The Canon

don · 09-23-09 1:33 am

Yet you accept the Roman Catholic's approval and finalization of the Scripture that you use today. Was there a Roman Catholic Church at A.D. 400? The Protestant view of the NT Canon lines up with the Roman Catholic one. It is the Hebrew canon where the difference lies. When I read Tobit, my reservations surface. I have accepted the wonderful possibilities of miracles but I have not accepted amulets and charms. If the church of North Africa readily accepted Tobit, then I remain critical of their list. Fortunately, the Hebrew canon remains more palatable to me; thus, I align myself with it. I am in favor of a canon of sacred writings; a closed one. I believe it serves the larger community of faith to which I belong. What omniscience does that give them, or you, to make such decisions? Omniscience is not needed. I believe that the writings considered sacred were considered so from the moment they were written. I believe that some considered sacred by a community of faith were not accepted by another wing of Christianity. I am OK with that. I still like the non-canonical writings, at least some of them. I am content to work within the canon to develop what I consider the best doctrinal understandings available. Because of the Hebrew and Christian canons, I can have a common-ground discussion about faith with a large spectrum of believers. Jews, Protestants, Catholics share a tremendous common resource in the canon of Scripture. Even the Deuterocanon is quite good. For me, it does not provide a standard by which to measure other writings. Rather, I measure it by the canon I have accepted. (Message edited by Don on September 23, 2009)

don · 09-23-09 2:24 am

Yet you accept the Roman Catholic's approval and finalization of the Scripture that you use today. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially finalize the Canon until the Council of Trent. Trent included the Deuterocanon. So I don't accept the Roman Catholic decision. .

elaine · 09-23-09 8:55 am

There was only one, universal (small u) church, it was the ONLY church until the Reformation. So, to say it wasn't the Roman Catholic church, what other church could it possibly have been? The schism between the western and eastern branches was not until the 11th century. If you don't accept the Deuterocanon, on what basis do you accept any of the NT, since at the Council of Trent they approved ALL the NT? Do you simply select what you can believe?

don · 09-23-09 12:49 pm

So, to say it wasn't the Roman Catholic church, what other church could it possibly have been? I understand the Roman Catholic Church to be of the era when the Christian Church was headed by the Bishop of Rome. As you know, there was a time when the bishops shared a much more equal status prior to the ascendency of the bishop of Rome. Another major change of the same community of faith happened when Constantine led the way in making Christianity the religion of the empire. One could say that the same church existed before then, but it had transformed into something vastly different than the earlier days. Many Christians view the first few centuries of Christianity to be simpler, purer, less centralized than later. With Christianity as the empire religion, the bishops at the seat of government held considerable influence. With the empire relocated at Constantinople and then with the fall of the Western sector, the Bishop of Rome grew in stature. At one point, the Roman bishop became a hero for saving Rome from being destroyed. If you don't accept the Deuterocanon, on what basis do you accept any of the NT, since at the Council of Trent they approved ALL the NT? Do you simply select what you can believe? All of Christianity agrees on the NT Canon, I think. The Deuterocanon is Old Testament. I prefer the Hebrew canon to the Catholic canon when I turn to the Old Testament. (For reasons stated in an earlier post focusing on Tobit.) (Message edited by Don on September 23, 2009)

elaine · 09-23-09 2:11 pm

One could say that the same church existed before then, but it had transformed into something vastly different than the earlier days. Many Christians view the first few centuries of Christianity to be simpler, purer, less centralized than later. That the church became vastly different is well known. Simply because Christians "view" early Christianity as being simpler and purer, belies the true facts. It was characterized by dissent, disagreements, claims of individuals to bearing the "true" message, and not much different than today. It's the usual tale of the "Good old Times" when things were happier and more serene. History tells a much different story.

bob_2 · 09-23-09 2:23 pm

I have seen this thread out of the corner of my eye developing and decided to jump in. It did not surprise me that Elaine was involved trying to tear apart what is accepted as the Canon, nor her effort to detract or add to it. Those of you interested in more information on the Canon: <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm" target=_top>http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm</a>

elaine · 09-23-09 6:42 pm

You showed not one single reason why you believe I'm tearing it apart. Present your reasons, not merely an empty opinion.

george · 09-23-09 7:56 pm

Don, You said something about the Catholic church being of the era when Christian Church was headed by the Bishop of Rome. I assume you meant by that before that it wasn't considered to be the Catholic church as we know it. That's interesting when it comes to explaining Daniel 8 ff. When I was studying Daniel 8:14 and all that, I found that the SDA interpretation was saying that the 2300 days starting in 457 BC would then end in 1844 + or -. The 2300 days/years was the time the "little horn" was desecrating the temple; and the little horn was supposed to be Roman Catholic church. I couldn't understand that since Roman church wasn't even around then PLUS, the "little horn" had come out of one of the four horns on the rams head. The four horns represents the four divisions of Alexander's empire after he died. Well, the Roman empire never came out of one of those four divisions. So the answer to that was, that the little horn didn't come from one of the horns, but out of the wind in Dan.8. AND, thatRome was considered to be the little horn even in its ancient form. Now you're saying the Roman system didn't count as THE Roman system (little horn) until it became a church with bishops. Interesting. (Sorry about the convoluted and lengthy set up for my point but it was necessary for the point I was making. hope you followed all that. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0>

bob_2 · 09-23-09 11:31 pm

Sorry, Elaine, I can find no reason for you to be attempting to tear it apart either, why are you??? It doesn't surprise me because your posts have that bent. You are consistent, I will give you that.

bob_2 · 09-24-09 1:37 am

Elaine, you did write this didn't you?? <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=1768&post=6799#POST6799" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=1768&post=6799#POST6799</a>

bob_2 · 09-24-09 1:57 am

Elaine, this critic of "The Bible Unearthed" states: The main weakness of the book is that they prefer to assert their conclusions rather than demonstrate their evidence. <a href="http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2009/06/reflections-on-bible-unearthed.html" target=_top>http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2009/06/reflect ions-on-bible-unearthed.html</a>

don · 09-24-09 10:08 am

Now you're saying the Roman system didn't count as THE Roman system (little horn) until it became a church with bishops. Interesting. I understand your point. In seeking to mesh Daniel 8 with Daniel 2 and 7, the little horn of Daniel 8 is considered to be both Pagan and Papal Rome. Note how our Daniel and Revelation textbook puts it: <a href="http://www.adventistbookcenter.com/Detail.tpl?sku=0816316678" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/1768/1893.jpg" alt=""></a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Another horn came out of "one of them" (probably one of the four winds of heaven, the one to the west). It stared small but grew in power toward the "Beautiful Land." This represents the political and military advances of the pagan Roman Empire, which gradually replace the pieces of the old Greek Empire. At this point in the vision, there is a move from political/military language to military language. While the description of the little horn in verse 9 is understandable in political and military terms, in verses 10-12 the horn has been transformed into a religious poower. It attacks the host of heaven, it sets itself up to be as great as the "Prince of the host", it takes away the "daily sacrifice" from him, it brings low the place of his sanctuary, it persecutes the saints , and it casts the truth to the ground. The little horn ends up as a religious power. It persecutes the people of God. It attacks the person and ministry of Christ. It points away from the heavenly santuary to earthly substitutes. In light with the parallels with the little horn of Daniel 7, these activities would seem once again to point to the work of the Papacy. But there is a bright side hidden in this picture of conflict. Just as the "Son of man" in Daniel 7 is the opponent and counterpart of the little horn, so in Daniel 8 the prince of the host is the oppoenent and counterpart of the little horn. Both the Son of Man and the prince of the host are descriptions of Jesus. In every vision of the book of Daniel there is a glimpse of Jesus. He is the rock that smites the image of Daniel two, he is the son of man who recieves dominion in behalf of the saints in Daniel 7, He is the prince of the covenant in Daniel 11, and in Daniel 8 He is the Prince of the host who sees attacks on his people as attacks on himself. pages 38 and 39.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>The Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy seem to be be viewed synonymous. Adventists don't view the church of the first four centuries as a "papal" church. They point to the developments in the 400's and 500's as the beginnings of the Papacy. Using these definitions for "Roman Catholic Church" and "Papacy", it is incorrect to say that these entities established the NT Canon, at least from a Protestant, or Adventist viewpoint. (Message edited by Don on September 24, 2009)

elaine · 09-24-09 10:35 am

Elaine, this critic of "The Bible Unearthed" states: And what did the others say? Most book reviews on Amazon or objective and present both sides. From the link posted, it is evident which side is presented.

elaine · 09-24-09 10:37 am

Note how our Daniel and Revelation textbook puts it: Is that Uriah Smith's view? Is it the official SDA view? Supposedly, then, there is only one interpretation--and Adventists are the owners.

bob_2 · 09-24-09 11:00 am

Just trying to validate your bias, I think I was right about your attempt to dismantle the Canon. Notice this critic of "The Bible Unearthed": <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Although the authors do explicitly undermine the historical accuracy of the Bible, they are careful to pay homage to its value. They conclude by saying "we can at last begin to appreciate the true genius and continuing power of this single most influential literary and spiritual creation in the history of humanity". I find it somewhat puzzling that people who know best that the Bible is not what it claims to be are still enamored of it. Perhaps they are trying to cushion the blow for the faithful, or perhaps they cannot bring themselves to denigrate the object of their life work. I think the genius and power lie with the scientists and scholars who have painstakingly put together what really happened, based on real evidence, even though it goes against what they have been told is holy and authoritative. This book is a testament to what the human mind can discover when it does not delude itself. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/bible-unearthed.html" target=_top>http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/bible-unearth ed.html</a> The skeptics of the the skeptics can't make head or tales out of your source. You usually pick a source that is out to destroy.

don · 09-24-09 11:12 am

Is that Uriah Smith's view? Is it the official SDA view? Supposedly, then, there is only one interpretation--and Adventists are the owners. If a student of mine should say what you have just stated, I would remind them that this is a current (textbook date: 1998) Adventist interpretation. Also, the interpretation is not infallible nor part of the Canon. Thus, it is our best attempt to explain how we see it. If they should persist in challenging the interpretation, I would invite them to offer an alternative one. Adventists do not need to be exclusive in their interpretations. But, at least they are attempting to make sense out of the prophetic passages. It is very intriguing, to me, to notice how the powerful of the world (the Greeks, Romans, Papacy, Jewish Leaders, etc.) seek to control those who believe differently, etc. The persecution of dissenters is a recurring part of world history. .

george · 09-24-09 12:20 pm

Don, You can't have it both ways. The entire Roman system is viewed as "little horn" (both pagan and papal); but you ignore that when you say it wasn't papal Rome that was responsible for the canon. If not papal, then pagan? Actually it was Constantine, whatever he was - pagan or papal or a hybrid. He must have a category all his own which seems to be acceptable to Adventism when it come to the canon and some decisions of the Council of Nicea, but not so much when comes to other decisions of that council and of course Sunday worship. You can see how that would be confusing to anybody but the established SDA who hasn't really worked that out and accepts the pronouncements of the church which hasn't worked it out either. What to believe?

don · 09-24-09 12:55 pm

If not papal, then pagan? Why one or the other? I credit the early Christian community of the first few centuries. Pagan Rome opposed them. Papal Rome was not yet in existence. You can see how that would be confusing to anybody but the established SDA who hasn't really worked that out and accepts the pronouncements of the church which hasn't worked it out either. What to believe? I recall no evidence that Constantine was involved in the development of the Canon. Once believers recognize a canon of sacred writings, then they should measure all by that canon. (I am writing this quickly as class begins. More later.) (Message edited by Don on September 24, 2009)

elaine · 09-24-09 9:12 pm

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia the idea of a complete Canon existing from Apostolic times, has "no foundation in history". The Canon of the New Testament was the result of debate, disputes and research, not reaching its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. The canon remained as a collection of 27 books in 367 A.D. with the authority of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a heritic pope. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon,[60] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. He also listed a 22-book OT and 7 books not in the canon but to be read: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Didache, and the Shepherd. This list is very similar to the modern Protestant canon; the only differences are his exclusion of Esther and his inclusion of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah. In practice, Protestants hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament.

don · 09-24-09 10:06 pm

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia the idea of a complete Canon existing from Apostolic times, has "no foundation in history". Yes. The Council of Trent, the Tridentine Council (1545-1563), dealt with a rather serious oversight. The Roman Catholic Church had not, by council decree, determined an acceptable canon of scripture until Trent. Almost all decisions regarding the canon throughout history have been the result of dealing with heterodox views. Trent dealt with the Canon because the Protestants were challenging the status quo re: the accepted writings. I am sure the Catholic Encyclopedia would agree that the writings which became part of the canon enjoyed congregational support from the very beginning; perhaps from different congregations, depending on the writings. There is a big difference between the "Completed Canon" and the "Acceptance" of individual writings. All the writings enjoyed acceptance long before they made it onto Athanasius' list, or any other list, for that matter. It kind of goes without saying; obvious. A writing couldn't get on a list unless it enjoyed a certain acceptance when being considered for the list. .

john8verse32 · 09-30-09 1:13 pm

so, <a href="http://www.thebricktestament.com/" target="_blank">...these...</a> are the officially acceptible stories we should be teaching our impressionable kids?

don · 10-02-09 8:29 am

Hi Jag, Thanks for your carefully reasoned post. The question of tradition and Protestantism provides an interesting field of study. Does Protestantism accept any early tradition? How does Protestantism treat the Nicene creed? The Apostles Creed? Also, Sunday observance, infant baptism, Christmas, etc. The difference between Roman Catholic thinking and Protestant thinking seems to be one of degree. Roman Catholics consider tradition, such as decisions of church councils, to be of equal authority to the Bible, don't they? Didn't Luther reject the equal authority of tradition? Another comparison. Luther rejected later Church hierarchy traditions for apostolic tradition. I have come to view the NT Canon as the one accepted tradition. Once the Canon is accepted, all other statements from tradition must be measured by the Canon. Thus, the Protestant Church limits tradition to the Canon itself. (Luther challenged the tradition of the Canon, didn't he? He had trouble accepting the book of James?) (Message edited by Don on October 02, 2009)

elaine · 10-02-09 11:50 am

Jag has restated what I have said many times: tradition has decided what our scripture is that we use today. Not only that, tradition and church history decided many of the earliest doctrines of the church that are accepted by all SDAs today. It is impossible, try as one might, to dismiss tradition. Some wish to return to the "one primitive church" which there never was, as Jag wrote.

don · 10-02-09 4:00 pm

Jag has restated what I have said many times Yes, Elaine, I thought of you while reading Jag's post. tradition and church history decided many of the earliest doctrines of the church The writings of the NT are themselves part of the Christian Church's tradition. The concern, as I see it, is to limit tradition so it does not accumulate like it has done with Roman Catholicism. It is the ongoing accumulation of traditions that troubles the integrity of the church. Primitive traditions, at least those included in the NT canon, are to be treasured. It is impossible, try as one might, to dismiss tradition. Some wish to return to the "one primitive church" which there never was... I agree that "early" tradition is impossible to dismiss because the NT writings themselves are "tradition". However, there was "one primitive church" if we can believe the account of the Book of Acts. I think the question of the ONE primitive church arises after A.D. 70. And the passing of the first generation. The church scattered. It is easy to imagine the individual communities developing their local practices and teachings. The persecutions of Rome made it difficult to develop a unified church with agreed upon doctrines and canonical writings. When Constantine established the church with the empire, he also helped the church face its issues of disharmony and disunity. .

elaine · 10-02-09 11:06 pm

there was "one primitive church" if we can believe the account of the Book of Acts. But then there are the Epistles which definitely showed there was dissension from the very beginning: the Jewish Christians trying to impose their laws and rituals on the gentile Christians. We like to think of a time in the remote past when everything was beautiful and harmonius, but that is not what the record shows. Not to forget that Luke wrote the Acts and Paul wrote most of the epistles and the two differ in some respects: i.e., Luke's account of Saul's conversion and Paul's own account. Which is the correct one?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 09-23-09 1:33 am

Re: The Canon

#27 09-23-09 2:24 am

Re: The Canon

#28 09-23-09 8:55 am

Re: The Canon

#29 09-23-09 12:49 pm

Re: The Canon

#30 09-23-09 2:11 pm

Re: The Canon

#31 09-23-09 2:23 pm

Re: The Canon

#32 09-23-09 6:42 pm

Re: The Canon

#33 09-23-09 7:56 pm

Re: The Canon

#34 09-23-09 11:31 pm

Re: The Canon

#35 09-24-09 1:37 am

Re: The Canon

#36 09-24-09 1:57 am

Re: The Canon

#37 09-24-09 10:08 am

Re: The Canon

#38 09-24-09 10:35 am

Re: The Canon

#39 09-24-09 10:37 am

Re: The Canon

#40 09-24-09 11:00 am

Re: The Canon

#41 09-24-09 11:12 am

Re: The Canon

#42 09-24-09 12:20 pm

Re: The Canon

#43 09-24-09 12:55 pm

Re: The Canon

#44 09-24-09 9:12 pm

Re: The Canon

#45 09-24-09 10:06 pm

Re: The Canon

#46 09-30-09 1:13 pm

Re: The Canon

#47 10-02-09 8:29 am

Re: The Canon

#48 10-02-09 11:50 am

Re: The Canon

#49 10-02-09 4:00 pm

Re: The Canon

#50 10-02-09 11:06 pm

Re: The Canon

Board footer