NT Scripture in 325

  • Thread starter Thread starter Annie39
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Annie39

Guest
I’m confused. Since the canon of Scripture was not formed until later in the 4th century, how could the Arians misinterpret scripture? Can anyone explain?

Thanks, Annie
 
Annie39 said:
I’m confused. Since the canon of Scripture was not formed until later in the 4th century, how could the Arians misinterpret scripture? Can anyone explain?

Thanks, Annie
Click to expand...
The late-4th-century date is pretty artificial. That’s when a couple of local Councils articulated a canonical list that matches the Catholic canon used today.

But Christians certainly had Scripture long before that–II Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture, and that’s without counting the OT.

The whole idea that Christians didn’t have a Bible before the late 4th century is utter nonsense. It’s historically and theologically bogus. It’s one of the worst ideas Catholic apologists have come up with.

There’s a truth buried in it, of course, which is that Christians of the first three centuries weren’t working with the kind of fixed canon that you need for Protestant theology. But oversimplifying it as “there was no Bible” buries the truth under horrific distortion.

Edwin
 
Thank you Edwin. As you can read from the topic, I was referring to the New Testament. Would you point me to a canon earlier than the 4th century? One that would include but not be limited to Paul’s epistles. I would of course hope that this canon would include IIPeter.

Thanks again,
Annie
 
Annie39 said:
Thank you Edwin. As you can read from the topic, I was referring to the New Testament. Would you point me to a canon earlier than the 4th century? One that would include but not be limited to Paul’s epistles. I would of course hope that this canon would include IIPeter.

Thanks again,
Annie
Click to expand...
There was not a defined Canon of Scripture until the 4th century, but there were “new” writings that were considered as Scripture prior to that. It was a work-in-progress, so to speak. As time went on and many books/letters were written, there arose the need for the Church to define which of these were indeed the Inspired Word. But an important thing to keep in mind is that this definition was to say “these books ARE the Inspired Word” (not a quote…but more of a paraphrase) but they did NOT say , “these and ONLY these…”. In other words, just because a book was not placed in the Canon does not necessarily mean it’s not Scripture, per se,…but the Canon gives us the list of books that we can rely on as being Scripture.

These links should help explain (NT and OT, respectively) :
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
 
Yes, that is correct. However my problem here is that there was no complete consensus on which of those writings were considered scripture and which were not. As examples some Churches canons included the Shepherd of Hermes, some excluded Hebrews. If memory serves, all four Gospels were accepted as scripture very early on, before the first council of Nicaea. So, I’m wondering the Arians were using those books to deny Jesus’ divinity.
 
Annie39 said:
Yes, that is correct. However my problem here is that there was no complete consensus on which of those writings were considered scripture and which were not. As examples some Churches canons included the Shepherd of Hermes, some excluded Hebrews. If memory serves, all four Gospels were accepted as scripture very early on, before the first council of Nicaea. So, I’m wondering the Arians were using those books to deny Jesus’ divinity.
Click to expand...
Athanasius was the chief opponent of Arius…According to its opponents, especially Athanasius, Arius’ teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since the worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only Christ who was truly God could redeem the world. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of ousia (“substance” or “stuff”), which was foreign to the New Testament itself.

ntcanon.org/Arianism.shtml

At this time, I think there was a general consensus of the 4 gospels…🤷
 
Annie39 said:
Thank you Edwin. As you can read from the topic, I was referring to the New Testament. Would you point me to a canon earlier than the 4th century? One that would include but not be limited to Paul’s epistles. I would of course hope that this canon would include IIPeter.

Thanks again,
Annie
Click to expand...
The Muratorian canon is the earliest attempt we have at a comprehensive list–usually dated to about 170.

And no, it doesn’t include 2 Peter, which was one of the books often disputed.

I cited 2 Peter as evidence that early Christians saw Paul’s letters as Scripture. Whether it is itself Scripture is irrelevant for that point.

Again, the basic issue here is the fallacy that if you haven’t decided the precise limits of the canon you don’t have Scripture.

As I said, 2 Peter clearly sees Paul’s letters as Scripture, and Irenaeus cites the earlier writer Papias (early 2nd century) talking about the Gospels. Irenaeus explicitly endorses a four-Gospel canon.

If you deny the apostolicity of 2 Peter, you can make a case that the New Testament wasn’t treated as Scripture until well into the second century. But certainly long before the fourth.

Edwin
 
pablope said:
Athanasius was the chief opponent of Arius…According to its opponents, especially Athanasius, Arius’ teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since the worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only Christ who was truly God could redeem the world. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of ousia (“substance” or “stuff”), which was foreign to the New Testament itself.

ntcanon.org/Arianism.shtml

At this time, I think there was a general consensus of the 4 gospels…🤷
Click to expand...
Thanks for the web address. I plan to read it ASAP. It seems that the council determined the correct interpretation of the Gospels regarding the Person of Jesus Christ. It seems that both the Arians and the Catholics were using the same Gospels but interpreting them differently. So the Arians were, it seems, the original sola scriptura believers even if they didn’t define the doctrine.
 
Contarini said:
The Muratorian canon is the earliest attempt we have at a comprehensive list–usually dated to about 170.

And no, it doesn’t include 2 Peter, which was one of the books often disputed.

I cited 2 Peter as evidence that early Christians saw Paul’s letters as Scripture. Whether it is itself Scripture is irrelevant for that point.

Again, the basic issue here is the fallacy that if you haven’t decided the precise limits of the canon you don’t have Scripture.

As I said, 2 Peter clearly sees Paul’s letters as Scripture, and Irenaeus cites the earlier writer Papias (early 2nd century) talking about the Gospels. Irenaeus explicitly endorses a four-Gospel canon.

If you deny the apostolicity of 2 Peter, you can make a case that the New Testament wasn’t treated as Scripture until well into the second century. But certainly long before the fourth.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Hi again Edwin,
Where can I read the canon of NT scripture before the forth century?

Annie
 
Contarini said:
The Muratorian canon is the earliest attempt we have at a comprehensive list–usually dated to about 170.

And no, it doesn’t include 2 Peter, which was one of the books often disputed.

I cited 2 Peter as evidence that early Christians saw Paul’s letters as Scripture. Whether it is itself Scripture is irrelevant for that point.

Again, the basic issue here is the fallacy that if you haven’t decided the precise limits of the canon you don’t have Scripture.

As I said, 2 Peter clearly sees Paul’s letters as Scripture, and Irenaeus cites the earlier writer Papias (early 2nd century) talking about the Gospels. Irenaeus explicitly endorses a four-Gospel canon.

If you deny the apostolicity of 2 Peter, you can make a case that the New Testament wasn’t treated as Scripture until well into the second century. But certainly long before the fourth.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I meant to mention that Irenaeus writes in Adversus Haereses:

When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles. He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes – and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement’s time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles, which declared one almighty God, maker of heaven and earth and fashioner of man, who brought out the people from the land of Egypt; who spoke with Moses; who ordained the Law and sent the Prophets; and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. Those who care to can learn from this Writing that he was proclaimed by the churches as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is older than those present false teachers who make up lies about another God above the Demiurge and maker of all things that are. (3.3.3)

He was very Catholic. I am not finding sola scriptura before the 4th century with the Arians, who of course did not believe in the true doctrine of the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top