I keep getting sidetracked from my Sola Scriptura post so I will point you over to Ellen who is posting on Sola Scriptura on her site: Sola Scriptura - A History Lesson. She is using a booklet I believe by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey who also has an Article on Sola Scripura available online.
I am really feeling burdened to get myself better versed in the idea of Sola Scriptura and will be doing more study I hope over the next few months. I look forward to sharing what I learn here.
Michele has posted about a book she likes called The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith. Here is part of the description:
"This is the book to give to Christians who know in their heart of hearts that they ought to be involved in the business of defending the faith, but do not know how to proceed or have been scared off by the complex philosophical nature of apologetics. Oliphint demonstrates what we have really known all along: God intends for the regular Christian to do apologetics...Oliphint begins with an analogy between the Christian’s task of apologetics and the fight between David and Goliath. David fought a giant with whom he was utterly unprepared to deal, at least from a purely human vantage point. But David defeated Goliath because he knew that the battle belonged to the Lord."
That book sounds right up my alley (thanks, Michelle)!
Something funny happened today also. The man sitting next to my husband at church had a book with him called Scripture Alone" by Sproul. My husband elbowed me to take a look. There is just no hiding from this topic for me!
I made a lot of progress on my "packet" for my friend with verses to oppose some of the Marian doctrines in her church (which she can't seem to let go of). Now I just want to add a few clarifying verses about the importance of relying solely on Jesus - not sure the best verses to use for that without overwhelming her with information. I also picked up The Case for Christ for her and hope she reads it.
"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our Lord stands forever. Isaiah 40:8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian Women Blogging
Articles for Christian Women
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(93)
-
▼
July
(18)
- A Sign for My Friend?
- Sola Scriptura Prelude
- Circumstances Converge, Part 2
- Circumstances Converge, Part 1
- Is it from God?
- How to Increase Comment Counts
- Still on the Horizon...
- What I'm thinking about Today
- Response to Comments - Catholicism
- Christian Women Bloggers
- Extra-Biblical Teaching
- Where Acknowledging Ends and Disowning Begins
- Blogger Stinks, Take a Number
- Finding Christ
- I Changed My Template...
- Can Christian Women Not Debate?
- The True or False Test - What is the Key?
- Dialogue with a Catholic, Part 2
-
▼
July
(18)
Blog Roll
188 comments:
I just picked up "Scripture Alone" by James White - there's a lot of it going around.
;-)
Sounds like some good choices!
I was going to order that one also, Ellen.
I keep getting sidetracked from my Sola Scriptura post
Ellen's post is superb, as all of her stuff is, but if you feel called to do your own post, I want to encourage you.
I also picked up The Case for Christ for her
There is an author with similar credentials, another skeptical journalist, Weible, whose first book, Medjugorje, can be read in a few hours.
While the book never convinced me of the reality of the miracle treated, it is a finely-written book with a track of personal conversion to Christ that is inescapable.
Please consider giving your friend this "Catholic-friendly" book as well. In this unassuming book, she will meet Mary's divine Son.
Thanks Moonshadow, but I am trying to get my friend to move away from Catholicim and certainly away from any of the supposed "Mary Appearances".
Your friend needs to come to her own conclusions about her church affiliation just as you have. You are called to share the Gospel, to lead her to Christ, not necessarily to or from a church. You strive to deepen her relationship with Christ, then you trust that the rest takes care of itself. And don't think it all a failure if she remains in the Catholic Church.
As to the book suggestion, without giving a whole lesson in evangelization strategy, it's most effective to meet people where they are and speak their language. Strobel interviews some key people in his book but your friend is not likely to know of them or to be impressed. They don't speak her language and most of what they say will be lost on her.
If she fails to connect with Strobel, you have an ace in the hole with Weible. Make this "Plan B" if you wish. Your conversations with her have been frustrating, so I thought you might welcome some coolheaded recommendations from someone who shares her religious milieu as much as your desire that she know Christ Jesus the Lord.
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But a wise man is he who listens to counsel.
Proverbs 12:15
I appreciate your input Moonshadow, but I respectfully disagree. My friend has spent her whole life in the Catholic Church and yet does not understand the Gospel message. Neither did I after my upbringing in the Catholic Church. I have strong issues with the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church and can not in good conscience consider that faith as a “good backup”. I have a few older posts about my opinions in this matter so there is no reason to rehash here.
My conversations with my friend have not been frustrating, I’m not sure how you got that impression. My story of her in that one post was just a synopsis of our interactions, I know her and her beliefs better than it may seem. She is also a fellow scientist and has a logical lean as I do, so I think she will do very well with the Strobel book. There is more to it but I don’t care to elaborate at this point.
I’m not sure if by your Proverbs post you are calling me a fool or not. I am standing on the truth of God’s Word in this matter and taking His counsel from his Word alone. If that makes me a fool in some people’s eyes, I’m okay with that. If you still feel like I am wrong then I would ask you to pray that God would deal with me appropriately.
Carrie, I hope your friend can see through your faulty logic! Just because you and your sister didn't understand the Gospel message does not mean that other Catholics don't get it! That's an inductive reasoning fallacy.
Perhaps you should be more clear on what exactly what part of the Gospel message you don't feel she has "gotten?"
You both are definitely in my prayers!
Elena - I don't have sister. You must have me confused with someone else.
The logic you stated as faulty was not logic. Just sharing my personal experience.
I think that my opposition to the Catholic faith has been covered fairly well in my older posts and in the comments section. That is where the logic can be found.
I was referring to this:
"My friend has spent her whole life in the Catholic Church and yet does not understand the Gospel message. Neither did I after my upbringing in the Catholic Church"
Meaning of course your sister in Christ
I think you can see that your personal experience does equate to a universal truth . Just because YOU didn't get it doesn't mean the rest of millions of Catholics in the world don't get it.
YOu have indeed shared why oppose Catholicism. I would still be interested to hear what part of the "Gospel message" specifically you think everyone is missing.
Elena, if the woman does not understand the Gospel message, she is not saved and is not a "sister in Christ".
Maybe the part she doesn't get is "of Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone"
Growing up in the Roman church doesn't get you to heaven.
Neither does being a Calvinist.
You are absolutely right, Elena.
I don't believe that I ever said that being a "Calvinist" was the way to heaven.
Christ is.
Absolutely.
We agree on that one MAJOR point of Christ's Gospel message.
So why don't you BACK OFF a little bit huh?
Whoa, Elena - is it as hot where you are as it is where I am?
heat index of 104.
My point was that if Carrie knows this woman doesn't have Christ as her savior, growing up in the Roman church (as she DID) won't save her. Nor will any church - but she didn't grow up in "any church".
Ah, the sister thing did confuse me.
No, I would not consider her a sister in Christ since she doesn't know Jesus as her personal Savior. Sure, she knows his name and claimed be "believed" in him. But even the demons "believe" in Jesus. The difference comes in trusting Jesus as our Savior.
Sorry, I'm confused by your question to me. What part of the Gospel message is missing for my friend or everyone? What do you mean by everyone?
You seem edgy, Elena. Did I say something in particular to upset you?
Going back, maybe this is where I confused you, Elena.
When I say that I never heard the Gospel message in church and neither has my friend, I was pointing out that I do not want my friend to go back to a church that has not gotten through to her in her twenty-something years of life. That is a dead church in mind, no matter what the denomination.
But let's keep the discussion on facts and doctrines. The Catholic Church has problematic doctrines and I believe that is what contributes to the outward practical issues (liking being in the church your whole life and knowing almost zilch about God and his plan for salvation). What I share with you as my personal experiences are what I believe to be a symptom of a larger disease (bad doctrine).
Here's my simple viewpoint: Bad core doctrines = bad church. Friends don't let friends go to bad churches.
When I say that I never heard the Gospel message in church and neither has my friend, I was pointing out that I do not want my friend to go back to a church that has not gotten through to her in her twenty-something years of life. That is a dead church in mind, no matter what the denomination
Nonsense. Jesus didn't get through to everyone either during his time on earth. I hardly think you would consider his ministry to be a dead one!
Sometimes people just have to be at a point in their lives where they will be open to hearing, that's all.
I'm interested in your packet. I'm betting there will be certain parts of the scripture that will be conspicuous by their absence.
But let's keep the discussion on facts and doctrines. The Catholic Church has problematic doctrines and I believe that is what contributes to the outward practical issues (liking being in the church your whole life and knowing almost zilch about God and his plan for salvation). What I share with you as my personal experiences are what I believe to be a symptom of a larger disease (bad doctrine).
You're confusing bad doctrine with bad catechisis. BIG difference.
But let's keep the discussion on facts and doctrines. The Catholic Church has problematic doctrines and I believe that is what contributes to the outward practical issues (liking being in the church your whole life and knowing almost zilch about God and his plan for salvation). What I share with you as my personal experiences are what I believe to be a symptom of a larger disease (bad doctrine).
I'm interested in hearing what you consider bad Catholic doctrine and why you consider it so.
Ugh! You know, I would love to discuss Catholic doctrine and what I think is bad doctrine, but I don't think I want to turn this blog into what could be considered as "anti-Catholic".
Because that is what will happen. When we speak out against against another faith we become "anti" and I don't like the connotation that carries.
And really, thre are thousands of articles online that have all this information, what is the point of re-hashing it here. Perhaps if I thought there could be some valuable discussion I would consider it, but I don't believe anyone Catholic reading this blog is going to be swayed in the least.
Tell me, are either of you even interested in learning God's truth? Or are you so convinced that you are right that you'll just keep fighting the fight? If I could convince you that the Catholic Church had bad doctrine, would you leave? In your life are you trying to follow God or the Church?
I know what you are thinking and yes, I think I am right. I certainly may be wrong on a few minor points, but I stand on the truth of God's Word and nothing else. While I might apply one of his truths incorrectly, his truths are never wrong.
I seek to follow God and God alone. I seek his guidance in understanding all these things and I take my instructions from his Word and not from anyone else. Anything I have posted here against the Catholic Church is out of concern for those trapped in its grip. Not to feed my own ego or whatever other ill intent you may think I have. I just want to make that clear.
FYI Elena, everything that I believe to be bad doctrine I have taken out of the Catholic Catechism. I have a list of CCCs about Mary that I used for my friend and I pulled out some other paragraphs that I felt were wrong. As I told you before, I am not just reading other sources and regurgitating it. I am thinking for myself based on my own research.
As far as what I wrote up for my friend, I included every verse in the Bible that talks about Mary. I did not knowingly exclude anything, that is not how I work. If I were to try and trick people into my beliefs which I have absolutley no desire to do, it is almost guaranteed that their "faith" would be short-lived if they hadn't made their decisions based on truth.
Honestly Elena, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. If you are confident in your salvation (or as confident as you can be as a Catholic based on my understanding of your salvation doctrine) and you are convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true church, why do you care what I have to say?
Tell me, are either of you even interested in learning God's truth?
Oh, I am absolutely interested in learning God's truth. So when my sister left the Catholic Church for her local evangelical church, and started questioning me on why Catholics believed, this or why Catholics believed that... I started to STUDY. I went from being probably somewhat like your friend - cold to lukewarm in my faith at best to being absolutely conviced that the Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ himself. No one told me this. I became convinced by logical study AND because the apologetic responses I heard from Evangelical Christians fell far short of satisfactory explanations.
In your life are you trying to follow God or the Church?
In my mind they are one and the same. Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church.
I stand on the truth of God's Word and nothing else.
You stand on your own limited understanding of what the written word of God means to you, and nothing else.
I have posted here against the Catholic Church is out of concern for those trapped in its grip.
I'm not trapped. But as the apostle said to the Jesus, "Lord where else can I go." The fullness of faith certainly is not in the 30,000+ divisions of the Protestant denominations. The closest is probably the Orthodox, but as they reject the authority of the pope, (which is clearly unscriptural) the closest to the truth on this earth is the Catholic Church.
FYI Elena, everything that I believe to be bad doctrine I have taken out of the Catholic Catechism.
That's just what they are too. Your beliefs. They aren't necessarily based on anything factual or logical except for your interpretation.
I am thinking for myself based on my own research.
Which is amazing. 2000 years of church history, great thinkers and theologians, and yet you feel up for the job of distilling it all yourself. Amazing.
As far as what I wrote up for my friend, I included every verse in the Bible that talks about Mary. I did not knowingly exclude anything, that is not how I work. If I were to try and trick people into my beliefs which I have absolutley no desire to do, it is almost guaranteed that their "faith" would be short-lived if they hadn't made their decisions based on truth.
Then it shouldn't be a problem to withstand a little apologetic scrutiny. Why not post it?
Honestly Elena, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. If you are confident in your salvation (or as confident as you can be as a Catholic based on my understanding of your salvation doctrine) and you are convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true church, why do you care what I have to say?
I have a big problem with you gloating about leading another Catholic out of the church. I have a big problem with a lot of the other subtle, and not so subtle ways you continue to slam the Catholic church in just about everything you write. and the name of your blog is "Of Christian women." I fit into that category whether you agree with it or not.
Elena, what has happened is that we may have a new Christian.
Is that not cause for rejoicing? No matter what church she attends?
If she was baptized in the Catholic church, she already was a Christian. Perhaps a prodigal, but a member of God's family and a Christian nonetheless.
If she becomes another rabid anti-ex - Catholic, no. I hardly see that as a reason to rejoice.
Given the time, I could go down your list of objections (Pope, the priests, exaltation of Mary, praying to saints, “the one true church” idea) and argue them from a biblical perspective. I would also object to your comment that " they all get in the way of a sole reliance on Jesus." Quite the contrary, they point directly to Jesus. I could explain that too.
I don't want to take up your valuable comment space to do so, but rather just wanted to let you know it was possible! If you want to take me up on it let me know and I'll write something lengthier on my blog and send it to you
Elena, Carrie has made it clear that this is not an anti-catholic blog (or at least not yet). When are you going to defend your religion from a biblical perspective on your blog? I am very interested in reading it and, in addition, your blog is a more appropriate place for a defense of catholicism. Besides Mary worship, would you please also include how baptism, and not faith alone, is required for salvation, baptism of infants even though they cannot believe, and how the plan of salvation includes Muslims because they acknowledge the Creator.
If she was baptized in the Catholic church, she already was a Christian.
Elena, I cannot wait until you post on your blog about this: PLEASE, PLEASE explain how baptizing a baby, who only knows how to eat and defecate, makes them a life long christian. Please feel free to reference (bible, CCC).
And really, thre are thousands of articles online that have all this information, what is the point of re-hashing it here.
Harris Protocol maybe? If you make an accusation, you're expected to back it up?
There are huge quantities of misinformation out there, and I'm insterested in correcting it. Many times what people call Catholic doctrine is not Catholic doctrine at all, and is only what they were taught is Catholic doctrine.
If you say: "Catholic doctrine is wrong", I'm interested in determining that what is wrong is actually Catholic doctrine.
Perhaps if I thought there could be some valuable discussion I would consider it, but I don't believe anyone Catholic reading this blog is going to be swayed in the least.
Possibly not, but making accusations of "following wrong doctrine" against fellow believers is a serious matter, don't you think?
I know what you are thinking and yes, I think I am right. I certainly may be wrong on a few minor points, but I stand on the truth of God's Word and nothing else. While I might apply one of his truths incorrectly, his truths are never wrong.
But unless your Bible fell from heaven penned by the hand of God with a table of contents and footnotes, you, like me, have relied on men to determine what constitutes Scripture.
How do you know which books are "biblical" and which ones aren't?
Honestly Elena, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. If you are confident in your salvation (or as confident as you can be as a Catholic based on my understanding of your salvation doctrine) and you are convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true church, why do you care what I have to say?
I can only speak for myself when I say that I am concerned not only for my salvation, but for yours and everyone else's. My truest wish is that all of us meet in heaven after our exile here is through.
So any statements that might lead someone away from salvation, have to be countered, if they are wrong. People's souls depend on it.
Tony, I believe that Carrie will get around to it, just in her own time.
It is her blog, it would be fair if you were to allow her to post in her own timing.
PLEASE, PLEASE explain how baptizing a baby, who only knows how to eat and defecate, makes them a life long christian. Please feel free to reference (bible, CCC).
1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.
--
83 Cf. Rom 8:29; Council of Trent (1547): DS 1609-1619.
Ellen, I am a guest in Carrie's comment boxes. She can take all the time she'd like, choose not to answer me at all, or ask me to leave.
I think identifying the actual, fundamental questions of our faith is more important, many times, than the actual answers, wouldn't you agree?
Tony, only if you are open to answers.
Thanks Tony for commenting on baptism. Do you concur Elena?
I noticed that you gave a CCC reference.
Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.
How does this work in a baby? What is the biblical evidence that baptism seals us?
Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.
How does this statement compare to Romans 8:29.
For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This section of Paul's letter to the Romans talks about our victory in Christ and leads to very encouraging statements like
If God be for us, who can be against us? (verse 31)
and
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (verses 38 and 39)
Again, how does Romans 8:29 support CCC83? They are completely unrelated.
OK. Back to infant baptism. There are no examples in the bible of infant baptism. In the book of Acts, only those who placed their trust in Christ were baptized. Can a baby put his trust in Jesus? Are you saying that because a baby is baptized, regardless of what he does the rest of there life, he is a Christian?
But unless your Bible fell from heaven penned by the hand of God with a table of contents and footnotes, you, like me, have relied on men to determine what constitutes Scripture.
This is obviously a catholic talking point for I have seen this almost exact quote from another catholic on this blog. This point has been discussed in other posts (Check out Extra-Biblical Teaching and Response to Comments - Catholicism)
From Catholic Answers site:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
This is obviously a catholic talking point for I have seen this almost exact quote from another catholic on this blog. This point has been discussed in other posts (Check out Extra-Biblical Teaching and Response to Comments - Catholicism)
I use this, it's one of my favorites - actually it was never "discussed." Rather glossed over.
Elena, although it doesn't say it in the case of Lydia (Acts 16:15), for the Jailer it says in Acts 16:34:
And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.
The jailer's whole household believed. That is why they were baptized. Is it catholic tradition that states that infants will be baptized? You certainly have no examples in the bible.
You stated above that you study logically, yet you sure make a lot of assumptions:
...they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control.
Try to interpret (although it is contrary to CCC teachings for you to do so on your own) at face value, i.e. without the assumptions.
Long before the Greek councils formalized the Canon, the church fathers were quoting it authoritatively. Peter cited Paul's letters as "Scripture". The early church fathers refer to New Testament writings as "Scripture"
The church does not give us Scripture, it is God-breathed. The church receives it.
I believe that the Scripture was Scripture the moment that God breathed it.
If the "church" is what made Scripture Scripture, why not drop the "yeah, well..." stance and use it authoritatively, the way the early fathers did?
phd4jesus,
Just a note, there are many Reformed and Protestant denominations that baptize infants.
Elena, those churches that baptize infants are as wrong as the CC. The Churh of Christ states that baptism is required for salvation. They too are as wrong as the CC. Just because other denominations do it doesn't make it correct.
Just a note, there are many Reformed and Protestant denominations that baptize infants.
But do they believe that infant baptism makes them a Christian?
Sorry guys, I actually have a day job and am just popping in. I will respond later when I have time.
Carrie, the Christian Reformed Church does not teach that baptism saves; it is the sign of the New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant.
If we had lived in the Old Testament period, we would have applied the sign of the covenant to infants.
We apply the sign of the covenant to infants, as Abraham applied the sign of the covenant to both of his sons. The sign does not save - Ishmael had the sign of the covenant applied to him.
Sorry. I would like to correct to things:
1. Elena, sorry for being sarcastic ((although it is contrary to CCC teachings for you to do so on your own)). It was uncalled for and I hope you forgive me.
2. The comment about those churches that baptize infants are wrong was meant for Ellen. It is just habit to type Elena...Sorry!
phd4jesus said...
Tony said... "But unless your Bible fell from heaven penned by the hand of God with a table of contents and footnotes, you, like me, have relied on men to determine what constitutes Scripture."
This is obviously a catholic talking point for I have seen this almost exact quote from another catholic on this blog. This point has been discussed in other posts (Check out Extra-Biblical Teaching and Response to Comments - Catholicism)
No, not a Catholic (big C, little c refers to the entire Body of Christ separated and not) "talking point", it is a foundational question that needs to be addressed.
Before we can discuss anything from a Biblical perspective, we need to understand where the scripture came from, and why we believe it's true. This ties very intimately with the subject of this particular blog entry which is "Sola Scriptura".
If the Bible was not delivered by the hand of God into yours, there is question on who decided your Canon. In other words, which books are the inerrant word of God, and which ones are merely commentary, or downright lies (as in the case of many of the Gnostic "gospels").
I can tell you who decided my Canon, and I can tell you the Council at which it was decided. What this ultimately means is that before I believe that the Bible is the word of God, I have to first and foremost believe that those who chose my Canon were indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit.
What men chose your Canon, and why do you believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit?
--
PS: I'm not ignoring the rest of your points, but unless we verify the source of the Scripture you quote, backing up faith using Scripture makes no sense.
Tony, from the very beginning the writings of the apostles were quoted as authoritative by the church fathers.
The church received Scripture, she didn't decide on Scripture.
Scripture is God-breathed and it was Scripture from the moment it was breathed.
Tony, are you saying that Scripture cannot be trusted?
Ellen said...
Long before the Greek councils formalized the Canon, the church fathers were quoting it authoritatively. Peter cited Paul's letters as "Scripture". The early church fathers refer to New Testament writings as "Scripture"
The church does not give us Scripture, it is God-breathed. The church receives it.
I believe that the Scripture was Scripture the moment that God breathed it.
If the "church" is what made Scripture Scripture, why not drop the "yeah, well..." stance and use it authoritatively, the way the early fathers did?
The Church didn't make Scripture Scripture, the Church validated, with the help of the Holy Spirit what exactly it was that constituted Scripture. They would have do that, or I could create my own Bible, call it Scripture and begin to teach from it.
But you're getting there. You seem to believe that the "Church Fathers" quoted Scrupture correctly. This seems to mean to me that you believe the "Church Fathers" got it right.
Now all you need to do is clarify who you believe the "Church Fathers" were.
My other question was: are you saying that Scripture cannot be trusted?
Ellen said...
Tony, are you saying that Scripture cannot be trusted?
Absolutely not. I am 100% certain that every word in my Bible is the inerrant word of God.
I also make sure that before I crack open that Bible, I look for the word "Imprimatur"
This tells me that the Bible I'm reading has been verified as the word of God by those men I trust to determine that.
Then your red herring should be dropped.
Tony, as I stated in another post on this blog, all but 11 verses of the New Testament were in use in the church by 125 AD. Paul's letters have been found all over Asia minor. Ellen, you nailed it when you said: The Church didn't make Scripture Scripture, the Church validated, with the help of the Holy Spirit what exactly it was that constituted Scripture.
I also agree with your interpretation Ellen that has led you to question Tony about his position of the trust-worthiness of the Scripture.
Tony, is Scripture trustworthy?
phd4jesus said...
Ellen, you nailed it when you said: The Church didn't make Scripture Scripture, the Church validated, with the help of the Holy Spirit what exactly it was that constituted Scripture.
Actually, I said that. Also above I said: "Absolutely not. I am 100% certain that every word in my Bible is the inerrant word of God." So I guess my answer to your question do I consider Scripture trustworthy is a resounding Amen.
I consider Scripture trustworthy because I believe that those men who chose my Canon were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.
I'm going to ask again:
What men chose your Canon, and why do you believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Then your red herring should be dropped.
What red herring might that be, Ellen?
If you're reffering to my question:
"What men decided your Canon, and why do you believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
Then it is not in any sense of the word a "red herring". It is not an irrelevant argument or a distraction. It is a fundamental question that whether you like it or not, you are going to have to answer before you can trust your Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
The only other alternative is that you really don't care what men chose your Canon, or whether or not they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.
Your choice.
Let's start from the beginning, Tony - you're sort of starting from the middle.
Can we agree that there are two sides to the Canon?
Canon(1) as the original God-breathed revelation
Canon(2) as our understanding/recording of it.
The red herring is that we both agree that Scripture is authorative.
If we want to do a step-by-step process of Sola Scriptura (or not) let's at least start from the beginning
Act 16: 14-15One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, 5 listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying.
15
After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation,
Acts 16:33:
33
He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once.
You stated above that you study logically, yet you sure make a lot of assumptions:
My household includes my 13-month old daughter. I can't imagine NOT considering her part of the household can you? I don't think it's a stretch to consider children and infants part of the household. Note that they did not specifically say that such individuals were deliberately excluded.
Try to interpret (although it is contrary to CCC teachings for you to do so on your own) at face value, i.e. without the assumptions.
Face value, the term "household" includes the children and babies.
Elena, those churches that baptize infants are as wrong as the CC.
Behold the broken body of Christ.
But you are assuming, Elena, that those household had children and babies. There is nothing to support that claim. You are speculating only.
Also, you completely ignored Acts 16:34 that the whole household believed and where baptized supporting the obvious notion that baptism comes after accepting Christ as your Savior.
It comes down to this. The CC position on infant baptism, if it is reflective of your argument, is based on speculation. Baptism after acceptance of Christ as Savior is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures. Which do you think makes better grounds for doctrine?
Let's start from the beginning, Tony - you're sort of starting from the middle.
Actually it's at the very beginning. Before you crack open your Bible, you have to be able to answer the question.
"Why do you believe the Bible you hold in your hand is the Word of God?" Because it says: "Holy Bible" on the cover? I can produce a book that says "Holy Bible" on the cover.
I know my Bible is the inerrant Word of God because I believe the guys who told me so.
Who told you so?
You trust the Roman Catholic church because the Roman Catholic church says taht you can trust the Roman Catholic church.
Do you think we can start with God, rather than the Roman Catholic church?
Here's a question (from the begining).
Who told the Jews what to include in their Scriptures?
But you are assuming, Elena, that those household had children and babies. There is nothing to support that claim. You are speculating only.
Well why wouldn't they? The bible is pretty clear when someone has been barren or sterile. These verses don't even hint at that.
Also, you completely ignored Acts 16:34 that the whole household believed and where baptized supporting the obvious notion that baptism comes after accepting Christ as your Savior.
It comes down to this. The CC position on infant baptism, if it is reflective of your argument, is based on speculation.
Hardly. It's based on scripture. I'd say you're the one speculating that "household" means "without children."
So does every household in your city have children it?
The fact is that in the bible there is no demonstation that baptism was performed in the absence of belief.
Coming from a different direction. For many, many years, Jews applied the sign of the covenant to their babies. This is the way that God told them the sign of the covenant was to be applied.
As the Jews well knew, Gentiles who converted to Judaism were circumised as adults, so adult baptism would merely have meant an adult conversion.
Imagine how Jewish-Christians would have felt upon being told that (after hundrends of years of obeying God by applying the sign of the covenant to their children) that the sign of this covenant (the promise to you and your children) could not be applied.
This would have been a massive shift in attitude toward the children of covental believers, yet the Bible never mentions this shift.
When does the Bible tell us to stop applying the sign of the covenant to children?
(For Protestants who baptize infants, this is not a point on which to "strain at gnats". I'm presenting this for information, not to change your mind. My entire family is opposed to infant baptism...)
So does every household in your city have children it?
I would imagine that many of the households consist of just a man and woman who are merely living together. I'll bet that's true in your town as well. So do we assume then that the households in Acts consisted of unmarried consenting adults?
I’m trying to follow along here and there so forgive me if I have missed something.
Certainly baptizing your infant can’t hurt anything. If you feel it is a covenant sign then I guess that is fine as long as it is symbolic.
But if I am understanding the CCC right and what Elena said, it sounds like baptism in the CC makes a person a Christian.
Is that correct?
And from what Ellen says, Protestants who baptize infants are not conferring the same idea (that baptism makes you a Christian), correct?
If I have that right from both sides, who is right? Does baptism make you a Christian or is it just symbolic?
The household argument is getting silly. None of us knows what household does or doesn’t mean for those particular people, so let’s not base our beliefs on a “could be”.
Do we have any bible verses that say an infant was baptized and what exactly that meant?
No Elena! I'm actually making no assumptions. That is my point! In the case of Lydia, her household could have consisted of her, her husband, perhaps in-laws, parents, teenage kids, slaves, etc. You don't know. Similarly, you could make the same argument for Stephanas. No information was given.
The jailer, and the 3000 (Acts 2:41), Simon (Acts 8:13), the eunuch (Acts 8:34-39), Paul (Acts 9:18), the gentiles in Acts 10:45-48, Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household and many of the Corinthians (Acts 18:8) all were baptized after belief.
There is no speculation here, just hot biblical truth.
Carrie, what we do have is a connection Circumcision and baptism (Colossians 2).
Here is a series of questions
1. When a person believed the God of Abraham and trusted Him in the Old Testament, what happened?
2. What was the outward event that represented the clean heart in the Old Testament?
3. What was the outward sign that marked a person's entrance into the community of believers in the Old Testament?
Now, ask those same questions, substituting "New Testament".
Another set:
1. If you had lived in the Old Testament period, would you have applied the sign of salvation, circumcision, to your child?
2. If God would have us cease to apply the sign of salvation to our children (after hundreds of years), why did He not plainly command us in the New Testament to change the from the Old Testament pattern and to stop giving the sign of the covenant to our children?
You trust the Roman Catholic church because the Roman Catholic church says taht you can trust the Roman Catholic church.
Do you think we can start with God, rather than the Roman Catholic church?
From what I've been discussing with you, I've come to the conclusion that you believe what the Bible says because it's the Bible.
But what makes it a Bible? Is it the words "Holy Bible" on the rich Corinthian leather cover? If so, I could produce a book that said "Holy Bible" on it, and present it to you as the Word of God.
What we both need to do is identify why we believe this particular book is the Word of God. I'm telling you that I believe my Bible is the Word of God because I trust the men who chose my Canon.
Now I'm asking you. What men chose the Canon of your Bible and why do you believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Until you answer that question, I believe I'm going to drop out of this discussion. I understand if it's uncomfortable for you to answer.
Ellen - but does baptizing an infant make tha infant "a Christian". Is that child saved now saved without faith?
I don't want to confuse people here. Are you agreeing with the CCCs view on baptism of infants?
Tony, what does it matter if we both agree that the Bible as it exists today is the infallible Word of God? You seem to be trying to set a trap and no one is taking the bait.
No Elena! I'm actually making no assumptions. That is my point! In the case of Lydia, her household could have consisted of her, her husband, perhaps in-laws, parents, teenage kids, slaves, etc. You don't know. Similarly, you could make the same argument for Stephanas. No information was given.
Well let's look at what we do know. We know that in biblical times a household did not mean nuclear family as we know it. In fact it usually consisted of partiarch, matriarch, probably married children, perhaps servants and their families. If you want to assume that all of those adults were barren and had no children running around - fine. But the bible never mentions that they are barren or sterile, something that it tends to do through various books without hesitation.
And this isn't my own interpretation by the way. I have seen bilbical scholars, such as Professor Scott Hahn use this explanation. If a trained scholar would find the term "household" to include children, why should you have a problem with it? Answer: Probably because it doesn't mesh with your personal beliefs.
Interestingly I totally agree with Ellen and the connection with the old testament view and its connection with baptism.
It may interest you to know that when Protestants convert to Catholicism, if they have been baptised in their previous denomination, they are not rebaptized in the Catholic Church. The Catholic church recognizes the baptism in other Christian traditions as valid and sacramental.
Is that child saved now saved without faith?
You may recall that the Catholic church doesn't look at Baptism as a one-stop express to heaven. Perhaps you recall that Catholics believe in the dotrine of free will and that it is very possible to lose your salvation if, as St. Paul says, we do not persevere to the end.
BTW, I hate this word verification thing. it's adding more and more letters and it takes two or three times to get it. A couple of times I just threw my hands up and said it's not worth it. You might be missing other comments for that reason as well.
Elena, can you please explain how Baptism makes someone a Christian.
Carrie said...
Tony, what does it matter if we both agree that the Bible as it exists today is the infallible Word of God? You seem to be trying to set a trap and no one is taking the bait.
I don't know why you consider it "bait". If we are to use God's word to support anything we say as a Christian, doesn't it behoove us to determine why we believe it's the word of God?
Every time I have a discussion with a Sola Scriptura Christian, they are constantly entreating me to "prove it Biblically", or "where in Scripture does it say that?"
I'm more concerned, before we get into the discussion, determining what is Scripture, who determined it is Scripture, and why we believe it's Scripture.
So am I correct in believing that you really don't care who chose your Canon, or if they were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or is it that you never really thought about it.
This is your blog, you can discuss what you want. If you really don't want to talk about this, that's fine.
However, no discussions regarding what is "Scriptural" can go forward until we can determine "what is Scripture".
No, Tony, you first...I asked you to go back to the beginning, which for you means the church, for me that means the Old Testament.
I'm assuming that the Bishop of Rome, didn't tell Moses what to put into the Law?
Who told the Jews what books to put into the Old Testament?
Carrie, it's a game. Tony wants us to accept the authority of Rome (the head of the Roman Catholic church). Once we accept that Roman Catholics "gave" us our Bible, he feels that he's one step closer to getting us under the authority of Rome. And make no mistake, that is the goal.
All of the Roman Catholic Church's talk of "unity" is worth so much toilet paper unless you get that unity means "under the rule of Rome".
As far a baptism: if we again compare the signs of the covenants, we easily see that the sign of the coveanant in the Old Testament did not save (Abraham had two sons and both of them were circumsised). It's the same with the New Covenant. Baptism does not save - grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone saves.
Elena, I just keep hitting the button and getting a new test until I get one I can read without my reading glasses.
Elena. You can go by what a Catholic theologian says. I'll go by what the bible says.
Tony, why don't you just save everyone time and get to the point.
However, no discussions regarding what is "Scriptural" can go forward until we can determine "what is Scripture".
Scripture is God's Word. You're not asking about the nature of Scripture. You're trying to get us to buy into the authority of Rome by questioning the scope of Scripture.
A long time ago, in a question that you totally ignored in an effort to bypass God in order to place the glory on the church...I asked:
Can we agree that there are two "facets" of Scripture:
the Canon(1) the original God-breathed Word and
the Canon(2) man's understanding of it?
That was a question asked long ago and until you answer the two that I just asked, I'll leave it to CARRIE to decide what discussions go on here.
Once we accept that Roman Catholics "gave" us our Bible, he feels that he's one step closer to getting us under the authority of Rome. And make no mistake, that is the goal.
Ellen, I'm simply trying to determine which men determined your Canon. If it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church, kindly tell me who it was.
Tony, answer my questions, please.
I'm not uninformed as to the tactic.
So answer my questions and we can get on with it.
Elena. You can go by what a Catholic theologian says. I'll go by what the bible says.
Well then considering the biblical view of household and family was very clannish and multigenerational, and given the fact that children were considered of great importance, you should be more apt to consider that children and babies were indeed part of these households and then were indeed baptized. To do otherwise is just disingenuous on your part.
Okay Elena, regardless of whether infants were part of those households, HOW DOES BAPTISING AN INFANT MAKE THE INFANT A CHRISTIAN?
I think Ellen you can just admit that the Catholic church settled the code of the bible. That's jsut historical. Even Martin Luther admitted this. Doesn't mean you have to convert - but let's just admit the historical fact. Also the old testament Septuagint was the accepted old testament for 1500 years before LUther decided to take it out. That too is historical fact.
The short answer carrie, is that Baptism is a part of initiation, much like circumcision made Jewish little boys, Jewish.
Thanks Ellen for the confirmation on Baptism by Protestants not saving. I don't want that point to be confused.
As far as the canon, I would prefer to start with Ellens' point as all I care about is how God saw to it that his WORD became packaged in a nice leather bound book for us. Whether he used the RCC or bozo the clown, I don't care. I believe he made sure we had the right canon USING men.
Elena, you have no biblical proof of infant baptism. Your two examples are just hand-waving. I've given you six concrete examples of baptism after belief.
But being Jewish did not save them.
To me, the term Christian means follower of Christ. That means you accept Christ as your Savior, are saved by his sacrifice on the cross, and follow his will. An infant can not do that.
Ellen said...
A long time ago, in a question that you totally ignored in an effort to bypass God in order to place the glory on the church...I asked:
You really need to stop doing that. Nowhere did I say I wanted to bypass God. God was critical in the selection of our Canon starting with the Apostles at Pentacost.
If God determined your Canon, please tell me where and when He did it.
Carrie, he gave you the right canon using the men of the Catholic Church. And of course you should care. If bozo the clown gave it to you how authoritative would it be? Did Jesus tell Bozo what was bound on earth would be bound on heaven? I doubt it!
God set up the channels with which to produce his canon, and those channels travelled right through the Roman Catholic Church. If you accept that, particularly the New Testament, then you are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church which said these books were inspired and closed the canon.
But being Jewish did not save them.
Being baptized won't necessarily save one either!
"To me, the term Christian means follower of Christ"
When parents and godparents baptize a baby, they are promising to raise the child to be a follower of CHrist, just as the Jewish family promisted to raise their children in the Jewish faith.
Actually, Martin Luther doubted the inspiration of the Book of James.
Martin Luther is not the one that "took out" the Apocrypha. Even the Jews were divided on that one - the Hellenized Jews in Alexandria included it, the Palistinian Jews (Hebrews) did not. So your "historical fact" isn't.
I think it's closer to say that the Greek Orthodox church gave us the Bible, since both of the councils in question actually were in the part of the world that now falls under the Orthodox Church.
History is not on the Roman Catholic side - my latest history class spent WEEKS on the Constantinople vs. Rome issue.
Tony, it is clear that this is a game. Once again you have ignored my questions.
If you don't want to play, just let me know.
Council of Trent: SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).
Again, I don't know church history that well but I am sure the Roman Catholic Churchin 397AD was not what it is today. Were they allowing people to pay for indulgences then, or was that not until Luther's time? Was tradition given equal status at the canon at that time or did that come later.
And if you want to grant the RCC some special place for making a final determination of the canon (even though it was obvious before that time what was canon) then I would have to ask you, why does the RCC not follow the Bible today?
Roman Catholic Catechism, Paragraph 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.[50] The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.[51]
So are infants saved by baptism or not? Tony or Elena? Yes or No?
Martin Luther is not the one that "took out" the Apocrypha. Even the Jews were divided on that one - the Hellenized Jews in Alexandria included it, the Palistinian Jews (Hebrews) did not. So your "historical fact" isn't.
Not at all. The Jews were divided because they did not want ot accept the spread of that new religion - Christianity. The ones that rejected the Septuagint were the ones most adamant about only the books in Hebrew with no other influences. However, the early Christians did accept the Septuagint books,and it stayed that way util 500 years ago, when Luther took them out of his version of the bible.
Jesus defined the Old Testament as the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.
Your history differs from mine - the fact, as you stated, but in your own terms, is that some Jews accepted the apocryphal writings and other did not.
- Jesus referred to the Scriptures as "the Law, The Prophets and the Psalms".
- Jesus never quoted from the apocryphal writings
- by the time of Christ (before Christ) All Jews accepted the five books of Moses. But they debated others, such as the book of Esther and Ecclesiasters, which are in our Old Testament.
Elena, who told the Jews which books to include in the Old Testament?
Your history differs from mine - the fact, as you stated, but in your own terms, is that some Jews accepted the apocryphal writings and other did not.
No, we actually agree on that. The Jews who were adamantly against Christianity wanted only the scriptures that were in the Hebrew and not translated into the Greek.
- Jesus never quoted from the apocryphal writings
Actually there are numerous references to the Deuterocanonical books in the new testament. Here is a site chock full of them!
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
Can I get an answer please:
So are infants saved by baptism or not? Tony or Elena? Yes or No?
Elena, who told the Jews which books to include in the Old Testament?
Outside of the Pentateuch, the Jews were divided on the Deuterocanonical books. However, the early Christians referred to them and they were accepted until the Reformation, when Martin Luther denied them.
History is not on the Roman Catholic side
It absolutely is. The history of Christianity starts with the Roman Catholic Church.
I'll try again:
Can I get an answer please:
So are infants saved by baptism or not? Tony or Elena? Yes or No?
So are infants saved by baptism or not? Tony or Elena? Yes or No?
This was a very important question to me as I am the mother of a baby that was stillborn (fetal demise in utero at 23 weeks) who did not have the opportunity to be baptized. This is also a theological question that scholars and theologians pondered through the centuries and which the theory of limbo was attempting to explain. However, the mercy of God is also a very strong teaching in the Catholic church. I finally came to peace with this by realizing that although my baby, through now fault of his own, could not be baptized, I can place my hope in the mercy of God that he will be in heaven. My next task is to get there myself and bring my family with me!
why does the RCC not follow the Bible today?
Were you ever awake during religion class? We do follow the Bible today. We do not follow YOUR interpretation. Huge difference.
The history of Christianity starts with the Roman Catholic Church.
At least the part that they wrote. History written outside of Rome tells a different story, but that's the way that it is with Rome.
Carrie, as for your question, that is as close as your going to get. They cannot give you an answer because Roman Catholics have no (zero) assurance.
Cardinal John O'Connor of New York said, "Church teaching is that I don't know, at any given moment, what my eternal future will be. I can hope, pray, do my best - but I still don't know. Pope John Paul II doesn't know absolutely that he will go to heaven nor does Mother Teresa of Calcutta
1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
Were you ever awake during religion class? We do follow the Bible today.
'In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.' - Council of Trent
1 Peter 3:18a For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.
'An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, Catechism
Colossians 1:14
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods. Catechism
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast.
Romans 11:21
For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.
22
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
So, Elena - who TOLD the Jews which books to include in the Old Testament?
Matthew 7:
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
Elena, I am very sorry that you lost your child. That must have been very, very difficult. I don't think I agree with you on the baptism/salvation of infants but I trust in a Holy and Just God who has a plan for all, including your lost child.
I still didn't get a yes or no answer so I'm guessing the answer is maybe? I'm not trying to be difficult with that point, I just don't understand how to interpret that particular catechism.
But since you did not say yes then I still don't understand why you think that an infant who is baptised is a Christian.
If your salvation is a work in progress and you really never know if you are saved or not as a Catholic, then how can you consider any Catholic a Christian? Certainly a Catholic whose lost their salvation along the way and is now in hell wouldn't be considered a Christian? Or do you think some Christians may end up in hell?
I know you think I have some personal vendetta against the Catholic Church, but I really don't. Some of the core doctrines are not only unbiblical in my view but I just can't understand the logic? Why would God have sent his son to die for us so that our salvation status could be a maybe? That just seems like a cruel joke.
Matt 7:21
Are you sure you are doing the will of the Father and not the will of man?
Elena, context...
It is clear that Paul is not writing to individuals, but to the Gentiles as a group and Jews as a group. (look for CONTEXT in v. 17)
Because of Israel's hard heart, salvation was offered to the Gentiles.
As we say, context, context, context.
CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," [Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. [1250]
Can you answer some of my questions, Elena:
If your salvation is a work in progress and you really never know if you are saved or not as a Catholic, then how can you consider any Catholic a Christian? Certainly a Catholic whose lost their salvation along the way and is now in hell wouldn't be considered a Christian? Or do you think some Christians may end up in hell?
If your salvation is a work in progress and you really never know if you are saved or not as a Catholic, then how can you consider any Catholic a Christian?
Well why not? Catholics are followers of Jesus Christ, i.e. Christians.
Certainly a Catholic whose lost their salvation along the way and is now in hell wouldn't be considered a Christian?
Not a very good one apparently.
Or do you think some Christians may end up in hell?
I definitely think some end up in hell.
Now I think I know why you and I struggle in who we label as Christians. I don't believe a Christian can go to hell. If they did, then they were not a Christian in the first place.
Second, way back when (in another post) when I said I couldn't understand how someone could be saved and in the Catholic Church, I was right. No one is officially saved in the Catholic Church until they die.
Salvation is by faith alone. That is a core doctrine of the Christian faith that the RCC denies.
There you go. Sorry it took me so long to get there, but that would be what I consider bad or false doctrine. There are others, but that one is the biggie - it is the heart of the gospel message.
AMEN Carrie!!!
Eek, can I go back to the OT canon discussion?
It's much more complicated that anyone has yet presented, not nearly tidy enough to suit our respective arguments. Let me just give a hint of what we're up against and recommend the books that I cite for further study:
This is from F. F. Bruce's book, The Canon of Scripture, a familiar book, I'm sure. From the bottom of page 90:
"Athanasius had distinguished three categories of books: canonical, edifying (but not canonical) and apocryphal. The 'edifying' books (the Wisdom of Solomon and of Ben Sira, Esther, Judith and Tobit, with the Didache and the Shepherd from the New Testament age) might be read in church; the 'apocryphal' books were to be avoided altogether. This threefold distinction was maintained, among the Latin fathers, by Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345 - 410), who referred to the second category as 'ecclesiastical' books."
Then, this quote from Jerome: "Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes [Sirach and Wisdom] for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
Raymond Brown, in his article on Canonicity (New Jerome Biblical Commentary), reiterates the above distinction between canonical and ecclesiastical books.
"Doubts about the deuterocanonical books keep recurring in the history of the church among those who are aware of the Jewish canon. At the time of Trent, there were insufficient historical tools to reconstruct the real picture of the canon in the 1st century. Yet, curiously, Trent by accepting a wider canon seems to have preserved an authentic memory of the days of Christian origins, whereas other Christian groups in a professed attempt to return to primitive Christianity have settled for a narrower Jewish canon that, if Protestant researchers like Sundberg are correct, was the creation of a later period. The Tridentine fathers did not determine the canon on the basis of purely historical reconstruction but on a theological basis: the consistent church usage of certain books." [Brown lists early and ongoing resistance to the universal acceptance of Jerome's Vulgate and Trent's ultimate insistence upon its use] Then, "Not one of these difficulties impairs the binding force of the Tridentine decree, but perhaps they illuminate the difficulties often voiced by non-Catholics."
I haven't read all of Moonshadow's comment yet but this is what I found on Bruce, one of the author's that she cites:
F.F. (FREDERICK FYVIE) BRUCE (1910-1990) was an influential textual scholar who denied the eternal fire of the biblical Hell and promoted the damnable annihilation theory of judgment. Bruce claimed that Paul's writings restricting women from the leadership positions in the churches was "merely a statement of practice for a particular time." A popular commentary series edited by F.F. Bruce and William Barclay (Abingdon Press) is full of modernistic thought and historical-critical mumbo-jumbo. In the volume dealing with Daniel and Revelation, the book of Daniel is said to have been written AFTER the fulfillment of the events prophesied therein. In the same volume we are told that we cannot know who authored the book of Daniel (though Jesus Christ said Daniel wrote it). The volume on 1 and 2 Timothy claims that an unknown author wrote these letters in Paul's name. The volume on Isaiah claims there were three authors of Isaiah. The Lord Jesus Christ quoted from both major portions of Isaiah and attributed the book to the ONE historical prophet, but the commentary series edited by Bruce and Barclay make Christ a liar by claiming there were three Isaiahs!
What a nut. Not someone I would use as an expert.
Salvation is by faith alone. That is a core doctrine of the Christian faith that the RCC denies.
Carrie, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura are the two pillars of the Protestant Reformation. The other two branches of Christianity, The Catholics and the Orthodox don't hold to them
As such then they are only 500 or so years old. So they aren't "core doctrines." In fact, on the church history timeline, they're relative late comers.
Martin Luther had a big problem with the state of his salvation. He suffered from manic depression. This is what lead him to develop the idea of faith alone. This is also what lead him to take out the parts of the old testament that bothered him. He also wanted to add the word "alone" to the bible, and also why he had a big problem with the book of James. This is all just history.
It's much more complicated that anyone has yet presented, not nearly tidy enough to suit our respective arguments.
LOL! Only so much I can do in a com box with a squiggly almost-toddler in one arm, and kids and dogs in wet swimming suits tramping through the house making lots of noise and demanding to be fed throughout the day!
But thanks for the added info. If you have links, I'd love to read them and add them to my link collection as well!
What a nut. Not someone I would use as an expert.
poisoning the well logical fallacy.
poisoning the well logical fallacy.
It goes to the credibilitiy of the expert. Principally, you did the same with Bozo: If bozo the clown gave it to you how authoritative would it be?
poisoning the well logical fallacy.
It goes to the credibilitiy of the expert.
Hardly. It just gives the highly prejudicial opinion of your source for that opinion.
Principally, you did the same with Bozo: If bozo the clown gave it to you how authoritative would it be?
Not the same at all. I didn't say anything inflammatory about Bozo. Recheck my comment and there was no ad hominem against the dear clown at all! Whether he is authorittive is another matter.
Your source however deliberately gives ad hominems against Mr. Bruce in an attempt to discredit him. You further it with the ad hominen (another logical fallacy), "what a nut."
The use of logical fallacies weaken your position.
Sola fide is biblical. That makes it a core doctrine.
You seem to pass off good biblical doctrine by chalking it up to those crazy Protestants during the Reformation. I'm not surprised if Luther was really manic depressive, being stuck in a Church system that tells you you can never be sure of your salvation status. I would be depressed, too.
I'll have to do a separate post on sole fide. This is very sad.
There are no ad hominems against Mr. Bruce. It is not opinion that the statements are made. Check his writings.
You shouldn't take it so hard bout Luther's medical condition. You can check out the Bipolar web sites and they list a lot of creative famouse people with the disorder.
Nonetheless, that is the history of it.
As for being biblical, sole Fide is not scriptural. Neither is sola scriptura.
historical-critical mumbo-jumbo.
Sounds like an ad hominen fallacy attack to me.
Sola fide is biblical. That makes it a core doctrine.
It might be when you clip out certain books of the Bible that you find inconvenient.
This is the main reason I'm trying to determine what men decided on your Canon.
What if I were a member of a Christian denomination who believed that only the letters of Paul were biblical, none of the other Gospels were the word of God?
What if I told you to prove your doctrine based on my Bible? Do you believe you could do it?
What if you tried to disprove my doctrine based on books of the Bible I didn't accept?
See where the problem lies?
Some Scripture to support Sola Fide.
Luke 23:43; John 5:24; Acts 16:31; the letters to the Romans and Hebrews, Gal 2:16, 3:22-25, 5:5-7; Phil 3:9
When Jesus healed, He frequently said, "Your faith has made you well" (Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34; 10:52; Luke 8:48; 17:19; 18:42)
One of my most favorite verses:
Eph 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
That is why we say by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone. That is why I know I am saved. That is why Christianity cannot be compared to the world's religions. The world religion's (including Roman Catholicism) leaves you hang...maybe I am, maybe I'm not saved. What a tragic position to be in.
IJohn 5:13: I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Elena, please show me how sola fide is not a biblical truth.
Also, I appreciate your difficulties with your kids. This is the second time I wrote this comment up. The fist time, I was on my last line when my 15 month-old turned the computer off (of course, he was trying to help me type before that happened).
Please Tony, don't keep us hanging. (i) What are the books of the bible that are not included that should be, and (ii) what doctrines would they disprove and prove?
Tony, you seem to want to play games instead of perhaps teaching us something or, at the very least, giving us food for thought.
This will be in a couple of parts, due to the length and
Carrie said, "Salvation is by faith alone. That is a core doctrine of the Christian faith that the RCC denies."
Elena said, Carrie, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura are the two pillars of the Protestant Reformation. The other two branches of Christianity, The Catholics and the Orthodox don't hold to them
This much it true - it's why the Reformers rejected the false teaching of the Roman Catholic church (actually, there are five)
Elena went on, "As such then they are only 500 or so years old. So they aren't "core doctrines." In fact, on the church history timeline, they're relative late comers.
This part is balderdash and it's not worth the toilet paper that Elena used this morning.
If you totally deny the authority of the Scripture and lean totally on the authority of the Roman Catholic church (which is what the Roman Catholic church teaches), then yes, you do come up with a works-based salvation. If you believe the Bible (which is why Carrie doesn't understand how a person who is truly saved and not merely "hoping" to be can stay in the Roman Catholic church) then you understand why works do not earn you salvation.
Let's look to Scripture first.
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24).
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Eph. 2:8).
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” (Titus 3:5).
Contrast that with Trent: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.” If you believe the Bible, then Trent says, "let you anathema."
There are more Scripture references here.
Folks, here is Tony's game - and make no mistake, he has a point to all of this.
The Roman Catholic church has declared the ecumenical councils infallible (that's why Tony has used the word "inspired" to describe the men at the council) Thus, the Roman Catholic church has declared that the Roman Catholic church cannot be wrong because the Roman Catholic church said so.
If you accept that it was the Councils that "determined" what the Canon would be in their "infallible" council, then you accept that these councils are indeed infallible (because the Roman Catholic church said so).
In the reasoning of the Roman Catholic church (and Tony), if the councils are infallible, the pope is infallible, the church is infallible, then Tony believes that he has you a good way toward accepting Roman Catholic rule for the world.
Tony, yesterday I asked you two questions, two different times. Do they scare you?
God:
“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
Trent: Canon 24: “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
God:
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law,” (Gal. 5:1-3).
Trent: Canon 30: “If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.”
Which will you believe? (imagine a balance scale, the magisterium on one side, God on the other)
Elena, is your attempt to discredit Luther called "poisoning the well"?
CLEMENT of Rome: "All the ancient fathers descended from Abraham, both before the Law and under the Law, were glorified and magnified, not through themselves, nor through their works of righteousness which they had done, but through His will. Therefore we, also, being called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom, or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, that faith through which the Almighty God hath justified all that ever lived; to whom be glory for ever, Amen!"
IGNATIUS (1ST CENT): "To me, Christ is in the place of all ancient muniments. For His Cross, and His death, and His resurrection, and the faith which is through Him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to have been justified."
[Letter to the Philadelphians]: "The prophets also do we love, because they have announced the Gospel; and they hoped in him and awaited him. In him and by their faith in him they were saved, being united to Jesus Christ."
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA (AD 69-156) [in his letter to the Philippianss, ch. 1:3]: "Knowing that 'you are saved by grace, not because of works' (cf. Eph. 2:5, 8, 9), namely, by the will of God through Jesus Christ"
and
"The Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to submit unto death for our sins; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of hell; in whom ye believe, not having seen Him, but believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.... knowing that through grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ."
JUSTIN MARTYR: [Dialogue with Trypho, ch. XCII]: "For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith"
AMBROSE: "Without the works of the Law to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his 'faith is imputed for righteousness,' as also it was to Abraham. How, then, can the Jews imagine, that through the works of the Law they are justified with the justification of Abraham, when they see that Abraham was justified, not by the works of the Law, but by faith alone? There is no need, therefore, of the Law, since through faith alone, an ungodly man is justified with God."
CHRYSOSTOM (4TH CENT) [homil. de fide.] "If you believe faith, why do you bring other things in, as though faith alone sufficed not to justify?"
[2 ad Eph. serm. 5]: [speaking of the thief on the cross] "I can shew a faithful man without works... only faith by itself saved him."
Pretty soon, James will be brought out, along with the joyful trashing of Martin Luther.
This part is balderdash and it's not worth the toilet paper that Elena used this morning.
Yep, well I'm out. Intellectual discussion and disagreement is fine; blatant ad hominems and other fallacies tell me I'm in the wrong village.
At least Toni, Teresa and I have been able to show Carrie that Catholics don't unthinkingly follow the Catholic Church, that there are logical and historical reasons for what we believe, and that because of those reasons we find Protestantism wanting. That's good enough for me right now.
Actually Elena, you haven't been able to show me that. I still don't understand how you can deny sole fide. I know Ellen's description may seem over the top, but I know how she feels.
We Bible only Christians get a bit upset when the Word of God is perverted. We especially get upset when that perversion has millions of people trapped in an unbiblical system that tells you you never know where you'll spend eternity.
Like I said, the Catholic stance against sole fide sounds like a cruel joke and makes no logical sense in light of Christ's work on the cross. It nullifies his finished work. It's wrong.
blatant ad hominems and other fallacies tell me I'm in the wrong village.
Not against any person, Elena, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Of course, your appeal to Martin Luther's mental illness was "poisoning the well" and your question to Carrie yesterday, "did you sleep through religion class." were of the same ilk.
I have to agree with Carrie. You have not shown that there are logical and historical reasons for what we believe. With me, you have used speculation only for your position. You have not defended the catholic position on sola fide. And Tony has done nothing but play games. Based on his statement on your blog
I left a couple of comments on the christian ladies' blog. I think this is going to be fun. I really enjoy sharpening my faith on seperated apologists ,
and the games he has played here, he is not interested in laying things out to get to the truth. I find it frightening that what he thinks is "fun" has eternal consequences.
I hope you will stay and defend the catholic position on sola fide.
In all fairness Elena, you have insulted me personally a few times on this thread and I have let it go. These kind of discussions can get emotional sometimes and while we should try to be respectful in what we say, we should also give each other a little grace.
If you think someone is offering up an illogical fallacy then explain why, rather than just saying "that's an illogical fallacy". Except for maybe Tony and his prepackaged Catholic apologetic mouse trap, the rest of us are not trying to trick you (and Tony is on your side so you don't have to worry about him). And I don't mean to insult Tony, but I am not looking for regurgitated Catholic apologetics here, but some personal thought and actual interaction on the topics at hand.
If you ARE done, I want to thank you for the discussion we did have. I hope you will visit again.
phd4jesus said...
Please Tony, don't keep us hanging.
Sorry to "keep you hanging" but I don't live here.
(i) What are the books of the bible that are not included that should be,
"Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin."
2 Maccabees 12:46
and (ii) what doctrines would they disprove and prove?
In support of the doctrine of purgatory and the praying for the souls of the dead.
Tony, yesterday I asked you two questions, two different times. Do they scare you?
No, Ellen, I believe I've answered enough of your questions so far. I'm waiting for one answer from you:
"What men decided the content of your Canon, and why do you believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit".
Unless you believe something different than men delivered your Bible to you.
A perfectly acceptable answer would be: "God came down from a space ship and placed my Bible directly in my hands". But I'm going to wait for an answer to my question before I answer any of yours.
That would be two questions answered, right?
And the important ones, you refuse.
You agree to start at the beginning (which for you is the church, not God). I want to start at the beginning to see how we got here...you want to say how we got here without asking about the "how".
No - the men at the ecumenical councils were not inspired of God.
In all fairness Elena, you have insulted me personally a few times on this thread and I have let it go.
How so? I just reviewed all of my comments and the only one that comes close to being even a subtle ad hominem remark is this:
"Were you ever awake during religion class?"
Which was said in response to your comment:
"why does the RCC not follow the Bible today? "
I found that question stunning coming from someone who says that they actually "grew up" in the Catholic Church.
That doesn't excuse my remark and I'm sorry if it offended you. Nonetheless since the Mass is so steeped in scripture I find your comment puzzling.
If you think someone is offering up an illogical fallacy then explain why, rather than just saying "that's an illogical fallacy".
Not only did I start explaining it, I linked to a source explaining the fallacy.
If you ARE done, I want to thank you for the discussion we did have. I hope you will visit again.
thank you. We'll see. there are a few things I want to rebutt and then we'll go from there
Of course, your appeal to Martin Luther's mental illness was "poisoning the well"
Not at all. It is a logical, scientific exaplanation of how and why he developed his doctrine of Sola Fide.
You can read more about it at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393310361/002-2293833-0260004?v=glance&n=283155
also the Pontifications had a good paragraph on it.
Whenever it is suggested that Luther’s terrified conscience may have been an expression of mental illness, folks immediately cry foul. But let’s be frank. Healthy people do not spend six hours straight in a confessional trying to identity every possible little sin in their life. “Oh, my sin, my sin, my sin!” Martin once cried. His spiritual director, Johann von Staupitz, caustically told him: “You have no real sin. You make a sin out of every trifle.” No wonder Staupitz eventually threw him out of the confessional and told him not to come back until he had some real sins to confess. Again and again Staupitz sought to direct Luther to the merciful Savior, but Luther could not accept the absolution of Christ. This wasn’t the system’s fault. Luther had a real problem. He was a fascinating, creative, compelling, scrupulous, tormented man of God. It would be a terrible mistake to assert that the Church was responsible for his pathology, though it certainly is possible that it was exacerbated by bad teaching on grace and predestination. Fortunately for Luther, he appears to have found a wise spiritual guide in Father Staupitz. Fortunately for Luther, God appears to have broken through his fears and spoken to him a liberating word of grace and mercy. Unfortunately for Luther, the pharmaceutical treatments did not exist that might have brought him significant release from his terrified conscience. And unfortunately for us, Luther misinterpreted his experience of grace as authorization to sunder the Church and turn her theology upside down.
I have to agree with Carrie. You have not shown that there are logical and historical reasons for what we believe. With me, you have used speculation only for your position.
Actually I gave very clear examples and explanations. You can accept them or not, but that's not really the point. My point was that they exist and that Catholics don't just follow these things blindly.
On the other hand, your rebuttal that, "well how do we know these housenolds had children" was totally unsatisfactory and illogical. These types of answers by Protestant apologists throughout my early study is what lead me straight back to the heart of the Catholic Church.
No - the men at the ecumenical councils were not inspired of God. .
OK so the writers were inspired, but it was just dumb luck that the councils approved them...
unsatisfactory...right back to the heart of the Catholic Church.
Being taught a works-based salvation with no assurance would tend to make me examine myself for hours also.
In my psychology classes they teach a very important thing: Don't attempt to diagnose the dead.
I would guess that a Roman Catholic site would have a slight bias. And it shows.
Actually, I think it was his trip to Rome and seeing the massive corruption that was the last straw for Luther.
attempts to discredit Martin Luther, via a diagnosis made who knows how many years after his death...doesn't mean that the Roman Catholic church wasn't entirely corrupt.
So, if you'd like to address the actual arguments...
Actually, Elena, we're back to the question that nobody wants to answer.
What man told the Jews what books to include in the Old Testament?
unsatisfactory...right back to the heart of the Catholic Church.
Elena, it is obvious that any answer that doesn't begin and end and is saturated with the rulings of Rome will be unsatisfactory to you.
OK so the writers were inspired, but it was just dumb luck that the councils approved them...
A little sarcasm thrown in...
There's a reason that I keep asking the question that you are refuse to answer.
Can you give me a Biblical basis for the ecumenical counils (not some twisted Roman Catholic interpretations that drag passages out of context or outright lie) are inspired in the same way the writers were?
Being taught a works-based salvation with no assurance would tend to make me examine myself for hours also.
Catholicism is a grace-based salvation.
In my psychology classes they teach a very important thing: Don't attempt to diagnose the dead.
I took medical anthropology in school - FASCINATING topic and really helped make historical figures real. Where would the History Channel be without it!
I would guess that a Roman Catholic site would have a slight bias. And it shows.
The book I gave the URL for, however, was written by a nonCatholic.
attempts to discredit Martin Luther, via a diagnosis made who knows how many years after his death...doesn't mean that the Roman Catholic church wasn't entirely corrupt.
Bright red herring and strawman argument in that I never said that it did.
OK so the writers were inspired, but it was just dumb luck that the councils approved them...
A little sarcasm thrown in...
Oh... absolutely. That was completely cheeky it gave me a tooth ache!!!!
There's a reason that I keep asking the question that you are refuse to answer.
Can you give me a Biblical basis for the ecumenical counils (not some twisted Roman Catholic interpretations that drag passages out of context or outright lie) are inspired in the same way the writers were?
well now you're switching the bait. I don't believe Tony or I said that they were "inspired in the same way" as the writers were. But I don't think you can say theHoly Spirit ws totally out of the equation and that the councis just approved the books so that they could get home to dinner!
If you are denying they were inspired and lead by the spirit, then you're kind of saying it was just per chance. The bible, according to you, is here just by luck? I don't think most CHristians, even on your side of the aisle would hold to that.
Elena, all jousting aside.
How do you know that you'll get to heaven?
What do you need to do to get to heaven?
(those are two different questions)
I'll leave your refusal to answer my question for the moment and ask you to answer the ones right above.
This is important to me. Really.
Elena, all jousting aside.
OK, but a little good natured jousting is what makes this fun!
How do you know that you'll get to heaven?
I don't. I hope that by living a good solid Christian life, persevering to the end, as St. Paul says, that I will make it. Dare I bring up the P word?
What do you need to do to get to heaven?
The short answer is the grace of God.
Elena, I wasn't asking for the short answer.
do you have to be baptized?
do you have to go to mass and receive the sacraments?
do you have to love your neighbor?
do you have to obey the ten commandments?
do you have to do good works?
do you have to pray and have devotion to Mary?
do you have to die without unconfessed mortal sin?
is there anything else?
Uh...it was a nine word question and for that you expect the Summa?
in a com box no less.
OK here we go:
Yes. Jesus told us to bapize and to be baptized. HOWEVER there is also the baptism of desire and some other theological points where the church relies on the Mercy of God for the soul of the departed. We talked about that a bit yeterday with stillbirth.
2-5 are yes. That is part of living a Christian life and being a follower of Christ. But again when we fail on these things a sincere repentence brings complete forgiveness, so back to my first answer - by the grace of God.
6. Devotion and prayers to Mary or the saints are optional.
7. Is maybe. It depends on why your mortal sin is unconfessed. But if there is a sincere sorrow for the sin and no opportunity to confess, again we point to the Mercy and Grace of God.
So it seems the short answer was the best answer afterall.
No, the long answer was best.
But you missed one.
Is there anything else?
The short answer didn't answer the question that I asked,
What do you need to do to get to heaven?
The short answer is the grace of God.
No - the men at the ecumenical councils were not inspired of God.
If not, who were the men that decided your Canon. This is pretty simple stuff. Unless God placed the Good Book in your hands, there was earthly intervention to do so. This means that some men chose your Canon.
I'm simply asking which men were they? That's not that hard a question is it?
If they weren't men, and they were angels or demons, let me know that instead.
If you don't know, that's a perfectly good answer too. There's no shame in not knowing who decided the Canon of your Bible. I don't know about you, but one of the first things I would do if I were you would be to research who decided my Canon. Unless you don't care. That would be even worse. Because you're putting your faith in men who were supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit and you don't even know who they were.
Tony, we're all tired of your games. I have a couple of very simple questions and the answers you give may very well have an answer on the one you get.
I'm perfectly willing to answer your question, but not until you set the foundation for the sola scriptura debate (the beginning - not Rome)
Tony, what do you need to do in order to get to heaven?
All jousting aside - eternity considered with no games.
What do you need to DO?
Tony, when you get a chance, seriously...for the sola scriptura debate, I want to have an early foundation - from the beginning and that means the Old Testament.
What man told the Jews what to include in the Old Testament?
The answer you give will have a bearing on the one you get.
Okay, I disappeared and I see the discussion is started again, maybe?
I'm starting a new post. Can we please move this discussion there, this comment section is getting a bit long.
Feel free to copy some of these comments over if needed.
Thanks!
I think we should try to hit 200!
What man told the Jews what to include in the Old Testament?
It appears to be the Jewish leaders (men) at the Council of Jamnia:
"The next major piece of evidence to be noted is the Council of Jamnia, which seems to have taken place around 90 AD. This council established and closed the canon authoritatively for nearly all Jews. It has been their canon ever since. Yet it should be noted that the council did not speak for all Jews, there were Jews living in Ethiopia who either did not hear of it or did not accept the decision of Jamnia. To this day they use a different canon than their Palestinian brethren [Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol 6, p 1147]."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm
No one is going to want to scroll down this far, though 200 is tempting.
Let's move this up:
http://ofchristianwomen.blogspot.com/2006/08/sola-scriptura-sole-fide-and-sola.html
Oh we don't mind Carrie. : )
I still think we should get to 200!
People will scroll but will they read? Go for it. Hit that 200!
Whew! I stopped reading around 100, but when I saw 185 comments, I had to see what in the world was going on!! Bet you never imagined THIS, Carrie, when you wrote that post.
I'm worn out from the scroll...........
Maybe we can slowly tick it up.
I just wanted people to actually read and not be turned off when they see that many comments.
Besides, all that scrolling just can't be good for you.
Thanks for the extra ticks, ladies.
phd4jesus said, "this is what I found on Bruce, one of the author's that she cites ... Not someone I would use as an expert."
Oh, goodness gracious, he's absolutely an expert, an Evangelical expert. Have you never heard of him?! The Canon of Scripture, published by InterVarsity Press, is a classic text.
Read what Wiki says.
Geez, who are the scholars that you read? Just so I know for next time.
Yikes - I didn't know this topic would bring so much discussion. I know I am chaiming in very late on this...and all I want to say (although I have not read all 188 comments - but some): I am sorry to see that Christians can say so many hurtful things. This is not Christ-like. No wonder some unbelievers don't want to have anything to do with Christians.
Carrie - as always - you are very thoughtful on your answers.
Post a Comment