The CC "got it right" on the NT canon? How do you know?

[dronald]

Faith in…what, ronald?

Faith in the authority of the CC.

You must admit this, now, in order to be an acknowledger of truth.

Lol, what?

Hebrews, 1 Clement, Maccabees, prayer of manasseh. We all have chosen different books independent of each other. Again your argument dies where our canons differ.

 

[PRmerger]

Lol, what?

Hebrews, 1 Clement, Maccabees, prayer of manasseh. We all have chosen different books independent of each other. Again your argument dies where our canons differ.

You have faith, you said.

What you means is that you have faith in the authority of the CC to tell you what belongs in the NT.

Otherwise,*** you have to tell us how you know that Hebrews is inspired and that 1 Clement is not.***

I have asked you this at least 5 times now, and you haven’t answered.

I think a man of integrity, a man who prays, a man who accedes to truth, would simply acknowledge: yes, it is because I believe in the authority of the CC, for, you are correct, there is NO OTHER WAY for me to know that Hebrews is inspired.

Please be a man of integrity, ronald.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, some denominations would claim that they would be obedient to the early Church, but that all the faithful shepherds are dead and the ones that took their place are in error. I don’t buy this, but they’d say that by going Sola Scriptura they are following* all that remains* of the “protected” eyewitness Apostolic faith, and that this protection does not apply to their human successors.

That position is untenable because it wasn’t the eyewitness who discerned the 27 book canon of the NT. This occurred 400 years later…who were.…human successors to the eyewitnesses.

So either human successors have authority, or they don’t for those who reject the CC.

If they don’t, then they have no basis for believing in the 27 book canon of the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

when the second century Bishops were reading Clement etc and included them along with other writings was the HS not inspiring them??

No. The HS was certainly not guiding the bishops to read a non-inspired text as inspired.

I am not sure if you are proposing that the bishops walked around with a direct phone line to the HS in everything they did?

was the author of clement not inspired?

No.

was Justin not?

No.

But Catholics ought to give great consideration to the writings of these early Church fathers.

what differentiates writings “about” God vs writings “of” God?

Those that are consistent with the kerygma are theopneustos. Those that depart from the kerygma are not.

 

[simspt]

No. The HS was certainly not guiding the bishops to read a non-inspired text as inspired.

I am not sure if you are proposing that the bishops walked around with a direct phone line to the HS in everything they did?

No.

No.

But Catholics ought to give great consideration to the writings of these early Church fathers.

Those that are consistent with the kerygma are theopneustos. Those that depart from the kerygma are not.

maybe the early church had a broader understanding of “inspiration” than we do today. eg councils, texts and so on. doesnt seem inspiration was even one of the main criteria for canonization. Apostolicity, orthodoxy, catholicity eg clearly were. Not that they did not believe them to be inspired but just they had broader understading it seem to me.

How does the Church determine (criteria) what texts are “of God” (Scriptures) vs “about God” (Church father writings,encyclicals eg)?

 

[PRmerger]

maybe the early church had a broader understanding of “inspiration” than we do today. eg councils, texts and so on. doesnt seem inspiration was even one of the main criteria for canonization. Apostolicity, orthodoxy, catholicity eg clearly were. Not that they did not believe them to be inspired but just they had broader understading it seem to me.

I disagree with almost everything you posted.

Firstly, if it was discerned to be part of the canon, that necessarily means that it was inspired. Necessarily.

Nothing is in the Bible that isn’t inspired*, sim. So I’m not sure what you are asserting here.

And I’m not sure what would be meant by a “broader understanding” of inspiration.

*Understood: footnotes, chapter numbers and verse, table of contents are not inspired, but that’s not part of the universe of discourse here.

 

[Protestor]

the difference is you accept ecclesial deism

Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.

By this definition I would say that maybe you would think yes, but I would not. We will most likely disagree with what is essential.

 

[simspt]

Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.

By this definition I would say that maybe you would think yes, but I would not. We will most likely disagree with what is essential.

yes you are right. non essentials charity in essentials unity…problem is the Church from the beginning has been very clear on what it defines as essential. that puts you at odds with 2000 years of history re Eucharist and baptism, communion of saints eg Apostolic succession eg eg I submit to what the Church considers essential while you disagree with that Church and determine for yourself what is essential.

 

[simspt]

I disagree with almost everything you posted.

Firstly, if it was discerned to be part of the canon, that necessarily means that it was inspired. Necessarily.

Nothing is in the Bible that isn’t inspired*, sim. So I’m not sure what you are asserting here.

And I’m not sure what would be meant by a “broader understanding” of inspiration.

*Understood: footnotes, chapter numbers and verse, table of contents are not inspired, but that’s not part of the universe of discourse here.

Clement of Alexandria claims when certain philosophers declared “the only true God to be God” that these declarations are through “his (God’s) inspiration” (epipnoia theou anagegrammena).(ANF 2:192). He does the same in Stromata “the thoughts of virtuous men are produced through the inspiration of God” (Stromata ANF 2:517)(kat’ epipnoian theian). In the 4th century you have Eusebius using inspiration broadly when he tells the story of how a bishop was chosen through inspiration “Thereupon all the people as moved by one Divine Spirit with all eagerness and unanimity cried out that he (Fabianus) was worthy, and without delay they took him and placed him upon the episcopal seat” Clement of Rome (ANF 1:18)writes that Paul wrote with “true inspiration” but then states in 63:2 that he (the author of 1 Clement) has written his epistle through the Holy Spirit. “For you will give us joy and gladness, if you are obedient to the things which we (in 1 Clement) have written through the Holy Spirit.” Councils decisions were viewed by the Church as being inspired. For example with the Council of Ephesus 431 you have in the Synodical Epistle (Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, p 70, line 11) that describes the council’s condemnation of Nestorius as “their inspired (theopneustos) decision”. Again Cyprian of Carthage explains his writing his treatise as “instructed by the aid of divine inspiration.”(ANF 5:496) Even tomb inscriptions were considered inspired for example Life of Abercius (author unknown) the epitaph Abercius (late 2nd century) bishop of Hierapolis composed for himself an inspired (theopneuston) inscription. Another example would be Gregory of Nyssa in Apologia in Hexaemeron refering to Basil’s commentary on the first six days of creation as an “inspired (theopneuston) exposition,…(admired) no less than the words composed by Moses himself.” We have the term (theopneustos) we find in 2 Timothy 3:16 not being the unique designation for only the canonical writings but also being used in a commentary, a synodical letter and even an inscription on a tomb. There are also many examples of the Church Fathers citing noncanonical writings with some introduction indicating authority or scriptural status. Since there are many other examples of the early Church describing authoritative writings as “scripture” and “inspired” I dont think these were considered by the early Church to have been the unique possession of only the canonical documents. This is why its important to differentiate between Scriptures and canon. If we assume that Scripture equals canon we would have to accept a much larger canon than we do today since the Church Fathers refer to noncanonical documents as Scripture.

Back to the OP, since the episcopate gave noncanonical writings Scriptural status and considered them inspired where they wrong in doing so? Where these writings just examples of the post apostolic corrupt Church? As the OP points out how can anyone claim the Bible is the pure and uncorrupted word when it was put together by the episcopate who had all kinds of “corrupt” or “non Biblical and/or extra Biblical” practices and beliefs? How could the episcopate have been right with what went into the canon but wrong about what they considered inspired and the Scriptural status of other writings? If you trust the episcopate on the canon how can you not trust them on the issue of noncanonical books? I think these are questions important not just for Protestants but Catholics as well. Since the Bible doesnt address how the various books came to be included in the canon I find it puzzling how many times I hear people say something like a careful study of the biblical texts and the formation of the canon is required for one to appreciate the correct definition of inspiration.

I think the OP claim that by accepting the Bible as authoritative there is tacit acceptance of the process and means through which it came to be in the Catholic Church is obvious. The more challenging question is why reject so much of that Church while accepting her writings. Historically the Church was the privileged interpreter and institution that gave us these documents and the Church Fathers located proper interpretation of Scripture within the Church.

The Catholic Church has always viewed the Holy Spirit to be active in the Scriptures but also in a broader context within the Church living and active within the community.
The Catholic Church has something to say about what the Bible says because the Bible is the Church’s book (repost from same topic a while back)

 

[Protestor]

Well, then you are a believer in Sacred Tradition, and NOT an advocate of Sola Scriptura, since you defer to the authority of the CC, and NOT to Scripture in the case of the NT canon.

I would hope that in the future you would be a apologist for Sacred Tradition, at least, as it applies to the Bible’s table of contents.

It is almost as if you are honed in and cannot see what I am trying to say. You seem to think that there are two choices here Sola Scriptura and CC authority. I accept neither as a primary source of NT canon. I also do not think that the bible and the cc are the only places of revelation. Sure accept sacred tradition I just define it differently then you do.

 

[simspt]

It is almost as if you are honed in and cannot see what I am trying to say. You seem to think that there are two choices here Sola Scriptura and CC authority. I accept neither as a primary source of NT canon. I also do not think that the bible and the cc are the only places of revelation. Sure accept sacred tradition I just define it differently then you do.

fair enough, i agree and so does the CC that Revelation is broader than the bible and Church only.( Christ, creation, people of Israel etc) The primary source is God behind both the written texts and the CC authority to collect and canonize them. Just like the incarnation the Bible is has both human and divine origins.

 

[Protestor]

yes you are right. non essentials charity in essentials unity…problem is the Church from the beginning has been very clear on what it defines as essential. that puts you at odds with 2000 years of history re Eucharist and baptism, communion of saints eg Apostolic succession eg eg I submit to what the Church considers essential while you disagree with that Church and determine for yourself what is essential.

Problem is just because a view has been held for a long time doesn’t make it right(ellipsis) Yeshua being the Christ was at odds with the Jewish tradition or so they thought. In case you were wondering that was a thinly veiled attempt to compare myself to Jesus.

 

[zz912]

And I would add, 4) why did it take so long for the church to get it right? It would seem the earlier church, at the time the last writing of Revelation came to be, would certainly know that all the writings are complete and now we have our canon, right?

Peace!!!

You touch upon a very important question that I don’t think enough Protestants consider. What is the purpose of the Bible? WHY was is canonized? What was canonization supposed to accomplish?

If a person researches those questions, they will find that the reason there is a Bible, and the reason there is a canon, is because the Church wanted to make all the readings in the Mass uniform throughout the Church. There was disagreement about which writings could be read in Mass, and eventually the question because so heated that the Church finally stepped in and the bishops decided the matter.

The Church declared which books could be read in the Mass. These books were then grouped together, and eventually compiled. These books then began to take on the name “Bible” because it means “books”.

Once you realize the purpose of the Bible is to support and be part of the Mass, any “protests” will quickly end.

 

[PRmerger]

It is almost as if you are honed in and cannot see what I am trying to say. You seem to think that there are two choices here Sola Scriptura and CC authority. I accept neither as a primary source of NT canon.

What is the primary source of the NT canon then?

How do you know that Hebrews is inspired and 1 Clement is not?

I also do not think that the bible and the cc are the only places of revelation

We are talking about public revelation here.

Are there any other sources for public revelation other than Scripture and Tradition?

 

[Protestor]

What is the primary source of the NT canon then?

How do you know that Hebrews is inspired and 1 Clement is not?

We are talking about public revelation here.

Are there any other sources for public revelation other than Scripture and Tradition?

I have none.

I have already been over this already. I have run out of ways to tell you, and you seem to think you do not have to recognize what I have said, but you can repeat the same question over and over and over and over again.

I reject the term public revelation the way you are using it. I see public revelation where Jesus revealed himself to over 500 people and probably pentecost and there is probably another few exceptions. Revelation is normally private as far as I know.

 

[PRmerger]

I have none.

I have already been over this already. I have run out of ways to tell you, and you seem to think you do not have to recognize what I have said, but you can repeat the same question over and over and over and over again.

I apologize for being obtuse.

I cannot understand your position.

Would you please explain it to me, as if we’d never had this discussion?

You believe that Hebrews is inspired because… why? And that 1 Clement is not inspired because…why?

Again I am sorry for being confused by your position.

 

[PRmerger]

I reject the term public revelation the way you are using it. I see public revelation where Jesus revealed himself to over 500 people and probably pentecost and there is probably another few exceptions. Revelation is normally private as far as I know.

So what are the other sources of revelation? And what do you use as the canon for determining if it’s true or not?

So, for example, if someone says that God’s revelation says that God hates homosexuals, you judge this to be true or false based on what?

 

[PRmerger]

Clement of Alexandria claims when certain philosophers declared “the only true God to be God” that these declarations are through “his (God’s) inspiration” (epipnoia theou anagegrammena).(ANF 2:192).

Ah. So by “inspired” you simply mean “a true statement”.

When I use the term “inspired”, as it applies to this discussion, I mean theopneustos. “God breathed.”

There is only 1 source of theopneustos revelation, and that is Sacred Scripture.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

KnitNut;13103746]
Correlation is not causation. Christians of the many churches were using the NT protocanon long before the RC dogmatized it. To say, for example, that the Eastern Orthodox or ACoE use it because of Rome’s infallibility is faulty reasoning (and misleading to persons inquiring into Christianity).

BTW, are there any Ethiopian/Eritrean Catholics on the Board? I ask, because the NT canon of their Orthodox mother churches includes more books than the RC canon…and just as ECs use the OT canon of their mother churches without interference, I suspect that the Ethiopians continue to enjoy their expanded NT without condemnation. Indeed, I don’t believe that Rome has outright condemned/forbidden any of the differing canons…and though it’s a dusty memory,…

This post requires more clarification;

Dear KnitNut;

It is very important to understand that those diverse Catholic communities you mentioned. Were already practicing their Apostolic liturgies long before the Church canonized the bible books.

Many of these Catholic communities have diverse canon books early on, because many of them did not receive or practice in their ancient liturgies the whole of the canonized books yet, nor did the Popes or Church council force the canon upon their liturgies, they maintain their Orthodoxy here which is apostolic and True. Their canons alone proves their apostolic liturgy authenticity, it never discounts their authenticity of canon books in each ones apostolic liturgy.

Rome never discounts these diverse canons used in each Apostolic successor’s liturgy. Because their Liturgies are apostolic and were in practice long before all the books were canonized. Their diverse Liturgical canon of books authenticates their Apostolicity and Orthodoxy.

Rome has always used the whole of the Canon, because Peter and his apostolic successors who still had the ringing of the apostles voices in their ears (Clement, Ignatius etc.) were in direct contact with these writings from the apostles, when other apostolic sees under persecution did not receive these books in their apostolic liturgies.

Thus the whole of the Canon maintains Romes Orthodoxy from Peter and Paul distinctively from other Apostolic sees.

All the diverse canons used in each Faithful Apostolic Catholic community is profound and beautiful. Rome does not view these canons in the least negative, but very Orthodox. The only one the Whole Church approved in an ecumenical council for all Catholic Church’s at all times in all ages is the Roman Canon, while all others maintained their Apostolic Orthodox Traditions.

continued;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Quote by KnitNut; I seem to recall that Trent actually left open the possibility of additional entries to Rome’s canon…I don’t think it is a truly settled matter in those terms./

The subject of canon is really not that complicated; When one views the historical reasons of why the Canon= measuring standard and when it was applied.

After 400 years of persecution of the Catholic Church was lifted, the Church was able to council to settle the matter of the books to be used in each Apostolic Successor’s See that was being used in their Liturgies.

This is one of the main reasons why the books of the bible were canonized, to be used in Her Liturgy.

Each Ethnic group who were using their own books in Liturgy were considered already canonized by their own standards to be used in each one’s Liturgy. Are these authentic? Yes according to each one’s canon used in their Liturgy. Are they Universally canonized No.

But there is only one Universal Canon that all Catholics are to adhere to as the Canon of scripture, which the Church settled in council. Although many of the books came into question, the canon remained rock unchanged.

What proved a bible book as inspired? The canon consisted of proving the books authenticity by an apostolic author, and it had to be used in the Catholic Liturgy since apostolic times to the present. Pretty hard standards.

The Council of Trent never canonized the Deutero books. Trent only closed the existing canon so that the Deutero books are never to be questioned again period.

I believe it is the Orthodox who do not use the book of Revelations in their Liturgies, thus they may not recognize it as their canon in the Liturgy. But it never discounts or challenges the authenticity of the book of Revelations.

Liturgy simplifies each apostolic successors canon. Yet each Liturgy does not discount or challenge the universal canon of the Catholic Church.

Those Eastern Catholics (Apostolic Church’s) who fell into heresy or heterodoxy early on is another subject of liturgical biblical canons and questions??

Peace be with you