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

Just out of curiousity you ever read Eusibius?

 

I disagree with you, Matt, and here is why: In the book of Acts, when Judas hanged himself, the remaining apostles got together and chose, by lot, a new apostle, Matthias. One of the criteria used as a basis for choosing the pool of men from whom the apostle was to be chosen was that they had to have known Christ "from the beginning" of His earthly ministry. This is a basic qualification of an apostle. Later, in Acts, when the apostle James was martyred no replacement for him was named. If the apostles themselves did not continue to replace each apostle as they passed from this life, then they demonstrate that apostolic succession is unnecessary and non-existant. Given the fact that "being with Jesus from the beginning" is a qualification for an apostle, apostolic succession becomes impossible.

The authority of the church for faith and practice is, therefore, scripture alone. More specifically, the authority is the New Testament alone for that is the record of what Jesus said and did and it is the record of what his personally chosen representatives taught.

 

Oh, thinkingstuff, I am pretty sure I read some of Eusibius in seminary, but if you give me a 10 question mulltiple choice test, I doubt I pass it. If you give me a T/F test, well, I just hope I'm a good guesser!

 

though it sounds reasoned its actually a non-sequitor. That's not what apostolic succession means. It means with the authority the apostles had was passed down to their succesors. Which is why eusibius spent a lot of time showing which churches were established by which apostles and who took up the leadership role after them. Which is why I asked if you read Eusibius. Its a good read about early church history.

 

If one reads the ECF he will quickly realize they do not agree among themselves.

 

Apostolic Tradition is just that "tradition," and is not authoritative by any stretch of the imagination. In fact what scholars produce today is no doubt far more authoritative than what the ECF had to say back then, simply because of the greater resources that we have available to us. We have available to us all 66 books of the Bible all at one time right in front of us. We have all the writings of the ECF available to us at the click of a mouse. We have such helps that we take for granted like a Strong's Concordance. We can rely on all the scholastic scholarship and history that has gone before us. Is it not true that hindsight is better than foresight.

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

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

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

The only authority that we have is in the Bible, the inspired 66 books that God has given us as His revelation to mankind. There is no other revelation, no other authority.

 

This particularily is incorrect assertion. Rome did bother with false teachers. Also several of the ECF were also martyred. So that argument doesn't follow.

 

Yes some of them were. It was a general statement; not an all encompassing one. Those who taught false doctrine had a far better chance of escaping Rome's wrath than the evangelical Christian who spread the "deadly poison of the gospel."

 

Believing Christians were definately the main course for Roman persecution but that did not exclude other. Kind of like Nazi Germany's primary people of persecution were Jews but many Gypsies, poles, Russian, and others were killed. Any one who threaten roman authority felt its bite.

 

A few responses, first to Matt:

My point is that the appointed successors were not appointed by the original 12.

Paul defends his apostleship in the book of Galations. He does point out that his position is unique. He also points out that he received his revelation directly from Jesus. Given this, are you denying that he was an apostle? There are others in the NT who are apostles in an adjectival sense (such as Barnabas), but are not given the word as a title.

And to Thinkingstuff

Well, the original term that Matt used was apostolic tradition which seems a little loosely defined as well.

Apostle is an office. My contention is that the office is not passed on. See my earlier explanation. The original apostles duplicated the miracles of Jesus during their own earthly ministries; raising the dead, healing the sick, etc. Which successor is doing these works today? The original apostles penned portions of the NT which have been held as authoritative by the church since the documents were received. Which successor has that authority today? Paul claims in Galations that he received the gospel by direct revelation from Jesus. Which successor is receiving such today?

 

Still, written text is more solid than oral tradition. this next point will illustrate this:

This is what happens. A lot of practices not mentioned in scriptures can be justified by the fallacy "Our church holds the true Apostolic practice, because our practices were the unwritten Apostolic practice, because our church holds the true Apostolic practice...".
In debates I have been in on other subjects, I've found a useful principle called Occam's Razor, which states we should not start with an assumption like that. There is simply not enough evidence for that; only supposition. It looks like the "traditions" simply developed, and then the church simply projected them back to the Apostles. That's the most simple and realistic explanation with the evidence we have.

 

How do you come to this point? Again you really don't know this and can speculate about it. Eusibius believes that they did.

Nor was he the primary pastor of any church. His function was more of a missionary and Church builder.

Its an interesting point but a speculative one. Though you do make a good point about signs that the apostles performed.

 

I come to this point because, while the apostles DID appoint a successor to Judas, they did not appoint a successor to James when he was martyred.

I have no doubt at all that the apostles appointed bishops and elders. Paul gives specific instructions about this. These men were successors in that they carried on the work of teaching, leading, and administrating. However, nowhere does he appoint another apostle.

 

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD not long after James death. But he did leave a bishop of Jerusalem until then. New ones had to be appointed afterwards.

 

Thinkingstuff, of course the apostles left bishops. The church has always had bishops. No one questions this. The term in question is not "bishopric tradition" nor "bishopric succession". The term in question is "apostolic". No apostle was ever appointed after Paul. There is no apostolic succession. That is why the church's authority rests in the material that the apostles left us: the New Testament.

 

He wrote them in the standard from of a letter during that time in history and in that culture. We do the same thing today when we write a letter.

 

Good point.
If there was truly Apostolic succession, then such Scripture as John describing the holy Jerusalem would be meaningless:

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Obviously, there were only twelve apostles, and no succession.

 

I had not heard that argument before. Thanks for stating it.