Replies

The canon of the New Testament was developed only gradually, over a period of 2-300 years.

And the Old Testament canon has NEVER been agreed upon . . . there were several versions (and several translations) circulating at the time of Christ.

So you can't point to "scripture" for the first several hundred years of the Church, without relying upon tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers.

"So you can't point to "scripture" for the first several hundred years of the Church, without relying upon tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers."

You may want to argue that out with God because He states otherwise.

Have you EVER done a search through the Bible and seen how many times "it is written" is stated in the Bible?

It is because God knows everything and is in control. The Bible is God breathed. He's no fool. It was the Holy Spirit that guided men in giving us the Bible.

Again,

2Tim.3:16

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Scripture is the Bible! It is the Bible that we are to use as our litmus test.

Have you ever matched up the Old Testament and the New Testament to see how they speak of one another?

There is agreement on the New and the Old Testament. Our Jewish friends might be able to help you out on that.

The Dead Sea scrolls confirm much of what we have. There is no way you can get away with trying to make the Bible "fuzzy" so that anything goes including "tradition". When the Bible does speak of tradition it is in a negative way.

People may very well have "traditions" but that doesn't make them right or Godly and it doesn't matter how long this "tradition" has gone on. Longevity doesn't make "tradition" correct either. These are common and obvious fallacies.

Regarding "tradition" the Bible is also very clear on what I just mentioned:

Col.2:8

[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

It is clear that "tradition of men", mere fallible mortals, is NOT what we are to use as our yardstick for truth. Nor is it "philosophy" such as Augustine, Aristotle etc.. I see more and more people pursing philosophers, tradition and piles of documents as their religion and paying no heed to Christ and what "is written" for them in the Bible. It also seems that everyone else is more important that Christ! Scripture, rarely relied on or quoted - how sad!

People are doing precisely the opposite of

Col.2:8

[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

A fallible mortal is more credible than Christ. Rituals and outer appearances are more important than sincere faith. I see this more and more of this and it saddens me.

The truth is there and trying to muddy the waters with the Bible not being agreed upon is ridiculous. The early church fathers were Bible based. It is the Catholic church that has drifted away from this.

Oh I could easily go on and give more specifics then you'd ever want to hear and see you grasping at straws trying to deny them but I'll let it rest here.

In any event, take care.

"So you can't point to "scripture" for the first several hundred years of the Church, without relying upon tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers."

That is an interesting statement. It could be argued that it was those same Church Fathers who were the cause of a lack of agreement concerning what was "scripture". So to rely on them is to rely on the very sources of disagreement. But it is refreshing to read your statement that the Old Testament Canon has NEVER been agreed upon. I agree. Nonetheless, Paul clearly tells Timothy that "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God." To me, that suggests that at least he and Timothy knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately, he didn't provide a list of what he considered "all scripture". That sure would have saved a lot of debate in the eons to come. But he did conclude with this statement regarding God's purpose in given us Scripture..."That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." To me, this makes it very clear that God's gift of Scripture "thoroughly" and "perfectly" equips us for every good work God would have us do. Since Paul was well aware of the new covenant provided by Jesus Christ, I don't think he would consider the Old Testament sufficient to equip us both "thoroughly" and "perfectly". Furthermore, he says nothing about the Church or tradition playing a role.