Sola-Scriptura destroys itself!

[shmogie]

You're wrong about that.

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We just simply recognize it for what it is, and stop worshiping it instead of its author.
You misunderstood my point. Of course I've met people who claim to believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But at the same time, they believe doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. They believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, which was not part of Christianity until 325 A.D. I don't know which denomination specifically, you affiliate with, but most Protestants accept the Westminster Confession of faith which dates from as recently as 1646. Protestant theology was not the theology of the ancient Church.
Wow. Looks like PopeADope and I struck a nerve there. I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that last little bit of sarcasm. It's something that Christians ought not to lower themselves to do to make a point.

Only a little sarcasm, the points were accurate. As I pointed out elsewhere, the word canon comes from he Greek kanwn and the Hebrew qaneh. It literally means (a) a straight rod or bar (b) a measuring rule as used by masons and carpenters (C) a rule or standard for testing straightness. Historically, the word was first used by the church as the rule of faith and practice. All these employ the word in the metaphorical sense of a rule,norm or standard. Later it was used as a list or catalog of sacred books as belonging to God's inspired word. At no time did religious councils have any power to cause any book to be inspired , rather they simply recognized which were inspired at the moment they were written. There were tests used, one being was the writer an Apostle or have the endorsement of an Apostle. Another was universal acceptance, on the whole was the book accepted by the church at large ? By this standard, a number of books were dropped. There were some books who were accepted by a few, but were ultimately rejected. So, I reaffirm that the "canon" from the very beginning has been consistent, the practice of the faith and fundamental doctrines have remained consistent. Lists of books might change in the beginning, as they did, but they were stabilized early, and the "canon" of faith, practice and fundamentals are, and from the beginning consistent. Christ came to provide a way for mankind to become right with God, to be saved. He provided everything needed for salvation in the Bible, there is nothing more needed. He provided by his selected Apostles everything required for his followers to relate to him, and their fellow humans, in doctrine and practice, there is nothing further required. He said " in vain do you worship me by following the practices of men" Paul said that the wolves of discord and strange doctrine were at hand in his time. The book of Revelation makes it very clear that much of the church is corrupted and fallen. As to extra Biblical alleged inspiration by God, first, there is no need for it, second, Christ said " by their fruit you shall know them". As to doctrinal fruit, one need only compare the doctrines and beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, it's actions, it's doctrines and compare them to the doctrines and simple religion of the Apostles and followers in the Bible to what over the centuries it has produced. America in the 19th and early 20th century, for whatever reason, was awash with alleged "divinely inspired" individuals, or groups who all wrote some form of "scripture" held by the acolytes to be from God. No less than 4 denominations came from these. First was Joseph Smith of the Mormons, who alleged that an angel named "maroni" came to him and caused him to write "The Book of Mormon" which leads to practices and beliefs alien to the Bible. Second was Ellen G. White, who as a young girl was seriously injured by a thrown stone to the head. Beginning as a teenager she began having "visions" ( the result of brain damage ?) and writing her visions down. Her followers became the "Seventh Day Adventists", who emphasize keeping the sabbath of the Jewish Torah, as well as having a Catholic view of salvation, which is non Biblical. Third was the Jehovah's Witnesses, who actually grew out of the very early SDA movement. Their divinely inspired prophets are the "anointed" members of the "Watchtower Society" whose job is to interpret and write about the "truth" for their members. Their obsession is God's name, whom they claim is "Jehovah". They are also the largest body of Arians in the world. Finally there are the Christian scientists, their prophet being Mary Baker Eddy. I have not studied them as I have the other cults, as their influence has lessened over the years so I cannot make a true evaluation of their doctrines. So then, we have 5 groups who claim God has given them further instruction and guidance beyond the Bible. Each has beliefs, doctrines and practices inconsistent with the Bible and are radically different from each other. Their guidance, writings, and doctrines are all false when the Bible of the Apostles is used to measure them. Their fruit is strange doctrine from the traditions of humans. sola scriptura, the Bible of the Apostles and the scriptures of Judaism were given by God as the Complete manual for salvation and living the Christian life, none other is required, none other is genuine.

 

[shmogie]

But these variances got into the oral tradition by all indications. The main points of the narratives tend to be quite similar, so it's the details that are so often different.

And so are the inconsistencies that go well beyond what I've been saying, but I honestly don't want to get into that.

Well, Evangelicals and others believe in a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that those beliefs are true,

And when they did reject it under Luther's opinion, they did so without explanation or justification. Luther's original German translation of the Bible included the Apocrypha between the two testaments, and even some Protestant Bibles today do the same.

I've read them word for word, and there really isn't anything in them that Evangelicals should be afraid of. The only two "controversial" points are the praying for the dead and purgatory, both that we know were beliefs in the early church.

Luther was only one Reformer of many. There are no references to purgatory or praying for the dead in the Bible, and I truly doubt that these things were part of the immediate post Apostolic Church. One of my Bibles, The New English translation, has the Apocrypha, and there is nothing in it that anyone fears, just references to non Biblical doctrine. One certainly may read it without accepting it as inspired.

 

[Katzpur]

As I pointed out elsewhere, the word canon comes from he Greek kanwn and the Hebrew qaneh. It literally means (a) a straight rod or bar (b) a measuring rule as used by masons and carpenters (C) a rule or standard for testing straightness. Historically, the word was first used by the church as the rule of faith and practice. All these employ the word in the metaphorical sense of a rule,norm or standard. Later it was used as a list or catalog of sacred books as belonging to God's inspired word. At no time did religious councils have any power to cause any book to be inspired , rather they simply recognized which were inspired at the moment they were written. There were tests used, one being was the writer an Apostle or have the endorsement of an Apostle. Another was universal acceptance, on the whole was the book accepted by the church at large ? By this standard, a number of books were dropped. There were some books who were accepted by a few, but were ultimately rejected. So, I reaffirm that the "canon" from the very beginning has been consistent, the practice of the faith and fundamental doctrines have remained consistent. Lists of books might change in the beginning, as they did, but they were stabilized early, and the "canon" of faith, practice and fundamentals are, and from the beginning consistent.

Thank you for substantiating what I already said, which was simply that the books considered to be "inspired" over the years changed as different individuals had the authority to accept or reject them. Right there you have a discrepancy in what "scripture alone" teaches. Scripture as it existed when? In 200 A.D.? In 1100 A.D.? Or in 1700 A.D?

First was Joseph Smith of the Mormons, who alleged that an angel named "maroni" came to him and caused him to write "The Book of Mormon" which leads to practices and beliefs alien to the Bible.

Well, I can understand why you would believe that to be the case, but since Mormonism is not the subject of this thread, I'm just going to chalk your comment up to the fact that you're evidently not being quite as informed about Mormonism as you seem to think you are.

So then, we have 5 groups who claim God has given them further instruction and guidance beyond the Bible. Each has beliefs, doctrines and practices inconsistent with the Bible and are radically different from each other. Their guidance, writings, and doctrines are all false when the Bible of the Apostles is used to measure them. Their fruit is strange doctrine from the traditions of humans. sola scriptura, the Bible of the Apostles and the scriptures of Judaism were given by God as the Complete manual for salvation and living the Christian life, none other is required, none other is genuine.

If you were actually able to prove that the Bible you use today is made up of the only inspired writings that mankind has ever had, you might have a point. As it is, you can't, and you don't.

 

[Katzpur]

I didn't say I hate myself. I hate the flesh which is only temporary. I long to be a spirit, which is eternal and more free of so much of what I find a burden. The flesh is at war with the spirit.

I'm kind of surprised to hear you say that, Pope. Are you saying you don't believe in an actual physical resurrection?

 

[Spiderman]

I'm kind of surprised to hear you say that, Pope. Are you saying you don't believe in an actual physical resurrection?

I believe in a physical resurrection but the body will be glorified

 

[Spiderman]

I believe in a physical resurrection but the body will be glorified

I still would rather be just spirit though

 

[metis]

There are no references to purgatory or praying for the dead in the Bible

Actually it was done, such as it shows up in early church writings from the 2nd century. In the N.T. it actually does show up in the form of a logical interpretation but not with that name. I'll have a bit more time tomorrow so I'll try and find it for you.

and I truly doubt that these things were part of the immediate post Apostolic Church.

See above.

One certainly may read it without accepting it as inspired.

True.

 

[shmogie]

Thank you for substantiating what I already said, which was simply that the books considered to be "inspired" over the years changed as different individuals had the authority to accept or reject them. Right there you have a discrepancy in what "scripture alone" teaches. Scripture as it existed when? In 200 A.D.? In 1100 A.D.? Or in 1700 A.D?

Well, I can understand why you would believe that to be the case, but since Mormonism is not the subject of this thread, I'm just going to chalk your comment up to the fact that you're evidently not being quite as informed about Mormonism as you seem to think you are.

If you were actually able to prove that the Bible you use today is made up of the only inspired writings that mankind has ever had, you might have a point. As it is, you can't, and you don't.

No, the doctrines and practices were consistent throughout, that is the criteria, not which were on a list at a given time. do you doubt that God ensured, for 1,900 years that what was required was available ? If you doubt that, then you doubt God truly revealed himself through Christ and the Apostles.

 

[user4578]

PopeADope said: because I don't want to be hungry
Ok so isn't that what Paul was saying there? I mean he wasn't getting into the more detailed discussion of Job's sufferings(Job 7:13-16, 10:1), or Solomon's wisdom about the futility of life(Eccl. 2:15-17, 6:7). John 3:6

 

[Katzpur]

I believe in a physical resurrection but the body will be glorified

Okay. Gotcha. Me too.

 

[Katzpur]

No, the doctrines and practices were consistent throughout, that is the criteria, not which were on a list at a given time.

How in the world can you make a claim about the consistency in what was taught over a 2000 year period? I can absolutely, positively prove that certain doctrines which are no longer believed by mainstream Christianity were taught by the Church Fathers during the first two centuries.

Do you doubt that God ensured, for 1,900 years that what was required was available ?

Yes, I doubt that, because there is proof that during that 1900 year period of time, what was considered "god-breathed" changed numerous times. I've already posted examples of that, and you even agreed that what I posted was accurate. By the way, don't think I didn't notice that you failed to do what I challenged you to do, i.e. prove that the Bible you use today is made up of the only inspired writings that mankind has ever had. I'd settle for proof that the Apocrypha was not inspired. I don't use it myself, but 2 billion Catholics believe it's every bit as much the word of God as the other 66 books in the Bible. Can you do anything beyond making an empty claim regarding its legitimacy as scripture?

If you doubt that, then you doubt God truly revealed himself through Christ and the Apostles.

That's utter nonsense. The fact that God revealed himself through Christ and the Apostles is in no way contingent upon the inerrancy of the Bible.

 

[shmogie]

How in the world can you make a claim about the consistency in what was taught over a 2000 year period? I can absolutely, positively prove that certain doctrines which are no longer believed by mainstream Christianity were taught by the Church Fathers during the first two centuries.

Yes, I doubt that, because there is proof that during that 1900 year period of time, what was considered "god-breathed" changed numerous times. I've already posted examples of that, and you even agreed that what I posted was accurate. By the way, don't think I didn't notice that you failed to do what I challenged you to do, i.e. prove that the Bible you use today is made up of the only inspired writings that mankind has ever had. I'd settle for proof that the Apocrypha was not inspired. I don't use it myself, but 2 billion Catholics believe it's every bit as much the word of God as the other 66 books in the Bible. Can you do anything beyond making an empty claim regarding its legitimacy as scripture?

That's utter nonsense. The fact that God revealed himself through Christ and the Apostles is in no way contingent upon the inerrancy of the Bible.

Well, to your question I would respond with another, prove that any other alleged inspired documents, are inspired.

You can prove that the Church fathers taught doctrines in the first 200 years not believed by Christians today. Well, so can I. I don't get your point. The Church Fathers were not inspired, and it was stated by Paul in the Bible that there were those already at work to pervert doctrine. In fact, in his letter to the Galatians, he confirms that they had already done so .


You are totally missing the point, let me try again. Did any of the books that may have been eliminated, or added, effect the fundamentals of the Faith for Salvation and a proper life ? The answer is no. I doubt that any effected the doctrines of the Apostles one iota. God preserved these fundamentals in the Bible and in the churches, though spurious and man made doctrine was also added. Catholics adopted a whole host of bizarre beliefs, and there church became totally corrupt, nevertheless God preserved the way of salvation, the gold packed in the dirt. The same for the other denominations who have adopted false teachings and authorities, they too can find salvation because of the fundamental truths they incorporate. They have made it more difficult, because they reject the freedom of the pure Gospel, to put themselves under other authorities.


The Apocrypha is accepted by the Catholics because it supports prayer for the dead and purgatory, Catholic doctrine, nowhere found in the OT or NT.


You seem to want to bring into question the inerrancy of the Bible by focusing purely on the acts of men, that effect the message before, or after the the addition or the subtraction of the books not one whit. There was a list of books of the Bible from 125 AD that is exactly the same as todays, except for 3 small books, 2nd Timothy, 2nd Peter but I forget the third. If the Bible is not inerrant, then you are free to pick and choose what to believe and how to act. Like gumby, you may twist God, his Word, and give credence to falsity because it tickles your ears. The ultimate issue is what I began with, the original definition of Canon, the implement used to measure, to measure truth. The Bible has always been that, whether it was used as the Gospels only, 7 books, or whatever, to what has been established, the measurement is true and accurate, and any doctrine that doesn't meet that measurement, is false

 

[metis]

The Apocrypha is accepted by the Catholics because it supports prayer for the dead and purgatory, Catholic doctrine, nowhere found in the OT or NT.

Not true as the books were hotly debated as were some other books that were eventually accepted into the canon, but the divisions were deep enough to warrant a hesitation.

The idea that the church chose them because of purgatory or praying for the dead is absurd as these were already being done and had been done for at least two centuries, so they really weren't controversial at all.

 

[shmogie]

Not true as the books were hotly debated as were some other books that were eventually accepted into the canon, but the divisions were deep enough to warrant a hesitation.

The idea that the church chose them because of purgatory or praying for the dead is absurd as these were already being done and had been done for at least two centuries, so they really weren't controversial at all.

The idea isn't that the "Church" was doing it, the idea is that Protestants reject, first, much of what the "Church" was doing, and second Protestants reject the Apocrypha.

 

[metis]

Did any of the books that may have been eliminated, or added, effect the fundamentals of the Faith for Salvation and a proper life ? The answer is no. I doubt that any effected the doctrines of the Apostles one iota.

Therefore, ...

OK, let me post this:

I Peter[18] For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
[19] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
[20] who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water...

Hebrews 12[23] and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,...

II Timothy[15]You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phy'gelus and Hermog'enes.
[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph'orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains,
[17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me --
[18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day -- and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus. [Onesiph'orus was dead]

Also, in the oldest creed, the "Apostle's Creed", note this: "...the communion of saints...". The interpretation was that this applied not only to living saints but also to those who had died whereas there was no wall of separation between them. Much like I could pray for you while you're alive, the belief also was that I could also pray for those who had passed away, including asking them to pray to God for me and/or for others.

Whether you agree with this or not is really quite irrelevant as what I am showing you is why the Catholics believe as such.

 

[metis]

The idea isn't that the "Church" was doing it, the idea is that Protestants reject, first, much of what the "Church" was doing, and second Protestants reject the Apocrypha.

Then it's the Protestants that you should be taking issue with because it is they who have abandoned what the early church appears to have taught. It is they who left behind that which the early church believed, instead pretty much deifying the scriptures which the apostolic church had selected.

IOW, it is the Protestants that don't make sense in the context of church history, including the selection of the scriptures that even they use.

 

[metis]

Also, one might consider these verses:

1Cor.11[2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you...

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.


2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

IOW, there was more given than that which we find in the scriptures.

 

[shmogie]

Then it's the Protestants that you should be taking issue with because it is they who have abandoned what the early church appears to have taught. It is they who left behind that which the early church believed, instead pretty much deifying the scriptures which the apostolic church had selected.

IOW, it is the Protestants that don't make sense in the context of church history, including the selection of the scriptures that even they use.

You confuse the Apostolic Church practices recorded in the Bible, with the later Church. As I posted elsewhere, Paul was already speaking of wrong practices and doctrines in the Church, his letter to the Galatians is an example. So it is no surprise that "the church"" in power, began introducing error, and later corruption. The Reformation didn't 'deify" the scriptures, they simply recognized them for what they were the blueprint and history provided by God of what the Church was meant to be. They simply looked at the blueprint, used it to measure what was, and found it to be deeply flawed. Christianity represented in one Gospel, or four, represented by one letter of Paul, or all of them is consistent. One Gospel could establish a Christian church, with proper doctrine and practices. The final list of books the post Apostolic church accepted, are consistent. Their list was nothing new, it reflects a list from 125 AD, that lacked only three minor books, which had no bearing on doctrine or practice. The church deviated from the scriptures, the design, not the other way around.

 

[metis]

You confuse the Apostolic Church practices recorded in the Bible, with the later Church.

The "Apostolic Church" eventually was given the names "Christian Church" and "Catholic Church":
The first recorded application of "catholic" or "universal" to the church is by Ignatius of Antioch in about 107 in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapter VIII. "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian held to the view that the Christian Church was avisible entity, not an invisible body of believers... -- Christian Church - Wikipedia

The final list of books the post Apostolic church accepted, are consistent.

Because they are one and the same.

 

[shmogie]

The "Apostolic Church" eventually was given the names "Christian Church" and "Catholic Church":
The first recorded application of "catholic" or "universal" to the church is by Ignatius of Antioch in about 107 in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapter VIII. "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian held to the view that the Christian Church was avisible entity, not an invisible body of believers... -- Christian Church - Wikipedia


Because they are one and the same.

Protestants contend that the Apostolic Church was the Church of the Apostles. Whatever names adopted the post Apostolic church adopted are the names they adopted. The body of Christ is both visible and invisible, depending upon who is looking.