Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

[RedBert]

*A group of men in the fourth century ]to gather up a bunch of scrolls, decide which ones were “inspired” and which were not, and compile them together into one volume called “the Word of God.”

If not, what was the canon in A.D. 530 and how did anyone know what it was? *

I am suggestion it did not happen as you describe.

There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men

The Church gave the stamp of approval on what was already generally accepted.

I just referenced the facts on wiki
you are clinging a popular misconception.

 

[RedBert]

gotta go: i am prepareing a message for tomorrow on the thief on the cross:
also hitting Luke 18:14

that is justification through Faith , not works.

aka sola fide

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

blessings

never stop testing ALL things

acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[Jacafamala]

*A group of men in the fourth century ]to gather up a bunch of scrolls, decide which ones were “inspired” and which were not, and compile them together into one volume called “the Word of God.”

If not, what was the canon in A.D. 530 and how did anyone know what it was? *

I am suggestion it did not happen as you describe.

There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men

The Church gave the stamp of approval on what was already generally accepted.

I just referenced the facts on wiki
you are clinging a popular misconception.

So, the cannon of scripture just all kind of came together on it’s own? This makes no sense to me.

 

[RedBert]

"So, the cannon of scripture just all kind of came together on it’s own? This makes no sense to me. "

sorry.

Consider this:
the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed.

Important point:
How did the Jews know what was the the Canon of the Old Testament?
Did the RCC tell them in 530AD?

The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

In the same way:

The Early Christins recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it.
This is a very important point.
The Christians recognize what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition.
In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word.

That is what those who are of God do.

So I will repeat:

The Church gave the stamp of approval on what was already generally accepted.

 

[Jacafamala]

"So, the cannon of scripture just all kind of came together on it’s own? This makes no sense to me. "

sorry.

Consider the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed.

Important point:
How did the Jews know what was the the Canon of the old Testament?

God guided them

Did the RCC tell them in 530AD?

No need to get snarky. Hey don’t you have a sermon to be working on?–just kidding.

The Old Covenant ended with Christ who established His Church in a New Covenant and the Holy Spirit now guides her in all matters of Faith and morals.

The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

In the same way:

The Early Christins recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it.
This is a very important point.
The Christians recognize what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition.
In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word.

That is what those who are of God do.

Right, but that Charism was passed onto the Apostles and their successors, that’s what I’m telling you.

So I will repeat:

The Church gave the stamp of approval on what was already generally accepted.

Well, you get a bunch of bible believers in a room together and I don’t think they’d agree on many things. So it’s hard for me to accept that they’d all agree on scripture unless their was a headship; an authority. That Authority was Apostolic.

 

[RedBert]

It was already ageed upon prior to 540 AD

Note ALL the dates that are prior to 540 AD

Development of the New Testament canon
Main article: Development of the New Testament canon

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the “memoirs of the apostles,” which Christians called “gospels” and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[2] **A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, **who refers to it directly.[3] He also quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, the excluded ones being Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude.[4] By the early 200’s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation[5], see also Antilegomena. Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[6] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, **the major writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.**7]

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[8] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[9] The African Synod of Hippo, in **393, approved the New Testament, **as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[10] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[11] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[12] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[13] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[14]

Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon

If these historical facts don’t make sense to you, I don’t know what else do say.

 

[Jacafamala]

When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."

By whom had it already been decided? It was decided by those in authority, i.e. the Catholic Church.

 

[Jacafamala]

It doesn’t make any sense to me to say that everyone ‘just agreed’. Because whenever I’ve quoted an early Church father on a matter, say for example Justin Martyr on the Real Presence of the Eucharist, I’m told by Protestants, “Well he was wrong”. And that was a mere 100 years after Christ. Logically, if Justin Martyr really was wrong–and I don’t believe he was; I believe he was right–but if he was wrong, then how is it that the Church all agreed on the cannon of scripture? How is it they weren’t confused about that? Do you see why I have a problem with this? It doesn’t seem to hold water, this argument that the cannon all just happened and everyone agreed.

 

[RedBert]

if the word Church means believers and the word Catholic means one-universal then yes. the catholic church decided…

Believers in Jerusalem Alexandria , Syria ,Turkey, etc recognized the Word of God.

If you mean it was decided at a Council meeting : then ,no

consider the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

did all men suddenly become created equal on July 4, 1776

or were they just affirming what was already known?

In the same way the council of 540 AD confirmed what was already known.

 

[Jacafamala]

if the word Church means believers and the word Catholic means one-universal then yes. the catholic church decided…

Believers in Jerusalem Alexandria , Syria ,Turkey, etc recognized the Word of God.

If you mean it was decided at a Council meeting : then ,no

consider the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

did all mean suddenly become created equal on July 4, 1776

or were they just affirming what was already known?

In the same way the council of 540 AD confirmed what was already known.

When the Church defines something, it usually is a tradition that has been understood as being true, for a period of time orally. But when something becomes a dogma, or a defined doctrine, this only means it can never be changed, never reversed. So, yes. That is correct.

The only other point I was trying to make is that it was the Apostles, their successors and early Church fathers, that had been upholding the cannon prior to that, not just ‘any and all believers’.

 

[MonFrere]

I still stand by the face value of my original statement.

Sola Scriptura voids the word of God making it authority of none effect.

The Apostles, those closest to Jesus, heard FIRST HAND Jesus’ condemnation of various traditions of the Pharisees. The Apostles heard it, understood it, absorbed it and then boldly proclaimed for the newly formed Church to hold to the traditions they were taught.

Jesus certainly had a high view of scripture, no Catholic will argue that point, but in all that Jesus taught and preached the Apostles OBVIOUSLY didn’t get the impression that He was preaching anything remotely resembling sola scriptura.

In the church councils in Acts it was the authority of the Church that had to make a decision on which aspects of the Old Covenant was binding. This was not made explicit in any way in the Old Testament. All references to a new covenant in the Old Testament REQUIRED an authoritative Church to give those scriptures their proper interpretation and understanding. This was NOT decided by scripture alone for we notice in scripture and early church history that this was a development that the leadership of the Church understood THROUGH TIME. St. Peter make his decisions not based upon scripture alone but upon his personal experience based upon how he saw the Holy Spirit working through the gentiles.

Is there one authoritative Protestant voice that has the authority to speak to the Christian Church today? I certainly don’t see it. I contend the reason is precisely because of the anarchy inherent in sola scriptura. When put into practice this Protestant tradition, and it IS a tradition by all definitions, has made the Bible (as the Word of God) ineffective and of none effect. It cannot and has not solved disputes because instead of bringing unity it brings division – which is in direct violation of Jesus’ desire for His Church that it be ONE. Unity is Jesus’ goal for the Church. Sola scriptura has very effectively made that desire of Jesus intensely more difficult. And the only way for Protestant Christians to get away from the cognitive dissonance of Jesus clear statement of His desire for His Church is to say that Jesus didn’t mean what He said – again making the Word of God of none effect.

MonFrere

 

[teak421]

NO. And your question contains a presumption I am already contesting. Bit of a problem with that dontcha think?

Could you please explain this:

*13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
*
This is from 1 Thess 2:13.

This clearly shows the Word of God is also Oral. Are you disputing what is written so plainly by Paul?

What exactly are you contesting? That Sola Scriptura is not valid tradition? If you believe Sola Scriptura is a valid tradition, please put forward evidence.

Take care.

• Michael

 

[RedBert]

The head if the Catholic church speaks for Catholics, the head of the Methodist Church speaks for Methodists, the head of the Baptist Church speak for Baptists, etc…

Has there ever been a single voice on Earth to speak for all Christians?

James was the leader of the church that was located in Jerusalem, until Rome destroyed in 70 AD.

I recall Paul correcting Peter on certain doctrines of circumcision for Gentiles.
Who was the authority there?

The orthodox churches do not recognize the Pope as the earthly head of the Church.
Early Christian history (not just Roman Catholic history) shows the Bishop of Rome was never considered the one authoritative voice for all of Christendom by the Eastern Churches.

Never.

At the best he was considered an impartial mediator of disputes between other Eastern Churches.

Declaring someone as the authoritive voice of the all the Christians did not make it so…

The East never accepted it and when this issue became forced, then you have the Great Schism between the East and the West in 1054. but the issue was building much earlier than that.

 

[RedBert]

Your premise that the Bible is weakened because the Protestants disagree on infant Baptisms or should a piano be played in a church or married Priests misses the point.

from Saint Augustine:
On the essentials , unity
on the nonessentials , liberty,
and in all things, charity.

Consider when Mass went from Latin to English?
Was it wrong before and now it is right?

In Protestantism, if I and enough others prefer a service in Latin, then we can start one. That doesn’t weaken the Bible.

If I prefer to hear a service with an electric guitar and others want a service with an organ , that doesn’t weaken the Bible.

I want to worship on a Saturday night , and others say it has to be Sunday , that doesn’t weaken the Bible

If I want to be “still and know the Lord” and others want to” make a joyful noise” , that doesn’t weaken the Bible.

Romans 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike.** Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord**. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food** is unclean in itself. **But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. **15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin**

 

[Jacafamala]

The head if the Catholic church speaks for Catholics, the head of the Methodist Church speaks for Methodists, the head of the Baptist Church speak for Baptists, etc…

No, it’s different. Because the ancient Church was all of one accord.

Has there ever been a single voice on Earth to speak for all Christians?

Jesus Christ and His Vicar.

James was the leader of the church that was located in Jerusalem, until Rome destroyed in 70 AD.

I recall Paul correcting Peter on certain doctrines of circumcision for Gentiles.
Who was the authority there?

In the bible, when one disagreed with the other, then the matter was settled and the unity maintained.

The orthodox churches do not recognize the Pope as the earthly head of the Church.
Early Christian history (not just Roman Catholic history) shows the Bishop of Rome was never considered the one authoritative voice for all of Christendom by the Eastern Churches.

Never.

At the best he was considered an impartial mediator of disputes between other Eastern Churches.

The Eastern Churches also have true Apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. But they don’t have the Vicar of Christ; they don’t have the Pope.

Declaring someone as the authoritive voice of the all the Christians did not make it so…

True enough if it were you or I, but it was Our Lord who said it.

*Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. *

The East never accepted it and when this issue became forced, then you have the Great Schism between the East and the West in 1054. but the issue was building much earlier than that.

Ultimately it was the long distance and lack of communication that caused the split. Very unfortunate. Still in all we share very much in common, the Eastern Orthodox and Rome.

 

[teak421]

Your premise that the Bible is weakened because the Protestants disagree on infant Baptisms or should a piano be played in a church or married Priests misses the point.

from Saint Augustine:
On the essentials , unity
on the nonessentials , liberty,
and in all things, charity.

Consider when Mass went from Latin to English?
Was it wrong before and now it is right?

In Protestantism, if I and enough others prefer a service in Latin, then we can start one. That doesn’t weaken the Bible.

If I prefer to hear a service with an electric guitar and others want a service with an organ , that doesn’t weaken the Bible.

I want to worship on a Saturday night , and others say it has to be Sunday , that doesn’t weaken the Bible

If I want to be “still and know the Lord” and others want to” make a joyful noise” , that doesn’t weaken the Bible.

Romans 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike.** Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord**. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food** is unclean in itself. **But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. ****15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin

Infant Baptism is one thing, but Protestants can not even agree on the basic doctrine of Salvation. For example:

1. Calvinists believe we have no free-will and we are born either destined to Heaven or Hell.
2. Southern Baptist believe that once you are saved you are always saved.
3. Assembly of God believe that you can lose your salvation. (baptism is NOT required).
4. Pentecostals believe that you must speak in tongues as evidence that you are saved.
5. Apolotstic Church of Christ believe that you must be Baptized in Jesus’s name ONLY.
6. Others believe that you are to be baptists in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, back to the original posters proposition… From just this simple illustration above, doesn’t the Tradition of Sola Scriptura make Scripture null and void because the above listed groups can even agree on the basics of Salvation. AND, since Sola Scriptura is the tradition that brought us this mess (see above list) shouldn’t it be rejected?

If you have some free time, be sure to check out: geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

Have a great weekend!

• Michael

PS: Where does the Bible “rank” doctrine? Doesn’t it say for us to be like-minded and in one accord?

 

[MonFrere]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

did all men suddenly become created equal on July 4, 1776

or were they just affirming what was already known?

In the same way the council of 540 AD confirmed what was already known.

I don’t think it was quite that cut and dried. My understanding is that there was debate on the issue of the phrase “and the pursuit of Happiness”. Originally, as I understand it, the current philosophical currents of the Enlightenment understood these to be Life, Liberty and PROPERTY. For reasons, which I forget, our founding fathers decided upon the phrase “pursuit of Happiness” instead. The point here being, that even though there may have been a “general understanding” before this time - when one is compelled to publish an official document it is VERY IMPORTANT to get every detail exactly and precisely accurate. These details take very close and refined thinking to put on paper.

As far as the canon of scripture goes, the ancient Church was very content to go about its business without a canon. Have you ever read 1 Clement? There’s a lot of good material in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. The Church used 1 Clement but it didn’t make the canonical cut. I think the Didache makes a very interesting read as to the worship practices of the ancient Church; but it didn’t make the cut either.

To take this point and go the other way. St. Paul spoke his own opinion in regards to marriage because of the “present distress” his church was going through in the mid first century. He appealed to the fact that he had the Spirit of God. Yet, this same St. Paul made sure the gospel as he understood it was the same as that of St. Peter. Point being is that there is flexibility in the operations of the Church. Still are. Your quote of St. Augustine is certainly well taken. But NOT on points of the gospel. So, the scripture that became “canonized” demonstrates this “movement toward discovery of truth” going through the leadership of the Church.

The canon included books that at first glance see to be out of place. Philemon? the return of a runaway slave and part of the inspired word of God? Isn’t slavery now looked upon as an affront to human dignity? Yet, it’s something the Church saw as an evil (including good Protestants, too) and moved society to change it in spite of Biblical precedent for it. THAT’S Development of Doctrine. How about St. Paul’s apology for his own ministry? Sacred scripture give time for a first century apostle, not even one of the twelve, to defend his ministry? And, it didn’t include books and writing that listed worship practices or important letters of one of the successors of St. Peter. I will let God be God and accept His decisions as he led His Church.

My problem with the Reformation isn’t that there were not severe problems in the Church in the 16th century. It was highly embarrassing. The validity of the points were not without truth. BUT had Martin Luther stayed within the framework of the Church and not been so self-willed, if he would have been as one of the major players in the first Church council in Jerusalem and allowed his ideas to work through the authoritative channels of the Church, we probably would be praising Martin Luther as THE great reformer; perhaps even being a saint. (Other saints have suffered great mental problems; and certainly Luther could have overcome his.) The Counter-Reformation or the Catholic Reformation did address problems extant in the Catholic Church.

Now back to my original point – the fruits of sola scriptura. Have they created a Church that doesn’t have problems at least equal to the problems of the late medieval Church? Have they created a more pure Church? Has all the “solas” accomplished things that the first 1,500 years of Christianity couldn’t? I content that without an authoritative Church to make decisions that give finality and direction to the problems that the Church ALWAYS seems to have to face Christianity is MUCH WORSE OFF. The same problems and others are part of Protestantism that you railed against during the Reformation. The BIG difference is that sola scriptura PREVENTS you from solving problems because it invariably leads to division. It is the noose that’s going to hang you.

I see sola scriptura as a thinly veiled version of our first parents deciding for themselves what was good and evil. The tree of life is the way of trust. Can you trust a Church that Christ promises that He will never leave or forsake? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the way of man wanting to decide for himself. The way I see sola scriptura is to see Christians involved in the same garden of Eden games. It’s not the way of life, it’s the way of trusting in your own abilities – everyone thinking they have God’s Spirit (which I believe they do) but not knowing what to do concerning doctrines that are opposed to each other. Sola scriptura cannot solve that dilemma. I propose something novel – even though all Christians possess the Holy Spirit and desire the truth – we do not have the ability or the spiritual maturity OR AUTHORITY to figure it out on our own. Jesus gave that authority to the Church. In my mind, that’s one of the easiest things to “get” out of reading the gospels.

MonFrere

 

[ccolley2]

The Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible is the written word. It is a physical tool God has prepare for us.
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Obviously, when Jesus told us the Scriptures cannot be broken, he was not talking about a series of books translated from the writings of the prophets and apostles.

Many false gospels have been written. Many bible translations have been accidentally and intentionally distorted.

Even Catholic Bibles have been admitted to contain errors.

The Scriptures cannot be broken means:

God does not change.
if someone mistranslates Scriptures to say something other than what was originally intended, it doesn’t change God’s law

The Bible is one way to test if something is true or false.
The Holy Spirit is another way.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
God has warned us not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits because even satan masquerades as an angel of light.
Even God’s creation assists us in discerning truth.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It seems to me Catholics are the ones “emasculating” the Bible and making it null and void.

Catholics claim the Bible cannot be understood but that tradition will teach clearly.

Then what need do you have for the Holy Scriptures?

How does the Bible tell us that can tell the Spirit of Truth from the Spirit of Error??
Hint: It is in 1John4:1-6. Who is the “we” in this bible passage?
CC

 

[inkaneer]

It was already ageed upon prior to 540 AD

Note ALL the dates that are prior to 540 AD

Development of the New Testament canon
Main article: Development of the New Testament canon

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the “memoirs of the apostles,” which Christians called “gospels” and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[2] **A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, **who refers to it directly.[3] He also quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, the excluded ones being Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude.[4] By the early 200’s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation[5], see also Antilegomena. Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[6] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, **the major writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.**7]

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[8] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[9] The African Synod of Hippo, in **393, approved the New Testament, **as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[10] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[11] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[12] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[13] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[14]

Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon

If these historical facts don’t make sense to you, I don’t know what else do say.

But what did you leave out? First, what about all those other books that were in circulation and were considered in some locals to be inspired? Here I am referring to the Gnostic writings that are still touted today as “The Missing Books of The Bible” You heard of them; The gospel of Peter, The gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Judas, The Appocalypse of Peter, etc. Second, you fail to mention the REAL reason the canon of scripture was compiled. It was not compiled to be a self study guide to Christianity as the protestants have made it. That is a protestant perversion. No, the canon was compiled so that churches in different locales would have the same readings for use in the liturgical celebration of the Mass. It’s a liturgical book not some sort of Cliff notes to the Christian message as the protestants would have it. Third, you leave off the fact that these same councils not only defined the same New Testament canon but they also defined the Old Testament canon. And the Old testament canon they defined had 46 books, the same books as the Catholic Bible today and not the abridged 39 books that protestants claim. Now you got a very big problem here. You got an 800 pound gorilla in the room which you can’t ignore. You accept the decisions of these councils on the NT canon but you reject those same councils’ decisions on the OT canon. That inconsistancy means that your NT canon is no more than a shot in the dark as far as being inspired because if these men at those councils were wrong about the canon of the OT how can you even begin to think they could be correct about the canon of the NT? **YOU CAN"T!!! **[caps for emphasis]

And with that protestantism crumbles into the world of mythology just like the Greek, Roman, the Nordic tribes and all the other mythological religions. Because without the guarantee of church authority those councils decisions are not worthy of belief and the validity of the canon of the scriptures being correct is based on random chance. That means sola scriptura is meaningless as is private interpretation of those scriptures and christianity becomes a nice fairy tale about a messy execution. That is the result of the protestant position and you are welcome to it. But the picture changes with the Catholic position. Here the church does have authority. Here the church is guided by the Holy Spirit into truth. So those canons of both the New and the Old Testaments are worthy of belief and can be used in liturgical celebrations.

 

[Loude]

How did the Jews know what was the the Canon of the Old Testament?
Did the RCC tell them in 530AD?

The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

Wasn’t there a difference in the Jewish Canon between the Greek and Hebrew?