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

[ericc]

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!!!

And why did the Protestant Bible took even longer? And they are not even sure they got it right because no one with authority said so. No Church Council proclaimed it so. Till today.

 

[PRmerger]

Hahahah.

Yes, the inquiring Muslim who knows that the Evangelicals defer to the CC.

I am astonished that you are implying that Muslims are so simple-minded and unsophisticated that they couldn’t ask such a very basic question.

Simply astonished, ronald.

And it ought to be noted that you would still need to answer this Muslim.

What would you tell him when he asks, “How do you know that Hebrews is inspired? Who told you it is? And who told you that the other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, are not?”

If you are a man of integrity, you would answer, “You know, dear Muslim friend, your question is a pointed one. And the only answer I could honestly give, if I am true to Christ and His command to follow Him in Truth, is: it’s because the Catholic Church told me so.”

 

[dronald]

I am astonished that you are implying that Muslims are so simple-minded and unsophisticated that they couldn’t ask such a very basic question.

Simply astonished, ronald.

And it ought to be noted that you would still need to answer this Muslim.

What would you tell him when he asks, “How do you know that Hebrews is inspired? Who told you it is? And who told you that the other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, are not?”

If you are a man of integrity, you would answer, “You know, dear Muslim friend, your question is a pointed one. And the only answer I could honestly give, if I am true to Christ and His command to follow Him in Truth, is: it’s because the Catholic Church told me so.”

Nah, I wouldn’t say that. I would say that we know from the text that Hebrews was written in close connection to Timothy in the time of the Apostles. I would say that the Shepherd is a great book, but late and we don’t take on faith that it was a real vision like Revelation.

Your whole argument disappears when you take into consideration that Protestants see the Deuterocanonicals the same way they see Shepherd. So you’re wrong.

 

[KnitNut]

If you are a man of integrity

This entire thread lacks integrity. Previously, we were watching triumphalists ‘spike the football’ over the RC biblical canon…until folks pointed out that myriad biblical canons exist, so the CC didn’t successfully hand the world a single Official Biblical Canon for all of us to admire.

Now the argument has been (disingenuously) rewritten to solely consider the NT…as if it is now a smoking gun, proof of the infallibility of the RC Church’s pontiff. sigh The RC canon was dogmatized for the RC in the 1500s, but let’s not pretend that the whole of Christendom was hanging on Rome’s reading list until that point in time.

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, 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.

To state that a “Protestant’s” use of a canon identical to Rome’s must indicate a tacit submission to Rome, or an acknowledgement of Roman infallibility…well, there are arguments to be made in support of Rome, but this really isn’t one of them. This is just another example of “gotcha” apologetics.

 

[rcwitness]

Nah, I wouldn’t say that. I would say that we know from the text that Hebrews was written in close connection to Timothy in the time of the Apostles. I would say that the Shepherd is a great book, but late and we don’t take on faith that it was a real vision like Revelation.

Your whole argument disappears when you take into consideration that Protestants see the Deuterocanonicals the same way they see Shepherd. So you’re wrong.

Hey dronald,
I agree with you in part. But I still believe PRMERGER has a point.

You are acknowledging that long since the Canon was determined/fixed/confirmed you are able to study why it is logical these books were so esteemed. But it neglects the need at the early outset that these were authoritatively Confirmed.

The fact that you can assent to why the Canon of Scripture is correct doesn’t acknowledge who was used to do so.

Even Martin L. had to reject his own beliefs regarding many N.T. books. Instead he changed the Traditional interpretation of some.

Your argument before seemed to agree the Church got it right, but has gotten other things wrong.

I find it strange to assume all the differing denominations naturally agree with the Canon, but disagree with much interpretation.

 

[dronald]

I am astonished that you are implying that Muslims are so simple-minded and unsophisticated that they couldn’t ask such a very basic question.

Simply astonished, ronald.

Because you’re being unrealistic. A Muslim who asks me for advice would not randomly say “But Ronald, aren’t you deferring to the authority of the CC with your inclusion of Hebrews?” I’m recognizing your hypothetical as ridiculous, as is this thread.

If however it was the case that a Muslim who wanted to be Christian had some tough questions that lead his conscience more towards believing what the Catholic Church teaches, then I would point him to the closest local parish asap. And ide probably attend with him!

 

[dronald]

Hey dronald,
I agree with you in part. But I still believe PRMERGER has a point.

You are acknowledging that long since the Canon was determined/fixed/confirmed you are able to study why it is logical these books were so esteemed. But it neglects the need at the early outset that these were authoritatively Confirmed.

The fact that you can assent to why the Canon of Scripture is correct doesn’t acknowledge who was used to do so.

Even Martin L. had to reject his own beliefs regarding many N.T. books. Instead he changed the Traditional interpretation of some.

Your argument before seemed to agree the Church got it right, but has gotten other things wrong.

Well for example, I believe that James was written by James, 2 Peter by Peter and 3 John by John. I take that on faith and by that I believe I belong in a Church that also believes that. Had there only been two Church’s that exist today, one Lutheran and the other Catholic; and the Lutheran Church removed James, I would likely be Catholic.

Edit- By the way, secular scholars like to say a lot that diminishes what I believe; but I still believe it. PR, you and I take what we believe about the early Church on faith; because history is a pain to prove.

Take for instance that we know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels. I for one know and believe they did so (save John) before 70ad. How? Faith in what Polycarp, Eusebius, Augustine said. But even Catholics today sometimes go with the secular crowd on this one.

I find it strange to assume all the differing denominations naturally agree with the Canon, but disagree with much interpretation.

What I find strange is that when we all agree on something we still have to fight about it. Haha.

 

[PRmerger]

Because you’re being unrealistic. A Muslim who asks me for advice would not randomly say “But Ronald, aren’t you deferring to the authority of the CC with your inclusion of Hebrews?” I’m recognizing your hypothetical as ridiculous, as is this thread.

If however it was the case that a Muslim who wanted to be Christian had some tough questions that lead his conscience more towards believing what the Catholic Church teaches, then I would point him to the closest local parish asap. And ide probably attend with him!

Still not addressing the point.

You need to answer for yourself, if you are a man of integrity, how you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews, and all the other NT documents, are inspired.

The ONLY honest answer is: because you defer to the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

Well for example, I believe that James was written by James, 2 Peter by Peter and 3 John by John. I take that on faith and by that I believe I belong in a Church that also believes that. Had there only been two Church’s that exist today, one Lutheran and the other Catholic; and the Lutheran Church removed James, I would likely be Catholic.

And why is Hebrews inspired?

And why are the epistles of Clement not?

And why does something putatitively written by James, Peter and John mean that they are necessarily inspired? Someone could have written the documents but simply added an apostle’s name to it, in order to give it credibility.

 

[dronald]

Still not addressing the point.

You need to answer for yourself, if you are a man of integrity, how you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews, and all the other NT documents, are inspired.

The ONLY honest answer is: because you defer to the authority of the CC.

The only honest answer for my faith is my faith. I reject the Qur’an because I think it’s ridiculous, I reject what you say because I think it’s ridiculous. I accept Hebrews because it’s so wonderful and true, written early, by a close companion of Timothy, obviously written to the Church (see the last chapter), and I see no reason to reject it.

 

[PRmerger]

Edit- By the way, secular scholars like to say a lot that diminishes what I believe; but I still believe it. PR, you and I take what we believe about the early Church on faith; because history is a pain to prove.

NO, ronald.

You and I believe in the canon of the NT based on AUTHORITY.

We, you and I, accept the AUTHORITY of the CC. You do it tacitly. I do it explicitly.

But, nevertheless, it is because of deferral to the authority of the CC.

There is no other way to look at it.

 

[PRmerger]

The only honest answer for my faith is my faith.

Faith in…what, ronald?

Faith in the authority of the CC.

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

 

[PRmerger]

This entire thread lacks integrity. Previously, we were watching triumphalists ‘spike the football’ over the RC biblical canon…until folks pointed out that myriad biblical canons exist, so the CC didn’t successfully hand the world a single Official Biblical Canon for all of us to admire.

Now the argument has been (disingenuously) rewritten to solely consider the NT…as if it is now a smoking gun, proof of the infallibility of the RC Church’s pontiff. sigh The RC canon was dogmatized for the RC in the 1500s, but let’s not pretend that the whole of Christendom was hanging on Rome’s reading list until that point in time.

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, 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.

To state that a “Protestant’s” use of a canon identical to Rome’s must indicate a tacit submission to Rome, or an acknowledgement of Roman infallibility…well, there are arguments to be made in support of Rome, but this really isn’t one of them. This is just another example of “gotcha” apologetics.

Let’s simply say that any Protestant’s use of the 27 book canon indicates a tacit submission to the Early Church.

This necessarily means that they are NOT Sola Scriptura.

And this necessarily means they believe in the charism of infallibility (unless they believe the Holy Spirit was NOT involved in this discernment process…or they believe the HS led them in the wrong direction)

 

[rcwitness]

What I find strange is that when we all agree on something we still have to fight about it. Haha.

I am not fighting, really.

I just believe unity is huge. And when the Scriptures you and I venerate were fixed there was great unity!

Do you really believe Sola Scripture subscribers all study, determine
For themselves all the books that are in the Catholic canon and the books which were contended but reject with one accord as though they would all have this same unity if such a task was put forth today?

Btw, I agree that it’s not a proof that we should hold to all Catholic doctrine (whoever has expressed that.)

 

[EasterJoy]

Let’s simply say that any Protestant’s use of the 27 book canon indicates a tacit submission to the Early Church.

This necessarily means that they are NOT Sola Scriptura.

And this necessarily means they believe in the charism of infallibility (unless they believe the Holy Spirit was NOT involved in this discernment process…or they believe the HS led them in the wrong direction)

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.

 

[simspt]

Have a Pope gone against Scripture? I know you said ‘if’, but your statement gives an impression that there were indeed Popes who had done that.

not in their official teaching that I’m aware of but my point was that just as Protestants use the Scriptures so do Catholics as evidenced by the ecumenical councils. They constantly defended their positions by quoting the Scriptures.

 

[simspt]

=
Do you think that is inconsistent with SS? I don’t.

…
No. The guidance was infallible, not the men. And, there were others, considered by both of us to be fathers of the Church, who held views different from ours. Their insights are important, too.

.

1. I would say the two are not mutually exclusive.
2. if one qualifies that by saying perhaps only within a truly ecumenical council ( of which there have been at most 7).
   As has already been pointed out, canons of scripture have varied, and continue to vary depending on communion. I give thanks that virtually all Christians agree on the NT, and most of the OT.
   Otherwise, it is possible that my disagreement regarding Church authority is more with the recipient of the OP.

Jon

i think the real question is at the end of the day is there a qualitative difference between solo and sola scriptura. You agree with the CC where it suits you (based on your interpretation)but where your interpretation of Scripture does not agree with the CC you are the captain of your own ship determining that so and so got it right because you agree with their intpretation e.g. Luther vs CC. In the end it seem solo and sola really are the same at the end of the day…Im sure if Luther would have thrown out James like he did the Apoc this would be a different discussion…

 

[simspt]

And why is Hebrews inspired?

And why are the epistles of Clement not?

And why does something putatitively written by James, Peter and John mean that they are necessarily inspired? Someone could have written the documents but simply added an apostle’s name to it, in order to give it credibility.

when the second century Bishops were reading Clement etc and included them along with other writings was the HS not inspiring them?? was the author of clement not inspired? was Justin not? what differentiates writings “about” God vs writings “of” God?

 

[simspt]

The only honest answer for my faith is my faith. I reject the Qur’an because I think it’s ridiculous, I reject what you say because I think it’s ridiculous. I accept Hebrews because it’s so wonderful and true, written early, by a close companion of Timothy, obviously written to the Church (see the last chapter), and I see no reason to reject it.

whats ridiculous about it? i think its pretty simple, the church existed before the NT texts did, they (early church folk)preached the Gospel for decades before Paul (johnny come lately) wrote and eventually it was members of the early church that wrote the NT texts that were read in those churches and collected and preserved. Church, Scriptures and Tradition all were collectively used by God for the transmission of revelation. Word of God first is Christ, second the Church and third the Scriptures. God used the Church to gives us the Scriptures. Tradition includes oral, written and canonical aspects of the Gospel including liturgy. You accept Hebrews because the CCs Tradition and because it was founded by Christ and no other. I think thats kinda the argument…when you accept the NT you have to acknowledge those Catholic bishops who believed all kinds of Catholic “stuff” were used by God to determine the closed NT canon.

 

[dronald]

whats ridiculous about it? i think its pretty simple, the church existed before the NT texts did, they (early church folk)preached the Gospel for decades before Paul (johnny come lately) wrote and eventually it was members of the early church that wrote the NT texts that were read in those churches and collected and preserved. Church, Scriptures and Tradition all were collectively used by God for the transmission of revelation. Word of God first is Christ, second the Church and third the Scriptures. God used the Church to gives us the Scriptures. Tradition includes oral, written and canonical aspects of the Gospel including liturgy. You accept Hebrews because the CCs Tradition and because it was founded by Christ and no other. I think thats kinda the argument…when you accept the NT you have to acknowledge those Catholic bishops who believed all kinds of Catholic “stuff” were used by God to determine the closed NT canon.

I don’t disagree that Protestants agree with Catholics on Scripture. Therefore every bishop that likes Hebrews we would agree with.