Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
i have only read to #5, but it is not true that holding to the canon is contrary to Scripture being supreme and materially sufficient (formally awaited its completion), as by holding Scripture to be supreme we can sanction the church, and also principles of how scripture was established as being such. Most of which was before there was a Roman church, and without an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome.
Instead of the latter magisterium establishing Scripture by an “infallible decree,” which took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was written to do, it an be seen that Scripture was progressively established (and it is obvious there was a recognized body of Scriptures by the time of Christ) due to its heavenly qualities and effects and other supernatural attestation, and conflation with that which was prior established as being from God. And which today also confirms the Word, (Mk. 16:20) esp by manifest regeneration.
And it is by objective examination of Scriptural evidences that one may have confidence they presently have eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13)
This allows for challenges, but it is by “the manifestation of the truth” that souls are persuaded by true men of God, (2Cor. 4:2) and the rest can follow the evil which good overcomes. Wisdom is justified of her children.
RCAs argue that we lack an infallible interpreter for our supreme authority, but so do they, as the infallible magisterium itself is subject to some fallible interpretation.
Moreover, the canon was overall settled quickly for Prots, they can have more confidence in it than RCs can about a canon of all the infallible teachings of their supreme authority. And they also can and have many disagreements about doctrine, including what really is authentic teaching.
I’d say isn’t that just your private interpretation. Besides what authority decided that say Revelation belonged in the Bible considering a lot of early Christians refused to recognize it as inspired?
The Byzantine Church doesn’t use readings from Revelation because of its late addition.
And Luther advocated declaring that Revelation was apocryphal.
What makes Luther wrong objectively speaking
?
It’s a translation.
No kidding. Don’t even have to go to other threads to find it.
Here is a partial list of early Christian writings, both inspired and uninspired, fallible and infallible that I have compiled. If nothing else they give a glimpse of the magnitude of the task the Church undertood to establish the Canon and provide a very good glimpse into the times:
Passion Narrative
Lost Sayings Gospel Q
1 Thessalonians
Philippians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Philemon
Colossians
Signs Gospel
Book of Hebrews
Didache
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
Sophia of Jesus Christ
Gospel of Mark
Epistle of James
Egerton Gospel
Gospel of Peter
Secret Mark
Fayyum Fragment
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Mara Bar Serapion
2 Thessalonians
Ephesians
Gospel of Matthew
1 Peter
Epistle of Barnabas
Gospel of Luke
Acts of the Apostles
1 Clement
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Christian Sibyllines
Apocalypse of John
Gospel of John
1 John
2 John
3 John
Epistle of Jude
Flavius Josephus
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Apocalypse of Peter
Secret Book of James
Preaching of Peter
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Nazoreans
Shepherd of Hermas
2 Peter
Odes of Solomon
Book of Elchasai
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp to the Philippians
Papias
Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
Traditions of Matthias
Pliny the Younger
Suetonius
Tacitus
Quadratus of Athens
Apology of Aristides
Basilides
Naassene Fragment
Valentinus
Apocryphon of John
Gospel of Mary
Dialogue of the Savior
Gospel of the Savior
2nd Apocalypse of James
Trimorphic Protennoia
Marcion
Aristo of Pella
Epiphanes On Righteousness
Ophite Diagrams
2 Clement
Gospel of Judas
Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
Epistula Apostolorum
Ptolemy
Isidore
Fronto
Infancy Gospel of James
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Truth
Martyrdom of Polycarp
Justin Martyr
Excerpts of Theodotus
Heracleon
Ascension of Isaiah
Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Book of Thomas the Contender
Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra
Authoritative Teaching
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
Melchizedek
Acts of Pilate
Anti-Marcionite Prologues
Tatian's Address to the Greeks
Claudius Apollinaris
Apelles
Julius Cassianus
Octavius of Minucius Felix
Acts of Carpus
Melito of Sardis
Hegesippus
Dionysius of Corinth
Lucian of Samosata
Marcus Aurelius
Diatessaron
Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
Muratorian Canon
Treatise on the Resurrection
Letter of Peter to Philip
Athenagoras of Athens
Irenaeus of Lyons
Rhodon
Theophilus of Caesarea
Galen
Celsus
Letter from Vienna and Lyons
Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
Theophilus of Antioch
Acts of Apollonius
Bardesanes
Kerygmata Petrou
Hippolytus of Rome
1st Apocalypse of James
Gospel of Philip
Clement of Alexandria
Maximus of Jerusalem
Polycrates of Ephesus
Talmud
Victor I
Pantaenus
Anonymous Anti-Montanist
Inscription of Abercius
Tertullian
Serapion of Antioch
Apollonius
Caius
Philostratus
Acts of Thomas
Didascalia
Books of Jeu
Pistis Sophia
Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
Origen
God is able afterall to use evil men to show His greatness and glory.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Not the private interpretation of man.
You didnt finish the passage again. He say that those who know what to watch for. He said in verse 16 that those who have a hard time understanding are unlearned and unstable. Then in verse 17 he warns not to get caught up in what the unlearned say.
2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
He says if we listen to those who are unlearned and unstable we will fall from our own stedfastness. We must have been in a state of learned and steadfastness for us to fall from it right? Which would mean that we already understand and dont find it hard to understand.
Fascinating. When children pretend to do what the adults do, without understanding it, this is the result.
We must ask if they are any closer to Christianity than these children are to actually keeping and preparing food.
I’m sorry, I don’t follow..when did I say Luther was infallible?
When your whole religious being is predicated on who you are not, without focusing on who you are, what does that suggest?
Thats easy. When they were commissioned to translate they took the original manuscripts in the original language and found significant errors in the Latin translations that the CC had done. The CC had gotten by with it because of the lack of wide spread availability of written word. They had preserved but not disseminated the correct translation until the time of the Reformation.
>> If in fact the Church is lying, than what Luther is working off of is a lie too.<<
Nope, the CC was using its own translations in Latin. The reformers were using the original language documents directly into German.
>> In order for you to get to the point where Luther is correct, you must first assume that the Catholic church preserved the bible.<<
Nope, see above.
>> Luther was a Catholic himself and a priest for many years.<<
Yep, thats why he was given access to the original language documents. Thats when they found all the errors in the Latin translations.
>> You are trusting this one man to get it right and everyone else in the Church has gotten it wrong?<<
Nope, trusted God to bring us what He wanted. Now that we have available to all the original language documents we find that he did it right.
The CC still today insists that the Catholics use their approved version.
Where did you ever get the idea that I follow Luther?
The Church did tend to let believers be believers until a bunch of them headed off to heretical land and then called a Council to try to define things. The charge comes up against the Church, but I think that it reflects more on human nature and the deviations that humans can invent.
“Thats easy. When they were commissioned to translate”
Who’s they? Who was commissioned by whom to translate the bible?
“they took the original manuscripts in the original language”
What “original manuscripts” did the translators use? There are no original manuscripts of scripture in existence. They are no longer extant.
They couldn’t have used the Codex Vaticanus because that wasn’t publicly available until the latter half of the 19th century. Same with Sinaiticus. Prior to then, the Vatican had access to Codex Vaticanus. It happens to be the oldest, and most complete Greek NT manuscript.
“and found significant errors in the Latin translations that the CC had done.”
We have better and older sources today that show no such significant errors.
“The CC had gotten by with it because of the lack of wide spread availability of written word.”
Sounds like a myth to me. The most widely distributed book in those times was the Bible. We can trace the changes over time, from the older Vulgates that we do possess.
“They had preserved but not disseminated the correct translation until the time of the Reformation.”
Nonsense. They preserved the Vulgate, which btw, uses sources that are non-extant and dates back to the early 4th century. Not as old as Codex Vaticanus, but much older than anything else available to translate from.
“Nope, the CC was using its own translations in Latin.”
It’s called the Vulgate.
“The reformers were using the original language documents directly into German.”
And the documents that they used were?
“Yep, thats why he was given access to the original language documents. Thats when they found all the errors in the Latin translations.”
Then why was it him and not the other priests who ‘found’ these ‘errors’? Do you know that Luther used Erasmus’s translation, and certainly not the originals?
“Nope, trusted God to bring us what He wanted. Now that we have available to all the original language documents we find that he did it right.”
Uh, no we don’t have all the original documents. The oldest full bible we do have is the Codex Vaticanus which is the early 4th century. We have some fragments that are older than this, but we do not have all the original language documents.
We don’t even have an original LXX, let alone an original Gospel.
“The CC still today insists that the Catholics use their approved version.”
Absolutely, because the Vulgate uses sources that are no longer extant today, that are far older than anything else that we do have.
So you think you still have a shot?
BTW you discerners of all truth: I am a she. Not a he.
The understanding of both Daniels prophesy and Revelation were sealed until the time of the end. God is and was in control and Revelation and the understanding of Daniels prophesies are beginning. I would say God controlled when Revelation was included.
I see.
What mechanism did God use to decide that Revelation was canonical after all?
What made Luther wrong about Revelation and right about dropping books from the Old Testament?
Does that mean that you are able to tell the difference between evil and good? Can you understand the mind of God?
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.