Ben C Smith

This is not accurate. No single council (or even series of councils) created the canon. The councils more or less confirmed various versions of a growing consensus. This growing consensus was clear since late century II on the four gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline epistles (though Hebrews was in an ambiguous position), fuzzy on the catholic epistles, and decidedly unclear on Revelation (even well into the medieval period) and several other texts that are no longer considered in most circles.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Although I agree with the substance of this, there were provincial synods in North Africa in 393 397 and 419 which laid down explicitly the NT canon for the purpose of preventing non-Scriptural texts from being read in Church.

The Priscillianist controversy made a sharp division between canonical and non-canonical works particularly important for the Latin church at this time.

Andrew Criddle

LightCC

Yes, I can see where I am probably wrong on this broad statement. Indeed, I do not have a broad enough base of experience and knowledge to make such a statement. I once again am suffering from dipstick-itis - the belief that one's experiences and knowledge is typical of all experience and knowledge (more directly put: that you believe you are the dipstick of humanity).

So, let me revise my statement. The conservative, calvinist denominations I am aware of, that practice 'sola scriptura' do have a rigorous set of hermeneutical rules they follow for their basic scriptural interpretation.

The problem with the term 'conservative Christian' is that it is a broad term that invokes very different ideas depending on who you talk to...

LightCC

This is why even those following 'Sola Scriptura' tend to believe that confirmation and/or illumination from the Holy Spirit of God is required to get at the truth of God in the scriptures (see the first article of the Westminster Confession as a prime example)

As far as literal goes, there is a saying on what it means for the Bible to be taken literally in interpretation: "When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense, less you end up with nonsense."

Seeking the literal sense is more rightly contrasted with seeking an allegorical interpretation of scripture than what I believe you might be referring to - but please, feel free to elaborate...

Shadowy Man

Then shouldn't all readings, if guided by the holy spirit, lead to the same interpretation?

Doug Shaver

Any attempt to taxonomize Christianity is a recipe for madness

Roger Pearse

This is true, but we need to recall that these synods were provincial, and so not binding on anyone outside that area.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This involves setting the claim of 'literal' so high that no book ever written could fulfil it. Since Christians do not set it in such terms, this would seem to be a strawman.

Shadowy Man

Then what do Christians mean when they say it is "literal" truth? How do they define "literal"?

andrewcriddle

Which Christians do you mean ?

This is a serious question. IIUC even very conservative Christian groups (when speaking formally and precisely) are cautious about using "literal" in this context because it can set up a strawman irrelevant to the real issues.

Andrew Criddle