Very good, Dave. I appreciate the link to this, (at bottom) where you show that the Catholic Church recieved the canon or books that were already inspired. Very good.
Not much else I can say. You did more work than I did, and You were more careful, and you overcame the generalizations in the original article. I understand better. The Early church got it right on the canon, and we all rejoice in that. Athanasius is a great hero, for the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the canon. We are deep in history too, and still protestant.
I disagree that the RCC is infallible and refute that the pope or magisterium is infallible, but those in the early church period (which is not Roman Catholic, but "catholic", as Jason Egwer pointed out.) got it right and help us all on having confidence in the Bible. I agree that the process was complicated and some books were not as easy or "self-attesting" as others.
Once you fleshed it out more, it was better. The only problem is that the simple statements like "a gap from Jesus to 367 AD" gives people the wrong impression on the canon. But you nicely explained and recovered from that generalization.
(Link referred to above)
The Canon of Scripture: Did the Catholic Church Create It Or Merely Authoritatively Acknowledge It? (with Kevin Johnson)
Sunday, July 25, 2004 (you did a great job in that link and I agree with you there. Thanks.)
Ken says:
For one example, see 10:7-8, where he makes gross scientific and biological errors. "because this animal (the hyena) changes its nature from year to year, and becomes male one time and female another." And Psuedo-Barnabas says about the weasel, "for this animal conceives through its mouth."
Well! What about throwing the Psalms into river? See Psalm 58,8 (KJB): As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away... I must have slept on my biology lessons and missed something.
Another strange thing is to call Origen a heretic(especially!) and then use him when comes handy to back up the Trinity doctrine. Hmm... Is someone inconsistent a little bit?
Do you have a pool Dave? You must be well off then 
> Do you have a pool Dave? You must be well off then
Hardly (how did I know someone would remark about the pool? LOL). It's one of those semi-kids pools: 15 feet diameter, three feet deep, with the ring around the top that you blow up before adding water. It cost us, I think, $200, and is well worth every penny during the summertime.
Basically it is to cool off and "play" in the water, not to swim in (obviously), though you can manage to do two body lengths and swim by the walls all around, pretty well. The kids have fun doing non-diving jumps. It's a wonderful family activity which I would heartily recommend to anyone.
You want to know true bliss in a pool, swim in Arizona.
My family in Buffalo has a pool but the humidity off Lake Erie means you are wet for days. In Arizona, you do not even need a towel until monsoon season. We used to dry off by just walking a few laps around the pool.
Stefan,
Psalm 58:8, it seems to me, is not a good parallel with the gross errors that "Pseudo Barnabas" makes. When a snail or slug stays out in the sun and "goes along", it will indeed melt, or dry up. If you put salt on a slug or snail, you can cause it to be pretty much melted, because it is mostly water.
In the context, the Psalmist is speaking about judgment on the wicked humans, who think they are "gods" in their pride, verses 1-3.
So, I don't think you made a good point there at all. We know the Psalms was inspired (2 Timothy 3:16), but "Pseudo-Barnabas" is obviously not.
In order to talk intelligently about Calvin and his statements that you quoted about the internal testimony of the Spirit, I will need to study that issue further.
One of the things I noticed is that Calvin before you start you quote shows that the church is build upon the prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20). And he is reacting against the spirit of the age, of the authoritarian nature of the Pope and RCC of those days that said, pretty much as an attitude, "We are in charge, whatever we say goes". That is how Boniface's famous statement comes across, and that is how Ignatius' Loyola's statement about whatever we say is white, if it appears to your eyes is black, you must submit and believe it is white, etc. Pope Leo and other leaders communicated the same kind of sentiments.
Also, presuppositions are not always bad, we have to start somewhere. I believe Anselm's ontological argument for God is brillant and shows that if we can imagine a perfect being, then since we are not perfect, that idea had to come from outside of us. God reveals Himself to us outside of ourselves. Creation, Conscience, Culture (General Revelation) and the Word of God and Christ (special revelation). The Spirit speaks when the Scriptures speak. God speaks when the Scriptures speak.
No one can change anyone, except the Father reveals Himself to us on the inside, like to Peter about who Jesus is -- Matthew 16:16-18
more later -- a storm is brewing here!
Hi Benedict,
We'll be out in Arizona in late July. I hope to camp by some body of water if we stay in that state, so I can experience this myself. For my money the dry heat is a lot more tolerable, even if it is a higher temperature. I remember a day like that one time I was in Tulsa. I felt like I was wrapped up like a mummy, it was so hot, yet (if I recall correctly) I didn't sweat. We get a lot of humidity in the Detroit area, with all those big lakes around.
"The Spirit speaks when the Scriptures speak. God speaks when the Scriptures speak."
That's not necessarily so. As we all know, the devil can quote scripture when it suits his purpose. The devil even tried it on Jesus after 40 days of fasting in the desert.
Well, we have about 30 lakes, all told.
Having just spent four years in New York City, I have found my love for the dry heat renewed. I can better stand 110 in dry heat than even mid 80s in humidity (but I grew up in the desert, so my body is not at all accustomed to even moderate humidity).
And apparently you are pushing me out of the state. I am leaving for AL in late July for a training seminar.
Ok Ken. And what about this:
Leviticus 11,21-23: ... But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
- as far as I know insects have six legs and spiders 8
Leviticus 11,13-19: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ... and the bat.
- bat is a mammal
Some skeptics would give you a lot more longer list of scientific, biological or historical errors. My point is not to question the Scriptures, but to show you that it is NOT clear "self attesting" evidence you gave. To me Dave's arguments seem better.
Leviticus 11,21-23: ... But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
- as far as I know insects have six legs and spiders 8
....Flying squirrels
Leviticus 11,13-19: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ... and the bat.
- bat is a mammal
In modern times....In anchient Hebrew, no doubt, bats were considered flying fowl. Even today the philologists (?) are still lumping and splitting by catagory. One could choose to lump and split the creatures on earth by color and how they taste. A valid system though maybe not very useful.
The storm has since passed here -- for a while there it looked like a serious tornado, but it was not . . .
So, Stephan,
how do you handle that Leviticus 11:21-23 passage?
I confess I had never seen that before, and it motivates me to find an aswer. But I need to study it further. I have an idea of how initially I would answer, but I was wondering first how you would handle that "apparent" conflict with science? ("walks on all fours" vs. six legs)
Martin is hitting at the issue, I think, that just because the Hebrews of that time had different categories or ways of describing things does not mean that they are contradicitons with science.
Nice try Ken. I don't know how to explain that and I don't care. But as I said earlier your argument that it is clear what is inspired and what not has crumbled. And what about people that don't know anything about science(in fact 99,999% of people in 1st century). How would they know what was inspired. What about plowboy that never saw weasel. How would he know that it doesn't conceive through its mouth?
Yes indeed.
For a good answer on the Leviticus passage and "four legs" vs. six legs:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html
Sefan wrote:
"But as I said earlier your argument that it is clear what is inspired and what not has crumbled."
Only on some books, (even though Dave says, “many”. Much of Dave’s argument is based on the silence of Justin Martyr, Polycarp, I Clement and Ignatius, and that just does not prove anything, especially given the very short length of most of those works, especially I Clement and Polycarp and Ignatius.) I found a good article on the process:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html
and I agree that the history of the canonization process is more complicated than popularly believed. Even Dave agreed that a kernel of a collection of the Gospels and Paul's Epistles was early, he apparently had to skip over the earlier collection indications, 2 Peter 3:16, The Gospels, response to Marcion and Monatanism, etc. and only touch on the "Muratorium Canon" .
And the issue was the NT, as the Jews never struggled with any of the Torah (specially in this case, Leviticus) as written by Moses and inspired by God Himself.
Sefan wrote:
"And what about people that don't know anything about science(in fact 99,999% of people in 1st century)."
That is the exact reason why they wrote in a simpler form (but still very accurate, when understood in context and given that God is accommodating to the times before the later technologies) for the people of that time. No problem whatsoever.
Sefan:
"How would they know what was inspired. What about plowboy that never saw weasel. How would he know that it doesn't conceive through its mouth?"
I guess they would not know, and would not even know what he was talking about. That is neither here nor there as to the point of inspiration. Some people who read it will know about weasels, and that “Pseudo-Barnabas” was goofy, or at least doing some really strange allegorization. When the Scriptures first went to Eskimos, they did know what “lamb of God” meant, someone had to explain the historical background and culture.
Anyway, I agree that we need teachers to teach in the church, obviously (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 13:1-4, I Timothy 3, Titus 1, 2 Timothy, Ephesians 4;11-12) but, that according to I John 2:20-27, they are not infallible; and we need other tools to help us study and understand, but they are still secondary in authority to the "God-breathed Scriptures" themselves. 2 Timothy 3:16
Well hello Ken.
I must say that I'm not sure if your explanation of Leviticus is satisfactory. I'm not native english speaker and so to me that article looked like word play with legs and "legs". But I take it and I'm curious what others will say.
We both agree that it was not clear what is inspired and what not.
"And the issue was the NT"
Yes, but as you stated that inspired writings must not contain scientific errors that must also apply to OT.
I must say that I'm quite delighted by your answers. My aim was to prove that it is not true what you said (clear "self attesting" evidences). At least not according to arguments for it that you gave.
P.S. Using 2Tim 3:16 is a way to lose in argumentation on this topic. Read previous verse at least to see why.
On a related note, I've seen a few arguments of material sufficiency vs. partim-partim and was wondering: doesn't the issue of the canon argue heavily in favor of partim-partim?
Stefan,
Thanks for the discussion. When all the facts are know, there is no final conflict between science and faith in the Inspired Scriptures. Leviticus was already considered "Scripture", being part of the law, and the Jews never questioned that. So, I don't think that is a good comparison between the really gross stuff in Pseudo-Barnabas that is clearly un-inspired, and Leviticus, which is inspired.
What the article shows is that Leviticus does not contradict science and is inspiired and that the Hebrews recognized that the four front legs were more similiar and the hind two legs are somewhat different -- even on the honey bee, which is diagramed for us, the hind legs are different.
In many insects, the hind legs are for jumping.
Also "to crawl on all fours" maybe an expression that includes all kinds of crawling, no matter if six, eight, or four legs are seen. The Hebrews had other expressions that are not meant to be scienfically accurate in modern terms; although they are accurate for their purposes of that time of communicating truth at that time. For example, the phrase "for three days and three nights" ( Jonah in the belly of the big fish (whale or whale shark, doesn't matter). Jesus quotes it about his death, burial and resurrection -- Matthew 12:40. This does not require Jesus to be buried for three full 24 hour periods, only parts of three days, some of Friday, all of Saturday, and some of Sunday.
2 Timothy 3:15 is talking about the OT, yes, but 2 Timothy 3:16 is exanding it to include "all Scripture" (at least what is known at that time), the gospels (I Timothy 5:18, where both law and gospel are quoted and called Scripture), and Paul's letters, as he himself knows that this is last letter and he is about to be executed.
So the principle of "sola Scriptura" and the canon are there in seed form. "As Hendickson observes, by using the phrase "all Scripture" in verse 16, the apostle exapnds the scope of divine writing to include, "whatever has a right to be called divinely inspired Scripture." (p. 76, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith", volume 1, David King and William Webster. Christian Resources, 2001. Citing William Hendrickson's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957, p. 300.
On a related note, I've seen a few arguments of material sufficiency vs. partim-partim and was wondering: doesn't the issue of the canon argue heavily in favor of partim-partim?
Scott W.
Now that is a very interesting question, but I don't fully understand it, can you flesh it out a little and explain.
This gets back to my paper that Ken liked, where I showed that Catholic teaching on the canon is that Scripture is already intrinsically Scripture; we didn't create it.
Since Scripture was what it was already, it remains materially sufficient, which means that every true Christian doctrine can be found in it, either explicitly, indirectly by deduction, or implicitly in kernel, less-developed form.
The canon issue has more to do with the matter of formal sufficiency. Since Scripture teaches that there is an authoritative Church and Tradition, those things are quite biblical and not contrary to the Bible at all. Church and Tradition in turn simply stated what books were in the Bible. But I don't see that this overturns material sufficiency.
The Church is necessary and possesses a high, sublime authority already granted to it not only by our Lord, but in the Bible itself. Authority and Christian doctrine is to be promulgated by the three-legged stool of Scripture, Church, and Tradition. Books can't interpret themselves; Protestant sectarianism will go on forever without the authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ founded, to settle between the battling factions.
Hi Ken.
It seems that you didn§t get my point about Timothy. Paul says that Timothy had known Scripture since his childhood. Paul was executed in about 67 A.D. and this was his last letter (as you quoted). Let's suppose that Timothy was in his twenties. How much of the Scripture has been written when Timothy was a child? Even at the time Paul was writing this letter there wasn't any John or Revelation. So Timothy would have to (according to what Paul wrote and "sola scriptura") reject those.
Ken,
Stefan points to what I consider one of your biggest stretches, reading in authorization beyond what the author originally understood and intended. When Paul talked about scripture, I doubt he included his own writings or even any of the gospels that might have been written at that time that he knew about. It's the authority of the Church which dealt later with New Testament. Also, when Paul and John write, it's to people and communities with which they had a personal relationship and could vouche for their faith and understanding thereof. Because Paul or John confirm the understanding, authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit with the particular audience to whom they were writing, doesn't mean than anyone and everyone who reads it is being confirmed also. It's like saying I read your diploma so I now have a PhD too.
John wrote:
"When Paul talked about scripture, I doubt he included his own writings . . . "
I absolutely refute that:
I Corinthians 14:37:
“If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”
I Timothy 5:18 – he calls the Law and the Gospel (the phrase is in both Luke and Matthew) as “Scripture”.
So they are all in principle equal to the OT as Scripture. You are refuted. It does not matter if some were not written yet, if John or Revelation or Jude were written in 80 or 90-96 AD. The Principle is the same. Obviously the finality of revelation only happens after the last book is written. This is what progressive revelation is.
“After his letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16)
This was probably a circular letter, what is currently known as “Ephesians”, but manuscript evidence shows the words, “en Ephesos” (at Ephesus) were taken out and then other church names were substituted. That is why there is not much personal greetings in Ephesians.
I Thessalonians 2:13:
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”
2 Thess. 2:15 – hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or letter from us.” Paul considered his preaching and teaching the Word of God. During the process, of course oral tradition was necessary and good until it was all finished and the last book was written or the last apostle died. But he clearly thought all his letters were authoritative and “scripture” in that they were the word of God, and He says, “I too have the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 7:40) Every church needed to get Romans and Hebrews and Philippians and all the letters and certainly while Paul was preaching and teaching, he was preaching and teaching the other truths that later he wrote in other letters, or had written in other earlier letters, like Galatians.
This is one of the RCC’s favorite passages that they claim teaches that there are other extra-Scriptural traditions that were not in scripturated. I understand the argument, but there is not proof that teachings and traditions about Mary’s sinless ness or perpetual virginity or immaculate conception or bodily assumption, or a papal office, or NT priests with sacerdotal authority, or ex opera operato, or purgatory or penance or indulgences or infallibility or transubstantiation were ever a part of those traditions, as they only came out centuries later. Many others about tradition – 2 Tim. 2:2, I Cor. 15:1-7, Jude 3 “once for all delivered to the saints”, I Cor. 11:2. All of these were considered the word of God, and he does not have to say, “What I am writing to you now is also Scripture”; as it was understood by the way he writes with authority, being an apostle, giving commands, teaching about the word of God and that the Holy Spirit is speaking, etc. "These things we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” I Cor. 2:13.
JOHN: "When Paul talked about scripture, I doubt he included his own writings . . . "
KEN: I absolutely [my emphasis] refute that:
I Corinthians 14:37:
“If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”
---------------------
We went through this in our recent debate. This is more of your wishful eisegesis. It doesn't prove that he thought that this particular letter was Scripture. Of course it was, but this doesn't prove that it was Paul's understanding at the time; nor is it necessary that he know that in order for it to be inspired; nor that this sort of thing be present in the writing to "prove" that it is Scripture for later readers.
Context and Scripture cross-referencing mitigate against you. "A command of the Lord" need not be Scripture itself, just as the prophets surely gave many "command of the Lord" which were not recorded in Scripture or anywhere else. In other words, the category of "Lord's commands" is much larger than such commands as have been recorded in Holy Scripture.
Paul mentions a "prophet." But previously in the same chapter he taught about prophesying (14:1,3-5,22,24,29,31-32,39; cf. 12:10,28-29). Paul is by no means the only "prophet" here. Note the implication (in light of context) in 14:6 that anyone who prophesies might "bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching."
Those who prophesy in church may bring a revelation? Try that out in your Baptist service sometime, Ken. Paul is even more clear, referring to "a revelation . . . made to another sitting by" in 14:30). Such "revelation" would be a "command of the Lord" just as much as Paul's letter in which this writing was recorded, since "God's commands" is also a category larger than Scripture itself. You or I could be commanded by an angel this very day if God so willed.
Moreover, four verses later, Paul goes right back to oral proclamation: "I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast - unless you believed in vain." (1 Cor 15:1-2)
Oops! Paul must have flunked Calvinism 0101, Eternal Security 0101, and Sola Scriptura 0101 classes in seminary. Let me correct his teaching here with the RFBV (Revised Fundamentalist Baptist Version):
"I presented to you the gospel in this letter which is Scripture, which you received, in which you stand, by which you were saved; therefore you will hold it fast - unless you believed in vain."
Paul goes on to recount how he "delivered" the gospel to the Corinthians (orally), in 15:3-6. Later (15:29) he discusses folks "being baptized on behalf of the dead" -- the most difficult verse in the NT for Protestants to interpret.
>I Timothy 5:18 – he calls the Law and the Gospel (the phrase is in both Luke and Matthew) as “Scripture”.
How is that relevan
(cont.)
. . . relevant to the question of whether Paul knew that his own letters were inspired, as he wrote them?
>All of these were considered the word of God, and he does not have to say, “What I am writing to you now is also Scripture”; as it was understood by the way he writes with authority, being an apostle, giving commands, teaching about the word of God and that the Holy Spirit is speaking, etc. "These things we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” I Cor. 2:13.
This is very good, and you understand this better than many Protestants, who adopt a radical solo Scriptura position. My main point was to say that Paul may not have necessarily known he was writing Scripture, and that your "prooftext" of 1 Cor 14:37 did not establish that he did. Secondly, one didn't have to even be an apostle to pass along the "word of God." They merely had to be a prophet, or to prophesy; and Paul seemed to think that many would do so and that it would be a routine occurrence.
What's interesting here is how that squares with present-day Christianity, where such prophesying is a rare occurrence, in all the major Christian traditions. Even the pope doesn't claim such a gift, but rather, the far lesser gift of infallibility. So this becomes yet another indirect argument for the biblical plausibility or at least (for the more skeptically-minded) permissibility of papal infallibility, since both inspiration of sinful men and prophesying of sinful men occurred and were instruments through which a sure word of divine prophecy or revelation were received; why, not, then, also the far inferior gift of protection from doctrinal error, so that Christians could be certain of doctrinal truths?
KEN: I absolutely [my emphasis] refute that:
I Corinthians 14:37:
“If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”
---------------------
Dave wrote:
We went through this in our recent debate. This is more of your wishful eisegesis.
Ken:
I disagree and I don’t think I am eis-o-getting, or “reading into” the text. Paul says “what I am writing” “is the Lord’s command”.
Dave:
It doesn't prove that he thought that this particular letter was Scripture. Of course it was, but this doesn't prove that it was Paul's understanding at the time; nor is it necessary that he know that in order for it to be inspired; nor that this sort of thing be present in the writing to "prove" that it is Scripture for later readers.
Ken:
Just because there are also other prophetic gifts, oral teachings, revelations, God inspired tradtions at the time ( I Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6, etc.) does not speak against I Corinthians 14:37 or the whole book as Scripture. It seems that Paul did know he was writing Scripture, putting both context and cross-referenceing together, as will be fleshed out more through as we go along. No, it is not eisogesis.
Dave:
Context and Scripture cross-referencing mitigate against you.
Ken:
I disagree, as demonstrated more as we go along.
Dave:
"A command of the Lord" need not be Scripture itself, just as the prophets surely gave many "command of the Lord" which were not recorded in Scripture or anywhere else.
Ken:
Yes, Sola Scriptura does not deny this, but just because they were not all written down (at that time and place), does not prove that the writings we do have were not understood at the time as Scripture.
The content of the prophecies may be the content of Romans, Galatians, and even Revelation, which the Corinthians probably did not have. The certainly did not have the book of Revelation, so the oral teachings in all the churches was most probably the content of other letters (and the gospels, that he didn’t write) that Paul wrote.
Dave:
In other words, the category of "Lord's commands" is much larger than such commands as have been recorded in Holy Scripture.
Ken:
This is true, but it does not refute my point. We don’t know what any of them are and there is no evidence of any of those things that were spoken orally, were the word of God, and not written down. We can only guess.
The Protestant assumes that they were various pieces of other important content in other letters of the rule of faith and doctrine and exhortations that are now contained in the other written letters. If the Corinthians did not have Romans or Galatians yet, we assume that Paul and other apostles, teachers, and prophets would be orally teaching those things, until all the churches got all the letters, gospels, acts, Revelation, etc.
The RCC assumes that it may be that also, but it also assumes much more, such as teachings on Mary, and the Pope and transubstantiation, etc., but that those “oral traditions” did not come out in writings (Early church fathers, councils, traditions, etc.) until centuries later. For example, the first known statement that says that Mary was pure and undefiled was by Ephraem of Syria. (Died in 373, according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia) “For in You, O Lord, there is no mark; neither is there any stain in your Mother”. (Ephraem the Syrian, Camina Nisibena 27, 8.).
That still does not prove he was actually teaching “immaculate conception”, and if he was teaching that, namely sinlessness, it does not make it correct. There are too many other fathers at his time and before who believed that Mary sinned -- Origen, John Chrysostom, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, and according to J. N. Kelly: Tertullian (on the Flesh of Christ, 7), Ireneaus (Against Heresies, 3, 16, 7) , and Hilary (Tract. In Ps. 118, 3, 2). (ECD, p. 493, 496)
Of course oral teachings on the gospel and prophetic words are the Lord’s command (from apostles at that time). In order to prove your point, you have to prove that when Paul said, “what I am writing” means “what I am not writing” or “not what I am writing” (which is ridiculous), and the opposite of what he clearly means, namely, “I am writing”. It seems it is as if you are saying that Paul is saying: “I am writing something, and it is the Lord’s command, but that doesn’t matter, it is not Scripture, even though the word “scripture” means “the things written”. Just because oral teachings and traditions are also the word of God at the time, and are yet to be written down, does not mean that at least Paul understood his letters and writings to be Scripture.
Dave:
Paul mentions a "prophet."
Ken:
Yes, so what?
Dave:
But previously in the same chapter he taught about prophesying (14:1,3-5,22,24,29,31-32,39; cf. 12:10,28-29). Paul is by no means the only "prophet" here. Note the implication (in light of context) in 14:6 that anyone who prophesies might "bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching."
Ken:
No problem. It does not really directly relate to your argument, as far as I can understand.
Dave:
Those who prophesy in church may bring a revelation? Try that out in your Baptist service sometime, Ken.
Ken:
What is your purpose here? You don’t believe in continuing prophesy either, at least prophesy on the level of Scripture, do you? I know you don’t.
There is disagreement today over that the gift of prophesy exactly means, for churches today. Is it “Spirit anointed preaching”? Is it “sanctified insight”? Is it guidance or comfort, or exhortation or edification, warnings? Even doctrinal (not the uniformed popular TV and sensationalistic level, at least until confronted); even doctrinal Charismatics, Pentecostals, and the 3rd Wavers (John Wimber, Wayne Grudem, Jack Deere) all agree that whatever the gift of prophesy entails for today, it does not add to Scripture. Now, many charismatics and Penetcostals and 3rd Wavers are sloppy in their applications of the gift of prophesy, and when confronted, they will usually back down and admit that it is not on the same level as Scripture. That is the strongest argument in favor of cessationism (for at least prophetic revelatory gifts that are on the same level of Scripture), it seems to me.
Dave:
Paul is even more clear, referring to "a revelation . . . made to another sitting by" in 14:30). Such "revelation" would be a "command of the Lord" just as much as Paul's letter in which this writing was recorded, since "God's commands" is also a category larger than Scripture itself. You or I could be commanded by an angel this very day if God so willed.
Ken:
No problem. All you prove is that there is other revelation, prophesy, teaching, etc. that is going on at the time in oral fashion, and that God’s word was at the time, both oral and written. Sola Scriptura has no problem whatsoever with any of that.
All of this is the reason why “cessationism” developed, which is the understanding that once the canon of Scripture was written, that is once a book was written whether from AD 49-69 (most, if not all of NT) or 80 (Jude) or 90-96 AD (maybe John, I-3 John, Revelation, but I personally believe that they were all pre-AD 70. (although not necessarily known to all the churches), prophecy and new revelation stopped. That is why Montanism was deemed a aberration and false doctrine. Right? By the way, when did the Early church first decide that Monatanism was false and heretical? (I admit I need to study that issue more closely.)
Dave:
Moreover, four verses later, Paul goes right back to oral proclamation: "I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast - unless you believed in vain." (1 Cor 15:1-2)
Oops! Paul must have flunked Calvinism 0101,
Ken:
This is no way contradicts Calvinism. Those who are saved, also, if their faith was also in the past and real, were saved, and are being saved, and will be saved. But if a person not longer believes, he is not saved, and never was saved. The warnings are real warnings; -- not to have been saved and then loose real salvation, but they are spoken in such a way so as to have teeth, and not fall into the error of the “easy believe-ism” or a kind of eternal security teaching that says, “you are saved” no matter if you are living in deliberate sin. If someone says “I believe”, but later says, “I don’t believe”, then that faith was “empty”, “in vain”, not real faith. Real saving faith perseveres and keeps going.
Dave:
Eternal Security 0101,
Ken:
(see above) Also, some of the best preaching and teaching on this issue is John Piper at www.desiringGod.org, especially his series on Hebrews. This is classic Reformation understanding that both preserves God’s sovereignty and power to keep us, and also makes the warning real warnings. The typical modern day Baptist teaching on eternal security waters down all the warning to not have any “teeth”.
Dave:
and Sola Scriptura 0101 classes in seminary.
Ken:
How is I Cor. 15:1-2 related to the sola Scriptura argument? As I have shown, it does not teach against oral preaching and teaching and revelation or God-inspired tradition, which later became inscripturated. It does say that there is no more of those kind of traditions, that are equal to Scripture or “God’s word” in the sense that Paul and others spoke about them, that they are on the level of Scripture – I Cor. 15:1-3 “delivered to you” , I Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:5, Jude 3, 3 John 12.
Dave:
Let me correct his teaching here with the RFBV (Revised Fundamentalist Baptist Version):
Ken:
No such thing. (as that version of the Bible)
Dave:
"I presented to you the gospel in this letter which is Scripture, which you received, in which you stand, by which you were saved; therefore you will hold it fast - unless you believed in vain."
Ken:
I understand your sarcasm and pejorative ness and point you are trying to make, but it is not true (that there is such a version, or that even a Fundamentalist would change the text, etc.) What they might say is that “you are saved”, because “you really were saved” and “if you hold it fast”, that means you are saved, and “if you are truly saved, you will hold it fast”, but if you don’t, you never were saved, that whatever you thought your experience was, it was an “empty, vain” faith – not real.
Dave:
Paul goes on to recount how he "delivered" the gospel to the Corinthians (orally), in 15:3-6. Later (15:29) he discusses folks "being baptized on behalf of the dead" -- the most difficult verse in the NT for Protestants to interpret.
Ken:
Yes, it is a difficult verse, but since the RCC does not do that (baptize for the dead) either, you also have to explain it. Yes, you pray for the dead, but what connection does that have here? How do you interpret I Cor. 15:29 ?
Just because it is a difficult verse to interpret, does not have any bearing on an argument against Sola Scriptura. I fail to see your connection.
Dave, quoting Ken and then adding his own question:
>I Timothy 5:18 – he calls the Law and the Gospel (the phrase is in both Luke and Matthew) as “Scripture”.
How is that
. . . relevant to the question of whether Paul knew that his own letters were inspired, as he wrote them?
Ken:
Because, if he puts the gospels on the same Scriptural level as the Law, and he calls the OT sacred Scripture in 2 Tim. 3:15, and then expands it to “all Scritpure” in 2 Tim. 3:16 and he is writing all of these things to Timothy “in order that you may know how to conduct yourself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” ( I Tim. 3:14-15), then it seems pretty clear that Paul understood his own letters as Scripture. Also, because he says, in 4:13, “give attention to public reading, preaching, and teaching”, and he says to read his letters in the churches, Colossians 4:16.
Dave: (quoting me again at beginning)
>All of these were considered the word of God, and he does not have to say, “What I am writing to you now is also Scripture”; as it was understood by the way he writes with authority, being an apostle, giving commands, teaching about the word of God and that the Holy Spirit is speaking, etc. "These things we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” I Cor. 2:13.
This is very good, and you understand this better than many Protestants, who adopt a radical solo Scriptura position.
Ken
Thank you. I finally got something right!
Dave:
My main point was to say that Paul may not have necessarily known he was writing Scripture, and that your "prooftext" of 1 Cor 14:37 did not establish that he did.
Ken:
I don’t think you disproved that Paul did know his letters were Scripture at the time. All you showed was that oral authoritative “God’s word” existed also at the same time at the time that the letters and gospels were being written and the early churches were being founded. (AD 33-70 – 96)
That Paul understood himself to be writing Scripture, other evidence is in I Cor. Chapter 7, where he says at one point, “I say, not the Lord” (verse 12) and then at the end, he says, “I have the Spirit of God” (verse 40). Since he clearly said, “I give instructions, not I, but the Lord” (verse 10); the only conclusion to draw from all this is that Paul knows 1. He is quoting and repeating teaching in the gospels from Jesus himself (Matthew 5, 19, Mark 10) 2. Marriage to an unbeliever was a new issue, not addressed by the Lord Jesus, so Paul says he is also giving advice, and that this advice is from the Holy Spirit. (verses 12-40)
Dave:
Secondly, one didn't have to even be an apostle to pass along the "word of God." They merely had to be a prophet, or to prophesy; and Paul seemed to think that many would do so and that it would be a routine occurrence.
Ken:
That is true, that is why Ephesians 2:19-20 says “the household of God, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.” But that is also not an argument against Sola Scriptura.
Dave:
What's interesting here is how that squares with present-day Christianity, where such prophesying is a rare occurrence, in all the major Christian traditions. Even the pope doesn't claim such a gift, but rather, the far lesser gift of infallibility.
Ken:
I understand this point you are making, but in effect, the infallibility dogma, even though saying that it does not add new revelation, in a practical sense does function as prophesy, because the Bodily Assumption of Mary does not even have any material sufficiency of Scripture behind it, which is like adding new revelation, no matter who much you claim that it was already deposited in the first century, there is no evidence for this.
And, as I heard Jerry Matatics and, I think Tim Staples declare, this dogma is part of the gospel, (even though not in I Corinthians 15:1-9, where Paul comes close to defining what the gospel is; and it is not in any other text.) Is it part of the "gospel"? If it is de fide dogma, something one is oblibated to believe as a RC, then that means the RCC says it is part of the gospel. this is adding things to Scripture, seems to me, as many others think also.
So, even as many admit, there is not material sufficiency for it, and that is one reason why there are arguments between RCs as to the Partim-Partim theory of Scripture and Tradition and the material sufficiency view. John 20:30 or 21:25 hardly counts as a text for this doctrine to promote material sufficiency.
Dave:
So this becomes yet another indirect argument for the biblical plausibility or at least (for the more skeptically-minded) permissibility of papal infallibility, since both inspiration of sinful men and prophesying of sinful men occurred and were instruments through which a sure word of divine prophecy or revelation were received; why, not, then, also the far inferior gift of protection from doctrinal error, so that Christians could be certain of doctrinal truths?
Dave Armstrong
Ken:
2 Timothy 3:16 says that the writings are God-breathed, and therefore, infallible. It does not say the prophets or apostles as people are “inspired” or “God breathed”. They were controlled and carried along to write what God wanted them to write, as taught in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Once the ink dried on the last NT book, inspiration of Scripture stopped, and so did infallibility, because only God and His Word, now written is without error. Yes, the prophets and apostles were sinful, and God used them to write Scripture, but Scripture’s quality of being “without error” and includes necessarily that it is without sin. Scripture is without error because it is without sin, because God cannot lie. You cannot separate infallibility from impeccability in the writings. It is the product of Scripture that was inspired or God-breathed, not the people themselves. Their sins or mistakes did not make it into the Scriptures.
Hi Ken.
Your post at 06.28.06 - 3:38 pm doesn't say anything useful.
Post at 06.28.06 - 3:44 pm--->
"Yes, Sola Scriptura does not deny this, but just because they were not all written down (at that time and place), does not prove that the writings we do have were not understood at the time as Scripture."
It's what this is all about. There were many writs thate were understood to be Scripture and many canonical considered not to be Scripture. Read previous articles again.
"... so the oral teachings in all the churches was most probably the content of other letters (and the gospels, that he didn’t write) that Paul wrote."
Why most probably? Is it just your feeling? Any reason here?
"This is true, but it does not refute my point."
Again, what's your point?
"If the Corinthians did not have Romans or Galatians yet, we assume that Paul and other apostles, teachers, and prophets would be orally teaching those things, until all the churches got all the letters, gospels, acts, Revelation, etc."
This is quite silly. HOW could apostoles teach something that was not revealed (e.g. Revelation) yet? Reading God's mind? BTW. You really bend sola scriptura. It's like pointing on a dog and saying "That is a cat that barks".
Post at 06.28.06 - 4:04 pm --->
(Skipping your Mary intermezzo)
Paul clearly stated, that what he had written is the word of Lord. Anything that you ADD to it is your opinion.
"Just because oral teachings and traditions are also the word of God at the time, and are yet to be written down, does not mean that at least Paul understood his letters and writings to be Scripture."
Nor does it mean that he understood it so.
Post 06.28.06 - 4:09 pm --->
"It does not really directly relate to your argument, as far as I can understand."..."What is your purpose here? You don’t believe in continuing prophesy either, at least prophesy on the level of Scripture, do you?"
No, I think you don't understand it. Prophesies that Paul mentioned OCCURED during apostolic times and can't be spoken about as continuing prophesies. So you can't dismiss them that easily.
"Now, many charismatics and Penetcostals and 3rd Wavers are sloppy in their applications of the gift of prophesy, and when confronted, they will usually back down and admit that it is not on the same level as Scripture. That is the strongest argument in favor of cessationism."
This is logical fallacy. So when I start a church, that will grow large enough and will teach exact opposition to cessationism will it become true? Think twice what arguments you use.
Post at 06.28.06 - 4:12 pm --->
(skipping Calvinism - not worth mention)
Post at 06.28.06 - 4:15 pm --->
"As I have shown, it does not teach against oral preaching and teaching and revelation or God-inspired tradition, which later became inscripturated."
I beg your pardon, but where does Paul state that he writes about oral traditions that must later become inscripturated!? I think, that this is the famous RFBV
Post at 06.28.06 - 4:25 pm --->
"...then it seems pretty clear that Paul understood his own letters as Scripture"
Non sequitur and wishful thinking ....
Post at 06.28.06 - 4:29 pm --->
"That Paul understood himself to be writing Scripture, other evidence is in I Cor. Chapter 7, where he says at one point, “I say, not the Lord” (verse 12) and then at the end, he says, “I have the Spirit of God” (verse 40)."
You seems to leave the "I think" before "I have the Spirit of God". That's a great difference. As far as I can understand it as modern usage of "I think" than he is not sure and it is therefor not clear he knew he writes Scripture.
"That is true, that is why Ephesians 2:19-20 says “the household of God, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.” But that is also not an argument against Sola Scriptura."
It is an argument against. Not for you, because you unbiblicaly state that Paul was writing only about oral teaching and prophecy that will be written some day.
Post at 06.28.06 - 4:32 pm --->
I understand that Mary is your favourite topic. I'm not going to discuss it here because this is about something else. Just a note:
In 1 Cor 15,1-9 Paul writes that most of witnesses are stil alive. How could he write about Mary's assumption if she was still fit and walkin?
Finally 06.28.06 - 4:34 pm --->
You can't mean that seriously!!! Is that your reasoning? "Scripture is without error because it is without sin, because God cannot lie." How do you, following this (i)logic, interpret Paul in Hebrews 8,7 "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."?
"If someone says “I believe”, but later says, “I don’t believe”, then that faith was “empty”, “in vain”, not real faith. Real saving faith perseveres and keeps going."
You appear to say we are saved through faith alone, but then caveat it with the word "saving" faith, which one doesn't know whether they actually possessed until after they step through the pearly gates. Doesn't it seem strangely coincidental that a saint looking in retrospect finds that what distinguished his "saving" faith is the accompanyment of all the things Catholics told you were required to begin with??
Commenting by HaloScan
