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

[Ronald Nolette]

Hmmm... I can't think of anyone with which I am mad.

In my experience, I've found that evangelical churches don't like or trust scholarship. They're suspicious of any person or process that approaches Scripture critically. They instead take the position that we ought to come to Scripture prepared to have faith and take what is written at face value, and within the confines of their church's tradition.

None of that strikes me as particularly blame-worthy, but by the same token, it's sort of the opposite of "scholarship."

Well I agree that we should take Scripture at its face value (with the grammatic caveats we use for all literature), but I disagree with church tradition.

YOu need to expand your experience! I know of many "evangelical" churches that love scholarship. I moved from New England 2 1/2 years ago to SC and found an "evangelical Southern Baptist Church. As having a bachelors in theology with a 2 year degree in Christian counseling they were grateful to take me in. I now teach and direct the teen ministry, taught Sunday school and am a deacon serving the church. there are many many out there, we just have to search in this Laodicean age.

 

[Wick Stick]

I read FF Bruce's book on the Canon about 40 years ago, and noticed him talking about one book that was read in "all the churches" and made it on 6 potential canonical books lists, The Epistle of Barnabas. And I think I know the reason the church fathers didn't want to include it in the official New Testament of that time. It has a prophecy in it that back then was over a thousand years from coming to pass. A copy of it was found in a monastery in the 1700's by Tichendorf. Today that same prophecy is at its closest to being fulfilled. So, thanks to Bruce's book I have since then believe The Epistle of Barnabas IS canonical and makes 28 books, a number that is divisible by 7, the perfect number.

This one?

Epistle of Barnabas

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes Satan will be judged and sent to, as John refered to it, the lake of fire. And like Satan and his angels, all humans born after Adam will be going to the LOF for eternity.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned......

But is that the end of the story? No!

There is more and more and who knows how much more. God's story is never ending so we don't know how many more twists there will be.

But God declared Satan to be tertannly punished! That ends that story!

god also said man is to die once and then comes his final judgment. That endsa that story! God does not change His mind.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do you not find the reconciliation of all God's creations to Himself amazing?

I saw Satan reconciled to God. And God created this prodigal angel a throne to which he would sit at the left of the Almighty. With this new position comes a new role through which he will glorify his God and Ctreator.

The scriptures are good and spiritual, like the law. But they point to more, much more. We have been led way beyond what God wrote on tablets of stone. He did not stop there. So much more was written.

Likewise, God had people write down what is better known as the scriptures. Was that it? Certainly isn’t. God has been revealing much more truth beyond what has been written down.

What you saw conradicts what god declared through His inspired writers. what you saw is a lie!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

MY claim is that the Holy Spirit is GOD - and is therefore, to be worshipped and petitioned like the Father and the Son are.

So show biblical proof for your claim as regards to teh Spirit. There are three persons to the one God show where anyone prayed to the Holy spirit. You know what I am asking and seem determined to dodge answering it directly.

It shows supreme earthly AUTHORITY.

Jesus is saying what whoever listens to or rejects His Church listens to or rehects HIM and the ONE who sent Him. He states in NO uncertain terms that His CHURCH speaks on His behalf.

Well as the church is the body of Christ and I am part of the Body of Christ, whoever does not listen to me does not listen to Jesus!

And James not Peter was the first head of the church. Whoops the RCC forgot that.

HUH?? It absolutely says that says Jesus did MANY things that were NOT recorded in Scripture:

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

I agreed with that biblical statement. but only those things needed for all the generrations of the church were sritten down. Remember there were 70 gospels, four revelations, many other Pauline letters, but God opted not to make them teh supreme authority of the church known as the bible.

What “secret oral traditions” are you talking about??

There’s nothing “secret” about Sacred Tradition. These are Oral teachings that Paul wrote about in 2 Thess. that are as binding as Scripture:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Ands remember those letters and oral statements became the bible! Or were merely personal exhortations for the local church Paul is referring to. It is not some secret sacred tradition to be held on par with Scripture. Just like the pseudepigrapha books. They are other writings, but not on par with Scripture.

The BIBLE itself tells us this. I reiterate:

2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Remember these letters asnd oral statements became scripture. All the other writings handed down my give valuable insight but are not needed for doctrine and instruction in righteousness. I have seen what are called many of the other writings of New Testament authors and they provide great learning and practical applications, but God decided they were not to be included in teh most sacred of books called the bible. Many of these letters merely reaffirm the teachings found in the canonized letters and provide no new substance.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

It is also important to distinguish between Local Canon and Church Canon. Regarding the Epistle of Barnabas, it was never accepted by the Church canon, only a few local places. You appear to be saying that the Epistle of Barnabas was accepted by the Church; that would be going against the historical evidence.

As I recall, it was accepted in the first century when it was written. It was a very popular in the Church. It also reads along the lines of the book of Hebrews as it discusses the reason for Hebrew rituals.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

This one?

Epistle of Barnabas

I prefer the translation by Lightfoot.

The prophecy is chapter 15. Think about reading that when there was still over 1,000 years before the year 6,000. And the 1,000 year millenium. God preserved His Word.

In the latter chapters there is a commandment against abortion and infanticide.

Do not confuse with the Gospel of Barnabas that is Muslim.

 

[nedsk]

I don't mean which books. I was asking about the qualities that made those books worthy of canonization. The books were recognized as canon for their existing qualities; those qualities were not conferred on them at the date of canonization. Agreed?

If you want to have an effective conversation in a room full of mostly-protestants, then you're probably going to define some words along the way. Otherwise we won't know what you're saying.

Hmmm... I certainly didn't consciously use any sort of "tactic." I don't consider you an enemy, and I didn't think I was engaged in sparring. I didn't even know you were... Catholic I guess? Or Orthodox? I said "most Protestants think" because I am aware that most Orthodox and Catholics DON'T think that way, and they represent a substantial portion of Christendom.

It seems the wars may have left you with a little PTSD (Protestant Traumatized Stress Disorder?)

Which books is all that matters though.

Well definitions are good but I use generally accepted definitions not protestant definitions.

No I don't believe any of you are conscious of what you're doing but I have engaged with protestants quite often and the pattern appears over and over. It's rare that it doesn't. I think what happens sadly is protestants all too often run into poorly catechized catholics and then run circles around them. That I think leads to this sanctimonious attitude.

Not in the least I just don't tolerate the bs. I won't be preached to by supposed "bible believing" Christians who believe things that arent biblical and deny things that are. Protestants amuse me you don't stress me out.

I read FF Bruce's book on the Canon about 40 years ago, and noticed him talking about one book that was read in "all the churches" and made it on 6 potential canonical books lists, The Epistle of Barnabas. And I think I know the reason the church fathers didn't want to include it in the official New Testament of that time. It has a prophecy in it that back then was over a thousand years from coming to pass. A copy of it was found in a monastery in the 1700's by Tichendorf. Today that same prophecy is at its closest to being fulfilled. So, thanks to Bruce's book I have since then believe The Epistle of Barnabas IS canonical and makes 28 books, a number that is divisible by 7, the perfect number.

Who determined it IS canonical?

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Who determined it IS canonical?

People. God knows which books are His, and preserves them.

 

[nedsk]

People. God knows which books are His, and preserves them.

People? Which people? On what authority? People disagree on all kinds of things so how you decide which people to believe?

 

[KUWN]

As I recall, it was accepted in the first century when it was written. It was a very popular in the Church. It also reads along the lines of the book of Hebrews as it discusses the reason for Hebrew rituals.

The first century had its advantages because the Apostles were present to advise the Church of which writings were canonical. The Epistle of Barnabas was never widely circulated, since the Church would simply ask an Apostle if the writings was from God. The canon was largely accomplished in the first century, acknowledged by the Apostles or their associates. No Apostle sanctioned the Epistle of Barnabas. The Epistle of Barnabas did not show the signs of canonicity ( authorial written, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wick Stick]

Which books is all that matters though.

Certainly not. Inspiration is far more important than canonization.

Well definitions are good but I use generally accepted definitions not protestant definitions.

Seems like a question of Lingua Franca... depending where you are, they may be the same thing or totally different.

No I don't believe any of you are conscious of what you're doing but I have engaged with protestants quite often and the pattern appears over and over. It's rare that it doesn't. I think what happens sadly is protestants all too often run into poorly catechized catholics and then run circles around them. That I think leads to this sanctimonious attitude.

Really? Catholics where I live tend to be better educated in their beliefs than Protestants. Perhaps because they are in the minority?

 

[Wick Stick]

The first century had its advantages because the Apostles were present to advise the Church of which writings were canonical. The Epistle of Barnabas was never widely circulated, since the Church would simply ask an Apostle if the writings was from God. The canon was largely accomplished in the first century, acknowledged by the Apostles or their associates. No Apostle sanctioned the Epistle of Barnabas. The Epistle of Barnabas did not show the signs of canonicity ( authorial written, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So many unsupported statements. Sources?

 

[nedsk]

Certainly not. Inspiration is far more important than canonization.

Seems like a question of Lingua Franca... depending where you are, they may be the same thing or totally different.

Really? Catholics where I live tend to be better educated in their beliefs than Protestants. Perhaps because they are in the minority?

No. What ends up in the canon is why there is the Bible there is

Yes really.

 

[KUWN]

So many unsupported statements. Sources?

This is the age of the Internet. Any of these statements are basic Church History 101. Better yet, buy a Church History book/ebook and dig it up yourself. Some of the statements I make are taken from my class notes from Dallas Bible College back in 1981. I have also continued my reading and studying since then. Too many sources for me to remember. If you have a very specific question about what I have written, let me know and I will try to get a source for you. Fair enough?

 

[Wick Stick]

This is the age of the Internet. Any of these statements are basic Church History 101. Better yet, buy a Church History book/ebook and dig it up yourself. Some of the statements I make are taken from my class notes from Dallas Bible College back in 1981. I have also continued my reading and studying since then. Too many sources for me to remember. If you have a very specific question about what I have written, let me know and I will try to get a source for you. Fair enough?

I'm proficient at Internet "research," but most of your points seem to be dead wrong. I'll be happy to break it down for you.

The idea that the apostles advised on canonicity is anachronistic. The idea of canonicity didn't even exist within any of their lifetimes, so they definitely didn't advise on it.

Contrary to your assertion, the epistle of Barnabas enjoyed a WIDE distribution. Early bishops like Clement (Rome) and Origen (Egypt) make reference to it. That doesn't mean it should be Scripture, but you're wrong about how widely known and used it was.

The canon was NOT widely accepted in the 1st century. The first person to even PROPOSE a NT canon was the heretic Marcion, in the mid-2nd century. The first person to propose a canon that matches the one we have today was Athanasius, in the 4th century.

Your statement that "No apostle sanctioned the epistle of Barnabas" is true. But it misleads the reader into thinking that the apostles sanctioned certain books... which did NOT happen. No apostle sanctioned any New Testament epistle. The NT authors quote the Old Testament as Scripture. They even quote some of the non-canonical inter-Testamental books as Scripture. The only reference by a NT author to another NT author is Peter saying that Paul is "hard to understand" which isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.

Finally, your contention that the Epistle of Barnabas doesn't show the signs of an inspired work... is absolutely true. The epistle doesn't claim to be inspired, nor does it present itself as prophecy. The content thereof has been criticized for its lack of coherent progression in thought, and is regarded as an early attempt to distance Christianity from Judaism, which is contrary to the rest of the New Testament, which sees the Church as being an adopted branch of Judaism.

 

[Wick Stick]

I prefer the translation by Lightfoot.

It's the first translation on the page I linked.

Tbh, I provided the link so that curious readers could actually see the text.

 

[One 2 question]

This totally contradicts God Inspired word!

The great truth is that God's Spirit of Truth goes way beyond what the bibles cover in scope and volume. Example, the details of eternity before Satan's entry into this creation is hardly mentioned in the scriptures or the bibles.

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. Jude 3

Thanks for your word. The love of our God which we have experienced in our adoption, redemption and reconciliation is but a foretaste of God's ultimate act of salvation of ALL who are His.

 

[shepherdsword]

Jesus condemned the Pharisees – NOT for their traditions – but for placing them ABOVE God and nullifying His Word. ALL faithful Jews – including Jesus - practiced and believed in tradition (Matt. 2:23, Matt 23:2, 1 Cor. 10:4, 2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9).

This is exactly what the RCC does...exalts it papal edicts and tradition over the scriptures. The video below documents this:

Not only does the Church NOT place Tradition above Scripture – it introduced the Scriptures to the world. YOU wouldn’t even have a Bible had it NOT been for the Catholic Church . . .

This would be laughable if it wasn't such an outright lie. History is replete with the RCC's suppression of the scriptures and the murder of those who attempted to translate into the vernacular. The video below documents this:

 

[KUWN]

The idea that the apostles advised on canonicity is anachronistic. The idea of canonicity didn't even exist within any of their lifetimes, so they definitely didn't advise on it.

This is sheer speculation and runs counter to the NT. Peter mentions Paul's writings AS SCRIPTURE. see 2 Pt 3.16:

... as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Jude 3
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

Rev 22: 18, 19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
God puts an end to prophecy here. Once Revelation was written, revelation ceased.

Contrary to your assertion, the epistle of Barnabas enjoyed a WIDE distribution. Early bishops like Clement (Rome) and Origen (Egypt) make reference to it. That doesn't mean it should be Scripture, but you're wrong about how widely known and used it was.

I am open to correction because I want to know the truth. Show me where you got this WIDE distribution of Barnabas which was written around 130 AD. Barnabas was written too late to be considered Scripture.

The canon was NOT widely accepted in the 1st century. The first person to even PROPOSE a NT canon was the heretic Marcion, in the mid-2nd century. The first person to propose a canon that matches the one we have today was Athanasius, in the 4th century.

This is just plain wrong. To say this is to go against Church History. There was several books in the NT that were cited as Scripture at the start of the 2nd century. Polycarp, a student of the Apostle John, mentions Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy. He refers to the passages quote from these books as Scripture.