Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
Does the OPC use the crucifix in the church? If not, are they opposed to it?
Answer:
Thank you for your question. The answer is, so far as I know, the crucifix is not used in OPC churches, and here is why:
1.The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-6 and Deut. 5:8-10) forbids any picture or image of God, and that would include the Son of God, even as man. At any rate we do not know what Jesus looked like as there is no physical description of him.
2.The crucifix will always end up being an object of worship—regarded as holy. History teaches as much. The bronze serpent Moses made became an object of worship and was not destroyed till King Hezekiah did it (Numbers 21:9; 2 Kings 18:1-5). Roman Catholics have worshipped it, kissed it and held it to have mystical powers.
3.Christ did not remain on the Cross. In the Roman Church Christ is said to be resacrificed each time the Mass is celebrated. This is heresy; he died once for all—Hebrews 9:25-28.
We in the OPC have learned not to trust our idolatry prone hearts not to do the same as others have in the past. Hence, no crucifixes are used. So, yes, we are opposed to it.
Yet...those councils decided on the EXACT same books for the New Testament as was held since the first century, didn't they?
Flash forward a thousand years and you will see that Martin Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation. Do you think they he couldn't tell the difference between an epistle from the Apostle James and the book claiming to be the fill in the blank and the real apocalyptic literature. Why are modern protestants able to discern that they are both scripture but Luther was not able to?
Obviously most Christians COULD, since they did know what was Divinely-inspired Sacred Scripture.
Here's an easy question for you, that really only requires a yes or no answer: Did Martin Luther remove any books from his translation of the Bible? The correct answer is NO, he didn't remove any books. Though he questioned the authenticity of a few - and he was not all by himself there - he kept them ALL. He admitted in his later years that he was wrong to even question the books of James and Revelation. So, at least he was able to admit he was fallible - unlike some religious leaders who think they are infallible on all matters of faith and morals.
Top =to
I was going to let this error go uncorrected, but I just can't in good conscience.
Clement of Rome[edit source | edit]By the end of the 1st century, some letters of Paul were known to Clement of Rome (fl.96), together with some form of the "words of Jesus"; but while Clement valued these highly, he did not regard them as "Scripture" ("graphe"), a term he reserved for the Septuagint. Bruce Metzger in his Canon of the New Testament (1987) draws the following conclusion about Clement:
Clement ... makes occasional reference to certain words of Jesus; though they are authoritative for him, he does not appear to enquire how their authenticity is ensured. In two of the three instances that he speaks of remembering 'the words' of Christ or of the Lord Jesus, it seems that he has a written record in mind, but he does not call it a 'gospel'. He knows several of Paul's epistles, and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which he is well acquainted. Although these writings obviously possess for Clement considerable significance, he never refers to them as authoritative 'Scripture'. —page 43
2 Peter[edit source | edit]Main article: Second Epistle of Peter Within the New Testament itself, there is reference to at least some of the works of Paul as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 says:
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.[25] The reference to, presumably the Septuagint, as the "other" Scripture denotes that the author of 2 Peter regarded, at least, the works of Paul that had been written by his time as Scripture. This becomes our earliest reference to the Pauline Epistles as Scripture. Chester and Martin date 2 Peter to c100-150AD.[26]
Marcion of Sinope[edit source | edit]Main article: Marcion of Sinope Marcion of Sinope, a bishop of Asia Minor who went to Rome and was later excommunicated for his views, was the first of record to propose a definitive, exclusive, unique canon of Christian scriptures, compiled sometime between 130-140 CE.[27] (Though Ignatius did address Christian scripture,[28] before Marcion, against the perceived heresies of the Judaizers and Docetists, he did not publish a canon.) In his book Origin of the New Testament[29] Adolf von Harnack argued that Marcion viewed the church at this time as largely an Old Testament church (one that "follows the Testament of the Creator-God") without a firmly established New Testament canon, and that the church gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.
Marcion rejected the theology of the Old Testament entirely and regarded the God depicted there as an inferior Being. He claimed that the theology of the Old Testament was incompatible with the teaching of Jesus regarding God and morality. Marcion believed that Jesus had come to liberate mankind from the authority of the God of the Old Testament and to reveal the superior God of goodness and mercy whom he called the Father. Paul and Luke were the only Christian authors to find favour with Marcion, though his versions of these differed from those later accepted by mainstream Christianity.
Marcion created a canon, a definite group of books which he regarded as fully authoritative, displacing all others. These comprised ten of the Pauline epistles (without the Pastorals) and Luke's Gospel. It is uncertain whether he edited these books, purging them of what did not accord with his views, or that his versions represented a separate textual tradition.[30]
Marcion's gospel, called simply the Gospel of the Lord, differed from the Gospel of Luke by lacking any passages that connected Jesus with the Old Testament. He believed that the god of Israel, who gave the Torah to the Israelites, was an entirely different god from the Supreme God who sent Jesus and inspired the New Testament.
Marcion termed his collection of Pauline epistles the Apostolikon. These also differed from the versions accepted by later Christian Orthodoxy.
In addition to his Gospel and Apostolikon, he wrote a text called the Antithesis which contrasted the New Testament view of God and morality with the Old Testament view of God and morality, see also Expounding of the Law#Antithesis of the Law.
Marcion's canon and theology were rejected as heretical by the early church; however, he forced other Christians to consider which texts were canonical and why. He spread his beliefs widely; they became known as Marcionism. In the introduction to his book "Early Christian Writings", Henry Wace stated:
A modern divine… could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author.[31] The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 characterized Marcion as "perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known."
Everett Ferguson in chapter 18 of The Canon Debate quotes Tertullian's De praescriptione haereticorum 30:
Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was previously united. Having been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation. Note 61 of page 308 adds:
[Wolfram] Kinzig suggests that it was Marcion who usually called his Bible testamentum [Latin for testament]. Other scholars propose that it was Melito of Sardis who originally coined the phrase Old Testament,[32] which is associated with Supersessionism.
Robert M. Price, a New Testament scholar at Drew University, considers the Pauline canon problem:[33] how, when, and who collected Paul's epistles to the various churches as a single collection of epistles. The evidence that the early church fathers, such as Clement, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear. Price investigates several historical scenarios and comes to the conclusion and identifies Marcion as the first person known in recorded history to collect Paul's writings to various churches together as a canon, the Pauline epistles. Robert Price summarizes,
But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly.[34] If this is correct, then Marcion's role in the formation and development of Christianity is pivotal.
Continued.
Justin Martyr[edit source | edit]In the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr (whose writings span the period from c. 145 to 163) mentions the "memoirs of the apostles", which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[5][35] In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy.
In addition, he refers to an account from an unnamed source of the baptism of Jesus which differs from that provided by the synoptic gospels:
When Jesus went down in the water, fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit came upon him. The apostles of our Christ wrote this.[36] Irenaeus[edit source | edit]See also: Canonical gospels A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160, who referred to it directly.[37] An insistence upon there being a canon of four gospels, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185. In his central work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus denounced various early Christian groups that used only one gospel, such as Marcionism which used only Marcion's version of Luke, or the Ebionites which seem to have used an Aramaic version of Matthew, as well as groups that used more than four gospels, such as the Valentinians (A.H. 1.11). Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken from Ezekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6-10, of God's throne borne by four creatures with four faces—"the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle"—equivalent to the "four-formed" gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: bull (Mark), man (Luke), eagle (John), lion (Matthew). Irenaeus was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth. By reading each gospel in light of the others, Irenaeus made of John a lens through which to read Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus's time.[38] Against Heresies 3.11.7 acknowledges that many heterodox Christians use only one gospel while 3.11.9 acknowledges that some use more than four.[39] The success of Tatian's Diatessaron in about the same time period is "...a powerful indication that the fourfold Gospel contemporaneously sponsored by Irenaeus was not broadly, let alone universally, recognized."[40]
McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-1, lists the following canon for Irenaeus, based on Eusebius' Church History 5.8.2-8, but notes that: "..it is probably nothing more than Eusebius's listing of the references made by Irenaeus.":
Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Rev, 1 John, 1 Peter, Hermas, Wisdom, Paul (mentioned but epistles not listed) Irenaeus apparently quotes from 21 of the New Testament books and names the author he thought wrote the text.[citation needed] He is known to have been connected to Polycarp and since Polycarp may have been connected to John the Apostle of Jesus, there is potentially great authority to his tradition.
He mentions the four gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles with the exception of Hebrews and Philemon, as well as the first epistle of Peter, and the first and second epistles of John, and the book of Revelation.[41] He may refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not cite Philemon, 3 John or Jude.[citation needed]
He does think that the letter to the Corinthians, known now as 1 Clement, was of great worth but does not seem to believe that Clement of Rome was the one author (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3) and seems to have the same lower status as Polycarp's Epistle (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3). He does refer to a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture (Mandate 1 or First Commandment), but this has some consistency problems on his part. Hermas believed that Jesus became the Son of God at the Baptism[citation needed] (Parable 5 of Shepherd; Chapter 59, verses 4-6[clarification needed]), a concept called adoptionism, but all of Irenaeus's work including his citing of the Gospel of John (Jn. 1:1) proves that he believed that Jesus was always God.
Tatian[edit source | edit]Main article: Diatessaron See also: Gospel harmony Tatian was converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr on a visit to Rome around 150 AD and, after much instruction, returned to Syria in 172 to reform the church there. At some point (it is suggested c. 160 AD) he composed a single harmonized "Gospel" by weaving the contents of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together along with events present in none of these texts. The narrative mainly follows the chronology of John. This is called the Diatessaron ("(Harmony) Through Four") and it became the official Gospel text of the Syraic church, centered in Edessa.
Continued some more.
Muratorian Canon[edit source | edit]Main article: Muratorian fragment The so-called Muratorian Canon[44] is the earliest known example of a canon list of mostly New Testament books.[45] It survives, damaged and thus incomplete, as a bad Latin translation of an original, no longer extant, Greek text that is usually dated in the late 2nd century,[46] although a few scholars have preferred a 4th-century date.[47] This is an excerpt from Metzger's translation:
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke… The fourth… is that of John… the acts of all the apostles… As for the Epistles of Paul… To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh… once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians… one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy… to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion… the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John… and [the book of] Wisdom… We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently… And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church. —pages 305-307
This is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the 27-book NT, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[48] Also in the early 200's it is claimed Origen (c. 185-c. 254) was using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still lingering disputes over Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation.[49] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[50] He argued that it was illogical to reject Acts of the Apostles but accept the Gospel of Luke, as both were from the same author.[51] Marcion's canon did not include Acts, so perhaps he rejected it. It is unknown when Luke-Acts was separated. In Against Heresies 3.12.12[52] Irenaeus ridiculed those who think they are wiser than the Apostles because the Apostles were still under Jewish influence. This was crucial to refuting Marcion's anti-Judaism, as Acts gives honor to James, Peter, John and Paul alike. At the time, Jewish Christians tended to honor James (a prominent Christian in Jerusalem described in the New Testament as an "apostle" and "pillar",[53] and by Eusebius and other church historians as the first Bishop of Jerusalem) but not Paul, while Pauline Christianity tended to honor Paul more than James.[54]
Clement of Alexandria[edit source | edit]Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) made use of an open canon. He seemed "practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered." (Daniel F. Lieuwen) In addition to books that did not make it into the final 27-book NT but which had local canonicity (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel. He did, however, prefer the four church gospels to all others, although he supplemented them freely with apocryphal gospels. He was the first[citation needed] to treat non-Pauline letters of the apostles (other than II Peter) as scripture-he accepted I Peter, I and II John, and Jude as scripture.
The Alogi[edit source | edit]Main article: Alogi There were those who rejected the Gospel of John (and possibly also Revelation and the Epistles of John) as either not apostolic or as written by the Gnostic Cerinthus or as not compatible with the Synoptic Gospels. Epiphanius of Salamis called these people the Alogi, because they rejected the Logos doctrine of John and because he claimed they were illogical. There may have also been a dispute over the doctrine of the Paraclete.[55][56] Gaius or Caius, presbyter of Rome (early 200's), was apparently associated with this movement.[57]
Origen[edit source | edit]Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 6.25 says Origen (d. 253/4) accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but Paul "did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines."."[42]
Period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787)[edit source | edit]See also: First seven Ecumenical Councils Eusebius[edit source | edit]Eusebius, in his Church History (c. 330), recorded this New Testament canon:[58]
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… the epistles of Paul… the epistle of John… the epistle of Peter… 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 [Homologoumena]. 3. Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], 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 [Kirsopp. Lake translation: "not genuine"] 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… And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. 6. … 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 … 7. … 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. The Apocalypse of John, also called Revelation, is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp. Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the Church Fathers, we know that it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity, see also EH 6.25.3=14 attributed to Origen[59] and EH 3.24.17-18[60] EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." EH 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul], in order to improve their style."
Continued some more.
Claromontanus Canon[edit source | edit]Main article: Codex Claromontanus The Codex Claromontanus canon,[61] c. 303-367,[62] a page found inserted into a 6th-century copy of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews, has the Old Testament, plus Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2,4 Maccabees, and the New Testament, plus 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and Hermas, but missing Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews.
Zahn and Harnack were of the opinion that the list had been draw up originally in Greek at Alexandria or its neighborhood ~300 CE. According to Jülicher the list belongs to the 4th century and is probably of western origin.[citation needed]
Constantine the Great[edit source | edit]Main article: Fifty Bibles of Constantine In 331, Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus may be examples of these Bibles. Together with the Peshitta and Codex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.[63] There is no evidence among the canons of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon, however, Jerome (347-420), in his Prologue to Judith, makes the claim that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".[64]
Cyril of Jerusalem[edit source | edit]McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, notes the following canon of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.350) from his Catechetical Lectures 4.36:
Gospels (4), Acts, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude?, Paul's epistles (14), and Gospel of Thomas listed as pseudepigrapha. Athanasius[edit source | edit]In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon,[65] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[66] He also listed a 22-book OT and 7 books not in the canon but to be read: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Didache, and the Shepherd. This list is very similar to the modern Protestant canon (WCF); the only differences are his exclusion of Esther and his inclusion of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah.
Cheltenham/Mommsen Canon[edit source | edit]The Cheltenham Canon,[67][68] c. 365-390, is a Latin list that was discovered by the German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (published 1886) in a 10th-century manuscript (chiefly patristic) belonging to the library of Thomas Phillips at Cheltenham, England. The list probably originated in North Africa soon after the middle of the 4th century.
It has a 24-book Old Testament[69] and 24-book New Testament which provides syllable and line counts but omits Hebrews, Jude and James, and seems to question the epistles of John and Peter beyond the first.
Synod of Laodicea[edit source | edit]Main article: Synod of Laodicea The Synod of Laodicea, c. 363, was one of the first synods that set out to judge which books were to be read aloud in churches. The decrees issued by the thirty or so clerics attending were called canons. Canon 59 decreed that only canonical books should be read, but no list was appended in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts recording the decrees. The list of canonical books, Canon 60,[70] sometimes attributed to the Synod of Laodicea is a later addition according to most scholars and has a 22-book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation).
Epiphanius[edit source | edit]McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, lists the following canon for Epiphanius of Salamis (c.374-377), from his Panarion 76.5:
Gospels (4), Paul's epistles (13), Acts, James, Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Rev, Wisdom, Sirach Apostolic Canon #85[edit source | edit]In c. 380, the redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions attributed a canon to the Twelve Apostles themselves[71] as the 85th of his list of such apostolic decrees:
Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. [A list of books of the Old Testament …] And our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.—(From the Latin version.) Some later Coptic and Arabic translations add Revelation.[citation needed]
Gregory of Nazianzus[edit source | edit]In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianzus produced a canon[72] in verse which agreed with that of his contemporary Athanasius, other than placing the "Catholic Epistles" after the Pauline Epistles and omitting Revelation. This list was ratified by the Synod of Trullo of 692.
Amphilochius of Iconium[edit source | edit]Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus[73] written some time after 394, discusses debate over the canonical inclusion of a number of books, and almost certainly rejects the later Epistles of Peter and John, Jude, and Revelation.[74]
Jerome[edit source | edit]McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, lists the following New Testament canon for Jerome, (c.394), from his Epistle 53:
"Lord's Four": Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul's Epistles (14), 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, James, Acts, Rev. Augustine and the North African canons[edit source | edit]Augustine of Hippo declared that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" (On Christian Doctrines 2.12). In the same passage, Augustine asserted that these dissenting churches should be outweighed by the opinions of "the more numerous and weightier churches."
Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 AD (M 237-8). Each of these reiterated the same Church law: "nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures" except the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonicals) and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. Incidentally, these decrees also declared by fiat that Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, for a time ending all debate on the subject.
The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Revelation was added to the list in 419.[75] These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[76][77][78]
Pope Damasus I[edit source | edit]Pope Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[18] Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the modern Catholic canon. Purporting to date from a "Council of Rome" under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called "Damasian list" appended to the pseudepigraphical Decretum Gelasianum[79] gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent,[80] and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable 6th century compilation.[17][81]
This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE. However, upon the whole it is probably of South Gallic origin (6th century), but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. The 2nd part is a canon catalogue, and the 5th part is a catalogue of the 'apocrypha' and other writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives all 27 books of the Catholic New Testament.
Pope Innocent I[edit source | edit]In c.405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse, which is most likely identical to Trent[82] (without the distinction between protocanonicals and deuterocanonicals).
The list I have shown you demonstrates over 20 separate canons that were being used up until the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).
I have not even mentioned the Syriac, Armenian, and East African canons, or the heretical canons that had to be suppressed in the 5th century.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
You have been given the truth, what you do with it now is up to you.
What about "your" error concerning the assertion that Luther removed books from the Bible? I noticed no answer to that simple question.
As to what you call my "errors" concerning the Bible, let me remind you that this started with you saying, regarding the recognition of the early Christians of the Inspired writings being delivered to them by the Apostles,:
Some yes, but most NO! That is why they had the councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively. To settle exactly which books were and were not.
So, now you cannot leave the subject and instead post reams of the ideas about various "canons" being different from each other and it taking centuries for some "hierarchy" to settle the matter of what was or was not God-breathed Scripture. Let me remind you that all the books that make up what is called the New Testament were done being written by the close of the first century (with the Apostle John's writings). The question should be did the early Christians accept, obey, believe, copy and circulate the writings from the Divinely-inspired writers as they were being created? You'll find that no one denies that these books were ALL received that way. Did some additional writings get thrown in the mix by some? Yes, but that speaks to writings that were useful and edifying versus God-breathed, Divine revelation. That is the difference between them and is why the canon of Scripture gradually came to separate them and know which writings were ordained by God to become the "rule of faith" (what "canon" actually meant).
From http://www.bible-researcher.com/voorwinde1.html:
These are some of the urgent questions to which a thoughtful consideration of our topic will inevitably lead. They are not only issues of abiding theological interest, but can at times also be matters of apologetic importance and even of pressing pastoral concern. Here we touch upon the very basis of our Christian faith and life, and it is vital that these foundations be secure. But how can this be established? How can we espouse a view of Scripture which ipso facto cannot be proved from Scripture itself?
To begin our investigation we will need to have a sound understanding of the terminology. Our English word "canon" is a loan-word from the Latin canon, which in turn was derived from the Greek kanon. For our purposes it is important to trace the linguistic development of the term. While the Greek word kanon does occur in the New Testament it cannot be translated by "canon" in English. In each case it is more suitably translated "rule" or "standard" (2 Cor.10:13,15,16; Gal.6:16; Phil.3:16). It will be noted that all the occurrences of the word are in Paul's writings, and in none of these instances is he referring to the canon of Scripture. That was to be a much later development. Movement in this direction occurred when "in the second century in the Christian church kanon came to stand for revealed truth, rule of faith." 1 It was not until the fourth century that the church began to refer to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as ho kanon ("the canon"). A parallel development took place in the history of the Latin term. In ecclesiastical Latin, canon came to mean "a catalogue of sacred writings." 2 The term "canon" as we use it when referring to the canon of Scripture is therefore not a use of the term in its biblical sense, but conforms to ecclesiastical usage from the fourth century onwards. This is also the way the word was used at the time of the Reformation. Particularly in the Reformed confessions the term is used almost exclusively of the "rule," "norm" or "established list" of the Scriptures. 3 In these doctrinal statements it is closely conjoined to such concepts as "inspiration," "authority" and "the regulation, foundation and confirmation of our faith." The idea of normativity comes very much to the forefront.
This immediately raises an important question. Whence is this normativity derived? What is its basis? These questions are far more difficult for the New Testament than for the Old. In the case of the Old Testament it can be convincingly demonstrated that Jesus placed his infallible seal of approval upon the canon as we now have it (Lk.24:25-27,44-45). His reference to "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" reflects the traditional threefold division of the Hebrew canon. On this point there was no quarrel between him and the Pharisees. While the "closedness" of the Old Testament canon at the time of Jesus has become the subject of recent theological debate, 4 it is fair to say that the traditional position has been challenged, but not shaken. Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries agreed on the limits of the Old Testament canon. In the nature of the case such a statement of divine approval is impossible for the New Testament. We have no post hoc pronouncement from Christ to the effect that these 27 books, and these only, are authoritative, inspired and canonical. So how do we proceed? On what basis do we define the canon? On what or whose authority can it be established? How can we rest assured that the right books have been included? These questions have been tackled from a number of different perspectives — theological and historical, a priori and a posteriori, presuppositionally and evidentially. For a most satisfying approach it is perhaps best not to make these contrasts mutually exclusive, not to pit them against one another in an unhelpful way. To get the full picture we cannot divorce the historical evidence from our theological presuppositions. We cannot separate the a priori of our faith from the a posteriori of historical development. To do justice to the largeness of the question we will need to adopt a rather wide approach.
A. Historical Considerations
We have already seen that the Greek word kanon was not applied to the New Testament books before the middle of the fourth century. 5 However, this does not mean that the idea of the canon did not exist earlier. Church history, from its beginnings till the end of the fourth century, is characterized by an increasing awareness of the canonicity of its sacred New Testament writings. In the words of Herman Ridderbos, "the history of the Canon is the process of the growing consciousness of the Church concerning its ecumenical foundation." 6 From its earliest days the Christian community was aware that it had a body of writings equal in authority to the Old Testament and equally revelatory in character. 7 However, the recognition of a closed collection of documents above all other literature was a gradual process that was not complete till the end of the fourth century. 8 From the beginning Christians regarded the Jewish canon as distinctively their own. The body of literature which developed in their midst did not replace but supplemented the Jewish canon. Around 200 AD we already find the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament," palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke.
The New Testament is not to be treated as a book that dropped straight down from heaven, that came senkrecht von oben. Its recognition by the Church was not immediate, but was historically qualified. It is to this process of a gradual and ever more precise canonical awareness that we must now devote our attention.
1. The New Testament Canon before 140 (a) An Awareness Within the New Testament Itself At times the New Testament writers seemed plainly aware that they or others from amongst themselves were writing Scripture, e.g. 2 Pet.3:16 refers to Paul's letters and "the rest of the Scriptures." Especially the Book of Revelation seems rather self-consciously Scriptural (e.g. 1:3; 22:18,19). But these are mere "hints" compared to the authoritative tone conveyed by certain New Testament concepts. Three terms stand out:
(i) "Apostle": 9 The concept of "apostle" is defined especially by the idea of authorization, by the transmission of definite powers. The apostles are Christ's representatives (Mt.10:40; cf. Jn.13:20). In a very special and exclusive manner he entrusted them with the preaching of the Gospel. He also endowed them with the Spirit of truth who would guide them into all the truth (Jn.14:26; 15:26; 16:13-15). They were thus the transmitters of revelation (Heb.2:4). The salvation that appeared in Jesus, first proclaimed by the Lord himself, was validly attested to by the apostles.
(ii) "Witness": The apostles were witnesses of the salvation revealed in Christ. This concept should be understood in a forensic way. The apostles were eyewitnesses and they bear this testimony for the forum of the coming Church and the entire world. This testimony is both oral (preaching) and written (New Testament documents).
(iii) "Tradition": 10 In the New Testament this is a very authoritative concept. It means 'what has been handed down with authority.' In apostolic times equal significance is given to oral and written proclamation. The New Testament writings "are partially the remains and fixation of a previous oral tradition." 11 The source of the New Testament tradition lies in the apostles, e.g. 1 Cor.15:1-4. Paul both receives and transmits tradition. A personal power is involved here, viz. that of the apostles. They had received authority from Christ to do this. The tradition of which the New Testament speaks is therefore not an unchanneled stream which is then perpetuated as the faith or theology of the Church. It is rather the authoritative proclamation entrusted to the apostles, as the witnesses of Christ and as the foundation of the Church.
(b) The Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were more concerned with practical and moral issues than with theological reflection. The works of these early Christian writers contain no formulated doctrine of Scripture or canon, and yet there is much that is suggestive of later development.
(i) Clement of Rome: Writing in about the year 96 Clement emphasizes the importance of apostolic authority: "The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in good order." 14 His only specific references to the New Testament are from 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. However, there is evidence of his familiarity with a wider range of the canonical materials. Yet Clement has no formal theory of the New Testament canon. While the tradition that derives from Jesus and the apostles is authoritative, it is not authoritative in a specific form.
(ii) Ignatius of Antioch: Around 115 Ignatius stated that the teachings of the apostles are known through their writings. There is, however, no indication that he viewed the apostolic writings as Scripture parallel to the Old Testament. For him the issue is the authority of the revelation — not its form, whether oral or written.
(iii) Polycarp (d.155): Like Clement and Ignatius, Polycarp sees an integral unity between the Old Testament and the apostles. However, he moves beyond his predecessors in that for him the importance of the Old Testament has receded in favour of the increased esteem given to the writings of the apostles, particularly Paul.
(iv) The Epistle of Barnabas (ca.130): Most of this epistle is a polemical foray into interpreting the Old Testament. Barnabas wrestles with the problem of continuity/discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. Generous use is made of the Old Covenant to show how it points to Christ. Barnabas indicates that as the problems of Old Testament interpretation grew, the Church would become more conscious of its literature as forming a complementary Scripture (the New Testament). He cites Matthew 22:14 with the formula "it is written."
(v) "Gospel" and "Apostle": According to F.F.Bruce, 15 in the early years of the second century two Christian collections of authoritative documents were current. One was called "The Gospel" (with sub-headings "According to Matthew," etc.). The other was "The Apostle," i.e. the Pauline corpus (with sub-headings "To the Romans," etc.). Soon these two parts were to be connected by the Book of Acts which brought the two collections together. The implications of this were significant, as Bruce explains:
So, already at this early stage, the Church was making progress in the recognition of an authoritative collection of Christian books. Just before the middle of the second century something happened to speed up that progress and give it greater precision than had characterized it up until that time.
This article then proceeds to describe what and why the process of establishing a set canon was needed. Marcionism, Gnosticism and Montantism were the chief cause of formally establishing a canon. What should be noted, and which has been my contention all along, is that the final canon of what came to be called the New Testament contained the very books that were always recognized and always will be recognized as from the Holy Spirit. This is how we CAN know that we have the Rule of Faith God wants us to have and His word is our authority.
this question has been answered many times. Let me make this as clear as possible. Luther removed 7 books form the Bible and parts of 2 more to satisfy his hatred of the Catholic church. He had no authority to do and was following in the man made tradition of a group of Jewish rabbis that did the same for the exact same reason.
The proof of the different canons is there as well of the proof that they contained heretical writings. You want to believe it fine, if not, equally fine.
I am continually amazed at the mental gymnastics that protestants are willing to go through in refusing to admit that the Catholic Church is correct about everything much less anything.
I am equally continually amazed that anyone on this forum STILL insists that Luther removed books from the Bible. That is completely FALSE and it has been proved many, many times. Once again, here is a link to help educate those whose ignorance seems to never improve: http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2. Whether or not someone chooses to read this article, doesn't mean they haven't been given proof, so they should stop repeating false "facts" and using whatever "mental" gymnastics necessary to avoid it.
If the Catholic Church is making this statement and it is not just your own personal view, then I can assert that "they" are INCORRECT about this along with other doctrines.
I am equally continually amazed that anyone on this forum STILL insists that Luther removed books from the Bible. That is completely FALSE and it has been proved many, many times. Once again, here is a link to help educate those whose ignorance seems to never improve: http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2. Whether or not someone chooses to read this article, doesn't mean they haven't been given proof, so they should stop repeating false "facts" and using whatever "mental" gymnastics necessary to avoid it.
If the Catholic Church is making this statement and it is not just your own personal view, then I can assert that "they" are INCORRECT about this along with other doctrines.
errors and false histories like yours are precisely why I left Protestantism.
>> “Take a look at the canon ordered by the Catholic Church...” <<
.
Take a look at the real scriptures, and see that no one was ever authorized to declare a “canon.”
You invite the curses by violating the prohibition against adding or subtracting. That prohibitiopn is at the end of Torah and at the end of the NT.
The individual believer is fully capable of discerning whether a particular writing is in union with the body of scripture.
If we go by the supposed prohibition at the end of the Torah, we would only have the first five books of the Tanakh. Is this really what you want to limit the Bible to?
Nothing in Tanakh adds to, or takes away from Torah.
As usual, your foolish retort is shown for what it is.
You have joined forces with the house of Ha Satan (the catholic ‘church’) and that is a regretable choice.
Let me guess...you DIDN’T read the link I gave? Is ignorance bliss?
You guessed wrong, no real surprise there.
If you really read it, then how can you possibly stand behind your statement that: Luther removed 7 books form the Bible and parts of 2 more to satisfy his hatred of the Catholic church.? The link states the FACT that:
Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[10] Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[11] Todd then relates this famous description:
“Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[12]
Thus, Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible. (http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2)
I'd like to see the proof you rely on that contradicts these facts. Go ahead...post them. Prove it wrong.
Fixed it for you and this will be my last post on the topic.
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.