Q's for Non-Catholics about Bible Canon

[IgnatianPhilo]

Okay…as per what I have read…the East later adopted the same NT at least…in a later council of their own.

Yes, but what would prevent the east from adopting later its findings or declaration of a canon?

Don’t the East have the same NT list?

I am not a historian…so I would not know much about the interplay then. I do not know why you would call it bowing down in accepting if a pope made a decision if the East accepted Carthage with glad hearts.

But Augustine was at Carthage. Again, same question…what would prevent the East from later adopting its declaration of the canon?

Yes, definitely.

There is no universal council for hte eastern church and thats the thing. Im sure there were local councils, im sure the western councils had some impact the eastern church but they are not the overall reason for a canon, the overal reason for a canon is the consensus of tradition eventually culminating to a point where I don’t know of an orthodox church that doesn’t have the same bible I have, that is in terms of its canon.

As for Carthage nothing prevents me from accepting it, but nothing demands we absolutely should and must accept it. I suppose the roman catholic position would be because the pope affirmed it? Did the pope affirm it infallibly and absolutely by ex cathedra statement? Thats something I would ask you, was this council, even in the west ever intended to be for the entire church or maybe just north africa? We don’t need carthage like the roman catholics needed to define their canon against protestantism, at least thats how I feel. Protestants can take what they want out of their bibles they don’t have the authority or real ability to do so as far as im concerned.

And yes our New testaments are the same.

 

[in_servitude]

Why would God wait until 382 AD for that matter?

We know from history that the bible was finished being written before the end of the first century, and we also know the new testament books were circulated immediately. The bible was known before any councils on the matter. Just because some councils talked about books that not all of Christendom accepts doesn’t mean that they were the ones that had any authority. After all, the bible was given to us by the Holy Spirit and it wasn’t required for man to decide anything about its canon.

Yes, the Church was first, the Bible flowed from the Rock as a fruit of His Church.

We also know from scripture that those gifted with prophecy are able to recognize what is rightly divine writings. Therefore there would be no debate, and as far as I can tell there really wasn’t until a century or two later when people would look back on what was circulated among the churches.

There are so many new testament writings referenced and quoted amongst the early church fathers that I think it’s preposterous that they didn’t know what scripture was until there was a local council assembled. Just because some question canon it doesn’t therefore follow that no one in the early church knew what was scripture and what wasn’t.

?? I’m confused by your statement. There are places IN the Bible where St. Paul is directly arguing against erroneous teachings. Therefore, there is no way that there was a universally understood teaching even in the churches that St. Paul started. Some of the letters that we have in the Bible are the result of St. Paul writing to a church because he is trying to straighten them out from a messed up situation. I don’t understand how it is possible to argue that everyone just knew and agreed in the first, second, or third century.

For example, Acts Ch 15 is all about people having strong disagreements about something we take as obvious and basic today.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

:banghead: Again, where is there any discord, especially considering that Luther was dead before Trent? Luther’s objections were the same as -]those/-] a very small minority of Catholics who came before him. On the issue of the canon, Luther was not in ‘discord’ from the Catholic Church.

Fixed

 

[JonNC]

=in_servitude;11019318]My only goal in my post was to ask you, specifically, about your perspective. That is it. I am not trying to push a point of view or to convince anyone of anything. By asking if it’s garbage helps me understand where you are coming from.

I found it rather condescending, but perhaps it’s because you and I have not yet chatted much.

Why do you give “the historic Church” any weight on this whatsoever? I assert that St. Paul spent time pushing back on people that were teaching error in the very churches that he started. Do those that were teaching error have anything to say about proper teaching?

Christ Himself charged the Church with the teaching role. Lord, to whom shall we go? But you make a good point. Since there is dispute within the Church about certain books, it makes sense to treat these books with greater reserve.

From what I understand, the Book of John was considered to be more that just disputed in the early Church. I’m no expert, this is just something that I recall. However, the early 4th century councils decided to include it in their canon anyway.

James, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews. These are canon, and yet we recognize their disputed nature, also.

That gets back to my question to you about what do you think these books in the Bible ARE? Are they fruitful for consideration? Flawed writings trying to help out others to see Christ? The living Word of God? I know that you view them as superior to garbage. But, I’m not sure where it goes after that.

I’ll tell you what. Take a look at the Formula of Concord. It tells you what we think of scripture.

I don’t understand why Luther’s opinion is pivotal. For those that believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, it’s easy to see why they would not find it interesting. For those that reject the authority of the Catholic Church, then I presume that Luther’s opinion is on equal footing as anyone else who has studied the subject sufficiently well enough.

Well, yeah. We’re willing to look at the writings of ECF’s - St. Jerome on this matter. If you read the confessions, the ECFs are regularly referenced. What I find interesting is the occasional comment that Protestants don’t look at history. Here is an example of how carefully Lutherans look at Church history, and yet some are confused by that, as well.

Jon

 

[StGeorgeHussite]

Personally, I count all the books of the Catholic Bible as canon. Many great tales and lessons that only could have come from God.

 

[steido01]

Fixed

Haha Sure, Jose, I’ll take it… As long as we all note that other prominent Catholics did align with that minority.

 

[Alizarin]

I understand your question to be more about authority as it relates to salvation.

And as it all relates to Bible canon

In regard to the other Protestants out there, if a person can in theory be saved through 10 minutes of street preaching followed by repentence and faith in what they just heard (not read), why even debate with Catholics and Orthodox over Bible canon, which is what’s going on in this thread? :ehh:

 

[in_servitude]

I found it rather condescending, but perhaps it’s because you and I have not yet chatted much.

I’m sorry about that. I promise that I’m giving you my best effort. I meant no offense by it. I’m seeking to understand your point of view.

Christ Himself charged the Church with the teaching role. Lord, to whom shall we go? But you make a good point. Since there is dispute within the Church about certain books, it makes sense to treat these books with greater reserve.

James, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews. These are canon, and yet we recognize their disputed nature, also.

I’ll tell you what. Take a look at the Formula of Concord. It tells you what we think of scripture.

Hmm… OK. I’d appreciate a link so that I know that I’m reading what you intend to reference.

Well, yeah. We’re willing to look at the writings of ECF’s - St. Jerome on this matter. If you read the confessions, the ECFs are regularly referenced. What I find interesting is the occasional comment that Protestants don’t look at history. Here is an example of how carefully Lutherans look at Church history, and yet some are confused by that, as well.

I do miss the point your making here. I’m “willing to look at” many writings. There is a difference between being willing to look at something and viewing it as divinely inspired scripture.

What I notice is that polemic discussions are frequently started without understanding the basis of the discussion. Why would one care about the canon of the Bible anyway? For me, it’s the Word of God. When I talk with other Protestants, they have a wide array of answers, and it seems most helpful to come to that understanding before discussing how the Bible came together.

 

[pablope]

There is no universal council for hte eastern church and thats the thing. Im sure there were local councils, im sure the western councils had some impact the eastern church but they are not the overall reason for a canon, the overal reason for a canon is the consensus of tradition eventually culminating to a point where I don’t know of an orthodox church that doesn’t have the same bible I have, that is in terms of its canon.

I agree…the basis for a canon was Tradition. It was just voiced by councils…albeit regional in nature…and the results of these councils became the basis for the canon…I am saying is the councils did the sifting. Much like what the Acts 15 council did.

As for Carthage nothing prevents me from accepting it, but nothing demands we absolutely should and must accept it. I suppose the roman catholic position would be because the pope affirmed it? Did the pope affirm it infallibly and absolutely by ex cathedra statement? Thats something I would ask you, was this council, even in the west ever intended to be for the entire church or maybe just north africa?

 

[in_servitude]

And as it all relates to Bible canon

In regard to the other Protestants out there, if a person can in theory be saved through 10 minutes of street preaching followed by repentence and faith in what they just heard (not read), why even debate with Catholics and Orthodox over Bible canon, which is what’s going on in this thread? :ehh:

I do desire to understand what you view the Bible to be. What is it? What does it do?

My experience has been that people desire to see a great deal of wood behind the arrow if they are going to reorient their lifestyle for the rest of their lives.

 

[pablope]

There is no universal council for hte eastern church and thats the thing. Im sure there were local councils, im sure the western councils had some impact the eastern church but they are not the overall reason for a canon, the overal reason for a canon is the consensus of tradition eventually culminating to a point where I don’t know of an orthodox church that doesn’t have the same bible I have, that is in terms of its canon.

.

Just a follow up question: How did the Orthodox sift through the various writings that were in circulation at that time, to come up with a common canon?

Did not a group somehow, had to come together and sift through the different writings in circulation?

 

[Alizarin]

My experience has been that people desire to see a great deal of wood behind the arrow if they are going to reorient their lifestyle for the rest of their lives.

Sure, but how many people convert only after settling the question of what’s canonical, and then reading the whole thing front to back? I think not many…

 

[jimbaker]

well i think that the end result is the same for catholics and non-catholics

and if this does not happen then there is a problem

just like in 1 cor 12, and 14 when saint paul layed out some ground work on how the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit functioned–

and he considered that elementary

but finally – as the canon of mark ch 16 says

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Note

Does verse 16 mean that salvation is by baptism? Answer

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

i have a very simple way of viewing catholics and non catholic religious people-

• if they don’t function in any of the gifts of the holy Spirit-- then they are functioning out of their own ability–

this is was the teaching of the bible canon – how to tell the difference

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Just a follow up question: How did the Orthodox sift through the various writings that were in circulation at that time, to come up with a common canon?

Did not a group somehow, had to come together and sift through the different writings in circulation?

They were sifting through the books as much as the roman Christians were sifting through books, which is to say not at all. There was a tradition obviosly from the begining of certain books attaining indisputable authority and other books in east and west that were disputed. I know not the process but God worked it out to such a point that the east and west can now say we have the same New testament canon.

 

[tws]

Sure, but how many people convert only after settling the question of what’s canonical, and then reading the whole thing front to back? I think not many…

The Bible canon was a factor in my conversion. I was surprised to find the Deuterocanonical books listed alongside the NT books in the earliest Christian counsels. I was also dumbfounded the early church that gave us the Bible had a set of beliefs and practices that greatly resembled RC and EO. I realized if God had led the church into believing in confession to a priest, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, prayers to the dead, etc, then this must be JUST AS VALID as their choice of books for the Bible. If you question their beliefs, you have to question their choice of books as well in the NT and OT. And you really have to question the faithfulness of God in Christ - whether he fulfilled his promises to the church or not to remain with them always and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

I don’t know how someone can look at this stuff and not convert to EO or RC. But I have shared this information - in great detail - with a number of Protestant friends and it has no impact on them whatsoever. Which is very strange.

 

[in_servitude]

Sure, but how many people convert only after settling the question of what’s canonical, and then reading the whole thing front to back? I think not many…

My perspective is different - but I do not have numbers on this.

I’ll start another thread on the following subject… I’m so curious why this question is ignored:

I do desire to understand what you view the Bible to be. What is it? What does it do?

 

[Alizarin]

And you really have to question the faithfulness of God in Christ - whether he fulfilled his promises to the church or not to remain with them always…

He said He would send the Holy Spirit, right? After that, I cast an eye back to the prophets, especially Jeremiah and Ezekial, where God spoke of writing His law on our hearts. He has sent the Holy Spirit, He resides in our hearts, in our consciences, and for some Protestant groups (including me) that’s where it ends. In the conscience, in the heart. No need for councils of bishops to fight it out and then declare it from the Lord. I believe He fulfilled His promise, but in a way different from the one you have.

 

[JonNC]

=in_servitude;11019974]I’m sorry about that. I promise that I’m giving you my best effort. I meant no offense by it. I’m seeking to understand your point of view.

No apology needed. It is probably me who needs to apologize.

Hmm… OK. I’d appreciate a link so that I know that I’m reading what you intend to reference.

Ok. Here’s a link. It isn’t some official document, but well relates (better than I did ) the Lutheran approach. I think it will answer your questions below, too.

internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

What I notice is that polemic discussions are frequently started without understanding the basis of the discussion. Why would one care about the canon of the Bible anyway? For me, it’s the Word of God. When I talk with other Protestants, they have a wide array of answers, and it seems most helpful to come to that understanding before discussing how the Bible came together.

Jon

 

[Traverse]

?? I’m confused by your statement. There are places IN the Bible where St. Paul is directly arguing against erroneous teachings. Therefore, there is no way that there was a universally understood teaching even in the churches that St. Paul started. Some of the letters that we have in the Bible are the result of St. Paul writing to a church because he is trying to straighten them out from a messed up situation. I don’t understand how it is possible to argue that everyone just knew and agreed in the first, second, or third century.

For example, Acts Ch 15 is all about people having strong disagreements about something we take as obvious and basic today.

I never said there were no disagreements. I only said that those gifted with prophecy would be able to recognize scripture when they see it. This is something the bible itself informs us of.

We know that not everyone was gifted with prophecy, and we know that some weren’t gifted at all. Of course there were going to be disagreements, but the disagreements noted in scripture are not disagreements about what scripture IS, it’s about its meaning or how they’re using their gifts or how they are reacting to preaching before the bible was even complete. You can’t take the context of Acts 15 and say ‘there was disagreement, therefore there was no universally understood teaching’ when that is event that took place before the entirety of scripture was even completed.

Also, to whoever else said it… the inability for the scripture to be collected into bound books and distributed always together has no bearing on whether or not someone gifted with prophecy who came across an inspired letter knew it was inspired. And it also is irrelevant because as we know, everything was distributed everywhere eventually. The church fathers are quoting so much. Yes, they quote uninspired works too, but my point is that they had access to all this stuff and I think sometimes this is completely underestimated. If you want to argue that they thought things were scripture that weren’t that’s one thing, but to make the early church out to be completely oblivious goes, I think, completely against the idea that the great comforter, the Holy Spirit, was guiding the church.

Maybe it’s not the intention of catholics, but sometimes I get the impression that you believe there was just total mass confusion before 382. Disagreements are one thing, the inability to avoid sin also, but not knowing where to go to find God’s teaching is not something depicted in scripture.