Doc HollidayYes that's all that canonization means, recognizing what scripture comes from God. You'e just stating that God knows what scripture comes from Him as if that knowledge was written down and given to us, which it wasn't. said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There were Christians pushing gnostic scripture early on. They thought it came from God, but they were wrong.
The Church debated on whether Hebrews, James and Revelation were legit or not. Many Christians said no.
If no authoritative judgment took place, then no one could say the gnostics were wrong or that Hebrews and Revelation belong in Scripture. But Christians do say that because the early Church settled the matter on the basis of apostolic authority.
The New Testament you use was recognized by the same Church you claim has no authority. There's no way around this. The moment you admit that some Christians were wrong and the Church had to resolve the dispute, you've already conceded authoritative canonization.
"Canonization" is an ecclesial act of man, who being fallible, may or may not correctly recognize the true canon, which is from God. We both agree that God's word is his word the moment it's written, NOT when it's declared to be so by man. You're not being honest with the implications of this. It clearly means that man does not have the "authority" to determine canon, only the responsibility to recognize and receive it. It is God that is the authority behind the canon. Let's start there - do you agree with this?
You can't move from "this happened" to "this must be binding" without a normative authority to bridge the gap.
We're talking solely about a book's status as being inspired by God.
You're moving from a descriptive claim about what happened (God's word when written) to a normative claim about what must be accepted, without explaining what bridges that gap.
I've told you what bridges that gap many times already. If we believe in the apostles' testimony, that Jesus died and rose from the dead, it means he is Lord. And the Lord told us what is the canon himself. I'd say that's a pretty solid basis for what must be accepted. Any "authority" of man that doesn't listen to Jesus is only making man's bible, not God's.
When in history did our Lord tell us what the canon is? How did he tell us what scripture belonged in the New Testament? Is that written down?
Are you not paying any attention to anything I'm saying? Am I talking to a wall?
You said "the Lord told us what is the canon himself".
I'm asking you to point out when and how that took place.
If the canon is to contain only the divine inspired word of God, then Jesus told us what that is. I've already shown you where. If you want to give men the authority to declare what that is instead of Jesus, then you're following the fallible canon of man, not the infallible canon of God.
So the 27 books in the New Testament in the Bible you own just happen to match the Church's testimony about which writings count as apostolic and inspired?
Yes, to their "testimony" as to the accurate history and preservation of the self-authenticating word of the apostles, as affirmed by the first-hand witness of the first century church - NOT through any inherent "church authority" to decide on its authentication and declare it as such.
"Testimony" is a much more accurate conceptualization of the canon process than "authority". There was only ONE authority over Scripture - the knowledge of which has been passed down in time fully preserved, through man's "testimony" rather than man's "authority".
You keep insisting on "testimony" instead of "authority," as if renaming the act somehow changes what's happening. It doesn't. If testimonies conflict, which they did on a tremendous level, someone must judge which testimony is true, which is false, and which is rejected. That act is authority in function, whether you like the word or not.
Jesus never defined the Trinity, Scripture never lists a Nicene formulation, and early Christians violently disagreed about it. By your logic (testimony without authority) why is Nicene Trinitarianism, that you hold to, binding rather than just the view that survived historically?
"Testimony" was YOUR word.
It's not changing what's happening, but what's happening is not an act of "authority" - rather, what the church did was formally recognize what was already known and practiced widely among the body of believers, knowledge which was received in a line of "testimonies" in succession from one preceding generation to the next, all of which traced back to the very first Christians who could
directly authenticate the apostolicity of the writings in question. There was already a recognized and circulated canon among the churches that included the Gospels and the apostles' letters by the end of the first century resulting from this process.
The role of the church through its formal councils in the 4th century and beyond, was another link in that chain of testimony. Their decisions were fully subject to and dependent on the reliable testimony of those preceding them, in the same way that our understanding of the canon is dependent on the reliable transmission of that reliable testimony from those church councils which preceded us. In each link, the "decision" over the truthfulness or falseness of the preceding link's assessment has to be made. If you call this "authority", then every link in the chain can claim "authority" over succeeding links with regard to the canon. This would even subject the authority of the original apostles to the first Christians who had to "decide" the truthfulness of what they were saying. This makes the "authority" concept meaningless. Thus, the concept of "testimony" is a far better and more accurately reflects the mechanism behind the formulation of the canon.
Case in point: the Council of Trent dogmatized a canon that
differed from canons approved by previous ecumenical church councils. So even within Roman Catholicism itself, a "decision" over what was true/false from their own previous councils was made, with the false being rejected
I'm curious as to the basis of your claim that the testimonies conflicted on a "tremendous level". There was hardly any doubt as to the apostolicity and hence divine authority of the Gospels, the Acts, and all of the apostles' writings.
Jesus never defined the Trinity - but the concept of the Trinity is supported scripturally, which Jesus DID define, and that's the basis for believing in it - NOT because a church council declared it. What the church councils declare must ALWAYS be weighed against the standard, which is Scripture. That's sola scriptura.
