Christianity and how the bible was put together

You have a lot going on in these posts, and appear not to be finished as yet. I cannot take the time to respond to every point, but would simply have to say that what I learned in basic church history still holds true: that the Christian movement was stabilized in its early centuries by "church, creed, and canon" -- that is, the formation of a structure (the monarchical episcopate), the formulation of creeds (Nicene, Chalcedonian, etc), and the determination of a list of sacred texts, examined in terms of their inclusion in Jamnia for the OT and the universality of their use and their apparent source in the eyewitnesses to the Incarnation in the case of the NT.

So we do have to say that while the Bible shaped the church, so also the church shaped the Bible. Not by picking and choosing for convenience' sake, but testing for consistency, provenance, and acceptability.

 

I think it's fair to say that the Church gave us the NT - by the process of canonisation, but the OT is more problematic. I think however that a stronger case can be made for the inclusion of the DCs (simply by virtue of the LXX being the 'default version' in NT times prior to Jamnia-Javneh) than for their exclusion.

 

I don't know that I see a Sola Fides issue here, in that Luther understood faith to mean fiducia rather than assensus -- that is to say that faith is not placed in Scripture per se, but in Christ Himself. But as for the Sola Scriptura question, the Reformers cannot be said to have been consistent with that principle; otherwise they would have reformed the sacramental and structural elements of the church far more deeply.

You raise good points, to which there is no easy answer, as again Luther ruminated on the usefulness of some Biblical material (remember his assessment of James as an "epistle of straw"?). Some form of rationalism is beginning to show up, as we might expect at that period of history -- a rationalism that brings personal judgment to bear on even the text of Scripture. Something we still do when, for example, we value a gospel passage as of more value to us that, say, a ritual prescription in Leviticus. A flat Bible, where every passage is given equal value to every other passage, does not pass muster with common sense, does it?

 

I think that sola Scriptura may be a bit of a straw man as far as Luther is concerned, since he didn't really believe it himself but in reality subscribed to what we could call suprema Scriptura: he certainly didn't reject Tradition, but where Tradition and Scripture apparently conflicted, Scripture for him won through. Thus he rejected Purgatory and indulgences, for example, not because they weren't explicitly in Scripture but because they were the product of Tradition which was in conflict with Scripture (or at least how he read Scripture); specifically that they were in conflict with the doctrine of sola fide which he believed to be in Romans. (So, incidentally, was James, hence his 'epistle of straw' comment.)

 

I don't think that's fair to say at all. Quite inaccurate in fact. The NT already existed by the time of canonization. The NT was given to us by God. The church merely recognized what God had already inspired.

The OT is not difficult at all. Even before the time of Christ the OT canon was well known. And the DC was not among them. In fact, the DC was never recognized by the NT church as being part of the canon of Scripture.

 

Evidence for your assertions, please.

 

Church history.

 

I must have missed this somewhere because all I saw was your assertion that the NT quoted from the LXX (probably true and of no real consequence) and that they cited a DC book (also true). That hardly testifies to the acceptance of the DC unless you are also willing to acknowledge that Epicurius, ancient poets, the books of the Wars of the Lord, the book of Jasher, etc, were also canonical. I don't know of anyone willling to make that argument (though I have learned to not be surprised by anything). The fact is that quotation of a something doesn't make an argument that the source was canonical.

I didn't say it was cut and dried. There was debate, but the debate was settled by the providence of God so that the canon was settled.

 

Specifically? How come for example the Muratorian Canon was not the correct one (and thus apparently not inspired by the HS) but the Canon of the Councils of Carthage and Hippo were? And do you have any evidence pre-Jamnia that the LXX was not used by the Jews?

 

Exactly - who did the 'debating' and 'settling'?

 

The testimony of church history is clear on this. There are specifics all over which have been argued in many sources. I don't have them in front of me, but any basic book on the topic from a solid perspective will provide the information on this.

The Muratorian Canon was widely recognized to be deficient. The others were not. Again, the testimony of the church settled this matter in the providence of God. But you seem still under the impression that the church somehow determined this as opposed to God determining it. I would urge to consider the relationship between inspiration and canonicity because I think it is a key issue.

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

 

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

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

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