How to answer fundamentalist who goes by Bible alone/no councils/creeds

[starminx]

Well actually history leans more of the side of proving the 1st century did not have a “fixed” canon as many fundamentalist present as an argument. Jesus founded His Church,He did not write our current Bible we all know. The Bible is very clear Jesus founded His Church…not the Bible. Last, Christianity is a religion of the person: Jesus Christ,not a book religion like Islam,Judaism,etc.

That’s the bottom line. Amen!

Also, when I was a fundamentalist, I didn’t know this, and hadn’t even thought to question it…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

A co-worker claims to have the original, 1st Century Christianity, Using ONLY scripture, no creeds, no councils, no additions. It’s all there in the New Testament.

He argues that the true Christians knew which books were inspired in the 1st century and that the later council simply re=-affirmed what true Chritians knew but then created a false religion.

Can’t seem to get anywhere with him on this. Any ideas?

Try to convince him? Forget about it! Each person has its own ideas…

 

[karaleigh]

Scripture is universal. There is always a correct passage to answer any person contest on biblical contents. We should remember ‘God is Love’, and we should do everything according to God’s need for both them and us to receive HIS prefect blessings. Read, read, read. There is no better way to answer questions on scripture then to know the scripture itself. :bowdown:

 

[Nicea325]

That’s the bottom line. Amen!

Also, when I was a fundamentalist, I didn’t know this, and hadn’t even thought to question it…

 

[BrianH]

Oh, I have a number of ideas…

The Enoch & Jude Challenge
Ask your co-worker whether or not the Book of Enoch should be considered Sacred Scripture. Although the text version is dated to approximately the 2nd Century B.C., many ancient Jews and Christians believed it to be authentic inspired prophetic teachings, stemming from a much older oral tradition.

Within this text we read…

We see this actually quoted in the NT’s Epistle of Jude:

“It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying,
‘Behold, the Lord came with myriads of his holy ones,
to execute judgment on all,
to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness
which they have committed in such an ungodly way,
and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’.”
(Jude 1:14-15)

Although Jude does not record what he personally thinks about the Book of Enoch, the fact that he quoted it is evidence that at least some Ancient Christians accepted it as divinely inspired, and still others may have come to believe it to be so for the simple fact that Jude included it in his epistle.

Of course, Catholics do not accept the Book of Enoch as Sacred Scripture because later Church councils discerned that it should not be included in the Canon of Scripture. But seeing as your co-worker does not accept the rulings of Church councils, show him where the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude and then ask him whether or not he should accept Enoch as being divinely inspired.

If he says, “No” then ask him why not. Keep in mind that he has to answer this without appealing to a ruling of a Church council (so he can’t simply say, “Because it’s not in the Canon of Scripture.”)

Moreover, if he says that Enoch should not be in the Bible because 1st Century Christians knew that it wasn’t supposed to be included, ask him why Jude elected to quote something (as a prophetic authority) that everyone knew was not divinely inspired.

If he says, that Enoch is divinely inspired then ask him why it was left out of the Bible. Such a situation contradicts his position that 1st Century Christians knew what was supposed to be in the Bible and that later councils only reaffirmed this knowledge.

The Septuagint / Deutercanon Challenge
Does your co-worker accept the books of the Deuteroncanon? These are the books found in Catholic editions of the Old Testament that Protestants do not use. They were included in the Septuagint, which was the version of the OT primarily used by 1st Century (and later) Christians. So ask your co-worker if he believes such books as Wisdom, 1&2 Maccabees, Tobit, etc. are divinely inspired.

If he says, “No” then point out that the 1st Century Christians believed that they were. Moreover, you can point out that later Church councils affirmed that the books of the Deuterocanon belonged in the Canon of Scripture, so if he says they aren’t supposed to be in the Bible then he has contradicted himself. After all, he has stated that the councils simply reaffirmed what 1st Century Christians believed regarding what books belonged in the Bible, so based on that he ought to accept the Deuterocanon.

The History of Debates Over the Canon
Your co-worker seems to have little or no knowledge of the long-running debates over the first few centuries of the Church regarding what was, and what was not, Sacred Scripture. Many theologians, for example, did not think Revelation ought to added to the Canon of Scripture. I am away from my personal library at the moment, so I can’t provide quotes from credible Scripture scholars regarding this, but this information is “out there.” The business of the Church councils was not to simply reaffirm a general consensus regarding the Canon, but to settle the various debates as to what was and was not Sacred Scripture.

The Challenge Concerning the Authenticity of Copies of the Bible
We do not have the original copy of any book of the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies and so forth. For example, if my memory is correct, the earliest surviving example of a NT text dates from the 4th Century, so that’s as close as we can get to what the 1st Century Christians had. In light of this, ask your co-worker why he accepts the version of Scripture in his Bible as being an authentic representation of the original books. After all, it is the Church which tells us that such modern day Bibles are valid representations. But if your co-worker says that Church councils do not have the God-given ability to determine what is and is not Sacred Scripture, then why believe the Church has the ability to tell us that the ancient copies of biblical texts are authentic representatives of the original texts?

Two questions/comments

1. Your comments about Jude are interesting. How exactly do you know that some ancient Christians considered the book inspired again? Any answer would also seem to apply to Jude himself. Elaborate on that.
2. How do you know what the LXX in the 1st century contained? I did not think anyone knew that for certain. You just said the earliest copies are years later and you know (I assume) those later copies contain different books as it relates to the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[EricFilmer]

Two questions/comments

1. Your comments about Jude are interesting. How exactly do you know that some ancient Christians considered the book inspired again? Any answer would also seem to apply to Jude himself. Elaborate on that.

It is speculation but well grounded:

1. Jude is an Apostle
2. Jude specifically identifies this passage from the Book of Enoch as a prophecy originating with the same Enoch “in the seventh generation from Adam.” In other words, the Enoch described in Genesis who “walked with God” and was taken up into heaven.
3. The 1st Century Church had no officially recognized Canon of Scripture, so there was no official rejection of the authenticity of the Book of Enoch.
4. Based on all this, I think it is reasonable to presume that some of the ancient Christians reading the Epistle of Jude would consider the Book of Enoch as Sacred Scripture. After all, here was an Apostle referring to the Book of Enoch as containing prophecy. And if this was not considered valid revelation by ancient Christians, why would Jude have quoted it as an authority, rather than quote the same sort of saying from one of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Canon?

From a Catholic perspective, I reject the Book of Enoch because the Church did not include it in the Canon of Scripture. But I can still make the presumption that the section Jude quoted is a valid ancient prophecy (in and of itself). It certainly represents what canonical prophetic books say, so it could be that this section of the Book of Enoch is an authentic part of God’s revelation, even if other sections of this book aren’t.

The person described by the OP could make the same conclusion, but the question remains whether or not he would accept the Book of Enoch without the benefit of the rulings of the Church on the Canon of Scripture.

1. How do you know what the LXX in the 1st century contained? I did not think anyone knew that for certain. You just said the earliest copies are years later and you know (I assume) those later copies contain different books as it relates to the Deuterocanonical books.

If for no other reason, general consensus for two millenia among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Oriental Orthodox Christians. We have been passing down these books from generation to generation since the beginning. Up until the Protestant Reformation, all Christians Bibles included the deuterocanonical books.

 

[puppypatrol]

Where in Scripture does it say that? If he wants to go the “Scripture Alone” route, he had best be able to prove it with Scripture Alone.

 

[BrianH]

It is speculation but well grounded: 1) Jude is an Apostle 2) Jude specifically identifies this passage from the Book of Enoch as a prophecy originating with the same Enoch “in the seventh generation from Adam.” In other words, the Enoch described in Genesis who “walked with God” and was taken up into heaven. 3) The 1st Century Church had no officially recognized Canon of Scripture, so there was no official rejection of the authenticity of the Book of Enoch. 4) Based on all this, I think it is reasonable to presume that some of the ancient Christians reading the Epistle of Jude would consider the Book of Enoch as Sacred Scripture. After all, here was an Apostle referring to the Book of Enoch as containing prophecy. And if this was not considered valid revelation by ancient Christians, why would Jude have quoted it as an authority, rather than quote the same sort of saying from one of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Canon? From a Catholic perspective, I reject the Book of Enoch because the Church did not include it in the Canon of Scripture. But I can still make the presumption that the section Jude quoted is a valid ancient prophecy (in and of itself). It certainly represents what canonical prophetic books say, so it could be that this section of the Book of Enoch is an authentic part of God’s revelation, even if other sections of this book aren’t. The person described by the OP could make the same conclusion, but the question remains whether or not he would accept the Book of Enoch without the benefit of the rulings of the Church on the Canon of Scripture. If for no other reason, general consensus for two millenia among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Oriental Orthodox Christians. We have been passing down these books from generation to generation since the beginning. Up until the Protestant Reformation, all Christians Bibles included the deuterocanonical books.

So on what basis would one conclude that Jude did not also think it was inspired?
As to your answer about the Deuterocanonicals I think it makes my point. The three groups you mentioned all accept different books in the LXX. The reason for that is the LXX was in flux for centuries and specific differences with the number of books emerged. In the first century, there is no evidence I know of that states the LXX was settled if you will. The earliest codices, and I believe you mention them in some capacity, do not contain all the books of the Catholic canon. They also contain additional books found in the Orthodox canon but not the Catholic canon.
No one knows what books were in a LXX canon in the first century. I even consider the word canon as it relates to the LXX to be anachronistic.
If you look at the OT canon, or lack therof, in the first three centuries of Christianity, like from Cyril of Jerusalem to begin with, I think a stronger case can be made the Deuterocanonical books in a Christian OT canon can be historically traced to the early 400’s.

 

[EricFilmer]

So on what basis would one conclude that Jude did not also think it was inspired?

Objectively speaking, I can’t. As I mentioned in my initial post, Jude didn’t elaborate on exactly what he thought about the Book of Enoch. But what has that got to do with the nature of my material as it pertains to this thread? The OP’s co-worker stated that in the 1st Century “true Christians knew which books were inspired” and that when the Church councils eventually set down the Canon of Scripture, they simply reaffirmed this knowledge. Obviously Jude was a “true Christian” and yet he quoted the Book of Enoch in a manner that suggests that either he and/or other 1st Century Christians thought it was divinely inspired. But later Church councils did not reaffirm this, so it is left up to the OP’s co-worker to explain this discrepancy according to his ideology.

As to your answer about the Deuterocanonicals I think it makes my point. The three groups you mentioned all accept different books in the LXX. The reason for that is the LXX was in flux for centuries and specific differences with the number of books emerged. In the first century, there is no evidence I know of that states the LXX was settled if you will. The earliest codices, and I believe you mention them in some capacity, do not contain all the books of the Catholic canon. They also contain additional books found in the Orthodox canon but not the Catholic canon.
No one knows what books were in a LXX canon in the first century. I even consider the word canon as it relates to the LXX to be anachronistic.

I agree. By the 1st Century there were a lot of books circulated among the ancient Jews which were outside of the Torah, some of which had Hebrew origins and some of which had Greek. Moreover, some of these Greek books were part of what later would be called the Deuterocanon and some were not. There did not seem to be a consensus among Jews at the time as to what was and was not authentic Sacred Scripture. My whole point in this thread is that this same lack of consensus extended to the ancient Christians, a position that the OP’s co-worker denies.

If you look at the OT canon, or lack therof, in the first three centuries of Christianity, like from Cyril of Jerusalem to begin with, I think a stronger case can be made the Deuterocanonical books in a Christian OT canon can be historically traced to the early 400’s.

The composition of the LXX over time would be an interesting subject on its own, but I think your comments are getting off-topic. Nothing you have stated here changes what I presented about the Deuterocanon in my initial post as it applies to the topic at hand. The OP described his co-worker as fundamentalist, so I presume he uses a Bible that does not have the Deuterocanon. This person believes that when the Church councils officially described the Canon of Scripture, they simply reaffirmed what the 1st Century Christians already knew and accepted. The Church councils included the Deuterocanon in the list. Therefore, based on this person’s line of reasoning, he ought to be using a Bible that includes the Deuterocanon (the same books of the Deuteroncanon which the Church councils approved).

If he does not think that the Deuterocanon belongs in the Bible, then this shows that he doesn’t actually believe that the Church councils simply reaffirmed the Canon of Scripture that the ancient Christians recognized. It is left up to him to explain this discrepancy. The various challenges I set forth in Post #18 are designed to show that his ideology is not as “cut & dried” as he seems to think.