Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Montalban]

Let's take an Epistle of Peter.

Peter was granted a great commission from Jesus. Peter himself went around preaching the word, using the OT to show how a new covenant is with us. The OT was not enough however to convey this because it's recorded that Peter performed miracles and his teaching was not wholly within the OT - because we live in the NT, thus we eat pork, worship on a Sunday etc.

Getting back to that Epistle. Peter writes one. The first is said by some to indicate he's in Rome "Babylon". If he is, then his Epistle is not wholly for that community.

The community bears witness to the fact Peter wrote it. When another community wishes a copy it to then bears witness to the fact that they have a copy of the same Epistle that Peter wrote.

As time moved on that Epistle is circulated to many churches.

Each time it is attested to by the church that it is the genuine Epistle of Peter.

It's not the Epistle saying "This is genuine" that holds it true.

After a time other works attesting to Peter's authorship are in circulation.

There's a Gospel of Peter, and an Acts of Peter both claiming in to be of Peter.

If you're a true sola scripturist then what differentiates a claim of one book's authenticity over any other "Petrine" book?

The Gospel of Peter claims to be of Peter...
" But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ..."
The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

What authorises one over the other is the church.

The church's tradition of attesting to one book against the others makes one an authoritative work.

 

[Goodbook]

It isn't one particular church's tradition. It is the people who were part of the church at the time. The believers. And they themselves were guided by the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures themselves.
As people still are today. They do not have to be part of the exact same institutional church that decided on the canon. The spirit goes where it wills. The Holy Spirit is of God. The Holy Spirit is the authority. Believers can only attest to one book over the other through the Holy Spirit who testifies to the truth.

Just because these people decided on the canon doesn't mean the traditions necessarily came from these same people. They could have been added on later. Do we have to follow them? Only if they do not contradict the Word of God.

Read the book of Revelation, the angels of the seven churches, and Jesus judgment of them. Do all these different churches have authority? No! Many of them were tolerating false teachings. Could they all claim to have the truth and be unchanging? Who then has final authority? Nobody but God who works in believers who keep the faith through his Holy Spirit who testifies and glorifies Jesus.

 

[Montalban]

It isn't one particular church's tradition. It is the people who were part of the church at the time. The believers. And they themselves were guided by the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures themselves.

Mark went to Egypt. Peter and Paul went to Rome.

When they wrote their books, how did a church in Antioch know that a book saying "Of Mark" was actually Mark's book?

This site shows quite a number of books that have some reference to Christianity, or Christians, and that's still before the Bible was compiled

As people still are today. They do not have to be part of the exact same institutional church that decided on the canon.

Why accept the church's authority to make a canon and not its authority in other areas?

The spirit goes where it wills. The Holy Spirit is of God. The Holy Spirit is the authority. Believers can only attest to one book over the other through the Holy Spirit who testifies to the truth.

Yes, I see this tragic circular logic so often on these threads.

A lot of well intentioned people are lead astray by it.

It goes something like this
a) I'll pray to the HS to guide me in my interpretation
b) I've read the Bible and I understand it to mean ... "x"
c) the HS wouldn't deceive me therefore the interpretation I've made must be correct.

It's based on the discernment of the individual and it's why there's 100,000's of different 'bible-based' churches out there. It contradicts an example in the Bible - where the Ethiopian meets the Deacon and says he can't understand the scriptures, and he needs to be taught. He realised the limits of his own self.

Unfortunately we live in an age which glorifies the individual

Some handle snakes in their services. Some don't. Some think it's okay to ordain practicing homosexuals. Others don't. Some think you should only be baptised as an adult, some don't.

When Satan tempted Adam it was on the issue of pride; that by eating the fruit Adam would be like God able to know/judge things for himself.

And that's still at work today in sola scritpura belief where pride makes people their own pope, infallibly interpreting scripture

Just because these people decided on the canon doesn't mean the traditions necessarily came from these same people. They could have been added on later. Do we have to follow them? Only if they do not contradict the Word of God.

Then you also have to ask if God works with the church only to immediately abandon it because its abandoned him, or had already and the men who compiled the Bible were simply automatons acting out God's direction.

It also misses the fact that the Bible doesn't say to only use the Bible

Read the book of Revelation, the angels of the seven churches, and Jesus judgment of them. Do all these different churches have authority? No! Many of them were tolerating false teachings. Could they all claim to have the truth and be unchanging? Who then has final authority? Nobody but God who works in believers who keep the faith through his Holy Spirit who testifies and glorifies Jesus.

When you say he works through believers, are you making him to be some kind of puppet-master?

 

[yedida]

Mark went to Egypt. Peter and Paul went to Rome.

When they wrote their books, how did a church in Antioch know that a book saying "Of Mark" was actually Mark's book?

This site shows quite a number of books that have some reference to Christianity, or Christians, and that's still before the Bible was compiled


Why accept the church's authority to make a canon and not its authority in other areas?

Yes, I see this tragic circular logic so often on these threads.

A lot of well intentioned people are lead astray by it.

It goes something like this
a) I'll pray to the HS to guide me in my interpretation
b) I've read the Bible and I understand it to mean ... "x"
c) the HS wouldn't deceive me therefore the interpretation I've made must be correct.

It's based on the discernment of the individual and it's why there's 100,000's of different 'bible-based' churches out there. It contradicts an example in the Bible - where the Ethiopian meets the Deacon and says he can't understand the scriptures, and he needs to be taught. He realised the limits of his own self.

Unfortunately we live in an age which glorifies the individual

Some handle snakes in their services. Some don't. Some think it's okay to ordain practicing homosexuals. Others don't. Some think you should only be baptised as an adult, some don't.

When Satan tempted Adam it was on the issue of pride; that by eating the fruit Adam would be like God able to know/judge things for himself.

And that's still at work today in sola scritpura belief where pride makes people their own pope, infallibly interpreting scripture


Then you also have to ask if God works with the church only to immediately abandon it because its abandoned him, or had already and the men who compiled the Bible were simply automatons acting out God's direction.

It also misses the fact that the Bible doesn't say to only use the Bible

When you say he works through believers, are you making him to be some kind of puppet-master?

Have you read the history of the canon? Many books that we have were originally, prior to the decision, were not part of the "common" circulation but became part of the canon. Many books that were part of the "common" circulation were ignored.
Sadly, it doesn't look like what God told Moses was not adhered to in the decisions, i.e. "do not add to this word," "do not diminish this word," and it looks like they never put forth the test of who/what is a true or false prophet of God.

The test I apply is by Jesus' own words and what God said through Moses. Everything else must fall in line with those two. If something doesn't seem to jive with what Jesus and/or Moses said, then there must be at least 2 other "witnesses" to the saying (and that means 2 other authors must verify the passage in question - and that is scriptural).
Just my 2cents.

 

[Frogster]

Have you read the history of the canon? Many books that we have were originally, prior to the decision, were not part of the "common" circulation but became part of the canon. Many books that were part of the "common" circulation were ignored.
Sadly, it doesn't look like what God told Moses was not adhered to in the decisions, i.e. "do not add to this word," "do not diminish this word," and it looks like they never put forth the test of who/what is a true or false prophet of God.

The test I apply is by Jesus' own words and what God said through Moses. Everything else must fall in line with those two. If something doesn't seem to jive with what Jesus and/or Moses said, then there must be at least 2 other "witnesses" to the saying (and that means 2 other authors must verify the passage in question - and that is scriptural).
Just my 2cents.

Curious, does it have to just be Moses, or do other books in the OT count?

 

[yedida]

Curious, does it have to just be Moses, or do other books in the OT count?

I'm not sure I understand, but I'll answer in the hopes that I do.
First, I have not found anywhere where Jesus and Moses disagree, though Jesus sometimes went a little further in an attempt to make the command clear, i.e., lusting after a woman, Moses condemns the act, Jesus condemns even the thought as it is the thought that leads to the act = not contradictory at all, original command stands improved, more easily understood and obeyed.

Having said that, if something that, say John said, that is used as doctrine diminishes Moses and Jesus, then I require 2 other authors to back his statement up, either in the OT or NT, or one from each. (BTW, John does not do this to my knowledge, just used him as an example.)

Deut. 17:6-7 says there must be 2 or more witnesses in a capital case. What could be more important that one's eternal salvation?
Deu 4:2 In order to obey the mitzvot of Adonai your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it. (Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.)

 

[Frogster]

I'm not sure I understand, but I'll answer in the hopes that I do.
First, I have not found anywhere where Jesus and Moses disagree, though Jesus sometimes went a little further in an attempt to make the command clear, i.e., lusting after a woman, Moses condemns the act, Jesus condemns even the thought as it is the thought that leads to the act = not contradictory at all, original command stands improved, more easily understood and obeyed.

Having said that, if something that, say John said, that is used as doctrine diminishes Moses and Jesus, then I require 2 other authors to back his statement up, either in the OT or NT, or one from each. (BTW, John does not do this to my knowledge, just used him as an example.)

Deut. 17:6-7 says there must be 2 or more witnesses in a capital case. What could be more important that one's eternal salvation?
Deu 4:2 In order to obey the mitzvot of Adonai your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it. (Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.)

thanks, but what I meant was, are the other OT books, just as inspired as Moses?

 

[Hentenza]

What authorises one over the other is the church.

No, is God. He is perfectly capable to preserving His revelation.

The church's tradition of attesting to one book against the others makes one an authoritative work.

No, God is responsible. The church merely discovered what God had already decreed.

 

[MrPolo]

It is the people who were part of the church at the time.

Could you identify by name some of these believers who correctly identified what books are divinely inspired Scripture? Surely to make your statement you must know who these "people" are.

 

[sunlover1]

No, is God. He is perfectly capable to preserving His revelation.



No, God is responsible. The church merely discovered what God had already decreed.

Theology 101 baby!

 

[MrPolo]

The church merely discovered what God had already decreed.

You are also welcome to identify by name some members of the early Church who discovered what books were Scriptural----otherwise you wouldn't be able to say the Church discovered them.

 

[Hentenza]

You are also welcome to identify by name those members of the early Church who discovered what books were Scriptural----otherwise you wouldn't be able to say the Church discovered them.

God could have used anyone so the names are irrelevant. You know the history and the names.

 

[MrPolo]

God could have used anyone so the names are irrelevant. You know the history and the names.

You made the claim that the early Church discovered what was Scripture, did you not? I'm asking you to back up the claim by identifying some members of the Church who lead you to that conclusion. Are you saying you cannot?

 

[Hentenza]

You made the claim that the early Church discovered what was Scripture, did you not? I'm asking you to back up the claim by identifying some members of the Church who lead you to that conclusion. Are you saying you cannot?

I am saying that we all know the earthly history of how the canon came to be. My claim is that God is responsible for their choices so the names are irrelevant.

 

[MrPolo]

I am saying that we all know the earthly history of how the canon came to be. My claim is that God is responsible for their choices so the names are irrelevant.

Obviously there is not agreement on whether a 66-book, 72-book, or other total was identified by the early Church as Scripture. Since you can't name anyone, I can only assume you are just pretending the early Church discovered the canon as you believe it. Either that, or you have adopted the very bizarre notion that a group of "unidentifiable early Christians discovered the Bible as I have it now." Ah, well....

 

[Hentenza]

Obviously there is not agreement on whether a 66-book, 72-book, or other total was identified by the early Church as Scripture.

Some of the books of the apocrypha were understood as books that were profitable to read but not canon. It wasn't until your denomination declared them canonical in the counter reformation and non ecumenical council of Trent that they were officially made part of your canon. Do you deny this?

Since you can't name anyone, I can only assume you are just pretending the early Church discovered the canon as you believe it. Either that, or you have adopted the very bizarre notion that a group of "unidentifiable early Christians discovered the Bible as I have it now." Ah, well....

Again, the names are irrelevant. We all know the earthly history. Naming them only proves that God used them for His purpose not that they independently approved God's purpose. You are chasing a rabbit trail here.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

<*snip*>
Deut. 17:6-7 says there must be 2 or more witnesses in a capital case. What could be more important that one's eternal salvation?

Such as those shown in Revelation 11?
It is currently being discussed on the sabbatarian MJ board

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542219/
The two witnesses...

Reve 11:12 And they hear a great voice out of the Heaven saying to them "Ascend ye hence"!
And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud and observed them their enemies

18 And the nations are wrought and came the wrath of Thee and the time of the dead to be judged and to give the wages to the bond-servants of Thee the prophets and to the saints and to the ones fearing the name of Thee, the little and the great and to blight the ones blighting the Land..
[Genesis 6:11-13]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you're a true sola scripturist then what differentiates a claim of one book's authenticity over any other "Petrine" book?

I'm a "true sola scripturist" and I've NOT A CLUE what you are talking about...


http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/




.

 

[yedida]

I'm a "true sola scripturist" and I've NOT A CLUE what you are talking about...


http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

.

I think she's asking how or why do you accept the first 2 letters of Peter as authentic and not any of the other works attributed to him - there's quite a few of them; also, 2 Peter is not considered Petrine by some theologians.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think she's asking how or why do you accept the first 2 letters of Peter as authentic and not any of the other works attributed to him - there's quite a few of them; also, 2 Peter is not considered Petrine by some theologians.

Probably...

I just don't have a clue what that has to do with Sola Scriptura (the issue of the thread)....

Thanks! Blessing!


http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/





.