How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Cinette]

Your church tells you it has the truth and can’t make doctrinal error. You believe what your church says. Good for you.​

Thanks for your opinion. However, there are teahings you believe in that I can’t find in the Bible, but quite opposite understanding.​

Just because I think the CC is sometimes wrong DOES **NNOOTT **mean I think anyone should leave the CC. In fact I’ve always maintained that there is NO church with a corner on perfection. I go further and say NO Christian has a corner either, especially me.

*Dokimas perhaps you should stand back and look at the whole picture. We have a Church founded by Jesus which is full of sinners. Precisely for this reason, Jesus protected the Church’s teachings (His teachings through Tradition and inspiration) from us! The Pope and the Magisterium have this role - to protect, to guide, to teach. When we go off the rails they are there to point that out. They pray for guidance and many of the faithful pray for them daily - at every Mass throughout the world - the nuns in the Convents throughout the world pray for the Pope and the Magisterium. The truth must be protected.

The Holy Spirit has to protect the Church from teaching error. That has nothing to do with the fact that we are ALL sinners and need His Grace.

It would be daft for Jesus to found a Church and leave it to us to do as we like with it!

*

 

[benedictus2]

A better question is how can Catholics defend there OT cannon. It has been changed to suit their whims.

The even better question is how can protestants claim to have a bible when they weren’t even around when the Bible was written and canonized.

 

[benedictus2]

Why do you keep asking questions concerning the Protestant point of view simply to say that you don’t accept it? If you acknowledge the CC as the only legitimate authority, why would you feign interest in anyone else’s institutions?

Well isn’t it your role (provided you are wearing your protestant hat) to convince me that I am wrong about acknowledging only Catholic authority?

So go right ahead. Make your case and convince me.

 

[benedictus2]

maybe, if you guys actually showed any open interest in the answers

We are interested. Dokimas and Semper have come up with real answers (not that they are right) but you haven’t. So I suggest you take a pick whether you are going to be agnostic or protestant (I suggest protestant as it makes more sense since you are participating in this particular thread) and get on with the job.

 

[benedictus2]

you are on my ignore list now. I have treated you exactly as you have treated me.

If you want to know anything about the history of the Protestant view of the canon, I suggest you change your tone or simply do some research on your own

this entry in Wiki at a quick glance seems a very good place to start–better than any response that you will get here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

That is the come back of a petulant child. Stephen explained in detail what was wrong with your replies.

We all know the Protestant view of the canon. Semper has already put forth that position - quite well in fact.

But we are debating with you, and it is from you that we are waiting for answers.

And all you can do is put someone - who has given you a most clear and logical rebuttal - on the ignore list. Come on.

 

[benedictus2]

perhaps this thread has outlived its usefulness

On what grounds? Is your view of the value of things purely utilitarian? Actually, I shouldn’t have asked that. Of course it is utilitarian. You are agnostic. It can’t be anything else.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hisalone
A better question is how can Catholics defend there OT cannon. It has been changed to suit their whims.

Easily…with HISTORY. The OT has been changed by the RCC to suit their whims? Goes to show how much you do not know about the history of the Christian Bible and the OT canon. Try doing some actual research and acknowledge who were the ones who changed the OT to suit their whims. I’ll give you a hint: It started long after the RCC already set the canon.

 

[PRmerger]

Well that is a fair enough comment from an agnostic. But as an agnostic, why would you need to use the Bible as a point of reference if you already have the other secular sources to go by?

'zactly!

Based on larkin’s statements, each time he says something about Jesus he ought to cite the secular source which confirms it.

He denies the Flood, but affirms Pilate. He denies the Resurrection, but affirms that Jesus turned over tables in the Temple

What secular sources validate his comments about Jesus?

 

[benedictus2]

You assume incorrectly about my assumption. I DO NOT think it’s only for their generation, but for all of us, especially those God calls to be leaders (which is far bigger than the CC.)

But that is indefensible when you actually look at history. When you bear in mind the date of the reformation and the continuing splintering nature of the protestant denominations, it is hard to make a case for the guidance of the Holy Spirit for each and everyone of these because even among protestants the contradiction is evident.

Furthermore, we get into the quandary of applying that guidance to the likes of the Davidian and People’s Temple sects.

I really urge you to think that through.

With this much information, we can’t just say I believe because this is what I believe when a good amount of information and logic is being presented that contradicts that kind of belief.

 

[larkin31]

Well isn’t it your role (provided you are wearing your protestant hat) to convince me that I am wrong about acknowledging only Catholic authority?
No.

I don’t know where you go that idea. That would not be very ecumenical of me, and I come from a very ecumenical background. I was never taught any such thing in my house or in my church.

 

[Cinette]

No.

I don’t know where you go that idea. That would not be very ecumenical of me, and I come from a very ecumenical background. I was never taught any such thing in my house or in my church.

*CAF is a forum for debate on many different subjects. One chooses a topic and then engages in discussions, exchanges opinions and yes, try to convince adversaries that one’s standpoint is the correct one. We are free to present our beliefs and debate why we think this is right or wrong.

In the process one learns a lot about other people’s cultures, beliefs and opinions. We might convince or be convinced. It is healthy, interesting and constructive.

This is the whole point of being on these forums. We choose to debate and learn. This is why I was surprised to find you Larkin on a thread about defending the canon of the NT since you have now declared yourself agnostic which would add confusion to the debate. This is exactly what is happening. You make statements which you refuse to back up and you become hostile when others ask for your answers. So what is the point?

Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

Out of curiosity, does the New Testament ever state that infant baptism is an important or necessary process for the spiritual life of the person?

 Aahh but that is exactly our point. If baptism is important to the spiritual life, why should infants be barred from it.  Where in scripture does it say that infants are NOT to be baptized. Can you cite an example in Acts where they presented an infant for baptism and the apostles refused?

You have to bear in mind that infant baptism was the practice for 200 years until Tertulian questioned it, but not on the grounds of it not being necessary but more because of the political situation at the time.

Is an infant ever even baptized in scripture? Does the NT ever discuss the age of anyone that is baptized? I came from a Protestant tradition of infant baptism, but I never questioned it and have not read or looked for it in the NT in any recent year, so I can’t recall…

Exactly. The NT does not say what age anyone must be baptized. The apostles baptized whole households including their servants. That tells you that no one is excluded because of age.

If baptism is a means of grace, why would Christ want to deny that to infants?

 

[benedictus2]

No.

I don’t know where you go that idea. That would not be very ecumenical of me, and I come from a very ecumenical background. I was never taught any such thing in my house or in my church.

Well then, what is exactly your position with regards this debate.?

First this then, that, never quite able to make up his mind.

So where does Larkin stand. Not Agnostic, not protestant, not catholic, nothing. Pretty sad state to be. Pretty scary too.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes! I want to know where the Catholic practice contradicts Scripture. You’ve just been saying before that you couldn’t find support for it in Scripture.

So where’s the verse that shows we’re CONTRADICTING the Bible?

The Matthew 1:25 verse that says Mary remained a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus.

Virtually all verse about baptism includes repentance. Logic tells us that babies can’t repent. Thus the person getting baptized must be old enough to understrand repentance.

 

[Dokimas]

Are these five households in different gospels? All in one reference?

I am just curious. I am not here to argue this issue. I don’t really care when anyone puts ritual water on a child’s head or body. I was baptized with my father, actually, in the same ceremony, and I can remember it. That was pretty cool, and that kind of family event has tremendous appeal as well…

I’m not sure. Those that support infant baptism have given that stat. I know one is in Acts 16. I don’t thind any are in the Gospels. They also use another verse that says that the ‘promise’ is for children and others ‘far off’. The context, if my memory serves me correctly, is repentance which would mean that if children and all those that follow in yrs to come will repent, then get baptized then …

 

[Dokimas]

No no no!!

Infant baptism is PROOF that Catholics believe that God’s gift of salvation is*** totally free and undeserved*** and that we do not WORK our way into salvation! For that cute little babe has done NOTHING–no works, no acts of repentance–in order to merit God’s gift.

Come on now. Then all those adults in the NT could not or should not get baptized because they were too old to get the totally free gift. That’s silly, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, there are numerous references to households getting baptized. One would think that this included infants.

As some of you fellow catholics here have said, there are 5 mentioned. Of the multiple thousands of adults that got baptized in the NT, only 5 households. The odds are they did NOT have young children, thus they were all baptized. If the account was that hundreds of household were baptized, you’d have a good argument.

 

[Dokimas]

INFANT BAPTISM PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE
Originally posted by Randy Carson

Old Covenant

Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Connection to New Covenant

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

We are Born Again Through Baptism

John 3:3-5
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" 5Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Baptism Washes Away Actual Sins

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Do Infants Need Baptism?

Job 14:1-4
1 "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him before you for judgment? 4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

We are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the need for baptism from the moment of conception.

IMO, here’s another CC teaching that is incorrect: OT circumcism is NT baptism. There’s just no evidence for this to be correct, but the NT is pretty clear they are different. Did you know Jews baptized before the NT?

 

[Cinette]

The Matthew 1:25 verse that says Mary remained a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus.
*
Mary decided from a early age that she would remain a virgin and the family sought her protection through marriage to Joseph who was a widower and much older than Mary. *

Virtually all verse about baptism includes repentance. Logic tells us that babies can’t repent. Thus the person getting baptized must be old enough to understrand repentance./QUOTE]*Baptism is for Christian initiation. An adult seeking to become a Christian would have to follow the conditions for baptism, ie reptentance. Logically, for infants that would not apply.
*

 

[Dokimas]

Well then, what is exactly your position with regards this debate.?

First this then, that, never quite able to make up his mind.

So where does Larkin stand. Not Agnostic, not protestant, not catholic, nothing. Pretty sad state to be. Pretty scary too.

Seems to me an honest agnostic is looking for answers even though they don’t have any at this time.

I remember reading the story of a well educated husband and wife that were challenged to look into the claims of Jesus (specifically His resurrection). This challenge came from one of there Christian parents.

It took them a while to find time to look into this issue (actually I think one of them looked into the conversion of Paul). After their separate search, they both concluded Jesus was raised from the dead and Paul’s conversion was worth noting. They both became a Christian and wrote a ‘book’ entitled The Agnostic that Dared to Search. I think there is info on line if you ‘google’ that title.