Universal Church

[RadicalReformer]

Yes, I've heard of them. In Metro Detroit, there area few Roman Catholic churches that have signs that state Vatican I... I know of one right off of Utica and I believe 12 or 13 mile rd? My cousin is a practicing Catholic and she's told me some stories from her old days (She speaks and reads Latin as she was brought up partially Vatican I)

Thing is, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is currently making moves in the right direction and are making those moves known, and so are many Protestant Churches. For example, I was at Old Saint Mary's in downtown Detroit a few month ago when the priest made the comment about their "Protestant Brothers" during his homily. Now I ask you, have you ever heard a Protestant preacher call a Catholic a brother during a sermon? Actually, I have, and it was from Mars Hill which ironically, has been erroneously labeled as part of the emergent church by the protestant fundamentalists. Kinda reminds me of Vatican I, but with a protestant twist.

Mars Hill is a part of the emergent church per it's founder. And I will gladly call anyone who has submitted their lives to Christ, brother. Biblically speaking, "brother" or "sister" is the appropriate and only appropriate title to give to a fellow believer.

I would ask that Roman Catholic priest exactly how he views the "Protestant Brothers" - I would suspect he would view them as incomplete and out-of-communion, separated. According to Papal Authorities (ie: Bulls) our salvation is in question.

Like the old die hards of Vatican I, we as Protestants will alway have our die hard fundamentals that can't come up to the 21st Century and the Pope will always be the Anti-Christ to them. Regardless, both parties are in the minority thank goodness.

There have been many anti-christs in history. the 'pope' isn't THE anti-christ, but that doesn't mean that they haven't been an anti-christ. At the very least, wolves.

What I believe it really comes down to though is this. We are all a part of the Catholic faith in the truest sense of it's meaning and it's truest origination which is in Christ Jesus. Where we become divided is when one member claims absolute authority and the wrestling match ensues.

Well, there's my ramble for the day... If I've spoken out of context or in error, I would appreciate the correction as this has been on my mid for quite some time.

Those who are "born from above" are members of the 'catholic" church - the Body of Christ. Just because one claims to be a member of a local assembly does not make them a member of the Body of Christ.

 

[RadicalReformer]

"If we don't LIKE what The Word says, then we'll just 'alter it somehow'.

Hey Mike,
Actually, that sounds more like a protestant position than a Catholic position. Heck, there are so many flavors of protestantism we can't even count them all. Just look at Thomas Jefferson, if he didn't like what he read, he just tore the page out.

But were all guilty of altering the word somehow for whatever reason (assuming ignorance in most cases) and that's one reason why the Church is so important, for it should be the role of the church as a whole to come to terms with all of scripture and to maintain a level interpretation of scripture.

After all, it was the Universal Church that agreed upon the original cannon. Until a cannon was recognized, there were some that really abused the little writings that were around and all sorts of odd doctrines were forming.

The point is this, there has to be an authority that is able to interpret scripture and there has to be those that are willing to teach those scriptures in accordance to bringing about the kingdom of God. Right now, we could look at Christianity partially as the old saying, "Too many cooks in the kitchen ruins the stew".

It was never the responsibility of the "Universal Church" to agree upon The Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture was already formed when God wrote the Scriptures.

Look at it this way. Stove, lets say you wrote 4 books. Those 4 books equal the "canon" of your writings. If I never knew of those 4 books does that mean your 'canon' does not exist? If I were to find only 2 of those writings, does that mean your canon only contains 2 books?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks to the NATURE and ORIGIN of the Scriptures, not to their EXTENT.

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Rad, please call me Jeff.
I'll try and reply to your second post, then get back to your first post.

It was never the responsibility of the "Universal Church" to agree upon The Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture was already formed when God wrote the Scriptures.

Look at it this way. Stove, lets say you wrote 4 books. Those 4 books equal the "canon" of your writings. If I never knew of those 4 books does that mean your 'canon' does not exist? If I were to find only 2 of those writings, does that mean your canon only contains 2 books?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks to the NATURE and ORIGIN of the Scriptures, not to their EXTENT.

First off, when Paul wrote that very personal letter to Timothy, I'm sure that you knew Paul's reference to scripture referenced the only cannon that was around, and it wasn't the NT. But I agree, and I like the way you articulated by saying the scripture speaks to the nature and origin of scripture and not to their extent.

That being said, Scripture, like YHWH's nature, has never changed, but it has simply been revealed throughout the centuries.

I suppose my point is this. It was the Universal Church who sorted through all of the writings and decided which ones would be used as a rule to measure with. That's not to say that other writings aren't useful, but the ones in our cannon have been deemed as being authoritative in resolving disputes over other matters, including other writings as well as being a rule to edify the body of believers.

If the Universal Church had not decided on the Cannon, I believe that there would have been much more separation in the first 500 years of the Church than there was, but of course this is all speculation on my part.

 

[stovebolts]

Yes, I've heard of them. In Metro Detroit, there area few Roman Catholic churches that have signs that state Vatican I... I know of one right off of Utica and I believe 12 or 13 mile rd? My cousin is a practicing Catholic and she's told me some stories from her old days (She speaks and reads Latin as she was brought up partially Vatican I)

Thing is, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is currently making moves in the right direction and are making those moves known, and so are many Protestant Churches. For example, I was at Old Saint Mary's in downtown Detroit a few month ago when the priest made the comment about their "Protestant Brothers" during his homily. Now I ask you, have you ever heard a Protestant preacher call a Catholic a brother during a sermon? Actually, I have, and it was from Mars Hill which ironically, has been erroneously labeled as part of the emergent church by the protestant fundamentalists. Kinda reminds me of Vatican I, but with a protestant twist.

Mars Hill is a part of the emergent church per it's founder. And I will gladly call anyone who has submitted their lives to Christ, brother. Biblically speaking, "brother" or "sister" is the appropriate and only appropriate title to give to a fellow believer.

Actually, I am surprised at your response. Normally when one speaks of the Emergent Church, red flags come out and the word heretic comes shortly after.

I would ask that Roman Catholic priest exactly how he views the "Protestant Brothers" - I would suspect he would view them as incomplete and out-of-communion, separated. According to Papal Authorities (ie: Bulls) our salvation is in question.

Actually, I did speak with this particular priests several times and I was amazed at his understanding, wisdom and demeanor. In short, what he told me was that the fullness of Christ was to be found within the Catholic Church (note, not RCC), but that Christ was not limited to the Catholic Church and my salvation was never an issue. We spoke for over an hour that day, and it was very comfortable, even when we spoke about Allah and the Muslims.

All this being said, Old Saint Mary's is run by Spiritians. If it had been run by Jesuits I'm sure I may have received different response.
http://www.oldstmarysdetroit.com/

Like the old die hards of Vatican I, we as Protestants will alway have our die hard fundamentals that can't come up to the 21st Century and the Pope will always be the Anti-Christ to them. Regardless, both parties are in the minority thank goodness.

There have been many anti-christs in history. the 'pope' isn't THE anti-christ, but that doesn't mean that they haven't been an anti-christ. At the very least, wolves.

Agreed, and the same can be said for many Protestants. After all, the Church wasn't split when 2 John was written, yet there were many anti-Christs then and as Jude put it, there were many empty rain clouds floating in the sky.

What I believe it really comes down to though is this. We are all a part of the Catholic faith in the truest sense of it's meaning and it's truest origination which is in Christ Jesus. Where we become divided is when one member claims absolute authority and the wrestling match ensues.

Well, there's my ramble for the day... If I've spoken out of context or in error, I would appreciate the correction as this has been on my mid for quite some time.

Those who are "born from above" are members of the 'catholic" church - the Body of Christ. Just because one claims to be a member of a local assembly does not make them a member of the Body of Christ.

I agree. Again, very well said.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Hello Rad, please call me Jeff.
I'll try and reply to your second post, then get back to your first post.

First off, when Paul wrote that very personal letter to Timothy, I'm sure that you knew Paul's reference to scripture referenced the only cannon that was around, and it wasn't the NT. But I agree, and I like the way you articulated by saying the scripture speaks to the nature and origin of scripture and not to their extent.

That being said, Scripture, like YHWH's nature, has never changed, but it has simply been revealed throughout the centuries.

I suppose my point is this. It was the Universal Church who sorted through all of the writings and decided which ones would be used as a rule to measure with. That's not to say that other writings aren't useful, but the ones in our cannon have been deemed as being authoritative in resolving disputes over other matters, including other writings as well as being a rule to edify the body of believers.

Stove, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy - Paul was referring to Scripture. Period. There is nothing in the text to show that Paul was referring only to "the cannon that was around, and it wasn't the NT.".

Again, let's use the example given of your 4 books. Since you wrote them, that is your canon. If I were to make a comment about your canon of books, and then a month later you wrote another book - is my "comment" invalidated? No.

Paul's statement is about the NATURE and ORIGIN of Scripture - therefore it applies to ALL of God's Written Word. Not because the verse speaks to EXTENT (ie: which books), but because of the ORIGIN of the Scriptures - ie: God-Breathed.

[/quote]
If the Universal Church had not decided on the Cannon, I believe that there would have been much more separation in the first 500 years of the Church than there was, but of course this is all speculation on my part.[/quote]

The UC did not "decide" anything, they merely were able to recognize that which was inspired. The recognization came from the Holy Spirit because it attested to the works that He wrote!

The fallacy is beliving that the Roman Catholic church decided that canon. God decided HIS Canon when HE WROTE it!

 

[Imagican]

fran,

I don't know that the evidence you insist upon me offering EXISTS.

You ask for 'written evidence'. There is LITTLE doubt in the minds of ANY that have studied the history of the CC that they OFTEN and successfully eliminated MOST of ANY written evidence that was contradictory to 'their teachings'. If it had been within their 'power', we would be devoid of Gallileo's writtings and those of many others. Fortunately their power WAS limited so far as 'time' and knowledge are concerned, (as time progessed along with knowledge, PEOPLE began to SEE just HOW falible the CC truly was).

And I have already stated that there were certainly MEMBERS of The Body contained within the constraints of the CC. These were FORCED, (due to the strict nature of the CC's ability to label 'heretic' ANYONE that actually 'spoke out' against ANYTHING that the 'clergy dictated'), to maintain an 'appearance' of conformity, but there is LITTLE doubt that these existed and were able to 'maintain' a 'semblance' of that which had been offered and taught by the apostles.

And YOU KNOW that what you ask for CAN'T be offered through written history. The CC was very efficient in eliminating such evidence.

But we DO have evidence that those that opposed their 'authority' were eliminated through means that are certainly NOT 'Christ-like'.

I would submit that Arius is another prime example of one that the Church was able to ostracize and eventually eliminate his influence. And as I have offered, he WAS a 'member' of the CC until they decided to 'ex-communicate' him. There were MANY that suffered the 'same fate' and most likely MANY MORE that we don't even have accurate records of.

As 'manipulative' as the CC has proven itself to be, is there ANY doubt that there IS much that we have absolutely NO written record of in this day? For we often see that in 'their' history, they are extremely 'selective' of that which they present as history. Choosing to alter here, eliminate there, ANYTHING that they are able, in order to place 'themselves' in a 'more favorable light'.

And here we have the inherent DANGER of 'organization' of ANYTHING by 'men'. Once they obtain 'enough' power, they are able to shape and alter things at will. And truth rarely plays a 'part' in the 'creation' of their OWN illusion. Rulers since time began have used such methods and this has continued into the present, with such advanced technique that in our present time, these are able to deceive even the most astute seekers of The Truth.

Your attempts to 'downplay' what I offer have NO bearing on the TRUTH. For the words that are or are NOT 'written' have NO bearing on The Spirit. The Spirit is able to speak expressely of IT'S OWN. That man is carnal and would choose to rely on 'words' in order to PROVE anything REAL is a pure indication of an UTTER lack of Spirit.

What I offer I offer OPENLY for any and all to 'prove or disprove' THEMSELVES. I have done the 'leg-work' and simply offer the conclusion. If one agrees or disagrees, it is STILL up to THEM to 'prove to themselves' whether there IS or isn't validity to the statements.

You would obviously choose to accept what you have been offered by 'your church'. Don't fault you for that fran. But I choose to question that offered by ANY MEN. And the ONLY means at my disposal is through a discernment of what they offer THROUGH The Spirit. If what I have been 'led' to understand is 'false or incorrect' then I have little else to 'depend' upon other than what 'others' would 'lead' me to 'believe'. I, instead, choose faith in The Spirit over the 'feeble' attempts of man to 'lead' me in ANY direction.

So, you can consider yourself the 'winner' of the point that you continue to offer. I cannot PROVE through 'written history' ALL that I offer. For there is little 'written history' available to do so. But that does not eliminate the FACT that what we presently possess, that has been written, is ONLY hat which has been 'saved'. And there is MUCH that has been written over time that has been destroyed by those that wished it's existence to be 'hidden'. Not only by the CC, but by almost EVERY people or nation that has ever gone to war with an enemy and conquered them. This is a 'common theme' throughout history.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Thanks MEC. I can't beleive it took so much effort my friend to get you to admit that no written evidence exist that backs your position. Maybe we can move on from here.

On a more personal note: You already know that Fran is Catholic and you figured out quickly that I am as well, but being fairly new to this board, I'm not sure what type of Christian you consider yourself. May I ask?

Peace

 

[francisdesales]

The fallacy is beliving that the Roman Catholic church decided that canon. God decided HIS Canon when HE WROTE it!

Your circular argument is duly noted...

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

I don't know that the evidence you insist upon me offering EXISTS.

You ask for 'written evidence'. There is LITTLE doubt in the minds of ANY that have studied the history of the CC that they OFTEN and successfully eliminated MOST of ANY written evidence that was contradictory to 'their teachings'.

Very presumptuous, don't you think? And IF the Catholic Church's teachings were at odd with the Bible, as you claim, why didn't the Church "correct" these writings? We are dealing with history, MEC. As historians, we must analyze what is present, not come to the table with our predispositions and "knowledge" that what the Catholic Church has done MUST be lies - "because we all know that the Catholic Church is wrong"...

Historians don't approach ancient writings and such in that matter. Only "theologians" who refuse to believe the data and got their minds made up, like yourself.

You earlier stated that the Catholic Church was not established by Christ. EVIDENCE points to this idea as incorrect. I would like to see evidence that you have that gives you this other "knowledge", besides the little bird on your shoulder that tells you so.

You claim that the Church has destroyed ALL writings that contradicted them. While it is true that heretical writings were destroyed, this was done for the sake of protecting the minds of the Church. But there are NUMEROUS writings that continue to exist that are in contradistinction to the Church's teachings. Ever hear of apocrypha? We see even in the Bible period that there were false teachers - and there was NO CONCEPT of "taking in what the false teachers had to offer for the sake of careful analysis to determine the truth". The apostles knew the truth, and anything that was against that truth was cast aside. Since the Apostles left successors who were also able to make this determination, and STILL were guided by the Spirit, it seems fairly obvious that the Church would continue to fortify itself against false teachings that STILL continue in our society.

By reading the writings of Irenaeus (c.180), for example, we can determine what the Gnostics believed, who were contemporaries to the Catholics. Irenaeus makes it clear that those Gnostics used Scritpures to "PROVE" their teachings. Even in the second century, we see people twisting Scriptures. Irenaeus makes the point of tracing Apostolic succession between the Bishop of Rome and Peter, while the Gnostics could not. This, to him and others, was proof enough that the TRUE Church and TRUE interpertation rested with those bishops linked to the Apostles, called the Catholic Church, not the Gnostics-come-lately.

When Scriptures was being canonized, these same Catholic men determined that particular writings were indeed from God. Now, you may say that the Church did this with bad motive, or whatever. But the simple fact is that YOU accept THEIR decision, since the Protestant NT is identical to MY NT. In the end, this means that you accepted those men and their decision to determine what was God's Word. As such, I see an interesting hypocrisy, or at least an inconsistency in your stance.

The same men that you hate and claim usurped the true Church are the same men that put together your bible. In other words, what sort of "Sacred Scriptures" do you hold, if it was put together by liars and false men?

Thus, my statement, "be careful of biting the hand that feeds you". Whether you like it or not, your spiritual growth depends in a large manner on those men, Catholic men, who determined the scope of God's Word offered to men in writing.

Regards

 

[RadicalReformer]

The fallacy is beliving that the Roman Catholic church decided that canon. God decided HIS Canon when HE WROTE it!

Your circular argument is duly noted...

No circular arguement at all.

Francis - if you write 10 books, do they not constitute your canon of written work? Or does someone have to "decide" what constitutes your canon?

 

[A-Christian]

Francis - if you write 10 books, do they not constitute your canon of written work? Or does someone have to "decide" what constitutes your canon?

RR, there where many differnt people writing differnet things, all claiming that what they wrote was the inspired word of God. Are you saying that all (and there were oodles of em), should have been in the Bible?

By the way, do you follow the teachings of the NT?


peace

 

[francisdesales]

The fallacy is beliving that the Roman Catholic church decided that canon. God decided HIS Canon when HE WROTE it!

Your circular argument is duly noted...

No circular arguement at all.

Francis - if you write 10 books, do they not constitute your canon of written work? Or does someone have to "decide" what constitutes your canon?

If I write ten books, does that mean they are "inspired by God", "Sacred Scriptures", and so forth? What leads one to believe the James or Philemon is "inspired by God"? Luther wanted to get rid of James, among most of the rest of the books following James. How do you know he was wrong?

Actually, most of the NT does not claim "self-inspiration". It was later men that identified which were truly inspired by God and which were not.

Your claim that the Bible is God's "written" work is a circular argument because you are beginning the thought process already presuming that the Bible is God's Work. The individual books of the NT very rarely make that claim. It is only later men who identify God's Work because those men were "called forth" as apostles, recognized by the Church.

Regards

 

[RadicalReformer]

Francis - if you write 10 books, do they not constitute your canon of written work? Or does someone have to "decide" what constitutes your canon?

RR, there where many differnt people writing differnet things, all claiming that what they wrote was the inspired word of God. Are you saying that all (and there were oodles of em), should have been in the Bible?

By the way, do you follow the teachings of the NT?


peace

Good Question. One of the amazing things of the Scriptures, is that there are various authors, let it is a seamless tome. Just think if today we were to gather 20 or 10 or even 4 authors, tell me to write a story - would it be just as seamless - no! Yet, here we have the Holy Spirit dictating to various authors to create God's canon!

Personally, I find it interesting that you will accept books that apologize for their "writing", that are nowhere referred to as Scripture, were rejected by the Jews.

A majoirty of the Scriptures refer to themselves as either "God said..." "The Lord told me.,,", etc. Paul and Peter confirm each others writings as Scripture (no one elses)...

 

[RadicalReformer]

If I write ten books, does that mean they are "inspired by God", "Sacred Scriptures", and so forth? What leads one to believe the James or Philemon is "inspired by God"? Luther wanted to get rid of James, among most of the rest of the books following James. How do you know he was wrong?

Actually, most of the NT does not claim "self-inspiration". It was later men that identified which were truly inspired by God and which were not.

Your claim that the Bible is God's "written" work is a circular argument because you are beginning the thought process already presuming that the Bible is God's Work. The individual books of the NT very rarely make that claim. It is only later men who identify God's Work because those men were "called forth" as apostles, recognized by the Church.

Regards

Francis, I never said that your books would be considered Scripture. Come now, this is a really easy example, with an easy answer, I do not understand why you are trying to avoid it:

If you were to write 10 books - would that not consist of your personal 'canon' (canon means a collection of written work by an author)?

Now, does a third party need to decide what is your canon? Or was your canon decided when you wrote the 10 books?

Clearly Paul felt his writings were inspired, because he makes a comment about his personal "teaching" that it was not from the Lord - in regards to singlehood, I believe - I will have to look that up.

One can safely say that writings of the Apostles would be inspired by God. How many books does that leave out?

What does Luther have to do with this?

The role/responsbility of the believer and the church is/was to recognize those books which were inspired by God, not to decide on them. The decision was already made when God wrote them.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, I never said that your books would be considered Scripture. Come now, this is a really easy example, with an easy answer, I do not understand why you are trying to avoid it:

If you were to write 10 books - would that not consist of your personal 'canon' (canon means a collection of written work by an author)?

I know where you are going with this, but you will find the same answer. Lead on.

Yes. It would.

Now, does a third party need to decide what is your canon? Or was your canon decided when you wrote the 10 books?

If I didn't autograph them, yes, they would.

Clearly Paul felt his writings were inspired, because he makes a comment about his personal "teaching" that it was not from the Lord - in regards to singlehood, I believe - I will have to look that up.

Clearly, Paul also talks about FALSE writings, those that were written to the community and not by him.

Now, since Paul didn't sign all of his works, we must rely on someone else to determine if what he wrote was HIS work.

And even if we ignore that, how does this prove that ANY of Paul's writings were "inspired by God"? Because they give you a "warm fuzzy feeling"?

One can safely say that writings of the Apostles would be inspired by God. How many books does that leave out?

We believe that because of Catholic Tradition that is accepted as fact.

Secondly, what about the so-called "Apocrypha", the Gospel of Thomas, for example, that claims to be written by the Apostle Thomas? How do you know that is not "orthodox" and the 4 Gospels are "heterodox"? How about the Gnostic writings?

At some point, you are going to have to accept an outside authority that tells us that what we have is from God and are not missing anything, nor have nothing false within the confines of the "Bible".

What does Luther have to do with this?

On his own authority, he discarded parts of the accepted canon, both in the Old Testament and the New. He wanted James removed from Scriptures. He wanted Maccabees removed from Scriptures. How do we know he was correct on either account, or neither?

The role/responsbility of the believer and the church is/was to recognize those books which were inspired by God, not to decide on them. The decision was already made when God wrote them.

There is no difference in your distinction. Recognize = decide.

You close, again, with your circular argument. God didn't "write" the Bible. He, so the Catholic Church claimed, inspired them to write letters that the communities accepted as inspired LATER. Paul did not set out to write "Scriptures" on par with the Old Testament. He was writing corrective letters to a particular community. These writings were later accepted as "Scripture" by the Church and on par with the Old Testament, since the successors of the Apostles realized they were ALSO God's Word - which does not exclude the oral teachings of those same apostles...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Good Question. One of the amazing things of the Scriptures, is that there are various authors, let it is a seamless tome. Just think if today we were to gather 20 or 10 or even 4 authors, tell me to write a story - would it be just as seamless - no! Yet, here we have the Holy Spirit dictating to various authors to create God's canon!

The New Testament is not "seamless". They are theological narratives, for the individual author's own personal purposes. Most of them do not even claim to be "the Word of God". LIterally speaking, there are a number of "difficulties" when following these "seamless" narratives, such as the infancy and resurrection narratives. That being said, it is still a circular argument to posit that such "seamless" writings MUST be from God - because God wrote the Bible.

"How do you know God wrote the Bible"?

Because the Bible is the Word of God...

"How do you know the Bible is the Word of God"?

Because the Word of God is found within the Bible...

round and round we go...

Personally, I find it interesting that you will accept books that apologize for their "writing", that are nowhere referred to as Scripture, were rejected by the Jews.

The Jews rejected the 4 Gospels, as well. The Jews have rejected the Messiah. Are you also going to listen to their decisions on what is from God if they cannot identify the Messiah promised to them for over one thousand years???? The earliest Church writers accepted the indivdual books of the Old Testament such as Wisdom and Sirach in the same light that they accepted Isaiah and Proverbs.

A majoirty of the Scriptures refer to themselves as either "God said..." "The Lord told me.,,", etc. Paul and Peter confirm each others writings as Scripture (no one elses)...

I can write a letter that says the same thing. Does that make it "inspired by God"?

Sorry, Scriptures is NOT self-authenticating. It takes a LIVING Body to identify God's handiwork.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Rad, please call me Jeff.
I'll try and reply to your second post, then get back to your first post.

First off, when Paul wrote that very personal letter to Timothy, I'm sure that you knew Paul's reference to scripture referenced the only cannon that was around, and it wasn't the NT. But I agree, and I like the way you articulated by saying the scripture speaks to the nature and origin of scripture and not to their extent.

That being said, Scripture, like YHWH's nature, has never changed, but it has simply been revealed throughout the centuries.

I suppose my point is this. It was the Universal Church who sorted through all of the writings and decided which ones would be used as a rule to measure with. That's not to say that other writings aren't useful, but the ones in our cannon have been deemed as being authoritative in resolving disputes over other matters, including other writings as well as being a rule to edify the body of believers.

Stove, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy - Paul was referring to Scripture. Period. There is nothing in the text to show that Paul was referring only to "the cannon that was around, and it wasn't the NT.".

Again, let's use the example given of your 4 books. Since you wrote them, that is your canon. If I were to make a comment about your canon of books, and then a month later you wrote another book - is my "comment" invalidated? No.

Paul's statement is about the NATURE and ORIGIN of Scripture - therefore it applies to ALL of God's Written Word. Not because the verse speaks to EXTENT (ie: which books), but because of the ORIGIN of the Scriptures - ie: God-Breathed.

Actually, I think your argument would be better supported by 2 Peter 1:20-21. That being said, Paul’s second letter to Timothy was written in the summer of 64 Ad. If we look at other writing that were outside of Cannon (Cannon can be defined as a straight course, or rule), that is to say, outside of what we now call the Old Testament, then we’ve got to take into consideration other writing that were used by Christians and that were being circulated within the same time frame that Paul wrote this letter, which would have to include the Didache.

To further drive home what Canon is, it comes from the Greek word Kanon and is used in the NT six times by Paul. It is found in 2 Cor 10:13, 15 and 16 translated as rule or line. In Galatians 6:16, it is used twice and is translated as, “According to†and Rule. In Philippians 3:16, it is once more translated as rule. Take these usages of Kanon in context, and our current Canon will make more sense.

Now, based on Kanon, it was up to the Church to determine which scripture was God Breathed and that which was not. Historically, they already had a Canon which was already deemed “God-Breathedâ€Â, thus, when Paul mentioned scripture (literally writings) in his letter to Timothy, it was to be measured by the Canon which already existed (OT) which is confirmed in verse 15 where Paul refers to these writing that Timothy grew up with as “Holy Writingsâ€Â.

To drive this point home, Paul references secular truth from pagan sources that are in agreement with Canon. These quotes and references can be found in Acts 17 and in the book of Titus where Paul references the writings of Epimenides. Now, we certainly wouldn’t include Epimenides within our current Cannon, but Paul does use his writings in the manner which he tells Timothy to use scripture (writings) while falling short of calling the writings of Epimenides “Holy Writingsâ€Â.

If the Universal Church had not decided on the Cannon, I believe that there would have been much more separation in the first 500 years of the Church than there was, but of course this is all speculation on my part.

The UC did not "decide" anything, they merely were able to recognize that which was inspired. The recognization came from the Holy Spirit because it attested to the works that He wrote!

The fallacy is beliving that the Roman Catholic church decided that canon. God decided HIS Canon when HE WROTE it!

First of all, we need to make a distinction. There wasn’t an official “Roman Catholic Church†until 1054 AD and when the NT Cannon was agreed on in the fourth century, it was the Universal (Catholic) Church that recognized (canonized) what we now call the New Testament (Covenant). A quick look at history also tells us that our current Canon was agreed on by a council that consisted of both Eastern and Western Catholic Christians and I have never heard of the “Western†church staking any sort of claim that they alone produced the ‘Canonâ€Â.

Furthermore, if you look at what was used as a guideline for the NT Canon and the theological restructuring of the OT, you will find that the Septuagint was crucial in regard to discerning what was to be included as Canon, and what was to be left out. This is not to say that writings outside of Canon cannot be useful, but they must be viewed in comparison to what has been discerned as rule.

Hope this helps.

Jeff

 

[francisdesales]

Hello Rad, please call me Jeff.
I'll try and reply to your second post, then get back to your first post.

First off, when Paul wrote that very personal letter to Timothy, I'm sure that you knew Paul's reference to scripture referenced the only cannon that was around, and it wasn't the NT. But I agree, and I like the way you articulated by saying the scripture speaks to the nature and origin of scripture and not to their extent.

That being said, Scripture, like YHWH's nature, has never changed, but it has simply been revealed throughout the centuries.

I suppose my point is this. It was the Universal Church who sorted through all of the writings and decided which ones would be used as a rule to measure with. That's not to say that other writings aren't useful, but the ones in our cannon have been deemed as being authoritative in resolving disputes over other matters, including other writings as well as being a rule to edify the body of believers.

Stove, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy - Paul was referring to Scripture. Period. There is nothing in the text to show that Paul was referring only to "the cannon that was around, and it wasn't the NT.".

Again, let's use the example given of your 4 books. Since you wrote them, that is your canon. If I were to make a comment about your canon of books, and then a month later you wrote another book - is my "comment" invalidated? No.

Paul's statement is about the NATURE and ORIGIN of Scripture - therefore it applies to ALL of God's Written Word. Not because the verse speaks to EXTENT (ie: which books), but because of the ORIGIN of the Scriptures - ie: God-Breathed.

Actually, I think your argument would be better supported by 2 Peter 1:20-21. That being said, Paul’s second letter to Timothy was written in the summer of 64 Ad. If we look at other writing that were outside of Cannon (Cannon can be defined as a straight course, or rule), that is to say, outside of what we now call the Old Testament, then we’ve got to take into consideration other writing that were used by Christians and that were being circulated within the same time frame that Paul wrote this letter, which would have to include the Didache.

To further drive home what Canon is, it comes from the Greek word Kanon and is used in the NT six times by Paul. It is found in 2 Cor 10:13, 15 and 16 translated as rule or line. In Galatians 6:16, it is used twice and is translated as, “According to†and Rule. In Philippians 3:16, it is once more translated as rule. Take these usages of Kanon in context, and our current Canon will make more sense.

Now, based on Kanon, it was up to the Church to determine which scripture was God Breathed and that which was not. Historically, they already had a Canon which was already deemed “God-Breathedâ€Â, thus, when Paul mentioned scripture (literally writings) in his letter to Timothy, it was to be measured by the Canon which already existed (OT) which is confirmed in verse 15 where Paul refers to these writing that Timothy grew up with as “Holy Writingsâ€Â.

To drive this point home, Paul references secular truth from pagan sources that are in agreement with Canon. These quotes and references can be found in Acts 17 and in the book of Titus where Paul references the writings of Epimenides. Now, we certainly wouldn’t include Epimenides within our current Cannon, but Paul does use his writings in the manner which he tells Timothy to use scripture (writings) while falling short of calling the writings of Epimenides “Holy Writingsâ€Â.

If the Universal Church had not decided on the Cannon, I believe that there would have been much more separation in the first 500 years of the Church than there was, but of course this is all speculation on my part.

The UC did not "decide" anything, they merely were able to recognize that which was inspired. The recognization came from the Holy Spirit because it attested to the works that He wrote!

The fallacy is beliving that the Roman Catholic church decided that canon. God decided HIS Canon when HE WROTE it!

First of all, we need to make a distinction. There wasn’t an official “Roman Catholic Church†until 1054 AD and when the NT Cannon was agreed on in the fourth century, it was the Universal (Catholic) Church that recognized (canonized) what we now call the New Testament (Covenant). A quick look at history also tells us that our current Canon was agreed on by a council that consisted of both Eastern and Western Catholic Christians and I have never heard of the “Western†church staking any sort of claim that they alone produced the ‘Canonâ€Â.

Furthermore, if you look at what was used as a guideline for the NT Canon and the theological restructuring of the OT, you will find that the Septuagint was crucial in regard to discerning what was to be included as Canon, and what was to be left out. This is not to say that writings outside of Canon cannot be useful, but they must be viewed in comparison to what has been discerned as rule.

Hope this helps.

Jeff

Well done, Jeff. I enjoyed your post, especially on the useage of "canon" in Scripture and the development of the NT Canon later on.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks Joe,
Many people don't understand that there are many other writings by the Apostles, such as the Revelation of Peter that never made it into the Christian, authoratiative "Kanon" and fewer know that the OT was restructured theologically (The literal order of the OT was changed from it's Jewish order) to match the NT Canon's theological view. Besides, 2 Timothy 3:15-16 are kind of a pet peave with me :wink:

TTYL
Jeff

 

[RadicalReformer]

Thanks Joe,
Many people don't understand that there are many other writings by the Apostles, such as the Revelation of Peter that never made it into the Christian, authoratiative "Kanon" and fewer know that the OT was restructured theologically (The literal order of the OT was changed from it's Jewish order) to match the NT Canon's theological view. Besides, 2 Timothy 3:15-16 are kind of a pet peave with me :wink:

TTYL
Jeff

The problem is that you are placing 2 Tim 3:15-16 in a spot in history, and saying that it only refers to things that precend it. That is a misuse of that verse.

I will need to bow out of this converstation if a supposed "Christian" will claim that God did not write the Scriptures.