How do Protestants explain the Bible canon?

[EZweber]

I have been interested in looking at non Catholic religions, especially Protestants, from their own apologetic standpoints and in my studies, I have always found a Catholic claim that there is no explanation for this. Some people that might be interested are @JonNC @Hodos and @Episcopalian . Please keep this discussion polite and on topic.

 

[Hodos]

What is your specific question regarding the canon? Is your question more around what the canon is and how it was determined? Or is your question more along the lines of what books should be considered canonical? Some clarification would help so that we can attempt to address your question.

 

[JonNC]

I have been interested in looking at non Catholic religions, especially Protestants, from their own apologetic standpoints and in my studies, I have always found a Catholic claim that there is no explanation for this. Some people that might be interested are @JonNC @Hodos and @Episcopalian . Please keep this discussion polite and on topic.

When you say, “no explanation for this”, please explain what you mean.

 

[twf]

Well I think it depends on the variety of Protestant. My grandma, who was raised Plymouth Brethren, and practiced Baptist, condemned all the Church Fathers as heretics. The true church was a secret remnant unknown to historical records as it was constantly, from the earliest centuries, suppressed by the wicked Catholic Church.

Yet somehow her sole rule of faith was the New Testament canonized by those same Fathers.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Some Protestants would argue that those with the Holy Spirit simply know what the canon is. I’m honestly not sure how popular this position is anymore, given how many holes it has. I only know of it through historical reference and haven’t read a modern apologist that I recall making the case.

Some Protestants are willing to embrace the idea that the canon is a fallible teaching, but they would still call it inerrant. They would say the same about, for instance, the Nicene Creed. Personally, I’ve really only encountered this in Reformed circles. It also may not be that old, given that it seems to be an invention of R.C. Sproul or one of his mentors, though I could be wrong in that regard. Either way, this one at least maintains the separation between infallible Scripture and fallible doctrine that Protestants maintain, but it does still leave open the question about why the canon is the one doctrine allowed to avoid being grounded in Scripture, which is something else Protestants otherwise require.

A final explanation is that since God, in Scripture, promised to preserve His word, then the canon is infallible, since it is the fulfillment of that promise. If I were to wager a guess based on my experience growing up and talking with Protestants after conversion, this is probably the most common explanation. This has the advantage in that it makes the canon grounded in Scripture, fulfilling that requirement, but it still leaves open accusations of circular reasoning, questions on whether or not God simply used His already-established source of infallible teaching to accomplish that promise, and questions on why God left us with a bad canon for 1400+ years (starting with the end of the New Testament around the end of the first century).

Ultimately, I think it is unfair to say Protestants don’t have an explanation. It isn’t like Protestant apologists are ignoring the issue entirely. Heck, it isn’t even always taught in apologetic senses. I originally heard explanations for the canon outside of any apologetic context.

With that said, I do think it is fair to say that there aren’t any good explanations. IIRC, Scott Hahn in his book Rome Sweet Home hints that he was so shocked by how bad the second explanation was that it was the final push he needed to commit to becoming Catholic.

 

[EZweber]

Or is your question more along the lines of what books should be considered canonical?

Yes, this is my question. How do you know that the Gospel of John is inspired and not the Gospel of Peter?

 

[EZweber]

A final explanation is that since God, in Scripture, promised to preserve His word, then the canon is infallible, since it is the fulfillment of that promise.

Scripture has no list of inspired works. Even if it did, to claim that it is inspired because it says it’s inspired doesn’t work. I could perfectly well make the same claim about myself.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Scripture has no list of inspired works. Even if it did, to claim that it is inspired because it says it’s inspired doesn’t work. I could perfectly well make the same claim about myself.

Yes, and I acknowledged at least the circular reasoning problem later on:

This has the advantage in that it makes the canon grounded in Scripture, fulfilling that requirement, but it still leaves open accusations of circular reasoning

Maybe I shouldn’t have said that the canon was grounded in Scripture under that position, since it makes it sound like the canon itself is somewhere. It’s more that there’s an intent to link the canon back to a promise, similar to how we sometimes point out that the Church’s infallibility can be found in a promise Jesus made, as found in Scripture.

 

[SyCarl]

But doesn’t this also apply to the Catholic Church? It is can infallibly fix the canon because it says it is infallible? If we cannot know what is Scripture until the Catholic Church defined it, then Scripture cannot be used to show the Catholic Church’s infallibility. You can say it is based on Tradition but that gets us nowhere because it is again the Catholic Church telling us what Tradition before the Church’s authority to do so has been established.

There is also the question of how the church fathers could quote Scripture if we can’t know what Scripture is until the Church defines it.

 

[lanman87]

Here is a 3 part video series by an Assembly of God Pastor who has a PhD in Ecclesiastical History with an emphasis on the ante-nicene church. They are long videos (over an hour each) but he does a good job of explaining how the New Testament came to be the New Testament. These videos are a three week class he taught to his local church on the history of canon. You might be a little shocked at what this Evangelical/Pentecostal scholar and pastor has to say.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

 

[lanman87]

There is also the question of how the church fathers could quote Scripture if we can’t know what Scripture is until the Church defines it.

I think the simple answer is that the New Testament became the New Testament because they are the books the early church used and kept using as scripture. Some books where used for a while then the church stopped using them and some weren’t used widely and later became used widely. When the various councils listed the books used they were affirmed what had already been used as scriptures. They didn’t tell the church what books were in the Bible they listed the books that the church had already been using as the Bible. By the time the councils listed the books of the New Testament a consensus among the churches had already been reached about what is/isn’t the books of the New Testament. In other words, they weren’t telling the churches which books to use, they were listing the books already in use.

If you read the ante-nicene fathers you see thousands of quotes from the New Testament long before any council ever listed the books of the New Testament.

Personally, I trust the Providence of God to deliver His message to His people.

 

[Hodos]

So in the specific example of the Gospel of John vs. the Gospel of Peter, there are several things. First, the Gospel of John comes to us from a trusted source in the First Century. It was known or at least believed to have been from the Apostle John, who was known as a faithful witness to the Church. From the beginning of its dissemination it was widely accepted and considered authoritative, and used in liturgy. The gospel of John is also consistent with prior scripture and what was being preached by the Church.

As a contrast, the Gospel of Peter was pseudepigraphal. In other words, it was known at the time that it was written not to be the authentic writings or teachings of Peter, although it claimed to be. Pseudepigraphal writings were normally rejected by the Church, for that reason. It originated in early to late second century, from groups known to reject the humanity of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ. When you read the Gospel of Peter, you will notice that the gospel is very careful to never say that Jesus died. This is because it likely originated from the docetics (rejected even in Paul and John’s day as part of the Church). Historical details within the gospel of Peter are also incorrect. So for example, it lists Herod Antipas as the one ordering the crucifixion of Christ rather than Pilate, something that conflicts with the universal testimony of the canonical gospels, which were already widely accepted and disseminated by the time the Gospel of Peter was written.

 

[EZweber]

But doesn’t this also apply to the Catholic Church? It is can infallibly fix the canon because it says it is infallible

I believe that Scripture, as a historical (not inspired) document, establishes the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church then can declare Scripture inerrant.

 

[EZweber]

Here is a 3 part video series by an Assembly of God Pastor who has a PhD in Ecclesiastical History

I won’t be able to watch them right now because I have limited data. I will get back to you once I watch them though.

 

[EZweber]

It was known or at least believed to have been from the Apostle John, who was known as a faithful witness to the Church. From the beginning of its dissemination it was widely accepted and considered authoritative, and used in liturgy. The gospel of John is also consistent with prior scripture and what was being preached by the Church.

First of all, you seem to be using Tradition to establish Scripture. I am personally fine with that, but I don’t think that is the general Protestant approach. Second of all, some books of the Bible are not so we’ll established. For example Revelation.

 

[PJH_74]

I don’t have time to read the whole thread, but to the OP’s question, not all Protestants are created equal. Some take views similar to Catholic teaching e.g. many parts of Genesis need not be taken literally. Other bible literalists and everything in between. Even Martin Luther did not reject the “Catholic Epistles” all together. He was simply pointing back more than a millennia to the fact that these books had issues gaining universal agreement and therefore in his mind they did not meet the criteria for actual inclusion in the Bible.

There were also many other Gospels and books the were rejected near unanimously. Even then the best ones are a few generations removed from the events because it was initially understood that the end times were at hand.

 

[EZweber]

Even Martin Luther did not reject the “Catholic Epistles” all together. He was simply pointing back more than a millennia to the fact that these books had issues gaining universal agreement and therefore in his mind they did not meet the criteria for actual inclusion in the Bible.

Again, an appeal to Tradition. I might also add that the deuterocanonical books (also known as the Apocrypha) had far more general acceptance than Revelation.

 

[EZweber]

There is also the question of how the church fathers could quote Scripture if we can’t know what Scripture is until the Church defines it.

Some of Scripture was generally accepted (Tradition) Other times, the Fathers simply took their best guess as to what was Scripture. Sometimes, the guesses were wrong.

 

[JonNC]

First of all, you seem to be using Tradition to establish Scripture. I am personally fine with that, but I don’t think that is the general Protestant approach. Second of all, some books of the Bible are not so we’ll established. For example Revelation.

Again, an appeal to Tradition. I might also add that the deuterocanonical books (also known as the Apocrypha) had far more general acceptance than Revelation.

Why would you think otherwise? The use of Tradition is critical in our understanding of scripture and an understanding of scriptural books, including the DC’s.

As for Revelation, from the Lutheran perspective, this is recognized, too, as well as other books considered antiligomena. And that is exactly how I think we should view the DC books.

This is a great article about the Lutheran view of the canon of scripture.
https://internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[JonNC]

SyCarl:

There is also the question of how the church fathers could quote Scripture if we can’t know what Scripture is until the Church defines it.

Some of Scripture was generally accepted (Tradition) Other times, the Fathers simply took their best guess as to what was Scripture. Sometimes, the guesses were wrong.

I don’t think the Fathers took guesses. I think they evaluated and considered their opinions carefully.
The fact that they had varied opinions of books should be considered when we make use of them.