Need help answering a Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter alitaptap
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ahs said:
Well, I realize that nothing I say will make SS go away. But that doesn’t mean I should just ignore it, does it? If we see obvious flaws in a teaching, should we not call attention to them? Should we not test all things to be sure they are really true, or if they are doctrines of man? Should we not ask for some proof of authority from those who suddenly decided that, after 1,500 years of Sacred Tradition, the oral Tradition gets trumped by what has been written? Should we not inquire when a novel idea is presented to us?
Click to expand...
We have all the authority we need in the Scripture.

You do believe the scriptures are the Word of God, and therefore, that they carry the authority of God, don’t you?
 
ahs said:
But again, I digress, William C.

William C, let’s get back to the question that Bookcat posed: How do you know what books make up the New Testament? That they are indeed inspired?
Click to expand...
Gee, I, I don’t know…will you tell me? :cool:
 
William_C said:
Gee, I, I don’t know…will you tell me? :cool:
Click to expand...
Well, I can tell you how I know. But I can’t tell you how you know. And I have given you my word that I will answer you how I know after you have answered first.

But if by, “gee I don’t know” you really mean you do not know…then how is it that you claim something that you do not know is true (that the NT is the Word of God)? If you do not know what books truly make up the NT, and do not know that they are indeed inspired, then how is it that you place Authority with them?

You do believe the NT scriptures are the Word of God, and therefore, that they carry the authority of God, don’t you? If so, then how do you, William C, know what books make up the New Testament? That they are indeed inspired?
 
ahs said:
Well, I can tell you how I know. But I can’t tell you how you know. And I have given you my word that I will answer you how I know after you have answered first.

But if by, “gee I don’t know” you really mean you do not know…then how is it that you claim something that you do not know is true (that the NT is the Word of God)? If you do not know what books truly make up the NT, and do not know that they are indeed inspired, then how is it that you place Authority with them?

You do believe the NT scriptures are the Word of God, and therefore, that they carry the authority of God, don’t you? If so, then how do you, William C, know what books make up the New Testament? That they are indeed inspired?
Click to expand...
I have the table of contents.
 
I’m going to make the case that there were Scriptures among the first century Christians (not just OT Scripture). If you accept that the NT was written by the various apostles then it was nearly complete by the mid 60s AD. By that time I believe only John was still alive. Peter and James addressed their epistles to Christians in wide areas. Paul instructed the Colossians to share their letter with the Laeodicians (Laodiceans? Laeodeceans?) Peter instructs Christians to grow in grace and knowledge, pretty difficult if there is no reading material. Peter also mentions Paul’s letters, and warns that people will distort his words. Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel in Timothy. Letters were being copied and shared all over. Even NT critic Bart Ehrman conceded that Christianity was an exceptionally literate religion in an illiterate time. By the early second century ECFs had quoted from almost all the books of the NT (I believe Revelations, 2 and 3 John). It is very possible that early Christians did have some of the NT. So don’t discount the role of Scripture in the early history of the church.
 
William_C said:
Will you tell me the answer? :cool:
Click to expand...
We can not see inside you. How on earth can we tell you how you know?

I am awaiting your answer.

We both read the Sacred Scriptures and love them.

How do* you* know what books say make up the New Testament? How do you know they are indeed inspired?
 
stevekehl said:
I’m going to make the case that there were Scriptures among the first century Christians (not just OT Scripture). If you accept that the NT was written by the various apostles then it was nearly complete by the mid 60s AD. By that time I believe only John was still alive. Peter and James addressed their epistles to Christians in wide areas. Paul instructed the Colossians to share their letter with the Laeodicians (Laodiceans? Laeodeceans?) Peter instructs Christians to grow in grace and knowledge, pretty difficult if there is no reading material. Peter also mentions Paul’s letters, and warns that people will distort his words. Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel in Timothy. Letters were being copied and shared all over. Even NT critic Bart Ehrman conceded that Christianity was an exceptionally literate religion in an illiterate time. By the early second century ECFs had quoted from almost all the books of the NT (I believe Revelations, 2 and 3 John). It is very possible that early Christians did have some of the NT. So don’t discount the role of Scripture in the early history of the church.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct that within the first century some of the NT was already in use. In fact, there is strong evidenace that a 4-fold Gospel was being used. But there was no defined Canon, and the books use during the Scripture readings were not limited to the books that currently make up our NT. There were MANY writings, and some that were read from during the Mass included the Didache and Hermas’ “Shepherd”. The point is asking how one knows which books belong in the Canon of the NT is that, of all the hundreds of writings that were circulating at the time, how did one know which were to be considered the inspired Word of God?

Click the link below and scroll down to Canon of New Testament and Canon of Old Testament for more in-depth information.

newadvent.org/cathen/c.htm

The question is, how do you know that the books in today’s NT Canon are really the inspired Word of God?

But more to the point of the topic in this thread, how can SS be defended when it fails to address a very real problem:

**There are at least two camps of Protestant Christians in regards to OSAS. Both hold directly conflicting views of OSAS and both base their views on sola Scriptura. Using sola Scriptura, how is this conundrum resolved? **
 
William_C said:
I have the table of contents.
Click to expand...
Yet the table of contents is not part of any book of Scripture (it’s not found in Genesis, nor Revelation, nor any book in between). It’s written at the front of the Bible, just prior to the collection of inspired writings. How do you know that the table of contents correctly identifies which books which are inspired?

How do you, William C, know what books make up the New Testament? That they are indeed inspired?
 
stevekehl said:
I’m going to make the case that there were Scriptures among the first century Christians (not just OT Scripture). If you accept that the NT was written by the various apostles then it was nearly complete by the mid 60s AD. By that time I believe only John was still alive. Peter and James addressed their epistles to Christians in wide areas. Paul instructed the Colossians to share their letter with the Laeodicians (Laodiceans? Laeodeceans?) Peter instructs Christians to grow in grace and knowledge, pretty difficult if there is no reading material. Peter also mentions Paul’s letters, and warns that people will distort his words. Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel in Timothy. Letters were being copied and shared all over. Even NT critic Bart Ehrman conceded that Christianity was an exceptionally literate religion in an illiterate time. By the early second century ECFs had quoted from almost all the books of the NT (I believe Revelations, 2 and 3 John). It is very possible that early Christians did have some of the NT. So don’t discount the role of Scripture in the early history of the church.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe anyone is discounting the role of Scripture in the early church. But what is being discounted is the role of Tradition in the early church. That is the crux of the sola scriptura discussion. It seems that the sola scripturists want to frame the discussion in terms of pro scripturists and anti scri[pturists and that is most certainly not the case. The proper frame of the discussion should be the pro Oral Traditionists and the anti Oral Traditionists. So the question I propose to you is thus: In light of Paul’s command in 2Thess 2:15 to hold onto both the oral and the written Tradition how can you deny the Oral Tradition? For your benefit I listed 2 Thess 2:15 in diffrerent Bible versions which state thusly:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [RSV]

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” [KJV]

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast & keepe the instructions, which ye haue bene taught, either by worde, or by our Epistle.” [Geneva Bible]

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.” [NSV]

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” [DR]
 
William_C said:
You’re howling at the wind. SS is not going away.
Click to expand...
Just as SS is not going away, neither will attacks on the Church established by Christ.

Matthew 16:18
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
Attacks on the Church will continue to the end of time. The source is inexhaustible. But, the Church will withstand those attacks until the end of time.
 
ahs said:
Yet the table of contents is not part of any book of Scripture (it’s not found in Genesis, nor Revelation, nor any book in between). It’s written at the front of the Bible, just prior to the collection of inspired writings. How do you know that the table of contents correctly identifies which books which are inspired?

How do you, William C, know what books make up the New Testament? That they are indeed inspired?
Click to expand...
The table of contents, what else? :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top