Bible, sole authority?

[ntchristian]

Since the three major branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism) all have different Bibles, if the Bible is considered the sole authority for beliefs and practices, which of these Bibles should be used for that purpose? The Protestants would say the Protestant Bible, but why is it better or more authoritative than the Catholic or Orthodox Bibles?

 

[Reformed]

Is your intention really to get in a long protracted discussion about the canon of scripture?

 

[ntchristian]

Is your intention really to get in a long protracted discussion about the canon of scripture?

Wherever the discussion takes us.

 

[Reformed]

For the sake of brevity, I am going to quote from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Chapter 3, The Canon of Scripture. Grudem writes from a Protestant perspective, so this will support the Protestant view of the Canon.

Grudem writes that the Old Testament Canon was completed around 435 B.C during the reign of Artaxerxes I (464—423 B.C.).

“Thus, after approximately 435 B.C. there were no further additions to the Old Testament canon. The subsequent history of the Jewish people was recorded in other writings, such as the books of the Maccabees, but these writings were not thought worthy to be included with the collections of God’s words from earlier years.”1

The exclusion of Intertestament apocryphal books was testified by Jesus and the Jews in the New Testament. Grudem writes:

“In the New Testament, we have no record of any dispute between Jesus and the Jews over the extent of the canon. Apparently, there was full agreement between Jesus and his disciples, on the one hand, and the Jewish leaders or Jewish people, on the other hand, that additions to the Old Testament canon had ceased after the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. This fact is confirmed by the quotations of Jesus and the New Testament authors from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and the New Testament authors quote various parts of the Old Testament scriptures as divinely authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority. The absence of any such reference to other literature as divinely authoritative, and the extremely frequent reference to hundreds of places in the Old Testament as divinely authoritative, gives strong confirmation to the fact that the New Testament authors agreed that the established Old Testament canon, no more and no less, was to be taken as God’s very words.”2

Supporters of the Apocrypha often point to Jerome and his Latin Vulgate translation. Of this Grudem writes,

“The fact these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) gave support to their inclusion, even though Jerome himself said they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers.”3

Interestingly enough, Grudem points out that Rome did not officially declare that the Apocrypha was part of the canon until 1546 at the Council of Trent4 when Martin Luther came on the scene.

Continued...

 

[Reformed]

In part, Rome’s decision was an attempt to cut off the traction being made by the fledgling Reformation.

The New Testament Canon is mainly written by the apostles. Grudem writes:

“It is primarily the apostles who are given the ability from the Holy Spirit to recall accurately the words and deeds of Jesus and to interpret them rightly for subsequent generations.”5

Apostles in the early church have claim to the same authority as the Old Testament prophets and are able to claim they are speaking (writing) the very words that come from God.

So, what of the other New Testament writers of Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and Jude? Hebrews aside the writers of these books had a close assocation with the apostles. The were able to write what they did based on first-hand accounts. Hebrews was a challenge for canonicity because of the questions surrounding its authorship. Many scholars say that it was written by Paul, and there is some evidence of Pauline authorship. In the end, it came down to the tesitmony of the book itself. According to Grudem, “Thus, the acceptance of of Hebrews as canonical was not entirely due to belief in Pauline authorship. Rather, the intrinsic qualities of the book itself must have finally convinced early readers, as they continue to convince believers today, that whoever its human author may have been, its ultimate author can only have been God himself.”6

When it comes to books like the Shepherd of Hermes or the Gospel of Thomas, these writings were so obviously flawed that no serious scholar considered them worthy of canonicty.

As I alluded to in your OP, this can become a protracted discussion with no accepted conclusion to all involved. But speaking from a decidely Protestant and Baptist perspective, the 66 books of the the Bible that were attested to by the Reformers, Puritans, and Baptists today is the the very word of God, and is “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”7


1. Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 56
2. Ibid., page 57
3. Ibid., pages 57-58
4. Ibid., page 59
5. Ibid., 60
6. Ibid., 62
7. 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1.1

 

[robycop3]

Can anyone name any ACTUAL EARTHLY AUTHORITY that's greater than Scripture in all matters of faith/worship ?

 

[ntchristian]

Can anyone name any ACTUAL EARTHLY AUTHORITY that's greater than Scripture in all matters of faith/worship ?

No. But my point is that different branches of Christianity disagree on what constitutes scripture. Granted, they all agree on most books, but there is disagreement, too, on some.

 

[Adonia]

Can anyone name any ACTUAL EARTHLY AUTHORITY that's greater than Scripture in all matters of faith/worship ?

It is the established Church which exists on earth which has authority and it's the legitimate Bishops within it who wield said authority - the scriptures are merely authoritative. The Scriptures are the template, the guidebook, which man uses to decide the various doctrines which are to be believed and followed.

 

[Adonia]

Granted, they all agree on most books, but there is disagreement, too, on some.

Yes, and then there were the renegades who removed themselves from orthodox thought and came up with their own take on things. They tore the Scriptures asunder for their own purposes.

 

[robycop3]

It is the established Church which exists on earth which has authority and it's the legitimate Bishops within it who wield said authority - the scriptures are merely authoritative. The Scriptures are the template, the guidebook, which man uses to decide the various doctrines which are to be believed and followed.

The REAL Church is governed by Scripture & nothing else, as Jesus isn't here running the show now.

 

[ntchristian]

The REAL Church is governed by Scripture & nothing else, as Jesus isn't here running the show now.

Do you think there can be secondary sources of authority as long as they agree with scripture in fact or principle?

 

[Jerome]

[pdf] Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA)

"It is always understood that Scripture must be the final authority....However, the member churches of ARBCA have already confessed that the LBC* is a faithful summary of what Scripture teaches....This is why this position paper deals more with the exposition and application of the LBC* to this issue"

*London Baptist Confession (1689)

 

[atpollard]

Since the three major branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism) all have different Bibles, if the Bible is considered the sole authority for beliefs and practices, which of these Bibles should be used for that purpose? The Protestants would say the Protestant Bible, but why is it better or more authoritative than the Catholic or Orthodox Bibles?

That is a bit of a silly question. Since only Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone"), then only the Protestant Bible counts for Protestants. Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Churches all accept authority as "scripture plus". So there is no reason for a protestant to use a Catholic or Orthodox bible over their own as "Scripture alone". The Catholics and Orthodox reject "Scripture alone" so the question is a non-issue for them.

 

[Jerome]

Southern Baptist minister says he turns to Roman Catholic churches, when he wants to hear Scripture:

Pastor Mark Dever, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington DC

Dever noted that he visits many evangelical services where corporate prayer is noticeably absent....The Baptist pastor...underscored the importance of publicly reading Scripture aloud, noting that many evangelical churches do not spend time doing that anymore. When he goes on vacation he says he has to go to a Roman Catholic church for a reliable place to find that"

 

[Yeshua1]

Since the three major branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism) all have different Bibles, if the Bible is considered the sole authority for beliefs and practices, which of these Bibles should be used for that purpose? The Protestants would say the Protestant Bible, but why is it better or more authoritative than the Catholic or Orthodox Bibles?

Because it includes only the inspired 66 books of the Christian Canon!

 

[Yeshua1]

Is your intention really to get in a long protracted discussion about the canon of scripture?

More like trying to get us to admit that we need something else also!

 

[Yeshua1]

In part, Rome’s decision was an attempt to cut off the traction being made by the fledgling Reformation.

The New Testament Canon is mainly written by the apostles. Grudem writes:

“It is primarily the apostles who are given the ability from the Holy Spirit to recall accurately the words and deeds of Jesus and to interpret them rightly for subsequent generations.”5

Apostles in the early church have claim to the same authority as the Old Testament prophets and are able to claim they are speaking (writing) the very words that come from God.

So, what of the other New Testament writers of Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and Jude? Hebrews aside the writers of these books had a close assocation with the apostles. The were able to write what they did based on first-hand accounts. Hebrews was a challenge for canonicity because of the questions surrounding its authorship. Many scholars say that it was written by Paul, and there is some evidence of Pauline authorship. In the end, it came down to the tesitmony of the book itself. According to Grudem, “Thus, the acceptance of of Hebrews as canonical was not entirely due to belief in Pauline authorship. Rather, the intrinsic qualities of the book itself must have finally convinced early readers, as they continue to convince believers today, that whoever its human author may have been, its ultimate author can only have been God himself.”6

When it comes to books like the Shepherd of Hermes or the Gospel of Thomas, these writings were so obviously flawed that no serious scholar considered them worthy of canonicty.

As I alluded to in your OP, this can become a protracted discussion with no accepted conclusion to all involved. But speaking from a decidely Protestant and Baptist perspective, the 66 books of the the Bible that were attested to by the Reformers, Puritans, and Baptists today is the the very word of God, and is “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”7


1. Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 56
2. Ibid., page 57
3. Ibid., pages 57-58
4. Ibid., page 59
5. Ibid., 60
6. Ibid., 62
7. 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1.1

the Church did not produce the Bible, it merely ratified what the Holy Spirit had already done in the agreed upon canon books.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. But my point is that different branches of Christianity disagree on what constitutes scripture. Granted, they all agree on most books, but there is disagreement, too, on some.

those other groups disagree on just what the true Gospel is, so with another false gospel, no wonder add false books!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is the established Church which exists on earth which has authority and it's the legitimate Bishops within it who wield said authority - the scriptures are merely authoritative. The Scriptures are the template, the guidebook, which man uses to decide the various doctrines which are to be believed and followed.

NO earthly church is the true church of Christ, as that would be all of the redeemed out from various churches!

 

[ntchristian]

More like trying to get us to admit that we need something else also!

Not trying to get you to admit anything. This is a discussion forum, right? Where the objective is to think and discuss?