How do Protestants know which Canon to use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This post is inspired by God, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

God likes chocolate milk shakes, and punishes to the 1000th generation those who like strawberry milkshakes.
 
40.png
gottarlt:
This post is for “How do Protestans know which Canon to use?” Which verses did you want, why I use The Bible I do or why “Sola Scriptura”? Which probably needs to be a separate thread if one doesn’t already exist.
Click to expand...
No, you can answer on my thread. Please give us the verses.
 
Hi Eden, I found the book you refer to interresting, but simplistic.

Bruce uses history to trace the various lists of what is part of the NT. Intelligent protestants also use history to determine what books are part of the NT too.

Basically, historical protestants like Calvin were christian humanists which employeed history, biblical languages, the church fathers and creeds in the formation of doctrine. The american version of bible alone does not truly represent protestant doctrine of scripture alone – sometime it would be interresting to trace the origins of american bible alone doctrine.

👍
 
Daniel Marsh:
If you are really interrested you need only read

The Canon of Scripture (Hardcover)
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce
Click to expand...
Sorry - I dont want to know why Fred Bruce uses the canon he uses.
We want to know why the people on this forum use the canon that they use - and it shouldnt require too much posting really.
Their canon is either Scriptural, historical, traditional or independently determined. Start with a broad category and let us know how that means of assembling the canon is not in violation of the very heart of Sola Scriptura.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Hi Eden, I found the book you refer to interresting, but simplistic.
Click to expand...
The only book I referred to in this thread was the Bible.

But, O.K. everyone is entitled to their opinion. :rotfl:

Just kidding. I think you meant to address that to another poster.
 
It’s interesting that you post this, as, on another forum I frequent (a decidedly anti-Catholic forum) a similar thread was started. The originator of the thread has done a very good job driving this point home (that without the Church, there can be no cannon, and without cannon, we cannot know what is Scripture and what isn’t), however, there are some points on the thread (just today) that are interesting, and I believe worthy of note. I’d be interested to see what the apologists here have to say about the following: (in my next post)
 
To give a surface level answer to your criticism, let me start with the differentiation between believing the ultimate authority of Scripture and discovering what Scripture is. This is important to grasp because often times, the criticism against Sola Scriptura and the Canon are mixed although in reality they are separate. Let me illustrate:
Click to expand...
A man who is THE EXPERT on quantum physics wrote 10 books about quantum physics for a period of time suddenly die. As time goes by, some of his students claim that he wrote 11 books. Some say he just wrote 8 books. So there is confusion on what book he wrote so that they will know exactly what and how they should believe about quantum physics as taught by the man.
Click to expand...
Question. Is there a question that the books written by the man contains the most authoritative teaching regarding quantum physics? No. Everyone knows that what the man wrote is their supreme authority on quantum physics because it was written by their teacher himself. The same with Scripture. We know that what comes forth from God’s divine inspiration is the supreme authority! We never go against it. This is Sola Scriptura. It does not answer the question of whether or not we got the list of inspired books. It does answer the question of what supreme authority should a Christian depend. Surely, the supreme authority that any Christian must follow is no other than what God spoke and revealed to man. In other words, what God inspired.
Click to expand...
Now we move to the issue of the canon. Going back to the illustration, we ask ourselves this what-if scenario. What if no one cared and took the time to study and list the books the man wrote? Does that mean that we have no canon? No. Whether or not someone knew about the canon, the canon exists. The canon is not dependent on anyone’s declaration or discovery! The canon exists because the man wrote books. It exists whether or not some group of people gather together and declare the list of books the man wrote. In the same way, it is not true that the ECF or councils established the canon or made the canon of Scripture. It is not true that the canon is defined by their authority. Simply because the canon will exists whether or not anyone took the the time to discover it.
Click to expand...
You see the difference of principle of Sola Scriptura and how we recognize Scripture? Sola Scriptura is the principle that say: If we ever find the Scripture then it will define our entire faith. It will be the rule upon which we subject our conscience. It is our boundary upon which we must learn and unlearn. It is the measure upon which our practices must be measured. Simply because it is Scripture (the inspired Word of God). While on the other hand after pledging allegiance to Scripture we then ask ourselves: How then should we recognize Scripture? And we go through the process of study of history.
Click to expand...
Studying history and how we got the canon is not a violation at all of Sola Scriptura! In fact, it is the reinforcement of that commitment and principle. Studying and recovering the canon is not at all contradictory to Sola Scriptura. In fact, it is the result of Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
The question perhaps that you will raise is that: So how sure are you that you’ve got the canon? The fact is our knowledge of the canon is fallible. Yet our commitment of subjecting ourselves to Scripture remains the same. We might not have an infallible knowledge of Scripture but we are confident that God can guide us through history to recognize His voice. We can look at the ECF and history to establish facts regarding our knowledge of the canon and from there rests our case and assurance. Does this in anyway destroy the concept of Sola Scriptura? Not at all. As a matter of fact, it is the very concept of Sola Scriptura that drives us to fully evidence our knowledge of the canon based on facts not based on our assumed authority and conferring to ourselves infallibility.
Click to expand...
You might say to us: There’s your weakness! You don’t have an infallible knowledge of Scripture. Ours is better because there is someone who tells us what is Scripture! We have our magisterium!
Click to expand...
But friend, I hope you notice the flaw of your argument. Please consider and ask yourself: How sure am I that my magisterium is infallible in recognizing the canon? You see, your system is no better than ours. In fact, your system is more deficient! Consider this, you can only be sure of having an infallible magisterium if you yourself is infallible. Otherwise your very first choice of believing that you have an infallible guide is fallible. And therefore your knowledge of the canon rests on a fallible choice of believing your infallible guide who says they have the infallible list of books. The fact is that, in your system you accept whatever your infallible guide tells you whether or not it is factual simply because you believe they are infallible. But then, ask yourself: Are they really infallible? How do I know this infallibly?
Click to expand...
 
Please remember that my post in #30 is not my opinion, rather it’s an opinion of a Protestant on another board about this exact same topic. Again, I’m interested to hear how some might respond to this. I will not “take that answer to the other board” though, of course.

Briefly I say in response that this person (who said what I posted in #30) clearly has a respect for Church history, yet for some reason stops short at respecting history when it claims that the Catholic Church is the one that can trace its roots back to Jesus. I don’t know why this person would choose such an apparently schitzophrenic approach to history.

But, what do you all think?
 
Any book of the Bible can be taken out and God’s message is not lost. It is important to know The Word Of God which is The Bible.
Click to expand...
Wow. :confused: The Bible is the Word of God but it’s OK to take any book out of it? Sorry, I strongly disagree with your assessment. The Bible is a collection of God-inspired books, meant to be taken in context. The context is lost if you start taking out books randomly.
don’t use the Bishops/Vulgate verstions because they were not part of the earliest LXX (Septuagent) version, they do not claim to be The Word Of God, historical inacuracy’s and other reasons that I wont bother getting into at this time.
Click to expand...
I think I need a clarification. The Vulgate version (St. Jerome’s) came after the Septuagint so therefore it could not have been included in the Septuagint which was Old Testament only. I’m sure you must know that the deuterocanonicals were included in the Septuagint and removed later at the Council of Jamnia (see my previous post) Perhaps you are speaking about a different Vulgate text I’m not aware of?
And as far as “Sola Scriptura”, Its in The Bible, and if you would like verses, I’ll be more than happy to give them to you. Just be aware that if you take The Bible to be The Word Of God, you will probably start questioning the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, all my research has led me to the Catholic Church. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but not the ONLY inspired Word of God. From a logical and historical perspective, “Bible only” does not make sense to me. The Bible specifically warns against private interpretation of scripture (2 Peter 3:16) so it stands to reason there is an authority to interpret scripture. Perhaps that is why the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and why, in matters of sins against our brother the ultimate authority is the Church (Mt 18:17). This may sound a little off the point of the thread, but the question of determining the Canon relates directly to authority.

I heard an interesting analogy the other day. The founders of our country created a beautiful, profoundly wise constitution to lay out the rules of our government. But they knew that some people would question different scenerios as time passed so they created an authority to interpret the constitution. That authority is the Supreme Court and, on questions of the constitution, they have the final say. Why would God not leave a similar authority?
Just an interesting thought…
 
40.png
gottarlt:
And as far as “Sola Scriptura”, Its in The Bible, and if you would like verses, I’ll be more than happy to give them to you. Just be aware that if you take The Bible to be The Word Of God, you will probably start questioning the Catholic Church.

God Bless.
Click to expand...
😃 LOL!

Oh, that’s cute. I love the fresh optimism of a new Protestant apologist. They’re so sincere, so open. They’re just bursting to show those superstitious, brow-furrowing cro-mag Catholics all the joys of the Bible. It almost breaks my heart to see when they finally realize the gentle strawman they’d come to evangelize with their proof texts is actually the 20-foot Archangel of God, armed with a flaming sword…
 
15 posts on this thread in about the last year, and all of the sudden its doubled with my trying to give my answer.

‘Sola Scriptura’ I was reffering to the concept of not using ceramony or the traditions of man, not the actual words…(i.e. rapture, Trinity words not found in the bible yet the concepts are there). I should not have even entered any information for that.

One is saved only by the acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour.

Col 2:8
1 Pet 1:18-19
Heb 10:11
Rom 1:17
Gal 3:11

Born Roman Catholic but realized that it wasn’t for me when I was in my 30s.
 
40.png
gottarlt:
Col 2:8
Click to expand...
Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
  1. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
    Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
  • CA Library
 
Born Roman Catholic but realized that it wasn’t for me when I was in my 30s.
Click to expand...
“Wasn’t for me.”

[Steve the Crocadile Hunter Voice]

Crickey! I just heard the battle cry of the Western Civilzation Subjectivist! Let’s try to get a closah’ look. Listen closley, mates–their immobility and gray feathers blend in amongst the crumbling stones of ancient philosophical edifices, but they give themselves away with their mating cry, “WhatIfeel! WhatIfeel!”

[/Steve the Crocadile Hunter Voice]
 
Heb. 10:11
Click to expand...
OBJECTOR: I’ll give you the Old Testament stuff. My objection has to do with the New Covenant and the sacrifice of Christ. It seems to me that any attempt to repeat the sacrifice of Christ is contrary to Scripture. Hebrews 10: 11–12 says, “Every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.” This contrasts the repetitions of Old Covenant sacrifices with the definitive sacrifice of Christ, who as the high priest offered the final sacrifice that alone can take away sins.

CATHOLIC: I agree. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross is what takes away our sins. That’s why we say that the sacrifice of the Mass is the very same sacrifice as that of the cross. If the Mass were not the same as the cross, it could never take away sins.
 
40.png
Returnee:
…about the world’s expert in Quantum Mechanics…
Click to expand...
I used the “Quote” function but the text didn’t come through. Nonetheless, the whole QM analogy is loaded with assumptions. How do we know that the apostles even existed? How do we know they wrote the scriptures they are claimed to have written? If Paul existed and wrote the words attributed to him, how come his words are scripture (he was never even with Jesus), but things which may have been written by others who did hear Jesus are not scripture? And why did this inspiration end with the apostles? Were the apostles incapable of teaching the full and complete faith to anybody after them? If they were capable, then why can’t we find scriptures written by those who followed the apostles? And how do we know that everything was written down in the scriptures? And so on and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top