It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Protestant Christian faith claims to rest on the scriptures alone, defined by the 66 book Protestant Canon, as the definition of the Christian Faith. The problem with this is 2-fold:
1. What comprises the scriptures was not clearly defined for a minimum of 300 years and what were eventually considered non-canonical writings were often quoted in similar ways as the canonical writings
Originally posted by ScienceDada
2. The identification of which writings were considered Holy scriptures was based on the Tradition of the Church, according to councils in the 300's C.E., more than 250 years after they were written
Thus, to claim to be "scriptural" and reject Tradition is circular logic, since it was the Tradition that identified the scriptures.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
The choice of canonicity was not a court matter, and the Church is not a court.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Why is it so hard for many to admit that Sola Scriptura is a tradition that is not historical?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
When you read the writings of the early Christians, it becomes quite apparent that they argued as much, if not more, from the Tradition of the Church than they did from canonical scriptures.
Originally posted by saint4God
What comprises the scriptures was not clearly defined for a minimum of 300 years and what were eventually considered non-canonical writings were often quoted in similar ways as the canonical writings
So? The assumption here is that that non-canonical writings in some way negate the canonical writings...or am I reading this wrong?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
2. The identification of which writings were considered Holy scriptures was based on the Tradition of the Church...
Even in a previous post of yours, we'd both identified and agreed upon (for the most part) the criteria for the canon...and no, it was not tradition that defined scripture.
Scripture is the foundation, as you've put it Sola Scriptura (which to me is a bit of a misnomer anyway). The 'tradition' that comes from it is merely "following scripture".
Paul tells us that the church is to be serving the role of The Court... So yes, it is the ultimate court.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
When you read the writings of the early Christians, it becomes quite apparent that they argued as much, if not more, from the Tradition of the Church than they did from canonical scriptures.
Yes, which is exactly why we really need not argue about it again. All we have to do is understand their position and validate what is correct and why.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
And to say one does "what is right in their heart" is to deny the very words of Christ
Originally posted by ScienceDada
How can one claim to be a Christian and yet do not live as those why sat at the foot of the Apostles and even Christ himself?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Tradition of the Church is much more than simply following the scriptures.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
In the very least, the Church in the first 50 years after Christ was almost exclusively based on Tradition, since the canonical scriptures had not even been authored yet.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I guess this is the simple bottom line. Scripture is only as good as the interpretation and the honesty involved in the reading. People can read the scriptures and genuinely disagree on the meaning or the priority given to various parts.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
The chaos of the various Protestant Churches is a testimony to this problem.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Saying that God will tell you what is important and what is not is a cop out
Originally posted by ScienceDada
The relativism of modern Christians goes against what the Apostles and the Early Church fathers held as the true faith, which they defended and even went to death for.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Church is given the authority to judge, and Christians are commanded to not take their brothers to the courts.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
But if you insist, then I suppose then the Church could be likened to a court or a tribunal, sure. And even in tribunals and courts, the weight given to tradition (i.e., previous interpretations of law, precedent, and spirit of the law) is tremendously influential. So if you insist on such an analogy, then I will drop the argument in favor of the metaphor---but then Tradition becomes even weightier. So then, this "court" has historically given judgments on what the scriptures mean, so why do many modern Christians ignore these judgments?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
If an example is needed, one HUGE issue to illustrate this point is "salvation by grace through faith apart from works." This is not scriptural nor Traditional.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
This validation cannot be done using the scriptures alone, nor by "asking Jesus into your heart"
Originally posted by ScienceDada
and place ones self in the role of judge.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
There are too many ambiguities
Originally posted by ScienceDada
and ways to take the scriptures out of context.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
If this point is to be argued, then that is fine. One huge one is the doctrine of "salvation by faith alone, through grace alone." This is not "scriptural" unless one cherry picks the scriptures; nor is it consistent with the faith of the Early Christians, as evidenced by their writings.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
So, the scriptures alone are necessary, but not sufficient, to define the Christian faith.
Originally posted by saint4God
"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." - Ephesians 2:7-9
Originally posted by Simplynoone
This is just a snippet out of ONE of those Dead Sea Scrolls... Does that sound like the same Jesus we know in the NT ?
Originally posted by Simplynoone
That one was the Infancy Gospel of Thomas
www.pseudepigrapha.com...
Originally posted by Simplynoone
www.pseudepigrapha.com...
It says Lost Books of the Bible ...it includes them all
Originally posted by Simplynoone
I dont believe they belong anywhere near the bible nor taken as part of the bible.
Thats my opinion ..
As I said before even the books of Enoch are questionable .
There are things in there that dont really jive with what scripture says.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Yet even within the canonical scriptures, their meaning rests greatly upon what the language means.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
This scripture quoting by verses is deceptive because the terms are often loaded so as to make scripture have a specific meaning when quoting verses. Please define your terms:
* Salvation
* Faith
* Works
* Boast
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Yet even within the canonical scriptures, their meaning rests greatly upon what the language means.
Probably not as much as many may think. The great thing about the Bible is it repeats itself many times in many different ways (parables included), thereby reducing the need for interpretation and causality of error.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
This scripture quoting by verses is deceptive because the terms are often loaded so as to make scripture have a specific meaning when quoting verses. Please define your terms:
* Salvation
* Faith
* Works
* Boast
My hope is that everyone owns a dictionary and can render useless the need to create our own personal definitions. The result otherwise would be a generation of confusion instead of a clarification thereof. We'd also be duplicating the efforts of the eight year exercise compiling the New Internation Version, but with the few scholarly people here instead of those listed in their multi-year project. We don't have to take "their word for it" but when several translations matching by several translators, is there really a need? Unless of course one believe that all of these translators and translations are in league of some kind of multi-millenium conspiracy... [edit on 11-9-2008 by saint4God]
Originally posted by saint4God
...Unless of course one believe that all of these translators and translations are in league of some kind of multi-millenium conspiracy...
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I anticipate your reply
Originally posted by saint4God
What do you mean by "anticipate"? Do you mean "eagerly await"? Or do you mean "with expectation"?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I anticipate your reply
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Eagerly await.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
It is devastating to Protestant apologetics, theology, and practice when these fact are exposed.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I try to lessen the blow, but I cannot ignore the truth because then I would be denying God himself.