How do you know when to reject a book from the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

My point is that it is inconsistent to trust the Catholic Church on scripture and distrust it elsewhere. And, if one trusts the Church for something as integral to Christianity as the bible, why then distrust it in matters of faith and morals? Those who do this seem to have misplaced their trust either in the former case or in the latter.

And, I would add, if one trusts the Church for something as integral to Christianity as the Bible, then one does not get all of his theological truths from the Bible alone. Rather, he defers to the Bible plus the CC.

 

[po18guy]

And, I would add, if one trusts the Church for something as integral to Christianity as the Bible, then one does not get all of his theological truths from the Bible alone. Rather, he defers to the Bible plus the CC.

Scripture, for all my love of it, is essentially the sacred Cliffs Notes of God’s covenants. They are fragmentary in nature. Without a catechism, man fills in the blanks with whatever his itching ears want to hear. Yet man, in all of his cunning, devised the concept of scripture as “sole rule”, “supreme authority” - which actually put man himself in charge of truth.

 

[Protestor]

Is that really what you are saying?

Then I suppose you will grant this group the right to declare all of the writings of St. Paul to be satanic?

If they were actually christians I might, but since they are not I do not think I will. He says " I am Torah observant of Lord Yeshua". He seems to rely on O.C. for his salvation, though I could be wrong, and to that end I wish him the best of luck.

I can’t even imagine the chaos and confusion that you are advocating here. In all my years of being here on the CAFs, of late there seems to be a newly vocal Protestant voice here that is saying that they get to decide what’s inspired and what’s not.

And you will not be able to tell them that they can’t do this, for they are doing the very same thing you claim to be able to do for yourself.

This is the monster that you are advocating?

I advocate for the divine revelation when it is needed. Pretty much the same monster that Luther unveiled. If you would like to compare it to something you could always compare it to people who are called cafeteria catholics or most of catholic friend say they are non-practicing catholics. You could talk to my one friend who just told me he slept with a girl in a university building and completely ignored her that night, because some other girl who looked better than her was flirting with him, and was talking about how on spring break he was going to go to vegas and get a hooker. That was literally his goal in going, but I forgot to mention he is catholic because he went to a christmas eve mass. I do not give my “protestant” friends a break either. Quite a few of them believe that the extent of their service to God is to sit in church on sunday and play games on their phones. Recently someone I know said he has transcended christian teachings.

Wow, ranting for no real reason. I said all that to say this is a problem if you let non-christians say that they are christian(concentrate on the bold it is my point). I was bringing up those examples as an example of Luther whose was completely against cheap grace, but his views can easily be twisted to look and sound like cheap grace. I am not trying to start a whole other discussion on Luther or cheap vs costly grace.

I can tell them they are wrong and I can have reason for doing so, most likely it will be because they are not christians. Do you think that me allowing them or not allowing them to do this will change their opinion on the matter, I think not. The people who this will be a problem for are not going to care wether I or you or the church or God does or does not give them permission to do this.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture, for all my love of it, is essentially the sacred Cliffs Notes of God’s covenants. They are fragmentary in nature. Without a catechism, man fills in the blanks with whatever his itching ears want to hear. Yet man, in all of his cunning, devised the concept of scripture as “sole rule”, “supreme authority” - which actually put man himself in charge of truth.

Best. Apologetics. Quote. EVER!

I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it?

 

[PRmerger]

If they were actually christians I might,

Fair enough.

So you believe that any Christian can study, pray and decide to exclude the epistles of St. Paul.

Yes?

 

[spina1953]

I would like to add a couple of comments. In deciding NT books to in the canon first of all was it written by an Apostle or one of his disciples. Does it contain teachings not before written down that was and is taught by the Apostles. and lastly does it have God for a author. if the books fall in line with that it can be considered inspired. Now there were plenty of books many of the Churches used some were gnostic whiles others were doubtful of being written by either an Apostle or a disciple of an apostle and some were written but in reality did not have God as the author so was not inspired in any way.

  As far as Barnabus is concerned it was decided not to be inspired. Also if something in Scripture appears to contradict something else in Scripture, it might mean that we do not fully understand and the interpretations end up being incorrect due to not fully understanding if there really is a contradiction because it is not clear. 

  God did not temp Abraham, God tested him. Also Testament is the old English word for Covenant, so we have the Old Covenant and the New Covenant which we call Old Testament and New Testament. I think that in understanding that would help in understanding the difference between the two Testaments and how Jesus fulfilled the Old with the New.

 

[po18guy]

Also Testament is the old English word for Covenant, so we have the Old Covenant and the New Covenant which we call Old Testament and New Testament. I think that in understanding that would help in understanding the difference between the two Testaments and how Jesus fulfilled the Old with the New.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa points out that the New Testament is called the “New Testament” because that exact phrase occurs as describing a single incident in all of scripture: our Lord’s consecration of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood in the upper room. “New Testament” refers solely and specifically to the Holy Eucharist. We see today that, since the rebellion in the 16th century, that meaning has been dissolved from describing the Eucharist into merely the common name for the Christian scriptures.

King James Version
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Douay-Rheims
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22:20
In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25
In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

J.R.R.Tolkien it was who, in a letter to his son, summarized the “reformation” as an attack on the Holy Eucharist. Luther retained the Presence and discarded the Sacrifice, while Calvin retained the Sacrifice and discarded the Presence. And, so it has been ever since. What does John say about testing the spirits? What does he say about any spirit that dissolves the Lord Jesus Christ?

1 John 4:3
“And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.”

 

[spina1953]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa points out that the New Testament is called the “New Testament” because that exact phrase occurs as describing a single incident in all of scripture: our Lord’s consecration of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood in the upper room. “New Testament” refers solely and specifically to the Holy Eucharist. We see today that, since the rebellion in the 16th century, that meaning has been dissolved from describing the Eucharist into merely the common name for the Christian scriptures.

J.R.R.Tolkien it was who, in a letter to his son, summarized the “reformation” as an attack on the Holy Eucharist. Luther retained the Presence and discarded the Sacrifice, while Calvin retained the Sacrifice and discarded the Presence. And, so it has been ever since. What does John say about testing the spirits? What does he say about any spirit that dissolves the Lord Jesus Christ?

I looked up the places where use Testament and in by Bible which by the way is the New American Bible uses the word Covenant. as I posted before, Testament and Covenant have the same meaning; as a synonym have the same meaning but two different words.

 

[Protestor]

Fair enough.

So you believe that any Christian can study, pray and decide to exclude the epistles of St. Paul.

Yes?

I guess, if they needed to lead to that belief. If a christian started to doubt the veracity of a book I think the Spirit would either lead them to truth or not I guess, I don’t want to make this an either or scenario. This is at least how I interpret what happened to me.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess, if they needed to lead to that belief. If a christian started to doubt the veracity of a book I think the Spirit would either lead them to truth or not I guess, I don’t want to make this an either or scenario. This is at least how I interpret what happened to me.

Wow.

So there may be a time when a Christian tells you, “Well, I read and prayed and have come to the conclusion that the Epistles of St. Paul are not inspired and I reject all of them.”

And you would respond, “As long as you prayed about it, that is certainly well within the paradigms of Christianity to come to this conclusion, if that is what the Spirit led you to do!”

 

[spina1953]

I guess, if they needed to lead to that belief. If a christian started to doubt the veracity of a book I think the Spirit would either lead them to truth or not I guess, I don’t want to make this an either or scenario. This is at least how I interpret what happened to me.

My question is 1) How does one know if it is really the Holy Spirit that leads one to the conclusion you state? 2) How does one know that it is not just their own pre-conceived notion tat it is a Spirit leading them to the conclusion you state? 3) How does not know if it is not the evil one’s spirit trying to deceive one into thinking they have been led to the truth when in fact it is error that they have been led to?

 

[Protestor]

1. How does one know that it is not just their own pre-conceived notion tat it is a Spirit leading them to the conclusion you state?

(1&3) are really the same question phrased in the general and specific so I hope that you will grant me the liberty of answering them both at the same time. I am glad to see that you do not have a problem and are not shocked by my premise. Now we are just discussing probabilities.

I am going to reference a book the pilgrims progress. In the book “christian” go through a place that is so dark that he cannot see anything and is lead astray by a various evil beings. He is lead astray because he cannot distinguish his own voice from their voices. There is a big difference between hearing a demonic voice in your head or you being in deep thought with yourself and revelation from God.

I know I know pulling out deus ex machina is a dirty little trump card. I wish my hand didn’t have only this play, but sadly, or maybe in this case gladly, I have had very limited overt interactions with the Spirit.

It seems that I think I may have answered all your questions, but if you are still confused I am still here

 

[spina1953]

(1&3) are really the same question phrased in the general and specific so I hope that you will grant me the liberty of answering them both at the same time. I am glad to see that you do not have a problem and are not shocked by my premise. Now we are just discussing probabilities.

I am going to reference a book the pilgrims progress. In the book “christian” go through a place that is so dark that he cannot see anything and is lead astray by a various evil beings. He is lead astray because he cannot distinguish his own voice from their voices. There is a big difference between hearing a demonic voice in your head or you being in deep thought with yourself and revelation from God.

I know I know pulling out deus ex machina is a dirty little trump card. I wish my hand didn’t have only this play, but sadly, or maybe in this case gladly, I have had very limited overt interactions with the Spirit.

It seems that I think I may have answered all your questions, but if you are still confused I am still here

I understand what you are saying. That sounds to me a discernment thing. However, there are those with good intentions and so think that they are being led by the Holy Spirit but in essence they really not because only think that they are. what I mean is this say a person thinks for some reason he would like to become a pastor, he really prays that he will and his desire is strong, yet, that is not what God really wants that person to be a pastor, yet, somehow he thinks the Holy Spirit is leading him that way, when in fact the Holy Spirit is not. How is to really know between a persons good intentions and desired d what the Hoy Spirit really pointing one to?
Sometimes as we know the evil one can make himself appear as a light so that one might fooled into thinking it is the Holy Spirit that is leading one. The evil one is known to use good for his evil purposes and since we are not as intelligent as the angels
, and we know that satan like to confuse by distorting God’s Word, it can be rather hard at times to know with any certainty if it really is the Holy Spirit or us or even the evil one.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;11597116]I received a PM from a non-Catholic member of the CAFs who gave me permission to share his thoughts on a new thread.

He wrote: Barnabas clearly contradicts OT scripture. If something is to be added to canon it at the very least needs to not contradict established scripture. It can be paradoxical but not contradictory. This is not a paradox if it was I could not say about it that it is not found in scripture. Scripture actually claims that something else is true(mosaic covenant and sabbath being on sat). He says it is false. So one has to be correct and hence the other cannot be inspired. Hence the epistle of Barnabas is not inspired.

My question: If Barnabas contradicts the OT scripture, and therefore it is not to be considered inspired, what about the Gospels which state things which contradict the OT (namely, to eat flesh and drink blood)?

Should you not then also reject the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul when command us to do something contradicted in the OT?

SORRY I’m late getting into this; but it is an intriguing post.

From this perspective I reject the premise offered:

The function of the OT is primarily to lead to Christ as the Messiah.

A primary purpose of the NT is to fulfill, complete and PERFECT the OT:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Protestor]

Wow.

And you would respond, “As long as you prayed about it, that is certainly well within the paradigms of Christianity to come to this conclusion, if that is what the Spirit led you to do!”

Maybe if they had been reading and praying and the Spirit had convicted them that it was not theonpuestos. I would consider that a possible explanation. I also might have him get a psych eval.

If my original premise is that only the Spirit can cause a person to have knowledge of theonpuestos. Then it makes sense, though I do not think that it is necessary, for the Spirit to deny the veracity of scripture.

Think about how you phrased the first statement and how it is not the same situation as the response. I read and prayed about it (not)= to the spirit has convicted me.

 

[PJM]

=po18guy;11629670]My point is that it is inconsistent to trust the Catholic Church on scripture and distrust it elsewhere. And, if one trusts the Church for something as integral to Christianity as the bible, why then distrust it in matters of faith and morals? Those who do this seem to have misplaced their trust either in the former case or in the latter.

AND THAT MY FRIEND IS A VERY SOLID POINT!

 

[ericc]

It’s simply a matter of consistency, Usagi.

If one rejects a text because it contradicts the OT, then one needs to reject a whole lot o’ books in the NT.

I can keep slinging book after NT book with contradictions and recourse to “it’s a mistranslation” will sound very, very contrived.

Just butting in, but we do not know the actual reason why Epistle of Barnabas is not in the canon. The inconsistency with the OT may not even be the main reason. The authorship is unknown which in itself doesn’t prevent it to be on the potential list but possibly because the author tried to reinterpret OT with anti-Jewish flavours. Perhaps the HS didn’t like that?

 

[PRmerger]

Just butting in, but we do not know the actual reason why Epistle of Barnabas is not in the canon.

True.

So why does a modern day Protestant reject it from the canon?

(answer: because he defers to the authority of the CC, whether he acknowledges this or not).

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe if they had been reading and praying and the Spirit had convicted them that it was not theonpuestos. I would consider that a possible explanation.

Wow.

Do you realize the implications of what you are saying?

Someone could really feel convicted to reject all of the Pauline epistles, and, in some cases, you would think that this was permissible.

Imagine all of the disagreements in doctrine that would ensue.

There’s already an obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations–with these denominations at least all agreeing upon the 27 book canon of the NT…yet these denominations still cannot agree on doctrine. There is already chaos and confusion in the Bible Alone world…

and now you want to add the right to discern on one’s own whether the Gospels, Epistles, Revelation, etc etc etc are inspired…

That truly would be obscene.

And, I might add, just what the Author of Confusion would relish in. If he could just plant the seeds in a Christian’s mind “Perhaps this book is not really the Word of God!” imagine how the gates of hell would open!

:bigyikes:

I also might have him get a psych eval.

Based on what? How would you know whether he is mentally ill or simply convicted by the Spirit?

 

[Protestor]

Wow.

So you have used wow a few times and I do not think I am presenting different astonishing ideas. So what do you mean by wow? Is it just that I am committed to a astonishing idea? What is it?

Someone could really feel convicted to reject all of the Pauline epistles, and, in some cases, you would think that this was permissible. Imagine all of the disagreements in doctrine that would ensue.There is already chaos and confusion in the Bible Alone world…That truly would be obscene.

There was already a thread about the tens of thousands of denominations. Aside from facts I think in all reality that is a horribly exaggerated number. Especially since the same study claimed there were 260 some odd catholic denominations. Quick math tells me that if there is only one holy apostolic church I need to divide 260/260 so when I divide 30000/260=116. That is if I am going to accept that thirty thousands is a valid number which I don’t.

I feel convicted about a lot of things. This does not mean that the spirit has convicted me about these things. To describe a numinal experience as getting a feeling that I need to read my bible more or that I should pray for someone is demonstrates that I we are not talking about the same thing. Maybe calling is a normal conviction is something of an understatement. I do not want to say that the Spirit is not behind normal convictions.

imagine how the gates of hell would open!

Isn’t this the job of the church. I always felt like we were opening the gates of hell. I guess I take that whole “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you”(not direct quote) to be applied in that way.

Based on what?

That was a joke. Maybe i shouldn’t interject humor in such a serious topic.