Determination of the canon of the NT

[joe370]

I don’t think these are necessarily the conclusions, so I’ll restate. Since the New Testament as presently constituted has been historically accepted by all the churches, then I think its safe to proclaim that these books are the authentic word of God. Since there has never been an ecumenical council to discuss the content of the NT it seems that this consensus was reached organically and independently–which at least to me further testifies further to the legitimacy of the conclusion.

I understand; thanks for the clarification. Hypothetical: what if some future church(es) decide that the books that Martin Luther questioned, as to their authenticity, should be jettisoned; would that negate the idea that all churches are necessary for those 27 books to be universally accepted? Would their (name removed by moderator)ut count, just as much as the (name removed by moderator)ut of every non-Catholic church has counted, from the time of the reformation, to now, according to you.

I don’t know of any other non-Catholics who believe that it was the consensus of all the churches, reached organically and independently, regardless of denomination, that finally led to the universal acceptance of those 27 books. When was this achieved? 11th century, 17th century, 20th century?

But I agree that no one can claim to have THE definitive list of the books of the Old Testament because the universal church has never come to a consensus on this issue–and these differences remain to this day. However, these difference have never been a contributing source of schism within and among the churches until the 16th century.

 

[joe370]

Excellent point Nicea!!!

Sorry,but I am not trying to be mean,so if I come across in such a tone,I am sorry. Actually Dave I understand your point;however,but it seems you are avoiding a vital question:

Then how do you or I or anyone for that matter,even know what we believe is canonical scripture is truly canonical? Should the NT have 35 books? Maybe 50?

You seem to base it on the fact that since it is not ecumenical it is questionable. Thus,since you base your argument around ecumenical councils,why did you say the following:

A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.

What ecumenical council ratified it? Which council of 21 ecumenical councils ratified it as canonical?

 

[joe370]

I’m not sure how anyone can argue that the canon of the OT was ever the same for everyone. The Catholic Church, the EO, and I think the OO all have slightly different canons, and no one ever had a problem with that. The Protestants later within their own grouping decided on a very conservative view of the canon. The edges have always been fuzzy on this question, never sharply defined.

Any chance the holy spirit guided one of these churches to truth, as per John 16, and that one of these churches has the authentic OT? Just curious…

 

[Bluegoat]

Any chance the holy spirit guided one of these churches to truth, as per John 16, and that one of these churches has the authentic OT? Just curious…

These differences existed before there were really seperate churches.

The thing is, they were not perceived as a problem even then. It was ok that the canon was slightly different. One is not “authentic” and another not - that is a modern, and I’ll even say Protestant, way to think. Catholics should not argue it on those grounds.

Your mistake is in thinking that the canon has been this utterly static, fixed thing. THat is the common Protestant understanding, and even most Catholics think that, but it isn’t really accurate. There were several slightly different canons, and they were all seen to be good - to be reasonable choices.

The idea that it is totally out to lunch that some group might decide to use a slightly more conservative canon is not accurate. Luther was not unusual for his period, and the canon was still a discussion in the Catholic Church at that time. The problem, from a Catholic POV, was that Luther and the Protestants made these decisions apart from the Catholic Church. But from the Protestant POV, it was no different than the kinds of decisions that have been made in the Church all along - the canon is decided by the acceptance of the body of believers.

So no, I don’t think one is “authentic”. I don’t really have a problem with any of those canons of scripture - they are all reasonable.

 

[joe370]

The canon utterly static, me? Not at all friend!!! Not even in the early church. So you don’t believe that there is a church out there, founded by Jesus, that continues to be guided to all truth? Okay…Thanks for the feedback Bluegoat.

These differences existed before there were really seperate churches.

The thing is, they were not perceived as a problem even then. It was ok that the canon was slightly different. One is not “authentic” and another not - that is a modern, and I’ll even say Protestant, way to think. Catholics should not argue it on those grounds.

Your mistake is in thinking that the canon has been this utterly static, fixed thing. THat is the common Protestant understanding, and even most Catholics think that, but it isn’t really accurate. There were several slightly different canons, and they were all seen to be good - to be reasonable choices.

The idea that it is totally out to lunch that some group might decide to use a slightly more conservative canon is not accurate. Luther was not unusual for his period, and the canon was still a discussion in the Catholic Church at that time. The problem, from a Catholic POV, was that Luther and the Protestants made these decisions apart from the Catholic Church. But from the Protestant POV, it was no different than the kinds of decisions that have been made in the Church all along - the canon is decided by the acceptance of the body of believers.

So no, I don’t think one is “authentic”. I don’t really have a problem with any of those canons of scripture - they are all reasonable.

 

[Bluegoat]

The canon utterly static, me? Not at all friend!!! Not even in the early church. So you don’t believe that there is a church out there, founded by Jesus, that continues to be guided to all truth? Okay…Thanks for the feedback Bluegoat.

That is not quite what you asked before - you asked if one had the “authentic” OT. Is one church “true”. Maybe, but if so I don’t think it is the Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

That is not quite what you asked before - you asked if one had the “authentic” OT. Is one church “true”. Maybe, but if so I don’t think it is the Catholic Church.

OK, so which church, out there in the world today, do you believe, continues to be guided to all truth?

 

[benidict]

The scriptures were committed to the church. They are scripture because God is their author.

so…you would accept the 1611 king james version, which contains the deautrocannonicals. correct? you believe then they are scripture?

 

[benidict]

That is not quite what you asked before - you asked if one had the “authentic” OT. Is one church “true”. Maybe, but if so I don’t think it is the Catholic Church.

hi bluegoat. if not the Catholic Church, then who? the Catholic Church is the only one that can trace her lineage all the way back to Christ and the apostles. no other one can do this. is there any Church fullfilling the promise of Christ, that He would lead guide and direct her? is there one true Church which the gates of hell have not prevailed against? if so, let me know. i want to join. because all others are pretenders to the bridegroom. if this is off topic, let me know, ill start another thread. i just want to know who the true Church is. id kinda like to make it to where Christ is, instead of the hot place… peace

 

[Bluegoat]

OK, so which church, out there in the world today, do you believe, continues to be guided to all truth?

hi bluegoat. if not the Catholic Church, then who? the Catholic Church is the only one that can trace her lineage all the way back to Christ and the apostles. no other one can do this. is there any Church fullfilling the promise of Christ, that He would lead guide and direct her? is there one true Church which the gates of hell have not prevailed against? if so, let me know. i want to join. because all others are pretenders to the bridegroom. if this is off topic, let me know, ill start another thread. i just want to know who the true Church is. id kinda like to make it to where Christ is, instead of the hot place… peace

If it isn’t the case that it is the Church Triumphant alone, I’d say that it is the EO.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Sorry,but I am not trying to be mean,so if I come across in such a tone,I am sorry. Actually Dave I understand your point;however,but it seems you are avoiding a vital question:

Then how do you or I or anyone for that matter,even know what we believe is canonical scripture is truly canonical? Should the NT have 35 books? Maybe 50?

You seem to base it on the fact that since it is not ecumenical it is questionable. Thus,since you base your argument around ecumenical councils,why did you say the following:

A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.

What ecumenical council ratified it? Which council of 21 ecumenical councils ratified it as canonical?

Excellent point Nicea!!!

Dave seems to contradict himself. These are Dave’s words:

I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. **The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison. **

A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.

He accepts the NT but not the OT? I am waiting for him to tell us which ecumenical council ratified the NT canon?

 

[Bluegoat]

Dave seems to contradict himself. These are Dave’s words:

I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. **The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison. **

A clear, universal consensus has been reached on the canon of the NT. Therefore, it should be accepted.

He accepts the NT but not the OT? I am waiting for him to tell us which ecumenical council ratified the NT canon?

It doesn’t necessarily require an ecumenical council for something to be accepted unanimously.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It doesn’t necessarily require an ecumenical council for something to be accepted unanimously.

Exactly. In fact, ecumenical councils are typically called when there is important disagreement within the worldwide church.

 

[Nicea325]

It doesn’t necessarily require an ecumenical council for something to be accepted unanimously.

Nice try.But ecumenical councils ratified doctrines-correct? Trinity? Incarnation? Etc? Go back and read Dave’s arguments. He is basically stating since the canon was not settled by an ecumenical council,the OT is open. Which begs the question:

Then why does he accept the NT? Precisely why I am asking him to tell me which council ratified it? A consensus is not an ecumenical council.

 

[Nicea325]

Exactly. In fact, ecumenical councils are typically called when there is important disagreement within the worldwide church.

Exactly! Then tell us why you accept the NT and reject the OT? Dave, it is you alone who said the canon was determined by synods and NOT ecumenical councils. Now are you claiming since the NT was ‘accepted’ as a whole it is okay? Minus an ecumenical council? Do you not acknowledge your contradictions?

Your words Dave:

*I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison. *

You accept the Trinity because it was settled at an ecumenical council-correct? But the canons were not;hence then why do you accept the NT?

 

[Bluegoat]

Some things are universally accepted without an ecumenical council. Sometimes there are local councils that are accepted by the universal church. Sometimes there is just a general consensus - there was never any argument about infant baptism becoming the norm (as far as I’m aware)_. It simply was accepted everywhere as the appropriate response to changed circumstances (more Christian infants, less adult converts.)

People don’t accept the Trinity because it was decided at an ecumenical council. They accept it because ultimately it was accepted by the whole of the Church, by whatever means that came to pass.

The NT canon hasn’t been in serious dispute since fairly early on. On what grounds could one argue it? It would be possible to make the argument i suppose, and if it became controversial it might require a council to work it out.

The OT is a different story. We see in different parts of the Church an actual different group of accepted texts from early on, and argument over others. One can’t easily argue that there was from an early period a strict and definite boundary to the OT canon. That is why it is not unreasonable to take one position on it or another.

A better question is why does anyone think a strict definition of the OT canon is necessary, and how can one argue for it when for most of the history of the Church it didn’t exist, and it doesn’t exist today?

 

[Nicea325]

Some things are universally accepted without an ecumenical council. Sometimes there are local councils that are accepted by the universal church. Sometimes there is just a general consensus - there was never any argument about infant baptism becoming the norm (as far as I’m aware)_. It simply was accepted everywhere as the appropriate response to changed circumstances (more Christian infants, less adult converts.)

People don’t accept the Trinity because it was decided at an ecumenical council. They accept it because ultimately it was accepted by the whole of the Church, by whatever means that came to pass.

The NT canon hasn’t been in serious dispute since fairly early on. On what grounds could one argue it? It would be possible to make the argument i suppose, and if it became controversial it might require a council to work it out.

The OT is a different story. We see in different parts of the Church an actual different group of accepted texts from early on, and argument over others. One can’t easily argue that there was from an early period a strict and definite boundary to the OT canon. That is why it is not unreasonable to take one position on it or another.

A better question is why does anyone think a strict definition of the OT canon is necessary, and how can one argue for it when for most of the history of the Church it didn’t exist, and it doesn’t exist today?

A point well taken,but that is not Dave’s argument against the OT. Again:

Your words Dave:

***I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison. */I]

He accepts the Trinity because it was settled at an ecumenical council-correct? But the canons were not;hence then why does he accept the NT?

Seems like a double standard exist within his argument.**

 

[Bluegoat]

A point well taken,but that is not Dave’s argument against the OT. Again:

Your words Dave:

***I think you’re overreacting a bit here. Note that the Arian controversies were settled by ecumenical councils–the results of which were accepted by the universal church. That’s pretty convincing to me. The same situation does not exist with the biblical canon–this isn’t a valid comparison. ***/I]

He accepts the Trinity because it was settled at an ecumenical council-correct? But the canons were not;hence then why does he accept the NT?

Seems like a double standard exist within his argument.

I think the point is that the ecumenical counsil represented the decision of the whole Church. It is one way such a decision can come about. But I expect he also accepts decisions of the Church that do not come from ecumenical councils, of which there are many (more, really.) The canon of the NT is the decision of the universal Church, as is the Trinity, however they were arrived at.

 

[joe370]

If it isn’t the case that it is the Church Triumphant alone, I’d say that it is the EO.

So you must belong to the EOC, if you believe that church is still being guided to all truth???

 

[joe370]

I think the point is that the ecumenical counsil represented the decision of the whole Church. It is one way such a decision can come about. But I expect he also accepts decisions of the Church that do not come from ecumenical councils, of which there are many (more, really.) The canon of the NT is the decision of the universal Church, as is the Trinity, however they were arrived at.

I think we need to establish what constitutes the “whole church,” and when this whole church was finally whole? Is it all of the EOC’s, the CC and all of the PC’s, with the exception of those churches that are in the process of being established, that make up the whole church? If so, then are you saying that you believe the whole church, comprised of every church, regardless of denomination, ecumenically defined the NT canon? Did Christianity need to wait until every protestant church and eastern church (offshoots of the original EOC) - was established before a clear consensus could be reached, regarding the NT canon, or can we trust the decision made by the CC, in the 4th century? I am probably the one misunderstanding you.

You have a table of contents in your bible. Where did that come from?