Poll on the Canon

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I voted 2 only because of this statement in #3:

the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church

Makes it sound as if the Church decided the canon based on it’s own authority. I do believe that the Church spoke (and still does) authoritatively in this matter. I just believe the Church’s authority is ultimately God’s and comes from God. So the statement,* “the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church”* struck me the wrong way.

So by virtue of elimination 2 it was

God bless you

 

[TriuneUnity]

I voted 2 only because of this statement in #3:

Makes it sound as if the Church decided the canon based on it’s own authority. I do believe that the Church spoke (and still does) authoritatively in this matter. I just believe the Church’s authority is ultimately God’s and comes from God. So the statement,* “the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church”* struck me the wrong way.

So by virtue of elimination 2 it was

God bless you

Curious, RC, in that statement 2 does state that the church accepts the canon in no part because of its authority but only because of the authority of God in its inspiration… Did that strike you as less problematic than statement 3?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Curious, RC, in that statement 2 does state that the church accepts the canon in no part because of its authority but only because of the authority of God in its inspiration… Did that strike you as less problematic than statement 3?

Unless I am reading it wrong, I have zero problems believing that any and all authority that the Church has comes from God. Zero. the Church has authority. This authority comes from God.

God bless you

 

[TriuneUnity]

Unless I am reading it wrong, I have zero problems believing that any and all authority that the Church has comes from God. Zero. the Church has authority. This authority comes from God.

God bless you

Yes, absolutely (within the Roman Catholic view of the doctrine of the Church). My question was more… since statement 2 says that it wasn’t based on any authority that the Church possesses that the canon was determined, but that the canon is the canon because it is inspired and not because the church approved it… was that less problematic than statement 3? I only ask because statement 3 tends to be the generic Catholic apologetic both here and within the “professional” apologetics community.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yes, absolutely (within the Roman Catholic view of the doctrine of the Church). My question was more… since statement 2 says that it wasn’t based on any authority that the Church possesses that the canon was determined, but that the canon is the canon because it is inspired and not because the church approved it… was that less problematic than statement 3? I only ask because statement 3 tends to be the generic Catholic apologetic both here and within the “professional” apologetics community.

Well there you go; I am no professional Catholic apologist. I don’t even claim to be an amateur.

Perhaps I needed another option? I do not believe #1 and #3 I did not like the wording, that left #2, though not perfect itself. So to answer your question, yes I found the wording in #2 less problematic than the wording in #3.

I believe the Church spoke with authority in the matter of the Canon. That authority came from God. This may not fit #2 but I don’t see it fitting with #3 either. It definitely doesn’t fit #1.

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yes, absolutely (within the Roman Catholic view of the doctrine of the Church).

Side question if you don’t mind TU; what do you see as the Catholic view (and presumably mine) of the Church?

God bless you

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well there you go; I am no professional Catholic apologetic. I don’t even claim to be an amateur.

Not a bad thing LOL.

Perhaps I needed another option? I do not believe #1 and #3 I did not like the wording, that left #2, though not perfect itself. So to answer your question, yes I found the wording in #2 less problematic than the wording in #3.

I believe the Church spoke with authority in the matter of the Canon. That authority came from God. This may not fit #2 but I don’t see it fitting with #3 either. It definitely doesn’t fit #1.

God bless you

It’s probably a lot more nuanced than any one statement can provide. Option number one is clearly a broad Protestant view and suffers from a seriously unstable logic in that it removes the church from the equation altogether, merely relegating it to one of complete passivity. From a Lutheran perspective, this is unacceptable, because while we do not believe that the Church possess infallible authority, it does possess normative authority. So when the Church, especially in an ecumenical sense, makes a decision on what books it has received from God, it is not one that can be taken lightly.

Option 2 actually provides a nice balance here. There’s actually nothing within it that I would disagree with in and of itself, because it does recognize that an authoritative decision was made, but rests that decision on the fact that the canon existed before the Church made a pronouncement upon it. It recognizes that once a book is inspired that de facto makes it canonical, whether the church says anything about it or not.

Statement 3, like statement 1, suffers from circular argumentation. Major Premise: The Church possesses the infallible authority to determine the canon. Minor Premise: The Church determined the canon. Conclusion: The Church possesses the infallible authority to determine the canon.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Side question if you don’t mind TU; what do you see as the Catholic view (and presumably mine) of the Church?

God bless you

I think your view is as close to the teachings of the Roman Church (based on your selection) as any other Catholic that has voted in this poll. Of course, aside from Catholicnow, you’re the only Catholic who has posted a comment on how and why they voted!

The common apologetic that is displayed here on CAF and in apologetic circles is FAR removed from any official pronouncements of Rome on how they view their authority vis a vie the canon.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think your view is as close to the teachings of the Roman Church (based on your selection) as any other Catholic that has voted in this poll. Of course, aside from Catholicnow, you’re the only Catholic who has posted a comment on how and why they voted!

The common apologetic that is displayed here on CAF and in apologetic circles is FAR removed from any official pronouncements of Rome on how they view their authority vis a vie the canon.

I don’t wish to drag this thread any further off track than I already have but thank you for answering.

Interesting poll thanks for the discussion.

God bless you

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I agree. They are both consistent with each other. The differences between one/two and three are clear and obvious, and reflect a completely different argument. Statements one and two both presuppose the same thing; that the canon of Scripture is ultimately determined by God and not by any earthly authority. Statement one reflects, as you said, that Scripture draws its authority solely from being a product of divinity, and statement two demonstrates that even though the Church receives and states that what it has been given is holy and divine, it does not rest the canonicity or holiness of the Scriptures upon its own authority. It presupposes that the canon existed before the Church said “this is the canon.”

I believe that you may be asking these questions in the wrong sub-forum. There is very little room there for someone who is NOT Catholic to make a choice other than #1…and what if we don’t like THAT one?

Your poll, in other words, assumes that Catholicism is the sole arbitor of scripture for all choices other than #1…which makes it rather a ‘trick question’ given where you put it.

As for me, I did vote for #1.

Diana

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m too new to vote, but I’ve got to go for a hybrid option anyway. My understanding:

From 1: The truth of Scripture is independent of any statement made about it. A thing is either true or it is not. Those statements within Scripture are true, and so we should obey them.

From 2: But the truth has to be known to be true to be useful to us. Thus God caused Scripture to be written and given to us. Once again, God either caused a book to be written or He did not, independent of what we say about it.

From 3: However, once God causes a book to be written, we must know that it was caused to be written by God in order to give it the reverence and obedience which such a state demands. Thus God gave the (RC) Church the ability to infallibly determine that a book is canonical. So the Church made an infallible (and authoritative) declaration that the books of the canon were of the canon, using the ability given to it by God.

Again, there could presumably be true statements which have not been declared to be definitely true by the Church. And those which it has declared to be true are true, but it is only the knowledge of the truth which we get from the authority of the Church: the truth of truth, as it were, is an inherent property of the statement itself.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m with Augustine of Hippo:

Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental

But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…

 

[tweetymom]

I think you’re the first Catholic I’ve talked with on this forum who has said that. You learn something new everyday, praise God!

Well I agree with him.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m too new to vote, but I’ve got to go for a hybrid option anyway. My understanding:

From 1: The truth of Scripture is independent of any statement made about it. A thing is either true or it is not. Those statements within Scripture are true, and so we should obey them.

From 2: But the truth has to be known to be true to be useful to us. Thus God caused Scripture to be written and given to us. Once again, God either caused a book to be written or He did not, independent of what we say about it.

From 3: However, once God causes a book to be written, we must know that it was caused to be written by God in order to give it the reverence and obedience which such a state demands. Thus God gave the (RC) Church the ability to infallibly determine that a book is canonical. So the Church made an infallible (and authoritative) declaration that the books of the canon were of the canon, using the ability given to it by God.

Again, there could presumably be true statements which have not been declared to be definitely true by the Church. And those which it has declared to be true are true, but it is only the knowledge of the truth which we get from the authority of the Church: the truth of truth, as it were, is an inherent property of the statement itself.

It’s a good summation, Iron. I think the differences in the position are not so much on how the canon was recognized. Statement 2, for example, clearly puts forward the idea that the Church recognized the Scriptures. The question/poll is more geared toward whether the Church determined the canon, that is, actually had the authority to create the canon, or whether the canon is receptive and not active. That is, the canon of Scripture was determined when God inspired it, not when the Church pronounced it canonical.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I believe that you may be asking these questions in the wrong sub-forum. There is very little room there for someone who is NOT Catholic to make a choice other than #1…and what if we don’t like THAT one?

Your poll, in other words, assumes that Catholicism is the sole arbitor of scripture for all choices other than #1…which makes it rather a ‘trick question’ given where you put it.

As for me, I did vote for #1.

Diana

I don’t think all of that is necessarily true. #2 has received 2 Protestant votes and 1 Catholic vote. #1 has received 1 Catholic vote and 6 non-Catholic votes. Of course, #3 has received 11 Catholic votes. But it isn’t an automatic choice.

 

[distracted]

Since this has been discussed a lot on the forum lately, mostly in regards to the deuterocanonicals, I thought I would post this poll to get an idea of where the participants on this forum stand exactly on how the canon of Scripture has come in to being.

Option 1: The authority of the Holy Scripture, because of which it ought to be believed and obeyed, does not depend upon the authority of any man or church, but entirely upon God, its author (who is truth itself); therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

Option 2: These books the church holds to be 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, after which, they were committed to the church.

Option 3: The Roman Catholic Church, in virtue of her apostolic authority, determined the canon of Scripture. Sacred Scripture is inspired by God, is infallible, and without error. However, without the authority of the bishops of the church, we could not recognize which books are canonical or non-canonical. The Scriptures cannot canonize themselves, therefore, the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church.

actually the 3 options arent really all that opposed to ea other are they?

but the 3rd one is the best…

I’m a catechized Ctholic revert… altho maybe thats not the best way to put it since i never…

deverted… i kinda did in my behavior (sin) but not in my head

 

[TriuneUnity]

actually the 3 options arent really all that opposed to ea other are they?

but the 3rd one is the best…

I’m a catechized Ctholic revert… altho maybe thats not the best way to put it since i never…

deverted… i kinda did in my behavior (sin) but not in my head

I would say that number 3 is opposed to number 2. Number 3 rests the authority of the Scriptures as canonical or non-canonical based on whether the Church recognized them. Number 2 rests the authority of the canon on the inspiration of the Scriptures, not the Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Here is what I find interesting about the poll results. Although not everyone who can participate in the poll has done so on the forums, I think enough of a trend has been established to determine what the continued results would be. If you haven’t participated in the poll, please don’t read below as it will bias which answer you select as the one that reflects your views.

Of the participants
6 Protestants and 1 Catholic have voted for statement one.
2 Protestants voted for statement two. 1 Roman Catholic voted for statement two
0 Protestants selected statement 3. 12 Catholics voted for statement 3.

Before I show the sources of the quotes, my question is this; Does the fact that 12 Catholics voted for statement 3, and only 1 voted for statement 2, reflect poor catechesis on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to teach its faithful what is infallible dogma, or, does the world of popular Catholic apologetics have more influence on the Catholics that participate in this forum than does any dogmatic pronouncements by the Roman Catholic Church? As the statements clearly show, statement 3 is diametrically opposed to statement 2. The two cannot be fully reconciled, yet statement 3 is the assumed position of the RCC based on popular apologetics. I’d really like to get Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut on this. It certainly isn’t meant to be confrontational, but it is interesting and perhaps should be something that is looked at?

If you have voted for statement 1, you voted for the Modern English translation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, section 1.4 opc.org/documents/MESV_frames.html

If you voted for statement 3, you voted for an argument presented by popular Roman Catholic apologist, Tim Staples freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2383174/posts

If you voted for statement 2…you voted for the Dogmatic Decrees of the First Ecumenical Vatican Council, Chapter 2, On Revelation intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_P6.HTM

This is especially odd, considering more Lutherans were convinced that this statement was accurate than Roman Catholics. Being that the Roman Catholic Church has come to a, what I would consider orthodox, position on the authority of the canon, which it does not rest on its own authority, but assumes that the canon was already authoritative due to its inspiration, even before the Church recognized it… Why, in any of your opinions, is the popular RC apologetic directly contradictory to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter?

Thanks for voting!

 

[distracted]

I would say that number 3 is opposed to number 2. Number 3 rests the authority of the Scriptures as canonical or non-canonical based on whether the Church recognized them. Number 2 rests the authority of the canon on the inspiration of the Scriptures, not the Church.

they wee not clearly opposed to ea other…

the choices probably should have been written by a protestnat (?)

 

[crazzeto]

TriuneUnity:

I think what you missed however, is that there’s a matter of perspective involved in these questions are voted upon…

Option 2 is quite true for the Church, because the Church is the authority, they are in a position to determain which books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I however have no such guarantee of guidence. For my part, I must accept option 3, the Church has the authority and I have the obligation to submit my self to her authority.

Make any sense to you?