JFJ Forums

They are distinct issues. I dont care if you deny it at all. But that is reality here. Scripture Sola deals with the level of the authority of Scripture while the collection of it is dealing with the issue of the extent of it which is to be collected because they are Scripture. Any reasonable person would see this.




With respect to the OT that which is contrained in the Hebrew Canon of orthodox Jews of Palestine who collected it. With respect to the NT that which is contrained in our NT Greek canon which was collected by the Church which the were collected because they are Scripture. The people of God were held accountable to know what the Scripture are while it was being written. There were principles which were used to investigate and collect Scripture.




This begs the question . The problem is you hold that the RCC gave you Scripture and assume that the authority of the church is equal with that of  Scripture. I reject your presuppositions. Your basically telling me and everyone here we can't know what the Canon is apart from the RCC. With respect to the OT those believers in Acts 17:11 knew what the Canon of the OT was apart from the RCC. Likewise Peter knew the epistles that which Paul wrote was Scripture apart from the RCC.

Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

2 Pet 3:15-17 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

With respect to the OT that which was in the autographs of the Hebrew Scriptures. That was the language of  the people of God in the OT. Which were later copied and collected in Israel. Then around 200bc the Hebrew canon was translated to Greek. With regard to the NT that which was originally written in the NT Greek with respect to our present day NT which was collected. The specific error you have is the false idea that translations are inspired. You basically affirm that the LXX is inspired. Your basically the same as KJV onlyist who claim that only the KJV is God's inspired word. And fails to see its a mere translation. So this would clear show the confusion and false premise is on your side.

[quote]I say: Nonsense.  Most of the Deuterocanonical books were not even written by then.  How can they reject something that does not yet exist? And who is to say that the scriptures used by the Sanhedrin and Palestinian Jews were more authoritative than the scriptures used by the Jews of the Diaspora?  [/quoe]

You claim it was nonsense since you assume the Aprocrypha is part of the OT Canon. Those extra books were not written by those who were prophets or had the office of that of a prophet. As God did not have the office of prophet for about 300  years in Israel prior to the appearance of John the Baptist. Secondly, they were not written in Hebrew which was the language of the people of Israel in the OT. Secondly, the Jews in Palestine represented orthodox Jews. Thirdly, the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew text. The LXX is not inspire as it is only a translation much like the KJV, NKJV or NIV is a transation of God's word to english so that we can read it. Your entire premise is false there as you must assume a translation is inspired. In otherwords, your doing the very same thing KJV onlyist do with the KJV. The only difference between you and KJV onlyist is they contend for the KJV while you contend for the LXX.

Point of fact is it is not clearly or directly quoted as Scripture. Key word is quoted as Scripture.




They quoted a translation of the original Hebrew which was the LXX. They never affirmed that the LXX. That is a false assumption on your part. The quoted a mere translation. They did not affirm LXX onlyism at all. But use the LXX since the Greek was the common language of the day while the NT was being written. It quotes the LXX in the same manner that I cite passages from the KJV, NKJV or NIV. Yet I don't believe these translations are inspired ! That is exactly what your doing regarding the LXX.




The doctrine of inspiration of Scriptures relates only to the original autographs and not translations or copies of the originals. The NT quotes the LXX since it was a Greek translation and Greek was the common language of the day.




You may not claim it but the Council of Trent in fact did claim this. I have an intresting question for you. How do you know that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew ?

That is a false statement and a misrepresention. They did not believe it was Scripture. The held it was useful for reading and not the formation of Scripture. Anglicans, Luthereans and others use those extra books but dont view them as Scripture. That clearly shows you are unaware of the Protestant position with respect to the canon. Hence on why I do not consider you as once having been Protestant.




I am glad we agree with Rom 3:1-2. It was closed because after the 5th cen. BC their were no prophets or those who had the office of prophet. They collected what they knew were Scripture. While we may not know all the details surrounding the collection of that time but we do know of the facts of their collection of it. And it matches up with the Protestant OT Canon. The time period between the 5th cen. BC and the appearance of John the Baptist is what is called the silent years. Meaning no messangers of God were sent to Israel during that period of time and no writings made which were Scripture.




Inspiration of Scripture extends only to the original autographs and not the copies or a translation of it. As far as the original Hebrew is concerned is the fact it was the language of the people of God during the Old Testament times and thats how God communicated his message to his people through the writers of the OT. The LXX is a translation only. That is how we know it is not inspired just like the KJV, NKJV and NIV are mere transations of God's word to the language of the people of God at each time.




Because the LXX was a translation and Greek was the common language during the time of the writing of the NT. Your assumption once again is you incorrectly view a mere translation as inspired.

Who makes this claim that there is ? There are principles which were used to collect the OT just as there were with the collection of the NT.






The church merely collected that which was already Scripture and did not make them Scripture. God alone determined what is Scripture while the People of God in the OT and NT merely discover and collect it because it is Scripture.




He is someone you claimed as agreeing with you on another issue. All Evangelical Protestant Scholars agree that the Aprocypha is never quoted in the NT as Scripture. Key word here is Evanglical Protestant Scholar.




No one denies that the NT quotes the LXX. But you beg the question. The issue is if it quotes the Apocrypha as Scripture or not. With this Evangelical Protestant Scholars would agree it is  not.




They were written by someone considered to have been written by someone who had the office of Prophet or considered a Prophet. It is on these grounds that are Scripture. You evidently are unaware of the principles used to collect Scripture.

Nothing could have. Those were local councils only. It only covers the area of which it took place. They were not an ecumentical council. Which is why it is not binding on the universal church. There were Seven Ecumentical councils and those are not listed as one of them.




Matt 18:15-18 refers to a local assembly of believers . The binding and loose authority is dealing with discipline and forgiveness within the context dealing with sin. That passage does not have in view the RCC or a universal church but rather a local assembly of believers. Context is important here. The context is dealing with sin within a local assembly of believers only.




There was heresy even prior to it in the early church. Remember 1 , 2 & 3 John was written to refute Gnostism and Christological errors. You seem to not be aware of the fact that the early church fathers for about 400 had to deal directly with some serious heresies such as Arianism, Modalism, Tritheism, Gnostism and so on. Which shows the key role the Ecumentical Council namely the Council of Nicea had to deal with. For about 60 years prior to the Council of Nicea almost the entirely church embraced the heresy of Arianism including the bishop of Rome. Liberious the Bishop of Rome during that time held and defended Arianism and even signed an Arian Creed. He denied along with all Arians that Jesus is in His Divine nature one in substance with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. This fact shows that the Bishop of Rome is fallible and not infallible as claimed by the RCC and likewise shows the the universal church did in fact teach error. It was the lay people mainly who defended the truth of the Trinity and resulted in the calling of the Council of Nicea to deal with Arianism.

Your final authority of the RCC and the Bishop of Rome. You believe because that is what the RCC says when it comes right down to it. I am well aware that you agree that Scripture is infallible and God breathed. That is not our disagreement. I reject your position that tradition and the Church are equal in authority with Scripture which it alone is God breathed. I view tradition and the church as fallible and at a lower authority than Scripture. I am bound to reject tradition and any church which contradicts or teaches something at that is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. We are to test all doctrinal teachings by the infallible Scripture. That was the practice of the early church.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 Thes 5:21  Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

On the contrary it does teach this. It teaches Scripture is God breathed. Which deals exactly with the nature of Scripture itself. And that Scripture renders the " man of God " complete for his task such as teaching , correcting,  doctrine and so on. Tradition is never stated or taught to be God breathed neither is the church or Bishop of Rome when he speaks is ever stated or taught what he says is God breathed when it is claimed he speaks from the seat of Peter.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.




Paul did teach Sola Scriptura. And with regard to 1 Tim 3;15 this refers to the local church. Its fuctions is to proclaim truth whuch is the gospel and that which is found in Scripture itself. The church proclaims only that doctrine which is taught in Scripture. Paul no where taught that the church is to make up doctrines that are not taught in Scripture. Tradition itself is to be tested by Scripture . If an unwritten tradition contradicts Scripture we are to reject it. I would like to point out also by your use of 1 Tim 3:15 it does not refer to those who are bound to follow the Bishop of Rome. As the RCC views itself as the only True Church.




Yes and the Church merely collected it. I do disagree with you on the issue of the Kingdom but wont go in to that since it's irrelevent to the issues here.

I do not believe you can get around 2 Tim 3:16-17 exegetically on your rejection of Sola Scriptura. Only Scripture is stated to be God breathed. While Tradition, the Church or the Bishop of Rome are not.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.




He left us with an infallible Scripture. Jesus never promised that the church or it's Bishops would not error in doctrine. The Church and most of it's bishops did error for about 60 years prior to the Council of Nicea which almost the entire church embraced Arianism including the Bishop of Rome at that time.




I would have thought as a Roman Catholic that you would know those 2 positions within the RCC. Partim-patim holds that doctrine more of less is based partly in Scripture and partly on tradition in which the Church determines doctrinal teachings as it proclaimes it through it's magisterium. Material sufficiency teaches that all the content of salvific revelation exist in Scripture. Which means in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. What those who hold to this is reject " Formal sufficiency " which is he Protestant position which reject the idea and concept of an infallible magisterium of the church being necessary for the interpretation of Scripture. Protestants affirm Scripture is sufficiently clear on all essentical doctrines of the Christian faith and dont need a claimed infallible church or an claimed infallible bishop of Rome who is needed to speak from the seat of Peter to interprete Scripture.

[quote]If it’s another diversion, please start a new thread.  ( I did a quick internet search and wasn’t able to find much on “partim-partim”.  I did get a hit that referenced Francis Beckwith which I thought was interesting) [/quotes]

It is not a diversion. That position is in contrast to Sola Scripture. That was the  general view of the RCC at the Council of Trent. That is the debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Before entering on the consideration of these points, it is necessary to answer the question, What books are entitled to a place in the canon, or rule of faith and practice? Romanists answer this question by saying, that all those which the Church has decided to be divine in their origin, and none others, are to be thus received. Protestants answer it by saying, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, that those books, and those only, which Christ and his Apostles recognized as the written Word of God, are entitled to be regarded as canonical. This recognition was afforded in a twofold manner: First, many of the books of the Old Testament are quoted as the Word of God, as being given by the Spirit; or the Spirit is said to have uttered what is therein recorded. Secondly, Christ and his Apostles refer to the sacred writings of the Jews — the volume which they regarded as divine — as being what it claimed to be, the Word of God. When we refer to the Bible as of divine authority, we refer to it as a volume and recognize all the writings which it contains as given by the inspiration of the Spirit. In like manner when Christ or his Apostles quote the “Scriptures,” or the “law and the prophets,” and speak of the volume then so called, they give their sanction to the divine authority of all the books which that volume contained. All, therefore, that is necessary to determine for Christians the canon of the Old Testament, is to ascertain what books were included in the “Scriptures” recognized by the Jews of that period. This is a point about which there is no reasonable doubt. The Jewish canon of the Old Testament included all the books and no others, which Protestants now recognize as constituting the Old Testament Scriptures. On this ground Protestants reject the so-called apocryphal books. They were not written in Hebrew and were not included in the canon of the Jews. They were, therefore, not recognized by Christ as the Word of God. This reason is of itself sufficient. It is however confirmed by considerations drawn from the character of the books themselves. They abound in errors, and in statements contrary to those found in the undoubtedly canonical books.The principle on which the canon of the New Testament is determined is equally simple. Those books, and those only which can be proved to have been written by the Apostles, or to have received their sanction, are to be recognized as of divine authority. The reason of this rule is obvious. The Apostles were the duly authenticated messengers of Christ, of whom He said, “He that heareth you, heareth me.” The infallibility and divine authority of the Scriptures are due to the fact that they are the word of God; and they are the word of God because they were given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. ( Dr. Charles Hodge Systematic Theology, I , pg. 152-153 )