At least Hodge admits that this is only an assumption and not based on the Bible itself. Indeed it is anti-Biblical. It is only because our Lord established a teaching church founded upon the apostles that their writings, by their acceptance by the Church, are accorded the status of Scripture.
The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures)…
The fact that there are canonical Scriptures is only because the authoritative teaching Church established by Jesus Christ had declared them so.
In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen’s allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic.
And by what authority does the author have to declare these errors?
If the Bible is not to be used for authority according the Bible, then why is the Bible authoritative on saying it is not authoritative?
And by what authority do you have to say the author doesn't have authority?
Yes, I am poking the bear. In an odd mood today.
>> “The fact that there are canonical Scriptures is only because the authoritative teaching Church established by Jesus Christ had declared them so.” <<
.
Vomit!
.
The fact that there are canonical scriptures is because Yeshua’s apostles held to the scriptures that Yeshua affirmed in his everyday communication with them.
The illegitimate body that claims to canonize scripture is completely at odds with the scriptures that Yeshua quoted and thereby confirmed.
The last apostle died 1900 yearas ago.
Thhis is, of course, the expected--and incorrect--claim for canonizing writings. Quoting William Webster, another well-spoken observer:
"It is often asserted by Roman Catholic apologists that Protestants must rely on their tradition in order to know which books ought to be included in the Biblical Canon. The argument says that since there nis no 'inspired table of contents' for the Bible, then we are forced into relying upon tradition to dictate which books belong in the Bible, and which books do not. It was the church of Rome, these apologists allege, which determined the canon at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), and it is only due to this, that Protestants know which books are inspired, and which are not. Consequently, it is the Roman Church which should be submitted to on issues of faith.
The argument of Roman Catholics for the Canon is spurious on a number of counts."
Of these counts, Webster amplifies three which clearly condemn the claim your comment is making. The link to the brief paper is:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html
He concludes his discussion by remarking that, "Rome is guilty of misrepresenting history and the teachings ofthe Reformation and has misinterpreted Scripture. It is a false system which has become corrupted over time, just as the Jewish system did in the Old Testament."
I concur with this, and have experienced the attempt of a syndicate of Romanists here ganging up on to pervert the truths contained in The Holy Words to hinder their recognition demonstrated by exposition, such that a seeker may be turned away, were it possible. However, an army of these detractors cannot argue against a willing Berean armed with Scripture alone, prayed for by others, and boldly making known the mystery of the Gospel.
And by what authority does the author have to declare these errors?
The Truth of Scripture as compared to the duplicitous writings of the fallible "church fathers" that have led their gullible fideists astray.