If you have been following the discussion between myself and TOA, it is obvious that we speak past each other at times. This is what Dr. Walter Martin called the "language barrier". It just so happens that I am reading the current issue of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, an article entitled The Second London Confession on the Doctrine of Scripture by Robert P. Martin. On page 79 there is a long footnote that may shed some light as to what Reformed people in general and Reformed Baptists in particular believe. Although I am sure the language barrier will still cause problems, perhaps this may help.Martin says,
"Note the Confession speaks of God's Word as declared to the church, not to the world. This should not be construed to mean that God's word has no relevance for the world or that the world is excused from receiving it or that the church has no duty to proclaim it to the world. It means that the Bible is the church's book, and that the church has a duty regarding it. At 1 Tim 3:15, Paul calls the church 'the pillar and foundation of the truth.' He does not mean, of course, that the church is the author of the truth or the authority by which it is established. God did not give to the church or to its officers the power to rule the consciences of his people. Arguing from this text, Rome says that when her councils or Popes speak (as representatives or rulers of the church), then the doctrines which they dictate must be received as the oracles of God because the church is 'the pillar and foundation of the truth,' and, therefore, cannot err. Protestants affirm that in this sense (ie, as the author of truth and the authority by which it is established) God alone, speaking now only through the Bible (which is His inerrant, infallible inscripturated Word), is the sole foundation of the truth, and that the Bible is the sole [infallible] authority from which we derive our doctrine and practice. What then does Paul mean by calling the church 'the pillar and foundation of the truth'? He means that the church is an institution designed and purposed by God to preserve the truth pure, to defend it against error, to preach it in the world, and to commit it unaltered and undiluted to future generations. As was true of Israel under the Old Covenant, so also of the church under the New Covenant, God has created a divinely ordered and regulated human society for the propagation and maintenance in the world of revealed truth. This, of course, makes the church indispensable-as indispensable as the pillar or foundation of a house. God never designed His truth to stand in the world without the church as its supporting pillar and foundation. "
It might help to understand that Reformed Baptist believe that Confessions are authoritative, but their authority is derived from the Bible. We believe that Pastors have authority, but they derive their authority from the Bible in the manner in which it describes. Preaching is also another way in which God speaks to His people. Yet it is the Scriptures or the Apostolic Teaching that is proclaimed that is the voice of God speaking to His people.
None of this denies Sola Scriptura, but we must grasp what Sola Scriptura is. The church is how we know what is Scripture. The meaning of those terms is where we differ greatly.
In other words, God's Word is God's Word when written. The question is in reality how do we in God's Providence come to know what it is. This is a work done by God in His church. Just as in the Old Testament era the church came to recognize Scripture, so also in the New.
16 comments:
In the hope for further clarification I thought I would cite TOA's objection, "Don't you know that before there ever was a New Testament, there was a Church?"
I am well aware of this objection even though it has nothing to do with my position. There is a false dichotomy between the Apostolic Preaching and the New Testament due to the RC's understanding of Tradition and other authorities.
Reformed Protestants have argued that there was a body of doctrine preached by the Apostles. What the Spirit saw necessary to preserve was inscripturated in a fashion that is similar to the Old Testament.
Reformed Protestants hold that the Apostles are the only legal representatives of Christ (as the term Apostle indicates) and are the only ones that may speak in His Name in a way that is unique. Therefore when a Protestant pastor preaches, he is to look to the Apostles proclamation and abide by only that. The only source of that we believe is in the Bible.
This of course leads to the argument about Tradition from such passages such 2 Thess 2:15. RCs may argue all day that their Traditions have come from the Apostles, but I have yet to have one consistent definition of Tradition outside of the Bible defined for me.
Also, there are beliefs that are now officially binding on men as part and parcel of the Gospel that no one believed for hundreds of years, such as the Marian dogmas. I find it strange at best to argue from an authority structure that requires one De Fide to believe Mary was assumed into heaven when the Apostles went preaching for decades somehow neglecting to mention such an important facet of the Gospel. But then, that is the problem when the actual doctrine of Sola Scriptura is denied.
T.O.A.:
"I'm afraid you've badly missed the point, Howie. Until you get to the point where it is Jesus himself assigning the document its authority, you must rely upon the authority of another to assign it."
H.F.:
"No, I didn't miss the point. I simply reject it. To assume that the people of God are not able to know what is Scripture until Rome says it is Scripture is an assumption that can't stand under its own weight. Why should I accept Rome's authority? Because Rome says so."
No, you still misunderstand. This argument predates Rome as the location where the bishop of the Church happens to be located.
Jesus established the Church and the Church subsequently established the NT as a matter of history: just history. Note that Jesus established the Church
years before even one word of the New Testament was written. There was no New Testament for any Christian to recognize.
"Reformed Protestants have argued that there was a body of doctrine preached by the Apostles. What the Spirit saw necessary to preserve was inscripturated in a fashion that is similar to the Old Testament."
Please tell me what "inscripturated" means. How is this done? Can you tell me using sola scriptura the process as it would have been seen by the Church and by which The Spirit (or whomever) authorized that the NT should be the sole rule of faith?
Can you tell me using sola scriptura how first-century Christians who believed that the epistle of Barnabas is inspired are wrong and those who believed Paul's epistles are inspired are right? If all Christians somehow simply recognize Paul’s letters as Holy Scripture, why did St. Paul need to keep establishing his credentials with those to whom he wrote in those very same letters? Why did anyone have to tell any Christian that the epistle of Barnabas was not inspired?
I'm curious to see how this works out in practical application. If Christianity suddenly came upon one of the missing letters of St. Paul, would we instantly recognize it is Scripture? Suppose we found only a fragment of one. Would the mere inspiration of it be witnessed in our hearts or what? Would we need to authenticate it? Even if authenticated, should all Christians recognize it? Perhaps you think that under no condition should anything be added to the existing canon (I don’t know what you believe.). If not, who says? If so, who says?
T.O.A.
1) "Can you tell me using sola scriptura how first-century Christians who believed that the epistle of Barnabas is inspired are wrong and those who believed Paul's epistles are inspired are right? If all Christians somehow simply recognize Paul’s letters as Holy Scripture, why did St. Paul need to keep establishing his credentials with those to whom he wrote in those very same letters? Why did anyone have to tell any Christian that the epistle of Barnabas was not inspired?"
Sir, the same method would be that of the Old Testament.
"Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God."
Hmmmm, how did they know Isaiah belonged in the Canon and not Chubbyliah? We have different epistemologies as to how we approach this question.
2) "Jesus established the Church and the Church subsequently established the NT as a matter of history: just history. Note that Jesus established the Church
years before even one word of the New Testament was written. There was no New Testament for any Christian to recognize."
Who is arguing against this? Although the church never, to my knowledge, argued that the NT is just history. Nevertheless this is a great example of how we end up talking past each other. What you mean by church is based in the Matt 16 Petrine Primacy, that Peter was the Pope of the church. Yet no one believed Rome's understanding of this text for centuries.
Therefore, you have more than what meets the eye. You are arguing an interpretation from Matt 16 as a matter of history in order to establish Rome's authority. Yet how do we know Rome is infallible? Because Rome tells us what Matt 16 means. Why could it not be the Orthodox or another ancient church or another church that claims this as well? Rome says so of course.
The Spiral argument when stretched out is still a circle. The question is not answered but set back one. How do I know which church to believe? You act as if Rome is the only one that makes the claims she makes.
Also, why do you get to argue from a mere historical argument that Rome is the true infallible church , while the Protestant is not allowed to argue from history that the NT is a historically reliable source of Jesus’ life? And then proceed to argue for it as the Word of God?
3) Just establishing the NT as history in order to do what? To argue Rome's infalliblity? How do you know Jesus said He established the church? Because the church appeals to Matt 16. How do you know this is the Word of God? This is the problem. You are believing Jesus established His church with the infallible ability to tell us what is Scripture.
Now obviously the church believed Jesus established the church before His words were written down. But how do subsequent generations know this? Because the Word of God, which was proclaimed orally, has been committed to the written word. It is the Word of God in both phases.
Let us use an OT example. Jeremiah is told by God to preach a message to the people. It is "Thus Saith the Lord". Then at some point the Word of the Lord (that which the Spirit desires to preserve for all people and all time) is committed or "enscripturated". The people of God are brought to recognize it and preserve it for all subsequent generations.
This answers your missing book argument. Since the Spirit has a purpose in giving to His people the Word of God, He does so in His providence.
4) “The fact is that as far as we know, Jesus NEVER even spoke about the NT, but he spoke plenty about the Church. For a sola scriptura fellow, you sure seem to shy away from citing Scripture as your sole authority a lot!”
How do you know Jesus never spoke about the NT? You went to the NT to find out right? Did you believe the NT was God’s Word when you looked? Why did you believe it and not the Book of Mormon as well? Because you accept Rome’s authority. How do you know Rome’s authority is true and not Utah’s?
Again, we are speaking past each other because you are appealing to Rome as an ultimate authority.
5) Again, Jesus did commit His Apostles with His teaching. He prophesied that through their word we would believe. Their words have been preserved to us. (How would we believe their word if it wasn’t enscripturated like the Prophets before them?) Even while they were writing the NT, it was recognized that their words were Scripture. So the moment the NT was written, it was the Word of God simply because the Apostle’s wrote it by the authority given to them by Christ.
6) “Can you tell me using sola scriptura how first-century Christians who believed that the epistle of Barnabas is inspired are wrong and those who believed Paul's epistles are inspired are right? If all Christians somehow simply recognize Paul’s letters as Holy Scripture, why did St. Paul need to keep establishing his credentials with those to whom he wrote in those very same letters?”
This is not what Sola Scriptura is. This is a strawman that RCs love to set on fire. Sola Scriptura simply means that God’s voice is the ultimate authority and it is only found in the Bible. For you to argue that there must be another source only begs the question and pushes it back one. It never solves the problem.
When Paul wrote his epistles, he gave his credentials because he is arguing in a similar fashion as the Prophets. He is saying “Thus saith the Lord”. When God speaks, it is the ultimate, infallible authority by its own nature. Paul is peaking in behalf of Christ as an Apostle. There are no Apostles today, unless of course you believe that Scripture could still be written.
"Jesus established the Church and the Church subsequently established the NT as a matter of history: just history."
Also, keep in mind I do not start with this presupposition. I am a presuppositionalist (Greg Bahnsen type). I do not start with the Bible as mere history and then argue to the greater. I would argue from history to "demonstrate" that the Bible is the Word of God. So I start with the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God and go from there.
The application is that I believe the church has always taught the Scriptures to be God's Word and demonstrated its historical reliability. So it is the foundation that God's Word gives rise to the church (obviously in oral proclamation first). In turn the church holds this truth up for all to see as in my quote from Martin argues.
Another point that may clarify is that the church didn't come into existence at the time of Jesus. This distinction between NT and OT era or dispensations causes much confusion since we all tend to use inaccurate terms at times. There have always been a "remnant" amongst the OT people who were in fact the church within the mixed Covenant of people.
The point is that God's Promises to Abraham gave rise to his faith and the faith to all believers. God must out of necessity give special gospel revelation first before the church comes into existence.
Ultimately, we see this fulfilled in Christ who brings and announces the Good news in the New Covenant. He gave His Apostles to preach this Good News of His Kingdom which gives rise to the church of the NT dispensation (a church made of Jews and Gentiles). Their Word was preserved for us by the church and is still being proclaimed today.
As Martin's article concludes, there is no further revelation or anything else needing to be added to the Gospel (ie: Marian Dogmas).
Hope that may help to clarify as well.
"Why did anyone have to tell any Christian that the epistle of Barnabas was not inspired?"
Sir, the same method would be that of the Old Testament.
1) Again, I’m afraid you misunderstand.
In the above, I did not ask you about any method; I asked you WHY anyone would even NEED to correct a Christian's understanding of what that scripture is, if what you claim is true. Why would any Christian need to be corrected at all (and they did --and they were) if your claim about how canon comes to be is correct?
If we add to this your claim that once scripture is "inscripturated" all are held accountable by God to employ it as their sole authority, the question becomes even more important.
2) But as long as you’re on the “how” as well as the “why,” could you please tell me the "how" it was that those Christians who believed the epistle of Barnabas is inspired were corrected. Remember this is not a hypothetical or trick question. It can be researched and answered specifically.
3) Speaking of specifics, what “method” is it you speak of that is “the same method [that] would be that of the Old Testament?” Since you know what this method is, could you please explain it for me as you tell me which of these (if any) got their theories of OT canon right?
--Jews who accepted only the Law (first five books only the first five books of Moses,
--Jews who accepted the Law and the Prophets but not the Histories or Psalms,
--Jews who accepted the Law, the Prophets and the Histories, but not the Histories or Psalms,
--Jews who accepted the Psalms and the books of Moses.
--Jews who accepted some combination of books found in the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew and Aramaic text.
--Jews who accepted some combination of books found in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts, but not in the Greek Septuagint.
--Jews who accepted only the Torah in Hebrew and the rabbinical commentaries (in whatever language).
--Jews who followed only whatever scripture they personally felt confident in as scripture and only as they personally interpreted it.
--or some other combination (There were others.)
Thanks much for all the time and effort you’ve put into this.
T.O.A.
"Also, why do you get to argue from a mere historical argument that Rome is the true infallible church , while the Protestant is not allowed to argue from history that the NT is a historically reliable source of Jesus’ life? "
Strange: I did not make either argument.
TOA
"The point is that God's Promises to Abraham gave rise to his faith and the faith to all believers. God must out of necessity give special gospel revelation first before the church comes into existence."
I'm not sure what you mean by "special gospel revelation first before the church comes into existence if you mean it to say something other than "Jesus (who is the gospel incarnate) personally founded and instituted the Church." If you mean something different, could you be more specific? Exactly when and how do you think the Church came into being?
Thanks much.
T.O.A.
1) "In the above, I did not ask you about any method; I asked you WHY anyone would even NEED to correct a Christian's understanding of what that scripture is, if what you claim is true. Why would any Christian need to be corrected at all (and they did --and they were) if your claim about how canon comes to be is correct?"
Sir, I am well aware of this. That is not the issue. You are wanting an infallible institution that has equal authority as the Scriptures. God's Word when written or spoken orally by the Apostles is what governs the church as the only infallible source of authority.
The church has contradicted itself many times. Plus your position on the church's authority prevents it from ever being able to being reformed by God's Word. Once she has made a supposedly infallible dogma, she can never go back even if she is wrong because she can't be wrong in her mind.
2) "2) But as long as you’re on the “how†as well as the “why,†could you please tell me the "how" it was that those Christians who believed the epistle of Barnabas is inspired were corrected. Remember this is not a hypothetical or trick question. It can be researched and answered specifically."
Sir, there are several books that deal with this issue of how the canon came about historically and how the church determined which books to receive. Men argued with actual arguments! (and still do I might add.)
For some reason it is ok for you to argue for Rome's authority from history, but Protestants can't do that for the Canon of Scripture. i find that just moving the question back one.
3) As for your third point. Do you believe the Book of the Exodus was Canonical in the year 1000 BC? Did everyoneknow it to be so and were they accountable for that knowledge?
If you agree, then the Canon is knowable without Rome's infallible decree. If you say no, then you have to explain the NT's in general and Jesus' beliefs in particular.
Jesus had a very high view of the Word of God and held men accountable to it. I find it odd that the writers of the NT never question what the Canon was. They all seemed to know.
4) "Strange: I did not make either argument."
If you are not arguing from this perspective, then why are we arguing? I am of course referring the to average RC argument. Are you not arguing this position?
5) "Exactly when and how do you think the Church came into being?"
This is part of the problem. Some of your objections have been in part answered in my original quote of Martin. The problem is that quote is not only in a broader article on Special Revelation and the LBCF's and Westminster's Confessions dealing with the topic, but it is also in the broader Covenant Theology and Redemptive History views held by Reformed people.
I would defer you to Nehemiah Coxe's work Covenant Theology. If you would like, I will ask the publisher of the article if he would allow me to send it to you that you might better understand the Reformed Baptist position.
Keep in mind, I am of the Reformed Tradition. I simply can't say that enough to you. I am not a typical evanjellycal. :-)
God Bless
"Sir, there are several books that deal with this issue of how the canon came about historically"
Yes, and there are also several books that describe many things from many different perspectives, and these range in quality from the accurate to the fantastic. What I want to know is exactly what YOU, Howard Fisher think.
Did Jesus himself institute / command the writing of the NT?
If so, where and how did He do so, and how do you know?
If it was not He, WHO?
These are not trick questions, and saying "someone else answered it" is no answer if you can't articulate it yourself and therefore I can't grasp it.
"Exactly when and how do you think the Church came into being?"
--
This is part of the problem. Some of your objections have been in part answered in my original quote of Martin. The problem is that quote is not only in a broader article on Special Revelation and the LBCF's and Westminster's Confessions dealing with the topic, but it is also in the broader Covenant Theology and Redemptive History views held by Reformed people.
I would defer you to Nehemiah Coxe's work Covenant Theology."
Forgive me, but you have lost me. This is not a complicated question, nor does it require a convoluted answer. Nor should the reality of the answer differ for Reformed theologically bent folks.
Was the Church directly founded by Jesus Christ Himself, or was it not?
Does Scripture and Scripture alone tell you the answer?
Again you did not even attempt to answer this question:
--Why would any Christian need to be corrected at all (and they did --and they were) if your claim about how canon comes to be is correct?"--
This question stands whether asked by a Catholic, an atheist or another Reformed Baptist. If you do not know the answer, please admit it. If you DO know the answer, please tell me.
"As for your third point. Do you believe the Book of the Exodus was Canonical in the year 1000 BC? Did everyone know it to be so and were they accountable for that knowledge?
You tell me. You are the one who is making a claim about scripture being recognized the moment it is written. While you are at it tell me whether all Jews believed the book of Job was held as Canonical in the year 1000 BC. Did everyone know it to be so and were they accountable for that knowledge?
Regardless, your attempt to answer the question with a question that essentially asks only a fragment of the original makes no sense unless you actually want to support a position other than your own.
Now remember it is you, not I, who says that there was a "method" by which something apparently happened to keep the Jews correct regarding Scripture. What was it? Please, as I asked above, please explain this method for me as you tell me which of these (if any) got their theories of OT canon right?
--Jews who accepted only the Law (first five books only the first five books of Moses,
--Jews who accepted the Law and the Prophets but not the Histories or Psalms,
-- (etc. ad finitum)
These many views all existed at the time of Christ’s ministry. How do you reconcile this with your theory?
Were all of them right? It would seem that no more than one could have been. Do you know how this was finally settled as far as the Jews were concerned, by whom and when? (By the way, there is also a specific historical answer for this one too--but you aren't going to like it.)
Honestly Howie, if what you say you believe is actually what you DO believe; these questions should be answered in a snap! You should be able to easily demonstrate the unanimity of opinion among believers over all time and produce their testimony. This after all would be as much a sign of God’s providence as any other miracle. The closest thing to a single account is the rediscovery of the Law of Ezra’s revival, and that does not say whether there were any other documents (e.g. proverbs, histories, psalms) under consideration. Yet we have neither one record in the 2000 years of the NT era, nor one of the 9000 previous. We have not one account of a prophet writing anything that was immediately recognized by the children of Abraham as being Scripture—in fact a recurring trouble was that they mostly failed to recognize it!
This all detracts from the original question however, which is whether Jesus Himself instituted the NT or whether it was the Church. (Another easily addressed question).
“Keep in mind, I am of the Reformed Tradition. I simply can't say that enough to you. I am not a typical evanjellycal. :-)”
For the record, I've known many Reformed and many Evangelicals, all who live Christian examples that I would be glad to follow as well. I truly have no idea what difference that makes. I’d address your arguments the exact same way if you were a steak and kidney pie and believed beef gravy was a sacrament. :-) The issue is sound doctrine.
T.O.A.
1) "Did Jesus himself institute / command the writing of the NT?
If so, where and how did He do so, and how do you know?"
Again the chasm between our views is vast indeed. In my view, Jesus isn't needing to predict anything. He instituted Apostles that speak in His behalf before the entire world. They are physically dead, therefore their voice is speaking by the means of the New Testament. It is simply how redemptive history unfolded.
If Paul writes a letter and considers himself an Apostle, then his letter by definition carries with it Apostolic weight. In other words, they represent Christ Himself. Therefore they are binding whether anyone believes them or not.
The question becomes "How do we know?" If God speaks, then it is authoritative infallibly. But we are not infallible creatures. We look at evidence and arguments. The specific arguments, as I have already said, are mainly historical. There is also the test of doctrine Apostolic authority and yes, as I have said before, the testimony of the church down through the ages, just as inthe OT era.
2) "Forgive me, but you have lost me. This is not a complicated question, nor does it require a convoluted answer. Nor should the reality of the answer differ for Reformed theologically bent folks."
As I said, under the New Testament dispensation, Christ established the New Covenant with His people. So in this sense we often say "church". But there have always been believers that constituted the church in the OT era or dispensation.
3) "These many views all existed at the time of Christ’s ministry. How do you reconcile this with your theory?"
I am well aware that there were groups that only believed the Pentateuch (Saducees if I remember correctly). Jesus dealt with them as well by explaining that they did not know the Scriptures or the Power of God. He even cites the Mosaic Law to refute their unbelief of the resurrection (Matt 22???).
4) "I’d address your arguments the exact same way"
I know, which is why I have been trying to start explaining to you things at a presuppositional level. But you still keep looking for the "infallible index" type of argument. We have totally different views and you act as if you are understanding mine. You are not.
Assuming there must be some kind of infallible authority in the church in order for the church to function is simply not the case. History shows there is no infallible church.
5) "these questions should be answered in a snap!"
Why is that? Everything I say is interpreted through the lens of Rome. Because I don't have sound bites doesn't mean anything.
We view Providence in very different perspectives.
You also seem to be arguing that we know Jesus instituted the church, therefore she must be infallible? That there is some kind of infallible teaching magesterium. That Popes are infallible when speaking ex-cathedra. How do we know this? Because Rome says so. Can they demonstrate this. Well, since the Bible doesn't teach what Rome says, therefore she must appeal to her own infallible authority.
How do we know she has this infallible authority? She tells us so.
TOA,
Perhaps I could ask the question in another way. I realize you wish for me to accept the idea or argument (I think anyway) that Jesus instituted the church. The church tells us what the Canon is. If we Protestants are willing to accept the church’s authority in the matter of what books belong in the Bible (Since there is no infallible index within the pages of the Bible), then why do I reject her authority in other matters?
I think that would be the sum of the argument.
First, I reject the definition of church as I already asserted. No one believed Rome’s definition of Matt 16 for hundreds of years. Therefore the authority structure and modern claims are foreign to the text and history.
The next problem as I have already argued is that one need not an infallible index within the pages of Sola Scriptura to know which belong in the text. This is a straw-man argument that has nothing to do with the doctrine.
Basically, when Jesus spoke words that was infallible and no infallible church needed to be around to tell Peter or the other Apostles to infallibly tell them (although Jesus did give signs and wonders as evidence for His claims even though many rejected His authority!). Besides, that only begs the question and Sola Ecclesia collapses on itself.
2) So now please allow me to put forward the question I said I would ask.
Let’s place ourselves in the year 650 BC. We already believe that the Pentateuch is the Word of God. Yet a new prophet come along saying “Thus says the Lord…”
How do you know he is a prophet?
Let’s say another prophet comes along. His name is Jeremiah. He says that the first prophet is a false prophet. The first prophet then says Jeremiah is a false prophet. How do you know? Does it matter? Do we wait for some RC council or RC church to tell us centuries later?
Logic says, that both could be liars or wrong, but both can’t be right. Certainly God would not send a prophet if there was no way to know with any degree of certainty?
Wait, we don’t have to sit here and argue all day long. Moses already tells us in Deuteronomy 13 and 18. So using Sola Scriptura, we may test new prophets to see whether they are true prophets.
The same idea is then applied to their writings, if there are any that the Spirit chooses to preserve for future generations.
3) You will then ask, “What about all the divisions and differing beliefs of Jesus’ day?”
This could go on forever. How do we know Rome is the church Jesus established with the claims she makes about the nature of her authority?
Christianity is a historical religion. We argue historical claims. We argue miracles that actually occurred. We argue doctrine. We use certain criteria to see if what is in a book is consistent with previous revelation…ect…..
We don’t need an infallible guide. That simply doesn’t solve the problem. At some point, I have to use my intellect and decide with my fallible mind whether or not the evidence and argumentation that RCs offer is convincing. I am not convinced.
Since you keep building the straw-man of what Sola Scriptura is and setting it on fire, I am even more convinced of my own position.
1) "Did Jesus himself institute / command the writing of the NT?
If so, where and how did He do so, and how do you know?"
Again the chasm between our views is vast indeed. In my view, Jesus isn't needing to predict anything.
Who said Jesus needed to predict anything? I’m confident Jesus did all he NEEDED to do and more. Notice that among the many things He did, He instituted the Church and gave her authority.
He instituted Apostles that speak in His behalf before the entire world.
Are you saying that because He comissioned the Apostles, anything they happen to have written is therefore Scripture? That is problematic if so, as we will see later.
Now, you’re not telling me that he commissioned only the Apostles to go preach the Gospel, cast out demons in His name, etc., are you?
They are physically dead, therefore their voice is speaking by the means of the New Testament. It is simply how redemptive history unfolded.
You’re getting closer. Now, what did the Apostles happen to do after the apostacy and suicide of Judas Iscariot? How did St. Paul also become one while the 12 yet lived?
[…] If Paul writes a letter and considers himself an Apostle, then his letter by definition carries with it Apostolic weight[…]
You can’t possibly mean this! “If Paul…considers himself an Apostle?” Is that all it takes to be an Apostle? If so, you make a more radical argument for the Apostolic authority of the Church than I would ever dare.
[…] In other words, they represent Christ Himself. Therefore they are binding whether anyone believes them or not.
1) Are the missing writings of St. Paul also binding whether anyone believes them or not? You claim that the Apostles' words are "inscripturated" upon their being written. I must assume so.
2) Why don’t you (or I) accept the Didache (which claims Apostolic authority) as scripture?
3) Why DO you accept the epistle to the Hebrews which does NOT claim Apostolic authority?
The question becomes "How do we know?" If God speaks, then it is authoritative infallibly. But we are not infallible creatures.
Infallibility is not a test for determining authority—because as fallible creatures we are not of ourselves guaranteed to always discern infallibility when we see it. Please note that it is you, not I, who keeps getting back to fallibility for some strange reason. It is unrelated to the discussion at hand: authority.
We look at evidence and arguments. The specific arguments, as I have already said, are mainly historical. There is also the test of doctrine Apostolic authority […]
I'm not sure how any of the above does anything but support my case and weaken yours, but, OK.
[…] As I said, under the New Testament dispensation, Christ established the New Covenant with His people. So in this sense we often say "church". But there have always been believers that constituted the church in the OT era or dispensation.
We call it "Israel." So?
[…]I am well aware that there were groups that only believed the Pentateuch (Saducees if I remember correctly). [Correct] Jesus dealt with them as well by explaining that they did not know the Scriptures or the Power of God. He even cites the Mosaic Law to refute their unbelief of the resurrection (Matt 22???).
Sorry, that still does not address your claim. Jesus never said specifically what books they ought to believe in other than what they claimed. Further He did not address the many other rivaling claims of the day regarding scripture. Jesus specifically did say that the Law is written on our hearts and we have no excuse. He did not say “all of scripture” is written there. In fact, we know that scripture itself testified to Jesus’ divinity and His mission as He himself testified on the road to Emmaus, yet when He was being crucified He cried out, “Father Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” If your theory were correct, He might havecried, “Woe unto them, for they know what they are doing and have no excuse” but He would not have pleaded for their forgiveness on account of their not knowing.
I have been trying to start explaining to you things at a presuppositional level. But you still keep looking for the "infallible index" type of argument.
I don't know what an infallible index" type of argument is, let alone look for one.
We have totally different views and you act as if you are understanding mine. You are not.
I think there is something to be said for the phenomenon of projrction, given that you keep going back to a subject I've not made a single argument for as of yet in this conversation, for example...
Assuming there must be some kind of infallible authority in the church in order for the church to function is simply not the case. History shows there is no infallible church.
This is becoming far too repetitive. As I’ve addressed many times now, infallibility is irrelevant. We are addressing authority. You claim scripture as your sole authority while in practice (and in word) you deny it. I claim that Jesus gave authority to the Church and among the things she did under that authority was to institute the NT.
[…]
You also seem to be arguing that we know Jesus instituted the church, therefore she must be infallible?
No, I’m saying that Jesus instituted the Church and he specifically gave her authority. If you claim some other source has SOLE authority, then you must by definition deny the edict, command and instruction of Christ Himself. This has nothing to do with infallibility. It has everything to do with obedience.
That there is some kind of infallible teaching magesterium. That Popes are infallible when speaking ex-cathedra. How do we know this? Because Rome says so. Can they demonstrate this. Well, since the Bible doesn't teach what Rome says, therefore she must appeal to her own infallible authority.
Again we’ve not even approached what specific things the Church may do under the authority Christ gave her—and we cannot until you acknowledge that he gave her authority.
How do we know she has this infallible authority? She tells us so.
How do we know that she has authority—PERIOD?
T.O.A.
PS. Sorry this was such a long one. I’ll try to edit out repetion in the future.
Perhaps another way of asking.
Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God and why?
Okay this is going nowhere. I keep repeating myself and you keep redefining what I mean by using the same terminology. For instance you say
"No, I’m saying that Jesus instituted the Church and he specifically gave her authority. If you claim some other source has SOLE authority, then you must by definition deny the edict, command and instruction of Christ Himself. This has nothing to do with infallibility. It has everything to do with obedience."
Sir, the original post said as much concerning the authority of the church. I simply reject Rome is that church. What more must I say?
I also said that the Bible is the Sole Infallible authority. It is God's Word that guides the church.
You assume the church has the ability to speak with an authority equal to God's Word. I can't even begin to think that way. For instance, the Assumption of Mary is not in any Revelation, therefore Rome must speak with the same authority as Scripture since it is binding upon the consciences of men. Basically, we have new revelation. The canon isn't closed.
2) Here is a great point. You said, "we know that scripture itself testified to Jesus".
How do we know Scripture testified to Jesus. What Scripture. Oh wait, Jesus explained to the two men on the road to Emmaus from the Scriptures (that no one seems to know according to you) that He is the Christ.
3) "You can’t possibly mean this! “If Paul…considers himself an Apostle?†Is that all it takes to be an Apostle?"
Obviously I was not repeating the entire assertion again. I have explained this in another place that Apostles are appointed by Christ. Therefore I didn't think I needed to go through the whole thing again.
This post is getting nit picky and I have had enough of the repeating assertions and questions. You ask from me the how's over and over again. I answer them but you do not hear my answer because they don't fit with your view of the church.
You are simply begging the question every time you speak about the church and Jesus' establishment of it.
You must not have read the quote in the original post as to my view of the authority of the church. This is getting old.
4) "We look at evidence and arguments. The specific arguments, as I have already said, are mainly historical. There is also the test of doctrine Apostolic authority […]
I'm not sure how any of the above does anything but support my case and weaken yours, but, OK."
Again, this is because you read the same words and interpret them from a RC perspective. Everytime you hear church, you think Rome.
We are just talking past each other.
5) "I think there is something to be said for the phenomenon of projrction, given that you keep going back to a subject I've not made a single argument for as of yet in this conversation, for example..."
Sir, when you are able to keep asking me to use Sola Scriptura to know which books should be in the NT, you are using certain presuppositions that you pretend you are not doing. Then you have the nerve to say I am projecting.
In other words, you redefine Sola Scriptura and then ask me to do something it is not meant to do.
6) "again we’ve not even approached what specific things the Church may do under the authority Christ gave her—and we cannot until you acknowledge that he gave her authority."
Of course He gave authority. Again, this misses the point. What you mean and what I mean are two totally different things. The way we know this is from the Scriptures. You must appeal to the Bible to know that Jesus gave the church authority and believe it is the Word of God before you can know this authority actually comes from God.
I am a presuppostionalist. I start with God's Word and demonstrate it, not establish it as God's Word.
To believe Jesus established the church with God given authority would be to believe an interpretation of the bible and accepting it as God's Word first. Then to look to the church with this authority.
Obviously the church is telling the average duck that the bible is God's Word before that person believes it to be so. That doesn't mean the church does this without the authority of the Bible, since that is the only way we know of Jesus' Word. We are not living in Paul's day when we can look to an Apostle without actually having the Bible.
Anyway, I am tired of this repeated circle.
I will now shut down this post.
God Bless
"To believe Jesus established the church with God given authority would be to believe an interpretation of the bible and accepting it as God's Word first."
This is one I'd like explained in SS class sometime. How could the first Christians of 35 AD or so believe Jesus established the church with God given authority because they believe an interpretation of the bible and accepting it as God's Word first, when the bible wasn't written yet?
I'm sort of reluctant to say it, but I can't get around toa's argument that the authority the church had was not given through scripture. What happened to that church and why don't we learn anything about it in Sunday School? It's like, the Apostles, then the Reformation. Do I really have to go to catholics to get answers? We must have records that show that the early church is not the catholic church? Where can I find a good not-catholic history of the church from the 00's to Luther?
Anonymous,
"This is one I'd like explained in SS class sometime. How could the first Christians of 35 AD or so believe Jesus established the church with God given authority because they believe an interpretation of the bible and accepting it as God's Word first, when the bible wasn't written yet?"
Somehow I doubt this. It sounds to me like you are already convinced of the RC apologetic if this is for real. I have already answered this in another place.
I'll attempt to say it again. Yes, the first generation of Christians had the Scriptures and the Apostles preaching Apostolic doctrine.
Today we are not blessed with the physical presence of Peter. Yet, neither are we blessed with Moses and the Prophets. Somehow their authority still speaks to us today.
2) "What happened to that church and why don't we learn anything about it in Sunday School?"
This is using the "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant" argument.
a) You're right. Luther, Calvin and all of the Reformers were just ignorant of church history. The objections you raise have never been heard or answered in the last 500 years. (sarcasm)
I have written about the problems of Jack Schick Protestant ignorance of history.
b) Your question assumes definitions that are RC. I would not allow a Mormon or a JW to change the definition of Trinity, neither will I accept your definition of church or history or Sola Scriptura.
3) "We must have records that show that the early church is not the catholic church? Where can I find a good not-catholic history of the church from the 00's to Luther?"
We don't need anything that shows history to be something except for what it is. Bruce Shelly's work is good for the average layman duck like myself. There are many others. You are simply using a tactic to sneak in an argument that to be historical is to be RC. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I also own and have read the Apostolic Fathers translated by Lightfoot. It is surprising how readable the Fathers may be. Keep in mind that their writings are neither Protestant, not RC. They are what they are. They wrote due to the conflicts of their own day, and we must always keep that in mind.
JND Kelly's work is good as well. Sooner or later I will finish book on Early Christian Doctrines.
There are plenty of works out there. William Whittacker's Disputations On Holy Scripture is a classic defense of Sola Scriptura.
William Webster's book The Matthew 16 Controversy is an in-depth study of the history of the church's view of the authority issue.
Dr. James White has taught church history in his Sunday School Class. It is an excellent series at PRBC.org
Post a Comment