Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Jericho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maccabaeus2165 said:
The Council of Rome in 382 definitively settled the canon.
Click to expand...
The council of Rome was a local council and not binding on the entire universal church. We can see this because it took longer in the Eastern Churches to finalize the 27 books. And we also see this in the fact that the other Western/North African churches deemed it appropriate to canonize a list at their councils as well. If Rome had settled the canon for the entire universal church then the Eastern churches would have immediately accepted Revelation (the only book the was still disputed by some of the eastern churches) and the other western churches would have had no need to make their own canon at their local councils.
 
Last edited:
adf417 said:
The chart was made to refute comments like this and to show the growth trajectory-
Click to expand...
Just curious, can you give evidence from the church fathers or any early list of canon writings that anything other than the current 27 books and the following were ever considered scripture?

The Letter of Clement, the Second Letter of Clement, The Letter of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Letter to the Laodiceans, and Third Corinthians.

Also, can you give me a direct link to the graph you posted. I’ve looked all over earlychristianwritings.com and I can’t find it. I would like to know what supporting information they have that all those other writings were considered scripture by the early church.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, @lanman87; we’ve been arguing on the same thing. It took councils to resolve the issue and we see it in the historical record. But you’re arguing there already was a consensus prior to all the councils that had to hammer out the canon.

If there already was a consensus; then why all of the councils?

You’re not answering that question that the historical record does.
 
Maccabaeus2165 said:
If there already was a consensus; then why all of the councils?
Click to expand...
I think the councils gave evidence of the consensus. If there had been any real contention as to what the books were it would have taken a lot more than a few local councils to settle the matter for the universal church as a whole.
 
Maccabaeus2165 said:
What’s your evidence,
Click to expand...
If there was a consensus then there will be no or very little evidence. But a conflict would supply much more evidence as letters would have been written back and forth and Bishops would excommunicate each other and all sort of nasty stuff would have happened. Think about, earlier the church almost split because the East and West couldn’t agree on when Easter was to be celebrated. If someone in the East was adamant that the Shepherd of Hermas (or some other books) belong in the canon then don’t you think they would have had their own local council and passed a different canon and then it would rage back and forth until another ecumenical council was called to settle the matter for the universal church.

The fact that non of that happened shows that there was a broad agreement on what books belong in the category of Scripture.
 
I disagree with you there, @lanman87.

The evidence for contention is that there were councils. Councils aren’t called to ratify what’s already there. There’s no need to. Councils are called to hash out issues like we see in the case of heresies. The Council Rome was decisive because the primacy of honor that Rome has in the Church. If Rome settles it, even though it was technically only a local council; Rome’s leadership would ensure that the other churches would follow suit.

You’re arguing your consensus from absence of evidence.
 
Maccabaeus2165 said:
The evidence for contention is that there were councils.
Click to expand...
Not always. I can find no evidence in long drawn out debates at any of the three councils that addressed the canon. It is more probable that they simply made a codified list of what was considered scripture. If you look at the list of canons passed in the North African churches you will see that many of them were already the normal teachings of the churches and were not areas of contention at all. It would be like when someone makes a motion in a business meeting and everyone raises their hand in the affirmative. Just because something is voted on doesn’t mean that everyone wasn’t in agreement. Sometimes we vote on things already agreed upon to make it formal or to put it in the minutes so history can see what we thought and their can be no doubt about what we believed.
 
You’re ignoring the fact that there was contention in favor of your consensus hypothesis, @lanman87.

Church councils aren’t called to ratify things that aren’t in contention.

I call on you to prove your hypothesis from evidence; not special pleading please.
 
Last edited:
And the only evidence you given that there was contention is the fact that there were councils. Which, I’ve shown, doesn’t necessarily mean debate.
 
Prove to me that there wasn’t debate, @lanman87.

Prove to me that the councils weren’t necessary to define the canon.
 
Maccabaeus2165 said:
Prove to me that there wasn’t debate,
Click to expand...
You can’t prove something didn’t happen. Only things that happen/existed leave evidence. You can only prove things that did happen.

For instance, if you say a city existed and I say it didn’t. All I can point to is that there is no evidence that it existed. That doesn’t actually prove the city didn’t exist, it just shows a lack of evidence. However, you can prove the city existed by finding the city mentioned in writings, excavating the ruins and so forth.

What I’m saying is there is I can’t find evidence that the North African councils at least, did anything more than rubber stamp the canon that was already understood.
 
Last edited:
Then, my question is @lanman87 is this:

We know that the Fathers didn’t all agree which books were to be included in the canon. If there were differences in opinion; how was consensus reached without councils?

We know that the Council of Rome defined the canon and that canon was accepted throughout the whole Church.

My thinking is that the North African councils accepted Rome’s canon as received from the Fathers.

Respectfully: Your entire argument is special pleading from absence of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Maccabaeus2165 said:
My thinking is that the North African councils accepted Rome’s canon as received from the Fathers.
Click to expand...
And my thinking is when Athanasius listed the books in the Easter letter his list was the norm for the western churches. The council of Rome codified this list for Rome and the North African councils codified it for Africa. In the east this list, except for Revelation was the norm, and within the next 100 years Revelation became accepted in the East as well.
 
@lanman87, we just keep talking on the same thing.

At the Council of Rome, called to define the canon; Pope Damasus I had pushed hard his agenda for settling the canon and it happened. It was said that the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd were struck their final blows.

Doesn’t sound like a consensus existed prior to that Council.

As for you, @mcq72:

Rome sets the pace for the Church. Not just “ a local synod. “
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Catholic position does not exclude gradual understanding, consultation, etc. It also includes Sacred Tradition, not the ten thousand early Christian traditions but that portion designated by the Magisterium, the same agency that canon ized the NT canon.

A lot of things are obvious only in hindsight, that this book belongs in, and that book certainly does not. In hindsight we see this path naturally (organically) led to that path.

But all those other books not selected looked plausible at one time. We also know from observing that consensus even among Catholics is not always reliable. That’s why I trust the Magisterium, even when the consensus among Christians is going the other way. Think abortion, or Marriage.
 
lanman87 said:
Just curious, can you give evidence from the church fathers or any early list of canon writings that anything other than the current 27 books and the following were ever considered scripture?
Click to expand...
Sorry, not right off. I will try to see what i can find. The WA Jurgens books i referenced earlier have a general index and a doctrinal index but my set in on loan at the moment.
lanman87 said:
Also, can you give me a direct link to the graph you posted.
Click to expand...
Im sorry if i mislead you. The graph is something i made using the data from the link it did not come directly off the website. I will make that clarification on the graph.

Peace!!!
 
You’re right, @commenter.

There was a gradual process in the canon’s development. This is what we’re agreeing on, just our interlocutors are arguing that contention less consensus existed prior to the canon’s final settlement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top