Canon of Scripture

[mark_a]

Before Hippo and Carthage there was much disagreement. Origen’s list is not even close to what we have today. Eusebius of Caesarea had a list very similar to Origen’s.

And after the counsel of Hippo there was still disagreement.

An African bishop, Julius in the sixth century wrote a list of Scripture that disputed James John Hebrews Jude and Rev.

Peshitta’s Version omitted John James Jude Rev. in the 5th century

Amphilocius of Iconium in the 4th century was similar to Origen.

It wasn’t until about five hundred years ago before the canon was officially set.

As for the OT the Apocryphal books do not have the same qualities as the other books. I don’t believe any of them even claim divine inspiration. And I know that 2 Macc denies inspiration. Many of these books **contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors. **

Therefore they can’t be inspired.

I am not depending on Luther. I don’t really object to the books being included. You jumped to the wrong conclusion thinking I want them removed. I think, as did many church fathers, that they have some value, but are not inspired.

My only objection to them is people placing them on the same level as inspired Scripture.

The opinions of many Church fathers are not infallible.

The Church is.

That Jesus was a smart feller.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The books we have canonized as “scripture” and that we venerate as the inerrant written Word of God, were for the most part recognized by most of the Church very early on as “special.” But the word “scripture” simply means “writings.”

While technically correct, it’s not just any writings that we are interested in so context becomes very important.

We know that
"2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…

Obviously Paul had something more than simple “writings” when he penned this verse. That which we are interested in, at least in the context of this discussion is that which is “inspired by God”.

Namely, the word “scripture” in scripture does not hold the rock-hard meaning it does for all of us today.

Are there any examples in scripture where that which is referred to as scripture have some other context other than that which is God breathed or inspired by God? I have looked in the NT and can’t find one but maybe have missed one. I don’t have easy access to searching the septuagint, maybe you do?

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
You asked me how the church revealed the canon to me.
Well, I am going to cop out and say that with a few differences I believe the canon came to me the same way it came to you with the main difference being that I don’t think any of the early (or late for that matter) councils were infallible.

I respect your position. I also have to be honest with myself, with you, and with anyone reading this that your answer doesnt quite reconcile the reality of the canonical differences that we face IMHO. IOW, if your canon came to you “the same way” it came to me, then why do we each accept different canons?
My canon came to me from the Catholic Church in the councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo, and Trent . I believe exactly in the canon each of them declared and believe them to have been infallible guided by the HS as part of Gods Sovereignty in revealing to the world His canon. If the canon “came to you in the same way” then you would believe in the same canon that I believe in, right? The only difference would be that you don’t feel that those councils were infallible in doing so. But that is not the reality we face, and so that explanation does not quite reconcile all the facts. Not only dont you believe in the infallibility of the councils, but you dont believe in the actual canon that they proposed. So the canon did not come to you “in the same way” that it came to me. I dont yet understand how God’s Sovereignty in revealing the True canon has been accomplished for you. You claimed that you trusted God to accomplish this, but it appears to me that you simultaneously believe that He has not *actually *accomplished this. I admit that it is entirely possible that I am wrong, so please dont be offended by my honesty.
You also need to know something else: It’s important to me that you (and anyone reading) know that it aches my heart to have written that preceding paragraph. My personal preference would be to ignore our differences and focus on our unity in Christ - I do not want to discourage you or your faith in any way. I do not take pleasure in “winning” debates(not that I claim to have won anything) and that motive has no place in why I participate in this forum. I hope you are not hurt in any way by our interaction.

pwrlftr:

We agree explicitly on the canon of the NT and and part ways when your church dogmatically declared the OT canon to include the 7 books you refer to as deutercanonical. Earlier you said you felt that your postion was one of faith, pragmatics, and I believe reason. I would describe my position the same way.

I thank God that we share as much as we do our faith in Christ. I pray that we continue to grow in unity to the Way, Truth and Life that is our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for you honesty, integrity and effort to unite in faith.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I guess there are various ways of describing the true chuch.

I agree 100%.

I prefer to speak of it as the body that contains the faithful remnant of Christ.

Nothin wrong with that…but we need to get around to how you and I recognize this church with respect to, under God’s Sovereignty, revealing the canon Scripture. It is a requirement of acknowledging that the “church” revealed the canon.

I’m not a church historian but I do believe that the traditional Reformed community speaks of three marks of the church:
1.) The preaching of the word.
2.) The right administration of the sacraments.
3.) Proper church discipline.

Im no historian either - mercygate is though! I do recognize that these definitions are vague with respect to revealing the canon.

We also accept the the four marks of the church listed in the Nicene Creed; the church is also one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

As above

From the above, one should be able to see that I believe there was a visible church from the beginning and has never disappeared from the earth.

Again, here is another agreement we share. For the purposes of this thread, I want to focus on how,exactly, this early, visible church revealed the canon to the faithful. In my mind, this was done at the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. Early and visibly done. What say you?

 

[mgrfin]

Before Hippo and Carthage there was much disagreement. Origen’s list is not even close to what we have today. Eusebius of Caesarea had a list very similar to Origen’s.

And after the counsel of Hippo there was still disagreement.

An African bishop, Julius in the sixth century wrote a list of Scripture that disputed James John Hebrews Jude and Rev.

Peshitta’s Version omitted John James Jude Rev. in the 5th century

Amphilocius of Iconium in the 4th century was similar to Origen.

It wasn’t until about five hundred years ago before the canon was officially set.

As for the OT the Apocryphal books do not have the same qualities as the other books. I don’t believe any of them even claim divine inspiration. And I know that 2 Macc denies inspiration. Many of these books **contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors. **

Therefore they can’t be inspired.

I am not depending on Luther. I don’t really object to the books being included. You jumped to the wrong conclusion thinking I want them removed. I think, as did many church fathers, that they have some value, but are not inspired.

My only objection to them is people placing them on the same level as inspired Scripture.

As someone has pointed out to you, any of the Church Fathers were not infallible. Not even the great St. Augustine.
Also, St. Thomas Aquinas, Robert Belarmine, Teresa of Avila - they were not infallible

Interesting that you pick some Fathers who got themselves into trouble, e.g. Origen, Eusebius (I don’t believe he was a saint). Sainthood is no guarantee of infallibility either. However, heresy would be a disqualifier.

Also, you present an interesting concept of inspiration, which the Catholic Church does not accept. We allow for historical, geographical, and chronological errors. I know certain fundamental christian communities have problems with us on this. The bible is not a scientific journal, nor a history of the world, or even a guaranteed accurate record of the tribes of Israel. As for geography, I am sure the authors of the Old and New Testaments thought the world was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe.

The books of the bible were not verbatim dictated by the Holy Spirit, He only guided the writers, keeping them from doctrinal errors. The same type of infallibility that guides the Holy Father, guides the books of Scripture, matters of faith and morals only.

A book doesn’t have to claim to be inspired to be part of Scripture. Just another assumption which has no basis in fact or doctrine.

peace

 

[Pwrlftr]

Philthy,

I believe the early church, including the councils (Laodecia, Hippo, Carthage, etc.) made decisions as to what they recognized as being canonical.

During time surrounding the reformation the reformers sided w/ the canon Jerme proposed while Trent dogmatically accepted the 7 deuterocanonicals. I believe Trent erred in this.

I do want to say at first you rubbed me the wrong way. After interacting w/ you over the past week(?) or so, you no longer come across that way. So, you don’t have to worry about things such as “I hope you are not hurt in any way by our interaction.”

 

[peary]

**Pwrlftr has never given a rational reason as to why the so-called ‘extra’ books found in the OT (they have always been there, as were the books of the eastern canon) pose such a threat to his ‘perception’ of what constitutes the Bible.

Church councils have always made decisions for the whole of the Church because they are the Teaching Magisterium of the Church together with the pope, who is Christ’s “prime minister” here on earth. Convening a council goes back into the Book of Acts. It is nothing new. It is how the Church works. It is how the apostles worked - they never made any decision outside of themselves; they always consulted with one another. Judas made his decisions outside of Christ and the apostles and it caused great chaos because there was no other (name removed by moderator)ut other than himself. Outside the body of Christ (the Church) is death. That is what Judas reveals.

When the bishops and pope teach on Faith and morals, the totality is the effect of infallibility because of the protection of the Holy Spirit. So, whether or not Pwrlftr agrees with council decisions or not is irrelevent. It’s how things get done in the Church since biblical times, and it has served the Body of
Christ well, even when many do not believe.**

 

[Deconi]

** …Not to mention St Paul, probably the most vociferous one, sought counsel with ‘the elders of the church’ instead of going ahead with decisons ‘that came to him’ privately!

Moreover, even after being up close and personal with Our Lord during his conversion, he travels to see Peter! Then spends time with Peter seeking counsel, clarification and ‘bouncing thoughts off each other’ whilst James was the bishop of Jerusalem!!

Paul didn’t run off and start his own version of The Church! **

Theres some good lessons in there.

As an aside, Lifter, I don’t understand how you can legitimize having the canon ‘come to you by the Holy Spirit’ and yet not consider that those who decided that canon may have had the SAME VISIT! Isn’t that a little presumptuous? Have you not considered why your ‘visit’ is limited to what you knew from the Reformers?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Theres some good lessons in there.

As an aside, Lifter, I don’t understand how you can legitimize having the canon ‘come to you by the Holy Spirit’ and yet not consider that those who decided that canon may have had the SAME VISIT! Isn’t that a little presumptuous? Have you not considered why your ‘visit’ is limited to what you knew from the Reformers?

First, I don’t deny the role of the church in determining the canon.

Secondly, while I do side w/ the reformers on the exclusion of the 7 books, it is not just from them that I form my opinion.

There were varying opinions of the canonicity of the books from the beginning up to Jerome and from Jerome to the council of Trent. Obviously there are still varying opinions but Trent settled the issue dogmatically for the Catholic church. But even at the council of Trent when the cardinals (and bishops?) cast their votes to accept or reject the books more than a small minority voted against accepting the books you call deuterocanonical. I’ll try to find the reference which comes from Metzger later.

But anyway, it wasn’t just the reformers who rejected the canonocity of these books nor is it only from Luther or Calvin that I form my opinion.

Thirdly, I could be wrong. I don’t believe any person or council is infallible so that means I could be barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I believe the early church, including the councils (Laodecia, Hippo, Carthage, etc.) made decisions as to what they recognized as being canonical.
During time surrounding the reformation the reformers sided w/ the canon Jerme proposed while Trent dogmatically accepted the 7 deuterocanonicals. I believe Trent erred in this.

Again, I respect your decision even though I disagree with it. One simple reason is that all the early councils agree with the Trent canon - there is unity and continuity. It seems odd -to me - to think that most of Christianity was using those 7 books of the OT in error. Just as we individually develop a better understanding of the Truth revealed by Scripture as we read and apply it to life, so does the Church develop a fuller understanding of the Truth over time. To think that those books were part of that development for over a thousand years and then suddenly were fallibly recognized as unispired seems unreasonable - to me. It would mean that our understanding of the Truth through Scripture was allowed to *develop *tainted. Just my perspective…

I do want to say at first you rubbed me the wrong way. After interacting w/ you over the past week(?) or so, you no longer come across that way. So, you don’t have to worry about things such as “I hope you are not hurt in any way by our interaction.”

Thank you for your kind words. Your first perception of me is not unique, unfortunately. I have a combative, hostile writing style I guess. I even had a fellow Catholic accuse me of trying to lead another non-Catholic out of faith in Christ! That’s pretty scary to realize that people can misread you that much. Your assurance brings me some peace which I greatly appreciate.

God bless you - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Phil

 

[peary]

First, I don’t deny the role of the church in determining the canon.

Secondly, while I do side w/ the reformers on the exclusion of the 7 books, it is not just from them that I form my opinion.

Exactly WHY do you side with the reformers on the exclusion of the 7 books? What is the rationale for that? You never explained it to us.

There were varying opinions of the canonicity of the books from the beginning up to Jerome and from Jerome to the council of Trent. Obviously there are still varying opinions but Trent settled the issue dogmatically for the Catholic church. But even at the council of Trent when the cardinals (and bishops?) cast their votes to accept or reject the books more than a small minority voted against accepting the books you call deuterocanonical. I’ll try to find the reference which comes from Metzger later.

**Jerome’s Vulgate actually settled the matter because he translated it from the Septuagint and, in the Church’s opinion down through the centuries, the OT Canon was not an issue. Jerome may have had some questions with regard to the inclusion of certain material but he left it up to the Church to decide, which it has the authority to do. **

Thirdly, I could be wrong. I don’t believe any person or council is infallible so that means I could be barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.

**Yep. *“Bread for the Squirrels.” ***

 

[Deconi]

First, I don’t deny the role of the church in determining the canon.

Secondly, while I do side w/ the reformers on the exclusion of the 7 books, it is not just from them that I form my opinion.

There were varying opinions of the canonicity of the books from the beginning up to Jerome and from Jerome to the council of Trent. Obviously there are still varying opinions but Trent settled the issue dogmatically for the Catholic church. But even at the council of Trent when the cardinals (and bishops?) cast their votes to accept or reject the books more than a small minority voted against accepting the books you call deuterocanonical. I’ll try to find the reference which comes from Metzger later.

But anyway, it wasn’t just the reformers who rejected the canonocity of these books nor is it only from Luther or Calvin that I form my opinion.

Thirdly, I could be wrong. I don’t believe any person or council is infallible so that means I could be barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.

The emboldened bit above is where I think you’re stuck, Lifter!

I, and many here, have already pointed out that it is not in the dissention that we live, but in the conclusions! There is no validity in basing your assertions on the dissentions, when a conclusion has been reached.

By extension of your view, at some point ahead of your journey, you will disagree with some of the Reformer views. This is unavoidable. Will you then run off to another church? Will you start your own? This is what Protestantism has become.

Dissention among Catholics is not confined to our times. It has existed since Christ instituted The Church. We are allowed to think! The difference is an understanding that WE are the finite, still growing and still learning. The Church, having being founded by The Eternal One, must therefore be the infinite entity, until He returns as promised. Therefore, we place our trust in The Church, and further our knowledge until we arrive at the point of understanding an issue as The Church teaches. So, we don’t depart and start something else, but await our understanding to catch up. The Early Fathers you have cited have all done the same! Dissention does not equate to departing from Christ!

The Canon is one issue. There are many who laud that Scriptures has 40 plus authors, and arguments continue about the validity of each author’s viewpoint, his / her contemporary world, why s/he wrote what they write, etc. etc. etc. ALL TRUE AND CORRECT. But if we are not careful, whilst dragging Holy Writ through the sift of historical light, we lose sight of the true source of Holy Writ. Men like to reduce Scriptures to be comparable with every other piece of literature. Book by book, author by author, phrase by phrase. The result is canon by canon!

There is only ONE author of Scriptures!

With that in mind, there can be only ONE canon. That is why even with the efforts of man to dilute it in any shape or form, all versions point to the original canon and The ONE Source of Scriptures.

Infallibility? If He can author through 40plus, He can decide the canon in like manner, don’t you think? Or is it more plausible that He would reveal something different to an individual like Luther, Calvin, Smith and Mohammed?

 

[mgrfin]

** …Not to mention St Paul, probably the most vociferous one, sought counsel with ‘the elders of the church’ instead of going ahead with decisons ‘that came to him’ privately!

Moreover, even after being up close and personal with Our Lord during his conversion, he travels to see Peter! Then spends time with Peter seeking counsel, clarification and ‘bouncing thoughts off each other’ whilst James was the bishop of Jerusalem!!

Paul didn’t run off and start his own version of The Church! **

Theres some good lessons in there.

As an aside, Lifter, I don’t understand how you can legitimize having the canon ‘come to you by the Holy Spirit’ and yet not consider that those who decided that canon may have had the SAME VISIT! Isn’t that a little presumptuous? Have you not considered why your ‘visit’ is limited to what you knew from the Reformers?

I’ve come to hear that there is a lot more private inspiration of the Holy Spirit going on with visitors to this site.

He never spoke to me, and I’m jealous. I’d love to have a little tap on the shoulder once in a while, or a dove hovering over my head, telling me what to do. Most birds who come near me do what you don’t want them to do, if you catch my drift.

Hopefully, the Spirit will move our friends in the right direction.

Peace

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve come to hear that there is a lot more private inspiration of the Holy Spirit going on with visitors to this site.

He never spoke to me, and I’m jealous. I’d love to have a little tap on the shoulder once in a while, or a dove hovering over my head, telling me what to do. Most birds who come near me do what you don’t want them to do, if you catch my drift.

Hopefully, the Spirit will move our friends in the right direction.

Peace

Every time I get a visit from the Holy Spirit, He says, “Obey the priest,” or else, “Obey the Church.”

 

[anthony022071]

The question is clear.

Is the Bible self-authenticating? And, how do we determine which books really belong in the Bible? Only confirmed inspired writings? Or some uninspired writings that may in some way benefit Christians? What do you think?

It is the institution of the Church that decides which books belong in the Bible. The books of the Bible did not chose the Church,the Church chose which books were to compose the Bible.
The scriptures are dead words on the page,whereas the apostolic tradition has the living Word of God.
Only those who are entrusted with the living Word of God can decide on and dogmatically interpret the dead words of the scriptures.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’ve come to hear that there is a lot more private inspiration of the Holy Spirit going on with visitors to this site.

He never spoke to me, and I’m jealous. I’d love to have a little tap on the shoulder once in a while, or a dove hovering over my head, telling me what to do. Most birds who come near me do what you don’t want them to do, if you catch my drift.

Hopefully, the Spirit will move our friends in the right direction.

Peace

Just so you and I are clear, I never said nor did I imply (at least not intentionally) that the Holy Spirit revealed the canon to me via private inspiration.

 

[allhers]

Here’s what I know, the Canon of Scripture was accepted as inspired under Pope Damascus in 382. As we now know it.
Also, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to His Church that He founded, the Blessed Mother and the Apostles were in prayer prior to that happening and they are still in prayer together in His Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Just so you and I are clear, I never said nor did I imply (at least not intentionally) that the Holy Spirit revealed the canon to me via private inspiration.

You said that you agreed with the Reformers, but not only because they were the Reformers.

What is your independent evidence that they were correct, and that the Early Church was wrong? Even St. Jerome changed his mind over time, and accepted the Deuterocanonicals as inspired.

His reasoning to begin with was that the Palestinian Jews rejected them; he was under the impression that the Palestinian Jews were following the same tradition as Jesus and the Apostles - later on, he found out that their tradition was an innovation that did not occur until after Pentecost; once he realized that, he wholeheartedly went with the Alexandrian canon, because he then realized that this was the one that was followed by Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Deconi]

I’ve come to hear that there is a lot more private inspiration of the Holy Spirit going on with visitors to this site.

He never spoke to me, and I’m jealous. I’d love to have a little tap on the shoulder once in a while, or a dove hovering over my head, telling me what to do. Most birds who come near me do what you don’t want them to do, if you catch my drift.

Hopefully, the Spirit will move our friends in the right direction.

Peace

I have some scientific minded acquaintances who INSIST that the same effect is achievable with the correct chemical solutions!! Ha ha…

My biggest beef with the ‘touched by The Holy Spirit’ brigade is, NOT ONE has ever duplicated Paul!! Whilst Abraham, Noah, Moses, Solomon, David through to Paul, all hit the ground prone and outta their wits!! (Holy men and Kings!) we now have “the Holy Spirit visited me last night and gave me something brand new for the day!”

Not even so much as a ‘by your leave’ they set about teaching and preaching messages that sometimes completely contradict The Famous Jew and His friends!

Me? I love my Lord, and I know He loves me. But I tremble at the thought of being ‘visited.’ I don’t think I would survive the experience!

 

[anthony022071]

The apostolic tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit,and the Spirit guides those who are entrusted with the care of the Church to decide upon the words of the scriptures,which were inspired by the Spirit,and need Spirit-guided interpreters.