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

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes. So prejudiced that I am in fact an evangelical.

So you are mad at some evsangelicals, As I am, but you write as if you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Evangelicalism as a doctrinal stance is very right on. Just because some don't adhere is no cause to toss out the sound faith.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is precisely WHY I gave you the definition of “Pray”. It means to “ASL”.
However, it ALSO means “to address GOD in WORSHIP”:
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
Full Definition of pray
transitive verb
1: entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea<pray be careful>
2: to get or bring by praying

intransitive verb
1: to make a request in a humble manner
2: to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving

Well it was you who posted an example of Acts 27:34 of praying and I showed you it was not prayer in any sense. But an entirely different Greek word with an entirely different Greek and English meaning! You cannot use the argument you made in English for different Greek words prosuchemai and parakaleo .

Jesus IS the Word incarnate (John 1:14). He told the Leaders of His Church:

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Yeah and how does that prove either praying to the Holy Spirit or some Pope having Apostolic Office

Can you show me where the Bible makes this claim – that EVERYTHING was written down in the Bible?

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

PS – while you’re at it – explain how this is possible when the Bible itself tells us that Jesus did MANY things that were NOT recorded in Scripture (John 21:25).

No it doesn't. But can you show with empirical evidence that the supposed oral traditions the RCC uses for formulating many of its own doctrines actually came from Jesus?

John even said that all teh books could not contain them.

But god in His infinite wisdom protects us from special revelations and secret oral traditions anmd inspired the church to accept the 27 books that form the kernel and entirety of what man needs to know and grow in and with God.

If you have evidence to the contrary- show it. You are very weak and defending yourself. But you love trying to put the onus away from yo9u so you won't have to defend the RCC.

Uhhhh, NO.

All YOU did was show where the Bible says that it is profitable for teaching, rebuking, etc. The actual Greek word used here is o-fel'-ee-mos, which means “helpful” or “serviceable”.

NOWHERE dos it say that it is “exclusive" . .

I assume you are using a grammatic spelling of ophelimos. So you believe there are other sources that are profitable. show them and give the evidence that they hold to the standard of the inspired Word of God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Matthew 18:15-17. You really need to learn Scripture better before you post.

And what does church discipline have to do with what I addressed? Even in church discipline, the elders have to act in accord with what is Scripture and follow the steps:

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

How is this not in acccord with Scripture?

 

[nedsk]

And what does church discipline have to do with what I addressed? Even in church discipline, the elders have to act in accord with what is Scripture and follow the steps:

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

How is this not in acccord with Scripture?

This is what specifically I was responding to. You wrote

"Show me a verse that says the church is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction so that a man of God will be completely furnished for all good works."

I did

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is what specifically I was responding to. You wrote

"Show me a verse that says the church is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction so that a man of God will be completely furnished for all good works."

I did

No you showed church discipline in accord with Scripture! The church cannot correct someone outside of the limits of SCripture.

The correction part, which I assume you are referring to, has to be something a person went astray in their life which goes against what is written to do or not do.

Do try again.

 

[Wick Stick]

That's sweet. Since you folks have only been around since the 16th century Ill consider your definition accordingly. However I'll refer you to #2

can·on1
/ˈkanən/
noun

1. 1.
   a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
   "the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity"
   
   
2. 2.
   a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
   "the formation of the biblical canon"

Can you name any protestant who was present when the canon was put together into the book you now call the Bible?

You came off as snarky and dismissive. What did I do to deserve that? I think this may be the first time we've ever crossed.

 

[Wick Stick]

So you are mad at some evsangelicals, As I am, but you write as if you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Evangelicalism as a doctrinal stance is very right on. Just because some don't adhere is no cause to toss out the sound faith.

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."

 

[nedsk]

No you showed church discipline in accord with Scripture! The church cannot correct someone outside of the limits of SCripture.

The correction part, which I assume you are referring to, has to be something a person went astray in their life which goes against what is written to do or not do.

Do try again.

No need to try again. The church is there to protect doctrine through reproof, correction and instruction. This is what the early church fathers did. Without the church or the early church fathers we might end up with more than 40,000 denominations. Oh wait....

 

[nedsk]

You came off as snarky and dismissive. What did I do to deserve that? I think this may be the first time we've ever crossed.

Well here is what you wrote that I responded to

"You might need to define canon. Most Protestants think of canon in terms of "known to be reliable/inspired." I know I do"

First there is no need for me to define canon since that's been done already. Second what most Protestants think canon means is irrelevant as Protestants dont get to decide the meaning of words. Third what you did there reflects a subtle tactic used by Protestants where they believe they have the final and authoritative interpretation of Scripture so they tend to ignore other views. One easy example is the whole sola scriptura thing where the word profitable means only.

Now I've been through these rodeos many times and sometimes my passion gets the better of me so I will work at being less snarky but it will last only as long as the people I am talking work at not being so sanctimonious. I'll warn you though I am not a shrinking violet

 

[JohnDB]

So the just shall walk by emotions?

Nope....
By a well reasoned faith backed by sound doctrine and logical arguments.

Meaning you need to be able to give an answer for what you believe and why you believe it.

I can do that . I've met few others who can anymore with any depth....despite all the youtube videos with "Mr SuperChristian" using all sorts of big words explaining himself to various atheists and idiots.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Core of the Canon was settled in the 1st and 2nd centuries, before the Catholic church was formed. The Muratori fragment show that the core canon (22 or 27 books of the NT) was known to be from the Apostles' teaching. When Peter told his audience that Paul's writings had some difficult teachings in it, Peter didn't find it necessary to qualify the names of Paul's epistles because they were well known during the first century!!

WRONG.

There were MANY individual and unofficial “canons” floating around until the 4th century. Most pf them included Books that were later regarded as apocryphal and uninspired writings. Books like the Gospel of Peter, Epistles of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, Protoevangelium of James and many others were regarded as “sacred Scripture” and read aloud to congregations in the first 3 centuries.

It was the Catholic Church that decided the Canon under the guidance of the holy Spirit, as Jesys promised when He said that the holy spirit would guide His Church to “ALL truth” (John 16:12-15).

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified – ALL 73 (not 66) Books.
- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.
The onus is on YOU to provide evidence to the contrary . . .

PS - the Catholic Church does ALL the way back to the Apostles.
Ignatius iof Antioch - a disciple of the Apostle John wrote about the "Catholic Church", the "Eucharist" and obedience to the Bishop while Hohn was still alive:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

 

[Wick Stick]

Well here is what you wrote that I responded to

"You might need to define canon. Most Protestants think of canon in terms of "known to be reliable/inspired." I know I do"

First there is no need for me to define canon since that's been done already.

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?

Second what most Protestants think canon means is irrelevant as Protestants dont get to decide the meaning of words.

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.

Third what you did there reflects a subtle tactic used by Protestants where they believe they have the final and authoritative interpretation of Scripture so they tend to ignore other views.

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.

Now I've been through these rodeos many times and sometimes my passion gets the better of me so I will work at being less snarky but it will last only as long as the people I am talking work at not being so sanctimonious. I'll warn you though I am not a shrinking violet

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

 

[KUWN]

WRONG.

There were MANY individual and unofficial “canons” floating around until the 4th century. Most pf them included Books that were later regarded as apocryphal and uninspired writings. Books like the Gospel of Peter, Epistles of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, Protoevangelium of James and many others were regarded as “sacred Scripture” and read aloud to congregations in the first 3 centuries.

It was the Catholic Church that decided the Canon under the guidance of the holy Spirit, as Jesys promised when He said that the holy spirit would guide His Church to “ALL truth” (John 16:12-15).

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified – ALL 73 (not 66) Books.
- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.
The onus is on YOU to provide evidence to the contrary . . .

PS - the Catholic Church does ALL the way back to the Apostles.
Ignatius iof Antioch - a disciple of the Apostle John wrote about the "Catholic Church", the "Eucharist" and obedience to the Bishop while Hohn was still alive:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

I see you are part of the Catholic tradition. sorry I didn't know you were a Catholic. One of the difference we have is I interpret scripture with a literal method. For an easy example, we are told to call any man father. I believe that to be a literal mandate. So we don't accidentally meet again, I will "ignore" you. No bad feelings, just conviction.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well it was you who posted an example of Acts 27:34 of praying and I showed you it was not prayer in any sense. But an entirely different Greek word with an entirely different Greek and English meaning! You cannot use the argument you made in English for different Greek words prosuchemai and parakaleo .

In post #172 – YOU stated the following unbiblical claim:
“We are to pray to the Father alone.”

Not only does the bible NEVER make this claim – I showed you that the word, “Pray” is used for more than just communicating with God. Never ONCE did I male the claom that I was giving you Biblical evidence for praying to the Holy Spirit.

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

Yeah and how does that prove either praying to the Holy Spirit or some Pope having Apostolic Office

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.

No it doesn't.

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.

But can you show with empirical evidence that the supposed oral traditions the RCC uses for formulating many of its own doctrines actually came from Jesus?

I’ve already shown you concrete evidence that the Church has supreme earthly Authority – that WHATEVER the Church looses or binds on earth will be loosed or bound in HEAVEN (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:18). That the Holy Spirit would lead it to ALL TRUTH (John 16:12-15).

John even said that all teh books could not contain them.

But god in His infinite wisdom protects us from special revelations and secret oral traditions anmd inspired the church to accept the 27 books that form the kernel and entirety of what man needs to know and grow in and with God.

If you have evidence to the contrary- show it. You are very weak and defending yourself. But you love trying to put the onus away from yo9u so you won't have to defend the RCC.

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."

I assume you are using a grammatic spelling of ophelimos. So you believe there are other sources that are profitable. show them and give the evidence that they hold to the standard of the inspired Word of God.

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."

 

[One 2 question]

No it is not amazing, but a hideous lie!

Satan is doomed to the lake of fire forever as is written.

This totally contradicts God Inspired word!

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.

 

[One 2 question]

No it is not amazing, but a hideous lie!

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.

 

[One 2 question]

All YOU did was show where the Bible says that it is profitable for teaching, rebuking, etc. The actual Greek word used here is o-fel'-ee-mos, which means “helpful” or “serviceable”.

NOWHERE dos it say that it is “exclusive"

I don't know why this is so difficult for others to understand and accept.

Scriptures is a helpful resource for sure. But it is not an exhaustive resource. God has soooo much more helpful resources which He has been using since the beginning of this creation.

But if some want to restrict themselves to this limited resource than they can choose to do this. Yet often they will oppose us who receive God's word from other sources.

 

[KUWN]

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.

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

 

[1stCenturyLady]

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.

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.

 

[KUWN]

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.

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.