Deuterocanon Round Table Discussion

[JonNC]

You are referring to the term. I was referring to what they were protesting.

What they were protesting was the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529.

Even if they do, then they wouldn’t be embracing the canon of the Reformers, which is where the origination of “Protestant” came from. Anyone can call themselves “Protestant,” but if they embrace a canon that is different from Protestant Reformers, then how can they call themselves Protestant?

Your point seems to be that it is the canon of scripture that defines “Protestant”.
The original Protestant reformers were Lutheran. Therefore, those calling themselves Protestant believed in the real presence, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, aurricular confession to a priest/pastor. Can I therefore say: Anyone can call themselves “Protestant,” but if they embrace a view of sacraments that is different from the original (Lutheran) Protestant Reformers, then how can they call themselves Protestant?

My point is not to change the subject to sacraments, but to point out that there is only one modern meaning of the term Protestant: a western Christian communion/tradition/ denomination or individual not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
There may be similarities in some teachings, but I as a Lutheran have many beliefs that are far closer to Rome than to American evangelicals, for example.

Luther embraced this “smaller” canon for three main reasons: 1) Jerome preferred it & stated the church in his time considered them “edifying” but not canonical & doctrines were not based on them; 2) the Jews of antiquity did not embrace them; and 3) The deuteros were not found in the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible from the 1st century BC to 1st century AD).

On this we agree. As I said, Luther’s view of the canon is shaped by the views within the early Church.

It’s extremely relevant, because Scripture is either God-breathed or it’s not. There is no middle ground. Luther was treating the deuteros no different than the early church did - they treated them as edifying, but not God-breathed.

He also treated the Antilegomena of the NT that way.

 

[JonNC]

Then you should be able to show us what the complete canon of scripture was for the whole church in the year say, 250 ad with no middle ground, right?

This is an excellent point. This is why the Lutheran approach to the canon of scripture makes sense.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

until at least the 4th century, and then - again - not consistently

Protestants & the Pharisees shared the exact same books.

I would ask the same question. Where do we find an exact list of books matching both protestant and Pharisees and consistently in first century time?. I believe Mr. Lofton asked the same question. Where is the primary source of the list of books, a first century list of books, a first century list that supports Mr. Christie’s claim?

If you watch the clip, what he says is that Protestants & the Pharisees shared the exact same books.

Is Mr. Akin a primary source?

But Jesus never condemned their canon

Where did Jesus condemn other books?

immy Akin is correct that Pharisees & Protestants shared the same OT canon (which is backed up by other Catholic & non-Catholic sources), but he made a false assumption that the LXX in the early first century contained the deuteros.

so you believe some of what Mr. Akin says but not all? How do you know he is correct in what you have chosen to believe?

and revealed to the church in His time & through the church - what would be the point of “discussions & debates” over the OT canon?

exactly. perhaps because people have opinions and assumptions and think that they know better than the Church.

you “think.” I appreciate the subjective opinion,

As an ex protestant I should have said, I know that protestants beleive that the Scriptures alone are authoritative.

It’s about since Jesus & the apostles knew what the OT canon was & communicated it to the early church, then why would there be disagreements about its boundaries later on?

Again, because people do not want to trust the Church. Pretty much the same as during the OT times of Moses and the Israelites in the desert. The Israelites sinned by complaining and not trusting God and whom He chose to lead them.

you are still making a lot of assumptions that cannot be reconciled in regards to the OT canon.

In all charity, isn’t that what Mr. Lofton told Mr. Christie?

Since there are so many assumptions and opinions from individuals, this is where we do not lean on our own understanding but trust Christ and the visible Church He gave us to lead us.

God bless

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I would ask the same question. Where do we find an exact list of books matching both protestant and Pharisees and consistently in first century time?. I believe Mr. Lofton asked the same question.

He did, and he was answered by Mr. Christie, but this was one of the times he was interrupted during his answer. He brought up Josephus who mentioned an “only 22 books justly deemed divine, from Moses’ death to that of Artaxerxes” in Aprion 1.8. Later, St. Irenaeus mentioned “all the books, the Scriptures recognized as truly divine” during the same time period “at the time of Artaxerses, that inspired Ezra to restore all the works of the prophets of old, as well as the Law” (Against Heresies 3:24). Eusebius mentioned how the church asked Origen in the early 3rd century to “give public lectures in the church on the Holy Scriptures,” and described them with the same term as Josephus “only 22 books,” and then Origen “supplied a list” that was limited to the “smaller” canon of later Protestants. This “22 books” could not have included the 7 Deuterocanonical books, because the number would have to be closer to “29 books,” not 22. Unfortunately, listeners may not have heard the first part of this answer, because he was talked over by both Mr. Lofton & Mr. Albrecht while he was answering them.

Although Jimmy Akin is not a “primary source,” no one had a problem using his quote in the video when he was using his argument as a defense for the Catholic OT canon. It wasn’t until Mr. Christie used his quote as a defense for the Protestant OT canon that people began questioning his scholarship on the canon. And Mr. Christie began to mention that Jimmy Akin is not the only Catholic theologian or scholar to affirm that Pharisees & Protestants shared the same canon. But once again, he was interrupted before he could finish his response.

Where did Jesus condemn other books?

When I said Jesus never condemned the Pharisaic canon, the context was while Jesus rebuked their extra-scriptural “traditions” not found in their canon, He never condemned their canon ITSELF - meaning, just because their theology was wrong about Jesus, it doesn’t follow that they canon was wrong too. That is strawman, and it throws the baby out with the bathwater. And as Mr. Christie pointed out, Jesus affirmed the Pharisaic canon, but He never affirmed the 7 books in Catholic & Orthodox OTs. What is telling is that Mr. Lofton & Mr. Albrecht would not accept the “smaller” canon, even though you can find it in the first few centuries in “lists” in the early church (and even earlier in ancient Judaism), but they will accept the “bigger” canon, even though you can’t find the complete canon until at least the 4th century. Don’t you find this a bit inconsistent with their own standards on not accepting a canon unless it can be found in at least the first couple of centuries?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

because people do not want to trust the Church

But that doesn’t address the fact that since Jesus & the NT knew what the canon was, and if the canon was communicated to the church (even if it was in centralized in Rome since the first century), then why was it not consistent - even in Rome - for the first few centuries, even in the 4th century church councils which were all headed by Roman Pontiffs? Why did the Council of Rome headed by Pope Damasus I produce a different list than Pope Siricius at the Councils of Hippo & Carthage (which didn’t have the same lists either), which produced different lists headed by Pope Boniface at Carthage of 419? Saying “because people do not want to trust the Church” doesn’t address the fact that even church councils led by different Popes produced different lists. So, exactly “when” did the Church produce an OT list that remained intact that is exactly the same as the present day?

RaisedCatholic:

you are still making a lot of assumptions that cannot be reconciled in regards to the OT canon.

In all charity, isn’t that what Mr. Lofton told Mr. Christie?

Mr. Lofton said this, but as Mr. Christie pointed out, while there are lists prior to the fourth century for a “smaller” canon, even by ECFs & Doctors of the Church, there is no such list for a “bigger” canon shared by Rome today. And Mr. Christie also pointed out to Mr. Lofton that he doesn’t have to prove a negative (such as having to prove that when the Council of Rome explicitly listed each individual book of the canon, including separating the “minor prophets,” Lamentations from Jeremiah, and the other 6 Deuteros INDIVIDUALLY, but it omits Baruch). Jeremiah & Lamentations were originally a SINGLE book. So, if Mr. Lofton assumes that Baruch was part of Jeremiah, he must prove - from the Council of Rome - that Baruch was included within it. But he overlooks the question, “Since Lamentations was originally part of Jeremiah, but the council separated them, then ‘why’ would it not separate Baruch from Jeremiah also, especially since Baruch was NOT originally part of Jeremiah like Lamentations was?”

But the question still remains, if we should trust the Church to tell us what the canon is, exactly “when” did the Church define the canon equal to the canon of today? Neither Mr. Lofton nor Mr. Albrecht could answer this. Mr. Christie’s comment about the early church embracing the ever-growing Septuagint, which began adding the Deuteros to it in the 2nd century onward, instead of the Septuagint in the early first century that lacked it, as reason for the later church embracing these 7 additional books is better supported by early church history.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The original Protestant reformers were Lutheran. Therefore, those calling themselves Protestant believed in the real presence, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, aurricular confession to a priest/pastor

Actually, the Reformers were not limited to just Lutherans. In fact, Luther hated the term. He preferred “Christian.” Zwingli was also a Reformer, and he did not believe in the “real presence” of the body & blood in the communion bread & wine. As a Reformer, he believed they were symbolic, & utilized the symbolism of Luke 8:11 (“the seed IS the word of God”), for evidence for Jesus symbolism when He also said in Luke 22:19, “this IS my body.” So, there were differences between the Reformers in regards to different aspects of theology. But the Scriptures were not one of these differences. Not a single Reformer embraced the 7 Deuterocanonical books as God-breathed Scripture.

On this we agree. As I said, Luther’s view of the canon is shaped by the views within the early Church.

AMEN!

He also treated the Antilegomena of the NT that way.

But unlike the Deuteros, he included them in his German NT translation as inspired Scripture. His problem with books like James was he felt they didn’t address the gospel of salvation by faith alone, to the extent the gospels & the Pauline epistles did. This is something even Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft acknowledged when he endorsed Eric Metaxas’ book about Luther, where he discusses Luther’s view of the Antilegomena to the rest of the NT, which - again - Luther included in his NT, while simultaneously rejecting the Deuteros as God-breathed Scripture placing it in an uninspired addendum in his German translation.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Then you should be able to show us what the complete canon of scripture was for the whole church in the year say, 250 ad with no middle ground, right?

As mentioned in the round table discussion, even Catholic author, historian, & apologist Gary Michuta (“Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”) admitted, the Septuagint kept getting added to after the first century. By 250 AD (and even earlier) it would have included books that were not in it in the early first century. And it was this later edition of the Septuagint the early church began to embrace. Yet, we do find ECFs & early Christian writers in the first few centuries that embraced the “smaller” canon that excluded these 7 extra books, right up to the 4th century and even beyond. But we don’t find a “bigger” list anywhere in the first few centuries, and even in the 4th century the complete “bigger” canon with these 7 Deuteros is not consistent among ECFs in either the east or the west, including the 4th century church councils.

RaisedCatholic:

RaisedCatholic:

While he attempted to use the Hebrew for the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek for the NT, obviously he utilized the Greek for the Deuteros. Whether he used it from later versions of the LXX, or from other Greek versions Jerome utilized, he didn’t utilize the Hebrew since there were not Hebrew versions of any of the Deuteros available back then.

This is answering only half of the question. Please answer the rest of the question.

from what source did Luther make his translation of these extra books and what was consideration of these books in that source?

If Luther utilized the same Greek sources for the Deuteros as St. Jerome did (Origen’s Hexapla), then he would have utilized a version of a second century Septuagint that omitted the “additions” of Daniel, because Jerome had to utilize a Greek version from Theodotian that included it. Since he had to utilize Theodotian’s Greek version for this Deutero “addition” because he could not find it in the Septuagint, this demonstrates that the Greek additions to Daniel were not yet included in this second century version of the Septuagint, but was added to it later. Not all early Greek versions of the OT included the same books, including the Septuagint, which was originally limited to just “the Law” of Moses, but “the Prophets” & “the Writings” were later added before the first century, as attested to by the NT which cites these books - specifically - as “Scripture,” but not the Deuteros. The NT does allude to them, just as they allude to - and even directly quotes Apocrypha & Pseudepigraphical writings - but like these latter writings, the NT does not cite the Deuteros as Scripture…explicitly.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

Do you think Jesus would build a church and not tell them what the complete Biblical canon was,

Peace!!!

Well, in the NT, Jesus expected the Jews to know what it was. Therefore, doesn’t it follow that He would expect the apostles & the early church to know? Just saying “Peace!!!” doesn’t address this dilemma for the early church in the first few centuries being oblivious to something that they should have known since Jesus knew what it was & expected His followers to know it as well, which would only be possible if He told them what it was.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, the Reformers were not limited to just Lutherans. In fact, Luther hated the term. He preferred “Christian.” Zwingli was also a Reformer, and he did not believe in the “real presence” of the body & blood in the communion bread & wine.

Exactly. There was not one Protestant movement. As a result, one cannot accurately say, “ Protestants believe this or teach that”. They may agree on something, even unanimously, but it is because they are “Protestant”.
This is the reason for my oft repeated line: regarding practice and doctrine, use of the term Protestant is folly.

That said, it was the Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans) who filed the formal protest.

But the Scriptures were not one of these differences. Not a single Reformer embraced the 7 Deuterocanonical books as God-breathed Scripture.

Whether or not they did isn’t what makes them Protestant.

But unlike the Deuteros, he included them in his German NT translation as inspired Scripture. His problem with books like James was he felt they didn’t address the gospel of salvation by faith alone, to the extent the gospels & the Pauline epistles did.

True for James, though I think he was wrong about this. He held no such problem with Hebrews, for example. It was the disputed authorship of these books that gave him pause, which is the same issue he had with the DCs.

 

[adf417]

As mentioned in the round table discussion, even Catholic author, historian, & apologist Gary Michuta (“Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”) admitted, the Septuagint kept getting added to after the first century. By 250 AD (and even earlier) it would have included books that were not in it in the early first century.

And this was the case with the New Testament in this time also.

While this is a discussion about the deutero’s, you eventually must discuss the whole canon and more specifically the NT canon. They (the NT and the deutero’s) are connected not only in the ecclesial sense but in the mind of God also.

but like these latter writings, the NT does not cite the Deuteros as Scripture…explicitly.

Im not seeing how you answered the question “what was consideration of these books in that source?” And maybe i should qualify the question.

*what was consideration of these books in that source from the church standpoint not Luthers standpoint?

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

Well, in the NT, Jesus expected the Jews to know what it was. Therefore, doesn’t it follow that He would expect the apostles & the early church to know? Just saying “Peace!!!” doesn’t address this dilemma for the early church in the first few centuries being oblivious to something that they should have known since Jesus knew what it was & expected His followers to know it as well, which would only be possible if He told them what it was.

1st please tell me which post of mine i only answered with “Peace”.

2nd is it possible you are conflating your own posts? Your 1st posted this…

Do you think Jesus would build a church and not tell them what the complete Biblical canon

To which said yes i do. To which you replied…

Really??? So, Jesus and the apostles knew what the OT canon boundaries were, but did not tell the church what it was. Do you really believe they referred back to the OT hundreds of times, but didn’t clarify what it was to the church?

Then i reposted your original question and bolded the one word “complete” biblical canon for the clarification of my answer of “yes”.

Im thinking you are not realizing you asked about the “complete” canon (including the NT) in one post then subsequently refer to just the OT canon afterwards. Or are you are seriously saying Jesus expected his followers to know what the NT canon was?

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

But the Scriptures were not one of these differences. Not a single Reformer embraced the 7 Deuterocanonical books as God-breathed Scripture.

Whether or not they did isn’t what makes them Protestant.

But that wasn’t the original issue, which was that no genuine Protestant believes any of the Deuterocanonical books is God-breathed Scripture, including Luther & the other Reformers. I’m afraid this point went off track about the differences between what different Protestants agree & disagree on, which was not about the canon itself. They are ALL in agreement.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And this was the case with the New Testament in this time also.

Yes, but unlike the NT, the OT was written prior to the time of Christ. Scripture is God-breathed the moment it is written, not later “decided” by fallible individuals, including religious leaders. And Christ & the apostles knew what the OT canon was. So, there was no need for the OT to “develop.” The problem came with the early church in the 2nd century & beyond relying on a later version of the LXX that kept getting “added” to after the first century.

Im not seeing how you answered the question “what was consideration of these books in that source?” And maybe i should qualify the question.

*what was consideration of these books in that source from the church standpoint not Luthers standpoint?

Your original question asked what the consideration was for the church around AD 250. My response was based on the fact that the church by that time was relying on later versions of the LXX that included “some” (but not all) of the Deuteros. That is why you don’t get “one consideration” of an identical list of books in the early church until the fourth century, because the ECFs in the first few centuries did not have identical lists. They tended to be “bigger” in the West, but even then there were ECFs in the West who espoused to the “smaller” Bible similar to Protestants. So, the answer to your question: their “consideration” was based on whatever version of the LXX they were using, which is why you get different “lists” right up to the 4th century, and why many early Catholics accepted books like 3 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, & others, because they too were “added” to the LXX.

Im thinking you are not realizing you asked about the “complete” canon (including the NT) in one post then subsequently refer to just the OT canon afterwards. Or are you are seriously saying Jesus expected his followers to know what the NT canon was?

Considering the NT wasn’t written in the time of Christ, and since this thread is about the OLD Testament, I assumed by saying Jesus & the apostles knew what the “complete” canon was & why would it not be passed down to the early church, I figured it would be obvious I was talking about the OT. I didn’t think this would have to be explained.

So, since it is clear we are discussing the OLD Testament now, does it really make sense that Jesus & the apostles would not have told the early church what the complete OLD Testament canon was? If so, what would be the point of the later church (2nd century onward) needing to “develop” the OLD Testament canon? The answer is they were relying on LATER versions of the LXX that had added books to it that were not in it in the days of Jesus. If ALL of the Deuteros were in the original LXX, then we would consistently find ALL of the Deuteros in ALL of the lists in the 2nd century onward. We do not.

 

[JonNC]

But that wasn’t the original issue, which was that no genuine Protestant believes any of the Deuterocanonical books is God-breathed Scripture, including Luther & the other Reformers.

The issue for me was the implication that a Protestant couldn’t claim they are inspired and still claim to be Protestant.

I’m afraid this point went off track about the differences between what different Protestants agree & disagree on, which was not about the canon itself. They are ALL in agreement.

Whether they are or are not unanimous is not a prerequisite for bring “Protestant”.

 

[adf417]

Yes, but unlike the NT, the OT was written prior to the time of Christ. Scripture is God-breathed the moment it is written, not later “decided” by fallible individuals, including religious leaders.

Correct and i will even go further and say Scripture is God-breathed well before it is written, in God’s eye but not necessarily in man’s eye. Sometimes it takes man much longer to recognize the things of God.

And Christ & the apostles knew what the OT canon was.

No. This has been addressed and was covered in the roundtable. The Jews did not have a canon until much later. They all had differing canons.

So, there was no need for the OT to “develop.”

Like I said, only in the eyes of God this would be true. But man, no so.

The problem came with the early church in the 2nd century & beyond relying on a later version of the LXX that kept getting “added” to after the first century.

Not a problem for me as this was happening the same way with the NT also at the same time - because there was no canon.

So, the answer to your question: their “consideration” was based on whatever version of the LXX they were using, which is why you get different “lists” right up to the 4th century, and why many early Catholics accepted books like 3 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, & others, because they too were “added” to the LXX.

I understand but even you have said “scripture is God-breathed as soon as it is written”. So which of these lists are God-breathed? Was it unknown to the church until Luther pointed it out? Were the early councils for naught? I think not.

So, since it is clear we are discussing the OLD Testament now, does it really make sense that Jesus & the apostles would not have told the early church what the complete OLD Testament canon was?

One more time, yes.

If so, what would be the point of the later church (2nd century onward) needing to “develop” the OLD Testament canon?

because there was no canon

The answer is they were relying on LATER versions of the LXX that had added books to it that were not in it in the days of Jesus.

You mean just like the NT?

If ALL of the Deuteros were in the original LXX, then we would consistently find ALL of the Deuteros in ALL of the lists in the 2nd century onward. We do not.

Why do you think they should match consistently? Do you also have a problem with the many varying copies of NT manuscripts we have that do not match each other consistently? Are you going through each one of them to determine if the early church canonized the correct version?

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Whether they are or are not unanimous is not a prerequisite for bring “Protestant”.

I strongly disagree, as one of the major things that came out of the Reformation - in addition to sola scriptura & sola fide - was the rejection of the Deuterocanon as God-breathed Scripture. One cannot claim to be Protestant while simultaneously believing that it is Inspired, no-more than rejecting sola scriptura & sola fide & still claiming to be Protestant.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

And Christ & the apostles knew what the OT canon was.

No. This has been addressed and was covered in the roundtable. The Jews did not have a canon until much later. They all had differing canons.

So, are you saying that Jesus - being God - did not know what the OT canon was? And neither did the apostles who were with Him 24/7 for 3 years? What was discussed in the roundtable was although there was no formalized JEWISH canon, there was indeed a formalized PHARISAIC canon, which Jesus affirmed in Luke 16:29. Essentially, the argument went like this:

1. There was no formalized JEWISH canon (all in the roundtable were in agreement)
2. The Pharisees & later Protestants agreed on the same OT books (source: Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
3. Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees (Luke 16:14,29)
4. Since Pharisees & later Protestants agreed on the same OT books, & since Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees, Jesus also affirmed the shared canon of the Pharisees & Protestants

So, not all Jews having the exact same canons has no bearing on the fact the Pharisees did, and Jesus - being God - knew what is was, and - unlike the NT - the OT was written before the time of Jesus & the apostles.

Like I said, only in the eyes of God this would be true. But man, no so.

Which I would be in agreement if the OT canon had not been written before the time of Jesus. But it was, & since Jesus knew what it was & held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was, then it would not follow that Jesus kept the apostles in the dark about it, since He held them accountable for knowing what it was also.

Not a problem for me as this was happening the same way with the NT also at the same time - because there was no canon.

The difference though is that the version of the LXX used in the early first century was the version Jesus, the disciples, & the early first century church used, which was “smaller” than the later version used in the 2nd century onward. But unlike the OT, the NT was yet to be written during the time of Christ. So, comparing the written & completed OT during Jesus’ time with the unwritten NT is not the same.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

So which of these lists are God-breathed? Was it unknown to the church until Luther pointed it out? Were the early councils for naught?

Throughout the church age, even up to the time of Luther, there were Catholics who preferred the “smaller” canon closer to the Pharisees, like Cardinals Cajetan & Ximenes, and Erasmus. Since the councils produced different lists, obviously they cannot all be correct. Either they added uninspired books or they omitted inspired writings. But the version of the LXX that Jesus used & affirmed is obviously the correct list. This is what Luther & the other Reformers discovered, plus the Targums did not include the Deuteros, but only the books from the Hebrew Bible. In terms of the NT, this 27 book canon was around prior to the councils, which was not in dispute by the time the councils convened. The problem with the councils with the OT is that instead of using the version of the LXX from the early first century, they used a later 4th century version that was not identical with the first century edition.

Why do you think they should match consistently? Do you also have a problem with the many varying copies of NT manuscripts we have that do not match each other consistently?

Again, because unlike the OT canon which was written prior to the time of Christ which He affirmed, the NT canon had not been written yet. So, the two canons do not have the same issues. The NT was still being written up to the mid-90’s, while the OT had been completed for hundreds of years by then.

 

[JonNC]

I strongly disagree, as one of the major things that came out of the Reformation - in addition to sola scriptura & sola fide - was the rejection of the Deuterocanon as God-breathed Scripture

The Lutheran reformers would disagree that sola fide came out of the Reformation. They would say it came out of the early Church and scripture.
While most (not all) “Protestant “ communions/ traditions/denominations use the term sola scriptura, the understanding of the practice varies greatly. Further, again the Lutheran reformers would disagree that sola scriptura was a new invention.

The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/mathison.html

And regarding the canon of scripture, the same kind of diversity of usage exists.
None of these are prerequisites to be a “Protestant”. If there is a prerequisite, it is not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Beyond that, and being Trinitarian Christians, one can point to generally agreed upon beliefs, but they are not prerequisites to being “Protestant” because “Protestant “ is not an actual group.

One cannot claim to be Protestant while simultaneously believing that it is Inspired, no-more than rejecting sola scriptura & sola fide & still claiming to be Protestant.

One can claim to be a Protestant and believe whatever their communion believes because Protestant is not a communion, set of doctrines or practice.
I could claim that to be a Protestant one has to agree with the Augsburg Confession. Why? Because the Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran) reformers were the original Protestants. They issued the formal protest at Speyer in 1529.

 

[GKMotley]

And there are folk who don’t claim to be protestant, in any sense. Au contraire.