Canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura Style

[DeFide]

Fredericks:

Our criteria for being in the canon has never been known authorship. That is a whole other topic.

OK, go for it. Going by the Bible alone, how do you determine which books belong in the Bible and which don’t?

 

[montanaman]

12 pages of obfuscation, smoke-blowing, and non sequiters in 10…9…8…7…

 

[onesimplemind]

This should be veeeery interesting

6…5…4…3

 

[neophyte]

…2…1…

And the answer is:

YOU CAN’T!!!

 

[Fidelis]

chirp, chirp, chirp…

Nobody here but us crickets…

 

[Catholic2003]

Sola Scriptura means that the only infallible source of divine revelation is the Bible. Thus, the Bible becomes a fallible list of infallible books.

 

[john_ennis]

It would seem that Sola Scriptura folks would be constantly open to revisiting the validity of every single book in the Bible. It is seldom if ever the case, though. Rather, they confidently accept the tradition handed down to them.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

OK, go for it. Going by the Bible alone, how do you determine which books belong in the Bible and which don’t?

What do you mean? The Bible is that book I can go buy at Barnes and Noble.

 

[porthos11]

FOOLS! Do you not know that there is an inspired list of Books of the Bible!? It is an ancient Apostolic List compiled by the Original Twelve Apostles back in…ummmm…a REALLY Long Time Ago!

It is the ancient document known as the “Table of Contents”! There are some variant manuscripts entitled “List of the Books in Alphabetical Order” but scholars use it only for cross-referencing.

Most modern Bibles have this document before Genesis.

So there.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

What do you mean? The Bible is that book I can go buy at Barnes and Noble.

Going by scripture alone, how do you determine which books are in the Bible you accept and which books you reject. For example, most Protestants have fewer books in their Bible than Catholics do. Some Protestants reject the Old Testament altogether.

How did they figure out what to accept and what to reject if the Bible alone is the sole infallible source of authority on issues faith and morals?

 

[Eden]

Angainor:

What do you mean? The Bible is that book I can go buy at Barnes and Noble.

I think that is representative of about how far Protestants tend to go when thinking about the history of the Bible. Not very far at all.

 

[alms]

porthos11:

It is the ancient document known as the “Table of Contents”! There are some variant manuscripts entitled “List of the Books in Alphabetical Order” but scholars use it only for cross-referencing.

Most modern Bibles have this document before Genesis.

So there.

So where did this “Table of Contents” come from?

 

[MrS]

alms:

So where did this “Table of Contents” come from?

from the first tablets Moses brought down from the mountain… someone, probably a Protestant, took the time to put the pieces together for us

 

[alms]

MrS:

someone, probably a Protestant, took the time to put the pieces together for us

Do you mean a Protestant during the 4th century?

 

[MrS]

alms:

Do you mean a Protestant during the 4th century?

yep… a descendant of Cain, the first protester

 

[Ignatius]

Angainor:

What do you mean? The Bible is that book I can go buy at Barnes and Noble.

The OP asks, using Scripture Alone,determine which books are divinely inspired you should accept. Like, before Barnes and Noble, how was the Canon of the Bible established?

Martin Luther even admitted that the Holy Scriptures are received from the Catholic Church.

 

[Angainor]

Eden:

Angainor:

What do you mean? The Bible is that book I can go buy at Barnes and Noble.

I think that is representative of about how far Protestants tend to go when thinking about the history of the Bible. Not very far at all.

I was half joking, but only half. I do not think it is not an insignificant fact.

I believe the Church is the pilliar and foundation of truth. Without even considering the historical context of the Bible, I can say that I would not expect the Church to allow a false scripture to survive 2000 years to end up on the shelf of the local bookstore.

 

[montanaman]

Angainor:

I was half joking, but only half. I do not think it is not an insignificant fact.

I believe the Church is the pilliar and foundation of truth. Without even considering the historical context of the Bible, I can say that I would not expect the Church to allow a false scripture to survive 2000 years to end up on the shelf of the local bookstore.

No, the Jesuit commandos are much too good to allow something like that to happen.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

For example, most Protestants have fewer books in their Bible than Catholics do.

My understanding is that when St. Jerome first help assemble the Bible he noted the special status of the Deuterocanonical Books in a preface. This is not much different than what Luther did. Luther did not burn those books, he did not even hide them. He kept them with a special status.

The fact that the canonocity of the Deuterocanonical was a question in the fourth century and still is today suggests to me that those books are not obviously canon. The prudent thing to do is treat them with a special status. Their reliability is suspect.

This does not mean that it does not contain truths, just that those truths have to be tested against the trustworthy books.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

My understanding is that when St. Jerome first help assemble the Bible he noted the special status of the Deuterocanonical Books in a preface. This is not much different than what Luther did. Luther did not burn those books, he did not even hide them. He kept them with a special status.

The fact that the canonocity of the Deuterocanonical was a question in the fourth century and still is today suggests to me that those books are not obviously canon. The prudent thing to do is treat them with a special status. Their reliability is suspect.

This does not mean that it does not contain truths, just that those truths have to be tested against the trustworthy books.

I get the feeling you are not a Sola Scriptura advocate, if for no other reason because you resorted to tradition, at least in some form, to address the question.

But your response raises more questions than answers. On what authority does one decide which books are “trustworthy” and which ones are “suspect”? Who determines what is and is not “obvious” canon?