The Bible that we all have today wasn't officially canonized until about the 4th or 5th century (correct me if i'm wrong on the date please). That means that before that, there was no official canon of scripture with which to study, learn or teach. Obviously, it means that the teachings of Christ were preserved in a different way: oral and written tradition. How then, does Sola Scriptura (bible alone) make any sense? Doesn't this ignore 300 to 500 years of Christian history? Further, with all this debate about biblical interpretation, isn't everybody debating a bible that was assembled and canonized by Catholic bishops in the first place?
2006-12-12 16:53:31 · 2 answers · asked by Danny H 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The sad thing about this question is that it assumes that Jehovah God is uninvolved in the matter of Bible canonicity and preservation. As the Holy Spirit inspired the original writing of the Scriptures, so the Holy Spirit's operation protected it from destruction and significant corruption.
This has been especially evident as Armageddon approaches, and near-original manuscripts of increasing authority have been discovered. Ezekiel 38:4 helps us to understand that Jehovah can force even the enemies of truth to do God's will.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/t13/
http://watchtower.org/e/20001201/
2006-12-13 01:21:54 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's where I would see trouble though... At first blush, it seems that those who disagree with the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine would also have to contend with LDS (Mormon) claims to having extra-biblical authority. If one is a Classical Christian who denies "Sola Scriptura", what does that person say to the Mormon who agrees, and on that basis promotes the authority of the Book of Mormon as equally authoritative?
2006-12-13 01:01:52 · answer #2 · answered by Daniel 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋