Who decided what would be in the Bible?

[Akita Suggagaki]

The first canon was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382) Pope Damasus I.
Most of that is ok with protestants except for a few intertestamental books known as the Apocrypha.

So we can we attribute this selection of books by Catholics as guided by the Holy Spirit. We all agree they are divinely inspired.

This is where I don't get Sola Sctiptura that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christians.
The Bible itself is a product of tradition and Church authority.

Anglicanism, Methodism and Pentecostalism uphold the doctrine of prima scripture with scripture being illumined by tradition and reason.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

The Catholic officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AlexB23]

The first canon was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382) Pope Damasus I.
Most of that is ok with protestants except for a few intertestamental books known as the Apocrypha.

So we can we attribute this selection of books by Catholics as guided by the Holy Spirit. We all agree they are divinely inspired.

This is where I don't get Sola Sctiptura that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christians.
The Bible itself is a product of tradition and Church authority.

Anglicanism, Methodism and Pentecostalism uphold the doctrine of prima scripture with scripture being illumined by tradition and reason.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

The Catholic officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, there is this cool video that states similar points to you. By the way, I am Catholic, but this guy in the video states that there are only 66 canonical books in the Bible. I understand his view though, and rarely read the other 7 books, but I am open minded to both sides.

11.5 minutes duration

 

[HTacianas]

The first canon was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382) Pope Damasus I.
Most of that is ok with protestants except for a few intertestamental books known as the Apocrypha.

So we can we attribute this selection of books by Catholics as guided by the Holy Spirit. We all agree they are divinely inspired.

This is where I don't get Sola Sctiptura that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christians.
The Bible itself is a product of tradition and Church authority.

Anglicanism, Methodism and Pentecostalism uphold the doctrine of prima scripture with scripture being illumined by tradition and reason.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

The Catholic officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We can't use the term catholic in the discussion. At least not in modern times. When we say Catholic today it usually refers to the Roman Church. But the Roman Church didn't choose the canon. The Church chose the canon. And it went through a number of synods, including Hippo and Carthage. The Synods of Hippo and Carthage would not be considered part of the Roman Church. But anyways, after the canon was fixed someone came along and decided that they didn't like what was in the bible (namely Martin Luther) so decided to relegate parts of it to a different status.

Christianity, in the form of the Church, decided what was to be included. And the maker of the video above is showing both ignorance of the matter in its entirety, as well as his own bias and worldview. He tells the story -accurately for the most part- but defines it based on the Catholic/Protestant divide. And like many others, leaves out half the Church.

 

[zippy2006]

This is where I don't get Sola Sctiptura that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christians.
The Bible itself is a product of tradition and Church authority.

Agreed.

The Catholic officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit

This is a bad statement from Wikipedia, which curiously does not even reflect the cited source. The sentence which follows was probably written by someone else, hoping to correct it with a quote from the Catechism, "The Roman magisterium thus serves Tradition and Scripture as 'one common source [...] with two distinct modes of transmission'." To state that tradition and scripture are "equal" is to imply a two-source theory, which was rejected at Vatican II.

 

[Billy Evmur]

The first canon was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382) Pope Damasus I.
Most of that is ok with protestants except for a few intertestamental books known as the Apocrypha.

So we can we attribute this selection of books by Catholics as guided by the Holy Spirit. We all agree they are divinely inspired.

This is where I don't get Sola Sctiptura that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christians.
The Bible itself is a product of tradition and Church authority.

Anglicanism, Methodism and Pentecostalism uphold the doctrine of prima scripture with scripture being illumined by tradition and reason.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

The Catholic officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The bible chooses itself. The church only admits that certain books are the ones most read and most cherished among all ranks and classes. If for instance "The apocalypse of Peter" were read and cherished among Christians or the "Epistle of Barnabas"they would be in the canon.

The clergy class [unknown and unrecognised in scripture] is a usurpation.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We can't use the term catholic in the discussion. At least not in modern times. When we say Catholic today it usually refers to the Roman Church. But the Roman Church didn't choose the canon. The Church chose the canon. And it went through a number of synods, including Hippo and Carthage. The Synods of Hippo and Carthage would not be considered part of the Roman Church.

Yes, important point. Thanks.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Agreed.


This is a bad statement from Wikipedia, which curiously does not even reflect the cited source. The sentence which follows was probably written by someone else, hoping to correct it with a quote from the Catechism, "The Roman magisterium thus serves Tradition and Scripture as 'one common source [...] with two distinct modes of transmission'." To state that tradition and scripture are "equal" is to imply a two-source theory, which was rejected at Vatican II.

Good points to discuss.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: “The Word of God”), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit."


and the CCC

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

 

[HTacianas]

The bible chooses itself. The church only admits that certain books are the ones most read and most cherished among all ranks and classes. If for instance "The apocalypse of Peter" were read and cherished among Christians or the "Epistle of Barnabas"they would be in the canon.

The clergy class [unknown and unrecognised in scripture] is a usurpation.

The "clergy class" was instituted by Christ himself and is in fact recognized in scripture.

Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,

Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,

The "usurpation" comes when people appoint themselves to be apostles.

1Co 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?

 

[Billy Evmur]

The "clergy class" was instituted by Christ himself and is in fact recognized in scripture.

Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,

Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,

The "usurpation" comes when people appoint themselves to be apostles.

1Co 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?

Not Popes, Monsigniors, Cardinals, Archbishops, Canons and Priests.

Where is the prophetic word? wholesome teaching? miracles, healing, administrations and tongues and interpretation?

These are replaced with rituals and sacraments.

 

[HTacianas]

Not Popes, Monsigniors, Cardinals, Archbishops, Canons and Priests.

Where is the prophetic word? wholesome teaching? miracles, healing, administrations and tongues and interpretation?

These are replaced with rituals and sacraments.

Nothing has been replaced by rituals and sacraments. Those have existed all along. If we look to Paul:

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Note that he doesn't tell the Corinthians to start blessing a cup. He says "the cup...which we bless". They had already been blessing the cup and the bread. So someone had to at some point tell them to do it. And in the case of the Corinthians it was most likely Paul who told them:

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

He says the same to the Ephesians:

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

These are replaced with rituals and sacraments.

Does your church follow the command of Jesus to "Take and eat" his body?

 

[Billy Evmur]

Does your church follow the command of Jesus to "Take and eat" his body?

He took and blest it

and break it

Catholic communion bread is made in a factory, they do not break bread as the Lord commanded.

 

[Billy Evmur]

Nothing has been replaced by rituals and sacraments. Those have existed all along. If we look to Paul:

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Note that he doesn't tell the Corinthians to start blessing a cup. He says "the cup...which we bless". They had already been blessing the cup and the bread. So someone had to at some point tell them to do it. And in the case of the Corinthians it was most likely Paul who told them:

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

He says the same to the Ephesians:

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Catholics do not break bread. The bread broken is hugely significant as His body was broken for us. Catholics eat wafers made in a factory.

 

[HTacianas]

Catholics do not break bread. The bread broken is hugely significant as His body was broken for us. Catholics eat wafers made in a factory.

What about the rest of the Church?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Catholics do not break bread. The bread broken is hugely significant as His body was broken for us. Catholics eat wafers made in a factory.

If a wafer, it is still a type of unleavened bread typically made from wheat flour, water, and salt.

 

[Billy Evmur]

If a wafer, it is still a type of unleavened bread typically made from wheat flour, water, and salt.

Jesus said "do THIS in memory of Me" He took the bread blest it and break it.

Catholics do all manner of things, waving of hands, bobbing up and down, holy incantations, but the simple thing Jesus said to do they do not.

They also corrupt the ordinance of baptism.

 

[Billy Evmur]

What about the rest of the Church?

we break bread remembering that His body was broken for us. In partaking of His body we become the body of Christ.

 

[Aaron112]

We all agree they are divinely inspired.

Nope.

It is difficult to find, and almost always opposed, but it might still be possible to find the truth (but only for those seeking the truth who keep on seeking the truth and trusting and depending on God to graciously grant the understanding , acceptance, and wisdom of His Truth instead of man's deceptions .

 

[Aaron112]

the simple thing Jesus said to do they do not.

This sums up all that is wrong in the world and in the groups I think.

 

[Aaron112]

Where is the prophetic word? wholesome teaching? miracles, healing, administrations and tongues and interpretation?

Where ? Looking at the rare POSITIVE side of God's Plan, those who seek "Where", who constantly depend on Jesus and not on mankind nor on society, those who seek help and healing and salvation from broken sinful lives, those who seek Jesus, and keep on seeking Jesus, will find the prophetic word, the wholesome teaching, miracles, healing, administrations and tongues and interpretation as God Says. Not as man says.
God's Hand Is Not Short, That He Cannot Save Someone. But who seeks HIM TODAY ?