Where does it say in the Bible which books belong in the Bible?

[LivingWordUnity]

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?

[NewGuy101]

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?

Maybe its the fact that God put it together not the church. Funny how he would know the order...duhr

[Hentenza]

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?


LWU, at one point you are going to realize that this is the fundamentalist forum and we believe in ONLY the bible and not the extrabiblical teachings of the RCC. :doh:

And to answer your question, the whole bible is indeed inspired so no need for a table of contents. ;)

[LivingWordUnity]

LWU, at one point you are going to realize that this is the fundamentalist forum and we believe in ONLY the bible and not the extrabiblical teachings of the RCC. :doh:

And to answer your question, the whole bible is indeed inspired so no need for a table of contents. ;)That didn't answer the question.

[LivingWordUnity]

Maybe its the fact that God put it together not the church. Funny how he would know the order...duhrSo do you believe that the canon of the New Testament that we have today just fell out of the sky one day? Or do you believe that it happened more like the legend of Excaliber?

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

[Hentenza]

That didn't answer the question.

Sure it did. ;)

I mean, you are not seriously considering using the many times debunked argument that the RCC wrote and compiled the bible, are you?:doh::sigh::swoon:

[Albion]

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?


How exactly is your faith dependent upon knowing the answer to this?

Will you believe God only IF we agree on the arrangement of the books of the Bible?

Does "put the first ones first, and the ones written later afterwards, etc." help you at all?

[salida]

To understand the bible at all one must understand its history, its characteristics, and to understand what each book in the bible is about and why it was written. What was the intent of the author of each of these books? God used imperfect man to put these infallible scriptures together. Why do I think its "infallible" ? Because no other book in the world religious or nonreligious has hundreds of detailed prophesies in it that has come true and more are being fulfilled. Not to mention its other characteristics. Only God could have written it. Yes, I have studied other religious books and none compare with the Bible. You may want to read Evidence that Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in court concerning the overwhelming evidence of the bible).

2 Timothy 3:16

Biblical Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are confirmed within Bible

- Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke's time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 -Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament - starts at 25 years - between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies
New Testament - 5,686
Homer - 643
Demosthenes - 200
Plato - 7
Caesar - 10

Consistency
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.

Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences
(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never be built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22)
Tyre (Ezekiel 26:1-28)

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogoical Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

[LivingWordUnity]

Sure it did. ;)

I mean, you are not seriously considering using the many times debunked argument that the RCC wrote and compiled the bible, are you?:doh::sigh::swoon:Debunked? Why, because you said so?

It's not an argument that the Catholic Church compiled the canon of the New Testament, it is an historical fact which has been accepted inside and outside of the Catholic Church for the past 2,000 years.

You or Jack Chick or an historical revisionist coming along 2,000 years after the fact to give your personal opinion does not debunk 2,000 years of well documented history.

When someone comes along 2,000 years after the fact to say that 2,000 years of history didn't happen, you have to ask yourself what kind of agenda do that have for saying it. The only way for Protestants to justify not being in the one Church founded by Jesus is to try their best to demonize or discredit the Church.

Who else do you believe could have compiled the New Testament? If you say the Eastern Orthodox, I will ask you to whom did Jesus say, "on this rock I will build my Church"? Was it Peter or was it Andrew?

Do you believe that the Bible didn't exist until the Protestants popped up and broke away from the Catholic Church in the 16th century?

[Hentenza]

[quote=LivingWordUnity;45527611]Debunked? Why, because you said so?

No, not me. I am just a lowly disciple of Christ.:wave:

It's not an argument that the Catholic Church compiled the canon of the New Testament, it is an historical fact which has been accepted inside and outside of the Catholic Church for the past 2,000 years.

Not really, the bible books had been chosen way before the councils that made it official. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John.

You or Jack Chick or an historical revisionist coming along 2,000 years after the fact to give your personal opinion does not debunk 2,000 years of well documented history.

Nice of you to pair me up with Jack Chick since I think the guy is a charlatan. Come on LWU stop the polemics. Either debate or not but leave the insults out of your posts.

When someone comes along 2,000 years after the fact to say that 2,000 years of history didn't happen, you have to ask yourself what kind of agenda do that have for saying it. The only way for Protestants to justify not being in the one Church founded by Jesus is to try their best to demonize or discredit the Church.


Your opinion I guess. Have anything to back up your polemics with?

Who else do you believe could have compiled the New Testament? If you say the Eastern Orthodox, I will ask you to whom did Jesus say, "on this rock I will build my Church"? Was it Peter or was it Andrew?
Funny you bring up the EO since they claim to be the one and only church also. Mmmmm.... I wonder which one really is?

Do you believe that the Bible didn't exist until the Protestants popped up and broke away from the Catholic Church in the 16th century?

LOL!!! No one has even mention anything close to that. Getting touchy aren't we?

[Albion]

To understand the bible at all one must understand its history, its characteristics, and to understand what each book in the bible is about and why it was written. What was the intent of the author of each of these books? God used imperfect man to put these infallible scriptures together. Why do I think its "infallible" ? Because no other book in the world religious or nonreligious has hundreds of detailed prophesies in it that has come true and more are being fulfilled. Not to mention its other characteristics. Only God could have written it. Yes, I have studied other religious books and none compare with the Bible. You may want to read Evidence that Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in court concerning the overwhelming evidence of the bible).

2 Timothy 3:16

Biblical Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are confirmed within Bible

- Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke's time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 -Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament - starts at 25 years - between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies
New Testament - 5,686
Homer - 643
Demosthenes - 200
Plato - 7
Caesar - 10

Consistency
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.

Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences
(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never be built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22)
Tyre (Ezekiel 26:1-28)

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogoical Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

I disagree with that thesis, but suppose you are right. What else do we have in place of the Bible? And please do not say "Tradition" or "the living witness of the Church" or something else in that pious-sounding but meaningless vein. When we have finished off the Bible, I certainly am not going to turn with confidence to 2000 years of disputed myth, theory, and guesswork as a replacement! Of course, the two alternatives can always be painted that way--"Bible impossible to understand (Sorry God, but you should have thought of that). Meanwhile, the swamp of human opinion and theory is clear as day."

NOT.

[EnemyPartyII]

Maybe its the fact that God put it together not the church. Funny how he would know the order...duhr
Really? Gee... care to tell me where I could find a copy of the Bible, or even anything that MENTIONS a Bible prior to the council of Nicea?

[Albion]

Really? Gee... care to tell me where I could find a copy of the Bible, or even anything that MENTIONS a Bible prior to the council of Nicea?

Any one of many Church histories can help you out. As we know, "The Bible" is only the term we give to the complete set of the books that constitute Holy Scripture, and yes, all of them were in use in the Christian churches before Nicaea and were considered to be God's word.

[FundamentalistJohn]

I disagree with that thesis, but suppose you are right. What else do we have in place of the Bible? And please do not say "Tradition" or "the living witness of the Church" or something else in that pious-sounding but meaningless vein. When we have finished off the Bible, I certainly am not going to turn with confidence to 2000 years of disputed myth, theory, and guesswork as a replacement! Of course, the two alternatives can always be painted that way--"Bible impossible to understand (Sorry God, but you should have thought of that). Meanwhile, the swamp of human opinion and theory is clear as day."

NOT.
Albion;
What about the posters Thesis do you disagree with and why?

[ReverendDG]

Any one of many Church histories can help you out. As we know, "The Bible" is only the term we give to the complete set of the books that constitute Holy Scripture, and yes, all of them were in use in the Christian churches before Nicaea and were considered to be God's word.
really? and yet i know from research that revelations and many non-canon texts where argued to be equal to canon texts
what about enoch? jesus believed enoch was inspired and it was a well known text in 1st century judea
but its not canon? does being canon mean anything really anyway?

whats the proof that all the texts decided on in the council were all in use by all the churches? i doubt before then that all the current ones were canon everywhere
like i said rev wasn't, it wasn't for nearly 1500 years
many churches used different orders, didn't have some of them, considered some non-canon books to be inspired, its still like this, nothing really has changed

[Hentenza]

really? and yet i know from research that revelations and many non-canon texts where argued to be equal to canon texts
what about enoch? jesus believed enoch was inspired and it was a well known text in 1st century judea
but its not canon? does being canon mean anything really anyway?

whats the proof that all the texts decided on in the council were all in use by all the churches? i doubt before then that all the current ones were canon everywhere
like i said rev wasn't, it wasn't for nearly 1500 years
many churches used different orders, didn't have some of them, considered some non-canon books to be inspired, its still like this, nothing really has changed

Actually your research is faulty. Most books were in use before the council of Nicea. Some of the New Testament books were being recognized very early on. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18, and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

[ReverendDG]

Actually your research is faulty. Most books were in use before the council of Nicea. Some of the New Testament books were being recognized very early on.
as i said, can you support that all of them were in use before the council combined them, if different groups considered them scripture in differing orders and some of them not canon and some non-canon books canon, then you really didn't support your claim

Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18, and Luke 10:7). that doesn't say anything about paul, both are speaking of wages, besides out of context quotes are useless
Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

no he did not read it again, he's apologizing for paul and pointing out that like scripture people will distort what paul says because its hard to understand

Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27).where do you get the idea that it says anything is circulating, it says for who ever the letter author wrote to, to read it to others
Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95).Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. [/quote]
irrelevant, other than the fact that not everyone was using the same texts or considered them all inspired, or believed they all were "canon" before nicea
In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.ok why would i care about something that happened after 325?
its like you just c+p a bunch of things into a wall of text to try to smother me thinking this would win

[Hentenza]

[quote=ReverendDG;45990339]as i said, can you support that all of them were in use before the council combined them, if different groups considered them scripture in differing orders and some of them not canon and some non-canon books canon, then you really didn't support your claim
As you said is just as you said. Your word is in no way authorative nor does it carry any weight. It is merely your opinions. The evidence is against you.

that doesn't say anything about paul, both are speaking of wages, besides out of context quotes are useless
You are obviously missing the point. Paul quoted Luke in his writings. Why would Paul do that? Would Paul quote Luke if he didn't believe that his writings were authorative?

no he did not read it again, he's apologizing for paul and pointing out that like scripture people will distort what paul says because its hard to understandNo, Peter is not apologizing for Paul but merely stating that Paul's letters are hard to understand because Paul is warning about the false prophets and the lawless. Read the chapter to understand the context.

where do you get the idea that it says anything is circulating, it says for who ever the letter author wrote to, to read it to others Col 2:16
16After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.The letter is obviously circulating because it is being read in different churches.

2 Thessalonians 5:27
27I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
Who are the "brothers" and where do you think they are?






irrelevant, other than the fact that not everyone was using the same texts or considered them all inspired, or believed they all were "canon" before niceaNo, is not irrelevant. The fact that the books where being recognized AND used so early on by the early church fathers proves that the texts where recognized. Also, that also adds weight that the texts were circulating among the early church. Otherwise, how did they hear about them? Why did they recognize them as the Word of God? Do you think that they just happen upon these books by chance? God is amazing in how He makes His will just happen.

ok why would i care about something that happened after 325?Because you make claims that you cannot back up. I have showed you how the majority of the cannon as we know it today was in use in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

its like you just c+p a bunch of things into a wall of text to try to smother me thinking this would winLOL!!! Do you actually think that I would c&p just anything to argue with you? LOL!!!!!!! NOT!!!!!^_^^_^^_^


Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God?

[Albion]

Albion;
What about the posters Thesis do you disagree with and why?

What I was referring to was the basic point made by the poster: To understand the bible at all one must understand its history, its characteristics, and to understand what each book in the bible is about and why it was written.

That is certainly a false statement.

Now, one could say that to understand the Bible completely or in all of its many nuances you need to know all that he went on to refer to (author's background, etc.), but not in order to comprehend its central thesis. And it is that central and dominant message that is, after all, why we have the Bible at all.

Perhaps a crude comparison could be made here. I want to know how to get to Cleveland and I have an official road map. Using it with real care and knowledge of all the fine print in the margins, I can know where all the rest stops are, what the highest elevation in Ohio is, and probably a few historical note of interest such as the location of some president's home. All of that is truth and may be beneficial. However, the purpose of highway maps is to tell us how to "get to" Cleveland or wherever. ANY normally literal and educated person can ascertain the primary message of the Bible--and the only one that is necessary for us to realize in order meet the objectives of God in giving this revelation to mankind.

At this point, I cannot say whether Salidas made a miscalculation but sincerely so, or whether the argument/thesis was is offered in the spirit of so many others who are anxious to debunk the reliability of the Scriptures in order to advance some alternative such as "Tradition" or the supposed authority of some group of men, a particular church, or etc.

[LivingWordUnity]

What I was referring to was the basic point made by the poster: To understand the bible at all one must understand its history, its characteristics, and to understand what each book in the bible is about and why it was written.

That is certainly a false statement.

Now, one could say that to understand the Bible completely or in all of its many nuances you need to know all that he went on to refer to (author's background, etc.), but not in order to comprehend its central thesis.Before someone decides to believe in the claims made by the Bible, they first have to believe that the people in the Bible were real historical people.

There are some ignorant people today who try to say that Jesus never existed. But because history is something that is lived in the world and not limited to the confines of a book, we have a 2,000 year old Church, the lives and writings of the early Church fathers and early Christian martyrs, and plenty of historical and archeological evidence outside of the Bible, even early writings of non-Christians who wrote about Jesus and the early Christians, which provides added witness to the fact that Jesus and the apostles did in fact exist in history.

After that, it's a matter of faith whether someone believes that God was born in the flesh becoming true God and true man and that that God-man died and rose from the dead to save us from our sins. And I do believe that Jesus is the Lord.

[Albion]

There are some ignorant people today who try to say that Jesus never existed. But because history is something that is lived in the world and not limited to the confines of a book, [we have a 2,000 year old Church, the lives and writings of the early Church fathers and early Christian martyrs, and plenty of historical and archeological evidence outside of the Bible,

Yes, but the "some people" who say that Jesus never lived have been debunked, so the alternative you propose as necessary is not necessary.

Besides, if you believe that Jesus lived--because of traditions and held by ancient believers--you haven't replaced the Bible but confirmed its testimony about Jesus and his life.

[LivingWordUnity]

Yes, but the "some people" who say that Jesus never lived have been debunked, so the alternative you propose as necessary is not necessary.They are easily debunked because there is a lot of historical evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the testimony of the Bible with regard to the life of Jesus here on this earth.


Besides, if you believe that Jesus lived--because of traditions and held by ancient believers--you haven't replaced the Bible but confirmed its testimony about Jesus and his life.I agree. I haven't been trying to argue for the replacement of the Bible.

Catholic belief can be described using the analogy of a stool with three legs. The three legs of that stool are Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church which is the interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. Scripture must always be interpreted in light of Tradition and Tradition must always be interpreted in light of Scripture, and the two will never contradict each other but will always compliment each other.

All I was saying is that for a book to be considered more than fiction there has to be supporting evidence outside of the book to at least confirm that the people written about in the book are more than just characters in a fictional story but real people who lived in the world.

Outside of the Bible, there is plenty of historical and archeological evidence to confirm at least the fact that Jesus and the apostles are real people who lived in the world 2,000 years ago.

But to believe in the witness of the apostles and early Christians about the many miracles of Jesus and thus the claim of Jesus to being God in the flesh who came to save us from our sins is something which we can come to know through faith and reason.

[Albion]

They are easily debunked because there is a lot of historical evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the testimony of the Bible with regard to the life of Jesus here on this earth.

Sure. It tells us that the Bible account is correct.

All I was saying is that for a book to be considered more than fiction there has to be supporting evidence outside of the book to at least confirm that the people written about in the book are more than just characters in a fictional story but real people who lived in the world.

Outside of the Bible, there is plenty of historical and archeological evidence to confirm at least the fact that Jesus and the apostles are real people who lived in the world 2,000 years ago.

Correct. We who believe in the Bible's correctness and feel no need to supplement it with human theories and legends quite agree.

But to believe in the witness of the apostles and early Christians about the many miracles of Jesus and thus the claim of Jesus to being God in the flesh who came to save us from our sins is something which we can come to know through faith and reason.

No, that's again a matter of the historical evidences you were referring to above. Otherwise you are making doctrine out of folklore which is then labelled "Apostolic."

[FundamentalistJohn]

I'm sorry guys I really lost track of what premise you are discussing can someone catch me up with a little simpler explanations?

FJ

[Albion]

I'm sorry guys I really lost track of what premise you are discussing can someone catch me up with a little simpler explanations?

FJ

It's just the usual grab-bag of rationalizations about why the Word of God should not be considered the ultimate authority on belief and practice. You haven't really missed anything.

[FundamentalistJohn]

Thanks Albion!

That does bring up a topic that I may bring up on the main board though. I would like to get the thoughts of my fellow Fundamentalists on their views of tradition. Probably bring it up in a day or so.

FJ

[Albion]

Thanks Albion!

That does bring up a topic that I may bring up on the main board though. I would like to get the thoughts of my fellow Fundamentalists on their views of tradition. Probably bring it up in a day or so.

FJ

That sounds like a good idea, FJ (so long as those who are not fundamentalists aren't allowed to turn it into another anti-Sola Scriptura harangue).

[FundamentalistJohn]

I'll probably post it in the main forum. This should prevent non-members from derailing the discussion. At least I hope so.
Look for it in a day or two and please contribute.
FJ

[LivingWordUnity]

It's just the usual grab-bag of rationalizations about why the Word of God should not be considered the ultimate authority on belief and practice.That's not accurate. Catholics do believe that the Word of God is the ultimate authority on belief and practice.

What is in dispute between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants believe that the Word of God is limited absolutely to a book and that anyone (except for the Pope) can infallibly interpret it.

But Catholics believe that the Word of God is passed down through both the oral and written Traditions of the Church and that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." (2 Pet. 1:20)

We believe that just as out of the 12 apostles Peter was the only one to get it right when Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I am?", the Pope, being the successor of Peter, is the only individual who the Holy Spirit guarantees will never get it wrong when it comes to matters of faith and morals when he speaks formally from the chair of Peter to the universal Church.

The role of the Pope is to interpret the word of God as it was passed down through oral and written Traditions of the Church. The Pope is the custodian of the deposit of the Christian faith. He can teach something that develops a doctrine but the Holy Spirit will never let him contradict any doctrine of the Church. This is only possible with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Albion]

I'll probably post it in the main forum. This should prevent non-members from derailing the discussion. At least I hope so.
Look for it in a day or two and please contribute.
FJ

I look forward to it. Besides, how could I pass by a personal invitation like that one? :)

[FundamentalistJohn]

That's not accurate. Catholics do believe that the Word of God is the ultimate authority on belief and practice.

What is in dispute between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants believe that the Word of God is limited absolutely to a book and that anyone (except for the Pope) can infallibly interpret it.

In the same post that you claim we do not understand the Roman catholic understanding of inspiration and Papal Infallibility you make an glaring incorrect statement about Fundamentalist doctrine.

I have not met one out of hundreds maybe even more than a thousand Fundamentalists that I have met who has ever claimed that anything other than scripture is infallible. This includes interpretations. Not one Fundamentalist I have ever met has made the claim that their interpretation is infallible or that anyone elses was. If you have ever read of a Fundamentalist who claimed infallibility please direct me to their comments.

[LivingWordUnity]

In the same post that you claim we do not understand the Roman catholic understanding of inspiration and Papal Infallibility you make an glaring incorrect statement about Fundamentalist doctrine.

I have not met one out of hundreds maybe even more than a thousand Fundamentalists that I have met who has ever claimed that anything other than scripture is infallible. This includes interpretations. Not one Fundamentalist I have ever met has made the claim that their interpretation is infallible or that anyone elses was. If you have ever read of a Fundamentalist who claimed infallibility please direct me to their comments.
I don't recall meeting a Fundamentalist who has told me that they could be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. If Fundamentalists believe that there isn't anyone who can interpret the Bible infallibly, how can they know for sure how to interpret the Bible? And if Fundamentalists can't be sure how to interpret the Bible, how can they hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)? Wouldn't that be a contradiction?

[Albion]

And if Fundamentalists can't be sure how to interpret the Bible, how can they hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)? Wouldn't that be a contradiction?

No, it wouldn't be.

[LivingWordUnity]

No, it wouldn't be.Is that the best you can do with answering that?