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

[JonNC]

Jon. I am truly disappointed by this statement. I think that it is a gross simplification and would definitely lead to a misunderstanding of the actual history. Your comment would seem to imply that Trent was not a ‘truly ecumenical council’ because the Protestants were not in attendance.

Nope. Whether or not a council is ecumenical or not does not depend on a protestant definition, but an early Church one. It has been impossible for there to be a truly ecumenical council since the Great Schism.

An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church. That is, while a particular council may declare itself to be ecumenical, it may later be regarded by the Church as being a Robber Council, that is, a council which did not declare the truth but rather heresy. Likewise, a council may properly teach the truth but not be of universal significance for the Church. Such councils are usually termed local. That a council must be “received” by the Church before it can be considered ecumenical is sometimes termed receptionism.

orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

In early church history, an ecumenical council was a meeting of the bishops of the whole church convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice.

theopedia.com/ecumenical-councils

Jon

 

[adf417]

Nope. Whether or not a council is ecumenical or not does not depend on a protestant definition, but an early Church one. It has been impossible for there to be a truly ecumenical council since the Great Schism.

Jon, I have always had the understanding that absolutely nothing is impossible with God!

Peace!!!

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Nope. Whether or not a council is ecumenical or not does not depend on a protestant definition, but an early Church one. It has been impossible for there to be a truly ecumenical council since the Great Schism.

orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

theopedia.com/ecumenical-councils

Jon

Another ecumenical council is possible if you can get the Orthodox, Lutherans, Reformed , and Anglicans in attendance although it is unlikely.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I have always had the understanding that absolutely nothing is impossible with God!

Peace!!!

Touché.
Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Nope. Whether or not a council is ecumenical or not does not depend on a protestant definition, but an early Church one. It has been impossible for there to be a truly ecumenical council since the Great Schism.

Patently false. Catholic bishops at all the ecumenical councils, correct? Jon, there were EO bishops at the Council of Florence, and those bishops approved the canons of that council, and it was accepted by the pope. Why do they not recognize it?

You quoted this:

An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church. That is, while a particular council may declare itself to be ecumenical, it may later be regarded by the Church as being a Robber Council, that is, a council which did not declare the truth but rather heresy. Likewise, a council may properly teach the truth but not be of universal significance for the Church. Such councils are usually termed local. That a council must be “received” by the Church before it can be considered ecumenical is sometimes termed receptionism.

Jon, Alexis Khomiakov formulated this theory in the 19th. century. How does that make it an early Church definition? By his own theory, which he formulated to explain why the EO did not accept Florence, there can be no ecumenical councils after the third, since the OO did not accept that one.

You quoted this:

In early church history, an ecumenical council was a meeting of the bishops of the whole church convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice.

If this quote is true Jon, then there are only three councils, as the OO do not recognize the fourth council on. I assume you accept seven. Why? But the quote you provided is untrue anyways, there were no western bishops at the First Council of Constantinople. By their own definition, the Orthodox should not accept that council, since the western bishops were not there. But they do, why?

Also, if we cannot have a true ecumenical council as defined, are we just not supposed to formulate doctrine for the last 1000 years? Ridiculous.

Does the CC consider the Prayer of Manasseh inspired?

Jon

Do you mean scripture? Because I consider the Lord of the Rings inspired, but not part of the Bible. Interesting that the EO did not consider it inspired from the Second Council of Nicaea until the Great Schism.

Duane ( I only drive my car, but my car is not all that I drive.)

 

[Starwarsfan2]

No, Orthodox bishops. Does the CC consider the Prayer of Manasseh inspired?

Jon

Wait Jon do you consider it inspired?

 

[Topper17]

Nope. Whether or not a council is ecumenical or not does not depend on a protestant definition, but an early Church one. It has been impossible for there to be a truly ecumenical council since the Great Schism.

orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

theopedia.com/ecumenical-councils

Jon

Rather than dealing with the point that I made, you link us to a wiki article and a theopedia article on Ecumenical Councils, AS IF anyone is going to see this as being compelling. Your post was not exactly designed to convince anybody as to the validity of your position.

The reliance on the example of the Great Schism as being the ‘license’ to rebel is pretty strange. It does though absolve Lutheranism of any responsibility to do anything proactive whatsoever, until some other people get their acts together. ’

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Rather than dealing with the point that I made, you link us to a wiki article and a theopedia article on Ecumenical Councils, AS IF anyone is going to see this as being compelling. Your post was not exactly designed to convince anybody as to the validity of your position.

The reliance on the example of the Great Schism as being the ‘license’ to rebel is pretty strange. It does though absolve Lutheranism of any responsibility to do anything proactive whatsoever, until some other people get their acts together. ’

Reform , not revolt

 

[JonNC]

Rather than dealing with the point that I made, you link us to a wiki article and a theopedia article on Ecumenical Councils, AS IF anyone is going to see this as being compelling. Your post was not exactly designed to convince anybody as to the validity of your position.

The reliance on the example of the Great Schism as being the ‘license’ to rebel is pretty strange. It does though absolve Lutheranism of any responsibility to do anything proactive whatsoever, until some other people get their acts together. ’

Where did I say the Great Schism was an excuse for the Reformation?
When I said nope, that was my response, indicating your post was not my point at all.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Wait Jon do you consider it inspired?

No. Inspiring, however.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

If this were a simple question about a simple issue I could give you a simple yes or no.

It is a simple question, Protestor. Very.

Do you have the ability to read a text and discern whether it’s theopneustos or not?

Very simple question.

I have been quite clear.

You have done nothing but obfuscate.

Simply answer the question I posed above.

And keep in mind, for you to know something is theopneustos, you have to have already received the kergyma from some other source.

What is that source?

This, too, is a simple question.

 

[PRmerger]

No, Orthodox bishops. Does the CC consider the Prayer of Manasseh inspired?

Jon

No, we do not. That is why I am confused as to why your source claims that we have the same canon.

“The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).”

Can you please explain?

 

[Protestor]

Just because you think something is simple does not mean that I do or that it is. The same is true for me thinking this is complex or at least more complex then you are saying.
“In the past yes and possibly again in the future. God currently is not at my beck and call, sadly, but if she decides to present me again with such a revelation I will not deny it. If this does not answer you sufficiently I fear nothing will.” What is confusing you about this answer?

Do you have the ability to read a text and discern whether it’s theopneustos or not?

Haven’t I answered this question now to your satisfaction?

And keep in mind, for you to know something is theopneustos, you have to have already received the kergyma from some other source. What is that source?

No I do not need another source. I maintain that I have received revelation about the theopneustosness of specific books. If you were reading my posts you may have already picked up on this.

To your current question I say (NO). To the questions you should be asking I say (YES).

The questions I actually like. Have you in the past been able to determine if a passage is theopneustos or not?(YES) Do you believe that it is possible for this to happen in the future?(YES) Do you think that it is possible for God to reveal the nature of scripture to others?(YES) Do you think he will?(don’t know) What do I think about people or say that God has revealed to them that certian books are not theopneustos? (don’t know) Why would God create a system with such “confusion” as you will most likely characterize it?(I don’t know and I don’t know that it is confusing).

If you do not acknowledge that I have answered your after this. I will just give up on this conversation.

 

[clem456]

Just because you think something is simple does not mean that I do or that it is. The same is true for me thinking this is complex or at least more complex then you are saying.
“In the past yes and possibly again in the future. God currently is not at my beck and call, sadly, but if she decides to present me again with such a revelation I will not deny it. If this does not answer you sufficiently I fear nothing will.” What is confusing you about this answer?

Haven’t I answered this question now to your satisfaction?

No I do not need another source. I maintain that I have received revelation about the theopneustosness of specific books. If you were reading my posts you may have already picked up on this.

To your current question I say (NO). To the questions you should be asking I say (YES).

The questions I actually like. Have you in the past been able to determine if a passage is theopneustos or not?(YES) Do you believe that it is possible for this to happen in the future?(YES) Do you think that it is possible for God to reveal the nature of scripture to others?(YES) Do you think he will?(don’t know) What do I think about people or say that God has revealed to them that certian books are not theopneustos? (don’t know) Why would God create a system with such “confusion” as you will most likely characterize it?(I don’t know and I don’t know that it is confusing).

If you do not acknowledge that I have answered your after this. I will just give up on this conversation.

This line of reasoning avoids the question at hand.
The question “do you have the ability to…” is about competence and authority and it’s relationship to God’s whole people. It is not a question of your sensory abilities or abilities of comprehension. The question is about the way God interacts with human beings and has always interacted with human beings.

God never interacts with human beings on a purely individual basis. That is individualism, not Christianity. If your “revelation” cannot be reconciled with, or be in union with the “holos” then it cannot be from God. If it is at odds with the authority and competence of others, you should have pause to think. You cannot determine what is God-breathed scripture on an individualistic basis, because the last time I looked, you are not the only individual God created. Am I wrong about this?? You do live with other unique individuals, right? You are not Moses. You are not St Augustine. People have unique gifts that are given by God for the good of the whole of humanity. Authority is one such charism.

This is why the Pope could never declare that “Jesus is not God”, because such a proclamation would go against a reality that is basic to the salvation of the whole of humankind.

A revelation such as “build me a Church in Africa” seems like a purely individual mandate, but again, this revelation is for the good of the whole.

 

[Protestor]

“Are you saying that you 'd be able to tell, by reading, if it’s theopneustos? If so, how would you tell? If it had things in it which weren’t true?”(you)
“Yes I believe it is possible to know from reading. Are your last 2 sentences the one sentence or 2. As a multiple question the second part doesnt make sense. My answer to the first part is that it would have to be revealed to you. For the combo question I would probably be able to tell by reasoning.”(me)

I think I figured it out. The answer to your first question is NO. From only reading a passage it would most likely be impossible to determine the nature of said passage. I did qualify my statement which I highlighted in blue. But the way you posed your first question is not how things work. So you can understand my confusion. You don’t listen to moonlight sonata and say this was composed by Beethoven. Maybe if you had listened to other pieces of his work and studied his forms you could make an educated guess but you would probably not assert knowledge of such. Also if someone told you or he told it was his work you would be justified in believing it was his.

Anyway I hope this helps to bring light to the subject at hand.

 

[Protestor]

The question “do you have the ability to…” is about competence and authority and it’s relationship to God’s whole people.

Finally someone understands my true concerns about this issue. I have been raising concerns about God’s relationship to his people and the authority he entrusted to the church practically the whole discussion

God never interacts with human beings on a purely individual basis.

So when I proposed that revelation is necessarily first person and cannot be revelation for others without divine authority or further revelation you would disagree with this or no or rephrase it somehow.

That is individualism, not Christianity. If your “revelation” cannot be reconciled with, or be in union with the “holos” then it cannot be from God. If it is at odds with the authority and competence of others, you should have pause to think.

Is what I have claimed as revelation at odds with authority? Namely that James and Revelation are theopnuestos.

You cannot determine what is God-breathed scripture on an individualistic basis, because the last time I looked, you are not the only individual God created.

So, are you saying that God would not and/or could not reveal the human or theopneustos nature of specific books in the bible and/or any book or compilation of books to a specific individual? Are you saying that any of God’s revelations are universal to all christians and viable for knowledge and/or belief to all. I am also not sure how you are connecting me being one of many created beings to me not being able to receive individual revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

No I do not need another source. I maintain that I have received revelation about the theopneustosness of specific books.

This is the most astonishing thing I’ve ever read on this forum.

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Protestor.

There is not a single verse that says that you will be given a special power to read a text and know that it’s theopneustos.

And I assure you that no credible, sane Christian thinker has ever claimed for himself to have this special privilege and power to decide for himself what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

You are the first one in 2000 years to assert this.

But this does prompt the question: did this special, private revelation you received happen to coincide with what the Christian church has discerned for 2000 years regarding the NT texts?

Your special revelation told you that Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

Could you give us the list of books that your special revelation told you are theopneustos?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

This is the most astonishing thing I’ve ever read on this forum.

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Protestor.

There is not a single verse that says that you will be given a special power to read a text and know that it’s theopneustos.

And I assure you that no credible, sane Christian thinker has ever claimed for himself to have this special privilege and power to decide for himself what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

You are the first one in 2000 years to assert this.

But this does prompt the question: did this special, private revelation you received happen to coincide with what the Christian church has discerned for 2000 years regarding the NT texts?

Your special revelation told you that Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

Could you give us the list of books that your special revelation told you are theopneustos?

I must agree with you on this one PRMerger , there is no special revelation that changes the canon . It is simple the canon was written , the church approved wat God hade already inspired, protester you cannot change the canon .

 

[simspt]

This is the most astonishing thing I’ve ever read on this forum.

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Protestor.

There is not a single verse that says that you will be given a special power to read a text and know that it’s theopneustos.

And I assure you that no credible, sane Christian thinker has ever claimed for himself to have this special privilege and power to decide for himself what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

You are the first one in 2000 years to assert this.

But this does prompt the question: did this special, private revelation you received happen to coincide with what the Christian church has discerned for 2000 years regarding the NT texts?

Your special revelation told you that Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

Could you give us the list of books that your special revelation told you are theopneustos?

Astonishing…no just nonsensical
But at least honest… This is why solo and sola scriptura are interchangeable in substance…

 

[dronald]

This is the most astonishing thing I’ve ever read on this forum.

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Protestor.

There is not a single verse that says that you will be given a special power to read a text and know that it’s theopneustos.

And I assure you that no credible, sane Christian thinker has ever claimed for himself to have this special privilege and power to decide for himself what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

You are the first one in 2000 years to assert this.

But this does prompt the question: did this special, private revelation you received happen to coincide with what the Christian church has discerned for 2000 years regarding the NT texts?

Your special revelation told you that Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

Could you give us the list of books that your special revelation told you are theopneustos?

Could not the same question be asked in regards to how or why you chose Catholicism? Does everybody have the capability to understand, choose and believe in any Religion at all?