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

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, 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.

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".

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The choice of canonicity was not a court matter, and the Church is not a court.

Paul tells us that the church is to be serving the role of The Court, and that we should not be seeking 'justice' (which oft is masked as vengence) outside of it. So yes, it is the court on earth, whereas God being the head overseer.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Why is it so hard for many to admit that Sola Scriptura is a tradition that is not historical?

On 'circular logic' how can one say "Scripture Alone" when scripture tells us that the purpose of the faith is to have a personal relationship with God? This is why it is a misnomer. What did Christ say about the written law? Misnomer yet again.

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 positions and validate what is correct and why.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by saint4God]

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?

No negation of canonical writings is involved---and this is a biased statement. Actually, quite the opposite: the Early Christian writings show how the scriptures were interpreted, either clarifying ambiguities, filling in gaps, or interpreting seeming contradictions. What the non-Canonical writings do is guide how scripture is to be interpreted. And what they demonstrate is that Sola Scriptura is just a fancy way of justifying interpretation of the scriptures in ways that they were not intended to be interpreted, nor is there a precedent before certain men decided it was a good idea. This is why the Apostle wrote hold to the Tradition which was handed down by word or by epistle, because both are important.

Most people recognize that there are many teachings of men that are not evidenced in the scriptures. Some of these that are high profile are teachings on sexual relationships (adultery/fornication/abuse), ownership of property and wealth, the role of faith in the Christian life, warfare, contraception/abortion, women's roles, idols, lying, greed/money, drug use/abuse, etc. And to say one does "what is right in their heart" is to deny the very words of Christ ""Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" and the words of the Prophet "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" 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
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".

The Tradition of the Church is much more than simply following the scriptures. 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.

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. The chaos of the various Protestant Churches is a testimony to this problem. Saying that God will tell you what is important and what is not is a cop out and is inconsistent with the writings of the Early Church and how they interpreted the scriptures. There are many such examples.

This is not to say that the Early Christians were a monolithic group---indeed, there were variations in readings even then. But the same could be said of the Apostles themselves. 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. I have cited multiple examples in previous posts, one big one being pacifism and warfare.

Paul tells us that the church is to be serving the role of The Court... So yes, it is the ultimate court.

The Church is given the authority to judge, and Christians are commanded to not take their brothers to the courts. 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? 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
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.

This validation cannot be done using the scriptures alone, nor by "asking Jesus into your heart" and place ones self in the role of judge. There are too many ambiguities and ways to take the scriptures out of context. 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. There are many such things. So, the scriptures alone are necessary, but not sufficient, to define the Christian faith.

I like the clarification you'd started out with, so I'll skip to the more contentious points. Also, careful of the pot calling the kettle black on the "biased statements" It's weird having this dialogue. One moment you've put forth some history, some logic, then out of nowhere a very negative bias. I've brought it up before, but will continue to do so of course. Not because I'm offended, but because I care enough about both of our progression to do so.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
And to say one does "what is right in their heart" is to deny the very words of Christ

Agreed, and is why this is commonly addressed by Protestant Pastors. If you need to proof, I'll send you the CD's. It's a human rationalization, not a Christian one, not a Protestant one.

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?

Many people call themselves many things, yet fall short at fulfilling the role. However, while fingerpointing, remember, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Tradition of the Church is much more than simply following the scriptures.

Then there is a problem with this tradition.

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.

Which prompted the authoring AND and canon.

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.

This is a problem with people, not the scripture.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The chaos of the various Protestant Churches is a testimony to this problem.

The what? Mind posting a few riot photos for me?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Saying that God will tell you what is important and what is not is a cop out

Really? Is that what scripture says? Do you not have a personal relationship with God?

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.

We agree here. Relativism has no place in Christianity nor Protestantism.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Church is given the authority to judge, and Christians are commanded to not take their brothers to the courts.

Amen.

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?

Simply put, when things are not in our favor, we refuse them. It is a selfish way to behave.

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.

"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 ScienceDada
This validation cannot be done using the scriptures alone, nor by "asking Jesus into your heart"

It's this kind of phrase that has me worried about you, in all honesty. Why would Jesus being in your heart be insufficient?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
and place ones self in the role of judge.

Of course not oneself. God alone is judge as we both know.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
There are too many ambiguities

Intentionally so, so that we may discuss, grow, learn...and think. Do you not think God wants us to do these things?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
and ways to take the scriptures out of context.

Again, the fault of the person, not scripture if taken 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.

Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." - Luke 7:50

"but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works." - Romans 9:31-32

My dear friend, this is not "cherry picking", this is the message that continues book after book from John until Revelation. I haven't the character allotment to quote them all.

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." - Romans 3:22

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." - Romans 5:1-2

Originally posted by ScienceDada
So, the scriptures alone are necessary, but not sufficient, to define the Christian faith.

True, knowledge does not save, so scripture alone does not save. The scriptures are a guide to help oneself establish a relationship with God.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by saint4God]

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

Ok, so to take point by point, this will require more simple posts. I am ok with that. And this is not off-topic, because what exactly "canonical" and "scripture" means totally depends on interpretation, which is what the argument rests upon. Yet even within the canonical scriptures, their meaning rests greatly upon what the language means.

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 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 ?

Which scroll fragment was this? Do you mean the Nag Hammadi Library instead of the Dead Sea scrolls?

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 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.

Oh... I gotcha. I am not sure that case is consistent. Several of these works do jive with scripture.

The Shepherd (Hermas) was very widely used in the Early Church, and many attributed it to Hermas, whom Paul mentions. The Didache (also called "The Teaching of the Twelve") was a very early work, and also widely used. There is a very legitimate argument for the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, as Paul referred to Clement in his Epistles also.

Some might go so far as to include the Epistles of Ignatius, as he was a student of the Apostle John, but because he was not an Apostle himself many would say that he does not belong in the canon. But if this argument were consistent, then the Epistles of James and Jude would be omitted, as would the Apocalypse of John (i.e. Revelation), the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles (since Luke was not an Apostle either).

The other works given on the site (unless I have missed some) have no substantial arguments to support their inclusion in "The Bible" since the Church has always rejected them.

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

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]

No, it really matters. Because by changing the meaning of words, you can completely manipulate the meaning of the scriptures. And this is the hidden agenda of Sola Scriptura... that in the end, it just ends up being Sola, where every reader gets to make up their own mind. And this is both against what the scriptures themselves state:

2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Defaulting to dictionary meanings and trusting translators is a cop-out, and I know because I have done translation work. The translators have great influence over the readers because their is as much interpretation of meaning as there is of definition. I am able to show numerous examples from a translation (such as the NIV since you brought that up in a previous post) where the theological bias of the translators is evident.

Even in Roman Catholicism where the Greek word "mystery" is translated as "sacrament" or "repent" is translated as "do pennance," it totally changes the connotations of the words because they don't map 1-to-1 in Latin, let alone English. Probably one of the biggest loss in translation is the mapping of "agape" or "phileo" or "eros" into "love." It might not change the meaning from the point of view of a translator, but it does to someone who is building a theology or a "church" from a blueprint. So yes, it totally matters.

Again, I request that you define the terms, or at least provide a "standard" definition, and it likely takes one of two forms:
* The definition is ambiguous enough to allow for multiple interpretations
* The definition is precise to conform with a specific tradition, but then the word is used in various ways as to render the text of the "scriptures" ambiguous or inconsistent

Given this problem, Sola Scriptura is quickly rendered as either a tradition of man or it is admitted that the text of the scriptures is ambiguous, which then makes it clear that Sola Scriptura is an attempt to recreate the Christian Church from an ambiguous document. From this point, the debate usually degenerates into either an appeal to leading by the Holy Spirit and the ensuing relativism (i.e., the chaos in the Protestant church where "every man does what is right in his own eyes") or a flat out refusal to admit that there is any ambiguity in the scripture, denying that any chaos exists within "Bible-based" Protestantism.

I am not trying to play poker here, and I don't mind "showing my hand" because I have hammered on this so much for so many years. Protestant doctrine is internally inconsistent while touting itself to be consistent, logical, and reasonable. If we need to delve into the scriptures to demonstrate this, I am up for it.
So, I reiterate my previous request to define the terms. And while you are at it, why don't you also define "scripture" (just to make sure that the moderators do not see this as an off-topic post). Then we can let the facts speak for themselves.

The key to communication is to have agreeable definitions to words. The reason why English is taught in school and the reason why the dictionary was "birthed" was so that all people speaking the same language (English in this case) can relay through words specific meanings. While there are slight variations of a word, on the whole they are the same. Again, biblically messages are repeated. Messages are re-phrased. Messages are even put into allegorical parables! How many modes of communication does one require? If two people cannot agree on the staple (in this case being the English classes we've attended and the dictionary which is the known staple of the language) then seriously, there's no logical reason to attempt to communicate at all. We can all just make up our own definitions, tickle ourselves silly with how creative we are individually, and live in a world isolated from meaningful exchange.

"For English, press 1"

[edit on 11-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I anticipate your reply

What do you mean by "anticipate"? Do you mean "eagerly await"? Or do you mean "with expectation"?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I anticipate your reply

What do you mean by "anticipate"? Do you mean "eagerly await"? Or do you mean "with expectation"?

Eagerly await.

After all, the prevelant answer on this entire thread for the choosing of what was "scripture" was either (a) Tradition or (b) internal consistency with "the Bible." I assert that it was not (b). Thus, I am "showing my hand" as to why... because it was in fact Tradition of the Church. And Traditionally, many of the non-canonical books (which are not anti-scriptural at all) have been used in the Church for teaching, reproof, and correction. They are just not considered Apostolic; neither are the Law, the Prophets, or "the writings" (i.e., the Tanakh). It does not mean that because their contents are outside of the canon and therefore may be ignored if they don't agree with Protestant theology or practice.

The treatment of canonical scriptures as "God's word" or "God breathed" is fine within context. But to the extent that many Protestants take this to extend "necessary and sufficient" to "perfect, exact, absolute, and essential" is idolatry, and I have no problem identifying it as such. Subjugating the non-canonical writings to a Protestant interpretation of the canonical is a travesty. Case in point: The Shepherd (Hermas)... it totally decimates the Protestant worldview. Why is that?

It is devastating to Protestant apologetics, theology, and practice when these fact are exposed. I try to lessen the blow, but I cannot ignore the truth because then I would be denying God himself.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Eagerly await.

That doesn't sounds like a made up answer. How did you come to that definition?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
It is devastating to Protestant apologetics, theology, and practice when these fact are exposed.

Help! I'm being devastated by someone else's opinion being stated as fact! Who was is it that 'turned against you' in the Protestant faith?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I try to lessen the blow, but I cannot ignore the truth because then I would be denying God himself.

Yet you'll deny a personal relationship with God? Why is this?

[edit on 11-9-2008 by saint4God]