9-10ths_Penguin said:
The decision of what is and is not scripture, at least in the main branches of Chrisianity that survive today, was made by the Council of Nicea. If that's not being dependent on man-established councils, I don't know what is.
Midnight Blue said:
Christian scripture does not stand alone; it wasn't dictated by God or an angel in its present form. You seem to be thinking of the Qur'an. The Christian scriptures were written by humans, transcribed by humans, collected by humans, and canonized by humans, so it's nonsense to speak of scriptural authority as being over human authority. Even if you believe that the canon was established before the historic councils (and I'd like to see some documentation of that claim), there was still a process by which the canon was recognized by humans.
I already addressed this issue in a post previous to the one you are quoting from. From post #20
SoliDeoGloria said:
Cannon was being established long before formal Catholicism existed (1 Pet 3:15-16) and the formal "ecumenical councils" that followed were merely formal recognitions for clarification no more as far as that was concerned.
First off, I need to admit a mistake I made in the Verse I was reffering to. I meant to reffer to
2 Pet. 3:15-16 (NASB) "and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother
Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own distruction."
What this verse does, especially from an ironic point of view that catholicism holds, which Scott1 can affirm, that Peter was the first Pope; is give at the very least, the majority of the New Testament, written by Paul, just as much authority as the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, here is a prime example of the Bible authorizing itself despite the Council of Nicea.
You see, 9-10ths_penguin, this is the whole heart of the issue of Sola Scriptura, whether or not Scripture is enough authority on it's own to whether or not there is more needed. The was a major issue among other things when Protestant leaders decided to break away from the Catholic Church to form other denominations. From
Sola scriptura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia " The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the
Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the
Bible's authority and to reject added-on tradition as a source of original authority in addition to the Bible (which did not have any Biblical basis and/or contradicted with Scripture)...
"The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." (Smalcald Article II, 15 - Martin Luther). (See Galatians 1:8).
Oh, and BTW, the Apocrapha was taken out of most major Branches of Christianity's Bible's long after the Council of Nicea even though there are documentaions of even Cardinal's having issues with those books before they were taken out.
Midnight Blue said:
It may well be that your church is the child of the scriptures. If so, however, your church cannot possibly be the same church as the church that existed in Jerusalem and in many parts of the Roman Empire before all the scriptures had even been written. If your church is the child of the scriptures, it is by definition a different church from the church that produced the scriptures.
Funny, I got that idea from The Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) (P.80). While, for this particular discussion's sake, this book could be considered a Protestant based book, there is no particular denomination associated with it buyond that.
Midnight Blue said:
So the question, odd as it may be in this context, is did the Founding Fathers of the United States violate the teaching of this passage of scripture by when they rebelled against their anointed monarch and violated their own oaths of allegiance to him? Of course they did.
The scripture continues:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The teaching is absolutely clear, that the established authorities praise those who do good, and bear the sword against those who do evil. Therefore those who fall afoul of the authorities (like Paul himself) are, by definition, evildoers. I don't believe that myself, but anyone who believed in the infallibility of scripture would have to believe it.
Can you please show me an instance where Paul did not make himself subject to the governing authorities? do you truly think Paul was knowingly shooting himself in the foot with this scripture and making a "do as I say not as I do" statement(lol)?! (1 Cor. 4:16)
Scott1 said:
Hmmm.... I wasn't born in this country--- I've only lived in the states for ten years....I'm not sure how this relates to the OP, but I really couldn't care less about the founding of the US..... as soon as I move home, I plan to burn my passport and never come back.
As much as I would love to address the use of the word "only" in this statement, for the sake of sticking to the subject of the thread , I'll leave it alone and only qualify that I used the term that you "reside" here, not that you were born here.
You know as well as I do that this "Sola Scriptura" issue is an issue surrounding the separation of the Protestant Churches from the Catholic Church based on what they believed to be Biblically based reasons (The great reformation). That is why I tried to make a comparrison of the separation of the US from the British empire for what they believed to be Biblically based reasons. I guess I didn't take into account that you are someone who has resided in the US for "only" ten years and can't stand it here. My bad:areyoucra
Scott1 said:
don't know what I did to prompt your rudeness..... "historically ignorant questions"??? Wow....... I'm at a loss for words.
I really have no desire to continue our discussion... I'm sorry if something I did prompted your less than charitable reply.
I guess I didn't think you would take it so harshly when I considered that you were completely ignoring any point I was trying to make and attempting to engage me in a debate over "dates". How charitable is that? I've always considered engaging in date debates like this to debating over whose dad was older because somehow that made our dads better when we were kids.
P.S. If it weren't for Reformists who believed in the idea of "Sola Scriptura" like Wycliff and WIlliam Tyndale, we'd have to know fluent Latin and be Catholic Priests to be able to be qualified to even have this sort of discussion.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
