Where do you get your NT from

[BBAS 64]

Good day, All

Over in the GT fourm there has been an on going disscussion around the cannon of Scripture which often gets in to the OT "apho" books and the fact that most P/R/E do not see these books as "God breathed" books. I have always considered these books as helpful in the reading of them as I have read some of them, from an historical POV.

1. What do you think of these books, have you read them at all?


In my disscussions with Kenny and TLF on this issue the question was asked whare do P/R/E belivers get thier NT from if not the RCC and it's definition of cannon for the RCC's in the council of Trent 1546. There were some other references given by Kenny, such as Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397. Rather that disscuss these councils, the over all question is clear.

2. Where do you get the NT books from if not the councils "authority" to difine the Cannon? How do you know they are the right books in the NT if these councils had not told you so?

3. As a P/R/E believer do you affirm the:
THE CHICAGO STATEMENT
ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

If not why not?


** Kenny or TLF, if I have misrepresented your questions at all PLEASE CORRECT me.

Peace to you,

Bill

 

[InquisitorKind]

2. Where do you get the NT books from if not the councils "authority" to difine the Cannon? How do you know they are the right books in the NT if these councils had not told you so?

Most Christians have to depend on these conclusions to know the canon simply because they do not have the time or the resources to investigate the matter for themselves.

However, what does looking to Hippo or Carthage for our New Testament mean? Does it, as the question implies, mean we should also submit to the church that lead those councils (how is "authority" being defined in the question set anyway)? Since the church that lead councils like Hippo and Carthage isn't the same church that any of us belong to today, the question doesn't make sense; it assumes the their church is an institutional continuation of the early church.

Does obtaining information from a New York Times article require you to then accept the "authority" of the New York Times? No. Why would it? People can agree with conclusions that others come to on certain topics without being forced to accept the rest of the conclusions they come to on the same or different topics.

We know that people can arrive at the correct New Testament canon without an authoritative council to determine or recognize it for us. How did Athanasius arrive at the New Testament canon without appealing to the authority of councils? (See Festal Letters 39:9) And why would Protestants be exempt from following his example?

~Matt

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, All

Matt I am in agreement with you. The contents of the NT which God has delivered to his people is found in an historical premise one which the Catholics agree with.

The Bible as Historical Truth

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, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

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.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

Outside of the Pages of Scripture lies a extra - biblical writing to support the NT that we hold in our very hands on that we agree. In looking into the history of what the NT is one can come to the same conclusion as the council of Trent, the writings of ECF.

I think it unwise to say out side the councils, one can not know what Scripture is. There were early Christians who knew what scripture was and was not, with out some council.

It may be said by some that they hold to the councils representation of what the NT is, with out seeing them as an authority. I say they were right in their judgement, just as Athueniuos {sp} was right with out his need to claim authority.

Ones authority is some what objective and authority is not an objective truth, in the manner on which one sees some thing as authoritive. We make a fallible choice to see a "thing" as authoritive with in our own lives.

I do affirm the ideas expressed in the THE CHICAGO STATEMENT
ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY to the extent that I am able to understand them. I do have some questions around some of it, but in general I AGREE !!

For His Glory Alone !

Bill

 

[InquisitorKind]

We make a fallible choice to see a "thing" as authoritive with in our own lives.

This is correct, and something that might be worth noting as canon discussion progresses. When Roman Catholics ask how you can know the canon without a church to identify it for you, ask them how they know that their church is infallible without another authority to identify it for them. Whatever answer they give will refute their argument for the need of an authoritative church to know the canon.

Do they suggest an investigation of historical facts or documents? Why would Protestants be excluded from using that approach to determining the limits of the canon? If they propose faith that God would provide a church to guide us, why would Protestants be excluded from simply having faith that the canon alone would be provided to guide us?

~Matt

 

[HiredGoon]

2. Where do you get the NT books from if not the councils "authority" to difine the Cannon? How do you know they are the right books in the NT if these councils had not told you so?

"...the church is 'built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles' [Eph. 2:20]. If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist. Groundless, too, is their subtle objection that, although the church took its beginning here, the writings to be attributed to the prophets and apostles nevertheless remain in doubt until decided by the church. For if the Christian church was from the beginning founded upon the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever this doctrine is found, the acceptance of it--without which the church itself would never have existed-- must certainly have preceded the church. It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not therby render authentic what is otherwise doubtdul or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. As to their question-- How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church?-- it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste." -Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

 

[BBAS 64]

**Bump**

Seems timely

 

[Oblio]

Does it, as the question implies, mean we should also submit to the church that lead those councils (how is "authority" being defined in the question set anyway)?

Seeing as it was the Holy Spirit that led the church to canonize the Books of the Bible, it would seem that would give good reason to continue to follow the Church that He inspired to do so. And if was not the Holy Spirit that directed the Church, then why do you follow those books set out by a mere 'church' (sic) ?

 

[InquisitorKind]

Seeing as it was the Holy Spirit that led the church to canonize the Books of the Bible, it would seem that would give good reason to continue to follow the Church that He inspired to do so. And if was not the Holy Spirit that directed the Church, then why do you follow those books set out by a mere 'church' (sic) ?

I reject your proposition that the Holy Spirit led the church to canonize the books of the Bible in the way you're suggesting. The Holy Spirit was involved in the recognition of the canon by His people, but certainly not in a way that demonstrates it is led by the Holy Spirit in all matters, or is "infallible."

Your question is attempting to cast doubt upon Protestant beliefs in the canon. In light of the historical record, it's a poor question. Considering that Athanasius came to know the New Testament canon prior to any formal council, why would Protestants be exempt from following his lead? What process did he use to determine the canon since no "Church" told him what that canon was? As far as the Old Testament canon, we can discuss that in a relevant thread (and the early church is against your denomination's decision to include the majority of the apocrypha in the canon).

I also reject your gratuitous assertion that the early church as an institution and organization still exists today. In particular your denomination is alien to the earliest of church fathers on a number of topics. Many of the earliest of fathers rejected prayers to the dead, the Eastern Orthodox canon, veneration of images, held a wide variety of views on the Eucharist, were premillenial in their eschatology, etc.

I am a member of the early church, a church which crosses all denominational and physical barriers and boundaries, and has existed for 2,000 years. I still follow it today.

~Matt

 

[ps139]

However, what does looking to Hippo or Carthage for our New Testament mean? Does it, as the question implies, mean we should also submit to the church that lead those councils (how is "authority" being defined in the question set anyway)? Since the church that lead councils like Hippo and Carthage isn't the same church that any of us belong to today, the question doesn't make sense; it assumes the their church is an institutional continuation of the early church.

Matt,

I am curious, when did the current Catholic Church cease to be the same as the Early Church. I have heard Protestants say 325 - "Constantine hijacked the Church." but since you said "the church that lead councils like Hippo and Carthage isn't the same church that any of us belong to today" when do you think the Catholic Church "broke off" and what do you think happened to the Church that canonized the Bible?

 

[InquisitorKind]

Matt,

I am curious, when did the current Catholic Church cease to be the same as the Early Church. I have heard Protestants say 325 - "Constantine hijacked the Church." but since you said "the church that lead councils like Hippo and Carthage isn't the same church that any of us belong to today" when do you think the Catholic Church "broke off" and what do you think happened to the Church that canonized the Bible?

We're operating under different definitions of the church. My definition is that the church is a community of believers--physical because they are people, and invisible because it is difficult to tell who is really a Christian and who is simply pretending (Matthew 7:22-23). Operating under this definition, the question of when the Catholic Church ceased to be the early church is difficult to answer, since there are many saved people in the Catholic Church today, just as there were many saved people in the early church. However, just as not every Catholic who professes is saved, not every early church member who professed was saved either. In short, the church (under my definition) that canonized the Scriptures is still existent today, even though the people who are a part of it may look completely different from it (I would include both Protestants and Roman Catholics in this statement).

In the institutional schema, the definition you seem to be working under, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church (remember, I speak of it as an institution, and I represent it solely by the doctrine it professes, not the people who claim to be a part of it) ceased to be the early church approximately when the authority of the Papacy and Sacred Tradition began to become over-exercised. Both of those were alien to the early church (the bishop of Rome had a type of primacy, and tradition and Scripture were simply viewed as different expressions of the same revelation in content). The early church as an institution no longer exists simply because I do not see any institution today that represents the doctrines and teachings of the early church faithfully or in its entirety. This isn't a problem in the Evangelical mind-set because the true church of believers crosses denominational boundaries (I would even suggest to you that people in the institution of the Mormon church can be saved).

If you wish, we can continue this discussion in a forum or location where debating is allowed. If you'd like, we can also continue through PM. I desire to relate to you (whether or not you agree with it does not matter at this point) a more intelligent and coherent response than what some Protestants forward (that is, if this post doesn't suffice)--what you're probably used to from fundamentalist positions. It's almost embarrassing sometimes what passes of as "Protestant" apologetics concerning responses to Catholic contentions. (i.e. I think statements like "Constantine hijacked the Church" are highly misleading, at best, and that those who forward those types of arguments usually do not have a historical perspective on the early church nor Biblical definitions of what the true nature of the church is.)

Otherwise, I welcome further questions you might have.

~Matt

 

[backley]

Seeing as it was the Holy Spirit that led the church to canonize the Books of the Bible, it would seem that would give good reason to continue to follow the Church that He inspired to do so. And if was not the Holy Spirit that directed the Church, then why do you follow those books set out by a mere 'church' (sic) ?

Didnt the Holy Spirit also lead the pharisees to collect and combine the old testament scriptures? Were the pharisees correct?

Brian

 

[Oblio]

Didnt the Holy Spirit also lead the pharisees to collect and combine the old testament scriptures? Were the pharisees correct?

nope.

c.f. Pentecost 33 AD for the difference

 

[backley]

nope.

c.f. Pentecost 33 AD for the difference

Do you care to expound further? Your basically saying the RCC is correct because the Roman church was used to put the New testament scriptures together. I am also asking did it make the Jews right because they were used to put together the old testament. Judas was chosen as an apostle, does that mean he was good? Do you see the point I am trying to make? Just because the RCC was used to put the scripture in the new testament together does not make them authoritive.

Brian

 

[Oblio]

I am Orthodox, I make no such claim WRT to the RCC.

Christ sent the Holy Spirit temporally to descend upon the Church. The Holy Spirit guides the Church collectively into all truth. The Pharisees had no such guidance. This is the difference. This is also why Christ condems the traditions of the Pharisees and later St. Paul exhorts all Christians to hold fast to the Traditions of the Church. The Traditions of the Church, of which the canon of the Bible is part, are authored by the Holy Spirit.

 

[backley]

I am Orthodox, I make no such claim WRT to the RCC.

Christ sent the Holy Spirit temporally to descend upon the Church. The Holy Spirit guides the Church collectively into all truth. The Pharisees had no such guidance. This is the difference. This is also why Christ condems the traditions of the Pharisees and later St. Paul exhorts all Christians to hold fast to the Traditions of the Church. The Traditions of the Church, of which the canon of the Bible is part, are authored by the Holy Spirit.

My whole point was the RCC claims at least by some that they are the one true church because they were used to help put together the bible. traditions are another story.

Brian

 

[InquisitorKind]

St. Paul exhorts all Christians to hold fast to the Traditions of the Church. The Traditions of the Church, of which the canon of the Bible is part, are authored by the Holy Spirit.

The early church considered tradition and Scripture to be the same in content, essentially different vehicles for relating the same revelation. What are the extra-Biblical traditions that Paul was supposedly referring to in addition to the Scriptures?

~Matt

 

[ps139]

The early church considered tradition and Scripture to be the same in content, essentially different vehicles for relating the same revelation. What are the extra-Biblical traditions that Paul was supposedly referring to in addition to the Scriptures?

~Matt

I do not know if they're explicitly spelled out anywhere, but he does make mention of them having the same authority as the Scriptures themselves.

2 Thess 3:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral testament or by a letter of ours.

By a letter of ours, we know this generally means Scripture, and specifically, 1 Thessalonians.
"Oral Testament" is something Paul taught in the church, but it is not recorded in Scripture.

 

[backley]

What are the extra-Biblical traditions that Paul was supposedly referring to in addition to the Scriptures?

~Matt

The (oral) traditions? The gospel. Pauls letters told us what was spoken.

I addressed this in another forum you can read it here.

http://www.theologyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7230&pagenumber=3


Brian

 

[InquisitorKind]

"Oral Testament" is something Paul taught in the church, but it is not recorded in Scripture.

What evidence is there from 2 Thessalonians 3:15 that suggests the oral and written deposit were different? If Paul used the word "and," instead of "or," I might find this position more tenable.

~Matt

 

[backley]

I do not know if they're explicitly spelled out anywhere, but he does make mention of them having the same authority as the Scriptures themselves.

2 Thess 3:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral testament or by a letter of ours.

By a letter of ours, we know this generally means Scripture, and specifically, 1 Thessalonians.
"Oral Testament" is something Paul taught in the church, but it is not recorded in Scripture.

The oral teachings are recorded in the scripture. It is the gospel. See other post

Brian