Replies

To me it is kinda funny when you debate about what is canon or not The apostles spent months and years in vrious localities relaying the truth and teaching the people (acts 18:11). They taught them how to live, how to starta a local ecclesia and how to function with it. Then, beforer moving on, they chose and ordained bishops to succeed them in the Church in that dioceses. The new church was left with the apostolic tradition and apostolic succession as the basis for their faith and the means for the transmission of the tradition to the next generation. The NEw Testament, as a corpus did not exist.

Eusebius writes in History of The Church, 3, 24 writes, "Thus they proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven through the whole world, giving very little thought to the business of writing books" -- Note that "proclaim" is essentially an act of oral proclamation, not writing, and what they procelaimed was the "knowledge of the kingdom of God" and not just the "simple gospel"

The term "canon" was being used for the oral tradition and confessions of faith long before it was used to describe the list of accepted books.

In fact, this canon, or tradition, was an important criterion for determing which books would eventually become part of the New Testment.

This was oral tradition, passed down from one to another -- many of th fist beleivers could not read, writing material was scarce and expensive, and printing presses had not yet been invented.

you may quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable forr teeaching, for reproof, forr correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.", YET, we find St. Paul writing to the Ephesians (Eph 4:11-14) using the same language: 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

He uses the same language, informing his readers that the equipping and perfeting of saints is accomplished through the leaders of the Church

Where does Scripture tell us that "God's word" can and must only be in written form, typed on paper or parchment" As tudy of the phrases "word of God" and "word of the Lord" is enlightening. In most cases, this is referring to the spoken word, not the wrritten word (eg. 1 Th 2:13 "13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.").

Our Lord himself nevere wrote anything down (othe than unknown words on the ground) , and it was not recorded that he ever commissioned his followers to wrrite everything down. HAd it been as important to him as the reformers make our, shouldn't he have made it clear for all time that only what was written down could be considered God's word?

But Jesus never promised us an authoritative book, nor did his apostles; rather, he promised us an authoritative CHURCH: Matthew 18:17 "17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. " or 1 Tim 5:17 " 16If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching "

Jesus' "word" was orally transmitted to the twelve apostles -- as we see in Acts 20:35 "in all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said "It is more blessed to give than to receive'" --> Do you remember those latter words related anywhere in the Gospels? They aren't. How did Paul know Jesus said them, and why did he assume his listeners were well acquainted with these words? Because of the oral tradition.

In fact, the Gospels hadn't even been written yet. The early Church woudd wait another fifty years to receive the Gospel of John. You also have examples like Jude 14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." or Jude 17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires."

The Apostle John tells us that if everything Jesus accomplished was written down, all the world cold not contain the books. Since Jesus spent three intimate years with his disciples, we know that the content of th eGospels is only a small fraction of what Jesus taught them. Few realise that Jesus spent forty days after the Resurrrection instrcting the Twelve apostles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2-3 and also the endings of the Gospels of Mathhew, Luke and John)

The early Church depended upon the apostolic tradition.

The Apostle PAul in 1 tim 3: 14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth --> though he gave them instructinos on how to conduct themselves, the real message was the spoken one that Paul was coming to convey to them.

And neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave us a final list of ingallible books. Neither did they promise or hand us an authoritative book.

However, Jesus promised us an authoritative Church (Matthew 18:15-20) a single, visible Church that would pass ont he trth, always carefully preserving the tradition entrusted to her.

Jude 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

He used rabbinical terms like "binding and loosing". These rrepresented the legistlative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferrred in their reality to His apostles.

Remember also Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John wrote in the 2nd century "This preaching and this faith, the Church, although scattered over the whole world, diligently observes, as if it occupied but one house, and believes as if it had but one mind, and preaches and teaches as if it had but one mouth. And although there are many dialects in the world, the meaning of the tradition is oen and the same " (Against Heresies 1,10, 2)

He also wrote "When, thereforre, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from The Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her (the Church), most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life."

Remember that the early Church seemed to be in no hurry to collect all the inspired writings and authoritatively announces to Chrstians that "this is now the sole rule of faith for your individual interpretation"
The early Church was in no hurry for the truth was not to be deposited exclusively into a book, as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura teches, but the truth, the fullness of the faith wa deposited in the Church -- to the saints once and for all.

St Ephiphanius (315-403) wrote "It is needful also to make use of tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things int he Scriptures, other things in Tradition" (Panarion)

St. Augustine wote "I believe that this practise comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are ept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves" (De Baptis. contra Donat)

If you read Paul's Epistles, he seems to be all fire and ire, rebuking, but yet these were incidental, sent to corrct a problem, remind the readers of the oral tradition, or to supplement the preaching of the gospel.

The New Testament is the "child" or product of The Church. It is the collected and inspired writings of the apostles and their immediate followerrs. It is not, however, the sum total of all their teachings and traditions

If you read Papias (c 60-130), Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, disciple of Apostle John and a companion of Polycarp who said "I used to inquire what had been said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, of by Thomas or James or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lod, werere saying. For books to read do not profit me so much as the living voice clearly sounding up to the present day in the persons of their authors"

================================

This was the CANON of the Church, not just a book, but the fullness of Christ's message.

================================

You must note that The Church has always taught that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. There can be no additional public revelation. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only divinely isnpired wrtings of God given to His Chuch. They are infallible and inerrant. There is no conflict here with Protestants. The conflict occured only when the word sola was put in front of the word Scriptura. Sola Scriptura has never been tuaght by the apostles, the athers or the Church. It is never taught in Scirpture and the error of this Reformation teaching cut off the followers of Luthere fromo the fullness of God's truth which was deposited in His Church

Also, do not misrepresent Church teaching. In Dei Verbum the Church said "The Christian dispensation as the new and definitive covenant will enver pass away, and we now await no futher new public revelation before the glorious manifectation of our Lord Jesus Christ"

in section 10 it says "This teaching office {The Magisterium} is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commision and with the help of The Holy Spirit"

In contrast, Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul in Essential truths fo the Christian Faith admits that the Protestant position can at best claim "a fallible collection of infallible books" --> not very reassuring. how do you know that a fallible book did not slip in to the collection? You can also be sure if you acknowledge that this was collected in The tradition of The Church.

The Protestants say they trust the 27 books of the NT because they are inspired. Yes, but how DO we know they are inspired?

There were many writings passign from hand to hand like The Gospel of Thomas, the shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Protoevangelium of James and many more.

Who decided which ones were inspired and which were not? To say ti was the Holy Spirit, not men, who chose, is to sidestep the real question. The Holy SPirit was also the primary author of the bible, but he used men to write it. Likewise, He also used men, the Church, to collect and to close the canon.

The Reformers couldn't agree -- Luther said that if Christ is preached in a document, it is therefore inspired: but this falls quickly as certain portoins of the NT (like James) speak of Christ sparsely if at all, while the Gospel of Thomas speaks a lot of Christ!

Calvin wrote in "Institutes of the Christian Religion" that the knowledge of what is Scripture comes ot each individual from "heaenly revelation" -- using Calvin's principles, each person woudl have the authority to determine his own canon of Scripture. thsi is the means used by Mormons fo verify the inspiration of the Book of Mormon -- they claim to know it is tre and inspired by God, becuase, when they read it, the get a "burning in the bosom", which is an internal witness (according to Calvin) to verify the inspiration.

Some other reformers felt that documents were inspired if they were inspiring to the reader. But, is Leviticus, Philemon or 3 John so inspiring?

Another criterion used by Protestants is that something is inspired if it was written by an apostle. However, Mark and Luke were not apostles