"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

HP: I simply reacted to your statement. Now you seem to be saying, ‘Do not take “Sola Scripture” at face value, for it only means what I choose to define it as.’

Even in the case of salvation ideas of justice, love, retribution, pardon are involved. Certainly man receives revelation of these ideas necessary for any proper understanding of salvation from sources other than Scripture. What did they do before Scriptures were made available to us in the English language? Has that been a topic of discussion before?

HP: You admit openly that you started from the ’presupposition’ of the round world, NOT Scripture. :laugh:

Now try explaining the four corners. That seems to be a plainly Scriptural notion and not a mere presupposition.

 

Yet you haven't proven this assertion of yours with the Bible:
"RCC fabricated the writings of the ECF's as if they well before Origen had been quoting the Deutrocanonicals as Scripture without distinction"

I ask, Where in the Bible does it say that the RCC "fabricated" such writings as those of Clement of Rome (late 1st century) or Polycarp (early/mid 2nd century) which cite Wisdom of Solomon and Tobit respectively, or the Didache (late 1st to early 2nd c.) which cites Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), or the Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st to early 2nd c.) which cites Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon, or Irenaeus (2nd c.) who refers to Wisdom, the 'additions' to Daniel (Susannah and Bel and the Dragon) and Baruch? (Not too mention references made by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Clement of Alexandria, etc)

 

When the argument comes to the Bible Truth for the Salvation, you cannot rely on anything over the Bible. This is the meaning of the Sola Scriptura. If anyone claim anything over the Bible, he or she is absolutely wrong !

I already told you this argument is about the Bible Truth compared to Apocrypha or ECF's writings. Definitely Bible is superior to anything else, to AP or ECF's, and it contains all the Truth perfect for Salvation and Education, and Edification. If you don't have this faith, you have a very loose faith.
Again Bible is not the book of Science and the science doesn't contradict Bible. Such Truth may be revealed by the Holy Spirit, then we find it doesn't contradict the Bible.
Those verses do not tell us that we should rely on other sources than the Bible for the Salvation, for the Sanctification, for more.

 

HP: The following may or may not be a question that lines up with all the other questions that have been raised. It is simply a question of mine.

Even in light of this overwhelming evidence that many referred to as Apocryphal writings, does it in any way suggest that it should not have been removed from the cannon of Scripture for the reasons it was eventually removed? Should we develop a dogma that says ‘if it is once used by the church, it establishes that it should be continued to be utilized by the church and considered as Holy Writ given to us by the inspiration of God?

 

Where is the proof that Polycarp wrote such documents indeed?
Where is the proof that Barnabas wrote such documents? Who have preserved the documents?
How could you prove that those are not the modern made antiques? If you read them carefully, you can find they often contradict themselves too.
How could you prove that Clement or Iraenaus or Cyprian were Infallible in quoting them? Did they become full of the Holy Spirit equally to the Apostles like Paul, John and Peter?

Just for your Info., in case of Bible, there are 5,366 manuscripts for NT and more than a thousand text for Masoretic Texts, do you have enough evidences for ECF's ?

 

HP: Let’s be practical. Pastor Bob on another thread states that the Scriptures establish the truth of original sin in Psalms 58. I say they do not. What good is a Sola Scriptura argument when Scripture is clearly not a matter of private interpretation, and is obviously open to disagreements as to what it states or implies?

One that emphatically states “Sola Scriptura!’ reminds me of Flip Wilson. He used to state that we should send all the blacks back to Africa, all the French back to France, all the English back to England, and he will stay here and keep the Indians on their reservations.

It all seems a bit self-serving wouldn't you say?

 

Psalm 58 definitely supports Romans 3:10- though Romans quoted Psalm 14:1-3. So, there is nothing wrong with his statement about this.
You may be saying the same argument as Matt Black raised.
However, if the people are truly born again in the Lord, they can hardly have disagreement on such a matter like Salvation by Grace, though they can seriously differ from each other in Eschatology. For example, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia are very much fundamental doctrines. I would start to doubt about the salvation if one denies it. This is so much serious.
Flip Wilson can be understood as a comedy if that's the case.

 

The fact that church historians agree that Polycarp did indeed write his epistle to the Philippians. So unless you can give actual proof that this epistle was a letter fabrication, I'll just chalk up your charge of "fabrication" to gross historical revisionism.

Actually, scholars aren't actually sure who wrote this epistle (ie if Barnabas, which one?). (*But then, no one knows for sure who exactly wrote HEBREWS, for instance*) It has been dated to as early as the late first century to the middle of the second. It was highly regarded in otherwise orthodox areas of the early church, and was actually included in the Codex Sinaiticus.

How do you prove that any historical document (secular or religious) is not modern made antiques? (Other than whether or not they agree with your presuppositions)

In what respects? And if they do "contradict" themselves in some minor or incidental details, so what? Their historical utility lies in the fact they are early witnesses to what the post-apostolic age church believed and practiced--I don't ever recall claiming they were infallible. They are also witnesses to what writings were considered Scriptural. (And many of the same writers wrote against heresy and died martyrs deaths.

I never made that claim. I just said they quoted them on the same level as they did the other Scriptures you do accept. Which means I can turn this around and ask, how do you know that the 27 books (and ONLY these) of the NT you hold in your hands is the correct one? Where is the infallible list of these books in found in history? (Hint: the NT didn't fall out of the sky in one-bound volume with a divinely inspire table of contents)

Bonus question: when was the first recorded list of NT books written that exactly matches the 27 books we have in our NT?

The ironic thing is that even without all the extant NT manuscripts, pretty much the entire text of the NT could be found in the quotes of the ECFs--the same you accuse of being "fabricated" when they are shown to be referring to the LXX Deuterocanonicals as they do to the other Scriptures.

Another Bonus Question: which of the 5,366 manuscripts you referenced has the divinely inspired table of contents of the New Testament (or Old, for that matter) in it?

 

Which church historians? You bring the proofs first ! Then we can examine. Who preserved? Have you preserved the epistle for yourself? How many copies of the epistle are preserved so far? I told you 5,366 manuscripts exist for NT texts and mostly more than 500 manuscripts for each epistle are extant. How many copies exist and who are the people which read and kept the epistles? Were they overall read at the churches? Until you prove it, your epistle is not proven. Onus Probandi is on you until you prove as reliably as the Bible texts are proven.

How many copies exist and which church have read the epistle? I am not sure whether it was included in Sinaiticus. Do you have any proof that it was read at the churches?

That is one good possibility, and the other is that the authors could be wrong in those epistles as they were not infallible. If the epistles were so sure then, why didn't the Believers at the time of canonizing include them in the Bible?

That they fought against the Heresies and martyred doesn't make their writings are Bible. Many people martyred without writing Bibles.
If they claimed the Prayer to the dead, they contradict the Bible as we read Isaiah 8:19-20 and some Psalms. Many modern day exegeses are scriptural but they don't mean the part of the Scriptures. Why didn't RCC declare the Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Polycarp are the part of the Bible? What if their epistles contradict the Bible? Will you follow those epistles departing the Bible?

Yes, I must tell you this. They were preserved by the Hands of God, thru the true believers other than RCC, outside the whorish RCC Idol worshippers, but by the Waldensians and Albigenes while RCC tried to exterminate the Bible, burning the Bible, prohibiting the Bible, exhuming the skeleton of the Bible Translator ( Wycliffe). That's why we call it Textus Receptus.

We do not know the exact time of the earlier time than 157AD but we believe the Bible was carried from Antioch to Waldensians before 150 AD and it was translated into Latin. There were old Latin earlier than Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

Fabricators didn't have to modify the whole things and there could be genuine parts and they could have quoted the Bible as Cyprian did for the Johanine Comma. that doesn't make them infallible as much as the Bible.
The manuscripts were not the autographs but the copies and therefore they can be erraneous and can have flaws. It was the job of the faithful believers like Erasmus who has compiled the Textus Receptus correctly. They coincide with the Latin Bible preserved by the Waldensians, though Erasmus relied mostly on 2-3 manuscripts. This is why TR has very much weight in the discerning the right NT text. You cannot make any ECF's or AP infallible as the Bible NT. 27 NT Bibles were preserved by Waldensians/Albigenes and by Believers in Greek Orthodox area, not by RCC Popes. Why does Vaticanus differ so much from the majority texts?

 

Oh...JND Kelly...Jaroslav Pelikan...F.F. Bruce....(etc)

How many of these 5,366 manuscripts did you preserve yourself or do you possess??
(Come on, man--let's see your evidence)

Oh, so I'm just making it up that Polycarp wrote an epistle to the Philippians. I guess we should just throw out everything in history that doesn't have as many manuscript copies as the NT, so you can just rewrite history without having to bother with any troublesome thing such as...evidence.

Well, perhaps you should get a decent book on the formation of the canon...such as The Canon of Scripture by FF Bruce. On page 206 he lists the books of the Codex Sinaiticus as containing the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in addition to the other NT books.

Where did I say the ECFs wrote the Bible? (Come on, now..focus)

Um...perhaps because they weren't (or proven to be)written by....APOSTLES?

Nope...but I haven't seen any specific instance where the epistles of the Apostolic Fathers "depart" from the Bible

I had then asked how you know that the 27 book NT you have is the right one, and where is the infallible list of NT books found in history. And you responded with this...

Where are your sources? Which respected historians teach this? Where's your proof? And where's your list?


I then posed the "Bonus Question":
When was the first recorded list of NT books written that exactly matches the 27 books we have in our NT? And this was your answer:

Wrong. The first historical list containing our exact 27 book NT was found in the festal letter of Athanasius in AD 367. (Thanks for playing, though)

(And where is your PROOF that the Bible was carried to the Waldensians from Antioch before AD 150? Especially since the Waldensians didn't come into existence until about the 12th century????)


And I'm still waiting for the answer to my other bonus question:
which of the 5,366 manuscripts you referenced has the divinely inspired table of contents of the New Testament (or Old, for that matter) in it?

 

I don't trust the other guys than JND and Kelly, I doubt that JND mentioned ECF's should be considered as important as Bible. Show me any writing by JND claiming ECF's or AP.
Here are the JND books. Which one are you talking about?

http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/author.php?author_id=7&scid=0

None, but they are accepted without contention, but the ECF's or AP are not.

You can re-write what Polycarp said too, though he never said Mary worship, for example.

Have you ever read Aleph ( Sinaiticus)? It is full of errors, ridiculous errors because it was an exercise book by the monks. Monks wrote it for their exercise of Greek language. So, it contains thousands of errors and deleted the story about the woman caught in adultery, and many more verses. It was about to be used for kindling paper for the oven. Nobody claimed Barnabas and Hermes as equal to Bible so far. Are you claiming so?

You are trying to equate the Bible and ECF's.

YOu see? Even RCC count the value of the Waldensians and the Believers outside RCC.

When they called the Mother of God or when RCC brought the Transubstantiation from the ECF.

It was RECEIVED by the faithful Believers like Albigenes and Waldensians.

If you go into depth about Waldensians you can find it. I can help you but I am busy at the moment. Even the other day I found the article about Italian Believers before the RCC who brought the Bible.

It was in the Old Latin, not the Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

I already explained you the ones. It was not the single mss but a few of them mainly used by Erasmus. I cannot recall the exact number of them but Erasmus used mainly a few of them. However, apart from Greek NT, there are more than 9000 Latin texts before 1517, most of them coincide with Textus Receptus. So the edition of TR was quite well done according to the guidance by the Holy Spirit. No other Bible version will be comparable until the time of Lord's coming. I gurantee you that KJV will still remain as the Best seller reaching up to 6 Billion volumes so far, until Jesus comes again.

Finally you can never make ECF's or AP comparable to the Bible.
Bible has passed thru so many arguments and proving process in many ways. You can establish another religion based on ECF's and AP, but it will not be the Christian's as Mormons are not.

So, your stance sounds similar to Mormons, to me.

 

GE

Thanks Matt. So the 'test' very much comes down to what the essential character of the document is, which is also indicated by these omissions and inclusions that went of through history. In the very last analysis it is the believer and honesty that is the verdict? Then we must accept God in His Providence hasn't had much of a role to play. We are getting sceptical, and I don't think a Christian should.

 

Except that there are numerous warnings in the NT, particularly in the epistles, against the 'wolves' of gnosticism (and bear in mind that the Gnostics were by and large responsible for the 'Apocryphal Gospels and Acts' etc) eg: by Paul to the Colossians and to Timothy, John warning against the docetists. You also have to bear in mind that the Gnostic literature to which you refer may not have been written until after the NT, and it is therefore unlikely that the NT writers would have referred to specific Gnostic texts eg: the 'Gospel of Peter', whereas the LXX was extant at the time of the NT.

So, not quite an argument from silence or a logical blind-alley!

[ETA - I now see that DT and AD got there before me!]

 

I think that the point is that its removal by Luther and others later amounted to a unilateral act ie: Martin Luther came back to his Bible having arrived at his conclusion of sola fide by earlier study of the same Bible and said to himself: "Hang on a minute, there's some stuff in here which doesn't agree with me! Let's take it out because it can't be right because it doesn't agree with me!" On this basis he removed the DCs from the OT and he would have removed , inter alia, James and Revelation from the NT had not wiser counsels prevailed.

Contrast this unilateralism with the corporate, consensual, collegiate and conciliar attitude of the whole Church to the determination of the Canon back at the end of the 4th century.

 

[Hand up in air] Oooh! Oooh, sir! I know this one! Athanasius in 367AD. [/hand up in air]

[ETA - but I now see you answered your own question!]

 

Oh. Dear. Me.

We're not talking about John Nelson Darby here, but J N D Kelly who is a renowned theologian and patristic scholar.

 

Except that this is the whole problem with regard to the debate about the Canon: either we trust that Christ in His providence established - at least for the first 1000 years or so of its existence - a Church - His Body - which was blessed with and possessed of the charism of infallible or at least indefectable guidance when it came to matters such as the determination of which were the correct books to go into the OT and NT, amongst other things and that that guidance was given in particular to the successors of the Apostles who met together in Council to determine these things...or it comes down to the writ of an individual such as Wycliffe, Luther, you or me to decide such matters, which to my mind is putting an individual in a position of authority over God's Holy Word, and I for one am not willing to assume that awesome responsibility

 

Uh...okay... [brackets comments in the quote are mine]

Why don't you trust them? Is it because the disagree with the pseudo-historians that you prefer--you know, the "trail of blood" types? Otherwise, give me a specific example of why you don't trust them.

Again, where is your evidence that Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians has been "re-written"? And where did I state that Polycarp said anything about "Mary worship" in this epistle?

I had merely offered Polycarp as an example (among many) of a faithful early Christian leader (he was bishop of the church in Smyrna) who quoted some of the LXX books (eg Tobit) on the same level as other Scripture. (I never said Polycarp's letter was canonical Scripture itself!)

"Exercise book by the monks" huh? Was it subtitled "Sweating to the Oldies in the Desert?" :laugh:
Seriously, I'm not disputing that Sinaiticus had some omissions, but where is your evidence that it was an "exericse book by the monks"?

I am? When did I do this? All I did was offer the example of some of the earliest respected ECFs quoting the LXX (Deuterocanonicals) as they did other Scripture. I also pointed out that the Epistle of Barnabas (whoever it was who wrote it) was highly regarded in certain otherwise orthodox areas of the early Church and even had a measure of local canonicity. At the very least it was considered useful and edifying and was read in many of the churches as evidenced by it's inclusion in the Codex Sinaiticus (along with the Shepherd of Hermas at the end ot that codex).

Please...sir...just put down the Jack Chick comic books and...walk...away

 

If that's the case, I don't know JND Kelly, but do know John Nelson Darby and William Kelly. A great man of God.

If you read any book of William Kelly, you will be surely blessed.

http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/author.php?author_id=385&scid=0

Hundreds of his books prove who he was.

Of course JND was also famous for his writings. Darby often used the initial as JND.

http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/author.php?author_id=7&scid=0

His life proves him. No one can doubt about his life. A great man of God

 

It's been fun while it lasted folks; but it is time to start a new thread on this topic (only if you so desire). This one will be closed.