I didnāt know about Innocent I, was this at a council? I haven;t seen him on any of the canon list charts. What is the name of the decree?
No, it was not at a Council; there was no Universal Council; only the local Councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo. He made the Decree afterwards, after reviewing the findings of those three local councils.
Churches that did not acknowledge Romeās authority could still receive Bibles, because there where other councils and traditions with the same books going back before 405AD.
There were minor differences in details between the Councils, yet somehow they ended up with exactly the same canon of the New Testament as the Pope? Thatās quite an astounding ācoincidence,ā I think, if they were not listening to him, but listening only to the various local councils.
They could have acknowledged Rome as a first among equals, or even as an important church, without needing Rome to make the growing canon list official. I would have to see the documents myself, but demonstrating that the Pope ratified the canon as we have it now, does not by necessity imply that the Church as a whole accepted it because of him. Especially in the East that would not have been using the Vulgate anyway.
No, they used the original Greek versions, but they
still ended up using
exactly the same canon as St. Jerome did, even right down to using the correct (out of a possible three) translation of the Gospel of Matthew. I donāt think that can be a coincidence; I think instead that they must have heard and obeyed the Pope.
This assumes another issue, that Rome had that kind of official authority in the West, as opposed to merely being the major ecclesiastical center due to being in the capital of the empire. Plus, when dealing with āhow do we know the 27 books are canonicalā again, a church, say in the East could look to the developing consensus without needing Romeās official stamp, even though that stamp would have added to the weight of making those 27 official.
Yes, but that they didnāt go with any of the canons of any of the Councils, but rather, with the Popeās canon, seems to suggest that they were following him, rather than any specific council.
scriptures: infallible by nature
Itās better to say that the Scriptures are āinerrantā rather than āinfallibleā since they donāt actually get up and deliver lectures or homilies, but I do understand your meaning, and I agree with it.
canon list: possibly fallible
If the canon is fallible, then so are the Scriptures, thus resulting in a contradiction in your conclusions. If we canāt know for certain that we have the right books, then we canāt trust the Bible that we now have to be perfectly inerrant, since, if the canon is fallible, then we canāt know whether some books are missing, and we canāt know whether some books got in that should not have, or whether they used the correct translations of the books that they chose, originally.
That is why God gave us the bible and the Holy Spirit. We also have to ask God for the wisdom to understand what we are being taught. When I hear something from a human including my minister and Im not sure, I always go to the bible and pray for clarity. Hasnt let me down to date.
I wish I had your bible, maybe I would go to the gym then.
I think your right, there is so much we just wont know for sure until we get to heaven:thumbsup: Even there we will be learning for eternity
