[jo kus]

From "The Inerrancy of the Autographa", by Greg Bahnsen...

"Throughout its record the Bible presupposes its own authority. For instance, the Old Testament is often cited in the New Testament with such formulas as “God says” or “the Holy Spirit says” (as in Acts 1:16; 3:24-25; 2 Cor. 6:16). What Scripture says is identified with what God says (e.g., Gal. 3:8; Rom. 9:16). For that reason all theological arguments are settled decisively by the inherent authority signified in the formula “it stands written” (literal translation). The same authority attaches to the writings of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14), since these writings are placed on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures (2 peter 3:15-16; Rev. 1:3). Apostolic Scripture often has the common formula “it stands written” applied to it (e.g., John 20:31). Therefore the Old and New Testaments are presented in the Bible itself as the authoritative, written, Word of God."

I find this an interesting paragraph, given that the Scriptures Bahnsen cites, 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Cor 15:1-2, refers to ORAL teachings. Is Bahnsen thus telling us implicitly that the Apostles' TEACHINGS (not just written) were considered inspired? A read of the Scriptures should yield this conclusion. It is not a matter of something being WRITTEN that gives it authority, but its ACCEPTANCE by the COMMUNITY at large. Bahsen writes from the mistaken presumption when interpretating early Christianity. ANYTHING from the Apostles was considered authoritative by the Christian community - whether written or orally transmitted. Something being written did NOT give something authority over something NOT written.

This makes sense, given Christianity is NOT a religion of the book, like Judaism. It is a religion of divine revelation given through a person, Jesus Christ - who passed His teachings orally to Apostles who claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the MEANS of transmission is inconsequential to the first Christians. This is something that most Protestants fail to understand.

Regards

[HarleyD]

I find this an interesting paragraph, given that the Scriptures Bahnsen cites, 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Cor 15:1-2, refers to ORAL teachings.

Bahnsen very briefly touches on this in his article by making the statement:

The drawback to having revelation in oral form (or tradition) is that it is much more subject to various kinds of corrupting influences that stem from man’s imperfect abilities and sinful nature (e.g., lapses of memory and intentional distortion). To curb these forces, taught Kuyper, God cast His word into written form – thereby achieving greater durability, fixity, purity, and catholicity.[8] A written document is capable of universal distribution through repeated copying, and yet it can be preserved in various kinds of depositories from generation to generation. As such it can function both as a fixed standard by which to test all doctrines of men and as a pure guide to the way of life.

However, the focus of this paper isn't a discussion of oral versus the written word. It is about why the Church/church has accepted and argued for the inerrancy of the Autographa and what precisely does that mean.

But, as an aside, I would argue that it's from this inerrant scripture the policies of the Church are established and measured against. For example, the Catholic Church states it's wrong to murder because it says so in scripture-not because a church father states it's wrong to murder or that it's "tradition" to believe murder is wrong. Abortion is wrong to the Church because the Church interprets the fetus as life and aborting it is murdering life. They would probably use the same scripture to verify their policy or, at least, point to some church father who pointed to another who pointed to another who pointed to scripture. I'm confident this is the way the Church works and that I would hope most Catholics would agree with me.

In the end it comes back to the written word of God.

[Agrarian]

"It is not a matter of something being WRITTEN that gives it authority, but its ACCEPTANCE by the COMMUNITY at large."

This has quite a large element of truth. Those newly encountering Orthodoxy often find it curious that in practice, Orthodoxy almost places more reliance on the theology found in our liturgical texts than it does on the writings of the Fathers.

But when one understands that the history of the Church is the history of every generation of Orthodox Christians critically asking the question "is this the Apostolic faith?", then it shouldn't be surprising that our liturgical texts are considered to be so reliable theologically.

They have been "scrubbed," as it were, for two millenia, always asking of each new liturgical text that same question in the light of the entire body of Tradition -- beginning with Holy Scripture, which stands alone at the pinnacle of Holy Tradition as the most authoritative written source of Tradition. And of course, this process happens with the active guidance and grace of the Holy Spirit in the Church

On the other hand, the writings of any one given Father at one given point in time can only be considered authoritative in a qualified manner -- that is to say, they are authoritative insofar as they lie within the consensus patrum, and in and of themselves are only the opinion of one man, however revered he might be.