What's your take? Are there worse sins? Talk about consquences/rewards. Many people wonder about this. That is why I think it worth discussing.
Don

A sin is a sin as is a sin.
They all can be wiped from your soul and forgiven in a instant.
PERIOD!

A sin is a sin?  Then why did Jesus say to Pilot : "therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

Man places degrees on sin and God wipes them clean regardless of what they are. So what degree does it matter for anyone to classify them if they all can be forgiven for?

The smallest sin not laid at the feet of Jesus can separate us from Christ. The largest sin laid at the feet of Jesus can be forgiven. So in that sense all sin is equal.

That said, the Bible clearly recognizes that the consequences of some sin are greater than others.

"He who does not provide for his family is WORSE than an unbeliever."

"The GREATEST commandment . . "

To illustrate:

Spiritual Consequences of sin: If you hate me, the Bible says you've killed me in your heart and that you are guilty of murder.

Physical Consequences of sin: That said, I'd rather you hated me than killed me.

Here's another take:  It is one thing to hate your neighbor without just cause, it is worse to actually murder him.

If someone rapes and kills a little child, and someone else gets frustrated and slips out a cuss word, do you think God views that as the same?  Of course not.  There are different levels of sins and different punishments according to the gravity of them.  Jesus gives us an example

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, “Raca,” is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

St. John in his 1st letter does as well,
1 John 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

There are different levels.  Only an idiot would beleive otherwise.

To be in sin.....means to miss the mark.

Missing the mark is an archery term.

To miss the mark of life is to be in sin.

It matters for the person committing the sin.  Sin separates us from God, but mortal sin "kills" the soul, so to speak.  The more serious the sin, the harder it is for the individual to overcome.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:




All sins are forgiven, if one asks, but the deeper one sinks into serious sin, the less likely he is to even care and ask for God's forgiveness.

A venial sin is like buying a new gun and putting it straight in the safe without showing you wife (or telling her about it).
A mortal sin is like cheating on your wife.  

One gets you yelled at.  The other ends your marriage.  

Marriages are normally excellent analogies to a relationship with God.

How I understand it, all sin is not equal but the penalty (in this physical life) is the same - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The price we owe God for sin is death. Christ came to earth to pay this debt for  anyone who accepts Him as their redeemer so we would not have to.
The Bible indicates God works on a reward/punish system for all. - we can earn crowns or different levels of hell. Perhaps we can discuss more on the reward/punish system which is in place?

break over - must go
Don

An interesting question.  If all sin is equal, then why is one type of sin unpardonable (Matthew 12:31-32) while others aren't?

That said, the consequence of all sin is seperation from the presense of God.

All/any unrepentant sin will equally send you to hell, All/ any are equally forgivable to the one who has faith, Some cost you more this side of Jordan....

Can I borrow that?



Is that a HardShell original or did that come from someone else?  Because if the former, you need to publish; and if the latter, I want to know who I need to make my next book search for.

From what I understand, the unpardonable sin is simply not accepting Christ as your savior.
I don't have the supporting verses at hand but could find out.
Don

agreed

Don

So with all the catch phrases and bumper sticker slogans thrown out there, does that mean that some believe that God views rape equally as he views slipping out a cuss word, or murder equal to raising your voice  and being slightly rude to someone who did not deserve it?  Surely you don't believe that.  No one is saying that any of those sins can't be forgiven, by no means, but God does not consider those equally and people would be punished for them differently if they do not deal with them before they die.

There's tripping and falling a few steps down the mountain, and then there's turning around and deliberately walking down.

No, God doesn't see all sins equal. Just that the smallest of sin has the same penalty as the largest from God's standpoint. That is death. We will be punished according to our sin and when we are convicted, Jesus takes our place if we accept Him as savior. If not, the punishment will fit the crime - in God's eyes. He also disciplines us while we are still on earth.

break over- must go
Don

All sin has the same punishment for the unrepentant sinner - eternal separation from God in hell, the place  of eternal torment.

Certain sins have greater negative consequences for their victims here on earth (  murder > adultery > jealousy, etc )

Sin is sin in Gods eyes.

In the real world, the consequences of sin are not equal.  An night of infidelity can lead to a child.  A moment of weakness leads to theft of a candy bar and you get caught.  Both are sins but the consequences are much different.

The one delivering Jesus to Pilate knew what he was doing and had evil intent in his heart. This was the Hebrew murder for the 10 commandments given by God through Moses (Thou shalt not Murder). Pilate was doing his job as a judge. Those that gave him over demanded his death making them murderers.

That does not agree with what John says in 1 John 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not unto death.

There is mortal sin and venial sin, one has the ability to send you to Hell while the other does not.

The "sin unto death" is explained for us in Acts 5:1-22. Lying to the Holy Ghost is cause for immediate death.

ALL sin will cause eternal separation from God.

God can tolerate NO sin.

Otherwise some would not need Christ.

Differentiating sin in teh fashion you have is wholly contrary to God's Word.

And BEFORE you respond to this - begin by answering ONE question - DO you hold to the Scrriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments, to be our sole rule (in the sense of 'highest authority' ) of faith and practice, and the singular  standard by which our life and religious practice should be goverened"?

Where in Scripture does it state that the Scriptures are to be our "sole rule", "highest authority" and/or "singular standard"?

Scripture is only a part of the Sacred Tradition handed down from Christ to the apostles.

garandman

As for your question concerning the Bible being the sole authority to my Faith, my question to you is, Whose interpretation of it do I go by and should be the sole authority to my faith?  And what about those Christians who lived before the canon was defined, was the Scriptures the sole authority to their Faith?  Of course not, they had Scripture (not fully defined into a canon until a few centuries after Christ) and the Apostolic Tradition handed down from the Apostles.  The Early Church Fathers are witnesses to that, we have tons of writings from them to prove that.  My Faith is the same as the ancient Christian Church in Apostolic times which relies upon the infallible Word of God and the infallible interpretation of the Word of God through Apostolic succession.  It amazes me that people have developed a doctrine that makes the Bible the sole authority to their Faith when it was authority outside of the Bible that defined what was Scripture and what was not, through Church Councils by the Catholic Church.  It was the Catholic Church that perserved the Bible and worked out the canon of Scripture.

That being said, let me mention what you said, "Otherwise some would not need Christ."   We all need Christ due to original sin that was handed on from Adam, regardless of what level of sins we commit.  As for sin unto death mentioned by John, it is not "a sin unto death" or "the sin unto death" otherwise the Greek would have an article before  αμαρτια προς θανατον "sin unto death," αμαρτια being sin in general, not a specific sin.

I think it is important to remember that the disease is what causes the symptoms....

The sins we commit simply prove that we are all sinners in need of a Saviour.

We do what we do because of what we are.....

And that is why Jesus told us that a new birth is necessary.

God gives that new birth to those who repent and trust in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead.

II Pet 1:19 - II Tim 3:16 - I John 5:9 - I Thess 2:13 - I John 2:20 - John 16:13-14 - I Cor 2:10-12 - Isa 59:21

It is the Holy Scriptures (specifically the canon of 66 books) in tandem with the Holy SPirit who applies those Scriptures to our heart, that is our sole rule of faith and practice.

The canon became the canon NOT because some man picked it, but because teh Holy Spirit attested to teh canonicity of those 66 books. Thus, the canon is closed.




THAT right there is why I asked the question I asked.

I could ask "What's the rest of the 'Sacred Tradition'? " But I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

But I'll stick with my first question "DO you or do you not hold the 66 book canon (Genesis thru Revelation) as the authoritative Word of God, authoritative over ANY word of man?"

Please answer.

Yes, or No.

It is poor form to answer a question WITH a question.

Please answer mine first, with a YES or a NO.

In my experience, most honest Catholics (if you are one) will answer "No."

My answer is YES, the ultiamte authority is the Word of God, applied to the heart of man by the Spirit of God.

The church thru the years has aided in the understanding and development of Christian doctrine, but that tradition is and never will be parallel or of greater authority than the Word  of God (i.e. the 66 book canon inclusive)

Again, I ask what I do, as debating with Catholics (with whom I hold MUCH in common) is usually futile, as I hold to the Word of God as authoritative, and they have all these other authoritative source documents. As such, the debate seldom has a meeting of teh minds.

The traditions of man are not to contradict the Bible, but the Bible does NOT address every question of faith that men and women seeking God and Truth conjure.  As such, Christ gave us the Church (through the apostles with Peter as their "first among equals"- just as the Pope is today)... The Bible combined with the tradition and teaching of the Church is the ultimate authority.  There's plenty of scripture to prove that is true.

So, if the tradition and teaching of the Church does not contradict the teachings of the Bible, it is most certainly valid.  The Bible is what it is - a divinely inspired story of Salvation.  Nothing more.  There are thousands of writings that were not included - because they did not contribute to the story of Salvation - not because they were not divinely inspired.  The Holy Spirit continues to work through the Church to guide the Bride of Christ toward that wedding day (that seems to be fast approaching).

To answer your question:  Yes the Bible is the Ultimate authority - not a singular authority.  All other teachings CANNOT contradict the Bible and still be valid.  In that sense, it is the ultimate... but do not for an instant think that makes it the singular source for knowledge of God or the singular expression of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost.  Can a man learn all they NEED to know from the Bible to attain Salvation?  Absolutely.  Can a man learn all they NEED to know from the Bible to continually grow in their faith over a lifetime?  No.  The Bible is the beginning of faith - and the end, but it is not the singular path on the journey.

Agree.



Source, please. It is MUCH more than just a "story of Salvation."




If you are saying the Canon remains open, I disagree. God's revelation is complete, so far as Scripture is concerned.

I never understood why people are still looking for more.  Have they mastered all that was given in the 66 book canon?

If not, what must God think of those who rush past the 66 book canon looking for more "scripture"?




I mean the same by singualr as I mean by ultimate.

Its singular in the sense if ANY other source contradicts Scripture, then Scripture becomes our single, ultimate source for knowing the mind of God.

Natural revelation helps, the church helps, extra-Biblical writings help, but all those are secondary in authority compared to the "singular" (ultimate) authority of Scripture

EVERYthing in the Bible supports the story of Salvation in one way or another.  There cannot be a "source" you would accept because every source would be extra-biblical.  Nice try, though.



That's not what I said.  If you want this discussion to remain civil, do not put words in my mouth.  Scripture is not absolutely synonymous with revelation.  All Scripture is revelation, but not all revelation is scripture.  God CONTINUES to reveal Himself to us even after the Bible is compiled.  Please, cite a scriptural source that says all divine revelation stopped after the Bible was compiled.  



Does it matter if they have?  There are many roads to faith - do not dare assume that yours is the road that all must take.  The teachings of the Church exist to help the Bride of Christ understand more clearly the Revelation in the Bible.  



When I was in High School, someone handed me a Calculus book.  That Calculus book contained all the information I needed to learn Calculus, but I would have had A LOT of trouble learning it if it were not for my teacher.  Similarly, when I got to College Chemistry - even WITH the professor's help, I barely passed.  

The concepts in the Bible (which, to the casual reader often seem contradictory) are DIFFICULT.  There are no two ways about it.  The teachings and the traditions of the Catholic Church flesh out portions that may be confusing to those new to the faith.  Take for instance, the concept that God exists in eternity.  If I ask a Protestant what eternity means, I generally get the answer of "forever."  That is not eternity.  Eternity is a continuous present.  Often, Catholics are demonized for their "worship" of saints and Mary.  If one understands the true concept of eternity, this notion of "worship" becomes silly... because it is obviously not praying to the dead... it is praying to those who are alive (right now in eternity) in Christ.

Anyway, the point is, the Holy Spirit has been working through the Church for a LONG time.  The suggestion that the Holy Spirit no longer interacts with humanity individually AND through the Church is ABSOLUTELY contrary to the Scripture.




You're going well out of your way to play a semantic game with words.  Those two words do not mean the same thing in ANY sense.  The Bible is the ultimate authority, but it is not the only revelation of the Holy Spirit, so... if a teaching of the Church DOESN'T contradict the teachings of the Scripture, it is silly to assume that it is not the work of the Holy Spirit.  The Bible is the Ultimate Authority, but the Church is ALSO a legitimate authority.  

If you have a beef with the teachings of the Catholic Church, you probably have a beef with what you incorrectly believe to be teachings of the Church.  Pick up a copy of the Catechism and peruse it.  I have not yet run across a properly understood Catholic teaching that runs contrary to the Bible.  I challenge you to find one.  

garandman,

Most people could read my post and realize that I was not dodging the question you ask, but since it was not clear enough for you then let me answer, No, its not the complete authority to my Faith, as it has never been intended on being the complete authority, because with the infallible Word of God comes an infallible intepretation of it.  Under your premesis that the Bible is the complete authority, it leads to thousands of demoninations using the same book, all claiming that the Holy Spirit is guiding them to interpret it, while at the same time coming to soooooooo many different conclusions about some very important doctrines that cannot afford to be interpreted in more than one way.  If Christ intended on us having the Bible as the sole authoirty to our Faith then He would have just handed out Bibles 2000 years ago and said that was all we need, but He did not, instead he appointed leaders to not only write down the Gospel but to explain what it means.  You cannot expect the Bible to be the sole authority to our Faith without having Apostolic teaching to go with it, and if you look around you, you will see that that school of thought leads to massive confusion and divisions.  WWJD- what would Jesus do?  Well, the Baptist says one thing, Methodist say another, Pentacostals say something else, Prebyterians, church of Christ, church of God, etc etc etc.....  And then those denominations can't even agree among themselves!

I will stick with the Church that has believed the same thing for 2000 years, which can be proven by the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

First:
The canon of Scripture is more than 66 books.  It's 73 books, and history bears that out.  Nice attempt to redefine Scripture as the abridged version, though.



Scripture according to whose interpretation?  Yours?  Billy Graham's?  Benny Hinn's?  Ellen G White's?  Ulrich Zwingli's?  T.D. Jake's?  The ELCA's?  The Anglican Communion's?  The Baptists'?  The Assembly of God's?  The Methodists'?  The Presbyterian USA's?
You all claim the Bible as the sole rule of faith, yet you all believe something different, using Scripture as the sole source.  

Or how about Augustine's (4th century)?  John Chrysostom's (4th century)?  Polycarp of Smyrna (a student of John the Apostle)?  Ambrose's (4th century)?  Athanasius' (4th century)?  Irenaeus' (3rd century)?  Ignatius' (2nd century)?  Basil (4th century)?  Cyprian (3rd century)?  Jerome (5th century)?  Justin Martyr (2nd century)?  Cyril of Alexandria (4th century)?
They all believed the same thing, and were united in doctrine –– Baptism.  Eucharist.  Apostolic succession.  Sacraments.  The Trinity.  Sacred Tradition.  The hypostatic union.  Sanctifying grace.  The authority of the Church.

Nowhere in scripture does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole authority, nor does it give a listing of what is considered canon of Scripture.  You must implicitly recognize the authority of someone outside the Bible to declare what books belong in the canon since the Bible itself does not say, else you have no way of knowing what belongs and what doesn't.  You have no leg to stand on to reject the gospel of Thomas, or Judas, or the epistle of Barnabas or the apocalypse of Peter since there is nothing in the Bible that says what does belong in there.

You think *** I **** came up with the idea of a 66 book canon? I have "re-defined" nothing. I but repeat definitions long ago given.

Friend, you give me FAR too much credit.




No. The interpretation given to man by the Holy Spirit of the living God. (John 16:13, and about ten other verses I could give you)



Alot of people are wrong. Not really breaking news there. I am among them, in some ways, no doubt. Tho I'm not aware of any specifically, presently, else I would change my position to be in accord with the Word of God.



I've already addressed this, above.




This is where you are most wrong.

Appealing to sources outside Scripture for the authority of Scripture is grossly illogical.

Its like saying God has to have some higher authority to prove what He says is true.

Scripture is self-attesting.

I didn't think you were dodging the issue. Just being verbose.  

Again, the singular proper interpretation of Scripture is that meaning given it by the Holy Spirit of the living God.

Do many people get that wrong? Absolutely.

Does that make the lesser interpretations supplied by the church GREATER THAN that given by the Holy Spirit? God forbid.

God doesn't "need" the church. Rather, He condescends and helps along this infantile body called His church as evidence of His loving kindness and tender mercy.





Ergo, you think the interpretations of the early chuirch father IS greater than the Scripture itself. That God Himself wasn't capable of clarity in His Word, but WHEW!!!!! the church fathers saved us from God's ineptitude.

Which show you are ignorant of the teachings of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, etc etc etc who ALL would anathematize what you posted.

The Church helps....the Scriptures control. (And by the way, claiming the Church Fathers have agreed for 2,000 years is gross ignorance of the facts. )

You sure have a way of putting words into peoples mouths.  I never said the Church Fathers was greater than Scripture, nor did you seem to clearly understand or portray my case.

I respect your belief about Scripture alone, and that you don't have a problem with "many people getting it wrong", but that is not Scriptural, the Church is to be of one accord with one faith, one baptism, etc etc, not thousands of various beliefs and of thousands of divisions.  Talking about unscriptual, that's is for sure.  That is not the Holy Spirit at work, that is chaos.  Jesus Christ established the Church where the Holy Spirit works through the Bishops in the same way the Spirit worked through the Apostles 2000 years ago.  Like I said, had we supposed to believe in Scripture alone then Jesus would have passed out Bibles instead of appointing Apostles, and He would have told everyone that "he who reads this hears Me", instead of telling the Apostles, "he who hears you, hears me."   The Holy Spirit works fully within the Catholic Church, and the Church teaches by the guidance of the Spirit to interpret Scripture and to define Doctrine, not independent from Him.  You appear to think that I believe that the Church is above the Spirit, by no means.  

If you want to test my ignorance of the Church Fathers on this issue, then be my guest.  It was the Church Fathers that brought me out of the Scripture alone idea.

OK, you gave a few passages of scripture, let's take a look.  (From the Douay-Rheims, my personal favorite)

2 Peter 1:19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

So, scripture is prophetical and we need to pay attention to it.  Agreed.  Am I missing the part that says sole authority?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

Ah, the old stand-by.  Scripture is profitable for sure, but the absolute only thing needed to do these things?  Verse 14 states: "But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;"  Things learned form where?  Not from scripture, but handed down through Sacred Tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

What was "the word of God" when this was written?  Not the 66 book canon you follow today, but the written Old Testament Scriptures and the oral Traditions handed down from Christ to the apostles.  How do you KNOW that ONLY the 66 books you consider to be the canon would be included, and NOT oral teachings handed down?

Isaiah 59:21 This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

If that's not a promise for God to always be with His Church, I don't what is.  Scripture as the sole authority?  I don't see it.  Again, we have different definitions of what the "Word of God" is.  We believe that the "Word of God" has been entrusted to the Church in written and oral form. (See Jer. 25:3, 7-8)  Both Jesus and Paul make reference to teachings considered to be authoritative that are NOT found in the Old Testament Scriptures.

And you did not address the fact that nowhere in scripture is a list of which books are to be included in the canon.  Sure the Holy Spirit "attested to the canonicity" of the books of the Bilble - but HOW?  Through whom or what?

I think you are missing the point.

When I say "Scripture alone" what I mean is Scripture stands alone when there is any disagreement between Scripture and anything else.

It is the sole highest authority. There is no OTHER highes authority. Scripture stands alone in that regard.

Christ obviously has given authority to His body, the church, but if ever there is any doctrine promulagated by the church that disagrees with Scripture, Scripture stands alone.

If you disagree with that, then you hold Scripture as of secondary importance to the church.

And it is why a meeting of the minds is unlikely between us.

Actually, the Scriptures given put the burden on YOU to prove FROM SCRIPTURE how the church (or anything else) can be of higher authority than the Spirit and the Word. The Scriptures I gave place Scripture in the highest position, and now you must show why there is a higher authority.

That is my WHOLE point.  I gladly cede the Scriptural teaching of the authority of the church, and history proves its usefulness in ciphering doctrine.

But the church's authority is DERIVED from the authority of the Scriptures. And the Scriptures authority comes from God Himself. Without the Scriptures, the church would have NO authority. And therfore, the church will ALWAYS have a secondary authority compared to the Spirit of God and His Word.



For details of that, go back to the church councils that decided on the 66 books.

To understand how the Spirit works in communicating the Word to a man or woman, read the Scripture. And quite frankly, even Scripture doesn't explain everything about how the Spirit works. We simply have to take everything it does say, and beleive it


Your questions are fair, but FAR beyond what can be posted on Afrcom. The equivalent would be me asking you to explain the comprehensive history of the church.  Except the church is primarily material and human, and the Spirit is divine and immaterial, and therefore less easily comprehended in how He works.

I'll answer generically this way - a God capable of creating the whole universe AND saving my soul - its no problem for His Spirit to communicate both the canon and the Word to man.  All three of those things defy a full human explanation.

How is that different than what we've been telling you this whole time?  It's almost like you're uninterested in casting aside your preconceived notions about the Catholic Church.  Instead, you're happy in your artificial moral superiority based on misconceptions perpetuated by your protestant preachers (their teaching on the Catholic Church itself, is a church teaching that runs contrary to the Bible).  *shrug*  THAT is why it is unlikely that there will be a meeting of the minds between us.  

I think the only way you see a "meeting of the minds" is if I reject what I have been saying and then accept your premesis of Scripture alone.  My premesis, as I have been saying over and over, probably on deaf ears, is that I don't accept Scripture alone because there has to be authority outside of Scripture, otherwise the canon would have never been developed and we would not have a Bible in the form that it is in now.  And if there is authority to determine what is inspired or not inspired, then that same authority would have the authority to teach what the Bible means as well, not in a subjective way where everybody and their brother has the same authority to interpret it the way they want and develop thousands of opposing doctrines, but one Universal office that teaches one Faith, which the Catholic Church has done for 2000 years now.

And please, the remarks about me only relying on my preconceived notions, sorry, but I am a former Southern Baptist preacher and teacher, and  if I was not open minded and a truth seeker I would still be a Southern Baptist.  I always knew that there was something very wrong about thousands of demoninations, and I was willing to ask the hard questions and then accept what the answer was and then submit to truth, otherwise I could have closed my eyes and stayed within my comfort zone.

As for the comment about putting the Church higher than Scripture, no, you are mistaken.  The Church preserved the Scriptures, She developed the canon so that we have a Bible.  The Bible and the Church go hand and hand.  The Bible is the written Word of God, and the Chuch is the infallible interpreter of the Word of God.  The Church operates in the same Spirit that the Apostles did, and to accept the Church's interpretation is to accept the interpretation from the Church that Christ established, because that is why He established the Church.  Having the Bishops of the Church is like having Peter, Paul, Matthew, Andrew, etc etc leading the Church, because the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

That's NOT what you've (collectively)  been saying. My position is sola Scriptura, and that is MOST definitely NOT what you've been saying.

You've (collectively) been saying Scripture DOES NOT stand alone, as I've defined the term. You put the church on par with Scripture. That is the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church.

You need to be honest with yourself and admit the Vatican's position re: infallibility of the pronouncements of the pope / church.

And THAT has a huge impact on the question of this thread - are there different levels of sin?

Scripture says one thing. The Catholic church says another.

I told you that was your premise a long time ago.

Its also the fundamental problem in your theology.

To say that there is an authority OUTSIDE the Scripture itself that determined the canon  is to say Scripture is BENEATH the Church in the hierarchy of authority.

If Scripture is the Word of God (it is) and it is the Church that determines the canon of Scripture, you have effectively said the Church has greater authority than God Himself and His Word. (you'll scream and sqawk that is not true, but logically, based on your statements, that's what you've said)

I don't think you mean to say that, and if asked point blank,  I imagine you'd argue against the logical implications of you premise.

You need to consider the logical implications of your position. I've told you what they are, but realize you'll have to come to that understanding on your own.

My position is that the Word itself, and the Spirit of God determined the canon, and gave the church a derived authority, derived from the Wod of God. It is my position that defends the singular authority of God, by defending the singualr authority of His Word.

Find me ONE infallible statement (remember, just because the Pope speaks does not mean he is speaking from the position of infallibility) that contradicts the Bible.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  Here, I'll even help.  Start here.

Scripture says the Catholic Church has the right to teach according to Scripture AND tradition.  You're repeating a lot of stuff that has no basis in reality.

Very few disagree with the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.  Many disagree with what they wrongly believe to be the teachings of the Church.

Your argument stems from ignorance while you claim a position of knowledge.  Your supposed knowledge came from pastors who are equally uneducated about the Church.  Those pastors are bearing false witness against the Church, and they are unwittingly playing right into the division that our adversary seeks.  They should know better.

garandman

What I am saying, is that the Church is not above Scripture (how many times do I have to say that), I fell like I'm beating a dead horse, and will let you go ahead and have the last word since I keep having to repeat myself and getting wore out trying to clarify my beliefs that you keep destorting.

I have every confidence you desire to please God and be theolgically correct. I have every confidence you truly beleive you give Scripture first place.

My concern over the notion the church determines the canon is in the IMPLICATIONS of holding to that idea.

I will make my final comment in this thread and summarize in this way:

If one holds that it is the church that determines the canon, then that person holds that the church decides what is and is not Scripture.

If the church determines what is and is not Scripture, then it determines what God's Word to man is.

If the church determines what God's word to man is, then the church has authority not only above Scripture, but above God himself, as the church deternies what is and is not God's communication to man.

__________

Conversley, my position is that Scripture is self -attesting. The Word itself, by the authentication of the Spirit, communicates to the church what is the canon. This is the ONLY way we can truly claim to give first place authority to Scripture and the Spirit of God, and give the church its proper DERIVED, SECONDARY authority.

.