Who determined the cannon

[heisenburg]

Allis.
While i agree that god is the ultimate arbiture of what was inspired, the church is a key fact in proclaiming what was true.

Furthermore, what was considered inspired was debated pretty much up to the very last minute before the council of Rome. So by saying God alone guided what was inspired is historicly not true. (given that if he Wanted to, He could have, but he didnt.)

Also, what does scripture say is the pillar and bastian of truth.
1 tim 3:15

It is the Church.

Now, regardless of what you beleive, knowing that scripture says the pillar of truth is the church, why do you believe then that the protestant bible is completely accurate. It is not accepted by either the eastern or western churches. It came into being because Martin Luther decided to remove those books. He was a single man making a decision on his own.
Now, I know the easy response is that he was inspired by god so its realy his reasoning not ML. THis is also counter to scripture. Remember the Enoch and Phillip. Phillip asks the Enoch, Do you know what you are reading? The enoch responds how can i without a teacher.

So is it therefore scriptural to say that ML knew better than everyone before him without the aid of a teacher. He decided by himself what was in it and what wasnt. His cannon is a completly new cannon all together. (remember, his cannon also removed NT books. It was only at the begruding of his brethren that he put them back in. But from that day forward, her refrered to James as an epistle of straw. If he was realy inspired by god, why woudl he allow them to put it back in.)

Is this realy the book you want to use as your cannon? It is a Cannon that was not support by either eastern or western churches. Also… If, as you say, god ispired what was cannon, why is it he didnt inspire it until 1500 years AFTER his death.

I reiterate, the protestant cannon is a completely new cannon. using the idea that eastern and western churches are sligtly differant hurts the legitimacy of the protestant cannon even further.

Please understand, I am not trying to be rude, and If i am, i appologize. I just havent been able to understand why anyone would want to follow a ‘cannon’ that didnt exist for 1500 years after christ, and was ‘developed’ by a single man. The idea that it is a valid cannon goes counter to scripture and history.

May you be blessed in christ

 

[Contarini]

Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”.

Why do you think this? From your later post it appears that your reason is that early Popes didn’t have the kind of control they had later. That’s true, but it’s also true that the early Church recognized some degree of papal authority. The early Church can’t be identified with either the later Catholic or Orthodox Churches exclusively. These churches represent parts of what was once a unified Church. (I’m speaking historically as a non-Catholic–obviously both Catholics and Orthodox will see things differently from a theological point of view.)

The only way of making such an identification is to speak of the Latin West as the forerunner of the Catholic Church and the Greek East as the forerunner of the Orthodox Church. Since Roman Africa was part of the Latin West, it would make more sense (if one must say one or the other) to speak of these councils as under the auspices of what would become the Catholic Church. But I can’t see that the matter is of any importance one way or the other.

Edwin