Sola Scriptura

[Dr. Walter]

The fact of the matter is that you are severely mistaken - it cannot be proved that the churches at the end of the 1st century had all the NT Canon and in fact the MSS to which you have referred prove that they didn't. You're the one spouting utterly unbelievable assertions and it does no credit whatsoever to your argument. Time to drop it if you want to retain even a scintilla of credibility.

So, the apostles finished their writings AFTER they died????????????????? That is the silly conclusion that your denial insists upon. All apostolic writings were finished and in the hands of the congregations before the conclusion of the first century and all BEFORE they died. Tertullian insists that the Christian Scriptures were finished BEFORE the rise of Marcion in 140 A.D.

The prophetic scriptures predict the conclusion of the Bibical canon under the apostles of Christ (Isa. 8:16) and they understood that prophetic mission (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 17:21; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:16-17; etc.).

Like it or lump it that is the teaching of the scriptures regardless of what you say.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The very fact that these were writings were apostolic oral tradition in written form that they were circulated. But no means an indicator that canon was established. writings at this point were growing organically and many then were considered inspired that now are not.

The canon was completed by the apostles (Isa. 8:16) before they died. The apostles recognized this was their prophetic mission (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 17:21; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:16-17; etc.). Tertullian recognized the canon was finished prior to the rise of Marcion and any other heretic seeking to take away or add to the "Christian scriptures."

 

[Matt Black]

So, the apostles finished their writings AFTER they died????????????????? That is the silly conclusion that your denial insists upon.

It is indeed a silly conclusion but my denial does not insist upon it. To help you, I'll restate the point: none of the MSS referred to by DHK contain all 27 books of our NT; therefore their existence cannot be adduced as evidence to prove your bare assertion that:

All apostolic writings were finished and in the hands of the congregations before the conclusion of the first century and all BEFORE they died.

Do you now understand what is being said?

The prophetic scriptures predict the conclusion of the Bibical canon under the apostles of Christ (Isa. 8:16) and they understood that prophetic mission (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 17:21; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:16-17; etc.).

Like it or lump it that is the teaching of the scriptures regardless of what you say.

No that is the teaching of your interpretation of Scripture, and one which is not supported by the facts and therefore to be rejected.

 

[DHK]

It is indeed a silly conclusion but my denial does not insist upon it. To help you, I'll restate the point: none of the MSS referred to by DHK contain all 27 books of our NT; therefore their existence cannot be adduced as evidence to prove your bare assertion that: Do you now understand what is being said?

The Itala was the translation of the Waldenses used for 1100 years. It was a translation from the Greek. And if it was used for that long, we can very well assume that it had all 27 books. It was a NT used in opposition to the one used by the RCC. It became a textual issue. The RCC used the text that Jerome used (Alexandrian), while the Waldenses followed the Byzantine. Every step of the way, even in their Bibles, they opposed the RCC. As to their authenticity, remember it was Cardinal Hosius, a Roman Catholic Cardinal who dates the Waldenses right back to the time of the Apostles themselves.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The canon was completed by the apostles (Isa. 8:16) before they died. The apostles recognized this was their prophetic mission (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 17:21; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:16-17; etc.). Tertullian recognized the canon was finished prior to the rise of Marcion and any other heretic seeking to take away or add to the "Christian scriptures."

You are making a new proposal here. You insist that there was a council of Apostles that canonized the NT before the last of them passed on. Show me where this happened in scripture or in history.

You fail to recognize not all the NT was written by apostles but disciples of Apostles who took to the oral traditions given and wrote them down. And by the end of the first century there were many books regarded with the Apostles direct teachings some of them already mentioned.

 

[DHK]

You fail to recognize not all the NT was written by apostles but disciples of Apostles who took to the oral traditions given and wrote them down. And by the end of the first century there were many books regarded with the Apostles direct teachings some of them already mentioned.

Who wrote our NT? The Apostles, two of the half-brothers of Christ, and a couple of authors that were close associates of Apostles. I don't find any problem in the authorship of the canon of the NT. Even if we didn't know the authorship of a book, it wouldn't make it any less inspired.

 

[Matt Black]

The Itala was the translation of the Waldenses used for 1100 years. It was a translation from the Greek. And if it was used for that long, we can very well assume that it had all 27 books. It was a NT used in opposition to the one used by the RCC. It became a textual issue. The RCC used the text that Jerome used (Alexandrian), while the Waldenses followed the Byzantine. Every step of the way, even in their Bibles, they opposed the RCC. As to their authenticity, remember it was Cardinal Hosius, a Roman Catholic Cardinal who dates the Waldenses right back to the time of the Apostles themselves.

The Itala is a collection of codices of texts, the earliest of which dates back to c.150 AD, although the earliest extant MS of this dates from c.350 AD. This is the Codex Vercellensis, and it has just the four Gospels, so that rather gives the lie to the claim that all the churches had the entire NY by that date.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are making a new proposal here.

Not at all. This is the same thing I have been asserting on this forum since I first discussed this issue. Just look back at the other threads where I go into great details to present and defend this position. BTW you or no one else has been able to overthrow it with Bibical evidence either.

You insist that there was a council of Apostles that canonized the NT before the last of them passed on. Show me where this happened in scripture or in history.

Don't put words into my mouth which I NEVER said. I never said there was a "council of Apostles that canonized the NT before the last of them passed on"!!

What I said was that the New Testament Scriptures is "the faith" once delivered by the Apo-stles. They at first orally communicated it PRIOR to placing it in writing, but the divine intent of the Holy Spirit was to use the Apostles to lay this written foundation of the faith completing the Biblical canon before the death of the last apostle. All New Testament scriptures were finished and sealed with the last writing of the last apostle (Rev. 22:18-20) in perfect keeping with explicit and specific prophecy (Isa. 8:16-18) and the apostles were very aware that this was what they were called to do (1 Jn. 4:5-6) and acknowledged they were doing it (2 Pet. 3:16-17; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-20) and this is the prophetic assertion of Christ in regard to what the Holy Spirit would lead them to fulfill by leading them into "ALL TRUTH" so that later generations would be converted by their "words" preserved as scripture in order to be "MORE SURE" than oral traditions (Jn. 17:17,20; 2 Pet. 1:17-21).

You fail to recognize not all the NT was written by apostles but disciples of Apostles who took to the oral traditions given and wrote them down. And by the end of the first century there were many books regarded with the Apostles direct teachings some of them already mentioned.

I certainly do not. Nearly every epistle written by Paul was actually hand written by one of his disciples rather than by him. Every book of the New Testament was either written directly by an apostle or under the watchful care of an Apostle. This New Testament scriptures are the "foundation" of the New Testament congregation that makes the New Testament congregation the continuing "pillar and ground of the truth."

 

[Matt Black]

So how do you know that, for example, the Didache isn't theopneusta? It claims to be the teaching of the Apostles, just as much as eg: 1 Corinthians claims to be written by Paul. How do you know that it shouldn't be in the NT?

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is indeed a silly conclusion but my denial does not insist upon it. To help you, I'll restate the point: none of the MSS referred to by DHK contain all 27 books of our NT; therefore their existence cannot be adduced as evidence to prove your bare assertion that: Do you now understand what is being said?

Fact #1 - All the New Testament books were written and distributed among the congregations of Christ BEFORE the end of the first century.

Fact #2 - Tetullian speaks of the "entire volume" of "Christian scriptures" established BEFORE either Marcion or Valentinus came on the scene in history and Marcion produced what Tertullian accused as a stripped down and edited version of the New Testament scriptures as early as 140 A.D.

You simply do not have sufficient data to deny what these two facts confirm to be the case long before Rome canonized scriptures. Your argument is akin to denying that Alexandria had a complete gospel as early as the 2nd century because we only find papyi fragments instead of a whole gospel. Such reasoning shelfs all common sense just because we cannot find a copy of "the entire volume" that Tertullian vehemently states existed and cannot be added unto or subtracted from whether by the addition or subtraction practiced by Marcion or by faulty intepretations practiced by Valentinus.

No that is the teaching of your interpretation of Scripture, and one which is not supported by the facts and therefore to be rejected.

Why is it then you nor anyone else on this forum was able to overthrow what I said. Go back and look at your response! You could not overthrow the evidence all you could do is pronounce anathema's on the evidence presented. I took you to task for the overall context of Isaiah 8, the immediate context of Isaiah 8:14-20 and its direct use by Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament and the immediate context. You did not and could not refute contextual based evidence placed in your faces. I would be more than happy to repeat it!

Neither could you or any other pro-Catholic soterioligical advocates on this forum repudiate my interpetations of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 or 2 Peter. 1:17-21. I would be more than happy to repeat the specifics you could not deal with.

 

[Matt Black]

Fact #1 - All the New Testament books were written and distributed among the congregations of Christ BEFORE the end of the first century.

A bare assertion. You have repeatedly been asked to produce evidence for this and have repeatedly failed to do so, so it does you no credit to keep harping on about this being a 'fact'.

Fact #2 - Tetullian speaks of the "entire volume" of "Christian scriptures" established BEFORE either Marcion or Valentinus came on the scene in history and Marcion produced what Tertullian accused as a stripped down and edited version of the New Testament scriptures as early as 140 A.D.

Marcion's Canon included only 10 letters of Paul plus the Gospel of Luke. If you want to cite Tertullian then be careful! - he also was a firm advocate of Apostolic Succession, so choose your friends carefully! Tertullian, in Adversus Marcion says that Marcion 'mutilated' Luke's Gospel and also rejected the other three, together with Paul's Pastoral Epistles; however, Tertullian does not mention 2 Peter, James, II Jn or III Jn and elsewhere cites the Shepherd of Hermas with approval. All fo this is rather a stretch to claiming that the whole 27-book NT was in place by c 140 AD!

You simply do not have sufficient data to deny what these two facts confirm to be the case long before Rome canonized scriptures. Your argument is akin to denying that Alexandria had a complete gospel as early as the 2nd century because we only find papyi fragments instead of a whole gospel. Such reasoning shelfs all common sense just because we cannot find a copy of "the entire volume" that Tertullian vehemently states existed and cannot be added unto or subtracted from whether by the addition or subtraction practiced by Marcion or by faulty intepretations practiced by Valentinus.

And you haven't proved it either!

Why is it then you nor anyone else on this forum was able to overthrow what I said. Go back and look at your response! You could not overthrow the evidence all you could do is pronounce anathema's on the evidence presented. I took you to task for the overall context of Isaiah 8, the immediate context of Isaiah 8:14-20 and its direct use by Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament and the immediate context. You did not and could not refute contextual based evidence placed in your faces. I would be more than happy to repeat it!

Neither could you or any other pro-Catholic soterioligical advocates on this forum repudiate my interpetations of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 or 2 Peter. 1:17-21. I would be more than happy to repeat the specifics you could not deal with.

I think that was me you were quoting not TS. The point is that that doesn't help us with determining why James and Revelation are in the Canon but Didache and Barnabas (for example) are not. All of them claim to be authored by an Apostle or Apostles, but only the first two are in (and weren't as far as your friend Tertullian was concerned!).

 

[Dr. Walter]

So how do you know that, for example, the Didache isn't theopneusta? It claims to be the teaching of the Apostles, just as much as eg: 1 Corinthians claims to be written by Paul. How do you know that it shouldn't be in the NT?

There are basic tests that the caretakers of scriptures have used to discern scriptures from counterfits long before the New Testament was written.

1. Was it written by someone acknowledged to be a prophet (apostles were also prophets)
2. Does its content contradict any known truth and especially any truth presented by other writings confirmed as scriptures.
3. Do those who are the caretakers of God's Word accept it as Scriptures.
4. Does it claim to be the Word of God
5. Does it have life changing power as the living Word of God.


The Didache fails the test of truth. Even Rome does not include it in its canon of scripture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are basic tests that the caretakers of scriptures have used to discern scriptures from counterfits long before the New Testament was written.

1. Was it written by someone acknowledged to be a prophet (apostles were also prophets)
2. Does its content contradict any known truth and especially any truth presented by other writings confirmed as scriptures.
3. Do those who are the caretakers of God's Word accept it as Scriptures.
4. Does it claim to be the Word of God
5. Does it have life changing power as the living Word of God.


The Didache fails the test of truth. Even Rome does not include it in its canon of scripture.

Who established this litmus test? When was the litmus test established and when did every one get on board with this litmus test? And what authority put this litmus test in place?

 

[Matt Black]

There are basic tests that the caretakers of scriptures have used to discern scriptures from counterfits long before the New Testament was written.

1. Was it written by someone acknowledged to be a prophet (apostles were also prophets)
2. Does its content contradict any known truth and especially any truth presented by other writings confirmed as scriptures.
3. Do those who are the caretakers of God's Word accept it as Scriptures.
4. Does it claim to be the Word of God
5. Does it have life changing power as the living Word of God.


The Didache fails the test of truth. Even Rome does not include it in its canon of scripture.

Using your numbering:
1. Acknowledged by whom?

2. Confirmed by whom?

3. Who are the 'caretakers of God's Word'?

4. Not all Scripture claims this.

5. As assessed by whom?

 

[Dr. Walter]

A bare assertion. You have repeatedly been asked to produce evidence for this and have repeatedly failed to do so, so it does you no credit to keep harping on about this being a 'fact'.

The only kind of person that would respond as you have responded is the kind that either dates some of the 27 books after the first century and thus denies they are apostolic in origin or denies they were written under apostolic supervision.

Marcion's Canon included only 10 letters of Paul plus the Gospel of Luke. If you want to cite Tertullian then be careful! - he also was a firm advocate of Apostolic Succession, so choose your friends carefully! Tertullian, in Adversus Marcion says that Marcion 'mutilated' Luke's Gospel and also rejected the other three, together with Paul's Pastoral Epistles; however, Tertullian does not mention 2 Peter, James, II Jn or III Jn and elsewhere cites the Shepherd of Hermas with approval. All fo this is rather a stretch to claiming that the whole 27-book NT was in place by c 140 AD!

Let me be clear. I regard the Ante-Nice Father's as heretics. The only reason I even quote them is to show they contradict Rome's position. So it does not make any difference to me what Tertullian believed or did not believe. However, he certainly did not support your theory but argued that "Christian Scriptures" as a "whole volume' were finished by the apostles and could not be added to or subtracted from. Just because he did not name every one of the 27 books does not mean anything UNLESS it was his contextual design to name every New Testament book written!

 

[Matt Black]

The only kind of person that would respond as you have responded is the kind that either dates some of the 27 books after the first century and thus denies they are apostolic in origin or denies they were written under apostolic supervision.

I don't deny either of these points. I am asking you to produce evidence that all 27 books were received by 'the churches' prior to the end of the first century as constituting the NT.

Let me be clear. I regard the Ante-Nice Father's as heretics. The only reason I even quote them is to show they contradict Rome's position. So it does not make any difference to me what Tertullian believed or did not believe. However, he certainly did not support your theory but argued that "Christian Scriptures" as a "whole volume' were finished by the apostles and could not be added to or subtracted from. Just because he did not name every one of the 27 books does not mean anything UNLESS it was his contextual design to name every New Testament book written!

So you admit that you can't prove that Tertullian accepted the 27 books we have as constituting the NT.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Who established this litmus test? When was the litmus test established and when did every one get on board with this litmus test? And what authority put this litmus test in place?

These are all biblically based and common sense litmus test that only the lack of common sense would ignore or reject in any process of distinguishing true from false.

1. God is not the author of confusion - hence scriptures harmonize with other scriptures.

2. All Scriptures are given through prophets - hence, recognition of prophetic origin

3. God's word is living (Heb. 4:12) and powerful

4. God gives His Word to His people to use to test truth from error (Isa.8:20; 1 Jn. 4:6)

5. God confirms His own word by "thus saith the Lord" by miraculous signs and wonders to confirm its Author and origin.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't deny either of these points. I am asking you to produce evidence that all 27 books were received by 'the churches' prior to the end of the first century as constituting the NT.

As I said, your whole denial rests squarely upon rejection of one or more of the 27 books as apostolic in origin. My position is the common sense logical conclusion of recognition of all 27 book as apostolic in origin as none of the congregations of Christ would reject any of them at the time of their writing and reception. In addition, previous prophetic scriptures demand that the whole Biblical canon would be completed by or under the apostles of Christ (Isa. 8:16-18; Heb. 2:3-4,12; Jn. 17:17-20) and the apostles recognized this was their mission and that they were completing it (1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-17; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-20).

So you admit that you can't prove that Tertullian accepted the 27 books we have as constituting the NT.

I think you better get new glasses or learn to read properly. I am claiming that Tertullian claims that the "whole volume" of "Christian scriptures" were extent prior to the rise of Marcion's canon and it is on this basis that Tertullian can claim that Marcion SUBTRACTED and perverted scriptures in his canon. Furthermore, Tertullian explicitly stated that no one could subtract OR ADD to that "volume" which he claimed existed prior to Marcion. Whether or not you can find actual copies of this "volume" does not disprove it existed or that Tertullian lied any more than Tertullians failure to list every book in this "whole volume" means that such books did not exist in that volume UNLESS you can prove that Tertullian was attempting to list every book and one is missing in his intentional listing for that purpose.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Using your numbering:
1. Acknowledged by whom?

Scripture is given through prophets and this is the unanaimous testimony of the scriptures from the first volume (containing five parts) right through the New Testament (Heb. 1:1). Hence, in any consideration, or testing, this would be the obvious beginning point to determine.

2. Confirmed by whom?

Confirmed by the Jews unto whom the Old Testament was given (Rom. 9:4-5) and unto the congregations of Christ which are explicitly identified as "the pillar and ground of the truth"

3. Who are the 'caretakers of God's Word'?

Those entrusted with teaching God's people or those entrusted with the "keys" of the kingdom (Mt. 23:1-2; Mt. 18:17-18; 1 Tim. 3:15; Mt. 28:19-20).

4. Not all Scripture claims this.

I never said "all" scripture claims this. However, it is the normal claim of prophetic utterances and writings.

5. As assessed by whom?

Assessed by common observation and especially the people of God unto whom the Scriptures are delivered.

These are such common sense principles that without it would be impossible to responsibly determine the validity of any writing as scripture or counterfit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

These are all biblically based and common sense litmus test that only the lack of common sense would ignore or reject in any process of distinguishing true from false.

1. God is not the author of confusion - hence scriptures harmonize with other scriptures.

2. All Scriptures are given through prophets - hence, recognition of prophetic origin

3. God's word is living (Heb. 4:12) and powerful

4. God gives His Word to His people to use to test truth from error (Isa.8:20; 1 Jn. 4:6)

5. God confirms His own word by "thus saith the Lord" by miraculous signs and wonders to confirm its Author and origin.

No Authority then and not necissarily adiquate.