Posted on 01/24/2007 8:41:04 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
Without Tradition the Biblical canon is moot because that itself is a tradition. Besides, your reasoning would have been rejected by the early Christians.
Again, Protestantism is an unhistorical innovation.
Sola Scriptura is about as Biblical as what the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
You know, as an ex-Protestant it expresses something that struck me in my conversion process. Sola Scriptura is a 16th century innovation, in my book every bit as severe as the finding of the "Book of Mormon."
I believe in the primacy of Scripture, but I don't believe Calvin was correct to say that it is self-interpreting and self-authenticating. Postmodernism reveals its inherent weakness because one interpretation becomes just as good as another.
I certainly don't pretend to think that the USA gave authority to the scriptures. I don't prostrate myself in front of a flag or a statue. I don't attempt to communicate with George Washington or any other dead person as we are clearly prohibited from giving worship to anyone other than God or attempting to communicate with familiar spirits.
Mary worship is a fourth century invention. The infallibility of the Pope is a 19th Century invention. The office of the Pope is a fourth century invention. The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Cannon is a 16th Century invention. The assumption of Mary is a twentieth century invention. The witholding of the wine from the laity at communion is a 16th Century invention.
Need I go on?
Sorry about that.
Scripture is not a "rule". Scripture contains God's words directly in the Gospels as quotes by those who knew Him in person. They are there, so that God could be known to all men. That was a promise made by God in Isaiah 54:13 "All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children's peace."
"He could have written the New Testament himself, could he not?"
He could have, but He didn't. It was His Father's way. Instead He taught it to his children directly and the words came out of their mouths from their hearts. It was upon them, that He showed His Spirit and through them, it was to come upon all men, as promised in Isaiah 59:21:
"As for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD. "My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever," says the LORD."
He is referring to the Apostles and there associates who knew him. He put the words in their mouths and they wrote it down.
"How can you say the Church doesn't have the authority to determine which writings are Sared Scripture, when it was the Church herself that decided what books went into Scripture?"
Scripture contains the word of God. The only authority required is the ability to recognize that it written by the Apostles and their associates that were known by others, who all made up the Church at the time. The Books are limited to those people, regardless of the fact that some official decree was made hundreds of years later. Some Books carrying names of the Apostles were rejected as frauds, because of their gnostic content, or other obvious flaw. Their was no authority required to ID what was the writings of the Apostles and their associates.
"Your circular reasoning is astonishing."
Circular reasoning? Where?
Insightful post. I will now delightfully depart this viper's nest.
The books were known from the time of the apostles and their associates and the NT is limited to those authors. See #148. "If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have the New Testament you take for granted.
God promised in Isaiah 59:21 that I and others would have the words of Jesus. He did not promise anyone would have authority over me, rational thought, or authority for anyone to dictate any doctrine whatsoever.
"Maybe you should be reading Thomas, Peter, Judas and Bartholemew
I've looked at them and concluded they were not written by the authors claimed, nor are any of them logically consistent with what the Apostles and their associates wrote.
"What authority do you have to say the neo-Gnostics are wrong about what books belong in the Bible?"
I have both the authority of a ratitonal mind and free will given as a gift, as per Gen 1, to know, understand and evaluate and judge all things.
"The canon of Scripture is Tradition with a big T.
Scripture is not tradition. It is scripture. Tradition consists of other things, not contained in scripture.
" Its definition came from God through the Church."
Scripture consists of Books written by the Apostles and their assiciates. You can otherwise have any traditions you want and define anything you desire within your tradition. Tradition however is not scripture, and does not alter the contents, or meaning of scripture.
"All you have is your own private interpretation."
There is only one truth. Either I am correct, or I am not. All that matters is the evidence given in scripture, and handed down according to God's promise in Isaiah 59:21 and logic. Authority is not a logical operation, nor does it function as a valid logical operator. It has no place in logic, nor does democracy.
No.
"Besides, your reasoning would have been rejected by the early Christians. "
Maybe, but that's irrelevant. As I said, democracy is not a valid logical operation. My reasoning is open for anyone to examine. Authority does not apply in the examination, nor does democracy, only the evidence and logic apply.
"Again, Protestantism is an unhistorical innovation."
Again? Innovation refers to technology. The primary evidence held by the Protestants, which is the word of God, is the same evidence held by the Catholic Church. Only evidence and logic apply to knowing and understanding God's word and the primary, fundamental evidence is contained within the Gospels. All of what can be seen in the world is evidence and it also applies. The proper words to use instead of innovation, are ignorance, hardness of heart, errors in logic, and unjustified creativity. Historically, those have been present in God's people from the beginning. I see no point in history where that changed. I do not see that any organization, including any Church has been immune to it either.
The inherent contradiction of this statement is absolute proof of the fallacy of the 16th Century invention called sola scriptura.
If sola scriptura were valid, then all like-minded people would read it and come away with the same meaning. However, practitioners of YOPIOS are generally unable to find one single person that believes exactly as they do. If sola scriptura were valid, then when Calvin left the Church, he would have joined with the Lutherans, but he didn't, he developed an entirely different theology. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no possible way for Luther and Calvin to have both been right; however, it is entirely possible that BOTH WERE WRONG.
Another aspect that no adherent to this 16th Century theory has been able to explain is, why would Jesus design a system of Salvation that He Omnipotently knew would be impossible to practice for fifteen centuries? Prior to the invention of the printing press, books were exceedingly rare and the price was well beyond the means of all but the very wealthy. As a result, most people never learned to read and write. I understand that voluntary illiteracy makes no sense to us, but in a historical context it doesn't. Why do most of us know how to drive but not how to fly an airplane? Because most of us cannot afford to own a plane, so it makes no reason to learn, if the average person could afford an airplane then most of us would know how to fly. It is the same way with literacy prior to movable type. So, I ask again, WHY WOULD GOD DEVISE A THEOLOGY THAT HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT FOR FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS? Would a God of Love even consider such cruelty?
LOL...well either way, it's the same authority, no? :)
And it's not even biblical. Not that it would matter if it was, since the argument would be circular. For instance, I could write a book containing the sentence, "This book represents the word of God, whole and entire," but the sentence alone wouldn't prove the inspiration of my writings.
But at the very least the doctrine of "The Bible alone" should be found in Scripture, but it's not. Sure, the Bible upholds the value of Scripture, but never Scripture alone.
Was the in-person inspired teaching by the apostles authoritative in the first century? Sure. But how can we know whether any supposed 'oral tradition' originated with them? One way would be comparing those alleged traditions with the Scripture we DO have. So, if someone espouses a doctrine that they claim to have these divinely preserved down through the ~60 generations since the apostles, but that doctrine contradicts the written record we do have, then they are making a false claim.
For example, if the person or organization is truly conveying the 1st Century oral teachings about the structure of the church, they will be in complete agreement with Paul's requirements in I Timothy 3:2,4 and Titus 1:6 that a bishop be married with children. Anyone who teaches the opposite is, obviously, not really getting their doctrines from the same Source that Paul did.
Because it's fun and we can't help it. Like drinking too much and puking.
What point is trying to be made here?
But some of that tradition from Sinai held that it, itself would be set aside when the Messiah came.
I respect your traditionalism here, but you are mistaken in trying to characterize that tradition as stating unequivocally that the Mosaic Law was for all time. Tradition differed on this point.
Luther and his views were condemned by the duly constituted Catholic authority as heretical.
By what *duly constituted* Jewish authority was Christ/Christianity declared heretical?
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.