NT contents and is authority needed?

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,


I find lots of going on about the OT canon as it relates to the roman church and her members and those that are not members of that church. I am not going to get into those again here… I am hoping another thread will be opened on that, because I have been asked some very good question on a thread that is pages long….


This thread is specific to the NT I will be using what I believe to be the normative (in a general sense) from a site that is used to help roman church members to understand their own churches teaching… (Because you do understand the roman church’s teaching needs to be interpreted… I digress)

Proving Inspiration | Catholic Answers

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

I agree here history bears out exactly what the contents of God’s Canon we call the NT. There are lots that are here that presume way too much… and logical leaps that are unwarranted and not useful. I will say the inspiration of these books are not based on some name it claim it authority (they say there need to be one, and they fill the need they create) but is based on the ontological reality of Scriptures being God breathed out. The same holds true for their authority they are Gods breath there for their authority matches God’s.


So here is a question… why do members of the roman church feel a authority is required to prove inspiration of the God breathed out word, is not the ontological facts enough?

In Him,

Bill

 

[tz620q]

So here is a question… why do members of the roman church feel a authority is required to prove inspiration of the God breathed out word, is not the ontological facts enough?

In Him,

Bill

1 Timothy 3:14-15
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

This section immediately follows Paul's criteria for how to select a bishop (overseer) and he is writing to Timothy, his selected bishop. So we see a hierarchy to a church and the fact that that church is called upon to be the pillar of truth. This does not deny an ontological inspiration of the NT; but it does show that the church has the responsibility and hence the authority to defend and preserve the truth. How can one defend the truth if every milkmaid and plowboy are allowed to come up with their own versions of what the Bible says to them and not take correction as to their error? If the church does not know the truth, how can they preserve it? Historically we see a Christian Church even during the time the NT is being written. So any theory of NT development needs to at least acknowledge the place of the church in this development for at least it was this church that recognized the inspiration and preserved it. It also needs to bridge the gap between the end of Christ's life and the canon. How does one go from Paul writing a letter to Galatia about very specific issues to God-breathed? I contend that if we used this modern criteria of self-evident inspiration during the time of the early church, they would have not been able to put down a single heresy. Or maybe you see that as a good thing?

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Church itself (not to Roman Church, but she was part of it) ... the Church established what had the authority to be Scripture.

The Apostles travelled around, establishing Churches, and teaching the people all of the things they had received from Christ Jesus and through the Holy Spirit.

They also wrote Epistles to the Churches, Gospels were written down and circulated. Letters (Epistles) were circulated, and read out loud in the Assembly.

Because the people (the Church) had been established by and taught by the Apostles, they recognized which of these Gospels and Epistles were authentic (there were as many forgeries being sent around as well). It was the ones recognized as authentic, that conformed to the faith already believed, practiced, that were read. And eventually those that were read that became our Canon of Scripture for the NT.

It was truth that made them recognizeable as inspired.

 

[BBAS 64]

1 Timothy 3:14-15
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

This section immediately follows Paul's criteria for how to select a bishop (overseer) and he is writing to Timothy, his selected bishop. So we see a hierarchy to a church and the fact that that church is called upon to be the pillar of truth. This does not deny an ontological inspiration of the NT; but it does show that the church has the responsibility and hence the authority to defend and preserve the truth. How can one defend the truth if every milkmaid and plowboy are allowed to come up with their own versions of what the Bible says to them and not take correction as to their error? If the church does not know the truth, how can they preserve it? Historically we see a Christian Church even during the time the NT is being written. So any theory of NT development needs to at least acknowledge the place of the church in this development for at least it was this church that recognized the inspiration and preserved it. It also needs to bridge the gap between the end of Christ's life and the canon. How does one go from Paul writing a letter to Galatia about very specific issues to God-breathed? I contend that if we used this modern criteria of self-evident inspiration during the time of the early church, they would have not been able to put down a single heresy. Or maybe you see that as a good thing?

Good Day,

I do not deny that any historical inquiry would include the rules of the early church as they would be pat of history... what I categorically deny is the assumption that I need some authority to tell me the NT is inspired. Cannonicity has nothing to do with "what the bible says" but what the Bible is ( specifically the NT) you are getting confused with interpretation...

Can I get a source of what you classify as "modern criteria of self-evident inspiration". I would submit that on the face of this that "self-evident" and and ontological are not synonyms. I agree the scripture was the "weapon" to combat heresy in the early church I think the history is clear. Yes they knew what is was and what was not (surly an other topic for discussion.)

Ambrose: "The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. [Exposition of the Christian Faith]

The question really asks do you require and authority to tell you the books of the NT are inspired as is suggested in this article?

In Him,

Bill

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Authority is the means by which we have a bible, initially it's authority being recognised by those local communities of the Church and the books gaining a pedigree and that pedigree gaining traction till the Church more or less universally decided upon a general 27 New Testament book, it becomes incredibly difficult to argue that the Scriptures themselves testify to the canon in of themselves. Simply for the fact that they were not grouped together until a latter time and the Apostles made no enterprise a priority.

The bible being authoritative is undoubtedly not because the books were declared authoritative yet it's composition is not due to it but rather the Church deciding what to do with these individual books. That way the authority of the Church becomes necessary because without it we effectively do not have a canon but a group of books which believers would hypothetically be free to accept or dismiss on the basis of the confession they received. The New Testament was not the first thing a New Believer in the first century received, rather it was essence of the faith communicated verbally in the "Rule of Faith."

Is there a biblical passage one can appeal to say the Scripture is limited or should even be 27 Books in the New Testament? No. The standards for what we consider "New Testament" are extra biblical but reasonable standards for a Post Apostolic era. Is the writing Apostolic? Does the writing have acceptance in the Church general? Was the writing written during the time of the Apostles? All extra biblical standards which all sides, even the most tradition loving of us would agree too. Ignatius' writings are not scriptural because they are beyond the time of the Apostles, despite their Orthodox character and that is the rule by the Church not the bible.

If we don't require authority we should not have the bible as we have it today, in a canonised form.

 

[DieselLover]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, the early church had no real system of deciding which books were in the canon. The 4 gospels were the most popular among the laity at the time. There were other gospels that were thrown out due to questionable content like gnostic influence. I'm not sure if paul considered at the time, his letters would be called scripture some day, but when he references scripture it's more than likely the Old Testament. There were other books in the early canon. Epistle of barnabas and Shepard of Hermas were two that they thought to be inspired. It was a very organic process. I personally believe and trust the Holy Spirit guided the formation of the canon through the early church, although it took several hundred years to officially declare it. Even today the canon is a bit different. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have the deuterocanonical (the apocryphal books) Ethiopian and Coptic (I think) have 82 books in their bible. And Protestants have 66. I've read the epistles of barnabas and part of the Shepard of hermas and I personally think they were left out because of redundancy. But in a nutshell, nowhere in scripture does it list all 27 books as the canon. That is exteabiblical. The authority came from the apostlolic tradition, what books were known from the beginning, which were most popular among the laity, and Paul's letters were added since they addressed specific needs of churches and Paul had been commissioned by Christ himself. There's an entire history behind it. It's fun to research. And good to know when defending the faith. I've had multiple people comment "how do you know the Bible's written by God?" And you can't use circular reasoning "because it says so". The history behind it is the key. -In Christ

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Canon is effectively decided by the Sensus Fidelium or "sense of the faithful", that is, by consensus of faith. It's not a "top-down" authority; but instead the shared tradition, history, consensus, and faith of the whole Church working together in agreement on the matter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, the early church had no real system of deciding which books were in the canon. The 4 gospels were the most popular among the laity at the time.

Well, no. Shortly after the Gnostic "gospels" were written, we have Christian writers pointing out that only 4 gospels were passed down from the Apostles.

We also know what early Christians thought of as canon by what they quoted.

Epistle of barnabas and Shepard of Hermas were two that they thought to be inspired.

They were very widely read, but I'm not aware of anyone who thought they were canon.

 

[DieselLover]

Well, no. Shortly after the Gnostic "gospels" were written, we have Christian writers pointing out that only 4 gospels were passed down from the Apostles.

It's both. The ones they "knew from the begginging" were also the most popular. I should've made that clarification, because the gospel and apocalypse of peter were extremely popular but they also had gnostic undertones. It wasn't just a matter of "they like these the best"
We also know what early Christians thought of as canon by what they quoted.

I agree, but there were several that included other books. I'll try to find quotes.


They were very widely read, but I'm not aware of anyone who thought they were canon.

They were included in a "proto-canon". I'll try to find the quote but it was an early church father listing off the canon and those 2 were included. It was before the official canon was declared at a later time.

 

[DieselLover]

Aside from the things they agreed on, the canon wasn't so cut and dried. I've got a quote somewhere of them including clement 1 and 2.

 

[Radagast]

They were included in a "proto-canon". I'll try to find the quote but it was an early church father listing off the canon and those 2 were included. It was before the official canon was declared at a later time.

I would be surprised. Church fathers that I've read put Barnabas and The Shepherd in the category of "edifying but not inspired."

Incidentally, it's not considered polite to quote somebody and then edit the quote with your own words.

 

[Radagast]

Aside from the things they agreed on, the canon wasn't so cut and dried. I've got a quote somewhere of them including clement 1 and 2.

Again, I would be surprised.

The "core canon," for want of a better phrase (the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and probably I John) was agreed on very, very early. Several other books moved from "maybe" to "yes." I'm not aware of any books that moved from "yes" to "no."

 

[JM]

The Church itself (not to Roman Church, but she was part of it) ... the Church established what had the authority to be Scripture.

Ok, which church? East or West? Oriental, Roman or Greek? The problem of authority is removed a step but it still remains. All appeals to authority are circle.

 

[Radagast]

Ok, which church? East or West? Oriental, Roman or Greek?

Those are all later distinctions.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ok, which church? East or West? Oriental, Roman or Greek? The problem of authority is removed a step but it still remains. All appeals to authority are circle.

East, west, Oriental, Roman, or Greek?

Yes.

All of them. The Church was the Church - this is why she was called "catholic" in the Creed before Rome ever took that word as her own name. There was no other authority to appeal to.

 

[DieselLover]

I would be surprised. Church fathers that I've read put Barnabas and The Shepherd in the category of "edifying but not inspired."

Incidentally, it's not considered polite to quote somebody and then edit the quote with your own words.

I apologize, I'm on my phone and am still trying to get it to work right. I did not mean to intentionally edit your post.

Again, I would be surprised.

The "core canon," for want of a better phrase (the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and probably I John) was agreed on very, very early. Several other books moved from "maybe" to "yes." I'm not aware of any books that moved from "yes" to "no."

I don't disagree, my point was, there were other gospels being considered. But it boiled down to what was the earliest known and most popular. They played around with the canon. Just google "early church fathers on the NT canon" and some included other works that are now considered Christian writings but not inspired.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I apologize, I'm on my phone and am still trying to get it to work right. I did not mean to intentionally edit your post.

I don't disagree, my point was, there were other gospels being considered. But it boiled down to what was the earliest known and most popular. They played around with the canon. Just google "early church fathers on the NT canon" and some included other works that are now considered Christian writings but not inspired.

The Gospel of the Hebrews is sometimes included in the works known as Antilegomena, but I'm only aware of Origen speaking of it somewhat favorably. The Church never took seriously more than the four Gospels we currently have; the works of Antilegomena which did--for example--manage to find themselves in biblical codices are the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, and the Epistle of Barnabas. But no other gospels, the four Gospels were rather firmly established early on, St. Irenaeus even compares them to the four cardinal directions in order to say that it is right that there are four and only four.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

I don't disagree, my point was, there were other gospels being considered.

Well, no, there were not "other gospels being considered."

A long time after the 4 gospels were written, Gnostic groups wrote their own "gospels," and Christians responded by saying "there are only 4 gospels."

Just google "early church fathers on the NT canon"

My information comes from more reliable sources than that.

and some included other works that are now considered Christian writings but not inspired.

Such as....?

There were a number of books in the category of "edifying but not inspired," and some of these were included in codices. That does not imply people thought they were canonical.

For example, when Athanasius lists the NT canon we are familiar with, he adds "that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness," specifically mentioning the Shepherd and the Didache.

The Shepherd and the Epistle of Barnabas are included in the Codex Sinaiticus (the oldest complete Bible), but as an appendix at the end, after Revelation. That's consistent with them being in the "edifying but not inspired" category.

The Epistle of Clement was perhaps treated as canonical by some early Christians, but it's hard to be certain.

 

[Radagast]

The Gospel of the Hebrews is sometimes included in the works known as Antilegomena, but I'm only aware of Origen speaking of it somewhat favorably.

Do you mean unfavourably? I know Origen preached on the epistle, but he seemed uncertain of its canonicity.

Eusebius writes: "It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."

 

[JM]

Those are all later distinctions.

East, west, Oriental, Roman, or Greek?

Yes.

All of them. The Church was the Church - this is why she was called "catholic" in the Creed before Rome ever took that word as her own name. There was no other authority to appeal to.

Claiming it's a later distinction doesn't answer the question.

At least Anastasia admits they are all valid, equal options...even if you deny appealing to authority by appealing to authority. lol

Once I ask what makes one "catholic" you must appeal to some authority for a definition. It could be sacred or profane history but it's still an outside authority.

Yours in the Lord,

jm