Books of the Bible

[mondar]

Same here. My post above is more for some constructive thought. I will respond to you to clarify a few points.

Which was my point. Individuals now or in the first century or in the 16th century (unless you were named "Martin Luther") didn't just "decide" that a letter was inspired by God. The community as a whole recognized it as such. And continues to recognize them. I am sure you are aware the mere "apostolic authorship" is not in of itself proof that God inspired a writing. Nowhere do we find such a statement in Jewish or Christian writings of the first century.

Nor is the claim to be written by an apostle evidence that is WAS written by an apostle. Most of the NT writings are not self-authenticating as to who actually wrote it. The Gospels, for example. The community of faith attributes them to the four writers named John, Mark, Matthew and Luke. But none of them state this in the actual writing (and Luke, of course, was not an apostle, nor was Mark)

Yes, that's the trick, some group with authority recognized certain writings as such, creating a "canon" or list of writings that were put together to form a "bible". Knowing the model of authority of the Church, it is in the service of the community to make such determinatons. Just as in recognizing what is the Word of God, there is a recognition of who or what is authoritative for the community.

Let me apologize in advance. This format is too short to really lay out an positive statement of my understanding of canon. I would need more space and need to use a lot of references. Please do not take this as a list of verses that I am using each individual verse to refute a position different then mine. Let me make some statement, but they are intended to be taken as a whole. Also, I apologize for the length of the reply and the large number of verses I expect to use. First, some comments on my understanding of the nature of Canon, and then I will write on how I think apostles were related to the subject of canon.

CONCERNING CANON
First, I must reject that any group was ever given "authority" to "recognize certain writings as such, creating a "canon."" Now it is true that if you look in the Westminster Confession and the 2nd London Baptist Confession, we too have lists of books which some group with "authority recognized certain writings as such." The difference is in our view of the council, such as Trent, or Westminster, or the Mormon list of inspired books for that matter. Certainly there is a vague similarity between Rome and Salt Lake City in that but believe their respective lists are infallible lists of inspired canon. Where in the NT do we see any such community that infallibly decides canon?

Oh, I probably should let this pass because I consider it irrelevant to discussion, but where did Luther claim infallible authority to "decide" what was NT canon?

Please note that I modified your statement and put two words in red. The words "decide" and the words "recognize." I would agree that we can (not infallibly) recognize canon, but no individual or even the Church as a whole can "decide" canon.

CONCERNING APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP
When I use the phrase "apostolic authorship" I admit I am not thinking in a narrow sense, but in a much broader sense. I am not suggesting that the Apostles penned the words of the NT with their own hand. Yes, Matthew probably wrote Matthew, Mark probably served as an amanuensis for Peter in the Gospel of Mark. Luke admits to consulting the "eyewitnesses" in Luke 1
2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
Who were these eyewitnesses? In Acts 1 Luke records in Acts 1 that the qualifications for apostleship was being a witness of the earthly ministry and resurrection. On this basis the 12th apostle was named.
21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,

22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Now I use the formula 12 + Paul because Paul was a special apostle, and was the "last" and "least" of the apostles. See 1 Cor 15
8 and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

So then, as Ephesians 2 the 12 + Paul were the foundation of the Church.
20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

Paul distinguishes the Apostolic office as being an office of "revelation" in Ephesians 3.
3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words,
So then, there was this foundational time of revelation in which the apostles received a revelation strait from Christ, and then authoritatively taught orally and in writing and presented the church with a body of doctrines and practice called "the faith." That foundational time of revelation is now over.

Your right in thinking that there is no revelation of canon. So then, anything after this foundational time of revelation, is not infallible or inerrant. Thus canon is a fallible collection of infallible books.

So then, the canon was closed not because men declared it to be closed in some council, but the closing of the canon is merely men recognizing that the foundational time of the 12 + Paul is now over. God has stopped giving NT revelation.

We have had discussions on the term "theopneustos" in 2nd Tim 3:16, Of course that term is directly applied to OT revelation, but on the other hand, all scriptures that is scriptures is inspired, including the revelation found in the apostolic age.

I happen to be studying Philemon. I am wondering why you would consider it "the Word of God" just by reading it apart from its context within the canon.

The first word names the author. No evidence has ever been presented that is sufficient to think that it is not authentically a letter from Paul.


As to OT saints and recognition, the majority of Jews followed the Septuagint during the time of Christ, which included Tobit. They recognized it as God's Word - and the Sadducees didn't accept Isaiah as God's Word... With some of the reasoning used by others on this thread, we should eliminate anything but the Pentateuch proper...That is the problem with looking to the Jews to determine even OT canonicity.

No sola scriptura dig there. Either "we" rely on our own musings/whisperings on what is God's Word or we accept the authority of another body. Be it Catholic, Lutheran or some book publisher that decided to leave out certain books on their own authority.

No offense taken on sola scriptura. I do not think I fit into either of these two categories.

by the way, I see mention of Jerome in this thread. It is clearly done by people who have not studied the matter very much or are not using consistent arguments in their attempt to appeal to logic...

Do people not realize that Jerome accepted the Church's decision on the canon - and that his INDIVIDUAL disagreements were BEFORE the Church stated at Council (Carthage, et al) what was Scriptures? EVERY single doctrine/dogma has someone who disagreed with what would become the "official Church position". So what?

Jerome stated this to Augustine directly, that he accepted the Church's decision once officially declared. Using someone's initial misgivings to toss out part of Sacred Scriptues? Are we about to discount the NT because some Jews didn't like those writings? Or that the Sadducees didn't care for Isaiah?

Well, it is an interesting observation that the Jews different on the question of OT canon. Your right that the Sadducees too a different view than the Pharisees on the question of canon. The Jews made a few collections, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX. Philo and Josephus made some statements. While the collections do not prove much. The copied both canonical and non-canonical books, the statements by Philo and Josephus are of some value. I wish I had those statements available, they do support the view taken by protestants.

I will admit, I do not know much about Jerome and what you are talking about in your statement on Jerome. I am familiar with his list, and I would have to look at a translation of source material written by Jerome that you are referring to. My question would be why is Jerome bowing to Hippo. I too would view councils as authoritative, but not infallibly authoritative. I, myself, would quote Nicea against non-trinitarians, but I do not consider Nicea as infallible, like I do the NT.

 

[francisdesales]

CONCERNING CANON
First, I must reject that any group was ever given "authority" to "recognize certain writings as such, creating a "canon.""

That would seem at odds with the very fact of the existence of such Counciliar documents from the 4th century. Their very existence suggests otherwise.

Now, we shall not quibble over "given" vs. "recognized". The historical effect points to a cause. Authority was not usurped quitely and without mention. Jerome doesn't make such statements, and he does accept their decisions despite his 'learned disagreement'. Communities granted that certain men were in authoritative positions over the rest of the community. The Scriptures themselves note this progression. One would be hard-pressed to ignore this fact. We don't see any reason to believe that any given community "voted" on such matters, although it does not follow that authority would ignore entirely the movement of the Spirit at the community level.

I probably should let this pass because I consider it irrelevant to discussion, but where did Luther claim infallible authority to "decide" what was NT canon?

The very act of proclaming to throw an accepted letter of Sacred Scriptures into the river is such a decision, is it not? By his own resources of the mind and will, he will have it, no matter what the Pope may say on such matters...

Please note that I modified your statement and put two words in red. The words "decide" and the words "recognize." I would agree that we can (not infallibly) recognize canon, but no individual or even the Church as a whole can "decide" canon.

The idea that we have a fallible list of infallible books is logically ludicrous. I'm not trying to offend, but let's call it what it is. If the list is fallible, then we cannot know that the canon is even closed. By such statements, how are we to know that the Koran (as it claims for itself) or Mormon additions are not from God? How do we know that what we DO have is from God??? One of the pillars of Protestantism utterly DEPENDS upon the notion that we have the full and complete Word of God. The idea you mention
fails the test of logic. If you have an infallible collection of books (which is what the Bible is, a collection of books), the canon itself must be infallible.

Mondar, it's a big circular argument. You can't claim the contents of a book is infallible while its table of contents are not.

CONCERNING APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP;;...

Forgive me if I don't address the rest of your discussion on apostles, but it avoids the question that I brought up previously, which is "where is the statement that everything written by a supposed apostle is inspired by God Himself?" Clearly, we have things available that claimed to be written by an apostle (Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Judas?)- even Paul himself "writes with his own hand" because there WERE people pretending to write in his name... Thus, I am going to transcend the discussion on apostolic authorship, because it doesn't prove anything regarding infallibliity.

We have had discussions on the term "theopneustos" in 2nd Tim 3:16, Of course that term is directly applied to OT revelation, but on the other hand, all scriptures that is scriptures is inspired, including the revelation found in the apostolic age.

Mondar, you know better than to add onto what 2 Tim 3 says DIRECTLY after stating that it applies to the OT! No, you cannot have your cake AND eat it! There is nothing to suggest that revelation is complete in the Apostolic age. I am not claiming there is subsequent revelation, but again, that is a teaching of the Church community, NOT the writings of Sacred Scriptures. Your final phrase has nothing to do with what the Scriptures state in 2 Tim 3.

Well, it is an interesting observation that the Jews different on the question of OT canon. Your right that the Sadducees too a different view than the Pharisees on the question of canon. The Jews made a few collections, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX. Philo and Josephus made some statements. While the collections do not prove much. The copied both canonical and non-canonical books, the statements by Philo and Josephus are of some value. I wish I had those statements available, they do support the view taken by protestants.

The observation is to state that the Jews were not a monolithic group that decided the contents of the OT without disagreement. Just as in the early days of Christianity, there was disagreement on the content of canon. Thus, there are deuterocanonical books in BOTH OT and NT. Hebrews and 2nd Peter are of the same nature as Tobit and Wisdom on this subject. Naturally, an argument that tosses out the OT deuterocanonicals MUST also toss out the NT deuterocanonicals, IF one was perfectly consistent. IF one was using the "the Jews didn't accept it, nor will I" when refering to Wisdom... Thus, when someone talks about Jerome, they should be perfectly willing to cast aside James, 2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation, among others.

In both cases, Jews and Christians, authoritative declarations were made to establish the accepted norms of the content of Sacred Writ. Did individual Jews vote? Of course not. A recognized authority made those decision, which became normative for future generations.

I will admit, I do not know much about Jerome and what you are talking about in your statement on Jerome. I am familiar with his list, and I would have to look at a translation of source material written by Jerome that you are referring to. My question would be why is Jerome bowing to Hippo. I too would view councils as authoritative, but not infallibly authoritative. I, myself, would quote Nicea against non-trinitarians, but I do not consider Nicea as infallible, like I do the NT.

Jerome was a man of the Church. Now, did Jerome consider the idea of infallibility? I doubt one could equate Vatican 1 with the mindset of Jerome at the time. He did submit to the Church's authority, however.

But you bring up the question which one must ask - WHERE did you get the idea that Paul's letter writing (among others) is infallibly the Word of God? That is the question I first asked. You have a supposedly infallible book, but yet how does it become so??? Where are the "rules and guidelines" by which I can come to know that this book is from God?

 

[mondar]

mondar said: ↑
CONCERNING CANON
First, I must reject that any group was ever given "authority" to "recognize certain writings as such, creating a "canon.""

That would seem at odds with the very fact of the existence of such Counciliar documents from the 4th century. Their very existence suggests otherwise.
Well, obviously everyone recognizes the existence of the Councils and their documents, but I do not see the need to assume that the existence of the documents means the documents were infallible, or theopneustos.

Now, we shall not quibble over "given" vs. "recognized". The historical effect points to a cause. Authority was not usurped quitely and without mention. Jerome doesn't make such statements, and he does accept their decisions despite his 'learned disagreement'. Communities granted that certain men were in authoritative positions over the rest of the community. The Scriptures themselves note this progression. One would be hard-pressed to ignore this fact. We don't see any reason to believe that any given community "voted" on such matters, although it does not follow that authority would ignore entirely the movement of the Spirit at the community level.

The cause of the historical effect was not councils, but God. Men did not close canon, but God stopped giving revelation and men merely recognized that fact.

The very act of proclaming to throw an accepted letter of Sacred Scriptures into the river is such a decision, is it not? By his own resources of the mind and will, he will have it, no matter what the Pope may say on such matters...

Hmmmm, possibly we are not communicating here. I am not using the word "decide" in the sense you are above. If I understand what you are saying, your claiming that councils infallibly decide what is and is not scripture. It is obvious that men decide (or recognize) what is God's word, but we disagree on the idea that men can decide (infallibly). To say this another way, God creates canon, not Church Councils.

To illustrate this, I might develop a canon of all the posts I made in this thread. If my name were not attached to the threads, others might have their opinions on which posts were mine and which posts were other peoples posts. The ops and admins might even get together and declare their opinion, but none of them would know infallibly. But I know exactly which posts I wrote and I know it infallibly. Now no where did I declare which posts are mine.

The idea that we have a fallible list of infallible books is logically ludicrous. I'm not trying to offend, but let's call it what it is. If the list is fallible, then we cannot know that the canon is even closed. By such statements, how are we to know that the Koran (as it claims for itself) or Mormon additions are not from God? How do we know that what we DO have is from God??? One of the pillars of Protestantism utterly DEPENDS upon the notion that we have the full and complete Word of God. The idea you mention
fails the test of logic. If you have an infallible collection of books (which is what the Bible is, a collection of books), the canon itself must be infallible.

Mondar, it's a big circular argument. You can't claim the contents of a book is infallible while its table of contents are not.

Actually, it is quite logical. What we do have is from God because it bears the marks. In a previous post, I mentioned some of the things that are marks. The NT has apostolic (12 + Paul) authority behind it.

While the term "pillars of Protestantism" is something new to me, yes, I would consider the 5 sola's pillars. However, the idea of canon is not directly related to the issue. I can know Romans is scripture, and have no idea how many more books there are and that would be meaningless. I can know 1 Corinthians is scripture and not know how many more books there are. The point being that I can recognize individual books as scripture, and have no concept of canon and that would still be in accord with the doctrine of sola scritpura. The one concept does not depend upon the other concept. So then, I can recognize Romans as inspired scripture, and not have any idea how many other inspired scripture epistles or books there are. As I said before, canon is not a matter of revelation. I am not denying that I believe the books individually by themselves are inspired by God, but I see no logical reason to see the need to make a list of inspired books. I just have to recognize which individual books are inspired. Canon is not a matter of revelation, and is what I said, a fallible list of infallible books.

Forgive me if I don't address the rest of your discussion on apostles, but it avoids the question that I brought up previously, which is "where is the statement that everything written by a supposed apostle is inspired by God Himself?" Clearly, we have things available that claimed to be written by an apostle (Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Judas?)- even Paul himself "writes with his own hand" because there WERE people pretending to write in his name... Thus, I am going to transcend the discussion on apostolic authorship, because it doesn't prove anything regarding infallibliity.

Well, this would be one point we would disagree on. The nature of an apostle was that he could infallibly remember the words of Christ and teach them. This was not a natural ability, but one in which the HS accomplished.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Concerning the fake Gospels, they are quite easy to recognize. First, there content is not in accord with the rest of apostolic revelation. They have gnostic theology. Also, they were written in the 2nd or 3ird century when no apostles were alive. They did not fool anyone in the early Church, and I see no reason to suspect them as scripture today. Can you tell me, which Church Father was fooled and quoted them as scripture? Why is it that all the way down through history everyone thinks those fake Gospels are just bad jokes? I know people are amazingly gullible and you can always find some dupe that knows nothing about the Bible to jump on the Gospel of Thomas. That is how Mormonism came into existence. But name one Church Father that was duped by the fake Gospels.

Mondar, you know better than to add onto what 2 Tim 3 says DIRECTLY after stating that it applies to the OT! No, you cannot have your cake AND eat it! There is nothing to suggest that revelation is complete in the Apostolic age. I am not claiming there is subsequent revelation, but again, that is a teaching of the Church community, NOT the writings of Sacred Scriptures. Your final phrase has nothing to do with what the Scriptures state in 2 Tim 3.

francis, the context is indisputable in 2 Tim 3:15 that Timothy knew the scriptures from his childhood. That was the OT. During Timothy's childhood, little or probably none of the NT was written. So then, the context is speaking directly of the OT.

Concerning revelation being completed in the apostolic age... that would take a lot of space, but yes, there is evidence in the scriptures of revelation being completed. Maybe I should be giving detail about this, but it would take a lot of space.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Notice the implication of "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

If revelation was not completed in the apostolic age, then why is Revelation the last book of the bible?

word limit reached here.

 

[francisdesales]

Well, obviously everyone recognizes the existence of the Councils and their documents, but I do not see the need to assume that the existence of the documents means the documents were infallible, or theopneustos.

And so why would we assume that the Bible is also an infallible document? On what basis does the members of the Church recognize this?

The first Christians were not as concerned with recording letters for future Christians and compiling a future Bible, but rather, in HANDING DOWN a set of teachings from the Apostles - which came from Christ. This handing down the traditions given, "whether oral OR written", was the important factor to the first Christians. You mention Jud 1:3. Yes, a body of teachings given. People heard and knew the apostolic teachings, many of which were not committed to writing (at least as compiled in the now-dubbed "Bible"). Now, I am presuming that you will grant that the Apostles thought that their teachings were infallible. Paul seems to believe this - as in Galatians 1. Of course, this is part and parcel of our faith - that the Apostles were indeed teaching truth, and not mistaken. We believe these teachings were protected by the Spirit. Both the direct transmission of and the future protection of those teachings. Otherwise, we couldn't be sure that we even have the true apostolic writings.

Within that background and context, we understand that not only were the Apostles' teachings infallible, but that the Spirit ALSO allowed men to recognize these teachings as truth - and that future "apostles" were able to continue that teaching, for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth BECAUSE of the Holy Spirit. Men at Council also recognized the Spirit's work in their gathering, remembering that Jesus would send His Spirit to ensure that the Church would CONTINUE to be the pillar and foundation of the truth.

In other words, Catholics don't see an "expiration date" on the protection of Apostolic teaching, nor do we confine it to only what was written down, since things that were handed down by the Apostles include many other items that were not "written down" in a letter that is now included in Scriptures. Things like how to baptize. If one is saved through baptism, there should be some formula for doing so. Such oral teachings are part and parcel of the tradition handed down. As such, infallibility would extend to them, as well as interpreting their meaning, since the Apostles preached to communities and explained their teachings in ways that we just don't have if we read only the Bible.

the idea of canon is not directly related to the issue. I can know Romans is scripture, and have no idea how many more books there are and that would be meaningless. I can know 1 Corinthians is scripture and not know how many more books there are. The point being that I can recognize individual books as scripture,

To me, that is a circular argument/begging the question.

Protestantism does not claim infalliblity for their teachers "handing down the faith". The only thing that IS infallible is the book already established long time ago called the Bible. If you didn't have the infallible book - and cannot rely on teachers to infallibly teach, you would NOT be able to recognize which letter is infallible and which is not, based on your own "feelings" and what you were taught/self-taught. If you had Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, what WITHIN THAT TEXT would tell you that you did NOT have an apostolic document worthy of being infallible? Because you don't have an infallible teacher/body to teach you the entire faith, you would not be able to discern individual books on whether they were infallible or not. In other words, the teaching comes first, the recognition (of a book or other teachers) comes second. Thus, your argument is begging the question.

And again, at what point does the Holy Spirit no longer protect the teachers from error? I am curious to know on what basis people make the claim of expiring inspiration/protection from error. This has no backing in Scriptures. Is this a teaching from non-infallible teachers?

Concerning revelation being completed in the apostolic age... that would take a lot of space, but yes, there is evidence in the scriptures of revelation being completed. Maybe I should be giving detail about this, but it would take a lot of space.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Notice the implication of "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

If revelation was not completed in the apostolic age, then why is Revelation the last book of the bible?

LOL! The NT books are not chronologically listed, Mondar. I think you know the weakness of this argument.

Revelation is "last" because it deals with the end times and provides the fullfilment of what God promised would happen in the Garden of Eden in Genesis after man's expulsion. Mankind would be reunited in Paradise with God. There would be no more suffering, etc. So naturally, this book ends the story very nicely. Jude certainly is not saying that there are not other writings that could not further expand on the "faith once delivered". He is unaware of what collection would exist in 300 AD. Nor is he vouching for any of the letters that may be in existence in 100 AD, such as the Didache or the Gospel of Thomas or Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. "The Faith once given" is the Apostolic teachings, ALL of them. Jude does not rule out any oral teachings and he certainly is not speaking of a future compilation of books into a "Bible"!!!!

Regards

 

[mondar]

mondar said: ↑
Well, obviously everyone recognizes the existence of the Councils and their documents, but I do not see the need to assume that the existence of the documents means the documents were infallible, or theopneustos.

And so why would we assume that the Bible is also an infallible document? On what basis does the members of the Church recognize this?

The first Christians were not as concerned with recording letters for future Christians and compiling a future Bible, but rather, in HANDING DOWN a set of teachings from the Apostles - which came from Christ. This handing down the traditions given, "whether oral OR written", was the important factor to the first Christians. You mention Jud 1:3. Yes, a body of teachings given.

Francis, I notice your terms "oral or written." We have been through some of this before (albeit, a long time ago). I believe you quoted 2nd Thes 3:15
15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.
That the oral teaching of an apostle was equal in infallible and inerrant authority is accepted by me as true. However, I must again mention that this does not prove a later oral teaching that was not done directly by an apostle was just as infallible. Doctrines such as the revelations of Joseph Smith, or the doctrine of Mariology could not have been a part of this oral tradition. When Paul speaks of an oral tradition the context requires that we understand the oral revelation and the written revelation to have the same content. Please note verse 5 in the same chapter.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
So then, Paul may have told the Thessalonian Church things orally, but he later wrote the same things in an infallible epistle. What your talking about is something of a different nature. Your talking about some council or later figure claiming to be able to create a new doctrine based upon the oral teachings not recorded in the scriptures. While I accept Apostolic oral teaching, not such non revealed oral tradition was ever passed down. If it were passed down, why does not those who receive this so called oral tradition reveal the whole thing now? There is no such thing as oral tradition that is passed down, but rather it is an excuse to invent new doctrines not found in the canon. What I am saying is not only scriptural, but logical.

People heard and knew the apostolic teachings, many of which were not committed to writing (at least as compiled in the now-dubbed "Bible"). Now, I am presuming that you will grant that the Apostles thought that their teachings were infallible. Paul seems to believe this - as in Galatians 1. Of course, this is part and parcel of our faith - that the Apostles were indeed teaching truth, and not mistaken. We believe these teachings were protected by the Spirit. Both the direct transmission of and the future protection of those teachings. Otherwise, we couldn't be sure that we even have the true apostolic writings....... (snip).....

Maybe there was some time difference between the time when the oral revelation was presented by the apostles in a church and the later time that they would write to a church to remind them of what was taught, but the earlier oral revelation was the same in content as the later revelation. Please see the previous comments on 2 Thes 3:5 and 15.

I am not disputing the authority of the oral teachings of the apostles. I accept that 2 Thes 3:15 definitely says that the oral and written teaching of an apostle was equal in its authority and this equal in its infallibility, but there is not evidence that either oral or written was infallibly passed down. Where does scripture say that oral tradition is infallibly passed down after the apostles?

When you say ..... " We believe these teachings were protected by the Spirit. Both the direct transmission of and the future protection of those teachings." What could you possibly mean here about the written word?
No scribe in the history of the Church was infallible, not even a collection of Christian scribes would be infallible. Modern day translations are only as infallible as they properly represent the autographs, and we do not have the autographs. What we do have is over 5700 greek manuscripts and thus a very good idea of what the autographs said. If you were familiar with the textual apparatus in most greek new testaments, you would see that even the scholarly collations of texts are not infallible. As more and more manuscripts are found, different editions of each collation is edited. The Nestly-Alan is up to like the 27th edition. How then is the Spirit of God making the transmission of even the written text 100% infallible? Even the written text is infallible only to the degree that it represents the autographs.

When a church declares what oral traditions are infallible, they are not researching the traditions, they are simply making declarations based upon what they want to do at that point in history. Where was this assumption of an extra added oral tradition at Nicea or Chalcedon? They quoted scripture as their authority. They felt themselves authoritative, only because they felt they properly interpreted scripture. Please show me otherwise, please show me that Nicea, Chalcedon, 2nd Orange, or any of those early councils that we both agree on was based upon a new revelation of a previously existing oral tradition. So then, just as I would reject the authority of a council to declare oral tradition infallibly, I reject the authority of a council to declare what written manuscript tradition is consistent with the autographs. Councils err. I feel free to pick and choose what I think was truth in those early councils.

If you had Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, what WITHIN THAT TEXT would tell you that you did NOT have an apostolic document worthy of being infallible? Because you don't have an infallible teacher/body to teach you the entire faith, you would not be able to discern individual books on whether they were infallible or not. In other words, the teaching comes first, the recognition (of a book or other teachers) comes second. Thus, your argument is begging the question.

Clement of Rome claims no authority to deal with the Corinthian church infallibly. Neither is he an apostle. He speaks of listening to Church leaders, but makes no claim that the Church leaders are infallible. Its been a while since I look at Clement, but I think I remember he spoke of the "Elders" (plural) in the church of Rome. Clement could have been a scribe used by a plurality of equal elders. The main thing is that Clement was not an apostle, and there is no suggestion that he was trying to represent the living apostles in any way.

It was only the 12 Apostles and Paul that had seen Christ and could remember his words through the infallible power of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). That is not "begging the question," but that is the teachings of the scripture. Is not the authority of the scripture an axiomatic truth in Christianity?

 

[mondar]

Protestantism does not claim infalliblity for their teachers "handing down the faith". The only thing that IS infallible is the book already established long time ago called the Bible. If you didn't have the infallible book - and cannot rely on teachers to infallibly teach, you would NOT be able to recognize which letter is infallible and which is not, based on your own "feelings" and what you were taught/self-taught. If you had Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, what WITHIN THAT TEXT would tell you that you did NOT have an apostolic document worthy of being infallible? Because you don't have an infallible teacher/body to teach you the entire faith, you would not be able to discern individual books on whether they were infallible or not. In other words, the teaching comes first, the recognition (of a book or other teachers) comes second. Thus, your argument is begging the question.

And again, at what point does the Holy Spirit no longer protect the teachers from error? I am curious to know on what basis people make the claim of expiring inspiration/protection from error. This has no backing in Scriptures. Is this a teaching from non-infallible teachers?

Francis, I also discern scriptural inaccuracies in your statements above. Possibly its just the way your expressing yourself, or maybe we disagree here too. Scripture became scripture when it was first written.

In 2nd Peter 3:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Please notice this. Scripture was not infallible scripture when a council declared it to be scripture, but it was infallible exactly even before the proverbial scribal ink was dry. No Canon of scripture (or Bible) was needed for Pauls epistles to become scripture.

What is canon? Here, Pauls epistles are recognized as scripture long before any council declared it to be so. So what then is a council? Its nothing.

Concerning what you wrote, yes, the apostles could teach infallibly (in a way). Even then, they did not always act infallibly. Peter was rebuked for his behavior of refusing to eat with gentiles by Paul. But Peter always remember the words of our Lord infallibly. On the other hand, once the words of Christ were passed down beyond the 12 and Paul, no one had that infallible memory (John 14:26).

LOL! The NT books are not chronologically listed, Mondar. I think you know the weakness of this argument.

Revelation is "last" because it deals with the end times and provides the fullfilment of what God promised would happen in the Garden of Eden in Genesis after man's expulsion. Mankind would be reunited in Paradise with God. There would be no more suffering, etc. So naturally, this book ends the story very nicely. Jude certainly is not saying that there are not other writings that could not further expand on the "faith once delivered". He is unaware of what collection would exist in 300 AD. Nor is he vouching for any of the letters that may be in existence in 100 AD, such as the Didache or the Gospel of Thomas or Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. "The Faith once given" is the Apostolic teachings, ALL of them. Jude does not rule out any oral teachings and he certainly is not speaking of a future compilation of books into a "Bible"!!!!

Regards

I was not suggesting that they were chronological. I was asking why nothing was added to the NT afterwards. If the councils are infallible, and scripture is infallible, why not have a printer print the whole word of God?

Concerning Jude 3, I recognize that I cannot exegetically determine from Jude 3 alone what he means by "the faith... once and for all," I do think that when that text is combined with Ephesians 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; The scripture is indeed talking about a foundational time when the apostles and prophets were giving revelation.

In Ephesians 2:20, the Church is not the foundation. It is the superstructure. The foundational period was when there were revelatory gifts, such as apostleship or NT prophecy (Agabus). This is why Paul specifically mentions "apostles and prophets." They gave us the word of God. They gave us "the faith."

I will admit that this cannot be discerned exegetically from Jude 3 alone. But recognizing that there are no apostles today or prophets today, then this foundational revelatory time is over.


________________
By the way, as another dog train and aside.... this is called cessationism. You can get a lot of protestants on your side on this issue. In these threads most are continuationists. You can see more sessationism if you look up "Strange Fire" or :"John Macarther" or "Phil Johnson"on youtube. For the continuationists side, try Michael Brown, He seems to be the big gun opposed to what I am saying.

 

[francisdesales]

That the oral teaching of an apostle was equal in infallible and inerrant authority is accepted by me as true. However, I must again mention that this does not prove a later oral teaching that was not done directly by an apostle was just as infallible.

Paul never states that only his written words are infallible. He considers what he passes down, both orally and written, to be worthy of belief - even if an angel came to tell a different teaching. As such, the burden is upon you to prove that only what HE wrote was intended to be infallible, while his oral teachings are of questionable truth.

When Paul speaks of an oral tradition the context requires that we understand the oral revelation and the written revelation to have the same content. Please note verse 5 in the same chapter.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that oral tradition has been subsumed into written Scriptures? We both know this is a 16th century invention, Mondar. Which verse states that the written has entirely swallowed the oral? Paul states both are handed down. Nowhere does the letter state that they have become one in the same at a later date... Your argument so far is presumption based upon begging the question - not upon any logical argument or verses from Scriptures. You ASSUME that the Bible is the infallible word of God and only IT contains infallible word. At the end of the day, you can't even prove that the Bible is the Word of God, since you must argue in a circle to do so (the teachings of the Bible tell me what belongs in the Bible. Gosh, really?) As such, you a priori have discounted what the Bible actually states - traditions handed down, orally and in written form. I don't see any statement in Scriptures that tell us to ignore oral teachings, since they have become written.

Maybe there was some time difference between the time when the oral revelation was presented by the apostles in a church and the later time that they would write to a church to remind them of what was taught, but the earlier oral revelation was the same in content as the later revelation. ...but there is not evidence that either oral or written was infallibly passed down. Where does scripture say that oral tradition is infallibly passed down after the apostles?

Where does it say it stopped? That's YOUR assumption, that it has stopped. We agree that there was an infallible handing down of tradition. Now, when did it stop, verse, please? Another undocumented presumption - the fabled expiration date nowhere found in the Bible. If the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, how can that be without the Spirit of God working and continuing to work within that Church? My assumption of faith is based upon Scriptures, yours is not.

When you say ..... " We believe these teachings were protected by the Spirit. Both the direct transmission of and the future protection of those teachings." What could you possibly mean here about the written word?

That the Apostolic teachings are infallibly taught. Still. We don't rely on JUST a book, otherwise, the Nestly-Alan 27th edition would worry me, wondering if a 28th version would overthrow my understanding of Romans 3:28. My faith rests on infallible teachers led by God.

When a church declares what oral traditions are infallible, they are not researching the traditions, they are simply making declarations based upon what they want to do at that point in history.

They just invent them out of thin air???
And how does Paul escape that accusation, then? So only the Apostles were beyond such things, right? Because the Apostles chosen by Christ were utterly reliable, never deviated from their faith in Him, didn't abandon Him on th cross, etc... Fortunately, WE believe that God works with clay vessels and His Word STILL gets passed down...

We believe that they are teaching that they are faithfully transmitting the spirit of the Apostolic Tradition. Things like "Trinity" are the infallible development of that original body of teaching, in the spirit of the Apostolic Tradition.

Where was this assumption of an extra added oral tradition at Nicea or Chalcedon? They quoted scripture as their authority. They felt themselves authoritative, only because they felt they properly interpreted scripture. Please show me otherwise, please show me that Nicea, Chalcedon, 2nd Orange, or any of those early councils that we both agree on was based upon a new revelation of a previously existing oral tradition.

Where did I mention anything about "new revelation"? Trinity is a wonderful example of the Apostolic Tradition being infallibly transmitted - the understanding of what the apostles taught - being developed to answer in-depth questions that were not directly considered by the first apostles. There is no "new revelation", it is based upon logically considering what we have available and recognizing that the Spirit of God opens our hearts to the meaning of the Word already given, Jesus Christ.

So then, just as I would reject the authority of a council to declare oral tradition infallibly, I reject the authority of a council to declare what written manuscript tradition is consistent with the autographs. Councils err. I feel free to pick and choose what I think was truth in those early councils.

And then the Bible is based upon opinion. So naturally, you would have no problem with the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons tampering with the Word of God... That's disappointing.

Clement of Rome claims no authority to deal with the Corinthian church infallibly. Neither is he an apostle.

Then be consistent and toss out Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude and perhaps you should put a big question mark on Colossians or Revelation. Among others. Heck, maybe we should go get Marcion's list again and review it. And let's not even talk about the OT canon, since your argument breaks down there, as well...!!!

Furthermore, HOW does being "an apostle" guarantee true apostolic teaching - if we follow your line of argument? Don't humans argue with each other, even the first generation, on the meaning of teachings and its contents? Choose ANY human industry - philosphers, teachers, governments - in history and try to find me one that has faithfully and universally taught without dissent what the leader intended and meant? I can only think of one. Special pleading, you might say. But God has earned that right, has He not?

Really, you have not convinced me that your means leads you to know if the CURRENT "Bible" is even the true Word of God... When we reach the logical conclusion that you lead us to, how can I even follow sola scriptura if I don't know what the scriptura even IS??? It seems a rather haphazard means to know the Word of God. And this is without even considering that you need a degree in ancient Greek exegesis to begin to even consider understanding it on your own.

Whew, thank the Lord for the Church...

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, I also discern scriptural inaccuracies in your statements above. Possibly its just the way your expressing yourself, or maybe we disagree here too. Scripture became scripture when it was first written.

You appear totally ignorant to the history of the formulation of the Deutercanonical works into the Scripture canon. James was not recognized as Scripture upon being written. And that's the key - recognition.

In 2nd Peter 3:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Most Scripture exegesis that I have read on this passage do not require that the Greek word for "Scripture" above refers to the OT Sacred Scriptues, but can refer to ANY writing of value. It is a stretch to state that Peter was identifying Paul's writings and equating them ALL with Genesis and Exodus. And even if he WAS, we have no way of knowing WHICH writings of Paul's Peter was refering to. Were all of Paul's writings causing confusion and destruction among Christians without advanced degrees in exegesis??? Even Philemon?

Scripture was not infallible scripture when a council declared it to be scripture,

Then how do you identify that something is infallible Scripture? And please don't refer me to the circular argument again. The fact is that you cannot identify Scriptures UNLESS you are aware of the Apostolic Teachings, and THEN, compare that writing to the teaching once given. Since you don't believe in orally given apostolic teachings, you have no means of identifying those writings - NOR do you believe in infallible teachers, so you can't truly trust someone's word. Maybe another Marcion is telling you falsely to reduce the size of the Bible....

So please explain to me how you even know the Bible is the Word of God without using a circular argument.

Regards

 

[mondar]

That the oral teaching of an apostle was equal in infallible and inerrant authority is accepted by me as true. However, I must again mention that this does not prove a later oral teaching that was not done directly by an apostle was just as infallible.

Paul never states that only his written words are infallible. He considers what he passes down, both orally and written, to be worthy of belief - even if an angel came to tell a different teaching. As such, the burden is upon you to prove that only what HE wrote was intended to be infallible, while his oral teachings are of questionable truth.

* Francis, you begin with this statement..... "Paul never states that only his written words are infallible."
--I already said that Paul gave both oral and written revelation in previous posts. When you say what you said in this statement, it makes me think your not grasping what I already said. I think the problem is that you do not understand the difference between Paul making infallible oral and written statements while he was alive, and those statements being infallibly passed down by the Church Fathers. I have been trying to express that I agree that Paul infallibly made both written and oral statements, but they are not infallibly passed down. So then, if you look at your statement, why would I be in disagreement. Yes, Paul made both written and oral statements that were infallible, but I previously already said this and even defended my opinions with Scripture. Of course I did not need to do that, because from the beginning we have been agreeing that Paul made infallible oral and written statements.

* Then you proceed to this statement next..... "He considers what he passes down, both orally and written, to be worthy of belief - even if an angel came to tell a different teaching."
--In that statement, much depends upon what you mean in the phrase "what he passes down." Possibly you are referring to Pauls original statements. I do not take it that way, I think your point here is that if Paul made infallible statements, that this infallibility is automatically passed down to the Church Fathers. The scripture teaches the infallible authority of Pauls written and oral words, but it does not extend that infallible authority beyond the original apostles (12 + Paul). The leap your are making is to assume that if Paul made infallible statements, that they are infallibly passed down. You do not defend this assumption, but seem to require that I assume this statement without evidence.

--So then, so far, I agree Paul gave infallible oral and written revelation. Previously I mentioned evidence in the fact that the greek manuscripts demonstrate this. While the autographs were infallible, the scribal copying has errors and mistakes. If written revelation is not infallibly copied, why would oral revelation be infallibly passed down?

* The final part of your statement is this...... "As such, the burden is upon you to prove that only what HE wrote was intended to be infallible, while his oral teachings are of questionable truth."
-- Again, you confuse two issues. Here, what I see you as asking is for me to defend the infallibility of the autographs and and to deny Pauls original oral statements as infallible. If you understood what I was saying previously, you would not be asking me to defend that only his written word is infallible. That of course is not what I have been saying. I can easily defend that what Paul wrote was infallible and what he orally taught was also just as infallible. However, I already did this in my references to 2Thes 2 in previous posts.

While some of the terminology you use might be subjectively understood in some incorrect way by me, I think its much more likely that you are confusing two issues. Please do not repeatedly ask me to defend a position I am not taking. I accept that both Pauls original oral and written words were infallible. What I deny is that both Pauls written and oral words were infallibly passed down.

Now I am aware of a problem in our conversation also. I am familiar with Koine Greek and if some scholar or group of scholars collate and make an edition of the Greek, I can look at it. The difficulty here is that you do not have that ability. Yet you should be able to understand that no scribal tradition is infallible. The western text is corrupted, the Byzantine text has faults, so do the older traditions of the Vatacanus and others like that family of manuscripts. I think modern scholarship has done an amazingly wonderful job of collating manuscripts, and we might have 99.999999999999999999% correct, but the text we have in English, is not infallible. It is infallible only as much as it properly represents the autographs. If I do not view the written passing down of manuscripts as infallible, how in the world will I then see the passing down of oral tradition as infallible? No, the councils and Church Fathers were just as fallible as I am.

I find amazing parallels between your view of oral tradition and the arguments of the KJV only advocates. They believe that there is a infallible written tradition in the KJV that is infallible, with you, its the councils that pass down an oral tradition that is infallible.

When Paul speaks of an oral tradition the context requires that we understand the oral revelation and the written revelation to have the same content. Please note verse 5 in the same chapter.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that oral tradition has been subsumed into written Scriptures? We both know this is a 16th century invention, Mondar. Which verse states that the written has entirely swallowed the oral? Paul states both are handed down. Nowhere does the letter state that they have become one in the same at a later date... Your argument so far is presumption based upon begging the question - not upon any logical argument or verses from Scriptures. You ASSUME that the Bible is the infallible word of God and only IT contains infallible word. At the end of the day, you can't even prove that the Bible is the Word of God, since you must argue in a circle to do so (the teachings of the Bible tell me what belongs in the Bible. Gosh, really?) As such, you a priori have discounted what the Bible actually states - traditions handed down, orally and in written form. I don't see any statement in Scriptures that tell us to ignore oral teachings, since they have become written.

Francis, I already presented 2 Thes 2:5 on this issue.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Your reply does not even mention 2nd Thes 2:5. I presented a text, you did not even attempt to counter what I said.

In 2nd Thes 2:5, Pauls says "I told you." Right there is the previous oral revelation. When Paul was with these Thessalonian Christians, he "told" them about certain doctrines and certain things. Now, years later he is writing "these things" down that he previously "told" them.

In other words, the material he was saying in his written revelation was the same as the material in his earlier oral teaching. If the text says he already told them these things, then he did. The Thessalonians got it twice, once orally, and once in writing.

Then you say........ "As such, you a priori have discounted what the Bible actually states - traditions handed down, orally and in written form. I don't see any statement in Scriptures that tell us to ignore oral teachings, since they have become written."
Please, show me one text that says the Church Fathers infallibly passed down either written or oral revelation? Francis, there is a problem with what your trying to say. I already know what your going to say. The best text you quote is found only a mere 10 verses later. Your going to quote Thessalonians 2:15.
15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.
In this verse, I agree it is fair to equate the infallible authority of Pauls written words, and his oral words. The problem is that you are trying to prove one thing, and assume something different. When Paul tells the Thessalonians to "stand fast," that is a command, but it does not in any way assume infallible ability on the part of the Thessalonians to stand fast. In their fallible way, they are to do their best at keeping Pauls earlier oral teaching that they are now receiving in written form (please see the previous comments on verse 5).

 

[mondar]

Maybe there was some time difference between the time when the oral revelation was presented by the apostles in a church and the later time that they would write to a church to remind them of what was taught, but the earlier oral revelation was the same in content as the later revelation. ...but there is not evidence that either oral or written was infallibly passed down. Where does scripture say that oral tradition is infallibly passed down after the apostles?

Where does it say it stopped? That's YOUR assumption, that it has stopped. We agree that there was an infallible handing down of tradition. Now, when did it stop, verse, please? Another undocumented presumption - the fabled expiration date nowhere found in the Bible. If the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, how can that be without the Spirit of God working and continuing to work within that Church? My assumption of faith is based upon Scriptures, yours is not.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but not the infallible judge of truth. The text does not need to say certain words for us to recognize the infallible authority stopped. The nature of apostleship was that they could infallibly remember the oral words of Christ. In Acts 1, the requirement was that the apostles were with Christ when he was in and out among them. In Acts 1, they original 12 had to witness Christ in the resurrection. Then John 14:26 promises the 12 apostles that they would remember the words of Christ. This is where infallibility comes from. Now who can remember the words of Christ now? How saw Christ when he came in and out among us. You would need to be 2000 years old to do that.

I recognize the infallible authority of the 12 and Paul, and even their secretaries (Mark and Luke). The scriptures teach this, but were does it teach any infallible passing down of anything?

When you say ..... " We believe these teachings were protected by the Spirit. Both the direct transmission of and the future protection of those teachings." What could you possibly mean here about the written word?

That the Apostolic teachings are infallibly taught. Still. We don't rely on JUST a book, otherwise, the Nestly-Alan 27th edition would worry me, wondering if a 28th version would overthrow my understanding of Romans 3:28. My faith rests on infallible teachers led by God.

Francis, I notice that you capitalized the words "JUST." When only the church can decide what is scripture, when only the church can decide what the scripture means, and only the Church can do this infallibly, then at that point you do not need to put the word "JUST" in your sentence. At that point it is not about what the Scriptures say at all, its all about the Church. That is called "Sola ecclesia." The church alone is the word of God, it just makes reference to the scriptures once in a while for good show.

By the way, I think the Nestle-Alan 28 is already out.
http://www.christianbook.com/nestle...60&p=1167941&gclid=CIeJudvIhbwCFW0V7Aodny8A5w
I have an old copy of the NA 26.

If your following what I am saying, this is exactly as it should be. Since I am not a KJV only advocate, nor an NA 28 advocate, I think we should always strive to have the best of our scholars collate the greek manuscripts and display the evidence to each of us individually in some textual apparatus.


Lets do an illustration. Lets take Danta's inferno. I forget when he wrote that... about 1300? He probably wrote it in Latin. When he wrote the original, it perfectly represented what Danta wanted to say. It was the word of Danta. The problem is that we do not have the original autograph. So we collected all these manuscripts that are copies of his writing. Now not even one of the copies is perfect, but we can see a lot of the mistakes the scribes made and with reasonable certainty we can reproduce the original writing. The NT is no different. The original writers were infallible, but the copies were not.

This is true of both the written word and oral revelation.

I have to go for now, I will try to respond to more later.

 

[for_his_glory]

As you can see by the list below many of these books are added, but mixed in with the other books. I don't believe there was any intent of leaving out certain books. It's just that there are so many that actually repeat another. All these books can be found in the Bible if you read through those who are said to be left out.

Books of the Bible
Principal divisions
Old Testament
(Protocanon)

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
1-2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Deuterocanon
and Apocrypha
Catholic and Orthodox

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach - (Questionable of it's authenticity)
Baruch / Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Daniel
Susanna - (an addition to Daniel, but included in Daniel)
Song of the Three Children - found in Daniel)
Bel and the Dragon - (found in Daniel)

Orthodox

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Odes - (mixture of prayers and songs, nothing more than that)

Ethiopian Orthodox

Enoch - (found in Genesis and Jude)
Jubilees - (found mostly in Leviticus)
1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan - (only found in Ethiopian Orthodox, OT Biblical canon, but no great importance)
Säqoqawä Eremyas - (not recognized by Jews or Christians. Ethiopian text formed by the book of Lamentations

Syriac Christianity

Letter of Baruch
2 Baruch
Psalms 152–155

New Testament

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

 

[francisdesales]

* Then you proceed to this statement next..... "He considers what he passes down, both orally and written, to be worthy of belief - even if an angel came to tell a different teaching."
--In that statement, much depends upon what you mean in the phrase "what he passes down." Possibly you are referring to Pauls original statements. I do not take it that way, I think your point here is that if Paul made infallible statements, that this infallibility is automatically passed down to the Church Fathers. The scripture teaches the infallible authority of Pauls written and oral words, but it does not extend that infallible authority beyond the original apostles (12 + Paul). The leap your are making is to assume that if Paul made infallible statements, that they are infallibly passed down. You do not defend this assumption, but seem to require that I assume this statement without evidence.

It is interesting that you would say that the Church infallibly passed down written teachings, but not the oral ones. Why is that? It sounds like special pleading to me, while ignoring part of your own argument. We do not possess one single original autograph from any writing of the NT. Paul HIMSELF is aware of other people writing in his stead. As such, if we follow what you are saying to its logical conclusion, we can't trust the written teachings passed down by the Church Fathers, either. Has it escaped logical thought that this can be applied to the writing of Paul, as well? Again, you are taking some apostolic traditions and claiming THOSE are eternally infallible while OTHER traditions of the same apostles are not, after the first generation! Apparently, the second generation of Christians took extra special care in protecting paper (although we don't have those orginals anymore...) while forgetting the things they did every day while living their faith, such as how to pray, celebrate the Liturgy, etc., for that is what Apostolic Tradition is, the lived faith and how we understand it. Looking at the numerous transcripts, we find a number of "disagreements". So when you say "infallible", to what extent are you saying Paul's writings are infallibly passed down? It seems you may have a different set of standards for writings and teachings that were orally given and later put to paper.

I see your posts have taken a side direction and doesn't address the heart of the discussion - which I have asked you on several occasions. You seem to want me to prove from Sacred Scriptures that oral apostolic teachings WOULD be protected infallibly into the distant future. I didn't return to this forum to get in long drawn out conversations that ignore the heart of the matter. So I ask you again,

How do you identify that something is infallible Scripture - which would appear to be a necessity if one is sola scriptura? Where are these universal rules documented? And please don't refer me to the circular argument again. The fact is that you cannot identify Scriptures UNLESS you are aware of the Apostolic Teachings, and THEN, compare that writing to the teaching once given. Since you don't believe in orally given apostolic teachings, you have no means of identifying those writings - NOR do you believe in infallible teachers, so you can't truly trust someone's word. Looking at writings that CLAIM to be written by Apostles will not help, since there are numerous writings that have the claim of being an apostlic source.

Furthermore, rather ironically, you speak about how you cannot contemplate an authority telling you what is the canon of Scriptures, without realizing that is EXACTLY what you are doing with the OT canon.

Think about that...

So please explain to me how you even know the Bible is the Word of God if you cannot rely on an authoritative Christian source? (I guess Jewish authoritative sources are OK?)

 

[mondar]

When a church declares what oral traditions are infallible, they are not researching the traditions, they are simply making declarations based upon what they want to do at that point in history.

They just invent them out of thin air???
And how does Paul escape that accusation, then? So only the Apostles were beyond such things, right? Because the Apostles chosen by Christ were utterly reliable, never deviated from their faith in Him, didn't abandon Him on th cross, etc... Fortunately, WE believe that God works with clay vessels and His Word STILL gets passed down...

Yes, the apostles were infallible and no one else was. This is the teaching of the NT.

First, even the apostle Peter recognized what Paul wrote as scripture in 2nd Peter 3.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Paul was a special apostle, and the 12 had the same authority, and no one else. Only these men met the criteria of Acts 1. Here is the criteria for apostleship.

21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,

22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.
Now, if you understand this part, that an apostle had to be a witness of the earthly ministry and resurrection of Christ, then you recognize that no one else other than the 12 were apostles in this sense. The only exception to this rule was the apostle Paul. He was the last in 1 Cor 15
6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep;

7 then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;

8 and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.
Notice in verse 8 when the text says "last of all." Paul's apostleship was born at the wrong time, it was born "untimely." Paul was the last one to be born an apostle as a result of a resurrection appearance on the road to Damascus.

So then, the only men ever to meet the criteria for apostleship in this sense is the 12 and Paul. Now the question is how does all this relate to infallibility....

To answer this question, one must take into account texts like John 14:26.
26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.
Notice that Jesus was speaking of his earthly ministry. He promised the 12 that the HS would cause them to remember "all that I said unto you." It is impossible for the Church Fathers to be included in this promise. Christ is speaking of his earthly ministry when the 12 witnessed his words and deeds. So then, no one after the age of the apostles could infallibly remember what Jesus said because they did not even hear what Jesus said. The best they could do is hear what Matthew or John said that Jesus said. The words of John 14:26 cannot be expanded to include a more expansive reading referring to the entire Church. This Comforter, the Holy Spirit would have this ministry with only the 12 and Paul. By the way, only the 12 would have been in the upper room when Jesus said these things.

Where does infallibility come from? It comes from the ministry of the Holy Spirit in causing the 12 apostles and Paul to remember infallibly the words of Jesus during his earthly ministry.

Why are the later Church Fathers excluded from this ministry? Look at acts 1, they were not eyewitnesses of the earthly ministry of Christ. Even had they been with Christ when he was on earth, the promises of John 14:26 are to the 12 apostles only. How can the later Church Fathers even have what is written in the verse "rememberance all that I said unto you." Only this memory was Holy Spirit inspired.

Where did I mention anything about "new revelation"? Trinity is a wonderful example of the Apostolic Tradition being infallibly transmitted - the understanding of what the apostles taught - being developed to answer in-depth questions that were not directly considered by the first apostles. There is no "new revelation", it is based upon logically considering what we have available and recognizing that the Spirit of God opens our hearts to the meaning of the Word already given, Jesus Christ.

The word trinity was not used until a few small times in the 3nd century, and then mainly in the 4ird century. The concept is approved by the council of Nicea only because it is scriptural, not because it is correct oral tradition. When reading Nicea, this is so painfully obvious that what I am saying should be seen axiomatic and agreed upon by everyone. Where in the council of Nicea did they say "we are recognizing a previous oral tradition in using this word trinity." No, the defined the term trinity, Jesus was begotten, not made, and proceeds from the Father, and and God is a being with 3 persons, but once essence. Christ is eternal as the Father. All that defined the term, and then each point was defended by scripture, not oral tradition.

Where at Nicea, Chalcedon, 2nd Orange, or any of those early creeds do you see the claim that they are taking the doctrines from oral tradition? They do not. If anything, they are putting into practice what the reformers of the 16th century called sola scriptura. The councils were saying that the doctrine in their creed was authoritative because it was scriptural. They quoted scripture, not former Church Fathers, not oral tradition, but scripture alone.

I am aware of Church Fathers, when debating Arians later would saying something like this..... I will not quote our councils and creeds, you should not quote yours, let the matter be decided by scripture.

And then the Bible is based upon opinion. So naturally, you would have no problem with the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons tampering with the Word of God... That's disappointing.

No, I would see that having an infallible oral tradition claimed by one group is more like the Jehavah Witnesses and Mormons.

 

[farouk]

Deuterocanonical (or Apocryphal) books means they are not part of the Canon of Scripture.

 

[mondar]

It is interesting that you would say that the Church infallibly passed down written teachings, but not the oral ones.

Francis, how many times have I said the Church has NOT passed down either written or oral infallible tradition? No matter how many times I say this, you always answer saying I said it. I am making direct statements that I deny that that the scripture is infallibly passed down either orally or in writing. This is really not going to go anywhere if you keep forcing me to repeat over and over, tradition is not passed down infallibly either in writing or in oral tradition. What can I say to get you to stop asserting that I say the scriptures are passed down infallibly? In protestantism, only the KJV camp asserts any such thing. I am not in that camp!

Why is that? It sounds like special pleading to me, while ignoring part of your own argument. We do not possess one single original autograph from any writing of the NT.

True, we do not possess any autographs. I have also stated this before. That is the whole reason I deny that written tradition is infallible. Yet, I recognize that modern scholars have done a tremendous job on collating manuscripts. I also reconize that no matter which manuscripts are used, they all contain the same doctrines, just differences in wording, or an added paragraph here and there (like the longer ending of Mark), or 1 John 5:7). Yet, in the process of comparing manuscripts, we have reasonable certainty of what the autographs said. Of course that is short of claiming infallibility, but its what we have!

Paul HIMSELF is aware of other people writing in his stead. As such, if we follow what you are saying to its logical conclusion, we can't trust the written teachings passed down by the Church Fathers, either.

What do you mean "trust?" Are you saying that something must be infallible for me to trust it. I trust my wife, but she would be the first to say she is not infallible, do you trust your wife? Is she fallible or infallible?

Of course if something is fallible, I can choose to trust or not to trust. While I am a trinitarian, 1st John 5:7 is a fallible text. I feel free to do the same with oral tradition.

Has it escaped logical thought that this can be applied to the writing of Paul, as well? Again, you are taking some apostolic traditions and claiming THOSE are eternally infallible while OTHER traditions of the same apostles are not, after the first generation!

Your sentence is confusing. I am saying that all traditions of the apostles were infallible, but not infallibly passed down.

Apparently, the second generation of Christians took extra special care in protecting paper (although we don't have those orginals anymore...) while forgetting the things they did every day while living their faith, such as how to pray, celebrate the Liturgy, etc., for that is what Apostolic Tradition is, the lived faith and how we understand it. Looking at the numerous transcripts, we find a number of "disagreements". So when you say "infallible", to what extent are you saying Paul's writings are infallibly passed down? It seems you may have a different set of standards for writings and teachings that were orally given and later put to paper.

LOL, sorry about laughing, but where did I say that " So when you say "infallible", to what extent are you saying Paul's writings are infallibly passed down? Sigh, I did not say that the writings of Paul were infallibly passed down. Is this something you said wrong by accident?


Also, when you say.... " Looking at the numerous transcripts, we find a number of "disagreements"..... yes, the Church Fathers did not have photocopiers to pass down the manuscripts and so they were passed down fallibly by fallible scribes. To assert oral tradition is superior in transmission accuracy to written tradition would be absurd. That is one of the points I am making. If the scribes and Early Church Fathers did not have a photocopier to infallibly pass down written manuscripts, what do you think happened with oral tradition?

I see your posts have taken a side direction and doesn't address the heart of the discussion - which I have asked you on several occasions. You seem to want me to prove from Sacred Scriptures that oral apostolic teachings WOULD be protected infallibly into the distant future. I didn't return to this forum to get in long drawn out conversations that ignore the heart of the matter. So I ask you again,

How do you identify that something is infallible Scripture - which would appear to be a necessity if one is sola scriptura? Where are these universal rules documented? And please don't refer me to the circular argument again. The fact is that you cannot identify Scriptures UNLESS you are aware of the Apostolic Teachings, and THEN, compare that writing to the teaching once given. Since you don't believe in orally given apostolic teachings, you have no means of identifying those writings - NOR do you believe in infallible teachers, so you can't truly trust someone's word. Looking at writings that CLAIM to be written by Apostles will not help, since there are numerous writings that have the claim of being an apostlic source.

Francis, all writings that claim apostolic sources in a false way are usually painfully obvious. Take for instance the Gospel of Thomas, written in the 3ird century. Take this has a hint. How hold would Thomas have been when he wrote that Epistle. Where are all these 1st century pseudo apostolic writings? How many are there? To the extent of my knowledge, there is a big "0." The pseudo apostolic writings were all from later time periods.

Tell me, do you believe the isodorian decretalas (spelling is wrong) were authentic? Or were they forgeries? We know many other writings as forgeries, but your telling me we cannot do the same thing with scripture? Why not?

Certainly we cannot determine forgeries infallibly, but why do we need to do it infallibly?

Furthermore, rather ironically, you speak about how you cannot contemplate an authority telling you what is the canon of Scriptures, without realizing that is EXACTLY what you are doing with the OT canon.

Think about that...

So please explain to me how you even know the Bible is the Word of God if you cannot rely on an authoritative Christian source? (I guess Jewish authoritative sources are OK?)

If I could modify your statement above to "I cannot contemplate an authority telling me infallibly, what is the canon of Scriptures. I think that is what you are saying.

No, I am not allowing an authority to infallibly tell me what the OT canon is either. I do recognize the Jewish Faith as the guardian of the oracles of God.
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?

2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.

But even here, I would not see Judiasm as infallible on determination of canon. How could I? I am one of them Reformed Baptist people that believes in the NT.

On the other hand, do you grasp the concept of trusting an authority without declaring it infallible? Please remember what I said. The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. Your not grasping what I am saying in asking this question.

The Jewish process in the OT would have been similar to the process of the apostles in the NT, but the OT is not as explicit. The prophets would have been "like Moses prophets." They would have been recognized for their association to the Mosaic Law. No council decided which books were canonical by the Jews, but there is evidence in Josephus and Philo which books they accepted. Certainly Jospehus and Philo are not infallible either.

 

[mondar]

Francis, I am going to forgo commenting on some of the stuff of yours I skipped.... your turn next. Gotta go again, catch you later.

 

[JohnD]

As you can see by the list below many of these books are added, but mixed in with the other books. I don't believe there was any intent of leaving out certain books. It's just that there are so many that actually repeat another. All these books can be found in the Bible if you read through those who are said to be left out.

Books of the Bible
Principal divisions
Old Testament
(Protocanon)

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
1-2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Deuterocanon
and Apocrypha
Catholic and Orthodox

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach - (Questionable of it's authenticity)
Baruch / Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Daniel
Susanna - (an addition to Daniel, but included in Daniel)
Song of the Three Children - found in Daniel)
Bel and the Dragon - (found in Daniel)

Orthodox

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Odes - (mixture of prayers and songs, nothing more than that)

Ethiopian Orthodox

Enoch - (found in Genesis and Jude)
Jubilees - (found mostly in Leviticus)
1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan - (only found in Ethiopian Orthodox, OT Biblical canon, but no great importance)
Säqoqawä Eremyas - (not recognized by Jews or Christians. Ethiopian text formed by the book of Lamentations

Syriac Christianity

Letter of Baruch
2 Baruch
Psalms 152–155

New Testament

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

You forgot to add the pseudopigrapha, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, the Gita the Koran, the New World Translation and any other "holy" writings that do not line up with Old Testament Scripture and the oversight of the Holy Ghost. The ones that meet those qualifications are the 66 books of the Bible (70 when you count the Psalms as 5 books).

 

[reba]

Where is this thread headed guys? Please tell me it is not the the 'dead thread' .

 

[JohnD]

"The ones that meet those qualifications are the 66 books of the Bible (70 when you count the Psalms as 5 books)."

2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The only scripture at the time was the Tanakh... NT wasn't written yet. So all about the NT (revealed) had to be in the OT (concealed).

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (KJV)
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Oversight of Holy Spirit and the existing scriptures determined the NT was legit and the other writing not legit.

 

[turnorburn]

Paul the Apostle sure had it right.. was the Council Of Trent held before during or after the Inquisitions..

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.

34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.

35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.

37 And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,

38 Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.

Verse 33 concerning silver and gold isn't the Catholic church dripping with such wealth??

tob