Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
Folks, I'm reposting this article, edited so as to not appear to be attacking anybody.
I'd like your opinion, as this is an article in working progress. If you agree, disagree, have facts & figures, I'd appreciate your comments.
I've purposely left out the controversy over the OT beacause 1. I need to do some research, and 2. The focus of this article is on the agreed upon NT cannon. (It's more for discussion of NT amongst different denominations). I'll write another article on the OT, or incorporate it here.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE
INTRODUCTION
Many schools of theology contend that the Church had a falling away, or went apostate, not too long after the death of the last Apostle. The approximate date varies, with 100AD for Jehovah Witnesses and 312AD for Calvinists and Mormons.
ERRANT CHURCH
If the Church had indeed fallen away from the faith, then this presents a very serious problem for the Church. The problem is so large it is a showstopper and it calls into question the validity of the faith itself.
The problem is this: If the Church was indeed apostate, then how could anything handled by the Church be trusted? Could any major (not minor) tenant taught or produced by the errant Church be considered valid? If so, then how can the modern Church accept a major tenant from an apostate Church?
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Contrary to the current wide availability of the New Testament, the first believers did not have a copy of the New Testament.
The first Christians had the blessing of hearing the teachings of Christ personally. The apostles carried these teachings to various foreign lands for many years afterwards.
These Christians had no cannon of Scriptures, and in fact, some of the scriptures were being written during this period. (Such as the Epistles, which were letters to the various churches.)
Those who came after the time of the twelve apostles continued to teach the Gospel as well as the writings of the Apostles.
But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired. One could even go as far as to argue that the Didichae or the Shepard of Hermas could be candidates for consideration of being divinely inspired. The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired. This didn't happen overnight.
Through the course of time, well after the earliest possible date (100ad) of a supposed apostasy, various writings were examined, tested, debated, and validated/invalidated by the Church.
THE CANNON IS RECOGNIZED
Thee first real recognition of the cannon of the New Testament came in the late 300s (two synods, one in 382 and one in 392). This recognition is not the absolute official cannon, but rather just recognition of the NT cannon of Scripture.
NOTE: The Church rarely puts a stamp of official approval on anything until there is a serious dispute. This is why it wasnt until the Council of Trent that the official cannon was certified there was no serious dispute till that time frame (minor disputes? yes). The unofficial official cannon was recognized for centuries, but only certified at Trent.
THE ACHILLES HEAL OF AN APOSTASY
This formal recognition of the NT Cannon is the problem for believers.
If the Church was in error in the proposed range (100ad-312ad), then how could the errant church be trusted to be correct about the cannon of Scripture? How can one say for certainty that the cannon is correct. Maybe the Didichae belongs in there?
It's an error in logic, a paradox, to say that "An errant Church, misguided and corrupt, produced an infallible cannon of Scripture which is the foundation of the faith for non-Catholic believers."
While it is true that an errant church can teach valid truths, it is not true that an errant church can define the entire faith on which these truths rest.
CONCLUSION
A common reaction to the question of the cannon of the NT is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed it to individuals and the Church. If the Spirit indeed does confirm that the NT cannon is correct, then one has to admit that the either an apostate Church produced an infallible NT cannon (a contradiction) OR, that in fact, the Church wasn't apostate after all.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
-----
Comments??
A Waldensian canon, at earliest, is centruries later
Understand that Trent basically was the "official" seal of approval on the canon. But all along it was the offical canon of the Church. It just needed reemphasizing for those who questioned the canon. This is a common practice of the Church: explicit, "seal of approval", formal declrations are *usually* reserved to squash serious disputes, not to reaffirm what is ALREADY accepted and believed. Trent was not *when* the Church accepted the canon, it was only a *affirmation*.
Thanks, Ruben
That's It!
What historical truths do you base this on?
Your statement begs the question "Was the Church Catholic before the Edict of Milan?"
We all fall short of ideals. Which parts bothered you?
You mean the Scripture those grievous wolves picked at a Church council?
patent
No, it is because even though God gave us the Truth preserved in the Holy Bible people like you reject it, falsely call yourselves Christians, and prefer instead to folow an idolatrous man made cult.
Here is a simple test. Tell me where in the Bible did Jesus or any of the Apostles "venerate images" or teach anyone else to do so?
B.S. The Vulgate was known as the popular man's edition, and was in Latin as that was the written language that most folks who could read. (the very few who could). But of course the Church did that, translating it into a language people could read, in order to keep the Bible away from them, right?
patent
There you go again, telling us what we believe. Guess what, a man just tried to tell me what I'm required to believe (that's you) and I don't believe him or it. If Jesus said it, we believe it.
patent
For example the part that talks about giving and not asking for it back serves as a good example of human nature. Have you ever loaned money to a friend only to have that friend dump you or become resentful of you? I have, and it was a mystery to me, until I understood the fact that they felt they owed me something they could not repay made them angry with me for the guilt they were experiencing.
So now when a friend comes to me in trouble and needs money, help, whatever, I make sure that they understand I do not expect repayment, that it is a gift of love to be passed on as they can, but not to me. Their relief is all over their face to be released from the obligation of repayment. Sure, you can be taken advantage of, but that is not your lookout, your lookout is to obey and leave it to God to take pleasure in your obedience, and if it be His will, to work in that person the seed of kindness you planted in his memory.
This is utter nonsense for several reasons:
"Church" isn't defined,
JWs and Mormons are certainly unreliable sources for any kind of history,
An body as widespread and established as the Christian Church couldn't possibly "go apostate" in a year.
The writer continues to be deliberately vague and pretends to have resolved the apostasy question. He also fails to distinguish between a formal and a pre-existing informal Canon. He conveniently fails to mention the reason for the Canon in the first place: pseudepigrapha began to circulate.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
The conclusion is not inescapable because the assumptions about the Church and the Cannon have not been established.
Utter nonsense. You could find it out for yourself in the most basic Bible encyclopedia. Even Peter acknowledged Paul's writings to be inspired.
The Catholic is unable to live with the contradictions that Jesus established a Church that He promised would endure, that for a period God preserved the church; that He then stopped doing so; that finally He resumed His protection. The Catholic is unable to ignore the way such elaborate and arbitrary theories serve the peculiar convenience of the sects in question, and the fact that the general apostasy herein hypothesized is undetectable in the historical record. Finally, the Catholic is unable to reconcile such fanciful theories with any notion of a faithful God, and rejects with scorn the image of Christ as an absent and vagrant Spouse.
If I may make a suggestion...if you have an article deleted, it is not a wise idea to repost it. This can be a quick way to get yourself banned.
In Acts 17:10 It tells how the Bereans searched the "scripture" to see if the things Paul told them were true.
In 2 Tim 2:15 Paul tells Timothy to search the "scripture"
Something alot of people overlook is that the Jews of Jesus's day had the OLD TESTEMENT. That is the scripture that the apostles taught from. Jesus and the plan of salvation are all through the OT. Peter at Pentecost showed the Jews he was speaking from how Jesus matched the prophesy that was spoken of in the OT about the Messiah.
The OT Jews were looking for ward to the coming Messiah, but their were very few who recognized him because they were looking for a king and also there was probably alot of them like people today who don't really study God's word and understand what it says, consequently they don't know God's will. This is a good example to keep in mind about why we should study this book and teach is to our children in the manner God told us too. Check out Deut. 6:7
Becky
Dan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.