Sola Scriptura from and Orthodox perspective

[Theophilos]

How can we "agree" when that is not what I said, nor what I believe?

The Holy Spirit did not confirm the Apocrypha as Scripture.

If you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the bible, then the Holy Spirit also guided the decision about which books to include in the Bible and not just the authors of the books. It took several hundred years after the time of Christ for the New Testament to reach its current form.

So do you want a hero biscuit for that, even though you personal had nothing to do with it?

Luther did not receive the scriptures on gold plates from an angel. He got the New Testament from the Greeks. On the other hand, he rejected the Greek Old Testament, which was the scriptures of Timothy and the Bereans. The Greek Church was the infallible source for the New Testament but totally mistaken about the Old Testament?

Why is that the least bit relevant to anything?
You clearly don't care about truth, but only in defending your personal view.

The quotes from Sirach as scripture shows that the Jewish bible was redacted between the time of the writing of Talmud and the Reformation.

 

[Theo1689]

If you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the bible, then the Holy Spirit also guided the decision about which books to include in the Bible and not just the authors of the books. It took several hundred years after the time of Christ for the New Testament to reach its current form.

The Holy Spirit never identified the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Luther did not receive the scriptures on gold plates from an angel.

Worthless mockery duly noted.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You need to repent.

He got the New Testament from the Greeks. On the other hand, he rejected the Greek Old Testament, which was the scriptures of Timothy and the Bereans.

No, he did not.
The Apocrypha were NEVER part of the Old Testament.

The Greek Church was the infallible source for the New Testament but totally mistaken about the Old Testament?

Nope.
The Greek church was NEVER "infallible".

The quotes from Sirach as scripture shows that the Jewish bible was redacted between the time of the writing of Talmud and the Reformation.

In your opinion.
Your opinion and $10,000 is just enough to buy a lousy $1.99 cup of coffee.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Scripture was left to tell us what is true, and the Bishops and Elders were left to guide the Church in the truths there in.

I think you meant Elders and deacons.
Bishops (or "overseers") are simply another title/descriptor for elders (Titus 1:5-7).

I agree, a Bishop/overseer = an Elder. But, I'm not arguing that point. If they want to believe in three levels of clergy, that's not the biggest issue for me debate. It's better they understands the role of the Church in light of Scripture as opposed to being distracted by whether or not an Overseer = Elder.

FYI, Luther only questioned the canonicity of the book of James in the NT, and he never reject it outright. He only questioned James for a short time.

He didn't question the canonicity.
He simply referred to it as "an epistle of straw". And what he meant by that is that it didn't contain anything about the cross or the atonement. And that's factually correct.

I understand your position. I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just trying to shut down a rabbit trail as to refocus the discussion back on the Canon as opposed to Luther.

God Bless

 

[Theophilos]

The Holy Spirit never identified the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Scripture itself affirms the larger canon used by Greek-speaking Jews, which is what Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:

. . .from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . . 2 Tim 3:15-16

Worthless mockery duly noted.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You need to repent.

It is a statement of fact. I am still waiting for an explanation about why the New Testament of the Greeks is accepted, but the Old Testament was rejected.

No, he did not.
The Apocrypha were NEVER part of the Old Testament.

Nope.
The Greek church was NEVER "infallible".

Where did the Textus Receptus come from?

 

[Theo1689]

Scripture itself affirms the larger canon used by Greek-speaking Jews, which is what Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:

. . .from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . . 2 Tim 3:15-16

That makes no mention of the Apocrypha.
It's a worthless argument.

It is a statement of fact.

No, it is NOT "a statement of fact".

I am still waiting for an explanation about why the New Testament of the Greeks is accepted, but the Old Testament was rejected.

The OT was NEVER "rejected".
The Apocrypha was never part of the OT.

Where did the Textus Receptus come from?

I really don't care, since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Stop bringing up worthless red herrings.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

The Holy Spirit never identified the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Scripture itself affirms the larger canon used by Greek-speaking Jews, which is what Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:

. . .from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . . 2 Tim 3:15-16

Sir, you're just asserting things, not giving actual evidence for the particulars of your perspective. There is nothing in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 that expresses Paul was including say 1 Maccabees in "the Holy Scriptures." Besides, practically every copy of the Greek LXX has a different list of books. Knowing extra books were thrown in and various deuterocanonical books were left out all the time, why not just go with a minimal canon? Answer: Trent.

No, he did not.
The Apocrypha were NEVER part of the Old Testament.

Nope.
The Greek church was NEVER "infallible".

Where did the Textus Receptus come from?

It's a marketing term for a Greek text based upon the translation of the King James Bible. As compared to modern critical texts, it's not very reliable.

God Bless

 

[Theophilos]

That makes no mention of the Apocrypha.
It's a worthless argument.

Yes. The modern use of the term, "the Apocrypha", developed during the Reformation to disparage parts of the bible that reformers did not like.

In Acts, it is clear that whole Greek-speaking Jewish communities converted to Christianity. There is every reason to believe that they continued to use the same scriptures, which later became known as the Old Testament.

. . . they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. Acts 17:11-12 NKJV

The Greek Old Testament, including books no longer found in Jewish bibles, has been in continuous use by Greek-speaking Christians since the time of the apostles. Many of the Greek-speaking churches were founded by the apostles themselves.

If the apostles had objected to the "extra books" why didn't they delete them?

No, it is NOT "a statement of fact".

Okay, please provide evidence that Luther received scriptures on gold plates from an angel.

The OT was NEVER "rejected".
The Apocrypha was never part of the OT.

As noted earlier, the Book of Sirach is repeatedly referenced as scripture in the Jewish Talmud (200-500 AD), but it is no longer found in Hebrew bibles. Claims about the Jews having a complete canon by the time of Christ are clearly false.

Greek-speaking Jews, including those who converted to Christianity, had a larger canon of scripture than found in modern Hebrew bibles.

 

[Theo1689]

Yes. The modern use of the term, "the Apocrypha", developed during the Reformation to disparage parts of the bible that reformers did not like.

Why do you continue to make this false claim?
Don't you realize that it simply destroys any credibility you might hope to have?

Prove that the reason they were "removed" (which includes the false assumption that they were "included" in the first place) because the Reformers did not "like" them.

In Acts, it is clear that whole Greek-speaking Jewish communities converted to Christianity. There is every reason to believe that they continued to use the same scriptures, which later became known as the Old Testament.

You have YET to prove that the Apocrypha was allegedly part of the "OId Testament".

. . . they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. Acts 17:11-12 NKJV

No mention of any Apocrypha there.

The Greek Old Testament, including books no longer found in Jewish bibles, has been in continuous use by Greek-speaking Christians since the time of the apostles. Many of the Greek-speaking churches were founded by the apostles themselves.

So you are simply ASSUMING that the Apocrypha is Scripture.
Why is it so difficult for you to realize that there is no reason for us to accept your unfounded ASSUMPTIONS?

If the apostles had objected to the "extra books" why didn't they delete them?

The apostles never considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture.

Okay, please provide evidence that Luther received scriptures on gold plates from an angel.

Why?
I've never made such a ridiculous claim.
The fact that you have to constantly CHANGE THE SUBJECT is proof that you have no substance for your bogus claims.

As noted earlier, the Book of Sirach is repeatedly referenced as scripture in the Jewish Talmud (200-500 AD),

Well, if the Jews are your authority, then I'm sorry that you reject Jesus as the Messiah.

but it is no longer found in Hebrew bibles. Claims about the Jews having a complete canon by the time of Christ are clearly false.

Do you understand what an "anachronism" is?
The fact that Sirach MAY be considered Scripture by Jews in A.D. 500 is not evidence that it was considered Scripture during the time of Christ.

You don't seem to have any critical thinking skills.
You just blindly accept whatever nonsense your church teaches you.

 

[Theophilos]

Well, if the Jews are your authority, then I'm sorry that you reject Jesus as the Messiah.

Do you understand what an "anachronism" is?
The fact that Sirach MAY be considered Scripture by Jews in A.D. 500 is not evidence that it was considered Scripture during the time of Christ.

You don't seem to have any critical thinking skills.
You just blindly accept whatever nonsense your church teaches you.

I agree. The question is why did Reformers choose to use the scriptures of Jews who rejected Christ rather than the scriptures of the apostles and other Jews who accepted Christ?

Josephus says there are 22 books in the Hebrew bible, but the modern count is 24. Sirach is quoted as scripture in the Talmud. There was no uniform Jewish canon for Hebrew scriptures until centuries after the time of the apostles. Why should Christians rely on the authority of Jewish traditions that developed centuries after the time of the apostles?

The New Testament demonstrates the contradictions inherent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider this assertion from the Westminster Confession:

1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46)

Acts 15:15 is used as proof text to support the use of the authority of the Hebrew version of the bible used by Jews at the time of the Reformation. The problem is that the verses quoted in Acts are from the Greek LXX. The Hebrew says something much different and does not support the conclusion of the council.

And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:

‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’ (Amos 9:11,12 LXX)

 

[Theo1689]

I agree. The question is why did Reformers choose to use the scriptures of Jews who rejected Christ rather than the scriptures of the apostles and other Jews who accepted Christ?

The apostles never used the Apocrypha.
So why do you use phony "Scriptures" that the Apostles never used?

Josephus says there are 22 books in the Hebrew bible, but the modern count is 24.

Josephus isn't inspired.

Sirach is quoted as scripture in the Talmud.

You already said that.
And that is 500 years after Christ, so 100% irrelevant.
If all you're going to do is give me reruns, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop harassing me.

There was no uniform Jewish canon for Hebrew scriptures until centuries after the time of the apostles.

Jesus disagrees with you.

Why should Christians rely on the authority of Jewish traditions that developed centuries after the time of the apostles?

EXACTLY!
So stop harassing me with stories about the Talmud centuries after Christ.

The New Testament demonstrates the contradictions inherent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

No, it actually doesn't.
So what are you arguing, sola Scriptura, or the Apocrypha?
It seems that you are incapable of sticking to one topic.

Consider this assertion from the Westminster Confession:

Acts 15:15 is used as proof text to support the use of the authority of the Hebrew version of the bible used by Jews at the time of the Reformation. The problem is that the verses quoted in Acts are from the Greek LXX. The Hebrew says something much different and does not support the conclusion of the council.

That's hardly a "contradiction".

 

[Theophilos]

The apostles never used the Apocrypha.
So why do you use phony "Scriptures" that the Apostles never used?

As I have noted before, the Septuagint was the original bible of the Church.

Josephus isn't inspired.



You already said that.
And that is 500 years after Christ, so 100% irrelevant.
If all you're going to do is give me reruns, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop harassing me.

Do you agree with this statement from the Westminster Confession?

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) . . . being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

If so, then why did the apostles quote from the LXX at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Jesus disagrees with you.

Leviticus lists only six feasts. The Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) was not one of them.

. . . these are My feasts: Leviticus 23:2

John 10:22-23 shows that John and Jesus recognized the Feast of the Dedication.

Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. John 10:22 NKJV

The basis for Hanukkah comes from 1 Maccabees:

Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with gladness and joy for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Chislev. 1 Maccabees 4:59

Did John and Jesus accept 1 Maccabees as scripture?

Or did they recognize in an extra-biblical tradition to institute a feast that is outside of the Jewish scriptures?

Either way they did not teach sola scriptura.

EXACTLY!
So stop harassing me with stories about the Talmud centuries after Christ.

No, it actually doesn't.
So what are you arguing, sola Scriptura, or the Apocrypha?
It seems that you are incapable of sticking to one topic.

That's hardly a "contradiction".

There are many issues with sola scriptura. The canon is just one of them.

Another basic issue is that scripture never says that scripture alone is all that matters.

The closest thing that I can see are the verses at the end of the story of the Lazarus and the Rich Man.

Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ” Luke 16:29-31

If you read these verses very narrowly, then only the books of Moses and prophets are required. The whole New Testament and much of the Hebrew Old Testament ("Writings" = Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles) could be deleted.

 

[Theo1689]

As I have noted before, the Septuagint was the original bible of the Church.

Like I already said, if all you're going to do is engage in reruns, then kindly stop harassing me, as I'm not inerested in wasting my time.

Do you agree with this statement from the Westminster Confession?

Questions are not valid arguments.
You've presented something like an argument, and I saw how worthless it is, so I rejected your argument. Kindly stop harassing me.

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) . . . being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

If so, then why did the apostles quote from the LXX at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Questions are not valid arguments.
And I see no relationship between what you quoted from the WCF, and your question, so it's competely irrelevant.

Once again, I'm not here to waste my time answering your irrelevant questions.
Either present an argument, or don't.
Quesitons are not valid arguments.
Now kindly stop harassing me.

Leviticus lists only six feasts. The Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) was not one of them.

. . . these are My feasts: Leviticus 23:2

John 10:22-23 shows that John and Jesus recognized the Feast of the Dedication.

Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. John 10:22 NKJV

Thank you for the trivia.
Your argument remains unconvincing.
Now kindly stop harassing me.

The basis for Hanukkah comes from 1 Maccabees:

And that makes 1 Maccabees a HISTORICAL document, not inspired Scripture.
Now kindly stop harassing me.

Did John and Jesus accept 1 Maccabees as scripture?

There is ZERO evidence that they did.

Either way they did not teach sola scriptura.

You are mistaken.

There are many issues with sola scriptura.

You have yet to demonstrate any.
And you just threw out ALL the ECF's as heretics, as they all taught sola Scriptura.

The closest thing that I can see are the verses at the end of the story of the Lazarus and the Rich Man.

I'm sorry for your blindness.
Now kindly stop harassing me.

If you read these verses very narrowly, then the whole New Testament and much of the Hebrew Old Testament ("Writings" = Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles) could be deleted.

I reject your misinterpretation.
Now kindly stop harassing me.

 

[Janice Bower]

I'm not up to speed on certain theologies. Would this be considered Calvinism?


So the Church of Christ is similar to the Orthodox faith or Catholic Church in the belief that Christ mad one Church and not just a bunch of like minded believers?

I am with you on the idea that it's okay to differ on issues.

This is how the Orthodox view it. We see baptism as life giving and that we are born again of "water and Spirit." If someone is baptized with water and proper form - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - that person is part of the Body of Christ, but lacking the "fullness" due to not partaking in the Mysteries (Sacraments) of initiation - Chrismatioin and the Eucharist. So we see all those who profess Christ as Christians, just not having the fullness of it, if you know what I mean. Again, just the Orthodox perspective.

Great insight! Thanks for the discussion!

I believe we are not born with faith and because all have sinned and can't give themselves faith, God must give some faith. I'm not here to argue; I just looked in out of curiosity. My focus is speaking about Mormonism.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Why do we believe in God, the most Holy Trinity, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because of a verse written in Scripture? Orthodox Christians believe these things because of the witness of the early Church. What was the witness of the early Church? Of course, first and foremost, their martyrdom. Christians who died for Jesus, the anointed one, in the most horrific ways possible. Second, the apostolic Tradition of the Church. What is apostolic Tradition? St. Irenaeus, an early Bishop born in Smyrna cira 130 A.D., wrote in his famous work Against Heresies, "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same." It is what is handed down, paradosis in Greek, meaning a handing down or over, a tradition. Tradition comes in two forms as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

I have been curious about forum members views on Sola Scriptura. From my understanding, Sola Scriptura is that the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc. No other sources than Scripture. This idea comes from Martin Luther. He wrote, ". . . A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.…Neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils . . ." Of course I understand Martin Luther is writing in protest of the Catholic Church, for he mentions the Pope of Rome, yet, the words, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council." Luther also writes, "I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council." It seems to me that he is saying "I am so sure that I have discovered true Christianity in my reading of Scripture that nothing will shake my opinion."

Am I wrong to think this? If sos, what is Sola Scriptura and what is it that I do not understand about it? What does it mean? I open and honestly as an Orthodox Christian ask this question.

We Orthodox, of course, do not believe that the Bible and the Bible alone is sufficient. Orthodox believe that we must have a lens in which to interpret the Sacred Text and that lens is our Liturgical worship, the councils of the Church and writings of the early Fathers of the Church.

It is not my intent to convince others or even to say that the Orthodox Church absolutely right (this is of course what I believe) and everyone else is wrong. This is just the Orthodox perspective.

Thanks,

Here is a good representation of Sola Scripture:

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith Ch 1, Paragraph 10.​

Note, the emphasis is what is supreme. It's not a denial of other authorities in Christ's Church. It's not a categorical denial of the authority of Bishops/Overseers. It is not a rejection or denial of the authority of councils. It's all about what is the final Judge of what is true for the Christian. Can councils error? Of course, there are many councils rejected by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike: eg The Councils of Sirmium. How does Christ's Church test such to see their error? Other councils? No, other councils can condemn them, but ever authoritative council get their authority based upon their correlation to Scripture, The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined. Note as you quoted: "A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it." The key words here are "without it".

There is a side issue, the sufficiency of Scripture for the determining theological truth. Such is establish on "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Note, the purpose of Scripture is to make men of God who are "complete, equipped for every good work." Did God also establish Elder/Overseers to lead and teach his Church. Yep. But, If "All Scripture is breathed out by God... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.", then the basis of said teaching should be on that which Scripture teaches.

You opened your comment with "Why do we believe in God, the most Holy Trinity, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because of a verse written in Scripture? Orthodox Christians believe these things because of the witness of the early Church. What was the witness of the early Church? Of course, first and foremost, their martyrdom." I couldn't disagree more. Christ said "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27. Why do I believe in God, the most Holy Trinity, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because, Jesus saved me. I follow him and hear his words in Scripture. Is the witness of the early Church important? Absolutely. Is their martyrdom important? Yep. But, they are not but icing on the cake of Jesus, and him Crucified for my sake. The reason that drove Stephen to fidelity to Christ is what drives my fidelity to Christ. I couldn't be more blessed by his sacrifice, but Stephen, and those who gave their lives for Christ's sake like him in martyrdom, are not but faithful witnesses to the Truth I learned from my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

God Bless

 

[EdHodges]

1 TIMOTHY 4:13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of scripture,
Acts 15:31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at its encouragement.
Colossians 4:16 And after you have read this letter, have it read to the church of Laodicea. In turn, read the letter from Laodicea as well.

I believe it could be said that the reading of Paul's letters in an assembly would equate them with scripture?

So you doubt the authenticity of 2 Peter 3:16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.-- yet the writer claims to know Paul the Apostle.

Without a Church counsel on what can or cannot be read in a church assembly-they were instructed by the Apostles that i guess some are saying we just lost their decision on what would be read and as though Paul's letters wouldn't be enough?

Did we really need a church counsel to tell us John's gospel should be considered scripture? The Apostle was alive when it was circulating.

John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe 31 Or may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Quote: What is noteworthy for our purposes here is that the Muratorian fragment affirms 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. These include the four Gospels, Acts, all 13 epistles of Paul, Jude, 1 John, 2 John (and possibly 3rd John), and Revelation. This means that at a remarkably early point (end of the second century), the central core of the New Testament canon was already established and in place. end Quote:- https://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basi...orian-fragment-lists-22-of-our-27-nt-books-2/

Quote: Clement of Alexandria (c.198) had a remarkably similar position, affirming the 4 gospels, 13 epistles of Paul, Hebrews, Acts, 1 Peter, 1&2 John, Jude, and Revelation. Such a widespread affirmation of these books could not have happened overnight (sort of a “big bang” theory of canon), but would have required some predecessors. end Quote https://michaeljkruger.com/459/

So why such a focus on the Canon- Some would say how do you know what's scripture without the Church?