Nostr Archives

@Laser Genuine question: How do you personally know that the Bible in your home has the correct number of books? Keep the following in mind when you answer. 1. The Reformers themselves couldn't agree on the canon. Luther demoted Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to unnumbered appendix status, identical to how he treated the Apocrypha, and kept it that way in every edition he supervised until his death in 1545. Calvin called Baruch "the Prophet" in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 10 and argued Paul borrowed from Baruch 4:7, a book every Protestant Bible today rejects. Karlstadt (Luther's senior colleague who helped launch the Reformation) ranked Paul's epistles as subordinate to the Gospels and stripped them of equal authority with Christ's words. Zwingli doubted the canonicity of Revelation, and the early Zurich Bibles (1524–1529) copied Luther's demotion of the same four NT books. Chemnitz (the most important Lutheran theologian after Luther) still maintained a two-tier New Testament in the 1570s: 20 undisputed books and 7 that shouldn't be used to prove doctrine. Calvin also had reservations about 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation, meaning he and Luther disagreed on which NT books were questionable. By 1596, a Hamburg Bible explicitly labelled Luther's four demoted books as "Apocrypha," within Lutheranism itself. 2. For over a thousand years, the body of Christ received 73 books. The Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and Florence (1442) all affirmed the same list. Augustine laid out the method in On Christian Doctrine: follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches, giving special weight to those founded by apostles. When he applied that method, he arrived at the exact 73-book Catholic canon. The first generation of Christians to disagree were the Reformers, and as point 1 shows, they couldn't even agree among themselves. 3. The method used to justify the change isn't biblical. Calvin argued we can know which books are Scripture through an inward feeling, "a divine energy living and breathing in it." He claimed this was as easy as telling black from white. But Scripture itself never tells us to determine the canon this way. Strikingly, this is the exact method the Book of Mormon uses (Moroni 10:4-5, pray about it and you'll feel the truth) and the Quran uses (Surah 17, its beauty and doctrine prove its divine origin). Meanwhile, Jeremiah 17:9 warns us that "the heart is deceitful above all things." So what distinguishes the Protestant's internal feeling about 66 books from a Mormon's internal feeling about the Book of Mormon? Kruger (whose book you referenced previously) tries to rescue this by shifting from the individual to the corporate: Christ's sheep hear His voice (John 10:27), and the Holy Spirit leads His people collectively to recognise the canon. Calvin said you don't need the Church because each believer is inwardly led by the Spirit. Kruger says actually, it's the corporate body of believers that the Spirit leads. These are opposite claims. Calvin's version fails because the individuals (as point 1 shows) couldn't agree. Kruger's version fails because the corporate Church's answer for over a millennium was 73 books (point 2). They've switched arguments precisely because neither one works, and the two arguments contradict each other. If the Spirit leads individuals, why did the Reformers get different answers? If the Spirit leads the corporate body, why did Protestants break from that body's unanimous canon? So, how do YOU personally know the Bible in your home has the correct number of books? @833336b4…a5850cf2 @291c75d9…37f1bfbe @Lew☦️

💬 2 replies

Replies (12)

Brunswick3d ago

If you are saved, you don't need a bible

0000 sats

Laser3d ago

If you are saved, you need God's Word more than ever.

0000 sats

Brunswick3d ago

If you are saved, you already walk in revelation by the spirit of truth

0000 sats

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg1d ago

Respectfully, this comes from a misreading of texts like "the letter kills, the Spirit makes alive." That's not what it means. Paul is referring specifically to the Mosaic Law in all its strictest demands--the law that reveals our need for Christ, and drives us to him. He is not saying "all written words kill." What advice did he give Timothy, the young pastor? "Give himself" to ... what? And what advice did he give about his pastoral role? For what were the Bereans praised? "Searching the Scriptures daily..." Everything David says about God's word in Pslam 119 is still true today. The two sides of this equation are these: 1) the perspicuity of Scripture (i.e., it is clearly visible in and of itself); and 2) the perspicacity of the reader (i.e., his ability to see clearly that which is clearly there). We are born blind, sinful, and with 'scales on our eyes' such that we cannot see clearly what is clearly to be seen. The Spirit's work in us causes the scales to drop so that we can see Christ in all the Scriptures (where others find only laws and a righteousness that comes from following the law vs a righteousness that comes by faith). Saying that we don't need scripture if we're "really" saved is like saying we don't need the North Star if we're "really" sailors.

paxchristi3d ago

Are you going to answer the original question or not?

0000 sats

Lew☦️3d ago

I do not have a blessing from my priest to engage in debate but some of my thoughts on this: Unlike rabbinic Judaism and it's related heresy Islam, Christianity is not a "religion of the book", rather it is centered around a unique, historical event, that is God revealing Himself to the world via the incarnation. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity. Recall what St. John says towards the end of his Gospel, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen". The Divine Liturgy (which is filled with Scripture) reminds us, everytime it is enacted in the world, of the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of the God-Man Jesus Christ. It is in the Divine Liturgy where God's Energies (Grace) are made accessible through the mysteries (sacraments) to the faithful. It is in the Liturgy where Holy Scripture is best understood. It's worth noting that the Ark of the Covenant held 3 items in it: Stone Tablets with the law written on them, Aarons staff, and a jar of manna. These 3 items find their fulfillment in Christ and His altar, Aarons staff is the cross, manna is the Eucharist, and the stone Tablets are the Holy Gospels. The Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition are not to be separated. St. Matthews Gospel reminds us, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them".

0000 sats

Laser3d ago

"Unlike rabbinic Judaism and it's related heresy Islam" +100 "Christianity is not a religion of the book" The study of God's Word is not optional for Christian saints. (Matthew 4:4, John 8:31, John 15:7). "Focused around a historic event, God revealing Himself through Christ" Yes, and saints should study The Word in order to test themselves against Scripture to ensure that they are in faith (2 Corinthians 13:5, John 8:31–32). "The Word or God is Jesus Christ" The Word *became* Flesh, but God's Word, the gospels of Christ, and the account of the founding of the church remains. Scripture is not optional dessert, it's the real meal. Jesus is tied to the word. Eat this. Drink this. Stay alive. It's not poetry, but survival. (Matthew 4:4, John 6:35) "The Divine Liturgy" I've attended Orthodox liturgies and they are very beautiful. Very little time granted towards distributing God's Word, tho. Are you and your fellows in your Bible often? "The Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition are not seperable" My feeling is that both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions overindex on "apostolic succession" as a means to justify themselves as the one true church. Scripture and the ways of the church must be passed down responsibly, and even the more ancient traditions have drifted and invented ritual and ceremony not commanded by Christ or performed by the apostles. Indeed, the Orthodox and Catholic churches are ancient, but from my research they merely represent the dominant traditions of both an Eastern and Western church of Christ. The world is distributed, not universal, yet even as traditions and churches "splinter", God's elect people are in perfect harmony in Christ. There can be no disunity in the Godhead nor in the surety of salvation and fellowship amongst God's people in His Son. Christ's bride cannot in reality be divided and saying so would make Christ a liar. (Matthew 12:25, Ephesians 4:4–6, John 17:20–23) In peace and love.

paxchristi2d ago

Hey @freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg since @Laser doesn't feel like answering this one, do you think you could take a stab at it? If you find in uncharitable, please forgive me. I do think it's a reasonable question to ask someone who believes sola scriptura. Thanks!

0000 sats

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg1d ago

The doctrine of _sola scriptura_ is not really about 'which books' but about the ground of authority--is it in God or is it in men? Do the Scriptures create the church, or does the church 'create' the Scriptures? Does the church recognize and receive the inherent and self-attesting authority in the Scriptures, or does the church 'bestow' its authority on the Scriptures? The Creator-creature distinction requires the former option in each of the three questions above. That's the essence of this argument between the Roman denomination and the Protestant & Reformed denominations. Both sides of the argument make an appeal to authority--but the former appeals to its own man-based authority, and the latter appeals to divine authority. But to your question in particular, I think Jerome had the better canonics (vs. Augustine) even though I tend follow Augustine's soteriology (contra Rome, which returned to semi-Pelagianism centuries ago).

000

paxchristi1d ago

Thank you, I really appreciate the response. Just so I can understand you better, and not assume incorrectly, can you tell me what you mean by “self-attesting”? Thanks again.

0000 sats

paxchristi17h ago

On your question of authority, if we hold these two premises true: First, Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, the supreme authority by which we judge all doctrines, councils, and traditions. I don't dispute that if God has spoken, His Word carries supreme authority. But this isn't just a theoretical claim; we actively employ it. We judge doctrines by it, reject traditions by it, and evaluate councils by it. Which means we need to know what "it" is before we can use it. Second, for that to work, the Bible must have defined content. Specific books. "Scripture alone" is an empty principle if we don't know what Scripture is. The canon isn't a side issue; it's what makes Sola Scriptura possible in the first place. Before Scripture can judge any doctrine, council, or tradition, we need to know which books constitute Scripture: no settled canon, no standard to judge anything by. Someone had to identify which books carry God's inherent divine authority. On this point, you cite that you personally find Jerome's canon better. But Jerome held a minority position and later translated and included all the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate. And no apostolic or post-apostolic Church Father ever proposed "self-attestation" as a way of identifying canonical books. Some Fathers spoke of Scripture's inherent divine authority, but always in reference to books already recognised as canonical. When they tackled the question of which books actually belong, they used apostolic origin, reception by the churches, liturgical usage, and consistency with the rule of faith. Scripture needs a canon. The canon needs an authority. That authority can't be Scripture, and it can't be a single man's. With this in mind, what, in your belief, is that authority?