John Pipers "The Passion of Christ"

[quijote]

New_Life:

God lead the early Church to recognize Scripture. No one waited till the council of Trent to read Scripture did they? Or did they not have a Bible till the 4th century? The early church always had the Old Testament Scriptures and gradually used the gospels, epistles and so forth as they were made available.

As I recall, there were many extra-biblical books floating around during the first few centuries (like the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, etc…) and there was no agreement by all Christians on which books were truly inspired and which were not. Along comes the councils of Hippo and Carthage (394AD? 398AD?) and the question was settled.

I have read claims of an earlier council in Rome and something done by Pope Damasus, but I have not been able to double check it.

Cheers.

 

[quijote]

New_Life:

No. “All Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) is the sole infallible rule of faith because it is inspired (i.e. God-breathed) and inerrant. This doesn’t restrict itself to the Old Testament alone. Scripture is God-breathed which describes its nature as the very word of God. The New Testament writtings are God-breathed as well and are therefore truly Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) - inspired and inerrant.

I thought that in 2 Tim 3:16 Paul was refering to ‘all scripture’ as the Old Testament. 2 Tim 3:14-16 :

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching ,for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Hence, in 2 Timothy3:16 “all scripture” cannot mean the New Testament since when Timothy was a young boy (from his infancy) none of the New Testament had been written yet.

Cheers.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

quijote:

Hence, in 2 Timothy3:16 “all scripture” cannot mean the New Testament since when Timothy was a young boy (from his infancy) none of the New Testament had been written yet.

It is likely Paul had in mind more than just the OT because he very likely quotes from Luke 10:7 in the earlier book of 1st. Timothy (5:18) and references it as scripture. This likely being the case, it seems doubtful that he would then go on in his second letter to use a general term such as “all scriptures” for only the OT.

ken

 

[hlgomez]

To New Life,

You said:

No. “All Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) is the sole infallible rule of faith because it is inspired (i.e. God-breathed) and inerrant. This doesn’t restrict itself to the Old Testament alone. Scripture is God-breathed which describes its nature as the very word of God. The New Testament writtings are God-breathed as well and are therefore truly Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) - inspired and inerrant.

It is very clear in that particular verse that it didn’t say “ONLY SCRIPTURE” or “SCRIPTURE ALONE.” You must try to understand it the way the Apostle Paul intended it. WHen he said “all scripture”, he didn’t automatically reject the traditions which were not written. In fact, you must note that the Holy Bible wasn’t produced yet at this time. St. Paul has yet to write more of his epistles, and he even didn’t expect them to be part of the Holy Bible that we now use today. It was the Catholic Church that dogmatically pronounced the canons of the Bible in the later council.

Pio

 

[quijote]

II Paradox II:

It is likely Paul had in mind more than just the OT because he very likely quotes from Luke 10:7 in the earlier book of 1st. Timothy (5:18) and references it as scripture. This likely being the case, it seems doubtful that he would then go on in his second letter to use a general term such as “all scriptures” for only the OT.

ken

Perhaps so. I guess there is not definite way of knowing. However, if he was indeed referring to other scripture, to what specifically was he then referring? how can we tell? did he presume that some of his letter would be included as (inerrant/infallible) scriptures? How about of those letters he had yet to write? How about other parts of the NT yet to be written (Revelation)?

Cheers.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Perhaps so. I guess there is not definite way of knowing.

I think it is likely that he was referring to more than just the OT. As with any other piece of knowledge, it is a judgment based on the evidence we have.

However, if he was indeed referring to other scripture, to what specifically was he then referring? how can we tell?

1. If he quoted Luke as scripture, then he evidently considered it so. That may not have been in his mind when he wrote this, but by logical implication it would be covered by his statement about “all scripture”.
2. There are various other evidences. In addition to Paul’s quote of Luke, Peter’s statement about Paul’s writings being “scripture” would certainly lend credence to the idea that the notion of a NT scripture was not foreign to the apostles. This, among other hints, would seem to make it a good inference that there were a number of canonical NT books existing at the time of the apostles that the apostles were self-consciously aware of.

did he presume that some of his letter would be included as (inerrant/infallible) scriptures?

1. I think it is a good inference that he considered some of his writings to be inspired, thus most likely scriptural. For instance, in 1st Cor. he makes a statement about marriage that he prefaces with the statement that this is just his own opinion. By making this statement he seems to be operating in a self-consciously prophetic manner that he has to make exceptions to when he doesn’t want the people to take it as God’s word to them.
2. Paul’s tendency to have his books distributed widely I think would lend credence to the notion that he did see his letters as more than just local writings that had a limited historical usage.
3. Living in the prophetic world of the Jews, I imagine Paul was well aware of the historical OT practice of prophets and leaders both speaking and writing their prophecies, histories and commands. As such, I don’t think it would be out of place to suggest he would be self-conscious of the importance of his writings as he clearly was of his spoken words. He understood the import of his historical place and the coming kingdom. If the precursor to the kingdom in the OT has prophets who were aware of their significance, why would the heralds of the foreshadowed King not also be aware of the significance of their writing and speaking?
4. It is evident as well that at least one author - John in the book of revelation, considered his own book to be scriptural. The beginning of his book acknowledges it as a revelation of God with appropriate curses and blessings to those who heed it, both whether heard or read.

How about other parts of the NT yet to be written (Revelation)?

see my comments on revelation.

ken

 

[New_Life]

quijote:

As I recall, there were many extra-biblical books floating around during the first few centuries (like the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, etc…) and there was no agreement by all Christians on which books were truly inspired and which were not. Along comes the councils of Hippo and Carthage (394AD? 398AD?) and the question was settled.

I have read claims of an earlier council in Rome and something done by Pope Damasus, but I have not been able to double check it.

Cheers.

There were many false gospels in circulation during the early church years, but for the most part, the God’s people rejected such works. There did exist a majority Christian consensus concerning most of the books in the New Testament before these councils. Also, the “Roman” Catholic Church didn’t establisher her canon officially and authoritatively until the council of Trent in the 16th century. More can be said about Jerome, the apocrypha, and so on.

I recommend the following articles:
The Early Canon Process of the New Testament by James R. White.
The Canon: Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious by William Webster.

 

[New_Life]

quijote:

I thought that in 2 Tim 3:16 Paul was refering to ‘all scripture’ as the Old Testament. 2 Tim 3:14-16 :

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching ,for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Hence, in 2 Timothy3:16 “all scripture” cannot mean the New Testament since when Timothy was a young boy (from his infancy) none of the New Testament had been written yet.

Cheers.

Paul directly refers to the Old Testament when he said to Timothy that “from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15, ESV). Surely he had the Old Testament in mind when he penned the next verse as well: “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (v. 16, ESV). But this statement doesn’t necessarily restrict itself to the OT. What was Paul communicating to Timothy in verse 16? Was he referring to the extent of Scripture here or is he referring to the nature of Scripture. There is a difference.

All Scripture, if indeed it is Scripture, has it’s nature in God Himself - it is God-breathed. Is the New Testament God-breathed? I’m sure you would all agree that it is. The apostle Peter, as was mentioned previously, considered Paul’s writtings to be on par with Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). 2 Tim. 3:16, therefore, since it is describing the nature of “All Scripture” does not restrict itself to the OT alone since God the Holy Spirit was still moving men to write his inspired and infallible word. Both the OT and NT are “breathed out by God” (ESV).

 

[quijote]

1. I agree that Paul considered Luke’s Gospel as “scripture”. The letters to Timothy were written later in his career and by that time Luke (probably Paul’s friend) had finished written it. Also, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were around. So yes, I agree that there were “Sacred Writtings” around when Paul was alive and yes, he did acknowledge -at least Luke’s Gospel, probably Mark’s as well- as sacred.
2. I agree that there was a sense of “sacred scripture” in the early church. However, only because Peter (and others) considered some of Paul’s writtings as “scripture” does not mean that Paul did, nor that he was referring to them in 2 Tim 3:16.

1. I think it is a good inference that he considered some of his writings to be inspired, thus most likely scriptural…

I take a different view. Perhaps he was giving his personal opinions versus what God’s teaching is on marriage. Regardless, Paul’s personal opinion in 1 Cor. is now God’s word

1. Paul’s tendency to have his books distributed widely I think would lend credence to the notion that he did see his letters as more than just local writings that had a limited historical usage.

I agree. I think that Paul saw his writtings as helpful to the Early Church. Did he see them as “sacred scripture”? He didn’t. We do

1. Living in the prophetic world of the Jews, I imagine Paul was well aware of the historical OT practice of prophets both speaking and writing their prophecies… As such, I don’t think it would be out of place to suggest he would be self-conscious of the importance of his writings as he clearly was of his spoken words…

I don’t think you would be out of place to suggest that Paul would be self-conscious of the importance of his writings as. I do think you would be out of place to suggest that Paul thought of his writtings as “sacred scripture” precisely because of his awareness of the practices of the prophets of the OT.

1. It is evident as well that at least one author - John in the book of revelation, considered his own book to be scriptural…

Yes. It was evident to John, but not to Timothy when he received Paul’s second letter neither, for that matter, to Paul, considering that Revelation had not been written.

Please know that I am not disputing the infallability or inspiration of the N.T. I am calling attention to the fact that in 2 Tim 3:16 Paul was referring to the OT and not a yet undefined NT. since he was clearly talking about “sacred scriptures” that Timothy knew from his infancy.

I am not saying, however, that Paul did not considered some writings floating about in his time as inspired, he obvioulsy did so as you pointed out.

cheers.

ps.I shorten your quotes so that I could post this reply in one message, not to misqoute you.

 

[quijote]

New_Life:

There were many false gospels in circulation during the early church years, but for the most part, the God’s people rejected such works. There did exist a majority Christian consensus concerning most of the books in the New Testament before these councils.

No disagreement here

Also, the “Roman” Catholic Church didn’t establisher her canon officially and authoritatively until the council of Trent in the 16th century. More can be said about Jerome, the apocrypha, and so on.

Not historically accurate. Look up the councils of Hippo and Carthage (393A.D?, 398AD?) where the Catholic Church authoritatively establishes the cannon of scripture. But yes, it was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century as a response to the removal of some books from the cannon by the reformers.

Cheers.

 

[quijote]

New_Life:

What was Paul communicating to Timothy in verse 16? Was he referring to the extent of Scripture here or is he referring to the nature of Scripture. There is a difference.

Yes I completely and absolutely agree.

In 2 Tim, Paul obvioulsy refers to the OT as to what the extent of Sacred Scripture is.

In 2 Tim, Paul (and I would argue God in anticipation of this exchange 2000 years later ) does indeed referr to both the OT and NT as to what the nature of Sacred Scripture is.

All Scripture, if indeed it is Scripture, has it’s nature in God Himself - it is God-breathed. Is the New Testament God-breathed? I’m sure you would all agree that it is. The apostle Peter, as was mentioned previously, considered Paul’s writtings to be on par with Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). 2 Tim. 3:16, therefore, since it is describing the nature of “All Scripture” does not restrict itself to the OT alone since God the Holy Spirit was still moving men to write his inspired and infallible word. Both the OT and NT are “breathed out by God” (ESV).

Again, I completely and absolutely agree.

But… I thought that what was originally in question (I think brought up by HGomez) was the certainty of what books belong in the NT and then someone brought up 2 Tim 3:16.

When did we switch topics

Cheers.

 

[DianJo]

New_Life:

How about the Bible? Would you consider that a safe source? Piper’s exposition is a Biblical one. And inasmuch as the Bible is faithfully represented, then the truth is heard.

Don’t catholics have opinions? Does every roman catholic interpret the pronouncements of rome in exactly the same way? I didn’t think so. I think what you meant is that rome, claiming infallibility, has declared a so-called “perfect” understanding and pronouncement of the gospel. But even their interpretations need interpretations. Yet rome is not alone in this, since the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the very same thing.

Ah, yes, the Church claims to go back 2000 years! That surpases the Mormons and JW traditions. But the Jews claim an even longer tradition than that of Rome - more than 2000 years! I’m sure the Jews of Jesus day used some of the very same arguments against him and his aposltes as you use against protestants. Nevertheless, the roman gospel of today is nothing like the gospel preached by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church.

But once you accept rome’s claim of infallibility, what can you do? You can’t test her, because you already assume she is infallible. Something doesn’t sound right. Especially in light of all the commands in scripture to test all things.

That’s exactly what the Church does and has done for the last 2000 years! All our doctrines have been tested against scripture and scripture against tradition and they align perfectly. That’s seems to be something very hard for Protestants to understand. Before the Bible was formed everything in it was tested against tradition and the tradition against the writings. If they were not contradictory they were treated as canon.! :banghead: This seems to be the only agrument you all can come up with and it doesn’t hold water!:nope:

 

[New_Life]

DianJo:

That’s exactly what the Church does and has done for the last 2000 years! All our doctrines have been tested against scripture and scripture against tradition and they align perfectly. That’s seems to be something very hard for Protestants to understand. Before the Bible was formed everything in it was tested against tradition and the tradition against the writings. If they were not contradictory they were treated as canon.! :banghead: This seems to be the only agrument you all can come up with and it doesn’t hold water!:nope:

Ok. Let’s start off real simple then. Could you show where in the Bible (solid exegesis please) is Mary’s bodily assumption taught? Also, can you provide a few early church fathers who taught and believed that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? That shouldn’t be too difficult. I mean, Roman Catholicism claims that this particular doctrine is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, right? So, where is it?

 

[II_Paradox_II]

1. I agree that Paul considered Luke’s Gospel as “scripture”. The letters to Timothy were written later in his career and by that time Luke (probably Paul’s friend) had finished written it. Also, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were around. So yes, I agree that there were “Sacred Writtings” around when Paul was alive and yes, he did acknowledge -at least Luke’s Gospel, probably Mark’s as well- as sacred.

My own opinion is that quite a few NT books were around at the time, but that is really tangential to the discussion as we both acknowledge that some but not all books of the NT existed by this point.

1. I agree that there was a sense of “sacred scripture” in the early church. However, only because Peter (and others) considered some of Paul’s writtings as “scripture” does not mean that Paul did, nor that he was referring to them in 2 Tim 3:16.

well, let me argue this point for a bit. I think it can be shown by strong inference.

1. Paul was aware of his special status as an Apostle. He knew that his calling was unlike any other apostles and that he was taught directly of God.
2. Paul does seem to have a distinct awareness that he is not merely speaking and writing his own words, but the Lord’s. Reference his statements in I Cor. 14:37. In addition, I would note that Paul makes this statement with the specific reference that, “I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”. He prefaces this comment with the challenge to those in Corinth that if they are spirtual or prophets they will acknowledge this.
3. He also gives authoritative statements such as 1 Thess. 2:13 and many other places that is acknowledged to have come from the Lord for the edification of the people. (2nd Cor. 13:10).
4. From a sort of odd angle - in 2. thess 2:15 Paul talks of accepting the traditions handed down whether by word or epistle. I know the argument that Paul was not aware that his writings would not be gathered into a scriptural canon, but would this verse not cause some problems for that view? if you acknowledge that Jesus established a visible church with the apostles near the top of the hierarchy, he clearly understood the God inspired status of his words that he asked to be preserved in oral tradition. He acknowledges several times that His words are the commands of God and that his gospel was taken by believers and passed on (1st thess 1, a reference to the promulgation of his oral tradition). However, judging by the arguments already presented and his equalization of word and epistle in 2. thess. 2:15, why would you assume that he was not aware of the revelatory nature of his written and spoken words, words which he knew and commanded to be passed down, preserved and promulgated?

part II is next…

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

I take a different view. Perhaps he was giving his personal opinions versus what God’s teaching is on marriage. Regardless, Paul’s personal opinion in 1 Cor. is now God’s word

I would agree the words are part of God’s word, but Paul does state that this is his opinion and not God’s command.

I agree. I think that Paul saw his writtings as helpful to the Early Church. Did he see them as “sacred scripture”? He didn’t. We do

It seems to me you may be setting the bar too high here and throwing out things that can be inferred quite strongly. We know that Paul considered God to be speaking through him (2 Cor. 13:3). We know Paul considered some of his writings to be “commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). We know that paul’s writings carried his apostolic authority including punishment and discipline (2Th 3:14). We know that Paul told his churches to hold to his teaching in particular, whether by word or epistle (2thess. 2:15). These and other things taken together seem to infer Paul was well aware of the revelatory status of his words and importance of his teachings in particular. Note that in 2nd thess. 2:15 he states that they should obey not Luke or other NT books, or even OT books, but his words or epistles in particular. That seems to me to be an awfully arrogant command for someone who is not aware of the special nature of his words and writings.

I don’t think you would be out of place to suggest that Paul would be self-conscious of the importance of his writings as. I do think you would be out of place to suggest that Paul thought of his writtings as “sacred scripture” precisely because of his awareness of the practices of the prophets of the OT.

What in specific are you referring to here? paul in many respects seems to mirror OT prophets and their work. What specific things would you say he lacks in contradistinction to them that would cause him to not accord his own words with sacred authority?

Yes. It was evident to John, but not to Timothy when he received Paul’s second letter neither, for that matter, to Paul, considering that Revelation had not been written.

Sure, but my argument was just that at least one book had a self-acknowledgement of it’s own status (interestingly, it is also a book that had a tremendous amount of trouble being accepted in the church)

ken

 

[DianJo]

II Paradox II:

It is likely Paul had in mind more than just the OT because he very likely quotes from Luke 10:7 in the earlier book of 1st. Timothy (5:18) and references it as scripture. This likely being the case, it seems doubtful that he would then go on in his second letter to use a general term such as “all scriptures” for only the OT.

ken

Paul was not quoting Luke in verse 10:7 - he was quoting Jesus. There was no new testament to quote.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

DianJo:

Paul was not quoting Luke in verse 10:7 - he was quoting Jesus. There was no new testament to quote.

“For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward.”
1st Timothy 5:18

Paul states that “the scripture saith”, not, “Jesus saith”. Saying that he was quoting Jesus and not scripture would be a direct contradiction of what the verse says.

Why do you assume that no NT scripture existed at the time?

ken

 

[DianJo]

hlgomez:

To New Life,

You said:
It is very clear in that particular verse that it didn’t say “ONLY SCRIPTURE” or “SCRIPTURE ALONE.” You must try to understand it the way the Apostle Paul intended it. WHen he said “all scripture”, he didn’t automatically reject the traditions which were not written. In fact, you must note that the Holy Bible wasn’t produced yet at this time. St. Paul has yet to write more of his epistles, and he even didn’t expect them to be part of the Holy Bible that we now use today. It was the Catholic Church that dogmatically pronounced the canons of the Bible in the later council.

Pio

You are correct! The letter to Timothy urges Timothy to protect the community from the inevitable impact of false teaching, without fear of the personal attacks that might result. It recommends that he rely on the power of the scriptures, on the proclamation of the word and on sound doctrine (tradition) without being troubled by those who do not accept him!

So we have many things named here by which the apostles taught. In todays terms that would be Sacred Scripture (as spoken of by Paul in verse 16), Sacred Tradition (as taught by Paul in verse 14) and the Magisterium (Paul himself as he infallibly teaches what Christ taught him).

These verses by no means says that scripture is the ONLY thing that was useful for training for he tells Timothy to remain faithful to what he has learned because he knows who he learned it from - that’s tradition!

 

[DianJo]

1) I agree that Paul considered Luke’s Gospel as “scripture”. The letters to Timothy were written later in his career and by that time Luke (probably Paul’s friend) had finished written it. Also, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were around. So yes, I agree that there were “Sacred Writtings” around when Paul was alive and yes, he did acknowledge -at least Luke’s Gospel, probably Mark’s as well- as sacred.

You all are confusing me!
Paul could not have thought Luke’s writings as gospel because they were not written at the time that Paul lived.
Paul was executed in Rome during the reign of Nero (AD 63-67). Luke’s gospel was not written until between 80-90.
The earliest of the gospels were not written until after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 66-70 and that was Mark’s gospel. Matthew’s was shortly thereafter. So the earliest written gospel would’ve come after the death of Paul.
Paul was the only one writing anything earlier than that - Corinth AD 56-58 with Romans.
I am I confused about dates or maybe I’m missing the point of what y’all are talking about?! Sorry.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

DianJo:

I am I confused about dates or maybe I’m missing the point of what y’all are talking about?! Sorry.

No one knows exactly when any of the books were written. Every opinion people have here is based on the educated opinions of scholars and doctors both within the church and outside of it.

The realistic estimates range from within a few years of Christ’s death all the way through to the mid 100’s.

Just so you know, the verse in 1st. Timothy that I just quoted is sometimes used by more liberal scholars to argue that 1st. Timothy was not even written by Paul because they would argue that the book of Luke did not exist yet. Others argue that it is a quote of the OT, though I think the argument for this being the case is quite weak. The case for it being a quote of Luke 10:7 is quite a bit more compelling IMO.

ken