From The Eagle & Child quoting another book:
The formation of the New Testament canon presents a significant problem for this restitutionist understanding of Christian history. The criteria of canonicity show us not only that the Bible grew in the cradle of the church, but also that the leaders of the institutional church had a significant hand in forming our New Testament canon. In other words, the Bible that is set apart as being the only trustworthy guide for the Christian was shaped from within the very church that restitutionists claim was corrupt. This understanding should challenge any call that has at its foundation the rejection of the church for the Bible; it should lead us to reconsider our understanding of the church both theologically and historically.
Yeah, Catholics know that.
There's something I really disagree with:
The point which underlies Allert’s argument is that there was no clear in-out distinction for New Testament books until the mid to late fourth century,
There were many books that were "obvious" includes such as the four Gospels, and a good number of the epistles, because their authorship/historicity were never in doubt. I believe the issue centred on the more "iffy" epistles. The Gospel of Thomas and other pseudographia were discared early in Church history.
He makes it sound like there were no guidelines, no ceritudes. I don't believe that was the case.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca
