20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?

Actually the first Christians had the Hebrew Scriptures, so they weren't left in the dark.

 

They also had commands from Christ himself, and were instructed personally on how to convert new Christians. When the news started spreading, Christ appeared before Paul, and the written instructions started.

 

The first Christian churches, for at least 20 years ... were without one iota of New Testament Scripture.

f they all ther scrpture was mssng was iota, then t should look smlar to ths.

In fact, we have no witness of Christ writing anything (besides scribbing in some dirt on the ground in John 8) or commanding for anything to be written. Any accounts of Christ show him instructing orally and appointing apostles.

If we have no witness of Him writing anything, then we have neither oral nor written account which could have any competence.

tradition clearly preceded New Testment Scripture by two decades.

So the written NT scripture is to disregarded, or what?

So, how can Christians today rely completely upon New Testament Scripture and deny Tradition outright as the Word of God when Tradition was all that the first Christians knew and, simultaneously, were completely ignorant of any and all New Testament Scripture?

What would it take?-- maybe a hypnotist to make us "ignorant of any and all New Testament scripture" then do exactly what the earliest Christians did? If we were able to have scripture erased from our memories, then we would have no clue as to what the early Christians did.

Or, even more so, how could that early Christian church founded with the Tradition of the Apostles as the Word of God come to reject Tradition altogether?

By having written instructions.

I've got news for everyone on this board. That Church still hasn't rejected the Tradition.

If so, that was a silly, meaningless question you just asked.

What you have is what you have to work from.

Indeed; I've never been able to make anything out of thin air... except thinner air.

Is this the minimalism that Christ intended?

"Minimalism"?... hmm, pre- or post- ?

 

by Christian Cynic:

 

Lets see, the Holy Spirit came at Pentacost around 30 A.D. The first NT writing happened around 50 A.D. OK, I'll let us see what else you say.

Yes, I believe Christ never said "write this down".

Wait a minute!
John 15:26-27 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the begining"

John 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come"

The Scriptures says that the Apostles spoke the Word of God through the Holy Spirit that dewlt in them. The Holy Spirit will guid us into all truth not a church.

The Holy Spirit dwelling in the Early Church was hardly a tradition. I don't think the word "tradition" is the proper word. It was something new to them. But they did speak of Jesus because they were with Him.

Now the rest of your argument falls apart, but lets continue.

I am a born-again Christian and I do not rely completely on the NT Scriptures!

Good question but lets see how the saints dealt with the issue of not having any NT scripture with them.

Have you not read in the Scriptures.
Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Here we have Apostle Paul who wrote from 1/3 to 1/2 of the NT. How did the people in Thessalonica treat his oral teachings? They searched the scriptures to see if it were so. They didn't just accept his teaching just because he said he is an Apostle. (Or Holy Father).

Didn't you read what Jesus said;
Scripture says in John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; ..for they are they which testify me".

OT Scriptures spoke of Jesus, and lets see how this is important to the Early Church.

Lets read about Timothy, when he was a young child he only had the OT scriptures. Lets read what scriptures says in 2 Timothy 3:15 "And that from a child thou hast know the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus". The OT is able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith.

Simpily by searching the scriptures. Acts 17:11

No Your Church has rejected Scriptures has the highest authority we should live by. Your Church put Scripture in second class behind (T)tradition.

Let me explaiin myself. IT is your Church that defines what is Scripture and Traditions and traditions. It is your Church that interprets Scripture and Traditions and traditions. It is your Church that looked at Scripture, interprets it, and says "Hey look we are infallible".

Carson please interpret this passage about Tradition.

1 Timothy 4:1,3 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth"

Here is another question for your Carson.
When Chirst went into the wilderness and was tempted by the devil what was his tools for combating Satan? Was it NT Scripture? Was it by Jesus oral Tradition? Or was it by OT Scripture?

When Christians today combat JW's, Mormons, Catholics and the Cults. What should they use as the best weapon? Tradition? Holy Fathers words? Scripture?

 

Carson:
Christians do not reject inspired apostolic tradition. They hold fast to the traditons received from the inspired writers. II Tim. 1:13 teaches us to hold fast the form of sound words you have heard of me in faith and in love which is in Christ Jesus. We are to stand in the traditons received by word or epistle. II Thes. 2:15.
The scriptures teach there were two ways for one living in the first century to know the will of heaven. One , they could know the will of heaven through the word spoken. Two, they could know the will of heaven by the word written. Both the written and oral forms of scripture were CONFIRMED mesasges. In other words, along with the message and the messenger, there were proofs of AUTHENTICITY that these words were from heaven. Mk. 16: 17-20.
Many people were saved and went to heaven without the completed revelation of God. They could hear the word and have faith. Romans 10:17. The one receiving the word by faith could actively respond and be saved. Hebrews 11:6, Acts 2:38-41.
In short, one used his mental faculties to respond to the authentic proclamation of the gospel received through his hearing. He could also read and do the same. Eph.3:1-6. Moreover, The written word was shared with the various congregations. I Thes. 5:27,Col. 4:16.
Therefore, Christians pattern their teachings after the confirmed, authenticated word of God from Heaven. Mt. 28:18-20, Acts 2:42, II Tim. 3:16,17, Mk. 16:17-20.

 

Hi Carson.
How many times will I have to correct you on your claim. There are three different LXX versions, maybe more, all containing different Apocrypha books.

Question: Which LXX version did the Early Church use?

Question: Why doesn't the RCC accept ALL the books in the LXX?

Carson lets look at your statment "rejecting 7 books + of Scripture in the LXX".
Doesn't your Church do the same thing?

The Bible tells me that it was the Holy Spirit that guided us into truth, not apostlic tradition.
Since you claim you study the WORD. Please
explain to me what this verse means
Wisdom 3:1 "But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them"

 

Carson, what is your agenda, coming to a
Baptist board to discuss doctrine you KNOW
Baptists, and many others, will not accept?
If you came to learn, ask your questions and
stop arguing. If you came to convince, give
up. If you came to argue, that is shallow.

The "Church," as you call it, is YOUR church,
not mine. No, I do not accept your tradition,
I do not accept your counsels, I do not accept
your creeds. I believe that the Bible is the one
and only, the final authority. No outside words
mean a thing to me, whether they are Luther's
or Justin Martyr's or anyone else's.

[ September 12, 2002, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Abiyah, can you spell TROLL?

 

Better yet, can you spell "proselytize"?

 

Actully the title of this board we are on is Other Religions/Doctrines.

Does that not include Catholics?

I know we have people of other faiths present all the time on Catholic boards, some are faithful posters, long time members of the forums.

LaRae

 

This is obviously not the place to talk about Baptist doctrine ONLY. In fact, since I'm not Baptist, I'm not even allowed on Baptist discussion boards. Of course, that doesn't stop you guys from making posts like "Is the Pope a Baptist?" or other such nonsense that we can not even respond to! Do not tell us that we have no right to defend and profess our faiths to you when you so clearly block us from even participating in the other boards. What I am saying is not egotistical; we can't post on the other boards.

[ September 12, 2002, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

There is Huge Difference between defending
one's faith and coming here to provoke. Provo-
cation should never be one's agenda on a board
owned by one religion but opened up to those of
other faiths.

Anyone on the Baptist Board will tell you that I
am Barely allowed into its inner circle. I knew
this when I came and they know it. But I did not
come here to agrue about doctrine or to try to
push mine off on anyone. That is the way it
should be.

I have no problem with people asking ques-
tions; I ask plenty of my own. I have no problem
with opinions; I have plenty of my own, and I
state them. In fact, reality is that I have this
pervasive idea when I think something: "It's my
opinion, and it's very true!"

But there is a difference between stating an
opinion and becoming verbally persistent and
passive-aggressive about it.

We could all have a good time here, regardless
of our differences, if we could ask the questions,
read the answers, and accept them without
pushing it. Who knows--you just might learn
something.

[ September 12, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

This is the basic question that Carson is asking.

What is inappropriate here?

This question makes no reference to "Baptists" but merely "Christians".

Isn't this a question that all Christians should be able to answer?

Ron

 

My question is why did the RCC,when listing the canonical OT books, canonize books that were not part of the Hebrew canon. It was 300 years after pentecost that Bishops began to concider the apocryphal books anymore than good devotional material. If the tradition according to the EO and RCC churches is so important then why didn't the apostle's write it down like they did with books and letters we now call scripture?

The Lutheran church has not completely discarded tradition we just put it in its proper place which is below Scripture. And Scripture is the judge of tradition. Not the other way around as the RCC and EO would like us to believe.

 

They are annoyed because Carson asks tough questions.

 

I am sorry, Chemnitz, but Carson's question is
really quite simplistic and has been already
answered here by one person.

. . . . Ron</font>[/QUOTE]I cannot answer this question for others, but I can
answer for myself. First of all, neither I nor those
in my synagogue deny the Scriptures in the Law
and the Prophets, and I am convinced that the
Apostles did not either. I believe that, just as our
Lord did, they continued things as they were with
the added knowledge of our Lord and Savior,
the Messiah. Certainly, sacrifice for sin ended;
to continue such sacrifices would have been a
slap in our Savior's face and a refusal to
acknowledge His sacrifice as the Lamb of our
God.

The early saints were never without Scripture!
Why in the world would the Law and the Pro-
phets have suddenly become of no value? Our
Lord did not come to destroy them. Rather,
our Lord explained them moree fully than had
any others. They had not only His teachings,
later passsed down by word of mouth in con-
versations and preaching and also in written
letters.

To think that tradition instituted later is nec-
essary for either salvation or worship is to say
that what our God did was not good enough and
it must be improved upon by the human mind.

[ September 12, 2002, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

It would seem that you are not understanding the basic question, because Carson is not talking about the Old Testament. He is talking about the New Testament.

The early saints did not have the New Testament until it was written.

Ron