Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
The Canonization of Scripture Revisited and the Canonization of Faith Discerned
The following discussion finds some well versed criticisms of the Baptist's stern position on 'Sola Scriptura', that we use only Scripture for all faith and doctrine, and 'Sola Fida', that faith in God alone, without works, produces his saving righteousness in mans soul. The name and address of the searching friend are changed to preclude reprisals, but the reservations he expresses, though typical seemed to me expertly worded and concise in this exchange. They are thus published and refuted in this article.
7/21/04 9:02PM BeeSerious@aol.com
Hi again, just a quick note for now.
When Eusebius wrote his History of the Church (314 - 324 A.D.), the "Recognized Books" were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Thirteen Pauline Epistles, l Peter, 1 John, and 1 Clement. In the "Disputed" category were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. By the end of that fourth century, 1 Clement didn't make the cut and the "disputed" books were all canonized.
My textbook from Arizona State University is "Understanding the New Testament" by Howard Clark Kee, a Methodist Bible scholar and ordained minister. It says "It was not until the year 367 that a list of Christian scriptures as we know them in the New Testament finally appeared. In his thirty-ninth festal letter published in 367, Athanasius, then bishop of Alexandria, listed twenty-seven books as the 'springs of salvation' and as included in 'the canon.' The same list of New Testament writings was canonized by the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage 397 - 419" (p. 378).
I recently read my niece's KJV Bible by Charles Ryrie, called the Ryrie Study Bible, in a section called "HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE" on page 1961, “The first church council to list all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397.”
You've gotta give me the evidence that, "The Apostle John WAS the early Christians, the Bible did not come into existence much later it came from the pen of the Apostle John."
I'm not being influenced by the Catholics, I'm being influenced by the historians, like Eusebius, the first church historian, and biblical scholars like Kee and Ryrie.
Go to http://www.ntcanon.org/ and study the history of the New Testament that's given there. There is just nobody in academia -- scholars of history and the Bible -- that agrees with you. Ryrie and Kee are both Protestant ministers, and they tell the same story -- it was the end of the fourth century before the NT was born. The writings existed by 125 A.D., but nobody knew definitively which were "scripture." You can see that 1 Clement was accepted as "recognized" at one time, but it wasn't included in the NT. And those books that were "disputed" were accepted. It was only after the (Catholic) Councils of 382, 393, 397 - 419, that anyone was sure what was "scripture" and what was not.
Without hard evidence to the contrary, this makes it impossible for me to see it your way.
7/22/04 11:10 AM BeeSerious@aol.com
I'm still studying your teaching, trying to understand. Could you answer a couple of other points?
You wrote: "Keep digging in the Bible, it alone is the writings of the early Christians (apostles)"
I've brought this up before, but you didn't answer it. I did a complete analysis of the authorship of the NT and sent it to you. Only three of the Twelve Apostles wrote a word of it: Matthew, John, and Peter. Paul wasn't one of the 12 Apostles, and he wrote over half of it (13 [or 14?] out of 27 'books'). The rest was written by second-generation Christians, who were disciples (followers) of the Apostles. John Mark wrote down what he learned from Peter. Luke wrote down in Luke/Acts what he had learned from Paul. And so on. The NT itself tells us this. Three of Paul's letters didn't survive to be included in the NT and are missing. What do you suppose was in those 3 letters?
You continued: "which is breathed by (inspired by) God."
How do you know this? How can you tell that "Philemon" (Paul's letter to a slave owner) is "inspired" and that the "Didache" ("The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," which is prolly about the same age and was used by the very early church to teach adult pagan converts) is not? Or that the "Song of Songs" (an erotic love poem) is "inspired" and the Epistle of Barnabas (a companion of Paul) is not? Nobody has ever been able to answer the question about how you prove or disprove "inspiration." Can you help?
Thanks, Bee
7/23/0410:35 PM EdRice4@linkny.com
Excellent point, excellent observations. I did read these
points and thought I commented on them previous. Perhaps not.
When I refer to the NT Scriptures as being written by the
apostles I am using a perhaps sloppy notation to connote that they
were all authorized by the apostles. Let me make the following
comments and see if we are not on the same page here.
First I consider Paul an apostle. So did Paul. So did the
early Churches. So did the later churches. So do the Baptist
today. You are correct that he was not one of the 12
disciples. But I think it pretty well settled that of the 12
who will get their name on a foundation (Rev 21:14) Paul will be
one. The 11 disciples are likely the others, but I look forward
to the clarification of reading the foundations engravings in person.
( I personally, drop Matthias (Acts 1) from their list of 12,
contending that he was mans choice but Paul was God's choice, if you
are born again from above we can soon visit those 12 names etched in
heavens foundation and confirm my analysis.) Paul does write
much to authenticate his apostleship and his writings give the
requirements for the title of apostle, foremost being an eyewitness
of the resurrected Christ. Thus, despite your studies and conclusion
here, Paul was an apostle and is recognized as such in the
canonization process which we used (and use) to authenticate that
writings are inspired Scripture.
Also from your studies you
say the rest (of NT scriptures) were written by 'second
generation Christians.' Perhaps, but I don't agree with that
terminology. Luke reports that he was instructed directly by
the eyewitnesses, i.e. the apostles and that he had perfect
understanding of all things from Gr. 'anothen'. Indicating that
he wrote under the authority of the apostles first, and also
that his understanding was by revelation from above i.e.
inspiration. This is more than 'second generation
Christians' writing what they had been taught. It is claim to
verbal plenary inspiration. One of the canons for the
canonization of the true scriptures was that the writing either
directly or indirectly claimed a direct revelation from God; Luke
does this directly in his opening sentence. Luke and Mark both
are thus more than second generation believers, they were
co-ministers with the apostles, working directly under their
supervision and authority. Again this became an important
consideration when man put together the canons to determine which
writings would be considered authentic inspired works from God.
I make reference to this canonization often because it became
mans tool (canon or rule) to separate authentic inspired writings
from others. The rules or canons which were used here are more
important than the dates that some church or another officially
recognized any particular writing as authentically inspired
scripture. If you did not examine all the canons used to
separate and sanctify the inspired writings then you did not do a
'complete' analysis of the authorship of the NT, and you need to open
some additional chapters to your analysis here. This will lead
to answers to your second question about how I know that Philemon is
an authentic writing inspired by God and penned by the Apostle Paul.
Examination of the canonization process and the rules of canon will
show why the letter on Philemon is in the NT Scriptures and why the
'Didache' is not. The same holds true for the OT scriptures
including the "Song of Solomon" accepting a different canon
(compilation of acceptance rules) for the Hebrew Scriptures.
The most authenticating thing about the OT canon is that it was
blessed and accepted by God himself as he walked in the flesh here on
his earth. If God wanted to alter what was then the accepted
Scriptures of the OT he had ample opportunity in the flesh. He
did not. He could have told the scribes or apostles that Song
of Solomon is out and that I and II Maccabees is in. He made no
such corrections to the accepted scriptures and since Christ himself
was satisfied with the canon of OT scriptures we should be satisfied
as well, no matter what the Roman Imperial Church says on the
subject. So I, personally, do not spend much effort wrestling
with why Song of Solomon is in my Bible, I just study it as inspired
Scripture, inerrant, infallible and written for my learning.
But it does us good to study the canon (compilation of acceptance
rules) of the NT Scriptures, as it increases our knowledge of the
Word which word increases our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, being
the WORD, being the TRUTH. I shall in the near future pull out
my old Prolegomena Text and review the canons used, but you could
beat me to that punch. I diverge.
This leaves
authorship of James and Jude to be considered. I expect in your
analysis that you discovered there were two James and two Judes
listed as disciples and that James' letter to the twelve tribes which
are scattered abroad was likely authored by James the half brother of
Jesus who was not one of the 12. Of course this latter
tradition was not well received by the Roman Imperial Church after
they made a papal degree that Mary had to have been a perpetual
virgin if she was 'Mother of God' with a sanctified womb.
They deny the very Scriptures that name Jesus' brothers and
sisters, but in so denying Scripture, they loose the right to
differentiate who wrote what when anyway. Again I shall
appeal to the canon process wherein the traditions of where a
writing came form are considered. If James, brother of Jesus,
and Pastor of the Jerusalem Church wrote this letter, he would have
seen to it that it was copied and distributed to it's recipients.
This would not have been done in secret, nor in a subversive manner
and the men who copied and carried the letter would bear witness to
where it came from. Such witness was passed on in tradition and
rules (canon) about how to depend on or not depend on the traditions
of where a text came from were established in the 2nd and 3rd
centuries and used in the early canon. They were
closer to the tradition than you or I are, and at some point you will
just have to put a little trust in the decisions that were made by
those closer to the original text. This is a good principle for
the canon and an excellent principle for textual criticism which has
gone completely off track in the last 100 years because of this lack
of trust. Some of this trust is in God and his preservation of
Scripture, some of it is trust in men that were not ignorant cave men
despite our thorough indoctrination that they had barely evolved past
such. Thus the actual authorship of James and Jude, (Jude here
listed as brother of James (which James?) and servant of Jesus
Christ, not apostle) is not totally resolved without some tradition
passed on by those who initially handled their writings. The
speculation here is that James and Judas were the brothers and sons
of Alphaeus who could have been one Cleopas who was married to one
Mary sister of the mother of Jesus, two sisters with the same name
breeds confusion itself, and then James and brother Jude would
have justifiably 'cousins' to Jesus, bearing the title
'brother' to Jesus and also they were authentic apostles as listed in
Acts 1:13. Myself, I often get lost in all this
speculation and prefer the simpler and more obvious solution that
James and Jude are listed in Matt 13 and Mark 6 as blood brothers of
Jesus along with one Jose and one Simon. These two then became
believers after the resurrection and became pillars in the Church at
Jerusalem both authoring pastoral letters recorded and accepted as
Scripture. They would not then have been actual listed as two
of the 12 apostles, but certainly would be eyewitnesses of more of
the life of Jesus than others of the 12. Thus I contend there
would be 3 James' mentioned in Scriptures, not 2, as most of my
teachers contend. James, brother of John and Andrew, sons of
Zebedee. James brother of Judas sons of Alphaeus. And
James brother of Judas sons of Joseph and Mary, who later became
believers in what their brother taught, that he was only their half
brother and was truly the only begotten Son of God.. Pretty
controversial stuff for Roman Catholic traditions to swallow, but the
simplest and most likely solution from a plain reading of the Bible.
I always prefer the plainest reading, especially when it dashes into
the teachings of a false pope thinking himself infallible and
inerrant. I digress.
Let me recommend for you a more
thorough investigation of the canonization of scripture. I hold
out then, a twofold investigation, first that you develop some trust
in the authority of the Word which we call the Bible. Trust,
even faith, but not blind faith, that it is trustworthy and
represents the very words of God about eternal matters. This is
necessary in a world where the Bible has been put to such sever
attack and malign by the father of liars. Second that you
explore what the Word says about the WORD, the Lord Jesus Christ, and
his ability to 'quicken' a soul and to give one eternal life without
his deserve, and without his work, and without his baptism.
During such a quest for understanding, it is not unusual for one to
find himself believing with such trust that they call on the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ for His free undeserved salvation from
their wretched wicked condition. Upon such a call, if Romans
10: 9-10 are true, Jesus gives that one birth from above and
they are saved, quickened from above, and regenerated into a new
creature like the Word promises. "For whosoever shall
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." and,
"him that cometh to me I (said Jesus) will in no wise
cast out."
As you study the canonization of
scripture let me encourage you to understand the canon. The
compilation of rules by which we determine that a writing is
authentic inspired holy Scripture, is not just what was written down
by Eusebius or in some counsel of Hippo. It is grappling with
the fact the the earliest Christians found in Corinth, Galacia and
Philipi developed a system of rules, a canon i.e. "an
established principle: a basis for judgment,
a standard or criterion" about what they considered
authentic teachings and writings of an apostle. Paul himself
give several guidelines for this canon as does the Apostle John and
Peter as they define eyewitness status and claim such for themselves.
This canon or basis for judgment and standard or
criterion went on in development from before the Apostles ink was
dry up to when several churches agreed to the standard and
debated some of the writings. All this went on to include and
often despite of the recorded ecclesiastical counsels that thought
themselves the authority. In fact the more they thought
themselves to be the infallible authority, the less we Baptists
trusted their decisions orders and bulls. History has shown
just cause for that mistrust, they went very a
muck, thinking to "speak great things against the Most
High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to
change times and laws: and they shall be given into (their) hand
until a time and times and the dividing of time." So
as you do a complete analysis of the authorship of the NT, be
sure to include how we got our Bible canon from the drying ink
without placing all the emphasis on the klutzy
and clumsy Church counsels which finally brought most of the Churches
into some semblance of agreement. The Church Counsels just got
a formal agreement on what the saints knew all along, what is
truth and what is error. God reveals that without the benefit
of the belated Church Counsel Canonization. Such a thorough
study will better answer your questions about why I quote and study
John chapter 3 and the whole Bible, as if it were the very
words of God recorded for my learning and preserved verbatim for the
1990 years that I needed to get a hold of them. Despite what the
modernist textual critics are attempting to do with His words, Praise
God, He is still preserving them forever, like he said he would,
every jot and tittle.
God bless you in your quest. I
hope this stirs enough interest to drive you past the modern
skepticism into the answer to the the supreme question "Good
Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal
life?" Only Believe. That answer is
from his Word; Not often from the church.
Pastor Ed
Rice
7/23/2004 5:35PM BeeSerious@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/04 2:29:42 PM US Mountain Standard Time, edrice4@linkny.com writes:
You are mistaking my statement about the Bible's existence. I am not talking about a cannon or scripture I am talking about the production of scripture. All the cannon was was mans official recognition that books and letters were indeed written by (or approved by) the genuine apostles.
Be patient with me, please, Pastor Rice, while I work through this. You're coming at this from the perspective of a long-time believer; I am not. I've got a jillion Qs.
There is no evidence that any of the Apostles ever "approved" any writings of the New Testament. 2 Peter (written c. 125 A.D. by a disciple of Peter's) indicates that the letters of Paul (he doesn't say which letters) were considered to be 'scripture' (2 Peter 3:15: . . . So our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.) >From this, it would seem that Paul's writings were accepted as scripture by the first quarter of the second century. But were Paul's three missing letters included in the statement, "all his letters"? If so, that still leaves us with the problem of an incomplete NT. And did the writer of 2 Peter have access to the same set of 13 letters (maybe 14, if Hebrews is included) that we now have in the NT? We don't know.
Just because it took 1500 years to get them all collected into one place and confirmed as official transcripts does not mean the Bible didn't even exist for the 1500 years. Just because it took man 300 years to sort out the authentic from the impostors does not mean the Bible did not exist until 400 AD.
But, Pastor, the Bible did not exist until 400 A.D. Disparate, separate writings existed. But they had not been collected, canonized, and declared to be scripture -- the inspired Word of God -- until 400 A.D.
The following is from an article I copied from my neice's Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible (KJV), page 196l, entitled "HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE."
”. . . neither the church nor councils made any book canonical or authentic; either the book was authentic or it was not when it was written. The church or its councils recognized and verified certain books as the Word of God, and in time those so recognized were collected together in what we now call the Bible.” (italics added)
What Charles Ryrie, a Protestant minister, means is that if a writing is "the inspired Word of God," that reality is independent of the value judgment of any human being. It simply "is." And that's absolutely true. However, "inspired" writing needs human recognition in order to be appreciated by other humans. If it's not "recognized and verified," it will remain unknown to mankind. And as Ryrie says, "in time those [writings] so recognized [by the Catholic Church] were collected together in what we now call the Bible." That time was 382, 393, 397 - 419.
Ryrie was half wrong: The Church made the writings canonical -- but they were made authentic by God. The Church was the agent of God in writing the NT and forming the Bible. Yes, I said the Church wrote the NT. The definition of Church is "The People of God." The "People of God," members of the Church, wrote the NT. Other members of the People of God selected and collected it, canonized it, and named it the New Testament.
The Gospel of John we are studying in the 'born again' investigation was written by the Apostle John himself. It was copied and handed down to saints in the churches. It was not created in 367AD when a list was finally agreed upon. It was created by verbal plenary inspiration when it dripped from the pen of the Apostle John.
Yes, sure, of course. But consider if you will please that John wrote his Gospel sometime between 90 and 100. The church was born at Pentecost c. 30 A.D. So John had been teaching the church from his own lips for about 60 or 70 years before he wrote a word. Is it likely that he taught the early Christians one thing and then wrote something entirely different? I don't think so. Not everything in the scriptures is easy to understand. For example, John 3:3-5. John was writing for Christians to whom he had already taught their doctrines and practices. They understood what he meant by the words he wrote because he had already explained his teachings orally. They could ask him questions; he could clarify. They were members of the same family, sharing common beliefs and practices. He didn't have to explain what he wrote for them. They already understood what he meant by what he wrote.
What part of this are you not getting that you keep going thru the canonization process with me. I know when man officially founded the rules (cannon) that made the list of books and letters accepted in an official list. That has nothing to do with the production of the Bible by inspiration of God. The Gospel of John was produced by John in about 90 AD. It is the teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded by the eyewitness and His beloved disciple, John.
This is the first time you have said that you accept these facts about the Bible. You have insisted that everyone knew the scriptures from the first century when you claimed the apostles wrote them, made copies of them, and personally sent the copies to the local churches. I keep asking your for your evidence that this is true, because scripture scholars and historians do not agree with you.
How do you know John was "His beloved disciple"? This is not found in scripture. The beloved disciple isn't named.
The Roman influence I reference is their repeated insistence that the Bible did not exist until they, the Mother of all Churches said that it existed. That is not true.
Again, Pastor, this is factually true. The writings had not been collected into one book until the church did it. The church named the collections the Old Testament and the New Testament and the Bible. Before that, they were just separate writings.
The written word of God existed when it proceeded from Matthew's pen, Mark's pen, Luke's pen and John's pen. The NT scriptures existed when Paul copied and sent his letters to the Churches,
Paul made no copies. That's for sure. If he did, where are they? Three of his letters are missing.
when James, half brother of Jesus, and Pastor of the Church at Jerusalem wrote to the 12 tribes which are scattered abroad,
The James who was called "the brother of the Lord" didn't write the letter of James. It was written close to the end of the first century by a Greek Christian. The James you're thinking of was stoned to death in A.D. 62.
and when John wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ and sent copies to the 7 Churches as he was instructed.
There is no evidence that John made any copies of Revelation. Where was he instructed to do that?
This is when the Bible was produced. We needn't muck up this truth with the fact that man took years to corporately settle what was genuine and what was not, the production was done in the 1st century.
Well, it was done by the first quarter of the second century. Yes, but early Christians accepted other books as well, in addition to the "authentic" NT writings. And they rejected some writings that were later canonized. The church had to select, collect, canonize, and name the NT, and canonize the 46 books of the OT, and name the collections the Bible ('ta Biblia'), and declare that no other writings were to be accepted except these, before people could tell the 'scriptures' from writings that were not scripture.
I agree that John was accepted as scripture by most as soon as it was written -- but that was the end of the first century and he was one of the Twelve. Many Christians had lived and died before then. What did they believe? Did Christians have to wait for the NT to be written and canonized before they knew what the Apostles taught? Of course not. 90% of people couldn't read anyway.
We are studying what John the apostle wrote concerning what Jesus said about being born again. The cannon of scripture is a whole nother area that I think we are agreed on, it is just a mere history study. I want to focus my efforts, and yours if you will, on the Teachings of Christ about eternal life and the attaining of it by faith alone, belief-trust only and not by any works that we could do, certainly not by baptism.
I'll tell you my concerns about this in a separate email.
I guess we shall have to agree here that we are studying the teachings of Christ not the theology of some unknown church father, but the teaching that Jesus gave his apostles to record and preserve forever. Do we agree on that much yet?
Not quite. I still have some questions. But we're a lot closer.
The Apostles didn't write all of the NT. Jesus didn't instruct his Apostles to write. Jesus left us a church as our teacher, not a book to read. He told the Apostles, leaders of the church, to teach, and teach was what they did. The writings were incidental to the teaching. Not everything Jesus and the Apostles taught was written down. John tell us that. It makes sense. Jesus taught the Apostles for three years. The NT sure can't cover three years worth of teachings. Most people couldn't read anyway, and that remained the case for several centuries, until the Industrial Revolution. 50% of the world is still illiterate. 20% of the U.S. is illiterate. What are people supposed to do about their salvation when they can't read? I'm still pondering that one. There are Qs in my other emails. Write when you can. I know how busy you are. I appreciate your time and efforts. You know you can quit writing anytime you feel you need to. I'll understand.
Hang in there, we are studying the truth from The Truth, not the history from the historian.
Pastor Rice
Christianity is an historic, revealed religion. So we can't ignore history. What did God reveal? That's the big Q.
Take care, Bee
7/23/200411:03 PM EdRice4@linkny.com
Wow, major disconnect here. The Church did not write the
Bible. The Apostles or direct eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ
wrote it. And Peter wrote I and II Peter, that is why they are
called that. Yes they were part of the Church, but they
were more than that they were the eyewitness which received direct
communication from Christ and direct inspiration-revelation
from God. That's bigger than the Church and their apostolic
authority was not passed on to no pope or other church
bishop/pastor. Only the revealed truths were passed on
and that in written form. If you will not accept the revealed
truth, you cannot learn of the manifested TRUTH.
It
appears we will stay disconnected on this issue, and you will end up
with no authoritative truth to put
your faith in. How unfortunate that all the
skepticism has destroyed your faith in the
authority of Scripture. If you cannot believe the Bible as the
word of God, I don't know how you can believe the words of Christ
about eternal life, and it is required for salvation that you
believe, as I stated several times previous.
My prayer is that you will believe and will call on Him for
salvation, despite those who destroyed your faith in the
Bible.
Pastor Rice
7/25/04 2:19 PM BeeSerious@aol.com
Pastor Rice, I wish you'd answer my Qs instead of just dismissing me, saying I've been contaminated by others. I have real issues, based on real history and real facts, and they need real answers. What good is a faith that is not based on reason? What good is a faith which can't deal with questions? The Bible didn't just fall out of heaven. God didn't give us a list of which books belong in the Bible. And He has never said, "This is my Word, figure out for yourself what it means." And He has never said that all man needs to know about his salvation was written down in a book. He commanded the Apostles to TEACH, not to WRITE. Most people couldn't read anyway! Jesus never mentioned the Bible (it didn't exist at that time). His scriptures were the Greek Septuagint OT, which Protestants reject. He left us a church, not a book, according to scripture. The church, in turn, produced the book. I'm looking for that church, and if it doesn't exist, forget Christianity. If the Apostles didn't belong to the church Christ founded, and were not its leaders, forget Christianity.
I can't swallow that amniotic fluid business. It goes against the plain sense of scripture. If that's what he meant, Jesus could have said so! And I can't get my mind around "faith alone" when Matthew 25:31-46 is staring me in the face. The only time "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible, it says ". . . a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" James 2:24. I understand that we are saved by GRACE through faith, for sure, but believers are going to be judged by their deeds, not just their beliefs. According to the scriptures -- we'll be judged by every word we speak (Mt 4:4), and every deed we do (or fail to do). Rm 1:13, "those who observe the law will be justified." Rm 2:5-11, "the just judgment of God will repay everyone according to his WORKS." 2 Cor 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil according to what he has DONE in the body." 1 John 3:7, "...the person who ACTS in righteousness is righteous ...". The rich young man (Mt 19:16-21 believed, but that was not enough. Jesus told him to sell all he had, give the money to the poor, and to follow Him. I can't find a single instance where people will be judged simply on the basis of what they believed. Yes, the Bible says "he who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." But Jesus also says. "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of my Father." We're "righteous" if we "walk in all the commandments and the ordinances of the Lord blameless" (i.e., without sin) Lk 1:6. We have to read the Bible as a whole, not a verse or two. If any of it is "inspired," it all is. The Bible is more than John 3:16.
I've never asked you about your education. I just found out that some Baptist churches require no formal education in the Bible, church history, or anything else. Is yours one of them?
I'll admit that as I learn more about where and how we got the Bible, and the history of Christianity, I'm finding splintered Protestantism less and less appealing. It goes against the plain sense of logic. If one doctrine conflicts with another, they can't both be true. And perhaps neither of them is true.
210 different kinds of Baptists belong to the Baptist World Alliance. They used to have 211 members, but the Southern Baptists just withdrew. How would I ever figure out which of hundreds of Baptist churches teaches the truth, much less which one of the thousands of Protestant churches has got it right?
I need my Qs answered. Shall I look elsewhere? Thanks for all your time and efforts. Bee
7/26/04 11:00PM EdRice4@linkny.com
Dear Bee,
Again I must apologize for my frustration and last dismissal of your questions. In that you, and many others like you, need real answers to these questions, I shall, as best I can, address each one in turn in this address. Let me begin with your last correspondence and then address each question from the previous one which I dismissed inappropriately.
How We Got Our Holy Bible, i.e. The NT Scripture
The Bible didn't just fall out of heaven. God didn't give us a list of which books belong in the Bible. And He has never said, "This is my Word, figure out for yourself what it means." And He has never said that all man needs to know about his salvation was written down in a book. He commanded the Apostles to TEACH, not to WRITE. Most people couldn't read anyway! Jesus never mentioned the Bible (it didn't exist at that time). His scriptures were the Greek Septuagint OT, which Protestants reject.
Again we must first clarify what is meant by the Bible. Your contention that the Bible did not exist until there were 66 books canonized by 'The Church” and all gathered together in one 'book' called 'Bible' with 39 books collected in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament is far to shortsighted for understanding how we got our Bible. Since you insist on this as your definition of “The Bible”, I will henceforth aim my comments and clarification at the Scriptures. Thus the NT Scriptures did not just fall out of heaven, they were indeed penned by the “holy men of God.” These men wrote Scripture, even as the OT “holy men of God” wrote Scripture. Even though they, in general were the preachers of God's word communicating by spoken word, they wrote it down. Notice what Scripture says: 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Thus any contention that God never commanded these men to write down their teaching is baseless, and to contend that He (God) didn't intend that all man needs to know about his salvation was to be written down is equally baseless. Again Scripture says: OT Ex 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: and again De 27:8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly. and again Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: ... In the NT Scripture: Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. And again Ac 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. And again 2Co 2:9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. And Again 1Jo 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
With these few examples I contend that the apostles were commanded to write, were directed to write, and were inspired to write down the NT Scriptures. Such unction to write the truths of The Word can be clearly seen in the Revelation of Jesus Christ where The Word gave command to the Apostle John to write:
Re 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Re 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Re 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Very particularly command was given to write 7 times and ones contention that John did not copy his book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ 7 times is unfounded speculation that John was disobedient to the commands of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Notice the commands:
Re 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;
Re 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write;
Re 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write;
Re 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write;
Re 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write;
Re 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write;
Re 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;
Now, why do all this writing if nobody back then in those dark days just after man crawled out of their cave dwellings could even read? After all we humans have just now evolved to a state of intelligence whereby the literacy rates have just exceeded the 2/3 majority. Please excuse my sarcasm here, but I trust it exposes the source of the wild conjecture that most people could not read back then. It is unfounded! Jesus and his fishermen fluently read and wrote Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, which is far more than you or I do. It was common then for all the common folk to read what we call Koine Greek (Commonmans Greek) Such Greek is a very marvelous language, capable of exact expression and subtle nuances. This exactness makes it even superior to the English we use to miscommunicated in so well. The Bible says Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, This “fulness of time” included the glorious fact the whole know world was all using the same written language of Koine Greek thanks to the exploits of the Roman Empire. God had his apostles write and most people could read back then.
His scriptures were the Greek Septuagint OT, which Protestants reject.
Lastly, let me address the misnomer that Jesus' Scriptures were the Greek Septuagint OT, which Protestants reject. It is mis-stated on both counts. Any text on Old Testament Textual Criticism (I am siting Ellis R. Brotzman's here, but it is only introductory) must address the fact that the Proto-Masoretic Text was a complete and canonized Hebrew text over 100 years before the Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Christ, the Word, heard and asked questions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Word, when he was only 12 years old. (Cf Luke 2) The Scripture maintained in the Temple at Jerusalem was not the Septuagint (LXX) translated in Egypt from an Egyptian Recension derived from the Old Palestinian Recension. but it was the Proto-Masoretic Text, which was the eclectic Text derived from the Old Palestinian Recension and the Babylonian Recension. It being the very words of God, in Hebrew which, as the name implies, was edited into the Masoretic Text. This Masoretic Text, incidentally, was the source for the translation of King James Bible. (Not the New King James, but the 1611 King James.) The Septuagint (LXX) is not rejected by believers and scholars today, but it is recognized as an inferior text because of its Egyptian sources. (A good rule of thumb is any text that comes from Egypt should be treated with great skepticism, these include Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort's highly favored Greek texts of the NT that are the prime sources of all modern English translations, but that is another related subject.) Reference is often made to the Septuagint because it's Greek words often gave insight to some more obscure Hebrew words. Thus it's whole accuracy is rejected as verbally inspired Scripture, but it has great value as a linguistic tool that predates the birth of Christ. It was also very available in the Roman Empire for those who did not readily read Hebrew. All Jews were then trained in reading the Hebrew Scripture; as are all orthodox Jews today. Jesus' Scriptures were not the Greek Septuagint, they were the Proto-Masoretic Hebrew Text. The Septuagint was commonly used as the Greek OT Scripture and was often quoted because Greek was the common spoken language. Your sweeping generalization is therefore a misnomer on both counts.
Will The Real Church, Please Stand Up!
He left us a church, not a book, according to scripture. The church, in turn, produced the book. I'm looking for that church, and if it doesn't exist, forget Christianity. If the Apostles didn't belong to the church Christ founded, and were not its leaders, forget Christianity.
The fundamental error in such a quest for 'that Church' is an idea that Christianity is a religion that can be found in some monarchical ecclesiastical organization. Christianity is not a relationship with a religion. Christianity is not a relationship with a Church which will baptize you into its membership. Christianity is a relationship with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus did not say 'The Church' is the way, 'The Church' is the truth, 'The Church' is the life, No man cometh to the Father but by 'The Church.' The Lord Jesus, the Christ, said “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father, but by me.” This ecclesiastical 'that church' that can get you into true Christianity does not exist, but the one who is building His 'Church', i.e. His called out body of believers, He does exist. When one confesses himself a helpless sinner, unable to save himself from the penalty of his sinful state and calls upon the Lord Jesus Christ to save him, by His death burial and resurrection done in his behalf, one can be born into the kingdom of God and become part of His 'ecclesia', His called out body of believers, His Church. If you are not born of the spirit (John 3), if you are not converted to Christ (Matt 18) if you are not saved from your sin (Rom 3, 5, 6 and 10) you can be baptized by every denomination that thinks themselves a Church and still not be part of His Church nor part of the kingdom of God. Look at the illustration that Jesus gave about entry: 7John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Notice again the error you have assumed about the Church as some ecclesiastical, hierarchical order which is the guardian of the truth that can get you into the kingdom of God. His Church is His called out body of believers. What do they believe? They believe what is written in the Book. He didn't build this 'that Church' and tell them, “Ok, now your in charge of the gospel truth, go out and be the mother of all faith. Allow me this illustration from my article written to a staunch Roman Catholic:
When Jesus Christ said “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall prevail against it.” There are some things that the Roman Catholic Church read entirely wrong. First, they think that the rock was referring to Peter rather than the truth that Peter had just uttered, secondly they teach and consider that the church here is some singular, only one can be right, and we are “IT” kind of monstrosity that excommunicates and burns heretics. Clearly, the church referred to here is the abstract institution not the singular held to by mislead Roman Catholics and carried over by confused Protestants. Dr. Carroll, provides the best illustration of this abstract language with example:
“An English statesman, referring to the right of each individual citizen to be tried by his peers, could say: ‘ On this rock England will build her jury, and all the power of tyranny shall not prevail against her.’ He uses the term jury in an abstract sense, i.e., in the sense of an institution. But when this institution finds concrete expression or becomes operative, it is always a particular jury of twelve men and never an aggregation of all juries into one big jury.” Bravo Dr. Carol.
Please see, that the Roman Catholic Church misrepresents the scripture on this point and contends that the Roman Catholic Imperial Church is the aggregation of all churches into one big jury. Not true, thus, to a Bible believer, the Roman Catholic Imperial Church is anything but a “pillar and ground of truth” It is a web of self serving deception and deceit. But it does have a very long history of very effective half truth deceptions.
Again, let me reiterate that Jesus the Christ did not build his church then leave it in charge of his truth. Jesus the Christ is building his Church today, and my desire for you is that you become part of this building by putting your faith and trust in the Lord, Jesus Christ. That is the only way into Christianity and it is not done by any Church, it is done by the person of the Lord Jesus Christ in a new birth, a regeneration i.e. quickening, of your soul. He will not do such forcibly nor by any water methods you may have heard of or tried. Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
So the apostles and authors of the NT Scripture were certainly part of the called out body of believers when they wrote their accounts of the revealed gospel truth. They did not record His Truth by the power invested in them as 'The Church', but recorded it by the power invested in them as the apostles, the eyewitnesses of God incarnate. Consequently the writing of Clement did not qualify as Scripture, not because they weren't true, I am sure they are very good, not because they were not written by a member of Christ's Church, I am as certain as can be that Clement was a born-again believer and thus part of His Church; they were not included as Scripture because they were not written by an apostle or under the direct supervision and review of an apostle. Such is the rule or canon, for determining what is or is not Scripture. Thus, according to Scripture he has not 'left us a church' but he is building His Church, big difference. And according to Scripture he did not leave us an apostolic authority passed on in the hierarchical Nicholaity of a built left in charge church, he left us inspired and written Scripture. Your quest for a left in charge, mother of all faith, get me in, Church is vain. Seek out the Saviour instead.
What then is this Church that he is building? It is found in Dr. Carroll's illustration. When this institution finds concrete expression or becomes operative, it is always a particular 'local organized gathering of believer' and never an aggregation of all believers into one big 'church, ecclesiastical assembly or denomination'. Your quest then, in striving to find His Church, is but to find a local assembly of believers, who have the Scriptures from the apostles as their source of all faith and practice and are solely under the headship of their founder the Lord Jesus Christ. When you find such, you will discover that they will not allow you membership unless you give them personal testimony of when you were born again, converted to Christ, and saved from your sin debt. After such a profession of your faith in Christ they will require that you be baptized by immersion in order to give a public, before God and everybody display of your death, burial and resurrection accomplished in by Christ and in Christ. Now when you look around some you will find that this local independent Church is (or was once) called a Baptist Church because of these distinctives. You will find that they have an aversion to baptizing babies because according to Scripture, baptism is only for born again believers. And you will find that they are not a part of hierarchical denomination because every ecclesiastical hierarchy has gone, is going, or will be going away from the Scriptures. History should tell you that that is the nature of the beast, and those words are chosen from Scripture as well. Now let me reiterate from our previous discussions of Baptist history, that I am not talking about a Baptist denomination, nor Baptist succession back to Christ, just the fact that a local Church that takes on these Scriptural attributes has a founder named Christ, a saved baptized by immersion membership, faith and practice determined by 'Sola Scriptura', autonomous congregational rule and an old label of 'Baptist'. Certainly you can find some church signs containing the word Baptist and nailed to a building where such attributes are not found, but that does not change what Baptist have always been, and what got them the label initially. Certainly you have already found historians and that say that Baptists only first appeared in Amsterdam in 1607, but we again contend that churches with these attributes were not just founded in Amsterdam in 1607, they are found throughout history and are being build today because the gates of hell shall not prevail against such local, congregationally ruled, believer baptizing, baptized membershiped, 'sola scriptura' Churches. That is 'that church' and they cannot baptize you into membership of the kingdom of God, but they will have an ordained preacher of the gospel who can point you to the recorded Scriptures that will get you in. You needn't go find this Church to get into the kingdom, I have already given you enough Scripture for you to seek out and call on the Christ and be born again.
Except a man be 'Born Again'
I can't swallow that amniotic fluid business. It goes against the plain sense of scripture. If that's what he meant, Jesus could have said so!
The point was made that there is more amniotic fluid in John 3:5 than there is baptismal water. “5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” You can notice for yourself the discussion of the womb, the differentiating in our birth in the flesh and one in the spirit, but you will not find the discussion of baptism in this context. My expectation is that one could find cause to examine this discource about natural birth and spiritual birth, the latter being essential to entry into the kindom of heaven the former essential to entry into the kindom of this world. Jesus' illustration is clear, and clearly divorce from the Roman Catholic rhetoric about baptism getting one into the kingdom of God. You cannot dismiss the revelation about the necessity of a spiritual birth, and the revelation in verse 15, 16,17,18,and 36 that only belief in the Crucified Christ is required. (i.e. trust, belief being bigger than the head knowledge we make it mean today) Notice that crucification is illuded to in verse 14, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:”, but nowhere is Nicodemus referenced to any baptism here. Do not dismiss this tremendous disertation on eternal life lightly.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; ... Not of works, lest any man should boast,
Eph 2:8-9 contrast with James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
And I can't get my mind around "faith alone" when Matthew 25:31-46 is staring me in the face. The only time "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible, it says ". . . a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" James 2:24. I understand that we are saved by GRACE through faith, for sure, but believers are going to be judged by their deeds, not just their beliefs. According to the scriptures -- we'll be judged by every word we speak (Mt 4:4), and every deed we do (or fail to do). Rm 1:13, "those who observe the law will be justified." Rm 2:5-11, "the just judgment of God will repay everyone according to his WORKS." 2 Cor 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil according to what he has DONE in the body." 1 John 3:7, "...the person who ACTS in righteousness is righteous ...". The rich young man (Mt 19:16-21 believed, but that was not enough. Jesus told him to sell all he had, give the money to the poor, and to follow Him. I can't find a single instance where people will be judged simply on the basis of what they believed. Yes, the Bible says "he who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." But Jesus also says. "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of my Father." We're "righteous" if we "walk in all the commandments and the ordinances of the Lord blameless" (i.e., without sin) Lk 1:6. We have to read the Bible as a whole, not a verse or two. If any of it is "inspired," it all is. The Bible is more than John 3:16.
You show a very good grasp here on the obtaining of God's righteousness and the judging of the presence of God's righteousness. To account for all of the inspired scriptures you must only deliniate these two entities, the obtaining is done without works, the testing for presence is done by works. Martin Luther took 1200 years to discern 'sola scriptura' and 'sola fide' amongst all the apostacy of Roman Catholicism. One should not fus here if it takes 1200 pages. The struggle you express with each of these life changing principles is profoundly identical. You are entangling the production of Scriptures with our authentication of Scripture. God moved on his authors with inspiration and the NT Scriptures were written. Man had to assemble a list of criteria (i.e. canon) used to understand which were the real inspired written works of God. God moves on a soul which cries out in faith believing and produces His righteousness inside that soul. Man, the individual beleiver included uses criteria from Scripture to test, or judge or authenticate the presence of that righteousness.
What then, are the authentications of the presence of God's righteousness in an individual? The Scriptures describe them in threes, even as man made in the image of God is body, soul, and spirit the authentication of ones being born of God is love, works and spirit. The three are deliniated in some sample Scriptures as follows:
LOVE John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
WORKS IJohn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
SPIRIT Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Again, these are found separate from the attaining of that righteousness. These do not produce eternal life. These do not entice Christ to quicken a soul as he is assertive to do (Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will,” Notice again this 'quickening' is not by works of flesh but by words of God, Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” ) These only authenticate the presence of the righteousness. Let's review the Scriptures you are wrestling with and determine whether the works that are describes have to do with the production of this righteousness 'quickened' or born in a soul or the authentication, judging , or testing for the presence of that righteousness.
A test of who one loves: Matt 25:31-46 stares us in the face as a supreme judgment of all the nations and a separation of the regenerated sinners from the un-regenerate sinners. According to John 3:17-18 the unregenerate are condemned already, only those which are born again, i.e. born of the spirit, are his sheep. Notice too that he knows his sheep (John 10) and separates the sheep from the goats in this text. Notice also that the justification by works is brought up after the separation by the Judge and that it is brought up to demonstrate i.e. authenticate to man, their regenerated condition. What authenticates their regenerated state? The love they have of the brethren. The brethren here are “one of the least of these,” one that Jesus calls “my brethren.” That is not true of every human, but only of those whom He regenerated (quickened.) John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another
A test of who keeps commandments: James 2:14-26 is addressed to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, i.e. Jews. The main point of these verses is that faith without works, is dead, being alone. Again this is the justification or authentication of the presence of this faith which produces the righteousness of God without works. Paul writing to Gentiles had to continually bolster the truth that righteousness is produced by faith without works. James, here, writing to the Jews was driving home the truth that IF this righteousness is produced in you it will show up in you actions, i.e. works. Notice again the emphasis on authentication of ones faith, not the production of righteousness through faith. Being very mindful of the target audiences, it is an excellent study to contrast this section and it's illustration of Abraham's imputed righteousness, with Paul's many writings about faith without works using the exact same illustration. These arguments contrast nicely without contradiction only when you separate the production of righteousness from the authentication of righteousness. Miss that distinction and you end up in a sea of contradiction and compromised sacramental understandings about 'how' one is quickened; even to the point of believing that water can produce this righteousness of God in a soul, or that a wafer with wine might produce a little, or that your paying money to a mass in a church might produce enough righteousness in a dead kin to at last get them into the kingdom of God. This is apostasy. The truth about the production of this righteousness is found in Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
A test of His Word. You aptly argue that we will be judged by our words and our works, but used Matt 4:4 as reference. Let me capitalize on the oversight to secure the truth that in Matt 4:4 it is assured that true life, i.e. everlasting life, is secured not by the physical bread that we eat, “but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” His word's contain the bread of Life, and we rejoice that with ink and pen they were written down. No matter what church claims to be the mother of all faith, or the only truth, His word's are all the truth we need, and all the truth that we have. It thus behooves us to study His Word, i.e. Scripture, more intelligently than we study church history.
But, in fact you are right in assessing that we are to be judged by our works. Those who are sheep, i.e. quickened by the new birth, will be judged by their works. And those who are goats, i.e. unregenerate pretenders or rejectors will be judged by their works. These are delineated in two separate judgments, depending upon which resurrection one is part of. The first resurrection, for those born twice (Rev 20:6) and the resurrection of the dead (i.e. eternal dead Rev 20:12) So in that, you spoke correctly that all men will be judged by their works, but do not miss the truth that there are two judgments. The one being the Judgment seat of Christ, where belivers are judged according to their works and enter into eternal life (no matter how good or how few those works are) (i.e. see II Cor 5:10 in context where Paul first asks “Why do we labour?” and answeres in three parts, 1) the judgment seat of Christ is coming, vr10, 2) we know the “terror of the Lord,” due to fall on unbelievers vr 10:11, and 3) the “love of Christ constraineth us” to labour to reach souls with the saveing Gospel of Jesus Christ, not labour to attain our own righteousness which was previously attained, by faith alone in Christ alone. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the dead, is followed by the great white throne judgment of Rev 20:11-15. Please note here that every man is judged according to their works here as well, but no matter what amount of works they may have accrued in life, they are all cast into the lake of fire in verse 14, “this is the second death.” We have a quipsy saying from this verse that if your born once, you die twice, if your born twice you'll die but once. Note that which resurrection you are in is also determined by your words and works, notice the Scriptures John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Notice the importance of your words Rom 10:9-10,13 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ... 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. You can call on him right now and change from a sheep to a goat, change from the resurrection of the dead to the 1st resurrection of the blessed. Believe His word, Trust His Son, by Faith alone.
By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. You make a reference to Rom 2:13 which is a paranthetical explanation given by Paul in the beginning of his tremendous disertation about how the Righteousness of God can be applied to the likes of man. The paranthetical reads Rom 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Paul goes on after this tremendous 2 chapter introduction to demonstrate that there are none who keep the law, there are none justified by the works of the law. If you stop short of his context you will be mislead into thinking that one can be justified by the works of the law. I'd suggest that you get a computer with the Authorized Version of the Bible and do a phrase search on “works of the law” and weigh your findings. (the AV used consistent word translations, and is very responsive to phrase searches, all modern translations use paraphrase or 'dynamic equivalence' translation methods (dynamic means changing, equvalence means not changing, their whole concept is confusion) and they muck up the words of God into sloppy inconsistent phrases.) Here are a couple of verses you would find: Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth At this point it would be appropriat for me to say something about Bible Hermenutics, i.e. the science and methodology of interpretation and explanation. As you read interpretive explanations you often think one is making the Bible say what they want it to say because they believe differently than yourself. Ones hermeneutic method must be large in scope and able to 'spiral' into the truth or principle one is examining. Let's take the case in point as example. We find the verse saying that “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” We have been taught by a Roman Catholic Church, or its derivative Protestant Denomination that 'doing things' through them and for them is the only way to be justified, so this verse rings with a truth for us. Our first task with good hermeneutics is to step back and examine the larger context of the paragraph. There we find that this verse is paranthetical, and the larger context is that the Jew, with his Law of God and the Gentile with his Moral Law of Right are in the same situation before God. The whole chapter concludes that “as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; ... in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel Stepping back further one sees in this discourse that all of mankind has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, wether with the law or without. One step further back shows the theme of this discourse is the gospel of Christ: for this gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, (those with the law, either the hearers or the doers) and also to the Greek (those with a moral law in themselves, either the hearers or the doers.) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” Two more hermenetical steps are to be taken, but let me pause here to say this is exactly the path Martin Luter was taking when he recognized that the Catholic Church had an incorrect hermeneutical process of searching out alagoroical hidden and secret meanings. It was during the incorrigable Catholic sale of indulgences that Luther read Romans 1:16-17 and realized salvation was not for sale to the highest bidder and that salvation is available by 'faith alone', 'sola fide.' Of coarse the Catholic response was to use even worse hermeneutics, to burn even more Bibles and to degrade the authenticity of Scripture and exhalt the infalability of the Roman Church. The notiably horrible hermeneutics of Catholic Theologins includes the selection of verses such as Rom 2:13 (justified by doing works) I Pet 3:21 (“even baptism doeth also now save us”) etc. They can not stand up to a systematic study of the scriptures because it ruins their baptisms and beads. This bad hermeneutic invades most Protestant Churchs with their distinct separation of clergy, who can interpret scripture and laity who should keep their noses out of what the Bible says and just listen to the church traditions. This bad hermeneutic permiates the modern christian culture which says that salvation by faith alone and 'you must be born again' is just your interpretation. They conclude that with 243 denominations nobody can really know what the Bible says. Bad hermeneutics brought on a lot of misgivings. Becareful, in you studies that you use carefull and accurate hermeneutics, which include two more steps.
Step back one step further and search out what the whole NT says about justification, particularly deliniating how it is obtained and how it is judged. For a completed spiral one must step back one more step and search out what the whole Bible, Old Testament, and New Testament says about being just before God. It is no small task but the Bible is the best comintary on the Bible. The things that are explained here have been scrutinized via this hermeneutical spiral. The idea of baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, transubstantiation, justification by works, The Scripture's falability, the Scriptures inaccuracy; all are rejected with a good hermeneutical analysis. One can find Scriptures that seem to illude to these ideas and even substantiate them, but not with reasonable hermeneutics.
Paul commands Timothy 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. in the margin of my Bible I have penned this note:
Rightly Dividing the WORD of TRUTH
For any Scripture ask:
1) When was it written?
2) To Whom?
3) In what Dispensation?
4) For what Purpose?
Always observe the Law of Context
Always observe the Distinction of Truths
Salvation vs Rewards
Standing vs State
2 Natures vs 7 Judgements
Jews vs Gentiles vs Saints
“Failure to observe these great Transitional Biblical divides
seals the sacred volume from the reader for all practical and
efficient use.” Dr. Mormion L. Lowe
Understanding the Bible is not done with a new modern translation as the publishers promise. It is done with the presence of the LIGHT, the WORD and the TRUTH in our life. He will lead us into all truth and do it with a good hermeneutical spiral focusing and spiraling us to the center of that truth, that principle, that application. Sola Scriptura, leads to Sola Fide. Let us now practice good hermeneutics on some other Scriptures you mention.
He that DOETH righteousness I John 3:7 states “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” When one reads this with the previous sentence (in context) it is obvious that John is concerning himself with judging the presence of righteousness in another and not in the production of righteousness within oneself. The context of this letter is that of a Father writing to his 'little children' that are in the world. The context of chapter 3 is that the 'little children,' who are indeed sons of God, should 'purify himself, even as (God &/ Christ) is pure.”
Concerning the obtaining of eternal life by being justified and in the righteousness of God the letter clearly states 1John5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. So again the context of this verse shows it dealing with the judging of the presence of His righteousness, not in the obtaining of His righteousness.
Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor. It is interesting that so many quote this passage from Luke 18 as the means necessary for this young man to 'inherit eternal life' and yet they won't take this bitter pill themselves. (Mat 19:16-21, Mark 10:17-30, Luke 18:18-30) The reason is that the 'selling of all' to 'inherit eternal life' is not only a bitter pill, it is wholey out of context. To inherit eteranl life, as was this mans quest, was to be accomplished in the second part of the verse where Jesus said 'come and follow me.' The selling of all would have obtained treasure in heaven, but the following of Jesus (i.e. in essence, believing in Jesus) would have produced the inheritence which he sought. The test for this young man, a test of his belief in Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, (“Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God.” ... Do you believe that I am God? ) tested whether he was willing to let go of everything else and cling only to the Christ and believe soley in Him. This is altogether fitting with the discource that follows, about how difficult it is for the rich to become saved. This is altogether fitting with the larger context of the message that one must let go of religion, relatives and riches and cling only to the Christ. This is altogether fitting with the whole context that trusting in Christ alone will cause one to inherit eternal life. This is altogether part of this discerning the production of eternal life in man and the authentication of its presence. If the young man had an authentic belief in the Christ, then as Peter, James, John, and Andrew had forsaken their nets to follow, this man would forsake his riches to follow. Granted, it may be easier to forsake a toilsum smelly fish net than great wealth but the principle is the same. The discussion from the fishermen about what it takes for a rich man to be saved is thus the more germane. And the signifigance that one must 'hate father and mother' to be his disciple (Luke 14:26) comes to bear on the larger principle that one must turn from something (i.e. be converted) and trust in Christ alone. Thus the rich young ruler's “selling of all” spirals into the larger principle that one must be converted to Christ to inherit eternal life. Smaller minds, with bad hermeneutics will still contend that his eternal life hung on what he would 'do', thus eternal life is inherited by what we do and how much of it we do, as St. Peter waits with a scale to weigh your good works against your bad. Don't fall into the myths of small minds, practice good Bible hermeneutics and be converted to Christ yourself. Then go out and be as Peter, James, John and Andrew each 'fishers of men' because you are a follower of Christ and present tense HAVE eternal life.
Not everyone who says Lord Lord You are quite right to assert that there is not a single instance where people will be JUDGED simply on the basis of what they believe. With good hermeneutics we have differentiated the judging or authentication of eternal life from the obtaining of eternal life. There are tests which one applies to determine if this eternal life was born into ones soul. There are tests which one applies to determine if another is born of the spirit, because the spirit “bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth”. I categorize these tests in to three areas; love of the brethren, obedience to Christs commandments, and the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. One then uses these to 'judge' the 'state' of a soul, saved or lost. Ones uses these to maintain the 'standing' of the soul abiding in Christ or not abiding in Christ. His command is 'abide in me.' My failure to abide changes my standing but not my state. Others may judge me by my works, and be in error, but there is coming a righteous judge whose judgment will be truth. We may look at what a person does, he may prophesy in God's name, he may cast out devils, and do many wonderful works. We would judge by works, but God will judge as to whether they were 'known' by His Son, whether the Son had ever 'quickened' them. All the wonderful works that you can do cannot produce the righteousness of God in you and put you in line to inherit eternal life. Only being born again, born of spirit can produce eternal life. Else the works of man are but works of iniquity. Matt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. What is the will of the Father which is in heaven? That you would believe on His only begotten Son. For “whosoever beleiveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” We have to read the Bible as a whole. Praise God that John 3:16 is not the only verse in the Bible. But Praise God that he captured his whole Gospel in that one verse and then uses the whole Bible to back up what it says. Catholic hermeneutics requires one to take a verse or two out of context so they can count beads, pray to Mary, call her perpetual virgin, and suck money out of people who are trying to inherit eternal life by works. Protestant hermeneutics is twisted so they can hold onto some of the things their mother church taught them about baptisms and Peter standing at the gate weighing in good and bad deeds. True Biblical hermeneutics, set aside from the preconceptions of church tradition, finds that eternal life is obtained, not by works, but by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. When you put your faith there, that LIGHT, that TRUTH, that WORD will be 'baptized' into your soul as you are 'baptized' into His person, and all that baptism will occur without a drop of physical water. Ye must be born of spirit. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Baptist Preacher Ordination Requirements
I've never asked you about your education. I just found out that some Baptist churches require no formal education in the Bible, church history, or anything else. Is yours one of them?
Yes it is. If you are speaking about the Ordination of a Baptist Bishop i.e. Pastor, i.e. Preacher of the Gospel, there is no FORMAL education requirement laid out in either I Timothy 3 nor Titus 1. These texts were written to men sent out to oversee the ordaining of bishops and were written 'that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave theyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.” These texts contain the requirements for a Bishop and the requirements for the only other office of the church, the office of Deacon, i.e. servant, i.e. minister. These texts contain no requirement for 'formal' eduction, and neither does a church which will hold to sola scriptura for all faith and practice. Does yours? Of course we do not frown on a formal education as it can enhance ones study in the Scriptures, as long as we keep the main thing the main thing.
These texts further would forbid the ordaining of women, and of the unregenerate to include sodomites. There is a massive departure from the Scriptures so that churches can be politically correct in a degenerate society. Baptists, the original sola scriptura enthusiasts, are sadly setting aside their old Bibles and picking up modernist compromises with their modernists polity. Not this preacher. But thanks for not asking about my formal education. The issue is what will one do with the Lord Jesus Christ, not how many D Ds one can list. If curiosity has not been thus wained my resume can be found at gsbaptistchurch.com.
Splintered Denominational ism
I'll admit that as I learn more about where and how we got the Bible, and the history of Christianity, I'm finding splintered Protestantism less and less appealing. It goes against the plain sense of logic. If one doctrine conflicts with another, they can't both be true. And perhaps neither of them is true.
210 different kinds of Baptists belong to the Baptist World Alliance. They used to have 211 members, but the Southern Baptists just withdrew. How would I ever figure out which of hundreds of Baptist churches teaches the truth, much less which one of the thousands of Protestant churches has got it right?
I need my Qs answered. Shall I look elsewhere? Thanks for all your time and efforts. Bee
If the Bible is true, then God created man in his image, for his glory and gave him dominion over His garden. Man disobeyed his creator and by one man sin entered the human race and all that were born to mankind were born in sin. If the Bible is true, then with a failed test in the garden a new test was initiated where man, armed with a conscious mind was charged to walk before God and be holy. Man splintered into every man doing what was right in his own mind. Although Enoch walked with God in this new dispensation it was found that “every imagination of the thoughts of (mans) heart was only evil continually” God drowned his creation in a world flood. If the Bible is true, God now charged Noah with governing mans sin and gave this government charge that “whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” This government by the people for the people quickly rebelled against their creator and God confounded their language and splintered them them into nations. If the Bible is true, man had now failed in three dispensations, and God chose out a man filled with promise and promised him that he would make of him the chosen nation that would bless the world with the seed that was to be born of woman. This nation failed to heed God's promises, fell into captivity, was redeemed out of Egypt and given God's laws to maintain it's purity till the seed arrived. The laws did not successfully keep this nation pure they splintered in to groups dispersed into captivities. If the Bible is true there is an opposer to God called Satan and this opposer has been instrumental in the failures of man under each of the 5 dispensations just described. We are now in the 6 dispensation, the Dispensation of Grace. If the Bible is true there are 7 marked dispensations with a dispensation of Kingdom yet to come. Like the 5 before us this Dispensation of Grace, this “new and better covenant” which we now have will splinter and fail. Despite all the revelation, all the grace, all the knowledge, all the recorded wisdom the Bible says that is age will end as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. But like in the splintering and dispersion of the Jews God is today keeping a remnant that would keep his ways and his purpose. That remnant is not marked by a denominational name nor flagged by a label. That remnant is not a great majority nor beaming Christian television shows nor sponsoring sweeping Christian movements with rock concerts. That remnant is banded together into local Bible believing Churches meeting in various buildings adorned with signs printed with various labels. The remnant contends for the faith though it houses various doctrinal errors perpetrated by certain men crept in unawares. That local church remnant is to fulfilling the great commission given to it by it's founder the Lord Jesus Christ, and remaining true to the 'fundamentals' of the faith. The local Church remnant splinters off from the majority when the majority departs too far from the faith and gets to much 'of the world' rather than 'in the world.' Can you find the remnant that is true to the Word of God and faithful to “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” If you find it will it contain some label about the “one baptism”, perhaps being called a Baptist Church? I do not know. I do no you will not find it as a denomination or catholic church, only as a remnant. I do know if you find it, it will stand strong on sola scriptura and sola fide. I do know that I found one in every part of the world I visited in these last 44 years as a born again believer. If you were born again and asked your Lord, I am certain that he would get you into a Bible believing, believer baptizing, sin hating, saint loving, local independent new testament church, despite all the splinters and compromised Bible doctrines.
I shall answer your previous inquiries in my next correspondence. If I can further clarify any of these explanations please let me know.
Pastor Ed Rice, Good Samaritan Baptist Church, 54 Main St Box 99, Dresden NY 14441
Dear Bee,
I want to go through the previous list of questions you sent It will make a nice recap of the things we have now covered and make amends for my shortness in previous correspondence. You stated previous that :
There is no evidence that any of the Apostles ever "approved" any writings of the New Testament. 2 Peter (written c. 125 A.D. by a disciple of Peter's) indicates that the letters of Paul (he doesn't say which letters) were considered to be 'scripture' (2 Peter 3:15: . . . So our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.) >From this, it would seem that Paul's writings were accepted as scripture by the first quarter of the second century. But were Paul's three missing letters included in the statement, "all his letters"? If so, that still leaves us with the problem of an incomplete NT. And did the writer of 2 Peter have access to the same set of 13 letters (maybe 14, if Hebrews is included) that we now have in the NT? We don't know.
Notice here that you have begun your approach with an assumption that Peter did not write 2 Peter. This assumption is contrary to the NT cannon, wherein all the letters we now hold as the Holy Bible were accepted as authentic inspired Scriptures. In other words the leaders of the Churches that were present in the 2nd and 3rd centuries found enough evidence to conclude that 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter and that it carried the authority of God's Words. Your disregard of that finding is your privilege but that is what is gendering most of your confusion. Modernists, as unbelievers, have taken a hyper critical view of all Scripture. So too have they taken a hyper critical view of the canonization of Scripture. They thus start with the assumption that the Church fathers were constructors of a religion not witnesses of the Christ. They then attempt to reconstruct a path that explains how Christianity came to be. This whole path is based on the critics disbelief and contends that some third or forth person writing was twisted around then misconstrued to be authentic apostolic writing. This is as you state about the Second Epistle of Peter, and a bunch of lost Paulean Epistles. This is all construed hypothesis based on disbelief of Jesus the Lord and Christ, disbelief of the witnesses of the Resurrected Christ who wrote, and disbelief of Churches who settled what was and was not authentically written as inspired Scriptures. You now have taken a long walk on a short hypothesis and find yourself in a sea of confusion.
I again, will contend that before you put in the grand effort to disprove what the Canon Authenticated, you should look at the authenticated and decide what you believe about the Lord Jesus Christ. I decided long ago that He is the Source in source criticism, He is the Word in textual criticism, He is the Former in form criticism, He is the Literate in literary criticism and He is the Author in canonical criticism. All this criticism is leveled at the Lord Jesus Christ because the critics are unbelievers. I told you before that Christianity is not a religion it is a person, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. When it comes to the criticism of religion 'seeing is believing', but when it comes to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ 'believing is seeing'. Again, I am not contending for a blind faith, there is no need for that. The things that you need to put your faith in are concisely spelled out in the Gospel of John, or put into a tremendous dissertation on gospel salvation in the Epistle to the Romans. The gospel of Jesus Christ is simply stated that he died when you should have paid your own penalty of sin, he rose from the tomb and offers you eternal life and he said that when you recognize your helpless state and call on him to be your Saviour you can be 'born again', i.e. born spiritually; you can be 'saved' i.e. saved from your sin debt by a saviour; you can be 'converted' to Christ, i.e. turn form your sin, your religion, your riches or your crutches, and put faith in the Christ alone. If you will do that He, being the Light, promises to give sight to your eyes, (wherein once you were blind, now you will see), and being the Truth, He promises to lead you into truth and keep you from error, even the error of redaction criticism who says Peter did not really write 2 Peter.
First things should be kept first, what will you do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? If you accept Him, I would be excited to teach you more about the redaction critic. If you will not accept the gospel that has already been revealed to you I am not much interested in debating these types of criticisms authored by unbelievers. By the believers, Paul's letters were accepted as gospel truth and inspired Scripture when they dripped from his pen. And they dripped from his pen all through the 60s. If you will not believe it because you cannot find a paper trail, if you would rather believe the infidelity of the critics the issue must be moved back to “What will you do with the Christ, the Son of the Living God?” Was he the redeemer of man? He must be either lunatic, liar or Lord. When you accept him as your Lord, the word of the believers will weigh more heavily than the words of the critics. Believing is seeing because he alone can open blinded eyes.
You further contend that:
But, Pastor, the Bible did not exist until 400 A.D. Disparate, separate writings existed. But they had not been collected, canonized, and declared to be scripture -- the inspired Word of God -- until 400 A.D.
In parroting the modernist teaching that “The Holy Bible” did not exist until 400 A.D. you are dangerously perched on the edge of their cliff. The very next step you take plummets you to their disastrous doctrine that the 2nd and 3rd century Church constructed the Bible and construed it's doctrine by traditions and folklore. I shall not be moved to this cliffs edge. The completed NT Scriptures existed when the Apostle John penned his last words under the inspiration of God. It was then complete. God inspired no more and God preserved all that he had for us in the 66 books we now hold and call “The Holy Bible.” Your statement that the Bible did not exist is blatantly in error, and dangerously misleading. A reference to the inspired Scriptures as “disparate separate writings” suits the modernist but not me. I believe the Scriptures had one author, Jehovah God, they do not believe such and use your terminology in their sloppy descriptions. The necessity that only a single approving authority called 'The Catholic Church' could authenticate the existence of a Bible, sits well with Romans and modernists but not with us. We do not believe in 'The Catholic Church' nor that this 'Church' received apostolic authority from Peter, nor that this 'Church' penned a word of Scripture. The errors in your statements are thus bigger than syntactical errors they are systematic errors. For one to hold to the Bible as it's final authority and the source of all it's faith and practice, it is necessary to remain distinctly separated from this entity referred to as 'The Catholic Church' which errantly tried to carry apostolic authority and it is necessary to recognize the inspired Scriptures as authored by Jehovah God and penned by 'holy men of God' who were carefully ordained by Him.
In the vein you go on to state that:
Ryrie was half wrong: The Church made the writings canonical -- but they were made authentic by God. The Church was the agent of God in writing the NT and forming the Bible. Yes, I said the Church wrote the NT. The definition of Church is "The People of God." The "People of God," members of the Church, wrote the NT. Other members of the People of God selected and collected it, canonized it, and named it the New Testament.
Again the divergent doctrine of 'The Church' hinges your dangerous swing out over the same chasm of error. I reiterate ' When the institution, 'The Jury' finds concrete expression or becomes operative, it is always a particular jury of twelve men and never an aggregation of all juries into one big jury.' So when the institution 'The Church' finds concrete expression or becomes operative, it is always a particular local assembly of believers and never an aggregation of all churches into one big 'Catholic Church.' There will come an aggregation of all churches and all believers into one singular united Church, but it will be united under the Lord Jesus Christ himself, not under some human pope, and it will happen when Christ returns for his saints, after he is done building His Church.
We Baptist must then continue to contend that 'The Catholic Church' in your statement and in the Roman and modernists doctrine, did not pen a word of Scripture. And further contend that the Roman Catholic Church did not even copy or translate the Word's of God with the accuracy and care that is found in the Byzentene, or orthodox churches, indeed they even burned at the stake those who would. Thus Ryrie, in this instance, was not half wrong, but was operating with a better understanding of 'The Church' than you had yet grasped.
Concerning the Gospel of John your contention was:
But consider if you will please that John wrote his Gospel sometime between 90 and 100. The church was born at Pentecost c. 30 A.D. So John had been teaching the church from his own lips for about 60 or 70 years before he wrote a word.
Let me address two things briefly. First your observation that 'the church was born at Pentecost' is divergent from the doctrine of 'the church' that I have been declaring to you. 'The Church' by definition is 'His called out body of believers.' It was not birthed. It is being built. It's foundation had already been 'called out' prior to Pentecost. At Pentecost His called out body of believers was empowered by the Holy Spirit of God. It was not 'birthed' there. In Biblical pictures, individual believers are birthed and then mature on the sincere milk of the Word. His Church is pictured as a building with a Righteous Cornerstone, and 12 apostolic foundation stones upon which an edifice is being made up of living stones. These Biblical pictures fully portray the Biblical doctrines that I espouse to you; the doctrine of being born again, born of spirit into the kingdom of God and then becoming one of those 'living stones'; and the doctrine of the local churches built upon the foundation of the Holy Scriptures.
Second, even as the misnomer of 'The Church' having its birth may seem small, the misnomer that oral tradition is mightier than the written word is small, but it is equally dangerously divergent from the truth of Scripture. Here is one of hundreds of statements about the words of God. Examine it and tell if this is talking about written words or spoken words. Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Ok, now try this one Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. God's words are written down. Take a preliminary reading of Psalm 119. It is an acrostic off of the Hebrew alphabet, the written Hebrew alphabet that is. There are 8 verses about God's written word for each written letter. Very impressive evidence for the authority of the written word. What did Jesus say about the books of the law, the writings of the prophets, the Old Testament Scriptures? Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. With your Bible open to Psalm 119 look at verse 73. The Hebrew written letter appearing above this verse is a jod ( ' ) a 'jot' is the smallest of letters which is the ' in the written Hebrew alphabet. Look at the letter Daleth above verse 25 and the Resh above verse 153. What is the difference between these two letters? Look at the Vau above verse 41 and the Sain above verse 49. What is the difference in these letters? The answer is the 'tittle.' The tittle is “a point, the minute point or stroke added to some letters of the Hebrew alphabet to distinguish them from others which they resemble; hence, the very least point.” (Eastons Dictionary)
God's words are written for accuracy and preservation. By His majesty and power they are handed down to us with accuracy and preservation in written format. The words of God are not delivered to us orally or via his speaking in audible voice today. The do not issue from a pope pretending to be a stand in Father in a 'Catholic Church' pretending to be the Mother. Romans have made a big deal to downplay the written word because the so called 'infallible words of their popes' add their own twists and departures from the written Scriptures. I point out here their snare of putting emphasis on the oral above God's written word. In saying that we cannot understand the Bible without the oral traditions that preceded it is to mimic the deceit that they use to keep the Bible closed and their popes folly ongoing.
The contest of how we got Scripture continues with your statement that:
You have insisted that everyone knew the scriptures from the first century when you claimed the apostles wrote them, made copies of them, and personally sent the copies to the local churches. I keep asking your for your evidence that this is true, because scripture scholars and historians do not agree with you.
When the scripture scholars and historians contend the saints at Corinth did not get a copy Paul's letter nor recognize it as Scripture, it is up to them to provide evidence of such wild conjecture. When the scripture scholars and historians contend the churches (plural) of Galatia did not get copies of Paul's letter nor recognize them as Scripture, it is up to them to provide evidence of such a preposterous hypothesis. When the scripture scholars and historians contend that “the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse” did not get copies of Paul's letter nor recognize it as Scripture, nor read nor make copies of theirs for the church of Laodiceans, nor read the many received epistles as Scriptures were read in their weekly services, nor receive copies of the epistle from Laodicea, (this is an epistle of Paul's to be sent from Laodicea, not a 'lost epistle' addressed to Laodicea as conjectured by other wild hypothesizers) then it is up to these scholars and historians to provide evidence that Paul's Scripture distribution efforts were unsuccessful. To conjecture that Matthew wrote a gospel and never distributed it around, or had copies made is shear madness. To hypothesize that Mark and Luke never had their gospels copied and reviewed by the Apostles is folly. To pretend that the Apostle John sealed up his writings and did not copy and distribute them to the Churches which he was commanded by his Christ to write too is blasphemous. When such folly is purported amongst scholars and historians they need to loose both titles. All evidence shows that what we now call the 27 books of the New Testament were widely copied, distributed and openly read as Scripture in every local New Testament Church that could get their hands on any portion. By the close of the 1st century when the Apostles ink wells filled with inspiration of God had dried, the pens of the believers in every known church were being dipped to faithfully copy and preserve the words of God which they knew came from the apostles pens. To conjecture otherwise is folly. To necessitate that they all had to be in one place and approved by supervision of one catholic church is ludicrous and demeaning of the power of God to preserve his written words. To hypothesize that some of His words were lost by His carelessness with mans hand is to not know Him.
How Can You Know
There are things that one can easily know from study of Scripture:
How do you know John was "His beloved disciple"? This is not found in scripture. The beloved disciple isn't named.
The Apostle Paul under the inspiration of God wrote to Timothy and said: 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. A little study of the Scriptures will demonstrate to you who the beloved disciple was, even when he was careful not to name himself as such.
Factual truths must be factually stated or they are not factual.
... this is factually true. The writings had not been collected into one book until the church did it. The church named the collections the Old Testament and the New Testament and the Bible. Before that, they were just separate writings.
You are still sloppy in the syntax of your statements about “the church” and concerning “the Bible.” A canon is a basis for judgment, a standard or criteria for authenticating writings as Scripture. The believers of Christ had an Old Testament Canon given to them by the Jews. It was accepted and quoted by Christ himself. The believers of Christ lived and died by the words of his teaching. They established criteria i.e. a canon, for authenticating writings from the time they saw their first writings. The Apostle Paul himself even instructs them in his inspired writings to discern his epistles and not accept the forgeries of false teachers. Such an authenticating process was formalized and accepted by many churches until finally even the Church at Rome, who thought they were really something special, agreed on the criteria and the formalized process of discerning what writings were authenticity Scripture. Don't make such a big deal of this process. It had nothing to do with the production of Scripture, and precious little to do with its preservation. God was the producer and the preserver of His Scriptures and the Roman Imperial Church was not. Do not be confused by their rhetoric. If no one ever collected all 66 books into one binding we would still have the Holy Bible, and He would be using His Word to communicate the WORD to us today.
You state the wild hypothesis again:
Paul made no copies. That's for sure. If he did, where are they? Three of his letters are missing.
These are unsubstantiated foolish statements for which I only offer that I have copies of all of Paul's inspired writings setting before me on my desk as I write this. If you really don't have copies or are missing three of his epistles let me know and I can get you copies.
I'll not make too much light of your statements since they are made in sincerity. Those who told you that Paul made no copies are but ignorant of the Scriptures. Paul was careful to make, authenticate and distribute copies of his writings. That's for sure. They misread his words, they distrust the canonization process and make wild conjectures about missing letters. In truth they have not obeyed the letters that they do have and I have little interest in their unsubstantiated theories about missing letters. Look at the ones that God did get to us, they contain all the truths he wants us to have. Someone who thinks he can go back 2000 years and do a better job of retrieving inspired writings than was done by God's believers who knew the Apostles in person are more destitute of wisdom than the Roman Imperial Church who thought they could burn the books into extinction.
Some other contentions are stated in your query. They were answered in form in this correspondence. The most important questions of life are not answered in an understanding of which of the three men named James wrote the book of James nor who were the dissenters who thought his writing not official Scripture, nor how many modernists now side with the dissenters. The most critical questions have to do with the faith that James contends for, the attaining of salvation faith which causes one to be born into the kingdom of God. The faith that changes one from a goat to a sheep. The faith and obedience that answers the question “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Keeping the law, i.e. doing the works will lead to the question “What lack I yet?” Letting go of all ones 'riches' and clinging only to Christ will bring about a new birth whereby “His Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; and joint-heirs with Christ;” “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Your acceptance or rejection of the canon of Scripture is less important than your acceptance of what those canonized books say about your soul. In these arguments you have both boasted its canon and berated its canon. You have contended that His Church, that was there to see it all, determined by its canon that Peter wrote his letters. Then you contend with the modernists that someone else wrote Peter's letters. James, who you now think was not written as the canon dictated, says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. You are. I want to introduce you to the one who can make you stable and single minded. Make the Lord Jesus Christ your Lord and Saviour. Call on Him, be converted to Him, be quickened by Him, be indwelt by Him. Learn Him and be born again.
Preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
Pastor Ed Rice, Good Samartian Baptist Church, Dresden NY 14441