I Corinthians 7

[Marcus Kibbe]

I think you have described this perfectly but misunderstood it. The authority you describe and ascribe to Paul is. It that of Scripture, but that of one of the elevated priestly office of bishop.

apostolic authority? yes? I really have no idea what you're saying due to the typos.

Yes. And this Scripture you speak of includes the so-called apocrypha and protestants like you willingly reject inspired scripture.

Maybe an analogy will help.

A police investigator can recognize counterfeit money as counterfeit and can recognize genuine money as genuine, but he cannot make counterfeit money genuine, nor can any declaration by any number of police investigators make counterfeit money to be something it is not.

You hold that the church has the authority to constitute a literary work as "Scripture," while I hold that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what is Scripture.

The Protestant Church has rightly recognized the Apocrypha to be counterfeit.

[Benjamin Burch]

apostolic authority? yes? I really have no idea what you're saying due to the typos.

Paul's authority he speaks of is not that of Scripture, but that of apostolic authority, which is given to the entire priestly order. He displays the authority of priest, not of Scripture.

Maybe an analogy will help.

A police investigator can recognize counterfeit money as counterfeit and can recognize genuine money as genuine, but he cannot make counterfeit money genuine, nor can any declaration by any number of police investigators make counterfeit money to be something it is not.

You hold that the church has the authority to constitute a literary work as "Scripture," while I hold that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what is Scripture.

The Protestant Church has rightly recognized the Apocrypha to be counterfeit.

We've gone over this Marcus. You have no foundation, be it logical, empirical, or even philosophical, other than your own theological presuppositions.... which are a product of your chosen theological tradition --- *cough* Church *cough*.

You see, I didn't say the Church has the authority. I said you're right. The Church can only recognize Scripture, not designate Scripture. You're right.

The Church can recognize genuine money and counterfeit money, and the Church has recognized that the Apocrypha is genuine money, and the Protestant Church has foolishly made the determination that genuine money is counterfeit.

The point is, neither of us have any authority, reasoning, or foundation to make this claim. It is a product of our own theological presuppositions, chosen by us, among the Church traditions. I know, you won't see it that way, but whatever.

[Hans Deventer]

Ben, I understand the following.

1. Scripture is that what is written down from the oral tradition that preceded it. (sounds like a "duh" statement but one cannot be clear enough)
2. Oral tradition is not Scripture, for the obvious reason that it wasn't written down yet (biggest "duh" of all).
3. Oral tradition is based on revelation. Revelation started out preceding the community of faith, but revelation does not equal Scripture. That would be the case if God had thrown the Bible down from heaven in 2000 BC.
4. The community of faith wrote down and edited the oral tradition, and created Scriptures like in the NT letters or the words of the writing prophets.
5. The community of faith recognized the revelation as divine, gave authority to the oral tradition containing it and created the Scriptures, containing that tradition and revelation.
6. The letters of Paul (discussion at hand) were of course written at least 10-15 years after the Church was founded, and certainly don't precede the Church.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, I understand the following.

1. Scripture is that what is written down from the oral tradition that preceded it. (sounds like a "duh" statement but one cannot be clear enough)
2. Oral tradition is not Scripture, for the obvious reason that it wasn't written down yet (biggest "duh" of all).
3. Oral tradition is based on revelation. Revelation started out preceding the community of faith, but revelation does not equal Scripture. That would be the case if God had thrown the Bible from heaven in 2000 BC.
4. The community of faith wrote down and edited the oral tradition, and created Scriptures like in the NT letters or the words of the writing prophets.
5. The community of faith recognized the revelation as divine, gave authority to the oral tradition containing it and created the Scriptures, containing that tradition and revelation.
6. The letters of Paul (discussion at hand) were of course written at least 10-15 years after the Church was founded, and certainly don't precede the Church.

I completely agree with you, of course. I am the biggest proponent of the Church preceding Scripture, in every sense of that term. However, for the sake of argument, I was showing that I don't need that position to prove Marcus' position utter bunk. He has no grounds on which to argue that the Apocrypha is counterfeit other than his biased theological presuppositions, yet he parrots it (as usual, from him) as though it is divine truth from the heavens, and as though he actually has some argument for it (which, he really never has for anything).

[Randy Wise]

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Paul states, "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (1 Cor. 14:37,38). I'm not sure he could be anymore direct or absolute about his awareness that the letter he was writing had authority equal to the OT.

The fact that Paul had to address the problems shows him to be a Apostle with authority.

However since there wasn't a NT then "Did the word of God orginate with you" and "as the Law states" suggest to me that sometimes Paul (who did not lead people astray and was trustworthy" stated it was the Lords command because of what was written in the law not because Jesus gave Paul a command.

Ref; (1 Cor. 14:37,38)

[Larry Parsons]

Here what I think is going on with Paul at this time at verse 25. What Paul is saying here "I didn’t get this idea from the Lord or from any writing but this is just my opinion and you can still trust me because I’m trustworthy Apostle of the Lord. I don’t see why they didn’t heed to his opinion. Anyway when Paul wrote this passage I don’t think he was giving advice on how to have successful marriage he felt that worse times in the life of Christians would be coming shortly. In few years Christians Husbands and wives would be capture and be place in chains by the Roman government to face wild animals in the area to entertain Caesar and the pagans of Roman Empire. The great tribulation that Jesus spoke of in the gospel was about to begin and I think this what Paul could have been dealing with this here.
Thanks
Larry

[Mike Smiley]

I completely agree with you, of course. I am the biggest proponent of the Church preceding Scripture, in every sense of that term. However, for the sake of argument, I was showing that I don't need that position to prove Marcus' position utter bunk. He has no grounds on which to argue that the Apocrypha is counterfeit other than his biased theological presuppositions, yet he parrots it (as usual, from him) as though it is divine truth from the heavens, and as though he actually has some argument for it (which, he really never has for anything).

I take it you do not like Marcus? I think you made your point Ben.

[Hans Deventer]

I take it you do not like Marcus? I think you made your point Ben.

We love Marcus as he loves us, Mike. One big happy family.

[Marcus Kibbe]

[*]The letters of Paul (discussion at hand) were of course written at least 10-15 years after the Church was founded, and certainly don't precede the Church.[/LIST]

I am the biggest proponent of the Church preceding Scripture, in every sense of that term.

Must I remind you that your guy, NT Wright, disagrees with you both.

in order that the church may be the church—may be the people of God for the world—God, by that same Holy Spirit, equips men in the first generation to write the new covenant documentation. This is to be the new covenant documentation which gives the foundation charter and the characteristic direction and identity to the people of God, who are to be the people of God for the world. It is common to say in some scholarly circles that the evangelists, for instance, didn’t know they were writing scripture. One of the gains of modern scholarship is that we now see that to be a mistake. Redaction criticism has shown that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing what they were writing in order that it might be the foundation documentation for the church of their day and might bear God’s authority in doing so. And a book which carries God’s authority to be the foundation of the church for the world is what I mean by scripture. I think they knew what they were doing. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Scripture, the words and writings of those authorized bearers and instruments of divine revelation, are the foundational documents on which the church was founded. Scripture is not a product of the church; the church itself is the product of Scripture.

According to NT Wright, that is.

[Marcus Kibbe]

I take it you do not like Marcus? I think you made your point Ben.

Mike, I don't view these discussions as a matter of Ben liking or disliking me, but rather the absence of a reasoned argument. The purposes of deploying emotional, childish, and/or forceful objections in the absence of reasoned argument is in effect the attempt to overwhelm the hearer, and to make calm, level-headed evaluation of others ideas on the table more difficult to understand. It's his MO with almost everyone he disagrees with. It's par for the course.

[Marcus Kibbe]

The point is, neither of us have any authority, reasoning, or foundation to make this claim.

1) The earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture
2) It was not until 1546 that the RCC declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon. And this in response to the Reformation. What a joke.
3) The Apocrypha writings do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the OT writings.
4) The Jewish people from whom they originated did not regard them as God's words.
5) Jesus and the NT authors did not consider them to be Scripture.

There you go, authority, reasoning and foundation.

[Dennis M. Scott]

"And a book which carries God’s authority to be the foundation of the church for the world is what I mean by scripture. I think they knew what they were doing."http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

That may be what NT Wright means by scripture, but his is hardly a classic understanding. The whole point here is that although they knew what they were doing for that time and that situation, the Church has gone further and declared it to be scripture. If Paul intended both of those declarations to have the equal authority of scripture, he loaded and weakened scripture with double talk, or he had a different understanding of the meaning of scripture than we usually think he had.

Early in this thread, some posts began to seemingly turn in into discussion about whether or not it this passage was scripture. That was not my intent. It simply seemed like Paul was suggesting that some of what he was writing had the authority of God, and some did not have that authority, because it was Paul's idea, and that to him it had not been validated as from God.

It isn't like it should be erased or something. It merely points out that some of what he wrote he may have thought was clearly from the Lord, and some not so much.

It isn't surprising that some theologians struggle with that. It certainly isn't surprising to me that I hadn't contemplated it before.

[Benjamin Burch]

1) The earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture

I realize you're going by the fact that many of the Early Church fathers did not regard it as canonical, but neither did they accept Hebrews or Revelation as canonical, usually, and they often considered Shepherd and Didache as inspired. So, I don't think this helps your argument as much as you seem to think.

Secondly, some clearly did consider them canonical.

Third, use of them as Scripture within liturgy is likely to have started soon after the canon came to a state of consensus, and it is right around this time that copies of the LXX begin to consistently contain the so-called Apocryphal books, which they didn't before.

So, while, in essence, you are correct here, you're missing the whole story, and I also don't think it provides you quite the foundation you seem to suppose it does.

2) It was not until 1546 that the RCC declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon. And this in response to the Reformation. What a joke.

I'm generally and genuinely not concerned with the RCC.

3) The Apocrypha writings do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the OT writings.

So, you're offering circular reasoning?

4) The Jewish people from whom they originated did not regard them as God's words.

Nor did the NT.

5) Jesus and the NT authors did not consider them to be Scripture.

I find this utterly indefensible in view of Paul's letter to the Romans where he freely draws from Wisdom of Solomon as an authoritative source and arguably draws from 4 Maccabees as Scripture which foretells of Christ's death.

Again, you're not actually offering foundational reasoning. You're simply arguing for your point of view and viewing everything through your presuppositions, given to you by the Protestant Church, not reasoning itself. You view this in such a way because you are Protestant. You are the very evidence of my point.

[Benjamin Burch]

Must I remind you that your guy, NT Wright, disagrees with you both.



Scripture, the words and writings of those authorized bearers and instruments of divine revelation, are the foundational documents on which the church was founded. Scripture is not a product of the church; the church itself is the product of Scripture.

According to NT Wright, that is.

Well, we'll add that to the growing list of things with which I disagree with N.T. Wright. I'm sure that, eventually, you'll realize I disagree with him a great deal.

[Hans Deventer]

Must I remind you that your guy, NT Wright, disagrees with you both.

Actually no, you must not. Perhaps that is a key issue.

And in fact, Wright supports my point of view. It is folks from the first generation who wrote. Nobody denied that. Perhaps you are able to understand the logic that in order to write Scripture, you have to believe first. Or are you going to argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke an John were unbelievers?
Which simply means that of course, the church was there first and the church created the NT. I'm happy to agree they knew what they were doing, but that is completely beside the point. You are misquoting as usual.

[Hans Deventer]

BTW, Mike, you'll notice how this thread was a good discussion till Mr. Kibbe came along. It immediately turns sour. Not the first time.

[James Diggs]

in order that the church may be the church—may be the people of God for the world—God, by that same Holy Spirit, equips men in the first generation to write the new covenant documentation. This is to be the new covenant documentation which gives the foundation charter and the characteristic direction and identity to the people of God, who are to be the people of God for the world. It is common to say in some scholarly circles that the evangelists, for instance, didn’t know they were writing scripture. One of the gains of modern scholarship is that we now see that to be a mistake. Redaction criticism has shown that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing what they were writing in order that it might be the foundation documentation for the church of their day and might bear God’s authority in doing so. And a book which carries God’s authority to be the foundation of the church for the world is what I mean by scripture. I think they knew what they were doing. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

How does arguing that the writers of the NT knew that they were writing scripture an argument that the scripture came first? All I see here is an argument that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John believed they were writing scripture. So what?

What is wrong with the understanding that there were people who were called and responded to that call to be part of the body of Christ (the birth of the Church) before anyone wrote anything down as a way to share the call with others and eventually that writing was affirmed by the body as scripture?

[Randy Wise]

Here what I think is going on with Paul at this time at verse 25. What Paul is saying here "I didn’t get this idea from the Lord or from any writing but this is just my opinion and you can still trust me because I’m trustworthy Apostle of the Lord. I don’t see why they didn’t heed to his opinion. Anyway when Paul wrote this passage I don’t think he was giving advice on how to have successful marriage he felt that worse times in the life of Christians would be coming shortly. In few years Christians Husbands and wives would be capture and be place in chains by the Roman government to face wild animals in the area to entertain Caesar and the pagans of Roman Empire. The great tribulation that Jesus spoke of in the gospel was about to begin and I think this what Paul could have been dealing with this here.
Thanks
Larry

Sorry, I just can't imagine the Jesus I know commanding someone to be quite in church for the sole reason of their gender. REF:Women should remain silent in church. Fortunately in this day our sons and daughters receive equal schooling. Paul was addressing disorderly worship and I bet that involved men and women. I do not accept that Jesus commanded all women to remain quite in church because of their gender.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

How does arguing that the writers of the NT knew that they were writing scripture an argument that the scripture came first?

It is not . Which in itself makes sense, for there is no real argument so Marcus had to come up with something that is beside the point. God forbid he'd have to admit he's dead wrong here.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Sorry, I just can't imagine the Jesus I know commanding someone to be quite in church for the sole reason of their gender. REF:Women should remain silent in church. Fortunately in this day our sons and daughters receive equal schooling. Paul was addressing disorderly worship and I bet that involved men and women. I do not accept that Jesus commanded all women to remain quite in church because of their gender.

Randy

This is a consideration that deserves a whole different thread. Tangential from that - and perhaps this one as well - should be a thread on how we apply situation specific directives of Moses' time, Jesus' ministry, and the writings of Paul to 21st century Western Society. Oh, yeah, that will be a can of worms. Particularly (perhaps or perhaps not) if Paul was convinced that some of what he wrote had more weight, or less, than other parts. Can of worms or not, it would be important. Fact is, we all do it, one way or another. It would be so good if we could talk about the different ways we approach/handle such directives, respect how someone else does it, and not defend our own position by trying to make everyone else seem stupid.

[Hans Deventer]

It would be so good if we could talk about the different ways we approach/handle such directives, respect how someone else does it, and not defend our own position by trying to make everyone else seem stupid.

And it would be awesome if we did not let people destroy a good discussion because they never ever intend to listen in the first place. If I can see the tiniest signal of actually trying to listen, I'm more than willing to err on the side of grace. But if there is not the slightest glimmering of such a hope, it simply has no use.

[Larry Parsons]

Sorry, I just can't imagine the Jesus I know commanding someone to be quite in church for the sole reason of their gender. REF:Women should remain silent in church. Fortunately in this day our sons and daughters receive equal schooling. Paul was addressing disorderly worship and I bet that involved men and women. I do not accept that Jesus commanded all women to remain quite in church because of their gender.

Randy

Randy, I don't think I said anything about women keeping silent in church and I don't think the word virgin here in verse 25 just mean women It could refer to both gender. At verse 26 Paul remind them of thier present distress (From the Old Covenant people). Verse 29 is saying time is about up and soon you will be seperate from each others. This what I was pointing out in my post. Notice what Paul is saying at verse 31 The world or the age that they were in at the present would be passing away in other words the Old Covenant would soon pass. And it did when The city and the temple was destroy by the Roman Army.
Thanks
Larry

[Marcus Kibbe]

"And a book which carries God’s authority to be the foundation of the church for the world is what I mean by scripture. I think they knew what they were doing."http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

That may be what NT Wright means by scripture, but his is hardly a classic understanding.

I'm not sure I understand what your trying to say? Why don't you think it's a classic understanding? I'm pretty sure it is. The church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20); thus, Scripture preceded the church, and it cannot owe its existence to church authority. In essences, that is what he has said.

Up until the middle ages (1000+ years), the church affirmed and practiced the supreme authority of scripture. Church authority and tradition played a ministerial role, being a servant to Scripture. Simply put, the early church embraced the supreme authority of Scripture because it had God as its origin. Divine author (God) = Divine authority (Scripture).

Developments in the middle ages led the RCC to assume to possess supreme authority - authority greater than Scripture. This led to the claim that the church possessed the authority to determine the canon of Scripture. (ie. From the church's authority the canonical books derive their authority.)

And now today in the modern era, historical criticism has driven scholars in the direction of treating the Bible just like any other human book. The notion of canonization of biblical writings has come to be viewed as a completely human action with a denial of any superintendence of the process.

[Jim Chabot]

I'm not sure I understand what your trying to say? Why don't you think it's a classic understanding? I'm pretty sure it is. The church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20); thus, Scripture preceded the church, and it cannot owe its existence to church authority. In essences, that is what he has said.

This sounds like a sidetrack, which came first the chicken or the egg? A better question may be to ask who has authority, the chicken or the egg? It's pretty clear that the NT church was in existence before the NT was actually written. It's evident on it's face, as Paul was writing Scripture to specific churches already in existence. But who cares, absolutely no weight need be, nor should be given to chronology.

You are right, the church has no authority over Scripture, rather God's church will recognize Scripture for what it is and will give Scripture it's proper authority over the church. It is our only authority, it is our primary source of truth, we rightly cede to Scripture's authority as we proclaim that we will enjoin nothing to be an article of faith unless it is found within Scripture. We rightly recognize Scripture's authority over us, the chicken has authority over the egg, it matters not which one came first.

You have made a good case that Paul was aware of the authority vested in him and I agree that he was aware that what he was writing was or would be Scripture. Moreover in this passage he takes pains to differentiate that which is his advice and that which he relays to us as God's command.

Up until the middle ages (1000+ years), the church affirmed and practiced the supreme authority of scripture. Church authority and tradition played a ministerial role, being a servant to Scripture. Simply put, the early church embraced the supreme authority of Scripture because it had God as its origin. Divine author (God) = Divine authority (Scripture).

As Nazarene's still do as we cede our articles of faith and our life and practice to the authority of Scripture. Moreover we correctly observe tradition in order to see how early believers interpreted Scripture, while submitting this observation to reason and then to experience. We allow that Scripture alone is authoritative, tradition is held in check with reason and experience, we reject the church's authority by means of tradition.

Developments in the middle ages led the RCC to assume to possess supreme authority - authority greater than Scripture. This led to the claim that the church possessed the authority to determine the canon of Scripture. (ie. From the church's authority the canonical books derive their authority.)

No worries, Nazarene's reject the Apocrypha as Scripture, no need to defend that here, we are Nazarene friendly! Gotta love that passage about burning a fish liver in front of a person to drive out demons in Tobit 6. Yeah that's scripture, not.

And now today in the modern era, historical criticism has driven scholars in the direction of treating the Bible just like any other human book. The notion of canonization of biblical writings has come to be viewed as a completely human action with a denial of any superintendence of the process.

Lucky again for us Nazarenes! Wiley rightly attributed the necessity of superintendence as part of inspiration. It's not a human book, it would be impossible for human authors to pen such a book on their own and we know it!

Yes the Bible is surely the foundation for the church, however chronology is not of any importance as we contemplate that which is given of divine inspiration.

[Dennis M. Scott]

It's still a little confusing for someone to suggest that the Church doesn't have authority over scripture, when the person so insisting is a member of the Church, attributing verification by the Church of the Nazarene, on a Nazarene friendly site. All of those are part of the Church, which you seem on one hand to be insisting has no authority, and then propose that authority to be your authority on the other hand. To insist that Tradition has no import, and then to prove it call upon the tradition of Tradition seems like a very short circle.

[Jim Chabot]

It's still a little confusing for someone to suggest that the Church doesn't have authority over scripture, when the person so insisting is a member of the Church, attributing verification by the Church of the Nazarene, on a Nazarene friendly site. All of those are part of the Church, which you seem on one hand to be insisting has no authority, and then propose that authority to be your authority on the other hand. To insist that Tradition has no import, and then to prove it call upon the tradition of Tradition seems like a very short circle.

I'm guessing that as members of the CoTN we agree with our manual statement whereby we recognize the authority of Scripture. This isn't the case in all churches, the RCC in particular recognizes the magisterium as equal authority with Scripture and also views the church as the authority over Scripture. Not something I would be willing to sign on to, I'm glad that we recognize Scripture for what it is. How on earth could we possibly say that the church has authority over the divine, as opposed to saying, as we do, that the church rightly recognizes the divine?

Paul said it well when he praised the Bereans as they sat under his authority as a church leader. They received what he said with eagerness, then they checked the Scriptures to see if it was true. He also gives admonition that we should follow him, yet only as he follows Christ.

Hopefully you have noticed that Marcus agrees with Nazarenes with his rejection of the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. He shouldn't need to defend this here should he?

[Dennis M. Scott]

How on earth could we possibly say that the church has authority over the divine, as opposed to saying, as we do, that the church rightly recognizes the divine?

I suspect this is the heart of the matter. Scripture is not divine, as in the sense of being another member of the Trinity.

What is the human element in scripture? Unless we worship in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, we will be using a translation. Translation cannot be done without human participation and interpretation. Scripture is of no use without the human element. There seems to be no answer that is at the same time accurate, simple and helpful.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Actually no, you must not. Perhaps that is a key issue.

And in fact, Wright supports my point of view. It is folks from the first generation who wrote. Nobody denied that. Perhaps you are able to understand the logic that in order to write Scripture, you have to believe first. Or are you going to argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke an John were unbelievers?
Which simply means that of course, the church was there first and the church created the NT. I'm happy to agree they knew what they were doing, but that is completely beside the point. You are misquoting as usual.

Hans, you're looking at this wrong. NT Wright explicitly states that the Church derives its direction and identity from Scripture - not vice versa:

in order that the church may be the church—may be the people of God for the world—God, by that same Holy Spirit, equips men in the first generation to write the new covenant documentation. This is to be the new covenant documentation which gives the foundation charter and the characteristic direction and identity to the people of God, who are to be the people of God for the world.

From christological and apostolic authority flows the principle of christological and apostolic priority in discussions of the canon. Jesus authorized the apostles to be his witnesses and to write the authoritative foundational documents on which the church was founded. The oral and apostolic witness to Christ is not the product of the Church. The Church itself is the product of it.

I understand that the process by which the written form of that witness rose to increased prominence and was gradually defined in the canonical understanding of the church took some time. However, the process was under way before the Christian community (the Church) was aware of it.

[Benjamin Burch]

Hopefully you have noticed that Marcus agrees with Nazarenes with his rejection of the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. He shouldn't need to defend this here should he?

No one is actually making him defend such a position. Instead, I'm pointing out that the totality of his position (that the Church doesn't give authority, only recognizes it) is inconsistent and has no foundation given that the Church is not consistent in its recognition.

This requires an indefensible position that some churches are just ignorant or even rebellious (or worse, which is likely the case in Marcus' eyes), and that only one segment of the Church figured it out.

The existence of multiple canons puts a dagger in the heart of the idea that the Church merely "recognizes" authority.

You see, Marcus isn't having to defend being Nazarene, he is having to defend a broader theological claim. If he were to, indeed, say he held the Scriptures as he does, because he is Nazarene (which I have alluded to actualy being the case -- at least, Protestant), I'd have no qualms at all.

[Jim Chabot]

I suspect this is the heart of the matter. Scripture is not divine, as in the sense of being another member of the Trinity.

Agreed, yet if I recall correctly JR Chavier once corrected you as he noted that the "Word" is the second member of the Trinity.

What is the human element in scripture?

Ummmm...........The authors? Yet these are no ordinary authors, these are men inspired and authorized by the Spirit of God. Paul in particular, his call was that he was the chosen vessel to bring the message to the Gentiles.

Specifically for Nazarene's, Wiley points us to DR. Hannah who said "that extraordinary agency of the Holy Spirit upon the mind in consequence of which the person who partakes of it is enabled to embrace and communicate the truth of God without error, infirmity, or defeat" then in his own words Wiley tells us "this must be understood to apply to the subjects of communication whether immediately revealed to them, or with which they were before acquainted."

Wiley surely recognized the human element in the Scriptures, yet he wavers not;

This authority lies in the fact that they are an inspired revelation of God to man. They are divine in their origin-the product of the Holy Spirit's inspiration. In a theological sense, then, inspiration signifies the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the writers of the books of the Bible in such a manner that their productions become the expression of God's will. It is by this means that the Scriptures become the Word of God.

Maybe JR remembers his Wiley from his days at Olivet?

Unless we worship in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, we will be using a translation. Translation cannot be done without human participation and interpretation. Scripture is of no use without the human element. There seems to be no answer that is at the same time accurate, simple and helpful.

I'll go you one further. even if we worship in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and even if we are incredibly knowledgable in the customs and traditionas of the day. Even if we were to hear as the original hearer did, we still translate. Hey we can't even agree on what Mitt meant the other day with the 47% statement, we filter and we translate, such is the human condition.

And still the One who created us knows full well of our limitations, He chose Scripture to be his method of communication with us. We have nothing else.

[Jim Chabot]

No one is actually making him defend such a position. Instead, I'm pointing out that the totality of his position (that the Church doesn't give authority, only recognizes it) is inconsistent and has no foundation given that the Church is not consistent in its recognition.

This requires an indefensible position that some churches are just ignorant or even rebellious (or worse, which is likely the case in Marcus' eyes), and that only one segment of the Church figured it out.

The existence of multiple canons puts a dagger in the heart of the idea that the Church merely "recognizes" authority.

You see, Marcus isn't having to defend being Nazarene, he is having to defend a broader theological claim. If he were to, indeed, say he held the Scriptures as he does, because he is Nazarene (which I have alluded to actualy being the case -- at least, Protestant), I'd have no qualms at all.

I hear what your saying, I think. I don't think that you can make this assumption though. It is quite possible for someone to reject portions of someones canon such as the Apocrypha and thus reject the church that accepts it. One of the reasons that I gave the hokey passage in Tobit. Tobit inspired? Nope, I can decide that one on my own. I don't reject it because I'm protestant, my rejection is one of the many reasons that I am protestant.

[Marcus Kibbe]

What is wrong with the understanding that there were people who were called and responded to that call to be part of the body of Christ (the birth of the Church) before anyone wrote anything down as a way to share the call with others and eventually that writing was affirmed by the body as scripture?

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with what you say here. The point is, if we say that from the church's authority the canonical books derive their power, such a position naturally places Scripture in a subordinate position to the Church.

[Benjamin Burch]

I hear what your saying, I think. I don't think that you can make this assumption though. It is quite possible for someone to reject portions of someones canon such as the Apocrypha and thus reject the church that accepts it. One of the reasons that I gave the hokey passage in Tobit. Tobit inspired? Nope, I can decide that one on my own. I don't reject it because I'm protestant, my rejection is one of the many reasons that I am protestant.

Even that is in itself not true and inconsistent. We accept a lot of horrible, terrible statements and ideas all throughout our own Scriptures. We don't mind God being portrayed as a rapist. That's fine, but burning fish liver to drive out demons, that's where you draw the line?

I just don't get it. We make excuse after excuse in order to maintain appearances.

[Jim Chabot]

Even that is in itself not true and inconsistent. We accept a lot of horrible, terrible statements and ideas all throughout our own Scriptures. We don't mind God being portrayed as a rapist. That's fine, but burning fish liver to drive out demons, that's where you draw the line?

I just don't get it. We make excuse after excuse in order to maintain appearances.

A couple of good examples to be sure. Nope, I don't mind that God is portrayed as a rapist, or that He ordered the deaths of thousands upon thousands even that He specifically ordered that the women and children were to be slaughtered as well. It is what it is, He is what and who He is and He doesn't answer to us, so no none of that bothers me at all, I've decided that human standards and opinions are subordinate to Him and not the other way around. Now as to the burning fish liver. From a human standpoint it's a "so what" there's nothing offensive about burning a fish liver, especially if it works, have at it, no objection from me. Excepting that it doesn't work, it's foreign to the rest of Scripture, it's an anomaly and a pretty big one at that. Most of the non canonical books have something of that flavor, it seems that the non inspired writers just never could help themselves, they just had to write down something that makes no sense in light of that which we already have by inspiration. It's a self evident kind of thing. Yes I know there are tons of arguments to show that my "gut feel" has no basis in fact. I'm good with it. I'm willing to bet that burning a fish liver accomplishes nothing other than the destruction of the fish liver, unless it catches a building on fire or something.

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with what you say here. The point is, if we say that from the church's authority the canonical books derive their power, such a position naturally places Scripture in a subordinate position to the Church.

Yes and no.

(1) Yes - The Church interprets Scripture. There is no way around this. The Church is the sole arbiter in theological disputes, and in such situations, it is the Church, and the Church's interpretation of Scripture, which carries authority, not an individual's reading of the Bible. The Bible does not exist as interpreted apart from an authoritative body which can interpret. Otherwise, we end up with a bunch of individuals pushing "what the Bible says."

(2) No - This is where a lot of the problems arise in this conversation. I always have authority (to a certain degree) over my life. That is, I can live however I want within the law. I have no need to place myself under the authority of any Church or Bible. Yet, I do. Out of my own authority over my own life, I place myself under the authority of the Church, and assume a subordinate position to the Church.

In fact, this is how all authority works where people exercise choice. I do not know why we act as though this isn't the case. My college exercises authority over me, my actions, etc, but only so long as I choose to pay tuition there, and not somewhere else.

The same is true of the Church. The Church has come to find certain books to be authoritative, because they give witness to and confirm the Apostolic Tradition, which precedes the Scriptures, and it places itself under the authority of those canons, taking a subordinate position to the Scriptures.

[Dennis M. Scott]

[QUOTE=Jim Chabot;162667]Agreed, yet if I recall correctly JR Chavier once corrected you as he noted that the "Word" is the second member of the Trinity.

Actually, if JR said that, he was mistaken. The written word of God (scripture) is not the second member of the Trinity. The Word, which was with God from the beginning, is the second person of the trinity, but that Word is not the written word. The mistake of identity is understandable. What I remember is that JR insisted that the word of God is the word of God - which is simple, but not extremely helpful.

[Randy Wise]

This is a consideration that deserves a whole different thread. Tangential from that - and perhaps this one as well - should be a thread on how we apply situation specific directives of Moses' time, Jesus' ministry, and the writings of Paul to 21st century Western Society. Oh, yeah, that will be a can of worms. Particularly (perhaps or perhaps not) if Paul was convinced that some of what he wrote had more weight, or less, than other parts. Can of worms or not, it would be important. Fact is, we all do it, one way or another. It would be so good if we could talk about the different ways we approach/handle such directives, respect how someone else does it, and not defend our own position by trying to make everyone else seem stupid.

Well this is what was written: (below) So is it the Lords command ref (Law) or did Jesus issue a command? To me Paul is referencing written in the law as the Lords command not that Jesus gave Paul a directive that women must not speak in church. I mean Jesus even spoke to female Samaritans. (women at the well) Didn't Jesus know jews don't associate with Samaritans? Its just not done I tell you!

Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[h]

[Dennis M. Scott]

And still the One who created us knows full well of our limitations, He chose Scripture to be his method of communication with us. We have nothing else.

Not quite so. God chose Jesus to communicate with us, and the Holy Spirit. He uses the Holy Spirit even now to communicate to us through His Church - including Naznetters like you and me. What we say is not scripture, but it is a form of communication from God. Frequently the Holy Spirit communicates to you and me. He even uses H. Orton Wiley, which is not scripture either. We've known Him to speak through preachers - and even preachers who were deep in sin at the time. We have several means of communication He chooses to use.

[Jim Chabot]

[QUOTE=Dennis M. Scott;162683]

Agreed, yet if I recall correctly JR Chavier once corrected you as he noted that the "Word" is the second member of the Trinity.

Actually, if JR said that, he was mistaken. The written word of God (scripture) is not the second member of the Trinity. The Word, which was with God from the beginning, is the second person of the trinity, but that Word is not the written word. The mistake of identity is understandable. What I remember is that JR insisted that the word of God is the word of God - which is simple, but not extremely helpful.

He was purposefully mistaken, he did learn a few things from his dad over the years.

[Jim Chabot]

Not quite so. God chose Jesus to communicate with us, and the Holy Spirit. He uses the Holy Spirit even now to communicate to us through His Church - including Naznetters like you and me. What we say is not scripture, but it is a form of communication from God. Frequently the Holy Spirit communicates to you and me. He even uses H. Orton Wiley, which is not scripture either. We've known Him to speak through preachers - and even preachers who were deep in sin at the time. We have several means of communication He chooses to use.

Yep, I can agree with this. But, every communication we receive from the Spirit or from others who have heard from the Spirit is to be compared with Scripture to see whom it is actually from. We are told to test the spirits, we have but one standard to compare. And absent the Scriptures, Jesus has not said anything to you me or anyone who wasn't actually there to hear Him. Your right H. Orton Wiley is surely not Scripture, he's just a guy that Nazarenes have so far agreed to agree with.

Regardless, in the end we come down to the laying down of a straight stick to see if the other is crooked. Scripture is all we have for a straight stick.