The Limitations Of HIstorical Study

Doubting Thomas,

Uh, let me venture a guess..... .....because the Council of Carthage said so!

LOL HEHEHE HOHOHO

Question: Do you believe that the Council of Carthage was correct when it declared the books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees to be the inspired word of God?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Matt, notice also that when some folks can't answer how they know that a specific book is in fact inspired (other than the fact it happens to be in the leatherbound Bible in their hand) they resort to evasion.

Somebody determined which books were inspired and which were not. Somebody collected the truly inspired apostolic books in the Bible to distinguish the authentic Word of God from the spurious claimants. Both these processes were done despite having no divinely inspired table of contents. It seems that some people will refuse to give any credit to the ones that made these decisions despite the fact that the specific collection of books in their hands was a result of those same decisions.

 

Sola Scriptura in the most rigid of senses is impossible! We must have the tradition of the church (note please this includes history--however you want to describe it Mark) in order to define the canon and come to a proper interpretation of that canon.

I have no problem with being called a catholic ("general") baptist, so bring it on!

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Are you going to answer this question, DoubtingThomas?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps if you answer the ones I asked first.

 

Excellent Danny! One of the majors problems with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is making scripture and tradition equal. One of the major problems with many Baptists is a total rejection of tradition (accept for those who accept the Trail of Blood or John Christian ) While tradition is not equal with scripture it is not irrelevant either. I think the Church of England had a better balance on this than most Protestant bodies. I have no problems being called a Evangelical Catholic or a Catholic Baptist. Too often Baptists give in to the RCC and assume the Church Fathers are the property of the Papacy. The Church Fathers are the heritage of all Christians.

 

I think that has been answered. YES! But you assume all Christians knew there were 27 books of the New Testament. They didn't! The fact is Revelation was accepted at the Council. There were debates about it because of lack of knowledge of all the books...I mean they didn't have the internet, or Nelson or Zondervan New Testaments to help them.

No it was not correct. Jerome opposed it's inclusion but was over ruled. No one is claiming Carthage was infallible. The Apocrypha books are great literature, especially 1 and 2nd Macabbees, Tobit. Interesting among the Protestant Reformers, many of the Anabaptists (And not the heretical ones) accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture and some still do and if you read some old Anabaptist sermons you will find them freely quoting from it. Even the protestant forerunners, the Waldenses quoted from the Apocrypha though it is uncertain if they viewed them as Canon or held them strictly to be good devotional literature like the later Anglican Church and 1611 KJV did. I personaly don't think the Apocrypha contradicts any Bible doctrine but the books are just not inspired. 1 and 2nd Maccabees however provide a vital link of history between the time of Malachi and the Gospels that should be taught in Church but only as history but not as scripture. So yes, Mark they were wrong and made a mistake but Luther and the Protestant Reformers corrected their mistake 1100 years later. Aren't you glad?

By the way do you agree that the Council of Carthage were right on the 27 New Testament books?

 

I think I have already answered these, but here goes:-

1 Yes, because it is canonical. BUT, just because a work allegedly contains an anathema purporting to be Jesus', does not make it canonical

2. No. I have already given my reason for that, namely that Carthage was about the NT not the OT, which had already been settled. You were unhappy with my explanation and that is entirely a matter for you

You still haven't proposed an alternative method of how the canon was determined, other than by implication the 'Book of Mormon' method I described in my last post. So, I ask again: How do you say the canon was determined?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

....................................

You still haven't proposed an alternative method of how the canon was determined, other than by implication the 'Book of Mormon' method I described in my last post. So, I ask again: How do you say the canon was determined?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]I've been waiting for that too, but I don't think we should hold our breath expecting an answer.

 

I think I have already answered these, but here goes:-

1 Yes, because it is canonical.</font>[/QUOTE].

Then you acknowledge that it was canonical before the Council of Carthage so that council becomes irrelevant so far as determining what books are canonical.

Matt: Yes it is, for without Carthage we wouldnt know it was canonical

No, it does not, and neither does the fact that some Council of Catholic bishops declares a book to be canonical make it so. You acknowledge this very truth in your answer to the next question.

Wrong! Your suggestion implies that you or I could sit down and write a 'book' purporting to contain the words of Jesus which pronounces as anathema any who doubt that it is the Word of God; this is the classic manipulatve technique of the religious charlatan. Hmm...the more we go on, the more parallels with Joseph Smith emerge....

No. I have already given my reason for that, namely that Carthage was about the NT not the OT, which had already been settled. You were unhappy with my explanation and that is entirely a matter for you.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I was very happy with your answer because it made it obvious how ridiculous your argument is. How can the Council of Carthage be trusted as a guide to canon of the New Testament if it was not correct in regard to the canon of the Old Testament?

Matt: because the OT had already been ruled upon; the NT had not - unless you know of an earlier ruling

The canon was determined by Jesus Christ when He sent forth the Apostles as prophets of the New Testament.

Matt: so Jesus said that the NT contains 27 books and then proceeded to list them? That's strange, because my NT doesn't say that; you obviously have a version I don't?

It is the work of God to lead an individual to faith in the words of His prophets. Therefore any attempt to prove their authenticy is an exercise in futility - whether it be by the Council of Carthage or any other individual or council.

As to when these books were first gathered into one, I do not know and have no need to know.


Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Matt: Really??? So you're perfectly happy to trust the publisher of your Bible that he's got it right

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Then, the question remains how do you know that the collection of 66 books found in your Bible is the correct one? Why isn't the Bible that has the "Deuterocanonicals" the one that has the correct collection? How do you know that Jesus didn't mean for the "Deuterocanonicals" to be included, and that you are subtracting from God's Word? (Indeed, these books were uniformly regarded as Scripture by the Christians during the first few centuries of the Church.) How do you know you are right other than your own subjective preference?

 

Everyone agrees on that

Some but the 27 book Canon was never seriously challenged by any Church council or Church since then.

Of course they had the ability to discern but not everyone had heard of the book or were certain it was wrote by an Apostle. Even the Bereans, scripture says investigated Paul teachings to make sure in lined up with overall scripture and he complimented them on it.

I thought being a good Landmarker you had more respect for Church authority than that Mark. If the Council of Carthage had rejected some of the 27 books or received others in those 27 would remain the Word of God. Of course your KJV Bible might have the Shephard of Hermes, Didache, 1 and 2nd Clement in it also. Even though they were wrong on the Apocrypha that was corrected by the Protestant Reformation showing God is sovereign.

Mark, it is no myth that the Canon was not settled until the Council of Carthage. In a real sense there was no official set Canon as far as Christians were concerned until AD 397. This is proven by the fact that between the 2nd and 4th century there were found differant Canons in Christian churches and most Churches and Christians only had portions of the New Testament.

So you think Christ has not empowered his Churches with any Authority? Do you have any respect for the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts or was that just mere opinion. That is a revelation coming from a Landmarker since Christ authority is given to His Churches. Of course Church councils make mistakes but Church councils are not irrelevant.

I think Athanasius Canon did have it in AD 367 (I think ) but the issue is not if some isolated individual or church or churches accepted it but in overall Christianity did not. Do you think in AD 100 a few years after Apostle John's death that most Churches if any had a idea of 27 New Testament books? since Christianity extented from the Middle East to parts of Northern Europe and communication was slow and most churches had only parts of the New Testament.