Featured Baptists: When did your denomination decide the canon?

If Scripture is divinely inspired, and the (undisputed) canonical books of the NT cite the LXX, then that makes a sufficient claim that the LXX appears as inspired Scripture. The argument doesn’t have to be “Jesus used it”, but rather, “inspired writers of Scripture used it.”

 

Traitors were hung, drawn and quartered, including the fifth monarchists, who were hung drawn and quartered under Charles II, who was Catholic. The same were traitors under Cromwell, but were jailed.

 

God inspired a translation?
I know some will claim that, but that is usually reserved for the KJV.

The hellenistic Jewish still placed the duetrocanonical books as less than the other books.

Also, if the Septuagint is the inspired text, then do we have an single English bible that is correct? Especially in the Psalms....Jeremiah.....Daniel or Esther????? What about all the numbers in the first 5 books?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Self-authenticating is simply unbiblical. If self-authenticating the inspired books is so accurate and easy a child could choose, why do we not see a complete agreement about the canon right from the beginning? Why do we not see any early Christians state the claim that inspiration is self-evident?

Instead, you have the entire Church relying on the Tradition of the early Church to determine what is inspired, not a individual person saying what he feels is inspired and what is not. Why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church” and not “we believe in the Holy Scripture”?

If a person back in 110 AD wanted to try and self authenticate the inspiration of the Bible could he do it? (Or could he practice the doctrine of Sola Scriptura)

NOPE

1) I would buy a Bible but can’t afford one because it would cost me at least one years salary.

2) I would buy a Bible buy I can’t read. At best 5% of the population of the world were literate.

3) I would buy a Bible but I would be long dead if I could afford it. The Bible has 800,000 words and 1200 pages. That’s on average 660 per page. This is all done by hand. Plus I had to find someone that was literate to copy it for me.

4) I would buy a Bible but there wasn’t a collection of books known as the Bible.

5) I would buy a Bible for me and my brother but there wasn’t a printing press until 1600. So the bible wasn’t wide spread or distributed until this point in history.

Some of these points still existed until very recently.

 

Which part is unbiblical? Nothing in the rest of your post addressed any part of it.

Attributes of canonicity are
1. Divine qualities (do you deny the bible has Mark's of divinty?)
2. Corporate reception
3. Apostolic origins (do you deny the NT books are a result of redemptive- historical activity)

Plus we have to acknowledge the environment of providential exposure (a church cannot recognize a book it does not have). And let us not for get internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. But I believe that is assumed by both sides without written statement.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

We seen complete agreement in Jesus' day. The Herbrew Scripture, which Jesus taught from, did not contain the apocrypha. It wasnt until centuries later that sola ecclesia brought confusion and tampered with Scripture.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Most Baptist have no concept of what you are saying. The idea that there was no compiled/available bible at the time is foreign to them. I have read posts on the BB claiming that the 66 books Baptists tote to church with them was already known and used by the early 'Baptistic Christians' in the earliest centuries of the church. The fact that there is not one scintilla of historical evidence of that doesn't bother them in the least.

 

Which part of “self-authenticating” is unbiblical? All of it!

3 reasons why:

• 1)From my last post, self-authenticating couldn’t be practiced in the early church and not until recently because the 5 points I made about the Bible.
• 2)When Protestant asks a Catholic about any doctrine or teaching, they always say where exactly are the words... in the Bible or where exactly in the Bible is the doctrine of ... And they expect an answer from the Bible. Well just borrowing from that template, since the canon is a doctrine of the Church, please show us exactly where it says Scripture is “Self-Authenticating” and please show us exactly where all these Attributes are in the Bible.
• 3)In the Bible, individuals repeatedly had to test revelation to see if it conveyed the Word of God. "Self-Authentication" of scripture is unbiblical because is not always so easy a child could choose and its not so obvious, even to the individuals that received the revelation.
• In 1 Sam 3, the boy prophet didn’t identify the word of God. This boy thought it was Eli calling him. He went to Eli 3 different times to see what he wanted. So this boy didn’t have a “Self-Authentic” experience there. So Samuel could not distinguish God’s voice and the wicked priest Eli had to help him.
• 1 Kings13- God tells a man of God not to eat or drink until he returns from his trip. An old prophet of God tells him the Lord has rescinded the command. Then as they were having dinner a revelation comes that the order was still in effect; so the prophet was lying. So the man of God didn’t have a “Self-Authentic” experience here to decide between God’s Word and the fake word of God. He could not recognize between God’s voice and the voice error.
• Deut 13 & 18- There are 2 tests that God gives to prophets to know whether they are speaking the word of God. The fact God gives theses tests shows revelation must be tested because it is not always obvious what is and what is not God’s word.
• This is why Paul in 1 Thess 5:20-21 he tells us to that we must test what is the word of god and what is not, just as 1 John 4:1 says “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”

So the word of God is not “self-authenticating” as you say it is. God commands us to test any revelation purported to come from him. This includes scripture. If someone offers a book that purports to be scripture, it has to be tested to see if it is apostolic writing or merely human writing.

Also here are the questions from my last post again.

• If self-authenticating the inspired books are so accurate and easy a child could choose, why do we not see a complete agreement about the canon right from the beginning, I’m speaking of just the New Testament Canon right now?

• Why do we not see any early Christians state the claim that inspiration is self-evident?

• Why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church” and not “we believe in the Holy Scripture”?

 

When was the church right? When it denounced Arianism or when it supported it after being against it? Was it right when it said councils had ultimate authority or when it said the Pope did?
Was it right when the Pope said if anyone accpets the title of "universal priest, or desires to be called, shows himself, by this self-exaltation, to be the forerunner to the Antichrist..." or when the church declared Pope the universal priest?

Popes contradict Popes, councils contradict councils and you think they should have authority over God's word?

The conversation can really go no further since you deny scripture has divine attributes. You also denied corporate reception which then also means you deny the church having anything to do with the canon. The church is unable to receive of recognize it. You have found yourself without a canon by denying "all" things of the self authenticating model.


Why are you just talking NT now? It is the same 27 books. That hasn't changed. The earliest canon list in church history never listed anything other than such. Some had a few books missing, because the were likely unaware of their existence, but since Athanasius the agreement of the 27 has been wide spread. The OP is about "changes."...the NT is not relevant to your argument


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Athanasius said it was pretty self evident . And that nothing should be taught not found in Scripture.

“The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas).

Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz., of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6 These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.' " (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:5-6).




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
* I will add that "self-evident" is not the same thing as the self-authenticating model described above. You are attempting to remove the model and replace it with your own strawman.

 

I misspoke, being apostolic is valid. The Early Church answered how to know what books belong in the Canon. That those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:

“Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be” (Early Christian Doctrines, 60). But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book’s claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neitherdid the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.

But how was the test for apostolicity carried out in the early Church? Is I said in a earlier post Basically, there were two tests, both of them involving tradition. First, those books were reckoned as apostolic which agreed with the teachings the apostles handed on to the Church. Gnostic scriptures and other writings which did not agree with the apostolic tradition were rejected out of hand. This is something Evangelical scholars admit.

Protestant scripture scholar F. F. Bruce writes that,“[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy…. This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus…. When previously unknown Gospels or Acts began to circulate… the most important question to ask about any one of them was: What does it teach about the person and work of Christ? Does it maintain the apostolic witness to him…?” (The Canon of Scripture,260).

Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle — not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected. This was also an appeal to tradition because it looked to the tradition of the churches as a guide for apostolicity. If the tradition of the Churches did not recognize a book as apostolic, it was not canonized.

The fact that this was also used by the early Church to establish apostolicity is also something admitted by Protestant scholars. F. F. Bruce writes:“It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospsels are anonymous, whereas the ‘Gospels’ which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels…. The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition” (The Canon of Scripture, 257).

But of course not all of the Churches agreed. Some Protestant apologists are fond of pointing out that the Muratorian fragment, an early canon list dating from the A.D. 170s, includes most of the New Testament. But they fail to point out that the Muratorian fragment also omitted certain works from its canon. It did not include Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. Furthermore, it included works that the Protestant apologists would not regard as canonical: the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. So there was obvious disagreement on the extent of the canon.

Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.

 

FYI, by 180 AD, every book of the New Testament, with the solitary exception of 2 Peter, had been quoted or alluded to by one of other 'Apostolic father.'
Around 126 AD, Aristides, writing his Apology to the Emperor Hadrian, declared, "Take then, their [Christian] Scriptures, and read therein, and lo! You will find that I have not put forth these things on my own authority."

 

So now the writings of the early church fathers make a difference to you? You also know what the apostolic fathers said about the Eucharist and Baptism. I have no doubt that the apostolic fathers also quoted from the works of Ignatius of Antioch, but his writings (although considered) were eventually excluded from the canon.

Here are some quotes by Ignatius of Antioch that sure sound orthodox, but for reason other than your criteria that ECF's 'quote' anything he said, his writings didn't make into the canon.

Hat tip: Talbot Theological Seminary:

Priceless Quotes from Ignatius of Antioch: Apostolic Fathers #2

 

I was surprised no one had jumped on that yet. I find it comical that people that follow this theory of “self authentication” of the Bible, say that its demeaning to Scripture and some say sacrilegious that the Spirit can tell the Church in Council which books are inspired and which are not. And its God honoring and perfectly pious to say that He does this with each particular person, as a kind of little church stand alone, one by one.

Consider these 3 points also about “self-authentication” in the early Church.1- There was different canon among the Church Fathers. So it wasn’t as clear and obvious. St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, and St. Cyril each argued for a different canonical list. This disagreement tells us that the Holy Spirit worked slowly and through the Church rather than believing it was quick, easy and obvious through the believer as you say it is.
2-Second, no Church Father had the Protestant canon. Despite the various canons that the early Church Fathers used, none of them used the canon of Scripture that Protestants use today. So that means, if “self-authentication” is right that those with the inward guidance of the Holy Spirit will recognize the Protestant canon of Scripture, then not only are Athanasius, Augustine, and Cyril not Saints, but no known member of the early Church was a Saint. We would have to reject as non-Christian the very people, the very Christian communities, the very Church that brought all of us the Bible. So, if this is correct, the Early Church Fathers are neither our spiritual fathers, nor representations of the true Spirit-led Church.
3-Even Jerome didn’t buy into the idea of Self-Attestation. St. Jerome argued unsuccessfully for the Protestant canon, before deferring to the judgment of the Church. But even in his arguments for the Protestant canon, he wasn’t saying, “I’m guided by the Holy Spirit, so this is obvious to me.” Instead, he was making arguments based on textual criticism, and the Jewish canon, etc. So even the Father who came closest to having a Protestant Bible didn’t find the canon of Scripture obvious or self-evident.

 

"Self-evident" is not the self authenticating model. Again, an appeal to a strawman. Jerome was practicing the "self authenticating". Hos appeal to Jewish Scripture was based on the corporate reception attribute of said model.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I am not interested in the theology of the ECFs; I am interested in history. It is helpful to be able to point J.W.s to Ignatius when they claim that the deity of Christ was unknown until Nicaea, but Ignatius' theology as a whole is of interest just as far as it agrees with the Scriptures and no further. Likewise, the ECFs point to the reception of the Canon at a very early stage, but their understanding of the teaching of that Canon was variable to say the least.

 

You do not know what you are talking about. I am sure you think you do.

Here is a test verse of self authentication for a non-believer: ". . . If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . ." -- John 7:17.
Now can you tell men what will of God Jesus was referring to? Jesus was claiming one could know the teaching was from God or Jesus was just speaking for himself as a man.

John wrote in his first letter, ". . . He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, . . ." -- 1 John 5:12-13.

My question for you, do you now possess eternal life or not (1 John 5:12; 2 Corinthians 13:5)?

 

This is completely wrong.
On this basis the Greek Poet Aratus of Cilisia is caonical because Paul references his work in Acts 17:28 and Epimenedes of Crete is canonical because he is quoted in Titus 1:12.

 

I was raised mennonite, How do you figure?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that beliefs and practices vary among Anabaptist sects. Mennonite congregations in my neck of the woods are 'gay affirming' and deny inerrancy of scripture. Amish do not believe in Sola Fide, neither do Hutterites. Amish and Hutterite sects don't believe in eternal security. Those leaving Amish life are considered hell bound. There are many former Amish who attest to this. What they all seem to hold in common is 'believers baptism', although I am not so sure they would all define it (believers Baptism) as a Baptist here would. I think Plymouth Brethren hold closer beliefs to most people posting on the BB?