Compiling of the New Testament

[Jon]

Edits in bold, italics original post. I wanted to reduce my questions to try and stay more on topic but didn't want to delete any original text (no crossout available):

The NT canon letters were written by Apostles or people approved by the Apostles. For example Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, Mark's gospel was probably written with Peter and written very early. Eventually these facts came to be generally accepted except for Revelation, 2nd Peter and Jude which were later accepted.

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "approved by the Apostles?"

After doing a little research on the last three books you mention, I see that they weren't generally accepted until after 300 AD - this is long after the Apostles and their immediate successors lived. Who, then, has the authority to say these books should be part of the Bible, if it wasn't clear in the first or early second century? Why would do you accept these books? if the decision to include them was made by men? Could we, today, decide that other books should be included? If not, why not?

I'm trying to drive to the details on this point because I believe the foundation of the Bible is key to understanding Jesus' message. If we are to take the Bible as the Word of God (which I'm sure we both agree we should), then we had better verify that the compiling of it follows a rational, divinely inspired path. I don't see how one can come to this conclusion without including Church Councils held by the Catholic Church. What is the non-Catholic explanation for the list of books generally accepted as the Bible, knowing that this list was finalized a few hundred years after the Apostles?

Jon

[steve7150]

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "approved by the Apostles?"

After doing a little research on the last three books you mention, I see that they weren't generally accepted until after 300 AD - this is long after the Apostles and their immediate successors lived. Who, then, has the authority to say these books should be part of the Bible, if it wasn't clear in the first or early second century? Why would do you accept these books? if the decision to include them was made by men? Could we, today, decide that other books should be included? If not, why not?






Jon,
By "approved" i mean folks the Apostles knew well and had a high regard for. Luke traveled with Paul and said he interviewed many people who had known Jesus, Peter stayed with Mark at his mother's house and probably collaborated with Mark on his gospel. James was Jesus brother and i think Jude was too. It took awhile but eventually became evident that Peter did write 2nd Peter and that John wrote Revelation. There were unique expressions used in each book that identified the authors. Jude may have taken a long time for acceptance because it referenced the book of Enoch, i believe. As far as i'm concerned i have not a shred of doubt these books belong in the bible exactly where they are. My brain tells me so and my spirit confirms it.

[Paidion]

Athanasius had no say outside of his diocese, and did not apply outside of it. There were later councils in various places to settle the matter.

and

It's a wrong question. Athanasius' list was never the default view from which others strayed by rejecting Baruch and accepting Esther. His was one list among many similar yet distinct lists.

You may be corrrect. I arrived at my opinion for two reasons. (1)Several modern writers have appealed to Athanasius as if his list was the basis of what is now known as "the canon of the New Testament." (2) Athanasius himself seemed to regard his list as the standard, calling the writings in his list "wells of salvation" and applying the words of Revelation to the "adding to" his list or "taking away from it.

Thank you for you input, and also for the address of the website "nt org". I have begun to examine it.

[Paidion]

After doing a little research on the last three books you mention, I see that they weren't generally accepted until after 300 AD - this is long after the Apostles and their immediate successors lived. Who, then, has the authority to say these books should be part of the Bible, if it wasn't clear in the first or early second century? Why would do you accept these books? if the decision to include them was made by men? Could we, today, decide that other books should be included? If not, why not?

Yes, who has the authority? I'm not absolutely sure that anyone has the authority to determine which books should be exclusively read in the churches and accepted exclusively as "the inspired scripture". Unlike Catholics, I don't believe the truth is limited to the authority of an organization, and if I did, how would I know it is the Roman Catholic Church? Why not the Orthodox? It seems to me that the RC Church has departed further from the early catholics than the Orthodox. Unlike Protestants, I don't believe inspiration is limited to the "canon".

How does a Catholic know that the Council of Carthage in 397 made the correct decision. If earlier catholics got it wrong, how do you know that that Council got it right?

I would like to answer for myself the questions you asked Steve7150:

Why would do you accept these books? if the decision to include them was made by men?

I am delighted that we have such writings written by apostolic men or close associates of the apostles of the first century. I think the decision to include them WAS made by men. Because I don't believe they are infallible, nor do I believe inspiration is limited to them, I don't really have the authority problem.

Could we, today, decide that other books should be included? If not, why not?

Well, I for one, strongly believe that Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians, written shortly after the death of Paul and Peter, should be included.

By the way, Steve 7150, I am not sure that it is evident even to this day, that Peter wrote 2 Peter or John the apostle wrote Revelation. People also say that John the apostle wrote 2 and 3 John. But the writer of each of these books identifies himself as "the elder" (or "the presbyter"). Where does John the apostle ever do that? I think they were written by another John, namely "John the presbyter". Papias and also Eusebius the church historian makes this distinction. Eusebius believed that John the presbyter wrote Revelation.

[Jon]

Steve,

So your last point brings us to an impass on this discussion. And I quote, "As far as i'm concerned i have not a shred of doubt these books belong in the bible exactly where they are. My brain tells me so and my spirit confirms it." I agree with you of course about the books that should belong in the Bible but for different reasons (namely that the Church confirmed these books through the infallible help of the Holy Spirit). Unfortunately, your argument could be used to justify any religious position because, if I read your last sentence correctly, you are essentially saying "well I just know I'm right". This is a dangerous position to hold, because the Devil loves to deceive, and many people can (not necessarily you, in this instance) fall into the trap of saying "well, it feels right, so it MUST be from God". This is not always the case. Many Catholics are also duped by this false idea of something "feeling" right. Sometimes Faith is defined by believing the Truth for Truth's sake even if it does not invoke an emotional feeling from the heart. Being caught up in the moment can be a trick of the Devil.

I've listened to your 5 day debate with Tim from catholic.com and the last day seemed the most "heated", if I could call it that. Your claim "well if I have to stand in the seat of judgement with what I feel is right, I'll take my chances" (I may be paraphrasing a bit, and if I didn't get your word for word quote, I apologize). Your comment and attitude concerns me for your soul, but every man must make his own choice. I'll keep you in my prayers.


Paidion,

Your questions are easily answered, if you accept, for a moment, the position of the Catholic Church.

"I don't believe the truth is limited to the authority of an organization, and if I did, how would I know it is the Roman Catholic Church? Why not the Orthodox? "

The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that has apostolic succession dating back to Peter. The Orthodox Church shared this until the Great Schism in the eleventh century.

"It seems to me that the RC Church has departed further from the early catholics than the Orthodox"

The early Catholics were all Roman Catholics - that is Catholics that submitted to the See of Rome, and Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and loose through Peter and his successors. Never to contradict the Truth, that is not possible, but to clarify and define in more detail how we should honor God. What specifically are your concerns about "departing from early Catholics"?

"How does a Catholic know that the Council of Carthage in 397 made the correct decision. If earlier catholics got it wrong, how do you know that that Council got it right? "

If you agree with Catholic Church theology, then an ecumenical council, of which this was one, is infallible when it comes to teaching about Faith and morals. Councils do not contradict themselves. There was not an earlier Council that listed a different set of books for the NT. There may have been fallible speculation, but this is exactly why a Council is called - to address the issue once and for all infallibly. If you look into the history of the Catholic Church, it's not a surprise that councils are called to clarify the position of the Church in times of confusion amongst laymen as well as clergymen in the Church. (This is especially true of the Council of Trent during the Reformation, I think, but let's leave that discussion for another day) What earlier Catholics are you referencing that had a different list for Bible books?

Warmest Regards,
Jon

[steve7150]

I've listened to your 5 day debate with Tim from catholic.com and the last day seemed the most "heated", if I could call it that. Your claim "well if I have to stand in the seat of judgement with what I feel is right, I'll take my chances" (I may be paraphrasing a bit, and if I didn't get your word for word quote, I apologize). Your comment and attitude concerns me for your soul, but every man must make his own choice. I'll keep you in my prayers.



Jon,
Your mixing me up with Steve Gregg , i'm Steve7150 , he is just "Steve." I did'nt say it felt right , i said my brain (reasoning) believes it and my spirit confirms it. We are told to test every spirit which i try to do against scripture. Apostolic succession is a different topic and the RCC claims it, as well as other doctrines which all have one thing in common, they give the RCC more power over the masses.

Paidion,
I simply said John wrote both his gospel and Revelation, i'm not positive which John but i think it's the same author and 2nd Peter has enough similarities to 1st Peter IMO.

[Jon]

Your mixing me up with Steve Gregg , i'm Steve7150 , he is just "Steve." I did'nt say it felt right , i said my brain (reasoning) believes it and my spirit confirms it. We are told to test every spirit which i try to do against scripture. Apostolic succession is a different topic and the RCC claims it, as well as other doctrines which all have one thing in common, they give the RCC more power over the masses.

Oops. Nevermind about the debate comment. I guess I don't know how to interpret your justification for believing what you do. Through reasoning you believe it - do you mean that you agree that the early Church fathers set the list right, or you discerned yourself that these books should be in the Bible, or something else? How exactly does your spirit confirm it, if it is not through a feeling?

Are you implying that doctrines of the RCC are designed to control instead of designed to guide the Truth to the Faithful? This is probably a good topic for a new thread, if you want to discuss it. Specifically in the case of identifying the books of the NT, I don't think your argument applies, since I don't believe you disagree with the Catholic list of NT books.

Jon

[steve7150]

I guess I don't know how to interpret your justification for believing what you do. Through reasoning you believe it - do you mean that you agree that the early Church fathers set the list right, or you discerned yourself that these books should be in the Bible, or something else? How exactly does your spirit confirm it, if it is not through a feeling?

Are you implying that doctrines of the RCC are designed to control instead of designed to guide the Truth to the Faithful? This is probably a good topic for a new thread, if you want to discuss it. Specifically in the case of identifying the books of the NT, I don't think your argument applies, since I don't believe you disagree with the Catholic list of NT books.






Jon,
Yes i think the early church fathers were right because my mind tells me scripture flows logically, and my own spirit confirms it to me. Rom 8 says the Holy Spirit communicates with our spirit , so it's not my emotion , it's the Holy Spirit.
As far as the RCC goes i have mixed feelings about starting a thread although you certainly can , because it can turn into one of the endless threads where there may be just a lot of hard feelings and no one agreeing.
I'm sure there a plenty of true believers inside the RCC but the institution as a whole has a history of creating doctrines which have added to their power and control, IMO. However if you see it as the one true church that Christ established then you should follow what you really believe, blessings Steve.

[jriccitelli]

Jon, said; “ it sounds like you are arguing and answering a question I didn't quite ask. …I am trying to understand, from a non-Catholic perspective, how someone comes to the conclusion that the existing books of the Bible are the correct list of books.
It may be that it seemed like I jumped ahead but I was just trying to save every one the time because this question will always end up with who has the final authority (as it did).
I had to deduce that indeed your answer would imply that ‘the See has the final say’, And in fact your answer is what I expected; “the Council of Carthage”, which of course had the keys of ‘Peter’.
Your next question (Oct 9) is the same; “Who can pass judgement, as an individual or a group, to decide who is the heretic and who has the Truth?” And I already stated it is either the Holy See or the reader, as Steve7150 said; As far as i'm concerned i have not a shred of doubt these books belong in the bible exactly where they are. My brain tells me so and my spirit confirms it. Paidion said; “how would I know it is the Roman Catholic Church?" And ‘Steve’ may have well said; "well if I have to stand in the seat of judgement with what I feel is right, I'll take my chances"
You Jon also make a decision with your mind on what to believe, we all do. The freedom to make that decision on our own is biblical, and is what distinguishes following Jesus (The Word) from following men (Organizations). Despite men who burned or banned the scriptures, God promised that ‘God would keep His Word’ available and known to man, no matter what letter or Canon you pick up, ancient or off the bookshelf, you and all other people can determine from what God has ‘provided’, and I believe ‘preserved’ for us. God Himself said He would also send a delusion, so it needs be that 'we' are discerning. We should never be opposed to councils or debates, but still we must ‘each’ rely on the Holy Spirit, we do not rely on someone else’s ‘spirit’ to guide us, yet it is wisdom to gain understanding among a counsel of many, for truth should find agreement and fellowship, and we know we alone are not the sole partakers of His Spirit. But like Job we need to trust God for answers, not men.
You can choose to read and believe the Gnostic documents, you can choose to read the Talmud, Koran, or Plato, these documents are available also. You can choose the Vulgate or maybe you prefer the Textus Receptus, you can accept St. Johns 2nd letter and 3rd it is ‘your decision’. As Paidon said he likes Clements epistle also, I am aware of the questions regarding 2nd Peter, and Revelations I accept them, but I also keep this in mind as I read. But since there is such evidence and agreement on the Gospels, Pauls letters and Acts, I have developed a rather unmoved conviction on these, this is how 'we' choose 'our' Canon, Erasmus had his canon, Athanasius had his, 'you' are not bound to, nor must you only accept the one 'someone tells you' is the infallible Canon, for the books themselves have some minor differences between different manuscripts also.
The Protestant answer is easy; we, the reader, are to use ‘our judgment’ to determine truth, from ‘all’ the available data, led not under compulsion of man, but led ‘by his Spirit’. as Steve 7150 said “it’s the Holy Spirit”
Is this not ultimately the answer to your question?

[Sean]

I am trying to understand, from a non-Catholic perspective, how someone comes to the conclusion that the existing books of the Bible are the correct list of books.
The Catholic answer is easy - Council of Carthage in 397. But why would a non-Catholic accept this list? How can you be sure that the "so-called" heretics of Marcion and the Gnostics were incorrect? Who can pass judgement, as an individual or a group, to decide who is the heretic and who has the Truth?

Why would you assume this council to be Roman Catholic? The council basically decided which writings were or were not authentic, not which writings belong to "our bible". You can't start with a bible in your hand and read that into the council. If you did, you'd be missing the Deuterocanonical books.

Are the councils infallible or is the bible infallible? If the councils are then look to them instead of the bible, if the bible is then look to it. If you say the bible came through the councils then you are oversimplifying the issue. If the councils are the ones who are infallible, then there is no such thing as an infallible bible cannon coming from such a council since the council would always be seen as superior. This is why Romans Catholics consistently look away from the bible text itself if a Roman Catholic council makes a ruling where the bible states something else or is silent, because for many the councils are their authority.

Jon, you have to admit that when you decide the Roman church is the true church it is your own personal decision, and when I decide the Roman church is in error, it is my personal decision. In either case, we are making the decision, guided by the Holy Spirit I trust.

If you really want to learn about this issue, why don't you go to Alpha & Omega ministries http://vintage.aomin.org/Roman.html and related youtube videos from them? They actively debate the issue of Roman catholicism.