Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

If this thread is too scattered in its focus to camp-out on just "sola scriptura" I will start a sola scriptura thread to accommodate Herbert's request. I think one topic at a time works best anyway.

 

DHK,

From here, I'll attempt to move on to the other things you've brought up recently (including the reading recommendations, etc.). But like you and BobRyan have suggested, we should probably work to direct this conversation toward the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

You said: I hope we can agree here. Islam is a different religion, with a different "sacred scriptures," a different way to "heaven" or paradise, and they worship a different god called Allah. It is a different religion completely.

A response: Islam is certainly a different religion. The Koran, what Muslims hold to be divinely revealed “Scripture,” is not Scripture at all. Islam doesn’t present “the Way” to Heaven. It is indeed an entirely different religious system. As far as the word “Allah” is concerned, though, Arabic Christians worship Allah, too. The Arabic word for God is, after all, “Allah.” So from a linguistic perspective, the word Allah, itself, refers to the One God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. In a carefully qualified sense, Muslims, as the Catechism says “acknowledge the Creator” and “profess to hold the faith of Abraham…” Together, with us, then, in a carefully qualified way, it can be said that they “adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” The Catholic qualifications associated with this teaching are less about a right theology and more about the brokenness of humankind due to sin. They have nothing to do with God’s immutable nature. And everything to do with human conceptions of God, which, apart from special revelation are shrouded in mystery. The article here (which I believe was written by a non-Catholic Christian) speaks to this issue quite thoughtfully and reasonably, I’d say.

You continued: “Catholic salvation… runs contrary to the Bible… We come to know his son through the Word.” These are the two most important points listed here that need to be discussed. Obviously there is disagreement.

A response: To reach the conclusion that Catholic salvation "runs contrary to the Bible," one must first view the Catholic Church not as a teacher, but as something to be judged, evaluated, and if necessary, condemned. In other words, in order to conclude that the Catholic Church teaches a false Gospel, one must presuppose that such a thing is possible. That leap, far from being required or justified by the Bible itself, is a leap made according to one’s tradition, philosophy, understanding of history, and often, prejudice. It also represents a classic case of begging the question.

You continued, saying: “The Son is defined for and speaks to us through His Word.” This is the Biblical position (Heb.1:1,2). It needs to be discussed more.

A response: Yes. The Catholic Church has always taught this. It's good to see that you hold to this Catholic teaching. The Church has never taught, though, that Christ is *only* revealed to us through His Word. To claim this much is to add to Scripture, to cling to a tradition of men as though it were the bona fide Word of God. In truth, this, like so many other matters, isn’t an “either-or” situation. Christ is revealed to us both through Scripture and the Incarnation. He’s revealed to us both through Scripture and through the Church, “which is his body, and the fulness of him which is filled all in all.” He’s revealed to us both through the prophets and through His miracles. It is a desperate fundamentalism, whether it's Islamic, Mormon, or Christian, which is often bent on self-assurance, that fashions for itself the black and white paradigms by which it purports to, in God’s place, distinguish the sheep from the goats. For you to limit the mode of divine revelation of Christ to Scripture alone is, as I’ve said many times now, is to contradict and even defy the very Scriptures you purport to uphold. It is, again, a most unBiblical form of Biblicism which goes so far to desperately maintain itself as to contradict its own principle of existence.

You continued: “The apocryphal books, put in the OT canon, were never accepted by the Jews… The Jewish canon was completed by 450 B.C… The oldest of those books is 250 B.C., and some of them were written either during or after the time of Christ… How is it possible that these are OT books, or should be put in a canon of Scripture that was closed in 450 B.C.?.. The OT Canon, given to the Israelites, quoted by Jesus was written in Hebrew. Those are the books inspired of God… All the Apocryphal books were written in Greek. That would disqualify them immediately” All of the above focuses around the Canon of Scripture and whether the Apocrypha was ever recognized as part of it.

A response: Again, there is a great irony in the fact that all the reasoning, history, philosophy, and attempt at rational analysis above is itself extraBiblical and thus in violation of the principle of Sola Scriptura. So it is that in the process of seeking to uphold what you wish to uphold (Sola Scriptura) you must violate the very principle you’re seeking to uphold. Before we even begin to discuss the legitimacy of the above claims, that patent fact must be acknowledged. For one shouldn’t criticize another for swaying from the Bible when he himself sways from the Bible to justify his initial criticism. This particular point speaks to the centrality of this question to this discussion. For if Sola Scriptura falls, then the rest of your tradition will collapse with it. What will remain there, though, is the Incarnation of Christ and the Church He established- a Church you don’t recognize on account of the Biblicist Tradition you’ve chosen to accept.

You continued: “The Magesterium (sic) is made up of fallible sinful men who came up with a document...I can show you from Scripture that Peter was never in Rome as the RCC claims… He was never there as a bishop or in any place of leadership in any church. Thus the very foundation of the RCC lies in question.” The above points, though a bit varied have to do with authority. Who or what is the authority in our lives?

A response: This passage, like most or all of the others you’ve presented, hinges upon the unBiblical notion that the Scriptures should be looked to as an encyclopedia of Christian doctrine. This is why, recently, I kept re-pasting that comment from David Anders concerning Sola Scriptura. As he said, we Catholics don’t hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because, simply put, it has not been revealed by God Almighty. For that matter, no Christian held to it prior to the Reformation Era. We are, thus, not bound to it as followers of Christ. Neither did a prophet or a miracle, nor did the Lord Himself reveal the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to us. You’ve acknowledged that fact by saying that the doctrine is recognized as valid in a manner similar to the way by which we recognize the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There are a few problems with that analogue, though, which we might have the chance to discuss soon.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Good idea.

But that is as far as it goes. There is a matter of linguistics, and second a matter of "professing."
Linguistically, everyone from J.W.'s, Mormons, and even Hindus use the word "god." But that doesn't make any one of them "Christian."
To "profess" to be a follower of the "true God," doesn't mean they are, just like a J.W. may profess the same thing.
Islam's belief in the God of Christianity must be judged on the merits of their theology.
1. They deny the trinity, and it is denied quite clearly and loudly by the Koran.
2. They deny the deity of Christ. One might note that the Jehovah of the OT is the Christ of the NT.
They reject that our God can be a "personal God." To them God is impersonal, one who cannot be called Father. In fact to do so would be akin to blasphemy.
IOW, he is not the same God, and cannot be considered even close to the same God. Others define him as the pagan "moon-god."
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god-allah.htm

And this is why doctrine derived from sola scriptura is so important.
Isa 43:10 You are My witnesses, says Jehovah, and My servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me no God was formed, nor shall there be after Me.
Isa 43:11 I, I am Jehovah; and there is none to save besides Me. (MKJV)

The RCC has a Catechism whereby we know its teachings and can thereby judge them clearly.

After 20 years in the RCC, I was saved by the grace of God through faith in His work on the cross.
Some time after that I lay the Bible and the teaching of the RCC side by side and asked myself which one was I going to follow? Would it be the words of God as recorded in the inspired Word of God, or would it be the words of man as recorded in the teachings of the RCC. It was the Word of God, the gospel, that brought me salvation, not the RCC. The RCC had never preached a gospel message. I chose correctly. Every doctrinal decision I have made since has been based on the Bible. It alone has been my guide.

Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

The incarnate Christ left this world at the time of His Ascension ca. 29 A.D. So that point is moot.
It really has no relevance except that he left us His Apostles who in turn left us His Word.

When you define "Church" as the RCC you are simply speaking of mysticism and superstition, and are not "rightly dividing the word of truth." You cannot explain how and why Christ would do what you just claimed. It is not possible.
But if "church" is defined as "local church," and the context is taken into consideration as being written as to the Ephesian local church, then the words have more meaning.

You are quoting Eph.1:23 and then saying it is talking about the prophets, Christ and his miracles. Not so. That is not the meaning at all. You didn't even know where in the Bible you were quoting from!

I don't limit God, but God limits Himself. He once spoke to us through his prophets. Then when the OT canon was complete there was a period of 400 years when God was silent and spoke to no one. That is the 400 inter-testamental period. Then suddenly John the Baptist appears, who is called the last of the OT prophets, and the fore-runner of Christ. The gospels tell us the history of Christ and the disciples, and Acts gives us the history of acts of the apostles from Pentecost onward as they started churches and ministered. Doctrinal epistles followed. With the Book of Revelation, the canon of Scripture was closed, and God has now finished speaking. He has given us all the revelation we need to know about Himself and salvation.

Concerning sola scriptura, we call that "internal evidence" whether or not these books should be accepted.
In addition to internal evidence there is external evidence: history, acceptance by the Jews, the dates of the books, the language in which they were written, etc. The evidence is stacked against these books that they should ever be considered part of the canon of scripture.

You want to believe that. But it is not true. It is the only divine authority that we have and ever have had. It is the measure of authority that the Jews had and were constantly told to measure all things.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--I as well as others, constantly refer you to this verse. The Jews had to test everything against the scriptures. If it didn't agree they were to disregard it.
If a prophet's prophecy failed just one time, he would be considered a false prophet and subject to being stoned to death. His prophecy had to be according to the Word of God. Everything had to be according to God's Word. If a prophecy taught contrary to the Word, he was a false prophet and was subject to the death penalty. That is sola scriptura.

The exact phrase "Thus saith the Lord," is used 430 times in the OT. Everything was to be done according to God's Word. That is the same as sola scriptura. We now have it written down.

I have previously demonstrated the Trinity, and I have just demonstrated sola scriptura.
Both are easily demonstrable in the Word of God.

 

DHK,

I am working through the material you've shared. But I must quickly jump in to respond to this. You must be sure that you understand a person correctly before you can criticize his position. In this case, I wasn't implying that Ephesians 1:23 was "talking about the prophets, Christ and his miracles." The two points I made were separate. First I was talking about Scripture and the Church and next I was talking about prophets and Christ's miracles. Maybe I wasn't very clear. Maybe you just misunderstood me. Either way, I do indeed know the context and location of my Biblical reference.

I feel like this is just starting to get interesting! Thanks for conversing with me in this way!

Herbert

 

It was this statement that was confusing to me

He’s revealed to us both through Scripture and through the Church, “which is his body, and the fulness of him which is filled all in all.” He’s revealed to us both through the prophets and through His miracles. It is a desperate fundamentalism, whether it's Islamic, Mormon, or Christian, which is often bent on self-assurance, that fashions for itself the black and white paradigms by which it purports to, in God’s place, distinguish the sheep from the goats.

We "fundamental" Christians (Baptists) are not desperate, neither should we be put in the same class as Mormons or Muslims.
In the first line because "Church" is capitalized, it is assumed you refer to "The Church" particularly the RCC, which has nothing to do with the audience to whom Paul is writing to. Of course the difference is a difference in our outlook in our ecclesiology. Generally speaking I take the scriptures much more literally.
I hope that clears some things up. I trust we can continue.

 

DHK,

Though I am working on another response, because of the sensitive nature of this stuff, in order to clear the air, I'll quick respond to what you've shared: I can see how you read those statements as one point. But I did intend for them to be read a bit more like a list of separate points.

1. There is nothing wrong with a certain kind of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, as in "strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline." is good. And please notice that I didn't distinguish between certain types of Christians in my comment. I said that an unhealthy fundamentalism can strike Muslims, Mormons, and Christians. When i said "Christians" I didn't mean "Baptists." I meant "Christians," period. For Catholic Christians have certainly fallen prey to this threat, and badly!

2. And I certainly didn't mean for you to read my remarks in such a way as to suggest that you, Mormons, and Muslims can rightly be grouped together. I'd be the first to say otherwise! For Muslims and Mormons are manifestly NOT Christian. Whereas, you most certainly are.

Well, anytime I use the term "Church," I am in some sense referring to the universal Church, the "proper noun" Church- which is necessarily, according to its divine institution always one, always holy, always apostolic, and always catholic. The New Testament descriptions of local churches, however, through the principle of subsidiarity, are also references, by virtue of their union with each other, to that universal Church. At least that's the understanding of "church" which is most thoroughly Biblical and in alignment with ALL that the New Testament says about the Church Christ came and established, the one against which the Gates of Hades would not prevail.

As I said, I am working on my responses. Thanks for your continued engagement.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Thanks for the response.
I'll just wait for what you were previously answering instead of adding anything new here.

 

I don't know it for a fact - but I presume that you have quoted "David Anders personal opinion" well. But I prefer the actual Word of God when it comes to placing faith in a doctrine or teaching. And since you did just agree to this focus - would like to keep that subject up front.

Mark 7:6-13 is found in the Bible.
Isaiah 8:20 is found in the Bible.
Gal 1:6-9 is found in the Bible.
Acts 17:11 - is found in the Bible.

I think that both sides of this discussion would agree to that point.

Next - we need to look at the actual details in those texts - to "see IF those things are so" that are being claimed against the Bible teaching of testing all doctrine, tradition, practice against what we find in the actual Bible.

Perhaps we should go through them one by one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan-
Thanks for the comment. As you know, I am trying to keep up with DHK. But you're right, it is my hope that we can eventually settle into a conversation focusing upon Sola Scriptura. A good place to start that conversation would probably be with the Geisler article that DHK shared a little while back. It is found here: http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

How about we start there?

As far as the opinion of David Anders goes, he's making a claim which either is or is not true. Earlier on in this thread DHK acknowledged that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine we recognize in a manner similar to the way we recognize the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Such a "binding inference" if we can call it that is a far cry from a clear explication of the doctrine being presented in the Scripture itself. Further, either the position Anders holds is or is not true. If you say it's not true, it should be quite easy to demonstrate the falsity of his claim. Let's look again at what he said:

"The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority. Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith."

Just as a nonbeliever could accuse you of clinging to mere opinions, so might you dismiss the opinion of Dr. Anders. To dismiss it is one thing. To disprove it is another. Let's look at what he claims:

1. SS is not an "article of faith" for Christians.
2. It has not been revealed by a divine authority.

If you can, please disprove that second claim. Show where Christ, a prophet, God the Father Himself, or the Bible "has identified the canon of scripture" as the Church's Rule of Faith.

Finally, (and if you're reading this, DHK, could you do the same) could you present a "definition" of Sola Scriptura that you find to clearly express the doctrine as you understand it? I think that will help us discuss things fruitfully, as well. That way I know exactly what you mean when you say "Sola Scriptura."

In Him,

Herbert

 

My definition of sola scriptura is a bit different than that of the Reformers. It has been refined by the Baptists.
"It simply states that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Of course that excludes being an authority in Math and science and other secular subjects. It speaks authoritatively in "our faith", that is our doctrine, and in our practice, that is how we live out our doctrine.

When I was saved, I was visiting two friends at their dormitory rooms in university. They asked me, "Do you know for sure if you were to die tonight would you go to heaven?"
I didn't know for sure (as a Catholic one cannot have that assurance).

"Do you believe the Bible?" I had no reason not to believe the Bible, so I said yes.

"Can we show you through the Bible how you can know for sure you can go to heaven when you die?" Thus that night I allowed the Bible to become my authority, the Holy Spirit convicting me, and I trusted Christ as my Savior. The Bible has been my authority ever since even as Christ has been my Savior. I am confident I have eternal life and my sins are forgiven: past, present and future. Why? "The Bible says so." It is my authority.

Sola Scriptura is taught all through the Bible.
Isa.8:20; Acts.17:11;
"Thus saith the Lord" is a phrase used 430 times referring to the authoritative voice of God.
There are numerous warnings not to add or take away from that which is written.
If a prophet prophecies that which is not according the Word he is a false prophet and should be stoned.
The Word of God is a standard. All things were and are measured by it. It has always been that way.

It has only been recently that people add to it.
The RCC teach: the Bible plus Oral Tradition.
The Mormons teach: the Bible plus the Book of Mormon.
The J.W.'s teach: the Bible plus the teachings of Charles Taze Russell.
The SDA's teach the Bible plus the teachings of Ellen G. White.

We teach the principle of sola scriptura, that Bible is our final authority, that there is no other authority that can trump the Bible. It alone is inspired. That doesn't mean one cannot use other resources. But it is the Bible that has the final record in doctrine, and even in historical records. Its records are inspired; others are not.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Again, the arguments for sola scriptura are laid out in detail here:
http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

 

Herbert - I don't think that is correct.
For example when "proving the Trinity" sola scriptura - to Jehovah's Witnesses we use "the bible and the Bible only". THEY on the other hand wish to make the Catholic argument that we would 'need the RCC' to show the Trinity. But in fact not a single quote from the RCC is used -- only the Bible.

Your argument is in essence 'that should not be possible' - we should not be able to show the Trinity - "sola scriptura" from the Bible to JW's - yet this is what we do all the time.

And it is even easier in the case of "Sola Scriptura" itself because you can see it in six texts - over and over and over again. A position that you "as a Baptist" would have had a hard time denying.

That is proven false in our short list of texts - already.

That is a bait-and-switch.

Christ claimed to have shown in Luke 24 "from all of scripture" the doctrine of the Messiah - and he did not even have the NT.

Your argument is 'they should have said - there is no such thing as that - we don't know what scripture is".

Yet Josephus claimed that they did know what it is - and that the Canon of the OT had been "closed" for over 400 years by the time of Christ.

The very thing you claim "cannot have existed".

 

That short list of texts of course --

Mark 7:6-13 is found in the Bible.
Isaiah 8:20 is found in the Bible.
Gal 1:6-9 is found in the Bible.
Acts 17:11 - is found in the Bible.

which you have not yet addressed in your focus on "sola scriptura" points.

 

I don't know exactly what "that" you're referring to. Was it something I said or was it something I said DHK said? Please clarify.

For the record, I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is deducible from Scripture and I don't think that anything I've said would indicate otherwise. But arriving at that doctrine is indeed dependent upon the right interpretations of various verses being reached. In other words, I believe that the information is right there in the Scriptures, information which is capable of demonstrating the validity of the doctrine. But the key to reaching the right doctrine is not a question of the contents of the Bible. It's a question of right interpretation of the Bible. This is why Oneness Pentecostals, JWs and a number of others who seem to hold Scripture in some sort of high regard deny the Trinity. And JWs aren't making a "Catholic" argument in response to you. For it was St. Athanasius who himself relied upon the Scriptures to refute the ascending heresy of his day (Arianism). Both you and the JWs reject the authority of the Church Christ established. You just happen to hold to some Catholic doctrines which they've come to reject.

This is a mischaracterization (and quite a distortion of my view as a Catholic). I am not saying this or that should or should not be possible.

BobRyan, there is a big difference between affirming the God-breathed nature of Scripture and claiming that Scripture is the "only" thing we need to understand the faith. Why? Because we can't access Scripture as though it's the same thing as the "right interpretation" of Scripture. In reality, Scripture + right interpretation = sound doctrine. Your position looks something more like this: Scripture + nothing = sound doctrine. But that little equation is manifestly not found in Scripture. So it's not that I deserted the Scriptures when I became a Catholic. Rather, I allowed them to occupy the place they rightly occupy within the Church. I often think of the Scriptures as a battery to a bus. The many components of a bus work together to achieve one goal: to proceed, to allow a people to make progress. A person who clings to Sola Scriptura is like one who's become so enamored with the impressive technology under the hood of the bus that he swipes the battery and runs off to a cave with it. His is a self-excluding act. But he's so convinced of the power and ingenuity of the battery that he just can't imagine himself as having misappropriated anything. Maybe he runs a light on the battery or something like that. But his bus is just outside of the cave and it's not moving. What you're doing is appealing to this great "technology" you have (Scripture). But I am not denying the internal qualities of your "battery" (Scripture). I am saying that you've misappropriated the whole thing.

Further, not a single one of the six texts to which you refer even begins to teach "Sola Scriptura." We'll get there, though. I want to discuss those texts and explain why, in faithfulness to Holy Scripture, we shouldn't read them in the manner you've chosen to.

To suggest that I've committed some sort of bait-and-switch is to suggest that I am deliberately attempting to deceive. Please believe me when I say I am not. What have I to prove? Most everybody here (of the what, three or so people who may be following this discussion) already don't believe what I believe. Further, I keep coming back for more. So if I were trying to deceive, it is likely that my attempts at deception would be revealed as this conversation proceeds. Instead of baiting and switching anything, I am genuinely attempting to discuss these matters at length. DHK notified me of the policy here concerning links to apologetics sites and articles. I've respected that rule. Further, I have attempted to be as charitable as possible throughout the time I've spent here. Yet, as I said, I keep coming back.

Rather than misrepresenting my argument, please ask me to clarify my perspective or ask me to lay it out in the form of a claim or assertion. I would be happy to do so for clarity's sake so that you may more easily evaluate it. As it is, though, you've now told me (wrongly) what my argument is at least twice.

I don't know, BobRyan, before I am going to take the testimony of Flavius Josephus too seriously, you're going to have to reveal to me why it is that I should take the testimony of a first-century Jew over the testimony of the Christian Church. I'd be happy to discuss Josephus, the importance of his testimony, and how it should factor into a Christian's evaluation of the arguments for or against the canonicity of a particular book or set of books. But, as I said, for reasons that should be quite obvious, I don't look to non-Christians as authorities for the Christian faith. Certainly Josephus, having died at about AD 100, wouldn't have considered the Apostles' writings to be Scripture, anyways. Yet we both do. So it is that you yourself are only appealing to him selectively and not as a truly dependable source. Further, had Josephus's father, Matthias, come from a lineage of Sadducees, he'd have likely acknowledged the Pentateuch and the Pentateuch alone as valid Scripture.

Again, BobRyan, I am just asking that you present a quick summary of your view of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura so that I am actually addressing what it is you believe rather than something that I imagine you to likely believe. DHK did this above. And rather than citing Scriptural passages (Which I fully intend on getting to shortly, I promise), I'd ask that you just present a definition of the doctrine as you hold to it.

Please know, also, that if I'm not getting to things very quickly it's because I am a family man without too much time on my hands. But the truly free time I do get, I am happy to dedicate to this on-going conversation.

Thanks again, BobRyan.

Herbert

 

Herbert - I think that you would agree - that the statement you just made is true of ever doctrine - that Christ is the Son of God, the virgin birth, the 7 day week of Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3, the fall of mankind into sin in Gen 3, the Gospel of John chapter 1 and John 3


In other words, I believe that the information is right there in the Scriptures, information which is capable of demonstrating the validity of the doctrine. But the key to reaching the right doctrine is a matter both of reading the Bible and of allowing the Holy Spirit to "guide us into all truth" John 16 - using exegesis and not eisegeting our own preferences into the text.

True even of the most obvious doctrine. But not at all an argument that we must find some "other denomination" whose doctrines we find to be in error - and simply believe whatever "they say" -- as I am sure you would not want to do either.

For example the "Baptist Herbert" would never have argued that he needed the RCC to tell him that the Trinity was the right doctrine - or when giving a bible study to a non-Christian he would never say well here is where the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity - but to really understand it we must be Catholics.

Christ,

Bob

 

Herbert - that is a good idea.

When I read Acts 17:11, Is 8:20, Gal 1:6-9, Mark 7:6-13 and 2Tim 3:16-17 I see that scripture is to be used for doctrine and that it is the standard by which all teaching, doctrine, tradition and practice is to be judged.

It tells us if something is "true or not". It does not declare that "all tradition is error" - nor that "all doctrine is error". But rather that all must be tested to "See IF those things are so" - to see IF a certain doctrine or tradition violates the teaching that we find in the Bible.

So then by way of illustration - more scripture is written after Isaiah 8:20 - and yet is not "rejected" because that scripture is in harmony with the scripture that had been written before Isaiah 8:20. Same is true for the case of Mark 7, and Acts 17, and Galatians 1.

 

Herbert - I do accept the genuine nature of your convictions and your desire to state what you view as truth. My "bait-and-switch" statement is in reference to the fact that every time we get on this "sola scriptura" subject with a Catholic audience the first thing they do over at "ChristianForums" is to switch over to "did Josephus know what the OT was... did the Jews know what the OT canon of scripture was" even though the Bible says "from ALL of Scripture" in places like Luke 24 - that some claim is "much to be ignored". My point is that the "Sola Scriptura" argument proceeds with the understanding that the term "scripture" and "ALL of scripture" are already terms found IN the Bible and should be accepted at the very start rather than trying to argue 'those in Bible times did not claim to know what scripture was because the RCC had not come into being' -- which I think you - as the "Baptist Herbert" would also have fully agreed to.

The reason I keep arguing for the "Baptist Herbert" is because you are in a position to "bridge" the gap between Baptist perspective and Catholic. So then rather than coming here with "lets start with the RCC POV " you would be logically inclined to start with "as a Baptist this was my view of sola scriptura -- but then I came across this question or fact".

The "Baptist Herbert" would have freely admitted that the OT was written by Jews - not the RCC.

The RCC had no control at all over that Jewish text - and this is something that the "Baptist Herbert" could never have doubted to start with. Thus you are making an argument that "even you" would not have accepted as a Baptist.

The Jew that Christ is speaking to in Luke 24 - would have accepted the same Jewish fact of history that Josephus stated about what was and what was not actually "in the temple" in terms of approved and known scripture. This is not something that the "Baptist Herbert" would have doubted and we are all aware of it as well.

Here you are making up details out of thin air. Josephus' statement about '400 years' refers to the writing of Malachi - .

"We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8)."

"And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609"

1. He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament.
   We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule. The Bible says:

Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Ezra 7:8).

Nehemiah came in his twentieth year:

In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before (Nehemiah 2:1).

Therefore the last canonical books were composed in this period.

Between the time of Malachi and Josephus’ writing (425 B.C. to A.D. 90) no additional material were added to the canon of Scripture. Consequently there was the notion of a long period of time without a divinely authoritative Word from God.

Blessings to you and your family Herbert, and thanks for spending your time on this board.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In 1 Cor 14 "the Bible says" that when the church came together - fully gifted by the Holy Spirit "each one had a revelation" - but "each one" was not also "Writing scripture" even though they had prophets and each one had a revelation.

In several of Paul's letters he refers to 'other letters' that he had written that were not "also included in scripture" that we have today.

None of these examples were considered by NT writers as violating the canon of scripture. Rather it is the bible teaching on inspiration and prophecy - which does not at all contradict Acts 17:11 even though much more scripture would ALSO be written after Acts 17:11.

So my reason for rejecting those in that list that are in error is because of the actual error that they teach - not because "they exist". For example in 1 John 4 we are not told 'reject the prophets they are all false - anyone claiming to be a prophet must be in error" - rather we are told to 'test the prophets'.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob & DHK,

As I think about all of what we've talked about, and how radically different our perspectives are, I just want to say thank you for your kindness. It keeps me coming back! And it makes me think about Christ's words: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

More to come as time permits!

Herbert

 

Then, when John wrote the "Book of Revelation" ca. 98 A.D. all revelation ceased. The canon of scripture was complete. Those who claim they have direct revelation from God now are false prophets/prophetesses. There are no such people--not in the RCC, the SDA, nor the J.W.'s, the Mormon's, not with Jim Jones, or the Moonies, nor with various Charismatics or their many leaders such as Benny Hinn, or Kenneth Copeland, etc.
The only inspired Word of God is in the Bible. There is no revelation apart from that which is written in the Bible. All revelation has now ceased.

Paul was an apostle. He lived during apostolic times. He spoke with the authority of an apostle. No one after that time, that is the first century could make the same claim.

Those Bereans in Acts 17:11 used only the OT.
You have not given one source that has given revelation outside of the apostolic period because by the end of the first century the canon of scripture was complete. God had finished giving revelation. Those who claim to receive revelation after the end of the first century are false prophets and there are many of them today.

They all fit into this category:
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

"WE"??
It was written to first century Christians. Remember that.
There is an application to us.
The verse does not assume that there are true prophets except in the sense of those proclaiming the truth of the Word of God, that is, preachers and pastors.
Test those who claim to be prophets, or even those who claim to have a message from God.
This is sola scriptura. Test everything against the Word of God.

Ellen G. White would have failed miserably. She made many false prophecies.