From where did our present day, codified NT come?

[Nicea325]

No thinking person would person deny that the Bishops, in response to Marcion and later at the behest of Constantine, didn’t codify the NT canon.

However the question is did these books become the Word of God when the Bishops codified them or were they God Breathed at the writing?

The contention of those who argue against Church authority of the Scripture is not that the Church played no role in the establishing of the Canon (that is a straw man argument which is doubtless easy to overthrow but useless because no one actually believes it)** but that Scripture, because it is the Word of God, has authority over the Church and did from the second the Apostles’ pens wrote it down. **
The strongest argument for this stance is that the Bishops in “establishing the Canon”, declared they received the Canon and not that they declared the Canon.

God Bless

Quick question? Are you stating because Scripture is the Word of God, it has authority over the Church? Or are you saying that is the argument from some folks?

 

[bogeydogg]

Quick question? Are you stating because Scripture is the Word of God, it has authority over the Church? Or are you saying that is the argument from some folks?

The Bible has authority over the Church.

BUT

It is the responsibility of the Church to correctly interpret the Bible for the laity so that heresies may be quelled before they begin.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

The Bible has authority over the Church.

BUT

It is the responsibility of the Church to correctly interpret the Bible for the laity so that heresies may be quelled before they begin.

God Bless

Really? Where does the Bible teach a canonized book has authority over the church? Where did Jesus teach the Bible has authority over His own church He founded? Where does the Bible teach Christ Church had less authority than the written Word?

 

[Khalid]

Who decides what written work is part of the Bible in an absolute, canonical sense? Not just “general assent and recognition” on behalf of the people: there are always some people who hold heretical texts to be canonical. Who is to say that they are not right, if they were to gain sufficient numbers as to give “general assent and recognition”?

 

[PRmerger]

The strongest argument for this stance is that the Bishops in “establishing the Canon”, declared they received the Canon and not that they declared the Canon.

God Bless

Yes, this is absolutely true. It was the Catholic Bishops who received the canon, but their discernment did not “create” the canon. Rather, they only assisted the Church in this discernment.

However, by acknowledging that the Bishops “established the Canon” it necessarily leads to several non-Protestant conclusions:

-there is something that non-Catholic Christians believe that is NOT found in the Bible (namely, the canon of Scripture)

-there is an authority to which these NCCs submit to (namely, the CC)

-these NCC necessarily believe in the dogma of infallibility, for they acknowledge that the Church was able to define this canon without committing any error.

 

[joe370]

However, by acknowledging that the Bishops “established the Canon” it necessarily leads to several non-Protestant conclusions:

-there is something that non-Catholic Christians believe that is NOT found in the Bible (namely, the canon of Scripture)

-there is an authority to which these NCCs submit to (namely, the CC)

-these NCC necessarily believe in the dogma of infallibility, for they acknowledge that the Church was able to define this canon without committing any error.

These conclusions would make for a great thread. Pretty much irrefutable stuff.

 

[PRmerger]

These conclusions would make for a great thread. Pretty much irrefutable stuff.

Thanks, friend.

I am always heartened when I hear a NCC say, “Yes, it’s true that the Catholic Church discerned the canon of Scripture.”

For if the person is theologically honest, he will necessarily come to several conclusions:

-I do believe that a church can be infallible
(and PR adds: this infallibility was not just a one-time event, but occurred and recurred multiple times over history at the numerous councils by different bishops/popes (Hippo, Carthage, Nicea, etc etc etc)

-I do NOT believe in Sola Scriptura

-I submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, at least as it applies to quoting Scripture.

 

[Anthony_V]

It makes no sense to me as to why you would have a canonically infallible book, but not a canonically infallible Church to interpret it. It’s like buying the world’s finest piece of machinery, but not having a technician to work it (and not like a male model either).

 

[joe370]

It makes no sense to me as to why you would have a canonically infallible book, but not a canonically infallible Church to interpret it. It’s like buying the world’s finest piece of machinery, but not having a technician to work it…

Perfect analogy!!!

 

[Publisher]

This ten part lecture series featuring Professor Bart D. Ehrman covers it in a good deal of detail.

youtube.com/watch?v=f9DFOo7DIVg

Your friend
Sufjon

I am almost finished with “Lost Christianities” by Mr. Ehrman…this is my second time thru since I read it a couple years ago…I have his 15 set lecture on “Lost Scriputues” I have enjoyed very much.