Can One Trust the New Testament Canon is Correct?

[MiserereMei]

the Council of Rome, a few years before.

Indeed.

Do you have any historical quotes on the laity being involved in the canon?

From a time with relatively spotty records anyway? And when history is written by and for the rich and powerful in every age? No. However, we know that the common man has a greater influence in all epochs of history than is ascribed to him in most texts. This is my point. It is doubtful, for example, that a bishop would have continued using a text in a period of competing versions of Christ if the people did not approve of, or were at least not outraged by, its use.

Florence isn’t relevant in any way to the canon

Indeed it is not. I was using this as an example from a more fully-documented time of what influence the common man can have in theological matters. I assumed such examples were permissible.

Contending that the canonization process involved “Compromise” rather than uniting to and giving affirmation to what was true would need evidence

It is readily apparent your issue is with my use of the word “compromise.” I think the only difference is that I am thinking on a merely historically apparent level here (the various canons becoming one, with some books in those community canons being excluded IS the evidence of compromise), and I think we would agree that a compromise took place if this conversation were about the scriptures of any other religion, providing similar events are in the record. If that is indeed the case, then my use of “compromise” is justified.

Agree, especially as those late 4th century synods affirmed 27 NT books and 46 OT books.

To be sure, Lutherans don’t have an official list in our Confessions. Personally, I refuse to use a Bible without the full Eastern Orthodox canon.

And if I can’t trust them on the OT canon, why should I trust them on the NT canon?

Where have I said I do not trust them? While they were human, so of course had their own interests and made mistakes, as your church even admits, I trust them and their compromise, as I have said previously.

One criteria for canonicity was whether or not a writing was widely being read at Mass.

Yep. That is my favorite point to make to friends and family who view the liturgy as unessential or false. Divina liturgia adiaphoron non est.

I am beginning to think our differences are ones of deference and semantics, not of actual substance. I apologize. Let me be clear and pious: A compromise between differing Church traditions and communities which is lead by the Holy Spirit has the effect of all parties coming to the truth, or at least as much of the truth as can be expressed at that time in human words.

 

[CzechMan]

OK, let me give you the verses that are used to teach that Jesus was created.
One is Rev. 3:14, which says in the KJV translation: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God”.
Another one is Col. 1:15, where Jesus is described as “the firstborn of all creation”.
Now does the Bible teach anywhere that Jesus was not created? Opponents of the doctrine that he was created need to find a verse that says he was not created.
And remember, it is not just Jehovah’s Witnesses that teach he was created. They are just the largest of the groups that teach he was created. The most famous.

 

[CzechMan]

I mean Protestants generally do not rely on any church as authority, just rely on the Bible alone.

 

[JonNC]

I mean Protestants generally do not rely on any church as authority, just rely on the Bible alone.

There are certainly some communions that are loosely categorized as “Protestant” that hold to that.
Generalizations about Protestants are generally inaccurate, generally speaking.

 

[GKMotley]

Well said, sir. Well said, indeed.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

From a time with relatively spotty records anyway? And when history is written by and for the rich and powerful in every age? No.

OK good. My sense is that those books you are reading, taking the view that the laity were involved in the canonization process is lacking evidence. Specifics are needed, not conjecture. I point directly to the authors themselves, not you.

To be sure, Lutherans don’t have an official list in our Confessions."

Right, JohnNC has educated me on this and my Lutheran relatives don’t really understand this. It’s interesting though to read or hear multiple Lutheran Presidents (LCMS) refer to the bible as having 66 books. Jon has educated me that they’ve errored when doing so.

Yep. That is my favorite point to make to friends and family who view the liturgy as unessential or false

 

[MiserereMei]

My sense is that those books you are reading, taking the view that the laity were involved in the canonization process is lacking evidence. Specifics are needed, not conjecture. I point directly to the authors themselves, not you.

To be fair, I do not have the books on me, and most of our conversation has been on breaks at work. I did not recall a “Layman Billy-Bob sat on such-n-such council and voted that James should indeed be canonical,” such a quote would be ridiculous, and I would hope that is not what you were thinking I was saying. These books were also textbooks of mine about three years ago (Johnson) and six years ago (Metzger), so my ability to detail of their specific arguments may be faulty. Debate has never been a strong point of mine, anyway. That is one reason I joined this forum—to learn outside my “bubble”, and to sharpen my debate skills. Forgive me, for I have much to learn (and it would help if I had more time than breaks at work and an hour or two at home).

As it stands, and this goes for us both, it is more rational to put the greater weight to the “conjectures” and arguments of competent and known scholars than to that of unknown persons on the internet, who could be anywhere on the spectrum from the scholars’ equal to a particularly eloquent university Freshman.

 

[JonNC]

Right, JohnNC has educated me on this and my Lutheran relatives don’t really understand this. It’s interesting though to read or hear multiple Lutheran Presidents (LCMS) refer to the bible as having 66 books. Jon has educated me that they’ve errored when doing so.

I encourage you, first, if you name someone in your post, you link them to it. Just courtesy.

I never said anyone erred. I said the Lutheran Confessions do not contain a canon.

BookOfConcord.org · The Original Home of the Book of Concord

The Lutheran use of scripture, including all 74 books in Luther’s translation, is available for anyone who wants to investigate it, but there is not a specific canon, book by book, in the Lutheran Confessions.

Here is a good source of information
https://internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[Kei]

God being called Father, a term Jesus Himself used, is not sexist but truthful.
The Church is feminine, and is the Bride of Christ, and being feminine accepts the good and right Will of the Father.

 

[Kei]

I accept the Biblical canon as a Catholic because I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church infallibly and hence the Council Fathers who put the Canon together. This trust is bolstered by new Testament scholarship.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

I encourage you, first, if you name someone in your post, you link them to it. Just courtesy.

Trying to Jon… still figuring my way through this newer website.

I never said anyone erred. I said the Lutheran Confessions do not contain a canon.
http://bookofconcord.org/

My memory Jon is that you said that that LCMS Presidents, President Barry included, saying that the bible has 66 books would not be a correct statement as the Confessions don’t state such. Or do I have bad memory of what you said here, admittedly a couple of years ago from memory?

Note, if you can tell me why I can’t your comment above to show as a shaded quote let me know… I’m quite confused and have tried repeated different spacing etc and can’t get it to work. Frustrating this newer format is.

 

[GKMotley]

Frustrating this newer format is.

Yep. Like these 10 characters.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

I encourage you, first, if you name someone in your post, you link them to it. Just courtesy.

Trying to Jon… still figuring my way through this newer website.

I never said anyone erred. I said the Lutheran Confessions do not contain a canon.
http://bookofconcord.org/

My memory Jon is that you said that that LCMS Presidents, President Barry included, saying that the bible has 66 books would not be a correct statement as the Confessions don’t state such. Or do I have bad memory of what you said here, admittedly a couple of years ago from memory?

Note, if you can tell me why I can’t your comment above to show as a shaded quote let me know… I’m quite confused and have tried repeated different spacing etc and can’t get it to work. Frustrating this newer format is.

While I don’t recall the exchange you refer to, let’s be clear; American Lutherans have, since the turn of the previous century, used English liturgy and Bibles, which usually contain only 66 books Lutherans do not use the DC books or the Prayer of Manasseh for discerning doctrine.
But none of that means there is a doctrinal canon of scripture in Lutheranism. There isn’t. It is not the way Lutherans view scripture

 

[Hodos]

I would say the early Church did a pretty good job in its selection of books, based on its pretty solid use of criteria in determining which books were considered inspired. I cannot think of any early works that should be included based on the criteria of authoriship, antiquity, widespread acceptance, and doctrinal content. If there are too many books, one could look at the general epistles again based on the same criteria that many of them were questioned originally. However, even if you want to revisit this as contemporary scholars do, I see no reason to jettison them from the canonical list based on content. If you want to ask if there are any that should have been included that weren’t, I can’t really think of any first century documents that should have been included on the same basis. One could maybe make an argument for 1 Clement, but I don’t think he was close enough to the events of Christ to present anything as far as first or second hand testimony. Content-wise Clement really doesn’t offer much in additional clarification because much of what he says really is just paraphrasing or summarizing the testimony of what we see in the gospels and Pauline works.

 

[Kei]

The term “father” or “mother” is not in any way sexist. While women and men may be equal in terms of both having human dignity and rights, they are not the same, but different and complementary.
The title “Father” demonstrates our relationship to Him/His with us and possibly even within Himself, to use imprecise language.
And His mother is Mary.
The Church is the feminine, the Bride of Christ, with Christ our Groom.

The Gospels were written fairly close to after death to record the teachings of the apostles. Luke was within a few decades and Matthew is possibly based on a written record during His teaching if we take various early Church father’s comments about Matthean priority seriously, for instance. The apostles taught about Jesus repeatedly and lived their lives for Him. It’s even in the rite used to baptize, “In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

 

[CzechMan]

The title Father is male. It implies maleness in God. That is why a good God would not use it, as males and females are equal, and neither is more of a good God.

 

[Kei]

That is a non sequitur. Masculinity and femininity, when properly understood, are different. Not the same. God in His relationship to His Son, God in His relationship to His Church, God in His relationship to those who wish to follow Him, these are fatherly relationships. There’s a difference between general motherly relationships and fatherly, and anyone with a mother and father should be able to understand this difference between a mother and a father.

The sexes are complementary. The way in which the Church is complementary with God is feminine to the masculine.

Accurately identifying this relationship is enlightening, not sexist.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

Jon, when my Lutheran relatives and President Barry state that the bible consists of 66 books, are they in error in saying this if it is not in the confessions? I’m not being smirky only trying for clarity. Can I say that the Confessions allow that the Catholic Canon may be correct, 73 books or for that matter the Orthodox canon? Tx

 

[Dovekin]

God in His relationship to His Son, God in His relationship to His Church, God in His relationship to those who wish to follow Him, these are fatherly relationships.

God contains every perfection, so these are also motherly relationships.

41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. the manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God --“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”-- with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”; and that “concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him.”

 

[Kei]

In terms of relationally, the masculine is more fitting than the feminine. While God may contain both aspects, in terms of relation to us, God is more the masculine and the Church the feminine…traditionally speaking, the masculine is proactive and the feminine receptive. We receive the gifts of God, a God who is NOT merely receptive but in terms of His relation to us is extremely proactive.
(Note that the qualities of masculine and feminine do not mean that a man wouldn’t have feminine qualities or a woman masculine, but it does portray the cooperative nature of the genders).

Of course, when speaking in human terms, we can only do what we can. God is so great, human language may be imprecise.