The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[quietlight]

Dude... go ahead and drop the other shoe. Thanks in advance!

You have called me out for wrong assuming what you believe in the past - I certainly don't want to do that again. Again, forgive me for drawing this out. Of course, you don't have to answer these questions...I am asking out of curiosity. Of course, there is a point to all of them, but it makes no sense to get ahead of ourselves only to find that something was assumed that should not have been.

I promise there won't be too many more in this line of questioning.

 

[*Paul*]

I'd like to end my particpation in this thread as I feel as though it has run it's course and become a little arguementative with a page i have been meditating upon from a book by an Anglican mInister from the 18th century which sums up my position and I hope every born again believer out there perfectly, I think Scuba Pete will like this:

Worship of the letter A denial of the Spirit:

The Holy Scriptures are the divinely inspired Word of God, and therefore to be fully believed, highly reverenced, and strictly obeyed. SInce faith comes by hearing the Word of God, and "the just shall live by faith" we must ever remember that the basis of the Christian life is a constant meditation upon and simple acceptance of all that the bible would say to us.
But as Christ's work of redemption in the flesh was only preporatory to His future indwelling us by the Spirit, so the written doctrines of Scripture are only a means to all that inward teaching and powerful working of Christ's Spirit within us. As we must beware of neglecting the Word of God, so also we must beware of resting in the mere letter without expecting through the indwelling Holy Spirit a real and living experience of all that Scripture holds out to our faith.
Nothing of divine love, life, or goodness can have birth or place in us but by inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit within our hearts. So they who imagine these virtues can be aquired by studying the letter of the gospels and epistles are under the same deception as the Jews that Christ said would not come to Him because they thought eternal life was in and by the Old Testament Scriptures alone.
The bible should be reverenced as doing all that words can do to bring us to God - that is, to point the way. But the life-giving power of Christ does not reside in Greek and Hebrew syntax, but in the quickening of the Holy Spirit: for "the gospel is not in word only, but in power and in much assurance of the Holy Spirit"
William Law - The power of The Spirit.

And a few of my favourite scriptures:
Jn 7v37-39: In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Rv 22v17: And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Rv 22v20: He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

 

[Katzpur]

Quietlight is a nice addition to RF. I pray he sticks around, cause I can use the help...

You do a remarkable job, Victor, but I agree, Quietlight would be a great addition to the Catholic group. Besides, you and Athanasius could use some company. You guys are way, way under-represented on RF and I am always happy to see a new Catholic come aboard.

Katz, what needs to be understood is how the Church's hierarchical structure works in the Catholic Church. Whatever was inspired in 200 AD (wrongly or correctly) isn't made official until it's gone through the right channels. It would be like a Bishop in the LDS declaring that there is an additional book that is inspired by God. He may be correct, he may be flawed, but either way the flock is not bound to believe it until it goes through the proper channels.

Hope that helps.

Yes, it really does help, and you explained it well. I guess it just seems to me that nearly 400 years is a relatively long time for things to get finalized. I asked someone else about this awhile back and the answer I got was that in the overall scheme of things, it really wasn't all that long. Well, in the overall scheme of things, 2000 years isn't all that long either. I'm sure that the early leaders of your Church were making a sincere, earnest effort to decide what should be included in the canon and what should be omitted? I'm sure they were praying for guidance and were relying on the Holy Spirit to receive it, and yet, for a full ten generations, the question of what constituted God's word went unresolved. I'm afraid I don't understand why.

 

[quietlight]

Yes, it really does help, and you explained it well. I guess it just seems to me that nearly 400 years is a relatively long time for things to get finalized. I asked someone else about this awhile back and the answer I got was that in the overall scheme of things, it really wasn't all that long. Well, in the overall scheme of things, 2000 years isn't all that long either. I'm sure that the early leaders of your Church were making a sincere, earnest effort to decide what should be included in the canon and what should be omitted? I'm sure they were praying for guidance and were relying on the Holy Spirit to receive it, and yet, for a full ten generations, the question of what constituted God's word went unresolved. I'm afraid I don't understand why.

Most things that become overtly 'declared' by the church are declared out of a new need to do so. It wasn't that it took the church 400 years to decide on a canon, its that there was not a need until the end of the 4th century. The most recent doctrine declared is not a new article of faith, but rather an affirmation of what the church has taught all along. In the same way, the canon wasn't decided upon at the end of the 4th century, rather the scriptural books that the Church had been teaching from for 400 years was affirmed to be inspired by God.

 

[Katzpur]

Most things that become overtly 'declared' by the church are declared out of a new need to do so. It wasn't that it took the church 400 years to decide on a canon, its that there was not a need until the end of the 4th century. The most recent doctrine declared is not a new article of faith, but rather an affirmation of what the church has taught all along. In the same way, the canon wasn't decided upon at the end of the 4th century, rather the scriptural books that the Church had been teaching from for 400 years was affirmed to be inspired by God.

Perhaps, but if that is the case, could you explain the following:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

The "scriptural books that the Church had been teaching from for 400 years" does not appear to me to be consistent.

 

[joeboonda]

From: www.gotquestions.org ​

What is sola scriptura?​

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The words “sola scriptura” are from the Latin: "sola" having the idea of "alone," "ground," "base," and the word "scriptura" meaning "writings" - referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. "All Scripture is 'God breathed' (given of inspiration of God) and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the "rallying cry" of the Protestant reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were, in fact, contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are: prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran church and father of the Protestant reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, "Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, - unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, - and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!"

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue, “the Bible nowhere states that it is the ONLY authoritative guide for faith and practice.” While this is true – it fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for “sola scriptura,” it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed – the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that are in contradiction with the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of Sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone, and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. 2 Timothy 2:15 declares, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the Word of truth."

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying Christian doctrine, and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. The must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church (and many other Christian churches) is that it basis traditions on traditions on traditions on traditions – often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available in mass for 1500+ years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? How, then, were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to based their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it is essentially saying that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal, because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or even the fact that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of Scripture a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures readily available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority, so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions, and passing them on from generation to generation – the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through studying God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions that have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and are in agreement with God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or are in disagreement with God’s Word, must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Recommended Resource: Scripture Alone by James White.


[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]
Return to:[/FONT]

Bible Questions Answered</U>​

 

[MaddLlama]

The problem with this argument is that it is essentially saying that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal, because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or even the fact that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of Scripture a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures readily available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority, so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions, and passing them on from generation to generation – the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Wow, that is the biggest cop-out ever. It's the church's fault for not having compiled scripture sooner, and not having understood the idea of sola scriptura before it was even presented. And, all the people who simply didn't know, well, it's their own fault for not investigating and trying to read the scriptures at a time when free-thinking was considered heresy and punishable by death, or excommunication. Scriptures authority was universal before it even existed, and everyone should have known that. Right. Logistically, the early church leaders should have said "In the future, there will be a book of God's word, and it will be the universal law. And, even though we don't have that book yet, and nobody knows what it will say, you will be held accountable for what will be in it!"
Am I the only one who thinks this is horrible and illogical reasoning?

If Webster were to come out with a new dictionary that changes the meanings of several words, and adds new words, would it be fair for a teacher to say "This new dictionary won't be published for another 3 years, but I expect you to use all of those new words, and old words with new meanings properly in your paper that's due next week". How exactly am I supposed to do that if the material doesn't even exist yet?

 

[quietlight]

Perhaps, but if that is the case, could you explain the following:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

The "scriptural books that the Church had been teaching from for 400 years" does not appear to me to be consistent.

There is a difference between what the Church teaches and what individuals teach. You will find before any formalization of doctrine in the church various individuals (some of whom are rather well-respected members of the church) who disagree with the doctrine. This is exactly the purpose of Tradition. You may have differing opinions on things - and those differing opinions may be many, but when the church gathers to formalize a teaching, it appeals to Tradition and what has been handed down from the Apostles themselves.

So the fact that you can find various people who put out canons that differ from the church is not so much an inconsistency of what the church taught (because the church did not have a formal canon before that time), but rather a demonstration of why and how the church comes to make formal declarations.

 

[Katzpur]

There is a difference between what the Church teaches and what individuals teach. You will find before any formalization of doctrine in the church various individuals (some of whom are rather well-respected members of the church) who disagree with the doctrine.

I couldn't agree more. This is always an issue for Latter-day Saints, too. "According to so-and-so..." is not the same thing as "According to Church doctrine..."

So the fact that you can find various people who put out canons that differ from the church is not so much an inconsistency of what the church taught (because the church did not have a formal canon before that time), but rather a demonstration of why and how the church comes to make formal declarations.

The problem is that I did not give examples of "various people who put out canons." I provided historical evidence as to which books the Church considered "scripture" at different times during those first few hundred years. I realize that the canon had not yet been finalized. What I don't understand is why this was the case. If there was so much disagreement over the years as to what was accepted as authoritative, why did it take so long for the Church to make an official statement? It's not as if the issue came up for the first time at the end of the fourth century and was promptly addressed.

 

[joeboonda]

Wow, that is the biggest cop-out ever. It's the church's fault for not having compiled scripture sooner, and not having understood the idea of sola scriptura before it was even presented. And, all the people who simply didn't know, well, it's their own fault for not investigating and trying to read the scriptures at a time when free-thinking was considered heresy and punishable by death, or excommunication. Scriptures authority was universal before it even existed, and everyone should have known that. Right. Logistically, the early church leaders should have said "In the future, there will be a book of God's word, and it will be the universal law. And, even though we don't have that book yet, and nobody knows what it will say, you will be held accountable for what will be in it!"
Am I the only one who thinks this is horrible and illogical reasoning?

If Webster were to come out with a new dictionary that changes the meanings of several words, and adds new words, would it be fair for a teacher to say "This new dictionary won't be published for another 3 years, but I expect you to use all of those new words, and old words with new meanings properly in your paper that's due next week". How exactly am I supposed to do that if the material doesn't even exist yet?

I believe the Bible is God's Word. The people did know the Gospel, it was told far and wide, and many were eye-witnesses of it. It was not 'done in a corner', but everyone knew of it. They heard the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles, with signs, wonders, and miracles accompanying it. God even gave them, for a time, the gift of tongues and interpretation, so they could know what God would have them do in their churches. But, these eye-witnesses wrote it down, it was widely circulated and commonly read AND if there were any 'false gospels' people were quick to point them out. After setting strict guidelines and much work, they finaly they got the Biblical Canon put together through the power of the Holy Spirit, and, I believe tongues were no longer needed. But the gospel, that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and rose again, that all who believed in their heart and confessed with their mouth Jesus as Lord shall be saved, is as plain today as it was then, we have God's Word on it.

 

[quietlight]

The problem is that I did not give examples of "various people who put out canons." I provided historical evidence as to which books the Church considered "scripture" at different times during those first few hundred years. I realize that the canon had not yet been finalized. What I don't understand is why this was the case. If there was so much disagreement over the years as to what was accepted as authoritative, why did it take so long for the Church to make an official statement? It's not as if the issue came up for the first time at the end of the fourth century and was promptly addressed.

None of the examples you provided were proclamations by the church, but rather members of the church (albeit well-respected members).

Why wasn't the canon finalized earlier? Well, if I've learned anything from my 30 years in the Church its that speed is not a huge concern. I do know that the councils which brought forward an official canon were called in repsonse to a time where heresies were cropping up and gaining a good amount of momentum.

While I don't want to rule out the possibility that there was 'so much disagreement' over the canon, it wouldn't become an issue that the church would address until there was 'so much disagreement'. And, in all honesty, 200 years is not a terribly long time for something like a biblical canon to be officially declared from the first moment that people tries to declare a canon.

Maybe one of the other Catholics (or Orthodox ) people on this board could fill in more on this.

 

[MaddLlama]

I believe the Bible is God's Word. The people did know the Gospel, it was told far and wide, and many were eye-witnesses of it. It was not 'done in a corner', but everyone knew of it. They heard the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles, with signs, wonders, and miracles accompanying it. God even gave them, for a time, the gift of tongues and interpretation, so they could know what God would have them do in their churches. But, these eye-witnesses wrote it down, it was widely circulated and commonly read AND if there were any 'false gospels' people were quick to point them out. After setting strict guidelines and much work, they finaly they got the Biblical Canon put together through the power of the Holy Spirit, and, I believe tongues were no longer needed. But the gospel, that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and rose again, that all who believed in their heart and confessed with their mouth Jesus as Lord shall be saved, is as plain today as it was then, we have God's Word on it.

Oral storytelling is not the same thing as scripture. Scripture, by it's very definition has to be in recorded form, so speaking the "gospel" story doesn't count as scripture. So, before these books were compiled into a written record you call "scripture", what exactly was authoritative?

Also, I would be interested to know if your post describes a first hand account of what happened at that time. Because, it sounds like you know everything about what the early Christians thought and did. How do you know this is what happened?

 

[James the Persian]

None of the examples you provided were proclamations by the church, but rather members of the church (albeit well-respected members).

Why wasn't the canon finalized earlier? Well, if I've learned anything from my 30 years in the Church its that speed is not a huge concern. I do know that the councils which brought forward an official canon were called in repsonse to a time where heresies were cropping up and gaining a good amount of momentum.

Yes, it was called the Reformation. The problem with your argument is that there wasn't ever a proclamation of a canon in the Church that had more than local authority - no Ecumenical Council ever touched the issue. It simply became accepted over time, with no noticeable argument, that the opinions of local councils such as Carthage and individuals such as St. Athanasios were right. The first time for both of us that councils actually defined all the books of both Testaments was in response to the Reformers' mutilation of Scripture. In our case, much like Carthage, this was a local council (Iasi) which later gained universal approval. I'm unsure as to the status of your council.

While I don't want to rule out the possibility that there was 'so much disagreement' over the canon, it wouldn't become an issue that the church would address until there was 'so much disagreement'. And, in all honesty, 200 years is not a terribly long time for something like a biblical canon to be officially declared from the first moment that people tries to declare a canon.

I don't know what 200 years you are referring to. Even were you to claim universal authority for one of the councils or indivisuals involved in defining the canon, you'd be saying that it couldn't have been defined any earlier than the very end of the 4th century and on top of that you'd be decidedly incorrect to make such an assertion. As for the councils that did finally define the canon, they were long after the Great Schism which itself happened a millennium after the Crucifixion.

Maybe one of the other Catholics (or Orthodox ) people on this board could fill in more on this.

Orthodox are Catholics, we're just not Roman Catholics. And hopefully I have done.

James

 

[quietlight]

The NT canon was officially accepted at the Council of Hippo in 393...

 

[James the Persian]

The NT canon was officially accepted at the Council of Hippo in 393...

No. That was a local council. The Council of Carthage 4 years later was likewise local. Neither council had any authority over the Church anywhere other than in North Africa (and then only west of Egypt). You appear to be trying to characterise this council as Ecumenical in nature when it was not. Had it been so, why did the issue not end there? The answer is that it was one of several points in a process but it was not the end of it. The fact that the Councilof Carthage in 397, called by the very same local church, again considered the issue of the Biblical canon and again drew up a list of it just goes to prove what I am saying. Even within North Africa where the councils did have authority, the issue was not considered setlled in 393. I'm afraid that your understanding of the history is flawed and I'd be very surprised if this is the official teaching of the RCC. If it is, then it is in error.

James

 

[Baerly]

Before I start posting, I want to make sure my intentions are clear. I am simply looking for good conversation and seeing other people's viewpoints. I am a Roman Catholic and love my faith. I do have a lot of questions about why some protestants believe what they believe.

This particular post is to look into why many protestants believe in 'Sola Scriptura'. Even if you do not believe in Sola Scriptura, but you believe that all a person needs is to read the bible to get to know Christ, this question would apply to you.

So here is my question: if the Bible alone is enough, can anyone tell me when the Bible was actually compiled into the version that we know today?

There is evidence there was a list of the New Testament books around the second century and maybe earlier. It is believed the reason it is not complete is because it was torn.

The letters which were wrote to the churches in the first century were out there and they just needed to be gathered together in one book . Is it the case that those letters were less inspired before they were gathered together in a book called the bible? Of course not.

Those letters were confirmed by miracles according to (Heb.2:3,4) (Mark 16:20) (Acts 2:22). This is how they recognized them as the words of God. They were just as powerful before they were gathered together (the bible) as they were afterwards (Rom.1:16). When they were gathered together may be a topic to discuss,but it does not lessen the power of the letters before they were put together in a book (the bible). They were just as authoratative before they were gathered together.

I would like to point out that the apostles received (ALL) the words Jesus spoke to them while he was on the earth according to (John 14:26 ; 16:13). If they received all the words Jesus said,this would mean there is no more. The revelation was once delivered according to (Jude 3). We have all things pertaining to life and godliness according to (2Peter 1:3). This all happened in the first century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

in love Baerly