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

[bound]

Scripture itself tells us that the Lord no longer speaks to us through visions as He did through the OT prophets (Heb.1:1,2), but rather through Jesus Christ Himself (who is revealed through his Word.

No visions after the Incarnation? What of Sts. Peter and Paul's visions found in the Sacred Text?

 

[DHK]

No visions after the Incarnation? What of Sts. Peter and Paul's visions found in the Sacred Text?

At that time the canon of Scripture was not yet closed. By the time the Shepherd wrote it was. All the Scripture there was had been written. Therein lies the difference.

I don't argue with Scripture:
Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

[Eric B]

The additional quotes from Kelley showing the place of "tradition" still ignore the key point in my quote:

But this 'canon', so far from being something distinct from scripture, was simply a condensation of the message contained in it. The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The additional quotes from Kelley showing the place of "tradition" still ignore the key point in my quote:

But this 'canon', so far from being something distinct from scripture, was simply a condensation of the message contained in it. The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation.

No, they don't---it's just that your key point is nothing I disagree with, particularly when that quote is taking in context of the rest of that chapter. After all, the quotes are from the same author in the same chapter of the same book discussing the same topic: the relationship between tradition--including the 'rule of faith'--and scripture in the early Church.

On the other hand perhaps you are ignoring (or disagree with) the key points in the additional quotes I cited from the same chapter.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Read through the thread. Many have quoted profusely from the ECF without using historians. Have you accepted their own first hand research. I can easily do the same thing. Let me demonstrate.
Although this is somewhat second hand it still gives one a good idea.
One of the earliest of the writings of the ECF was Shepherd of Hermas. This doesn't even have the flow of Scripture, and even goes against much of Scripture.
Here is a sample of its summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_of_Hermas

Scripture itself tells us that the Lord no longer speaks to us through visions as He did through the OT prophets (Heb.1:1,2), but rather through Jesus Christ Himself (who is revealed through his Word. The above is fiction. It is simply a story. It is almost as if the writer is adding to the revelation that God has already given to us. And that is heresy. Keep in mind that this is one of the earliest works of the ECF, dating right back to the 2nd century.

Now if I had the patience and time I could go through the works of the ECF and find all the inconsistencies and heresies myself. But I don't have that kind of time. Others have already done it. Some have posted it already in this thread.
I posted a post listing evidence of how many were involved in the sin of Mariolotry. Marcia posted how the ECF used tradition and scripture interchangeably and that they often referred to the same thing. Read the thread.

I fail to see how anything in this post has anything to do with the points I was making with those quotes from Kelly about the relationship between tradition and scripture in the early Church. I'm not sure whom you are arguing with.

As far as this goes:

Now if I had the patience and time I could go through the works of the ECF and find all the inconsistencies and heresies myself

And I'm sure if some of the early fathers read your many posts they could perhaps so characterize much of what you have written.

 

[DHK]

I fail to see how anything in this post has anything to do with the points I was making with those quotes from Kelly about the relationship between tradition and scripture in the early Church. I'm not sure whom you are arguing with.

It has to do with credibility. The relationship between tradition and Scripture in the writings of the ECF is a moot point if the writings are not even credible. Why even discuss the point with books (and authors thereof) that are full of heresy. If the books are full of heresy, then obviously there is no connection between tradition and Scripture.

And I'm sure if some of the early fathers read your many posts they could perhaps so characterize much of what you have written.

As I already posted, many of them believed in Mariolotry. I gave the references to document it. In the past I have quoted many passages of heresies of the ECF. Like I said, I don't have the time to dig them all up now.

 

[Eric B]

No, they don't---it's just that your key point is nothing I disagree with, particularly when that quote is taking in context of the rest of that chapter. After all, the quotes are from the same author in the same chapter of the same book discussing the same topic: the relationship between tradition--including the 'rule of faith'--and scripture in the early Church.

On the other hand perhaps you are ignoring (or disagree with) the key points in the additional quotes I cited from the same chapter.

You're quoting statements showing the existence of a tradition and its authority (which I'm not disputing!), but adding the assumption that it was a separate body of teaching. I'm quoting from the same source showing that it was not a separate body of teaching. My stance harmonizes with both sets of quotes; yours conflicts with one set, rather than your quotes somehow overriding mine.

 

[Matt Black]

DT,
What are you trying to prove?
It has already been stated that Kelly was an Anglican. If that be true then he is speaking through rose-colored glasses

And you aren't?

 

[Matt Black]

Scripture itself tells us that the Lord no longer speaks to us through visions as He did through the OT prophets (Heb.1:1,2), but rather through Jesus Christ Himself (who is revealed through his Word.

Then that rather casts doubt on all the NT written after the Incarnation - a sizeable chunk including...er...Hebrews. So, how much do you want us to rip out?

 

[gb93433]

At that time the canon of Scripture was not yet closed. By the time the Shepherd wrote it was. All the Scripture there was had been written. Therein lies the difference.

The canon of scripture is man's doing. Where is the letter to the church of Laodicea?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

You're quoting statements showing the existence of a tradition and its authority (which I'm not disputing!), but adding the assumption that it was a separate body of teaching.

No...I'm...NOT...adding...such an assumption, if by "separate body of teaching" you think I'm inferring a body of teaching independent from the same content of revelation to which Scripture also testifies. In fact, that I don't believe this is evident from this quote (which I'm now quoting for the THIRD time in this thread because you seem to be ignoring it in order to argue with a straw man):

"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content."

I'm quoting from the same source showing that it was not a separate body of teaching. My stance harmonizes with both sets of quotes; yours conflicts with one set, rather than your quotes somehow overriding mine.

I'm not so sure your quote does harmonize both sets. Here's your quote again regarding Irenaus and the 'rule (or 'canon') of faith':

But this 'canon', so far from being something distinct from scripture, was simply a condensation of the message contained in it. The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation.

The 'canon' (or 'rule') of 'faith' (or truth) indeed refers to a condensation of the message of Scripture, and is in fact a RULE for the correct interpretation of Scripture so of course it's not something distinct from Scripture. However, even then one could make the argument that although the 'rule' is materially the same (ie it refers to nothing that cannot be found in the Scriptures) it is formally different based on the mere fact that the words of the 'rule' are not found spelled out verbatim in one place in the Scriptures. Nonetheless, the early fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian could use this 'rule' to dispute with gnostics and other heretics who tried to argue their distorted views from the same Scriptures. (In fact Kelly makes this same point in the same chapter of the same book). Irrespective of the fact that the heretics were making their arguments based on Scripture, the orthodox fathers could confute them using the 'rule (or 'canon') of faith' as the standard for the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. So if you agree with this, then perhaps your use of that quote harmonizes with the rest of the chapter in Kelly's book. Indeed Kelly sums up the matter thusly (and again, I'm quoting this for the THIRD time

"To inquire which counted as superior of more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue for its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained , as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, unerring grasp of the real purport and the meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness".

 

[Matt Black]

The canon of scripture is man's doing. Where is the letter to the church of Laodicea?

Actually it's the Church's doing, but good point about Paul's 'missing letter' nevertheless.

 

[DHK]

Then that rather casts doubt on all the NT written after the Incarnation - a sizeable chunk including...er...Hebrews. So, how much do you want us to rip out?

I think you are confused. Let's look at it again.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In times past were the prophets ending with John the Baptist.
These last days refer to Pentecost onward. However special gifts were given up until the canon was finished in 98 A.D., when John wrote the Book of Revelation. The Bible indicates that such revelatory gifts would cease.

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

These gifts were in operation when the NT was not complete; they have now ceased for the NT has been completed (OE, been perfected). The signs of an apostle were miracles, signs, visions. This does not contradict Scripture:

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

and:
Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
--These miraculous signs and the gifts of the Holy Spirit were signs that the apostolic message was a true message and that the messenger (the apostles) was truly a messenger sent from God. It verified to the Jews that the gospel message that they had rejected was God's message.

Once the canon was complete at the end of the first century there was no more need for visions, signs, miracles, or any of the sign gifts of the Spirit. They ceased. God now speaks through His son, as He is revealed to us through His Word. Remember His word was complete at the end of the first century, not when the RCC told us it was complete.

 

[DHK]

The canon of scripture is man's doing. Where is the letter to the church of Laodicea?

The canon of Scripture is God's doing. It is an inspired book handed down by God to man. It is inspired of the Holy Spirit. Essentially it has little to do with man, as God the Holy Spirit guided each writer as to what he would say in each book.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

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:

 

[Matt Black]

And how did that Canon come about? How and by whom was it decided what was 'in' and what was 'out'?

I think you are confused. Let's look at it again.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In times past were the prophets ending with John the Baptist.
These last days refer to Pentecost onward. However special gifts were given up until the canon was finished in 98 A.D., when John wrote the Book of Revelation. The Bible indicates that such revelatory gifts would cease.

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

These gifts were in operation when the NT was not complete; they have now ceased for the NT has been completed (OE, been perfected). The signs of an apostle were miracles, signs, visions. This does not contradict Scripture:

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

and:
Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
--These miraculous signs and the gifts of the Holy Spirit were signs that the apostolic message was a true message and that the messenger (the apostles) was truly a messenger sent from God. It verified to the Jews that the gospel message that they had rejected was God's message.

Once the canon was complete at the end of the first century there was no more need for visions, signs, miracles, or any of the sign gifts of the Spirit. They ceased. God now speaks through His son, as He is revealed to us through His Word. Remember His word was complete at the end of the first century, not when the RCC told us it was complete.

I think you're adding to Scripture; nowhere does it say that the signs and wonders will cease when the NT is completed. You're breaking your own sola Scriptura rule...

 

[DHK]

And how did that Canon come about? How and by whom was it decided what was 'in' and what was 'out'?

I think you're adding to Scripture; nowhere does it say that the signs and wonders will cease when the NT is completed. You're breaking your own sola Scriptura rule...

I have done extensive study on that subject, and do not want to get into a lengthy discussion about it now. But to summarize a few of the main points, here they are.
1. We are speaking of "the sign gifts of the gifts of the Spirit" as listed in 1Cor. 12. Three of those gifts are given as an examples in 1Cor. 13:8. A more complete list is given in 1Cor.12:28, but not all of those are sign gifts. By sign gifts I mean the gifts that were miraculous in nature and given as a sign to the Jews and perhaps others that gave authenticity to the Apostles. It excludes those gifts as the "gift of helps", the gift of administration, etc.

1. The gift of tongues for example, was a gift that was given for a "sign" to the Jew (of the first century), at the time of Paul's writing. The Jews that had rejected Christ.

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
"This people" refers to OT Israel. It is a quote from Isaiah--a prophecy which had just shown itself to be true.

2. The gift of tongues was fulfilled as sign to the Jews in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost when all the Jews were gathered at Jerusalem, at the Temple, and they all heard them speak each one in their own language.

3. The gift of miracles is not known today anywhere in this world. I am not saying that God does not heal. But the gift of healing has ceased.

Acts 5:16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
--Jerusalem was a very large city. But this not only includes Jerusalem but from all the cities around Jerusalem they brought their sick, demon-possessed, infirmities of all kinds. It says plainly: they were healed every one. That means the para-pelegics, those with broken bones, the lame, the blind, those with serious and obvious diseases. They were healed immediately, completely, and before all. There were no hidden cameras, controlled environments, and selected "patients." No one today does that. No "faith-healer" would take the challenge of going through a major hospital and heal everyone in the ER, and all else in the corridors of the hospital. They won't do it. Why? The gift of healing ceased at the end of the first century as did all the other gifts.

3. We have no evidence that the prophetic gift continued except among false cults who claim that it did for obvious reasons.

Need I go on.

4. I gave you two passages: 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4 that these gifts were the signs of an apostle. That is what they were for. The apostles were all dead by the end of the first century. John was the last one to die. By his time the gifts had all died out. It was John that authored Revelation, the last book of the Bible to be written. With the completion of that book, the gifts died .

5. The passage of 1Cor.13:8-13 teaches the same thing--that the gifts will cease with the Scripture is completed.
--That in a nutshell is sola scriptura, the answer to your question.

 

[Matt Black]

All very well and good, but none of those verses cited even approach a proof-text for "apostolic and charismatic gifts ceased when the canon was completed". Your best bet, I suppose, is I Cor 13: 8-13, but you whole argument there hinges on what Paul meant would have to be 'complete'. One can just as easily argue that he's referring to the eschaton or the believer's spiritual maturity (as that is an alternative meaning of teleios) as you can Scripture. The fact of the matter is that he's silent on the issue, and we should be content with that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And how did that Canon come about? How and by whom was it decided what was 'in' and what was 'out'?

I think you're adding to Scripture; nowhere does it say that the signs and wonders will cease when the NT is completed. You're breaking your own sola Scriptura rule...

I think the Catholic church teaches that the Canon is closed. So by default all protestants (including baptist) have their origin in the Catholic Church would have by necessity hold the canon is closed.

Even DHK was originally Catholic. Just saying.....

 

[DHK]

All very well and good, but none of those verses cited even approach a proof-text for "apostolic and charismatic gifts ceased when the canon was completed". Your best bet, I suppose, is I Cor 13: 8-13, but you whole argument there hinges on what Paul meant would have to be 'complete'. One can just as easily argue that he's referring to the eschaton or the believer's spiritual maturity (as that is an alternative meaning of teleios) as you can Scripture. The fact of the matter is that he's silent on the issue, and we should be content with that.

It appears quite evident that if the purpose of signs and wonders, etc. were "the signs of an apostle" that is to authenticate the apostle and his message, and that we have no apostles today, that is clear enough evidence that signs and wonders, etc. have ceased. That is clearly what 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4 teach. It is only one of the many reasons given for these gifts, but it is an important one. The apostles all died before the end of the first century.

 

[Eric B]

No...I'm...NOT...adding...such an assumption, if by "separate body of teaching" you think I'm inferring a body of teaching independent from the same content of revelation to which Scripture also testifies. In fact, that I don't believe this is evident from this quote (which I'm now quoting for the THIRD time in this thread because you seem to be ignoring it in order to argue with a straw man):

"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content."

I'm not so sure your quote does harmonize both sets. Here's your quote again regarding Irenaus and the 'rule (or 'canon') of faith':

The 'canon' (or 'rule') of 'faith' (or truth) indeed refers to a condensation of the message of Scripture, and is in fact a RULE for the correct interpretation of Scripture so of course it's not something distinct from Scripture. However, even then one could make the argument that although the 'rule' is materially the same (ie it refers to nothing that cannot be found in the Scriptures) it is formally different based on the mere fact that the words of the 'rule' are not found spelled out verbatim in one place in the Scriptures. Nonetheless, the early fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian could use this 'rule' to dispute with gnostics and other heretics who tried to argue their distorted views from the same Scriptures. (In fact Kelly makes this same point in the same chapter of the same book). Irrespective of the fact that the heretics were making their arguments based on Scripture, the orthodox fathers could confute them using the 'rule (or 'canon') of faith' as the standard for the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. So if you agree with this, then perhaps your use of that quote harmonizes with the rest of the chapter in Kelly's book. Indeed Kelly sums up the matter thusly (and again, I'm quoting this for the THIRD time

"To inquire which counted as superior of more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue for its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained , as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, unerring grasp of the real purport and the meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness".

By "separate body of teaching", I assume, as the whole argument here seems to be, that while the scriptures mention Baptism, Communion, Mary, Church offices & organization, etc. the apostles withheld the specific details about their nature (Flesh and blood are "literal", high liturgy, Baptism is when salvation transpires, Mary as perpetual virgin, etc.) and transmitted them orally only. So you had these two sets of teaching with somewhat different information (one more general, the other more specific) passed down side by side: the scriptures, which we're all familiar with, and then the Catholic "details" which the "heretics" then, like us now could not find in scripture, yet they used them to "interpret" the scriptures. The Catholic churches later wrote them all down, and they are all the doctrines and practices we are disputing. This is what I have been gathering from your argument.
So how do the "Catholic" churches prove those doctrines? You just call them "the rule of faith" and interpret the scriptures through these doctrines themselves. Of course, they will be "proven" then, when we use them as their own authority. But that's what is called reading a preconceived notion into the scriptures.

But the quote I made would deny that, and shows that was the later concept of "tradition" held by the gnostics, and the post-Origen church. These quotes you keep repeating show that they had a "rule of faith" they used. It does not say that this rule is all these specifics that are absent from scripture, and my quote outright goes against that. I had even looked up the rule of faith when we used to debate a couple of years ago, and I did not see all of this other stuff.

It appears you're trying to imply an argument based on "formally different", but all "the form" means is whether it's oral or written. It's the content we're arguing here, which is said to be "identical". That rules out all those other teachings, which would require specifics added to the content.
Next, "the same content of revelation to which Scripture also testifies". So if this implies what I think it does, that then throws a third object into the mix, and it's like a trinity of "the Revelation", "the Scripture" and "the Tradition". So I guess it's supposed to be that full "revelation" that contained all those details, and the scripture omitted them all, but the tradition included them? (Now that I think of it, that is kind of what you've been arguing all long, saying that the writings were only to address "certain issues as they came up", as if there was all this other stuff that was never written). Yet the quote still still deny even that. If anything was left out anywhere, it would not really be "identical in content". You would have a total "revelation" containing vastly different things, with scripture taking one piece of it, and tradition taking another different piece of it. If it existed then, it would have come up in scripture, with all of the other issues of doctrine, practice, and Christian living addressed.
Remember, we even get a glimpse of what this "tradition" was, in one of the very proof texts (2 Thess. 3:6): "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness". "living in idleness" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". And other scriptures speak against this as well. No later "Catholic" doctrines or practices! All "Tradition" means is that it is a principle the apostles hold, and many people who did not get an epistle had only heard about it orally. It is NOT an entire body of omitted details!