How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[ncstevem]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

 

[AmateurPianist]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

God invites people to join God in what He is doing. This is not a hard concept to understand.

 

[Izdaari]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

Is there any reason a Protestant should not accept what the bishops did at those councils? Surely I can acknowledge the RCC as being right about some things without saying they’re right about everything? And in fact I think the RCC is right about most things, since we have more points of agreement than disagreement. But when they’re right, it’s because they’re right, not because they have more authority than any other Christian guided by the Holy Spirit, which is available to all Christians.

 

[ncstevem]

when the RCC is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ?

 

[BrianH]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

From only a historical perspective, the statement is possibly an overstatement. The councils of Hippo and Carthage stopped noncanonical writings from being read in its most literal form. There is no evidence that a canon was determined.
That could have occured. It might not have. What information we have is incomplete. The canons also contain a reference to Boniface as Bishop of Rome when he was not until 20 years later reflecting possible interpolations. It is not even proper Catholic teaching to say that the bishops determined scripture. The authority is subsequent from what occured through God according to Catholic teaching.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think what the OP means is that Protestants protested against the authority of the Bishops who compiled the Bible and so when they proclaim the Bible they are proclaiming it from the authority that they protested against.

 

[crazzeto]

Is there any reason a Protestant should not accept what the bishops did at those councils? Surely I can acknowledge the RCC as being right about some things without saying they’re right about everything? And in fact I think the RCC is right about most things, since we have more points of agreement than disagreement. But when they’re right, it’s because they’re right, not because they have more authority than any other Christian guided by the Holy Spirit, which is available to all Christians.

But if the Church is correct about being the original Church founded by Christ, and correct about the authority she had in those days (at least) and correct in her actions at council, then don’t you see already how you are compelled to accept her completely? Because all of those truths rest in the fact that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible. If the Church is guided by the spirit, infallible (thus she never could have errored) and thus the gates of hell can not prevail against her…

What exactly are you doing protesting out side of her walls?

 

[Izdaari]

when the RCC is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ?

Not by any authority, but by a judicious application of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. (AKA the Wesleyan Quadrilateral – which not all Protestants believe in using, but I do.)

 

[crazzeto]

Not by any authority, but by a judicious application of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. (AKA the Wesleyan Quadrilateral – which not all Protestants believe in using, but I do.)

You can’t know from scripture which books should be in scripture… That’s a failed argument.

 

[Izdaari]

But if the Church is correct about being the original Church founded by Christ, and correct about the authority she had in those days (at least) and correct in her actions at council, then don’t you see already how you are compelled to accept her completely? Because all of those truths rest in the fact that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible. If the Church is guided by the spirit, infallible (thus she never could have errored) and thus the gates of hell can not prevail against her…

What exactly are you doing protesting out side of her walls?

Yes, if I believed all those claims, I’d have to accept the whole package. But I don’t believe them. However, I do believe the canon is correct (and unlike many Protestants, I do think the Deuterocanonical books are at least worthy of inclusion, if not exactly fully canonical – and thus, all other things being equal, I prefer a Bible that includes them).

 

[Izdaari]

You can’t know from scripture which books should be in scripture… That’s a failed argument.

But that argument wasn’t addressing that point, but the broader question of how I can know when the Catholic Church is correct.

I’ve already said I accept the canon. Just not purely on authority. The council’s decisions on the canon were correct because they were within a few generations of the source, and had good information about which books were authentic. The best scholarship that I’m aware of supports it. And I do believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but that’s available to all Christians, not just those in the Catholic Church.

Anyway, that’s my answer. I have no idea if it’s what the OP wanted, “the typical Protestant answer”. I’m not exactly a typical Protestant.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, if I believed all those claims, I’d have to accept the whole package. But I don’t believe them. However, I do believe the canon is correct (and unlike many Protestants, I do think the Deuterocanonical books are at least worthy of inclusion, if not exactly fully canonical – and thus, all other things being equal, I prefer a Bible that includes them).

But that argument wasn’t addressing that point, but the broader question of how I can know when the Catholic Church is correct.

I’ve already said I accept the canon. Just not purely on authority. The council’s decisions on the canon were correct because they were within a few generations of the source, and had good information about which books were authentic. The best scholarship that I’m aware of supports it. And I do believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but that’s available to all Christians, not just those in the Catholic Church.

Here’s your problem, on what authority do you accept the canon? This isn’t a question so trivial that one should merely accept it particularly if the whole of your faith tradition depends upon this basic question.

 

[TriuneUnity]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage did not determine the canon of the New Testament. The historical fact of the matter is that the NT was in use by the Church since it was written. By the year 200, 95% of the NT books were widely used. Athanasius listed our modern NT canon in 367. If the NT canon was not already in use by the time these councils were called the councils would not have been called to begin with. They were called because the NT was being distorted by heretics. Obviously, if it was being distorted, there had to be a recognized canon already, otherwise no one would think it was being distorted. However, Hippo and Carthage were only local councils anyway, and therefore not possessed of the supposed charism of infallibility. There were still questions about scattered books for the next thousand years. For example, the letter to the Laodiceans is found in early medieval Vulgates. So this would not give any additional surety. The first ecumenical council that addresses the canon is Florence and it isn’t dogmatically set until Trent.

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

No, we are knowingly acknowledging the authority of the Scriptures.

Ultimately, we know the NT we possess in God’s word because Jesus promised to the apostles that the Spirit would lead them into the truth, and He would cause them to remember the words and actions of Christ, as well as His teachings. The Church’s recognition of the canon is important, but not as important as God inspiring the sacred writers to begin with.

 

[Cristian_B]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

You said it yourself. The Holy Spirit is the master planner, not the Catholic Church. God doesn’t work for the good of His people only trough saved people but trough unbelievers as well.

The pencil doesn’t take credit, but the one who uses it. The Holy Spirit guided them in choosing the correct books for the canon of the New Testament. They don’t take credit but the Holy Spirit who worked trough them.

So I’m acknowledging teh authority of the Holy Spirit, not the RCC’s, because the Holy Spirit chose the books already and only worked trough the Catholic Church.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I believe that the canon was already predetermined by God and whatever the historical process was of deciding exclusion/inclusion it was simply a matter of discerning what already was foreknown and foreordained by God.

Do Catholics believe this? Because the alternative as I see it is the church deciding for God what the canon would be.

 

[Publisher]

The compilation of the NT by the established church was more in reaction to Marcion, the FIRST to set forth a “canon” of scripture designated as completely “Christian”. Marcion only accepted some of Pauls writings and an abreviated/edited version of the Gospel of Luke.

Those believers who began to consolidate into the proto-orthodox/catholic groups followed suit…since the proto-orthodox/catholic group eventually became the largest and most dominant group and gained power and authority from the Roman government, those 27 books of the NT eventually became “fixed”…even though it took decades if not centuries for all 27 books to gain acceptance by those of proto-orthodox/catholic tradition.

 

[Jon_Hus]

But if the Church is correct about being the original Church founded by Christ, and correct about the authority she had in those days (at least) and correct in her actions at council, then don’t you see already how you are compelled to accept her completely? Because all of those truths rest in the fact that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible. If the Church is guided by the spirit, infallible (thus she never could have errored) and thus the gates of hell can not prevail against her…

What exactly are you doing protesting out side of her walls?

There is no dispute between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant on the NT canon. Your argument falls flat for numerous reasons which I will not go into right now because with all due respect, you are not listening.

Let me say this, we all in theory at least believe that the NT is the infallable Word of God. When we take that infallable Word, and compare it to the first sentence in the above quote by you, assuming that by the church you mean the RCC, we find some evidence of a contradiction or disagreement between what that church teaches and what the NT teaches. You want to solve that disagreement by saying that since the RCC gave us the Bible or approved the NT canon (your opinion and your right to believe), we must subject ourselves to every other decree of that body.

That arguement doesn’t work for me. There are many places in both the OT and NT where the established religious authorities strayed from the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Jesus basically takes the priests to the woodshed almost every time he talks to them or about them. I trust the Word, not any man. You disagree, that is of course your right.

 

[crazzeto]

Jon Hus,

There is no dispute in the NT Canon because the issue was settled at Hippo and 2 councils of carthiage and finally made doctrinal at trent… Before all of this there was a lot of dispute about the NT canon as well as the OT… Hebrews and Revelation are two notables…

In fact isn’t it your protestant brothers who defend Luther’s attempts to alter the NT canon (drop James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation) by attempting to say “he wasn’t trying to do anything other people weren’t talking about at the time”…

 

[simspt]

TriuneUnity,

The tripod of rule of faith, scripture and apostolic succession all presuppose authority in one way or another. Do we use inspiration as the defining criteria for scripture that became canonized?

 

[simspt]

But when they’re right, it’s because they’re right, not because they have more authority than any other Christian guided by the Holy Spirit, which is available to all Christians.

How do you determine who is right?