Q's for Non-Catholics about Bible Canon

[Alizarin]

Your question about salvation is right in the middle of that loop - what really IS the Bible anyway? Is just a portion of the Bible the recipe for salvation while being cluttered with a bunch of useless babbling?

Well, if for a moment we go with the premise that only part was needed for salvation, that doesn’t by necessity relegate the rest to the category of “useless babbling”.

But back to my original question, which is that even if one accepts the basic Catholic premise that the canon had an authoritative form by the 4th century, that still leaves roughly 300 years of early Christians with no “authorized” version of the Bible, 300 years of people being saved anyway, soooooo… does the idea of canon really matter for salvation, or is all of the debate really a matter of claiming authority and the power that goes with it?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard **“Christ preached” in it. **

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this.

What I have a problem with is trying to determine a canonical book outside the Church.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this.

What I have a problem with is trying to determine a canonical book outside the Church.

I agree, Jose. Luther used the historic Church, what the Church had said and done throughout history when expressing his opinions about the canon. And the fact is he did not impose his opinion on anyone. He clearly says they are his opinions, and gives deference to the western Church by including all 73 books in his translation.

Jon

 

[pablope]

That’s an entirely hypothetical and unfair assumption to make. The truth is that we don’t know how Luther would have treated a truly ecumenical council’s ruling on the canon because one never took place. He rejected Hippo and Carthage precisely because they were local councils and not universally ratified/accepted.

I tend to think that he would have honored a truly ecumenical council, had one taken place. After all, he never rejected the rulings of the truly ecumenical councils (Lutherans do profess the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), and he hoped -even up to his death- that one would take place (Just read his preface to the Smalcald Articles), but Mantua never happened.

In any case, the Lutheran Confessions intentionally never codified a canon. Lutherans, at least, are set apart from protestants in this regard.

I think part of the article answers your concern:

These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given.

In any case, the Lutheran Confessions intentionally never codified a canon. Lutherans, at least, are set apart from protestants in this regard

Okay…you accept the west canon as defined at Hippo and Carthage…but still have 7 less books in your OT…why do you continue to do this? So…how does this set you apart from protestants in this regard?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I agree, Jose. Luther used the historic Church, what the Church had said and done throughout history when expressing his opinions about the canon. And the fact is he did not impose his opinion on anyone. He clearly says they are his opinions, and gives deference to the western Church by including all 73 books in his translation.

Jon

Indeed Jon! I don’t think there was much that Luther did not challenge thou,

 

[pablope]

Here’s a question, though, that’s been gnawing at me lately: how many of those books are necessary for salvation? Does a person need Tobit to be saved? For that matter, does he/she need all four gospel accounts or would hearing just one of them suffice? The Wisdom books are wonderful, the Song of Solomon is beautiful, but most people who give their heart over to Jesus probably do so without hearing a word from any of them.

?

My take…we do not…but we need the Church…which is what the very first christians had…for the first 300 or so yrs before the books could be gathered together in one binding…and then, the purpose of the binding was to have a standard set of writngs to be read during the Liturgy.

Maybe the arguments over this thing called “canon” are pointless. After all, Saul became St. Paul without ever seeing the Bible in the forms in which we have it today. He became “The Apostle” without reading his own epistles, right

The Bible became a point of contention or argument only after the Reformation…or sometime after it.

On Paul…he did this also:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11018370]I think part of the article answers your concern:

These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given.

Reaffirmed it for whom, Pablo? As has been pointed out, not all of the Catholic Church at that time abided by it.

Okay…you accept the west canon as defined at Hippo and Carthage…but still have 7 less books in your OT…why do you continue to do this? So…how does this set you apart from protestants in this regard?

Who said those seven are not in the OT? They are. American Lutherans, to be sure, have been, let’s say, lazy in accepting English language Bibles that lack the DC’s. That isn’t the case in Europe, and there are signs that Lutherans here are “rediscovering” them, what with a Lutheran commentary now published.

Jon

 

[steido01]

but still have 7 less books in your OT…why do you continue to do this? So…how does this set you apart from protestants in this regard?

We still use the Apocrypha - especially for liturgical purposes.

If you’re questioning why it’s typically been printed separately… AFAIK, European Lutherans never bothered to separate it - it’s really just an issue specific to America, and revolving around the whole historical printing/cost issue that we’ve previously discussed. This is changing.

 

[pablope]

Reaffirmed it for whom, Pablo? As has been pointed out, not all of the Catholic Church at that time abided by it.

Some…a minority…but their opinions did not rise to the level of discord…and did not disobey their bishop/s.

As Cardinal Cajetan says… from Cardinal Cajetan…Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage

Who said those seven are not in the OT? They are. American Lutherans, to be sure, have been, let’s say, lazy in accepting English language Bibles that lack the DC’s. That isn’t the case in Europe, and there are signs that Lutherans here are “rediscovering” them, what with a Lutheran commentary now published.

 

[pablope]

We still use the Apocrypha - especially for liturgical purposes.

If you’re questioning why it’s typically been printed separately… AFAIK, European Lutherans never bothered to separate it - it’s really just an issue specific to America, and revolving around the whole historical printing/cost issue that we’ve previously discussed. This is changing.

As I told Jon…Good…but why the slow process? You need to speed it up…

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11018484]

Some…a minority…but their opinions did not rise to the level of discord…and did not disobey their bishop/s.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that the patriarchates of the east had different canons even then. I’m not sure that could be considered. Minority

As Cardinal Cajetan says… from Cardinal Cajetan…Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage

An acceptance of varying opinions. I think that’s a good thing.

Good…but why the slow process? You need to speed it up…

Come on, Pablo, we even cook our brats very slowly.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Some…a minority…but their opinions did not rise to the level of discord…and did not disobey their bishop/s.

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

As Cardinal Cajetan says… from Cardinal Cajetan…Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage

Cajetan is simply acknowledging that some considered the DC canonical, and some did not, and their reasoning for doing so. But he also specifically calls Carthage a “provincial” council - not one having authority over the entire church catholic.

Good…but why the slow process? You need to speed it up…

Hey now, we’re working on it!

 

[steido01]

This is entertaining. Jon and I keep posting nearly identical comments, but before the forum can refresh and show that the other has already posted!

 

[JonNC]

This is entertaining. Jon and I keep posting nearly identical comments, but before the forum can refresh and show that the other has already posted!

And we are not Skype-ing on the side.

Jon

 

[Traverse]

Why would God wait over 1000 years before enlightening people like Martin Luther that the Church was mistaken about what is the Word of God?

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.

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.

1 Corinthians 14:37-38
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.
But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

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.

As for the OT, I defer to my Lutheran friends, who plainly state that there was disagreement within the catholic church even before Trent and they were only ever considered worthwhile to read, not scripture. They existed and were compiled with translations, but that didn’t mean they were accepted. That only came with Trent, to my knowledge.

 

[pablope]

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that the patriarchates of the east had different canons even then. I’m not sure that could be considered. Minority

Jon

From what I read from a Orthowiki source…they slowly adopted the canon…following the councils of Hippo and Carthage…or what was done at mainly at Carthage.

But additional OT books were retained in some areas…due to what had been traditionally read in their liturgical tradition.

 

[pablope]

:banghead: Again, where is there any discord, especially considering that Luther was dead

before Trent? Luther’s objections were the same as those Catholics who came before him. On the issue of the canon, Luther was not in ‘discord’ from the Catholic Church.

Maybe…but not on the same level as Luther’s polemics.

Cajetan is simply acknowledging that some considered the DC canonical, and some did not, and their reasoning for doing so. But he also specifically calls Carthage a “provincial” council - not one having authority over the entire church catholic.

 

[pablope]

Why would God wait until 382 AD for that matter?

The Roman persecution…and the need arose because of the varying opinions by various bishops on what should be read during the Mass.

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.

 

[in_servitude]

Of course it could not all be garbage. Why go to an extreme statement such as that?

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.

The historic Church says they are not garbage, and we don’t need to have had an ecumenical council to know this.

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?

Some within the Church think 3 Macc is canonical. Some dispute that. That doesn’t make 3 Macc garbage. It makes it disputed.

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.

And frankly, it seems to me to be time for all of us to show some respect to each other regarding these disputes. Protestants who claim that Rome “added books” at Trent are either ignorant of history or disingenuous. The fact is these books have always been part of the history of the Church. On the other hand, Lutherans respectfully look at the historic dialogue regarding some books, and view them in that light. That’s not “removing books”. That’s being carefully in light of Church history.

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.

You seem to have read my responses to this issue. If so, then you also know that I have often said that the DCs should by included, just as Luther did in his translation. I assume you have also read that I have more than once, here at CAF written that I am not even convinced that Luther was correct in his opinion about the DCs.

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.

My main purpose in responding is my belief that Luther was not acting outside the norm of Catholic freedom to question books historically disputed. We have a habit of looking at this issue by projecting back, holding Luther to a standard no one was not held to prior to Trent. There is also a tendency to overlook the fact that Luther made sure that the DCs were translated and included in his translation. So the question is, why would he do this if his opinion of the books was as bad as some proclaim it to be?

 

[in_servitude]

But back to my original question, which is that even if one accepts the basic Catholic premise that the canon had an authoritative form by the 4th century, that still leaves roughly 300 years of early Christians with no “authorized” version of the Bible, 300 years of people being saved anyway, soooooo… does the idea of canon really matter for salvation, or is all of the debate really a matter of claiming authority and the power that goes with it?

I’d like to continue this further. But, I do think that this is a different thread as this one is about the canon. I understand your question to be more about authority as it relates to salvation.