JJMt said:
k2, you keep misstating my point. You either don't understand it or are being purposefully obtuse.
As an example of your misstatements, I never said that the NT was scripture because Peter and Paul said it was. Rather, I said that they recognized it as scripture, long, long before any church council. Again, it wasn't the church councils that made the NT scripture; it was God. You are putting the church councils on the same footing as God Himself.
Second, you have not answered a single question I posed to you. Are you unable to answer them? You have been consistently 100% wrong in your factual statements about the history of the NT canon, yet you continue in your arguments nonetheless. Are facts and history irrelevant to you?
Finally, you keep quoting your church fathers and your church councils to me as support for your argument. Don't you understand that I do not accept your church fathers as having any authority? In other words, you are using church fathers to attempt to establish the authority of the church fathers, which is clearly circular.
As to church councils, they should be given great weight and deference, but what is your evidence or argument that they were divinely inspired? Again, please don't quote church fathers or church councils to me because, again, that's circular.
Slow your roll there buddy. Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? I'll try to break your points down into simple yes/no statements so we can answer or discuss without silly accusations.
1. Scripture subsists as scripture, because God made it scripture.
Ok, I think I understand that this is your position. I have asked you how we are to know what is and isn't scripture, as determined by God. Can you explain it?
You suggested that because some of the texts refer to the other texts as scripture, that this is evidence. But this is in and of itself not a clear standard, because ultimately those words were written by men. So why are they given particular weight?
This is why I asked, is the continual existence of the book prima facie evidence? That is to say, a book has been preserved, we trust in God's guidance, so what has been preserved must be God's will on the face of it. (This is the view many Baptists take). For me, this isn't particularly compelling for two reasons. One, because we can see how and when and why this preservation happened -- so there's no reason to hand-wave about divine mysteries. We can at a minimum say the will of God was accomplished by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is the same way we speak of the writers of the NT working. For two, it requires a temporal view that is unsupportable - there was a time before the current canon existed, there was a time in the early church when no writings existed. I don't believe those believers lacked for anything, which means either we are under different regimes of grace (which I reject) or the scriptures are not the critical / sole means of delivering the truths of the Faith.
Can you answer these? Note that nowhere have I appealed to councils for ratifying scripture.
2. Your questions.
Re: Early canon. There are lots of lists, and while they do agree, they are not identical. For the NT, Early lists have the Shepherd of Hermas. Some don't have Hebrews or James.
For the OT, we have early lists that include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Esdras, Sirach, Baruch, Wisdom, Tobit, and Judith.
Here are some references you can use.
Re: Early church not having all scripture. This twofold - one, that prior to the writings of the scriptures, people just didn't have them. We know, or have a good idea, about the dates of most of the gospels. Origen and Eusebius give us some nice references for these (i.e., who wrote what and so on). But before these dates, there was a Church.
Second, Eusebius mentions churches reading epistles written to them (for example, the Church in Corinth reading Clement's epistle in Hist. eccl. IV. 23:11). This is noteworthy for two reasons...A, it makes perfect sense that the churches who received the epistles would have them first, and B, some churches received and used epistles liturgically that were not in the canon.
Why is B relevant? Because nearly always the litmus test for the safety of scriptures is their use in the church. Take, for example, St Cyril of Jerusalem: "Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books." Or Eusebius regarding
Hermas "Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it." Or the (local) council of Carthage "because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church." Or the (local) council of Laodicea "Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament."
St Athanasius includes the following note in the letter where he records the canon because "it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine..."
He finishes with the following comment:
"But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings.
So you see, that at some point in the first two centuries of the church there was a change or better understanding about the nature of the scriptures. Many texts were considered useful for "preaching, teaching, rebuking, correcting" while a subset of these were considered "handed down, and accredited as divine" (which of course begs the question handed down and accredited by whom?). Further still, there was a large body of writings which the fathers describe as mischievous, heretical, beguiling, etc.
I don't see any other questions to answer, so forgive if I've missed any.
3. As for the authority of the fathers. I'm pretty sure you're a protestant, and I'm fairly certain you're an evangelical protestant of what can loosely be described as the "me and my bible" variety. That's fine, you have the freedom submit to any authority you choose (even if that authority is only yourself). But, when you put forth a claim, that is, the canon of scripture is a source of authority in and of itself from God, you need to be able to determine why you think that.
You then ask for evidence of divine inspiration for the councils, for the fathers, but refuse to allow the writings of councils or fathers. Don't you see the humor in that? After all, the Apostles were all fallible men, and sinners besides (one even admits to being the chief of all sinners and one untimely born, an abortion) and yet you present evidence that the scripture was scripture because their writings refer to it as scripture.
I stand mute, then, if I can't quote the fathers...because, of course, the fathers of the church include the Apostles.
I suspect that your own belief system can't stand up to such a standard. My suspicion is that you confess the Trinity, a word that doesn't exist in the bible. You probably think inerrancy is in the scriptures (Tim 3:16 is the closest I think you'll find). You probably belief in being saved by faith alone, you probably use the phrase "personal Lord and Savior" when speaking of Christ. You are very likely to use juridical / atonement language to speak of the meaning and purpose of Christ's sacrifice which is not found scripture. etc etc.
