Theodosius, the Trinity and the Pope

OK, let's try this one more time. Bro. James, please give me your take on how the 27 books in your Bible that we call the New Testamnet got to be there, and how, say, the Letter of James got to be in those 27 but the Gospel of Thomas did not

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The mechanism: the providence of God. He is not the author of confusion. Is it possible Thomas was not a "God-breathed" writer?

There are many "sacred writings" out there. i.e. Koran, Book of Mormon, Apocrypha, etc. etc. Most of them are false--written by false prophets. Are there really twenty-five or less in the NT? Maybe there are thirty or more. The paradigm is still the same--are they God breathed.?

To spend a lot of time "stymied" on canonicity is a futile academic endeavor.

"Trust in the Lord with all the heart; lean not to thine own understanding; in all thy ways, acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy paths."
Prov. 3:5-6.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

How was this 'mechanism: the providence of God' manifested and exercised in practice? Who decided that Thomas' Gospel was not "God-breathed" and that the 27 that we do have are "God-breathed"?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Good questions.

 

My Bible has 66 books--each one points to Jesus in some way. That is manifestation, Brother.

Then there is God Himself, manifested in the flesh--Jesus--Immanuel.

I am still convinced my original position is correct: God gave His word to His Elect to preserve and pass on to the next generation of His Elect by His power.

His Elect have done so--by His mercy, grace,and power.

Maybe Thomas was not the author.

If Thomas was the author, maybe he was not inspired.

There are three basic filters which religious writings must pass: authenticity, verity, and inspiration.

It is possible to be authentic and untrue.
It is possible to be true and not authentic.
It is possible to be untrue and inspired(the quotations of Satan).
It is not possible to be inspired and true without being authentic.
It is possible to be authentic, true, and not inspired.

If I left out any combination, let me know.

The point is: only those writings which are authentic and inspired are in the "cannon"--also called a "two-edged" sword.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

And who decides which books meet those above criteria?

How did God's Elect decide what was God's Word and what wasn't? And would it be fair to say that "The Elect=The Church"?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Probably not a conclave of cardinals or vicars.

The New Testament, which fulfills the Old Testament was given to the New Testament Churches. See Mt. 28:20 plus context. Following the fulfillment of that commission through today is not difficult--as long as one stays away from the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

If God said it, that settles it--whether we believe or not is irrelevant.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

But the canon was "fixed" by letters of bishops (Athanasius of Alexandria in AD 367; Damasus of Rome in AD 382) and church councils (Carthage and Hippo, AD 390s)--whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant.

True, but not all churches had all 27 NT books right off the bat. It took a while for the works to circulate, and by that time other works claiming apostolic authorship were also circulating. That's why there was a dispute for about 300 years about certain NT books, especially James, 2 Peter, 2 &3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation (the NT "Deuterocanonicals", if you will). On the other hand works like 1 Clement, Barnabas, The Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas were considered to be Scripture in some churches. None of the early lists had the exact 27 books we have today until Athanasius' Paschal letter in AD 367 (about 10 years prior the Council of Laodicea listed 26--all but Revelation). Like or not, the contents of the Bible you have in your hand is due to decisions of churchmen of the late 4th century AD--300 years after the last NT books were written. (Oh, and I guess also due to the decisions of 16th century "Reformers" to demote certain OT books which eventually led to their removal altogether)

SELAH

 

"Fixed"--an interesting choice of words--kind of like "fixation".

Were these not the same "forefathers" and "councils" which "fixed" the practices of "universal church", "baptismal regeneration", "infant baptism", "trans-substantiation", "papacy", "worshipping dead men's bones", "purgatory", etcetera, etcetera...?

I was born into that tradition, Brother; then The Lord saved my soul.

Hypothetical situation: The year is A.D. 120. A new testament church has been organized among a nomadic group which moves from the mountains to the valleys annually in what is known as Turkey today. This Church has a tattered copy of the Pentateuch, a complete Gospel of Matthew, some of the Pauline Letters--Romans, I Corinthians,and Ephesians; and the Apocolypse.

Question: Could the above New Testament Church function without the whole canon--whatever that is? If the answer is yes, such a situation could exist today as well. Now what?

"Faith comes by hearing--hearing by the Word of God."--a gift of God, not of works.

"Beware of wolves dressed like sheep."

"It is no wonder, Satan himself is become and angel of light."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

To an extent: they did teach about the universal church; infant baptism and baptismal regeneration; the Real Presence in the Eucharist (wasn't called "transsubstantiation: til much later); a primacy of sorts for the bishop of Rome; veneration (not worship) of God's saints and their relics; and the importance of being faithful to God unto death to be saved.

Perhaps. At the very least one can note that you have now been indoctrinated into some 16th century traditions of men. (The same 16th century traditions I was indoctrinated into until the Lord opened my eyes)

Of course this situation is not so hypothetical but was more or less the reality for most churches along the Mediterranean during that time period (now you're catching on )

Actually Irenaeus addressed this situation particularly regarding the illiterate barbarian tribes. He said if they ever heard heretical teachings that they'd "stop up their ears" since the Word of God had been delievered orally in the Apostolic Tradition. Paul commands the Thessalonians to keep the TRADITION whether it was delieverd orally or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15). Therefore the local congregations could function quite well without the complete canon since they were keeping the oral tradition (and whatever written Tradition was available). It was the Tradition that helped the church ultimately set the limits of the canon and guided them in the correct interpretation of the canon vis-a-vis the heretics.

But now you're reverting by to the fallacy that the "Word of God" only equals written Scriptures. "Hearing" by definition refers to the word being delievered orally.

Indeed.

 

False teaching--

is false by any definition. Candy-coated or not, sin is sin. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin".

"Church councils" have tried to "clean up their act" in recent years--now most things ecclesiastical are "ecumenical"--Vatican II notwithstanding. The daughters of Rome can come back to their Mother--if they desire. She cannot participate in their schisms.

The Bride is still out there--She has not been defiled. She has never been through Rome nor Wittenburg. She is still the pillar and ground of The Truth.

Behold, the Bridegroom cometh.

Selah,

Bro. James