So as to not hijack. . .for BibleApologist

[JaneFrances]

Mr. Truthstalker kindly asked that this topic not derail his thread on Covenant Theology (which is wholly worthy of its own thread). . .So, here we go!

The cutting and the pasting are difficult skills to master, so if the below dialogue seems confusing, here’s the original source (and a nod to Mr. Truth’s thread):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=110122

Jane Francis said…

Quote:
And on a very practical level, you too consider a teaching other than inspired Scripture as equally authoritative–your interpretation!

(okay. . .that last one wasn’t a question. . .but it still did burn)

and SemperJase said…

Quote:
You are not claiming the every word that proceeds from God is recorded in the Bible are you?

And so, Mr. Bibleapologist begins:

Rather than immediately turning out questions that divert attention from the subject at hand, let’s focus on the root issue here.

Okay. . .but promise us you will turn out some questions eventually!

Both of you, as have others, stated that you believe there are other teachings that equate with scripture as being God inspired. The Bible does not teach that in any way, but actually forbids it and exhorts Christians to only trust scripture as it was written before the end of the 1st century.

I qualified the statements in my previous post, and the statements in this one by this…

Quote:
Rev 22:18 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:
Rev 22:19 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.

What are you suggesting? Do you actually believe that when St. John referred to “this book,” he meant the entire canon of Sacred Scripture? Please, please, please, say that isn’t your smoking gun!

Paul, speaking to Timothy said…

Quote:
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];

No mention of written Word here.

Of course, as this verse was inspired by God, and preserved by Him through the ages… it was also written for us. We are not commanded to give attention to new doctrines or teaching that doesn’t coincide with scripture, in fact the exact opposite…

Okay. . .still no Scriptural proof for your new doctrine of “no authority equal to Scripture”.

Quote:
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

And here again Paul exhorts Timothy…

Quote:
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:
1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

We are to teach NO OTHER DOCTRINE, than that which was already given.

Great Scripture, Bibleapologist!

Yet, again, you have not proven your point.

You still have not provided proof from Sacred Scripture to prove your point that Sacred Scripture is the supreme authority.

Keep trying.

 

[SemperJase]

Rev 22:18 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:

BA,
I am surprised as a bible apologist that you claim this verse for sola scriptura. John was referring only to what he had written in the Revelation. He could not have been referring to the entire collection of books you call the Bible (a few short of what catholics have called the Bible since the fourth century) was not compiled yet.

He even clarifies “prophecy of this book” - the book of Revelation.

Jane has already responded to your other quotes. I just add again, no where in scripture is the “Word of God” defined only as written scripture.

My only other question is, do you hold to KJV only?

 

[bibleapologist]

I am surprised as a bible apologist that you claim this verse for sola scriptura. John was referring only to what he had written in the Revelation. He could not have been referring to the entire collection of books you call the Bible (a few short of what catholics have called the Bible since the fourth century) was not compiled yet.

I apologize if this statement sounds like I am judging Catholic’s all-inclusively… It is amazing to me how Catholics (and anyone really) can justify a verse like this one in such a practical manner… while at other times their arguments are based on the Sovereignty of God.

Here are your questions…

Could not God have divinely inspired John on the Isle of Patmos to write the paragraph pertaining to “this book”… fully knowing that paragraph would be included in, and at the end of the canon of scripture?

If the book of revelation is divinely inspired, and God regards that only that book to not be added to or taken away from… what is it about the other books of the Bible that allow for addition or retraction?

Do Catholics believe that the other 65 books of the Bible are any less inspired than the book of Revelation?

If, as you say, that statement was made by “John”, and not by God himself, what authority did John have to call plagues on anyone, or remove their name from the book of life?

If John had the authority to make that statement as an Apostle (as I would guess your response to the last question would be), what made him more authoritative, or his teaching more exclusive to truth than any other Apostle?

Awaiting your answers.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Atreyu]

Could not God have divinely inspired John on the Isle of Patmos to write the paragraph pertaining to “this book”… fully knowing that paragraph would be included in, and at the end of the canon of scripture?

Of course, but it gives us absolutely no indication as to what “this book” constitutes. Which canon is it: Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? The most obvious interpretation is that John is speaking of the book of Revelation alone.

If the book of revelation is divinely inspired, and God regards that only that book to not be added to or taken away from… what is it about the other books of the Bible that allow for addition or retraction?

Non sequitur. Simply because Revelation is the only book that explicitly says not to add or subtract anything from it, in no way means that it is OK to add or subtract from all the other books! The Catholic teaching on a closed canon is not derived from the Bible itself, as that would be begging the question. More on this later…

Do Catholics believe that the other 65 books of the Bible are any less inspired than the book of Revelation?

Not at all. Revelation is simply the only book that explicitly states that it is inspired (actually, I can’t remember exactly what it says right now, something like that anyway). But the measure of canonicity within the Catholic Church is the same for Revelation as it is for every single other book in the Bible: Sacred Tradition. It is from Tradition that we obtain the canon of the Bible. As Augustine says (paraphrased): “I would not believe in the Scriptures if it were not for the authority of the Church”.

If, as you say, that statement was made by “John”, and not by God himself, what authority did John have to call plagues on anyone, or remove their name from the book of life?

The statement was made by God under the direct inspiration of God. I have no idea “how much” was God and “how much” was John. I just don’t know. Do you? And can you tell how much is from God and how much is from John explicitly from the Bible only? Where does it say that?

If John had the authority to make that statement as an Apostle (as I would guess your response to the last question would be), what made him more authoritative, or his teaching more exclusive to truth than any other Apostle?

He isn’t more authoritative than any other apostle. Where’d you get that from?

 

[Lillith]

Could not God have divinely inspired John on the Isle of Patmos to write the paragraph pertaining to “this book”… fully knowing that paragraph would be included in, and at the end of the canon of scripture?

If you really believe that John is speaking of the New Testament as a whole…Then do you agree that Martin Luther had no authority to remove seven books from the cannon of scripture?

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m going to jump into the fray here with the point that Scripture speaks of two kinds of tradition: that of God and that of man. Jesus condemned the former but required the latter. The following points need to be made:

1. There are traditions of men that Jesus condemned. I think we agree on that.
2. There was revelation in addition to the Scriptures. When the apostles preached the Gospel, they weren’t handed a book to hand out, but they preached from revelation. They wrote down the some of the revelation in their Gospels, letters and Revelations.
   John stated there were things Jesus did that are not included in His Gospel.
3. We find an apostolic tradition we are bound to follow in places like 2 Thess 2:13: “hold onto the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” If we are bound to follow it, then God provided an effective means of transmitting it. Since the means seems to be teaching, that strongly indicates that the means is the Church.
4. The Sola Scriptura adherent must insist all the relevant revelation is within the bounds of the Bible. Unfortunately there is no proof of that nor even a suggestion within the Bible that that is the case. In fact, 2 Tim 3:16, that favorite of SSers, says Scripture is profitable, not that it is sufficient nor adequate for the man of God to be made complete.
5. Paul wrote a letter to the Laodiceans that has been lost. If found and proven to be authentic, it would stand every chance of being admissible to the canon. It being an apostolic writing, it would be considered inspired as Paul’s teaching is considered to be infallible owing to his standing in the church. However, it was not preserved. Thus, not all inspired Scripture (graphai) is even in the Bible.
6. Scripture must be read and interpreted within an informational context linguistically and culturally. To understand who the Pharisees are, someone must teach you. To understand vocabulary and syntax, someone must teach you. To understand what is figurative, metaphor and literal, again, someone must teach you how to tell the difference, and what verse is explanatory of another, and what is basic. Without this didactic structure you simply cannot read the Bible. We all have it. God gace us that structure in the Catholic Church to safeguard instruction, and without it we must construct a non-inspired context that is prone to error. Sola Scripture is simply unworkable when viewed from this approach, as this context is critical to determining what Scripture says, and so this context can trump Scripture. The only way to avoid it is to accept that there is an unwritten Tradition that informs us to what the meaning of Scripture is, just as Scripture informs us as to what Tradition means. They work together. To destroy one is to lose the other.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Not at all. Revelation is simply the only book that explicitly states that it is inspired (actually, I can’t remember exactly what it says right now, something like that anyway).

HI,
I just wanted to let you know what 2 Timothy 3:16 says, ** ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God ** and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. Just thought you would like to know that the book of Revelations wasnt the only book that said it was inspired by the God.

It is from Tradition that we obtain the canon of the Bible.

Actually it is from God through the human hands of the church.

As Augustine says (paraphrased): “I would not believe in the Scriptures if it were not for the authority of the Church”.

I would not rely that heavily on man. Humans cannot be trusted that completely.
I use the bible as my plum line. If a human tells me something and it doesnt line up with what the bible teaches-then I do not believe it. I know that probably sounds strange to you, but IMHO I believe this is how God wants us to use His LIVING BREATHING WORD for our lives.
Thanks–that is all I have to say.

 

[Truthstalker]

HI,
I just wanted to let you know what 2 Timothy 3:16 says, ** ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God ** and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. Just thought you would like to know that the book of Revelations wasnt the only book that said it was inspired by the God. Actually it is from God through the human hands of the church. I would not rely that heavily on man. Humans cannot be trusted that completely.
I use the bible as my plum line. If a human tells me something and it doesnt line up with what the bible teaches-then I do not believe it. I know that probably sounds strange to you, but IMHO I believe this is how God wants us to use His LIVING BREATHING WORD for our lives.
Thanks–that is all I have to say.

In 2 Tim 3:16 the word is “writings”: all writings are inspired? Don’t think so. The Church declared what writings are and aren’t inspired. There’s no special word for “Scripture” in the Bible in contrast to other writings. Some writings clearly aren’t useful for these purposes. Since there are two classes of “Writings”, someone (i.e. the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) has to say what is in what class.

Jesus is the living breathing Word of God. To equate the Bible with the full Word smacks of Bibliolatry. To not trust Jesus to act through His Church is to not trust Him. The reverse is also true: trust Him, trust His Church. And to trust the Church is to trust Him, as the Church is His Body.

I still haven’t heard a good Protestant rebuttal of the above. I’m waiting.

 

[SemperJase]

Could not God have divinely inspired John on the Isle of Patmos to write the paragraph pertaining to “this book”… fully knowing that paragraph would be included in, and at the end of the canon of scripture?

I suppose he could have but he didn’t. Revelation clearly states “the prophecy of this book”. Most of the NT is not prophecy. The passage loses its meaning when you attempt to apply it to the whole bible.

If the book of revelation is divinely inspired, and God regards that only that book to not be added to or taken away from… what is it about the other books of the Bible that allow for addition or retraction?
Do Catholics believe that the other 65 books of the Bible are any less inspired than the book of Revelation?

Your count is off. There are 73 books in the Bible. Protestants tried to remove 7 of them. But that brings up the issue, if Revelation supports your point, how do you justify the Protestants removing books from the Old Testament that had been recognized as biblical for the previous 1200 years? Either the original Bible was invalid (which means that it never was inerrant to start with) or that Luther did not have the authority to remove those boooks.

Paul also warns about preaching a different gospel. Catholics agree with that and catholic teaching is consistent with scripture (although I’m sure you disagree). But in his warning Paul never confines valid teaching to only what was written down.

If, as you say, that statement was made by “John”, and not by God himself, what authority did John have to call plagues on anyone, or remove their name from the book of life?

I mention John only as the person who wrote the words. If God had meant more than Revelation, why did he not direct John to say that know one could add or take away from “scripture” rather than “this book of prophecy”.

 

[SemperJase]

HI,
I just wanted to let you know what 2 Timothy 3:16 says, **ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God **and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

While I agree that all scripture is inspired by God, I think you are missing the point of this passage.

2 Tim 3:14-16
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Paul is telling Timothy that even though he has learned of Christ and the new covenant he should still not to forget the Old Testament. As it is scripture, it is still profitable for teaching.
This is a warning not to through out the Old Testament rather than a call for learning only from scripture.

 

[Atreyu]

Actually it is from God through the human hands of the church.

Absolutely!

 

[bibleapologist]

SemperJase said,

Paul is telling Timothy that even though he has learned of Christ and the new covenant he should still not to forget the Old Testament. As it is scripture, it is still profitable for teaching.
This is a warning not to through out the Old Testament rather than a call for learning only from scripture.

Although I partly agree with you that Paul was in fact speaking of the Old Testament (v. 15), he also qualifies that he was speaking of “New Testament” scripture in verse 14. This epistle was most likely Paul last epistle before his death, and it cannot be disregarded then that all the previous epistles (including 1 Timothy) were existing manuscripts at this time, and had been copied and shared amongst the churches by this time.

It needs to be understood here, that the statement “all scripture” is not a qualifier for “all writing” as some believe. To say the writings of Plotinus, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, or LaVey could be qualified as “profitable for doctrine” or “instruction in righteousness” is erroneous to say the least.

It is also just as dangerous to say any writing (scripture) is inspired unless it coincides perfectly with the canon of scripture. So, we would do well to study the scriptures (1 Tim. 2:15) to shew ourselves approved…

2Ti 2:14 Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Paul was admonishing Timothy to study the scripture (OT and Pauline epistles)… rightly dividing the word of truth… indicating that there was and is a “word of truth” that existed during that time.

Peter, speaking of Paul’s epistles, qualified them as inspired and exhorted the readers to heed them, lest they fall from their steadfastness.

2Pe 3:16 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.

Just before that statement, Peter stated that (we), should be mindful of the words that were spoken to us…

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of

the commandment of us the apostles

of the Lord and Saviour:

Both of these references were “past tense” indicating that all the necessary canon of scripture had already been fulfilled… or, as writing of the unction of the Holy Spirit, meant for us in this day and supposing to include the preserved canon of scripture that exists today…

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[John_Henry]

Although I partly agree with you that Paul was in fact speaking of the Old Testament (v. 15), he also qualifies that he was speaking of “New Testament” scripture in verse 14.

Actually, 14 doesn’t speak of the NT in the least. You are assuming what you still have to prove. Namely, that scripture is and was the only source of saving truth. 14 merely speaks of what Timothy has “learned” from Paul. It doesn’t say how he learned it. It is not only possible, but probable that he learned by hearing it straight from Paul’s mouth.

This epistle was most likely Paul last epistle before his death, and it cannot be disregarded then that all the previous epistles (including 1 Timothy) were existing manuscripts at this time, and had been copied and shared amongst the churches by this time.

Though Paul’s manuscripts were shared early, much of what we call the NT was not accepted as canonical until much (much) later. And those books that were initially rejected were rejected partially because those churches had not received them “at this time”. Books like Revelation and Jude.

To say the writings of Plotinus, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, or LaVey could be qualified as “profitable for doctrine” or “instruction in righteousness” is erroneous to say the least.

That would be a straw man. While it is obvious to the 21st century Christian that Hegel and Marx are not “profitable”, it was considerably less obvious to first and second century Christians whether the book of Revelation and the epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians were “profitable”. Again, it wasn’t until the last part of the 4th century that such critical issues as the canon of scripture were eventually worked out.

It is also just as dangerous to say any writing (scripture) is inspired unless it coincides perfectly with the canon of scripture. So, we would do well to study the scriptures (1 Tim. 2:15) to shew ourselves approved…

Right. But you continue to be unable to shew how, without the aid of tradition, the Church was to arrive at that canon, which, again, she did not arrive at until the late 4th century. And even then, it continued to be debated for centuries.

Paul was admonishing Timothy to study the scripture (OT and Pauline epistles)… rightly dividing the word of truth… indicating that there was and is a “word of truth” that existed during that time.

Again you assume what you are to prove, namely that Paul is including his epistles as Scripture. Now, others certainly did, and very early in Church history. But you have not shown that Paul, in the referenced verses, includes his letters as “sacred writings”.

Peter, speaking of Paul’s epistles, qualified them as inspired and exhorted the readers to heed them, lest they fall from their steadfastness.

Though I agree we need to heed them, again, you interject your agenda onto the scriptures. It does not say, in the verse you quoted, that they need to heed them. And Peter certainly doesn’t say that they were inspired. Of course, we know they are inspired. But Peter does not say that. The Catholic Church of the first few centuries said that.

Both of these references were “past tense” indicating that all the necessary canon of scripture had already been fulfilled… or, as writing of the unction of the Holy Spirit, meant for us in this day and supposing to include the preserved canon of scripture that exists today…

At least we can agree that they were in the past tense! But again, you assume what you are to prove.

remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

That the predictions of the holy prophets were transmitted to Peter’s generation by means of “sacred writings” is also we can agree on. Yay. But after that, he only tells them to remember the commandments of our Savior given through the apostles. Now, certainly some of those commandments were no doubt given in letters. But. Others were also no doubt given orally, as St. Paul attests elsewhere (2 Thess. 2:15). Either way, this verse doesn’t say what you say it says. It certainly doesn’t equate the apostles writings as inspired sacred scripture. Not to be misunderstood, of course they ARE inspired sacred scripture. But again, but none of what you are saying establishes from scripture that only writings are inspired. And that all that was used to establish saving truth during the apostolic era was “sacred writings”. It is quite obvious, in fact, that it wasn’t. When Paul visited the Corinthians, did he just sit mutely in a corner, writing the commandments of the Lord down, to be read later? No, he obviously instructed them in the faith verbally, supplying what was lacking later by means of letters.

 

[BigTurkey]

To say the writings of Plotinus, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, or LaVey could be qualified as “profitable for doctrine” or “instruction in righteousness” is erroneous to say the least.

I agree about all except Kierkegaard. I think Kierkegaard was one of the most clear and forceful religious thinkers of all time. (I have heard John Paul II was a lover of Kierkegaard.) Most people think he is an anti-rationalist, but that is based on a misunderstanding of his authorship. He wrote under pseudonyms, but the pseudonyms do not represent his viewpoint. He makes this clear.

-BT

 

[JaneFrances]

Although I partly agree with you that Paul was in fact speaking of the Old Testament (v. 15), he also qualifies that he was speaking of “New Testament” scripture in verse 14. This epistle was most likely Paul last epistle before his death, and it cannot be disregarded then that all the previous epistles (including 1 Timothy) were existing manuscripts at this time, and had been copied and shared amongst the churches by this time.

That you would agree, at least in part, that St. Paul is referring to the Old Testament in 2 Timothy is a good thing.

You fall short, however, in your statement: “he also qualifies that he is speaking of “New Testament” scripture in verse 14.” I will demonstrate–verse 14 will appear in bold.

You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me.
In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
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 (the) 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, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Peter 3:10-16)

As one can clearly discern, there is absolutely no mention of New Testament Scripture in verse 14. You have misinterpreted this passage of Sacred Scripture based upon and to prove your own preconceived notion that the only authoritative teachings are those which are written.

To be sure, St. Paul is speaking about Sacred Scripture in this epistle, however he is also speaking of the authoritative impact of his “teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, and sufferings.” That is, in his letter to St. Timothy, St. Paul encourages him to not overlook the powerful instructions in both the written word and in the unwritten example of his apostolic mission.

In addition, St. Paul makes no qualification which sets the Scripture (Old or New Testament) as superior to the authority of his “teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, and sufferings.”

You have misrepresented Sacred Scripture to suit your own new doctrine.

It needs to be understood here, that the statement “all scripture” is not a qualifier for “all writing” as some believe. To say the writings of Plotinus, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, or LaVey could be qualified as “profitable for doctrine” or “instruction in righteousness” is erroneous to say the least.

Your point is well taken. However, you have missed the point, I think, of Mr. Truth’s posting. Please reread it.

It is also just as dangerous to say any writing (scripture) is inspired unless it coincides perfectly with the canon of scripture.

I don’t know what that means.

So, we would do well to study the scriptures (1 Tim. 2:15) to shew ourselves approved…

Amen!

Paul was admonishing Timothy to study the scripture (OT and Pauline epistles)… rightly dividing the word of truth… indicating that there was and is a “word of truth” that existed during that time.

Once again, you have represented St. Paul’s message to fit into your false notion that “the word of truth” pertains only (or at least superiorly) to the written word.

Do not misunderstand. . .OF COURSE, St. Paul is telling Timothy to study Scripture! However, you have failed to prove that he intends to communicate that Sacred Scripture is a superior authority to oral teachings.

continue. . .

 

[JaneFrances]

. . .continued

Peter, speaking of Paul’s epistles, qualified them as inspired and exhorted the readers to heed them, lest they fall from their steadfastness.

There is no arguement that St. Peter discerned the truthful witness of St. Paul’s writings. . .This does not prove your position, precisely because we agree on this entirely. It is prudent to point out at this time that St. Peter also warned:

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Just before that statement, Peter stated that (we), should be mindful of the words that were spoken to us…

Both of these references were “past tense” indicating that all the necessary canon of scripture had already been fulfilled… or, as writing of the unction of the Holy Spirit, meant for us in this day and supposing to include the preserved canon of scripture that exists today…

John, once again, you have interpreted this passage of Scripture with your own extra-Scriptural doctrine as your foundation.

This is precisely what St. Peter writes:This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; through them by way of reminder I am trying to stir up your sincere disposition,
to recall the words previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and savior through your apostles.

And, once again, it is important to note what St. Peter is ACTUALLY saying. He is writing to the Church at large. He is instructing them to “recall” (“be mindful”) of what has been spoken in faith in previous times. Your assumption that the only “words” which are authoritative are those which are written is not substantiated within the text of St. Peter’s writings.

In fact, one can easily conclude, from Scripture (John 21:25), that many words were “previously spoken” by holy prophets and the apostles which were not recorded in the written form.

 

[JaneFrances]

. . .JohnHenry, had I been reading instead of writing, I could have saved myself some time and energy!

 

[bibleapologist]

John_Henry, you said…

Actually, 14 doesn’t speak of the NT in the least. You are assuming what you still have to prove. Namely, that scripture is and was the only source of saving truth. 14 merely speaks of what Timothy has “learned” from Paul. It doesn’t say how he learned it. It is not only possible, but probable that he learned by hearing it straight from Paul’s mouth.

Which brings us back to what is to be considered “inspired” scripture, and why. You are right, the teaching that paul was referring to could very well have been taught to Timothy by word rather than by letter (although this is recorded as the second letter to Timothy). I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

But, I think we need to make a couple of things clear.

1. If the Old Testament is inspired (which I think we all agree… God said He would preserve His Word forever. (Psalm 12:7)
2. God has indeed preserved His word and proven Himself faithful to this day.
3. Because He has obviously peserved His word, and it could only be by His Grace, and His Mightly Hand manipulating certain events to cause His will to be fulfilled, it stands to reason that since there is other scripture included with that preserved Old Testament word, that God would have that scripture to be included.
4. As for the inclusion of the NT epistles … Jesus, Who is God in the flesh; chose 12 men to be Apostles (messengers) to preach the gospel…

Mar 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

And these Apostles did not preach their own message, but the gospel that was given to them by the Holy Spirit…

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus promised that He would send to us certain people gifted to be “scribes”, who would be responsible to carry out His will to “preserve” His Word (that is what a scribe does)…

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:

1. Why would Jesus need to send unto us scribes, if the Jews already had scribes who had perfected the art. What scripture would need to be copied, that Jesus felt it would be necessary to encourage Christians that He would preserve? And why would those particular scribes be in danger of being killed?..

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.
Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

These scribes would be hated because they wrote scripture pertaining to Jesus… whom the Jews hated… not because they merely copied Old Testament scripture.

1. Since there are (according to the arguments above) canonized scripture beyond the Old Testament (canonized by God). How can we tell what scripture is to be included in canon and what is not? We can refer to the symbolism of the Old Testament to get a clue…

Lev 24:5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.
Lev 24:6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD

.

These “cakes” representing the “Bread of Life” which is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14). This bread was set up in two rows, six on a row… first of all there were 12 cakes altogether which could represent the 12 Apostles and the 12 tribes of Israel from which the Word came… but it is also plausible that these two rows of six represented the 66 books of the present state of the Word of God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[SemperJase]

. . .JohnHenry, had I been reading instead of writing, I could have saved myself some time and energy!

Thankfully, I did read first. The only thing I can add is that BA is also making a mistake in assuming that all the books of the bible written before 2 Timothy were as available as they are today.

Telling Timothy to read only scripture for his learning and assuming that would apply to all the other Christians at the time was impractical at best. Even if those Christians did agree on what exactly the “canon” was, there was no ability to widely distribute Paul’s letters. Remember, the printing press wasn’t even invented until the year 1440. Even after the bible was assembled and recognized as canon, a complete bible was a rare and very expensive item. Just like common people do not own Leer jets today, only the richest people had their own Bible.

Side note, this is why Bibles were chained in Catholic churches. Not to prevent people from reading it (a common accusation), but to protect against theft of the most valuable property in a church.

And even though 2 Timothy may have been Paul’s last epistle, do not forget that important books that Christian doctrine is supported by were not yet written: a couple of the gospels, John’s epistles, Revelation. It is also likely that Paul hadn’t even seen some other of the books that actually had been written. He himself wouldn’t have known what he was referring to if he said “read the New Testament”.

Until the printing press was in wide use - around the 1500’s - hardly anyone had the access to scriptures. Paul was not telling Christians to learn only from scripture because no one could have done that for nearly 400 more years and even then only a very few who could actually afford a bible.

This point is an example of why I find sola scriptura dangerous. When people try to use scripture alone, they ignore some important tools in interpreting scripture. They not only discard tradition, they also forget historical and cultural contexts.

One more example. When sola scriptura/sola fide believers preach against works they will quote Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

They ignore the historical context. The Roman state proclaimed their emporer as a god. Confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord was in direct opposition to the emperor’s position. As such, that confession could get you a death sentence. Confessing was a work. You put your life at risk to do so.

The bible is not self-interpreting.

 

[bibleapologist]

Until the printing press was in wide use - around the 1500’s - hardly anyone had the access to scriptures. Paul was not telling Christians to learn only from scripture because no one could have done that for nearly 400 more years and even then only a very few who could actually afford a bible.

Your right… Paul was telling Timothy, the pastor to study and teach for that very reason.

The existence of “chain Bibles” alone would be an indication of their worth, and the value they held, not only monetarily but spiritually; which of course the New Testament scripture wasn’t compiled until later. The existence of the epistles, and their worth was evident as we can read from Turtullian that these epistles were displayed in the churches and were referred to frequently.

And even though 2 Timothy may have been Paul’s last epistle, do not forget that important books that Christian doctrine is supported by were not yet written: a couple of the gospels, John’s epistles, Revelation. It is also likely that Paul hadn’t even seen some other of the books that actually had been written. He himself wouldn’t have known what he was referring to if he said “read the New Testament”.

Which is precisely why we cannot assume that the propagation of the gospel, or the inspiration of scripture was an act of the Apostles alone… it was an act of God.

John, on the Isle of Patmos may not have even known that the book of Revelation would even be read… but knowing that he was the last living Apostle and this scripture being the last of the Apostles; he wrote at the end…

Rev 22:18 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:
Rev 22:19 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.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Rev 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.

And God, being omniscient knowing all things inspired John to write and end his letter as such.

John
www.gideonsword.net