I kind of like your first paragraph.Interesting post, @lanman87.
You’re accepting my position that it was a process punctuated by councils defining the canon authoritatively.
I don’t see how this bears out your contention that the NT canon was already defined by consensus in the Apostolic Age.
Not according to the growth pattern on the chart i posted above. Why does everyone want to dismiss the growth trajectory?By the year 300 or so it seems that most of the disputed books had been discarded as spurious.
Except for the few you listed. The LACK of consensus in these few is the only issue we are addressing.There was a firm consensus of the other books of the New Testament
Thanks to the early councils. Without the consideration of the councils one must reconsider the growth trajectory as stated and illustrated above.But by the middle of the 4th Century we see a consensus develop on the other books as well,
Can you give us an alternate reason why these some of these same fathers were Present at the councils? Can you tell us what the purpose of the councils were if not to curtail the growth of books? Do you believe the councils were figments of Catholic imaginations?As evidenced by Athanasius and his Paschal letter and the regional councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th Century. Augustine held great sway with pretty much the entire church in the West and his opinion on the canon ended up being what Jerome translated into Latin which pretty much solidified the canon in the West.
The thing is, that’s precisely what so many Evangelicals – especially the more fundamentalist-leaning ones – very pointedly cannot believe.As an Evangelical. 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, and what was the “voice of God”.
Not exactly, I do agree the defining of the canon was a process. However, there was no single council that defined the canon for the entire church. The councils of Hippo and Carthage only defined the canon for North Africa. However, Athanasius from Alexandria and later Augustine from Hippo were towering figures in the western church. Augustine was over the councils of Hippo and Carthage. So whatever disputes over books that were left probably went away when Augustine’s list of books from Hippo and Carthage became known. Not because Augustine had authority over all the western churches (he didn’t) but because of his reputation.You’re accepting my position that it was a process punctuated by councils defining the canon authoritatively.
I don’t see how this bears out your contention that the NT canon was already defined by consensus in the Apostolic Age.
Because it is a partial truth. Just because something was read in the early church doesn’t mean they considered it as equal to scripture. I’m sure some of the letters and sermons from church fathers were read to congregations, but nobody considered them scripture. From what I’ve read, there were only around 10 other books that the early church pondered on if they may rise to the level of scripture.Not according to the growth pattern on the chart i posted above. Why does everyone want to dismiss the growth trajectory?
Perhaps the exreme reply that the personal voice of God is all that is needed in discerning God breathed books is meant to offset the other extreme, that only an infallible magisterium via a church council can do so.
I like how some churches have done what the Jews of Jesus time exemplified , or the OT Jews in general. They did not have a big pow wow as to what books to deem inspired, and yet they seemed to have a good enough consensus, and took meticulous care in their preservation. Jesus seemed to be ok with that .
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.
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves : for they watch for your souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.Except for bad doctrine, do not partake of such leaven.
Like I said, there was no single council that defined the canon for the entire church. And I seriously doubt that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage debated if the Letter to Clement or the Shepherd of Hermas or the other books that had in the past been considered by a minority as scripture should be included in their list of books. Most likely they just listed the books that were being used at the time by the North African churches.it’s true that there was a core corpus around which the NT canon developed. But, it seems that you’re ignoring that there were several texts that nearly made it; like 1 Clement, Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.
Again, it took several councils to definitively declare what the canon was and that took discernment by men, guided by the Holy Spirit; to determine the canon.
You might find it interesting that a few years ago I read “Rome Sweet Home”.Dr. Hahn was saying in that portion of “Rome Sweet Home”.
Sure it does. Read their accounts.Because it is a partial truth. Just because something was read in the early church doesn’t mean they considered it as equal to scripture
Give me a link and I will.Sure it does. Read their accounts.
As to the chart, it does not say such books were considered scripture but only that they were used in any kind of " liturgy"…also does not show what happened to use of said booksThanks to the early councils. Without the consideration of the councils one must reconsider the growth trajectory as stated and illustrated above.
I’m interjecting the opinions of scholars and historians, who have spent their life studying church history and the development of the New Testament. They are much more qualified than I am to make any argument and their opinion is based on research and scholarship.You would rather interject other’s opinion
I know there have been other’s referenced here on CAF over the years but here is one im familiar with.Give me a link and I will.
Thats why i gave you a link a few days ago to verify what the father’s thought first hand of these writings. To say they didn’t think these books were scripture is just repeating what other’s have told you. Read it or dont read it, not sure what else i can say.As to the chart, it does not say such books were considered scripture but only that they were used in any kind of " liturgy"…also does not show what happened to use of said books
in liturgy after canon was decreed by councils just before 400 ad…the chart stops there
Every single person defending their beliefs uses this point and there is some validity to it but not if you are going to ignore the historical facts.I’m interjecting the opinions of scholars and historians, who have spent their life studying church history and the development of the New Testament. They are much more qualified than I am to make any argument and their opinion is based on research and scholarship.
I have to assume that someone who has a Ph.D. in Ecclesiastical History knows more of the historical facts than either you or me. Then when I read others who have devoted their life to studying church history come to the same conclusions then it becomes more than mine, or any single persons, opinion.Every single person defending their beliefs uses this point and there is some validity to it but not if you are going to ignore the historical facts.