One of the books he gave me is written by a Protestant J.N.D. Kelly called Early Christian Doctrines. Kelly never became Catholic but he admits the Church was built upon Peter who was given the keys. THe book also goes into great detail of how there was no final Canon of scripture until 381.
I don't think Kelly can be called a protestant, if he takes the view that Peter was "given the keys" -- surely that is a purely Catholic perspective and phrase?
The statement about a "final canon" is rather misleading. The Fathers did not hold the sort of view that this is being used to advance, but behaved as if the New Testament was scripture, and the books in it were delivered by the apostles to the churches that the founded.
But they were aware that there was a problem with *collecting* all the bits of scripture. The reason for this was simple; that, outside the core -- gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, 1 John -- many of the remaining texts were letters which were sent to people geographically separated. The early Church was an illegal organisation. It couldn't easily communicate some of these things. The result is uncertainty until the 4th century over some of the fringe items.
But the church never thought that it did not have the bible! There is no trace in the ancient literature of "wow, we've finally got a canon! yippee!" On the contrary, the lists of books in those 4th century councils are made, not to assert "this is the canon" but to say "there are a number of fakes being hoked up by heretics and Manichaeans -- please bear this in mind". The Decretum Gelasianum is online in English, and has a long list, not just of real books, but of fakes (which makes it of great interest).
ANother book I have read was written in AD 350 called Church History by Eusebius. He writes how many books were disputed during his time. Some books that aren't in the final Canon were accepted.
Eusebius
Church History is *exactly* the right book to read. It is also online. Much of book 3 is well worth perusing. The link is
here.
Chapter 25 gives us the bit we are discussing, and I find it is always best to have the text before us, out in the open.
Eusebius said:
Chapter XXV. The Divine Scriptures that are Accept and Those that are Not.
1 Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.
2 After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.
3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
4 Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.
5 And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.
6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers-we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
7 And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.
Let us now proceed with our history.
Eusebius is not writing as a man who says "we have no idea what the bible is". He's describing a situation, just after legalisation, when the status of some books was uncertain. He has four categories:
1. Orthodox and accepted by all Christians as apostolic.
2. Orthodox and accepted by many as apostolic
3. Orthodox, but not apostolic and so not scripture
4. Fakes by heretics and other rubbish.
The existence of category 4 is why the discussion takes place between #2 and #3. In the end, as we can see, pretty much anything with a reasonable claim to be apostolic was accepted.
As he has said to me many times "Christ established the Church. He did not establish denominations. Those are all man made". I have no answer for that one since there were no denominations before Martin Luther.
The Greek Orthodox would have something to say about that. And there is the old response to "where was your faith to be found before Luther?" -- "It was to be found, where your faith is not to be found now, in the writings of the apostles and the words of Jesus Christ."
I fear you are being propagandised here. If the RCC is not a denomination, then the word has no meaning. And the RCC of the Council of Trent would not be recognisable to Eusebius, and is not, perhaps, the RCC of Vatican 2 either.
But ... do we have to do this? The world is engaged in forcing gay clergy upon churches, as a joke, to force the churches to bow the knee. The Catholics are resisting. We as Christians are -- I hope -- resisting. Why are we arguing about denominational stuff -- Baptist or RC -- in the face of the enemy and under attack from the Devil and his dupes? I fear that Satan is at work here.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
