Christianity and how the bible was put together

[Pastor Larry]

Ah here is the point. The Church Settled it. Authority? The Church at that point referred to itself as Catholic or Universal.

God settled it through the church universal at that time, leading godly church leaders to settle the matter.

 

[Matt Black]

What were the names of these leaders? Where did they meet? When? I thought Baptists didn't believe in a universal church - surely in Baptist ecclesiology, each local congregation should have been free to work out which Canon they would use?

The Muratorian Canon was widely recognized to be deficient.

By whom?

The others were not. Again, the testimony of the church settled this matter in the providence of God. But you seem still under the impression that the church somehow determined this as opposed to God determining it.

No contradiction - God determined it through His Church, as you yourself agree in your last post just above.

Not sure why I need some. If your argument is that the DC was in the LXX used by the Jews, that really isn't an argument, at least if you know Jewish and Hebrew tradition. The Kethubim was well-defined prior to the time of Christ, and the DC was not in there. The fact that our Bibles might have study notes, or even a table of contents, does not testify that we believe those are the Word of God. Simililyay, the fact that the LXX may have had the DC doesn't testify that they considered it the word of God.

Apples and oranges - the LXX was the Scriptures for the Greek-speaking Jews

 

[Pastor Larry]

What were the names of these leaders? Where did they meet? When?

Again just about any good theology will have some of this information, and you can find many more detailed books on it.

I thought Baptists didn't believe in a universal church - surely in Baptist ecclesiology, each local congregation should have been free to work out which Canon they would use?

You should study Baptist ecclesiology more, it sounds like.

By whom?

By the church.

No contradiction - God determined it through His Church.

Yes, that's my point.

Apples and oranges - the LXX was the Scriptures for the Greek-speaking Jews

Not in question. But the question you are asking is about additions to the Scriptures. And I pointing out that additions are not considered the Scriptures, whether they be the DC or study notes or anything else.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, you're avoiding the issue - to clarify, please define what you mean by 'the church' and 'church leaders' and where and when you say they decided this issue. I know what my answers are as an Anglican but I'm interested as to what yours are. Please give them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

OK, you're avoiding the issue - to clarify, please define what you mean by 'the church' and 'church leaders' and where and when you say they decided this issue. I know what my answers are as an Anglican but I'm interested as to what yours are. Please give them.

The church is the total number of Spirit-baptized believers from Pentecost to the Raptures, and the leaders are the men in church history who served as pastors/elders/bishops (they are all the same) who led the church and taught them.

As I said, Matt, this information is available many resources. I don't have the time to do the work for you. If you are interested, read up on it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not sure what exactly you mean by "they" but I presume the DC. But you must realize (or should realize) that the church as a whole has never had that position.

I am not aware of any NT evidence that he meant anything other than the 39 and the books that were currently in circulation.

Again, some major failures in argumentation. First, the early church probably did use the LXX though they may have used another translation or version as well. Second, the existence of the DC in a translation does not mean that the people using the translation considered it Scripture. Third, the ECF (and other authors) quote from a number of things that no one considers Scripture. So these types are arguments are unconvincing, to put it mildly.

That's a point that I can't accept considering the early church literature. I'm trying to be objective and follow events on how things developed not working backwards from an already developed theology saying we're starting at point B (which is the now) and work backwards to point A. I want to start with point A and work towards point B and see the development of said theology. Doing it that way brings up serious questions about theology at point b.

I cited the NT writers using the DC to make a point so they obviously were informed about it and trusted in certain aspects of its content (at very least!) which would show the LXX with the inlcuded DC. So again what did Paul mean by "all"?

 

[Matt Black]

The church is the total number of Spirit-baptized believers from Pentecost to the Raptures, and the leaders are the men in church history who served as pastors/elders/bishops (they are all the same) who led the church and taught them.

As I said, Matt, this information is available many resources. I don't have the time to do the work for you. If you are interested, read up on it.

I already have and, based on that I would say the following:-

1. The Church was the Catholic-Orthodox Church.

2. Its leaders who determined the Canon under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit were the Bishops, specifically St Athanasius, sometime Bishop of Alexandria (his Festal Letter of Easter 367), and the Bishops present at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

If you disagree with the above, please state the names of the church leaders whom you say determined the Canon

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I already have and, based on that I would say the following:-

1. The Church was the Catholic-Orthodox Church.

2. Its leaders who determined the Canon under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit were the Bishops, specifically St Athanasius, sometime Bishop of Alexandria (his Festal Letter of Easter 367), and the Bishops present at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

If you disagree with the above, please state the names of the church leaders whom you say determined the Canon

Don't forget there were several list but Athenasius was the first completed list of what we have now. I think unless I'm mistaken. I'm getting that from Eusibius.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, Athanasius' list is the earliest one which is still extant. I'd have to go home and look again and Historia Ecclesiastica to remind myself what Eusebius says about the other ones.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I cited the NT writers using the DC to make a point so they obviously were informed about it and trusted in certain aspects of its content (at very least!) which would show the LXX with the inlcuded DC.

But I showed Paul quoting philosophers and poets. Does that make them Scripture? You totally ignored that point, and given your position, for understandable reasons. It refutes it by showing that citation of something doesn't mean that it is Scripture. Have you considered what else the ECF quote to "make a point"? Are you also arguing that it should be considered Scripture? I doubt it. Which leads me to wonder, why are you using a double standard?

So again what did Paul mean by "all"?

Same thing he meant last time you asked: The recognized OT canon which was established as the 39 books (which were actually 22 books the way they were divided), and the part of the NT that was already written, and by extension "all" of Scripture including the parts that were not yet written.

So again, there remains some significant argumentative errors and assumptions in your position.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But I showed Paul quoting philosophers and poets. Does that make them Scripture? You totally ignored that point, and given your position, for understandable reasons. It refutes it by showing that citation of something doesn't mean that it is Scripture. Have you considered what else the ECF quote to "make a point"? Are you also arguing that it should be considered Scripture? I doubt it. Which leads me to wonder, why are you using a double standard?

Same thing he meant last time you asked: The recognized OT canon which was established as the 39 books (which were actually 22 books the way they were divided), and the part of the NT that was already written, and by extension "all" of Scripture including the parts that were not yet written.

So again, there remains some significant argumentative errors and assumptions in your position.

What is the context of Paul using Greek philosiphors vs. what was the context of Hebrews quoting from Macc. Paul was speaking to Athenians who understood Plato etc... The author of Hebrews was speaking to believers. Contextual. I am not using a double standard btw. And I don't have a position as yet. I'm discussing things as I find them and pointing them out. Why are you using a double standard I can show NT use of other than 39 sources. Can you show the NT is only refering to 39?

 

[Pastor Larry]

What is the context of Paul using Greek philosiphors vs. what was the context of Hebrews quoting from Macc. Paul was speaking to Athenians who understood Plato etc... The author of Hebrews was speaking to believers. Contextual.

But Paul is making a theological point both there and in Titus. He is using it to support his point.

I am not using a double standard btw. And I don't have a position as yet. I'm discussing things as I find them and pointing them out. Why are you using a double standard I can show NT use of other than 39 sources. Can you show the NT is only refering to 39?

The NT use of other than 39 sources is irrelevant. I have never seen anyone try to make that argument, and I think with good reason. We recognize that citing a source for support says nothing about the source itself. When the NT says "All Scripture" than we assume that "all Scripture" is in view. We don't assume that things other than Scripture are in view.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But Paul is making a theological point both there and in Titus. He is using it to support his point.

The NT use of other than 39 sources is irrelevant. I have never seen anyone try to make that argument, and I think with good reason. We recognize that citing a source for support says nothing about the source itself. When the NT says "All Scripture" than we assume that "all Scripture" is in view. We don't assume that things other than Scripture are in view.

That is a circular argument. Doesn't work. And obviously other churches do view other than 39 books that is accepted by most protestants (not all) as canon.

All scripture is obviously referring to the OT. We now that the Alexandrian translation of Jewish writings into Greek was comonly in use and accepted by the majority of the Greek world at that time. We see use of the DC in the NT which we could infer was associated at that time with the LXX. So by this reasoning we see Paul is refering to "All" scripture with the view of the OT in mind which one well the LXX. Use of DC in NT we can associate it with the LXX that was consider scripture at that point since Paul refers to scripture and uses the Greek translation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That is a circular argument.

I don't know what you are talking about here. I don't know what "that" is, and I don't know on what basis you are arguing that it is circular.

And obviously other churches do view other than 39 books that is accepted by most protestants (not all) as canon.

First, I am not talking about "churches" but the church singular. Second, not everything with "church" on the door is a NT church. I don't know of any NT churches that accept more than the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT.

We see use of the DC in the NT which we could infer was associated at that time with the LXX. So by this reasoning we see Paul is refering to "All" scripture with the view of the OT in mind which one well the LXX.

That's bad reasoning, as I have already shown. There is no evidence that the believers at that time (or any time) accepted the DC as canonical. The citation of it only proves thati t was cited as useful for the authors point. As I have shown, the NT also cites other sources, none of which you are arguing for. That is a double standard. If NT use shows that something is canonical, then you have to argue that for everything the NT cites. If the NT use does not argue that something is canonical, then your argument goes out the window.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When the NT says "All Scripture" than we assume that "all Scripture" is in view. We don't assume that things other than Scripture are in view.

Circular. What scripture was in view? I argue the LXX with the DC. Evidence supports this. You argue against it. Jamnia is a Jewish council after the death and resurrection of Jesus not christian. It does not seem the Christians held to there view of books that could defile the hand.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What scripture was in view? I argue the LXX with the DC.

But the poitn is that that is an illegitimate argument because there is no evidence that teh DC was accepted as Scripture. My argument is not circular. My point is that when he says Scripture, only those things accepted as Scripture count. The DC was not accepted as Scripture by the church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But the poitn is that that is an illegitimate argument because there is no evidence that teh DC was accepted as Scripture. My argument is not circular. My point is that when he says Scripture, only those things accepted as Scripture count. The DC was not accepted as Scripture by the church.

Ok what evidence can you provide that only the 39 were accepted as scripture by the church?

 

[Matt Black]

I don't know what you are talking about here. I don't know what "that" is, and I don't know on what basis you are arguing that it is circular.

You haven't answered his question which he has repeated above in his last post. Please do so

First, I am not talking about "churches" but the church singular.

Then the Church singular used the LXX as the basis for their OT, in the original Greek in the East and in Jerome's Latin Vulgate in the West

Second, not everything with "church" on the door is a NT church. I don't know of any NT churches that accept more than the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT.

The churches in the NT didn't even have the NT!

That's bad reasoning, as I have already shown. There is no evidence that the believers at that time (or any time) accepted the DC as canonical. The citation of it only proves thati t was cited as useful for the authors point. As I have shown, the NT also cites other sources, none of which you are arguing for. That is a double standard. If NT use shows that something is canonical, then you have to argue that for everything the NT cites. If the NT use does not argue that something is canonical, then your argument goes out the window.

Then you need to demonstrate what the NT writers understood by the term "All Scripture", hence TS's comment about your argument being circular; it is.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ok what evidence can you provide that only the 39 were accepted as scripture by the church?

The evidence of the NT is the citation of the Law and the Prophets several times, which is known as the 39 (22) books. Nothing else is cited as Scripture, and the Law and the Prophets never refer to anything more than the 39 books.

Furthermore, there were NT books that were accepted as Scripture as Peter reminds us in 2 Peter 3.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The churches in the NT didn't even have the NT!

First, you are changing the discussion by saying "churches in the NT" when I referred to NT churches, that is churches that are characterized by their following of the NT. Second, even churches in the NT had some of the NT, and had all of it by the end of hte century. The books themselves were written to the churches in the first century, so to say that they didn't have it is simply incorrect, though it may have been the product of writing too quickly without thinking about what you were saying. But even 2 Peter 3 refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture, so his writings were well known.

Then you need to demonstrate what the NT writers understood by the term "All Scripture", hence TS's comment about your argument being circular; it is.

As I pointed out, TS's comment was misguided. I have pointed out what the NT writer meant by "all Scripture," and you have yet to refute it. There is no evidence that the NT writer included the DC in the "All Scripture." It just isn't there. I think this is a case where you have simply decided to accept tradition rather than go back and take a rigorous view of the doctrine involved.