BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Looking forward to it Herbert - have a nice day and all the best to your family.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Vicar of Jesus Christ?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
Looking forward to it Herbert - have a nice day and all the best to your family.
DHK,
Hello. I am a bit confused. It seems as though you responded to BobRyan thinking that his remarks were mine. Maybe not. That's just how I'm reading your most recent comment. I was wondering if you just glanced at the screen and somehow were under the impression that some of his remarks were mine. Especially when you said "WE"?? toward the end of your last comment did it seem to me that you were challenging what was being said there by BobRyan. On the other hand, maybe you're challenging Bob. It's just hard for me to tell exactly what's going on there. Could you help me out a bit?
Herbert
Hello. I am a bit confused. It seems as though you responded to BobRyan thinking that his remarks were mine. Maybe not. That's just how I'm reading your most recent comment. I was wondering if you just glanced at the screen and somehow were under the impression that some of his remarks were mine. Especially when you said "WE"?? toward the end of your last comment did it seem to me that you were challenging what was being said there by BobRyan. On the other hand, maybe you're challenging Bob. It's just hard for me to tell exactly what's going on there. Could you help me out a bit?
Herbert
No, it wasn't directed to you at all.
In post #178 Bob posted "DHK said", quoting me, and then gave his response to my quote.
Thus I answered him.
I was just responding to his post to me. We got a lot going on. It gets confusing sometimes.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I was posting on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit - and gifts of the spirit (as you see them in 1Cor 12) ..as we find it sola scriptura. In this case from 1 John 4, and 1 Cor 14.
Bible "details" often glossed over.
That is -- sola bias... sola emotional appeal. Where one "quotes himself" when he cannot find a Bible text that says it.
The Bible shows (as we see in Matt 12) that in every age when a prophet "speaks from God" as Peter says in 2Peter 1:19-21 - there are always some out there that will claim that all that is said is false.
You are the one skipping over Bible details. There were not prophets in ever age.
Study the inter-testamental period. For four hundred years there was no revelation being given, thus no prophets. God was silent at that time. Then John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ came on the scene fulfilling Scripture and announcing the arrival of Christ.
When there was no revelation to be given to man, there was no prophet of God.
And there are no prophets of God today.
There have been no true prophets of God since the end of the first century. History also attests to the same.
1 Samuel 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli. And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; there was no open vision.
--Samuel was the first prophet to arrive on the scene after some time of absence during the time of the judges. "There was no open vision." It is a phrase used to describe the absence of prophetic revelation.
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
--He speaks of a time when there will be no revelation.
Of this passage MacArthur says:
God speaks through prophets in the OT. But during this time he was silent.
There are times when God is silent. Now is that time. There are no prophets. The reason? We have the completed Word of God. God has finished speaking. His Word is sufficient. All we need to know about God, salvation and all else pertaining to what God wants us to know is written in His Word. There is no need for further revelation. In fact we are warned not to add anything to "this book."
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
True - but that did not make John the baptizer a false prophet. I think we both agree on that point.
Also - there is no OT saying "there will be 400 years of silence until John the baptizer - during that period of time anyone claiming to have a special message from God is a false prophet no need to test that message against the Bible at all" --- as we probably both agree.
Agreed in hindsight but it would be circular reasoning to use such a 'test' against John the baptizer.
Is this you 'quoting yourself' now as the 'scripture' or "source" for us to use on that point?
Sounds more like a papal decree than a reading of any text in OT or NT.
Sounds more like a papal decree than a reading of any text in OT or NT.
Certainly there have been times of silence - but there has never been a Bible text saying 'this is now the time of silence - any prophet would have to be a false prophet at this time'.
To get such a thing as "doctrine" you would need something like a DHK-papal-decree.
Papal decrees of the form "God speaks through prophets in the OT. But during this time he was silent."
are great for 'thus saith a certain man on the Baptistboard' - or even 'a certain papal decree says that..."
But what does "the Bible say"??
Instead of "reject every prophet after me" -- John writes --
1 John 4:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
1 Cor 14:39
Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
1 Cor 14:1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
In 1 Cor 14 - when the church came together "EACH ONE" had a revelation according to Paul - yet not a one of them was writing scripture.
No such thing as 'they only prophesy to write scripture' - in the actual Bible. As we see in the case of Philip's 4 daughters in the NT, Agabus in the NT, Nathan in the OT. etc.
How much "easier" it would be if we could all just ignore all that scripture - and start pontificating -- "making stuff up" about how this or that part of the bible no longer works, no longer applies, need no longer be paid attention to.
John was divinely appointed, filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, and a fulfillment of Scripture. With him begins NT history. 400 years of silence precedes him.
Actually there is. It is in "the details."
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Abel is the first prophet, and also a martyr.
Zacharias, also a prophet, was the last one to be martyred.
--There was very little revelation between his time and the time of John the Baptist.
Zacharias, the son of Barachias, is the last prophet mentioned in the Hebrew OT. In the Hebrew OT Second Chronicles is the last book.
2Ch 24:20-22
(20) And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.
(21) And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.
(22) Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.
--And in hindsight we see that the Bereans and other Godly Jews used their existing OT canon to prove the Scriptures or demonstrate the validity of sola scriptura.
What does the Bible say?
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
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;
--God spoke in the OT through the prophets. He did so through visions, dreams, etc.
--In these days God speaks through his son. He has spoken through His Son via the Word of God. This is the only vehicle He is using since the Apostolic period has closed. There are no more apostles giving forth the Word of God.
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.
--Holy men of God have spoken. They were the prophets of the OT and the Apostles of the NT. Our canon of Scripture is complete. The office of prophet is finished.
Study the Bible. When were there times of miracles. Miracles were done during the time of Moses, the time of the prophets (Elijah and Elisha), and the time of Christ and the Apostles. Miracles attested the authenticity of the writers of Scripture, that is the authority of the messenger. Consider Moses for example. He asked the Lord: "How will they know that you have sent me"? The Lord gave him a series of miracles to perform. They were signs.
Now those signs, wonders, and miracles have ceased along with the accompanying revelation.
Perhaps it is your doctrine, that is the doctrine that is contained in the "Great Controversy" that is "antichrist." The "spirit" in which it is written would certainly fit here. Test it whether it is from God or not.
These verses were written ca. 55 A.D. to the church at Corinth when the spiritual gifts were still active. You are taking scripture out of context. Such spiritual gifts as tongues, miracles, healings, and prophesying have ceased. If they still existed we would have healers going into the hospitals and able to go to the ER and healing everyone there without exception.
After all, Peter could do it. See Acts 5:16
The Bible is already "made up." It has 66 completed books," and doesn't need all the extra books the SDA wants to add to it, EGW not withstanding.
1 of 3:
DHK and BobRyan- Here are my initial responses to what seems to be the heart of what you're saying. I will follow up with some other remarks as well as a response to the points made in Geisler's piece.
I. Canon-related questions:
A. Neither of you has a principle by which you may determine, as a matter of faith, which books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture. You have opinions. That’s all. Your opinions are informed by history, various traditions, and a reasoning process by which you hope to settle on a particular set of books you consider to be valid. But your conclusions are binding upon no one.
B. Like my Baptist friend’s Baptist friend who went to a private Baptist school here in West Michigan and then went on to a reputable Bible college and came out rejecting everything St. Paul wrote- yet considering himself to be the one who’s identifying and regarding Scripture properly- both of you could, in principle, reach his conclusion next year and not be in violation of a single principle by which you’ve come to believe what you currently believe. For in rejecting your Pauline Bible and embracing his non-Pauline Bible, he’d claim to be doing exactly what you’re doing which I described as an appeal to history, various traditions, and the reasoning process by which you have come to settle on a particular set of books as valid.
C. DHK, in offering your definition of Sola Scriptura, you reveal this much, saying: “My definition of sola scriptura is a bit different than that of the Reformers. It has been refined by the Baptists.” My friend’s friend considers his non-Pauline Canon to be a “refinement” of the Canon he received from his Baptist parents. And what you see as a “refinement” of the teaching of the major Reformers, they’d see as abject heresy. Similarly, he sees a limiting of your Canon as a "refinement." That’s how Sola Scriptura works, though, as long as its adherent is convinced that he’s the one following the Scriptures rightly, he carries on with his “refinements.” When does it stop? For it privatizes the principle of Christian unity and thus subjectifies the Faith while convincing itself of its objectivity.
D. Ultimately, because the Scriptures don’t themselves contain an inspired Table of Contents, you’re both stuck appealing to extraBiblical sources to identify the very contents of that to which you ascribe ultimate authority (The Bible). Tom Brown, an adult convert to the Catholic Faith, described the problem he faced (as a Protestant who held to Sola Scriptura) in this way: “In our quest to determine how we know which texts are divinely revealed, we have found no answer to the Canon Question that does not itself violate sola scriptura by using some criterion external to Scripture to establish which books belong to Scripture.” He further explains his point, saying: “(T)he very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura. That doctrine permits no infallible authority in the Christian’s life save Scripture. But a person answering the Canon Question must employ fallible human judgment to craft the rule by which Scripture’s contents are to be selected. This judgment is extra-Biblical, and is placed over Scripture because it defines the canon. By placing this judgment above the sole permitted infallible authority, the process of answering the question violates sola scriptura.”
II. DHK’s view:
A. “We teach the principle of sola scriptura, that Bible is our final authority, that there is no other authority that can trump the Bible. It alone is inspired. That doesn't mean one cannot use other resources. But it is the Bible that has the final record in doctrine, and even in historical records. Its records are inspired; others are not.”
Response: (A quick note before I begin with my responses. l will continue to use the term “Biblicist.” For I consider it, within this context, to be an accurate title for both you, DHK, and BobRyan. Please do not understand it as intended to be derogatory or inflammatory. My former Baptist minister and his wife often used the term and did so proudly.) The fact that the Bible is inspired doesn’t make it the “sole” rule of faith. The fact that the Bible is inspired doesn’t make it the “final record in doctrine.” What you’ve presented here is a non sequitur. Your conclusion, that the Scriptures are the “sole” rule of faith does not follow from the fact that the Scriptures are God-breathed.
B. "It simply states that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice."
Response: Yes, and this belief is problematic for two primary reasons:
1) It is nowhere found in the Bible.
2) This is the principle by which even those whom you consider to be heretics operate.
II. BobRyan's view
A. You said “In other words, I believe that the information is right there in the Scriptures, information which is capable of demonstrating the validity of the doctrine. But the key to reaching the right doctrine is a matter both of reading the Bible and of allowing the Holy Spirit to ‘guide us into all truth’ John 16 - using exegesis and not eisegeting our own preferences into the text.”
Response: This presentation is problematic for a few reasons:
1) It’s unBiblical. That is, it represents a broad inference on your part and not something explicitly presented in the Scriptures.
2) It’s circular. It amounts to something like this conversation:
Person 1: “Scripture alone contains all the right doctrine”
Person 2: “How do you know what all the right doctrine is?”
Person 1: “Well, it’s in Scripture, of course.”
Person 2: “Well, how do you know what’s in Scripture?”
Person 1: “It’s the only place with all the right doctrine, of course.”
3) It's subjective. The difference between exegesis and eisegesis is itself determined, according to your system, subjectively. Martin Luther saw himself as “exegeting” the phrase “This is my body.” rightly. You likely “exegete” it another way yet see him as mistaken and yourself as rightly exegeting the phrase. All the while you both claim to hold to “Sola Scriptura.” And, really, all you can do is tell each other to read the text “properly” and “stop eisegeting.”
4) Finally, what you’ve said here accepts for one’s self personally that which was not completely and privately granted to you. When Christ said “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.” He was not speaking to you privately. To suggest so much would be to commit a most egregious example of “eisegesis.”
B. You said: "My point is that the 'Sola Scriptura' argument proceeds with the understanding that the term "scripture" and "ALL of scripture" are already terms found IN the Bible and should be accepted at the very start rather than trying to argue 'those in Bible times did not claim to know what scripture was because the RCC had not come into being' -- which I think you - as the 'Baptist Herbert' would also have fully agreed to."
Response: This presentation is problematic for a few reasons:
1) It begs the question. In other words, through an unjustified and undemonstrated inference on your part, you’re begging the question. You’re presuming the very thing in question with a rather blatant call to “skip over” the process of demonstrating your position by just accepting it simply because of the presence of the words “Scripture” and “all” being present in Scripture.
2) What you’re doing here is mistaking an inclusive description of Scripture to be a formal delineation of the contents of Scripture. But that’s neither a logical nor a reasonable leap. In other words, the fact that those terms are present in the Scriptures is not in question here, but the assertion on your part that their mere presence should be understood as an implicit validation of your fallible human inference is.
3) To presume that the “RCC” had not “come into being” yet during the Apostolic Age is to beg the question. In other words, without having demonstrated it, your position proceeds under the assumption of the falsity of the Catholic position which states that the Book of Acts, for example, records the “birthdate” of the Catholic Church at the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
5) What I would have agreed to as a Baptist isn’t something that’s likely going to convince me of a more “Baptist” position now that I’ve recognized the fact that I was somewhat mistaken in a number of ways, some of which, incidentally, I’m attempting to present to you now.
C. You said: "The reason I keep arguing for the 'Baptist Herbert' is because you are in a position to 'bridge' the gap between Baptist perspective and Catholic. So then rather than coming here with 'lets start with the RCC POV' you would be logically inclined to start with "as a Baptist this was my view of sola scriptura -- but then I came across this question or fact.'"
Response: As I see it, I already bridged that gap by realizing that I had no objective and logical principles by which I could affirm the truths of the faith which I rightly accepted. Indeed, I did not “start with” the “RCC” point of view. I started with a Baptist view and clung to it tightly. Some of the various challenges to my Baptist perspective which I encountered are present here in these remarks. Also, for the record, as I see it, there is no such thing as “the Baptist perspective.” There are generally trends which Baptists follow. But there is, for example, no such thing as “Baptist heresy.” There are, instead, Baptists who disagree with one another concerning that which the Scriptures contain. Neither, though, has a principled and objective means by which he may determine whether it is he or his “opponent” who has strayed from true orthodoxy.
DHK and BobRyan- Here are my initial responses to what seems to be the heart of what you're saying. I will follow up with some other remarks as well as a response to the points made in Geisler's piece.
I. Canon-related questions:
A. Neither of you has a principle by which you may determine, as a matter of faith, which books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture. You have opinions. That’s all. Your opinions are informed by history, various traditions, and a reasoning process by which you hope to settle on a particular set of books you consider to be valid. But your conclusions are binding upon no one.
B. Like my Baptist friend’s Baptist friend who went to a private Baptist school here in West Michigan and then went on to a reputable Bible college and came out rejecting everything St. Paul wrote- yet considering himself to be the one who’s identifying and regarding Scripture properly- both of you could, in principle, reach his conclusion next year and not be in violation of a single principle by which you’ve come to believe what you currently believe. For in rejecting your Pauline Bible and embracing his non-Pauline Bible, he’d claim to be doing exactly what you’re doing which I described as an appeal to history, various traditions, and the reasoning process by which you have come to settle on a particular set of books as valid.
C. DHK, in offering your definition of Sola Scriptura, you reveal this much, saying: “My definition of sola scriptura is a bit different than that of the Reformers. It has been refined by the Baptists.” My friend’s friend considers his non-Pauline Canon to be a “refinement” of the Canon he received from his Baptist parents. And what you see as a “refinement” of the teaching of the major Reformers, they’d see as abject heresy. Similarly, he sees a limiting of your Canon as a "refinement." That’s how Sola Scriptura works, though, as long as its adherent is convinced that he’s the one following the Scriptures rightly, he carries on with his “refinements.” When does it stop? For it privatizes the principle of Christian unity and thus subjectifies the Faith while convincing itself of its objectivity.
D. Ultimately, because the Scriptures don’t themselves contain an inspired Table of Contents, you’re both stuck appealing to extraBiblical sources to identify the very contents of that to which you ascribe ultimate authority (The Bible). Tom Brown, an adult convert to the Catholic Faith, described the problem he faced (as a Protestant who held to Sola Scriptura) in this way: “In our quest to determine how we know which texts are divinely revealed, we have found no answer to the Canon Question that does not itself violate sola scriptura by using some criterion external to Scripture to establish which books belong to Scripture.” He further explains his point, saying: “(T)he very process of answering the Canon Question violates sola scriptura. That doctrine permits no infallible authority in the Christian’s life save Scripture. But a person answering the Canon Question must employ fallible human judgment to craft the rule by which Scripture’s contents are to be selected. This judgment is extra-Biblical, and is placed over Scripture because it defines the canon. By placing this judgment above the sole permitted infallible authority, the process of answering the question violates sola scriptura.”
II. DHK’s view:
A. “We teach the principle of sola scriptura, that Bible is our final authority, that there is no other authority that can trump the Bible. It alone is inspired. That doesn't mean one cannot use other resources. But it is the Bible that has the final record in doctrine, and even in historical records. Its records are inspired; others are not.”
Response: (A quick note before I begin with my responses. l will continue to use the term “Biblicist.” For I consider it, within this context, to be an accurate title for both you, DHK, and BobRyan. Please do not understand it as intended to be derogatory or inflammatory. My former Baptist minister and his wife often used the term and did so proudly.) The fact that the Bible is inspired doesn’t make it the “sole” rule of faith. The fact that the Bible is inspired doesn’t make it the “final record in doctrine.” What you’ve presented here is a non sequitur. Your conclusion, that the Scriptures are the “sole” rule of faith does not follow from the fact that the Scriptures are God-breathed.
B. "It simply states that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice."
Response: Yes, and this belief is problematic for two primary reasons:
1) It is nowhere found in the Bible.
2) This is the principle by which even those whom you consider to be heretics operate.
II. BobRyan's view
A. You said “In other words, I believe that the information is right there in the Scriptures, information which is capable of demonstrating the validity of the doctrine. But the key to reaching the right doctrine is a matter both of reading the Bible and of allowing the Holy Spirit to ‘guide us into all truth’ John 16 - using exegesis and not eisegeting our own preferences into the text.”
Response: This presentation is problematic for a few reasons:
1) It’s unBiblical. That is, it represents a broad inference on your part and not something explicitly presented in the Scriptures.
2) It’s circular. It amounts to something like this conversation:
Person 1: “Scripture alone contains all the right doctrine”
Person 2: “How do you know what all the right doctrine is?”
Person 1: “Well, it’s in Scripture, of course.”
Person 2: “Well, how do you know what’s in Scripture?”
Person 1: “It’s the only place with all the right doctrine, of course.”
3) It's subjective. The difference between exegesis and eisegesis is itself determined, according to your system, subjectively. Martin Luther saw himself as “exegeting” the phrase “This is my body.” rightly. You likely “exegete” it another way yet see him as mistaken and yourself as rightly exegeting the phrase. All the while you both claim to hold to “Sola Scriptura.” And, really, all you can do is tell each other to read the text “properly” and “stop eisegeting.”
4) Finally, what you’ve said here accepts for one’s self personally that which was not completely and privately granted to you. When Christ said “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.” He was not speaking to you privately. To suggest so much would be to commit a most egregious example of “eisegesis.”
B. You said: "My point is that the 'Sola Scriptura' argument proceeds with the understanding that the term "scripture" and "ALL of scripture" are already terms found IN the Bible and should be accepted at the very start rather than trying to argue 'those in Bible times did not claim to know what scripture was because the RCC had not come into being' -- which I think you - as the 'Baptist Herbert' would also have fully agreed to."
Response: This presentation is problematic for a few reasons:
1) It begs the question. In other words, through an unjustified and undemonstrated inference on your part, you’re begging the question. You’re presuming the very thing in question with a rather blatant call to “skip over” the process of demonstrating your position by just accepting it simply because of the presence of the words “Scripture” and “all” being present in Scripture.
2) What you’re doing here is mistaking an inclusive description of Scripture to be a formal delineation of the contents of Scripture. But that’s neither a logical nor a reasonable leap. In other words, the fact that those terms are present in the Scriptures is not in question here, but the assertion on your part that their mere presence should be understood as an implicit validation of your fallible human inference is.
3) To presume that the “RCC” had not “come into being” yet during the Apostolic Age is to beg the question. In other words, without having demonstrated it, your position proceeds under the assumption of the falsity of the Catholic position which states that the Book of Acts, for example, records the “birthdate” of the Catholic Church at the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
5) What I would have agreed to as a Baptist isn’t something that’s likely going to convince me of a more “Baptist” position now that I’ve recognized the fact that I was somewhat mistaken in a number of ways, some of which, incidentally, I’m attempting to present to you now.
C. You said: "The reason I keep arguing for the 'Baptist Herbert' is because you are in a position to 'bridge' the gap between Baptist perspective and Catholic. So then rather than coming here with 'lets start with the RCC POV' you would be logically inclined to start with "as a Baptist this was my view of sola scriptura -- but then I came across this question or fact.'"
Response: As I see it, I already bridged that gap by realizing that I had no objective and logical principles by which I could affirm the truths of the faith which I rightly accepted. Indeed, I did not “start with” the “RCC” point of view. I started with a Baptist view and clung to it tightly. Some of the various challenges to my Baptist perspective which I encountered are present here in these remarks. Also, for the record, as I see it, there is no such thing as “the Baptist perspective.” There are generally trends which Baptists follow. But there is, for example, no such thing as “Baptist heresy.” There are, instead, Baptists who disagree with one another concerning that which the Scriptures contain. Neither, though, has a principled and objective means by which he may determine whether it is he or his “opponent” who has strayed from true orthodoxy.
Last edited:
2 of 3:
D. You said: “I see that scripture is to be used for doctrine and that it is the standard by which all teaching, doctrine, tradition and practice is to be judged.”
Response: Since Scripture doesn’t judge and it is the moral agent who has the capacity to judge, we must acknowledge the fact that what we bring to Scripture is the mind by which and through which we access it. The Catholic Church teaches that the individual mind, though it can certainly receive God’s truths through Scripture, doesn’t represent the principal means by which the Faith (as an objective thing) is to be passed on. Rather, the Church, in harmony with Scripture, understands itself as having been charged with the responsibility to pass on the Gospel to succeeding generations. The responsibility, though, doesn’t rest upon the shoulders of man alone, though, but is made possible according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit at work within the Church Christ established, which has the properties of other human institutions and societies, but has one thing that other institutions don’t: God’s protection. This is why the appeal to Scripture alone falls flat on its face. We happen to be human agents who approach Scripture and bring with us our minds. This is why I continually remind DHK and others that it’s not the Scriptures which I question. Rather, it’s the minds of men which may be “ignorant and unstable” of which I am skeptical.
E. You said: “It tells us if something is ‘true or not.’ It does not declare that ‘all tradition is error’ - nor that ‘all doctrine is error’. But rather that all must be tested to ‘See IF those things are so’ - to see IF a certain doctrine or tradition violates the teaching that we find in the Bible.”
Response: I am glad to see that you’re acknowledging the validity of some sacred Christian tradition. That’s a good and Biblical step to take (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). But the rest of this statement represents, once again, a question of the material sufficiency of Scripture vs. the formal sufficiency of Scripture. You’re presuming the formal sufficiency of Scripture when the Scriptures don’t contain a teaching which could possibly validate such a claim. You’re mistaking material sufficiency for formal sufficiency. At the same time you’re presuming the idea that because Scripture contains divinely revealed Christian truths it is the sole authority concerning the definition of all Christian truths. Once again, you’re removing from the equation the analytical mind of man which accesses Scripture.
III. Responses to your Scriptural references
Mark 7:6-13
“And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Response: First of all, this is an account of a confrontation between the Lord and the Pharisees and Scribes who were clearly not followers of Christ, but instead, His opponents. Though we must all be on guard not to fall prey to the legalism of the Pharisees, the words Christ has for them shouldn’t be construed as being formally directed toward the Christians. Also, it is true that we should be on guard not to violate God’s laws for the sake of our traditions. The Scribes and Pharisees apparently had a habit of doing this. And regardless of our particular Christian traditions, we must all seek to ensure that we don’t become ensnared in the net of legalistic observance of traditions. This passage, then, should be understood as a warning against the abuse of tradition and the misplacement of tradition, not as a demonstration of the validity of Sola Scriptura, especially in light of the fact that elsewhere in the New Testament valid traditions are affirmed and lauded. So it is that Catholics differentiate between Apostolic Sacred Tradition and other “small t” traditions which don’t represent foundational moral or doctrinal elements of the Christian faith. So of the many wonderful things this passage of Scripture is, it certainly isn’t a demonstration of the formal sufficiency of Scripture or the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Isaiah 8:20
“To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
Response: Within this context, Isaiah is primarily and most directly saying that if people don’t attest to the validity of the message he’s presenting, they are woefully mistaken. He’s not saying anything like: “There will one day be a 66-book Canon of Scripture which will enjoy a certain singular validity concerning the establishment of matters of faith and which will be rightly affirmed according to the remarks I am currently making which concern the specifics of another matter and situation entirely.” Further, there at the beginning of the passage Isaiah affirms the validity of a teacher’s testimony, that is a teacher’s “interpretation” or “oral validation” of a particular doctrine. Isn’t Isaiah saying something like “If their teaching is out of alignment with mine, they’re mistaken.”? Is it really reasonable to grant your Canon of Scripture (along with your interpretation of it) the status you do on account of your appeal to verses like these which, in their actual content, say nothing like what it is you’re asserting?
D. You said: “I see that scripture is to be used for doctrine and that it is the standard by which all teaching, doctrine, tradition and practice is to be judged.”
Response: Since Scripture doesn’t judge and it is the moral agent who has the capacity to judge, we must acknowledge the fact that what we bring to Scripture is the mind by which and through which we access it. The Catholic Church teaches that the individual mind, though it can certainly receive God’s truths through Scripture, doesn’t represent the principal means by which the Faith (as an objective thing) is to be passed on. Rather, the Church, in harmony with Scripture, understands itself as having been charged with the responsibility to pass on the Gospel to succeeding generations. The responsibility, though, doesn’t rest upon the shoulders of man alone, though, but is made possible according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit at work within the Church Christ established, which has the properties of other human institutions and societies, but has one thing that other institutions don’t: God’s protection. This is why the appeal to Scripture alone falls flat on its face. We happen to be human agents who approach Scripture and bring with us our minds. This is why I continually remind DHK and others that it’s not the Scriptures which I question. Rather, it’s the minds of men which may be “ignorant and unstable” of which I am skeptical.
E. You said: “It tells us if something is ‘true or not.’ It does not declare that ‘all tradition is error’ - nor that ‘all doctrine is error’. But rather that all must be tested to ‘See IF those things are so’ - to see IF a certain doctrine or tradition violates the teaching that we find in the Bible.”
Response: I am glad to see that you’re acknowledging the validity of some sacred Christian tradition. That’s a good and Biblical step to take (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). But the rest of this statement represents, once again, a question of the material sufficiency of Scripture vs. the formal sufficiency of Scripture. You’re presuming the formal sufficiency of Scripture when the Scriptures don’t contain a teaching which could possibly validate such a claim. You’re mistaking material sufficiency for formal sufficiency. At the same time you’re presuming the idea that because Scripture contains divinely revealed Christian truths it is the sole authority concerning the definition of all Christian truths. Once again, you’re removing from the equation the analytical mind of man which accesses Scripture.
III. Responses to your Scriptural references
Mark 7:6-13
“And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Response: First of all, this is an account of a confrontation between the Lord and the Pharisees and Scribes who were clearly not followers of Christ, but instead, His opponents. Though we must all be on guard not to fall prey to the legalism of the Pharisees, the words Christ has for them shouldn’t be construed as being formally directed toward the Christians. Also, it is true that we should be on guard not to violate God’s laws for the sake of our traditions. The Scribes and Pharisees apparently had a habit of doing this. And regardless of our particular Christian traditions, we must all seek to ensure that we don’t become ensnared in the net of legalistic observance of traditions. This passage, then, should be understood as a warning against the abuse of tradition and the misplacement of tradition, not as a demonstration of the validity of Sola Scriptura, especially in light of the fact that elsewhere in the New Testament valid traditions are affirmed and lauded. So it is that Catholics differentiate between Apostolic Sacred Tradition and other “small t” traditions which don’t represent foundational moral or doctrinal elements of the Christian faith. So of the many wonderful things this passage of Scripture is, it certainly isn’t a demonstration of the formal sufficiency of Scripture or the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Isaiah 8:20
“To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
Response: Within this context, Isaiah is primarily and most directly saying that if people don’t attest to the validity of the message he’s presenting, they are woefully mistaken. He’s not saying anything like: “There will one day be a 66-book Canon of Scripture which will enjoy a certain singular validity concerning the establishment of matters of faith and which will be rightly affirmed according to the remarks I am currently making which concern the specifics of another matter and situation entirely.” Further, there at the beginning of the passage Isaiah affirms the validity of a teacher’s testimony, that is a teacher’s “interpretation” or “oral validation” of a particular doctrine. Isn’t Isaiah saying something like “If their teaching is out of alignment with mine, they’re mistaken.”? Is it really reasonable to grant your Canon of Scripture (along with your interpretation of it) the status you do on account of your appeal to verses like these which, in their actual content, say nothing like what it is you’re asserting?
Last edited:
3 of 3:
Galatians 1:6-9
“I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”
Response: A Catholic affirms every word of this and every other Scriptural passage in the Bible, rightly understood. In order to appeal to this verse to substantiate your position, there are certain things you must presume about competing positions, namely, that they preach “another Gospel.” But if your “version” of the Gospel was reached mistakenly (and is thus false to some degree), are you in a position to, by comparative analysis, deem other “versions” of the Gospel false? Once again, you’re begging the question. You’re presuming the validity of your understanding of things when your understanding of things is the very thing in question which has yet to be demonstrated through Scripture or anything else. So without having demonstrated the point, you’re presuming that your position (that the Catholic Church teaches “another Gospel.”) is true. Only if such a conclusion has already been reached is your appeal to St. Paul’s words here even remotely addressing the question of Sola Scriptura (which, you should notice, wasn’t mentioned at all in this passage). A couple passages later, St. Paul does speak to a related issue, though. He says “For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” In saying this, he is affirming the validity of Apostolic Oral Tradition, some of which is here inscripturated. It was though, according to this text, his preaching, which was authoritative. And there is nothing in the Scriptures which reveals to us the idea that Apostolic teaching became, in its entirety, inscripturated, and thus represented the establishment of a sole principle which would become the rule of faith for Christians. This passage, like the others, does nothing to validate your fallible inference.
Acts 17:11
“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.”
Response: Indeed it is noble, virtuous, and worthwhile to receive the word with eagerness (whether presented “by word of mouth or by letter”). It is right and fitting that we’d daily search the Scriptures in an effort to seek to determine whether or not something is so. Nowhere, though, does that passage say that we can do so conclusively and infallibly. Indeed, there were certainly many early Jews who did just that and remained staunch Pharisees and saw themselves as justified in remaining so according to an appeal to Scripture. Once again, the principle of Scriptural Authority is demonstrated here. But the sole authority of Scripture is not here proven. Further, there is a certain unavoidable anachronism which plagues many such New Testament appeals. That is, as you well know, the Acts of the Apostles was itself not yet fully recorded at the time of this writing and thus represents the Bereans as those who were, despite what the Old Testament contents presented, open to the reception of the oral teaching with which they were confronted and according to which they altered their former understanding of the Scriptures of the sake of a new and Apostolic reading of them. In other words, in the very act of searching the Scriptures they were weighing the question of the validity of the Apostolic oral teaching. In other words, practically, their witness affirms the Catholic appeal to a binding oral tradition. Only if the Bereans were described as later rejecting the Apostolic oral witness on account of their sole appeal to the Scriptures would this passage even begin to sound a bit more convincing for your case.
2nd Timothy 3:16-17
Response: (From a comment I wrote above) Oftentimes, non-Catholic Christians who hold to a “Bible Alone” view, as I’m sure you’re aware, appeal to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 to justify their “Biblicism.” John Henry Newman… writing in the 19th Century had this to say in response to them: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy… Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith." Further, this passage presents truths with which a Catholic agrees. Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. That is, all Scripture does those things. In other words, this passage refers not to a collection of texts here (which was yet to be compiled and which you refer to as The Bible). Rather, it refers to all Scripture. That means that a single Psalm, for example, can and will be profitable for all of these things. Chapter 1 of Genesis can and will be profitable for such efforts, as well. Isaiah 53 & 54 will be profitable for all of these things, also. This passage, though, on a strictly textual basis, doesn’t begin to present the notion that a given “Canon of Scripture” (which did not yet exist) would become something against which the oral Apostolic Tradition elsewhere affirmed in the Scriptures would be pitted. And ironically, the passage here culminates with a phrase that, in one sense, delegitimizes the whole argument for a Biblicist. For the passage closes with the phrase “...equipped for every good work.” Well, if the whole passage affirms, in its context, Scripture for the sake of a man's “works,” then it’s not helpful for one who holds to the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is it? In other words, if the verses ended with the phrase “...that the man of God may be complete, equipped with a sound faith.” it would be far more consistent with the point a Biblicist is trying to prove.
Galatians 1:6-9
“I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”
Response: A Catholic affirms every word of this and every other Scriptural passage in the Bible, rightly understood. In order to appeal to this verse to substantiate your position, there are certain things you must presume about competing positions, namely, that they preach “another Gospel.” But if your “version” of the Gospel was reached mistakenly (and is thus false to some degree), are you in a position to, by comparative analysis, deem other “versions” of the Gospel false? Once again, you’re begging the question. You’re presuming the validity of your understanding of things when your understanding of things is the very thing in question which has yet to be demonstrated through Scripture or anything else. So without having demonstrated the point, you’re presuming that your position (that the Catholic Church teaches “another Gospel.”) is true. Only if such a conclusion has already been reached is your appeal to St. Paul’s words here even remotely addressing the question of Sola Scriptura (which, you should notice, wasn’t mentioned at all in this passage). A couple passages later, St. Paul does speak to a related issue, though. He says “For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” In saying this, he is affirming the validity of Apostolic Oral Tradition, some of which is here inscripturated. It was though, according to this text, his preaching, which was authoritative. And there is nothing in the Scriptures which reveals to us the idea that Apostolic teaching became, in its entirety, inscripturated, and thus represented the establishment of a sole principle which would become the rule of faith for Christians. This passage, like the others, does nothing to validate your fallible inference.
Acts 17:11
“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.”
Response: Indeed it is noble, virtuous, and worthwhile to receive the word with eagerness (whether presented “by word of mouth or by letter”). It is right and fitting that we’d daily search the Scriptures in an effort to seek to determine whether or not something is so. Nowhere, though, does that passage say that we can do so conclusively and infallibly. Indeed, there were certainly many early Jews who did just that and remained staunch Pharisees and saw themselves as justified in remaining so according to an appeal to Scripture. Once again, the principle of Scriptural Authority is demonstrated here. But the sole authority of Scripture is not here proven. Further, there is a certain unavoidable anachronism which plagues many such New Testament appeals. That is, as you well know, the Acts of the Apostles was itself not yet fully recorded at the time of this writing and thus represents the Bereans as those who were, despite what the Old Testament contents presented, open to the reception of the oral teaching with which they were confronted and according to which they altered their former understanding of the Scriptures of the sake of a new and Apostolic reading of them. In other words, in the very act of searching the Scriptures they were weighing the question of the validity of the Apostolic oral teaching. In other words, practically, their witness affirms the Catholic appeal to a binding oral tradition. Only if the Bereans were described as later rejecting the Apostolic oral witness on account of their sole appeal to the Scriptures would this passage even begin to sound a bit more convincing for your case.
2nd Timothy 3:16-17
Response: (From a comment I wrote above) Oftentimes, non-Catholic Christians who hold to a “Bible Alone” view, as I’m sure you’re aware, appeal to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 to justify their “Biblicism.” John Henry Newman… writing in the 19th Century had this to say in response to them: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy… Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith." Further, this passage presents truths with which a Catholic agrees. Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. That is, all Scripture does those things. In other words, this passage refers not to a collection of texts here (which was yet to be compiled and which you refer to as The Bible). Rather, it refers to all Scripture. That means that a single Psalm, for example, can and will be profitable for all of these things. Chapter 1 of Genesis can and will be profitable for such efforts, as well. Isaiah 53 & 54 will be profitable for all of these things, also. This passage, though, on a strictly textual basis, doesn’t begin to present the notion that a given “Canon of Scripture” (which did not yet exist) would become something against which the oral Apostolic Tradition elsewhere affirmed in the Scriptures would be pitted. And ironically, the passage here culminates with a phrase that, in one sense, delegitimizes the whole argument for a Biblicist. For the passage closes with the phrase “...equipped for every good work.” Well, if the whole passage affirms, in its context, Scripture for the sake of a man's “works,” then it’s not helpful for one who holds to the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is it? In other words, if the verses ended with the phrase “...that the man of God may be complete, equipped with a sound faith.” it would be far more consistent with the point a Biblicist is trying to prove.
Last edited:
DHK and Bob,
I am pasting your words below just to alert you to the fact that I just posted here.
-Herbert
I am pasting your words below just to alert you to the fact that I just posted here.
-Herbert
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
On the contrary.
1. Neither the RCC nor the Protestant churches have any dispute at all regarding the 27 books of the New Testament -- nor do Protestants appeal to a single Pope as the author or inspiration of those 27 books. This is irrefutable so much so that ALL sides agree.
2. Neither the RCC nor the Protestant church have any dispute at all over the undeniable fact that the RCC did not write a single word of the Old Testament. Rather that is a Jewish text - and at the writing of the OT books there was not a single post-cross NT christian alive to argue the point one way or the other. This is irrefutable so much so that ALL sides agree.
So far as that goes there is not even a "problem to be resolved".
3. The only point "at issue" is whether the RCC coming along many centuries later - can dictate to the Jewish Church WHAT its canon of OT scripture ought to be. Jerome when translating his "Vulgate" stated clearly that the RCC had no business doing that.
4. Josephus is a better spokes person for the JEWS than is any Pope that has ever said up or down about what should be in the OT canon., At best - popes may speak of their own work - but they may not dictate OT history "for the Jews" or "for the Christians". They come along far too late for that.
As Baptist you probably already agreed to all of this at one time.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
As a Baptist you probably agreed with the sola scripture - "in action" texts like these -
Mark 7:6-13 is found in the Bible.
Isaiah 8:20 is found in the Bible.
Gal 1:6-9 is found in the Bible.
Acts 17:11 - is found in the Bible.
Luke 24-- and you probably agreed to the "All the scriptures" statement of Luke 24:27
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Mark 7:6-13 is found in the Bible.
Isaiah 8:20 is found in the Bible.
Gal 1:6-9 is found in the Bible.
Acts 17:11 - is found in the Bible.
Luke 24-- and you probably agreed to the "All the scriptures" statement of Luke 24:27
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And of course I have stated this --
Mark 7:6-13 is found in the Bible.
Isaiah 8:20 is found in the Bible.
Gal 1:6-9 is found in the Bible.
Acts 17:11 - is found in the Bible.
Luke 24-- and you probably agreed to the "All the scriptures" statement of Luke 24:27
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Which of the texts (including John 16) did you find "unbiblical" and why?
That is not quite correct - rather the more accurate statement is "IN THESE TEXTs of scripture - SCRIPTURE says it is to be used as the test of all doctrine tradition and practice."
You are free to take issue with that - but that is the statement.
On the contrary - exegesis is by definition 'objective'.
"until you read John 17" where Christ said explicitly 'I do not ask for these alone but for ALL who should believe after them" and Matt 28 the great commission "make disciples of all nations.. teaching them ALL things that I taught you".
IN fulfillment of that command - Matthew writes the "Gospel of Matthew" ... and we "read it". So also John writes 'the Gospel of John" and 'we read it'.
I have stated a point in that quote so irrefutable that I am quite certain even you believed it as a Baptist. Therefore the ball is in your court to refute it.
hardly. What I am doing is showing in places like Acts 17:11 and Luke 24:27 that the very thing you claim 'should not exist' in fact DOES exist. the "All of scripture" the "scriptures" known - long before the first Catholic stepped on to the planet.
Granted that you do not still hold to some of the obvious truths that you used to hold to as a Baptist - but given that you are engaged in this discussion on a "Baptist board" you should "at least" explain the bridge between what even you knew to be true -- to what is now your current position. Which means "assuming it be in error" is not the same as 'showing it to be so".
In which case you should be able to show us the "logic" -- the 'reason' you used to reject a firmly held truth - for your current beliefs. That is only reasonable.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Acts 17:11
“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.”
Sadly that does not fit at all with what we read in Acts 17:11
Acts 17:11
“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.”
In that text it is APOSTOLIC teaching itself that is being judged - primary apostolic teaching of an actual apostle. And it is not Christians -- but rather non-Christians that are doing the 'evaluation'.
And instead of the scripture saying 'How awful" -- they are approved!!
“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.”
Sadly that does not fit at all with what we read in Acts 17:11
Acts 17:11
“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.”
In that text it is APOSTOLIC teaching itself that is being judged - primary apostolic teaching of an actual apostle. And it is not Christians -- but rather non-Christians that are doing the 'evaluation'.
And instead of the scripture saying 'How awful" -- they are approved!!
Common misconception, the Pharisees didn't officially declare their cannon till AFTER Jesus Christ was crucified and it was done IN RESPONSE to the growing Christian threat.
Each Jewish sect had it own set of rules, some just had 5 books some might have had nothing.
The big deal here is anytime Jesus or the apostles quoted the old testament they would quote the Septuagint which contained apocryphal books.
You have to adhere to an AUTHORITY to pick out what books belong in the bible.
I would dispute RCC not writing the scriptures. The authors were Catholic, we are the full Jewish Faith.
We wrote the entire bible.
Jesus Christ is Catholic. We are not a spin off of Jews. When Moses went to see God a majority of the Jews became golden calf worshippers. The righteous remained with God.
Like wise we consider ourselves The righteous that remained with Jesus Christ.
We are that same faith. I see David, Moses, Noah, Adam. The line of my people back from the beginning. Like baby pictures.
Were not some faith trying to qualify to be. The head is Jesus Christ the first Catholic started our faith.
Pope ain't nothing next to a PROPHET. You got a prophet God could have dictated the entire scripture to the prophet and infallible end all.
Anything that prophet said.......infallible automatic scripture. Better and HIGHER then scripture.
Whatever writing she has......Bible caliber or better. Inspired is one thing, dictated by God something else. Moses and John might have had dictated. John got the whole Imax experience.
10 commandments, that's scripture, Author is God you'd think it would earn its own independent page in bible.
If God told her to write it......It is holy scripture DONE. Why isn't Ellen G White in my bible though? tell me its in yours, you got more then 66 books.
If she were catholic. We would not hide her in a closet. We would straight up tell you her words is scripture, we wouldn't care how many frowns that made. Sure enough she'd be in the bible. And slap on the table everything she taught.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The Jew that Christ is speaking to in Luke 24 - would have accepted the same Jewish fact of history that Josephus stated about what was and what was not actually "in the temple" in terms of approved and known scripture. This is not something that the "Baptist Herbert" would have doubted and we are all aware of it as well.
Here you are making up details out of thin air. Josephus' statement about '400 years' refers to the writing of Malachi - .
"We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8)."
"And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609"
Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Ezra 7:8).
Nehemiah came in his twentieth year:
In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before (Nehemiah 2:1).
Therefore the last canonical books were composed in this period.
Between the time of Malachi and Josephus’ writing (425 B.C. to A.D. 90) no additional material were added to the canon of Scripture. Consequently there was the notion of a long period of time without a divinely authoritative Word from God.
Rather - as Josephus points out - the canon of OT scripture was kept in the temple and had not been added to - or subtracted from in over 400 years. Pharisees would be over 400 years too late to do anything about that.
Thus Luke 24;27 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Thus Acts 17:11 "they studied the Scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"
1. Each Jewish sect did not have its own temple.
2. Each Jewish sect was not allowed to trade off - who would decide what books to swap in and out of the temple.
Josephus is hard to refute on this historic fact.
So also the historic fact that the RCC had no role at all in placing the OT canon in the temple - or writing it.
So also the historic fact that there is no disagreement at all that the RCC NT and the Protestant NT are -- the same.
in Christ,
Bob
Here you are making up details out of thin air. Josephus' statement about '400 years' refers to the writing of Malachi - .
"We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8)."
"And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609"
- He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament.
We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule. The Bible says:
Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Ezra 7:8).
Nehemiah came in his twentieth year:
In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before (Nehemiah 2:1).
Therefore the last canonical books were composed in this period.
Between the time of Malachi and Josephus’ writing (425 B.C. to A.D. 90) no additional material were added to the canon of Scripture. Consequently there was the notion of a long period of time without a divinely authoritative Word from God.
Rather - as Josephus points out - the canon of OT scripture was kept in the temple and had not been added to - or subtracted from in over 400 years. Pharisees would be over 400 years too late to do anything about that.
Thus Luke 24;27 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Thus Acts 17:11 "they studied the Scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"
1. Each Jewish sect did not have its own temple.
2. Each Jewish sect was not allowed to trade off - who would decide what books to swap in and out of the temple.
Josephus is hard to refute on this historic fact.
So also the historic fact that the RCC had no role at all in placing the OT canon in the temple - or writing it.
So also the historic fact that there is no disagreement at all that the RCC NT and the Protestant NT are -- the same.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
"They studied the scriptures to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul) were SO' Acts 17:11.
The very thing you claim cannot happen - does not exist - is not affirmed by Scripture. We keep reading it -- you keep insisting it cannot be there.
That sort of "solution" would not convince the Baptist Herbert of anything. So what did convince you in that regard??
=========================
Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.
Christ said they were "sitting in the seat of Moses" --
Matt 23:1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe
The point remains. Christ demonstrated the method of hammering the traditions of the church magisterium - "sola scriptura" in Mark 7:6-13. Contrasting "traditions" with -- the Bible.
I fail to see how the "Baptist Herbert" would have rejected the teaching of Mark 7 on this point.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to this Word - they have no light"
The 'Ark of the Testimony" - contained the TEN Commandments - and the book of the LAW was considered to be all the 5 books of Moses at the time Isaiah is writing. He is talking about all of scripture - known at that time -- not slicing it up -- or downsizing it at all.
Not true at all. Isaiah did not say "Just what I am writing is valid - and is to be used to judge those that come to you with other doctrine" -- Isaiah's text reads nothing like that -- and the "Baptist Herbert" would have taken this same view "as a Baptist" -- I think we both agree to this point on Isaiah 8:20
Certainly we both agree on that point. The fact is "sola scriptura" testing is always valid - at every step .. .valid in Isiah 8:20 .. valid in Acts 17:11 before most of the NT was written - and valid AFTER the NT is complete. AT all stages the rule can be applied.
I could have said that if he wanted to. But instead he speaks about the known - already accepted "LAW and the Testimony".
in Christ,
Bob
The 'Ark of the Testimony" - contained the TEN Commandments - and the book of the LAW was considered to be all the 5 books of Moses at the time Isaiah is writing. He is talking about all of scripture - known at that time -- not slicing it up -- or downsizing it at all.
Not true at all. Isaiah did not say "Just what I am writing is valid - and is to be used to judge those that come to you with other doctrine" -- Isaiah's text reads nothing like that -- and the "Baptist Herbert" would have taken this same view "as a Baptist" -- I think we both agree to this point on Isaiah 8:20
Certainly we both agree on that point. The fact is "sola scriptura" testing is always valid - at every step .. .valid in Isiah 8:20 .. valid in Acts 17:11 before most of the NT was written - and valid AFTER the NT is complete. AT all stages the rule can be applied.
I could have said that if he wanted to. But instead he speaks about the known - already accepted "LAW and the Testimony".
in Christ,
Bob
- Status