Is the New Testament Scriptures Scriptures?

sermonindex Dec 7, 2009

I was challenged today by two persons that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were more authoritative than the New Testament. Their definition of Scriptures are those that were written by the prophets while those written in the New Testament is up for grabs as to who wrote it. So since, say they, that the New Testament has several writers other than the original writer, it's not accurate and it's not reliable. They continued on to say that the Holy Spirit is what we are to look to for our guidance if we are to be lead into all truth.

I agree with the latter part of this statement, but not the former.

What do others on here think of what scripture is? I know all the verses that pertain to what scripture is, but I am looking for your thoughts on the matter.

Is the scripture in the Old Testament the same as the New Testament?

Thanks for your input.

sermonindex Dec 8, 2009

OT:
More authoritative? Maybe in a way - Acts 17:11

NT:
Less authentic? I don't see why.

Inaccurate and unreliable? What a tragic conclusion.

P

PaulWest Dec 8, 2009

Is the scripture in the Old Testament the same as the New Testament?

Absolutely. Paul's epistles were considered scripture even before the NT was complete: 2 Peter 3:16.

And if all Paul's writings in the NT were God-inspired, then we have a complete circle of both Testaments with the validation of 2 Timothy 3:16, spoken from Paul's own mouth.

It's a perfect, sealed circle.

Brother Paul

sermonindex Dec 8, 2009

I would also add....

1Th 2:13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

W

wayneman Dec 8, 2009

That debate has been going on since the Reformation. The philologist Erasmus, a contemporary of Luther, was the first to apply the "higher criticism" method to the Bible. He suggested, for example, that the epistles to Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul, since the writing style is different and the vocabulary is Second Century. The writer of Romans was an Apostle whose objective was spreading the Gospel; the writer of the pastoral epistles was an early ecclesiastic whose objective was establishing ecclesiastical authority, according to Erasmus. He also notes that there are four endings to the Gospel of Mark, and the story of the woman taken in adultery sometimes appears in the Gospel of Luke. But Erasmus insisted that God sovereignly presided over the composition of the New Testament and the Bible we have is just the one He wanted us to have.

Luther based the Reformation on the doctrine that the Bible, not the Church, is the supreme authority, and if the Church contradicts the Bible, the Church is wrong. The Catholics replied, "You can't do that, since it was the Church that chose which 27 books to include in the New Testament. Thus the authority of the Bible was established by the authority of the Church." Luther thought that was an interesting point, and decided that the Church's canonization of Scripture should be challenged. He said there should be two criteria for accepting a book as the Word of God: 1) It is written by someone in the apostolic circle and 2) It lifts up Jesus Christ. On that basis he rejected James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation as apocryphal. This was so unpopular with his followers that Luther backed down and included all four in his German translation.

The moral of the story is that the doctrine of Inerrancy we learned in evangelical Sunday school class is not the only theory of interpretation available to Bible believers. After all, who loved the Bible more than Luther? But his doctrine of inspiration was heretical by some standards.

You know how pastors always wave the Bible and say, "This is the answer!" "This is the Truth!" "This is the Word of God!" But the Bible itself says, "Jesus is the answer. Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is the Word." Maybe the Lord gave us a Bible with a lot of ambiguities so we wouldn't so easily fall prey to the error of Bibliolatry, becoming worshippers of the roadmap instead of followers of the road.

But I would be interested to know why your friends think the Old Testament has a sounder basis of authority than the New.

N

nasekom Dec 8, 2009

Apostle Paul says: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..." 1 Cor.11:23. the same with the other apostles.New testament is a revelation from God Himself.No doubt about it.When you read it you know it. :-)

sermonindex Dec 8, 2009

Well I was able to get one of them to agree with me in that the four gospels are certainly apart of the Old Testament because Jesus was made under the law Gal 4:4 and the New Testament had not yet been signed sealed and delivered until the cross. As Jesus said, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood". Luke 22:20

This whole thing really is about Paul and his writings. Now I understand their argument saying that it's the Holy Ghost is the one that is doing the leading into all truth. In the early days there was no "New Testament", they were living it out with their lives. All they had was the OT and the Holy Spirit leading them. I think this is how they are coming at it. "To avoid the doctrinal differences that exist, tread carefully when reading Paul's writings and let the Holy Ghost do the leading into all truth." This is how one of them views this view, the other I am not sure.

K

KingJimmy Dec 8, 2009

At least from the testimony of Paul, he seemed to regard what he taught in letter as authoritative and binding for all believers. i.e. "The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you." (Philippians 4:9) Many other such verses could be multiplied from the writings of Paul that say similar.

By virtue of this, we can logically conclude that the authors of the New Testament wrote, and expected what they said to be believed, and likewise, obeyed.

L

Leo_Grace Dec 8, 2009

More than anything else, the NT is validated by the Holy Spirit who lives in all true believers. The Lord Jesus lives and guides us into all truth through the Spirit. In the same way, the Spirit would lead us to reject all manner of falsehood, particularly where God's teachings are concerned. Yet we see clearly that OT and NT are in one accord. They belong together.

C

ChrisJD Dec 8, 2009

Hi eveyrone,

some good replies so far.

When we say Old Testament and New Testament, we are referring to ~~[b]~~Covenant[/b].

When Moses, the mediator of the "Old Covenant" was giving that to the people from God, when it was to be 'ratified' if you will by both parties, it says this in the book of Exodus:

"And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD."

- Exodus 19:7-8(KJV)

See also Exodus 24:3-8.

Similarly, when the Lord Jesus, the mediator of the New Covenant was about to bring in the new Covenant, He prayed saying:

"...I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me"

and He further prayed saying again that He had given them God's Word, and saying also:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"

And He sent them forth with His words(John 3:34, Mat 13:52, 10:40, John 14:26, through and with the Holy Spirit(Acts 1:1-2) to continue to administer the New Covenant in His stead upon the Earth.

As much as we believe that the Apostles were sent by Him, we recieve their writtings as from Him also.

D

davym Dec 8, 2009

'The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed'

I was taught this as a boy and it has always stuck with me

David

L

Lysa Dec 8, 2009

DT,

Did you say what church these friends went to? Or instead, what belief system are they of? Not that I really care! I'm just being nosy!

sermonindex Dec 9, 2009

Did you say what church these friends went to? Or instead, what belief system are they of? Not that I really care! I'm just being nosy!

LOL

They are both Pentecostal, though one of them is by experience, the other I am not sure.

They both have great faith and a surety of salvation sometimes even sets me back a bit and think. When I was very low in my walk, I was taken aside by one of them and was greatly encouraged by the gospel that was presented to me, though I heard the gospel years ago, yet the simplicity of the message I heard was more clearer than I first heard it and it flowed out of her mouth and I marveled. That is why I was taken aback when they said that Paul's writings are not to be taken in as scripture but to be careful how it's received coupled with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I think I know where they are coming from now. And I tend to somewhat agree with them, though not entirely. I do believe that the New Testament is scripture and holy men of that period were moved by the holy Ghost to write the NT.

sermonindex Dec 9, 2009

'The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed'

Something like what I said about Revelations, "What Daniel sealed, Revelations Revealed."

A

ADisciple Dec 9, 2009

Yes, the New Testament scriptures are equally as inspired and authoritative as the old... and more so, in fact.

What I mean is, if we don't make it a continual practice (with the help of the Holy Spirit) to view the Old Testament Scriptures in the light of the New Testament, we will go quickly and widely astray of God's intent in them.