Is the Bible properly described as "The Word of God"?

[Bro. James]

I want to be a Vincentian. Where do I take the test?

The Word of God has always been the only standard for Faith and Practice. The traditions of men are exactly that--subject to every wind of doctrine. Israel had a tradition problem--it probably caused them to reject Jesus as Messiah. Many so-called churches have tradition problems. "In vain ye do worship, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Jesus, circa A.D. 30. See also Mt. 7 where Jesus said: "Depart from me, I never knew you." These folk certainly appeared to be religious.

The successful propagation of a lie for 1600 years does not make it true.

That is all the rejoindering I have for today.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

The Word of God has always been the only standard for Faith and Practice.

If by that you mean the Bible, the answer is clearly "no" - I'm afraid the historical evidence is against you. The Rule of Faith was around long before the NT was canonised.

 

[Bro. James]

Greetings Matthew,

Why did the OT scribes meticulously transcribe every jot and tittle? They would trash any copy which had even the slightest error. This was their vocation.

A similar observation, perhaps not as stringent, can be made for NT documents. The scribe errors are readily apparent when copies are compared. Then there is the dilemma of the two streams of manuscripts--one corrupted, the other not. Is it possible there were more manuscripts than those in monastaries? Surely possible, highly probable. The Word of God is preserved from Genesis to Revelation--the 66 Books that is--Maccabees etal. are not inspired like the Apostle Paul and 39 others who are in The Book of Books.

There is no doubt as to what God has said. The problem arises when "religious" men try to make God fit their paradigm of theology and ecclesiology. This leads to serious error and confusion. The present world of Christendom is a good example. All of these different groups cannot be right. They could all be wrong. What is the standard? Sola Scriptura did not originate with Fr. M. Luther.

Curious: the original ones who would translate the Word of God into King's English were hanged, burned, exhumed and many other forms of human cruelty. Did someone not want the Word of God in the common vernacular? Why?

Satan has his own agenda--he knows the Scripture better than we. He also likes to help us with our unscriptural traditions.

"Let God be found true and every man a liar"

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I prefer if you make false accusations against me that you quote me. Now go back into my posts and show me where I said anything about Polycarp having left the faith, or retract your statement. I will be waiting for a retraction or an apology if you cannot quote me.

Uh. No apologies. Just stating the truth.

Added to that, many of the ECF contradicted themselves, believed in various heresies, that were just coming out of the church at that time. It is not far-fetched to believe that some of these very ECF that people put so much stock in today are the very ones that John referred to when he said:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Rome didn't bother with false teachers. It was the true believers that they persecuted and threw into the den of lions. False teachers were left to their writings.
Origen was declared a heretic, even by the RCC. By many he is called the "Father of Arianism." Some of the early ECF believed in baptismal regeneration. Their beliefs contradicted each other.

Show me the letters of the "real church" or Churches. Show me through out history people who have a consistancy of teaching. I think it's not too much to ask.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Greetings Matthew,

Why did the OT scribes meticulously transcribe every jot and tittle? They would trash any copy which had even the slightest error. This was their vocation.

A similar observation, perhaps not as stringent, can be made for NT documents. The scribe errors are readily apparent when copies are compared. Then there is the dilemma of the two streams of manuscripts--one corrupted, the other not. Is it possible there were more manuscripts than those in monastaries? Surely possible, highly probable. The Word of God is preserved from Genesis to Revelation--the 66 Books that is--Maccabees etal. are not inspired like the Apostle Paul and 39 others who are in The Book of Books.

There is no doubt as to what God has said. The problem arises when "religious" men try to make God fit their paradigm of theology and ecclesiology. This leads to serious error and confusion. The present world of Christendom is a good example. All of these different groups cannot be right. They could all be wrong. What is the standard? Sola Scriptura did not originate with Fr. M. Luther.

Curious: the original ones who would translate the Word of God into King's English were hanged, burned, exhumed and many other forms of human cruelty. Did someone not want the Word of God in the common vernacular? Why?

Satan has his own agenda--he knows the Scripture better than we. He also likes to help us with our unscriptural traditions.

"Let God be found true and every man a liar"

Selah,

Bro. James

Yet, if you read Archer's book of Biblical Difficulties, he says that text copied had all sorts of transcribing errors. In fact the whole prologue is dedicated to what types they find. Also another note on "jot and tittle" What Jesus said with refference to Jot was Yod. A Hebrew letter which is simple "jot" like marking. Translated as Jot. Just like the Hem of Jesus garment the woman touched was most likely a tassel (one of the four tassels that they were supposed to wear as perscribed in the Torah) to remember the law but translated into the kings english as hem. Different connotations huh.

 

[Matt Black]

Greetings Matthew,

Why did the OT scribes meticulously transcribe every jot and tittle? They would trash any copy which had even the slightest error. This was their vocation.

A similar observation, perhaps not as stringent, can be made for NT documents. The scribe errors are readily apparent when copies are compared. Then there is the dilemma of the two streams of manuscripts--one corrupted, the other not. Is it possible there were more manuscripts than those in monastaries? Surely possible, highly probable. The Word of God is preserved from Genesis to Revelation--the 66 Books that is--Maccabees etal. are not inspired like the Apostle Paul and 39 others who are in The Book of Books.

There is no doubt as to what God has said. The problem arises when "religious" men try to make God fit their paradigm of theology and ecclesiology. This leads to serious error and confusion. The present world of Christendom is a good example. All of these different groups cannot be right. They could all be wrong. What is the standard? Sola Scriptura did not originate with Fr. M. Luther.

Curious: the original ones who would translate the Word of God into King's English were hanged, burned, exhumed and many other forms of human cruelty. Did someone not want the Word of God in the common vernacular? Why?

Satan has his own agenda--he knows the Scripture better than we. He also likes to help us with our unscriptural traditions.

"Let God be found true and every man a liar"

Selah,

Bro. James

None of which deals with the problem of lack of canonisation prior to the late 4th century to which I alluded in my last post

 

[Bro. James]

Just because it may not reside locked in the Vatican or Istanbul, does not mean it is so or not so. Canonized or not is not the issue. That the Jews had accurate copies of the Pentateuch and the Prophets is easy enough to surmise--they were searching them to try to figure out the one called Jesus who claimed to be I AM THAT I AM. That was the charge against Him: That He makes Himself to be God. All of this is fulfillment of Scripture the bedrock of all true Christianity. "Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by The Word of God. That the NT churches had similar copies of same is also reasonable. The fact that the Scripture has survived several millenia attests to the providence of God. He has provided the answers in writing. Why do we doubt His ability? We are without excuse. See the letter of Paul to the saints in Rome--Ch. 1; see also John Ch. 1.

When the Books are opened there will be no canonicity nor higher textual criticism excuses. Ignorance is not an acceptable plea. My catechism was wrong will not wash either.

Have we missed any excuses?

"Let God be found true, and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Marcia]

I can only speak for myself - for me, it was the epistemological shortcomings of sola Scriptura which led me to discover Tradition.

"Discover" tradition? Did you discover it outside of scripture?

And whose tradition do you think is correct? Even those who decry SS and say they follow "tradition" disagree on the "right tradition."

 

[DHK]

Uh. No apologies. Just stating the truth.

You are not stating the truth. In fact you are stating a lie. Quote me where I mentioned Polycarp's name. Quote me where I even inferred that Polycarp was not saved. Don't lie about it; don't hedge around the bush. I want to see the quote where I mentioned Polycarp's name. Otherwise you have lied about me and falsely accused me. This is not allowed on this board. If you are going to make statements about what people said, I suggest you go back and quote them. That is why the board has a quote feature.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are not stating the truth. In fact you are stating a lie. Quote me where I mentioned Polycarp's name. Quote me where I even inferred that Polycarp was not saved. Don't lie about it; don't hedge around the bush. I want to see the quote where I mentioned Polycarp's name. Otherwise you have lied about me and falsely accused me. This is not allowed on this board. If you are going to make statements about what people said, I suggest you go back and quote them. That is why the board has a quote feature.

See, you're all riled up! This is what I said:

Matt, note that DHK also indicated that he supposes that people like Clement, and Polycarp

which is in referrence what you said here:

that some of these very ECF that people put so much stock in today are the very ones that John referred to when he said:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Ah.....hah! So the ECF that you're mentioning here would be considered in the same catagory LIKE Clement and Polycarp. I didn't lie unless of course you don't consider Clement or Polycarp in the same catagory as the ECF or like them.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

And whose tradition do you think is correct? Even those who decry SS and say they follow "tradition" disagree on the "right tradition."

For clarity purposes, one must define what we mean by tradition. There’s big “T” Tradition and small “t” tradition.

Big “T” Tradition and Holy Scripture go hand in hand. One is useless without the other.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

See, you're all riled up! This is what I said:

which is in referrence what you said here:

Ah.....hah! So the ECF that you're mentioning here would be considered in the same catagory LIKE Clement and Polycarp. I didn't lie unless of course you don't consider Clement or Polycarp in the same catagory as the ECF or like them.

I said "some ECF..." and "many ECF.." but never "all ECF." and never "ECF like Polycarp." So bite your tongue, and quit the false accusations.

 

[Marcia]

For clarity purposes, one must define what we mean by tradition. There’s big “T” Tradition and small “t” tradition.

Big “T” Tradition and Holy Scripture go hand in hand. One is useless without the other.

In XC
-

So whose Tradition do you follow? I know it's not the Roman Catholic one or the Eastern Orthodox. So you are having to choose between Traditions. All of these "Tradition" oriented churches think their Tradition and church is the right one. So you may find the fact that evangelicals disagree on some interpretations of certain portions of the Bible disturbing, but I find it more disturbing to choose among "Traditions" and think a church has it all right.

It will only be in heaven that all believers will agree; on earth, we will continue to disagree on some points but should be united on the essentials.

 

[Eric B]

OK, I'll add to what I said before, "Remove the word 'fallacy' and replace with 'proposition'".

Well, if the whole thing is a proposition, then it's not that much better, as it's just a proposal or hypothesis. It might be true, but I just don't see enough clear evidence, or that God expects me to take your church's word for it.

An contraire, there is: II Tim 3:10, 14 (oral teaching, Tradition) and II Tim 3:15-16 (Scripture)

Uh, but notwe what I said; that passage does not say that they were different sets of teching. That one contained one body of teachg and the other contained stuff omitted from the first.

So? There are those here who claim that we should only go on what was widespread in NT times as solely recorded in the NT? Are they out of touch too? Two points by way of rejoinder:

1. 'Close' = much, much closer than us; much, much more accurate in the interpretation of Scripture than us viewing through 21st century modernist filters.

That may suggest some sort of "statistical" possibility of then interpreting things better. It does not guarantee it, especially if some were filtering it through philosophy and other sources, and then you had some deliberately putting these new "spins" on it.

2. No, I don't agree that everything the Catholic Church (I presume that's what you mean) does is part of Apostolic Tradition but that's because since the Great Schism they fail the Vincentian test.

By Catholic, I meant east, west and high Protestant. (which is what you are in now, right?) I don't see 10th century "united catholic" practice as being secretly held in the NT, but just never written down (yet only referred to in II Timothy). Even in the second sentury, we see the germs of some doctrines and practices developing; not full blown 4th-10th century teaching and practice.

I also forgot to reiterate that the Jews argue on an "oral tradition" as well, and they can pull scriptures to 'prove' it was an equally authoritative separate body of teaching from the written Torah, that their rabbi's got right when they finally did write it down later (like the Catholic church and its catechisms). However, their's leads them to interpret all the Messianic prophecies differently, meaning Jesus is false. And they came first, so if God likes to communicate to elite groups orally outside of scripture, then I would think they had the sayso over us.

 

[Marcia]

So whose Tradition do you follow? I know it's not the Roman Catholic one or the Eastern Orthodox. So you are having to choose between Traditions. All of these "Tradition" oriented churches think their Tradition and church is the right one. So you may find the fact that evangelicals disagree on some interpretations of certain portions of the Bible disturbing, but I find it more disturbing to choose among "Traditions" and think a church has it all right.

It will only be in heaven that all believers will agree; on earth, we will continue to disagree on some points but should be united on the essentials.

Apologies to AgnusDei! I think you are Eastern Orthodox, right?

 

[Matt Black]

Just because it may not reside locked in the Vatican or Istanbul, does not mean it is so or not so. Canonized or not is not the issue. That the Jews had accurate copies of the Pentateuch and the Prophets is easy enough to surmise--they were searching them to try to figure out the one called Jesus who claimed to be I AM THAT I AM. That was the charge against Him: That He makes Himself to be God. All of this is fulfillment of Scripture the bedrock of all true Christianity. "Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by The Word of God. That the NT churches had similar copies of same is also reasonable. The fact that the Scripture has survived several millenia attests to the providence of God. He has provided the answers in writing. Why do we doubt His ability? We are without excuse. See the letter of Paul to the saints in Rome--Ch. 1; see also John Ch. 1.

When the Books are opened there will be no canonicity nor higher textual criticism excuses. Ignorance is not an acceptable plea. My catechism was wrong will not wash either.

Have we missed any excuses?

"Let God be found true, and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James

None of which helps with regard to the New Testament, which has nothing to do with the Jews, their scribes or scholars.

 

[Matt Black]

"Discover" tradition? Did you discover it outside of scripture?

And whose tradition do you think is correct? Even those who decry SS and say they follow "tradition" disagree on the "right tradition."

The Tradition of the Undivided Church

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I said "some ECF..." and "many ECF.." but never "all ECF." and never "ECF like Polycarp." So bite your tongue, and quit the false accusations.

They are all in the same catagory. And since you're being so techinical (It seems almost like you're trying hard to be offended) I would have to bite my fingers rather than my tongue since I'm typing. Just saying. And I hartily disagree with you about false accusations. You don't hold to the ECF its rather clear by your statement. The only reason I think we should look at the ECF is to get a good indicator of what was believed in the early church. Which I think they are a good source for that purpose.

 

[Marcia]

The Tradition of the Undivided Church

And where do you find this? And how?

 

[DHK]

They are all in the same catagory. And since you're being so techinical (It seems almost like you're trying hard to be offended) I would have to bite my fingers rather than my tongue since I'm typing. Just saying. And I hartily disagree with you about false accusations. You don't hold to the ECF its rather clear by your statement. The only reason I think we should look at the ECF is to get a good indicator of what was believed in the early church. Which I think they are a good source for that purpose.

You refuse to admit your wrong. I never put Polycarp in that category. I never said ALL ECF. Put it to rest. If you want to look at some of the ECF writings in only one area of doctrine--the heresy of Mariolotry, I will oblige you:

The city of Ephesus was the heart of the goddess Diana (Artemis) worship so perhaps it is understandable that the veneration of Mary seemed to start here. The temple to Diana known as the Artemisian was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. By 431 AD a church council was called at Ephesus at which 200 bishops approved the decree that Mary was the “mother of God” (ECF, set 2 vol. 14 pages 520-528). There are hints concerning this developing heresy in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (pre 325 AD) but the Post-Nicene Fathers write extensively on the subject even proclaiming it heresy to deny that Mary is the “mother of God”. In the endnotes I have placed a few excerpts from those books to help you understand what was happening.
http://www.donahue.tv/rev_chap2_1_7.htm

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94
http://www.ccel.org/node/5283/25678

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary."
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
Ambrose, Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine, Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135

"As he formed her without my stain of her own,so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."
Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97
http://www.ccel.org/node/5283/25678

Of course there are plenty of other heresies held by the ECF:
--a belief in purgatory,
--baptismal regeneration,
--Arianism
--infant baptism,
And many more. Not all held the same doctrines. They contradicted each other in their beliefs. Origen was a heretic, even to the RCC he was a heretic. These are your ECF. As for me I would rather stick to the unchanging everlasting Word of God.