Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

[Eddycrocker2165]

God’s word is not limited to what was or is written in the Bible. Everything that God spoke into existence is as much his word whether written or unwritten. Even scripture Itself says the contrary. Romans 1:19-20 says-Because that which may be made known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse: This tells us that we learn about the invisible realities of God by the things that are made so that way we have no excuse that there is a God. Anything and everything can be God’s word to us whether it negative or positive. Sometimes we have to learn first what is wrong in order to see what’s right. I believe the creation of good and evil is just as much as Gods word as the Bible. God is like a battery having Both negative and also positive polarities. Without these two different and opposite polarities there would not be movement or current. Both polarities cause movement and for God’s will to be established. We need the contrast of two opposing polarities to open our eyes to see and also to grow. Sometimes there needs to be a short term evil to happen in our life to open our eyes to a long term good to be manifested in our life. We learn by contrasts of opposites. We don’t understand hot except thru the contrast of cold. Same thing with wrong and right. Contrasts always cause movement for growth and understanding. Once we truly learn those contrasts are not needed until we forget them. God’s word is in everything and is everywhere because everything that we see is a manifestation of everything he has spoken out. The visible world is simply put spirit materialized in shape and in form for us to learn and to grow!!

 

[Dovekin]

The most prolific third century writers are Tertullian (already mentioned), Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria and Cyprian of Carthage.

I was about to say something like this, with a heavy emphasis on Origen. He was a devoted Scripture scholar whose decisions probably played a role in determining the canon.

 

[adf417]

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.

I understand. It is exactly what everyone says, including the apostate religions using the Christian bible as their guide. :man_shrugging:t3:

Now, can you please tell me why the 3 councils? What WAS their purpose if not to clear up confusion on the canon?

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_Jericho]

You might find it interesting that a few years ago I read “Rome Sweet Home”.

It does.

But just saying that you read it doesn’t tell me terribly much.

 

[lanman87]

Now, can you please tell me why the 3 councils? What WAS their purpose if not to clear up confusion on the canon?

Well, according to both the NewAdvent website and Protestant Historian Philip Schaff. There was a council in Carthage in 419 that basically went back and summarized the decisions of all 16 African Councils. This became the codes of canon for the African Church.

Apparently, these 16 councils passed 138 “Canons” with the purpose of establishing of ecclesiastical discipline in Africa.

Canon 24 was the one about the Biblical Canon and gives the reason they chose these books.

“for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” There is no indication that any debate took place over which books belonged.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

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.

For example this: The Entire Paper Can Be Read Here

The NT Canon in the Third and Fourth Centuries

By the third century there is a noticeable increase in citations from the “inspired” writings that eventually become the New Testament, and far less citations from works that do not make it into the New Testament. The most prolific third century writers are Tertullian (already mentioned), Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria and Cyprian of Carthage.An explosion of Christian literature comes in the fourth century with Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus), John Chrysostom, Jerome, Rufinus, and the great Augustine of Hippo (his Confessions was written in 396-97 AD). All of these writers illustrate how the New Testament had become settled with thousands of citations from the 27 “inspired” writings and fewer citations outside that list.

The Official Canon
Many people think the New Testament writings were agreed upon at the Council of Nicea. There were 20 canons (church rules) voted on at Nicea – none dealt with sacred writings. The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. His reference states that these are the only recognized writings to be read in a church service. The first time a church council ruled on the list of “inspired” writings allowed to be read in church was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. No document survived from this council – we only know of this decision because it was referenced at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not “list” every single document. For example, it reads, “the gospels, four books…” The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are “sacred” and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon.

Conclusion
The New Testament developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history. No one particular person made the decision. The decision was not made at a church council. The particular writings that became those of the New Testament gradually came into focus and became the most trusted and beneficial of all the early Christian writings.

Nice.

BTW, are you quite sure that you’re Protestant?

(Wink.)

 

[lanman87]

BTW, are you quite sure that you’re Protestant?

Very sure. I’m that odd Protestant who is also deep into church history. I’ve felt no compulsion to swim the Tiber.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@lanman87,

This PhD of yours has been arguing the Catholic position.

 

[lanman87]

This PhD has been arguing the Catholic position.

Well, he does say that no particular person or council made the decision as to what is in the Canon. I would say that is the Protestant position. That the canon was organically developed and eventually accepted by the entire church.

BTW- this particular PHd is an Assembly of God Pastor. He is very complimentary of Catholics, especially Catholic historians and scholars. He says they give all the information the find, even if it is evidence against Catholic teaching.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

The problem for Protestants, @lanman87; is that when you’re quoting the historical record, you’re quoting the Catholic position as the Catholic Church was the early Church.

True, he said no ONE man or council defined the canon. It took multiple councils after much contention amongst the Church Fathers.

His position is ours.

 

[lanman87]

True, he said no ONE man or council defined the canon. It took multiple councils after much contention amongst the Church Fathers.

That simply means that a consensus developed among the church fathers and the various councils. Especially, since non of the councils were ecumenical councils and could only speak for their local region. Practically, it means the non-North African churches had to agree with the North African churches, without the aid of a council, before the canon became universal. Nobody had to force the Eastern churches to accept the canon, because they (over time) recognized the same books as the New Testament.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@lanman87,

Yes consensus was reached after 300+ years of contention and local councils’ definitions. As each region defined the canon, it eventually became Church wide. Especially after the Council of Rome in 382. The North African councils must have been when Rome brought the dissenters to heel, I think.

 

[adf417]

“for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

Yes its a summary of previous councils which is why i asked about all three.

Since you use New Advent i will post what it says about the council of Rome -

…St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called “Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris”, a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the ChurchUniversal ever since. The New Testament portion bears the marks of Jerome’s views. St. Jerome, always prepossessed in favour of Oriental positions in matters Biblical, exerted then a happyinfluence in regard to the New Testament; if he attempted to place any Eastern restriction upon the Canon of the Old Testament his effort failed of any effect. The title of the decree–“Nunc vero de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat”–proves that the council drew up a list of apocryphal as well as authentic Scriptures. The Shepherd and the false Apocalypse of Peter now received their final blow. “Rome had spoken, and the nations of the West had heard” (Zahn). …

Please note: 1- this council “must have devoted itself specifically to this matter”, 2- “the results of its deliberation”, 3. “the Shepherd and the false Apocalypse of Peter now receive their final blow”, 4. “Rome has spoken and the nations of the West had heard”.

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_Jericho]

Well, he does say that no particular person or council made the decision as to what is in the Canon. I would say that is the Protestant position.

That would be news to a lot of Protestants, particularly the Evangelical ones.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

That simply means that a consensus developed among the church fathers and the various councils. Especially, since non of the councils were ecumenical councils and could only speak for their local region. Practically, it means the non-North African churches had to agree with the North African churches, without the aid of a council, before the canon became universal.

That’s pretty much how Christianity works … or it was until Sola Scriptura.

 

[mcq72]

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.

Will look into link, but again will not address the chart stopping at the councils (400)? I mean if you say councils were needed because of other books in liturgy, or competing with scripture, did such things cease in liturgy after the two councils and citing scripture canon? The graph would then show it?

 

[adf417]

Will look into link, but again will not address the chart stopping at the councils (400)? I mean if you say councils were needed because of other books in liturgy, or competing with scripture, did such things cease in liturgy after the two councils and citing scripture canon? The graph would then show it?

The chart was made to refute comments like this and to show the growth trajectory-

By the year 300 or so it seems that most of the disputed books had been discarded as spurious. We are left with James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation as books that some accepted and others didn’t. There was a firm consensus of the other books of the New Testament and had been since very early in the church. Especially the four gospels and Paul’s letters seemed to have been accepted as scripture from at least the beginning of the 2nd Century if not sooner.

If i needed to concern myself with data after the councils i would looks for that data. It does not concern me as it does not help to refute the above statements.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

The chart was made to refute comments like this and to show the growth trajectory-

I only tried to state your case then ask two questions about the chart…made no comments in previous post to refute, unless I misstated your case or you can refute a question.

 

[mcq72]

True, he said no ONE man or council defined the canon. It took multiple councils after much contention amongst the Church Fathers.

His position is ours.

Me thinks you twist his position. He was referencing the first 300 years, which of course there was no council period (save Jerusalem). Yet he intimates the 27 books came before any council or papal decree…Apparently he does reference the two late 4th century councils confirming the said 27.

Anyways, when he says " not at a church council" he did not mean, " not at a church council but at two of them", which is what you seem to imply…plus they were synods not exactly full councils. I thought Trent was the first council to declare canon.

Nevertheless, I think his position is Catholic. That is, not sure CC dogmatically says anything different, or denies existence of 27 book understanding by some and maybe many before said synods.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

No, @mcq72.

The Council of Rome in 382 definitively settled the canon. I’ve read the posts above and nothing refutes the Catholic position.