelation) wasn't written until around 100 A.D., and the books of the NT (and OT) weren't agreed upon until several Church Councils around the year 400 A.D.
(Scientologists don't claim to be Christian and don't even acknowledge the Bible; Islam? Many of them seem to adhere tosola scripture, for the Koran, their holy book.
If Jesus had commissioned a New Testament, why didn't the Apostles begin writing it immediately?
Do you think that God commissioned the New Testament ?
If so ... why do you think that He did ?
Another way to look at it is that the Apostles weren't "Bible Christians" because there was no New Testament after the Ascension! In fact the canon of the NT wasn't determined until around the year 400 A.D.
Of course one must consider that the Apostles did have the Old Testament ... and, ultimately, wrote the New Testament.
I don't think that the determination of the canon would have mattered much to the Apostles (as to their doctrine) ... as they had been personally taught by Jesus for three years.
The weak use of both bible texts and logic will convince no one but those who are are already on Rome's band-wagon.
How people can have confidence in such an anciently (and contemporarily) demonstrably corrupt human institution I will never know. No wonder most followers are born into Rome's errors rather then being born-again into Christ's invisible Church.
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."
-- Martin Luther, 1521, at the Council of Worms, while facing the clear prospect of being burned to death by Roman Catholic authorities...
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.