Sola Scriptura

I predict that in 50 years that Scofield's notes will be as authoritative to Baptists as the BoM is to the LDS.

 

And most Baptists believe that the gift of prophecy has ceased. So do you think that they would pay any attention to you?

 

You are dead on with your analysis.

 

Seriously now, Why would a Roman Catholic even be on a Baptist Forum?:tonofbricks:

 

I don't see how a Catholic or Orthodox could really disagree. The point is well noted. The position is of of Sola Scriptura and the other is scriptura natus ex Ecclisiam Catholicam. Or Scritures born out of the Catholic Church. A Catholic when discussing scriptures will come from the perspective that The apostolic deposit at first oral, later partly written, are functions of the Church which Christ founded. It is on this basis they would say that the on going conversation of the church was written down by the apostles thus giving their writings deposit authority. Scriptures of the OT are used and revered by the Apostles and only for this reason they are accepted by this body. So Jesus establishes his church by apointement and instruction of his Apostles who expand the Church by making disciples and in their conversation over the teachings of Christ the OT is used thus becomes part of the authority which the Apostles have (referential) and their own writings of course also naturally convey their authority which quickly become the scriptures. They don't see it as an independent authority but that their authority is based on that of apostolic authority and part of the whole deposit of faith. Thus the scriptures are a product of the functioning of the church which they hold is lead by the Holy Spirit into revealing all truth which breathed life into those words. I believe to the best of my knowledge this is the Catholic position. If I am wrong (Catholics or Orthodox or Anglicans) please correct me.

 

They are here. I once had discussions over several months with a Catholic on a FIB discussion board.

 

Did the apostles write down absolutely everything that Christ revealed to them ? Did not Christ trust the apostles, who were eyewitnesses to His works and words , to pass on the truth ? Did the apostles have to wait until the gospels were written before they started to preach ?

 

Writing the Bible was not part of the Great Commission. However, teaching was a part of the Great Commission and the New Testament was a sort of by product of the apostles' teaching.

By the way, Ref. Bapt., you have stated the issues very well. I haven't opened the link yet but I intend to.

 

I've read the link and it states the issues very clearly, as does Ref. Bap.:thumbsup:. White comes out of it much better than Shea; however, he fails ultimately to come up with an answer to the elephant-in-the-drawing-room canonical question: how do you (the evangelical, sola Scriptura-ist) know that all 66 books in your Bible are theopneusta and that no theopneusta Scriptures are missing?

 

The Old Testament was determined before Christ came on the scene. The Jews rejected the Old Testament apocrypha. They were the caretakers of the scriptures.

All of Paul's episltes were already among the congregations and in their possession when 2 Timothy arrived at Ephesus as 2 Timothy was written shortly before Paul's death as he explicitly mentions that his death was imminent (2 Tim. 4:6-13). James is considered to be the eariliest and was among the Jewish congregations long before Paul's death. Since Peter and Paul died about the same time in the same place, Peter's two epistles were already circulating among the Jewish congregations.

Most conservative scholars place the synoptic gospels in the 50-60's AD. Regardless they were written prior to the end of the first century. The gospel and letters of John were all written prior to the close of the first century. Both Peter and Paul identified apostolic writings as inspired (2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet.3:15-16).

Hence, all 66 books were accepted and in possession of the congregations with the originals still in possession of the individual congregations that originally received them even in the second century.

2 Thessalonians 2:2 infers that some counterfit apostolic letters may have been in circulation during the early years of Paul's missionary journeys.

My point is that the churches had the greater bulk of the present New Testament before Paul and Peter died and already had the received Old Testament Scriptures and especially if conservative scholars are correct on the dating of the synoptic gospels prior to the death of Peter and Paul.

This only makes sense because Luke was Paul's companion and Acts was written AFTER the gospel of luke was already concluded (Acts 1:1-2) but must have been concluded before the death of Paul or else he would have included that event rather than ending with only the first two years of Paul at Rome (Acts 28).

Mark was the companion of Peter and concludes his gospel by mentioning only that the apostles went everywhere carrying out the commission without any mention of their death. Hence, it would appear it was written before any of the apostles died and most scholars beleive it was one of the earliest written.

Matthew was an apostle and concludes with the giving of the great commission without any further mention. Again, if Matthew had written this near the end of his own life or after the death of Peter and Paul it is hard to believe he would have not made any references in the final chapter as even Mark did who many believe wrote earlier than Matthew.

My point is that all the Old Testament and all the New Testament scriptures currently in our possession (66) books all had been accepted and received among the first century congregations and were veiwed as authoritative and inspired. Only in the second century and later when counterfits began to arise did the need arise to distinguish between true and false.

 

They were also the ones who didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God AND the ones who ultimately had Him crucified. Now why in the world would any Christian want to follow their canon?

WM

 

You still have not adiquately supplied the answer to the question Matt Black poses.

 

Because Christ declared that they "sit in the seat of Moses" and that they were to obey what they said, just not follow what they do. - Mt. 23:1-3

They were the former holders of the keys of the Kingdom (Mt. 21:43)

 

I have demonstrated that the 66 books were accepted and received by first century congregations as inspired. The latter part of his argument is based upon silence and is no argument.

 

All you have done is demonstrated that 66 books were accepted. There is no challenge to that. What you have not demonstrated is that there were no other inspired texts recieved by 1st Century congregations. We know for a fact other text were used by the early Church as Clement quotes from them and he is not alone. You have failed to demonstrate that the NT is absent of these as source text such as Hebrews refers from 2 Macc. 7. You have failed to explain why much that is in Jesus theology and in Christian Theology goes back to these texts. You haven't explained the Anomally in Jude. You haven't even broached properly the topic that Canon was not set in Jesus' Day as can be seen in the Qumran find. We even find in Qumran the hebrew text to previous only greek text works like Judith and Tobit. Your statement assumes a lot.

 

The first century congregations did not need to establish a New Testament Cannon any more than they needed to distinguish themselves from other "denominations" because there simply were no other competing denominations.

Paul quoted from pagan sources but that does not mean he regarded those sources as inspired by God (Acts 17) any more than does Jude's quotation from Enoch.

Mere references to pagan books, apocrypha statements does not mean they regarded the sources as inspired scripture any more than when I quote portions from Clemnent where he interprets Christ eating and drinking his flesh and blood to be SYMBOLIC rather than Literal. My quotation may support my view of John 6 but that does not mean I believe Clement is inspired scripture:


Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. - Clement

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? "Who washes," it is said, "His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape." In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word. - Clement

 

No you haven't! All you have done is asserted that they were accepted. You have adduced no real evidence in support of that assertion. You haven't even clarified who and where these congregations were, or even how you know that they were 'NT churches' (please also define that term and explain how you arrive at your definition). And that's before you start on how you know that there weren't/ aren't other books that they didn't have that might have been theopneustos...