www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Sovereignty of God in the Apocryphal Writings

Sorry for the delay, I took my children out for a swim. Hot day in Chicago. Hope all are doing well.

Here are some of my thoughts on canonization.

It seems that the debate is moving back to the canonicity of the Deutercanonical (later added books), whether they have equal weight or authority as do the 27 books of the Protestant NT. I come from evangelical position believing that the Early Church Fathers formalized their understanding of the canon early on even by the Apostle themselves declaring Paul�s writing to be sacred and inspired of God. Peter records Paul�s words and declares them to be God�s holy instructions. As way of doctrinal understanding of canonicity here are some thoughts and summary of Historical records which emphasized the totality of Scripture.

We see early in Church History that Polycarp and Papias, who are considered to have been disciples of the Apostle John show us the importance of the measuring �stick�, but not until 325 do we see an actual rendering of such a concept by Athanasius. Polycarp and Papias understood doctrinal authority vested on two primary sources, the Old Testament (O.T.) and the notion of Apostolic succession or authority of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. An apostle is one who had to see the risen Savior or physically saw Christ in the flesh. This concept of the apostolic authority would contradict Catholicism and their understanding that Papal Authority stands in line with the Apostles.

The New Testament (N.T.) Canon during Paul�s ministry were personal letters sent to individual churches. It was not yet an individual collection of writings formalized into what we have as the NT today (27 Books). Early formalization of NT books began by six church leaders: Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, 37). Church Historians see these early church fathers as lacking the mental sophistication as today�s theologians. However, these writing dispersed by the church theologians confirmed or authenticated the apostles teachings carried down to them through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. By this time of their writings, Christianity had not begun to take center-stage within Christendom. Technical terms and definitions on the doctrine of the Trinity soon began to become a focal point between Athanasius and Arius defining the work person and work of Jesus Christ.

The early Church Fathers understood the validity of Scripture, especially the OT using statements "For God says" or �I am says�. The prophets spoke as God�s mouthpiece to the Nation of Israel. The first five books (Pentateuch) expressed God�s law to Israel which formalizes our understanding of the OT�s direction. The NT relied solely on the understanding of the authority of the OT prophets. Other books filled in historical detail, but yet were filled with errors. The Jewish scribes and rabbis did not see the value of their authority. The books of Hermas, Barnabas, Didache, and 1 and 2 Clement were all regarded highly (Hannah, Lecture Notes for the History of Doctrine, 2.2) as historical, but not authoritative or inspired. Berkhof describes the early Church in this way as the leadership move out, "For them Christianity was not in the first place a knowledge to be acquired, but the principle of a new obedience to God" (Berkhof, History of the Christian Church, 39).

The Canon of Scripture indeed is settled because of the veracity in which God displayed the written text. The preservation and implications brings the doctrinal connection to the Apostles sent out by Christ. The Canon of Scripture would become the focal point for N.T. Canonization. Clement of Rome comments in the First Century, "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit" (Geisler, Decide For Yourself, 11). These qualities define and support authority of the sixty-six books of the Bible.
Scholars will agree that the term canon was not used in reference to the N.T. writings until the fourth century by Athanasius (323-328).

However, there were earlier attempts to compile a list of authoritative books accepted by the church to be inspired by God. The Muratorian Canon listed all the books of the Bible except for 1 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James around A.D. 180 (Hannah, Notes, 2.5). Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon, compiles a summary of the NT books except the General Epistles: Jude, 2 Peter, James, Philemon, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. The Syriac Version of the Canon, from the third century, leaves out Revelation because of its apocalyptic nature.

We also see Jerome on the opposite end of Athanasius in the West. Jerome crafted a letter to Paulinus, bishop of Nola in 394 the 39 O.T. books and our current 27 N.T. (Protestant Version). It in 382 that Bishop Damasus encouraged Jerome to work on a Latin translation to standardize the Holy Scripture as a unit. The Vulgate inspired the Synods of Carthage to meet in 397 and 418 confirmed our current twenty-seven books of the NT.

Pastor Joel,

It is hot around here. I hope you and your children had a nice time.

But the discussion about the development of the canon has no bearing at all upon the questions of Sovereignty in Esdras. All this business about the canon is very old hat. Everything you have stated can be taken from any typical textbook but different ones would put different weight on different actions. We know the various counsels that dealt with the canon of Scripture. We also know that the consensus of the Church includes the Deuterocanoicals. As I said this is a pretty bright group.

The point of this thread as you defined it has something to do with the Sovereignty of God in the Deuterocanonicals. Since you mentioned Esdras let's see your case.

Stalling will not impress anyone.

CDL

Dear Joel...

Your short questions which begin threads are all centered around scriptures and translations. Yet it seems to me that they are setting the stage for you to present something to everyone. A bit of beating around the bush.

let your yes - be yes and your no - be no.

Would you like to simply get directly to what you want to present to all here? It might save you tons of frustration and miscommunication.

-ray

Not sure what you mean.

CDL,

Not stalling, trying to answer everyone's reply.

Originally posted by Joel:
Joel,

Actually, your �thoughts� that �you� have written are less your words than they are those of Don Closson. I wonder � do you consider plagiarism a sin? What �you� have �written� is basically an abridgement of Mr. Clossin�s article entitled �The Christian Canon� to be found at: http://www.probe.org/content/view/961/77/ .

You have lifted entire sections of Mr. Closson�s essay while omitting proper attribution and passing his work off as your own thoughts. I must say that your actions are less than honorable and certainly less than what I would expect from a �Pastor� � Protestant or otherwise.

I must say that I have to agree with Dan � you have offered little or nothing substantive to the various threads you have initiated. If you are going to attempt to sway us to your aberrant Protestant beliefs, then at least attempt to be original and invest a little of your own thinking in the effort.


~Isaac

Yes, Dr. Closson's is correct, I abridged most of his comments to submit this forum.

No plagarism

Back to the discussion of Sovereignty:

I think if you look at the complex issues of 2 Macc 1:24; 3 Macc. 2:2 in regards the prayers showing God's sovereignty over all creation. It would be interesting to compare Tobit's idea of marriage(Tobit 6.18).

Isaac,

I think most of your comments have been taken from other writers. At least I have presented the Scriptures in my answers...the authoriative word of God. I haven't seen you attempt to show Scripture as sola scriptura.

Isaac,

I believe there are far better communicators and thinkers of Christian Theology, so I always yield to them to drive home the point. This would be true even in sermon preparations.

OK..

it just seemed perhaps that way. We have experienced a few evangelicals come here who come for the one purpose of teaching us how wrong we are. Not really to discuss. I guess you are not one of them and you are sincere.

Peace to you and to your church.

-ray

deleted

St. Jerome: On the Essence of Scripture:
We ought to remain in that Church which was rounded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.

--St. Jerome, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, ch. 28

Ray,

Not trying to covert, but present the best truth exegetically. I think open and honest discussion is great for the mind and the body of Christ. As long as Christ is magnified and his name not trashed. We have to start somewhere. Everyone will disagree.

I still have figure out the hyperlinking on the website, other wise I would have put Dr. Closson's link. If some can tell me where to do this, it would help conversations.

Joel