Posted on 03/30/2015 8:34:08 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Here is the summation for the previous threads and the last of this for some time:
Jesus Christ alone possessed the intrinsic quality of infallibility, was unlike any man that has ever lived, and was in a class all by Himself.
There were some (like the Ebionites) who believed that Jesus was the messiah but also believed that he lacked divinity. Some, like those who ascribed to Arianism or semi-Arianism, who were somewhere in between the Ebionites and those who believed/believe that Jesus was fully God and Fully Man.
Each of these nonetheless believed that Jesus was unlike any man before Him or after Him.
There are those who would say that the Ebionites and those who ascribed to Arian belief did not place Jesus high enough, but it can be easily retorted that some place certain churches and men on too high a pedestal and ascribe to man and a church that which can only be possessed by Jesus Christ.
The tendency to try and claim infallibility (or something close to it) has been attempted more than once throughout history. The Pharisees declared to the man who was born blind, whom Jesus healed (John chapter 9:1-34 (verses 28-29): "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow we don't even know where he comes from." The man gave his retort to them in verses 30-33 to which they replied in verse 34: "You were steeped in sin at birth, how dare you lecture us! And they threw him out."
After this, there was a convergence of Big Government (Rome) and Big Council (Matthew 26:59: "Now the chief priest, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.").
After them, Big Council again tried to stifle the Apostles, as related in the Book of Acts.
Then there was a convergence of Big Gov't (Constantine) and Big Council. And after them another convergence of Big Gov't (Theodosius), yet another Big Council (Council of Constantinople) and Big Code (the Theodosian Code).
After them, Big Bishop (Bishop Athanasius), tried to suppress and dictate to others what others should read (what was being read during his time included both non-Gnostic, Heterodox texts like the Gospel of Peter, semi-Gnostic and Gnostic texts).
After him, there was a attempt by Big Church to suppress the translation of the scriptures by Wyclffe and others even though they were completely non-Gnostic scriptures.
Then, as well as now, one can claim to possess infallibility and point to certain scriptures in an attempt to bolster one's claim, but citing certain scriptures leads one to ask "How do you know your church possesses infallibility or inerrancy? Certain scriptures tell you that? How do you know that you are infallibility interpreting those scriptures or interpreting them without error? Because you possess infallibility or inerrancy?
If so, then welcome to the land of circular reasoning?
You sure can’t rely on Rome because the Muratorian fragment represents the canon of scripture for Rome, c. 180 A.D. It contains the NT, minus some missing pieces, but also includes the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
The church in Rome sure was infallible all right as they had a Gnostic text within their approved scriptures. They went around declaring others to be heretics while they were arch heretics.
I don’t believe it destroys the Bible at all, but it sure does expose the church in Rome:
The Muratorian fragment represents the canon of scripture for the church in Rome, c. 180 A.D. It has the NT, minus some missing parts, but also contained the Revelation of Peter - a Gnostic text.
The church in Rome sure was infallible all right as they had a Gnostic text within their approved canon of inspired scripture.
Some infallibility all right...
The only problem is that the Muratorian fragment represents the approved canon of scripture in Rome, c. 180 A.D.
It has the NT, minus some missing pieces. It also contained the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
If the church in Rome then possessed infallibility, a Gnostic text would not have been within their canon.
before you get any further carried away: from the wiki “In addition to receiving the Apocalypse of John into the church canon, the author remarks that they also receive the Apocalypse of Peter, although “some of us will not allow the latter to be read in church.” However, it is not certain whether this refers to the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the quite different Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, the latter of which, unlike the former, was Gnostic.”
So it’s not quite that cut and dried.
The Muratorian fragment represents the approved canon of scripture at use in Rome, c. 180 A.D. It has the NT, minus some missing pieces, but also has the Gnostic text The Revelation of Peter. This Gnostic text found its way into the canon for the church of Rome they then believed to be inspired scripture.
If the church in Rome had infallibility, then a Gnostic text would not have been within their approved canon of scripture.
Another area of church influence (Alexandria in Egypt), among others areas, also had the Revelation of Peter in their approved canon of scripture, c. 300 A.D., as the Clermont List represents the canon of scripture for the church in Alexandria at that time.
It has the NT, minus some missing pieces. It also contained the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
If the church in Rome then possessed infallibility, a Gnostic text would not have been within their canon
(1) I don't see where I brought up the Muratorian Fragment in this conversation-- or any particular church or canon of books.
(2) The Muratorian Fragment itself notes that the so-called Apocalypse of Peter is not read in all the churches. That is one of the reasons it was later rejected. Most importantly...
(3) No church (including the Catholic Church, which I assume is the church you are referring to as "Rome") has ever pronounced the Muratorian Fragment as official de fide teaching, or pronounced that the list found in the Muratorian Fragment is the canonical one. Whoever told you that is just making it up and you should ask them for proof.
If there is indeed apostolic succession then all of the so-called Popes in Rome leading up to c. 180 A.D. sure didn’t have infallibility on matters of faith as they couldn’t even get the foundation for faith (the Bible) correct even 80-85 years after the death of the Apostle John:
The Muratorian fragment represents the canon of scripture for the church in Rome, c. 180 A.D.
It has the NT, minus some missing parts, but also has the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text. The church in Rome had a Gnostic text within their canon of scripture and yet they were and are supposedly infallible?
The Popes before 180 A.D. and at that that time sure didn’t possess infallibility as a Gnostic text undoubtedly had to have been known to them and most likely read by them.
And the church in Rome sure didn’t possess infallibility as this text was right under their nose.
Some infallibility all right - so many have been called “heretics” by the church of Rome while they were “heretics” themselves.
The only way out is for Rome to declare that Jesus’ Apostles believed the Revelation of Peter to be inspired scripture then. I wouldn’t surprise me if they were to do this sometime in the future and almost all Roman Catholics would believe it.
Yes, I know that it states that it was rejected by some, but what matters is what the church in Rome then thought.
It was in their canon -— their canon.
They didn’t possess infallibility then or now as the church in Rome was heretical with a Gnostic text within their canon of scripture.
(3) NO church (including the Catholic Church) has EVER pronounced the Muratorian Fragment as official de fide teaching, or EVER pronounced that the list found in the Muratorian Fragment is the canonical one. Whoever told you that is just making it up and you should ask them for proof.
The Muratorian fragment represents the approved canon of scripture at use in Rome, c. 180 A.D. It has the NT, minus some missing pieces, but also has the Gnostic text The Revelation of Peter. This Gnostic text found its way into the canon for the church of Rome they then believed to be inspired scripture.
wrong, wrong, wrong.
who “approved” this canon in Rome? when was it “approved”?
you are up.
There was no canon until after 300 A.D.
If you destroy the Church of Rome, you also destroy the Bible.
And there was no officially defined canon until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Up until that time there wasn't a reason to do so since virtually all Western Christians used the 73 book canon in use by Catholics today. It wasn't until Martin Luther started removing books from the Bible (on his own authority) to fit his own novel theology that the Church finally was forced to define the canon. Before that it was virtually unquestioned.
If the Church erred in determining the Canon of Scripture, what infallible Authority established the Canon?
If no infallible Authority existed to establish the canon, then you're left with a "fallible collection of infallible books," as R.C. Sproul famously claimed.
"If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
QUESTIONI recently listened to a debate on sola scriptura between a Catholic apologist and a Baptist who runs an anti-Catholic organization. The Baptist claimed the Catholic Church did not decide the canon of the New Testament at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). As proof he alluded to the Muratorian Fragment, saying that, since it was far older than those councils and since it contains the New Testament canon as we know it, the issue was obviously settled long before the Catholic Church made any decisions. Is it true?
ANSWER
The Baptist fellow is wrong and misled the audience. The Muratorian Fragment (so-called because it represents only a portion of the actual second-century document discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Antonio Muratori), is the oldest extant listing of New Testament-era books revered by early Christians. It was written sometime between 155 and 200. Patristic scholars believe the unknown author originally wrote the list in Greek (since the Latin is very poor), but the oldest copy available is an eighth-century Latin manuscript.
Although the Muratorian Fragment is important in studying how the early Church developed the New Testament canon, it doesn't give exactly the same list of books that was later adopted as canonical at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Muratorian Fragment is just that: a fragment of a larger list of books which were considered canonical or quasi-canonical during the second century.
The Fragment itself provides us with a good, though incomplete idea of this early canon. Virtually the entire New Testament canon as we know it is represented: the Gospels of Luke and John (preceded by what seems to be an allusion to the Gospel of Mark), Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, two letters of John (since the fragment simply says "the two ascribed to John," we don't know which two of his three letters are meant), and Revelation.
The unknown author adds other non-canonical books to this line- up: the so-called Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians (about which the Fragment's author expresses his conviction that they were not authored by Paul), the Wisdom Written by the Friends of Solomon in His Honor, the Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd (written by Hermas). The Fragment's list is cut short abruptly with a final, enigmatic phrase which may indicate that the author had gone on to include still other non-inspired writings: "Those also who wrote the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians."
As you can see, although the Muratorian Fragment lists most of the New Testament books, it's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired.
These facts demonstrate that, although the Fragment came close, it did not represent the actual canon of inspired Scripture. Further, there is no internal evidence in the document that it sought to represent any kind of official canon that was regarded by the Church as binding.
In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth pope] to the Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many Christians as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired.
It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.
The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.
A good resource is the following:
The Council of Carthage settled the canon of the New Testament in 397 A.D.
"To meet the radical departure of the Protestants from the recognized canon, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defense, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as "sacred and canonical" all the books of the Old and New Testaments "with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition". During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition."
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia
The Revelation of Peter did not just magically appear within the canon of scripture for the church in Rome.
The Muratorian fragment represents the canon of scripture the church in Rome considered to be inspired scripture c. 180 A.D. and no mere shlub in Rome placed it there.
The church in Rome allowing it within their canon of inspired scripture was a de facto declaration of approval of the Revelation of Peter, despite the splitting of hairs that you used in your post.
Amazing how the “Pope” right before St. Eleuthesis didn’t toss it! I guess that he apparently knew it was written by the Apostle Peter in the first century!
It didn’t need to be approved. It just magically found its way into the canon of scripture for the church in Rome!!!
And don’t pay attention to the Muratorian fragment as it fails to list the one who approved of the Revelation of Peter being placed within the canon of inspired scripture for Rome.
Thus, since the Muratorian fragment didn’t list who placed it within the Roman canon, I guess some shlub in Rome placed it within the canon for Rome!
The post before this is the response to another who stated that there was no de fide declaration for placing the Revelation of Peter within the canon in Rome, but it being there within their inspired canon is a de facto approval of it being there, regardless of who placed it there.
If Peter had written it, that would explain this Gnostic text being there, as the so-called Apostolic Succession supposedly conveyed “truth” from one bishop to another in Rome on down from Peter to St. Eleuthesis in Rome.
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.