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 17:03:46 · 7 answers · asked by Danny H 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sola Scriptura doesn't make since. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority. As a matter of fact is says that the Church has the divin authority to govern (Matt. 16:13-20 and Luke 10:16). The Bible also tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (Tim. 3:15). Finally, the Bible clearly states that not everything is recorded in the Bible (John 21:25) So how can the Bible be the only authority when it clearly says that it isn't?
God bless,
Stanbo
2006-12-12 17:19:57 · answer #1 · answered by Stanbo 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋
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 09:22:01 · answer #2 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't ignore hundreds of yrs of Christian history because after Jesus ascended to Heaven, there isn't anything else for us to know. Book of Revelations is God's promise to us of the future. From the time of Jesus's first arrival to His second coming, we write our own history. There's nothing else that God wants us to know because Jesus was the last prophet. (Muhammad is a flase prophet).
It was canonized in the 4th Century in Trent. It is the Holy Spirit that watches over the Church and ensures that oral and written teachings have been protected from error.
But within Christianity itself, there are over 15 different translations of the Hebrew Bible and the original NT that was written in Greek and Latin. Some Christian churches have taken out some books. It's the Catholic Church that holds them all and without error.
2006-12-13 01:10:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Now seriously. :P
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 01:05:36 · answer #4 · answered by Daniel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay you're wrong.
What we call the OT was established prior to Jesus coming to the earth.
What we call the NT was first compiled as early as 150 to 200 CE
The Catholic Church would like everyone to believe "they" established what we call the bible today.
Unfortunately the Catholic Church wasn't around in the 1st and 2nd centuries after Christ.
2006-12-13 12:26:41 · answer #5 · answered by TeeM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sepultura Rulz!!!
2006-12-13 01:05:30 · answer #6 · answered by Hushyanoize 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thank you. That was my sermon last Sunday.
2006-12-13 01:05:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋