Who Has the Final Authority?

[Ginger2]

Which begs the question Ginger2: Where does written Scripture clearly mention 27 NT books for the canon? Do you reject it or deny it?

Are you asking why do I accept 27 books in the New Testament?

 

[Nicea325]

Are you asking why do I accept 27 books in the New Testament?

Yes Ginger2. Where does written scripture mention a 27 NT canon?

Remember your words:

*The claim was that “if it’s not in the Bible it is not to be believed” in-other-words, it is to be denied, rejected.

I said “I am not required to believe it”.*

 

[Ginger2]

Yes Ginger2. Where does written scripture mention a 27 NT canon?

Remember your words:

The claim was that “if it’s not in the Bible it is not to be believed” in-other-words, it is to be denied, rejected.

I said “I am not required to believe it”.

First, there have been many corrupt versions written, so just because a bible contains “all the right books” doesn’t guarantee it’s accuracy. Even the Douay Rheims version has been correct in years times!

Second, even a perfectly translated Bible does not mean the reader will understand, as I pointed out before. It is at the descretion of God who He will impart understanding on.

That said,

The Bible itself is self-authenticating thru a number of factors. Here are a few:

1. The Bible bears witness to which books are truly inspired.

However, the claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.” The book’s historic and geologic accuracy lends supporting witness. Being written in the time and language it claims to be written also lends credence.

1. When confirmed prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other, and when their prophecies come true.
2. The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.)
3. The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.
4. And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistant with the others.

 

[Ginger2]

Remember your words:

The claim was that “if it’s not in the Bible it is not to be believed” in-other-words, it is to be denied, rejected.

I said “I am not required to believe it”.

I think you misunderstand what I said…

The claim against me was that “if it’s not in the Bible it is not to be believed” in-other-words, it is to be denied, rejected.

I was pointing out that is a false claim/accusation. And clarified by saying “I said ‘I am not required to believe it’”

I do not now, nor have I ever asserted all information is found in Scriptures. Nor do I depend solely on the Scripture to guide me.

So, if that is what you mistakenly thought I believe, then your question is flawed as you are asking me to prove something that is false.

 

[joe370]

First, there have been many corrupt versions written, so just because a bible contains “all the right books” doesn’t guarantee it’s accuracy. Even the Douay Rheims version has been correct in years times!

Second, even a perfectly translated Bible does not mean the reader will understand, as I pointed out before. It is at the descretion of God who He will impart understanding on.

That said,

The Bible itself is self-authenticating thru a number of factors. Here are a few:

1. The Bible bears witness to which books are truly inspired.

However, the claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.” The book’s historic and geologic accuracy lends supporting witness. Being written in the time and language it claims to be written also lends credence.

1. When confirmed prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other, and when their prophecies come true.
2. The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.)
3. The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.
4. And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistant with the others.

Things I eventually realized long ago. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, of course doing so with proof texts:

The Bible alone does not bear witness to which books are truly inspired and which books are not. The table of contents does and that was put there by the catholic church.

The fact that certain testimonies of each book are consistent with others, does not help in identifying which books should be included in the bible and which books should be excluded.

Confirmed prophets never identified which books should be included in the bible and which books should be excluded.

Jesus never identified which books should be included in the bible and which books should be excluded.

The apostles never established, in writing, which books should be included in the bible and which books should be excluded.

Scripture nowhere identifies which books should be included in the bible and which books should be excluded. Again, much to my surprise, the table of contents was put there by the Catholic church.

 

[Ginger2]

Things I eventually realized long ago. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, of course doing so with proof texts: …

The apostles never established, in writing, which books should be included in the bible and which books should be excluded.

Scripture nowhere identifies which books should be included in the bible and which books should be excluded. Again, much to my surprise, the table of contents was put there by the Catholic church.

Well, I didn’t mean to suggest all the evidence is all contained in the Scriptures themselves. The Bible is a collection of inspired writings that was put together in one book. However, they knew from the start which writings were inspired and over time corrupt men began to try and introduce psuedo works, but from the beginning, they knew.

First century Christians knew who the Apostles were and that they were indeed spokesmen for God and what they wrote was indeed inspired of God. Therefore their writings were considered Holy Scriptures as it was from God and not man.

The Apostle Paul claimed inspiration* 1Galatians 1:11-12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

and

1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings are indeed God’s written Word.

2 Peter 3:15-16 …as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

There is not a “list” of Scriptures in the NT. But these verses show that Christians definitely knew the Apostles’ writings were indeed inspired of God. From the beginning we have known which books were Holy Scriptures.

The Scriptures tell us and history in the 1st century affirms it. The claim that the RC gave us the canon in the 4th century is ridiculous, imo. It is a claim that denies the Apostles knew their writings were inspired Scriptures - and that is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures proclaim.

These issues arose as men began trying to introduce pseudo-gospels into mix. Many false gospels were being written to deceive Christians. They were not written by Apostles, but some of them claimed to be, as I’m sure you are aware.

What I am trying to say is there is a difference between discerning which Scriptures are inspired and simply gathering them together to help prevent pseudo works from creeping in.

And it is good that is was done, because the more time that passed the more distortions that were rising up.

 

[pablope]

First, there have been many corrupt versions written, so just because a bible contains “all the right books” doesn’t guarantee it’s accuracy. Even the Douay Rheims version has been correct in years times!

Second, even a perfectly translated Bible does not mean the reader will understand, as I pointed out before. It is at the descretion of God who He will impart understanding on.

That said,

The Bible itself is self-authenticating thru a number of factors. Here are a few:

1. The Bible bears witness to which books are truly inspired.

However, the claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.” The book’s historic and geologic accuracy lends supporting witness. Being written in the time and language it claims to be written also lends credence.

1. When confirmed prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other, and when their prophecies come true.
2. The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.)
3. The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.
4. And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistant with the others.

Okay…Ginger…to help you prove this…I have some questions for you…

Where does St. Mark claim authorship of the Gospel of Mark? Please provide the chapter and verse in the Bible where this is.

And after you have located this…this is the follow up question…Why do you now accept the authorship of St. Mark of the Gospel of Mark? And how do you know it is not just a spurious guy named Mark, or any other guy named Mark?

Why do you believe that Mark’s Gospel should be in the Bible?

 

[pablope]

Well, I didn’t mean to suggest all the evidence is all contained in the Scriptures themselves. The Bible is a collection of inspired writings that was put together in one book. However, they knew from the start which writings were inspired and over time corrupt men began to try and introduce psuedo works, but from the beginning, they knew.

First century Christians knew who the Apostles were and that they were indeed spokesmen for God and what they wrote was indeed inspired of God. Therefore their writings were considered Holy Scriptures as it was from God and not man.

 

[joe370]

Hey Ginger…

Ginger2;8464179]Well, I didn’t mean to suggest all the evidence is all contained in the Scriptures themselves.

Perhaps I misunderstood. My bad…

The Bible is a collection of inspired writings that was put together in one book.

I agree, and it was put together by the catholic church; another big surprise for me, as a former Lutheran.

… but from the beginning, they knew.

. The claim that the RC gave us the canon in the 4th century is ridiculous…

And you are entitled to your opinion. No one is denying that the Apostles knew their writings were inspired scripture and I agree that most of the NT books were immediately received as authoritative by the catholic church. However 7 NT books that are now in the canon were, from the 2nd century to the latter part of the 4th century, in certain parts of the Roman Empire, questioned as to their authenticity.

7 books, for a time, were identified as disputed (“antilegomena”). The book of Hebrews was questioned due to the fact that it was written anonymously and to the fact that the author never claimed authority for his work, but eventually it was determined, by the CC that Hebrews was in fact apostolic and deserved a place in the canon.

Certain members in the early catholic church challenged the authorship of the book of James, as well as its truth, just as Martin Luther did many centuries later. The reason given was that they could not identify if the book was referring to James the apostle, but eventually his identity was confirmed by the CC.

2 Peter was also questioned as to its authenticity, by some and the reason given was the style disparity between 1 Peter and 2 Peter which led many to believe there must have been 2 different writers. Also believed was the idea that the earliest testimony of 2 Peter came rather late in Christendom which was why some had doubts as to its authorship.

The authorship of 2 @ 3 John was questioned too because the author never specifically identifies himself; he refers to himself only as “the elder,” and there doesn’t seem to be considerable evidence that they were considered to be authoritative by those in the early catholic church, but the CC, nonetheless, determined that they were to be part of the canon.

Jude was questioned for his use of the apocryphal book of Enoch which he cites as an authoritative source and his reference to a work called “The Assumption of Moses.”

The book of Revelation was also hotly contested by many due to the apocalyptic nature of the work and because certain heretical groups, in the fourth century were misusing it.

Only those 7 books were ever questioned as to their authenticity. The rest were never questioned! The 7 books that were questioned, at times, as to their authenticity, were eventually recognized as sacred scripture by the catholic church. Once the catholic church formally recognized the 27 books we see in our bible today, the case was closed until the days of Martin Luther, and all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the catholic church for collecting, selecting, codifying and preserving those 27 NT books for over a thousand years, long before the printing press was invented which made it considerably easier regarding its preservation.

The Apostle Paul claimed inspiration* 1Galatians 1:11-12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

“Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me…” - is vague for it simply means the good news. Paul never identifies which books should be included in the canon and which books should be excluded.

and

1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

Same there.

Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings are indeed God’s written Word.

2 Peter 3:15-16 …as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

There are other works attributed to both Peter and Paul that never made the cut, and Peter never identifies, by name, which of Paul’s writings are in fact the written word.

From the beginning we have known which books were Holy Scriptures.

But, when uncertainty and doubt as to 7 NT books arose it was the CC that settled the matter for all. If not for the CC your bible might have included: the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions

These issues arose as men began trying to introduce pseudo-gospels into mix. Many false gospels were being written to deceive Christians. They were not written by Apostles, but some of them claimed to be, as I’m sure you are aware.

Books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the NT are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions. It was the CC that decided that they wouldn’t make the cut.

And it is good that is was done, because the more time that passed the more distortions that were rising up.

Amen to that my friend.

 

[lyrikal]

Goodness no. We are here to dialogue and learn from each other. No?

Thanks, Jon! Indeed we are. I have definitely come to a better understanding and have had more respect for the Lutheran Church just from reading your posts. I am (of course) talking about THE original Lutheran Church which I believe you are a part of.

I don’t believe adiaphora would be the correct term, but the confessions do not set a canon of scirpture. Techincally speaking, that leaves the canon open, though in practice we make a distinction between the protocanon and the deuterocanon, that being that doctrine ought not be determined by the deuterocanon alone.

Understood. I would like to pose a more general question then rather than give a specific example:

Is it possible for something not to be found in the Scriptures at all, yet, it is found in Tradition and is as binding and as authoritative as Scripture? Can Tradition (when it is only found in Tradition and not in the Bible) be regarded as the highest authority WITH (not against or instead) the Scripture? Or would they always be regarded as something that is up to the Christian believer to decide whether or not he/she believes in them?

On a side note, honestly speaking, I believe American Lutherans are wrong to use bibles that do not contain the deuterocanon. They ought to be there for study. Some Lutheran lectionaries do occasionally have readings from them.

In your opinion, do you believe that the deuterocanon books are inspired the same way the other 66 books are or do you believe that they are only useful, yet not inspired?

I am aware of both issues, yes.

Jon

Blessings.

 

[lyrikal]

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths.

With regards to the Psalm, I agree with the verse whole heartedly. The only problem would be, I don’t believe that the Bible uses the word “Word” with regards to the Scriptures alone. I believe it is in regards to the Word of God as a whole which I believe to be transmitted through writing (Bible) and Orally (Tradition).

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. -1 Thess 2:13

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. -2 Thess 2:15

There are countless more, but I think it’ll just get repetitive if I show them all.

Joe, perhaps the question in return is, what more than scripture do we need?

I would say that we need Tradition (Oral Word of God) and the Magesterium.

Sure, the Church inteprets scripture and sets doctrine, but I’ve been told Tradition does not contradict scripture. In the end, the essentials of salvation through Jesus Christ are recorded in scripture. No?

You are absolutely right in saying that Tradition does not contradict Scripture. I believe we all agree that Tradition CANNOT contradict Scripture. If it does, then it is not the Word of God because the Word of God cannot contradict the Word of God. The issue (I believe) lies in the fact whether or not Tradition can add (not contradict) to Scripture. Are there doctrines that are found in Tradition that may not be found in the Scriptures? And are those doctrines as authoritative as Scripture? If Tradition is the Oral Word of God, then why wouldn’t they be as authoritative? That answer of course relies on whether or not Lutherans believe that the Word of God was also transmitted orally and not just in writing. That’s where the issue is as far as Catholicism and Lutherans.

Do you know if the Catholic/Lutheran dialogues have tackled this issue? I know they’ve tackled the Eucharist issue, but have they tackled this one? Do you believe there are differences between the two sides that need to be tackled as far as this issue goes?

Blessings as always, Jon!

 

[lyrikal]

I love to use Catholic sources when dialogging with Catholics, so:

Are you suggesting that these men were Catholic?

’Not all that the Lord did was written down, but only what was deemed sufficient, either from the point of view of morals, or from the point of view of dogmas.’ Cyril of Alexandria (died A.D. 444) (Comm. John 12).

Please note that he says “not all that the LORD did was written down…”

Question: Does that mean we throw away the Epistles that don’t talk about what the Lord did? Do we only keep the Gospels since they’re the only things that really record what the Lord did? Don’t you think St. Cyril was talking about the fact that the 4 Evangelists did not record every little thing that the Lord did, but only recorded the important things? This has nothing to do with the Scriptures as a whole.

Here is something from St. Cyril from that same book:

St. Cyril of Alexandria:

And He intimates by the 1- words before us, that if they would take pleasure in being rulers of the people they must believe and must receive through Him the Divine call to undertake this dignity, in order that they might have their rule unshaken and well established; which of course was the case with the holy Apostles, and with the Teachers of the holy Churches after them ; to whom also the porter openeth. That is, either the Angel who is appointed to preside over the churches and to assist those whose lot is to minister in holy things for the good of the people, or else the Saviour Himself, Who is at the same time both the Door and the Lord of the Door. At all events, He very well asserts that the flock of sheep rightly obey and yield to the voice of the shepherd, but very quickly turn away from the voice of strangers; so that thou mayest understand a true matter by extending the application of the argument to something more general. For in the churches we teach by bringing forward our doctrines from the inspired Scripture, and setting forth the Evangelic and Apostolic Word as a sort of spiritual nourishment. And they who believe in Christ and are conspicuous for unperverted faith, **are obedient **listeners to such teaching; but they turn away from the voices of falsifiers, and avoid them as a deadly evil.

-Book 6 of the Gospel of John

Please notice how he believes that the Church plays the part of the interpreter and not just anyone with the Bible.

’eing most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit.’ Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 140-ca. A.D. 202) (Against Heresies 2,28:2).

I don’t know if anyone would disagree that the Scriptures are perfect. What do you think he means by perfect? Do you think he means sufficient or perhaps he means perfect as in they contain no error? If latter, then we agree. Believe me, he means the latter.

St. Irenaeus:

-‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’
AH 3,4:1

-'Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have recieved the certain gift of truth…"
AH 26:2

-“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is MOST abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth”
AH 3,3:3

-“But again when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of successions of the presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition,…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition”
AH 3,2:2

-“Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed(as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down , from which the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons. Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables–I shall endeavor, in this fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord’s doctrine and apostolic epistles; [thus] complying with demand, as thou didst request of me(since indeed I have been assigned a place in ministry of the word); and, laboring by every means…and convert them to the Church of God…that they may preserve steadfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way preverted by those who endeavor to teach them false doctrine…”
AH V Preface

It is clear that Irenaeus believed in the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Church as the interpreter (by means of Apostolic Succession).

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

’[T]he tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.’ Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria (Nicene Definition 32).

Are you aware the St. Athanasius believes that the Scriptures are to be interpreted by the Church and with the Church’s Tradition in mind? Are you aware that he argued against heretics who believed in Sola Scriptura? His whole point is that the Scriptures ARE sufficient only if they are interpreted by the Church and through the Traditions of the Church.

Here is something you may have missed from the book you quoted:

St. Athanasius:

-" For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true doctors but evil."
De Decretis 4(A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:153

-“See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases?”
De Decretis 27(A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:168

-"**ut ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops[at Nicea], as I said before, to publish more DISTINCTLY the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shewn to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have shewn to be corrupt in their phrases and evil dispositions."
De Decretis 32 (A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:172

Elsewhere he writes:

-"[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth…"
Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409
**

The irony here is that St. Athanasius was dealing with Arians who were Sola Scripturalists. He was using the Scriptures to prove the doctrine of the Trinity because that is the only source of revelation that they accepted. Does this sound familiar? The Arians ignored the Church’s interpretation and went with their private interpretation and came up with the Arian doctrine that Christ is not Divine. St. Athanasius teaches that the Scriptures sufficiently teaches that Christ is Divine and sufficiently teaches the Faith but this is only possible if we listen to how the Church interprets the Scriptures through her Tradition that she received from the Apostles.

Notice what he says here:

St. Athanasius:

“Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept.” To Serapion 1:28

-“But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power.”
Festal Letter 2:6

Continued…

 

[Ginger2]

You obviously do not understand what I have said…and some of your questions have already been answered. In fact they have all been answered at some point - several times - in this forum.

But I will respond to one point you made, simply because I can’t resist.

For those who cannot accept a fact of history thinks it is indeed absurd. The apostles were long dead before their writings began to be circulated…

Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thess 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren

As your post already made clear, the Apostles were writing letters to the churches and those letters were being read in the churches. So you are mistaken to say, " The apostles were long dead before their writings began to be circulated "

 

[lyrikal]

Lastly, you said:

’If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or to take away from the written word.’ Tertullian of Carthage (Against Hermogenes 22)

Let’s take a look what Tertullian actually believed in more context:

Tertullian:

-“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.”
Tertullian,On Prescription against the Heretics,32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258

-"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?”
Tertullian,Prescription against the heretics,37(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:261

 

[lyrikal]

To conclude, I would say that I disagree with people who say that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the way you seem to believe it) came in the 16th century with Martin Luther. This is false. The doctrine of SS was definitely found in the early Church. The only problem is, it was found on the side of the heretics.

See look what this Early Church Father (writing in 434 AD) had to say:

Vincent of Lerins

"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
"Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

Sound familiar?

You see, the heretics had no choice but to use the Scriptures only since the Apostolic Tradition and the Apostolic Church taught doctrines that went against their teachings. This is, what I believe, happens today.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
-Ecclesiastes 1:9

Blessings!

 

[Ginger2]

Hey Ginger…

Perhaps I misunderstood. My bad…

You did, but as I looked back, I was not very clear, either.

I agree, and it was put together by the catholic church; another big surprise for me, as a former Lutheran.

I’ve always known about this as I was raised Catholic

I hope you will pardon me for not going thru your post line by line. Most of this has been addressed thoroughly in the past. And back then I was more ambitious. So I am going to pick what is easy and quick.

…

Certain members in the early catholic church challenged the authorship of the book of James, as well as its truth, just as Martin Luther did many centuries later…

Luther was not making a statement of doubt as to the authority of James. .I looked that quote up some time ago, and what Luther actually said was “compared to” (I think it was the epistles of Paul ) “James is an epistle of straw.”

Luther was making a comparison stating other Epistles were much stronger concerning their witness to Christ.
He did not deny the inspiration of James. He merely compared it to other books in reference to their witness.
This is a valid observation, imo. For instance, if you wanted to witness to someone who didn’t know Christ using the New Testament, which book would you be more likely to use:

A. John
B. James

The obvious answer is John. The very purpose in John writing his Gospel is so we may believe Jesus is the Messiah, and by believing we may have life in his name.

So, for this purpose, I agree James is an epistle of straw compared to the others.

Jude was questioned for his use of the apocryphal book of Enoch which he cites as an authoritative source and his reference to a work called “The Assumption of Moses.”

There is no evidence that Jude took the quote from Enoch - only that Enoch mentions the same quote. If Jude did indeed quote from the pseudo- Book of Enoch, it does not lend credence in any way to suggest the Book of Enoch is inspired.
Catholics often cite NT writers supposedly quoting from the Apocrypha as proof the books belong in the canon. Obviously that is not proof in itself, or else Enoch would be in the canon also.

The book of Revelation was also hotly contested by many due to the apocalyptic nature of the work and because certain heretical groups, in the fourth century were misusing it.
joe370;8464368:

Once the catholic church formally recognized the 27 books we see in our bible today, the case was closed until the days of Martin Luther, …

Martin Luther did exactly what Jerome had done.
Luther separated the deuteros from the protocanicals. He appended the deuteros at the end of the OT with this comment, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Jerome stated, " the Church reads the books ….but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads …for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

One thing I noticed is the Pope allowed Jerone to make this comment denying the deuteros within the pages of the Bible!! I think that is very significant.

It wasn’t until after Martin Luther that the CC held a council to determine which books would officially be canonized - and there was some dispute at that council where a vote had to be taken!!!

Books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the NT are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions. It was the CC that decided that they wouldn’t make the cut.

Amen to that my friend.

I would have to research this information to make a decision. And as I already said, I am not that ambitious these days. In the past I have found the claims to lack credibility, so I don’t see any reason to waste the time.

However, if you want to point me to the specific sources, I will try to find time to look them over. Afterall, this seems to be new information.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Hmmm, are you suggesting God created a less than perfect book?

We are talking about sufficiency. A book that commands one to be obedient to an outside authority cannot be sufficient in and of itself, (nor does the Bible claim to be.)

The Scriptures tell us to listen to the Church.
The Scriptures tell us that it is the Church who is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The Scriptures tell us that not everything is contained in Scripture.
The Scriptures tell us also to follow oral Tradition.
The Scriptures (particularly the New Testament) required an outside authority to say what is and what is not actually Scripture.

I’d say that’s a good start.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Luther was not making a statement of doubt as to the authority of James. .I looked that quote up some time ago, and what Luther actually said was “compared to” (I think it was the epistles of Paul ) “James is an epistle of straw.”

That’s actually not entirely correct. Luther did struggle with the canonicity of James throughout his life, and he came to the conclusion that it should not be included, (though he did allow for others to disagree with him on the matter.)

Some quotes from Luther on the matter:

“Therfore the St James epistle is rally an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” LW35,362

“Therfore James concludes falsely that now at last Abraham was justified after that obedience; for faith and righteousness are known by works as by the fruits.”
LW4,26

In 1542 only 4 years before his death he wrote, "We should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, “Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’”
LW54,424-425

---

Oh, and here’s a little quote from him regarding him adding the word “alone” into the Scriptures, (tsk, tsk)…

“Are they doctors? so am I. Are they learned? so am I. Are they preachers? so am I. Are they theologians? so am I. Are they disputators? so am I. Are they philosophers? so am I. Are they the writers of books? so am I. And I shall further boast: I can expound Psalms and Prophets; which they can not. I can translate; which they can not … Therefore the word alone] shall remain in my New Testament, and though all pope-donkeys (Papstesel) should get furious and foolish, they shall not turn it out.”
(Schaff p 63)

 

[Ginger2]

We are talking about sufficiency. A book that commands one to be obedient to an outside authority cannot be sufficient in and of itself, (nor does the Bible claim to be.)

The Scriptures tell us to listen to the Church… the Church who is the pillar and foundation of truth…

So what is the “church” to catholics?

To a Protestant, at least the ones I’ve fellowshipped with, it means:

1. a building where people gather to worship.
2. the body of believers, regardless of where they are (Luk 9:49)

Thanks,