Posted on 03/15/2004 6:40:12 PM PST by narses
I take that back. You just essayed a response. Okay.
Who decided what book belong in the canon? God the Holy Spirit. Who told me? Those who went before me in the faith.
Wait a minute. I thought you said the Bible alone is sufficient and we don't need tradition and those old guys are fallible. If the Bible alone is sufficient, we don't need what they said, and they're fallible anyway. Looks like you don't really believe in "Bible alone," after all.
Who said I did that?
On Writing
1. I said it once, and I say it again. This comes from the fact that just about anything can be quoted out of the Bible -- out-of-context -- to make a point.
2. To begin with, there is no entry in the entire NT where Jesus (while He was walking on Earth and preaching to His disciples) directs anyone to write down what He taught or what they have seen.
3. In fact, John himself says that "We write this to make our joy complete." (1 John 1:4). That doesn't sound like an act of obedience or obligation.
4. Not a single Apostle says that he wrote because the Lord commanded it, for then some of the Apostles would be in contempt of the Lord for not having written anything.
5. The command you quote (Rev 1:19), to write that which he (thou -- John) has seen -- and I still say that that, by implication, means all that he has seen, and not selectively that which he chooses -- is not the command other Apostles heard, because the Jesus of the Revelation is no longer on earth teaching them!
6. That's why I said in one of my previous posts that you were using something that was in the future (Jesus revealing Himself to John at the end of the 1st century) as if it were in the past, just to prove the point.
7. In fact, by the time John wrote this book, most if not all of the Apostles were dead, so Jesus in this appearance in John's "vision" is speaking only to him, John, to write [the present tense] "the things which thou [only John] hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which sall be thereafter."
8. Clearly, John is tasked with writing his own experiences, past, present and future. That was directed only at John, who is already at the end of his own life on earth and therefore runningout of time to write.
9. He is not directed to write the Bible. Just his own experiences. And he is the only Apostle who was commissioned to do so. Nothing more should be read into it.
On Tradition
1. Your argument against tradition of men, likening it to the Sacred Tradition, is misleading -- whether you realize it or not -- because even the slightest "research" into the word tradition shows that references to (Judaic) tradition in the NT clearly attempt to discredit Judaism in favor of the New Covenant.
2. At the same time, there is no parallel suggestion anywhere in the NT that the new teachings, the new oral tradition, would either have to be be written down collectively or that it is something that will inherently become corrupt.
3. To the contrary! The new teachings are to be spread all over the world, by preaching, and God Himself will put His "laws in their minds [not in their books] and write them on their hearts" (Heb 8:10)so that all may know God (without reading? maybe because books were scarce and people were illiterate?).
4. For that same reason, the Bible itself does not say that it is the only source of Truth about God. Nor does it mean that the Sacred Tradition is "superior" to the Bible. The Bible is, as I already stated, a product, and not the source of the Sacred Tradition. Without the latter, the former would not be possible.
5. That is a historical fact. Sacred Tradition existed before the Bible. Sacred Tradition was used to purge heresies and profane sources and select only Inspired ones. Sacred Tradition must therefore contain Inspired Knowledge and is, like the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit.
On Sola Scriptura
1. All this bible-quoting has taken us away from the main topic of the post -- is "Bible Alone" enough? The answer can only be no. It could not have been God's plan because of (a) practical impossibilities for 1900 years of Christianity, and even today, and (b) because individual interpretation of the Bible is inherently corrupt.
2. Sola Sciptura was the only leg Luther could stand on, and he had to defend it at all cost to give himself any legitimacy, since no Apostolic successor followed his lead. As a priest, he had no authority in church without the support of his bishop. As such, the doctrine of sola scriptura serves human agenda from the start.
3. I believe that Protestants realize the folly of this doctrine but simply cannot admit it for obvious reasons. Selective and out-of-context Bible verses do not clarify the facts that "Bible Only" was impractical and that it invites human corruption of individual interpretation.
4. The Bible may be self-explanatory, but it does not follow that any individual will, simply by reading the Bible, interpret it in a way that is free of corruption.
1. All this bible-quoting has taken us away from the main topic of the post -- is "Bible Alone" enough? The answer can only be no. It could not have been God's plan because of (a) practical impossibilities for 1900 years of Christianity, and even today, and (b) because individual interpretation of the Bible is inherently corrupt.
Quite frankly, ... corruption may occur in Protestant circles, ... but the, supposedly, infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church certainly isn't seen to be producing any better fruit, especially, in light of the scandals the church faces today.
Jesus said ... "You shall know tham by their fruits."
Unfortunately, you cannot look at the fruit of the, spposedly, infallible teaching of the Catholic church and, indeed, conclude that their teacing is infallible.
I would say that corruption is not inherent in the manner of interpretation of the scriptures, ... but rather in the hearts of those doing the interpreting. If one is seeking God, God has promised that you will find Him through His word. This has been His promise since Old Testament days. However, if one seeks according to one's own agenda, corruption will be the result, whether it an individual doing the seeking ... or a, supposedly, infallible oraganization doing the seeking.
Which brings up an interesting question for me.
How is it that you, an Othodox christian, reconcile the claims to unique leadership and teaching by the catholic church ?
Is God's teaching from the seat of Peter for you ?
If not, ... how do the Orthodox trace the authority for the teaching and interpretation of the scriptures ?
The verse says it itself: "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." I don't see how it could be more clear. "The holy scriptures, WHICH ARE ABLE..."
In his infancy, Timothy certainly never had more scriptures than the Septuagint. I never denied that the scriptures, even just the Septuagint by itself could "make you wise for salvation." I merely pointed out they logical problems you get into if you try to use this verse to prove sola scriptura. You have effectively "proven" that we do not need the New Testament.
Then I have proven my point, for if any part of the Bible is sufficient then the whole is sufficient.
Yes, that is what I said you have "proven," but I don't think many Christians would agree with you.
Does one need to know how many books there are in the Bible in order to be saved?
I hope not, because if so, those early Christians could never have made it.
The verse in Timothy and the Prologue to Luke ("...you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught...") clearly show (in infallable terms) that the Bible is enough to bring a person to salvation.
You have just illustrated another of the logical difficulties you get into when you try to use the Bible to prove sola scriptura. Actually, Luke never claimed infallibility but if he had, would that prove infallibility? Only if you presuppose that Luke is scripture. In other words, to prove infallibility, you have to assume what you are trying to prove.
You demonstrate another logical difficulty with sola scriptura when you try use one book, call it "Book B," to prove that an earlier book, call it "Book A," is scripture. If canonicity of Book A relies on the later testimony of Book B, then you must find a still later book, call it "Book C," testifying to the infallibility of Book B. You are caught in a series of infinite regression.
These are your problems with the untenable doctrine of sola scriptura. If you have an extra-biblical source to tell you which books are inspired, you avoid these logical difficulties. But you already agreed to that, did you not? Did you not post a little while that you rely on those who have preceeded you in the faith to tell you which books belong in the Bible? Well then, you have abandoned sola scriptura in favor of the doctrines of these men. Care to enlighten us on exactly who these men are?
These are your problems with the untenable doctrine of sola scriptura. If you have an extra-biblical source to tell you which books are inspired, you avoid these logical difficulties.
Which there is ... the Holy Spirit.John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.Do you deny that this is the case ?
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Which there is ... the Holy Spirit.
If the HS has given you a revelation telling you which books are inspired, I think you should share that with us.
If the HS has given you a revelation telling you which books are inspired, I think you should share that with us.
Do you mean to say that He hasn't revealed such to you ?
Seriously though, the Holy Spirit, working through the church has revealed to us the books which compose Holy scripture.
I agree 100%.
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.