The Limitations Of HIstorical Study

Ah,...when the facts go against you and you have no facts to validate your position, then ridicule the other position. Actually it was not a small small group of men but the undivided Catholic Church (NOTE: Catholic in the early councils has NOTHING to do with the later Roman Catholic church which developed over time. Catholic means universal and meant that the Church unilike Israel was universal composed of all races of people). Thank God for them. The early Church unlike our modern Christianity did not have Bibles readily available and the official Canonization was a way of preventing heretical books or writings as being viewed as the Word of God. Many of the NT books had already been settled as Canon but there was debate over others. If you come across as pretending the early Church understood all the books which were Canon and which were not, then our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends will eat you up in a debate for the facts speak against that position and we give them the high ground when we pretend the New Testament Canon just fell out of the sky.

God of course we know determined which books were in the canon and it was a discovery process for the Church and oral tradition also helped preserve the memory of which books were authentic, and which were not but make no mistake there were debates over certain books. Without the councils of Hippo and Carthage I wonder if heretical books over time may have crept into the NT Canon?

Of course this gives problems for Landmarkers in that it was the Catholic churches that were being the defenders of the faith in regard to Holy Scripture in the 4th century and battling Arian and Gnostic heretics while our supposed mythical Baptist ancestors were hiding in the wilderness until they decided to come out of hiding in the 15 and 1600's.

 

Certain churches were doubtful as to its divine inspiration, yes, until Carthage 397 settled the issue. If they genuinely believed that the book was not of divine origin, then its anathema counts as nothing. Again, just because the author claims it contains the words of Jesus and pronounces anthema on those who deny its inspiration doesn't necessarily mean anything (The Qu'ran contains similar dire threats for example - doesn't make it divinely inspired, does it?)

"God is the one who confirms their canonicity to us, not some ancient Catholic council."

It was the above kind of subjective approach that caused all the pre-Carthage problems in the first place - every Tom, Dick and Harry (and pretty much every church for that matter too) was standing up and claiming that they and they alone had the 'proper canon' because "God told me" (how very charismatic sounding!), with all the contradictory and anarchic results to which my earlier post referred; it needed all the churches getting together at Carthage to sort out the problem once and for all. Your subjective approach would have continued that anarchy

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Translation: "And you will maintain your anti-Mark-Osgatharp's-interpretative-scriptural observations no matter which Scriptures I may subjectively pontificate on so what's the use"

 

No one here is questioning the inspiration of Scripture and I don't believe any of the Fathers were questioning the nature of inspiration itself. They did want to make it certain that only those that were inspired should be in the Canon.

There is no question that some questioned it canonicity. There is no question that Jesus issued this warning.

No, one I know of has said that. That the book of Revelation is in the Canon is proof that the majority did view it as the WORD OF GOD. The council of Carthage in 397 A.D. was a official confirmation of the New Testament Canon in order to prevent heretical books from entering the Canon.

Mark, you are barking up the wrong tree. That Revelation is in the Canon is proof that the vast majority of Churches DID...Do you understand that? However just because a Book claimed inspiration or claimed Jesus was speaking did not make it inspired. The Gnostic gospels claim to tell the story of Jesus but were rejected as heretical. Revelation was determined to be the Word of God however.

No it doesn't. The early Church did not have a leatherbound New Testament and there were other books that claimed canonicity such as the Didache, Shepherd of Hermes. It was important for the Churches to have a official canon and determine which were the writings of the Apostles. If they did not do this then false books would enter the Canon. You are judging 2nd through 4th century Christianity by 21st century standards. There was no printing press and communication was difficult and the 27 books of the NT were not neatly arranged. The Canon did not just fall out of the sky when John finished Revelation in the later 1st century. The purpose of these Councils were to solidify the Canon and in doing so they were defending the faith.

 

Kiffin,
Excellent post. All very good points.

 

Ditto.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Mark,

I am making an inference, but are you now adding to the list of what is necessary for a "baptist" church that they accept the same canon and same concept of inspiration as you? How far can this go? We are now bordering on the absurd. No, wait, I think the absurd was presented already. What's next that they had to wear a suit and tie to church and wear green socks on Thursdays? That they had to be 5-point Calvinists? How did we get here? This is the kind of absurdity that nonhistorical theologizing can produce, and despite what you present, Mark, the logical conclusions of your argument can lead to speculations like those I have enumerated.

I am embarrassed to be a "baptist if you are right. No, wait, I wouldn't be a "baptist" if you are right. Ok, I'm going off to join the Methodists so I can make more money. If I'm not going to heaven, then I might as well make the best out of the time I'm here.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

I am talking about the New Testament here, not the Old. The OT was settled by the (Jewish) Council of Jamnia/ Javneh in 90AD - since the OT was a Jewish work (Before you jump on me, yes it is divine as well), the Jews had authority to decide what was canonical; the church (at Carthage as it happened) had authority to fix the NT canon similarly.

My basic contention is that the weakness in your position suggests the following (slightly tongue-in-cheek) scenario:

Apostle John puts down his pen after finishing Revelation, heaves a sigh, rubs his eyes tiredly; when he opens them againhe says: "What's this I see before me?Well if it isn't a leather-bound New Testament (KJV in English not Greek of course) with all 27 books including the one I've just finished writing"

You've accused Thomas and I of Catholic tendencies (which are denied); I'm afraid with your view we are closer to Joseph Smith miraculously discovering the Book of Mormon

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I don't think your read carefull enough Mark. There were books that were questionable by some and not necessarily because they were heretics but more so for lack of knowledge of some of these books. Do you actually even think at the end of the Apostolic age that the average Christian knew there were 27 NT books? I don't think so! There was no official canon at the time though we know what those 27 books are now. The first few hundred years of Christianity was a infant stage for the Church and not everyone was aware that 27 books had been written mainly because of geography, lack of communication over thge long differances, no printing press etc...You continue to act like in the 2nd through 4th centuries these books were in a neat like Gideon New Testament. They had to make sure which books were inspired through careful prayer and investigation. That they did investigations into each book to make sure it was inspired shows how much they revered the Word of God. By AD 397 the Churches made it official which Books were in the Canon.

 

I take it from this that you accept the Apocrypha as being canonical?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt, it's no use. Never mind that most (but not all) of the books of the Bible (taken individually) don't claim specific inspiration for themselves. Never mind that we don't have a divinely inspired table of contents either. Never mind that spurious books claiming both apostolic authorship and divine inspiration were produced early in church history forcing people to clearly define the extent of the canon (ie which books were in fact divinely inspired and authored by apostles). Never mind that this process took centuries. Some people will persist in their ahistorical notion that the Bible fell from the sky in its current 66 book format complete with table of contents, maps, and mini-concordance. These same people will persist in branding anyone who disagrees with them as "Catholics" or "anti-Christ heretics". They will also continue to pretend that "true" Christians...er..Baptists...existed since the time of the Apostles despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the existence of such imaginary believers. Their ahistorical theology based on their subjective novel biblical interpretation demands the existence of such believers and of a Bible that fell from the sky, so both must be true!

(Aside: The 2nd Epistle of Peter indeed calls the writings of Paul "Scripture", but how do we know that this book itself is divinely inspired? The book itself doesn't say "this epistle is divinely inspired", and even if we did, how do we know it's not spurious? Just some thoughts to consider...)