The Cannon of Scripture as we may or may not know it...

[The Liturgist]

@MarkRohfrietsch, would you happen to know anything regarding the process of a stable planted congregation being received into the LCMS? If you prefer to discuss it in a different thread or to send me a private message, I don’t want to derail this thread, but I would like to find out about that.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

@MarkRohfrietsch, would you happen to know anything regarding the process of a stable planted congregation being received into the LCMS? If you prefer to discuss it in a different thread or to send me a private message, I don’t want to derail this thread, but I would like to find out about that.

Honestly, I don't. I do know that for you as a Pastor, there is a colloquy process before reception into the Roster of the LCMS, I would expect that there may be a similar process for the Congregation as well. You would need to get in touch with the district President (Bishop) and open a dialogue at that level.

Here is a link; find the appropriate district, and follow the links to inquire. My guess would be that it would be at the regional level ultimately.

Feel free to PM me.

 

[Radagast]

individual parishes have already been victims, for example, St. Paul’s Methodist Church in Alaska, a case worth Googling

That was savage.

 

[concretecamper]

Since Trent the Catholic Church has closed the Bible, and as a result they have excluded some books that had been included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles since the first century.

So, which books did Trent exclude that were included prior to Trent?

 

[The Liturgist]

So, which books did Trent exclude that were included prior to Trent?

Pretty much just 3-4 Esdras.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. ​

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON
Thread cleaned up due to multiple SoP violations and flaming.
From the Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose
Do not state or imply that another poster who has identified himself or herself as traditional Christian, is not in reality truly a traditional Christian because of belief, practice, or their affiliation with any particular denomination. Discuss and debate specific topics from your own traditional theological viewpoint, allowing others to do likewise without fear of judgment and condemnation. Do not get sidetracked into debating whether or not another poster's beliefs are right or wrong according to your traditional theological background or viewpoint. When making a statement about traditional theological beliefs please consider prefacing your statement with "some traditional Christians believe" or "my tradition believes".
Thread is now open for posting again.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[concretecamper]

Pretty much just 3-4 Esdras.

nope. It is a numbering issue. No books were excluded. A bit of research will show this.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

nope. It is a numbering issue. No books were excluded. A bit of research will show this.

Let me word this differently; prior to Trent, the Catholic Bible was not set in stone. How do we know this? Because there are Bibles that have survived that were in use by the pre-Trent Catholic Church, and pre Great Schism, that contained other books that are not found in the "Closed" pre-Trent Bible.

In Concordia's Apocrypha, Lutheran Edition, the following are included:

Why so many more than the post-Trent Bible; because at the time of the Reformation some Bibles in use in Churches contained some or all of these books. These Bibles were/are Catholic Bibles, in Catholic Churches, and remained in use by Lutherans post reformation.

Please accept my apology for not being clear enough earlier.

 

[concretecamper]

Let me word this differently; prior to Trent, the Catholic Bible was not set in stone. How do we know this? Because there are Bibles that have survived that were in use by the pre-Trent Catholic Church, and pre Great Schism, that contained other books that are not found in the "Closed" pre-Trent Bible.

In Concordia's Apocrypha, Lutheran Edition, the following are included:
View attachment 268791

Why so many more than the post-Trent Bible; because at the time of the Reformation some Bibles in use in Churches contained some or all of these books. These Bibles were/are Catholic Bibles, in Catholic Churches, and remained in use by Lutherans post reformation.

Please accept my apology for not being clear enough earlier.

Well, I don't see how this is any more clear. I like to be concise and to the point. In that light:

1. The Synod at Rome in 382 sent to the Pope a canon which the Pope approved. This became know as the Bible.
2. There have been no additions or deletions from 382 until TODAY. Trent re-affirmed the SAME canon from 382.

QED

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, I don't see how this is any more clear. I like to be concise and to the point. In that light:

1. The Synod at Rome in 382 sent to the Pope a canon which the Pope approved. This became know as the Bible.
2. There have been no additions or deletions from 382 until TODAY. Trent re-affirmed the SAME canon from 382.

QED

Your mind is made up; you believe your are correct; I believe that the historic record is more correct. We can leave it at that.

 

[concretecamper]

Your mind is made up

I tend to make my mind up after reviewing the FACTS.

 

[The Liturgist]

nope. It is a numbering issue. No books were excluded. A bit of research will show this.

I am pretty sure there is a tiny section of Esdras in the Septuagint which is canonical in the Greek Orthodox church and not even deuterocanonical in the Catholic church. I can look up the details. Its a very small piece of scripture, and St. Jerome thought it was spurious, by the way; he only translated it and the apocryphal Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, “lest they perish entirely”, basically for archival purposes (the latter has no doctrinal errors, but is extremely short, contains nothing the other Epistles do not have, and is widely believed to be psuedepigraphical or a forgery, and was widely believed as such in the 4th century; 3 Corinthians is another example. No one accepts Laodiceans as canonical, and no one ever has, whereas the Armenian Apostolic Church does consider 3 Corinthians to be canonical (and I think it is more likely to be authentic than Laodiceans, if I had to guess probabilities I would say 10% on Laodiceans and maybe 15-25% on 3 Corinthians).

 

[The Liturgist]

Let me word this differently; prior to Trent, the Catholic Bible was not set in stone.

That is true, and @concretecamper is slightly overreaching. However, it is also true that Pope Gelasius around 483, not 382, did produce a list of banned apocrypha, which he anathematized, and these were almost all Gnostic or other doctrinally dubious works. The Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalpyse of Peter, et cetera. I can get you the complete list. He also formally endorsed the New Testament canon introduced by the second greatest Pope of Alexandria*, Saint Athanasius in the 360s.

*The greatest of course is St. Mark the Evangelist, who is traditionally credited with founding the church in Alexandria, and there is no evidence to the contrary, so I think he did, at least, the Orthodox-Catholic-Apostolic church, the One Holy Universal church we confess our belief in in the Nicene Creed. I think some Gnostic fake Christians may have been there first; one reason for St. Peter going to Rome was because of Simon Magus popping up there. So the Apostles were really in a race against false apostles, to spread the true Gospel, almost from Pentecost.

 

[concretecamper]

hat is true, and @concretecamper is slightly overreaching

I stated 2 indisputable simple facts. If anything, I under reached

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I am pretty sure there is a tiny section of Esdras in the Septuagint which is canonical in the Greek Orthodox church and not even deuterocanonical in the Catholic church. I can look up the details. Its a very small piece of scripture, and St. Jerome thought it was spurious, by the way; he only translated it and the apocryphal Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, “lest they perish entirely”, basically for archival purposes (the latter has no doctrinal errors, but is extremely short, contains nothing the other Epistles do not have, and is widely believed to be psuedepigraphical or a forgery, and was widely believed as such in the 4th century; 3 Corinthians is another example. No one accepts Laodiceans as canonical, and no one ever has, whereas the Armenian Apostolic Church does consider 3 Corinthians to be canonical (and I think it is more likely to be authentic than Laodiceans, if I had to guess probabilities I would say 10% on Laodiceans and maybe 15-25% on 3 Corinthians).

3 Esdras and 3rd Maccabees is canonical for the Eastern Orthodox and oddly 4 Esdras and 4 Maccabees is not considered canonical by the Greek Orthodox but it is canonical for Georgian Orthodox even though we are all Eastern Orthodox.

 

[The Liturgist]

3 Esdras and 3rd Maccabees is canonical for the Eastern Orthodox and oddly 4 Esdras and 4 Maccabees is not considered canonical by the Greek Orthodox but it is canonical for Georgian Orthodox even though we are all Eastern Orthodox.

Would you think less of me if I confessed I prefer Georgian three-voice polyphonic chant Byzantine chant? But, I prefer to Georgian chant Greek four part harmony, by Tikey Zes and Michaelides. And Romanian four part harmony by Corul Antoli and other groups (Grupul Corul Harissma) is blissful. I like it even more than the exquisite Russian music of Bortniansky and Chesnokov.

 

[Athanasias]

Homologoumena and Antilegomena

Our Pastor is running two Bible Studies this fall, one on the Revelation, and one on the Apocrypha. It is interesting to note from an historic perspective that until the Council of Trent, there were a group of Books that were universally accepted by the whole of Christendom, and another group that while often included in Bibles, were not. In our Lutheran Tradition, we have maintained the traditional pre-Trent view, and as a result, we hold the Apocryphal books to the same level as we hold Revelation. Since Trent the Catholic Church has closed the Bible, and as a result they have excluded some books that had been included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles since the first century. Interesting that the Concordia edition of the Apocrypha has some books in it that Catholic Bibles no longer do. Like Revelation, we don't look to these books as a source of doctrine; but they and the other Antilegomena books in all our Bibles are used to support doctrine, and give the rest of the Bible context.

How many others here have heard of or understand this distinction?

Anyway, I am enjoying our studies this year a great deal!

I find this interesting for several reasons. There of course were early Canons in the early church. The muratorian fragment of the late 2nd century contained a few books that we do not today(like the apocalypse of Peter) and there was a time in Church history were some letters in the early church were read throughout the liturgy in some areas and thought of to be as authoritative as scripture like the Letter of Pope St. Clement of Rome. (This is huge hint to universal papal apostolic authority). So there was some fluidity to this in the very early church. However there did come a time when the Church had authoritatively decided which books were scripture and which were not.

St. Athanasius gave us a good but incomplete list of books in the 360's but The first complete list of authoritative books declared for the west was from Pope Damasus I at the council of Rome in 382 A.D. The decree of Damasus on the biblical Canon is the same as Trents and as The council of Carthage in 419.A.D shortly after Damasus decree. In addition the Ecumenical Council of Florence a hundred years before the Council of Trent(Florence was held in 1438-1449) also listed those same books that Trent and the Carthage and the council of Rome way back in 382 all held to. All of these councils and decrees in the early Church for the canon all held to the same biblical canon that Catholics do today. I hope this helps.

 

[The Liturgist]

St. Athanasius gave us a good but incomplete list of books in the 360's

That list was in fact complete as far as the NT is concerned.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I find this interesting for several reasons. There of course were early Canons in the early church. The muratorian fragment of the late 2nd century contained a few books that we do not today(like the apocalypse of Peter) and there was a time in Church history were some letters in the early church were read throughout the liturgy in some areas and thought of to be as authoritative as scripture like the Letter of Pope St. Clement of Rome. (This is huge hint to universal papal apostolic authority). So there was some fluidity to this in the very early church. However there did come a time when the Church had authoritatively decided which books were scripture and which were not.

St. Athanasius gave us a good but incomplete list of books in the 360's but The first complete list of authoritative books declared for the west was from Pope Damasus I at the council of Rome in 382 A.D. The decree of Damasus on the biblical Canon is the same as Trents and as The council of Carthage in 419.A.D shortly after Damasus decree. In addition the Ecumenical Council of Florence a hundred years before the Council of Trent(Florence was held in 1438-1449) also listed those same books that Trent and the Carthage and the council of Rome way back in 382 all held to. All of these councils and decrees in the early Church for the canon all held to the same biblical canon that Catholics do today. I hope this helps.

While correct looking only to Western Christianity under the authority of Rome; other canons remained in use in the Church Catholic through to the time of the Great Schism, about 850 years after Council of Rome and are still in use in the East. Putting the Canon in a box and stamping it with a Papal seal makes for an easy answer, but over looks the historic reality.