To: DungeonMaster
"Sola scriptura becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the Catholic asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible.
I see you have your marching orders.
Actually it's a perfect question that puts the burden of proof on a sola scriptura believer.
Sola Scripturists say that everything necessary for the faith is found in the Bible, and everything not found in the Bible is irrelevant at best, false at worst.
I think the Canon of the Bible is of the utmost importance, since how can you follow Scripture without having Scriptures!?!
So the question stands, where in the Bible does it say which books are inspired?
To: Conservative til I die
So the question stands, where in the Bible does it say which books are inspired? It doesn't stand with me.
602 posted on
12/15/2006 8:50:23 AM PST by
DungeonMaster
(Acts 17:11 also known as sola scriptura.)
To: Conservative til I die
Brother, here is where you will hear the "crickets chirping" or a deflection to another subject.
We both know the canon is not present in Scripture anywhere. The assumption seems to be that it fell from the sky fully formed (absent Maccabees and a few other books, of course). And then, we are told we are "anti-Scriptural." Neat argument, huh??
625 posted on
12/15/2006 9:46:39 AM PST by
Frank Sheed
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson