The Bible Came From The Church??

[tigersnare]

Ok so I saw this in another discussion, basically, "The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible". Which would at first seem to make Protestantism completely redicoulous.

But the more I think about it, the bible is a compilation of existing God inspired writings that were already circulating and present in the Churches for quite awhile.

And as I go through the bible I see Paul converting people and establishing Churchs by "reasoning from the scriptures", and preaching Jesus and him crucified.

Not to mention the Canon didn't close until more than 200 years after the first Churches were in operation (382 AD).


The argument seems to be that the since the Church put the Bible together, it would make no sense to build a Church on the Bible. What do you guys think?



P.S. I know the Catholic perspective on this, I want the Protestant perspective.

[Lotar]

The Church came from God, the Bible came from God. The Church was responsible for keeping and compiling scripture.

[tigersnare]

Sorry Lotar, I edited and changed my question a bit. ;)

[Lotar]

Sorry Lotar, I edited and changed my question a bit. ;)I guess I answered too fast :D


Ok so I saw this in another discussion, basically, "The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible". Which would at first seem to make Protestantism completely redicoulous.
But the more I think about it, the bible is a compilation of existing God inspired writings that were already circulating and present in the Churches for quite awhile.

And as I go through the bible I see Paul converting people and establishing Churchs by "reasoning from the scriptures", and preaching Jesus and him crucified.

Not to mention the Canon didn't close until more than 200 years after the first Churches were in operation (382 AD).

The argument seems to be that the since the Church put the Bible together, it would make no sense to build a Church on the Bible. What do you guys think?
Actually, there has never been an end to the debate on the Canon. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all have different versions of the OT.

The Church compiled the bible, but they didn't write it. The doctrine of the early church was based off of scripture, all you have to do is read their works to realize this. If they based their doctrine off of scripture, why shouldn't we?

Now, using the bible as our base does not mean that we will ignore Church history and tradition, which are the very things that provides us with scripture. However, making an infallible decree of a docrine developed by an intrupretation of an inturpretation of an inturpretation of some Saint's intruptretation of scripture, seems pretty ridiculous.

[theseed]

That's not the way I see it. The Apostles had the authority to build the church, (apostle = church-builder in greek), but they could not pass thier authority down, it was not an office to be past down. So, we can accept the writings of the Aposltes. Peter, the leader said Paul's writings were God-inspired.

Ok, what about Mark and Luke, and Acts, and James, and Hebrews (anymore?). The church canonized the books (they past the test). That is not to say others were no God-inpired, but they did not meet the standard. How did the church know what was true and what was not? They were the pillar of truth and know the true stories from the fraudulent ones (and fraudulent writers). But I am quick to point out, the church is only a pillar of of truth. A pillar holds something up. But God is the truth, and if the bible is God-breathed, then it can be taken as a whole and studied systematically so that one can understand the truth.

[Crazy Liz]

The Church compiled the bible, but they didn't write it. The doctrine of the early church was based off of scripture, all you have to do is read their works to realize this. If they based their doctrine off of scripture, why shouldn't we?

Who do you think wrote the New Testament?

[Crazy Liz]

That's not the way I see it. The Apostles had the authority to build the church, (apostle = church-builder in greek)...

Where did you learn Greek?

[Lotar]

Who do you think wrote the New Testament?
The Apostles, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Cary.Melvin]

The Church compiled the bible, but they didn't write it. The doctrine of the early church was based off of scripture, all you have to do is read their works to realize this. If they based their doctrine off of scripture, why shouldn't we?

Lotar,

The Church did write and cannonise the New Testament under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit and Cannonised the Old Testament under that same guidance.

I think that it is important to know that the Church is a supernatural and divine creation of God (Not Man) and is guided as such by the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you.:bow:

[prodromos]

The Apostles had the authority to build the church, (apostle = church-builder in greek)

I'd really like to see you give the etymology for this :rolleyes:
('apostle' most definitely does not mean 'church builder')

John
Network Admin for Centre for the Greek Language (http://www.greeklanguage.gr/), Thessaloniki, GREECE.

[eldermike]

I know the Catholic perspective on this, I want the Protestant perspective.
This is from the OP.
Take notice

[JVAC]

This is from the OP.
Take notice
When working on the house isn't it prudent to consult the building company???:priest: ;)

[II Paradox II]

Ok so I saw this in another discussion, basically, "The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible". Which would at first seem to make Protestantism completely redicoulous.

But the more I think about it, the bible is a compilation of existing God inspired writings that were already circulating and present in the Churches for quite awhile. a few thoughts:

1) Part of the scripture already existed before the NT church existed. As such, this would be prior to the existence of the church as we know it. Of course, Catholics will argue that the OT canon was not set until the post NT time, but in my opinion this argument is not particularly strong.

2) There were apostolic writings existing as scripture even during the time of the apostles ministry. Peter mentions paul's writings as scripture and Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as scripture in 1st. Timothy 5:18. We know from outside historical sources that compilations of Paul's writings were likely circulating as a set of "letters to seven churches" before the close of the first century. More than likely they were already in circulation at the time of Paul.

3) The significance of the two previous points is not that scripture proceeds the church in every way, but that claiming it to follow the church or the church to follow it is too simplistic. The two seem to have grown somewhat more holistically over time - a sort of existential circle whereby the scriptures and church interacted to bring about what we know today.

4) Ephesians 2:20 speaks of the church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. IMO - this serves to support my contention about the more holistic view of the relation of church and scripture. Prophets and apostles spoke and wrote. They delivered the words from God which established the foudation for the credo of God's people at the time they were alive, but their inscripturated words formed the enduring revelatory record that the church has looked back to for millenia.

ken

[good4u]

But the more I think about it, the bible is a compilation of existing God inspired writings that were already circulating and present in the Churches for quite awhile.

And as I go through the bible I see Paul converting people and establishing Churchs by "reasoning from the scriptures", and preaching Jesus and him crucified.

Not to mention the Canon didn't close until more than 200 years after the first Churches were in operation (382 AD).


The argument seems to be that the since the Church put the Bible together, it would make no sense to build a Church on the Bible. What do you guys think?



P.S. I know the Catholic perspective on this, I want the Protestant perspective.I am not really quite sure what your asking here, tigersnare. But the Church is not an institution (as some would lead us to believe), but a living organism built as the "body of Christ" representing Him on earth. Jesus is the Church's head and we (the Church) are his body. So we get our spiritual feeding for the body from the living Word of God, i.e., the Bible. So then our spiritual growth comes from studying and applying the Word in our lives, prayer with God for personal communion and direction, fellowship with like-minded believers, and wah-la...we grow in grace and truth in the Light of His Word and reflect the image of Jesus to the world.

I am not sure that is what your looking for, but then I'm not sure what it is your exactly wanting to know.

[Lotar]

good4u,

The living Word of God is Christ. The bible is the word of God.

[Crazy Liz]

Who do you think wrote the New Testament?

The Apostles, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

I think many protestants seem to think the apostles wrote the scriptures independent of the church. IMHO, this is a distortion of sola scriptura. The OT was written and recognized as scripture before the church came into existence. It was written within the context of God's people of faith - ancient Israel. The NT was written within the context of the early church for the purpose of forming the church. It helped to unify the church, both geographically and temporally. It was not given by the Holy Spirit to individual apostles in abstract isolation, or otherwise apart from the people of God.

While Roman Catholics tend to see scripture coming from the church and protestants the church coming from scripture, neither can be supported absolutely, over against the other. Paradox made a good point:

The significance of the two previous points is not that scripture proceeds the church in every way, but that claiming it to follow the church or the church to follow it is too simplistic. The two seem to have grown somewhat more holistically over time - a sort of existential circle whereby the scriptures and church interacted to bring about what we know today.

From a protestant POV, it is important not to distort the truth about scripture as a reaction against preceived distortions of Roman Catholics.

[good4u]

good4u,

The living Word of God is Christ. The bible is the word of God.
Point taken. :)

I agree.

[tigersnare]

Sorry Guys this thread is one big confusing screw up.


I was trying to point out my disagreement with the Catholic view of scriptures, and how they apply to doctrines and the Church but I couldn't figure out a way to ask the question I really wanted without offending our Catholic Bretheren by turning this into a bashing session.

I still can't, so....nevermind. :(

[ChoirDir]

That's not the way I see it. The Apostles had the authority to build the church, (apostle = church-builder in greek)

Main Entry: apos·tle
Pronunciation: &-'pä-s&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French & Old English; Old French apostle & Old English apostol, both from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos, from apostellein to send away, from apo- + stellein to send

[Lotar]

I think many protestants seem to think the apostles wrote the scriptures independent of the church. IMHO, this is a distortion of sola scriptura. The OT was written and recognized as scripture before the church came into existence. It was written within the context of God's people of faith - ancient Israel. The NT was written within the context of the early church for the purpose of forming the church. It helped to unify the church, both geographically and temporally. It was not given by the Holy Spirit to individual apostles in abstract isolation, or otherwise apart from the people of God.

While Roman Catholics tend to see scripture coming from the church and protestants the church coming from scripture, neither can be supported absolutely, over against the other. Paradox made a good point:



From a protestant POV, it is important not to distort the truth about scripture as a reaction against preceived distortions of Roman Catholics.
I have no arguement that the scriptures were written in light of the happenings of the early church, and that scripture and the Church were developed side by side. But they were written by the Apostles for the Church, not by the Church. The Apostles may be part of the Church, but they are not the Church.

That is why I originally said, the scriptures come from God and the Church comes from God. The scriptures did not come from the Church and the Church did not come from scripture.

[Lotar]

Sorry Guys this thread is one big confusing screw up.


I was trying to point out my disagreement with the Catholic view of scriptures, and how they apply to doctrines and the Church but I couldn't figure out a way to ask the question I really wanted without offending our Catholic Bretheren by turning this into a bashing session.

I still can't, so....nevermind. :(
I don't think your thread is offending anyone, or turned into a "bashing session". If someone is offended by our disagreement, then that is not our problem.

[theseed]

I'd really like to see you give the etymology for this :rolleyes:
('apostle' most definitely does not mean 'church builder')

John
Network Admin for Centre for the Greek Language (http://www.greeklanguage.gr/), Thessaloniki, GREECE.
True, it comes from apostello, it means to send out on a mission, an apostle is a delegate. Strong #649, 651.

[theseed]

Main Entry: apos·tle
Pronunciation: &-'pä-s&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French & Old English; Old French apostle & Old English apostol, both from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos, from apostellein to send away, from apo- + stellein to sendHave you all been posting over what apostle means? Good grief :rolleyes:

[Crazy Liz]

I have no arguement that the scriptures were written in light of the happenings of the early church, and that scripture and the Church were developed side by side. But they were written by the Apostles for the Church, not by the Church. The Apostles may be part of the Church, but they are not the Church.

That is why I originally said, the scriptures come from God and the Church comes from God. The scriptures did not come from the Church and the Church did not come from scripture.

I can't see how you can separate the apostles from the church in that way. They wrote to and for the church, from the context of the church. The scriptures did not come from God separately from the church. The apostles wrote with authority because of their position in the church. I cannot agree they were developed side-by-side, as two separate, parallel activities of God. They are part of one and the same activity of God.