Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

Don't you see DHK, you reject the Mormon claim because of a lack of historical accuracy and lack of historical evidence.

That is the problem with your claim of how Scripture was recognized.

There is no evidence that the Scriptures (NT) were instantly recognized by early Christians. Historical evidence shows that there was much disagreement. There are historical documents which show disagreement among early Christians as to what is Scripture.

You recognize it because it's in your Bible. I very much doubt that you would have produced the same Bible if you had to choose from the many writings of the Apostles that were available.

Again, historical evidence is not on your side on this.

Well this is an interesting admission. In another thread you claimed that you and early Christians could easily recognized Scripture because it had to have been written by an Apostle. When I asked you why you rejected other writings of the Apostles as uninspired, your response indicated a lack of awareness of such writings.

You keep falling back on this response whenever we have this discussion. That is not the issue. I believe that God is the author of Scripture. That is not the issue. The issue is how do we know what God wrote and what man wrote.

So far all of your arguements have failed, DHK.

We can't just "know" that the Bible is Scripture like the Mormons do with their book of Mormon.

We can't say that we know because early Christians "instantly recognized" Scripture. Historical evidence doesn't support this but rather shows disagreement among the early Christians.

We can't just make a list of qualifications, such as "an Apostle had to write it", because such a list would not be able to include all of the Books of the NT and at the same time exclude all of the uninspired writings.

Do you have another explanation of how we know what is/is not Scripture without the authority of the Church?

Ron

 

Isn't interesting that Carson is pointing out a seeming contradiction in the Scriptures that he says his Church decided was canonical. The canon was decided upon long before the Church of Rome made it official. It was certain schools of heretics in the second century that fomented a need for a canon although there were already Scriptures that were recognized as authoritative by believers especially the four Gospels.

 

Psalm:

Can you please cite your reference for this statement?

 

which statement? The one about Carson or about the canon?

[ December 07, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

Psalm, what is your evidence of this?

Ron

 

Jesus Christ established the means by which His Word would be communicated to distant areas and in future times. he called the apostles to follow Him and "come away" from their other interests and learn from Him. These apostles were commissioned to preach and were given "power against unclean spirits..., to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease, " or to share in some of the things Christ Himself did (Matt. 10, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16). Christ promised them help in doing this after he would leave the earth. He promised a "Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name; he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you" (John 14:26, ASV). This promise is most significant. It promised the apostles guidance in their teaching and writing, to enable them to recall and teach all things He had taught them. This promise was again made before His ascension (Acts 1:8).

The apostles knew of this "power of attorney" to represent Christ and of the Holy Spirit's guidance in carrying out the task. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, "When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13). To the Corinthians he wrote that, "We have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God... And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit" (1 Cor. 2:12-13, RSV). Since he received it from Christ, he could tell his readers to "take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37, also 7:10, ASV), or that "if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him; that he may be ashamed: (2 Thess. 3:14). Paul also gave many other indications that he received his message from Christ (Gal. 1:12, Eph. 3:3, 1 Cor. 15:8, Acts 9:3-6), and that "it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3:5). The writer of Hebrews also knew of the same Holy Spirit guidance of the apostles; "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation" which, having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will" (Heb. 2:3-4, ASV). John also knew of the same Holy Spirit guidance; he said, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 1:1-2, ASV; 1:10-11, 19; 2:1ff; 4:2; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5). These Scriptures show that they apostles knew of the guidance that enabled them to write with Christ's authority. This was the method Christ established to communicate His Word to distant areas and to future times.

The Apostles and Oral Tradition
There are basically two different forms of communication, oral and written. The apostles used both in exercising their "power of attorney" to present Christ's Word. The oral form is by far the earliest form used and dates back to the their first commission to "preach" (Matt. 10, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16). Apostolic preaching was for many years the only form used and held a place of high importance throughout the Apostolic era. Since this such an important form of communication, authorized by Christ for use by the apostles, we should understand it and be acquainted with the New Testament concept of it.

In the New Testament there are many references to this oral form. Luke wrote that his writings "were delivered . . . unto us (Luke and his contemporaries) which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:1-4). Jude also wrote that when he was eager 'to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Paul wrote, "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15).

The Apostles and the Written Word
As time passed, the apostles increasingly put their communications into a written form. This can be concluded from the Scriptures cited in the last section, in which there is evidence of an increase in the use writing as the church spread. This was an expected and natural development. As the apostles opened work in more distant areas, they could keep in contact with churches by writing. Also it was inevitable that the apostles would die one by one. These two factors made the certainty of the apostles' oral traditions doubtful, thus placing greater importance on the written word. The written word quickly received a place of high significance. It was placed on the same level as the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul's letters were read in church gatherings on the same level as Old Testament Scriptures (1 Thess. 5:27, Col. 4:16). Peter classed Paul's letter with the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15). John presupposed that his Book of the Revelation would be read as other Scriptures (Rev. 1:3).

It is clear from the above that the written word was given great significance, and as time passed it was given greater priority over the oral form of transmission. Actually the written word was a fixation of the oral form.

The New Testament Canon
Thus far we have established a relationship between the apostles' written word and Christ's historical redemptive events. The question now arising is, "How did the apostles' writings come together to form the New Testament canon--the collection of books which are received as genuine and inspired Holy Scripture?" The answer to this question is simple. The Christians and the church simply acknowledged the apostles' authority and accepted their writings, and writings of those intimately associated with them (as Mark and Luke), as part of the Holy Scripture. The church did not put together a canon that made books authoritative because they were included in it. The church only acknowledged what was given by the apostles, and included books in the canon because of this apostolical authority. They never regarded these books as anything else than canonical.

The actual canonization process took a long time. At first each of the apostle/s writings were acknowledged individually as authoritative. There was no canon of them that gave them authority because they were in it. But as time passed the need for a canon increased. False teachers arose and questioned the authority of certain of the writings that did not agree with their ideas. This forced the Christian brotherhood to gather together the individual apostle/s writings and assemble them into a canon. The church gathered together the writings that were accepted as the apostles' from the very beginning. This was no real problem for the church since she as a whole generally acknowledged the same writings. The writings that were questioned were small in number and then generally questioned only in late times by obviously false teachers and in small local areas.

Today we accept the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as authoritative and can do so without the slightest doubt. We depend on the early Christians' decisions that each of the twenty-seven books has apostolic authorship. We do this since there were in a much better position to judge. The reason for this lies in the concept of apostolicity, which limits it to a certain place and time. Those at the correct place and time, the recipients of each writing, are in the best position to say where the writings came from. Thus we accept their decision and can do so with confidence since the Holy Spirit was at work guiding the decision.

In summary, the New Testament is our authority in religious matters because it is tied to the historical redemptive events. Christ established the means by which it was written. He called apostles to give His Word and gave the Holy Spirit as a guide. The early Christians accepted their word as Christ's Word because of this call. The early church gathered together the apostles' writings, and by acknowledging their authority from Christ, completed the last step in the recording of the final revelation of God to man, the New Testament.

Canon of Scripture

[ December 07, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

DHK, you keep avoiding the question concerning the other writings of the Apostles that were not accepted as Scripture.

Why do you not accept everything written by the Apostles as Scripture?

Also, you are misrepresenting the arguement. No one is saying that the Church made the writings authoratative by virtue of including them in the Canon. But the Church did recognize which were inspired and which were not.

Now, please answer my question, why do you not accept "all" of the writings of the Apostles as inspired? Why only some?

Ron

[ December 07, 2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

As far as the authenticity of the historical events of the Old Testament are concerned I will take Jesus word over yours any day. He referred to them many times in his discourses and never doubted them.
DHK

 

Greetings DHK:
I have a couple of questions about this post of yours.....

Do you think it is not possible for the Holy Spirit to still be guiding the successors to the apostles today?

DHK, this statement is simply not true. What about Hebrews? Can you say without a doubt who wrote it? This would not meet the criteria above. I am sure you are aware that there were several letters that were written by the apostles that are not accepted as inspired. The truth of the matter is that Councils met, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the canon was formed.

This is not exactly true either...There were 20 different books of the Acts alone that were brought up by different people all claiming that they should be inspired. It was left up to the Church to decide what, if any were truly inspired. Thank God for the Holy Spirit in guiding them.

You depend on them for such an important thing as this and yet you dont give much importance, if any at all, to their interpretation of crucial Scriptual texts. I think you do not because of the simple fact that their interpretations are distinctively Catholic.

God bless...

[ December 07, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

No, absolutely not. For the very reason that we believe in a closed canon. You may disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, but I believe that the verses in Rev.22:18,19, and in 1Cor.13:8-13 speak of a closed canon. You might consider this scenario. Suppose we did have the Holy Spirit giving revelation today. That is what the Charismatics believe. Then all the dreams, visions, words of prophecies, etc., of all Charismatics would have to be gathered together from all Charismatics from all over the world, collated and put together; for they also are God's revelation, God's Word. I believe that God finished giving revelation at the time of the Apostles for the reasons given in Revelation 22 and 1Cor.13.

[QUOTEDHK, this statement is simply not true. What about Hebrews? Can you say without a doubt who wrote it? This would not meet the criteria above. I am sure you are aware that there were several letters that were written by the apostles that are not accepted as inspired. The truth of the matter is that Councils met, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the canon was formed.[/QUOTE]
I can't say who the author was, and I don't think anyone can with great authority, although there is some consensus that it was Paul. It was "holy men of old (including the apostles by extension) that were inspired) not the councils.

Yes, and like I have mentioned before, even to this day we have over 5,000 manuscripts dating as far back to the time of John. None of them differed in doctrine, only in copyists errors and other minor areas. The early believer were honest enough to allow these manuscripts to exist up to this date to prove the authenticity of the books of the Bible. Unlike the Muslims, who only date back to the seventh century, when it was found out that there were copies of the Koran in circulation, and some contradicted others; also some of the followers of Mohammed still had the Koran committed to memory (howbeit perhaps not perfectly), then that present Caliph commanded all the copies of the Koran to be gathered together. He from those copies made one official copy, and then burned the rest. The Muslims do not have their original Koran, nor copies that even come close to the originals. They were all burned. I say that to say this. The Christians had nothing to hide. They knew they had the word of God, and gladly spread it abroad according to the Great Commission, and so it mightily increased, not only in the Greek, but also in other translations as well.

Many of the earliest church fathers did not have a such a Catholic interpretation as you may think. Others were down right heretics, as Origen whom you claim as one of yours. He is known as the "Father of Arianism," and Eusbius was highly influenced by him. There is good reason not to trust many of the church fathers. Ireaneus thought that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80!
DHK

 

I agree...the canon of Scripture is closed (Jude 3). I do not think there is ongoing revelation from God. I was speaking of the Holy Spirit guiding the successors of the apostles(keeping them from doctrinal error) when they speak collectively like in Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem.

I said...

To which you responded...

I agree with you here. My point was that since no one was sure who wrote Hebrews, it would not fit the criteria for acceptance into the canon of the New Testament that you posted.
If the councils were not guided by the Holy Spirit, then there could have been error in the canon.

I never heard that Ireaneus believed that. Im not saying he did'nt, but never heard it. I find it hard to believe that one can read the early fathers and say that they didnt have Catholic beliefs. I find it interesting that one can not find one early Christian who wrote against beliefs such as the Eucharist, especially if they are such heretical beliefs as you and others claim. How could there not be an uproar from the ones who did not believe?? I think you cant find this because it was the clear teaching of the apostles and was handed on to their successors.

[ December 07, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

Only that part of the conclusion of the council at Jerusalem is inspired Scripture, and recorded as such. Luke records the event as history. But all that was said was not inspired; only that which James tells and then sends Barnabus and Paul to inform others.
The Holy Spirit does not guide a council of believers in any greater way than He would any believer like Briguy, Lorelei, or myself. When I was born again (not of baptism), but of the Holy Spirit of God, God's Spirit came to dwell within me. He took up residence within me and began to change me. He also gives every believer greater understanding in the Scriptures than the unbeliever, or as the Scriptures puts it "the natural man."

1Cor.2:12-14
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--The saved person has been given the spirit which is of God, that he might know that things that are given to us of God (Scripture). However, the unsaved man does not receive or understand spiritual things, (the Bible primarily); it is foolishness to him; neither can he know them. Why? He does not have the Holy Spirit residing in him.
If the councils were made of men who were only believers according to man, and not born into God's family, then the theological decisions that they made were entirely man-made, and without any influence from God's Holy Spirit at all.
Every truly born-again believer can:
"come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb.4:16)
We can do that because we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us, and Jesus Christ is our only mediator.
DHK

 

DHK, there is absolutely no historical support for your idea that early Christians "instantly recognized" Scripture or that Paul told them "this is inspired - this is not".

Please, present actual historical evidence that your view is correct.

Ron

 

DHK:

You still have not given a clear answer to how the book of Hebrews was accepted if this was indeed the criteria for acceptance into canon. The question would have arisen; "Who wrote Hebrews?" Well...I think Paul, but were not sure would not suffice under your historical account of qualifications.

 

I find this interesting. And DHK, please keep in mind I am not saying this just for the sake of arguing. If the Holy Spirit guides all of you, how do you explain the differences that you may have or the differences that so many Christian denominations do have? They all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and use the bible as their only guide. I think you will agree that the Holy Spirit is not the author of all this confusion, but the Author of Truth.

The Councils were not made of men who were only believers according to man. It is the very fact that they were guided by the Holy Spirit that we have the canon of Scripture that we have today. Not because they were holy or not holy, but because of the love of God and through the Holy Spirit that we can be sure.

[ December 08, 2002, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

I may be addressing a debate that has long been worn out here, but I wanted to touch on the subject of the Trinity that was mentioned ealier.

A great example of God being three, but still one, is found when we study a certain miracle where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seen acting as one, yet are obviously distinct.

When Christ was raised from the dead who raised Him? In John we see Jesus proclaim:

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19).

The verses following 19 (20-21) clearly teach that the "temple" Jesus was referring to was His body which He would raise Himself.

Acts 2:32 informs us that God raised Jesus from the dead.

This Jesus hath God raised up, wherof we all are witnesses (Acts 2:32).

Romans 8:11 teaches that it was the Spirit who raised Christ.

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you (Rom 8:11)…

From these three verses we see the undeniable Trinity at work. The Father, Son, and Spirit ALL took part in Christ's resurrection.

www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com
www.whowillbeleftbehindandwhen.com

 

Better late than never. I wasn't trying to ignore your point here. If you look at the time that I originally responded to this post, I hope you might understand that it is all that I had time for then.
Anyway, as to the authorship of Hebrews, would it not be quite conceivable that after 2,000 years of the passing of history the authorship of the Book of Hebrews may be in question to us. But since the book had to be written by an apostle, and the book had to be extant to be considered inspired, then I would presume they would know who the author was at that time. That would only make sense. The apostles and that generation following certainly knew who wrote the book. Sometime in history, for some reason, we lost that information, although a strong case can still be made for Pauline authorship.
But the fact that I don't know for sure doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the early believers knew who wrote it. How else would they accept such a book. That was a condition that was set in place by which a book was accepted into the canon--it's apostolicity.
DHK