What denomination...

[DHK]

My point is, the Bible as we have it was not dropped down out of heaven in its present form; the canon was decided on through a consensus process of the churches over a period of time. So they didn't just confirm what was already known.

Ann is right here.

They didn't decide the church canon. They only confirmed what was already known....

No book made it into the canon which was widely rejected, but some that were widely accepted did not make it in -- such as the Shepherd of Hermas.

It wasn't inspired and the apostles knew it. The apostles, who wrote the Scriptures, taught the early Christians which books were inspired and which were not. Even Paul, who wrote as many as four epistles to the Corinthian Church knew which ones were inspired.

So, if everybody already knew what the canon was, there would have been no need to debate, test, and discuss over a fairly long period of time to determine what the canon was.

They reaffirmed what was true by affirming what was false. There was a lot of copy-cat literature, heretical teachings that were trying to pass off as inspired works when they were not.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Michael: So, if everybody already knew what the canon was, there would have been no need to debate, test, and discuss over a fairly long period of time to determine what the canon was.

HP: I fully agree. They had a hard time deciding, and clearly sought the Holy Spirit to help them decide rightly. It took time and prayer to establish the truth as to what should be included in the cannon of Scripture.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Ann is right here.


It wasn't inspired and the apostles knew it. The apostles, who wrote the Scriptures, taught the early Christians which books were inspired and which were not. Even Paul, who wrote as many as four epistles to the Corinthian Church knew which ones were inspired.

They reaffirmed what was true by affirming what was false. There was a lot of copy-cat literature, heretical teachings that were trying to pass off as inspired works when they were not.

If that's so, then why did it take so long after the apostles died out to determine the canon? And if what you say is true, why did it take so long to finally exclude the Shepherd of Hermas from the canon?

It is a fallacy to believe that the canon was somehow all together from the beginning but just surrounded by all these other non-canonical works -- buried, as it were, in debris and just waiting to be dug out intact the way it was delivered.

 

[DHK]

If that's so, then why did it take so long after the apostles died out to determine the canon? And if what you say is true, why did it take so long to finally exclude the Shepherd of Hermas from the canon?

It is a fallacy to believe that the canon was somehow all together from the beginning but just surrounded by all these other non-canonical works -- buried, as it were, in debris and just waiting to be dug out intact the way it was delivered.

You have swallowed a RCC lie that it took a long time to determine the canon. They knew what the canon was by the end of the first century. The apostles taught them. We did not get our canon from the Catholics and their councils, as they like to think we did.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter knew which of Paul's writings were Scripture. He knew they were inspired, as he says here.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You have swallowed a RCC lie that it took a long time to determine the canon. They knew what the canon was by the end of the first century. The apostles taught them. We did not get our canon from the Catholics and their councils, as they like to think we did.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter knew which of Paul's writings were Scripture. He knew they were inspired, as he says here.

Actually, I have not paid any attention to the RCC view on this but have determined the truth by studying church history.

Those "other scriptures": the Shepherd of Hermas was widely considered scripture until it was finally excluded.

The canon was not determined by the end of the first century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

And actually the canon is still disputed to this day, as the Catholics and Protestants have different canons.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Michael: And actually the canon is still disputed to this day, as the Catholics and Protestants have different canons.

HP: I was in the process of mentioning that when I read your post. How funny.

 

[DHK]

Actually, I have not paid any attention to the RCC view on this but have determined the truth by studying church history.

Those "other scriptures": the Shepherd of Hermas was widely considered scripture until it was finally excluded.

The canon was not determined by the end of the first century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

And actually the canon is still disputed to this day, as the Catholics and Protestants have different canons.

OK, to put it bluntly: You believe that the Apostles were so stupid that they didn't know which of their own writings were inspired and which were not, and so inept at teaching that they were unable to teach the early believers what God had told them. This is quite an amazing piece of information you have revealed.

 

[nodak]

Michael-- some churches in the Wesleyan tradition will be Christus Victor. UMC vary from congregation to congregation. Although they do hold some tenants of governmental and penal, many pastors are convinced of Christus Victor.

Also, if you have an ELCA Lutheran church nearby you may find it has a Christus Victor pastor.

And sorry for the venom from some folks.

Christus Victor isn't all that far from what some Baptist preachers I've known taught.

Most held that the several theories of the atonement each have some truth and some falsehood.

Good luck with your church search.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Nodak, if I were to ask you what makes one view of the atonement, Christus Victor, how would you explain or define it to me? What points are particular to that view that you see at clear antipodes to other views?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

OK, to put it bluntly: You believe that the Apostles were so stupid that they didn't know which of their own writings were inspired and which were not, and so inept at teaching that they were unable to teach the early believers what God had told them. This is quite an amazing piece of information you have revealed.

How did you deduce that from what I wrote? Sherlock Holmes couldn't have deduced that.

Of course the apostles knew which of their own writings were inspired, but theirs and other writings were being produced during the lifetime of the apostles and not all the churches had access to all these writings at the time the apostles were living. It was a very fluid situation and a gradual process to gather all the writings, disseminate them among all the churches, and debate, discuss, examine, pray, and thereby decide which of these writings were genuine, inspired, and of true apostolic origin. It took time and was done by consensus over time. That's why books like the Shepherd of Hermas were widely accepted for a good while.

I've come to see that Sola Scriptura the way some have narrowly described it is not true. The scriptures were not written in a vacuum, apart from the culture of the time, or experience and oral tradition. That's why i think the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" makes the most sense to me: Scripture, the primary and final authority, with reason, tradition, and experience as secondary authorities confirming and confirmed by scripture.

And still, we to this day have controversy over the canon between Catholics and Protestants, both having different canons, as I have mentioned.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: OK, to put it bluntly: You believe that the Apostles were so stupid that they didn't know which of their own writings were inspired and which were not, and so inept at teaching that they were unable to teach the early believers what God had told them. This is quite an amazing piece of information you have revealed.

HP: Michael, you need to get with the program. Ask that he respond precisely as he demands of others. Insist that either he posts a quote directly by yourself, or stop misrepresenting or lying about your position. :thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael-- some churches in the Wesleyan tradition will be Christus Victor. UMC vary from congregation to congregation. Although they do hold some tenants of governmental and penal, many pastors are convinced of Christus Victor.

Also, if you have an ELCA Lutheran church nearby you may find it has a Christus Victor pastor.

And sorry for the venom from some folks.

Christus Victor isn't all that far from what some Baptist preachers I've known taught.

Most held that the several theories of the atonement each have some truth and some falsehood.

Good luck with your church search.

(See bolded part): And I could live with that.

Thanks for you considerate and informative post.

I knew that Arminians favored the governmental theory, but I wasn't sure of the contemporary UMC understanding, although I knew it would be diverse.

I thought the Church of the Nazarene might be open to the Christus Victor view, but I wasn't sure.

There are many things I like about the Lutherans, but I couldn't hold to their views on baptism. Also, the ELCA is too liberal for me, with their position on homosexuality. There is a LCMS congregation about an hour's drive, but they are very fundamentalist.

Seems like nobody is a moderate nowadays -- it's either extreme right or extreme left.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

HP: Michael, you need to get with the program. Ask that he respond precisely as he demands of others. Insist that either he posts a quote directly by yourself, or stop misrepresenting or lying about your position. :thumbs:

I am used to being fed words here that I did not create.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Michael, if I walked up to you on the street and asked you explain to me what the Christus Victor view is all about, in your own words, how might you respond?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, if I walked up to you on the street and asked you explain to me what the Christus Victor view is all about, in your own words, how might you respond?

Well, briefly, I would say that Christus Victor is a wholistic view which doesn't isolate the atonement from the Incarnation and Resurrection but is rather one step in the process of salvation that Jesus provided to and for us. Christus Victor asserts that the entire life of Jesus, from His incarnation, to His death on the cross, to his Resurrection, is the way that He defeated sin, the devil, and death, liberates us from bondage to the devil and death, provides the way for our spiritual rebirth and eventual resurrection.

This is not a full or adequate explanation, I realize, but it's a brief one.

I don't believe that God punished and killed Jesus in our place to satisfy his wrath or justice. I think that is a perversion of God's true character.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Michael: I don't believe that God punished and killed Jesus in our place to satisfy his wrath or justice. I think that is a perversion of God's true character.

HP: There is much in the discussion of the atonement that simply goes far beyond the scope of my finite mind. I do not know all the whys and therefores. I cannot even definitely tell you who killed Jesus. It is apparent that they crucified Him, but He said He laid down His life voluntarily. To me it was a combination of both.

I do see the punishment, suffering and death of Christ, to be a satisfaction of the demands of the law and it's just penalties, being accepted by God on behalf of all who would come to him in repentance and faith. Through the sufferings and death of Christ, God saw Christ suffering sufficient to wisely be able to offer sinners forgiveness for sin under certain conditions. God clearly set forth conditions to be met by man in order for any pardon or forgiveness to take place, i.e., initially repentance and faith in the atonement, and subsequently obedience until the end.

So I suppose in a sense I would believe that the atonement did in fact satisfy the demands of the law, as an acceptable substitute for its penalty in God's eyes and in God's wisdom, enough so that God felt He could offer salvation and pardon from sin again under certain conditions. In doing so God was able to uphold the law and it's just and wise penalties, while at the same time offering mercy to sinners.

Of a truth God could not simply set aside the penalty for his law without destroying the law. It is rightfully said that 'Law without penalty is nothing more than good advice or counsel but it is no law at all.' Someone or something had to serve as a substitute to receive at least in some measure punishment equivalent to the penalty of the law, and to the degree that God could wisely that set aside His penalty for sin, without destroying the law.

I do not know how you might see what I have said, whether you would see that as a perversion of God's true character or not. I would say that God, via the substitution of giving of His own Self, that He accomplished not only the establishment of the law and its punishment as just, but was able to wisely show forth His mercy while securing the means by which to provide a pardon for sinners.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

HP: There is much in the discussion of the atonement that simply goes far beyond the scope of my finite mind. I do not know all the whys and therefores. I cannot even definitely tell you who killed Jesus. It is apparent that they crucified Him, but He said He laid down His life voluntarily. To me it was a combination of both.

I do see the punishment, suffering and death of Christ, to be a satisfaction of the demands of the law and it's just penalties, being accepted by God on behalf of all who would come to him in repentance and faith. Through the sufferings and death of Christ, God saw Christ suffering sufficient to wisely be able to offer sinners forgiveness for sin under certain conditions. God clearly set forth conditions to be met by man in order for any pardon or forgiveness to take place, i.e., initially repentance and faith in the atonement, and subsequently obedience until the end.

So I suppose in a sense I would believe that the atonement did in fact satisfy the demands of the law, as an acceptable substitute for its penalty in God's eyes and in God's wisdom, enough so that God felt He could offer salvation and pardon from sin again under certain conditions. In doing so God was able to uphold the law and it's just and wise penalties, while at the same time offering mercy to sinners.

Of a truth God could not simply set aside the penalty for his law without destroying the law. It is rightfully said that 'Law without penalty is nothing more than good advice or counsel but it is no law at all.' Someone or something had to serve as a substitute to receive at least in some measure punishment equivalent to the penalty of the law, and to the degree that God could wisely that set aside His penalty for sin, without destroying the law.

I do not know how you might see what I have said, whether you would see that as a perversion of God's true character or not. I would say that God, via the substitution of giving of His own Self, that He accomplished not only the establishment of the law and its punishment as just, but was able to wisely show forth His mercy while securing the means by which to provide a pardon for sinners.

Well, I just don't see it the way you have described, but I surely will not say to you what others have said to me. You are a good person, and you have not once been disrespectful to me or called me an apostate. So while I strongly disagree with what you said, that disagreement is nothing personal.

Some here I strongly disagree with and don't like them, either; I strongly disagree with you but still like you.

 

[steaver]

I don't believe that God punished and killed Jesus in our place to satisfy his wrath or justice. I think that is a perversion of God's true character.

are you saying you don't believe Isaiah?

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." (Isaiah 53:10)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks Michael. You have always treated me kindly and I certainly respect and appreciate that. :thumbs:

On the atonement: I may be the worst advocate of a governmental system on this planet. I simply tried to do as you did for me and put into my own words how I feel. I will say that I have indeed been influenced by the book, found now even online, called "The Atonement" by Albert Barnes. I would highly suggest giving it a read if you have not already. I think he has some good and reasonable things to say.

 

[DHK]

How did you deduce that from what I wrote? Sherlock Holmes couldn't have deduced that.

Of course the apostles knew which of their own writings were inspired, but theirs and other writings were being produced during the lifetime of the apostles and not all the churches had access to all these writings at the time the apostles were living. It was a very fluid situation and a gradual process to gather all the writings, disseminate them among all the churches, and debate, discuss, examine, pray, and thereby decide which of these writings were genuine, inspired, and of true apostolic origin. It took time and was done by consensus over time. That's why books like the Shepherd of Hermas were widely accepted for a good while.

The apostles continued to refer to each others work. One of last books written, save the writings of John, was Jude. The author refers to himself as a second generation writer.

Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The salvation preached by Christ was confirmed to the writer by the Apostles that heard Christ. God bore the Apostles witness with signs and wonders and miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
This writer came after the Apostles, not necessarily after they were all dead, but after most of them had already written. He had knowledge of their writings, their authority, their witness to Christ, etc.

Peter says:
2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Remember this epistle. Be mindful of the words spoken to you: first by the prophets (OT), and secondly of us, the Apostles of the Lord. He puts the words, the writings of the Apostles on the same level as the OT, telling them that they are inspired writings. Peter knew which were inspired and was telling them that the words of the Apostles were inspired.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--The faith is that body of doctrine which is written down. Jude also was written about 70 A.D., later than all of Paul's epistles, three of the gospels, and the book of Acts, the epistles of Peter and James.
Contend for the faith. What faith? The faith that we have in the NT. It was mostly written by that time. The apostles traveled. Scribes made copies.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
--What did Paul want? Books, but especially the parchments.
From Rome he wrote many of his epistles.
Jamieson, Faucett and Brown say:

books--He was anxious respecting these that he might transmit them to the faithful, so that they might have the teaching of his writings when he should be gone.
especially the parchments--containing perhaps some of his inspired Epistles themselves.

The consensus for the date of the book, "The Shepherd of Hermas" is 140-155 A.D., a date which puts it out of the running to be included in the canon of Scripture. The canon was completed by the end of the first century. The books were all written by Apostles or associates of Apostles. This book has no apostolic authority. Neither do the apocryphal books except in the eyes of the RCC. The OT canon was complete between 400-450 B.C. No Jew accepted any writing after 400 B.C. All the apocryphal books were written after 250 B.C., and some of them after Christ was born. And these are supposed to be in the OT??? Pure fraud!! It demonstrates that they could not have been included in the original Septuagint written in 250 B.C. Thus there is no question that the apocryphal books were never a part of the canon of Scripture.

I've come to see that Sola Scriptura the way some have narrowly described it is not true. The scriptures were not written in a vacuum, apart from the culture of the time, or experience and oral tradition. That's why i think the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" makes the most sense to me: Scripture, the primary and final authority, with reason, tradition, and experience as secondary authorities confirming and confirmed by scripture.

Sola Scriptura has to do with study, not with canon.
I quoted from Jamieson, Faucett and Brown above. I used him as an authority. However the Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice. That is sola scriptura.

And still, we to this day have controversy over the canon between Catholics and Protestants, both having different canons, as I have mentioned.

Easy enough. The RCC is wrong, always has been.