Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The New American Magazine.

Ray, you continue to conflate ideas.

The date of Revelation can be debated, what it means can be debated, but I think we agree that it was written by the Apostle John. Therefore all of the books of the New Testament where written in Apostolic times. There is no statement that an individual list or canon was then in hand, but all the parts were there. Please don’t confuse the two concepts.

It did not go unnoticed that the additional books added by the Council of Trent were added to your count. Clearly we do not agree on that.

Can we agree that Peter’s statement in 2Peter 3:16 confirms that he acknowledged Paul’s writings as Scripture? That sure gives evidence of an understanding before the 4th Century.

Jesus and the Apostles constantly stated “it is written”. Are they referring to something that wouldn’t exist for a few centuries? I hope we can agree that in the Gospel accounts, Jesus was clearly referring to the Tanakh, which 2Tim3:16 indicates are His words. Considering the 2Peter verse we can even see the Apostles referring to what was written in the New Testament, before it was completely written, as Scripture.

I suggest you are reading in that Paul and Barnabas promoted circumcision, or that Peter made the decision. In Acts 15 verse 2 only speaks of a debate, not who had what position. Verse 7 is only Peter’s summary of “what was written”. Verse 12 is a celebration of the Lord gift of grace to the Gentiles. Then James, not Peter gave the summary. But note that is was a judgment based on the Lord’s commands, not a command in itself.

Then you continue with using the word “church” as an institution, not an assembly which it is by definition. You are reading in a meaning to give authority to the Roman Catholic Church that it takes on itself but is not given.

I think we might agree that the Scripture is from the Lord, but you also add man as a deciding factor in what is Scripture, and that is where we are miles apart. The were heresies, as today, but there wasn’t any wondering if the Scripture was in hand. Through the Lord’s marvelous sovereignty, He delivered it in many way through lots of paths to show that it was truly His work, which is a major differentiation between heretical books like the Gospel of Thomas or the Quran.

I fully agree with your statement “nowhere in scripture states that the church would define, codify and canonize the Divinely inspired books compile in one book”. That was the Lord alone.

You are right the Septuagint is simply the Greek version of the Tanakh and used during the time of the Gospels. You are reading in that it is rejected by the Protestant community due to our difference of the number of books. There is no argument that the Tanakh, the Septuagint, are valid documents, but rather which books are valid is the issue.

The Sacraments is yet another issue were it is the institution’s twist, not the Scripture that needs review.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you that there are many who claim to be Protestant that promote dispensationalism and other dogmas that are simply wrong. Since some misuse or misinterpret the Scripture, that has no impact on the veracity of the Scripture of the doctrine of sola scriptura.

You are twisting 2 Peter 1:21 into making say that we need the magisterium. That is not what it says. It indicates that Scripture does not come from man or his interpretation, but “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The reference is how the Scripture was produced, as in from God not man.

The 2Tim3:16 states that Scripture is “theopneustos” or literally God breathed. This is a statement defining it’s source. While the Lord used man to write it, as the 2Peter 1:12 passage indicates, it is wholly the Lord’s words.

It is profitable for “teaching” and Jesus states we have only one teacher, Him (Mat 23:8, John 20:16). The Scripture is our teacher, not the magisterium. When we read the Scripture it is the Lord speaking to us (Mat 22:31) and we can only hear if it is via the Holy Spirit.

We also need to be clear that there is a difference in Scripture from man’s decisions and the Lord’s commands.

Paul did not take part of the selection of Matthias in Acts 1 since at the time he was persecuting the church. Matthias was selected by men and then never heard from again. What is your point?

You state Paul’s writing were not Scripture when he wrote them which again contradicts 2nd Peter 3. Your basis is the belief that Rome decided what is Scripture, and working back, rather than using Peter’s words and working forward.

What difference would it make if Timothy could or could not read Hebrew?

You are way off when you state that Paul was made an Apostle by men, but Galatians is clear that it was the Lord: “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father”. What Paul writes is Scripture by the Lord’s decree not a committee.

I’m sorry, but the Scripture is not “a book that came from the sky”, but the God breathed word of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If you think the current Pope has divinely given authority, wow, do you have a problem. Popes have been inconsistent throughout history, and to invest in them authority, even only when speaking ex cathedra, you still have a serious consistency problem, let alone the new found statements on Mary.

Ray, please engage in rational dialog and stop with bringing in obvious fallacies or twisting of words.

Try the simple issue of the word “ekklēsia”. By definition is it not an institution. How can you or the magisterium make it one? By what authority can you change the meaning of the word?