PDA

View Full Version : Is Sola Scritura from Scripture?



37818
11-24-2015, 08:30 PM
If you think it[Sola Scriptura] is [in Scripture], please show it.

I am going to give you three answers, they are not exhaustive.

1) The term "Sola Scritura" like the term "Trinity" is not to be found in Holy Scripture. But these teachings are found in the written word of God.

2) Without the Holy Scripture there is no Christianity.

3) The Apostle Peter cited that the word of God was given verbally. And argued that he and the Apostles were not following fables. And that the written (Scripture) was the sure word of God. {2 Peter 1:16-21.}

KingsGambit
11-24-2015, 08:35 PM
The canon was not complete at this time. 2 Peter was likely the last book in the NT to be written (or maybe Revelation) but even at this time, the church had not firmly determined what books would make the canon, so I don't think it would have made a lot of sense for these verses to explicitly refer to the canon.

I think the reference to "prophets" in 2 Peter is likely to the Old Testament prophets. It doesn't seem to me like Peter is talking about himself there.

theophilus
11-25-2015, 04:17 AM
The canon was not complete at this time.
Paul's writings were already accepted as being Scripture.


And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV)

37818
11-25-2015, 05:46 AM
The canon was not complete at this time. 2 Peter was likely the last book in the NT to be written (or maybe Revelation) but even at this time, the church had not firmly determined what books would make the canon, so I don't think it would have made a lot of sense for these verses to explicitly refer to the canon.

I think the reference to "prophets" in 2 Peter is likely to the Old Testament prophets. It doesn't seem to me like Peter is talking about himself there.No. Peter referenced himself twice in that context {2 Peter 1:16-21} verse 16, "we," and verse 18.

Also, Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written, not when some irregular churches' councils say so.

Personally I believe the close of the writing of the written word of God occurred with the writing of the prophecy of the book of Revelation.

Spartacus
11-25-2015, 07:01 AM
Paul's writings were already accepted as being Scripture.


And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV)

This seems like the sort of thing that requires a closer examination of translations. The word "Scripture" after all, has the same etymological root as the word "script"-- basically, just meaning something that has been written down. I should like to know the Greek word here.

One Bad Pig
11-25-2015, 08:03 AM
I am going to give you three answers, they are not exhaustive.

1) The term "Sola Scritura" like the term "Trinity" is not to be found in Holy Scripture. But these teachings are found in the written word of God.
This is not an answer; this is an assertion.


2) Without the Holy Scripture there is no Christianity.
True (as far as the OT, at any rate), but this does not in any way answer the question.

3) The Apostle Peter cited that the word of God was given verbally. And argued that he and the Apostles were not following fables.
Which, if anything, refutes your position as scripture is written, not verbal. Jesus said and did much more than was written (John 21:25).

And that the written (Scripture) was the sure word of God. {2 Peter 1:16-21.}
This is also true, but does not in any way address the question.

You have not yet proffered any answers.

One Bad Pig
11-25-2015, 08:07 AM
This seems like the sort of thing that requires a closer examination of translations. The word "Scripture" after all, has the same etymological root as the word "script"-- basically, just meaning something that has been written down. I should like to know the Greek word here.

γραφή (per blueletterbible.org - and the same word used in chapter 1, btw)

Jedidiah
11-25-2015, 02:07 PM
Please correct me if I am wrong here. Does not the doctrine of Sola Scripura tell us that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice? If this is true then what is the problem with the concept. This does not mean that we can not learn, or be advised from other sources. It only means that the Bible trumps the other sources when there is a conflict.

One Bad Pig
11-25-2015, 04:28 PM
Please correct me if I am wrong here. Does not the doctrine of Sola Scripura tell us that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice? If this is true then what is the problem with the concept. This does not mean that we can not learn, or be advised from other sources. It only means that the Bible trumps the other sources when there is a conflict.
Sola Scriptura tells us that the Bible is the only authority (though, in the eyes of most who hold to the doctrine, we can learn or be advised from other sources). It was first formulated during the Reformation, as far as I know, in rejection of the Roman Catholic Church's assertion of authority.

37818
11-25-2015, 07:13 PM
This is not an answer; this is an assertion. Is the "assertion" false? If so explain why that statement is not true?


True (as far as the OT, at any rate), but this does not in any way answer the question.
Which, if anything, refutes your position as scripture is written, not verbal. Jesus said and did much more than was written (John 21:25).Seriously? Peter explained what was written was what was spoken {1 Peter 1:20-21}.



This is also true, but does not in any way address the question.It seems to be because you reject Sola Scriptura as true.



You have not yet proffered any answers.That would seem to be because you reject the concept[Sola Scriptura] as true.

Acts 17:11,
. . . in that they received the [spoken] word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. From the Old Testament no less, since at that time none of the New Testament was yet written.

One Bad Pig
11-30-2015, 06:38 PM
Is the "assertion" false? If so explain why that statement is not true?
You're the one who made the assertion; prove it.


Seriously? Peter explained what was written was what was spoken {1 Peter 1:20-21}.
20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

:huh: I don't understand how that passage supports your statement in any way. Further, I reiterate that what was written was far less than what was spoken (John 21:25).


It seems to be because you reject Sola Scriptura as true.

That would seem to be because you reject the concept[Sola Scriptura] as true.
:sigh: While I reject sola scriptura, I'm telling you that you have not yet proffered any answers because you in fact have not yet done so. I'm still waiting for any sort of supported answer.


Acts 17:11,
. . . in that they received the [spoken] word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. From the Old Testament no less, since at that time none of the New Testament was yet written.
Yes, that is from the Old Testament. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with it, as I quite agree that the Scriptures are authoritative.

37818
12-01-2015, 06:25 AM
OBP,

That reference should have been 2nd Peter,
2 Peter 1:20-21,
. . . Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit.

What do you think Sola Scritura means?

I understand it to mean the written word of God is the sure word of God and therefore should be regarded as the final authority in all matters of the Christian's beliefs and practices. It is not the only words of God.

One Bad Pig
12-02-2015, 06:10 PM
OBP,

That reference should have been 2nd Peter,
2 Peter 1:20-21,
. . . Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit.

What do you think Sola Scritura means?
Look up-thread.



I understand it to mean the written word of God is the sure word of God and therefore should be regarded as the final authority in all matters of the Christian's beliefs and practices. It is not the only words of God.
If it is not the only words of God, why should it be regarded as the final authority? How can other words of God be less authoritative? Scripture was not written to be the final authority in all matters; it was written to address specific situations. Paul does not hold up his writings as the final standard, but what he had taught in speech.

37818
12-03-2015, 01:52 PM
If it is not the only words of God, why should it be regarded as the final authority? For one: God spoke the universe into existence. Natural revelation (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17-18). They do not tell us of the gospel of Christ.
The Apostles are no longer here to follow their spoken instructions (2 Thessalonians 3:6). As for the speaking gifts, the word of knowledge, gifts of prophecy and the speaking in languages (translated) through which God the Holy Spirit gives/gave (1 Corinthians 12: & 14:), this an issue which Christians disagree on as to their current status (1 Corinthians 13: Revelation 1:1-3; 19:10; 22:18-19). It is regarded as a secondary issue is it not?



How can other words of God be less authoritative?All the words of God are authoritative (Matthew 4:4).
Only the written Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] tells us of the gospel of Christ.


Scripture was not written to be the final authority in all matters; it was written to address specific situations. Paul does not hold up his writings as the final standard, but what he had taught in speech.Says who?

Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] unless it is the final authority for the Christian faith and practice - what is left is just a man made religion without foundation from God.

You or I [or anyone else] as interpreters of Holy Scripture are not any kind of final authority what the texts mean.

There are five tenets to the Christian faith which are core to it:

1. Bible alone - 2 Timothy 3:14-17 - 2 Peter 1:19, 20-21.
2. Faith alone - Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 5:1-2
3. Grace alone - Titus 3:7
4. Christ alone - Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5-6 - Matthew 28:18 Revelation 19:10.
5. Glory to God alone - 1 Corinthians 10:31 Romans 11:33-36

Which can be summarized with the following statement:
Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.

And the phenomena is, those who agree on all five, also agree on all the other essentials of the Christian faith.

Do you have one proof against this?

robrecht
12-03-2015, 02:14 PM
For one: God spoke the universe into existence. Natural revelation (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17-18). They do not tell us of the gospel of Christ.
The Apostles are no longer here to follow their spoken instructions (2 Thessalonians 3:6). As for the speaking gifts, the word of knowledge, gifts of prophecy and the speaking in languages (translated) through which God the Holy Spirit gives/gave (1 Corinthians 12: & 14:), this an issue which Christians disagree on as to their current status (1 Corinthians 13: Revelation 1:1-3; 19:10; 22:18-19). It is regarded as a secondary issue is it not?

All the words of God are authoritative (Matthew 4:4).
Only the written Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] tells us of the gospel of Christ with any certainty.

Says who?

Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] unless it is the final authority for the Christian faith and practice - what is left is just a man made religion without foundation from God.

You or I [or anyone else] as interpreters of Holy Scripture are not any kind of final authority what the texts mean.

There are five tenets to the Christian faith which are core to it:

1. Bible alone - 2 Timothy 3:14-17 - 2 Peter 1:19, 20-21.
2. Faith alone - Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 5:1-2
3. Grace alone - Titus 3:7
4. Christ alone - Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5-6 - Matthew 28:18 Revelation 19:10.
5. Glory to God alone - 1 Corinthians 10:31 Romans 11:33-36

Which can be summarized with the following statement:
Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.

And the phenomena is, those who agree on all five, also agree on all the other essentials of the Christian faith.

Do you have one proof against this?
Upon what authority have you determined that the Bible includes these and only these 66 books?

37818
12-03-2015, 02:32 PM
Upon what authority have you determined that the Bible includes these and only these 66 books?

That is an excellent question. The Holy Scripture as they where handed to the churches and the churches in turn handed them down. That is the short answer. The long answer would require writing a book.

At the time of Christ our 39 books were accepted. Each book of the New Testament was Holy Scripture upon being written and received as such by the churches. And the churches which handed them down. Our 66 book Bible was what was handed down to us.

One Bad Pig
12-03-2015, 02:53 PM
For one: God spoke the universe into existence. Natural revelation (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17-18). They do not tell us of the gospel of Christ.
Sure.


The Apostles are no longer here to follow their spoken instructions (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
Their direct descendants, however, are.

As for the speaking gifts, the word of knowledge, gifts of prophecy and the speaking in languages (translated) through which God the Holy Spirit gives/gave (1 Corinthians 12: & 14:), this an issue which Christians disagree on as to their current status (1 Corinthians 13: Revelation 1:1-3; 19:10; 22:18-19). It is regarded as a secondary issue is it not?
What is undisputable is that the Holy Spirit is still at work. Asserting that God cannot speak today would not be a secondary issue.


All the words of God are authoritative (Matthew 4:4).
Yes.


Only the written Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] tells us of the gospel of Christ.
:no: The Church (the descendants of the apostles) tells us of the gospel of Christ. It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon, yet the Church managed to transmit the gospel just fine in the interim. Your assertion regarding the Old Testament is distinctly a minority one among Christendom (both in time and in numbers).


Scripture was not written to be the final authority in all matters; it was written to address specific situations. Paul does not hold up his writings as the final standard, but what he had taught in speech.
Says who?
I would think the proposition that scripture (particularly the NT) was written to address specific situations is prima faciae obvious. As for the rest:

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.


Holy Scripture [our 66 book Old and New Testament] unless it is the final authority for the Christian faith and practice - what is left is just a man made religion without foundation from God.
Unsupported assertion.


You or I [or anyone else] as interpreters of Holy Scripture are not any kind of final authority what the texts mean.
Agreed.


There are five tenets to the Christian faith which are core to it:

1. Bible alone - 2 Timothy 3:14-17 - 2 Peter 1:19, 20-21.
2. Faith alone - Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 5:1-2
3. Grace alone - Titus 3:7
4. Christ alone - Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5-6 - Matthew 28:18 Revelation 19:10.
5. Glory to God alone - 1 Corinthians 10:31 Romans 11:33-36

Which can be summarized with the following statement:
Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.
:no: This is a summation of the Reformation, not Christianity.


And the phenomena is, those who agree on all five, also agree on all the other essentials of the Christian faith.
Why, then, are there so many denominations? Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!


Do you have one proof against this?
The Church existed for over 15 centuries before your list was formulated - and even the Reformers were heavily dependent on (certain teachings of) St. Augustine.

robrecht
12-03-2015, 02:59 PM
That is an excellent question. The Holy Scripture as they where handed to the churches and the churches in turn handed them down. That is the short answer. The long answer would require writing a book.

At the time of Christ our 39 books were accepted. Each book of the New Testament was Holy Scripture upon being written and received as such by the churches. And the churches which handed them down. Our 66 book Bible was what was handed down to us.
You do realize that different churches have had differing canons of scripture over the years and still do to this day, right?

37818
12-03-2015, 04:36 PM
Their direct descendants, however, are.Says who?
What we have direct from God to His prophets and Apostles to the us by way of writings which are the Holy Scriptures.



What is undisputable is that the Holy Spirit is still at work.Not at issue.

Asserting that God cannot speak today would not be a secondary issue.That is not what I asserted. I asserted that there is a disagreement whether God does or does not today by way of the three gifts of the Holy Spirit speak to His church today, as noted. I did not assert God cannot. You say this disagreement is not a secondary issue. So then according to you all professing Christians who are cessationist are heretics.




:no: The Church (the descendants of the apostles) tells us of the gospel of Christ. It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon, yet the Church managed to transmit the gospel just fine in the interim. Your assertion regarding the Old Testament is distinctly a minority one among Christendom (both in time and in numbers). :no: Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written (2 Peter 2:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).



I would think the proposition that scripture (particularly the NT) was written to address specific situations is prima faciae obvious. As for the rest:

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.And you are citing is Holy Scripture to make your argument.


Unsupported assertion.:no: The Holy Scriptures were handed down through the churches.




:no: This is a summation of the Reformation, not Christianity.So then you are arguing protestants of the Reformation are not Christians then.



Why, then, are there so many [Christian] denominations?Because of disagreements over secondary issues.

Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!By making non essentials as essentials.



The Church existed for over 15 centuries before your list was formulated - and even the Reformers were heavily dependent on (certain teachings of) St. Augustine.The church [made up of churches] Christ is building has been here 19 centuries. And those teachings come from the Holy Scriptures as noted.

37818
12-03-2015, 04:45 PM
You do realize that different churches have had differing canons of scripture over the years and still do to this day, right?Yes, some of the irregular groups disputed what was handed down.

robrecht
12-03-2015, 05:12 PM
Yes, some of the irregular groups disputed what was handed down.
So, again, I ask, upon what authority have you determined that the Bible includes these and only these 66 books?

37818
12-03-2015, 05:56 PM
So, again, I ask, upon what authority have you determined that the Bible includes these and only these 66 books?

Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written.

". . . knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." -- 2 Peter 1:20-21. ASV

"Every scripture inspired of God also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What is translated "inspired of God," as I am sure you know, literally means "God breathed."

That those writings where what were handed down by the churches. [I]It can be argued that we ended up with the 66. But that is to question that some of the books are not the word of God and others which are the word of God were left out. Irregular "church" councils deciding canon does not make a writing the word of God. But only for them and their followers.

robrecht
12-03-2015, 06:05 PM
Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written.

". . . knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." -- 2 Peter 1:20-21. ASV

"Every scripture inspired of God also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What is translated "inspired of God," as I am sure you know, literally means "God breathed."

The those writings where what were handed down by the churches. [I]It can be argued that we ended up with the 66. But that is to question that some of the books are not the word of God and others which are the word of God were left out. Irregular "church" councils deciding canon does not make a writing the word of God. For only for them and their followers.
You are still avoiding the question. Who decides what writings are Scripture, and which writings are not Scripture? Who decides which churches are 'regular' and which churches are 'irregular'. Your particular opinion of what is and is not Scripture is not that of the majority of Christians--so is your view that of an 'irregular' church?

37818
12-03-2015, 06:46 PM
You are still avoiding the question. Who decides what writings are Scripture, and which writings are not Scripture?God has. Unless you are disputing God's word as God's word. Christians know God through Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life (John 17:3; 1 John 5:12).



Who decides which churches are 'regular' and which churches are 'irregular'. Again God does.



Your particular opinion of what is and is not Scripture is not that of the majority of Christians . . .Then if they deny God's words they are not His (John 8:47). I'm not making this up.



. . . --so is your view that of an 'irregular' church?Irregular church is a man made church. You will recognized "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" is such a group as an example. All churches are made up of people. And not all are saved. The pastors of churches can be religious and lost just as a church member can be. God knows who are His. A Biblical church is made up of born again Christians who are Biblically baptized (immersed).

robrecht
12-03-2015, 07:00 PM
God has. Unless you are disputing God's word as God's word. Christians know God through Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life (John 17:3; 1 John 5:12).

Again God does.

Then if they deny God's words they are not His (John 8:47). I'm not making this up.

Irregular church is a man made church. You will recognized "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" is such a group as an example. All churches are made up of people. And not all are saved. The pastors of churches can be religious and lost just as a church member can be. God knows who are His. A Biblical church is made up of born again Christians who are Biblically baptized (immersed).
Sure, God knows everything, but has God revealed to you or someone else that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture?

37818
12-03-2015, 07:21 PM
Sure, God knows everything, but has God revealed to you or someone else that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture?God has not given me any special revelation regarding His 66 books.

". . . For the word of God [is] alive, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . ." -- Hebrews 4:12.

". . . He that is of God heareth God's words: . . ." -- John 8:47.

The Apostle Paul wrote the Thessalonians, ". . . For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. . . ." -- 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

Receiving the word of God is how you know it is the word of God.

Jesus promised, ". . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . . " -- John 7:16.

robrecht
12-03-2015, 07:54 PM
God has not given me any special revelation regarding His 66 books.

". . . For the word of God [is] alive, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . ." -- Hebrews 4:12.

". . . He that is of God heareth God's words: . . ." -- John 8:47.

The Apostle Paul wrote the Thessalonians, ". . . For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. . . ." -- 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

Receiving the word of God is how you know it is the word of God.

Jesus promised, ". . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . . " -- John 7:16.
OK, so if God has not revealed to you that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture, has he revealed it to someone else? Is it revealed in Scripture that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture? Or do you accept some extra-scriptural authority that identifies these and only these 66 books as sacred Scripture?

Adrift
12-03-2015, 08:47 PM
OBP, it looks like you're overshooting a bit.



Their direct descendants, however, are.

That's obviously disputable, and there's a number of "descendants" in that chain who bore little fruit that would indicate they were even followers of Christ.


It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon

No it didn't. You of all people should be aware that the NT canon was relatively fixed early on. Evidence includes the quoting of all of the NT books in the writings of the early church fathers and the 2nd century Muratorian fragment that lists most of the books in the canon as we know it today.


I would think the proposition that scripture (particularly the NT) was written to address specific situations is prima faciae obvious.

If it was only for a specific audience, only for a specific time and pace, then it would be worthless to anyone outside of that time and place. In that regard, then, it seems best to understand scripture as multi-dimensional. On one level the New Testament directly addresses the issues and circumstances of its original audience, and on another level it's applicable to all Christians everywhere and in every time.


Why, then, are there so many denominations? Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!

37818 wrote "essentials of the Christian faith". There have always been, and always will be differences between Christians on secondary matters, and that's true for the Orthodox and Catholic communities as it is the Protestant ones.

I'm actually surprised by some of the things you're saying here OBP. These are arguments one usually hears skeptics making.

Adrift
12-03-2015, 09:04 PM
OK, so if God has not revealed to you that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture, has he revealed it to someone else? Is it revealed in Scripture that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture? Or do you accept some extra-scriptural authority that identifies these and only these 66 books as sacred Scripture?

37818, its a little bit of a "gotcha", but the purpose of robrecht's questions is to move you into admitting that it takes an extra-biblical source to recognize that the 66 books that you accept are in fact inspired. I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that, yes, we accept these books because they were generally accepted by the early ecclesia, but that this acceptance was guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps one could even say that the reason we accept the Biblical canon has to do with the Holy Spirit in us as well, and why, for instance, we haven't been deceived by a "different kind of spirit" (as 2 Corinthians 11:4 puts it) in accepting some other Biblical canon (the Mormon canon for instance).

robrecht
12-04-2015, 02:11 AM
37818, its a little bit of a "gotcha", but the purpose of robrecht's questions is to move you into admitting that it takes an extra-biblical source to recognize that the 66 books that you accept are in fact inspired. I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that, yes, we accept these books because they were generally accepted by the early ecclesia, but that this acceptance was guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps one could even say that the reason we accept the Biblical canon has to do with the Holy Spirit in us as well, and why, for instance, we haven't been deceived by a "different kind of spirit" (as 2 Corinthians 11:4 puts it) in accepting some other Biblical canon (the Mormon canon for instance).
Why do you consider this a little bit of a "gotcha"? I think it is an entirely fair and straightforward question.

Adrift
12-04-2015, 05:10 AM
Why do you consider this a little bit of a "gotcha"? I think it is an entirely fair and straightforward question.

Mostly because you haven't plainly told him that is your aim. Something he's probably already figured out I'm guessing though.

robrecht
12-04-2015, 05:25 AM
Mostly because you haven't plainly told him that is your aim. Something he's probably already figured out I'm guessing though.
My aim is merely to understand how he approaches this question.

One Bad Pig
12-04-2015, 06:52 AM
[That the direct descendants of the apostles are still around is] obviously disputable,
The idea that they were not around for at least quite some time has more to do with polemics than history; even most Protestants can accurately be described as Chalcedonian, and the Reformers found much authoritative teachings in the writings of St. Augustine (and IIRC Anselm). A strict sola scriptura view discounts all that.

and there's a number of "descendants" in that chain who bore little fruit that would indicate they were even followers of Christ.
That's not a new issue; it's been around since at least the Novatianist schism.


No it didn't. You of all people should be aware that the NT canon was relatively fixed early on. Evidence includes the quoting of all of the NT books in the writings of the early church fathers and the 2nd century Muratorian fragment that lists most of the books in the canon as we know it today.
Most, yes. We're quibbling over details. Revelation wasn't firmly accepted until the 7th century (even later in the case of the Armenians and some Syrian groups); IIRC it took nearly as long for Hebrews to be fully accepted in the West, and some Syraic groups never did accept James, 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John.


If it was only for a specific audience, only for a specific time and pace, then it would be worthless to anyone outside of that time and place.
:sigh: No.

In that regard, then, it seems best to understand scripture as multi-dimensional. On one level the New Testament directly addresses the issues and circumstances of its original audience, and on another level it's applicable to all Christians everywhere and in every time.
Agreed. What I'm getting at is that scripture was not written to cover everything. The apostles did not, for example, write a manual detailing Christian worship, or write out the essentials of their belief. The Church was built on the preaching of the apostles and their successors; it took time for the lectionary to develop.


37818 wrote "essentials of the Christian faith". There have always been, and always will be differences between Christians on secondary matters, and that's true for the Orthodox and Catholic communities as it is the Protestant ones.
I agree; however, if a "secondary matter" causes schism, how "secondary" could it possibly be to those involved?

One Bad Pig
12-04-2015, 07:11 AM
Says who?
At least Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians (IIRC Anglicans and Lutherans claim apostolic descent as well).


What we have direct from God to His prophets and Apostles to the us by way of writings which are the Holy Scriptures.
Sure.


That is not what I asserted. I asserted that there is a disagreement whether God does or does not today by way of the three gifts of the Holy Spirit speak to His church today, as noted. I did not assert God cannot. You say this disagreement is not a secondary issue. So then according to you all professing Christians who are cessationist are heretics.
You are asserting that the 66 books of scripture accepted by Protestants are the final authority. That leaves no room whatsoever for the Holy Spirit to speak with authority.


:no: Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written (2 Peter 2:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
:hrm: Yes and no. It is indeed inspired by God upon being written, but it takes time for it to be largely recognized as such.


And you are citing is Holy Scripture to make your argument.
Um, yes. Now try reading it for comprehension.


:no: The Holy Scriptures were handed down through the churches.
Of course, but that does not support what you said.


So then you are arguing protestants of the Reformation are not Christians then.
:sigh: No. I am arguing that what the Protestants of the Reformation stated is not normative for Christianity.


Why, then, are there so many [Christian] denominations?
Because of disagreements over secondary issues.
Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!
By making non essentials as essentials.
So you admit that you and they disagree over what is essential.


The church [made up of churches] Christ is building has been here 19 centuries.
Yes.

And those teachings come from the Holy Scriptures as noted.
And whatever was preached by the apostles, which came prior to the NT.

Adrift
12-04-2015, 07:35 AM
The idea that they were not around for at least quite some time has more to do with polemics than history; even most Protestants can accurately be described as Chalcedonian, and the Reformers found much authoritative teachings in the writings of St. Augustine (and IIRC Anselm). A strict sola scriptura view discounts all that.

That a Protestant might accept a particular interpretation of scripture from a later figure like Augustine does not imply that they believe that Augustine (for example) had Apostolic authority.


Most, yes. We're quibbling over details.

That's the point of the correction I offered. You wrote: "It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon". It did not take centuries for the NT canon to be largely agreed upon. It was largely agreed upon within a century or so. Had you written "It took centuries before the NT canon was completely agreed upon" I wouldn't have quibbled.


Agreed. What I'm getting at is that scripture was not written to cover everything. The apostles did not, for example, write a manual detailing Christian worship, or write out the essentials of their belief. The Church was built on the preaching of the apostles and their successors; it took time for the lectionary to develop.

I think it can be argued that the Apostles did write a manual detailing Christian worship, and that manual is woven throughout their letters to their initial audience. It only takes a competent hermeneutic (admittedly guided by the Holy Spirit) to read that out.


I agree; however, if a "secondary matter" causes schism, how "secondary" could it possibly be to those involved?

Point taken, but it doesn't seem to me that most Protestant churches today schism over salvational issues, and even those that originally believed they had, I'm certain have since rethought that position. The passage of time has a way of putting things in perspective. I imagine few modern Orthodox believers believe the Roman church or the Iconoclasts of the 8th and 9th century split over essentials that would deny salvation.

One Bad Pig
12-04-2015, 07:56 AM
That a Protestant might accept a particular interpretation of scripture from a later figure like Augustine does not imply that they believe that Augustine (for example) had Apostolic authority.
IIRC Augustine was cited by the Reformers in arguments against Rome.


That's the point of the correction I offered. You wrote: "It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon". It did not take centuries for the NT canon to be largely agreed upon. It was largely agreed upon within a century or so. Had you written "It took centuries before the NT canon was completely agreed upon" I wouldn't have quibbled.
"Complete" isn't technically accurate.


I think it can be argued that the Apostles did write a manual detailing Christian worship, and that manual is woven throughout their letters to their initial audience. It only takes a competent hermeneutic (admittedly guided by the Holy Spirit) to read that out.
:hrm: Then why does Protestant worship largely look so different from that of the Catholic churches? And why is there such variety in Protestant worship, which is ostensibly scripturally based?


Point taken, but it doesn't seem to me that most Protestant churches today schism over salvational issues, and even that originally believed they had, I'm certain have since rethought that position. The passage of time has a way of putting things in perspective.
This seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.

I imagine few modern Orthodox believers believe the Roman church or the Iconoclasts of the 8th and 9th century split over essentials that would deny salvation.
Some Orthodox believers believe that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church (Jezz came to hold this view, which is why he stepped down from his leadership position). The more prevalent view, AFAICT, is that there is salvation inside the Orthodox Church, and no dogmatic statement should be made regarding those outside of Orthodoxy.

Adrift
12-04-2015, 08:17 AM
:hrm: Then why does Protestant worship largely look so different from that of the Catholic churches?

From my perspective, as an ex-cultist, it isn't so different, or at least, not so different as I was initially led to believe.


And why is there such variety in Protestant worship, which is ostensibly scripturally based?

Again, in my opinion, the variety in Protestant worship isn't so great. But the reason there is so much variety is because of freedom to do so. I think that freedom can be a wonderful thing especially when church leadership grows corrupt as has been the case on numerous occasions in all of our faith traditions.


This seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.


Some Orthodox believers believe that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church (Jezz came to hold this view, which is why he stepped down from his leadership position). The more prevalent view, AFAICT, is that there is salvation inside the Orthodox Church, and no dogmatic statement should be made regarding those outside of Orthodoxy.

I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that the prevalent view, as far as you can tell, is that there is salvation in the Orthodox Church, but that outside of it, anyone, even those who claim not to be Christian (an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu) has as much chance at salvation as one who is, say, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Southern Baptist?

One Bad Pig
12-04-2015, 06:47 PM
From my perspective, as an ex-cultist, it isn't so different, or at least, not so different as I was initially led to believe.

Again, in my opinion, the variety in Protestant worship isn't so great.
There is almost literally nothing in common between a Lutheran liturgy and a Quaker meeting. In most Protestant churches, the sermon is the main focus of the service; in Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Anglican services, the Eucharist is the focal point of the service.

But the reason there is so much variety is because of freedom to do so. I think that freedom can be a wonderful thing especially when church leadership grows corrupt as has been the case on numerous occasions in all of our faith traditions.
From my perspective, freedom is what allows corruption to wreak the most havoc. The reason why prayers became fixed in the liturgy is because that way heretics couldn't slip their heresies into them. The teachings of the Orthodox Church are embedded in its services; even when the Russians forbade the priests to teach, knowledge was still passed down through the daily services of the Church.


This seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
It seems that if you're talking about the church today, as if the church of yesteryear was of less import. And I think that today, for many people in the West at least, denomination is rather less significant than it was even a generation ago, with many people eschewing denomination entirely.



I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that the prevalent view, as far as you can tell, is that there is salvation in the Orthodox Church, but that outside of it, anyone, even those who claim not to be Christian (an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu) has as much chance at salvation as one who is, say, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Southern Baptist?
No, a Christian would be (much, IMO) more likely to be saved, but only the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the faith.

(apropos of your avatar, Blue Highway was running through my head on the way home)

Adrift
12-04-2015, 09:22 PM
There is almost literally nothing in common between a Lutheran liturgy and a Quaker meeting. In most Protestant churches, the sermon is the main focus of the service; in Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Anglican services, the Eucharist is the focal point of the service.

I think there is probably far more than you realize. Coming from an organization that did not believe in baptism, or in the trinity, or in any form of church meeting place (home fellowships only), or a liturgy there is a ton in common between Lutheran liturgy and a Quaker meeting. And the Quakers may not have a scripted liturgy like you'd expect in Lutheran church, but they do partake in what they call a liturgy of silence which is meant to express the same form of worshipfulness. Even Baptists have a liturgy of sorts, they simply don't call it a "liturgy". Sometimes they refer to it as a bulletin in which the worshipers sing songs, the pastor preaches, the collection plate is passed around, there's a closing prayer, and then you leave.


From my perspective, freedom is what allows corruption to wreak the most havoc. The reason why prayers became fixed in the liturgy is because that way heretics couldn't slip their heresies into them. The teachings of the Orthodox Church are embedded in its services; even when the Russians forbade the priests to teach, knowledge was still passed down through the daily services of the Church.

And from my perspective, when you fix a prayer, you end up with rote memorization that can lead to thankless, and faithless ritual. It's why many commentators believe Jesus specifically warned against the repetitious style of Gentile prayer before showing the style of prayer we ought to emulate. In my experience, lack of freedom in churches often results in churches that come off cold and mechanical and spiritless. I've been to mainline churches that are heavy on a scripted liturgy and they come off to me as...dead. There's no life, no energy, no passion for what they're a part of. Just a sort of zombie going through the motions. A sort of "we do this because our parents did this and because their parents did". Maybe that hasn't been your experience, and perhaps that isn't always the issue in heavily liturgical churches, but its what I've witnessed personally. And if you're afraid of corruption in the church, well I hate to break it to you, but some of the most corrupt churches were those who lacked the freedom to deviate. I mean, it was corruption in the Church that led to the Reformation to begin with.


It seems that if you're talking about the church today, as if the church of yesteryear was of less import. And I think that today, for many people in the West at least, denomination is rather less significant than it was even a generation ago, with many people eschewing denomination entirely.

I'm not sure what I said to give you that impression. Though I do think there's a sense of introspection in the church today that was missing in much of the past. Why do we do what we do, rather than "just do it". Instead of worrying so much about what we wear to church, how closely we follow the rote rituals, which baptized Christians can and cannot take communion with us, and the like, there is more of a sense of, you know, getting back to basics that I think the Reformation affords modern believers. When I read something like the Didache, I see in it a church service that is much more like a non-denominational Evangelical service than I do an Orthodox or Roman Catholic service. But that's neither here nor there.


No, a Christian would be (much, IMO) more likely to be saved, but only the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the faith.

Ok...I think. :smile:


(apropos of your avatar, Blue Highway was running through my head on the way home)

:lol:

Obsidian
12-05-2015, 11:19 AM
I still don't fully understand what the disagreement even is. Is Bad Pig saying that modern "apostles" are able to contradict the word of God? Or can they only add on to the word of God, but not explicitly contradict it? And what exactly are the limits of their add-on authority, given that Deuteronomy 4 says the law itself is fixed?

37818
12-05-2015, 05:48 PM
OK, so if God has not revealed to you that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture, has he revealed it to someone else?As I had already explained, those 66 books that are in our Bible were handed down as Holy Scripture.

And Jesus, as I also pointed out, contended by being willing to do God's will, God's teaching is known (John 7:16). While Jesus was speaking of His words, this truth applies to all of God's word (John 8:47).



Is it revealed in Scripture that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture?Not at all. Only that that God's written word is the sure word of God (2 Peter 1:19-21) and completely authoritative (2 Timothy 3:14-17). Now because not all of those 66 books are cross referenced and quoted in Holy Scripture does not mean they are not God's word. And just because non-Holy Scripture is quoted in Holy Scripture does not make such documents the word of God too.



Or do you accept some extra-scriptural authority that identifies these and only these 66 books as sacred Scripture?No. Not as a word of God. If that is what you are asking.

Again, those 66 books are what were handed down as Holy Scripture by the churches. And they have withstood a test of time as well.

One Bad Pig
12-05-2015, 06:43 PM
I think there is probably far more than you realize. Coming from an organization that did not believe in baptism, or in the trinity, or in any form of church meeting place (home fellowships only), or a liturgy there is a ton in common between Lutheran liturgy and a Quaker meeting. And the Quakers may not have a scripted liturgy like you'd expect in Lutheran church, but they do partake in what they call a liturgy of silence which is meant to express the same form of worshipfulness. Even Baptists have a liturgy of sorts, they simply don't call it a "liturgy". Sometimes they refer to it as a bulletin in which the worshipers sing songs, the pastor preaches, the collection plate is passed around, there's a closing prayer, and then you leave.
:hrm: I think you're mostly confusing belief and praxis here. I am referring to the latter. I agree that all services can be called 'liturgy.' Again, however, the structure of most Protestant services is built around the sermon, Pentacostal services tend to be built more around the experience of the Holy Spirit, and some (like the Catholic Churches) are built around the Eucharist.


And from my perspective, when you fix a prayer, you end up with rote memorization that can lead to thankless, and faithless ritual. It's why many commentators believe Jesus specifically warned against the repetitious style of Gentile prayer before showing the style of prayer we ought to emulate.
Which IMO is a complete mis-reading motivated by a bias against fixed prayer; the early disciples certainly regarded what Jesus gave as such (already in the Didache it's being repeated three times a day).

In my experience, lack of freedom in churches often results in churches that come off cold and mechanical and spiritless. I've been to mainline churches that are heavy on a scripted liturgy and they come off to me as...dead. There's no life, no energy, no passion for what they're a part of. Just a sort of zombie going through the motions. A sort of "we do this because our parents did this and because their parents did". Maybe that hasn't been your experience, and perhaps that isn't always the issue in heavily liturgical churches, but its what I've witnessed personally.
Keep in mind I'm a convert from fundamentalism, and I've experienced a broad range of worship styles. Yes, a scripted liturgy can come off as dead; I've experienced that in a mainline church myself. On the other hand, I have yet to experience that in any of the 10 or so Orthodox churches I've attended (which is not to say it couldn't happen).

And if you're afraid of corruption in the church, well I hate to break it to you, but some of the most corrupt churches were those who lacked the freedom to deviate. I mean, it was corruption in the Church that led to the Reformation to begin with.
I agree that no style is immune to corruption; a fixed liturgy, however, makes doctrine relatively immune to corruption. (I'd argue that the Reformation was not the most corrupt period in the Roman Catholic church, but that's a subject for another thread.)


I'm not sure what I said to give you that impression. Though I do think there's a sense of introspection in the church today that was missing in much of the past. Why do we do what we do, rather than "just do it".
:hrm: I'm not sure you're getting my point. The church of today should be the church of yesterday, with the same values; the message hasn't changed. It is all one church, past, present, and future.

Instead of worrying so much about what we wear to church,
Was rather more important to me as a Protestant.

how closely we follow the rote rituals,
Woe betide the Protestant minister who decides to change the order of the service. And even hymns and worship songs can easily be sung by rote.

which baptized Christians can and cannot take communion with us, and the like,
Some Protestant denominations practice closed communion. And no one worries about that in my church except for the priest (or the deacon, if present).

there is more of a sense of, you know, getting back to basics that I think the Reformation affords modern believers.
That would be nice if anyone could agree on what "the basics" are. They can't, which has been a problem since the Lutherans and Calvinists attempted to come together.

When I read something like the Didache, I see in it a church service that is much more like a non-denominational Evangelical service than I do an Orthodox or Roman Catholic service. But that's neither here nor there.
The Orthodox Liturgy of the Word (the first half of the Divine Liturgy) is recognizably similar to the synagogue service from whence it sprang. :shrug:

One Bad Pig
12-05-2015, 06:53 PM
I still don't fully understand what the disagreement even is. Is Bad Pig saying that modern "apostles" are able to contradict the word of God?
No.

Or can they only add on to the word of God, but not explicitly contradict it? And what exactly are the limits of their add-on authority, given that Deuteronomy 4 says the law itself is fixed?
:doh: You DO recognize that the New Testament came after Deuteronomy, yes?

In Orthodox understanding, an ecumenical council has the authority to decree normative beliefs and praxis. For example, the Nicene Creed, as formulated by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and expanded by the Council of Constantinople in 381, is considered authoritative. However, their decrees cannot contradict what is already authoritative, and need to be supported by past belief.

Obsidian
12-05-2015, 06:59 PM
You DO recognize that the New Testament came after Deuteronomy, yes?

I don't think the New Testament modified the law.


In Orthodox understanding, an ecumenical council has the authority to decree normative . . . praxis.

That sounds a bit like modifying the law.


However, their decrees cannot contradict what is already authoritative, and need to be supported by past belief.

I doubt that 37818 has any problem with merely decreeing things that are already supported by past belief, and that do not contradict past belief. The problem comes when you make up new things. Hence, I don't truly understand what the dispute is about.

One Bad Pig
12-05-2015, 07:34 PM
I don't think the New Testament modified the law.

That sounds a bit like modifying the law.
Christians are not under the law.

I doubt that 37818 has any problem with merely decreeing things that are already supported by past belief, and that do not contradict past belief. The problem comes when you make up new things. Hence, I don't truly understand what the dispute is about.
He disagrees with the Nicene Creed; he doesn't think it, for example, should be authoritative (and I wager that he would still think it should not be authoritative even if he agreed with it, because it's not scripture).

robrecht
12-05-2015, 07:39 PM
As I had already explained, those 66 books that are in our Bible were handed down as Holy Scripture.

And Jesus, as I also pointed out, contended by being willing to do God's will, God's teaching is known (John 7:16). While Jesus was speaking of His words, this truth applies to all of God's word (John 8:47).

Not at all. Only that that God's written word is the sure word of God (2 Peter 1:19-21) and completely authoritative (2 Timothy 3:14-17). Now because not all of those 66 books are cross referenced and quoted in Holy Scripture does not mean they are not God's word. And just because non-Holy Scripture is quoted in Holy Scripture does not make such documents the word of God too.

No. Not as a word of God. If that is what you are asking.

Again, those 66 books are what were handed down as Holy Scripture by the churches. And they have withstood a test of time as well.
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you are understanding my question. Why do you accept the Protestant revision of the canon of only 66 books in the Bible and not the older canons of Scripture with more books of the Bible in the Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental churches? What are your reasons for rejecting some books of the Bible that the majority of Christians accept as handed down by the church as Sacred Scripture?

37818
12-05-2015, 08:20 PM
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you are understanding my question. Why do you accept the Protestant revision of the canon of only 66 books in the Bible and not the older canons of Scripture with more books of the Bible in the Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental churches? What are your reasons for rejecting some books of the Bible that the majority of Christians accept as handed down by the church as Sacred Scripture?

Those additional books were never part of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. 1 Maccabees is a book of history,not Holy Scripture - tells us the story of Hanukkah - which Jews to this day continue to observe.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church of Rome did not accept them, except as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. As a matter of history 1546 at the Council of Trent. :shrug:

Adam
12-05-2015, 09:31 PM
Wow, something that 37818 said that is almost verifiable as a half-truth.
Yes, it is correct that the Roman Catholic Church finally got around in 1546 to Ecumenical Council (of Trent) authoritative infallible declaration of the set of 73 books of the Bible. They basically went with the Bible they had used for over a thousand years, the Latin Vulgate based mostly on the Greek Septuagint. As the Roman Catholics outnumber all combined Protestants by hundreds of millions, it would seem 73 it is. Was this a reaction to Protestantism? Most likely "Yes", but only in the sense that the Roman Church felt compelled to definitively rule what books were inspired and inerrant. They dogmatized Protestant bibliolatry, one of the reasons I left Roman Catholicism in 1992.

Not that simple, of course. There are yet other books that the Council of Trent rejected from inclusion. However, by 1546 the Anglican Church had already gone its own way and included several extra books (beyond the 73) as did the Eastern Orthodox who had split off in 1054. Not to mention that the Oriental Orthodox (and especially the Ethiopians) had a yet-larger canon.

Plus there is the argument that even 66 books is too many. Martin Luther rejected Esther and the Epistle of James. Higher critics largely dismiss II Peter and Jude and find no proof (the books being so small) for II John and III John. And does Judges belong in the Bible with so much untoward incidents? Genesis 1 to 11 might be only myths. And who reads Leviticus?

Obsidian
12-05-2015, 09:55 PM
`
He disagrees with the Nicene Creed; he doesn't think it, for example, should be authoritative (and I wager that he would still think it should not be authoritative even if he agreed with it, because it's not scripture).

If he disagrees with it, I'm guessing it's because he thinks it contradicts the Bible -- which you admitted councils are not allowed to do. I personally think the "begotten" language is stupid and probably not what the biblical writers meant by the term.


Christians are not under the law.

I've found this to be an excuse that lots of Christians make for "chang[ing] times and laws" and sinning in general.

robrecht
12-06-2015, 12:13 AM
Those additional books were never part of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. 1 Maccabees is a book of history,not Holy Scripture - tells us the story of Hanukkah - which Jews to this day continue to observe.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church of Rome did not accept them, except as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. As a matter of history 1546 at the Council of Trent. :shrug:The Catholics did not add books in reaction to the Protestants, but they did define the canon in reaction to the Reformers excluding books that had previously been accepted as scripture. The books the Catholics kept had previously been part of the bible handed down as scripture. Otherwise, how would you explain the Orthodox and Oriental churches also having all or some of these books and additional ones as well? The New Testament books were not written in Hebrew; why should that be a criterion of what books are considered inspired or canonical? Regardless of which books you choose or which church authority you accept as correctly defining which books are inspired or canonical, do you see that you are accepting a decision of some group of men (not God) as to which books are inspired and canonical?

Obsidian
12-06-2015, 12:54 AM
Do you seriously believe that the Apocrypha is infallible?

robrecht
12-06-2015, 01:10 AM
Do you seriously believe that the Apocrypha is infallible?No. Nor do I believe the rest of scripture is inerrant or infallible.

37818
12-06-2015, 02:27 PM
The Catholics did not add books in reaction to the Protestants, but they did define the canon in reaction to the Reformers excluding books that had previously been accepted as scripture. The books the Catholics kept had previously been part of the bible handed down as scripture. Otherwise, how would you explain the Orthodox and Oriental churches also having all or some of these books and additional ones as well? The New Testament books were not written in Hebrew; why should that be a criterion of what books are considered inspired or canonical? Regardless of which books you choose or which church authority you accept as correctly defining which books are inspired or canonical, do you see that you are accepting a decision of some group of men (not God) as to which books are inspired and canonical?
The 66 books of the Bible were in fact handed down. Far as I know, all the "canons" that were made, having additional books, without exception included those very 66 books.


No. Nor do I believe the rest of scripture is inerrant or infallible.
What is not inerrant and infallible is not God's word. :shrug:

robrecht
12-06-2015, 02:36 PM
The 66 books of the Bible were in fact handed down. Far as I know, all the "canons" that were made, having additional books, without exception included those very 66 books.

What is not inerrant and infallible is not God's word. :shrug:
But what is your rationale for excluding some books that were also handed down? Who makes the decision for you that those books, which had also been handed down by the churches, are not God's inerrant and infallible word?

37818
12-06-2015, 03:21 PM
But what is your rationale for excluding some books that were also handed down? Who makes the decision for you that those books, which had also been handed down by the churches, are not God's inerrant and infallible word?

When I became a Christian, I was totally ignorant of any of this. I was lead to Christ through a "baptist" tradition. I was lead to Christ with verses from the book of Romans and one verse from the book of Revelation. My Bible that I had was a protestant Bible, which does not include those books. The reason I accepted Christ as my Savior was on account of grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone - though at the time I did not understand these things as yet. What I did understand, was I could know without a doubt that when I die I would be with the Lord in Heaven.

The question of leaving this faith? By it I know God. I can no more deny I know Him than you being here on Tweb. And you can be a bot for all I know.
Bottom line, I have no reasons to accept those "second" canon books.

robrecht
12-06-2015, 04:44 PM
When I became a Christian, I was totally ignorant of any of this. I was lead to Christ through a "baptist" tradition. I was lead to Christ with verses from the book of Romans and one verse from the book of Revelation. My Bible that I had was a protestant Bible, which does not include those books. The reason I accepted Christ as my Savior was on account of grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone - though at the time I did not understand these things as yet. What I did understand, was I could know without a doubt that when I die I would be with the Lord in Heaven.

The question of leaving this faith? By it I know God. I can no more deny I know Him than you being here on Tweb. And you can be a bot for all I know.
Bottom line, I have no reasons to accept those "second" canon books.
That's about as good a reason as any, I suppose.

GoBahnsen
12-13-2015, 01:44 PM
I am going to give you three answers, they are not exhaustive.

1) The term "Sola Scritura" like the term "Trinity" is not to be found in Holy Scripture. But these teachings are found in the written word of God.

2) Without the Holy Scripture there is no Christianity.

3) The Apostle Peter cited that the word of God was given verbally. And argued that he and the Apostles were not following fables. And that the written (Scripture) was the sure word of God. {2 Peter 1:16-21.}Sola Scriptura was the Reformed stance against the non-biblical traditions of the Roman Church. And the false idea that the Pope or the church could invent new practices or beliefs to impose upon the people of God. Much like the Pharisees had done. Christ was a Sola Scriptura example to us.

His response was "it is written." Of course, He being God Himself, did indulge in also saying "but I say unto you." He can do that, not the church of Rome or any other church.

Adam
12-13-2015, 09:30 PM
Totally circular. I guess this is Presuppositionalism at its worst.
On the other hand, this post can be interpreted as defining "sola scriptura" as Jesus's own words, a canon consisting of the Red Letter Bible. Which of course is heretical.

As I recall from the old TWeb, GoBahnson was a strict Calvinist. If so nothing he said here indicates that theology.

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 09:21 AM
Totally circular. I guess this is Presuppositionalism at its worst.
On the other hand, this post can be interpreted as defining "sola scriptura" as Jesus's own words, a canon consisting of the Red Letter Bible. Which of course is heretical.

As I recall from the old TWeb, GoBahnson was a strict Calvinist. If so nothing he said here indicates that theology.Good. I like Calvin. But I don't want to be a Calvinist. I never got my head wrapped around presuppositionalism enough to be any good at arguing from it. So I would be presup at it's worst.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a Red Letter only bible. I love all 66 books.

Adam
12-14-2015, 12:28 PM
Do you seriously believe that the Apocrypha is infallible?
I almost said, "As much as he rest of the Old Testament (Tanach)", but in point of fact--
Roman Catholics themselves implicitly downgrade our Apocrypha by classifying the seven as "deutero-canonical" (secondary canon)
And
By never naming their churches after the Maccabean heroes nor even "St. Judith", "St. Tobit" and certainly not "St. Sirach"! Robrecht, have you heard of such? I don't even know of a "Wisdom Church". (On the other hand, how many Catholic (or Protestant) churches are named after any Patriarchs nor the prophets Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or certainly not "Zechariah"--ever heard of a St. Zeke's, even in Dixie?.)

One Bad Pig
12-14-2015, 02:08 PM
I almost said, "As much as he rest of the Old Testament (Tanach)", but in point of fact--
Roman Catholics themselves implicitly downgrade our Apocrypha by classifying the seven as "deutero-canonical" (secondary canon)
And
By never naming their churches after the Maccabean heroes nor even "St. Judith", "St. Tobit" and certainly not "St. Sirach"! Robrecht, have you heard of such? I don't even know of a "Wisdom Church". (On the other hand, how many Catholic (or Protestant) churches are named after any Patriarchs nor the prophets Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or certainly not "Zechariah"--ever heard of a St. Zeke's, even in Dixie?.)
There is an Orthodox Church dedicated to the Maccabean martyrs in Poland (http://bialowieza-forest.com/miejsce/the-orthodox-church-of-saints-maccabees-brothers/?lang=en). There are two OCA parishes dedicated to Elijah the Prophet. Parishes are typically named after people (or events, such as the Resurrection), not books of the Bible.

Adrift
12-14-2015, 05:07 PM
There is an Orthodox Church dedicated to the Maccabean martyrs in Poland (http://bialowieza-forest.com/miejsce/the-orthodox-church-of-saints-maccabees-brothers/?lang=en). There are two OCA parishes dedicated to Elijah the Prophet. Parishes are typically named after people (or events, such as the Resurrection), not books of the Bible.

I was under the impression (by way of a recent theology podcast I listened to) that the Orthodox church considered the deuterocanonical books as secondary in authority (and thus the name), and that the RCC does not consider the deuterocanonical works secondary in authority, but that they mean "deutero" in a chronological sense, in that the deuterocanon was recognized and considered canonical later. Is that your understanding as well?

One Bad Pig
12-14-2015, 05:47 PM
I was under the impression (by way of a recent theology podcast I listened to) that the Orthodox church considered the deuterocanonical books as secondary in authority (and thus the name), and that the RCC does not consider the deuterocanonical works secondary in authority, but that they mean "deutero" in a chronological sense, in that the deuterocanon was recognized and considered canonical later. Is that your understanding as well?
I suppose you could say that informally; the canon has never been dogmatically established. Historically speaking, there's a definite core of 22 books (=39 as counted today), with many fathers quoting a varying set including some deuterocanonical books as authoritative. There is no OT lectionary, although various portions of the OT are included in the rubrics (primarily for Vespers); Wisdom is the only deuterocanonical book in the set, but the Prayer of Azariah/Song of the Three Holy Youths (Greek addition to Daniel) are two of the nine canticles (http://www.synaxis.info/psalter/5_english/d_biblical_odes/biblical_odes.html) around which a canon is constructed.

shunyadragon
12-14-2015, 07:56 PM
Good. I like Calvin. But I don't want to be a Calvinist. I never got my head wrapped around presuppositionalism enough to be any good at arguing from it. So I would be presup at it's worst.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a Red Letter only bible. I love all 66 books.

The view of presuppositionalism has no logical argument supporting it, and it claims that there is no logical argument. It considers it beliefs and the Bible simply as fact and true without question.

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 09:12 PM
The view of presuppositionalism has no logical argument supporting it, and it claims that there is no logical argument. It considers it beliefs and the Bible simply as fact and true without question.I think it claims God is the author of logic and one cannot know anything logically without presupposing the existence of the Triune God. For the Atheist to use logic, he must borrow from the Christian worldview. Stuff like that is what I recall. It certainly isn't some hillbilly point of view. It does go over my head for sure.

37818
12-15-2015, 06:35 AM
The view of presuppositionalism has no logical argument supporting it, and it claims that there is no logical argument. It considers it beliefs and the Bible simply as fact and true without question.

Presuppositional apologetic argues from what are held by it as true. Any opposing views agreement are not required. A mere denial does not prove that anything is not true. Personally, I am of the view point that every view point comes from a set of presupposions whether acknowledged as such or not.

shunyadragon
12-15-2015, 04:16 PM
I think it claims God is the author of logic and one cannot know anything logically without presupposing the existence of the Triune God. For the Atheist to use logic, he must borrow from the Christian worldview. Stuff like that is what I recall. It certainly isn't some hillbilly point of view. It does go over my head for sure.

I believe the belief that presuppositionalist do not even consider the laws of logic in any context.



Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.[1] Presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true.[2][not in citation given] Two schools of presuppositionalism exist, based on the different teachings of Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Haddon Clark.

Presuppositionalists compare their presupposition against other ultimate standards such as reason, empirical experience, and subjective feeling, claiming presupposition in this context is:

a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing.[3]

Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews.

An inactive member Mr. Black was a classic 'Van Til' presuppositionalist.

I believe it is the Classical Apologists that propose God is the author of the Laws of Logic.

37818
12-15-2015, 06:14 PM
Logic has its basis from God. ". . . All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." And that includes logic.

shunyadragon
12-15-2015, 07:04 PM
Logic has its basis from God. ". . . All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." And that includes logic.

I was not giving my view of the relationship between the Laws of Logic and God. I was simply describing the difference between presuppositionalism and Classical Apologists. You are taking the view of the Classical Apologists.

I do not agree with either position, but that is the subject of another thread.

One Bad Pig
12-16-2015, 07:48 PM
I suppose you could say that informally; the canon has never been dogmatically established. Historically speaking, there's a definite core of 22 books (=39 as counted today), with many fathers quoting a varying set including some deuterocanonical books as authoritative. There is no OT lectionary, although various portions of the OT are included in the rubrics (primarily for Vespers); Wisdom is the only deuterocanonical book in the set, but the Prayer of Azariah/Song of the Three Holy Youths (Greek addition to Daniel) are two of the nine canticles (http://www.synaxis.info/psalter/5_english/d_biblical_odes/biblical_odes.html) around which a canon is constructed.
I stand corrected: A passage from Baruch is read on Christmas Eve.

The Remonstrant
12-17-2015, 12:07 AM
37818:

Regarding the question of whether the concept of sola scriptura may be derived from Scripture, I will simply say this: if one should become convinced of the falsity of sola scriptura, he/she will likely find him-/herself drawn towards Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism (assuming he or she remains a believer).

Adam
12-17-2015, 11:35 AM
Probably true, as though raised Protestant I always doubted the 66 convention. By 1964 I was inclined to go Eastern Orthodox and in 1969 got baptized Roman Catholic. After seeing internal contradictions within RC I still saw no reason to settle on 66 books and joined the Episcopal Church in 1992 (with about 75 books in the canon in the Thirty-Nine Articles). In 2004 I remained outside sola scriptura in holding to the Nicene Creed when I converted to Lutheran. We basically hold to 66 books, but sometimes read on Sundays from Wisdom or Sirach. But Luther himself accepted less than 66.

The Remonstrant
12-17-2015, 10:36 PM
Probably true, as though raised Protestant I always doubted the 66 convention. By 1964 I was inclined to go Eastern Orthodox and in 1969 got baptized Roman Catholic. After seeing internal contradictions within RC I still saw no reason to settle on 66 books and joined the Episcopal Church in 1992 (with about 75 books in the canon in the Thirty-Nine Articles). In 2004 I remained outside sola scriptura in holding to the Nicene Creed when I converted to Lutheran. We basically hold to 66 books, but sometimes read on Sundays from Wisdom or Sirach. But Luther himself accepted less than 66.

In what way(s) is your faith ‘unorthodox’?

Adam
12-18-2015, 09:19 AM
Mossy says so, because I believe that current evil beings, demons and such derive from an original Evil, uncreated by our God, but whom God has foreborn obliteration, out of His great mercy. I consider myself fully orthodox with the unusual plus of a theodicy that solves the Problem of Evil.
(The Bible nowhere states that God created Satan or even the angels.)

(Regarding Martin Luther, I should have added that he translated all 66 books of the Bible in spite of his reservations about Esther, James, and perhaps others.)

Chrawnus
12-18-2015, 08:53 PM
Mossy says so, because I believe that current evil beings, demons and such derive from an original Evil, uncreated by our God, but whom God has foreborn obliteration, out of His great mercy. I consider myself fully orthodox with the unusual plus of a theodicy that solves the Problem of Evil.
(The Bible nowhere states that God created Satan or even the angels.)

I'm pretty sure postulating anything other than God as being eternal puts you squarely outside orthodoxy, no matter what your own opinion on the matter might be. :shrug:

Adam
12-18-2015, 10:42 PM
Where did I say God was not eternal?

Chrawnus
12-18-2015, 11:00 PM
Where did I say God was not eternal?

Where did I say you did?

The Remonstrant
12-18-2015, 11:58 PM
Mossy says so, because I believe that current evil beings, demons and such derive from an original Evil, uncreated by our God, but whom God has foreborn [sic] obliteration, out of His great mercy. I consider myself fully orthodox with the unusual plus of a theodicy that solves the Problem of Evil.
(The Bible nowhere states that God created Satan or even the angels.)

(Regarding Martin Luther, I should have added that he translated all 66 books of the Bible in spite of his reservations about Esther, James, and perhaps others.)

Thank you for your explanation. If you am understanding you correctly, you believe that there are some beings (or things) that were not created by God. If so, this belief alone would place you outside the realm of ‘orthodoxy’, I’m afraid. (I will not derail the thread any further.)

One Bad Pig
12-19-2015, 08:53 AM
37818:

Regarding the question of whether the concept of sola scriptura may be derived from Scripture, I will simply say this: if one should become convinced of the falsity of sola scriptura, he/she will likely find him-/herself drawn towards Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism (assuming he or she remains a believer).
I'm not sure why you bring this up, since it doesn't appear to address the question itself in any way. :shrug: I agree that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are the most objective alternatives to sola scriptura. In my case, I'm not sure which happened first. I was interested in Eastern Orthodoxy well before I had any desire to convert.

Adam
12-19-2015, 09:35 AM
.... If [I] am understanding you correctly, you believe that there are some beings (or things) that were not created by God. If so, this belief alone would place you outside the realm of ‘orthodoxy’, I’m afraid....
Not necessarily.
The remaining Evil-ness in this universe may have arisen independently of God, in some inter-related "soup" before God distanced Himself from the Other, or as "stuff" "created" by God before God set it aside as something not good. But I do believe firmly that our God we worship did not wantonly create Evil as such knowing it would be irremediably evil forever. That last "out" may be a good fit with Origen's belief that eventually even Satan will be saved.
So one way or another, I guess you can fairly say that my orthodoxy is at least as questionable as Origen's. I have been saying for decades (including when I was Roman Catholic) that I am an Origenist. (Origen was the first great Christian theologian, only eclipsed around 400 A. D. by Augustine of Hippo.)

robrecht
12-19-2015, 10:28 AM
Not necessarily.
The remaining Evil-ness in this universe may have arisen independently of God, in some inter-related "soup" before God distanced Himself from the Other, or as "stuff" "created" by God before God set it aside as something not good. But I do believe firmly that our God we worship did not wantonly create Evil as such knowing it would be irremediably evil forever. That last "out" may be a good fit with Origen's belief that eventually even Satan will be saved.
So one way or another, I guess you can fairly say that my orthodoxy is at least as questionable as Origen's. I have been saying for decades (including when I was Roman Catholic) that I am an Origenist. (Origen was the first great Christian theologian, only eclipsed around 400 A. D. by Augustine of Hippo.) I'm certanily no expert on Origen, but it seems like your belief may be in some respects the opposite of Origen's. Whereas he believed that Satan might eventually be saved, you said above something to the effect that he would eventually be obliterated. Did you mean that he would be saved or destroyed? Also, I do not think that Origen believed in some original Evil, uncreated by our God. Are you saying that he did? Do you have any specific references? Whether or not it is Origen's view, it is a form of dualism that I don't think anyone would consider orthodox, 'though there are indeed ways of reading the Genesis account that do not necessarily imply creatio ex nihilo.

Adrift
12-19-2015, 10:30 AM
I'm pretty sure postulating anything other than God as being eternal puts you squarely outside orthodoxy, no matter what your own opinion on the matter might be. :shrug:

Yeah, this gets into all sorts of sticky side topics. In order to make his claim, Adam would have to believe that satan and the demons are not necessarily fallen angels, so that when the Bible refers to the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), or the dragon and his angels (Revelation 12:7-9), it's referring to other entities (perhaps based on an alternate take on Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4). He would also have to disagree with Paul in Colossians 1:16 where he says that God has created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. There's also the underlying assumption that entities like angels, demons, and satan (and perhaps even humans) don't have free will to do evil.

Concerning his take on evil, I think the Jewish sage Maimonides take on the subject (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp146.htm) might be helpful (it is to me at any rate),

You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g., if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.); in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah: "I form the light and create (bore) darkness: I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the prophet does not say, I make (‘oseh) darkness, I make (‘oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply; the verb bara "he created" is used, because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things e.g., "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc.; here the creation took place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: "Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. 11). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to an these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist: only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evils only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the nonexistence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions. The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, "All evils are negations." Thus for man death is evil: death is his non-existence. Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man: all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things; is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil: this is impossible. His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good: whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only he attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is: it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil: consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, "And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds.

The Too-Long-Didn't-Read synopsis is that God doesn't create evil, evil is a byproduct of negation in God's good universe. Negations aren't created, as such, since they're simply the lack of a created property.

Adam
12-19-2015, 03:31 PM
Thanks, Adrift.
I clearly disagree with Maimonides.
I clearly disagree with Robrecht's supposition that I take the opposite position from Origen. Over my life I have preferred the "orthodox Origenist" position that Satan would ultimately be saved, particularly in synch with Benedict XVI's and Hans Urs von Balthasar's universalistic proclivities. However, since that doctrine does not explain the origin of the Problem of Evil, I hold open the possibility that God kind of evolved in tandem with forces now still opposed to God that God had little or nothing to do with creating or forming, but that God battled (as in Milton's myth of the Battle in Heaven) "them" and (thankfully) won.
I don't care to take Paul literarally, though as myself a charismatic I love his pastoral theology. What St. Paul says is good, but not necessarily the final ontological word.

robrecht
12-19-2015, 06:59 PM
Thanks, Adrift.
I clearly disagree with Maimonides.
I clearly disagree with Robrecht's supposition that I take the opposite position from Origen. Over my life I have preferred the "orthodox Origenist" position that Satan would ultimately be saved, particularly in synch with Benedict XVI's and Hans Urs von Balthasar's universalistic proclivities. However, since that doctrine does not explain the origin of the Problem of Evil, I hold open the possibility that God kind of evolved in tandem with forces now still opposed to God that God had little or nothing to do with creating or forming, but that God battled (as in Milton's myth of the Battle in Heaven) "them" and (thankfully) won.
I don't care to take Paul literarally, though as myself a charismatic I love his pastoral theology. What St. Paul says is good, but not necessarily the final ontological word.
Rather than disagree with my supposition, why not just answer my question? When you said above something to the effect that Satan would eventually be obliterated, did you mean that he would be saved or destroyed?

Adam
12-19-2015, 09:29 PM
"obliteration" as in " but whom God has foreborne obliteration, out of His great mercy", where I said God has NOT obliterated? That this implies God just delays in teasing or torturing along the way to annihilation? That's not what I said. Not that I deny God the right to obliterate whomever He will.

So if I ignored you it was just to spare you embarrassment regarding your error.

It's rather discouraging that so many here "amened" your error. Why do people hate me so much? (I'm not saying that YOU do, Robrecht.) I'm just defending God as all Good.

robrecht
12-20-2015, 02:20 AM
"obliteration" as in " but whom God has foreborne obliteration, out of His great mercy", where I said God has NOT obliterated? That this implies God just delays in teasing or torturing along the way to annihilation? That's not what I said. Not that I deny God the right to obliterate whomever He will.

So if I ignored you it was just to spare you embarrassment regarding your error.

It's rather discouraging that so many here "amened" your error. Why do people hate me so much? (I'm not saying that YOU do, Robrecht.) I'm just defending God as all Good.Why do you consider it an error to simply ask you a clarifying question? So, again, just so that I might better understand your views, you do not think that God will obliterate or destroy Satan but rather that Satan will eventually be saved--is that right?

Next question: I've heard some say that Origen did not defend creatio ex nihilo. Is that also your opinion of Origen? Is that also your own view? Do you also not believe in creatio ex nihilo? It sounds as if you do not, but I just want to make sure i understand your position. My own understanding, and again I am no expert on Origen's views, is that Origen did indeed defend creatio ex nihilo.

By the way, I certainly do not hate you, and I am glad that you do not think that I do. I can't speak for others here, but do you really think they hate you? Or are you just joking about that?

Adrift
12-20-2015, 06:02 AM
It's rather discouraging that so many here "amened" your error. Why do people hate me so much? (I'm not saying that YOU do, Robrecht.) I'm just defending God as all Good.

I sorta mentioned this in another thread, but you really need to get over this victim complex of yours. I doubt anyone on this forum hates you. I'm guessing most people around here barely think about you one way or the other (though announcing a dirty dozen list of people you don't particularly like is probably not helping you make friends).

I amened robrecht's post because his point about your dualistic beliefs are not what most Christians would consider orthodox.

Adam
12-20-2015, 09:56 PM
So, again, just so that I might better understand your views, you do not think that God will obliterate or destroy Satan but rather that Satan will eventually be saved--is that right?

Next question: I've heard some say that Origen did not defend creatio ex nihilo. Is that also your opinion of Origen? Is that also your own view? Do you also not believe in creatio ex nihilo?
I can't speak for others here, but do you really think they hate you? Or are you just joking about that?
I dunno. I don't have all the answers, just more questions than most people.

Adam
12-20-2015, 09:58 PM
I amened robrecht's post because his point about your dualistic beliefs are not what most Christians would consider orthodox.
I'm a chastened panentheist.