Evaluating Sacred Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CWBetts said:
It is a grave error to remove the Canon of Scripture from its context. The Context of Scripture is not simply itself. The Canon of Scripture did not just come out of nothing. The Canon arose out of the early Liturgy, and was decided at four councils in the 4th century (Carthage 1&2, Hippo, and Rome). So not only did the Canon grow out of one form of Tradition (the Liturgy), it was verified by another form of Tradition (Councils). To try to separate the Canon from Tradition is just plain silly.
Click to expand...
Decided or confirmed?
Whether or not they had deliberations about the canon, and thus the word “decide” would be fitting, is not available.
For example, the existing documentation on Carthage suggests the discussion was focused on whether or not anything else BESIDES canonical scriptures should be read. It does not give an indication that the contents of the scripture were what was “determined” (the English equivilant). Does that make sense? Its a careful but important distinction I think anyway.
 
40.png
The_Geographer:
If someone said, “I am going to take the world by storm” and I said, “good luck with taking the world by storm”…
That still does not give an indication that I took that literally…🤷
 
NDfan said:
Loboto this is untrue. Canonized books were not evaluated against tradition.
Click to expand...
The canon of the OT was accepted as a given. But the books of the NT were evaluated against the theology and practice of the early church (which is pretty much the same as saying “tradition”). That wasn’t the sole determining factor, of course; apostolicity was also important. But the reception of the documents by the original churches was a key element in the formation of the canon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top