[jo kus]

The very fact that it is NOW included in the Canon should attest to it's infalliblity. Wouldn't that be correct?

I suppose if all Christians of 100 AD could foretell the future, that would be relevant. But how does the future Church's determination have any bearing on what people from 100 AD thought? It is clear that there was disagreement on whether it was Scripture, or even written by Peter!

In fact there were very few books that were called into question. Peter considered Paul's writings inspired.

You are not correct. Not only were some books called into question, other communities considered OTHER books as inspired. For example, the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians was considered SCRIPTURE, read during the Sunday Masses, for over 150 years, according to writers of Liturgical history. That's well into 250 AD! Now, the Letter is NOT found to be inspired by the Church. Hmmm. What seems obvious is that the universal Church decides on such matters, not local communities - much less individuals!

Undoubtedly the early church felt the same about Peter's writings.

Wrong again, Harley. Two Peter was a controversial epistle. It was not accepted by the majority of Christian Fathers until much later - thus, it is called a New Testament Deuterocanonical (for the same reason that the OT Deuts were). I have a website link that I can send you to (if interested) that lays out which Fathers thought were Scripture regarding the NT.

Nor did the church fathers sit around scratching their heads trying to decide what books to quote from. There is no better evidence than Peter's own words which the Church has deemed "inspired".

You again provide a false dilemna. Who said that the Church Fathers HAD to quote ONLY from Scripture? The NT ITSELF quotes from Apocrypha AND from pagan philosophers! The Church Fathers would quote from whatever source they felt it was appropriate to explain the APOSTOLIC TRADITION. That is what was passed down and protected from DAY ONE. From the beginning, the Church had a particular way of looking at its held doctrine. The only reason that particular writings were "dubbed" as Scripture is BECAUSE they happen to agree with already held doctrines from Tradition.

Some would like us to believe that the Church's council got together in the 4th century and magically strung all these books together, picking and choosing. You say that Peter had the keys to the kingdom and it was handed down in succession providing a clear documented trail back to Peter. And then you tell us nobody knew what books were inspired until the 4th century. Doesn't this seem a bit odd?

Yes, if someone actually made that claim! The Catholic Church doesn't claim that it took 400 years to determine that every single book in the NT was inspired, as if NO ONE knew they were from God until the late 300's. I don't know anyone who has made that claim here. Perhaps you misunderstood. At any rate, men, led by the Spirit, can see a parallel between what they were taught and what was written by Paul to the Galatians. But was it "widely-held"? Who knows? But the very fact that people begin to compile their own ideas of what Scripture was (such as Athanasius' Easter Sermon, or Marcion) forced the Church to settle any disputes. That is what the Church heirarchy is for - to be a visible authority to settle disagreements. If the Church was not a God-protected authority recognized by the members of the Body, then what good would their declaration be? However, from the beginning, the Body has recognized that the Head speaks through the Apostles' Successors. Re-consider reading the Fathers if you don't believe me.

In truth all but a few of the writings were already validated and verified all the way back to Peter. (To deny this is to deny the inspiration of Peter.)

Validated by who? Not by itself!!! The Church did. If a writing was not in-line with the Apostolic Teachings, they would have been tossed out. There can be no doubt on this. The Bible didn't determine the Church's doctrine. It merely helped to define it. Clearly, Apostolic authorship was instrumental in determining if something was Scripture. Unfortunately, it was not so clear if something WAS written by Paul or not on the surface. Paul himself tells communities to beware of forgeries. Two Peter was an example of a book probably not written by Peter - and even the early Church had doubts about this. And finally, what about all of those other writings that DIDN'T make the Canon that were considered Scripture by some? You fail to address them.

In a letter from Pope Innocent I to a Bishop of Toulouse, 405 AD, after writing that compilation of the Canon, continues:

"Others, however, which were written under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and of John, by a certain Leucius, or under the name of Andrew, by philosophers Nexocharis and Leonidas, or under the name of Thomas and such others as may be, are not only to be repudiated, but, as you know, are also to be condemned"

In the end, we can't be sure on every book of Scripture unless we rely on the witness of the early Church. Without this, how would we even know that the Gospel of Mark was inspired, while the Gospel of Thomas was not?

Regards

[HarleyD]

harleyd-Peter considered Paul's writings inspired.

jokus-You are not correct. Not only were some books called into question, other communities considered OTHER books as inspired. For example, the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians was considered SCRIPTURE

It states it in 2 Peter 3. I'm not talking about Clement's letter. Clement was never an apostle that I know of or was he an eye witness to the apostles-a qualification for being included as inspired scripture. The simple fact was that the early church fathers had strict guidelines to what was inspired and what wasn't.

I don't know the history of Clement and don't have time to look it up. However, if correct the very fact that Clement's works were read in mass for over 250 years makes no difference. I would suspect if I pulled up his mass he refers a great deal of his message to the scriptures-the INSPIRED SCRIPTURES. I would also venture to guess that you won't find him breaking new grounds with the Shepherd of Hermes. Clement's mass reading is no different than me reading a sermon by Charles Spurgeon or you reading a sermon (or whatever you call it) by Pope Paul.

Wrong again, Harley. Two Peter was a controversial epistle. It was not accepted by the majority of Christian Fathers until much later

I'll go back to my line before. The Catholics are proud to trace their apostolic succession back to Peter and all the decrees along with them. Yet the early church didn't know what Peter wrote? When precisely did someone noticed something was missing? Didn’t an elder or bishop think about keeping track of Peter’s writings? I guess good help was hard to come by then as it is now.

But the very fact that people begin to compile their own ideas of what Scripture was (such as Athanasius' Easter Sermon, or Marcion) forced the Church to settle any disputes....The Bible didn't determine the Church's doctrine. It merely helped to define it.

And this shows the incredibly low understanding of precisely what the word of God is for and the power of God in protecting His word. Faith comes from hearing and hearing by God's word. This isn't something we manufacture but God's word is simply His power. With all due respect, to say God's word merely "help define" the Church shows a genuine lack of sense in how revered the Church fathers felt about God's word.

There wasn't a massive rebellion on controversial books. The Church had strict guidelines for what should and should not be included. According to what I’ve been told by you and others on the Eucharist, the Eucharist was always the teaching of the Church and the Church merely confirmed it. However, this logic does not apply to the scripture where great controversies existed in formulating the Bible and the Church had to make some decisions as to what should be kept and what should be rejected. Yet after the issue was decided almost 2000 years ago you still are saying you have some doubt about 2 Peter. Do you have any doubts about the Eucharist? What nonsense!!!