How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[AmateurPianist]

OK, Statistics 101 is in session here.

The 40K+ number was developed using a certain methodology for counting denominations. A review of that methodology using a known value (catholicism=1 (structurally) ) gives an incorrect result (catholicism=238 (structurally) )

Therefore the methodology is flawed.

There are 2 ways to correct this:

a) apply a corrective process to each result (not just the known value or you’ve simply increased the flawed nature of the values) that was created using the methodology.

b) acknowledge that any results created using the methodology are flawed and stop using them or develop a new methodology that doesn’t contain the flaw and recalculate to produce new (and hopefully more accurate) data.

Here endeth the lesson.

.

Excellent!

You said what I was trying to say, only so much better.

Oh and the corrective process must be applied to each base Protestant denomination. Subtracting 238 from the overall number of Protestant denominations is equally flawed.

 

[rinnie]

OK, Statistics 101 is in session here.

The 40K+ number was developed using a certain methodology for counting denominations. A review of that methodology using a known value (catholicism=1 (structurally) ) gives an incorrect result (catholicism=238 (structurally) )

Therefore the methodology is flawed.

There are 2 ways to correct this:

a) apply a corrective process to each result (not just the known value or you’ve simply increased the flawed nature of the values) that was created using the methodology.

b) acknowledge that any results created using the methodology are flawed and stop using them or develop a new methodology that doesn’t contain the flaw and recalculate to produce new (and hopefully more accurate) data.

Here endeth the lesson.

.

But does it really matter. What is more important knowing how many strayed from the true Church which is ONE. Or accepting the True Church which is one, and putting humpty dumpty back together again?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Excellent!

You said what I was trying to say, only so much better.

Thanks, I just hope it gets the discussion back on a more productive track.

But does it really matter. What is more important knowing how many strayed from the true Church which is ONE. Or accepting the True Church which is one, and putting humpty dumpty back together again?

Hopes dashed-enjoy your nursery rhymes.

 

[PRmerger]

OK, Statistics 101 is in session here.

The 40K+ number was developed using a certain methodology for counting denominations. A review of that methodology using a known value (catholicism=1 (structurally) ) gives an incorrect result (catholicism=238 (structurally) )

Therefore the methodology is flawed.

There are 2 ways to correct this:

a) apply a corrective process to each result (not just the known value or you’ve simply increased the flawed nature of the values) that was created using the methodology.

b) acknowledge that any results created using the methodology are flawed and stop using them or develop a new methodology that doesn’t contain the flaw and recalculate to produce new (and hopefully more accurate) data.

Here endeth the lesson.

.

Please see my example of the pastor trying to count the families in his parish.

Your example above would be correct if each of those 12 children in the family brought in more children.

But that is not the case.

[SIGN]In order to correct the error in the computation, one must simply subtract and add 1.[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

Excellent!

You said what I was trying to say, only so much better.

Oh and the corrective process must be applied to each base Protestant denomination. Subtracting 238 from the overall number of Protestant denominations is equally flawed.

So, Mr. Good-at-Numbers, p) where did your number 281 come from?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Please see my example of the pastor trying to count the families in his parish.

Your example above would be correct if each of those 12 children in the family brought in more children.

But that is not the case.

[SIGN]In order to correct the error in the computation, one must simply subtract and add 1.[/SIGN]

I saw your example-it is flawed. You fail to distinguish between methodology and the mechanics of counting. The person doing the count had to establish a methodology regarding what would count as a denomination. Would the 1 church non-denominational church count, or only legally incorporated entities, or only entities that can license people to perform weddings, etc.

In your example it would be the definition of the word “family” Are 3 women and their kids living together to save on expenses one family or three? What about a husband and wife that have his widowed mother staying with them in the other half of their duplex? One family or two? Depending on your methodology you end up with different counts.

The authors methodology led to a wrong count regarding Catholicism because it was flawed. He (or she) choose the wrong criteria to make the count. Hence either correct every instance or fix the criteria issue and recount. It’s that simple.

 

[PRmerger]

The authors methodology led to a wrong count regarding Catholicism because it was flawed. He (or she) choose the wrong criteria to make the count. Hence either correct every instance or fix the criteria issue and recount. It’s that simple.

Besides counting the CC as 242 denominations rather than 1, what other errors were in the methodology?

 

[PRmerger]

Besides counting the CC as 242 denominations rather than 1, what other errors were in the methodology?

Oh–and I see another error: the counted Mormons and JWs as Christians. So we’ll subtract those denominations as well.

 

[simspt]

Perhaps non-apostolic texts could be inspired in the sense that they were written too late to be canonical but were still recognized as inspired in some way (Hermas, for instance).

Edwin

Hi Edwin,
I think inspiration along with other criteria were important. If inspiration had a more broad meaning to the early Church then you are correct writings could of been considered inspired but not worthy of canonization for other reasons like you mentioned being written too late and lacking apostolicity( whether that was any of the 4 descriptions Gamble uses eg authorship, whether real or supposed, by an apostle, authorship by a follower or followers of an apostle, derivation from the general time of apostles or agreement with apostolic teaching). As far as Catholicity it is possible the majority of the Church if not all the Church viewed a writing inspired but had other reasons for rejecting its inclusion in the canon. I guess what i find interesting is that many writings that never made it into the canon where considered “scripture” and “inspired” by the early Church. I think your right as far as the early Church not viewing unorthodox writings such as the gnostic material as being inspired however i think the early Church view on inspiration was broad.
For example,
Clement of Alexandria claims when certain philosophers declared “the only true God to be God” that these declarations are through “his (God’s) inspiration” (epipnoia theou anagegrammena).(ANF 2:192). He does the same in Stromata “the thoughts of virtuous men are produced through the inspiration of God” (Stromata ANF 2:517)(kat’ epipnoian theian). In the 4th century you have Eusebius using inspiration broadly when he tells the story of how a bishop was chosen through inspiration “Thereupon all the people as moved by one Divine Spirit with all eagerness and unanimity cried out that he (Fabianus) was worthy, and without delay they took him and placed him upon the episcopal seat” Clement of Rome (ANF 1:18)writes that Paul wrote with “true inspiration” but then states in 63:2 that he (the author of 1 Clement) has written his epistle through the Holy Spirit. “For you will give us joy and gladness, if you are obedient to the things which we (in 1 Clement) have written through the Holy Spirit.” Councils decisions were viewed by the Church as being inspired. For example with the Council of Ephesus 431 you have in the Synodical Epistle (Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, p 70, line 11) that describes the council’s condemnation of Nestorius as “their inspired (theopneustos) decision”. Again Cyprian of Carthage explains his writing his treatise as “instructed by the aid of divine inspiration.”(ANF 5:496) Even tomb inscriptions were considered inspired for example Life of Abercius (author unknown) the epitaph Abercius (late 2nd century) bishop of Hierapolis composed for himself an inspired (theopneuston) inscription. Another example would be Gregory of Nyssa in Apologia in Hexaemeron refering to Basil’s commentary on the first six days of creation as an “inspired (theopneuston) exposition,…(admired) no less than the words composed by Moses himself.” We have the term (theopneustos) we find in 2 Timothy 3:16 not being the unique designation for only the canonical writings but also being used in a commentary, a synodical letter and even an inscription on a tomb. There are also many examples of the Church Fathers citing noncanonical writings with some introduction indicating authority or scriptural status. Since there are many other examples of the early Church describing authoritative writings as “scripture” and “inspired” I dont think these were considered by the early Church to have been the unique possession of only the canonical documents. This is why its important to differentiate between Scriptures and canon. If we assume that Scripture equals canon we would have to accept a much larger canon than we do today since the Church Fathers refer to noncanonical documents as Scripture.

Back to the OP, since the episcopate gave noncanonical writings Scriptural status and considered them inspired where they wrong in doing so? Where these writings just examples of the post apostolic corrupt Church? As the OP points out how can anyone claim the Bible is the pure and uncorrupted word when it was put together by the episcopate who had all kinds of “corrupt” or “non Biblical and/or extra Biblical” practices and beliefs? How could the episcopate have been right with what went into the canon but wrong about what they considered inspired and the Scriptural status of other writings? If you trust the episcopate on the canon how can you not trust them on the issue of noncanonical books? I think these are questions important not just for Protestants but Catholics as well. Since the Bible doesnt address how the various books came to be included in the canon I find it puzzling how many times I hear people say (not you Edwin) something like a careful study of the biblical texts and the formation of the canon is required for one to appreciate the correct definition of inspiration.

I think the OP claim that by accepting the Bible as authoritative there is tacit acceptance of the process and means through which it came to be in the Catholic Church is obvious. The more challenging question is why reject so much of that Church while accepting her writings. Historically the Church was the privileged interpreter and institution that gave us these documents and the Church Fathers located proper interpretation of Scripture within the Church.

The Catholic Church has always viewed the Holy Spirit to be active in the Scriptures but also in a broader context within the Church living and active within the community.
The Catholic Church has something to say about what the Bible says because the Bible is the Church’s book.

 

[simspt]

I don’t think any of us can say that the Church is superior to Scripture. We can say the the Church is superior over the bible in interpretating scripture.

To Me to say that the Church is superior to scripture would be like me saying my word is superior over my word. Because the Church is the Living Christ, scripture are the words of the Church the living Christ. One in the same.

But what we can say is our Church is the living CHrist led by the Holy Spirit into all truths and teaching. It is superior to any bible or book, because a book or the bible cannot teach and lead us into all understanding of the truth. The bible is only written scripture, the Church as oral scripture which is to be combined with written scripture to understand it more clearly

The problem is people replace the Church (the living God which is led by the power of the Holy Spirit) with themselves. And they think they have the power of the Church and can interpret scripture and teach it.

They Can’t. This is impossible. That is why we have so many Church’s and so many interpretations of scripture.

Jesus knew this that is why he told us in the bible itself, do not stray from Sacred tradition and follow the tradition of man. They will lead you from the truth. And we all know the pillar of truth is the Church.

Protestants like Luther, Calvin and Wesley used the principle of perspicuity applied to the Scriptures to attack Catholics but used it while acknowledging that the common folk still required some kind of ministerial guidance. This is why a closed canon would not of helped the Church fathers, they too realized the problems associated with interpretation. Throughout history heretics have claimed justification for their doctrines claiming the sole authority of the Scriptures. The real battle for The Church Fathers wasnt the authority of Scriptures but the correct interpretation of them. This is where IMO how God chose to deliver those Scriptures under divine providence becomes so important. The Church Fathers i dont believe would ever have viewed the Scriptures as being authoritative outside the context of the Chuch. God has used the Church to give us our Scriptures. The Church has been central.

 

[simspt]

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.

The Church’s recognition of the canon is important, but not as important as God inspiring the sacred writers to begin with.

Many of the writings that would be canonized hundreds of years later were seen as authoritative and in use by the Church in 200 and even much earlier. However its one thing to claim that these documents were authoritative and inspired and quite another to claim that the early Church Fathers viewed them as part of closed canon. The early Church considered many noncanonical writings inspired and having scriptural status as well. I think an important distinction should be made between Scriptures and canon. Most of the issues that concerned the early Church was interpretation of Scriptures, not what Scriptures should be in/out of the canon. This is clear during the second century when the 3 major heresies (marcion, montanists, gnostics)were being dealt with by the Church. They all appealed to the same written documents. It wasnt the “NT” or canon that was being distorted during the fourth century it was the individual Scriptures that were being distorted by heretics. It hard to prove a closed canon existed at 400 years and even much more difficult earlier than this like you mention with the Laodiceans not to mention Gregory of Nazianzus who did not include John’s Apocalypse in his list of twenty six books. Didymus of Alexandria thought 2 Peter was a forgery and he personally knew Athanasius. These two examples show differences even after 367. My point is IMO too often some view the “Bible” as the early Church’s sole rule of faith and that is anachronistic. The claim by many that the NT documents forced there way into the canon by their unique inspiration has little historical support. The formation of the NT canon shows IMO that the Bible is the Church’s book and the Church fathers showed historically that the Church has the responsibility to properly interpret it because it formed it.Taken in their historical context i don’t think that the inspiration of the NT documents is more important than the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church. God’s providential guidance through this canon process should be coupled with the acknowledgment that the Christian faith did not grow in response to a book but in response to God’s interaction with the community of faith in the Church. The Bible is a product of that community because the traditions of that community provided the context in which Scriptures were produced. The traditions by the Church were shaped and reshaped to be used in different ways as evidenced by the Gospels themselves. They are collections of oral and written collections that were shaped by the Evangelists for theological purposes. Each Gospel was shaped for the community it was intended for. The relationship between inspiration and canonicty IMO should be understood in relation to the Church or community that produced them. If its the same Spirit that gives inspiration to the Scriptures that is given to the Church for its common good then how can we limit the centrality of the Church and still understand the inspiration of Scriptures.

 

[simspt]

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.

If you have the HS guiding the writers of the NT documents and that same HS guiding the Catholic Church episcopate in their decisions on what would be included in the NT then it seems the pencil analogy is overly simplistic. This type of “Bible, the Holy Spirit, and me” approach to the Bible ignores the heritage of the community of faith through history. If you accept the NT as authoritative because you believe the NT documents have the HS as their ultimate source then why would you not also accept the authority of the Church since you believe it also has the HS guiding it in its decisions most importantly in relation to the canonization process. Does it make sense to say that the 4th century Church was making good decisions about the Bible but mostly poor ones about everything else??

 

[simspt]

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.

During the 2nd century the issue was more about interpretation not which book should be in/out of a closed collection of documents. A closed canon would not of made any difference since Marcion as well as the gnostics were using the synoptic Gospels and Pauls letters to justify their interpretations. They appealed to the same writings and the Church fathers appealed to tradition and historical succession to justify their intepretation. There was no mention of a closed canon and many doubt this was even on their minds.

 

[Contarini]

Not at all. You are assuming that the Roman Catholic 242 Catholic denominations are
are counted as “base denominations”. They are not. They are counted as a single denomination in each country. Period.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. The same is presumably true of Protestant denominations. So again, division is more appropriate than subtraction. I’ll grant you that we shouldn’t divide by as big a number–it would be too much work to figure out just what number, but if you are really as obsessed with this issue as you seem you are welcome to do the work. Figure out which of these denominations exist in more than one country, and figure out which of them even within the same country are in full communion and agreement with each other (at least to the same degree as the “sui juris” churches of Catholicism are).

Then and only thenwill these figures have any credibility at all.

Until then, I will consider myself entitled to regard any post citing these figures as a joke and unworthy of further comment.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That would be correct if each Catholic “denomination” in each country then branched off into further denominations.

They do not.

They are simply counted as one in 238 different countries. So *subtract *that and add 1 and it will be correct!

You still don’t get it. Obviously they are counting Protestant groups the same way. So they will count the Church of England and the Episcopal Church as two “denominations.”

Hence, these figures are meaningless.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Until then, I will consider any post citing these figures to be a joke and unworthy of further comment.

Edwin

As you wish.

I guess you’ll have to use a generalized “there’s a really big number of Christian denominations”.

I have an actual number and source.

 

[Contarini]

Amen!

But we’re certainly not saying this means that the Church is superior to Scripture!

I came along way before my children, and I have authority over them…but I am clearly not superior to them.

Clearly we’re miscommunicating on the word “superior.”

Let me just put it this way: if you think that the relationship between the Church and Scripture is anything remotely like the relationship between parents and children (with the Church in the role of parent) then you have a radically different view of Scripture than the early Church did.

As soon as early Christians started recognizing certain apostolic writings as inspired, they regarded these writings as being much more like the parents of the Church than its children.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As you wish.

I guess you’ll have to use a generalized “there’s a really big number of Christian denominations”.

I have an actual number and source.

How does that benefit you, given the fatal problems with that source which have been pointed out repeatedly, and which you ignore through sheer stubbornness.

What deep emotional need in online Catholic apologists is being satisfied by this number? It’s truly weird.

Why on earth do you even care?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I see your point; in that paragraph the Church is specifically discussing Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Thank you. I’m glad to see that we can actually communicate.

However, it seems pretty clear to me that Dei Verbum is saying that the CC is the guardian and interpreter of Scripture, which is what I’ve been saying all along.

The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, while being its servant and guardian.

It seems that we agree on this, yes?

Yes.

Where we disagree, then, is that you seem to think that having authority means it is superior.

I think where we disagree is that you think having authority over the interpretation of Scripture means that the Church has the authority over Scripture.

Your parent/child analogy is frankly blasphemous. Scripture is the Word of God. The Church doesn’t have some sort of parental authority over Scripture, or for that matter over Sacred Tradition. This is at the root of the problems with your Communion. You exalt the “living” Church, particularly the Magisterium, way too high in an attempt to protect Tradition. You think that the Tradition is this weak, frail thing that needs the watchful care of the Pope to shelter it from the world. And this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You atrophy the sense of Tradition among your people by instilling the idea that Tradition is absolutely dependent on the Magisterium. And then you wonder why, when the Magisterium lightened up a bit at Vatican too, the Tradition almost collapsed. You wonder why lay Catholics have trouble distinguishing between the discipline of Friday abstinence and the doctrine of the Real Presence.

That’s what’s at stake here. I’m not defending Sola Scriptura. I’m not arguing about Scripture vs. Tradition. I’m arguing for the authority of the Word of God (however transmitted) over the Church rather than the other way round.

If that is your position, then let me make this perfectly clear: I do not believe that the CC is superior to Scripture, even if it has the authority to be its authentic interpreter and guardian.

What exactly is it you think the CC is final arbiter over?

I think you believe we mean it is supreme over Scripture.

Nope.

That’s* not* what we mean. We’re not saying, “If Scripture says A and the Church says B, then the Church is correct.”

What we actually mean is that it is the final authority between 2 differing interpretations of Scripture; that is, when there are 2 different Christians saying, “I believe Scripture says A” and “I believe Scripture says B”, then when the Church speaks and says, “It says B”, that is the correct answer.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

Then why use the parent/child analogy? A better (though still flawed) analogy would be that God is the parent, the Word of God (whether in Scripture or Tradition) is the instructions left by the parent, the members of the Church are the children, and the Magisterium is the oldest sibling taking care of the others. If the parents said “you can only have one chocolate” and the younger kids say “that only means one every half hour” the oldest kid left in charge gets to say “sorry, that’s not what they told me.” But that does not give the oldest kid authority over the word of the parents (whether in written notes or in what the parents told the kids orally before they left). It’s the other way round. The word of the parents is an expression of the parents’ authority over all the children, including the one left in charge.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

P.s if you need the source that debunked “Barrett” false survey of the Catholic Church by miscounting Rites for denominations and revealed over 40,000 protestant denominations, I think I have it stored in my library?

Thanks, Gabriel! We disagree from time to time, but I appreciate your honesty (not claiming that PRMerger is not honest–she just seems confused on the criteria being used by Barrett, thinking for some reason that the Catholic Church is the only one that Barrett counts as multiple denominations based on existence in many countries).

Edwin