Poll on the Canon

[TriuneUnity]

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?

crazzeto, yes, absolutely. The question is not aimed directly at how I, as an individual believer, know which books are inspired. The guidance of the Church on that matter, for Roman Catholics, and at least, for traditional Lutherans, is influenced by the Church. What the question is aimed at is how the authority of the canon originated. Is the canon the canon because the Church says it’s the canon, or is the canon the canon because God inspired some books and not others, and the Church only received and recognized them. Argument 3 presupposes that the authority of the canon rests with the decisions of the Church as the active participant in determining the canon; whereas the statement from Vat I presupposes that the Church only recognized the voice of its Shepherd when He spoke.

 

[crazzeto]

crazzeto, yes, absolutely. The question is not aimed directly at how I, as an individual believer, know which books are inspired. The guidance of the Church on that matter, for Roman Catholics, and at least, for traditional Lutherans, is influenced by the Church. What the question is aimed at is how the authority of the canon originated. Is the canon the canon because the Church says it’s the canon, or is the canon the canon because God inspired some books and not others, and the Church only received and recognized them. Argument 3 presupposes that the authority of the canon rests with the decisions of the Church as the active participant in determining the canon; whereas the statement from Vat I presupposes that the Church only recognized the voice of its Shepherd when He spoke.

In that case I would have voted option two, I understood this question as “how does one arrive at the canon”… The only answer for us is that we don’t, the Church did and we accept it… Or at least we should accept it anyway

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I constantly hear Catholic Answers and EWTN talk about how the “Catholic Church gave us the Bible.” I really think it’s interesting that they fail to mention the East? Didn’t the Eastern bishops, priests, theologians play any part in the canon of Scripture? Was it unilaterally the pope editing it?

That’s a good question and one I haven’t really thought about. I don’t think any church put the Bible together, I do believe that God though the Holy Spirit inspired some as to what books go into making Scripture and that’s were we are at today.

 

[crazzeto]

I constantly hear Catholic Answers and EWTN talk about how the “Catholic Church gave us the Bible.” I really think it’s interesting that they fail to mention the East? Didn’t the Eastern bishops, priests, theologians play any part in the canon of Scripture? Was it unilaterally the pope editing it?

Until 1054 the eastern and western churches were all a part of the same Universal or Catholic Church. But the scripture wasn’t set in stone directly via eccumenical council until some 500 years later in Trent. That isn’t to say that there wasn’t a certain set of books called canonical, in fact SS Augustine would write SS Jerome on this very subject “…the books now considered canonical…”. The reason why he writes this is because the canon (the very same one formalize in Trent) was first decided upon in Hippo in the ~390’s in a regional council, later councils would accept all teachings of all previous councils. Thus while one wouldn’t have definitivly said that canon was dogmatic until Trent, it was all but a dogmatic teaching.

It’s interesting to note, that the whole Church accepted the same basic list of books after Hippo… There was and continues to be (even in the CC) some minor variance in the OT (regarding some Sept books not directly addressed in any council) but Hippo, then 2 councils of Carthiage is why for instance, we have a standard NT and a very nearly standard OT… Outside of protistantism, everyone fully accepts at a minimum the CC’s official list of books.

Thus Catholics quite correctly state, it was the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If the East signed off on it and authorized it, then it’s apparent that they had a say in it and played a part. And you can’t tell me that the East wasn’t basically already using the same epistles and gospels prior to the official canonization by Jerome, etc.

And incidentally, I know about the 1054 split and scripture not being canonized until later

Until 1054 the eastern and western churches were all a part of the same Universal or Catholic Church. But the scripture wasn’t set in stone directly via eccumenical council until some 500 years later in Trent. That isn’t to say that there wasn’t a certain set of books called canonical, in fact SS Augustine would write SS Jerome on this very subject “…the books now considered canonical…”. The reason why he writes this is because the canon (the very same one formalize in Trent) was first decided upon in Hippo in the ~390’s in a regional council, later councils would accept all teachings of all previous councils. Thus while one wouldn’t have definitivly said that canon was dogmatic until Trent, it was all but a dogmatic teaching.

It’s interesting to note, that the whole Church accepted the same basic list of books after Hippo… There was and continues to be (even in the CC) some minor variance in the OT (regarding some Sept books not directly addressed in any council) but Hippo, then 2 councils of Carthiage is why for instance, we have a standard NT and a very nearly standard OT… Outside of protistantism, everyone fully accepts at a minimum the CC’s official list of books.

Thus Catholics quite correctly state, it was the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible.

 

[TriuneUnity]

In that case I would have voted option two, I understood this question as “how does one arrive at the canon”… The only answer for us is that we don’t, the Church did and we accept it… Or at least we should accept it anyway

That’s my concern, crazzeto. If the popular apologetic that is presented by lay Catholics on the origins of the canon is not consistent with what is, to Roman Catholics, infallible dogma, then isn’t an argument that Catholics shouldn’t be using?

The contradictions between the two statements in several areas, are completely obvious here. Take this, for example, from Tim Staples (and I realize Staples is just one man, but his argument is consistent with every other professional apologist, as well as the majority on the forum, as evidenced by the fact of the number of Catholics who voted for it):

Staples: The Roman Catholic Church, in virtue of her apostolic authority, determined the canon of Scripture.

Vatican I: These books the church holds to be canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority.

Staples: The Scriptures cannot canonize themselves, therefore, the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church.

Vatican I: “but because, being written under the** inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author”** (i.e., the Scriptures DO canonize themselves)

 

[crazzeto]

If the East signed off on it and authorized it, then it’s apparent that they had a say in it and played a part. And you can’t tell me that the East wasn’t basically already using the same epistles and gospels prior to the official canonization by Jerome, etc.

And incidentally, I know about the 1054 split and scripture not being canonized until later

It was worth posting, since there are a lot of Christians who don’t fully understand all this including Easterners

 

[crazzeto]

That’s my concern, crazzeto. If the popular apologetic that is presented by lay Catholics on the origins of the canon is not consistent with what is, to Roman Catholics, infallible dogma, then isn’t an argument that Catholics shouldn’t be using?

The contradictions between the two statements in several areas, are completely obvious here. Take this, for example, from Tim Staples (and I realize Staples is just one man, but his argument is consistent with every other professional apologist, as well as the majority on the forum, as evidenced by the fact of the number of Catholics who voted for it):

Staples: The Roman Catholic Church, in virtue of her apostolic authority, determined the canon of Scripture.

Vatican I: These books the church holds to be canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority.

Staples: The Scriptures cannot canonize themselves, therefore, the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church.

Vatican I: “but because, being written under the** inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author”** (i.e., the Scriptures DO canonize themselves)

Again, you claim there is contradiction when there isn’t any contradiction at all… I think you’ll notice most Apologists likely including Tim Staples will typically spend a few electrons discussing the authority of the Church when discussing something of this nature.

Option 3 is consitant with Option 2 which is point in fact, consitant with Option 1 when you look at the big picture… The Church has the authority to make these kinds of declarations, there for 1 & 2 apply to them directly. I am (as we all should be) subject to the authority of the Church, there for option 3 directly applies to me as a person, 1 & 2 only indirectly via the Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Again, you claim there is contradiction when there isn’t any contradiction at all… I think you’ll notice most Apologists likely including Tim Staples will typically spend a few electrons discussing the authority of the Church when discussing something of this nature.

Option 3 is consitant with Option 2 which is point in fact, consitant with Option 1 when you look at the big picture… The Church has the authority to make these kinds of declarations, there for 1 & 2 apply to them directly. I am (as we all should be) subject to the authority of the Church, there for option 3 directly applies to me as a person, 1 & 2 only indirectly via the Church.

But again, the question is not aimed at the individual believer’s epistemological knowledge of the canon of Scripture. It is aimed at how the canon came in to being. The section of Staples’ argument on the issue is only addressing how the canon came to be the canon. Staples’ argument is that the Church, by her authority, determined the canon in virtue of that authority. The statement from Vat I is saying that the Church recognized the canon in virtue of the authority of the Scriptures as having been inspired by God. Of course they are contradictory.

If Staples is saying that the Scriptures do not canonize themselves, and Vatican I is saying they do canonize themselves, that is a contradiction. In this regard, the statement of Vatican I is in harmony with the Westminster Confession.

 

[crazzeto]

But again, the question is not aimed at the individual believer’s epistemological knowledge of the canon of Scripture. It is aimed at how the canon came in to being. The section of Staples’ argument on the issue is only addressing how the canon came to be the canon. Staples’ argument is that the Church, by her authority, determined the canon in virtue of that authority. The statement from Vat I is saying that the Church recognized the canon in virtue of the authority of the Scriptures as having been inspired by God. Of course they are contradictory.

If Staples is saying that the Scriptures do not canonize themselves, and Vatican I is saying they do canonize themselves, that is a contradiction. In this regard, the statement of Vatican I is in harmony with the Westminster Confession.

Ok, but how does one go about recognizing that a particular book was inspired by God? Your statements seem to imply that it is plain which books were inspired by God. Thanks to the work of the CC this is true today, but until these councils conveened that wasn’t the case. Revelation was a disputed book, as was Hebrews something Luther was aware of when he decided that he didn’t think they were of Apostolic origin him self (something he didn’t keep private).

That last point I bring up, because it’s actually important. One must first recognize that the CC in fact has the authority to determain which books were inspired, if one doesn’t then they become quite free (as many later schismatic Christians would realize) to make up whatever Canon they wish.

So in your opinion, how does one recognize that a particular book is in fact inspired if the virtue of the authority of the CC isn’t an acceptable parameter?

 

[StevenFrancis]

The contradictions between the two statements in several areas, are completely obvious here. Take this, for example, from Tim Staples (and I realize Staples is just one man, but his argument is consistent with every other professional apologist, as well as the majority on the forum, as evidenced by the fact of the number of Catholics who voted for it):

Staples: The Roman Catholic Church, in virtue of her apostolic authority, determined the canon of Scripture.

Vatican I: These books the church holds to be canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority.

Staples: The Scriptures cannot canonize themselves, therefore, the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church.

Vatican I: “but because, being written under the** inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author”** (i.e., the Scriptures DO canonize themselves)

I find all of these statements to be true in different contexts. The bible is the inerrant word of God. The Church, under divine inspiration did finalize the canon of scripture. We need a magesterium to keep people from fudging about with it, and going off on tangents that aren’t necessicarily so.

 

[Zooey]

Well, I was going to complain loudly about the fact that I didn’t understand statement 2, but then I read Jon NC’s post, and if he explianed it correctly, then that is the one I believe, so I voted for #2.
But if Jon totally missed what 2 really says, then there is NO answer that I could have voted for…At least, if I understand options #1 & #3.

[SIGN1]
Its :dts:not nice to make old ladies go uch: :hypno: :takeoff: !!!
[/SIGN1]

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok, but how does one go about recognizing that a particular book was inspired by God? Your statements seem to imply that it is plain which books were inspired by God. Thanks to the work of the CC this is true today, but until these councils conveened that wasn’t the case. Revelation was a disputed book, as was Hebrews something Luther was aware of when he decided that he didn’t think they were of Apostolic origin him self (something he didn’t keep private).

I do not agree with the statement that it wasn’t the case which books were Scripture and which were not. Remember that the original provincial councils were called mainly due to the influence of Marcion. While it is true that some books, like Revelation and 2 Peter, were in dispute for a very long period of time, the majority of both the Old and New Testament books were accepted as canonical long before those councils met, and before Pope Damasus made his decisions on the matter. Even in the case of the long disputed books, it isn’t clear that the majority of the Church rejected them, only individual bishops and theologians within the Church.

That last point I bring up, because it’s actually important. One must first recognize that the CC in fact has the authority to determain which books were inspired, if one doesn’t then they become quite free (as many later schismatic Christians would realize) to make up whatever Canon they wish.

But that’s exactly what Vatican I is NOT saying. It is saying that the canon was not determined by the authority of the Church, but by the authority of the Scriptures themselves, in virtue of their inspiration. “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority 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.” The statement presupposes that the canon existed before the Church made any ruling about it, because all of the books of Scripture had already been inspired, which is the parameter for canonicity.

So in your opinion, how does one recognize that a particular book is in fact inspired if the virtue of the authority of the CC isn’t an acceptable parameter?

In light of the fact that God has chosen to speak in the Scriptures with His authoritative Word and because God specifically gave the Scriptures to the Church, it is therefore guaranteed that God would ensure His Church would recognize what is Scripture and what is not. My surety is bolstered by the fact that the Church has recognized those Scriptures, but the source of my surety is in God.

 

[crazzeto]

I do not agree with the statement that it wasn’t the case which books were Scripture and which were not. Remember that the original provincial councils were called mainly due to the influence of Marcion. While it is true that some books, like Revelation and 2 Peter, were in dispute for a very long period of time, the majority of both the Old and New Testament books were accepted as canonical long before those councils met, and before Pope Damasus made his decisions on the matter. Even in the case of the long disputed books, it isn’t clear that the majority of the Church rejected them, only individual bishops and theologians within the Church.

They were called in large part due to SS Jerome who originally personally rejected the Deutero-Canonical books Tobias, Judith, Wisdom Ecclesasiasticus, 1 & 2 Machabees, & Baruch. Unlike the Heretics, SS Jerome accepted the decession of the regional councils. Up until this time however, there was great a bit of variance in what books Christians considered to be inspired by God. Have you ever read Eusebius? He writes about this very topic in particular as it applies to Revelation (I haven’t completed his History of the Church as yet). Your assertion that the majority of books were accepted…

But that’s exactly what Vatican I is NOT saying. It is saying that the canon was not determined by the authority of the Church, but by the authority of the Scriptures themselves, in virtue of their inspiration. “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority 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.” The statement presupposes that the canon existed before the Church made any ruling about it, because all of the books of Scripture had already been inspired, which is the parameter for canonicity.

Did you know that you are a baptised Catholic? Does that supprise you? That’s the Church’s position, and why the Church worte what it did in Vatican I… Because all baptised Christians regardless of what denomination they think they’re a part of are all baptised Catholics. Luther (and most Protistants today) however reject this notion, thus what I said is true… Such people certainly should by all rights perfectly free to do whatever they want to the Canon of scripture, Luther sure did… But then again, he understood the fundamental principals behind what he was doing pretty well (though not the consequences there of).

In light of the fact that God has chosen to speak in the Scriptures with His authoritative Word and because God specifically gave the Scriptures to the Church, it is therefore guaranteed that God would ensure His Church would recognize what is Scripture and what is not. My surety is bolstered by the fact that the Church has recognized those Scriptures, but the source of my surety is in God.

True of the Chruch, but they are the only one in a position to make such a determination and they have already spoken.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Staples: The Roman Catholic Church, in virtue of her apostolic authority, determined the canon of Scripture.

Vatican I: These books the church holds to be canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority.

Staples: The Scriptures cannot canonize themselves, therefore, the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church.

Vatican I: “but because, being written under the** inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author”** (i.e., the Scriptures DO canonize themselves)

I think I see the problem. I see the canon as those books which the Church has recognized as inspired. I do not see the canon as (necessarily) all books which are inspired - although as a practical matter I strongly suspect the two are the same at this point.

A book may have God as its author without currently being in the canon (this would be the case, for example, when Paul’s letters were still in the mail). Canonization is the act, by the Church, of officially recognizing that a book is inspired.

So Paul’s letters were inspired by God when he was writing them - they had God as their author. But they did not come under the heading of Scripture until they were officially declared part of the canon by the Church.

The truth of such a book is due solely and directly to God. The books that could potentially become scriptures are true (or not) by their own power. (Those which are true are true because God made them so, but, once they are made, they are true or false by their own merits - even though those merits come from God.)

But the books - even though already true by virtue of being authored by God - only come under the heading of Scripture and only become part of the canon once the Church recognizes them as such.

So, Canonization - the recognition of the truth as inspired- comes solely from the authority granted by God to the Church.

But the truth of a book - whether or not a book could be canonized - is only due to the truth of what is in the book, which is due solely the action of God without requiring action by the Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

They were called in large part due to SS Jerome who originally personally rejected the Deutero-Canonical books Tobias, Judith, Wisdom Ecclesasiasticus, 1 & 2 Machabees, & Baruch. Unlike the Heretics, SS Jerome accepted the decession of the regional councils. Up until this time however, there was great a bit of variance in what books Christians considered to be inspired by God. Have you ever read Eusebius? He writes about this very topic in particular as it applies to Revelation (I haven’t completed his History of the Church as yet). Your assertion that the majority of books were accepted…

Can you provide any documentation that states that Hippo and Carthage were called because of Jerome’s rejection of the deuterocanonicals?

Did you know that you are a baptised Catholic? Does that supprise you? That’s the Church’s position, and why the Church worte what it did in Vatican I… Because all baptised Christians regardless of what denomination they think they’re a part of are all baptised Catholics. Luther (and most Protistants today) however reject this notion, thus what I said is true… Such people certainly should by all rights perfectly free to do whatever they want to the Canon of scripture, Luther sure did… But then again, he understood the fundamental principals behind what he was doing pretty well (though not the consequences there of).

No, it doesn’t surprise me. I understand the Catholic view of Baptism on that matter.

Luther did nothing with the canon of Scripture that hadn’t been done before him. His rejection of the DC books, as well as his questioning of some of the more disputed NT books were his private opinion. His translation of the Greek and Hebrew into German contained all of the books that were present in the Latin Vulgate.

 

[Nicea325]

That’s my concern, crazzeto. If the popular apologetic that is presented by lay Catholics on the origins of the canon is not consistent with what is, to Roman Catholics, infallible dogma, then isn’t an argument that Catholics shouldn’t be using?

The contradictions between the two statements in several areas, are completely obvious here. Take this, for example, from Tim Staples (and I realize Staples is just one man, but his argument is consistent with every other professional apologist, as well as the majority on the forum, as evidenced by the fact of the number of Catholics who voted for it):

Staples: The Roman Catholic Church, in virtue of her apostolic authority, determined the canon of Scripture.

Vatican I: These books the church holds to be canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority.

Staples: The Scriptures cannot canonize themselves, therefore, the canon is wholly dependent on the authority of the church.

Vatican I: “but because, being written under the** inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author”** (i.e., the Scriptures DO canonize themselves)

Nice try,but the above tactic is old. What you did is called ‘proof-texting’ which any freshman earning his B.A. of History would catch it. Trying to prove one’s agenda is disingenious in case you did not know.

 

[Nicea325]

Luther did nothing with the canon of Scripture that hadn’t been done before him.

Really? Provide a name of a priest or names of a priests who on their own authority removed or added books to an official and set canon? Show us what canon he preferred?

His rejection of the DC books, as well as his questioning of some of the more disputed NT books were his private opinion.

Yep! It is called pride and the end results have shown the past 500 years of Protestanism: divisions with no end in sight.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Luther did nothing with the canon of Scripture that hadn’t been done before him.

Really? Provide a name of a priest or names of a priests who on their own authority removed or added books to an official and set canon? Show us what canon he preferred?

Which books did Luther remove from his translation of the Bible?

His rejection of the DC books, as well as his questioning of some of the more disputed NT books were his private opinion.

Yep! It is called pride and the end results have shown the past 500 years of Protestanism: divisions with no end in sight.

Just as a note; eventually, Nicea, you’ll realize that no one will want to have a serious conversation with you on these topics if you continue to be rude, snide, and arrogant in your statements.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, I was going to complain loudly about the fact that I didn’t understand statement 2, but then I read Jon NC’s post, and if he explianed it correctly, then that is the one I believe, so I voted for #2.
But if Jon totally missed what 2 really says, then there is NO answer that I could have voted for…At least, if I understand options #1 & #3.

[SIGN1]
Its :dts:not nice to make old ladies go uch: :hypno: :takeoff: !!!
[/SIGN1]

Jon pretty well summed it up. Answers 1 and 3 are hopelessly circular in their logic and contradict the historical witness to the formation of the canon. Answer 1 ignores the church completely and answer 3 ignores inspiration completely.