Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

[Magnanimity]

i said church came to a consensus

Consensus does not a “word of God” create. Consensus alone would not be enough for you to know whether a writing were divinely inspired or not. Consensus alone is also not enough to determine orthodoxy. Orthodoxy and heresy themselves as theological concepts have no meaning outside of an authoritative voice within the church. Either the Spirit of God has been with the church from the beginning and guiding her and preserving her from error, or He hasn’t. There is no middle ground.

Either we are really alone in this And just doing our level best to somehow determine whether a particular writing is divinely inspired, or the Carism of infallibility really does rest with the church.

At the end of the day, without assenting to the authority of the church, you yourself have no way of knowing which writings may be inspired and which are not.

Arianism is not illogical, nor is it obviously false. At the time of the heresy’s flourishing, bishops even believed it. So how would you know whether or not it is a false doctrine? The epistle of third John is not obviously inspired, neither is it obviously uninspired. So how can one know whether it is inspired? To say that overtime there was a consensus does not answer these questions.

 

[commenter]

. I believe the New Testament came together by the will of God through the people of God (the church). And that, over time, a consensus among the various local churches was reached as to what is “God breathed”, what was true to the teachings of the apostles

Which “people of God” had (name removed by moderator)ut for the “consensus”? There were many Christian groups in the early Church that had different Christian scriptures besides the 27. Who, exactly, excluded those Christians and their Christian scriptures from the NT?

A consensus can’t exclude, only a hierarchical magisterium can. It’s no use to say Mathew was cited by an “ECF” while that Gnostic Christian gospel was cited by a “heretic”, therefore it’s not inspired. The same magisterium that listed the 27 also has put this Christian on the ECF list, and put * that* Christian on the heretic list.

 

[mcq72]

Mt 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses . Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you , but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

[OT seat on the chair of Moses, NT seat on the chair of Peter ]

Yes and “beware of their leaven (bad doctrine)”.

 

[commenter]

Don’t think the camp is just an ancient issue, in 2013 “A New New Testament” was published, backed by leaders of liberal Protestant Churches. They now add some books excluded by the Magisterium. Ironically this puts Evangelicals in the position of having to (unconsciously) defend the Magisterium

 

[lanman87]

Which “people of God” had (name removed by moderator)ut for the “consensus”?

The only people of God.

A consensus can’t exclude, only a hierarchical magisterium can.

For decades the 27 books were the only books used as the NT scriptures before any council listed them. Those books were chosen organically and the people of God recognized and affirmed which books ultimately were worth of being called “God Breathed”. To say that some single local church, church council, or bishop determined the New Testament Scripture isn’t supported by history.

Most of the books of the NT were recognized as scripture by the entire church during the 2nd Century. There are thousand and thousands of quotes from the New Testament as being scripture by the Apostolic Fathers, centuries before the Synod of Carthage. Another question would be, how did Athanasius appeal to the Scriptures in his fight against Arianism if those scriptures didn’t carry the weight of “God Breathed Scripture”. There was no official canon declared by any council when Athanasius was defending the Trinity. Did Athanasius just get to pick and choose which he thought were the New Testament books or did he use books that were already agreed (a consensus is an agreement) upon as Scripture?

 

[lanman87]

Don’t think the camp is just an ancient issue, in 2013 “A New New Testament” was published, backed by leaders of liberal Protestant Churches.

If there New New Testament isn’t accepted by Christianity as a whole then this argument doesn’t hold water. The rest of Christianity is, by consensus, excluding this Liberal Protestant Book.

 

[ArchStanton]

Mt 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses . Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you , but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

[OT seat on the chair of Moses, NT seat on the chair of Peter ]

Yes and “beware of their leaven (bad doctrine)”.

… do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you… the ‘beware’ would be the next part – do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

So the ‘doctrine’ would be part of the ‘do and observe’ part.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

Don’t think the cannon is just an ancient issue, in 2013 “A New New Testament” was published, backed by leaders of liberal Protestant Churches.

If there New New Testament isn’t accepted by Christianity as a whole then this argument doesn’t hold water. The rest of Christianity is, by consensus, excluding this Liberal Protestant Book.

The Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Thomas are currently accepted, used even promoted as NT by many scholars, some publishers, and a very few liberal congregations. But if this movement catches on, also promoted by the media, would They become Scripture if the polls report 51 percent consensus among church members? What if 51 percent reject Epistles that teach now unpopular ideas about homosexuality and roles if men and women? If consensus ejects them from the Bible, are they gone?

 

[lanman87]

A consensus isn’t 51% majority. A consensus is more like 95%+ in agreement. There are always a few dissenters, no matter the topic.

 

[po18guy]

Way way back, I flirted with some sort of non-denominational ‘theobabble’ and it left me absolutely unfulfilled.

The bible as sole rule, and especially as Dr. Gerstner held, is circular logic, and almost irrational since the scriptures were separate writings - ink put to papyrus over the course of something like 50 years after our Lord’s ascension. How to sort them all out, since there were many more documents available, all claiming inspiration? The matter was clearly hotly debated, since councils were held to clear the confusion.

Some today ask what would happen if those mythical “gospels” of the other Apostles were suddenly unearthed. So what? If so, why did the entirety of the early Church, over almost 300 years, not possess them or have any knowledge of them? The answer of course is that there were frauds and forgeries, Gnostics and ne’er-do-wells in that age, just as exist in ours.

This claim of a fallible collection runs directly opposed to Christ’s claim that He would not leave us orphans.

 

[commenter]

consensus isn’t 51% majority. A consensus is more like 95%+ in agreement. There are always a few dissenters, no matter the topic.

I’m not sure how good the polling agencies were in ancient times. But assuming they got 95 percent, I’m assuming you mean 95 percent of the “true Christians”.

But how do you know which of the Christians get a vote and which don’t?
You might say Gnostic Christians are excluded because they use unscriptural doctrines. But those Christians backed up their doctrines with their Christian scriptures.

So you reject their Christian scriptures and those of other Christian groups because they aren’t in the canon chosen by 95 percent of the “true Church”…but they weren’t allowed to vote in your consensus because they use scriptures you excluded.

Circular reasoning

 

[lanman87]

But how do you know which of the Christians get a vote and which don’t?

Well, it isn’t a vote. It is different churches coming to the same conclusions and agreeing. It was an organic process, not a vote. And it was God’s Sovereign will. God is the one who chose the Canon. Man was the instrument he revealed it to.

You didn’t answer my question about Athanasius.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

Don’t think the cannon is just an ancient issue, in 2013 “A New New Testament” was published, backed by leaders of liberal Protestant Churches.

If there New New Testament isn’t accepted by Christianity as a whole then this argument doesn’t hold water. The rest of Christianity is, by consensus, excluding this Liberal Protestant Book.

That’s the way the consensus is at the present time.

 

[lanman87]

That’s the way the consensus is at the present time.

Well, 90% or so of the New Testament has had consensus since the 2nd Century and the other 10% by the late 3rd Century/early 4th Century. I don’t expect it to ever change. Christ will come again before that happens.

 

[Magnanimity]

As an Evangelical. I believe the New Testament came together by the will of God through the people of God (the church).

This is what every Christian would assert is true.

As noted Bible Scholar and Historian F.F. Bruce

Ah, F.F. Bruce! Wow, I have not heard or read that name in a very long time. My former mentor, Norman Geisler, often quoted this very same passage of his. I used to think it was a very good line of reasoning, myself. However, what Bruce claims would also be acknowledged by every Christian, as well. He says that the council “did not confer any authority which they did not already possess.” This is obviously true, but also quite beside the point. This facile “consensus” that Protestants want to assert was the case in the early Christian centuries doesn’t seem to bear out.

For decades the 27 books were the only books used as the NT scriptures before any council listed them…Most of the books of the NT were recognized as scripture by the entire church during the 2nd Century.

Where are you getting this idea? As this wiki article notes, there were several early canons and codices in the early church. Consensus did not exist between them for quite a few books: 1 & 2 Timothy, 2 & 3 John, Titus, Philemon, Revelation, 1 & 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas. All of these writings were in and out of various codices, depending.

And let’s not trivialize the nature of councils. The way you and Bruce are reasoning would suggest that the purpose of a council is to come together and formalize what is already universally believed. But this is not the case at all, especially for the early Church. Councils were most often called to resolve disputes and settle contested matters.

Another question would be, how did Athanasius appeal to the Scriptures in his fight against Arianism if those scriptures didn’t carry the weight of “God Breathed Scripture”.

Hang on a second. Where do you think the expression “Athanasius contra mundum” came from? The Arian controversy had Arians (plenty of bishops!) and Athanasius all quoting from whatever they regarded as the scriptures as support for their various positions. And did quoting scripture resolve the matter either way?

If not, then what settled the question? Athanasius and his quotes from scripture? Hardly. It was settled by ecumenical councils. The matter was resolved by the authority of the church in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople.

 

[lanman87]

Consensus did not exist between them for quite a few books: 1 & 2 Timothy, 2 & 3 John, Titus, Philemon, Revelation, 1 & 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas. All of these writings were in and out of various codices, depending.

I didn’t say that it started out as a consensus. While most books were agreed upon there were a small minority that were disputed. The consensus organically developed over time and was complete by the end of the third century/beginning of the 4th century and there was no more disputed books. By the time Athanasius listed the books the canon had formed, without a council formally declaring them scripture.

As for the Council of Nicaea, it did very little to slow down Arianism. If all that was needed was a council then the council of Constantinople would never have been needed.

Here is an interesting video by one of my favorite Youtube channels. Watch past the first 30 seconds as the first 30 seconds is showing the faulty teachings about Nicaea used by Atheist and Cults

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea.

 

[mcq72]

Either the Spirit of God has been with the church from the beginning and guiding her and preserving her from error, or He hasn’t. There is no middle ground.

You are partly preaching to the choir…remember it is the Protestants who are sometimes accused of relying to much in the invisible leading and annointing of the Holy Ghost. I posted that indeed scripture is not only inspired in the writing but also in the reception, understanding, preservation and i dare say translated. I would add by grace. Yet inspired can be fine tuned, such as God breathed, for sure in the writing. The reception and beyond is perhaps more conditional, or at least not quite on same level as God breathed (yes perfectly God guided, on His part).

This applies to all elements of the church, from the individual disciple to the presbyter/ bishop, to the teacher, to any council, etc…

 

[mcq72]

So the ‘ doctrine ’ would be part of the ‘ do and observe ’ part.

Except for bad doctrine, do not partake of such leaven.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

This has been an interesting discussion and quite edifying.

What we have to remember is that Jesus gave us, in the Apostles; the teaching authority of the Church and not a list of books for the Bible alone as a rule of faith. He also promised to the Apostles the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth and that means their successors the bishops.

That neatly eliminates Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith.

The Church relied on Tradition until the Bible was codified in the Council of Rome in 392 and was universally accepted throughout the Church until Luther and his acceptance of the Jewish canon of the Council of Jamnia.

A Church council isn’t a town hall meeting of all the faithful. It’s a council of bishops that examine and decide an issue authoritatively.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If there New New Testament isn’t accepted by Christianity as a whole

So if there is at least one person who believes Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior (hence is Christian) and believes in Baptism, but believes that there is no Bible at all… then there is no Bible?

A consensus is more like 95%+ in agreement. There are always a few dissenters, no matter the topic.

Okay, then let me rephrase. If 94.99% of people believe in something it is not consensus, but if others do it is? Where is the magical number which tells us what makes Bible infallible even codified? There is no source for that.

Consensus was never how Church decided things. Was there consensus among Jewish Christians about circumcision of Pagans? Not really. Apostles decided it. Those in authority did… and hence Bishops did. Church is hierarchical in nature.

Except for bad doctrine, do not partake of such leaven.

But their is chair of Moses, and since Jews were prototype of Church, hence there must be other Chair of authority… and by that logic Church has that chair even now too.