council of Nicea [Archive] - Christian Forums

damo73

11th March 2007, 08:30 PM

To those of us that accept the council of Nicea and i would say that most of us do, since we believe in the holy Trinity as being the one true God.

I would ask why we reject the other cannons of this council, since the church was one should we not accept all of them?
Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excomunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13:Indulgence to be granted toexcomunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm) are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm) their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

crawfish

12th March 2007, 10:30 AM

The RM doesn't place any document or council above the Bible. I believe we've fully accepted those items that are supported by Biblical teaching, and avoided those which are not.

Most also assume a central authority, which RM churches do not believe in.

Frame1520

13th March 2007, 05:14 PM

stray bullet

14th March 2007, 03:23 AM

How do RMs determine what scriptures are legitimate, then?

On what basis would you exclude, say, the Apocalypse of Peter?

Frame1520

14th March 2007, 02:20 PM

How do RMs determine what scriptures are legitimate, then?

On what basis would you exclude, say, the Apocalypse of Peter?
Uh, its not in the bible?

crawfish

14th March 2007, 04:19 PM

How do RMs determine what scriptures are legitimate, then?

On what basis would you exclude, say, the Apocalypse of Peter?
That's a fairly complex question. :)

Essentially, the feeling is that since it was rejected so early in history (the third century), its inspiration is in question, and should therefore continue to be rejected.

Splayd

14th March 2007, 05:21 PM

Uh, its not in the bible?
But that's essentially Stray Bullet's point. Our tendency to dismiss councils and tradition is perceived as ironic. To depend solely on Scripture, one must first ascertain what Scripture is. The book didn't just fall out of the sky, so the suggestion is that to depend solely on Scripture, we must first depend on the coucils and traditions determination of what Scripture is.

Frame1520

14th March 2007, 05:43 PM

But that's essentially Stray Bullet's point. Our tendency to dismiss councils and tradition is perceived as ironic. To depend solely on Scripture, one must first ascertain what Scripture is. The book didn't just fall out of the sky, so the suggestion is that to depend solely on Scripture, we must first depend on the coucils and traditions determination of what Scripture is.
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Scriptural authority is paramount above any tradition, or council's recommendations...IMO. Anything outside of the Bible itself that claims to be either "inspired" or directly revealed from God is not.

I agree it is important to know the history of how things came to be, and so forth. But, I have yet to find something in life that cannot be explained, remedied, understood, etc. that is not given to us in scripture alone. If i'm missing your point, let me know.:)

stray bullet

14th March 2007, 07:22 PM

You are aware it was the councils and the first Church that decided what would go into canon or not?

The 'bible', NT and OT, are a collection of texts considered inspired. For example, there are at least 13 Gospels, multiple Acts ("Acts" is just Luke's account of things), I believe multiple epistles and multiple Apocalypses (Revelation is what we call the Apocalypse of John).

So if you only go by scripture, how do you decide which texts are inspired and which are not? Why not reject the epistle of John, who is to say it is not inspired? Wouldn't you have to concede that any decision on what is and isn't inspired is a fallible decision- there is nothing stopping fallible humans from believing a false book is inspired?

As was said, the bible didn't just fall out of the sky, a group of bishops put the bible together and everyone has gone along with it since. I'm wondering how your reconcile having your faith defined by texts someone else decided was inspired.

Splayd

15th March 2007, 01:21 AM

Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Scriptural authority is paramount above any tradition, or council's recommendations...IMO. Anything outside of the Bible itself that claims to be either "inspired" or directly revealed from God is not.

I agree it is important to know the history of how things came to be, and so forth. But, I have yet to find something in life that cannot be explained, remedied, understood, etc. that is not given to us in scripture alone. If i'm missing your point, let me know.:)
Yeah - you missed my point ;)
I wasn't necessarily presenting my own view, but trying to clarify Stray Bullet's. I think he's done a good enough job in his follow-up post though.

Whether you agree with him or not, his question raises an interesting point: Is our acceptance of "Scripture" dependant on an acceptance that Tradition and Councils etc... correctly determined/recognised what constitutes Scripture?

Frame1520

15th March 2007, 11:36 AM

Yeah - you missed my point ;)
I wasn't necessarily presenting my own view, but trying to clarify Stray Bullet's. I think he's done a good enough job in his follow-up post though.

Whether you agree with him or not, his question raises an interesting point: Is our acceptance of "Scripture" dependant on an acceptance that Tradition and Councils etc... correctly determined/recognised what constitutes Scripture?
I see what you are saying now. Sorry for the confusion!

DanielRB

26th March 2007, 06:11 AM

Peace, stray bullet :wave:

How do RMs determine what scriptures are legitimate, then?

On what basis would you exclude, say, the Apocalypse of Peter?

This is an excellent question.

Unfortunately, we do not have any apostle directly saying "here are the books that should be considered canonical..." What we have is the history of the early Church.

Long before any Church council made a pronoucement on the canon, certain books were used regularly in worship and quoted by Christian authors, and others were not. I think the first real effort on creating a canon was in resonse to the heretic Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament and a great deal of what we accept as the New Testament. (His view was that the Old Testament was inspired by a false god, and he rejected anything "Jewish" in the the New Testament.)

There were several books that were disputed for many years, but the four-fold gospel, the Acts, Paul's letters, 1 Peter and 1 John were universally accepted as canonical. There was some dispute about Hebrews (mainly because of the uncertainty of the authorship), 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation. But eventually, the Church councils only confirmed that which was already in common usage. (Of course, other things were also in "common usage" at the time, such as infant baptism, the monarchial espiscopate and other things that most in the RM would reject.)

In the end, though, consider: there was a reason why the early Church viewed certain books as "canon" and others outside of that. Sure, they believed that they were correct in some things that today we might disagree; but at least they recognized that these books were "different." They never tried to make, say, the writtings of Ignatius as canon, even though that would give more support to some of their ideas.

I believe that it is a matter of faith that God, through the Holy Spirit, preserved and protected his Word. Now, the Orthodox and the Catholics might also say that the Holy Spirit preserved and protected his Church. However, when there are things that have no written apostolic support contradict things that have written apostolic support, I think it is prudent to go with the written apostolic support. I know that God inspired the apostles; I'm not so sure about some later Church leaders. (Indeed, some leaders eventually were declared heretics...but no apostle was.)

This might lead to a larger discussion, and it's one worthy of a lot of virtual ink. :)

In Christ,

Daniel

annie1speed

26th March 2007, 05:10 PM

We have to believe that God would make sure the Bible we have today for our study is complete and not lacking in any critical information regarding our salvation and Christain walk. We've got to step out on faith here.;)

DanielRB

26th March 2007, 06:37 PM

stray bullet

26th March 2007, 06:54 PM

King of the Nations

27th March 2007, 09:10 AM

Daniel,

:wave:

Great post. If I may...

Peace, stray bullet
This is an excellent question.

Unfortunately, we do not have any apostle directly saying "here are the books that should be considered canonical..." What we have is the history of the early Church.

Long before any Church council made a pronoucement on the canon, certain books were used regularly in worship and quoted by Christian authors, and others were not. I think the first real effort on creating a canon was in resonse to the heretic Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament and a great deal of what we accept as the New Testament. (His view was that the Old Testament was inspired by a false god, and he rejected anything "Jewish" in the the New Testament.)

There were several books that were disputed for many years, but the four-fold gospel, the Acts, Paul's letters, 1 Peter and 1 John were universally accepted as canonical. There was some dispute about Hebrews (mainly because of the uncertainty of the authorship), 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation. But eventually, the Church councils only confirmed that which was already in common usage.

The process of canonization you are describing sounds a whole heck of a lot like tradition to me.

The canon either comes from:

1) Scripture
2) Tradition
3) Episcopal decree

1) No reader will ever locate the NT testament canon in the pages of the OT because it isn't in there. (Nor, of course, is the OT canon generated by Scripture either, as there is no scripture that predates the OT.) Given this, can we make an honest claim for, say, the NT canon being "scriptural"? And if it's not scriptural, then...??? (Can we defend it with any authority?)

2) The word "tradition" in the Latin simply means "that which is handed on". The word does not imply a specific method of transmission (written, oral, or other) and indeed, Paul in one of his letters suggests that some aspects of the Christian faith are passed on my word of mouth, and others by letter. (2 Thess 2:15). Doing things by "consensus" is a manifest demonstration of tradition. This seems to be what you are describing above. "We believe this is what should be in the canon because this is what we've always included in the canon..." essentially. "This is the way we've always done it..."

3) Who, if anyone, makes a definitive pronouncement on what is part of Christian tradition and what is not? You could suggest that the Bible does, but this puts the cart before the proverbial horse. Do we believe "that" because it's in the Bible? Or is it in the Bible because we first believed? Know what I mean?

One could then argue in favor of episcopal decree in this instance also. Obviously it was the bishops of the Church that all got together and gave their "stamp of approval" to the NT canon we have today. The question is, "Was this necessary, or would the canon have simply gelled together properly all by itself as time moved on?" It seems to me that if your answer is that it was necessary for the bishops to make a decree on this, you lean very heavily toward a Catholic approach to the faith and need to re-examine, as others have suggested, your rejection of the other decrees of the same council(s).

If you answer in the negative, that the Bible would have "put itself together", one is forced to ask one's self a difficult question: Which Bible canon has done that? While there are some Christians who have 66 books in their Bibles today, there are others who have 73, and still others who have more. Who's right? Are all 3 wrong? Which canon is correct, and on what basis can one authoritatively make that call?

(Of course, other things were also in "common usage" at the time, such as infant baptism, the monarchial espiscopate and other things that most in the RM would reject.)
Exactly.

In the end, though, consider: there was a reason why the early Church viewed certain books as "canon" and others outside of that. Sure, they believed that they were correct in some things that today we might disagree; but at least they recognized that these books were "different." They never tried to make, say, the writtings of Ignatius as canon, even though that would give more support to some of their ideas.

I believe that it is a matter of faith that God, through the Holy Spirit, preserved and protected his Word.
In what form? Under the canon declared by the Church's bishops in the late 300's? Or were there extra books in place until the 16th century Reformation gave us the current Protestant canon?

;)

Now, the Orthodox and the Catholics might also say that the Holy Spirit preserved and protected his Church. However, when there are things that have no written apostolic support contradict things that have written apostolic support, I think it is prudent to go with the written apostolic support. Why? (Not arguing, just fleshing this all out. See below.)

I know that God inspired the apostles; I'm not so sure about some later Church leaders.
How do you know that? Because what they wrote is in the Bible? :)

Do you see the circular reasoning? And do you realize that not everything the NT authors ever wrote is currently in the NT? Why would some of their writings make it and others not?

(Indeed, some leaders eventually were declared heretics...but no apostle was.)
Other than Judas. (cf. Acts 1:20) And then there was that whole incident with Jesus calling Peter "Satan". (Matt 16:23)

But anyway...:)

This might lead to a larger discussion, and it's one worthy of a lot of virtual ink.
I agree!

Peace,

Greg

DanielRB

27th March 2007, 07:01 PM

Peace, King of the Naitons :wave:

Daniel,

:wave:

Great post. If I may...

The process of canonization you are describing sounds a whole heck of a lot like tradition to me.

The canon either comes from:

1) Scripture
2) Tradition
3) Episcopal decree

I agree. And I'd say we go with 2). Indeed, I don't believe that the Episcopal decrees that went out really were anything more than a recognition of the Tradition that already existed. If a Church council decided to say "throw out the Gospel of John" for example, there would be riots in the Churches and we would at least see some dessention in Church history.

(Now, the Gnostic Gospels are a different issue..but I view Gnosticism as a different religion altogether that sometimes used Christian imagry.)

1) No reader will ever locate the NT testament canon in the pages of the OT because it isn't in there. (Nor, of course, is the OT canon generated by Scripture either, as there is no scripture that predates the OT.) Given this, can we make an honest claim for, say, the NT canon being "scriptural"? And if it's not scriptural, then...??? (Can we defend it with any authority?)

I think the real question is this: do we believe that the Apostles were led by God? If so, is there some way of determining what are the authentic works of the Apostles (or their associates, like Mark or Luke)? We have to go to sources external to the Bible to determine this. A statement by an early Church Father in support of apostolic authorship is certainly good evidence...though in the end, nothing is absolutely conclusive evidence.

2) The word "tradition" in the Latin simply means "that which is handed on". The word does not imply a specific method of transmission (written, oral, or other) and indeed, Paul in one of his letters suggests that some aspects of the Christian faith are passed on my word of mouth, and others by letter. (2 Thess 2:15).

Agreed. Tradition, as Paul indicates, can be both oral and written.

Doing things by "consensus" is a manifest demonstration of tradition. This seems to be what you are describing above. "We believe this is what should be in the canon because this is what we've always included in the canon..." essentially. "This is the way we've always done it..."

Yes, I agree. Innovation should be the hallmark of error, not of truth. The "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), the original apostolic deposit, is to what we should appeal. When someone says "God spoke to me and said..." I would be very careful, because if it doesn't line up with "what we've always done" or "what we've always believed", it's likely to be an error, in my opinion.

3) Who, if anyone, makes a definitive pronouncement on what is part of Christian tradition and what is not? You could suggest that the Bible does, but this puts the cart before the proverbial horse. Do we believe "that" because it's in the Bible? Or is it in the Bible because we first believed? Know what I mean?

I'd say that the earliest Church is the best witness to this. And if, in the analysis, we determine that the earliest Church believed in our canon, that should say something to us. Furthermore, if we believe that what is in our current canon itself is a witness to early Christianity (for example, that the letters of Paul truly date from the mid-first century), then that should be our primary source material for determining the views of the earliest Church. If books from our canon are quoted by the apostolic fathers (or even heretics) as if they have authority, regardless of the conclusion of the apostolic fathers (or heretics), this establishes that the canonical works had authority that was recognized and apealed to in support of different views.

One could then argue in favor of episcopal decree in this instance also. Obviously it was the bishops of the Church that all got together and gave their "stamp of approval" to the NT canon we have today. The question is, "Was this necessary, or would the canon have simply gelled together properly all by itself as time moved on?" It seems to me that if your answer is that it was necessary for the bishops to make a decree on this, you lean very heavily toward a Catholic approach to the faith and need to re-examine, as others have suggested, your rejection of the other decrees of the same council(s).

Agreed. I pretty much don't think a Church Council was necessary. Indeed, I don't put any authority in a church council as a source of authority. Rather, sometimes they concluded what is manifest in the written apostolic deposit, then I think their conclusions were valid. However, if they argue something is apostolic when it contradicts what they themselves view as authoritative (the canon), then I have a problem with it. A Church Council cannot be a source of "new revelation", and I believe the Orthodox and Catholics would agree. It only confirms that something is part of the apostolic deposit or not.

If you answer in the negative, that the Bible would have "put itself together", one is forced to ask one's self a difficult question: Which Bible canon has done that? While there are some Christians who have 66 books in their Bibles today, there are others who have 73, and still others who have more. Who's right? Are all 3 wrong? Which canon is correct, and on what basis can one authoritatively make that call?

Very good question. However, I think if you look at the disputed books--even the Deuterocanonicals--contain nothing that would radically alter our faith. And this works both ways: for example, take the book of Nahum. Let's say, for whatever reason, this was not in the canon. Our faith wouldn't be changed much, would it?

Not all books are like this. Take away Nahum, not much change. But take away Romans and Galatians, and our faith may be substantially different. But Romans and Galatians never have really been disputed (except by those who dismiss Paul's apostleship.)

Exactly.

In what form? Under the canon declared by the Church's bishops in the late 300's? Or were there extra books in place until the 16th century Reformation gave us the current Protestant canon?

;)

See above. I don't think that frankly the Deuterocanoncials make much difference, one way or another.

Why? (Not arguing, just fleshing this all out. See below.)

I feel that the closer we get back to the time of the apostles, the more likely we are to "get it right" about what the apostles actually taught. Saying something was taught by the apostles in an unwritten tradition is one thing; but if it contradicts what they wrote, I'd have to question how authentic that tradition is.

How do you know that? Because what they wrote is in the Bible? :)

Do you see the circular reasoning?

Agreed; it can be circular. However, it's not a question of wholly embracing "Tradition" and wholly rejecting it. Even if you believe that the early Church erred in some ways, you can still appreciate them as a witness of the faith. I don't believe that the church became wholly corrupt after the death of the last apostle. The writings of the New Testament were used as authoritative very early on; therefore, it Christianity has a historical existence, then Church history is a witness to the recognized authority of the apostles.

And do you realize that not everything the NT authors ever wrote is currently in the NT? Why would some of their writings make it and others not?

Of course. However, I believe that God providentially preserved what we need. If, say, we suddenly found Paul's other letters to the Corinthians or letter to the Laodicians, I doubt if his message would be materially affected.

Other than Judas. (cf. Acts 1:20) And then there was that whole incident with Jesus calling Peter "Satan". (Matt 16:23)

But anyway...:)

I agree!

Peace,

Greg

Peace to you as well,

Daniel

JDIBe

27th March 2007, 09:01 PM

King of the Nations

28th March 2007, 01:31 AM

Possible Scriptural evidence for a canon?....

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Maybe.

Here's the problem with that:

#1 What "other scriptures"?

#2 Are the writings of Paul that we have in the NT the only writings of Paul? And is everything that Paul writes automatically supposed to be considered Scripture? Or are there limitations to this?

#3 Paul isn't the sole author of the NT.

#4 "scriptures" in this citation may be meant in a more general sense (of "writings" in general) and may not have the authoritative inferrence we would otherwise think.

#5 Even if it is meant in the specific canonical sense, you're then using one Scripture to prove another, which is circular reasoning. (Unless you're prepared to make some sort of argument for apsotolic authority).

Aaaaaaand....Yeah. I think that's it....

;)

Greg

King of the Nations

28th March 2007, 01:56 AM

Hi Daniel,

A very interesting post, your last one.

If you don't mind my saying it, it does seem to "dance around" quite a bit. I'm not sure I understand. (Again, not arguing, just trying to flesh this out...) Allow me to zero in on this particular section:

Yes, I agree. Innovation should be the hallmark of error, not of truth. The "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), the original apostolic deposit, is to what we should appeal. When someone says "God spoke to me and said..." I would be very careful, because if it doesn't line up with "what we've always done" or "what we've always believed", it's likely to be an error, in my opinion.

Ok. Fair enough.

My question, though, would be: How would one go about locating the original deposit of faith? Who or what presents it to us in its entirety? If a Catholic says, "This is what we've always done" and a Lutheran says, "This is what we've always done" and a Baptist says, "This is what we've always done..." Who's right, and on what basis do you make that call?

In one breath, you seem to suggest that Scripture (alone) presents us with the deposit of faith, while in another, you suggest Tradition. And then in a third breath, you almost suggest that it's the elders of the Church that present it to us.

I'm confused...;)

If books from our canon are quoted by the apostolic fathers (or even heretics) as if they have authority, regardless of the conclusion of the apostolic fathers (or heretics), this establishes that the canonical works had authority that was recognized and apealed to in support of different views.
I don't understand what you mean...?

Agreed. I pretty much don't think a Church Council was necessary. Indeed, I don't put any authority in a church council as a source of authority. Rather, sometimes they concluded what is manifest in the written apostolic deposit, then I think their conclusions were valid. However, if they argue something is apostolic when it contradicts what they themselves view as authoritative (the canon), then I have a problem with it. A Church Council cannot be a source of "new revelation", and I believe the Orthodox and Catholics would agree. It only confirms that something is part of the apostolic deposit or not.
:)

Do you see how you're putting the cart in front of the horse here?

Greg

JDIBe

28th March 2007, 07:00 AM

Maybe.

Here's the problem with that:

#1 What "other scriptures"?

#2 Are the writings of Paul that we have in the NT the only writings of Paul? And is everything that Paul writes automatically supposed to be considered Scripture? Or are there limitations to this?

#3 Paul isn't the sole author of the NT.

#4 "scriptures" in this citation may be meant in a more general sense (of "writings" in general) and may not have the authoritative inferrence we would otherwise think.

#5 Even if it is meant in the specific canonical sense, you're then using one Scripture to prove another, which is circular reasoning. (Unless you're prepared to make some sort of argument for apsotolic authority).

Aaaaaaand....Yeah. I think that's it....

;)

Greg

Greg,

1. The Old Testament.
2. No. Only the circulating letters that Paul wrote that apparently Peter and his audience knew about.
3. Right. My purpose was not to suggest that a canon was fully formed by Peter's time. (The Apostles were still alive. There would be no need.) My purpose was to suggest that perhaps there was the beginnings of a canon in codex form very early in the church.
4. "Scriptures" - graphē From G1125; a document, that is, holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it): - scripture.
5. First you say "You cannot find the canon in Scripture", then suddenly it's not good enough and "circular reasoning". Yes, I am prepared to make an argument for Apostolic Authority. I believe the Apostles had full authority in the church from God. Past that, is a different matter. (and the early church Father's writings showed that respect too.)

I'm not saying a fully formed canon was in effect by the time of II Peter. But it seems there might have been the beginnings of one. After all, as Daniel alluded to above, there had to be something in place for Marcion to rebel against. One cannot change what is not there. Yes, the canon was not fully formed at this time, but a group of men did not get together at Nicea and put 27 books out of thin air, either...

DanielRB

28th March 2007, 08:32 AM

Peace, King of the Nations :wave:

Hi Daniel,

A very interesting post, your last one.

If you don't mind my saying it, it does seem to "dance around" quite a bit. I'm not sure I understand. (Again, not arguing, just trying to flesh this out...) Allow me to zero in on this particular section:

Ok. Fair enough.

My question, though, would be: How would one go about locating the original deposit of faith? Who or what presents it to us in its entirety? If a Catholic says, "This is what we've always done" and a Lutheran says, "This is what we've always done" and a Baptist says, "This is what we've always done..." Who's right, and on what basis do you make that call?

Sorry, I'll try to clarify what I'm saying.

Yes, there are different appeals to tradition. However, not all appeals to tradition are equally likely. For example, if someone trys to say "we received from the apostles that we should use organs in worship, but eletric guitars are from the devil" I would be quite skeptical--the tradition just isn't supported by any evidence. (Of course, no one makes this claim--it's just an extreme example to show my point.)

In one breath, you seem to suggest that Scripture (alone) presents us with the deposit of faith, while in another, you suggest Tradition. And then in a third breath, you almost suggest that it's the elders of the Church that present it to us.

I'm confused...;)

I'll try to be more clear: I'm suggesting that authority rests with Scripture alone, but church fathers are evidence to the early acceptance of that authority, showing that the tradition of the canon goes back to the 1st century.

Scripture alone is the final authority. But there are many witnesses to that authority. Does this clarify what I'm saying? I don't appeal to the church fathers or unwritten traditions as authority, only as evidence.

I don't understand what you mean...?

When people try to bolster their position, they use different methods of argument. Ancient non-canonical writings that appear to be authentic have people appealing to what we call "The Bible" today has having some kind of authority. This suggests that recognition of that authority was common. You don't quote someone to support your position and say "the apostles said" or "the Holy Spirit said" if you don't believe it, and if your audience doesn't believe it. I hope this clarifys what I mean.

:)

Do you see how you're putting the cart in front of the horse here?

Greg

Not really. All I am saying is that I'm looking at evidence, both in the Bible and external to the Bible, to see if the Bible is the authentic apostolic deposit. The Bible itself claims to be, but of course this isn't sufficient evidence, in that even the Q'uran claims to be the Word of God. Also, internal to the Bible there should be no glaring contradictions of a material nature. (Consistency doesn't guarantee truth, but inconsistancy proves at least partial error.)

Looking outside of the Bible, the early church writers used the Bible as a support for their views. This suggests that the Bible was long recognized as having support and recognized as apostolic in origin.

Does this method guarantee absolute truth? Of course not; nothing guarantees that. But it suggests to me that the belief that the Bible is the authentic Word of God is not unreasonable.

In Christ,

Daniel

King of the Nations

28th March 2007, 10:10 AM

Greg,

1. The Old Testament.

Does it say that? ;) Assuming that is an accurate reference, the one problem that remains is that the OT canon was not closed or firmly decided upon by that time anyway. So...

2. No. Only the circulating letters that Paul wrote that apparently Peter and his audience knew about.

*smiley*

Forgive me. I'm not here to debate. For that reason, I hesitate to press this particular point further, but....This begs a couple questions: #1 Which audience? and #2 Define "circulating". Not trying to be difficult. Just trying to keep us honest.

As Christians (and as humans for that matter), I think we often have a tendency to believe that that which is, always was. Or, in other words, in the case of the NT canon, that the books that are included in it are there because they are the only letters that the apostles wrote. (Forget for a moment that not all the books in the NT were written by apostles.) Not so. There were hundreds of other writings that existed in the first couple centuries A.D. that contended for a place in scripture, but were not granted the green light. Why? Was it because they didn't fit with the canon the OT provided for us? Or was it because when studied, the Church decided that not all of what was written in these letters was in full accord with previously existing Christian revelation?

If the answer is the latter, how can one make a legitimate case for what is traditionally known as "sola scriptura", which says that "we believe because it is written", rather than the other way around?

3. Right. My purpose was not to suggest that a canon was fully formed by Peter's time. (The Apostles were still alive. There would be no need.) My purpose was to suggest that perhaps there was the beginnings of a canon in codex form very early in the church.
Which would have come from where? (Not agreeing or disagreeing that there was at this point. Just literally enquiring as to where it would have come from, were it there.)

4. "Scriptures" - graphē From G1125; a document, that is, holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it): - scripture.
Where does the definition come from?

5. First you say "You cannot find the canon in Scripture", then suddenly it's not good enough and "circular reasoning".
:)

Sorry. I understand the confusion. Allow me to clarify:

Jesus himself, in John 5:31, states, "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified."

An otherwise obvious point. Anybody and anything can make any claims they want to. Jesus claimed he was the Son of God. I could claim I'm the Son of God. Ralph down the street could claim he's the Son of God. By virtue of each of our claims alone, the truth cannot be verified. There must be some sort of independent verification in place for us to be able to rely definitively on what's being claimed.

The Bible makes a claim of being the word of God. Big deal. So does the Book of Mormon. Neither claims mean anything until we have "independent" verification.

But before we get to that step, technically, there is another: Does the Bible even delineate the canon to begin with? I admit I had forgotten about that reference from Peter when I suggested that the answer is no. One could argue with the verse you cited that it does partially. But even if it does, (and that's currently in dispute) see above.

Yes, I am prepared to make an argument for Apostolic Authority. I believe the Apostles had full authority in the church from God. Past that, is a different matter. (and the early church Father's writings showed that respect too.)
So, how did the gospel of Mark and Luke and the book of Acts, for example, get in the canon when Mark and Luke were not apostles?

I'm not saying a fully formed canon was in effect by the time of II Peter. But it seems there might have been the beginnings of one. After all, as Daniel alluded to above, there had to be something in place for Marcion to rebel against. One cannot change what is not there. Yes, the canon was not fully formed at this time, but a group of men did not get together at Nicea and put 27 books out of thin air, either...I concur with you. The bishops did not gather at Nicea and put the NT together out of thin air. They did so at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

;)

(Kidding...:)...Well....partly. About the thin air part. It was at Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th century, not Nicea.)

I would concur with the notion that a canon was beginning to form from the time the apostles began writing their own works. The problem is that that was a bit of an "amorphous" process that culminated in the need for a couple Church councils to finally formally and definitively declare, "Here is what is Scripture and what is not" at the end of the 4th century. One must ask oneself, "If everybody already knew, what were the councils for?"

And that's just in reference to the New Testament. The Old was in question as well, seeing as how there was more than one version of the OT canon in existence at this time also, the Jews making use of one version and Christians usually making use of another. Thus, the councils were called to formally and finally pronounce to the Church just what deserved canonical status and what did not.

The question(s) of the hour: Did they get it right? And on what basis can we assert our answer?

(Further, if our answer is "Yes", why do our Bibles only have 66 books in them while the canon defined in the 4th century had 73?)

;)

Peace,

Greg

King of the Nations

28th March 2007, 10:11 AM

Double post

King of the Nations

29th March 2007, 11:19 AM

Peace, King of the Nations :wave:

Sorry, I'll try to clarify what I'm saying.

Yes, there are different appeals to tradition. However, not all appeals to tradition are equally likely. For example, if someone trys to say "we received from the apostles that we should use organs in worship, but eletric guitars are from the devil" I would be quite skeptical--the tradition just isn't supported by any evidence. (Of course, no one makes this claim--it's just an extreme example to show my point.)

I'll try to be more clear: I'm suggesting that authority rests with Scripture alone, but church fathers are evidence to the early acceptance of that authority, showing that the tradition of the canon goes back to the 1st century.

Scripture alone is the final authority. But there are many witnesses to that authority. Does this clarify what I'm saying? I don't appeal to the church fathers or unwritten traditions as authority, only as evidence.

When people try to bolster their position, they use different methods of argument. Ancient non-canonical writings that appear to be authentic have people appealing to what we call "The Bible" today has having some kind of authority. This suggests that recognition of that authority was common. You don't quote someone to support your position and say "the apostles said" or "the Holy Spirit said" if you don't believe it, and if your audience doesn't believe it. I hope this clarifys what I mean.

Not really. All I am saying is that I'm looking at evidence, both in the Bible and external to the Bible, to see if the Bible is the authentic apostolic deposit. The Bible itself claims to be, but of course this isn't sufficient evidence, in that even the Q'uran claims to be the Word of God. Also, internal to the Bible there should be no glaring contradictions of a material nature. (Consistency doesn't guarantee truth, but inconsistancy proves at least partial error.)

Looking outside of the Bible, the early church writers used the Bible as a support for their views. This suggests that the Bible was long recognized as having support and recognized as apostolic in origin.

Does this method guarantee absolute truth? Of course not; nothing guarantees that. But it suggests to me that the belief that the Bible is the authentic Word of God is not unreasonable.

In Christ,

Daniel

Daniel,

Sorry, I actually wrote a fairly lengthy reply to this post yesterday, but then had the grievous experience of seeing it disappear before posting as the computer screen continued telling me something about a "Database Error" on CF.

:eek: :doh: :mad:

It's probably all just as well because I may have "rabbit-trailed" a bit too much anyway. Stepping back and focusing a bit now, I would simply ask if the following is a fair summary of your thoughts:

We have no way of knowing definitively whether or not the Bible is the word of God. All we have is evidence (fairly strong) in the way of references by early Church fathers and other works that the Bible is indeed what it claims to be.

?

Greg

DanielRB

29th March 2007, 06:54 PM

Peace, King of the Nations :wave:

Daniel,

Sorry, I actually wrote a fairly lengthy reply to this post yesterday, but then had the grievous experience of seeing it disappear before posting as the computer screen continued telling me something about a "Database Error" on CF.

:eek: :doh: :mad:

It's probably all just as well because I may have "rabbit-trailed" a bit too much anyway. Stepping back and focusing a bit now, I would simply ask if the following is a fair summary of your thoughts:

We have no way of knowing definitively whether or not the Bible is the word of God. All we have is evidence (fairly strong) in the way of references by early Church fathers and other works that the Bible is indeed what it claims to be.

?

Greg

I got the same database error yesterday as well.

I would say that the only definitive way we "know" that the Bible is the Word of God is through faith. There is evidence that can take you so far, but in the end, it is faith. So yes, I think you've summerized my thoughts.

We walk by faith and not by sight. :)

In Christ,

Daniel

JDIBe

30th March 2007, 12:47 AM

Does it say that? ;) Assuming that is an accurate reference, the one problem that remains is that the OT canon was not closed or firmly decided upon by that time anyway. So...

I'm not so sure I aree with your statement regarding the OT canon. Particularly "the Law and the Prophets". The OT canon was MUCH less tenuous by the 4th Century than one would believe.

Josephus (c. 95) in Against Apion
1. “We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition respecting the origin of man, and continue the history down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years.3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books. The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of men.4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets. 5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them. For although so great a period has
already passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them

I believe that is an accurate reference as there are numerous other passages in the NT in which the same word (graphe) is used (including Peter) followed by a OT (canon) quote. Our Lord and Savior quotes the Scripture numerous times in the 4 Gospels and EVERY SINGLE TIME it is a from a Book in the current OT, both Jewish and Catholic.

*smiley*

Forgive me. I'm not here to debate. For that reason, I hesitate to press this particular point further, but....This begs a couple questions: #1 Which audience? and #2 Define "circulating". Not trying to be difficult. Just trying to keep us honest.

1. I would assume the same audience as I Peter:

IPet 1:1
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
II Peter 3:1-2
1 This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write unto you; and in both of them I stir up your
sincere mind by putting you in remembrance;
2 that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles:

This is reasonable since II Peter is not addressed to a single church. I believe this is in accord with the traditional interpretation of the background of I&II Peter.

2. By "circulating" I would think, present in the churches that Peter was writing to: the churches scattered
throughout Asia. Certain epistles were written in a general style to be sent as circular letters (ex. I Peter
above). Not only does the above state that I&II Peter were circulating, it suggests that Paul's letters were
too, for how can one expect to reference something which one's audience had never heard of and expect them to understand?

Which would have come from where? (Not agreeing or disagreeing that there was at this point. Just literally enquiring as to where it would have come from, were it there.)

Couldn't say for sure. I seem to have heard one theory that the church at Ephesus was the distribution point.
But right now it probably is more important that we establish among ourselves that there WAS a beginning canon being spread before we talk about how and where. If we can't agree on that, how and where is irrevalent.

Where does the definition come from?

This definition comes from Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. The word is also found in, but not limited
to, these verses as well:

Every scripture (graphe) inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction which is in righteousness.
That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures (graphe): " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? (Matthew 21:42)

But how then would the Scriptures (graphe) be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" (Matthew 26:54)

Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures
(graphe) must be fulfilled." (Mark 14:49)

"I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture (graphe): 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.' (John 13:18)

"Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the
scripture (graphe) might be fulfilled (John 19:24)

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture (graphe): "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Acts 8:32)

As the Scripture (graphe) says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." (Romans 10:11)

And the scripture (graphe) was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. (James 2:23)

But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture (graphe) says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." (James 4:6)

For in Scripture (graphe) it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." (1 Peter 2:6)

:)

Sorry. I understand the confusion. Allow me to clarify:

Jesus himself, in John 5:31, states, "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified."

An otherwise obvious point. Anybody and anything can make any claims they want to. Jesus claimed he was the Son of God. I could claim I'm the Son of God. Ralph down the street could claim he's the Son of God. By virtue of each of our claims alone, the truth cannot be verified. There must be some sort of independent verification in place for us to be able to rely definitively on what's being claimed.

The Bible makes a claim of being the word of God. Big deal. So does the Book of Mormon. Neither claims mean anything until we have "independent" verification.

I would love to have "independent" verification that Moses parted the Red Sea. I would love to have "independent" verification of the many miracles performed by Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles. Sometimes you just have to make the best of what you have. That is faith. You take the evidence you have and form the best, most reasonable conclusion. Part of that evidence IS early church writings which are quite useful.

However evidence FOR A Gospel, is not inherently PART OF the Gospel just as a Notary stamp on a contract does not bind the Notary to the terms of the contract. It only signifies the Notary was witness to the signing.

So, how did the gospel of Mark and Luke and the book of Acts, for example, get in the canon when Mark and Luke were not apostles?

I did not say that all Books were written by Apostles (James and Jude as well..). I simply said they had full
authority. If any of these books were not in accordance with God's Will they would have quashed them quickly.
(BTW, it is thought that Mark drew upon Peter's experiences in the writing of Mark...)

I would concur with the notion that a canon was beginning to form from the time the apostles began writing their own works. The problem is that that was a bit of an "amorphous" process that culminated in the need for a couple Church councils to finally formally and definitively declare, "Here is what is Scripture and what is not" at the end of the 4th century. One must ask oneself, "If everybody already knew, what were the councils for?"

And that's just in reference to the New Testament. The Old was in question as well, seeing as how there was more than one version of the OT canon in existence at this time also, the Jews making use of one version and Christians usually making use of another. Thus, the councils were called to formally and finally pronounce to the Church just what deserved canonical status and what did not.

The question(s) of the hour: Did they get it right? And on what basis can we assert our answer?

(Further, if our answer is "Yes", why do our Bibles only have 66 books in them while the canon defined in the 4th century had 73?)

And I would have to state at this point that process was considerably less "amorphous" than you seem to be
implying. The Councils did not have to sit there and sift through hundreds of books to pick the right ones.
They were, IMO, already there. Naming a mountain is not the same as building one. For what it is worth, yes, as far as the NT I believe they got it right. I do not believe there is any doctrine in any other book that could be seriously considered that would change the Good News as we know it.
The reason we have 66 books instead of 73 is because we believe the Jews can probably decide for themselves
what Inspired Word was given to them much better than we can.

Rom. 3:1-2
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.

There are some people over in the non-D. forum, and some Catholics as well, who I have great respect for. On some points of Christianity, I feel they are right on. However, there are some on which we would disagree.
There is good in many places. That does not mean all things with good in them are purely good. I feel God entrusted the Jews with His Word in the OT. They would be in the best position to decide what is and what isn't Inspired revelation to them. However, I would not go to a Jew for instruction on salvation, for I feel a certain "blind spot" exists as to other aspects to God's Plan.

However, if you feel you must include the OT Apocrypha as part of your Bible, then fine. There is nothing there that would cause us to disagree on any point in the NT, where our salvation lies.

JDIBe

30th March 2007, 12:59 AM

As Christians (and as humans for that matter), I think we often have a tendency to believe that that which is, always was. Or, in other words, in the case of the NT canon, that the books that are included in it are there because they are the only letters that the apostles wrote. (Forget for a moment that not all the books in the NT were written by apostles.) Not so. There were hundreds of other writings that existed in the first couple centuries A.D. that contended for a place in scripture, but were not granted the green light. Why? Was it because they didn't fit with the canon the OT provided for us? Or was it because when studied, the Church decided that not all of what was written in these letters was in full accord with previously existing Christian revelation?

If the answer is the latter, how can one make a legitimate case for what is traditionally known as "sola scriptura", which says that "we believe because it is written", rather than the other way around?

Greg,

I agree that is a tendency. However, I sense a "that which was, always is" feeling so to speak here, that I do not have.

The earliest Christians did not have a NT Canon. There was no need for one. They had the Apostles. Their teaching was directly from them. As time passed and the church grew, teaching went from purely oral to both oral and written in the form of Epistles, both addressed to specific churches and circular. I once was asked by an atheist as to why the Gospels were written so long after the death of Jesus. I replied, (and still do believe today) for 2 reasons...

1. To gain perspective on the ministry and teachings of Jesus, and
2. Because there would soon come a time when those primary witnesses would be gone. A written record was needed to preserve their testimony.

Times and circumstances change. That is why I believe that a legitimate case can be made for Sola Scriptura today. How much of a 1st century christian's education came from written testimony and how much oral? I do not know. It does not matter. Because you and I Greg, are 1900 years removed from them and find ourselves in a very different situation today. The only thing close to a primary source we have is the Written Word. The reason that these hundreds of books were not considered Scripture was because the early Christians recognized they were not in accordance with the Apostle's teachings. It was not "written because we believe". It was "written because it was taught". By going to the Scriptures, you have the words of Jesus himself and those who saw, walked, and talked with Him. There can be no greater authority. The Early Church Fathers felt the same way. I have never read "Thus saith Eusebius". All else is clouded by history and opinion (to various degrees).

If you have come to this forum fishing for a thank you for the Catholic Church for having a hand in forming the Canon, well then...

"Thank you".

BTW, I have tried to answer your questions as best as I can, here is one that popped into my head...

How do you know what Eusebius said? Chrystodom? Justin Martyr? Origen? Augustine? It it not because it is written? How do you know you have all the writings and the last word on the subjects from these men?

Perhaps we both are "sola Scriptura" after all. It's just your "Scriptura" is a little bit different than mine...:)