1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Limitations Of HIstorical Study

Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by Mark Osgatharp, Sep 18, 2003.

  1. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    I think Athanasius Canon did have it in AD 367 (I think :confused: ) but the issue is not if some isolated individual or church or churches accepted it but in overall Christianity did not. Do you think in AD 100 a few years after Apostle John's death that most Churches if any had a idea of 27 New Testament books? since Christianity extented from the Middle East to parts of Northern Europe and communication was slow and most churches had only parts of the New Testament. :confused: :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Kiffin,

    You're right--Athanasius listed the exact 27 books in our NT in his Pascha (Easter) Letter in 367 AD. (Interestingly, he excludes Esther from the OT--listing it with the Deuterocanon--while including the "Apocryphal" portions of Daniel as well as Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah in the OT Canon). A few years before him the Synod of Laodicaea listed 26 books excluding Revelation. The same 27 was listed again at the Council of Hippo in 363--four years before the Council of Carthage.

    You make a good point about most churches not having the complete NT for decades to centuries due to the geographic extent of the church and the time it took to copy and transmit copies of Scripture. There was no express mail or printing press. Yet, the Holy Spirit was able to use what Scriptures were available in the various churches even before the exact 27 book NT canon was finally delineated.
     
  2. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    If what you say about this council is true, by rejecting the book of Revelaton they heaped to themselves the condemnation of Christ who, immediately on publication of the Revelation, pronounced an anathema on all who rejected it.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  3. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    You obviously have no idea what Landmark Baptists mean by "church authority." We do not claim the churches have authority to decide what is the truth. We claim the churches were the institutions authorized to implement the truth revealed in the New Testament.

    The decrees of that first Judean baptist association meeting was infallible because it was directed by the apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is unfathomable to me that a man who calls himself a Baptist would compare a council of inspired apostles with a Johnny-come-lately Catholic council which he readily admits was wrong on the Old Testament canon.

    Church councils are irrelevant as far as determing what the truth is. They can be useful, however, in proclaiming the truth to their generation.

    Thre is no problem with a group of churches declaring their commonly held beliefs so the world may know where they stand. There is a problem with taking such declarations as a standard of truth.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  4. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Then, the question remains how do you know that the collection of 66 books found in your Bible is the correct one? Why isn't the Bible that has the "Deuterocanonicals" the one that has the correct collection? How do you know that Jesus didn't mean for the "Deuterocanonicals" to be included, and that you are subtracting from God's Word? (Indeed, these books were uniformly regarded as Scripture by the Christians during the first few centuries of the Church.) How do you know you are right other than your own subjective preference? </font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting for an answer....
     
  6. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas,

    My answer remains the same:

    The bottom line is, the only way any man knows that the Scriptures are true is by his faith in them. As John said,

    You asked,

    I guess I'm supposed to say "By the declaration of the Council of Carthage, of course" - except that the Council of Carthage didn't have 66 books - it had 72. In addition to the books that you and I acknowledge as canonical it included 2 extra books of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and 2 books of the Maccabees.

    Matt explained this by stating that the Council of Janius - a council of perfidious Jews - settled the Old Testament canon toward the end of the first century. I may have missed something, but I don't recall hearing your line on this problem.

    Two questions:

    1. Explain why you acknowledge Carthage as authoritative on the New Testament while you admit it was in error on the Old.

    2. How do you know you are right about the Council of Carthage other than your own subjective preference?

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  7. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    The bottom line is, the only way any man knows that the Scriptures are true is by his faith in them. </font>[/QUOTE]Then that's not much of an answer (or at least not a complete one). Where in Scripture did Christ say: "Okay, men. After I'm gone you fellows are going to write the New Testament. Matthew, you'll write one of the four accounts which will be known as the "Four Gospels". Peter you'll write two epistles and you'll have a sidekick named Mark who'll write the second "Gospel". My brothers James and Jude will each write one letter. John, you'll write last of all. You'll write the fourth gospel, three epistles, and when you're exiled on the island of Patmos in about 60 years I'll give you a Revelation that you will not forget. Now, there's this other guy named Paul who at first will hate you guys but then once he sees the light, I'll get him to write thirteen epistles to various churches and people. He will have a travelling companion named Luke, a Gentile physician, who'll write the third gospel and then a history about the missionary endeavors of some of you guys called "The ACTS of the APOSTLES". There will be another letter which will be written to the Hebrews, but who the author of that letter will be is a secret! As for the rest of you, sorry, but nothing you may write will be in the New Testament." In other words, where did Christ specifically determine the exact limits of the New Testament Canon? Now, in one sense He indeed determined the NT by inspiring only certain works and not others. But in another sense, the sense of recognition of this inspiration, He did not leave us with an inspired "Table of Contents" of the NT as described above in that fictitious quote. It was the CHURCH, the Body of Christ, that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit overtime recognized this canon. It was the CHURCH that finally fixed the Canon by rejecting other works, including some that claimed apostolic authorship and divine inspiration. It was the Holy Spirit working through the CHURCH that completed this process of canonization. It is not based on one individual's claim of guidance by the Spirit. For you imply that is by your faith that you know what the true Scriptures are. Another, however, could just as easily claim that his faith lets him know that the true extent of inspired Scripture includes the Deuterocanonicals. Who is right? Who referees between these two opposing faith claims?

    </font>[/QUOTE]By this quote, I am assuming you are referring to the witness of the Holy Spirit, and I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit acts in such a role. However, when asked how they know they have the correct interpretation of Scripture, Christians will often respond in this kind, claiming it's the witness of the Holy Spirit that assures them they are correct. But what of this? One believer is convinced that Calvinism is correct, and another, that Arminianism is true. Both claim the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Who is right? Can the Holy Spirit bear witness to contradictory truth claims? Likewise one believer asserts that baptism is necessary for salvation, another claims it is merely symbolic. Each may say that the inner working of the Holy Spirit assures him that he is right and the other is wrong? But who decides between the two?

    As you can see anyone can claim they have the "annointing" of the Spirit which thereby guarantees the correctness of their given beliefs. However, the Holy Spirit doesn't lead men into contradiction but the truth. If there is nothing objective too which one can appeal, how is a certain individual's claim of Holy Spirit annointing any different from the Mormon who claims the truthfulness of his position based on "the burning in the bosom"?

    I guess I'm supposed to say "By the declaration of the Council of Carthage, of course" - except that the Council of Carthage didn't have 66 books - it had 72. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, you were supposed to answer by offering some objective means by which the Canon was discerned and have failed to do so.


    The Council of Jamnia did reject the Deuterocanonicals but they rejected the New Testament writings as well. Therefore, I'm not sure how much stock I'm supposed to put in its decisions. As far as the the "canon" of the Jews, until that time there was flexibility among Jews regarding what was considered Scripture. Yes, in Palestine, many (if not most) Jews considered only the 22 (or 24) books (of course, arranged differently) we have in our OT to be authoritative. Two notable exceptions would be the Sadducees (accepting only the five books of Moses) and the Essenes (who did make use of the "Apocrypha"). On the other hand, the Jews of the dispersion used the LXX as their OT which contained those troublesome extra books. The early Christians in such areas regarded these books as Scripture and many early Church fathers of the first couple of centuries quoted them as Scripture. (Even Christ and the Apostles, when quoting the OT, quoted the LXX.) It wasn't until later, well after Jamnia, when Christians would engage Jews in debate and compare their respective "OTs", that some began to have reservations about the canonicity of these books. Many continued treating them as Scripture, while others considered them useful to read in Church if not on par with the rest of the OT. The bottom line is the status of the Deuterocanonicals is more complex than previously described.

    1. I never made such an admission. I'm not sure "it was in error on the Old". It may have been, but I'm not sure (see above). However, I don't claim that the Council of Carthage is the sole authoritative reason for accepting the New Testament. It was a regional council. It did express similar convictions of those who had come before it, and it's decisions were generally accepted by and confirmed by the Church at large overtime.

    Remember, it took a long time for the gospels and epistles to circulate to all the churches spread out across the Mediterranean world (and beyond). Instead of each local church having the completed NT all at once, there were stretches of time when some churches had certain portions while lacking certain others and vice versa. While these were circulating, other spurious works (claiming apostolic authorship and/or divine inspiration) were also circulating and decisions had to be made as to which newly encountered writings were genuinely inspired and apostolic and which writings were not. It was only natural that when representatives of different churches assembled together that there were initial disagreements regarding the canon for the reason mentioned above. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, these councils were able to eventually hammer out these disagreements and come to a consensus.

    2. I believe the above paragraph answered this question.
     
  8. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doubting Thomas,

    All of your rhetoric amounts to nothing more than your subjective opinion above mine. You are no different than a Roman Catholic who boasts of the "unanimous testimony" of the "fathers" to which neither he, nor any other man can point.

    If you are willing to accept half the opinion of a council of Catholic bishops on no basis other than your subjective opinion, surely you will allow me to accept at face vaule the counsel of Christ, His prophets, and His apostles who authored and published the New Testament as well as the Old.

    You said,

    But we know for a fact that Paul's letters already being twisted by heretics while Peter was still living. And if Paul's letters were generally circulated there is no reason to believe all were not.

    This is pure speculation at best. And it become sheer foolishness in light ot the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would come (which happened on the day of Pentecost) and that He would abide with them forever and that He would guide them into all truth. On that basis I assert that there hasn't been a day since the writings of the New Testament first went forth that the Lord's churches haven't had access to all of it. And again I assert that the way I know these writings are true is,

    "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

    And again,

    "We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

    And again,

    "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

    And once more,

    "For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end."

    Mind you, these statements of the apostles were written above 300 years before the Council of Carthage convened. I further note that, though you may ridicule my position as "subjective", it is based on the plain statments of the Scriptures rather than on Catholic tradition.


    Mark Osgatharp
     
  9. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    You mean to tell me that as soon as each New Testament writing was written every single church existing throughout the world had a copy of that writing within 24 hours???? That is patently absurd. You might want to rethink that statement and also whether or not that's what Christ really meant when He said that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. I guess by your logic neither the apostles nor the churches were guided into truth for the first 20 years of the Church as it was AD 51 at the earliest when the first New Testament book was penned.
     
  10. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    The old "Roman Catholic" charge. Gotta love it. You still did not answer who or what would referee when you and another believer, who did accept the "Apocrypha", would each claim that your faith leads you to accept your respective canon as true. Claiming to have the "witness" of the Spirit is not enough if both of you claim that same witness. The Spirit cannot contradict Himself.
     
  11. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    There's really no point in pursuing this anymore. Mark, if you want to believe that every single church in the world had a copy of every single portion of the New Testament within one day after it was written, be my guest. I indeed believe the Holy Spirit guided the apostles and the church into all truth, but not in the way you propose.
     
  12. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doubting Thomas,

    I don't say every single church in the world had a copy of every single portion of the New Testament within one day after it was written. I say that immediately on issue of the books they became accessible to all all the churches. That could be one church sharing copies with another just as Paul said in Colossians,

    "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Ladiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

    Obviously, it would take some time for the letters to become generally circulated; but not 300+ years. And neither can I believe that after they were generally circulated that access to them became impossible or that the knowledge of which books were inspired was obscured.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  13. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doubting Thomas,

    I take note that, while you have tried to make me say something that you and I both know I didn't mean, and while you have given no legitimate reason why your subjective acceptance of a council whose judgment you only half-way accept is superior to my subjective acceptance of the Scriptures themselves.....

    .....you have practically ignored the passages of Scripture which I introduced proving that men DID had the ability to know the truth of the Holy Scriptures immediately upon their original publication by the apostles. I repeat them here for your sober reflection:

    "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself."

    Call that subjective if you like, it's the word of God!

    "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life."

    And again,

    "We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

    And again,

    "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

    And again,

    "For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end."

    And this,

    "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

    And finally,

    "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  14. Kiffin

    Kiffin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] Was that Judean baptist association meeting ABA, SBC or maybe GARBC,BMA,?

    Doubting Thomas, I don't believer our brother Mark is going to give us any straight answers on this except charge any of us who have respect for the Church Fathers and the early councils with being Roman Catholics. :eek: Though I don't mind being called a Catholic Baptist :cool:
     
  15. Bro.Adams

    Bro.Adams New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a fairly "new" Baptist, may I say:

    1) It concerns me how many of you equate being Baptist with being a Christian. Do you really think that there will be a Baptist section in Heaven or that only Baptist will be in Heaven?

    2) It also concern me that many Christians fear history and theology...
    I think God can withstand the scrutiny of Doubting Thomas, Matt, AND Martin Luther.

    3) When you run out of facts, you result to "name-calling" and that makes this forum just like every other forum on the 'net and that is SAD.

    Signing off,
    BroAdams
     
  16. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bro. Adams, please check your PM.
     
Loading...