Sound Doctrine

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,816
25,468
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you Nancy. If you are reading this I appreciate it. I assumed you would want to know that we are both alike in that we both accept Tradition.

Your faith about knowing or believing who wrote the books of the bible is based on the written Tradition of the ECF's of which they received this information orally due to those books not being signed by it's author. Since scripture does not tell us what books belong in Scripture you have relied on the oral and written Traditions of The Church. Therefor you, like me and billions of other Christians, have accepted the Tradition of The Church even though MOST Protestants say they reject Tradition?


Mary

"Your faith about knowing or believing who wrote the books of the bible is based on the written Tradition of the ECF's of which they received this information orally due to those books not being signed by it's author. Since scripture does not tell us what books belong in Scripture you have relied on the oral and written Traditions of The Church. "

I kinda think God knew what He was doing when it comes to His word. Anything outside of scripture with prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit is extra-biblical to me. I don't care if Luke wrote Acts or not, it matters not to me...it's in there and I believe it. Anything outside the bible is only another mans interpretation. Not that there are not some authors I do admire and enjoy reading but, they are not at all my final authority.
 

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,816
25,468
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And, @Rollo Tamasi , you think we're picking on you?

You look cuter than normal...

7591.jpg
:D:D
 

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,816
25,468
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey Nancy...
Look at all those female gators following him out of the water...
Will it ever end???
:rolleyes:

Lol. Sigh, no, I do not think it will ever end with Rollo. He is pathologocally romantic and woman cannot help themselves. They, weirdly seem to be drawn to him. He cannot help it either as it is a pathological/heart thing... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree. You can't help me. You can't even help yourself to provide the evidence to back up your own statement. Obviously you don't "see it" either otherwise I am sure you would have been more than happy to give your evidence. You failed and you are unable to back up your own statement.

How about a chance to redeem yourself and back up your own statement. I ask you again: I worship the cross? Where is your evidence of that?

Patient Mary

PS....you seem to have forgotten that we Catholics have the crucifix, not the cross, in our churches. Did you actually mean "crucifix"? :rolleyes:

Hi Mary, I don't think that Rollo needs to "redeem" himself. That job is only something Jesus can do. ;)

I've learned that sometimes you just have to let things go. If I burst a blood vessel every time someone on this forum said something insulting to me, I prolly would've had a heart attach by now. Just some advice from someone older and, hopefully, wiser.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and Nancy

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Lol. Sigh, no, I do not think it will ever end with Rollo. He is pathologocally romantic and woman cannot help themselves. They, weirdly seem to be drawn to him. He cannot help it either as it is a pathological/heart thing... :)
Ah. He's a good guy. A loving husband.
I've known him a long time.
But we have to keep up appearances!!

Good night N.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thank you Nancy. If you are reading this I appreciate it. I assumed you would want to know that we are both alike in that we both accept Tradition.

Your faith about knowing or believing who wrote the books of the bible is based on the written Tradition of the ECF's of which they received this information orally due to those books not being signed by it's author. Since scripture does not tell us what books belong in Scripture you have relied on the oral and written Traditions of The Church. Therefor you, like me and billions of other Christians, have accepted the Tradition of The Church even though MOST Protestants say they reject Tradition?


Mary
Um, I don't think most Protestants reject tradition. I can't even tell you what most Protestants think about it, and I've been a Protestant for a loooooog time. Let's face it. Protestants and Catholics have COMPLETELY different beliefs about this. Most Protestants I know would reject the idea that "oral tradition" trumps the written word (i.e. the Bible) and would believe the Roman Catholic Church is way off on this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and Nancy

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Um, I don't think most Protestants reject tradition. I can't even tell you what most Protestants think about it, and I've been a Protestant for a loooooog time. Let's face it. Protestants and Catholics have COMPLETELY different beliefs about this. Most Protestants I know would reject the idea that oral tradition trumps the written word and would believe the Roman Catholic Church is way off on this.
Catholics don't believe the oral word trumps the bible!
But I have to go....
Please reply...
tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Catholics don't believe the oral word trumps the bible!
But I have to go....
Please reply...
tomorrow.

Hi, GodsGrace, I can give you an example showing how oral tradition trumps the Bible in the Catholic Church. This is one of many.... Bear with me; this is loooong.

David C. Grabbe gives the following explanation for the unbiblical Catholic doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception."

...Catholics believe in the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This major doctrine states that Mary was conceived and born normally, but at the instant when her soul was fused to her flesh, she was protected and exempted from the stain of "original sin." The reasoning is that, for Jesus to be untouched by original sin, his mother, the one who conceived and bore Him, had to be "immaculate" as well.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason." In essence, it says that this doctrine lacks scriptural backing, but it has plenty from church tradition and human wisdom. Since Catholics cannot find, or will not acknowledge, any scriptures that disprove it, then it is settled as official doctrine.
(Bold emphasis not in the original)
Paul taught that "all have sinned" (Ro 3:23 and Ro 5:12), and he made no exceptions. Therefore, the Catholic dogma of "Immaculate Conception" is not scriptural, but it is supported by Catholic Tradition. So, in this case their Tradition clearly trumps the Bible.

Something that really struck me as I looked into this doctrine is that if God could have made Mary sinless, then He could have done that for all of us. In this case, Jesus really didn't have to suffer and die for us. But in the Garden of Gethsemane, our Lord asked the Father to take the cup from Him if it was possible, but it clearly wasn't possible.

Matthew 6:36-42--

Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go over there and pray.” And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” (ESV Bible)
I see this as a case of human logic trumping the truth. The thinking is that in order for Jesus not to be born with original sin, Mary had to be born without original sin. This is a fallacy because sin comes through Adam's corrupted seed; therefore, Mary, as Jesus' mother, didn't have to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless. The divine Holy Spirit was his father! No corrupt seed there. Consider what Paul said in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15.

Romans 5:12-14--

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
1 Cor. 15:20-25--

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at His coming, those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished is death.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Acolyte
B

brakelite

Guest
Hi B,
In post no. 277 you said this to @Marymog :
I could give you one glaring example where tradition has done that... Even your own church admits it, making the church the ultimate authority over scripture.

I'd be very interested to which dogma you're referring...
IOW, what is the CC teaching that even the CC admits is wrong???

Especially in view of the fact that you believe even Protestants continue in the same unbiblical tradition...
Oh, the CC doesn't believe or admit that this particular tradition is wrong, not at all. In fact the last 3 popes have traveled the world, written long letters, uplifting and exalting this tradition in the attempt to get even the non-Christian world to recognise and observe it. In fact throughout history, despite there being no scriptural foundation for this tradition, the CC even persecuted those who failed to observe this tradition. So no, @GodsGrace far from believing it wrong, it is one of the foundational pillars of Catholicism. What the CC does admit is that this tradition is just purely tradition, and find no basis in scripture.
Now protestants, who keep this tradition as faithfully as Catholics, do believe there is a scriptural basis for it. They have to, because no Protestant wants to be found following a tradition of the CC and this this be charged with surrendering to papal authority right? Do while Protestant attempt to use scripture in support of this tradition, it is in vain because when scripture on the matter is studied without bias, of is seen as offering no real support whatsoever.
But that isn't the worst of it. The really bad party is that this particular unbiblical practice and observance fulfills precisely the type of tradition Jesus warned about... The type that circumvents, or directly opposes the commandments of God. Of course, some Catholics will refute this not knowing what their own church had historically taught on the subject. And some protestants will do likewise, not willing to look at scripture with an unbiased mind, nor willing to even consider what other Protestant theologians have said on the matter, even such stalwarts of the Protestant faith such as John Wesley, and Dwight Moody. Needless to say, the CC is rife with ordinances, rituals, processions, traditions, none of which are taught in scripture. But the one I speak of directly and brazenly contradicts the ten commandments.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Hi, GodsGrace, I can give you an example showing how oral tradition trumps the Bible in the Catholic Church. This is one of many.... Bear with me; this is loooong.

David C. Grabbe gives the following explanation for the unbiblical Catholic doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception."

...Catholics believe in the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This major doctrine states that Mary was conceived and born normally, but at the instant when her soul was fused to her flesh, she was protected and exempted from the stain of "original sin." The reasoning is that, for Jesus to be untouched by original sin, his mother, the one who conceived and bore Him, had to be "immaculate" as well.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason." In essence, it says that this doctrine lacks scriptural backing, but it has plenty from church tradition and human wisdom. Since Catholics cannot find, or will not acknowledge, any scriptures that disprove it, then it is settled as official doctrine.
(Bold emphasis not in the original)
Paul taught that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Ro 3:23 and Ro 5:12), and he made no exceptions. Therefore, the Catholic dogma of "Immaculate Conception" is not scriptural, but it is supported by Catholic Tradition. So, in this case their Tradition clearly trumps the Bible.

Something that really struck me as I looked into this doctrine is that if God could have made Mary sinless, then He could have done that for all of us. In this case, Jesus really didn't have to suffer and die for us. But in the Garden of Gethsemane, our Lord asked the Father to take the cup from Him if it was possible, but it clearly wasn't possible.

Matthew 6:36-42--

Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go over there and pray.” And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” (ESV Bible)
I see this as a case of human logic trumping the truth. The thinking is that in order for Jesus not to be born with original sin, Mary had to be born without original sin. This is a fallacy because sin comes through Adam's corrupted seed; therefore, Mary, as Jesus' mother, didn't have to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless. The divine Holy Spirit was his father! No corrupt seed there. Consider what Paul said in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15.

Romans 5:12-14--

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
1 Cor. 15:20-25--

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at His coming, those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished is death.
Hi PW, the above is a very good example.
The Immaculate Conception is a recent declaration (1854, about) made by the magisterium of the church (pope and all the bishops). What's interesting is that they made this dogma because it was felt, as you rightly pointed out, that since Jesus had to be born of a human, THAT human should not be tainted by original sin because of the mixing of the blood to the fetus. It has been recently discovered that the blood of the mother does not enter into the fetus, the fetus has its own blood. I don't understand this and am sure it could be looked up on the net,,,if you do, please share.

IOW, this thought would no longer be valid today. Jesus was protected from the mother's blood.

Your question, BTW, is also very valid. Why didn't God make us all sin-free? Why make us at all if He knew all the suffering involved? Some priests even ask themselves this question. It's the unanswerable question.

They DO, however, use the bible and do not depend wholly on oral tradition.
What you said above is correct, they use too much "reason" and do not stick to scripture. I wouldn't call this oral tradition. They also use other sources...like the
this, for example: I haven't studied it and have no comment, I only know that other sources are used. Some have been proven to be fakes, and others are legitimate.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob05.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acolyte and Helen

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Oh, the CC doesn't believe or admit that this particular tradition is wrong, not at all. In fact the last 3 popes have traveled the world, written long letters, uplifting and exalting this tradition in the attempt to get even the non-Christian world to recognise and observe it. In fact throughout history, despite there being no scriptural foundation for this tradition, the CC even persecuted those who failed to observe this tradition. So no, @GodsGrace far from believing it wrong, it is one of the foundational pillars of Catholicism. What the CC does admit is that this tradition is just purely tradition, and find no basis in scripture.
Now protestants, who keep this tradition as faithfully as Catholics, do believe there is a scriptural basis for it. They have to, because no Protestant wants to be found following a tradition of the CC and this this be charged with surrendering to papal authority right? Do while Protestant attempt to use scripture in support of this tradition, it is in vain because when scripture on the matter is studied without bias, of is seen as offering no real support whatsoever.
But that isn't the worst of it. The really bad party is that this particular unbiblical practice and observance fulfills precisely the type of tradition Jesus warned about... The type that circumvents, or directly opposes the commandments of God. Of course, some Catholics will refute this not knowing what their own church had historically taught on the subject. And some protestants will do likewise, not willing to look at scripture with an unbiased mind, nor willing to even consider what other Protestant theologians have said on the matter, even such stalwarts of the Protestant faith such as John Wesley, and Dwight Moody. Needless to say, the CC is rife with ordinances, rituals, processions, traditions, none of which are taught in scripture. But the one I speak of directly and brazenly contradicts the ten commandments.
You're speaking of Sabbath worship?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi PW, the above is a very good example.
The Immaculate Conception is a recent declaration (1854, about) made by the magisterium of the church (pope and all the bishops). What's interesting is that they made this dogma because it was felt, as you rightly pointed out, that since Jesus had to be born of a human, THAT human should not be tainted by original sin because of the mixing of the blood to the fetus. It has been recently discovered that the blood of the mother does not enter into the fetus, the fetus has its own blood. I don't understand this and am sure it could be looked up on the net,,,if you do, please share.

IOW, this thought would no longer be valid today. Jesus was protected from the mother's blood.

Your question, BTW, is also very valid. Why didn't God make us all sin-free? Why make us at all if He knew all the suffering involved? Some priests even ask themselves this question. It's the unanswerable question.

They DO, however, use the bible and do not depend wholly on oral tradition.
What you said above is correct, they use too much "reason" and do not stick to scripture. I wouldn't call this oral tradition. They also use other sources...like the
this, for example: I haven't studied it and have no comment, I only know that other sources are used. Some have been proven to be fakes, and others are legitimate.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob05.htm

Hi, thanks for reading my looooong post! You said that this isn't an example of Tradition trumping Scripture. According to the article I posted at the top of my post, Tradition was considered in creating this doctrine. Here's the portion of the article that says that.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason."
Edit: The "Proof from Reason" category is what I addressed in the second part of my post. The interesting thing about this is that I didn't hear this in a sermon or read it in a commentary. The Holy Spirit showed me that man's faulty reasoning was used to created that doctrine.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Hi, thanks for reading my looooong post! You said that this isn't an example of Tradition trumping Scripture. According to the article I posted at the top of my post, Tradition was considered in creating this doctrine. Here's the portion of the article that says that.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason."​
I agreed with you PW.
I said that they used writings OUTSIDE of scripture for this and also man's reasoning.

I'm just saying that the cc does esteem the bible over oral tradition,,,I understand what you're saying....then why would they make doctrine that is not based on the bible? I agree!

But most of their doctrine is biblically based. How many protestant churches make doctrine that is based on the bible, but wrongly so?

For instance, if we don't get HEALED by God...it's said that we're to blame because we don't have enough faith or we're in sin. This is wrong.

Some say works are not necessary for salvation when this is all Jesus taught.

etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and bbyrd009

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agreed with you PW.
I said that they used writings OUTSIDE of scripture for this and also man's reasoning.

I'm just saying that the cc does esteem the bible over oral tradition,,,I understand what you're saying....then why would they make doctrine that is not based on the bible? I agree!

But most of their doctrine is biblically based. How many protestant churches make doctrine that is based on the bible, but wrongly so?

For instance, if we don't get HEALED by God...it's said that we're to blame because we don't have enough faith or we're in sin. This is wrong.

Some say works are not necessary for salvation when this is all Jesus taught.

etc.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know of any church DOCTRINE that says that about healing. And I don't believe that Jesus taught works is necessary for salvation. Some verses in the epistles SEEM to be saying that. Some Christians site James 2:18 that says, "But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." I don't mean to start WWIII on the forum today, but I don't see this verse as teaching that our salvation is based on works. In Eph 2:8, Paul makes it pretty clear that we are saved by grace through faith, not as a result of works.

I agree that Protestants have different ways of seeing certain doctrines, but those differences are based on actual Bible verses like I quoted above. They're not based on some supposed oral tradition handed down by the apostles.

Edit: I just realized that you said you agreed with me about using writings outside the scriptures. I don't always sleep really well, and sometimes I misread a post. Sorry!

As far as the Catholic Church esteeming the Bible over Tradition, my point is that the Catholic Church uses Tradition to interpret the Bible rather than almost exclusively using scripture to interpret scripture as well as using scripture to evaluate Tradition. So, the Catholic Church believes itself to be the only "Church" who can rightly interpret the scriptures. This is the main reason why Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the Bible differ so much.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Acolyte

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,416
1,678
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Have you heard of the 2nd Vatican council? The RCC was only catching up with the competition proposed by the reformation...where people could read the bible for themselves. That was in the 1960's. The printing press was perfected in 1440. So there was a clerical memo error in the RCC for 500 years???? Paleese!

Before that the Catholic bible was in Latin (Vulgate) and lay people were forbidden to read it...I am old enough to remember that...since people that did read the bible tended towards becoming "protestant".
The Council of Trent was the "catching up" or an answer to the Reformation not Vatican II.

PLEASE provide your evidence The Church forbade anyone from READING Scripture!!

Catholics were NEVER forbidden to read the Bible. Copies of the Bible in Latin (the Vulgate) were widely available during the Middle Ages (and a few vernacular translations as well) all approved by the Church. What the Church banned were UNAUTHORIZED Bible translations which contained erroneous or questionable translations.

After the invention of the printing press in Germany Johannes Gutenberg, in 1455, produced the first printed Bible.
Trace the Complete History of the Bible

I would love to move forward with this conversation, however, when one doesn't acknowledge the others LEGITIMATE questions....It is hard to continue a conversation with you and it his hard to take you serious:

If you knew your own Christian history you would know that even Martin Luther complained about this (individual Christians reading the bible, being PERSONALLY inspired by the Holy Spirit and creating their own doctrine)....and he was on of the catalyst for it. But you didn't know this....Did you?

The mass started in the Dark Ages? Did the Dark Ages start around the year 150AD? Based on the evidence I gave you are you even going to acknowledge that your statement about the mass starting in the dark ages was not accurate? Or are you going to pretend the evidence is not there?


Patient Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,416
1,678
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"Your faith about knowing or believing who wrote the books of the bible is based on the written Tradition of the ECF's of which they received this information orally due to those books not being signed by it's author. Since scripture does not tell us what books belong in Scripture you have relied on the oral and written Traditions of The Church. "

I kinda think God knew what He was doing when it comes to His word. Anything outside of scripture with prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit is extra-biblical to me. I don't care if Luke wrote Acts or not, it matters not to me...it's in there and I believe it. Anything outside the bible is only another mans interpretation. Not that there are not some authors I do admire and enjoy reading but, they are not at all my final authority.
Thank you. I understand what you are saying and get the gist of your beliefs.

One just has to ask: How did they (Luke and Acts) get into Scripture if we really don't KNOW who wrote them and how reliable the writer is? We BELIEVE they are reliable because to the men of The Church AFFIRMED they were reliable and that those writings should be in Scripture. There were many other "extra-biblical" (Clemet, Barnabas, Didache etc.) writings that these same men considered putting in scripture but ultimately didn't.

My point/question is, if you rely on these men as your "final authority" for what belongs in your bible then why don't you rely on these men for other things of "final authority"? How can they be smart/inspired enough to know what books belong in our bible but not smart/inspired enough to know how to interpret those books?

Mary
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace