Why weren't the ECF's Epistle added in the Bible?

[Mannyfit75]

Why weren’t the ECF writings like the Epistle of Clement, writings of the St. Ignatius of Antioch added in the Bible?

I read them most of them, and most of their writings are not contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Why weren’t the ECF writings like the Epistle of Clement, writings of the St. Ignatius of Antioch added in the Bible?

I read them most of them, and most of their writings are not contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I would guess that they dont fall under all 4 of the criteria established for canonization.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I would guess that they dont fall under all 4 of the criteria established for canonization.

To be consider a part of Bible. It must meet the requirements:

1. Written by the Apostles or their followers.
2. Used in the Ancient Liturgy.
3. The writings must not contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Why weren’t the ECF writings like the Epistle of Clement, writings of the St. Ignatius of Antioch added in the Bible?

I read them most of them, and most of their writings are not contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

They were actually read along with Scriptures in many Churches for a little while. But after examination of what should or should not be considered Christian Scripture by the Church they didn’t qualify as Infallible Apostolic writings.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Here are the criteria as I understood them…
Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
**Consistent Message **— containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

 

[VociMike]

Here are the criteria as I understood them…
Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
**Consistent Message **— containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

How did God tell us to use these criteria? How do we know they are the right criteria?

 

[NotWorthy]

Uh… didn’t they have to be determined to be “inspired by God” to be a part of the canon?!?

Also, didn’t their teachings need to be considered “necessary for our Salvation”?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why weren’t the ECF writings like the Epistle of Clement, writings of the St. Ignatius of Antioch added in the Bible?

I read them most of them, and most of their writings are not contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Incomplete but short answer: because they are neither inspired nor canonical.​

If something is not inspired, it can’t be a universal kanōn. Which means it cannot be recognised as one by the Church: books have to be inspired & canonical, to be recognised as such by the Church - “and this comes from the Lord Who is the Spirit”.

Mere lack of disagreement with the teaching of Christ is no basis for canonicity whatever.

 

[NotWorthy]

Incomplete but short answer: because they are neither inspired nor canonical.​

If something is not inspired, it can’t be a universal kanōn. Which means it cannot be recognised as one by the Church: books have to be inspired & canonical, to be recognised as such by the Church - “and this comes from the Lord Who is the Spirit”.

Mere lack of disagreement with the teaching of Christ is no basis for canonicity whatever.

EXACTLY!

Take the Didache. Just because it wasn’t considered inspired work, doesn’t mean any of its teachings are false, or were ever considered false.

 

[Santos]

Who determined the New Testament canon of the Bible? Who determined those books to be the Inspired Word of God? Could it be those people who have a True Interpretation and understanding of the New Testament writings? After all they would have to have understood what was “taught” in order to have declared those books as “Inspired” right? Brush me up on my history! Was it Martin Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin?

I need a lil help here myfavoritmartin…

 

[runandsew]

From what I have read, the Epistle of Clement almost made it into the canon.
But the Holy Spirit led the Church to recognize that those books were not inspired.

I keep hearing that there was criteria, but even if there was no criteria, wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have led the Church to make the same decision on which books to include.
Or did the Holy Spirit not lead them in choosing the right books, but guard them from including the books that were not inspired.
(does that make sense?)

 

[Santos]

The authority of the Catholic Church determined what is Sacred Scripure in the Inspired books of the New Testament, it is by this same authority of the Catholic Church that we recieved the written work of the Church Fathers, which the Church also had to approve as being a part of collected epistles “recognized” as teachings of the Early Church.

**Although there were many deacons, priests and bishops writing epistles in the first three-centuries (Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras) of the church, **there might have been epistles like that which we find today from myfavoritmartin, which went against Church teaching and thus, was thrown out. Even in those days there was a chief shephard to the flock (Jn 21:17) to protect the teachings of Christ from corruption.

To be regarded by the Catholic Curch as a Church Father, these early writers must have had orthodox doctrine, but this does not exclude all doctrinal error. An occasional material heresy can be found even in the greater writings among the Church Fathers, these writings do imply, however, a great devotion to orthodoxy and faithful adherence to the Church.

For this reason the letters of Barnabas and Clement, were not added to the Inspired books of the NT canon, “although” prior to the authority of the Catholic Chuch in the fourth century closing the canon of the bible, these letters of Barnabas and Clement were circulating and being accepted as Inspired letters. Had the Catholic Church by her authority included these epistles as Inspired books of the NT canon, protestants today would have them in their NKJ version bibles, accepting these books as Inspired work. Just more books for them to mis-interpretate.

I say again, The Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged in the NT canon, and it is by this same authority that we recieved the written work of the Church Fathers, which the Church also had to approve as being a part of collected epistles “recognized” as teachings of the Early Church.

What baffles me is that protestants can accept the NT cannon of the Bible by faith, but reject the written work of the Church Fathers? Only because the Church Fathers do not support their interpretations of scripture, “Yet” It is a required course of study in all protestant theology, in every university and collage offering high degrees in religious education.

God Bless, Santos

 

[BrianH]

I say again, The Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged in the NT canon, and it is by this same authority that we recieved the written work of the Church Fathers, which the Church also had to approve as being a part of collected epistles “recognized” as teachings of the Early Church.

"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. "

 

[mercygate]

The Shepherd of Hermas is bound into the oldest complete Bible we have, the Codex Sinaiticus. But that codex dates from the early 4th Century – before the canon was set.

So the ECFs were making the rounds and were highly regarded. myfavoritemartin gave us the best shorthand list of criteria in post #5.

 

[Santos]

"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. "

Okay… but who determined that these books were Inspired? Was Jesus around to confirm that these books were indeed Inspired?

It was the Infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (Jn 16:13) that determined which books belonged to the Bible, and to assure us that everything in the Bible is Inspired.

As St. Augustine says, “I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church directed me to do so.” St. Augustine recognizes that the only way to determine which books are Inspired is to accept the authority of the Catholic Church.

God Bless, Santos

 

[BrianH]

Okay… but who determined that these books were Inspired? Was Jesus around to confirm that these books were indeed Inspired?

It was the Infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (Jn 16:13) that determined which books belonged to the Bible, and to assure us that everything in the Bible is Inspired.

As St. Augustine says, “I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church directed me to do so.” St. Augustine recognizes that the only way to determine which books are Inspired is to accept the authority of the Catholic Church.

God Bless, Santos

I do not see how your statements square with your churches official teaching. These books were given to the church, not the other way around, “were as such committed to the church”.
I read your official churches teachings to be that God determined their inspiration and it appears you are advocating the opposite.
ausgustine’s view should not trump official church teaching should it?
Not to argue to argue but I honestly do not see how your view matches up.
You would agree that because God is their author they were insprired the second they were written, correct?
BH

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not see how your statements square with your churches official teaching. These books were given to the church, not the other way around, “were as such committed to the church”.
I read your official churches teachings to be that God determined their inspiration and it appears you are advocating the opposite.
ausgustine’s view should not trump official church teaching should it?
Not to argue to argue but I honestly do not see how your view matches up.
You would agree that because God is their author they were insprired the second they were written, correct?
BH

Brian-

I’m kinda jumping in mid-thread here, so bear with me if I’m misunderstanding your concerns.

Imagine for just a moment that you are Paul, or Peter or John or James. You’ve been preaching the gospel for years, travelling from town to town, building up the Churches. You receive word from one of the converts you’ve been discipling (let’s call him Timothy) that he’s having a few problems being respected because he’s young. What do you do?

You could pay him a visit OR you could write him a letter. Let’s imagine that you do the latter. Do you think you, Paul, would have recognized that your first Letter to Timothy was inspired by the Holy Spirit - that it was God-breathed (theopneustos) scripture on par with the Pentateuch - while the ink was still drying?

Maybe. But I doubt it. Peter declares that Paul’s writings were “scripture”, but I’m not sure that Peter would have said the same about the letter in which he made that statement! I seriously doubt that ANY of the NT writers would have considered their works anything more than private correspondence - with the possible exception of Revelation which John wrote down after receiving His vision.

Later, however, the Church came to recognize - by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - which of the many letters and books were truly inspired and which were not.

I want to emphasize that the books of the NT were not declared to be scripture (thus giving them a nautre that they did not previously have) but were recognized as scripture by an infallible Church led by the Holy Spirit. The books of the NT are scripture because they are “God-breathed” not because they are “Church canonized”.

In one sense, the Church “produced” the NT scriptures from her own experience in living the gospel of Jesus, and in another sense, she “received” the gift of the NT scriptures from the Holy Spirit through the inspired authors.

The Church wrote the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Church recognized the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Church preserved the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Church protects the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps.

 

[Santos]

I do not see how your statements square with your churches official teaching. These books were given to the church, not the other way around

What exactly was given to the Church? A lot of opinions on what books were Inspired and, which books were not!

Prior to the Catholic Church determining (in the fourth century) which books belonged in NT canon, there was much debate. Some were of the opinion that certain canonical books, **Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, **were not Inspired, while others held that certain noncanonical books, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the letters of Barnabas and Clement, were Inspired. The Catholic Church by councils and popes settled this matter, and in 405 AD, Pope St. Innocent closed the canon of the Bible.

I read your official churches teachings to be that God determined their inspiration and it appears you are advocating the opposite.
ausgustine’s should not trump official church teaching should it?

St. Augustine spoke one in accord with Church teaching, I think it is you that has failed to see the authority Jesus Christ left His Church,

“Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 18:18)

“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

You would agree that because God is their author they were insprired the second they were written, correct?
BH

I wish it were that simple, had it been, then all the books that were believed to be Inspired, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the letters of Barnabas and Clement, would have just been accepted as such, “Inspired” based on ones own faith.

It’s a good thing that Jesus Christ had a better plan then that, He left for us His Church (Mt 16:18-19), a living, continuing authority to teach, govern, and sanctify in His name.

Now I don’t think that I have a better plan then that which God has already set up, do you? You must have liked the plan because now you have the Word of God.

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, other-wise we should have known nothing at all about it.” -Martin Luther

God Bless,
Santos

 

[Mike_Brick]

In one sense, the Church “produced” the NT scriptures from her own experience in living the gospel of Jesus, and in another sense, she “received” the gift of the NT scriptures from the Holy Spirit through the inspired authors.

The Church wrote the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Church recognized the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Church preserved the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Church protects the scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps.

I agree with Randy, the Church predated the NT. The NT books were not presented in a nice package to the Church as the 10 Commandments were presented to Moses on two stone tablets. There were many, many writings that had to be studied from which the Church finally fixed the Canon. What was included is what they all agreed should be included. Many of the ECF writings were loved by some and hoped to be included in the Canon, but after lots of prayer and careful study, the Canon was fixed by the whole Church, with the guidance of the H.S. That is precisely how and where the H.S. protects the Church, when she speaks as the whole Church, in unison with the Bishop of Rome, she is protected from error by God Himself, through His Holy Spirit.

Ironically the average protestent in our times has no dispute with the N.T. canon, even though it was a compilation of “Universal Church writings”, hence Catholic writings, brought together and protected throughout the ages by the same Church, but they seem to disagree with many of the other doctrinal pronouncements of the same Church, (again here the whole Church, speaking as one).

But more to the point, the ECH writings that were not included in the Canon were not rejected as being of no value to the Church in that process, but were determined not to be included in the Canon as the inerrant word of God. They were and remain today as useful teaching from those who learned at the feet of either Jesus, or their understudies. ECF writings are not on par with scripture, but fall immediately behind it in value to believers as an early record of the Church’s life, beliefs and teaching. I’m told that even John Calvin said the Church got it right for the first 600 years, and the ECH writings help us to know what was going on then.

You all have a Happy and Holy New Year!
Mike Brick

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand that at the time of the councils (Hippo, Carthage, etc.), there were 110 different books that were to be considered for canonization.

The Holy Spirit guided the Church to reveal which of these books were “God-breathed”.