The Formation of the New Testament Canon (w/ Dr. Benjamin Laird)

Рет қаралды 4,072

Күн бұрын

This video is sponsored by Faithful Counseling. For 10% off your first month, use the link, www.faithfulcounseling.com/gos...
There has been no shortage of debate over how the NT canon was formed. Was it an organic process, finished by the mid-second century? Was it an ecclesial process, formalized at 4th century councils? Or was it a conspiracy of power hungry bishops seeking to quell rival Christianities (shoutout to Barth Ehrman)?
In this interview, Dr. Benjamin Laird gives us a deep dive on how the canon came to be. But he goes much deeper than usual conversations. We dive into first century writing practices to shed new light on questions ranging from intended audiences to "original manuscripts."
Find his book: amzn.to/3rP8GQx
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: gospelsimplicity.creator-spri...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a KZfaq channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 24 year old guy who’s passionate about the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel. I believe that the gospel, the good news about Jesus, is really good news, and I’m out to explore, unpack, and share that good news with as many people as possible. I'm a full blown Bible and Church History nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this, learning as much as I can, and then teaching whatever I can. I grew up around Frederick, MD where I eventually ended up working my first job at a church. They made the mistake of letting me try my hand at teaching, and instantly I fell in love. That set me on a path for further education, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL, studying theology. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
Chapters:
00:00 - Will studying the canon destroy our faith?
05:08 - Writing in the 1st century
10:30 - Gospels vs Epistles
21:48 - "Original" manuscripts
31:10 - When was the canon finalized?
36:46 - Church councils
48:24 - The authority of the canon
1:02:30 - Final Four
6SONAXLJGODS9N6N
YBJJF4W66FC14RQS

Пікірлер: 110

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

Jimmy Akin's book _The Bible is a Catholic Book_ actually does address the practical questions of how people wrote in the 1st century. In fact, the answers to those questions destroy any notion of sola Scriptura. Writing was very expensive and rare, not accessible to most people, who couldn't even read.

@JW_______ Жыл бұрын

Almost like one would only write for very important, communal purposes, such as disseminating scriptural texts amomgst the churches establiahed across the greco-roman world.

@lyterman Жыл бұрын

I'm a Catholic, brother, a convert, in fact, but writings being scarce doesn't necessarily disprove Sola Scriptura. It could make reaching correct doctrine from the Bible alone impractical for nearly everyone, but it isn't a strict disproof, especially because most Protestants will argue that Sola Scriptura applies to the whole Church, not necessarily to every individual believer.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@lyterman "most Protestants will argue that Sola Scriptura applies to the whole Church, not necessarily to every individual believer" Have you met Martin Luther?? lol. "Here I stand! I can do no other. I, I, I, me, me, me...." Ever heard of the right of private judgement? Sure, Luther, Calvin, etc. didn't like it when others exercised their own judgement/interpretation of Scripture (and would use State force against them), but they established the principle, the pandora's box. Have you seen how many Protestant sects there are? Pretty sure most have no problem in principle with the right of individual private judgement (though most just go along with the already-existing tradition they received or favor) since that was the very birth/foundation of Protestantism.

@lyterman Жыл бұрын

@@tonyl3762 I think you're missing the point. I think the critique you're trying to make has some force (the average Christian couldn't learn doctrine from studying the Bible how most Christians do today for nearly 1500 years, and the Reformation just happened to coincide with the invention of the printing press), but just understand that Sola Scriptura isn't strictly disproven because not every individual believer had the Scriptures. This has nothing to do with private interpretation. It's the distinction Protestants make, that the Church is guided by only the Scriptures infallibly, not that every individual believer must get every doctrine from Scripture (though that's common in practice today).

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@lyterman The "right" of private interpretation is inextricably linked to sola Scriptura in Protestantism from its birth till today. I think that's easy to see or demonstrate. But I'm sure there are a relative few Protestants out there who have taken the effort to argue what you say to try to salvage the historical practical impossibility of sola Scriptura and conveniently tried to separate private judgement from sola Scriptura itself. Still, while such an approach might avoid a strict disproof of a kind a sola Scriptura, it is still very incoherent and inconsistent. There were times early on when Scripture was just not available or its inspired status unclear, even among the literate.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

The fact of the matter is that it was THE CHURCH (bishops) that evaluated and validated/invalidated the apostolicity of various writings based on Tradition. It makes no sense for the Church and apostolicity to be two separate options or theories in the formation of the NT Canon. No abstract concept of apostolicity did anything. Concepts don't settle disputes; authoritative agents do.

@PhoebeK Жыл бұрын

What is missed is that the canon came together liturgicaly rather than as the bible in the way we would recognise it now. The earliest texts we find are distinct in the Gosples as one colection and the epistles as a seperate colection relating to the liturgical use of the texts. This is still seen within the Orthodox practice where the Gosples are kept by the clergy and read to the congregation by the Deacon while the letters and the septuigent were read by the reader (a literate man consicrated for the task). Most of the early codification of texts and practice hapened liturgicaly. Asside from the NT and other letters the earlyest documents of the Church are Church Order texts which are effectly the same type of text as the modern typicons of the Orthodox Church (a colection of practical cannons and liturgical practaces used in a given congregation).

@j.g.4942 Жыл бұрын

This is also kept in the west, even among pew sitters. We sit for the OT lesson and NT epistle (This is the Word of the Lord *Thanks be to God*) and stand for the reading of the Gospel by the Pastor (This is the Gospel of the Lord *Praise be to you O Christ*). Some Lutheran Churches still practice the Gospel procession as well. The liturgical differentiation of texts was also revisited in the Lutheran Reformation, which divided out the intertestamental books as to be read not in Church.

@meadeadams Жыл бұрын

Yes! Was coming here to say this! Lol

@campomambo Жыл бұрын

This is a very important point given the guest's emphasis on apostolicity as the source of authority. We know for a fact that not all of the apostles writings were given canonical status. And the reason wasn't because there was anything wrong with them. We have other writings that were popular, widely read, and believed to be of apostolic origin. Examples would be the apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, and the teaching of the twelve apostles aka the Didache. None of these writings were denied as being heretical or containing error but were also not ultimately included as part of the canon. In fact we have church leaders encouraging these books to be read, possibly even authoritative. All this goes to show how the key element of canonical status is the use of a book in the lectionary over and above apostolicity. The differences in regional lectionaries also explains why different manuscripts of the new testament include pericopes in different places. The longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae being good examples.

@deekay2680 11 ай бұрын

Yep. It is the liturgical text of the Orthodox Faith- the context of the Bible. The faith does not come from the bible, but the other way around. Holy men received The Church on Pentecost and were inspired by God to speak, teach,& write. Paul received a personal ’tutorial.’ All they taught and delivered is inspired. Fyi the Greek word for ‘deliver’ is paradosis- and this was translated into English as ‘tradition’. When something is delivered to you, the source determines whether it’s good/ holy or not. All the Apostles delivered is holy- holy tradition. Scripture is just one aspect, but not all of what they delivered. All of the faith was delivered once in full to the saints (Jude). Complete. Holy tradition, of which written scripture is one part.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

The earliest confirmation of the 4 canonical gospels is Irenaeus in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, I believe. If we can trust him for the gospels, why can't we trust him for everything else he tells us about early Church beliefs, practices, governance, etc. ?

@roddumlauf9241 Жыл бұрын

Irenaeus was very good on most points but we can't trust him on everything else he tells us about early Church beliefs..... Irenaeus wrote that Jesus was about 50 years old when He died.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@roddumlauf9241 Ah yes, the old tired worn out "age of Jesus" objection to Irenaeus. What a non-surprise! Because he allegedly got that wrong, we can just ignore everything Irenaeus has to say about the Church of Rome, Mary, the Eucharist, apostolic Tradition, apostolic succession, etc. ?? Is it possible that Irenaeus has been merely mistranslated or misunderstood on this point? Is it possible this misunderstanding is being used as an excuse not to take Irenaeus' witness to Catholic doctrines seriously? "Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyon simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization on life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old." "Irenaeus explains that Jesus had reached the age of a master (teacher). He further explains that the first stage of life lasts until the age of thirty. It is after this that the second phase of life begins. One needed to reach this second phase in order to be an “elder,” and thus able to teach. When Irenaeus writes, “…which our Lord possessed…” he is speaking to the fact that Jesus did indeed live into this second phase of life. He is surely not referencing “…and fiftieth year…” Admittedly, such a mistake could be made by the modern person who assumes that an ancient writes in the same way that he does. However, it is clear that the context tells us that Irenaeus is simply explaining what the second phase of life entails. Jesus only had to begin the second phase of life for Irenaeus to be correct in his teaching. Keep in mind that Irenaeus is correct in identifying that Jesus was baptized around the age of thirty. Also be mindful that Irenaeus says that Jesus suffered after completing his thirtieth year (i.e. second phase of life). Irenaeus is absolutely correct in affirming both of these facts. How could he have been so accurate here, and yet somehow also be teaching that Jesus lived into His fifties? Finally, Irenaeus explains that his teaching is confirmed by the Gospels and other elders. Would Irenaeus have really taught that the Gospels and other Church fathers held that Jesus lived into His fifties? If so, then why was Irenaeus respected by his contemporaries and never attacked for such an odd belief? It is because Irenaeus taught above what is found in the Scriptures."

@roddumlauf9241 Жыл бұрын

@@tonyl3762 Tony, I am going by what Michael Barber, student of Dr. Scott Hahn, stated to a question I posed to him personally through Dr. Bergsma. One of the unfortunate consequences of Irenaeus writing that Jesus was 50 when He was crucified is that the Book of Revelation is dated to have been written at or near 100 AD. Were it but for Irenaeus' blunder, the Book of Revelation would be dated at 67-69 AD. Like I said, I do not ignore the good in Irenaeus as to the points you mention....don't put words in my mouth especially since I am a fan of Irenaeus and whose writings changed my mind on many issues.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@roddumlauf9241 My apologies for assuming too much. I'd be interested in seeing any exchange between Barber and Bergsma on this issue. Yet even supposing Irenaeus was really saying Jesus died at age 50 (which I'm not convinced of), can we really say that Irenaeus was proposing this as a universally held belief in the Church?

@roddumlauf9241 Жыл бұрын

@@tonyl3762 Hi Tony, I'm sure would not expect that Irenaeus was proposing that Jesus' late death date be held as a universally held belief. My guess is that even in his day few even knew that he wrote this in his writings otherwise, like you say, someone would have made a big stink. Maybe at the time someone did call him out on it but it was never really much of a deal to spell ink over. However, this is where it has made a big deal because according to some, including Barber, this is the main reason some have put a late date on the Book of Revelation because of who Irenaeus claimed was the emperor when Jesus was crucified. I'd have to really dig into years past emails to find the exact words, but I was in a Bible Study on the Book of Revelation. The teacher of the study took the majority/common late date of authorship for Revelation ( 90s) during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (AD 81-96) and therefore held to a "futurist" fulfilment of the book. I had gone through Scott Hahn's cd series on Revelation and Dr. Hahn believed Revelation was written just prior to the fall of Jerusalem. I wrote to Dr. Bergsma about this question and he passed it onto his friend and colleague Dr. Barber. Dr. Barber wrote me briefly that the only reason the late date theory holds is because Irenaeus wrote that Jesus was about 50 years old when He was crucified and it was during the reign of Domitian. That is about all I can tell you.

@adamfischer1850 Жыл бұрын

He said 1 Clement was rejected from the canon because it wasn't Apostolic, then immediately went on do define Apostolicity in a way that would include Clement. The Gospel of Mark is canon because Mark was a student of Peter but the Epistle of Clement isn't despite the fact that he was also a student of Peter? How does one actually come to believe that?

@ReformingApologetics Жыл бұрын

He was speaking of Gospels with much earlier reception. The association between Clement and Simon Peter is highly speculative.

@MrPeach1 Жыл бұрын

Irenaus they guy who states that the gospel of Mark was the preaching of Peter, had this to say about Clement...To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes

@krismikewill Жыл бұрын

Dr. Laird was my instructor for a Greek exegesis course on Philippians.

@matthewgroh8797 Жыл бұрын

He is doing an excellent job of describing the way that Ecumenical Councils work. They were there to describe what the Church has always believed.

@charlesiragui2473 10 ай бұрын

And to articulate the beliefs to provide unity of faith: the Creed.

@robertotapia8086 Жыл бұрын

@Gary Michuta would be if not the TOP source for the whole canon.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

His specialty is OT canon, but he has dabbled enough in NT too, and the same principles apply. Totally agree that Michuta is the best person to get on the issue generally. I closely follow his Apocrphya Apocalypse channel.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

Yes, the epistles were indeed OCCASIONAL documents, for specific occasions, circumstances, questions, etc. Yes, of course they have relevance for everyone, BUT they were never meant to be a complete Catechism or parts of a Catechism, as sola Scriptura implicitly envisions.

@thelimatheou Жыл бұрын

Wait - are you arguing that Sola Scriptura is in error or correct? I've certainly had discussions with adherents of Sola Scriptura over verses, chapters that they would reject as having wider applications when it comes to the doctrines of Christianity, and will claim it is specific when it suits their argument. I understand I'm saying 'I've met some...' doesn't cover all adherents, however. In particular I've been discussing the communion of the saints, and used various texts to prove the Church is a single body, that those who have died are alive in Christ, etc. (1 Cor 12:12-14, Luke 20:37-38, Hebrews 1:12, etc.) in which they will argue that those verses were only applicable to those they were written to. Just as Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible, or prayer to, worship & glorification of the Holy Spirit does not appear explicitly in a verse or chapter, we use the totality of Scripture to understand the doctrines applicable to us as believers - just as the Church (who gave us the Bible) did from the beginning.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@thelimatheou My point was not to argue whether all or some or certain passages were meant only for that time, place, occasion, etc. (that's a matter of authority, i.e. the Church and the Tradition witnessed to by early bishops/martyrs). My point was to say sola Scriptura is an error because none of the NT authors thought of themselves as writing a Catechism or contributing to a Catechism. The gospel writers were narrating the life of Christ with a sampling of His important sayings and teachings. The letters addressed specific issues and concerns. None of the writers individually or in aggregate intended for a certain compilation of writings to be the sole infallible/inerrant rule of faith.

@thelimatheou Жыл бұрын

@@tonyl3762 Fair enough - I did go into the weeds a tad, but I actually thought from your first post you were defending Sola Scripture. God bless!

@Midnight4K 10 ай бұрын

Austin these videos are fantastic. Keep it up.

@GospelSimplicity 10 ай бұрын

Thanks!

@ajmeier8114 Жыл бұрын

The mental gymnastics one must do to not see that the Councils set the Canon. I pray one day Dr. Laird will accept the truth that he obviously doesn't want to accept

@PhoebeK Жыл бұрын

The council confirmed what had been the practice for the previous nearly three hundred years. The fathers of the council were explicated that this was the practice of the church they were concerning not a new idea, the fathers rejected and new ideas.

@danielvega1970 Жыл бұрын

@@PhoebeK greetings, the problem was not the book that were already accepted in consensus, but the ones that were doubted and disputed as inspired, like Revelations, Hebrews and James, 2nd of Peter, 2 and 3 of John. That’s when the authority of the church, reunited in councils, was indeed needed. Also these same councils accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired.

@PhoebeK Жыл бұрын

@@danielvega1970 All the NT books apart from Revelation made the liturgical cut, admittedly the ever of certain feasts and the weeks leading up to lent but they made it. The last book to be accepted was Revelation which is why it missed the cut for liturgical reading but is still accepted as inspired when interpreted with the mind of the Church, the Orthodox Church only recognizes 2 commentaries on Revelation in Latin the one by St Bede and one Greek father (who's name I cannot remember). I would also note that the Orthodox Church uses the Greek OT with all the books holding the same weight, and Jerome in his Latin translation only edited out 3 and 4 Maccabees, the short cannon most people know is a result of the reformation. This shrinkage of the canon was theological as the texts downgraded supported practices the reformers wanted to remove rather than return to the original practice.

@ReformingApologetics Жыл бұрын

The council of Trent is the only one the church even claims did so. It's only modern apologists that claim otherwise. These are the three English language sources for the history of Trent and the canon debate there. I've yet to encounter a Catholic who has read them. Duncker, Peter G. “The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): 277-99. Jedin, Hubert. A History of the Council of Trent. Trans. Ernest Graf. Volume 2. London: Thomas Nelson, 1961. O’Malley, John W. Trent: What Happened at the Council. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.

@PhoebeK Жыл бұрын

@@ReformingApologetics The council of Trent is not a accepted by the Orthodox Church who defines the scriptural canon by liturgical use as the core of Holy Tradition. The Gospels are affirmed in a council because of a heresy regarding them, there has never been serious debate in the East over the canon of scripture somo need to codify it. That may change if there is another pan-Orthodox council but for now holy tradition is more than sufficient.

@robertotapia8086 Жыл бұрын

@Gospel Simplicity @Austin please invite @Gary Michuta he would be the best scholarly person to have on especially on the history of the Canon of the whole Bible.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@GospelSimplicity Жыл бұрын

A video with Gary on the OT comes out next week!

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@GospelSimplicity Nice! Gary really is the best on the canon. Make sure he advertises his Apocrypha Apocalypse channel!

@robertotapia8086 Жыл бұрын

@GospelSimplicity Yes!!!! Can't wait it's going to be edifying. Thanks for reaching out to @Gary Michuta.

@edgjal77 Жыл бұрын

I’m guessing Dr. Laird is Protestant? He tried so hard not to point out that the Cannon was finalized by the Catholic Church. He did say Universal Church lol. He also did note the 4th century was important for the cannon of scripture lol. Good video

@bonniejohnstone Жыл бұрын

The Catholic Church? You mean the Church right! Remember that there was one Church before the Schism.

@ReformingApologetics Жыл бұрын

The Catholic church doesn't claim to have "decided" a canon before Trent.

@brianfarley926 Жыл бұрын

@@ReformingApologeticslol😂yes it does. First defined the canon at the Council of Hippo in 390 and re affirmed the canon multiple times after the same exact canon through the Council of Trent. Nice try to re write history there

@ReformingApologetics Жыл бұрын

@@brianfarley926 No it doesn't, only apologists do. What does the catechism say? Can you cite anything official that says otherwise?

@jacobbaradaeus6250 Жыл бұрын

@edgjal77 the canon was finalized by Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the father of Orthodoxy, and declared to the world in his Paschal letter of 367.

@rexfordtugwelljr Жыл бұрын

I thought Pope Damasus "finalized" the canon once it was agreed upon by the Council of either Rome or Hippo or Carthage. Don't recall offhand. After that, was there any more debate or confusion as to what books comprised the New Testament? I don't believe so but I'm open to being corrected.

@rexfordtugwelljr Жыл бұрын

Dr. Brant Pitre highly recommends Lee Martin McDonald's "The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority" According to Pitre, although McDonald is a Protestant, his treatment of the formation of the NT canon is scholarly, informative and does not hesitate, unlike Dr. Laird, to recognize the great contribution of the Catholic Church to the New Testament canon.

@tubemaven1983 Жыл бұрын

This is false. Read a book on NT canon formation.

@rexfordtugwelljr Жыл бұрын

@@tubemaven1983 Thanks.That's exactly my plan. I'm going to read the book by Dr. McDonald.

@ReformingApologetics Жыл бұрын

The council of Rome in 382 did not produce a canon list. Unfortunately, this theory has saturated the internet because it's been repeated so much by modern apologists who are unaware of the source and scholarship. The following journal article explains. It was published in 1913, five years after the original Catholic Encyclopedia. Since the latter is in the public domain, it fuels a lot of misunderstanding. The other major factor is that William Jurgens published cautious commentary in favor of the Council of Rome theory in 1979. The scholarship he cites predates this research, which he seems to have been unaware of. The combination of these two factors and Catholic Answers embellishing and promoting the claim has effectively rewritten history on this. There is not a single church father that ever mentioned this list, papal decrees didn't even exist in 382, and most obviously, if it were true, Carthage and Hippo would not have even needed to produce there "reading list" 11 and 15 years later. It's apologetics run amuck. JOURNAL ARTICLE Review: THE DECRETUM GELASIANUM Reviewed Work: Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis in kritischem Text herausgegeben und untersucht (T. & U. vol. xxxviii) Ernst von Dobschütz Review by: F. C. Burkitt The Journal of Theological Studies Vol. 14, No. 55 (APRIL, 1913), pp. 469-471 (3 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press

@ReformingApologetics Жыл бұрын

@@rexfordtugwelljr I think you're mixing OT and NT with regard to MacDonald. His book is good, fair, and scholarly but there are some things that are incomplete and dated now. For example, his discussion of the Sadducees.

@matthewbroderick6287 11 ай бұрын

Many Church Fathers disagreed with each other on what books were to be included as Holy Scripture, and which were not! It was the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus, that provided the first canon as to which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

@georgefuentes4112 10 ай бұрын

I would love to see where this guy gets his info. It seems he really minimized the importance of these counsels and twisted it to mean something other than what they were (if that isn’t the same two things lol) I have always understood these counsels to as he said affirm what was already being taught, fight off heresy, and close the opportunity (aka canon) so that it would also shut down future heresies.

@brianfarley926 Жыл бұрын

Try and get ahold of Dr. Brant Pitre on this. He’s be very good to talk about in this area and the formation of the OT as well

@georgefuentes4112 10 ай бұрын

Agreed! Pitre, Michuta, Jimmy Akin, and Bergsma would squash this guy and his fluffy roundabout way of minimizing the ecumenical counsels.

@felicisimojavier4681 11 ай бұрын

Who was the early church?

@margaretstewart5538 Жыл бұрын

Lovely man but come on Austin, its very clear you understand the need for apostolic church. You know enough to be responsible to need to do something about it

@JJ-cw3nf 11 ай бұрын

I'm surprised he admitted the cannon was still debated past the 4th century, and the councils of the 4th century listing the 27 NT books.

@daddydaycareky Жыл бұрын

I really appreciated Dr Laird's insights and many of his nuanced responses regarding this issue. However, in my opinion, this does not add any value or support to those that hold to Sola Scriptura. Dr Laird presented no evidence from Scripture that led him to hold his view on how we determine the canon. He also seemed to completely ignore the fact that Clement was a companion of Paul (Philippians 4:3) just like Timothy, Titus, Luke, Barnabas, etc and Ignatius of Antioch along with Polycarp were disciples of John for many years. Therefore, they seemingly meet his arbitrary criteria for apostolicity. However, I agree with his assessment on the role of the councils in acknowledging the councils. The only clarification that I would add, is the councils were also divinely inspired, which means they utilized many of Dr Lairds 4 criteria.

@countryboyred 3 ай бұрын

Yeah but you are a heretic so who cares about your opinion, papist.

@codysmith7038 11 ай бұрын

This guy can’t come to grip that his cannon was verified by the Catholic Church. Without that verification ,which isn’t as self evident as he tries to convey (like Revelations) you would always have doubts to which books to trust.

@georgefuentes4112 10 ай бұрын

Exactly my thoughts through the whole video!

@CPATuttle 11 ай бұрын

Christianity didn’t come from a cannon. The Protestant cannon, Catholic cannon, the different Orthodox cannons, the Assyrian church of the East cannon. All have different reasons and authority for their cannons

@esoterico7750 Жыл бұрын

But Jude Paul and James aren’t part of the 12 so how are they apostolic

@campomambo Жыл бұрын

Jude is "Judas, not Iscariot" one of the 12. But if you look at the Orthodox Church you will see that there is a very ancient Christian understanding of apostleship as being not limited to the 12. For example there are the 70.

@ajmeier8114 Жыл бұрын

"councils didn't create doctrine" ummm what? He makes it sound like the councils were just a bunch of guys that got together to shoot the breeze. What is the point to even holding a council if it was only to be talk about what was widely believed? There would be no need to meet.

@PhoebeK Жыл бұрын

They met to refute heretics, the confirming of the canon was a side effect not the point of meeting.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

Even from a Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint, councils don't "create" doctrine; they re-affirm what was already taught or apply those teachings to new circumstances, issues, etc.

@ajmeier8114 Жыл бұрын

@@tonyl3762 I mean they kind of do. Doctrine is the teaching of the Church that isn't revealed by Christ. So if the Church doesn't create it, there wouldn't be doctrine. I know what your are getting at but the Church has to define what it's doctrine is...i.e. "create"

@PhoebeK Жыл бұрын

The Orthodox Church holds that the doctrines of the Church we're reviled to the apostles between Pacha (easter) and Assencion. The Councils just articulated what was in the tradition of the Church.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@ajmeier8114 I understand and accept your distinction between dogma and doctrine. However, the Church just doesn't use the term "create" to describe its own mission/authority with respect to doctrine. The Church can determine, develop, re-affirm, preserve, hand down, define, apply, etc. with respect to "the deposit of faith," but "create" just leads to misunderstandings on both sides, giving the impression the doctrine didn't exist until it was created. I understand what you're getting at but better to use the Church's own terms and phrases for itself. The Church creates disciplines and ecclesiastical laws but not doctrines. Sure, you might say that Church has "created" doctrines in response to new circumstances/issues/heresies like the Trinity/creeds or immorality of IVF, but even those are really just developments or applications of already existing doctrine(s).

@richardbenitez1282 Жыл бұрын

This is such a contentious and mischaracterized topic. I’m afraid to watch it. Anger goes up.

@bonniejohnstone Жыл бұрын

This is not contentious, very well presented. (Saw this early)

@thelimatheou Жыл бұрын

If you're afraid to have your ideas challenged, perhaps you need better ideas...

@codysmith7038 11 ай бұрын

Laird: The main way they determined the cannon was if it was apostolic. Gospel simplicity: What about Luke? He wasn’t an apostle. Laird: Well apostolic doesn’t necessarily mean from an apostle.🙄🙄🙄 By that logic many other books could have been in the New Testament.

@deekay2680 11 ай бұрын

Catholic is a Greek word, Katholou, and it doesn’t mean universal in the way people use the term. It means ‘of the whole’- kath +Olou- complete, nothing missing, no doctrine to be added or changed, pertaining to all creation. God gave it in full once- Jude. Which all western Confessions ignored, starting w/ Rome in the 2nd millennium. Adding, subtracting, editing.

@Bonedust66 4 ай бұрын

Christ told his disciples that the promised Holy Spirit will bring all things to their remembrance.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

I think the Mormons are cheering to hear that the NT canon was supposedly never officially closed, according to Dr Laird? lol

@brianfarley926 Жыл бұрын

Yea that’s a radical statement. The NT was officially closed by the death of the Apostles. They and or scribes of them there’s like Mark and Luke wrote the NT.

@campomambo Жыл бұрын

He's right though. Unless you are a Roman Catholic who has the fairly recent council of Trent where there was a formal and universal declaration of what is the canon then you cannot point to a single universally authoritative source that declares the canon limited to a strict set of texts. That doesn't mean the canon can be added to, seeing as there are criteria we use as to what can be included, but there was never an official closing of the canon for most Christian sects.

@tonyl3762 Жыл бұрын

@@campomambo It still begs the question who decides which criteria with authority and without error and who can apply the criteria with authority and without error.

@campomambo Жыл бұрын

@@tonyl3762 you're right. But that is an entirely separate question of whether it was officially closed or not, which was the entire focus of your post. It doesn't serve anybody any good to deny an inconvenient reality. The question of authority is easy enough to resolve as it is, anyway, especially because the entire question of whether the canon was closed or not begs the question of who has the authority to decide.

@brianfarley926 Жыл бұрын

@@campomambo The Catholic Church affirmed the same exact books in Scripture since 382. Trent re affirmed this is all. The Council of Florence declared this before Trent as well dogmatically. So this Mormon view of an open canon is utterly ridiculous