The basic point in my post is that, in the Protestant scheme, "biblical truth" is whatever the interpreter says it is. I know it is not a pallatable idea and I can see why you would find it shocking, uncomfortable, and challenging. The existence of thousands of Protestant sects prove my point.
It will remain so as long as you can't produce the chapter and verse where we can find a list of the closed biblical canon.
Scripture is holy because God says so, yes, but this only becomes meaningful when the Church proclaims it so. Without the Church's discernment and proclamation, there wouldn't be any "Scripture."
The Catholic Church as a human institution is not above criticism. But neither are her critics.
-Theo
***Scripture is holy because God says so, yes, but this only becomes meaningful when the Church proclaims it so.***
The scripture of the God of the universe is only meaningful when a lowly church says so? I think you had better rethink that. It is meaningful because GOD says so. It is meaningful when the Holy Spirit makes it so in your heart. The church is only a minor player in things.
> The existence of thousands of Protestant sects prove my point.
Plenty o' Romanist sects around too.
> It will remain so as long as you can't produce the chapter and verse where we can find a list of the closed biblical canon.
Joe Smith would like this. Can you show any "new" Scripture that adds doctrinal content to the canon, yet does not contradict something important in the canon?