/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>5741

Reading the Bible led me to reject free will.

>>5743

huh? why?

>>5741

I'll look into it

I don't see how anyone who has actually read the bible could actually think this is a good idea. Scripture needs to be supplemented with good doctrine and teaching such as what you get at Church. Without that it's easy to misinterpret things and get important parts wrong.

I don't trust the Bible, nor people. That's why I don't read it anymore. That's why I won't be around too much longer.

The Bible doesn't tell us what books are inspired, or whether the canon is closed or open.

It's too much. That's the black pill. There's too much info in the world to figure out the truth. Everything has too many interpretations. If God can't personally tell us like he allegedly told the authors of religious texts, then he doesn't really care. In the end, all is monotony. Taking interest in the Bible has been a tiresome ride. If there's a God then God has forsaken me as much as man has.

I'm giving God a week, or even less, or I return to the dust.

>>5964

The Bible tells us the Canon is closed, and the method for reasoning which books are canonical is internal to the Bible. Look up RC Sproul's presentation on this topic if you're actually interested in finding the truth this week.

Look around at the state of churches that think the Canon is open: mormons, charismatics, etc. Do they have better assurance as a result of claiming direct special revelation? Not at all, their theology is entirely arbitrary and everyone is livid with one another, because they have subjective criteria for theology.

In any case, God is not to be tested. He's the Creator and you are giving Him an ultimatum at your own peril.

>>5967

What verses?

>>6002

>>6002

None of those verse remotely imply a closed canon. They only say that particular book should not be added to, otherwise everything after the Torah in the old Testament is heresy and everything in the NT written after Revelation is heresy because there were words added after. There still remains no commandment in any scripture as to which books belong or don't belong which leaves us with tradition as to what the inspired canon is depending on your sect's background (e.g. Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc).

"every word" doesn't tell us what words belong to God, nor does it tell us that it is only written words that are flawless. There are references to unnamed prophets throughout scriptures that don't have books, so are all their words from God flawed?

In the end it's just accounts from men.

"there are no apostles, therefor no books" makes no sense since not all NT books were authored by Apostles, and even authorship is tradition for some of those books without claimed authorship.

It really is a self-defeating endeavor to seek the truth that can't be found.

>>5964

You can trust it because it's grounded within Apostolic tradition and not a bunch of random men. This dilemma you have occurs as a result of not having the supplementary oral traditions Apostolic tradition carries and why the canon with 72 books exists. All scripture is infallible and necessary to believe in for salvation. If you don't understand something, hold your tongue and look for some context such as the church fathers as it can take patience.

>>6947

>All scripture is necessary to believe in for salvation

Not true. Most of scripture has no soteriological significance.

>This dilemma you have occurs as a result of not having the supplementary oral traditions Apostolic tradition carries

Confirmation bias

>>6951

The point being all of holy scripture itself is inerrant, and you cannot cherrypick it's meanings. From personal experience people who have the dilemma have a background in mere scripture relying on blind faith rather than that of the church fathers because often they don't know about it. Not one writer are mere men, but prophets, priests, Apostles, and Patriarchs that were guided by the holy spirit from the Old to New Testament.

>>6957

>The fathers were prophets

Did you mean to say that? That's adding to the Canon of scripture

>>6959

I meant to refer to the Old Testament regarding the prophets such as Isaiah and Hosea.

>>6967

Im getting that you don't believe in the sufficiency of scripture, is that right?

Why not if so?

>>6979

The scriptures on their own were never sufficient as in the days of the Old Testament, there was no canon. Oral tradition supplemented what scripture the many Jewish sects used such as limiting themselves to the first five or using books from later in their history, something Jesus would encounter while debating these sects in his time.

Even after his death and resurrection for a 100 year period holy scripture had yet to exist aside from the Septuagint which had been lifted to cite the Old Testament. Rather, there was Apostolic decrees, epistles, and councils held that would later form the backdrop of the NT aside from the gospels such as the book of Acts. The church fathers in their priestly authority given to them by Christ safeguarded holy traditions such as the sacraments, wrote numerous works independently such as st. Justin Martyr's first apology addresses to the Romans on how they worshipped the true God, or the Apostolic explanation as to why Christ's birthday is on December 25th. Set canon only started to appear in the late 200s to early 300s when councils on codifying scripture already being used within the church started to be held, which is how the bible was finally formed in it's entirety.

The oral Apostolic tradition is the first pillar that upholds the church, then holy scripture being the second which perfects guidance. As it was written, not everything is in the bible, oral tradition is commanded to be upheld, and that attempting to merely read them on your own causes confusion.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

John 21:25

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2 Peter 3:16

speaking of these things[a] as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

>>6993

Supplementary oral tradition is by definition not strictly necessary

The sufficiency of scripture is a doctrine which states that scripture comprises a sufficient source for all Christian living, there is no doctrinal reliance on sources outside the Canon of scripture.

If you reject this as presented here, how do you reconcile that with 2 Tim 3:16-17?

>>6999

But there is. Scripture didn't magically appear on it's own just as we are all contingent beings made by the non contingent creator, canon was contingent upon multiple synods and church councils dependent on preexisting church doctrines granting it's orthodoxy, especially to safeguard against the false gospels circulated by the likes of the Gnostics. Otherwise there's no genuine answer as to how people were accurately able to interpret the bible and why the books were chosen to be included. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says it's profitable, but nowhere does it claim to be self sufficient, just that all of holy scripture is good to teach and propagate to aid your faith which is further understood with the divine inspiration of the holy spirit making all holy scriptures inerrant.

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Other terms for canonical books should be distinguished: the protocanonical books, deuterocanonical books, and the apocryphal books.

The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)

The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).

The apocryphal (from the Greek apokryphos meaning hidden) books have multiple meanings:

complimentary meaning - that the sacred books were too exalted for the general public;

pejorative meaning - that the orthodoxy of the books were questioned;

heretical meaning - that the books were forbidden to be read; and lastly

neutral meaning - simply noncanonical books, the meaning the word has today.

Another word, pseudepigrapha (from the Greek meaning false writing) is used for works clearly considered to be false.

>>7007

Most of this isn't addressing the question. I'm not challenging your definition of the Canon, and I'm not debating inerrancy (but we agree on this).

> 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says it's profitable, but nowhere does it claim to be self sufficient, just that all of holy scripture is good to teach and propagate to aid your faith which is further understood with the divine inspiration of the holy spirit making all holy scriptures inerrant.

This is the point of distinction.

<2 Timothy 3:17 NASB — so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

ἄρτιος - adequate, complete, perfect

ἐξηρτισμένος - equipped, fully equipped, thoroughly furnished

The Bible here says that scripture is sufficient to make the man complete, theologically, as in fully equipped for every good work. This is not compatible with what you're asserting. Hermeneutically, how can you hold your position?

>>7010

From the Vulgate on 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,[b] 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The scriptures themselves share divine authority with the priests and ministers who exercise it. The original Greek shows it's not meant to be an absolute as the word Ophelimos is used, closer to being merely just profitable or useful, simply that they will have a level of competency to exercise the faith. Artios also can be translated as "prepared", but does not necessarily suffice as completion.

Scripture is materially sufficient, having everything needed for salvation. However it is not formally sufficient, as there are numerous meanings and contexts needed to appropriately apply it. Many critics with little understanding including Saint Augustine before his conversion read the bible on their own with no context, and likewise they had not cared for it until a priest served as his mentor.

We also have distinct theological questions that are all not found in scripture. The doctrine of the trinity is not explicitly spelled out, contraceptive morality required a papal encyclical after it's advent that it was against holy scripture and tradition, and there are many in their scruples thinking that they cannot be soldiers when there is supporting evidence to the contrary, and likewise the writings of church fathers help narrow it down and how a good Christian should conduct himself in warfare.

While scripture is a necessity and is commonly cited, the greater meaning derived from oral tradition helps the believer to better apply it and realize the totality of the context verses have.

>>7054

>The original Greek shows it's not meant to be an absolute as the word Ophelimos is used, closer to being merely just profitable or useful, simply that they will have a level of competency to exercise the faith

The level of profitability is explained in the next verse: it makes you complete and fully equipped for every good work.

>However it is not formally sufficient, as there are numerous meanings and contexts needed to appropriately apply it.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't require exposition or that clergy aren't part of that.

>We also have distinct theological questions that are all not found in scripture.

Agreed. Left to mystery.

>the doctrine of the trinity is not explicitly spelled out,

No, but it is implicit in the text, and not reliant on an outside revelation

Again, you're not addressing the conflict. You have not given reason hermeneutically to reject the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture

>>7065

Let me reiterate myself: Scripture is relatively sufficient on a material level for people to learn about the faith and grow with it. It is complete in both faith and morals, but we can't apply it to something like mathematics or biology. It is an absolute necessity given it's nature as the word of God, but not for every given purpose seeing as the verse can be an either/or statement. There are traditions with a lowercase t that are subject to change given the proper authority. Scriptures, doctrines, and dogmas are an uppercase T that never change and are to be passed down unhindered.

The former group are traditions that are either optional or subject to change for disciplinary measures to the faithful. Even with the verse when used under the historical context there was a time gap between when 2 Timothy was penned and when it was added to the NT. For the time the Old Testament sufficed, and now the NT is a treasured asset for the faithful to follow. Even a portion of what was then oral tradition made their way into gospels.

The gospel in both written and oral transmission from the Apostles deserves to be passed down because we were commanded to uphold them, both being equally divinely inspired.

I apologize for having issues addressing the question because it's somewhat difficult to describe.

>>7136

Do I need to say it again? You aren't addressing the doctrine.

I'm asking for you to look at the text of those two verses and justify your position. I've given the most concise definition I can here :>>7010

>>7266

No, we don't agree. I've still not seen a justification for your position as compared to mine, based on what the passage says.

Scripture sufficiently equips the man of God for every good work. This means that no correct teaching relies on information outside of scripture.

I understand that you disagree, I'm asking for explanation exegetically.

If you actually agree with the doctrine as stated I'm happy to hear it.