How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[benedictus2]

Jesus promise He’d be with His church but He did not promise there error would not creep in. People lead by the Holy Spirit don’t always allow Him to lead correctly.

But Jesus specifically said the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. I think you are confusing orthodoxy and orthopraxis here.

The promise to the Church is to be led into all Truth, not all goodness.

Here is the distinction.

1. The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into right doctrine that adultery is wrong.
2. The Holy Spirit will not over ride each man’s will to ensure that they do not commit adultery.

The promise is for number 1, not for number 2.

So the Church’s teachings are all correct but her member’s can’t all be said to be faithful to these teachings.

The reason why this guidance into truth is important is very evident in our day. In the case of contraception, only the Catholic Church has upheld what Christianity has always upheld for 2000 years. When they allowed contraction in the 1930 Lambeth conference, everything started to unravel. Abortion, same sex marriage, etc. followed.

 

[larkin31]

So you are saying that the Bible is historically correct?

In some cases, yes. It has been verified by enough other sources that what it claims in some cases is very likely true.

In other cases, there has been no verification at all, and the claims are very likely not true.

 

[larkin31]

LOL! Yes, I meant Pontius Pilate!

I had to go back and make sure I wasn’t the original mis-speller–and I’m glad to see that it wasn’t I who made the original error.

Makes a great case for my point: if you believe someone is lying, exaggerating, interpolating or MISTAKEN, why would you cite them, use their posts or refer to them?? I made the mistake of referring to larkin’s post (including his mis-spelling of Pilate) when I ought not to have, knowing that he’s so often mistaken.

Q.E.D!!

yes, Pilate.

now will either one of you address the issue: does a source have to be 100% accurate and inerrant to be useful? Do you hold this standard when, say, asking a neighbor for information or, say, reading a newspaper, or, say, reading about clinical trials of an antibiotic before you accept your doctor’s prescription? Do you ask him for proof that his medical sources are inerrant?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SemperReformada,

I have been reading with real interest a number of the posts you have presented here. And, I do have a comment or two along with a question…

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.

Now, I have found that it is always best to refuse to answer a question when asked … this looks like a sterling example, SemperReformada…

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.

This may come as a shock - but, there is nothing sanitary as it is happening. While this is true about all of history - let’s just confine ourselves to the Apostles. These men saw Christ perform amazing signs - yet were totally clueless about His role in Salvation History. Peter even argued with Christ about Him scaring the other Apostles with talk about going into Jerusalem and dying! And, this was immediately after Christ had given him the Keys to the Kingdom! Does anyone think that there were stenographers following Christ around (with red ink no less…) to get His exact words? The First Gospel was written 30+ years after Christ rose from the dead - all of Scripture is Inspired by God - and this means that the Word of God is written in the words of men. Looking back over an event we can see certain details that now make sense - but, at the time were either apparently inconsequential or just lost to everyone. Look at the current finacial crisis we are experiencing. Do you think anyone could accurately predict this mess … when the seeds were planted 10 or more years ago?

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.

Let’s cut to the chase, SemperReformada, just what is it that bothers you about the DC being in the Canon? Purgatory? Something else? Remember, Protestants all (or almost all) accept the words of Christ in John 6 when He said that unless, “…you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood you do not have life in you…” - and dismiss it as analogy - even though a whole lot of listeners refused to follow Christ any more because of this. And, current protestants just follow their lead saying Christ did not mean what he said!

So, what is the answer?

God bless

Tom

 

[PRmerger]

In some cases, yes. It has been verified by enough other sources that what it claims in some cases is very likely true.

In other cases, there has been no verification at all, and the claims are very likely not true.

Except that’s not what you’ve done, larkin.

You said you refuse to believe that Jesus rose from the dead–even though that has been verified by THOUSANDS of eye witnesses.

Yet you refer to Jesus overturning tables in the Temple–what other source says that?

 

[larkin31]

Except that’s not what you’ve done, larkin.

You said you refuse to believe that Jesus rose from the dead–even though that has been verified by THOUSANDS of eye witnesses.

Yet you refer to Jesus overturning tables in the Temple–what other source says that?

I am not certain that a man named Jesus actually overturned the tables in historical reality. I was referring to the episode in the story. The story exists, and I am certain of its existence and its details. I do believe that it is quite probable that a Jewish peasant/healer might disrupt the money-changing procedures on the temple grounds.

And, correct, I do not believe in (have religious faith in) the Christian resurrection. I fully acknowledge the account of such, however, in the Gospels and I am fully willing to discuss its details and implications both as a former Christian (I was born again) and as a teacher of literature. All narratives carry message and meaning and content whether they are fiction or fact or a blending of the two. One need not be a woman to read the story of a woman and understand it and share ideas about it. One need not be African-American to understand and share ideas about the narrative of Frederick Douglass. One need not be Taoist to read the Tao te Ching and engage in a fruitful discussion over it.

 

[rinnie]

Of course.

Yes the RCC is Human and Divine. The RCC is the living Christ. Christ is human and divine. The Church does not refer to the Pope. The Church refers to the Holy Spirit. That is why the Holy Spirit is who guides the RCC not the Pope or bishops etc.

Where in the bible does it state that the Pope will guide the RCC? It does not. The bible states that the Advocate the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all truth.

The Church is not guided by the Pope, the Pope is guided by the Church (the living Christ)

The Pope has never said that we are to obey his word. The Pope says we are to obey Gods word. The Pope does not teach his word he teaches Gods word.

 

[rinnie]

I looked at your verse right away. I saw where it said feed. I couldn’t find where it said ‘lead’. So, could you produce the verse where Jesus tells Peter to lead His sheep?

Sure read what Jesus tells him the second time. Tend my sheep. Now look up tend in the dictionary if you must. Tend: To be directed to or toward.

 

[larkin31]

Sure read what Jesus tells him the second time. Tend my sheep. Now look up tend in the dictionary if you must. Tend: To be directed to or toward.

that’s the wrong “tend”. You used the intransitive form for the definition. You need to use the transitive form:

to tend sheep

to tend children

to tend a fire

etc

I’ll let you look it up…

 

[rinnie]

that’s the wrong “tend”. You used the intransitive form for the definition. You need to use the transitive form:

to tend sheep

to tend children

to tend a fire

etc

I’ll let you look it up…

Not according to the teachings of the Apostles. That is how the Church defines it. Jesus gave Peter and Peter only the keys to the kingdom. The Person who has the keys is the Master to the Palace.

It goes hand and hand with the O.T which go hand in hand.

Elizakim who succeeds Shebna as master of the palace is given the key of the house of David which authoritatively opens and shuts.

So according to the teachings of the Church St Peter is the one who has authority to lead the Church. Tend the sheep means to lead them.

You can say what you want but if someone is tending they have authority over.

Tend to take care of, manage, operate.

Peter is to tend to the Sheep . Which means to take care of, lead, teach, operate, manage. How can one manage or operate something without authority or leadership?

How can one tend to a child without having authority over it, and how can one watch over and take care of a Child without having some direction over.

Why would one tend a child if it did not need direction?

Why would one tend a fire if it did not need to direct that fire?

If one is to tend to Sheep, why would it be needed if the sheep had direction?

So bottom line why would one need to tend if no direction is needed?

 

[PRmerger]

I am not certain that a man named Jesus actually overturned the tables in historical reality.

Fair enough, larkin.

We will just take your posts with the understanding that you believe the authors of Scripture could be lying, exaggerating, mistaken or interpolating.

I just don’t know why you make the point to say that they could have been doing this for *some *passages of Scripture, but not for other passages.

Actually, I do know why you do it. You take the verses which appeal to your argument of the day and use them, but then have a standby line, “Well, the author may have been exaggerating” when a verse is provided to you that you find distasteful.

 

[larkin31]

Not according to the teachings of the Apostles.

You said to look it up in the dictionary. So I did. I knew that you were using the wrong definition of “tend” even though you were pretending to know what you were talking about. Now you are changing the issue again and stating that the apostles defined it differently. No, they didn’t. They don’t define it at all. YOU are defining it as you see fit, and claiming the dictionary and the apostles as sources, but neither one of them supports you.

Why don’t you just say what really is the truth: “I believe that Jesus, through Peter, is both leading us and tending us, like a shepherd both cares for and guides his flock.” Instead of telling people that they should read the dictionary to see that it agrees (not) with you.

 

[larkin31]

Fair enough, larkin.

We will just take your posts with the understanding that you believe the authors of Scripture could be lying, exaggerating, mistaken or interpolating.

I just don’t know why you make the point to say that they could have been doing this for *some *passages of Scripture, but not for other passages.

Actually, I do know why you do it. You take the verses which appeal to your argument of the day and use them, but then have a standby line, “Well, the author may have been exaggerating” when a verse is provided to you that you find distasteful.

If you know, then why ask?

I would not call my arguments “arguments of the day”. They tend not to change much over the months here.

But correct, like any intelligent person, I use the arguments and verses that support my argument. As I have seen you do many times. I see no reason to object to that. I don’t debate the miracles, I don’t debate the existence of God. But I do tend to defend people (Protestants, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers) I have know all my life from false generalities here or shoddy thinking. One of my ways of pursuing truth.

 

[Dokimas]

Here’s how infallibility proceeds logically from your above statement.
Going back to the Bible, Jesus said He will send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth.

If we cannot say that He has kept that promise, then the very Scripture we are basing that assumption in is also contestable.

If she is not infallible, then her Scripture can contain errors as well. Which leaves us all stranded in the middle of the ocean of uncertainty. Maybe John’s gospel should have been left out and the gnostic gospel of Thomas included. Maybe some of Paul’s epistles are not really canonical.

It is logically impossible to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture without affirming the infallibility of the Church whose book that scripture is.

Only when you believe that someone is infallible can you accept that one of her decrees is infallible as well.

Here’s the verse in question…

Joh 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Notice Jesus is speaking to the disciples, not the present day CC and its leaders.

Notice the problem isn’t with the Holy Spirit guiding but with His church (disciples) following.

Note: The Holy Spirit will always do His part. We don’t always follow or understand correctly. We meaning ALL of us include the leaders of ALL churches including the CC.

 

[Dokimas]

But Jesus specifically said the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. I think you are confusing orthodoxy and orthopraxis here.

The promise to the Church is to be led into all Truth, not all goodness.

Here is the distinction.

1. The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into right doctrine that adultery is wrong.
2. The Holy Spirit will not over ride each man’s will to ensure that they do not commit adultery.

The promise is for number 1, not for number 2.

So the Church’s teachings are all correct but her member’s can’t all be said to be faithful to these teachings.

The reason why this guidance into truth is important is very evident in our day. In the case of contraception, only the Catholic Church has upheld what Christianity has always upheld for 2000 years. When they allowed contraction in the 1930 Lambeth conference, everything started to unravel. Abortion, same sex marriage, etc. followed.

The Holy Spirit WILL guide; that doesn’t me the CC or any church or any Christian will always teach correctly. The promise is He’ll guide not that He’ll keep it from all error.

 

[Dokimas]

Sure read what Jesus tells him the second time. Tend my sheep. Now look up tend in the dictionary if you must. Tend: To be directed to or toward.

John 21:
15 ¶ So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”
16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend (4165 see below) My sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

4165 ποιμαινω poimaino poy-mah’-ee-no

from 4166; TDNT-6:485,901; v

AV-feed 6, rule 4, feed cattle 1; 11

1. to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
   1a) to rule, govern
   1a1) of rulers
   1a2) to furnish pasture for food
   1a3) to nourish
   1a4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
   1a5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need

For Synonyms see entry 5824​

I see you are partly correct but still the word is about providing for the sheep. I was wrongly under the impression the word was ‘feed’ 3 times.

So what’s your point again? I’ve lost the reason you’re telling me this. Sorry.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Your question is the heart of this thread and I don’t think a Protestant has answered it yet.

 

[rinnie]

John 21:
15 ¶ So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”
16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend (4165 see below) My sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

4165 ποιμαινω poimaino poy-mah’-ee-no

from 4166; TDNT-6:485,901; v

AV-feed 6, rule 4, feed cattle 1; 11

1. to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
   1a) to rule, govern
   1a1) of rulers
   1a2) to furnish pasture for food
   1a3) to nourish
   1a4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
   1a5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need

For Synonyms see entry 5824​

I see you are partly correct but still the word is about providing for the sheep. I was wrongly under the impression the word was ‘feed’ 3 times.

So what’s your point again? I’ve lost the reason you’re telling me this. Sorry.

You are the one that questioned me on it. You said it only said feed, not lead. I told you tend means to lead the sheep. You asked for the word that meant lead and I showed you the word was tend.

 

[rinnie]

The Holy Spirit WILL guide; that doesn’t me the CC or any church or any Christian will always teach correctly. The promise is He’ll guide not that He’ll keep it from all error.

Huh? So you are saying that when Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church you are saying it did not mean it would be free from error So you are saying the Holy Spirit would not be free from all error

 

[rinnie]

The Holy Spirit WILL guide; that doesn’t me the CC or any church or any Christian will always teach correctly. The promise is He’ll guide not that He’ll keep it from all error.

So when Jesus said that the Church was the pillar of all truth, and he was sending the advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, you are saying he didn’ t mean it? How you figure