How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

[joe370]

Byzantine_Wolf;10181148]Joe; I think you may be misunderstanding my points, but it might be my fault, so I apologize if I am not being clear.

Regarding the first point, I referenced Machiavelli simply as an example of canon - knowledge of his work or the author himself isn’t an issue.

That’s what I thought but I thought we would just stick with the holy canon - maybe. I get the comparison.

Regarding the second point, I in no way argued “an institutional body is not needed” - I even said it is helpful and that it is part of the external witness of a document.

Felt like I was getting mixed signals; my bad.

What I was saying was that it was not the sole authenticator of a document’s canonical status. One does not say “This book is inspired simply because Church Body A says it is” - that’s an exercise in circular reasoning.

So the church from which the scriptures sprang, had no authority to discern the canon? OK.

As for the canon being self-authenticating, yes it is, especially when internal evidence is weighed.

Hmmm… OK.

As for the question “did any one church in the world today assist in the determination of the NT canon,” the church of God as a whole served as an affirmation to the inspired status of New Testament books…

The church as a whole prior to the existence of the first protestant church, perhaps?

 

[PRmerger]

My specific question, as a segue from another discussion with Radical, was this:

How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

Specifically, I would like to know how it is that anyone who denies the authority of the Catholic Church can know that, say, the Gospel of Barnabs is not inspired but that the NT books are inspired.

What criteria are used to discern what’s theopneustos and what’s not?

Remember, these criteria need to be able to include:

Philemon
Titus
1,2, 3 John
Hebrews
Jude
Revelation

while also excluding:

the Didache,
Shepherd of Hermas
Gospel of Barnabas
1, 2 Clement.

Let’s leave the OT out of this discussion, as there is disunity among Christians regarding this canon.

As there is no doubt among Christians that we all accept Philemon, Titus, Jude, Hebrews, 1, 2, 3 John as inspired and reject the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Barnabas, etc, let’s stick with the NT.

NOTE: The question has less to do with the Gospel of Barnabas and more to do with all ancient Christian texts that are rejected by Christians.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

So the church from which the scriptures sprang, had no authority to discern the canon? OK.

The church as a whole prior to the existence of the first protestant church, perhaps?

Regarding your first point, the scriptures came from God first and foremost. The holy scriptures are theopneustos (“God-breathed”, 2 Ti 3:16), not ecclepneustos. They are sourced directly to God. They come from God. Men within the church wrote them, yes, but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Pe 1:21). When Isaiah, Jeremiah, & Co. spoke to the ancient Jews, they did not speak with their own authority, but with the authority of God, who was speaking through them and using them as His messengers. The holy scriptures are the canon of God. The minute He had them written, they belonged to Him, just as the minute an author like Machiavelli writes a book, it belongs to his canon. They do not belong to anyone else but God, hence Augustine’s words to the Arian Maximinus: “the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone.” As I’ve said, the scripture was canon before a single church council or body of believers got together, held up a collection of books and said, “Here is the canon.”

Regarding your second point, when I said in my earlier post “the church of God as a whole,” I referred to the body of believers, with no difference between specific denominations or church bodies. If by “the church” you refer to the Roman Catholic Church, I think you’d best settle disputes with the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptics, the Church of the East, and others who claim lineage to the apostles and who would probably likewise claim the earliest councils which dealt with the canon as their own. In any case, the point I was making, stated after the quoted section, was that the early church “served as an affirmation to the inspired status of New Testament books, but the books were already inspired.” As I said, early councils, letters, and documents committed by church officials or bodies regarding holy writ serve as external evidence, and are fine examples of them. However, so is criticism of the faith by enemies such as Celcus, one of the first open critics of Christianity who mentioned all four gospels and attributed them to the men they were named after. This is why councils and the like are fine in affirming canon, but they are not the sole authority on what is and isn’t canon, or the only source of external evidence.

Specifically, I would like to know how it is that anyone who denies the authority of the Catholic Church can know that, say, the Gospel of Barnabs is not inspired but that the NT books are inspired.

This has been discussed briefly in previous posts, if you’re curious.

 

[adrift]

My specific question, as a segue from another discussion with Radical, was this:

How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

Specifically, I would like to know how it is that anyone who denies the authority of the Catholic Church can know that, say, the Gospel of Barnabs is not inspired but that the NT books are inspired.

What criteria are used to discern what’s theopneustos and what’s not?

Remember, these criteria need to be able to include:

Philemon
Titus
1,2, 3 John
Hebrews
Jude
Revelation

while also excluding:

the Didache,
Shepherd of Hermas
Gospel of Barnabas
1, 2 Clement.

Let’s leave the OT out of this discussion, as there is disunity among Christians regarding this canon.

As there is no doubt among Christians that we all accept Philemon, Titus, Jude, Hebrews, 1, 2, 3 John as inspired and reject the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Barnabas, etc, let’s stick with the NT.

NOTE: The question has less to do with the Gospel of Barnabas and more to do with all ancient Christian texts that are rejected by Christians.

Thank you for clarifying what was intended for this thread:thumbsup:

 

[joe370]

Byzantine_Wolf;10181522]Regarding your first point, the scriptures came from God first and foremost. The holy scriptures are theopneustos (“God-breathed”, 2 Ti 3:16), not ecclepneustos. They are sourced directly to God. They come from God. Men within the church wrote them, yes, but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Pe 1:21).

Good point. I just assumed that we were on the same page regarding this fact. So the church established by Jesus, from which the scriptures sprang, had no authority to discern the canon when certain books were disputed e.g. the letter to the Hebrews, book of Revelations etc.?

Regarding your second point, when I said in my earlier post “the church of God as a whole,” I referred to the body of believers, with no difference between specific denominations or church bodies. If by “the church” you refer to the Roman Catholic Church, I think you’d best settle disputes with the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptics, the Church of the East, and others who claim lineage to the apostles and who would probably likewise claim the earliest councils which dealt with the canon as their own. In any case, the point I was making, stated after the quoted section, was that the early church “served as an affirmation to the inspired status of New Testament books, but the books were already inspired.”

My question was: did any one church in the world today assist in the determination of the NT canon?’

Your answer is the body of believers, with no difference between specific denominations or church bodies, assisted in the determination of the NT canon in the 4th century - I think. That would be impossible for the simple fact that only one church existed until the 11th century east - west schism.

As I said, early councils, letters, and documents committed by church officials or bodies regarding holy writ serve as external evidence, and are fine examples of them. However, so is criticism of the faith by enemies such as Celcus, one of the first open critics of Christianity who mentioned all four gospels and attributed them to the men they were named after. This is why councils and the like are fine in affirming canon, but they are not the sole authority on what is and isn’t canon, or the only source of external evidence.

Those early councils which you are referring to were catholic councils or councils of the body of believers, with no difference between specific denominations or church bodies?

 

[ConstantineTG]

My specific question, as a segue from another discussion with Radical, was this:

How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

Specifically, I would like to know how it is that anyone who denies the authority of the Catholic Church can know that, say, the Gospel of Barnabs is not inspired but that the NT books are inspired.

What criteria are used to discern what’s theopneustos and what’s not?

As I mentioned, it is about tradition, not authority. Authority has nothing to do with it. The Catholic Church has the authority to include Rick Warren’s “A Purpose Driven Life” to the Bible Canon if she wants to. That is authority. But is that all that it is? As St. Paul said, “hold fast to the traditions we have given you.” Through tradition we can discern what is the true teaching and each and every piece of writing we have from the Apostles can then be judged if it bears true teaching or not.

 

[joe370]

As I mentioned, it is about tradition, not authority. Authority has nothing to do with it. The Catholic Church has the authority to include Rick Warren’s “A Purpose Driven Life” to the Bible Canon if she wants to. That is authority. But is that all that it is? As St. Paul said, “hold fast to the traditions we have given you.” Through tradition we can discern what is the true teaching and each and every piece of writing we have from the Apostles can then be judged if it bears true teaching or not.

Did the CC, in the 4th century, with the help of sacred scripture + sacred tradition, make any authoritative decisions regarding the definition of the Trinity?

 

[panevino]

Hi prmerger,
Did you mean to refer to the “epistle of barnabas” (~1st/2nd century)rather than the “gospel of barnabas”?

 

[joe370]

jrtrent;10179725]Are we getting off the topic of the Gospel of Barnabas, or is the topic really the more general one of how we determine the canon of scripture…

Folks have clarified the purpose of the thread so I thought I would ask:

The Shepherd of Hermas was a widely publicized book in the early Catholic Church, and for a time it was frequently quoted and regarded as inspired. Do you agree?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi prmerger,
Did you mean to refer to the “epistle of barnabas” (~1st/2nd century)rather than the “gospel of barnabas”?

Actually, I did mean the Gospel of Barnabas The remnants part.

But, as I said, it’s not so much about this particular text but about all the ancient Christian texts that Christians do not consider to be theopneustos.

 

[PRmerger]

As I mentioned, it is about tradition, not authority. Authority has nothing to do with it.

It is, indeed, about Tradition. Sacred Tradition.

So anyone who claims to be a Bible Alone advocate must also acknowledge that in the case of the canon of Scripture he is not BA?

But it is also about authority. For the authority of the CC is only that which Christ has given her, and it is only through tacit submission to this authority that you can quote, say, the Gospel of Mark and know that it is inspired.

If it’s not about authority, then why don’t you quote from the Shepherd of Hermas as being inspired?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Good point. I just assumed that we were on the same page regarding this fact. So the church established by Jesus, from which the scriptures sprang, had no authority to discern the canon when certain books were disputed e.g. the letter to the Hebrews, book of Revelations etc.?

My question was: did any one church in the world today assist in the determination of the NT canon?’

Your answer is the body of believers, with no difference between specific denominations or church bodies, assisted in the determination of the NT canon in the 4th century - I think. That would be impossible for the simple fact that only one church existed until the 11th century east - west schism.

Those early councils which you are referring to were catholic councils or councils of the body of believers, with no difference between specific denominations or church bodies?

Joe; in response to your question: “So the church established by Jesus, from which the scriptures sprang, had no authority to discern the canon when certain books were disputed e.g. the letter to the Hebrews, book of Revelations etc.?”, and we are speaking solely of the power vested in instituted church bodies and the like, then I would answer that they, in the sense of declaring the canon of God, have no real authority. As I said earlier, the body of believers can affirm the New Testament canon, but you can only affirm what already exists. Churches do not have the authority to say “This is the word of God because we say so,” but rather they have the ability and the duty to say what the word of God is, just as astronomers do not have the authority to say “The world spins around the sun because we say so,” but rather they have the ability to affirm it because of the fact that it is true.

To answer your question: “did any one church in the world today assist in the determination of the NT canon?”, I will say no if you mean a specific church body or institution, and yes if you are referring to the body of believers, only in the sense that they did not “determine” the NT canon, but affirmed what the NT canon was. As for the statement that a “body of believers” is impossible because “one church existed until the 11th century east-west schism,” that simply isn’t true. The Church of the East broke away during the Nestorian controversy mostly for political reasons involving the power of the emperor, while the Coptics broke away not too long after over a theological dispute, as well as political reasons. Likewise, if we confess there was “one church” before the 11th century schism (which, as I demonstrated, isn’t true), then where is that church? Was it Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic pre-schism? If it was neither of those, then the question of where that church body is today becomes irrelevant.

In any case, the necessity of a single church institution to exist today that existed during those early local councils is likewise equally irrelevant, and begging the question. This is because the status of a canon is not dependent upon the existence of an institutional body, for reasons I have already explained ad nauseum. Suppose, two hundred years after the publication of The Prince, a group of scholars got together and wrote down what the canon of Machiavelli was. Now suppose that group, a few hundred years later, for whatever reasons, ceased to exist or had split off into other groups - does that make the canon of Machiavelli nonexistent or uncertain? Of course not. As I said, a canon is dependent only upon its author. The minute Machiavelli wrote The Prince, it was part of his canon; the minute God wrote The Book of Revelation, it was part of His canon. We do not need an institutionalized body to exist today that affirmed it hundreds of years ago in order for the canon to be true. This is all one reason why I said that such councils serve as fine examples of external evidence, but that they were not the sole sources of external evidence.

Incidentally, if you are attempting to make the argument that we only know the canon of scripture by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, then permit me to give you a quote:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

This sounds like what I have been arguing regarding the church’s role in the identification of what is scripture, but it isn’t from a Protestant source. Rather, it’s from the First Vatican Council, Session 3, 2:7.

 

[jrtrent]

The Shepherd of Hermas was a widely publicized book in the early Catholic Church, and for a time it was frequently quoted and regarded as inspired. Do you agree?

With the understanding that I don’t recall ever hearing of the Shepherd of Hermas prior to these recent threads, the little material I’ve read about it absolutely agrees with what you said. Yes, it was widely publicized in the early church; yes, for a time it was frequently quoted; and yes, for a time some regarded it as inspired. Why do I get the feeling that I’m sidestepping and that there was actually a different question you were meaning to ask?

 

[Indifferently]

How can we POSSIBLY KNOW which are inspired and which not? When the Bible was compiled, did God appear to them and tell them which books to include? Let’ s face it - there are probably bits there that shouldn’t be, and bits missing that should be there. Are we also to assume that NONE of the books are EVER subject to the human interpretation of the authors? Come on. Are we really saying the accounts therein contain NO disparities at all? What after all was the fate of Judas Iscariot?

I do not think as Christians we are charged to treat the Scripture like an infallible document in the style of the Koran. If that were the case, much of theology would be pointless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Did the CC, in the 4th century, with the help of sacred scripture + sacred tradition, make any authoritative decisions regarding the definition of the Trinity?

Yes. The result of the Second and Third Ecumenical Councils were about further definition on the diety and humanity of Christ, and also an elaboration on the person of the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure how much Scripture was used at this point, you can google the writings of the Fathers of both councils to see how much reference they made to what we know today as Scripture. But also St John Chrysostom who lived at the tail end of the 4th century did write a lot of exegesis of Scripture as his homilies. So if you want proof that a certain canon exists by that time, then the answer is yes. Thing is, the canon was not closed and the Catholics and Orthodox only closed the canon after the Reformation and after they have separated from one another.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is, indeed, about Tradition. Sacred Tradition.

So anyone who claims to be a Bible Alone advocate must also acknowledge that in the case of the canon of Scripture he is not BA?

But it is also about authority. For the authority of the CC is only that which Christ has given her, and it is only through tacit submission to this authority that you can quote, say, the Gospel of Mark and know that it is inspired.

If it’s not about authority, then why don’t you quote from the Shepherd of Hermas as being inspired?

As I mentioned before, if it was about authority then there wouldn’t be any other category other than authority. If authority says something is, then that is what that something is. The Fathers did not say, “we are bishops and therefore this is what we say the canon is.” They based the canon on already accepted Christian tradition of the time.

 

[joe370]

Yes. The result of the Second and Third Ecumenical Councils were about further definition on the diety and humanity of Christ, and also an elaboration on the person of the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure how much Scripture was used at this point, you can google the writings of the Fathers of both councils to see how much reference they made to what we know today as Scripture. But also St John Chrysostom who lived at the tail end of the 4th century did write a lot of exegesis of Scripture as his homilies. So if you want proof that a certain canon exists by that time, then the answer is yes. Thing is, the canon was not closed and the Catholics and Orthodox only closed the canon after the Reformation and after they have separated from one another.

As a former protestant I often wondered why protestants (sola scriptura advocates) accepted the authority of the CC (via sacred tradition + sacred scripture) regarding said catholic councils? And then reject other authoritative declarations promulgated by the CC. As an eastern orthodox Christian, do you find that behavior a bit odd for the sola scriptura proponent?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

How can we POSSIBLY KNOW which are inspired and which not? When the Bible was compiled, did God appear to them and tell them which books to include? Let’ s face it - there are probably bits there that shouldn’t be, and bits missing that should be there. Are we also to assume that NONE of the books are EVER subject to the human interpretation of the authors? Come on. Are we really saying the accounts therein contain NO disparities at all? What after all was the fate of Judas Iscariot?

I’m afraid, my friend, that much of what you write has already been discussed or explained before in Christian history.

You say: “How can we POSSIBLY KNOW which are inspired and which not? When the Bible was compiled, did God appear to them and tell them which books to include?” How we can know has been discussed previously in this thread. As for the notion of God appearing and saying which ones to include, He didn’t have to - once God speaks, that book is part of the canon. It comes from God, and is holy writ.

You say: “Let’ s face it - there are probably bits there that shouldn’t be, and bits missing that should be there.” Probably? That’s a hypothetical situation. While those makes for interesting discussion, they aren’t arguments. If you believe “bits” shouldn’t be in there, demonstrate which and how.

You say: “Are we also to assume that NONE of the books are EVER subject to the human interpretation of the authors? Come on.” If by “subject to human interpretation” you mean they had their own flavors, focuses, etc., that’s been known for centuries, and is called by most today as dual authorship - that is, scripture was written by men, but under the influence and inspiration of God. This is why Luke’s writings have a different style than Paul’s. That does not mean they are not scripture. If by “subject to human interpretation,” you mean that men have tarnished God’s word, then you ask yourself two questions: 1) where is the evidence of this occurring? 2) is God a victim of fatalism and unable to preserve his word?

You say: “Are we really saying the accounts therein contain NO disparities at all? What after all was the fate of Judas Iscariot?” Again, this isn’t something no Christian theologian or commentator has ever touched upon. The so-called “discrepancy” is certainly easy enough to explain: Judas hung himself (as recorded in Matthew), and then fell from the tree when his weight gave way, and after some time in the sun his body burst asunder (as recorded in Luke), as often happens when a body is out in the sun for too long.

I do not think as Christians we are charged to treat the Scripture like an infallible document in the style of the Koran. If that were the case, much of theology would be pointless.

Jesus and the apostles did. I have no qualms with treating holy writ the way they did. Also, how would much of “theology” be pointless? Theology is the study of God (theos) - what better way to study God than by His own works?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Why do I get the feeling that I’m sidestepping and that there was actually a different question you were meaning to ask?

I’ve been feeling that since page one. Interesting to see, after my time away, that underhanded questions towards non-Catholics continue in this part of the forum. If one is going to ignore everything said to them and keep repeating questions ad nauseum, why bother entering beginning discussion?

 

[jrtrent]

As a former protestant I often wondered why protestants (sola scriptura advocates) accepted the authority of the CC (via sacred tradition + sacred scripture) regarding said catholic councils? And then reject other authoritative declarations promulgated by the CC.

Some specifics might be helpful, and I find your terminology a bit odd, as well. By that I mean that in the Protestant churches I’ve attended that give credence to the early councils (typically the first three or four ecumenical councils), these have not been considered decisions of the Roman Catholic Church (which is commonly what is referred to in these forums as the CC), but of the early, undivided church. Protestants are usually careful to state that it is the errors of Romanism, typically doctrines that have been added, that they were protesting and trying to correct by saying that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Whatever differences Protestants may have on the usefulness of early church writings, I know of none that considers the early, undivided church to be what is now known as the Catholic Church.