Featured The Domino Theory of Scripture

Reportedly the earliest list which includes all of 27 books is not until 367 AD. What you are asking is not even reasonable. Either those books were the word of God coming from the 1st sentury or they would be fraudulent books not God's word.

 

There is no evidence that any of those other books outside those 66 books are the word of God. ". . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." -- Per Jesus to the Devil. So present evidence for just one of thoes extra books. Just for one book. That alone would prove the canon is not only those 66 books. But it would seem you cannot be that reasonable.

 

All writings which are God breathed are Holy Scrripture and therefore inerrant. Writings which are not inerrant are not God's word.

There are 100's of texts in the Holy Scripture which errant man have problems understanding. Can you point to just one text that is not do to a known misunderstand, or a known issue of translation or a known transmission, copiest variant?

 

No one can point to any text that is truly errant. The truth of the matter is the real reason why people ascribe fallibility to Scripture is unbelief, and therefore the real reason is sin. The mind of man has been corrupted by sin. We can apply the doctrine of total depravity to why people ascribe fallibility to the Bible.

 

The Bible doesn't contradict Sacred Tradition. After all Sacred Scripture is a part of that Tradition along with the Church herself.

JoeT

 

John, you are not anything to Clark Pinnock. While his niece may have shared some stories about Pinnock in reminiscing a lost Uncle, for you, Pinnock is an ideological enemy. What you are doing is spreading gossip. This is the second time you have done it and you need to find another way to respond to people mentioning Pinnock.

I’m sure you can do better than calling your ideological opponent “a nut” and then trying to defend it by saying that the niece said it.

I find your statement to be more than a little hypocritical. You come onto this forum with the username “Deadworm” and then take great offense with someone else’s mild jab at a well-known theologian.

 

I'm looking for a response, who was it that certified, or authorized, the 66 book bible for all of Protestantism? Did the Bible just fall out of the air with only 66 books when once it had 73? How did the first century authors get their witness from the first century to our current age, osmosis?

JoeT

 

If the Bible contradicts a tradition, then could we safely conclude that that tradition is not sacred?

What is called “The Domino Theory of Scripture” is not a theory, but is the truth. It is a true doctrine concerning Holy Scripture, concerning its authority and truth.

 

The Bible doesn't contradict Sacred Tradition as Sacred Scripture is a part of that Tradition along with the Church herself. The Credo is part of the oral Sacred Tradition out of the 1st century Church. The Trinitarian doctrines are an example built on the Apostles Creed (the Oral Tradition of the Church), Three Persons yet one God as evidenced in Scripture but not overtly stated. Without Sacred Traditions then there is no Divine Trinity and there are three Gods and three persons not of the same substance. Only One God exists in Eternity.

The "Domino Theory" fails Sacred Tradition. The Church is given the Authority you assign to a book. How insulting is it to be lead by a book (an inanimate object) instead of His Kingdom and Christ? How do you prevent subjective interpretation given that interpretation is given to the Church? St. Peter warns:

"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." [2 Peter 1:20]

And Christ speaking to the Church in the persons of the Apostles says:

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." [Luke 10:16]
​

Do you hear Christ or do you interject your own subjective desires into Sacred Scripture?

JoeT​

 

If we say that sacred tradition is that by which we interpret and understand the Bible, how do we discern between holy tradition and profane ones? By what standard do we determine which traditions are truly apostolic and authoritative?

It is the elect, Christ’s own, His sheep who are enabled to come to a saving understanding of the Word of God as contained in Holy Scripture. The whole number of the elect can and are able to understand the Scriptures sufficiently for a saving knowledge of those truths which are revealed in the Word. Christ’s sheep who were predestined to eternal life will never fall away from that knowledge which is necessary unto salvation.

Jesus said, “And a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers...All that came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them...I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:5, 8, 14-16 ASV)

Thus, all true believers will not perish in apostasy by following the voice of a stranger, but will follow Christ and not the heresies of false teachers.

 

It is an objective Truth we seek. Truth is not 'relative' to other competing truths, rather it is absolute and immutable.

We determine the true faith from the profane with the 'rule of faith'. If you are looking to the perfection of faith it would be ill advised to stop at Scripture as Tradition combined with Scripture, Church comprised of her Bishops, her doctors, the Early Church Fathers, miracles and natural reason make up the whole and complete, sole, and infallible rule of faith.

The Church was entrusted with the entire deposit of faith; "The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),[ cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14 (Vulg.)] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."[cf. Acts 2:42 (Greek)] [CCC 84].

"Tradition" includes something other than 'oration' of God's word. It is a rational understanding of the Word of God conforming to the doctrine and dogma of an apostolic Church transmitted from one generation to the next. Thus, Sacred Tradition is combined with Sacred Scripture forming within us the fullness of faith. Christ's Kingdom is formed our of Moses’ remnant Kingdom. Christ formed His Kingdom first to teach the principles of a sole and infallible rule of faith. Within the infallible rule of faith lies the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church [Cf. Matthew 28:19]. The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach and baptize.

All of the New Testament is the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Separate it from the Catholic Tradition and you're left with a meaningless story of a mystic, faith becomes a diminished light or extinguished entirely. "And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us [the Church], either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith;" [Romans 12:6]. The Word is alive, made flesh to dwell among us. [Cf. John 1:14]. The Sacred Tradition includes the Word of God, still alive, and dwells within us in the appearance of bread and wine.

"God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known." [Dei Verbum, 9]​

JoeT

 

The Church is not a 'stranger', she speaks for Jesus Christ. [Cf. Matthew 18:17; Luke 10:16]. Hear the Church.

JoeT

 

(1) Is the insistence on an inerrantist view of Scripture essential. No, the theory that in the original autographs, the inspired text contained no errors in doctrine puts no one's faith in jeopardy.

(2) The Bible itself never claims to be inerrant, not even in the vague claim that the OT is "god--breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)?" Right, since God is perfect, His inspired text was perfect as far as the message is concerned. Thus errors in numbers, spelling and names even if in the originals do not challenge the theory.

(3) On what basis do Fundamentalists claim an inerrant NT, when the NT didn't even exist as a consensual canon of books until the 3rd century? [No, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does not refute this problem.] All scripture is inspired and therefore inerrant in the original autographs, including the 27 books of the NT.

(4) Jude cites the alleged supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative and In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts. So on what basis do Fundamentalists accept the Protestant OT canon (despite Josephus) as opposed to Paul's and Jude's apparently open-ended view of canonicity, the Septuagint, and the Catholic inclusion of the OT apocrypha? When an inspired author cites an uninspired writing, only the portion cited in support of the authors point is validated.

(5) How is it intellectually honest for Fundamentalists to continue to cling to biblical inerrancy, when faced with clear examples of biblical errors for which they have no rational answer?[/QUOTE] Declaring guilt before hearing the evidence is not useful. I believe the view of inerrancy presented in this post is rational and consistent with all scripture.

 

I

If we are to look to the tradition of the church along with Scripture, how do we know who is and is not a member of the universal church? Who do we discern the church of Jesus Christ from false churches? This question is connected with the question: How do we discern how tradition from profane tradition?

 

Under the old covenant the shepherds and bishops of the church led Yahweh’s people astray. If those were teachers within the congregation of old in Israel spoke falsely in the name of Yahweh, then can we not say that it is possible for the religious leaders and bishops to error in the church under the new covenant?

 

There is only one Church commissioned by Christ that came into its own on Pentecost. There was only one Church to whom the Paraclete will answer all questions.[Cf. Matthew 28:19; John 14:26] The Catholic Church.

Having faith in Jesus Christ one should rely on His words, it is the Church given to St. Peter: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 16:18]. So, there you have it. Faith demands the Church of Jesus Christ, His Kingdom, the New Israel, can not fail.

JoeT

 

Is the church, then a separate people of God from the people of God before the coming of Christ in the flesh?

 

The Church, His Kingdom is the fulfillment of Scripture. His Kingdom was a matter of prophecy, Christ was to come, and He did and summarily rejected by the Jews. Nevertheless, the Kingdom of God is the same Kingdom given to Moses, God's "priestly kingdom, and a holy nation. Those are the words thou shalt speak to the children of Israel." [Exodus 19:6]. The sons and daughters of Abraham. The Church is made of all peoples, Jews as well as gentiles. Christ came in the Flesh in the first century and remains in His Kingdom, the Body of Christ.

JoeT

 

So then, would we agree that Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Noah, Job, Daniel, and others before the coming of Christ are members of Christ’s body?

 

There are three provinces of God's Kingdom, the Church Militant, His earthly realm, the Church suffering, those in purgatory, and The Church Triumphant, those in heaven. All of the mentioned individuals are said to be just men, some were said to talk to God 'face to face'; therefore I see no reason why they wouldn't be members of the the Body of Christ, as if I could be their judge.

JoeT