Canon of Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pardon me for jumping into your conversation with pwrlftr, but …

Of course there would be disagreements. The Bible tells us there will be disagreements because some will pick and choose what pleases them as opposed to submitting to the Will of God.
I appreciate the timelessness of Paul’s warning on sound doctrine. And we certainly have evidence that it’s as true in his time as it is today.

But how does that passage you elude to, support or validate the Protestant canon of scripture being self authenticating?
40.png
Ginger:
Even today there are pseudo-gospels that nice people read - knowing that they have been found to be false - and then they go around pretending to know something no one else knows about Jesus.
Regardless, even Augustine admitted in his day, he wouldn’t believe the Gospels given him, if it weren’t for the authority of the Catholic Church. I would suggest, that just as we argue over the OT canon today as we’re doing, without that authority Augustine talks about, we would still be arguing today, even over what is true and authentic vs pseudo Gospels,… agreed?

Which gets back to the point of scripture being self authenticating. Who came up with this notion? It certainly wasn’t around in Augustine’s time.
 
I could ask you the same question and say, “How does someone (little girl, housewife, factory worker) who wants to know what the Bible is” know which Bible is true? There are very corrupt Bibles being written today. This church says there are the one, that church says they are the one.

.
The Catholic Church is the only Church claiming to be the true Church of Christ.

How do we know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ?

We know because it alone has the marks of the true Church, chief of which are one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The personal revelation from God is very dubious.

“Credo in unam sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam”.

peace
 
actually the mormon church claims that they are the one true church and that the catholic church was originally, yet fell into total apostacy. Although they cannot back this up scripturally or historically but think the small evidences of such exist.
 
But as for the canon and the inspiration of the canon, Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees accepted the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint.
Thanks for your response mercygate.

What is the quote above based on?
 
So, how does someone (little girl, housewife, factory worker) who wants to know what the Bible is, find out that information?

They should be learning it in CCD classes, or in Bible study, or in adult study groups at Church.

Most people don’t have the resources or the time to pick through every detail of the Scriptures to figure it out for themselves - we rely on our pastors at Church to give us this information, and we trust them to know what they are talking about.
To dump it all on the Church pastors is absolutely unfair. If one is an adult, one has the responsibility of figuring it out and going to the right sources. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
 
actually the mormon church claims that they are the one true church and that the catholic church was originally, yet fell into total apostacy. Although they cannot back this up scripturally or historically but think the small evidences of such exist.
When was this apostacy suppose to happen - around 1830?

peace
 
Thanks for your response mercygate.

What is the quote above based on?
That’s just a point of history. You can find it even in general encyclopedias. The Greek-speaking world used the Alexandrian “canon” – to use the word anachronistically.
 
So then you can see why I said the Church doesn’t have to be concerned about false preachers.

When was the last excommunication that you know of? Excommunication is very rare in the external forum nowadays.
The lastest from a Protestant church that I am aware of was last month: The Rev. Donald Armstrong of Colorado Springs.

I think both Catholics and Protestants are too reluctant to remove unfaithful preachers.

We all need to be on guard. The Catholic Church has those who want to change its foundation as well as protestant churches.
 
That’s just a point of history. You can find it even in general encyclopedias. The Greek-speaking world used the Alexandrian “canon” – to use the word anachronistically.
FF Bruce and Beckwith state pretty clearly that there is no real evidence that there ever was an Alexandrian canon.

Now, it’s quite a bit of a jump to go from the Pharisees being able to speak Greek to them using the deuterocanonicals as scripture. I am assuming that by the use of the term “Alexandrian canon” you are referring to the deutero’s.
 
FF Bruce and Beckwith state pretty clearly that there is no real evidence that there ever was an Alexandrian canon.

Now, it’s quite a bit of a jump to go from the Pharisees being able to speak Greek to them using the deuterocanonicals as scripture. I am assuming that by the use of the term “Alexandrian canon” you are referring to the deutero’s.
What basis do you have on this? The Eastern Orthodox have the Alexandrian Canon or rather the LXX which contains the Deutrocanonical Books.
 
After the death of Christ on the cross, and in the centuries before 419 A.D., there were many, perhaps hundreds of writings, and some forgeries that had to be sorted out and decided upon as to if they were canonical (canon = rule or official list) or not. The early Catholic Church was scattered out in communities over a wide geographic area. Many people in these communities liked the Shepherd of Hermas and it was very popular and read as if it were scripture. On The Shepherd of Hermas; in the document The Muratorian Fragment, aprox. 170-180 A. D., it is written: “was written quite recently in our own time by Hermas, while his brother, Pius, was filling the chair of the Church of the city of Rome”. ( Pope Saint Pious I apparently occupied the chair of Peter aprox. 140 - 155 A. D. ). Origen ( 185-232 A.D. ) believed the author of The Shepherd of Hermas to be the same Hermas refered to by Saint Paul in Romans 16:14. The Epistle of Barnabus was accepted as Scripture by Clement and Origen but not by Saint Jerome. While both of the books; the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabus, were read and accepted by many early church communities they are not found in today’s Bibles.

The Gospel of Thomas was also in circulation and accepted by some followers of Mani ( Manicheans ). Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Cathechesis V ( aprox. 348 A.D. ), states: “Let none read the gospel of Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but one of Mani’s three wicked disciples.” Manichaeanism is a heretical idea that has echoed down the centuries and has persisted even unto today. Likewise, Gnosticism ( Gnostics were Docetists = Greek “to appear” ) teaches that salvation is liberation from the body because the material world is evil. These heretical teachings and writings were rejected as false by ecclestical authority. The important thing to remember about heretical ideas is that they will continue to re-emerge, in more virulent form ( variants ), and under different name, throught the centuries.

Some communities did not accept the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) as Scripture, so it was not so popularly read and it was a disputed book. The Council of Laodicea about 360 A.D. did not include Revelation in the Canon of Scripture. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, also rejected it and forbade it’s reading in public or private as well. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexanderia, accepted it as Scripture as it is shown in his festal letter of 367 A.D. [1] Disputes over the canonicity of the Book of Revelation contributed to divisions in the Eastern Church communities, and some Greek churches of today do not accept it as sacred Scripture. [2] [3]

The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture. The bishops were preserved from falling into error, as our Lord promised, on this important matter concerning the Holy Catholic Church. (Matt. 16:18-19; 20:20; 28:18-20) (Luke. 22:31-32; 10:16) (1 Tim. 3:15) (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6) They included Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Roman Catholics call these books deuterocanonical. Protestants call them Apocrypha. There are some additional passages in Daniel and Esther not found in Protestant Bibles.

Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). These are significant and noteworthy because it proves that some of these books were in circulation in Palestine and were accepted by Jewish groups there. It was once thought that the deuterocanonical books in the Alexandrian canon had been composed in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic. The Bible also came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century. ( No small feat! ) The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D., ( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D., by Saint Jerome ), gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today. Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is very relevant and significant because earlier Protestant reformers of the 16th century, were very suspicious of, and rejected books, only available to them in the Greek Language. In part therefore, the Protestant canon of 66 books of Sacred Scripture is deficient - short seven (7) books.
 
The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris. (The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome 382 A.D. and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.) A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied in February of 405 A.D. with a letter (Consulenti Tibi) confirming and reaffirming the canon given at Hippo and Carthage. The Ecumenical Council of Florence again affirmed the list of inspired books in 1442 A.D., about 100 years before the Council of Trent. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” by Pope Eugenius IV lists the inspired books, and according to the common teaching of theologians, these documents are infallible states of doctrine. Since there was no urgent challenge or compelling reason why it should, the Ecumenical Council of Florence did not dogmatically pass on the canonicity of the inspired books.

The decrees of the local or regional church councils (Synods) of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, around 400 A.D., were submitted to the “transmarine church” (Rome) and approved by the Popes and are considered official church teachings by official church councils. Although these councils were merely local, and they in themselves did not have universal binding authority, their decrees were submitted to various Popes. After the Popes approved the decrees, they became part of the Ordinary and Universal and Infallible Infallible - As an amateur theologian, I believe this comes under the rubics of infallibly taught doctrine because it is part of the general and universal teaching and understanding of the Church throughout the ages. A parallel to this might be the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. ] teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. [6] The Latin Vulgate (LV) version of the Bible by Saint Jerome was completed about 406 A.D. and included the deuterocanonical books. About 1000 years later, the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic by the Fourth Session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent of the Catholic Church held in northern Italy 1545-1563 A.D. by the Decree “De Canonicis Scripturis” on April 8th, 1546. Pope Pius IV formally confirmed all of its decrees in 1564 A.D. This put the canonicity of the whole Traditional Bible (LV) beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. The books of the canon were listed individually and agreed with the earlier listing already infallibly taught (for about 1000 years prior to the Council of Trent) by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Council of Trent lists 45 books of the Old Testament not 46, because like the Traditional Bible (LV) it considers Lamentations part of Jeremiah. It also lists 27 books of the New Testament. This canon is exactly the same as the Traditional Bible (LV) as it was listed for over 1000 years before the Council of Trent. This canon was agreed upon (after much debate) by the earlier popes mentioned and both regional (provincial) and ecumenical official church councils or synods. Today’s Catholic Bibles usually count a 73-book canon of Scripture, not 72. This is simply because they number the book of Lamentations separate from Jeremiah. However, once dogmatically defined, there can be no dispute as to the canonicity of the sacred books on the part of Catholics. Here are a few keywords and phrases to help in understanding what the Council of Trent did: reaffirmed, reiterated what had already been taught, dogmatically defined.
 
Early Protestant reformers of the 16th century like Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin promoted individual judgment and interpretation of the Bible. They rejected outside authority (John 17: 20-23) (Luke 10: 16) that is the Holy Spirit sent upon the Church by Christ to teach and guide the Church as a universal body in matters of faith and morals. In effect, we have Korah’s revolt on a grand scale (Num. 16:2-33) (Jude 1:4-8). Protestant churches then became fragmented into many thousands (well over 20,000) of Protestant denominations and growing. [8] They can have standards of moral behavior that will accommodate almost any lifestyle. They appeal to pride and self, by claiming to be “progressive” or “modern”. They claim “rights” not given by God using appealing terms like “personal choice.” For example, man was not empowered by God to cause abortion, or to use artificial contraceptives. To do so is usurpation of power, an illegal seizure; a wrongful encroachment of and violation of sacred space. It is sin. The early Protestant reformers of the 16th century also adapted a shorter, 66-book canon of Scripture. They have a large chunk of truth but not the fullness of the truth in the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is the Protestant churches that are adopting relatively recent or novel doctrines like justification by faith alone (sola fide) and use of the Bible alone (sola scriptura) as the only source of divine revelation. They eliminated the deuterocanonical books of the Traditional Bible (LV) of the Catholic Church, which had been in use for over 1000 years, and which supported Catholic doctrine like prayer for the dead and Purgatory found in 2 Maccabees.
 
They should be learning it in CCD classes, or in Bible study, or in adult study groups at Church.
This is an option for Catholics; what about non-Catholics? 😉
To dump it all on the Church pastors is absolutely unfair. If one is an adult, one has the responsibility of figuring it out and going to the right sources. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
And again, we’re lucky to be Catholic. Non-catholics say that they individually test every word of the Bible and come to their conclusions, but in reality, they are trusting their pastors.
 
FF Bruce and Beckwith state pretty clearly that there is no real evidence that there ever was an Alexandrian canon.

Now, it’s quite a bit of a jump to go from the Pharisees being able to speak Greek to them using the deuterocanonicals as scripture. I am assuming that by the use of the term “Alexandrian canon” you are referring to the deutero’s.
Actually this whole thread goes to the subject of a non-canon prior to the first century. But Paul was a Pharisee, and a Greek, who wrote in Greek. The Pharisees used the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Deuterocanon.
 
Which? Test every word for yourself, or trust your pastor? :confused:
I would never trust another human being to have all the right answers. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim to know everything.

I am willing to listen to people, but any claims they make must be tested against Scripture.
 
I would never trust another human being to have all the right answers. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim to know everything.

I am willing to listen to people, but any claims they make must be tested against Scripture.
Including the claim that what we find in the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God, right? Because the idea that the Bible is the Word of God is actually an oral tradition.

So, do you test every word of the Bible for yourself, to ensure that it is, in fact, “Biblical?” And by what standard do you judge it, if so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top