The Church decided the canon. How do you know you have the correct canon?

[Deus vult]

Protestants have 66 books, we have 76 in Orthodoxy. A lot of times people say God decided the canon of the Bible and while we can all agree, it is still avoiding the question as to when and how God did it. Famous Protestant scholars F.F. Bruce and Lee McDonald show in their books on the formation of the canon that there was no fixed OT canon and that the early church fathers had differing canons, many of which included the apocrypha.

A common answer Protestants give when asked about how they know the correct canon is citing the book of John where it says we are guided by the Holy Spirit. However, this is presupposing that the book of John belongs in the canon when in fact the question is prior or a priori to Scripture. We cannot go to the scriptures to tell us what the correct canon is when the canon itself is what’s in question along with the book of John.

If the Church truly went rogue as the reformers claimed, then wouldn’t it be conceivable for all of us come to up with our own canon on that basis? If I said the Bible is just the first four books of the New Testament, who would anyone be to tell me I’m wrong?

It only makes sense that there is a historical Church because Christ himself lived in history. Christianity and the Bible cannot be divorced from its history.

 

[Windmill Charge]

The 'church' did not form the bible.
That is no formal organisation sat down and debated what formed the bible.
Rather there was agreement among church leaders of the requirements that every book had to meet to be considered as part of the bible.

There are plenty of books and web site or blogs that discuss this a basic one is coldcasechristianity.

 

[nedsk]

Protestants have 66 books, we have 76 in Orthodoxy. A lot of times people say God decided the canon of the Bible and while we can all agree, it is still avoiding the question as to when and how God did it. Famous Protestant scholars F.F. Bruce and Lee McDonald show in their books on the formation of the canon that there was no fixed OT canon and that the early church fathers had differing canons, many of which included the apocrypha.

A common answer Protestants give when asked about how they know the correct canon is citing the book of John where it says we are guided by the Holy Spirit. However, this is presupposing that the book of John belongs in the canon when in fact the question is prior or a priori to Scripture. We cannot go to the scriptures to tell us what the correct canon is when the canon itself is what’s in question along with the book of John.

If the Church truly went rogue as the reformers claimed, then wouldn’t it be conceivable for all of us come to up with our own canon on that basis? If I said the Bible is just the first four books of the New Testament, who would anyone be to tell me I’m wrong?

It only makes sense that there is a historical Church because Christ himself lived in history. Christianity and the Bible cannot be divorced from its history.

This is why we have 20,000 "bible believing" Christian denominations. I have had Protestants tell.me they are leaving the one church they are in because another church has a message they agree with more. Fascinating

 

[Behold]

This is why we have 20,000 "bible believing" Christian denominations. I have had Protestants tell.me they are leaving the one church they are in because another church has a message they agree with more. Fascinating

You'll find this "fascinating" also.
-
-

 

[MatthewG]

Investigating for oneself.

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

Chronology of the New Testament​

New Testament Timeline | ESV.org

www.esv.org

 

[nedsk]

You'll find this "fascinating" also.
-
-
View attachment 63186

I do find limited reasoning abilities in people to be very fascinating

 

[Behold]

I do find limited reasoning abilities in people to be very fascinating

@nedsk

Your post is speaking very candidly about your own reflection in the mirror.
So, we now agree on something .
Here, this book might help you....depending on your comprehension level and reading skills, so, im giving you the benefit of the doubt.

This book traces the "pathological origins" of the Mary Cult, from its man-man foundation in 110ad, until this very day.
-
-

 

[nedsk]

@nedsk

Your post is speaking very candidly about your own reflection in the mirror.
So, we now agree on something .
Here, this book might help you....depending on your comprehension level and reading skills, so, im giving you the benefit of the doubt.

This book traces the "pathological origins" of the Mary Cult, from its man-man foundation in 110ad, until this very day.
-
-
View attachment 63193

As if this is my first rodeo with you cowboys. You have been filled with error and so all you can do is parrot the errors.

 

[Behold]

As if this is my first rodeo with you cowboys.

Paul's Doctrine is not related to "Cowboys" and your MaryCult is not related to Truth.
-

 

[One 2 question]

Protestants have 66 books, we have 76 in Orthodoxy. A lot of times people say God decided the canon of the Bible and while we can all agree, it is still avoiding the question as to when and how God did it. Famous Protestant scholars F.F. Bruce and Lee McDonald show in their books on the formation of the canon that there was no fixed OT canon and that the early church fathers had differing canons, many of which included the apocrypha.

A common answer Protestants give when asked about how they know the correct canon is citing the book of John where it says we are guided by the Holy Spirit. However, this is presupposing that the book of John belongs in the canon when in fact the question is prior or a priori to Scripture. We cannot go to the scriptures to tell us what the correct canon is when the canon itself is what’s in question along with the book of John.

If the Church truly went rogue as the reformers claimed, then wouldn’t it be conceivable for all of us come to up with our own canon on that basis? If I said the Bible is just the first four books of the New Testament, who would anyone be to tell me I’m wrong?

It only makes sense that there is a historical Church because Christ himself lived in history. Christianity and the Bible cannot be divorced from its history.

When did God command someone to compile a biblical canon? And if He did, who was it that received this command?

If there was, where are the supporting documentation. Surely for such a revered sacred foundational source for all of Christianity, that person or persons would have been investigated to prove God really told them to form a biblical canon.

 

[One 2 question]

The 'church' did not form the bible.
That is no formal organisation sat down and debated what formed the bible.

Interesting

Rather there was agreement among church leaders of the requirements that every book had to meet to be considered as part of the bible.

So God did not give these, as you refer to them, Church leader, detailed instructions of the requirements that every book had to meet to be considered as part of the bible.

Was it uninstructed humans, with good intentions no doubt, who decided to form a standard, a measuring stick, a canon for the church to use, insisting their subjects and followers to adhere to it.

 

[Windmill Charge]

Interesting

So God did not give these, as you refer to them, Church leader, detailed instructions of the requirements that every book had to meet to be considered as part of the bible.

Was it uninstructed humans, with good intentions no doubt, who decided to form a standard, a measuring stick, a canon for the church to use, insisting their subjects and followers to adhere to it.

You ask an interesting question about those Christian leaders who co operated I the recognition of what books formed the bible.
I have an equally interesting question. What qualifies you to question the formation of the bible?

How fluent are you in ancient Greek, Hebrew, dramatic and Latin.
Are you familiar with the writings of these Church leaders?

 

[One 2 question]

You ask an interesting question about those Christian leaders who co operated I the recognition of what books formed the bible.
I have an equally interesting question. What qualifies you to question the formation of the bible?

How fluent are you in ancient Greek, Hebrew, dramatic and Latin.
Are you familiar with the writings of these Church leaders?

I question who was told by God directly to organise a compilation of writing and set them as a standard of Christ's body to believe and live by. No contributor of the scriptures or the bibles ever wrote down these instructions. Can you show us. Maybe I have missed them.

 

[One 2 question]

I have an equally interesting question. What qualifies you to question the formation of the bible?

I am a child of God. I have the mind of Christ. I have received the Spirit Who lead me into truth. I abide in the Word of God Who teaches me directly.

I don't need to be restricted by certain humans as to what I should or shouldn't believe or behave. That is the role of the SPIRIT of God within me.

It's simple my friend. I have a relationship with a Person, not a thing.

 

[Mink57]

You ask an interesting question about those Christian leaders who co operated I the recognition of what books formed the bible.
I have an equally interesting question. What qualifies you to question the formation of the bible?

And what qualifies others to believe that they're being 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit as to what goes into the bible and what's cast out?
How many OTHER "bibles" have been "inspired" throughout history?

At what point was there "inspiration" to say that there's ONLY 66 books...and not 72...or 81?

How fluent are you in ancient Greek, Hebrew, dramatic and Latin.

How fluent are YOU in ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic (assuming that's what you meant and not "dramatic") and Latin?

Are you familiar with the writings of these Church leaders?

Exactly WHO are the "Church Leaders"?

Way back when the bible was being compiled, just imagine yourself there.... Let's imagine that your favorite book was the book of Enoch. And suddenly, it's no longer part of Canon. How would you have reacted to that?

How would you have reacted to Martin Luther, who wanted 7 books of the bible to be removed from the bible...books that had been part of the bible for over 1000 years? Was Martin Luther "inspired"? Do you consider the book of James to be "inspired"...because Luther wanted James, Hebrews and Revelations to be removed, among others.

Was HE "inspired"?

 

[Runningman]

Protestants have 66 books, we have 76 in Orthodoxy. A lot of times people say God decided the canon of the Bible and while we can all agree, it is still avoiding the question as to when and how God did it. Famous Protestant scholars F.F. Bruce and Lee McDonald show in their books on the formation of the canon that there was no fixed OT canon and that the early church fathers had differing canons, many of which included the apocrypha.

A common answer Protestants give when asked about how they know the correct canon is citing the book of John where it says we are guided by the Holy Spirit. However, this is presupposing that the book of John belongs in the canon when in fact the question is prior or a priori to Scripture. We cannot go to the scriptures to tell us what the correct canon is when the canon itself is what’s in question along with the book of John.

If the Church truly went rogue as the reformers claimed, then wouldn’t it be conceivable for all of us come to up with our own canon on that basis? If I said the Bible is just the first four books of the New Testament, who would anyone be to tell me I’m wrong?

It only makes sense that there is a historical Church because Christ himself lived in history. Christianity and the Bible cannot be divorced from its history.

That's a good question. The Old Testament nor the New Testament neither directly nor explicitly identify the New Testament as being on par with holy writ Scripture the same way it does the OT. That isn't to say we should not consider the OT to be Scripture because I believe we should consider it Scripture. But from the perspective of first century Jews like Jesus, the apostles, and Paul the evidence seems to be that when they were quoting Scripture it would be some from the OT with suggestion that their books, letters, and sermons are "inspired writings."

The Catholic church went through a lot of transformation in the 4th century because it was mostly divided theologically and probably could have gone either way between Arianism and Trinitarianism. It was a toss-up, but what seems to be tie breaker was that the archbishop at the time was Athanasius and he was himself a Trinitarian that was supported by a powerful politician named Constantine. The 4th century is the time they finally invented what we now understand to be Orthodox Trinitarianism at the council of Nicaea and Constantinople. This is also the century that they canonized the Bible. They originally had access to a lot more books and letters, but based on my research they did their best to sort through them all, weed out the ones they considered heretical or contradictory, before finally presenting what we know as the Bible, which itself has been the subject of frequent changes as older and better manuscripts have been discovered and as translations have been rendered.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Protestants have 66 books, we have 76 in Orthodoxy. A lot of times people say God decided the canon of the Bible and while we can all agree, it is still avoiding the question as to when and how God did it. Famous Protestant scholars F.F. Bruce and Lee McDonald show in their books on the formation of the canon that there was no fixed OT canon and that the early church fathers had differing canons, many of which included the apocrypha.

A common answer Protestants give when asked about how they know the correct canon is citing the book of John where it says we are guided by the Holy Spirit. However, this is presupposing that the book of John belongs in the canon when in fact the question is prior or a priori to Scripture. We cannot go to the scriptures to tell us what the correct canon is when the canon itself is what’s in question along with the book of John.

If the Church truly went rogue as the reformers claimed, then wouldn’t it be conceivable for all of us come to up with our own canon on that basis? If I said the Bible is just the first four books of the New Testament, who would anyone be to tell me I’m wrong?

It only makes sense that there is a historical Church because Christ himself lived in history. Christianity and the Bible cannot be divorced from its history.

Because even though men decided which books, it was God directing the decision. Just like He directed the authors of Scripture what to write.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The Church decided the canon. How do you know you have the correct canon?

The canon the devil is scared of that blows him away and forces him to leave... is the right cannon.

The reformers and self proclaimed "orthodox" are still entertaining the devil so they don't have the right canon

 

[Dan Clarkston]

This is why we have 20,000 "bible believing" Christian denominations.

There reason there are so many religious social clubs is because they are all listening to the devil and are being deceived by him.

Your post is speaking very candidly about your own reflection in the mirror.

He was thinking of you!