How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[simspt]

While you are at it you better also study the early church and use of the DC’s as devotional as opposed to inspired even within the Catholic church this was true. So you distracted from the original proposition, which is if you believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible? Do you or do you not?

Hi Amy,
Do you think the early church clearly delineated their view of the DCs as devotional vs inspired and not both? If so can you give an example. I am interested in this subject and have been recently trying to educate myself on the early church and canon process, thanks for the encouragement. My personal view on inerrancy and infallibilty is irrelavent however i am interested in how you would argue against someone who claimed to believe in the same type of inerrancy and infallibility as you do but disagreed with you on biblical interpretation. Your question to me reminds me of an article i read about two evangelical scholars (Norm Geisler and Robert Gundry) claiming inerrancy and disagreeing with each other. Gundry believed that the evangelist who wrote Matthew used ahistorical additions to the infancy story in Matt 1 and 2. He believed that inerrancy must be viewed in light of the authorial intent of the gospel writer. The story of Jesus was adapted to appeal to the intended audience. Geisler didnt like Gundry’s use of redaction criticism and argued that Gundry’s interpretation methodology was antithetical to their shared doctrine of inerrancy. However Geisler never addressed the hermaneutic issue because of his presupposition of how inerrancy should be used. Here you have two evangelical believers disagreeing to the point where one was kicked out of the evangelical theological society. I have included the link to Gundry’s defense because i think it somewhat reflects the nature of some of the posts that have shown up here in relation to disagreements about interpretation.

etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-1/26-1-pp095-100_JETS.pdf

 

[Dokimas]

Do you have a Scripture verse that says how we know something is not the true word of God if it contains errors in chronology, culture, science etc?

Are you really saying, Amy, that if something has an error in any of those things that proves it’s not inspired?

You seem to be saying that something can be inspired and have some errors???

Then it is possible for the CC to have error and still be God’s church (or part of it). You all have told us it’s impossible for the CC to have any error. Now your telling us it’s possible, IMO.

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to be saying that something can be inspired and have some errors???

Is there a Scripture verse that tells you we are to know something is “inspired” only if it doesn’t contain errors?

But clearly, yes, something can be inspired and have some errors. It may have a historical or scientific error, but never an error regarding a revealed Truth about God.

Then it is possible for the CC to have error and still be God’s church (or part of it). You all have told us it’s impossible for the CC to have any error. Now your telling us it’s possible, IMO.

The CC’s authority does not extend to historical or scientific pronouncements.

It does not teach any error regarding faith or morals.

 

[benedictus2]

Jerome was such a heavy weight that his opinion, which was that the DCs were usefull but not cannonical, assured that the RCC cannon was not settled until Trent.

Actually you’re wrong there.

Here’s a link on the formation of the canon.
Timeline of how the Bible came to us

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm

 

[benedictus2]

Do a Google or Yahoo search on the errors in doctrine, chronology, culture etc.

Hey I did the google search as you suggested and this is what I found.

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/false_doctrines.htm

And also this.

reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.98.11.htm

If this is the site you are referring to, would you care to explain how this is supposed to bolster your argument?

That is how we know it is not the true word of God and given the circumstances of hatred to the reformation your church had explains why the DC’s became officially canonized. I do not deny that some taught them as inspired and most as devotional, but to mix Gods Holy revelation with mans fallible writings is blasphemous in my opinion and I believe God will concur.

Actually you’re wrong there. The DCs were always part of the canon. The reason Luther had them removed was because he had an issue with purgatory. You see, instead of just allowing Scripture to speak for itself, Luther wanted to impose his will on scripture.

Luther didn’t want all of the DCs to be removed. He only wanted Mac to be removed because it was the one that contained references to purgatory. But since his motives would be so obvious if he removed only one, he was forced to remove them all.

Do you really think that 1 person is more credible than all the others who have gone before him? I mean those who for the past 1000 years have had no issues with it until he came.

That to me just shows his pride. And where there is pride, there the devil is also. So one tends to think, who was egging him on to do this? The Holy Spirit? Highly unlikely.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it was truly laudable that he called the Church heirarchy to task for their corruption and terrible sins. We are all called to do that - admonish the sinner.

But, pride took over and he decided he will be a a law unto itself and chop up the word of God.

Is it any wonder that he would write later on that they themselves have become much, much worse than that which they were trying to reform.

 

[benedictus2]

I do not deny that some taught them as inspired and most as devotional, but to mix Gods Holy revelation with mans fallible writings is blasphemous in my opinion and I believe God will concur.

Reply no 2 to this post.

Amy, how do you determine which one is indeed God’s Holy Revelation and which one is man’s? What is the criteria you go by? Because if you say it is Luther, heck, he came 1500 years later after Christ established his church.

 

[SemperReformada]

Do you really think that 1 person is more credible than all the others who have gone before him? I mean those who for the past 1000 years have had no issues with it until he came.

You are whitewashing history to support your argument. Starting at Trent and working backwards we see that:

The Tridentine fathers did not all agre that the DC’s are canonical. One popular but false Catholic argument is that the council or Rome or Carthage or HIppo settled the issue of the OT but this is easily disproved by looking at the historical record. At Trent there was debate among the Tridentine fathers whether to include the DC’s as canonical or reject them. Isn’t odd that these fathers were unaware that the issue of the OT canon was settled a millenium ago? Why the debate if the earlier councils settled anything?

Cardinal Cajetan’s commentary on the OT rejected the DC’s as being on par with canonical scripture. Remember Cajetan was sent to interview Luther at the Diet of Worms and was hardly a rabble rouser or dissenter.

In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification.

The major scriptural commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, included the DC’s within it’s binding but also rejected them as on par with canonical scripture much like the vulgate did.

Many Catholics will claim how Jerome was obedient to the church because he submitted his will to the church and included the DC’s in the vulgate. I suspect these Catholics are unaware that Jerome also included his commentary/prolgoues to the DC"s in the vulgate as well and in these prologues it is clear that Jerome did not hold the DC’s to be on par with canonical scripture.

The point of my post is that it is demonstrably clear that Luther was not anywhere near the first to reject the canonocity of the DC’s. In fact, it appears to me that he did something very similar to what Jerome did with regards to handling the DC’s. Remember Luther did in fact include the DC’s in his translation as did Jerome.

Maybe your church is correct in labeling the DC’s as canonical but your approach to this is flawed as is shown by the historical record.

 

[PRmerger]

One popular but false Catholic argument is that the council or Rome or Carthage or HIppo settled the issue of the OT but this is easily disproved by looking at the historical record.

Can you cite a source for this, SR?

At Trent there was debate among the Tridentine fathers whether to include the DC’s as canonical or reject them. Isn’t odd that these fathers were unaware that the issue of the OT canon was settled a millenium ago? Why the debate if the earlier councils settled anything?

I don’t see debating about the DCs as any indicator of anything. In the end, what did Trent decide and affirm?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Can you cite a source for this, SR?

I don’t see debating about the DCs as any indicator of anything. In the end, what did Trent decide and affirm?

I don’t know how many times protestants need to be drilled about the bible the Catholic Church canonized for us all.

SemperReformada and many others like him tend to misinterpret Catholic history by misinterpreting the Early Catholic church Father’s who are recorded as arguing against or for the DC books as canonical, to mean that the DC books were not canonized or recognized by the Catholic Church.

This is the mistake non catholics entertain to think because they find one Catholic Saint who questions the DC books makes it non canonical. For it was the Church which decided the Canon, not the individual Early Church Father speaking as an independent from a Church Council who can error. When history, fact and reality reveals that it is the Catholic Church councils who decided which books are canon and which did not meet the canon (list) bible books as inspired of God.

IF protestants and non catholics would take the time to learn the difference between man who can error and what is the pillar and foundation of Truth in the Catholic church which belongs to God who can not error. Recognizing that their is major difference between a mans opinion and a Catholic church council “decision” in the Canon books of the bible from the early 4th centuries.

Just because a Saint or an issue of the DC books came up from history, never negates the fact of reality that the DC books were never removed from the Canon books of the bible since they were first canonized by the Catholic Church as inspired of God.

I think bringing up arguments of the DC books is only telling that every bible book was scrutinized by the Catholic church. The disputes never removed the DC’s canonicity in the Catholic church.

I believe SR is trying very hard to make a case from individual early Church Fathers who disputed the DC books but never had any authority at all to remove their canonicity status which proves his historical reading comes from a false pretense as speaking for the whole Catholic Church which only the Councils decision could do, never an individual Early Church Father. I think protestants and non catholic alike should be put on notice of this fact, so as not to make false arguments of history from afar.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The works which god prepared before the foundation of the world are the ones the true Christian will walk in, not because they are earning any favor, but because we are His workmanship created for good works.

I doubt you have a clue as to what Paul means by “working out your own salvation”. I will tell you it is an exhortation to keep pressing on toward the goal of sanctification, the part of the work of the Holy Spirit where man and God via the Holy Spirit become more and more comformed to the image of Jesus.

 

[SemperReformada]

SemperReformada and many others like him tend to misinterpret Catholic history by misinterpreting the Early Catholic church Father’s who are recorded as arguing against or for the DC books as canonical, to mean that the DC books were not canonized or recognized by the Catholic Church.

You need to go back and actually read my last post. Benedictus made the claim that no one before Luther had issues with the DC’s. Benedictus’ claim is patently false.
BTW, the church sent out the vulgate which clearly labeled the DC’s as not being on par with canonical scripture. It’s not just one or two ECF’s.

I’m not sure why this should bother you. If your church is indeed infallible than the final disposition of the church at Trent is free from error and that’s that. Does that mean there was a clear understanding of this issue throughout history by all faithful Catholics? No it does not.

I believe SR is trying very hard to make a case from individual early Church Fathers who disputed the DC books but never had any authority at all to remove their canonicity status which proves his historical reading comes from a false pretense as speaking for the whole Catholic Church which only the Councils decision could do, never an individual Early Church Father. I think protestants and non catholic alike should be put on notice of this fact, so as not to make false arguments of history from afar.

I’ve made no effort at all to argue against the DC’s. I’ve simply pointed out that the RCC did not infallibly close the OT canon until Trent and up to that point there were those that accepted the DC’s and those that didn’t.

 

[SemperReformada]

Can you cite a source for this, SR?

If you are asking me to go back through all the previous posts I’ve seen on this issue I am not going to do that.

If you are asking about the earlier councils I need only point out that they were merely provincial councils and therefore incapable of deciding anything infallibly.

I don’t see debating about the DCs as any indicator of anything.

Really? The reason I brought this up is to hopefully shed some light on some of the controversy surrounding the OT canon and the DC’s. It isn’t as sanitary as some such as Benedictus seem to believe. If one believes that this issue was truely settled at an earlier council it seems to me that it’s going to be difficult to explain away the prologues to the DC’s in the vulgate, the glossa ordinaire and the debate at Trent.

Of course none of this would indicate that the DC’s are not inspired but it does show that Luther was far from revolutionary or unique in regards to his opinion of the DC’s.

In the end, what did Trent decide and affirm?

Trent finally made an infallibly and dogmatic decision on the canon of the OT, a decision which included the DC’s in the canon.

 

[Teneas]

If you are asking me to go back through all the previous posts I’ve seen on this issue I am not going to do that.

If you are asking about the earlier councils I need only point out that they were merely provincial councils and therefore incapable of deciding anything infallibly.

Really? The reason I brought this up is to hopefully shed some light on some of the controversy surrounding the OT canon and the DC’s. It isn’t as sanitary as some such as Benedictus seem to believe. If one believes that this issue was truely settled at an earlier council it seems to me that it’s going to be difficult to explain away the prologues to the DC’s in the vulgate, the glossa ordinaire and the debate at Trent.

Of course none of this would indicate that the DC’s are not inspired but it does show that Luther was far from revolutionary or unique in regards to his opinion of the DC’s.

Trent finally made an infallibly and dogmatic decision on the canon of the OT, a decision which included the DC’s in the canon.

Discussing or arguing is one thing, the decision was made however, and thus it became the Bible the we Catholics know today, and most of the Bible other Christians know. Was there debate? Of course, there always will be in the world of man.

 

[Teneas]

Perhaps this is a better question:

How do the non-Catholic Christians believe the Bible actually was put together? Who decided what books were Canon and what ones were not? Would God allow such error to exist in his book, if those books that are under debate, were actually not inspired to last for roughly 1200 years before Luther?

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t know how many times protestants need to be drilled about the bible the Catholic Church canonized for us all.

SemperReformada and many others like him tend to misinterpret Catholic history by misinterpreting the Early Catholic church Father’s who are recorded as arguing against or for the DC books as canonical, to mean that the DC books were not canonized or recognized by the Catholic Church.

This is the mistake non catholics entertain to think because they find one Catholic Saint who questions the DC books makes it non canonical. For it was the Church which decided the Canon, not the individual Early Church Father speaking as an independent from a Church Council who can error. When history, fact and reality reveals that it is the Catholic Church councils who decided which books are canon and which did not meet the canon (list) bible books as inspired of God.

IF protestants and non catholics would take the time to learn the difference between man who can error and what is the pillar and foundation of Truth in the Catholic church which belongs to God who can not error. Recognizing that their is major difference between a mans opinion and a Catholic church council “decision” in the Canon books of the bible from the early 4th centuries.

Just because a Saint or an issue of the DC books came up from history, never negates the fact of reality that the DC books were never removed from the Canon books of the bible since they were first canonized by the Catholic Church as inspired of God.

I think bringing up arguments of the DC books is only telling that every bible book was scrutinized by the Catholic church. The disputes never removed the DC’s canonicity in the Catholic church.

I believe SR is trying very hard to make a case from individual early Church Fathers who disputed the DC books but never had any authority at all to remove their canonicity status which proves his historical reading comes from a false pretense as speaking for the whole Catholic Church which only the Councils decision could do, never an individual Early Church Father. I think protestants and non catholic alike should be put on notice of this fact, so as not to make false arguments of history from afar.

Great post!

 

[PRmerger]

If you are asking me to go back through all the previous posts I’ve seen on this issue I am not going to do that.

Oh! No, I’m not asking you to go through all the previous posts. I’m just asking for a source that confirms your statement here:

Originally Posted by SemperReformada forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
* One popular but false* Catholic argument is that the council or Rome or Carthage or HIppo settled the issue of the OT but this is easily disproved by looking at the historical record.

What source can you provide that counters our argument that the councils of Rom or Carthage or Hippo settled the issue of the DCs?

 

[PRmerger]

Discussing or arguing is one thing, the decision was made however, and thus it became the Bible the we Catholics know today, and most of the Bible other Christians know. Was there debate? Of course, there always will be in the world of man.

'zactly!

 

[benedictus2]

You are whitewashing history to support your argument. Starting at Trent and working backwards we see that:

The Tridentine fathers did not all agre that the DC’s are canonical. One popular but false Catholic argument is that the council or Rome or Carthage or HIppo settled the issue of the OT but this is easily disproved by looking at the historical record. At Trent there was debate among the Tridentine fathers whether to include the DC’s as canonical or reject them. Isn’t odd that these fathers were unaware that the issue of the OT canon was settled a millenium ago? Why the debate if the earlier councils settled anything?

Cardinal Cajetan’s commentary on the OT rejected the DC’s as being on par with canonical scripture. Remember Cajetan was sent to interview Luther at the Diet of Worms and was hardly a rabble rouser or dissenter.

In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification.

The major scriptural commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, included the DC’s within it’s binding but also rejected them as on par with canonical scripture much like the vulgate did.

Many Catholics will claim how Jerome was obedient to the church because he submitted his will to the church and included the DC’s in the vulgate. I suspect these Catholics are unaware that Jerome also included his commentary/prolgoues to the DC"s in the vulgate as well and in these prologues it is clear that Jerome did not hold the DC’s to be on par with canonical scripture.

The point of my post is that it is demonstrably clear that Luther was not anywhere near the first to reject the canonocity of the DC’s. In fact, it appears to me that he did something very similar to what Jerome did with regards to handling the DC’s. Remember Luther did in fact include the DC’s in his translation as did Jerome.

Maybe your church is correct in labeling the DC’s as canonical but your approach to this is flawed as is shown by the historical record.

Actually I am not whitewashing history. I never claimed that there was no discussion on the DCs.

Here is my post that you replied to.

benedictus2:

Do you really think that 1 person is more credible than all the others who have gone before him? I mean those who for the past 1000 years have had no issues with it until he came.

That question to Amy is in the here and now from this vantage point in history.

So with everything we know about the reformation, about Martin Luther’s motives, my approach is not in any way flawed. Your understanding of my post however is.

Can we really accept the Luther’s canon within a canon? The reason for the debate at Trent was brought on by Luther’s questioning of the canon. Ximenes’ problem with it if your account is correct, did not.

Particular persons can have opinions but in the end these particular persons do not determine the canon, and their individual opinion cannot be valued more than Chuch councils. This is exactly what Cajetan did. He valued Jerome’s opinion over and above all the Church Fathers and Councils. Who is he compared to the councils from Carthage onwards?

Oh, and by the way, it is not my Church. It is Christ’s church, I just happen to be a member

 

[benedictus2]

You seem to be saying that something can be inspired and have some errors???

Yes. It depends on the error. Doctrinal? No. Scientific? Yes.

Then it is possible for the CC to have error and still be God’s church (or part of it).

As per above. And no, **not part of **God’s Church - but God’s church.

You all have told us it’s impossible for the CC to have any error. Now your telling us it’s possible, IMO.

Not possible to have doctrinal error. The individual persons may have the wrong views but not where it pertains to doctrines of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

If one believes that this issue was truely settled at an earlier council it seems to me that it’s going to be difficult to explain away the prologues to the DC’s in the vulgate, the glossa ordinaire and the debate at Trent.

Can you please cite your sources? What “prologues” to the DCs in the Vulgate? What was the debate at Trent and how do you know?