Can One Trust the New Testament Canon is Correct?

[TruthHasSpoken]

"Some Christians don’t consider any of the NT the word of God. "

Czechman, can you cite who some of these Christians are? Perhaps provide link to a website or two.

 

[CzechMan]

I haven’t seen a website. It is not like they form a denomination. It is basically some very liberal Christians, found especially in partially liberal denominations, who do not believe God has inspired some scriptures, they just feel that God wants us to be guided by reason, wise thinking, rather than any old fashioned scriptures, which they feel have a lot of archaic old fashioned thinking, like sexism, homophobia, approval of slavery, approval of genocides, God judging people based on what they happen to believe. Christians like that are quite common in the United Church of Christ, which is a predominantly liberal denomination. But they exist in other denominations too. They are not rare in the Unitarian Universalist Association, but there most members do not consider themselves Christian. But hardly anyone in the Unitarian Universalist Association believes any scriptures are the word of God. But since this denomination has no dogma, only some mainly ethical principles, then as far as religious beliefs, they are very varied. So I can imagine some Unitarian Universalist believing some book or some part of a book is the word of God. But that must be very unusual.
I wonder if my own father believed that any part of the Bible is the word of God. I don’t think he considered himself guided by anything in the Bible. He had very humanistic, idealistic, even naive beliefs. He believed that ultimately nobody is really evil, everybody is good. Very different from what the Bible teaches. He considered himself to be Catholic, but he rejected many Catholic beliefs. He told me that the Catholic church is the best, because if everybody was Catholic, then there would be no religious wars. So he believed the Catholic church should accept all people regardless of their beliefs. Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. should all join the church and the church should let all of them become members regardless of their beliefs. So he said that is the reason he is Catholic. He did believe in God. And interestingly he liked the preaching of Herbert W. Armstrong, and got a free subscription to a magazine they published, the Plain Truth. Armstrong was of course the leader of the Worldwide Church of God. I don’t know what my father liked so much about them, they were in many ways different from his beliefs. Maybe he was especially attracted by their pacifism. Anyway, he died about a year after Armstrong died. So he did not get to witness the huge doctrinal changes in the Worldwide Church of God after Armstrong’s death. They became a basically normal Protestant denomination. Huge changes.

 

[dochawk]

The only alternative view that I can see is that a Magisterium identified that a NT ought to exist, which books belong to it, which guys are ECFs, and which heretics.

Uhm, that’s exactly what happened. Church councils determined the canon, and they did it from those books actually used liturgically.

The very existence of “The Bible” is an exercise of the teaching authority of the bishops.

hawk

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

It is not like they form a denomination. It is basically some very liberal Christians, found especially in partially liberal denominations,

You are describing a denomination of one or two.

"They are not rare in the Unitarian Universalist Association, but there most members do not consider themselves Christian

Right.

He believed that ultimately nobody is really evil, everybody is good.

Dad was right. All man-kind is created in God’s image which is good, although free will distorts this image, sometime greatly. Some created in God’s image and likeness can do some pretty horrific things.

He considered himself to be Catholic, but he rejected many Catholic beliefs.

And ages old problem from the beginning of Christianity.

I don’t know what my father liked so much about them

Perhaps he liked Armstrong. I’m not Catholic because of the charisma of any priest or Bishop, nor Catholic because of any ordained religious striving to live a life of holiness (and there are many who do). I’m Catholic because I believe the truth that the faith teaches, and see Christ’s promise in action through history,

“13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16).

I take him at his word, ALL means ALL as it relates to doctrine taught.

 

[CzechMan]

It sounds so simple, that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic church for all doctrines, so this way Catholics don’t need to wonder what doctrines are correct, they just need to listen to the teachings of the Catholic church. And there is some advantage in this compared to Protestants, who believe in relying on the Bible alone and no church, the problem for Protestants is that various verses are difficult, so different Protestants come with different interpretations, different doctrines. Though Catholics are not the only ones who believe the Holy Spirit is guiding their church to correct doctrines. You had the same belief for example in the former Worldwide Church of God, which I had mentioned in my previous post. They believed the Holy Spirit was guiding their leader Herbert W. Armstrong into correct doctrines. He was considered infallible. After his death they abandoned this doctrine, as they became Protestant. But some churches still believe this about Armstrong. And for example the Philadelphia Church of God believes this both about Armstrong as well as their current leader and apostle, Flurry.
A more famous example are the Mormons, as well as various offshoots of the Mormons. And there are other examples.
Of course you can argue that Catholics have a more powerful claim, since they were according to Catholic claim guided already from the first century, not some start of Holy Spirit guidance centuries later. Well, I have considered that. I have studied a lot what did the Catholic theologians and bishops teach in the second and third centuries, what doctrines they taught and wrote about. And I was quite surprised. They taught some doctrines totally opposite to modern Catholic doctrines, in some doctrines they agreed instead with Christians like the Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, and the former Worldwide Church of God, and its modern offshoots. Like for example that it is a sin to fight in wars, to gamble, to be involved in a government, to eat blood, to go to a theater or other entertainment. Such things were important doctrines, taught in unison by all the Catholic writers of the time. They are sometimes called the Ante-Nicene Fathers. And all these doctrines were later rejected by the Catholic church. So was the church guided in all doctrine by the Holy Spirit already in the second century?

 

[Isearch]

Like for example that it is a sin to fight in wars, to gamble, to be involved in a government, to eat blood, to go to a theater or other entertainment.

If you had read St Augustine’s works The City of God and the Confessions, you would have realized that during the time of the Romans, theatres were essentially acts of veneration to the often questionable deeds of the Roman gods. The saint even mentioned that the immorality displayed in them compelled Roman law itself to ban actors from government positions. So in the case of theatres, there were moral reasons behind their prohibition. During the medieval times, this prohibition was lifted because the moral dangers in them were no longer present. They, instead, had plays in honor of the saints and had biblical events depicted. I could even argue this ancient ecclesiastical prohibition can be said to be implemented today in the ratings of films by Church authorities in your area; if the films are against or not against the faith.

 

[Isearch]

Book 2 chapters 11-14 of the City of God by Saint Augustine mentioned the problems of theatres during that time.

 

[CzechMan]

Anyway, you just mentioned one doctrine, out of a number which the ancient church shared with denominations like the Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. And which were later abolished.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

It sounds so simple, that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic church for all doctrines

Catholics trust Jesus Christ : I will send the paraclete to lead you to ALL truth.

Protestants, who believe in relying on the Bible alone

And in relying on the bible alone, a theology found in the 16th century, the fruit has been fragmentation and division. Arguably complete chaos and in the end, evidence that Christ didn’t do as he promised.

the problem for Protestants is that various verses are difficult

Problem is decapitating the faith handed down from the apostles, taught by their descendants from a Catholic book.

Though Catholics are not the only ones who believe the Holy Spirit is guiding their church to correct doctrines.

Right. In the end, it gets down to authority, who has it and who doesn’t. And was their Church around for the first 1000 years, let alone for the first 10 years.

“ They believed the Holy Spirit was guiding their leader Herbert W. Armstrong into correct doctrines. He was considered infallible. .

And so do the Jehovah Witnesses believe the God is guiding them. As do the Mormons. The list is practically endless yet all disagree. Chaos, confusion and self-delusion.

Of course you can argue that Catholics have a more powerful claim, since they were according to Catholic claim guided already from the first century .

In fairness, the Orthodox do too. Here though is a listing of Catholic Popes since St Peter, each one installed in office by the laying on of hands. If the Catholic Church is not the Church established by Christ, then where in this succession did the Church error? One needs to be specific and point on at which successor the Catholic Church was not THE Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

“They taught some doctrines totally opposite to modern Catholic doctrines,”

Two things. The Church has never changed doctrine only practices and disciplines. Second, the key word here is “some” in the early Centuries. One has to take each of the some and discuss them. The early Church Fathers weren’t infallible individuals. But where they had consensus, even universal agreement and one differs in their belief, one needs to stop and think. Hit Pause. And question how one can know better than them as to what is true, and not.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Note, those early Christians professed that Jesus was God although admittedly a 4th century priest named Arius would claim Jesus was created. His followers couldn’t defend this belief from scripture, nor cite who ever taught it in the early Church, and they disagreed with each other in front of the Catholic Bishops at Nicea.

Like for example that it is a sin to fight in wars, to gamble, to be involved in a government, to eat blood, to go to a theater or other entertainment.

Catholic disciplines above are not doctrines. (WT teaches that these are doctrines)

Need specific quotes for a deeper discussion.

 

[Isearch]

About the prohibition of the consumption of blood, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have discontinued it while the Eastern Orthodox Church maintained it because the Council of Trullo (they consider this council to be part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) continued the prohibition.

 

[goout]

Especially for non-Catholics, how do you know that all 27 books of the New Testament are God’s Written Word and that no books have been left out that should be included?

Yes, one can trust. Trust happens with some work.

 

[CzechMan]

You are right, the Catholic church abolished the doctrine that eating blood is a sin. So especially in some countries, Catholics eating blood sausages is common. It is common in my country of birth, Czechia. Though only a small percentage of Czechs still remain Catholic.

 

[CzechMan]

Of course I agree that the second century Catholic church taught that Jesus is God. So in this it disagreed with Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is interesting that you say followers of Arius could not defend the belief Jesus was created, from the scriptures. I am well aware of the verses which Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the few other churches that also teach he was created, which verses they use to prove he was created. Of course Catholics and other churches interpret the verses differently. It is certainly very common in the New Testament, that various verses can have different logical interpretations. So Protestants who believe in being guided just by the Bible, have a lot of difficulty with this, leading to a big diversity of Protestant churches with diverse doctrines. But some churches solve it by refusing to rely just on the Bible, they teach that the Holy Spirit guides them to correct doctrine. The Catholic church is of course one of them.
Anyway, I never claimed that the ancient Catholic church agreed on every teaching with Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it agreed with quite a number of teachings with them. But I did not find any modern denomination which agrees with the second century and third century Catholic church on everything.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

You are right, the Catholic church abolished the doctrine that eating blood is a sin.

No CzechMan. The prohibition against drinking blood has never been a doctrine. A practice and discipline in some rites, in some times past? Yes.

Christ made it clear that what goes into a man doesn’t defile him.

18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) Mk 17

If you believe it to have been a doctrine then please cite when the Universal Church taught so.

If the Church taught it was a doctrine, and then tried to change this doctrine, it would have been quite the scene, quite the event at a synod or council.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

It is interesting that you say followers of Arius could not defend the belief Jesus was created, from the scriptures.

Right, they could not defend their belief through scripture alone, although they tried citing scripture. Neither could they cite anyone before them who taught it. Charles Taze Russell had, and the Watchtower today has, the same problem. This is the testimony from St Athanasius who was there. A great, great read is his writing De Decretis below:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm

To quote the Saint;

For they are as variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in their colours; and when exposed they look confused, and when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame, and betake themselves to evasions. (Ch 1)

Now it happened to Eusebius [an Arian leader] and his fellows in the Nicene Council as follows: while they stood out in their irreligion, and attempted their fight against God, the terms they used were replete with irreligion ; but the assembled Bishops who were three hundred more or less, mildly and charitably required of them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds. Scarcely, how ever, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy

Later … after being convicted by the Bishops, the Saint says of the Arians:

18. Now Eusebius and his fellows were at the former period examined at great length, and
convicted themselves, as I said before ; on this they subscribed ; and after this change of
mind they kept in quiet and retirement ; but since the present party, in the fresh arrogance
of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let
them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned, or who is the
Saint a by whom they have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, ‘out
of nothing V and ’ He was not before His generation,’ and ’ once He was not,’ and
‘alterable,’ and ‘pre-existence,’ and ‘at the will;’ which are their fables in mockery of
the Lord.

In sum, professing Jesus to be created as the Witness do today, is a very old heresy. The bible doesn’t teach it and the apostles never taught it. It’s not defendable now nor was it 1700 years ago. To believe so is to take a Catholic book and decapitate it from the the faith passed down.

 

[JonNC]

And there is some advantage in this compared to Protestants, who believe in relying on the Bible alone and no church,

Do you have a source that says Protestants believe in no church? I’ve not read that in the Lutheran Confessions, nor in any Anglican writings (if Anglicans are to be considered Protestant).

 

[leonhardprintz]

The only honest answer to this question is that there is no way by natural reason to know that the Canon is well formed, or the books are trustworthy.

That is an Act of Faith.

Apologetics can at best argue for a reasonableness of such a belief, or deal with particular and specific objections, but you cannot come to know the Church through reason.

 

[Vico]

God’s Written Word

What do you mean by God’s Written Word in capitals? Is it a proper title of something, or does it man Sacred Scripture?

The Catechism states:

81 " Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[HopkinsReb]

Do you have a source that says Protestants believe in no church?

I think he means not relying on the Church for authority, not that there is no church.

 

[GKMotley]

Yeah, and you know what I say on the ultimate sentence.