Protestant bible History

  • Thread starter Thread starter heisenburg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rightlydivide said:
I did Kay Cee. Almost all my posts have hinted at my underlying presuppositons concerning presuppositional apologetics and such.
Click to expand...
I don’t want hints. Can’t you just answer the question instead of hinting at it?
 
Kay_Cee said:
Just for the record, I’m here to ask questions in an attempt to clear up my confusion, not to engage in a debate.

Now that I’ve made that clear—

My question is:

(Sorry about the italics, but it refuses to go out of that.)

*My emphasis is on the word “How.” *

*Knowledge of what the canon should be is not something we’re born with. Therefore, this information is communicated to us. I agree that God decides the canon, but **how ***does He communicate this information to us? What, in other words, is the “telephone” God uses to give us this information?

*The answer should be no more than just a word or two. (If you want to explain your answer in greater detail, that’s fine, but the initial answer should be short.) *
Click to expand...
It’s called “church councils”. These are where the teaching magisterium meets and decides for the good of the whole Church, such as Vatican II. We have the canon of scripture because the teaching magisterium decided on it. And we know that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, so what was decided as far as the canon of scripture is concerned was acceptable as the written word of God. Looking back, we undersand that God used the writings of fallible human beings to write and inspire His Word - something God has done throughout salvation history.
 
peary said:
It’s called “church councils”. These are where the teaching magisterium meets and decides for the good of the whole Church, such as Vatican II. We have the canon of scripture because the teaching magisterium decided on it. And we know that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, so what was decided as far as the canon of scripture is concerned was acceptable as the written word of God. Looking back, we undersand that God used the writings of fallible human beings to write and inspire His Word - something God has done throughout salvation history.
Click to expand...
Not your official stance peary. They have God as their author and the canonization is subsequent to that is your official stance.
 
Rightlydivide said:
The OT and NT canons were developed by God’s providence. There was never any more chance of the wrong books being in the eventual canon than Christ not being crucified.
Click to expand...
Was there any chance the right books would be excluded?
It speaks to his sovereignty.
Click to expand...
True enough, but then too far in this direction, and you end up in Calvin’s territory where we have no free will.
**Most **of the books of the eventual NT are accepted as scripture in the first 200 years, no council needed.
Click to expand...
The key word is “MOST” as it indicates, as you acknowledge, the discussions and disputes about what is to be considered inspired. But your statement tells only half the story, leaving out the issue of those books that would not be in the NT but were considered by some to be inspired.
If *all *Christianity agreed on *all * books that would become the NT, then your statement, “no councils needed” would make sense. As it stands, you do not provide the solution the problem: how do we, as early Christians, come to an agreement on what is to be considered canonical?
The councils, local in nature, cannot be proven to have had any impact on what was practically considered scripture. In other words, no one says; “well we didnt use 2nd Peter but since those folks in Carthage, we accept it”.
Click to expand...
Neither can it be proven they didn’t have an impact; though you seem to forget that Carthage sent their decision to Rome…
Also, if “no councils needed” is true - as you state - why were the councils called?
No the councils confirmed the practice of the early church. Not the other way around. Specifically the Pauline corpus and the four gospels.
Click to expand...
The councils, especially Carthage and Hippo, are part of the early Church. And, as stated previously, if “no councils needed” was the truth, what purpose did the councils serve? To confirm “most” of the books?

And while the 4 gospels and most of the Pauline corpus is good, that is not the whole NT.
God used the same method for what was considered scripture to the Jews.
Before anyone gets riled up too much about Deuterocanonicals; they will have to prove the LXX of the time of Jesus contained the books that they say they do. There are no existing copies or lists from that period to indicate what the LXX had. The earliest surviving copies, 3 centuries later contain different books! Of course my Bible has these anyway, just in a different part.
Click to expand...
When, in your opinion, was the Jewish canon decided?
And to follow your argument, we don’t have any existing copies of the original NT documents. What does that prove/disprove?
God used his church. A church that historically cannot be proven to have accepted the Marian dogmas, a Papacy, and in many quarters was rapidly opposed to the use of images (as the wonderful example in Eusebius indicates and Justyn Martyrs work) for the first few centuries.
His church that eventually developed unapostolic doctrines prior to God using a reformation to restore the New Testament purity of many of his churches.
Since you asked…
Click to expand...
We also have a Church that developed the Doctrine of the Trinity; that is, there was a period in the Church when one could say, “historically, we haven’t taught that Trinity.”
We also have a Church that developed the Bible; that is, there was a point in the Church when one could say, “we don’t have a Bible.”

Your argument is, as you already know, heavily one-sided.
 
Kay_Cee said:
*How *does someone who rejects the authority of the Catholic Church know what the canon should be? *How *does such a person get the correct information about what books belong in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Short answer they don’t. They fudge it by saying it wasn’t the Catholic Church that exist now or some will say they were still good then but went bad later. It’s all in sola opinion for them
 
Rightlydivide said:
Not your official stance peary. They have God as their author and the canonization is subsequent to that is your official stance.
Click to expand...
What do you mean “not your official stance”? They dropped out of the sky? Is that what you believe?
 
peary said:
What do you mean “not your official stance”? They dropped out of the sky? Is that what you believe?
Click to expand...
I was being nice for me…geez.
It appeared from your answer you were not quoting Catholic DOCTRINE. Which is the reason they are inspired is that they have God as their author and the approval was subsequent.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Not your official stance peary. They have God as their author and the canonization is subsequent to that is your official stance.
Click to expand...
He was specifically speaking of the “canon of scripture,” not the scriptures themselves. And what he said about the canon is the position of the Church.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Just to clarify your position
You would agree that scriptures were committed TO the church, not the other way around?
And that the churches approval , in your case Trent, was subsequent to their inspiration?
Click to expand...
Hello RightlyDivide

I will try to answer your question but subjectively it seems almost like a trick question. I believe that the scriptures were writings that came from the oral tradition of the Church. Jesus commanded the oral tradition when He said go and preach the gospel. The writings were clarifications of early Church situations and misunderstandings. They also told of the life of Christ. Church first, scripture second.

As far as the OT goes, it has authority through Christ (my opinion). The governing body of the chosen people was the sanhedron (spelling?) comprised of pharises and saduccess. Each believed different portions of scripture to be valid (sound familiar?). When Christ was questioned he many times referred to the books of the prophets for the answers which the saduccess did not recognize because they only held valid the books of Moses.

Christ read from the Septuigant. This is what I consider to be valid authority. The Jews before Christ never really had an agreed cannon. Anyhow, their authority was superseeded by the Church Christ established (Matt23:1-2).

mdcpensive1
Click to expand...
 
VociMike said:
He was specifically speaking of the “canon of scripture,” not the scriptures themselves. And what he said about the canon is the position of the Church.
Click to expand...
This what he said
We have the canon of scripture because the teaching magisterium decided on it. And we know that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, so what was decided as far as the canon of scripture is concerned was acceptable as the written word of God. Looking back, we undersand that God used the writings of fallible human beings to write and inspire His Word - something God has done throughout salvation history.
Click to expand...
and no it is not the official stance.
 
originally posted by rightlydivide:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike:
He was specifically speaking of the “canon of scripture,” not the scriptures themselves. And what he said about the canon is the position of the Church.

This what he said:

Quote from peary:
We have the canon of scripture because the teaching magisterium decided on it. And we know that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, so what was decided as far as the canon of scripture is concerned was acceptable as the written word of God. Looking back, we undersand that God used the writings of fallible human beings to write and inspire His Word - something God has done throughout salvation history.

and no it is not the official stance.

**You don’t get it, do you?🤷 **
 
To RightlyDivide:

It is interesting that in the early Church the scriptures were read at liturgies. These were Eucharistic liturgies where the scriptures were read to those who could read and not read. These scriptures were the ones that gained the attention and usage in the Church. When some people wanted to add things that were not in line with the proper theology, the Church sought to standardize the cannon through a long process.

It is the authority of the Church guided by the Spirit that brought about the correct cannon. You can say “God’s sovereignty” if you want, but it comes down to humans deciding with God’s graces in guiding them in the truth and fulfilling God’s promise not to let the Church be led into error. Councils only tend to define when it is necessary to correct an understanding or misunderstanding.

Conflicting opinions of post Nicea or at Trent are sometimes a hinderance to the truth. We can get caught up in Greek vs Hebrew/Aramaic and loose sight to the real message. Whether we want to rely on Greek texts in the last 200 years BC as not scripture is to me a man-made decision apart from Christ. He gave the Church the authority to bind in His name and that is good enough for me.

mdcpensive1
 
peary said:
originally posted by rightlydivide:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike:
He was specifically speaking of the “canon of scripture,” not the scriptures themselves. And what he said about the canon is the position of the Church.

This what he said:

Quote from peary:
We have the canon of scripture because the teaching magisterium decided on it. And we know that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, so what was decided as far as the canon of scripture is concerned was acceptable as the written word of God. Looking back, we undersand that God used the writings of fallible human beings to write and inspire His Word - something God has done throughout salvation history.

and no it is not the official stance.

**You don’t get it, do you?🤷 **
Click to expand...
What EXACTLY do you mean. It is not the view of your councils. I am having to give that.
 
peary said:
It’s called “church councils”. These are where the teaching magisterium meets and decides for the good of the whole Church, such as Vatican II. We have the canon of scripture because the teaching magisterium decided on it. And we know that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, so what was decided as far as the canon of scripture is concerned was acceptable as the written word of God. Looking back, we undersand that God used the writings of fallible human beings to write and inspire His Word - something God has done throughout salvation history.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know all this (see post #22), but some reject the authority of the Church. How do they answer the question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top