How do Protestants explain the Bible canon?

[JonNC]

I didn’t expand on it at the time, but I think this might be a reason Protestants have ultimately moved away from the “those with the Holy Spirit just know” position

Can you elaborate on which “Protestants” held/hold this view?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Matt Slick at CARM holds that view. We just know because we are his sheep…he will tell you.

Then mention that Luther, leader of the reformation, wanted to toss ‘old Jimmy’ (James epistle) into the fire and it sort of falls apart from there. I guess Luther wasn’t one of the sheep.

 

[JonNC]

Matt Slick at CARM holds that view. We just know because we are his sheep…he will tell you.

Then mention that Luther, leader of the reformation, wanted to toss ‘old Jimmy’ (James epistle) into the fire and it sort of falls apart from there. I guess Luther wasn’t one of the sheep.

Except that he didn’t say he wanted to throw the epistle into the fire.

While the entire article is worth reading, scroll down to section 7 ( 7: Did Luther Want To Throw The Book Of James In The Stove?)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_ canon.htm#a5

As for Matt Slick, thanks. Since the term “Protestant “ has no meaning in terms of doctrine and practice, it is important to clarify who is being spoken of.

 

[commenter]

More like a 3 legged stool. Jesus (not the Bible specifically) is the Word of God. He established a Church, including a designated part of it with teaching authority. The Magisterium publicly identifies (past and present tense) what Scripture is, and that the NT ought to exist. This is obvious only in hindsight. It publicly identifies which books ought to be in it.

It rejects the efforts to add other books, even down to the present. Think Joseph Smith, Hal Taussig, and many others.

The Church is under authority of Scripture, and also under the authority of Tradition, and the magisterium, not “the community”, identifies which tiny fraction of tradition is Sacred Tradition.

So these 3 support each other. Most Protestant apologetics omit mention of the magisterium, but seem to be written, going to great lengths, to demonstrate why it is unnecessary.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Can you elaborate on which “Protestants” held/hold this view?

As far as I know, John Calvin was the first to really push this position, saying in Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated ; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit…

I’ve heard that the position still has a foothold in Reformed and Evangelical circles, but in my time as a Reformed Christian, I didn’t encounter it. Granted, I didn’t hear much about the canon, and maybe the lack of discussion on the canon came from that assumption, but whenever the canon did come up, everyone I heard took R.C. Sproul’s position of a “fallible collection of infallible books”.

 

[commenter]

R. C. Sproul in one book depicted the Catholic position as The Church created the canon.
He refuted this, saying that God related the canon. The Church received the canon, according to Sproul.

Of course God created the canon! But all Christian individuals “received” the canon.

What is the role of the Church? It, or specifically the Magisterium portion of the Church, was the visible human agency that publicly defined and identified the contents of that canon. Or rather, it identified one of the possible canons accepted by the ancient Christian communities. To put it another way, the ancient church accepted many NT canons. Catholics and Protestants today don’t follow “the ancient Christian canons”, which contradict themselves. They all follow the one Magisterium designated NT canon, created by God.

 

[EZweber]

Right, but we only know that some Scripture is the word of God because of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Right, but we only know that some Scripture is the word of God because of the Church.

Well, sure. The question seems to be which tradition within the Church Catholic is correct about those books not universally viewed as canonical.

 

[EZweber]

As to that, the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) were almost universally accepted until the 16th century.

 

[Padres1969]

You’re assuming we have one…

 

[EZweber]

Well, I did see that you are Episcopalian, which would seem to imply one.

 

[twf]

Not quite. I’m pretty sure Revelation is absent from the Syriac Orthodox Canon- but I might be wrong.

 

[JonNC]

As to that, the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) were almost universally accepted until the 16th century.

It is the “almost” that is important here. You are absolutely right. It was, by far, the majority view, even though the Fathers had differing views. This is why it is incorrect when western non-Catholics say Catholics added books.
It is also true that, prior to Trent, western Christians had the liberty to dispute books. There were some of note who did. That it is why it is incorrect to say non-Catholics removed books. Both groups express opinions that were permitted prior to Trent.

 

[EZweber]

It is also true that, prior to Trent, western Christians had the liberty to dispute books.

The canon of Scripture was finally defined far before the Council of Trent. It was formally defined by the councils of Hippo and Carthage, in the late 4th century. Trent simply reaffirmed their decision.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It is also true that, prior to Trent, western Christians had the liberty to dispute books.

The canon of Scripture was finally defined far before the Council of Trent. It was formally defined by the councils of Hippo and Carthage, in the late 4th century. Trent simply reaffirmed their decision.

Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were local councils not binding on the whole Church, but certainly they set what came to be the majority opinion of the western canon.

 

[commenter]

JonNC:

Well, sure. The question seems to be which tradition within the Church Catholic is correct about those books not universally viewed as canonical./quote]
…

Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were local councils not binding on the whole Church, but certainly they set what came to be the majority opinion of the western canon.

Tradition doesn’t initiate a New Testament, or anything else.

I have no way of knowing if a given canon was the “majority opinion” - were there more Catholics than heretics in a given year? Who knows? In any event, why would the majority opinion be reliable? If a majority accept the Gospel of Mary by 2050, it still wouldn’t be Scripture.

Protestant apologists constantly use passive voice or intransitive to describe the canon. “It was agreed…it was accepted…it developed…an understanding grew…it was acknowledged…the consensus…the majority of scholars…the communities…”

It’s like they are consciously avoiding an authoritative doer.

 

[EZweber]

Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were local councils not binding on the whole Church, but certainly they set what came to be the majority opinion of the western canon.

Local councils can be binding on the whole Church. In this case they were, as the Holy See chose to make them so.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think I used passive voice here.

 

[JonNC]

Local councils can be binding on the whole Church. In this case they were, as the Holy See chose to make them so.

That isn’t the way councils worked.

 

[commenter]

I don’t think I used passive voice here.

No, you didn’t. I could have broken my posts up into two posts. The first response was to you, and the thread.
The second was a generalized rant, about other people (McDowell, Sproul, White, others).