Posted on 02/22/2010 10:34:43 AM PST by MarMema
“The New Testament writers recognized that their writing were part of Scripture so Paul’s description of “all scripture” would include all the New Testament canon.”
1 Peter 3:15-6
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”
I was expecting proof text, not an admonition.
I don’t know how I can make it any clearer. Peter, Paul, and the synoptics had no concept of a ‘canon’, per se. John wasn’t even written until 30 years after all the rest. The only one who would have any concept of a canon would be John, not the other synoptics, and particularly not Peter or Paul, as none of the synoptics had been written when the epistles were written.
The Canon was not set until St. Jerome did so with the Vulgate. While it is true that the NT was written in the original books, in Greek and Aramaic, it’s also true that the first time they were put together in a bible is in the Vulgate, and that was several hundred years after they were written. Until then, the NT canon had regional variations.
“The question is whether or not there is a viable alternative. Councils and church fathers are not without error. Apostolic succession is no guarantee of truth. As I see it, Christianity does not have a solution to this horrible problem.”
So the problem is that people have difficulty following the authority of Christ, so the solution is to let every man interpret for himself? From where I sit, Apostolic succession and Church councils are the best way to preserve the teachings of Christ. That along with having a clear heirarchy with the priest at the top.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Where does it say anything about sufficiency? All it says is that all scripture is useful. What’s Paul referring to here? The OT or the NT?
“Sola scriptora does not deny the importance of tradition BUT it does make tradition subservient to scripture. If a tradition is not found in scripture it does not have to be believed and cannot hold the conscience of the believer bound.”
Do you believe that the Nicaean Creed is inferior to the Book of Matthew?
Jerome's work wasn’t finished till near 400 A.D. and long before what was recognized as Scripture is clear from what was quoted as authentic by writers and lists such as the Muratorian fragment.
While some books not widely circulated may have been more lately accepted amongst the Christian community, by 200 A.D. what is now called the New Testament was largely recognized as Scripture and needed no council to make it official.
Not to be overlooked is the leading of God's spirit as He has preserved His word and caused the false books like the Apocrypha to be weeded out.
presbuteros an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, “an old man, an elder,” is used
(a) of age, whether of the “elder” of two persons, Luke_15:25, or more, John_8:9, “the eldest;” or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts_2:17; in Heb_11:2, the “elders” are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt_15:2; Mark_7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used of “elder” women in the churches, 1_Tim_5:2, not in respect of position but in seniority of age;
(b) of rank or positions of responsibility,
(1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept. of Gen_50:7; Num_22:7;
(2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num_11:16; Deut_27:1, and those assembled by Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the chief priests, “elders” and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g., Matt_16:21; Matt_26:47; thirdly, those who managed public affairs in the various cities, Luke_7:3;
(3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these the term “bishops,” episkopoi, or “overseers,” is applied (see Acts 20, Luke_7:17 with Luke_7:28, and Titus_1:5,7), the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spirtual experience. The Divine arrangement seen throughout the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church, Acts_14:23; Acts_20:17; Php_1:1; 1_Tim_5:17; Titus_1:5. The duty of “elders” is described by the verb episkopeo. They were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the Divine qualifications, Titus_1:6-9; cp. 1_Tim_3:1-7; 1_Pet_5:2;
(4) the twenty-four “elders” enthroned in heaven around the throne of God, Rev_4:4,10; Rev_5:5-14; Rev_7:11,13; Rev_11:16; Rev_14:3; Rev_19:4. The number twenty-four is representative of earthly conditions. The word “elder” is nowhere applied to angels. See OLD.
From Vine’s Expository Dictionary
Priest, as in someone who offers sacrifices, is a different word. It also has a broader meaning of someone as a Christian minister, which is appropriate for an elder.
I think the original poster meant 2 Peter 3:15-16:
15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Note the last part: "as they do the other Scripture." If you are Roman Catholic, I would assume that the words of Peter would carry a lot of weight with you.
The Canon still has variations, including between Protestant and Catholic. However, the large majority of the NT was accepted as scripture almost as soon as it was written. Folks did NOT wait for a church council to use the Gospels or Paul’s letters or 1 Peter as scripture.
What you posted from Vine’s doesn’t go against anything I said. It is still absolutely IRREFUTABLE that “priest” is from “presbuteros”. Period. End of story.
Not so. Paul’s words would include as authoritative Scripture his very own writings as he said to the Galatians that should even an angel declare something contrary to what Paul had passed on to them as good news that one should be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-10)
This was written perhaps as much as a dozen years before his comment to Timothy.
So “All Scripture” included Matthew, Luke, Acts, many of Paul's own letters, not just the Hebrew Scriptures and it how Timothy would have viewed those “holy writings”.
Good! Then you’ll be glad to see additional support posted.
And I’ll feel free to point out that a priest who offers sacrifices isn’t the NT meaning of elder, and that elder is a better translation.
They did the same for the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas too.
Some folks didn’t include Hebrews, some didn’t include Jude. There were regional variations on what was considered to be Canon. This wasn’t standardised until St. Jerome compiled and published the Vulgate, and the Canon was set.
Then Martin Luther decided to take parts out he didn’t want. So no one who believes in Sola Scriptura is using scripture in the way that the early church did.
And in any case, you would still be wrong (the following is from Dave Armstrong):
[St. Paul] is in the same priestly thought-world in another utterance of his:
Romans 15:15-17 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God [16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. [17] In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.
“Offering”? Offering of what? “Priestly service”? The word for “priestly service” is hierourgeo: Strong’s word #2418. It is defined by Strong (my hardcover copy from Riverside Book and Bible House) as “to be a temple-worker, i.e., officiate as a priest (fig.): — minister.” The online version (linked above) has “to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service.” It also notes (from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon) historical etymological definitions of “to be busied with sacred things; to be perform sacred rites” (from Philo), and “used esp. of persons sacrificing” (from Josephus). Compare Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson for the basic definition: “to work in sacred things, to minister as a priest.”
Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament states (for Rom 15:16):
Ministering (ierourgounta). Only here in the New Testament. Lit., ministering as a priest.
Offering up (prosfora). Lit., the bringing to, i.e., to the altar. Compare doeth service, John xvi. 2.
Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged one-volume edition, p. 354) defines it as “’to perform sacred or sacrificial ministry.’ In Josephus and Philo it always means “to offer sacrifice” and often has no object. (hierourgia means “sacrifice” and hierourgema the “act of sacrifice.”)”
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1953, Dom Bernard Orchard, General Editor), provides further helpful analysis:
The essential point in every explanation is to realize that the sacrificial terms used here are metaphorical, and that therefore this verse cannot be quoted against the existence of a specially consecrated priesthood in the Church when Paul wrote . . . The difficulties lie in the analysis of the metaphors. . . . To bring the Gentile world as a worthy sacrifice to the altar of God is probably all that Paul meant to say. For the same idea cf. Is. 66:19 f.
The Eerdmans Bible Commentary (Protestant, p. 1044) concurs:
Paul describes his divine commission in terms of the priesthood: a minister (Gk. leitourgos; lit. a ‘priest’; cf. Heb. 8:2), in the priestly service (Gk. hierourgon) and offering (Gk. prosphora) are three sacerdotal terms.
Thus, Paul has called himself a priest — using two different terms. We get the word liturgy from litourgos (Strong’s word #3011; cf. 3008, 3009, and 3010). Strong’s online, for word #3008 (litourgeo) applies it to, among other things, “priests and Levites who were busied with the sacred rites in the tabernacle or the temple.” The author of Hebrews applies one of these terms to priests in the Old Covenant sense in Hebrews 9:21; 10:11 and to Jesus as high priest in 8:2.
Given the central motif in the New Testament of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, it stands to reason that the Sacrifice of the Mass would be associated with the Eucharist, as the central rite of Christian worship.
St. Paul also casually assumes the continued existence of altars among Christians (1 Cor 10:14-21), and altars are mentioned in the New Testament in other places (apart from the many mentions of altars in heaven), as well:
Hebrews 13:9-12 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. [10] We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. [11] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. [12] So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.
Therefore, if the cross is overthrown by an altar (as John Calvin argues in his Institutes: IV, 18:3: “the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected”), then the New Testament is against the cross. Far more plausible is a state of affairs whereby Calvin has grossly misunderstood New Testament teaching; otherwise, Christianity (all Christianity: not just Catholicism) and the Bible alike are a mess of abominations and contradictions.
The Sacrifice of the Mass is hearkening back and making present (by God’s power alone, not “magic”) one supreme, sublime sacrifice, as the Mass does. We agree that Jesus performed His sacrifice once, forever and also that the sacrifice is eternally present, because it was an act of God, Who is outside of time, as well as an act of man. That’s why Jesus appears even in heaven as a slain lamb.
Masses are not innumerable sacrifices, but one and the same, brought to us, transcending time (as God does). But there is indeed a NT motif (above all, in Paul) of our participating in His sacrifice, too, which is not dissimilar to the notion of the Mass:
Romans 8:17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
2 Corinthians 1:5-7 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. [6] If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. [7] Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.
2 Corinthians 4:10-11 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. [11] For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Galatians 6:17 Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
Philippians 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.(cf. 2:10)
1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/12/st-paul-calls-himself-priest-uses.html
“Paul’s words would include as authoritative Scripture his very own writings as he said to the Galatians that should even an angel declare something contrary to what Paul had passed on to them as good news that one should be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-10)
That’s not what he says.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.”
He does not say that the Epistle of Galatians is to be considered canon. What he does say is the “Preach a Gospel other than the one we preached to you.” Why doesn’t Paul say, “The Gospel written by Luke, or the Gospel written by Matthew?” The answer is that they were not transcribed until after the Epistles were written.
The Gospels were taught orally, from the Apostles who had seen the Risen Lord, to the parishioners. They were first recorded about 25 years after Christ in the synoptic Gospels, which we currently have now, from a combination of interviews and work over quite some time.
The Epistles came first, they were copies of letters that Paul, or Peter wrote to the individual churches. Then after them came the Synoptics, and then finally, the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse.
“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
Ok, that makes much more sense.
Now, here’s a question. Which letters? All this says is that Paul wrote some of the Epistles, but they are never named. So what we can infer from this is that some (or all) of Paul’s epistles were written prior to 2 Peter. What this does not tell us is which ones were written (presumably Corinthians and Galatians), and possibly others. It also tells us that at least two of the other ‘scriptures’ presumably the Epistles were written by people other than Peter and Paul, and were written prior to 2 Peter.
It would make sense that he would name the Gospels, and their authors if they were written at the time of 2 Peter, but they came somewhat later.
No. Luther rejected the Apocrypha, as Jerome wanted to do, and for the same reason. There was no binding Church Council requiring otherwise.
The vast majority of the NT was accepted almost as soon as written. But as Protestants tend to point out, no one can make you accept something as scripture.
“God Saved my soul and changed my heart without the benifit of the Catholic Church’s “Tradition” and I know I’m going to heaven.”
Ditto. Mans’ tradition will NOT get anyone into Heaven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.