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

[rcwitness]

If I may, PR, the point of this thread is acknowledging that the process of establishing/Confirming a Canon of Scripture is a prime example of Church reliance on extra biblical Tradition to discern God’s revelation and apply her authority in order for the faithful to know, as a whole, what is Sacred Scripture so that we all can rely on the Canon as True Scripture.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

By the end of the Apostolic age, early second century roughly, the church basically accepted the four Gospels and the thirteen letters of Paul (not including Hebrews), that’s it. They were not formally defined as canon, but the inspiration of them was pretty much accepted by most groups. There were at the same time many other gospels and letters floating around by various authors, some were attributed to a few of the Apostles themselves among other authors. Some of these other works ended up in the canon, but many more did not because it was decided that they were not inspired and conflicted with Scripture that was already considered inspired.

The Old Testament was also accepted, the antilegomena( man this is not easy to spell) questioned books were also used as scriptures at the time although questioned .

 

[Porknpie]

By the end of the Apostolic age, early second century roughly, the church basically accepted the four Gospels and the thirteen letters of Paul (not including Hebrews), that’s it. They were not formally defined as canon, but the inspiration of them was pretty much accepted by most groups.

Interesting that most protestant scholars dispute that many of the Pauline writings were in fact written by St. Paul. This includes but is not limited to Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. Michael Gorman in his book Apostle of the Crucified Lord, an excellent read, makes this point(s). He contends that a number of St. Paul’s writings were written after his death, by his disciples.

His book is here.

 

[JMM1957]

Interesting that most protestant scholars dispute that many of the Pauline writings were in fact written by St. Paul. This includes but is not limited to Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. Michael Gorman in his book Apostle of the Crucified Lord, an excellent read, makes this point(s). He contends that a number of St. Paul’s writings were written after his death, by his disciples.

His book is here.

What’s also interesting is that when you start trying to research how the canon of Scripture came into being, you begin to see how difficult it is to get an agreement between scholars on how it actually happened, seems there are many versions to sift through, with contradicting evidence. Even though there is quite a bit of written historical records available to us, its still tough to get the precise story when you’re talking 2000 yrs. ago.

 

[PRmerger]

What’s also interesting is that when you start trying to research how the canon of Scripture came into being, you begin to see how difficult it is to get an agreement between scholars on how it actually happened, seems there are many versions to sift through, with contradicting evidence. Even though there is quite a bit of written historical records available to us, its still tough to get the precise story when you’re talking 2000 yrs. ago.

And what’s also interesting is the criteria that is used by Protestants to declare something to be theopneustos is rather arbitrary…and if we apply it consistently, would discount some books that are in our canon, while including books not in the canon.

For example: some say, “It has to mention Jesus!”

Well, 3 John doesn’t mention Jesus. But the Epistle of Clement does.

Or, “It has to be written by an apostle or the friend of an apostle!”

Well, Hebrews doesn’t declare its authorship, so we can’t know if it was written by an apostle or a friend of an apostle. And the Epistle of Clement was written by a friend of an apostle.

Or, “We exclude the Epistle of Clement because it talks about a phoenix, which is something we know doesn’t exist and defies reality”.

But that means we should exclude the Gospel of Matthew, because it talks about a man walking on water (and a man rising from the dead!), which is something we know defies reality".

So we see how inconsistent it is when one tries to make his own criteria for what’s inspired.

 

[Duane1966]

The tens of thousands of denominations is a myth.

I used to doubt this figure also. Then I started counting all the little churches around my city of about 200,000 people. Just in the city proper, I am well over 100 churches that the hierarchy is just the pastor and maybe elders. There is no one above them.

I tell you, we may actually be talking 100,000’s of denominations.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I used to doubt this figure also. Then I started counting all the little churches around my city of about 200,000 people. Just in the city proper, I am well over 100 churches that the hierarchy is just the pastor and maybe elders. There is no one above them.

I tell you, we may actually be talking 100,000’s of denominations.

that’s non denominational churches so ya , tans of thousands of denominations is still a MYTH.

 

[Duane1966]

that’s non denominational churches so ya , tans of thousands of denominations is still a MYTH.

Every non-denominational is a denomination unto themselves, so not a myth.

 

[Duane1966]

that’s non denominational churches so ya , tans of thousands of denominations is still a MYTH.

de·nom·i·na·tion
dəˌnäməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: denomination; plural noun: denominations

1.
a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.

Every one of those little churches are autonomous, ergo they are each their own denomination.

I may have to readjust my figure upward.

 

[Vico]

Wouldn’t those be considered Dogmas?

First Vatican Council - Dei Filius (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith - April 24, 1870) - Session III, Chapter 2 - On revelation

1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. [13]
2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [14].
3. It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error.
4. It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him [15].
5. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us [16].
6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.
7. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.
8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

[13] Rm 1, 20.
[14] Heb 1, 1-2.
[15] 1 Cor 2, 9.
[16] Council of Trent, Session 4, First decree.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Every one of those little churches are autonomous, ergo they are each their own denomination.

I may have to readjust my figure upward.

Non denominational churches have no organized structure , they are not denominations.

 

[Porknpie]

Interesting that most protestant scholars dispute that many of the Pauline writings were in fact not written by St. Paul. This includes but is not limited to Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. Michael Gorman in his book Apostle of the Crucified Lord, an excellent read, makes this point(s). He contends that a number of St. Paul’s writings were written after his death, by his disciples.

His book is here.

Of course I meant to say this differently. Correction above in bold.

 

[PRmerger]

that’s non denominational churches so ya , tans of thousands of denominations is still a MYTH.

We are talking doctrinal differences here, Starwarsfan.

Each nondenominational church has different beliefs/doctrines than any other nondenominational church.

They have their own independent view on:

abortion, baptism, Sunday worship, female clergy, salvation, hell, the Trinity, predestination, liturgy/worship, homosexuality, alcohol, speaking in tongues, God’s name, etc etc etc.

Unlike the CC, which, despite being in every corner of the planet, has the same doctrine no matter what corner of the globe the church is.

So there are probably over 100,000 nondenominational churches, and each of them is an independent entity.

Now, if you don’t want to acknowledge this, you will have to offer what you believe the actual number of denominations is, give us your source, and I will use it if it is valid and reliable.

 

[rcwitness]

How about the belief that there are 27 books in the NT canon?

Or that there will be no further public revelation?

Or that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?

None of those are strongly supported by Scripture.

First Vatican Council - Dei Filius (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith - April 24, 1870) - Session III, Chapter 2 - On revelation

1. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.
2. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

Hey Vico, thanks for the resource. I’m not sure what you were purporting by it. Am I wrong to think the beliefs mentioned by PRMERGER are Dogmas of the faith?

I wasn’t suggesting that the actual Scriptures are Dogmas. They are divine revelation, Sacred Tradition. I was expressing that the act of declaring the things PRMERGER suggested are dogmas which the faithful are bound to believe. The content of any dogma isn’t made a Truth by the dogma, but made known and binding as a Truth of the faith, which the Church believes.​

 

[zz912]

Contraception is not evil(this may not be a “doctrine” depending on the what you mean by doctrine),

I’m curious about this one. How do you justify this belief since ALL of Christianity believed contraception was evil until 1930?

 

[zz912]

Non denominational churches have no organized structure , they are not denominations.

Of course they are. Denominations of one. They are the ultimate split. They recognize no authority outside their own.

 

[Protestor]

I’m curious about this one. How do you justify this belief since ALL of Christianity believed contraception was evil until 1930?

The arguments for the affirmative are weak IMNSHO. Your assertion that “all christianity believed contraception was evil until 1930” is not a valid reason to believe that they are sinful. The amount of time a belief is held and/or the amount of people who hold a belief has no affect on the truth value of a belief or wether one would be justified in believing it to be true. Anyway this is why I was tentative to say things I believe because they are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[zz912]

The arguments for the affirmative are weak IMNSHO. Your assertion that “all christianity believed contraception was evil until 1930” is not a valid reason to believe that they are sinful. The amount of time a belief is held and/or the amount of people who hold a belief has no affect on the truth value of a belief or wether one would be justified in believing it to be true. Anyway this is why I was tentative to say things I believe because they are irrelevant to this discussion.

So for almost two millennia, all of Christianity is united in this belief (and they certainly didn’t agree with your personal opinion that the arguments were weak). And you, 2,000 years removed from when Jesus walked the earth, know enough to say this teaching is wrong.

What other beliefs of Christianity are open for your decision?

 

[clem456]

…
Your assertion that “all christianity believed contraception was evil until 1930” is not a valid reason to believe that they are sinful. The amount of time a belief is held and/or the amount of people who hold a belief has no affect on the truth value of a belief or wether one would be justified in believing it to be true…

I hate to steal another poster’s pet phrase but…
Very catholic, this.

Truth is not determined by popular consensus, or the passage of time. Truth is truth, as revealed through the Church by God.

“Hey wait, Christ is the truth, and I know Christ.”
Yes, and he is the head of his body, so to the degree that you are united with his body, you are united with him.
We just can’t get away from that human flesh thing can we.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Tradition or CC or Magisterium must be able to prove divine authority not just give strong arguments for or claim it. Without divine authority you are just another group using a fallacious premise under the guise of holding truth.