27 NT Books - How do you know?

[IgnatianPhilo]

Really? I would love to on what grounds? The canon has been closed since the 400s, what insight do they think they have now, especially since Protestantism started 1100 after the canon was closed. I would love for one of them to tell me how Saint Paul’s letters made it in the Bible considering he wrote them 400 years earlier when not a lot of people could read, paper was scarce and the Christians had been persecuted for most of the 400 years.

How has the canon ever been closed? We have different canons after the four hundreds by Hierachs and fathers whom we all consider saints and authoritative. John Damascene included in his canon the canons of the apostles which no one considers authoritative. Athanasius leaves out Esther in his canon (though giving it a place of honour nonetheless). It seems to me there has never been a universally agreed upon closed canon even when the east and west were united.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

One could do it on the basis of received doctrine: “My church teaches that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My church teaches Y about communion; this disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was wrong about communion.”

Further, one does not need to agree with both A and B: “My church teaches that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My church teaches Y about the Eucharist; this neither agrees nor disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius’ view of communion may or may not have been right.”

Indeed, that can also apply on the basis of personal study: “My understanding is that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My understanding is that the Eucharist is Y; this neither agrees nor disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius’ view of communion may or may not have been right.”

That is exactly my point though. In each of those instances the person makes a determination as to whether Athanasius was right or wrong on a particular point based on what the person already believes to be true, whether that belief is based upon what his church teaches or on his own personal study. Therefore, when the question becomes “how do you know that the 27 book NT is correct?,” and the person answers “because Athanasius listed the same 27 book NT canon way back in 367 AD,” his reasoning becomes circular because the reason he believes Athanasius was correct on the canon is because Athanasius agrees with what he already believes. It’s begging the question.

As noted before, the two ideas (the canon and the Eucharist) are parallel, not interdependent, and assent to one view does not logically entail assent to the other.

I understand that the ideas themselves (the canon and the Eucharist) are not interdependent; however, if one is using Athanasius–or the Fathers in general–as the authority for determining the canon, then what basis does the person have to reject them as authority for determining Eucharistic belief, other than because they do not agree with what the person already believes?

You state that it is not logically inconsistent, but actually it is in this instance, precisely because the Fathers are being used as a basis for authority. It is logically inconsistent to appeal to the Early Church Fathers as authority for the basis of a belief if one only appeals to them as authority in those instances in which the Fathers agree with what the person already believes.

We can illustrate this logically as follows:

IF A = B, THEN A is TRUE; IF A ≠ B, THEN A is FALSE.

If one is going to appeal to the Fathers as authority, then logically what should happen is the following:

Scenario 1: The NT Canon

A: I (and/or my church) believe the New Testament canon consists of the 27 NT books.

B: Athanasius (and/or the Fathers) believed the New Testament canon consited of the 27 NT books.

THEREFORE, my (and/or my church’s) belief in the 27 book NT canon is TRUE.

Scenario 2: The Eucharist

A: I (and/or my church) do not believe in the actual, substantial Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist.

B: Athanasius (and/or the Fathers) believed in the actual, substantial Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist.

THEREFORE, my (and/or my church’s) rejection of the actual, substantial Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist is FALSE.

However, what actually happens is the following:

Scenario 1: The NT Canon

A: Athanasius (and/or the Fathers) believed the New Testament canon consited of the 27 NT books.

B: I (and/or my church) believe the New Testament canon consists of the 27 NT books.

THEREFORE, Athanasius’ (and/or the Fathers’) determination of the 27 book NT canon is TRUE.

Scenario 2: The Eucharist

A: Athanasius (and/or the Fathers) believed in the actual, substantial Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist.

B: I (and/or my church) do not believe in the actual, substantial Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist.

THEREFORE, Athanasius’ (and/or the Fathers’) belief in the actual, substantial Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist is FALSE.

As the above clearly shows, while the person claims to appeal to Athanasius (and/or the Fathers) as the authority for his belief that the 27 book NT canon is correct, what he actually appeals to as authority is his own (or his church’s) pre-conceived belief. He merely uses Athanasius (and/or the Fathers) to support that belief because they agree with him in this instance.

If he was really appealing to the Fathers as authority for the NT canon, he would have to agree with them on the Eucharist as well in order to be logically consistent. Something is either authoritative or it is not. It can’t be authoritative on one point but not authoritative on another unless there is an appeal to a higher authority to determine when it is authoritative and when it is not. In this instance, that higher authority is the person’s (or his church’s) own pre-conceived belief. It can’t be the Bible in this instance because the question is dealing with what constitutes the proper composition of the Bible itself.

 

[Mystophilus]

when the question becomes “how do you know that the 27 book NT is correct?,” and the person answers “because Athanasius listed the same 27 book NT canon way back in 367 AD,” his reasoning becomes circular because the reason he believes Athanasius was correct on the canon is because Athanasius agrees with what he already believes. It’s begging the question.

This is true, but is not the OP’s question, which states, “non-Catholics often cite the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 AD) … this document alone is not the end of the evidence trail for most”. Athanasius is thus being cited as support, not as sole justification for the canon.

Now, there might be a Protestant out there who says, “This is the canon because Athanasius said so”, but I have not seen that yet. I have repeatedly seen Athanasius used as an exemplar of the status of the canon from the mid-C4th, to show that the canon has not been changed, and I suspect that that is the way in which he is most commonly used, although I have not surveyed all of the claims so as to establish this.

 

[KjetilK]

Athanasius has already set out his canon. The deuterocanon here looks like it’s being counted as the “merely read” section alongside the Shepherd and the Didache. Admittedly this translation is ambiguous; I’ll have to find the Greek at some point.

In that age, there was a difference between ‘canon’ and ‘Scripture.’ The canon was the writings to be read at Mass, while the rest were part of Scripture, but wasn’t read. You could say that the modern day equivalent of the canon is the lectionary. According to the older definition of canon, the Revelation of John is non-canonical in the Orthodox churches (as they do not read it during Mass), yet they still see it as part of Scripture.

 

[KjetilK]

Nieca was the council where the books of the Bible were chosen to be complied into one book, and the canon would be closed after that but that happened 100 years after Saint athanasius lived and he is only one of the Church fathers, Catholics aren’t bound to believe what he says. However, When a council is convened and all the Bishops along with the Holy Father are all in agreement they are infallible. It is why we can say with certainty, we know what books belong in the Bible.

Athanasius died almost 50 years after the council, in 373.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Nieca was the council where the books of the Bible were chosen to be complied into one book…

Evidence please.

 

[SteveVH]

Evidence please.

I would like to see the evidence as well. The Councils that had anything to do with determining the canon of Scripture are as follows:

Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (419) Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Florence (1441)
An ecumenical council. Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Council of Trent
An ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)

(Excerpted from Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl. Catholic Biblical Apologetics, © Copyright 1985-2004, Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl)

 

[in_servitude]

Something that I very much like about this thread is the parallel that I see with the nature of Christ.

True Man
True God

If we were to medically examine Christ before he was crucified (for example - X-rays, CAT scan, blood work, etc.) - we would not be able to identify the divine aspects. He would test out to be completely human.

But, we know that Jesus was the Divine Messiah: the Christ.

The way we have arrived at the current NT books also looks completely human. It is easy to see when we look at the human history around the selection of those writings.

But, we know, also, that the NT is divinely inspired - the Word of God.

A very nice parallel to Christ (both completely human, completely divine) - which is what I’d expect from the Church Christ installed. I like the symmetry.

 

[SteveVH]

Something that I very much like about this thread is the parallel that I see with the nature of Christ.

True Man
True God

If we were to medically examine Christ before he was crucified (for example - X-rays, CAT scan, blood work, etc.) - we would not be able to identify the divine aspects. He would test out to be completely human.

But, we know that Jesus was the Divine Messiah: the Christ.

The way we have arrived at the current NT books also looks completely human. It is easy to see when we look at the human history around the selection of those writings.

But, we know, also, that the NT is divinely inspired - the Word of God.

A very nice parallel to Christ (both completely human, completely divine) - which is what I’d expect from the Church Christ installed. I like the symmetry.

Excellent!

 

[benhur]

In respects to answering the question of "How does one know that the 27 NT books are all inclusive (nothing left out and nothing falsely included), non-Catholics often cite the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 AD), which we all know is the earliest citing of all 27 books. While this document alone is not the end of the evidence trail for most, I’m confused by what seems to me a conditional trust in the source of the document (Athanasius and more generally the Church to which he belonged). In other words, non-Catholics will trust Athanasius in respects to this document, but they do not trust him in respects to beliefs that he held, such as the Eucharist.

This brings to mind the question: If the Holy Spirit guided Athanasius to accurately represent the NT canon, is it logically coherent to hold that the Holy Spirit did not guide Athanasius in respects to his beliefs on the Eucharist?

One non-Catholic response that I have been able to think of is that we unconditionally trust God, but conditionally trust men. However, I don’t see this answer convincing, because I struggle to see it any different from simply responding to the ‘how do you know question’ by avoiding history and saying ‘God’.

I do see the general consensus of the Church Fathers’ documents/beliefs a plausible response to know that the 27 NT books are all-inclusive, and but at the same time, this seems to be a plausible argument for the Eucharist as well.

Would like to hear some different perspectives on this thought process - Thanks!

It depends if you apply once saved always saved to once right always right as far as a “church” . A type of Calvin predestination to infallibility. Peter was right on to the ultimatewith his confession , “Thou art the Christ” and later was rebuked , “Get behind me Satan”. Of course if we keep our eyes on Christ we are fine but look away and you error and either way Christ is there with us…

 

[SteveVH]

It depends if you apply once saved always saved to once right always right as far as a “church” . A type of Calvin predestination to infallibility. Peter was right on to the ultimatewith his confession , “Thou art the Christ” and later was rebuked , “Get behind me Satan”. Of course if we keep our eyes on Christ we are fine but look away and you error and either way Christ is there with us…

Is your conclusion, then, that it matters not if we fall into error? Christ will be with us anyway?

 

[benhur]

Is your conclusion, then, that it matters not if we fall into error? Christ will be with us anyway?

No, but is your conclusion that if you fall into error He has abandoned you ? Did Christ abandon Peter when he erred ? It certainly mattered to Peter when he erred as it should us.

 

[pablope]

It depends if you apply once saved always saved to once right always right as far as a “church” .

Well…did Jesus He will build on church? or several thousand protestant churches, each with their version of the truth?

Are there several truths or only one truth?

Peter was right on to the ultimatewith his confession , “Thou art the Christ” and later was rebuked , “Get behind me Satan”. Of course if we keep our eyes on Christ we are fine but look away and you error and either way Christ is there with us…

 

[KP3243]

Athanasius died almost 50 years after the council, in 373.

Swap out Nicea, as I had been reading on it all day and wrote that instead of Carthage.

 

[benhur]

Well…did Jesus He will build on church? or several thousand protestant churches, each with their version of the truth?
Are there several truths or only one truth?

Actually apparently He is building via at least three main branches, C and O and P’s,even if you claim (or Lumen Gentia claims) C is main branch. So the "several thousand " are immaterial for they all build.

But Peter also had the capacity to repent. Are you saying Peter took his eyes away from Christ after he repented?

No, at least not till the next error. Of course there is repentance but by predestination, infallibility and free will ? And how long does it take to “turn around’” ? A second, and hour, 40 days or 40 years or 400 ? The capacity to repent has the flip side of capacity not to repent, to put it off, for a long time. But His church will be built, even if He has to go to the byways to find elect.

 

[SteveVH]

No, but is your conclusion that if you fall into error He has abandoned you ? Did Christ abandon Peter when he erred ? It certainly mattered to Peter when he erred as it should us.

It’s not about Christ abandoning us. It is about us abandoning the Truth. Peter was repentant and loathed the fact that he had abandoned Jesus. Those who are in error and persist in that error are not repentant and therefore your analogy fails.

 

[benhur]

It’s not about Christ abandoning us. It is about us abandoning the Truth. Peter was repentant and loathed the fact that he had abandoned Jesus.

yes , we have said that.

Those who are in error and persist in that error are not repentant and therefore your analogy fails.

Right, but what is the time frame of error to repentance ? For example when did Peter repent of not wanting Jesus to go to the cross and Jesus rebuked him with the get behind me ? Was it after the rebuke because months even a year later he still drew the sword against his arrestors ? Anyways not sure what analogy fails . Was it free will to "error’’ or predestined to infallibility or the time frame issue ?

 

[KP3243]

I think it was maybe Fulton Sheen or someone like that who said that the Catholic Church will last forever because the Catholic Church entity built upon the weakest link not the strongest link- you can only go up from Peter not the other way around. Jesus tells us a lot when he still gives Peter the keys to the kingdom after he denies Him three times. Pope Benedict’s brother George said during the conclave that elected his brother, that Benedict begged the Lord the entire time not to pick him and Jesus chose otherwise. Then Benedict had the chance to accept or decline, what did he do, Benedict didn’t deny the Lord and accepted.

 

[KP3243]

yes , we have said that. Right, but what is the time frame of error to repentance ? For example when did Peter repent of not wanting Jesus to go to the cross and Jesus rebuked him with the get behind me ? Was it after the rebuke because months even a year later he still drew the sword against his arrestors ? Anyways not sure what analogy fails . Was it free will to "error’’ or predestined to infallibility or the time frame issue ?

I don’t think you understand infallibility, it only applies to articles faith and morals. The Pope can make errors just not in regard to those two things though.

 

[thecone137]

One could do it on the basis of received doctrine: “My church teaches that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My church teaches Y about communion; this disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was wrong about communion.”

Further, one does not need to agree with both A and B: “My church teaches that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My church teaches Y about the Eucharist; this neither agrees nor disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius’ view of communion may or may not have been right.”

Indeed, that can also apply on the basis of personal study: “My understanding is that X is the canon of the NT; this agrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius was right about the canon. My understanding is that the Eucharist is Y; this neither agrees nor disagrees with Athanasius; therefore, Athanasius’ view of communion may or may not have been right.”

As noted before, the two ideas (the canon and the Eucharist) are parallel, not interdependent, and assent to one view does not logically entail assent to the other.

I resonate with this post in that there seems to be an assumption of non-Catholics lurking in the background, which is selectivity of evidence that favors one’s current web of beliefs(confirmation bias). Now, that’s not to say one’s web of belief can’t change with enough exposure to certain kinds of evidence, but that’s what I see, nevertheless.

To be fair - If Catholics don’t accept merely consensus evidence, doesn’t that mean Catholics pick and choose evidence as well? (At a loss to provide examples, but I’m sure our non-Catholic friends can find some)