How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[simspt]

What Protestants mean by this is that the Church did not give the Bible any intrinsic quality it did not already possess. The Church recognized that God had inspired Scripture. The Church did not have the right or authority to choose different books. Edwin

Hi Edwin,
I think it is somewhat anachronistic to view inspiration (intrinsic quality?) as the sole or main criteria the Catholic Church used to determine which scriptures would become canonized. Mainly because the early Chuch viewed many other scriptures or writings as being inspired. This being the case there must of been other important criteria the Chuch used in its decision making processes. This is where IMO how Sundberg differentiates between sciptures and canon is very important. The Catholic Church did recognize scriptures as being inspired by God however many of those were not included in the NT. What were the other criteria? Orthodoxy, Rule of Faith, Catholicity? Im sure all these played important roles. IMO this shows that the Catholic Church did possess the authority to decide which books would be in/out of the canon as well as their proper interpretation. Taken together all of this points to an extremely important authoritative role the Catholic Church played in the canon process.

 

[Contarini]

What we find odd is that Protestants believe that Scripture is the final arbiter of theological disputes.

Clearly, Scripture cannot be the final arbiter. (See the 40,000 Christian denominations reference).

The final arbiter, that is, the “authority”, must be the Church.

You’re using the word “authority” in a tendentious way typical of Catholic apologists.

It is not accidental that the word “authority” looks like the word “author.” “Auctoritas” as defined in the Middle Ages was a property supremely characteristic of written texts. Indeed, it is possibly the scholastics whom we should blame for the origin of sola scriptura, or at least for a doctrine of the supremacy and material sufficiency of Scripture that could easily become sola scriptura when people came to distrust the doctrinal authority of the Church.

You can’t argue from “authority” to “arbiter” and from that to the need for a “living arbiter.”

Most Americans, for instance, would agree that the Constitution has more authority than the Supreme Court. And that’s a nice example of the argument I made above. If the Constitution is supreme, then you still need the Court to interpret and apply it. But if the Court is supreme (over the Constitution and not just over other courts!), then they might as well tear up the Constitution.

Edwin

 

[simspt]

You’re using the word “authority” in a tendentious way typical of Catholic apologists.

It is not accidental that the word “authority” looks like the word “author.” “Auctoritas” as defined in the Middle Ages was a property supremely characteristic of written texts. Indeed, it is possibly the scholastics whom we should blame for the origin of sola scriptura, or at least for a doctrine of the supremacy and material sufficiency of Scripture that could easily become sola scriptura when people came to distrust the doctrinal authority of the Church.

You can’t argue from “authority” to “arbiter” and from that to the need for a “living arbiter.”

Most Americans, for instance, would agree that the Constitution has more authority than the Supreme Court. And that’s a nice example of the argument I made above. If the Constitution is supreme, then you still need the Court to interpret and apply it. But if the Court is supreme (over the Constitution and not just over other courts!), then they might as well tear up the Constitution.

Edwin

How do you think this would hold up during the second century when the “constitution” wasnt completed yet and the different parts of it were being used by both sides to justify interpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

You’re using the word “authority” in a tendentious way typical of Catholic apologists.

I don’t believe so.

au·thor·i·ty The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

It is not accidental that the word “authority” looks like the word “author.” “Auctoritas” as defined in the Middle Ages was a property supremely characteristic of written texts. Indeed, it is possibly the scholastics whom we should blame for the origin of sola scriptura, or at least for a doctrine of the supremacy and material sufficiency of Scripture that could easily become sola scriptura when people came to distrust the doctrinal authority of the Church.

Ok…

Nor sure what that has to do with my ability to use the word “authority” in relationship to the CC as the final interpreter of God’s Word.

You can’t argue from “authority” to “arbiter” and from that to the need for a “living arbiter.”

Why not?

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,
I think it is somewhat anachronistic to view inspiration (intrinsic quality?) as the sole or main criteria the Catholic Church used to determine which scriptures would become canonized. Mainly because the early Chuch viewed many other scriptures or writings as being inspired.

What evidence to you have that Christians viewed books as “inspired” while excluding them from the canon? I am unaware of any such evidence. Certainly there were claims of inspiration made for all sorts of texts. But it seems to me that at the end of the process the decision to include a book in the canon was based on the belief of the Church as a whole that this book was inspired in a way non-canonical books weren’t.

This being the case there must of been other important criteria the Chuch used in its decision making processes.

I’m not sure that this is the right way to put it. These other criteria were surely signs of inspiration.

This is where IMO how Sundberg differentiates between sciptures and canon is very important.

Can you point me to the place where he talks about this? And is the difference really that “scriptures” may be inspired but are not in the canon?

The Catholic Church did recognize scriptures as being inspired by God however many of those were not included in the NT.

I question this. Individual writers certainly did, but can you point to books that the Church as a whole regarded as inspired but not canonical? I wonder if you are not the one being anachronistic here? (Note: your accusation stung because I think it may have been correct–I do tend to view these issues through the lens of the sixteenth-century debates, even though I disagree strongly with many of the Reformers’ positions.)

What were the other criteria? Orthodoxy, Rule of Faith, Catholicity?

But by your logic this would imply that there could be inspired books that were unorthodox, did not conform to the rule of faith, and/or were not Catholic. That seems questionable. Doesn’t it make more sense to describe these as criteria showing that a book was inspired? The category of canonical books is surely narrower than the category of orthodox books–or at least it was by the fourth century.

And speaking of the fourth century: some Catholics (not you as far as I know) claim that “there was no Bible till the fourth century.” Well, the truth in this is that a fully developed language for talking about the canon certainly didn’t exist before the fourth century (not to deny that even then things were looser than later confessional polemics generally imply). By the fourth century it was clear that there were many wonderful, orthodox writers who were not writing inspired Scripture. In the early second century I’m not sure this distinction was very clear, so I’d expect to see the term “Scripture” (which after all just means “writing” used very widely.

Im sure all these played important roles. IMO this shows that the Catholic Church did possess the authority to decide which books would be in/out of the canon as well as their proper interpretation. Taken together all of this points to an extremely important authoritative role the Catholic Church played in the canon process.

I don’t think you have established that the Catholic Church as a whole recognized certain books as inspired while deciding not to include them in the canon.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How do you think this would hold up during the second century when the “constitution” wasnt completed yet

I am not at all convinced that any part of the New Testament was written after 100, but it is certainly possible given the historical evidence.

If you mean “fully agreed on yet” then why not say so?

and the different parts of it were being used by both sides to justify interpretation?

The analogy to U.S. government is imperfect and probably misleading. I brought it up strictly to point out the relationship between a textual authority and its living interpreter.

Certainly Scripture did not function this way in the early second century. By the end of the fourth century we have Irenaeus’s clear affirmation that the OT is part of the Christian canon (which according to some scholars was very much in doubt in the early second century–Marcion may have spoken for a much broader consensus than the traditional view holds) and his identification of a four-Gospel canon. But arguably it’s not really till the fourth century that you start to see a clear distinction between Scripture and other sources of orthodox theology.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t believe so.

au·thor·i·ty The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

Ok…

Nor sure what that has to do with my ability to use the word “authority” in relationship to the CC as the final interpreter of God’s Word.

Only if you want to argue that Scripture can’t be seen as the final authority.

I have no problem with calling the Church an authority as well.

Why not?

For the reason I gave above

An “authority” could certainly mean in the Middle Ages “a text to which both sides must appeal and by use of which disputes are to be decided.” It did not have to mean “a living arbiter who can make decisions in the present.”

I think that the whole question of whether the Church or the Scripture is the “final authority” is a fruitless one–especially since your own Church has settled it (for those who accept its authority, of course!) by saying that the Church is the servant of the Word (which includes Scripture and Tradition).

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

**The declaration itself is evidence that Scripture has some kind of authority that nothing else has. Of course we can say that Scripture is the most authoritative part of Tradition, or that in Scripture the Church speaks most authoritatively, being most indubitably guided by the Holy Spirit, or whatever. But the only reasonable conclusion from the way the Church has historically spoken about Scripture is that Scripture has a unique authority in the context of the life of the Church. **

Indeed scripture has some kind of authority,since it is the Word of God. However,it is NOT “the” final authority as many Protestants/Fundamentalists believe. The Church IS the final arbiter. Scripture does not declare it or even teach it. Scripture cannot be since there exists thousands of different sects.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no problem with calling the Church an authority as well.

Well, that’s a little like having 2 different Master Lists, isn’t it? In the end, you have to adhere to one, don’t you?

For the reason I gave above

An “authority” could certainly mean in the Middle Ages “a text to which both sides must appeal and by use of which disputes are to be decided.” It did not have to mean “a living arbiter who can make decisions in the present.”

Oh! So you’re saying that in the Middle Ages authority referred only to written texts?

So now I can’t use it to mean “a living arbiter who can make decisions in the present”??

Is that what you’re saying? Because of its usage in the Middle Ages?

I think that the whole question of whether the Church or the Scripture is the “final authority” is a fruitless one–especially since your own Church has settled it (for those who accept its authority, of course!) by saying that the Church is the servant of the Word (which includes Scripture and Tradition).

Edwin

Clearly we see the fruit of your position, Edwin. If one does not accept a final authority, then we have the obscene 40,000 Christian denominations, each one claiming that their theology is the correct one.

 

[Contarini]

Indeed scripture has some kind of authority,since it is the Word of God. However,it is NOT “the” final authority as many Protestants/Fundamentalists believe. The Church IS the final arbiter. Scripture does not declare it or even teach it.

Scripture teaches that the Word of God is the supreme authority.

The Church confesses Scripture to be the Word of God, though there are some historical disagreements about some of the peripheral books in the canon.

The phrase “Word of God” can certainly also be used about oral proclamation, but there’s considerable debate (not only among but within the various confessions) about how this oral proclamation is related to the written Word of God.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, that’s a little like having 2 different Master Lists, isn’t it? In the end, you have to adhere to one, don’t you?

False dichotomy. The Church and Scripture are not the same kind of thing. They are not authoritative in the same way.

But based on the teachings of the Fathers and for that matter on the text of Dei Verbum, it seems pretty clear that if you must have one be supreme, it is Scripture and not the Church, since the Church is (by the confession of Vatican II) the servant of the Word of God, while Scripture *is *the Word of God.

How do you interpret that statement? How is it possibly compatible with the statement that the Church has authority over Scripture?

Oh! So you’re saying that in the Middle Ages authority referred only to written texts?

So now I can’t use it to mean “a living arbiter who can make decisions in the present”??

No, I said very explicitly that it can mean more than one thing, and you appeared to understand that in the first paragraph of your post.

Clearly we see the fruit of your position, Edwin. If one does not accept a final authority, then we have the obscene 40,000 Christian denominations, each one claiming that their theology is the correct one.

Well, the 40,000 figure is silly, but that’s irrelevant–the real division is bad enough.

I do not think that confessing the Church to be the servant of the Word rather than its master (following Vatican II) leads to division. What leads to division is insisting that one’s own interpretation of Scripture must be the correct one. In other words, disregarding the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and taking Scripture out of the context of the Church’s living Tradition.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture teaches that the Word of God is the supreme authority.

Yes! The written Word and the Word Made Flesh–the Living Word!

 

[PRmerger]

False dichotomy. The Church and Scripture are not the same kind of thing. They are not authoritative in the same way.

It appears that we are arguing the same point, then.

But based on the teachings of the Fathers and for that matter on the text of Dei Verbum, it seems pretty clear that if you must have one be supreme, it is Scripture and not the Church, since the Church is (by the confession of Vatican II) the servant of the Word of God, while Scripture *is *the Word of God.

And Jesus *is *the Word of God.

I don’t believe that Dei Verbum made clear that Scripture and not the Church is supreme. The Church is indeed the servant of the Word of God–the Living Word, made Flesh.

How do you interpret that statement? How is it possibly compatible with the statement that the Church has authority over Scripture?

The Church has authority in *interpretation *of Scripture, Contarini.

Else, you have 40,000 different interpretations, each claiming to be correct.

No, I said very explicitly that it can mean more than one thing, and you appeared to understand that in the first paragraph of your post.

Clearly, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. What in the world does the Middle Ages’ definition of authority have to do with our dialogue right now?

Well, the 40,000 figure is silly, but that’s irrelevant–the real division is bad enough.

You may find it silly. I find it obscene.

What leads to division is insisting that one’s own interpretation of Scripture must be the correct one.

Alright. But then we have no idea whether the Lord’s day ought to be celebrated on Saturday or Sunday. Whether baptism is an ordinance or a sacrament. Whether divorce and re-marriage is permissible or adultery. Whether Mary remained ever-virgin or had other children. Or whether we are OSAS or can lose our salvation. Or whether the Eucharist is God or it is a false idol. Or…

Love God with our entire heart, MIND, soul and strength. “Mind” means knowing doctrine.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Actually, we see what happens when someone believes the paradigm of “the Holy Spirit guided the CC in some of its doctrines, but not all”.

We have the obscene 40,000 Christian denominations, each claiming that it is the one that teaches the Truth.

Because of that paradigm, now there’s millions of people who don’t know for sure whether:

 -the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ or it is only a symbol

-it is alright to have female minister or if it is unbiblical

-Saturday is the day of worship or is Sunday

-the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin or if she had other children

-if we’re "once saved always saved’, or we can lose our salvation

-if we ought to baptize infants or wait until the “age of reason” or adulthood or not baptize at all…and do we baptize by immersion, sprinkling or by going down deep into the river

-Holy Trinity is three separate persons or is the Trinity is three persons in one GOD

etc etc etc

Now, I suppose you might argue that it doesn’t really matter what the truth about those topics are above…as long as one believes in Jesus.

But I would respond with a couple things:
-that belief (above) contradicts Scripture, for we are to love God with our entire heart, MIND, soul and strength. Understanding the Truth about God’s revelation is loving God with our entire MIND. If we don’t know what the Truth is, then we cannot know Him truly, and therefore we cannot LOVE him truly and fully.

-not knowing the Truth about the above doctrines puts us at a kindergarten level of knowing. God has given us (analogy may fail here) a doctorate-level understanding of his truth.

So if one wants to stay at a kindergartener’s understanding of Truth, and of who God is, I suppose we could say none of the above differences in doctrine matter…​

Now there is a lot in here that i could dispute if I wanted to. But I am tired of this, so for the sake of my tiredness I will let them pass.

But I do want to observe this seems to be an argument of “you are wrong, therefore I am right”.

Now whether there are 200, 2,000, 40,000, 180,000, or 2,678,000 denominations of Protestant proclaiming mutually exclusive dogmas I don’t particularly care (now I think the number is more on the 200 end and you all do yourself a disservice by using the larger numbers but whatever)…the point being is that I doubt whether having organizations in competition with each other proclaiming mutually exclusive dogma is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church.

But that having been said, if I assume that we are wrong, it does not necessarily follow that you are right. It neglects the logical possibility that we both are wrong.

Anyway, I am tired and that is all I want to get into in pursuing this.

 

[PRmerger]

But I do want to observe this seems to be an argument of “you are wrong, therefore I am right”.

The existence of 40,000 Christian denominations is not an argument for “you are wrong, therefore I am right”. What it demonstrates is this:

[sign1]The paradigm of “The Holy Spirit will guide us to the correct interpretation of Scripture” is not correct.[/sign1]

Now whether there are 200, 2,000, 40,000, 180,000, or 2,678,000 denominations of Protestant proclaiming mutually exclusive dogmas I don’t particularly care (now I think the number is more on the 200 end and you all do yourself a disservice by using the larger numbers but whatever).

Yes, whatever.

Really, 200 denominations proves my argument just as well.

However, I have never been able to get a source from a Protestant that cites a “true” number of Christian denominations, to counter my source.

.the point being is that I doubt whether having organizations in competition with each other proclaiming mutually exclusive dogma is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church.

'zactly.

Anyway, I am tired and that is all I want to get into in pursuing this.

As you wish. While it would be nice to see your response, my posting is not specifically for you.

There are lots of Protestant lurkers here that may not have ever considered the argument presented.

And there are lots of Catholic lurkers that may now use this argument when dialoguing with a Protestant who says, “The HS will lead us into the correct interpretation of Scripture.”

 

[simspt]

What evidence to you have that Christians viewed books as “inspired” while excluding them from the canon? I am unaware of any such evidence. Certainly there were claims of inspiration made for all sorts of texts. But it seems to me that at the end of the process the decision to include a book in the canon was based on the belief of the Church as a whole that this book was inspired in a way non-canonical books weren’t.

I’m not sure that this is the right way to put it. These other criteria were surely signs of inspiration.

Can you point me to the place where he talks about this? And is the difference really that “scriptures” may be inspired but are not in the canon?

I question this. Individual writers certainly did, but can you point to books that the Church as a whole regarded as inspired but not canonical? I wonder if you are not the one being anachronistic here? (Note: your accusation stung because I think it may have been correct–I do tend to view these issues through the lens of the sixteenth-century debates, even though I disagree strongly with many of the Reformers’ positions.)

But by your logic this would imply that there could be inspired books that were unorthodox, did not conform to the rule of faith, and/or were not Catholic. That seems questionable. Doesn’t it make more sense to describe these as criteria showing that a book was inspired? The category of canonical books is surely narrower than the category of orthodox books–or at least it was by the fourth century.

And speaking of the fourth century: some Catholics (not you as far as I know) claim that “there was no Bible till the fourth century.” Well, the truth in this is that a fully developed language for talking about the canon certainly didn’t exist before the fourth century (not to deny that even then things were looser than later confessional polemics generally imply). By the fourth century it was clear that there were many wonderful, orthodox writers who were not writing inspired Scripture. In the early second century I’m not sure this distinction was very clear, so I’d expect to see the term “Scripture” (which after all just means “writing” used very widely.

I don’t think you have established that the Catholic Church as a whole recognized certain books as inspired while deciding not to include them in the canon.

Edwin

Sorry no stinging intended. I believe the early Church viewed the canonized scriptures inspired, however it was not that other writings were not included in the canon because they did not possess the same inspiration. The key IMO is understanding how the early Church viewed inspiration. I also am not doubting that the writings that later were canonized did hold special authority obviously or why were they canonized compared to the others. I just don’t think it was the early Church view on inspiration that was the defining criteria. I will provide examples in my next post. This view does not lead to accepting non-inspired texts as canonical possibilities. It does however require additional criteria apart from inspiration for their eventual canonization. For example Apostolicity, Orthodoxy, Catholicity, etc.

 

[Nicea325]

Scripture teaches that the Word of God is the supreme authority.

The Church confesses Scripture to be the Word of God, though there are some historical disagreements about some of the peripheral books in the canon.

The phrase “Word of God” can certainly also be used about oral proclamation, but there’s considerable debate (not only among but within the various confessions) about how this oral proclamation is related to the written Word of God.

Edwin

Of course God’s Words are supreme.However,show me where in scripture it says the Word of God is binded only to WRITTEN words?

 

[Nicea325]

False dichotomy. The Church and Scripture are not the same kind of thing. They are not authoritative in the same way.

On the contrary,your dichotomy is false. It cannot be an either/or but both/and. It is false to pit Scripture against the Church or vice versa or to assume one is inferior to the other.Both compliment each other.

But based on the teachings of the Fathers and for that matter on the text of Dei Verbum, it seems pretty clear that if you must have one be supreme, it is Scripture and not the Church, since the Church is (by the confession of Vatican II) the servant of the Word of God, while Scripture is the Word of God.

Are you making the claim the early church fathers and other fathers explicitly taught Sola Scriptura? If you are,then you are incorrect and that much I know.

**How do you interpret that statement? How is it possibly compatible with the statement that the Church has authority over Scripture? **

That is where you have a profound misunderstanding. How can the church be over scripture when all its doctrines derive from Scripture,either explicitly or implicitly.

By the way,care to show us where Scripture explicitly explains the three distince persons of the Blessed Trinity?

 

[larkin31]

Of course God’s Words are supreme.However,show me where in scripture it says the Word of God is binded only to WRITTEN words?

Indeed.

Many persons through human history have claimed to be speaking for God, both in oral tradition and in writing. It is actually a quite common claim through nearly every culture.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed.

Many persons through human history have claimed to be speaking for God, both in oral tradition and in writing. It is actually a quite common claim through nearly every culture.

That segues nicely with a corollary to Amateur Pianist’s comment: “You are wrong, therefore I am right”

The corollary is: “Just because someone else is wrong does not mean that we are wrong.”