Where do you get your NT from

BBAS 64 said:

Good day, Oblio

So, you as a EO member give no meaning to the Historical facts on which the 1-church that you see before 1024. Used to derive it's canonn from? It is quite clear the The RCC used the historical facts which are in place to determine it's cannon as it relates to the NT.

Click to expand...

No, I was simply refering to and disclaiming the assertion that I was making the statement:

Your basically saying the RCC is correct because the Roman church was used to put the New testament scriptures together.

Click to expand...

InquisitorKind said:

The early church considered tradition and Scripture to be the same in content, essentially different vehicles for relating the same revelation. What are the extra-Biblical traditions that Paul was supposedly referring to in addition to the Scriptures?

~Matt

Click to expand...

Thought you might be interested:

The Ancient Fathers on “Sola Scriptura”






St. Athanasius (c.296-373):



The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.

(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)





St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):



For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)





St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):



...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)





St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):



Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.

(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)





St. Augustine of Hippo:



What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”

(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)





St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):



Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...

(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume XII, p. 346.)





St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):



They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume VIII, p. 229.)

Click to expand...

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.solascriptura.html

Lotar,

Have you seen the third volume of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith? It's full of quotes from the fathers that affirm the notion of Sola Scriptura.

~Matt

No, I haven't read it. Who's the author?

Lotar said:

No, I haven't read it. Who's the author?

Click to expand...

David King and William Webster. You can read some information here:

http://www.christiantruth.com/ssvol3ad.html

To see volumes one and two, simply change "ssvol3ad" to "ssvolxad" (x = desired volume number).

~Matt

This is directly from "how we got the Bible" ~~John H. Sailhamer The Canon of Scripture

It is one thing to talk about the Bible in general terms, but just exactly what Bible are we talking about? Isn’t there some disagreement on what books are even in the Bible? The answer, of course, is that there is disagreement, but not as much as one might think. The standard for what books are in the Bible and what books are not is called the canon.

For the Old Testament, the standard was determined long before the birth of Jesus. We have little direct knowledge of the process that brought this about, but we can say with certainty that the Old Testament we have today is the same Scriptures that Jesus used. It was the accepted standard of the Jews in the first century.

In some parts of the church, in the early centuries A.D., additional books were put alongside the canon of the Old Testament in some manuscripts of the Bible. These were popular works that were used in worship and devotion. Later on some of these works were accepted as part of the canon by the Roman Catholic Church and some Orthodox Churches, though not having the same authority as the Bible. These books (up to eighteen) are called the Apocrypha.

There is no dispute about the canon of the New Testament. At an early stage in the history of the church, the New Testament canon was closed, and no new books were added.

The basis for including a book in the canon of the Old and New Testament was twofold: (1) universal acceptance among God’s people—Israel for the Old Testament and the church for the New Testament; (2) internal witness of the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of God bore witness to the early readers of Scripture that these books and no others were the inspired Word of God.

How do we know the early church accepted the right books and genuinely witnessed the Spirit’s confirmation? For the Old Testament we have the confirmation of Jesus. Throughout his ministry, Jesus quoted and used the Scriptures as God’s Word. To accept his authority is to accept the authority of the Old Testament. For the New Testament we have the confirmation of the apostles—the authoritative men who had received direct instruction from Jesus during his earthly ministry. Their acceptance and confirmation of the canon of the New Testament assures us of its authority in our lives today.

also you can check out : http://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htm

peace

Tenorvoice said:

This is directly from "how we got the Bible" ~~John H. Sailhamer The Canon of Scripture



For the Old Testament, the standard was determined long before the birth of Jesus. We have little direct knowledge of the process that brought this about, but we can say with certainty that the Old Testament we have today is the same Scriptures that Jesus used. It was the accepted standard of the Jews in the first century.

Click to expand...

I know I cannot debate here, I am not trying to, I am asking a question in an effort to understand this author -
He says
1. For the Old Testament, the standard was determined long before the birth of Jesus.
2. [The Protestant OT] was the accepted standard of the Jews in the first century.

How can a standard of the first century (seems like he is referring to Jamnia/Yavneh, 90AD) be "long before the birth of Jesus" ??

ps139 said:

I know I cannot debate here, I am not trying to, I am asking a question in an effort to understand this author -
He says
1. For the Old Testament, the standard was determined long before the birth of Jesus.
2. [The Protestant OT] was the accepted standard of the Jews in the first century.

How can a standard of the first century (seems like he is referring to Jamnia/Yavneh, 90AD) be "long before the birth of Jesus" ??

Click to expand...

It almost sounds good if you don't think about it

BBAS 64 said:

Good day, All

Over in the GT fourm there has been an on going disscussion around the cannon of Scripture which often gets in to the OT "apho" books and the fact that most P/R/E do not see these books as "God breathed" books. I have always considered these books as helpful in the reading of them as I have read some of them, from an historical POV.

1. What do you think of these books, have you read them at all?


In my disscussions with Kenny and TLF on this issue the question was asked whare do P/R/E belivers get thier NT from if not the RCC and it's definition of cannon for the RCC's in the council of Trent 1546. There were some other references given by Kenny, such as Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397. Rather that disscuss these councils, the over all question is clear.

2. Where do you get the NT books from if not the councils "authority" to difine the Cannon? How do you know they are the right books in the NT if these councils had not told you so?

3. As a P/R/E believer do you affirm the:
THE CHICAGO STATEMENT
ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

If not why not?


** Kenny or TLF, if I have misrepresented your questions at all PLEASE CORRECT me.

Peace to you,

Bill

Click to expand...

hi Bill

I am a month late to this thread, and read your OP for the first time I think today . .

There is a misrepresentation, . . though now it is probably mute . .

We were not asking were do you get your NT from if not the RCC and it's definition of cannon for the RCC's in the council of Trent 1546

but where do you get the NT from if not from the EARLY Church councils in the late 4th and early 5th century . .


Peace in Him!

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day, TLF

I believe I answered this question in post #3.


Bill

Click to expand...

Hi Bill

I wasn't asking again here. . just clarifying what the original question was in regards to you OP, as I said . . it was a month late . .


Peace in Him! . . .