Comments for Reformation Day – and What Led Me To Back to Catholicism at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 48 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 09:55:50 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-14130 Dan, I'm sorry that it has taken so long for someone to respond you, brother. As a "fallen-away Catholic" and a committed Protestant, I had serious objections to *many* Catholic doctrines and practices. The Marian teachings were definitely among them. I don't think that Scriptural proof-texting in a comment box is the best way for me to help you on this subject. Proof-texting can easily lead to *Scripture-slinging*, back and forth, with little being accomplished other hardening of each other's positions. The Marian doctrines are actually part of *Christology*. The Church's thinking about, and understanding of, Christ had to grow and mature. It didn't arrive fully formed in the first or even second century. There were battles in the Church over defining Trinitarianism as orthodox doctrine into the fourth century. Of course, it *is* orthodox doctrine, but it took time for the Church to grow into a carefully articulated understanding of both Christology and Trinitarianism. I'm going somewhere here-- not just rambling! :-) The Catholic teachings about Mary (her perpetual virginity, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption) are based on what the Church believes about *Christ*. This is explicitly affirmed in the Catechism. The Marian doctrines do not detract from Christ and His work on the Cross at all. Rather, they *exist*, and are rightly understood, *in* that context. The Christological basis of Marian teaching is very difficult for Protestant Christians to understand, because (in my experience, as a former Protestant), they have not been taught much about Mary, beyond the assertion that she is simply the woman whom God happened to "use" to bring Jesus into the world-- and many Protestant leaders teach that God could just as easily have *used* any other woman. Therefore, given that Mary has passed from this life, and, according to *Protestant interpretations* of the Bible, Scripture doesn't have much to say about her, most Protestants believe that Mary should have no real role in the doctrinal beliefs and devotional lives of Christians. Also, as you mentioned, certain verses *appear* to even contradict the Catholic Marian teachings. Isn't it obvious, then, that they should be rejected? Well, no-- not if one studies Catholic Biblical exegesis on Mary and the Christological basis of Marian teaching in the Church. Again, one will not find much teaching on either in Protestantism. One has to seriously delve into and study Catholic teaching on Mary, in order to understand it, if one is coming from a Protestant background-- either that, or simply choose to trust the Church on Mary and "grow into" that understanding of her. As a "reverted" Catholic, having returned to the Church in 2010, after many years as a Protestant, I have come to see that either approach can be a valid way of coming to understand the Marian teachings. My own approach involved some of both (at different points, respectively)-- study *and* trust. Through study of the Bible and the early Church Fathers, I had come to see that the Church was right on almost everything else, so, to some extent, I chose to "trust" the Church on Mary. However, I did have to do some study of Marian doctrines to even get to *that* point. One book that was helpful for me, in that regard, was "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic," by David Currie, a former Protestant seminarian. A website that was also helpful was "Called to Communion," which exists for the purposes of dialogue and reconciliation between Catholics and Reformed Protestants. I recommend that you go to that website, click on the "Index" link, and read their numerous articles on Mary. Finally, the book, "Daughter Zion: Meditations on the Church's Marian Belief," by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the current Pope) is a bit harder to read than the aforementioned sources, but it is also helpful. I will be praying for your journey, brother. God bless you! - Christopher Lake Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:15:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-9262 I confess I really, really want to become a Catholic - but the only thing that is keeping away right now is the various dogmas on Mary (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and assumption). Particularly problematic is the "Perpetual virginity" I'm not in the "Sola Scriptura" camp -- however, it seems to me the church authority has not only gone beyond Scripture in this regard, but even seems to go against a very plan reading, and as well as understanding of Jewish culture in regard to marriage and consummation. At most, I believe in the "Limited Perpetual Virginity" (if there can be such a thing!): Virgin before, during, and maybe a few months after Jesus was born. Scripture reference: Matthew 1:18 "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit." Clearly implies they "came together" at some future point, and is certainly consistent with the whole idea of marriage itself. God does NOT command Joseph to remain celebate. Secondly: Matthew 13:55-57 "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him." I'm not persuaded by attempts to stretch the meaning of "brothers" (or "sisters") to imply a distant relationship (like cousins, etc.). Someone please help me out! Is it at all possible to be a committed Catholic without accepting these three dogmas? I can only imagine the droves of Christians who would readily embrace Catholicism if it weren't for these sticky points. - Dan Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:16:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-9120 The Recovering Catholic is a never ending process. Not because of grace--but because of its mark. That tinged soul wears the seat of Satan's glory. - Wesley Mcgranor Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:29:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8952 Can we please stop talking about the Council of Jamina? It didn't happen. It is a myth. - Caleb Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:42:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8951 Makes no difference, just look at the evil that surrounds the catholic church and has done so for centuries and it is clear it is not Christ's church. What is the pope's cross that he bears? Whether to have steak or lobster for dinner? What is his proof of authority? The Apostles and early disciples could perform miracles to prove they spoke on behalf of God. What is the pope's miracle? An expensive rob and mcdonald's fry hat? The cathoic church has no authority to change doctrine and they have no proof of authority. - Peter Cornstalk Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:39:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8948 Read this book: Miracles in the Eucharist by Bob and Penny Lord. - Julie Sunflower Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:31:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8777 If anyone wants to reply, or add anything in disagreement or agreement, then email me at travis_mccabe@hotmail.com. It seems Now this page is going 2 different ways The Cannon of the Nt and Communion, emailing me will make it more easy to answer any questions or objections. God Bless. - Travis Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:13:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8763 They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead. We do not need to take The bread and wine is literal blood and flesh, look at Tertullian letter.... then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4). as for Justin..... If you read his letter close, He believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he also believed that the elements remained bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ. Augustine * The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant). * He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3). * [The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface). The Eucharist is the figure of the body and blood of Jesus. Since the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, it is acceptable to call them His body and His blood. The bread resembles the body; therefore it is called the body even though it is not the reality it represents. That is perfectly normal in figurative language. Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ. The mistake of the modern Catholic Church is to confuse the sign with the reality it represents. Augustine rightly warns that "to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage" (On Christian Doctrine 3,9). Augustine is here referring to the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. Thus, to confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine a mark of weakness and bondage. This is what I have saved to my PC on The early church fathers and the Eucharist. - Travis Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:57:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8760 Travis: Read my previous column on the Eucharist here: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html - Francis Beckwith Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:14:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8759 Lisa Jesus never taught to that bread and wine literal turn into his flesh and blood No, The bible says other wise. “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63 * “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v47). * “He who eats this bread will live forever” (v58). “He who believes” in Christ is equivalent to “he who eats this bread” because the result is the same, eternal life. The parallel is even more striking between verses 40 and 54: * “Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (v40). * “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (v54). Seeing and believing in Christ is equivalent to eating and drinking His flesh and blood, for the result is the same: possession of eternal life and resurrection at the last day. We would not be mistaken if we follow Jesus' own explanation of what it means to eat and drink - Jesus teaches us to believe in Him, the Messiah, the Son of God sent from heaven by the Father for our salvation. even a church father that the RCC uses for some defenses say 2. The following quotations prove that Augustine taught that the Jews did not understand correctly: * The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They strove, and that among themselves, since they understood not… (Augustine, Tractate 26). * Therefore ‘it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,’ as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten (Augustine, Tractate 27). * For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: "when ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;" certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting (Augustine, Tractate 27). * They understood not who believed not…they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense (Augustine, Tractate 27). * It seemed unto them hard that He said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This is a hard saying.’ It was they who were hard, not the saying… (Augustine, Psalm 99). as for The Apocrypha, it was not written by any prophets even heb 1:1 makes it clear That How God works, through Prophets through his Spirit, The Apocrypha has not support for this. - Travis Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:46:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8754 How sad that for 1500+ years ALL Christians believe that The Eucharist was truly Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Within 60 years of the Reformation, a book was published with 200 possibilities of John 6. satan sure is happy with his deception in keeping many Christians away of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. Tonight on EWTN's THE JOURNEY HOME (see on YouTube) there will be a former Episcopalian who found His truth in Catholicism. Many various backgrounds all saw His truth in the Church He established 2,000 years ago. ALL other churches were founded by a man. There are 26,000 Protestant denominations. The message: find a new church when you don't agree with something. - Lisa T Tue, 01 Nov 2011 05:02:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8753 Tonight on EWTN's THE JOURNEY HOME (see on youtube.com) there will be a former Episcopalian who found His truth in Catholicism. Many various backgrounds all saw His truth in the Church He established 2,000 years ago. ALL other churches were founded by a man. There are 26,000 Protestant denominations. The message: find a new church when you don't agree with something. How sad that for 1500+ years ALL Christians believed that The Eucharist is truly Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Within 60 years of the Reformation, a book was published with 200 possibilities of John 6. Satan sure is happy with his deception in keeping many Christians away of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. - Lisa T Tue, 01 Nov 2011 05:00:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8745 "I think you Catholics have a problem in that you advance the canonicity of the Apocrypha, to whom our Lord Jesus never appealed to as authoritative (nor the Apostles, and there (sic) disciples who wrote the New Testament)." This is an ipse dixit of John Shelton who provides no citations except to simply dismiss the whole concept of the Apocrypha, as non-canonical. He's probably never heard of the Council of Jamnia (a Jewish Council, not a Christian Council), which promoted the Jewish Canon, and thus he should read up on it and be better acquainted with the facts of what this Council was about and for what reason it was convened, so that then he will know why the Septuagint has been rejected by the heretics (and Protestants). In the same logic that gives "credence" to the Protestant rejection of the Seven Books, we know that Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" (ie, Deuterocanonical) Books. So then we have it that the Books are removed for convenience in that they contradict the Protestant confession of faith, which it "alone" (Luther's addition) is sufficient for salvation. - Vincentius Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:39:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8741 Jannifier Jesus used The Old testament as his main authority, I suggest you to read Jesus words, it is written or it has been said etc... it all refers back to the OT. The thing is the RCC did not give us the bible, history disprove that very well, The NT was already recognized as God breath from the fact as other apostles quoting each other in there letters, The fact that the The early first century church, from the very lifetime of the apostles been quoting scripture before any group knowed us the RCC. For someone to come 300 years later and make The claim we made your bible, when the bible been quoting and refer to for defense from the very first century and up, is not right. - Travis Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:17:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8737 Thanks Frank, for this timely reminder that the Church precedes the Bible, and the Bible is authoritative precisely as the written record of the Church's witness to God's revelatory grace. While (being Anglican) I do not accept the authority of Trent as an ecumenical council, and hence view the precise contents of the canon as still an open question within Catholic Christendom, I think that the general trend of your thinking is on the mark. Evangelicals simply do not tend to factor in the role of the Church sufficiently in their consideration of the nature, role and properties of Scripture. - Paul Owen Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:56:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8735 One thing I have not seen here discussed is the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself never wrote down anything or simply compiled a book for us to follow. Instead He taught through oral Tradition. I find this significant. Now I know some will say it was due to the illiteracy of the people at the time. And that may be a coincidental reason. But I don't believe it is the primary reason. I believe our Lord loved us so much and thus desired for our sake that we Love Him in return and be in relationship with Him that He refused to leave us with just a book of laws and nice platitudes to follow. It seems what He desired was an intimate relationship with us and through us. Christ was the Word of God made incarnate so as to become one with us, and He wished for that Word to be written on our hearts. He desired to make us a living tabernacle, which is why the Church could not come from the bible. The Bible had to come from the Church. And the Apostles, as ministers of the Word, passed on Christ to us through not only the Gospel, but through their very selves by bearing all things as Christ did, teaching us to do the same. God is a communion of persons, thus Christ can only truly be understood through our communion with Him and each other. He cannot be known through a book alone (sola scriptura) but only through a visible Church. This requires that He be intimately one with His Church. And since there is only one Christ, there can only be one Church. The same Church as the visible body of Christ that has been bringing and being Christ to the world ever since. And only She has been given the authority to speak for Christ, like a wife for her husband, to determine what is canon and what is not. - Jennifer Olson Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:29:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8733 The first question each of us individually must ask ourselves is, "Is the Bible alone sufficient or insufficient to make us wise for salvation?" - David Barrow Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:58:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8731 Please answer the question: How did God reveal to us the canon of Sacred Scripture? And what source do we look to, to test that canon? not sure my other post will be posted, do not know if the moderate will want to read all what I said about the coming of Nt cannon but a very short one is. The apostles view each others writings as scripture and people were already collecting the letters in the lifetime of the apostles and reading from them and giving defense to there faith etc.. and paul giving praise to the bereans for study there letters and comparing them to the OT and seeing what they say is true and how The early church tested the NT, by the OT. - Travis Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:01:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8730 This is from a site, which I do not if i could put on, terms of usage seems to not cover that but..... Canon Criteria Since the NT church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20) the chief test or norm of canonicity was “apostolicity.” That is, each book of the NT has either apostolic authorship or apostolic teaching. Canonization starts with the identification of what was theopneustos, “God breathed out” (2 Tim. 3:16). First, there were several reasons as to why the early church progressively collected and codified (i.e., canonized) the NT books: 1) Books were prophetic, 2) Demands of the early church: Because they contained the words and actions of Jesus Christ and the apostolic teachings, these books provided theological and ethical instructions, edification, and encouragement for the church “so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17). Thus, it was necessary to have a full collection of the NT books that could provide the authoritative norm for faith and practice, 3) Heretical challenges: When heresies began to surface, the church quickly and sharply refuted them by way of ecclesiastical (i.e., church) councils and definitive creeds. When the writings of apostles were purposely misrepresented and/or forged (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc.), the church found it necessary to establish what belonged in the canon, 4) Missionary purposes: Because of the rapid spread of Christianity throughout other countries, there was a need to translate the Bible into other languages, and 5) Persecution: In times of persecution, it was important for church officials to preserve authoritative (canonical) books which might be handed over to the police and be destroyed. Determining Canon Criteria It is incorrect to assert that the church created the canon, for the church did not create the canon, but rather she discovered what was already recognized. As seen, immediately after NT books were written, they were collected, circulated, quoted, and read in the original churches. It was this process of canonization that shaped the post-apostolic church’s idea of canonization. The basis of canonicity, then, was inspiration: “God breathed out.” The NT authors wrote as God the Holy Spirit moved them. Hence, the instrument of canonicity in which God employed was the apostles—or those with apostolic authority: The absolute canonical test, then, was apostolicity. The central principles utilized by the church to determine canonicity were as follows: 1. APOSTOLICITY: Since the NT church was (aorist participle). “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20), the indispensable test for NT canonicity was apostolicity. Thus, every NT book was written by a “foundational” apostle (or one with apostolic authority). Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 107) says: “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul. They were apostles: I am [not]” (Rom. 4:3). 2. ANTIQUITY: Simply, if a writing was the work of an apostle (or an authoritative associate), it had to belong to the apostolic age. Writings after this could not be apostolic, and hence canonical. For example, even though the highly regarded Shepherd of Hermas (c. A.D. 120) was found in the Muratorian Fragment and some early codices, its late date of composition, precluded it from canonical status. Furthermore, most of the pseudepigrapha (i.e., “false writings”) were rejected for that reason. 3. ORTHODOXY: Genuine apostolic writings would be doctrinally consistent (i.e., orthodox) with the apostolic faith (regula fidei). For example, the so-called Gospel of Peter and Thomas are filled with silly stories and Gnostic teachings, which the apostles (and the early church) sharply refuted (e.g., Col., and 1 and 2 John were written specifically against the Gnostic heresy). 4. CATHOLICITY: The universal church collectively recognized genuine apostolic writings. If a book had only local recognition, it was not likely to be accepted as canonical. Naturally, the NT books that were first collected, circulated, quoted, and read by the original churches became universally recognized. 5. TRADITIONAL USE: Similar to the principle of Catholicity, books that were collected, circulated, quoted, and read by the original churches were, of course, well known among the churches. This criterion examines the church’s habitual (i.e., traditional) use of writings. It inquires as to what NT books were accepted as apostolic. For example, prior to Nicea (A.D. 325), the NT quotations from early church Fathers were so abundant that almost the entire NT could be restructured, based on these writings. The books of the NT were traditionally treated as Scripture. If a church leader in the third or fourth century submitted a book claiming its apostolicity and it was previously unknown, he would have great difficulty in gaining acceptance for it. 6. INSPIRATION: The church believed that only books that were theopneustos, “God breathed out,” were canonical. Thus, inspiration was the means by which the revelation of God was brought to the written record. The vocabulary belonged to the NT authors, but the message was God’s. “Paul wrote,” says Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 90), “with true inspiration” (Corinthians, 47.3). Inspiration, therefore, was a criterion of verification as to what books were apostolic and hence, canonical. - Travis Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:29:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/reformation-day-and-what-led-me-to-back-to-catholicism.html#comment-8729 It is ludicrous to quote from the New Testament to try to prove which books belong in the Old when one is not able to demonstrate how one knows what the New Testament is comprised of. By what authority do you state that the New Testament contains 27 books? And what part of the Bible teaches such a thing? ------------------- Did you read? In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter establishes the letters of Paul as graphē, “Scripture.” This confirms that Paul’s epistles (most of them) were circulating (probably as a set) before the death of Peter around A.D. 64-66. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul establishes the book of Luke (10:7) also as graphē, “Scripture.” Note that here both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 are preceded by the phrase, legei gar hē graphē, “For Scripture says.” Further, in reference to the Apostle Peter, Jude remembers what “was spoken beforehand by the apostles” (v. 17). Then, in verse 18, Jude quotes from Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 3:3). The contextual correspondence between 2 Peter 2:1ff. and Jude 6ff. unquestionably substantiates that either Jude quoted from Peter or the converse showing that these books were also circulated, collected, and read by Christians in the first century. As the NT record shows, immediately after the NT letters were written, they were collected (cf. Rev. 1:11), circulated (cf. Col. 4:16;[2] 2 Pet. 3:15-16), and read (cf. 1 Thess. 5:27; Rev. 1:3) in the original churches. Hence, the first century church enjoyed and recognized the apostolic teachings contained in the letters of the original apostles. They indeed had a functioning canon that was sufficient for the proclamation of truth. You want evidence for every book that the first century view as scripture God breath? Why would people accept some writings of the apostles and not All? it should not take a quote from quote from every Book, this is more like begging The Question and out side sources only support the 27 books also understand the bible was written from over 40 different authors and from a period of 1600 years and from different parts of the world and not one author in the OT knowing each other and yet all there writings only support each other, if that not God breath then what is? The question is not whether the apostles had a canon; the question is: Where did their canon come from? The Bible? -------------------------------------------------------- Again They Had The very letters of the apostles to read and to learn from and defend from 70ad and up, Unless you want to deny the original documents were not there in that time line and the very same verses we read today been quoting all The way back to the first century. The reason we have The Nt today and because of the very careful time line of coping, making the NT available fro all time and the amazing accury from the 20,000-30,000 manuscripts that do not change any meanings of the bible at all but little spelling differences. Really? Now you're getting into an even more difficult dilemma for yourself, as a person in search of the truth is not interested in your private interpretation of what sola scriptura entails; he is interested only in God's opinion of what sola scriptura is. And where are we going to find God's opinion of sola scriptura and what it entails? my view of solo scripture is not Private in any way from wiki Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas). --------------------------------------------------- Is infant baptism consistent with sola scriptura? Millions of Protestants say yes; millions of other Protestants say no. So, that tells us that millions of people who say they believe in sola scriptura don't share the same definition of that doctrine with millions of others. ------------------------------------------- from a site The Protestant view differs from the Catholic view. To most Protestants, infant baptism is not seen as a matter of salvation. Generally, Protestants believe in salvation by faith only and would not accept baptism as necessary for salvation. Yet many of them will baptize their babies. Instead of baptizing the baby for the remission of sins, as the Catholics do, Protestant's baptize babies as a promise that the parents will raise the child in a godly home and bring the child to church services. Infant baptism is viewed as a sign or a pledge made by the parents to the child. --------------------------------- Please answer the question: How did God reveal to us the canon of Sacred Scripture? And what source do we look to, to test that canon? --------------------- continue - Travis Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:29:10 +0100