How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[simspt]

I suppose you’re right–it determines nothing.

Clearly, then, **there is no criteria given to us **to help us in determining what’s canonical. That was the Church’s job.
Could you provide me with the chapter and verses for the NT quotes that cite pagan sources? (And what are the pagan sources again?) Thanks.

If the early church quoted noncanonical documents in a way that implied authority/inspiration and/or scriptural status (which they did)then it seems that these criteria were not viewed by the church as the unique possession of the canonical sources. Other elements must of came into the picture when the Church finally decided on the canon. Also if the OT wasnt closed at the time then the quoting from would not necessarily confirm that the writers viewed them as an exclusive set of writings within a closed canon. I think this fluidity shows how important a role the Church played and supports the concept that the Bible was formed in the cradle of the church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=SemperReformada;6705031]Jerome rejected the canonocity of the DC’s. There is nothing new about this and it is common knowledge. I suppose you can say he was wrong but that doesn’t change what his opinion was.

I want to thank you for your reasonable assesment of these topics. I believe we have digressed down to the crux of this matter and the difference between a Protestant view and a Catholic view from antiquity.

First of all the advent site you mentioned has the 'Nihil Obstat" and “Imprimi Potest” which declares what is contained in this site does not conflict with Church teachings. The Advent site does not speak for the Catholic Church.

What divides our view from these facts regarding the DC Books is that the Catholic maintains the Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture where as the Protestant takes it view from a mans opinion or freedom to believe how man see’s fit. Let me explain;

Every Catholic from the Apostles maintained DC books as inspired of God because the Church placed them in the canon books of the bible as we have them today. St. Jerome included. Because scripture reveals that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of Truth” every Catholic has kept these DC books as inspired of God. Although the DC books were questioned throughout the ages these DC books maintained it canonical status and were used in her (Catholic Church) liturgies and quoted by many of the Early Church Fathers.

The Catholic Church teaches that every Catholic and Early Church father maintains a freedom to express his/her opinion and are subject to error. While the Church herself as a whole in Christ is infallible from the Apostolic teachings from Tradtion and Sacred Scripture on faith and morals.

In summary as a Catholic I maintain what the Church “pillar and foundation of Truth” teaches not what a man (St. Jerome) has the freedom to express his personal convictions. What protestants falsely maintain is Luther’s opinion to list the DC books as not inspired of God and reject the Catholic Church “pillar and foundation of Truth” canon of books not from the Church’s decision but from a man (Martin Luther).

The council of Trent did not canonize any bible books, she maintained the original canon set from the early fourth centuries. What Trent did was close any more disputes about the DC books forever. The proof is found in the teachings, the Liturgies, and the fact that the DC books were never removed from the original canon although disputed, every Catholic maintained the DC books in the bible all the way up unitl Trent. Trent never added the DC books.

 

[Amy1966]

There is always room for learning!

Kudos for blatant honesty!!

 

[Amy1966]

The same early Church that is responsible for the NT canon viewed noncanonical writings as scripture and inspired. Inspiration and writings being given scriptural status by the early Church must not of been the exclusive criteria the Church used when deciding on the canon. If you trust the early Church with its decision to include or exclude documents that eventually made up the NT then what about the view the early Church had towards these other writings.
Some start off with the presupposition that any hermeneutical method that undermines confidence in the complete truthfulness of all Scripture is unorthodox. So when someone disagrees with them they question their view on inspiration and inerrancy. What seems to be neglected is the fact that the real debate is one of hermeneutics and must be addressed before discussing the theory of inspiration and inerrancy. Discovering the meaning intended by the author must precede asking whether that intended meaning is true. The Bible contains many different literary forms and must be interpreted on those grounds. Whether or not something in the Bible should be taken literally or not is a matter of interpretation, not inerrancy or inspiration.

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?

 

[Amy1966]

God’s inspired word is never in error. The DC books are contested because no Hebrew counterparts could justify their authenticity as did the other books from the Septuagint which St.Jerome translated into his Vulgate not by his choice but by his obedience to the Church (which is the pillar and foundation of Truth). St. Augustine like St. Jerome did not have any single authority to remove any of the already canonized books of the bible including the DC books as did Martin Luther who (removed 7 bible books) made himself infallible above the Church and every great Saint before his time, who kept the DC books in the canon.

What is new here are the errors found in translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, to Latin to English. Jesus and his apostles quoted from these books, Jesus teachings reflect from the Septuagint and DC books. The typo errors, or translation never negates the authenticity (canon) of these DC books. What is interesting is that the Hebrew counterparts that were missing to these disputed books, which was the main reason **the Jews who persecuted the Christians removed them from their canon **and why Jerome and Augustine disputed them was found in the dead sea scrolls.

Now men from afar have come up with new errors from translation to refute these canon books of the bible. Sorry this is not working, The pillar and foundation of Truth of has spoken. “Anyone who removes any of these books of the canon will excommunicate themselves” from the Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter.

The Deuterocanonical books do not contain error, because Jesus and the Apostles quoted the teachings from these books in the New Testament. Show me an error in the Word of God and I will show you a devil.

You statement above is a false statement. Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were all Jews and they quoted from these books. Jesus revealed teachings are prefigured in these DC books. The Jews after the first century removed them from their canon of books, in order to prove Jesus a false prophet because Jesus teachings and quotes are contained in the “Greek text” only (DC books), because they could not find the Hebrew counterparts to these DC books. “Now you know the rest of the story”

It is wrong for you to try and justify these DC books as having error by attaching the Catholic Saints Jerome and Augustine who NEVER REMOVED THEM FROM THE CHURCHES CANON. Your new founded errors are mans new way to disprove God’s inspired Word, when these books were “Never removed” from the canon books of the bible after the Church canonized them from the 3rd, 4th centuries up until Trent which closed all arguments against these DC books.

QUOTE]

“I will not put my Trust in the Gospel, Less the Catholic Church had not told me to do so”
quote by St. Augustine

That was a lot of writing to avoid the subject, which gives the answer to the question. You do believe that God errors in His word; otherwise you would recant the canon of the DC’s that your church made official in response to the reformation based on bias and hatred and obviously this also tells us these men, at least the one that made the decisions, of Trent were not guided by the Holy Spirit.

You would not even take the time to search to see the glaring errors they contain, but at least when you give an account before God you will not be able to say you were not told the truth. God will view this mixing of His pure word with man’s erroroneous writings as a blasphemous act and one you will be accountable for because you have the knowledge and chose to ignore it.

As far as Jesus quoting from a DC, which you did not provide the evidence for some strange reason…most likely because it is a repeat of something already written in the Hebrew accepted canon or something that is a real stretch. As far as typos, that is a new one; guess the Scibes were extra careful with the true Scipture and not so careful on the others? You have no credibility here based on you “make-it-up-as-you-go” response.

No worries, no one like to admit when they are wrong, but the person of God will learn from their mistakes and gain understanding.

Above in “pink”; where do you get this stuff? What is your source? Your mind?

 

[Amy1966]

Dear Amy what you have addressed here is not a Catholic Teaching. You have been greately misinformed or greatly decieved.

The NT scriptures support the Catholic teaching of Baptism is how one dies to self and enters the Kingdom of God. The man made theology of “faith alone” is never taught in the New Testament canon, nor is the protestant man made “faith alone” supported by the New Testament. “Faith alone” is only supported once in the New Testament, here read it for yourself;

James 2: 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

James 1:22
Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.
23
**For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, **he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror.
24
He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like.

Revelations 14:13 I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." “Yes,” said the Spirit, "let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them."

Heres your confusion; You are confusing those who enter the Kingdom of God through baptism (these are on the milk) with those who are in the Kingdom of God “working out their salvation with fear and trembling” (see Philipians 2:12b-13).

Even this theology is mixed among non catholics and protestants. That is why you protest the scriptures that support Catholic teaching of works and faith, which deals on the meat of the gospel, which your theology never attains, because it teaches or focuses on entrance into the Kingdom only, never “work our your salvation with fear and trembling”.

Please when you try and comment on Catholic doctrine maybe you should emphasize
“what is entrance into the Kingdom of God” here you will find some common ground with Catholic Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. Know the difference here of those saints who are in the Kingdom of God “working out their salvation with fear and trembling” these are not the same ministries as protestants and non catholics error in combining the two biblical principles, when the Apostles clearly reveal two distinct principles on the gospels, one on the milk and those on the meat of the gospel. The Catholic Church defines both here from sacred scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you

Just because you are unable to understand the Book of James and the point that James is making in comparing or contrasting a person professing to be a Christian verses a person who has more than a mere profession does not change the truth of the Word of God or the Gospel of God’s salvation; yes it is God’s salvation, not man’s or some church, but God’s. It was His plan and His purpose and He is carrying it out. No one enter the Kingdom except through Jesus Christ - see John 3:16 for details. Your sacrament of Baptism is a work of righteousness before men, but counted as what is due by God. 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. No justification here; the persons Paul is speaking to have already received salvation, but that it way too deep for your understanding at this point.

*Ps 13:5 But I have trusted in Your lovingkindness; My heart shall rejoice in Your salvation. * That lovingkindness is synonymous for grace.

*Ps 37:39 But the salvation of the righteous is from the LORD; He is their strength in time of trouble. *

*Ps 98:2 The LORD has made known His salvation; He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations. * All will be without excuse.

*Psalms 119:41-42 May Your lovingkindnesses also come to me, O LORD, Your salvation according to Your word; 42 So I will have an answer for him who reproaches me, For I trust in Your word. * Do you trust in His word for His salvation or lean on your own merit?

*Ps 149:4 For the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify the afflicted ones with salvation. *

For God the Father made the plan of redemption and used the Son to fulfill the law and pay the price as He was led by the holy Spirit to carry out the will of the Father; this is the Gospel plan of redemption which is all of god, the Trinity working in complete harmony, to redeem who will accept the free gift of salvation by His kindness unmerited favor or grace by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

If you cannot see the gospel in is simplicity nor understand the Book of James in its simplicity, then their is a good chance you have a sin problem yet to be dealt with before God.

I leave you with a command from the Psalmist for you are not near the Kingdom and I speak this out of love for you; not as what you will want to say is ignorance and arrogance.:
*Ps 146:3 Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. *

 

[Amy1966]

Tell me is your Yahoo search “The pillar and foundation of Truth”? Let me know if it is before It waste yours and my time on looking elswhere instead of the “pillar and foundation of Truth” which the bible makes clear is here on earth. Why does one need to go outside of the Truth to find a truth from a man? This does not make sense to me.

How is the church defined in your world? Then, how is the church defined in the Biblical sense as the passage is clearly speaking of? If you can’t understand what the church is in Gods terms, then how will anything else make sense?

 

[Amy1966]

I’ll answer. Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Macc. 7.

Gotta love this, verse 35 “Women received {back} their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;” What is the writer referencing? 1 Kings 17:17-24, Elijah healing the dead son of the widow of Zarephath. Also in 2 Kings 4:32-37 it’s Elisha raising the child of the Shunammite woman from the dead.

Have you bothered to compare the two Hebrews and 2 Maccabees?

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

 

[Amy1966]

No…I am able to put 2 and 2 together and it comes to 4. I did learn a lot about the Church that Christ left for us in RCIA…and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does your denomination have a program similar to RCIA…Cathechism?

It is is called expository preaching of the Word of God coupled with indepth Bible study!!

 

[T_More]

Have you bothered to compare the two Hebrews and 2 Maccabees?

I sure have.

For 1500 years , my dear Amy, the DC’s were accepted as scripture. Who would better understand the veracity of these, you, or those at the beginning? The water is always cooler and cleaner at the source than down stream.

The position of accepting the canon of the NT as set forth by the CC, and then turn around and reject the DC’s also set forth by the same CC is so absurd is laughable. And I have already researched this when I left the JW’s on the internet, books, and conversing with some well versed people on both sides of the fence. If you search long enough, you’ll eventually find the answer you’re looking for, no matter what. I too can direct you to the internet and point out you’re wrong. So who is then right? I came from one of the most anti Catholic religions around, and my prayer has led me to the Church that has been there from the beginning, through good times and bad. Am I wrong? I could’ve chosen to go to any of the thousands of spinoff denominations throughout the world, but my conscience would not allow it, because Christ promised perpetuity to His Church founded on Peter and would lead it to ALL truth and would be with it forever. I don’t see another church surviving for all these years, do you?

So the Church that canonized the NT and was led into this truth by the Holy Spirit, a compliation that you as a non Catholic accept, got it wrong with the DC’s.

There’s a saying I remember well when I lived in the south…“That dog don’t hunt.”

 

[rinnie]

How is the church defined in your world? Then, how is the church defined in the Biblical sense as the passage is clearly speaking of? If you can’t understand what the church is in Gods terms, then how will anything else make sense?

The Church is defined as the Pillar of All Truth.

Christ instructed his CHURCH to PREACH everything he taught. And he promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles into all truth. John 16:13.

Now Jesus promised us that the Church will never fall away from his teachings. He never promised us that we would not. He actually said many would turn to strange doctrines. But he said we are to stay with the Apostles teachings. We have the promise from God that the CC would never fall away from his teachings. l Tim 3:15.

 

[PRmerger]

Do a Google or Yahoo search on the errors in doctrine, chronology, culture etc. That is how we know it is not the true word of God…

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?

 

[BILL_PICK53]

God invites people to join God in what He is doing. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Did Jesus Christ not say I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH,and not I will bulid churchs,and does not Church meaning ONE

 

[Contarini]

Gotta love this, verse 35 “Women received {back} their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;” What is the writer referencing? 1 Kings 17:17-24, Elijah healing the dead son of the widow of Zarephath. Also in 2 Kings 4:32-37 it’s Elisha raising the child of the Shunammite woman from the dead.

Doesn’t address the torture example.

Have you bothered to compare the two Hebrews and 2 Maccabees?

Do a Google or Yahoo search on the errors in doctrine, chronology, culture etc. That is how we know it is not the true word of God

Of course, the only people who think that the Bible as a whole lacks such errors are those whose dogmatic beliefs forbid them to entertain the possibility.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Did Jesus Christ not say I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH,and not I will bulid churchs,and does not Church meaning ONE

That is where I do not comprehend the notion of thousands of different churches is still part of Jesus ONE Church?

One is ONE,not thousands.

 

[Contarini]

That is where I do not comprehend the notion of thousands of different churches is still part of Jesus ONE Church?

But so far you have been unable to define what makes them “different churches,” and distinguish this from mere parallel organization, which exists in your own Church.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

But so far you have been unable to define what makes them “different churches,” and distinguish this from mere parallel organization, which exists in your own Church.

Edwin

And yet you have not provided a single definiton either. Parallel organizations exist within the RCC? Provide the names of the parallel organizations which is okay with Rome?

 

[Contarini]

And yet you have not provided a single definiton either. Parallel organizations exist within the RCC? Provide the names of the parallel organizations which is okay with Rome?

I have pointed out the existence of sui juris churches, personal prelatures/ordinariates, religious orders. You just keep responding that it doesn’t matter because they are in communion with Rome. That’s not an argument, just fiat.

Protestants really are divided. Your methods, however, are calculated to conceal rather than reveal their division. You can’t just look at the “thousands of denominations” and cluck disapprovingly. You have to point to the actual ways in which the division matters.

What you don’t get is that most Protestants don’t care that much about denominations, and think of themselves as vaguely one with all “true believers.” Of course that’s a poor basis for the kind of incarnational unity proper to Christians. But simply listing numbers of denominations is pointless.

By the way, why should I provide a definition? What argument am I making that requires me to do so?

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Just because you are unable to understand the Book of James…

Isn’t it the Protestant paradigm that all people can read the Scriptures and come to their own personal interpretation and understanding?

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants really are divided. Your methods, however, are calculated to conceal rather than reveal their division. You can’t just look at the “thousands of denominations” and cluck disapprovingly. You have to point to the actual ways in which the division matters.

The way in which division matters is that we now have millions of Christians who don’t know the truth about…

-Baptism–is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Do we baptize infants or adults only? Is it done by sprinkling, immersion or in a river? Is it in Jesus’ name only or using the Trinitarian formula?

-Salvation–are we OSAS or can we lose our salvation?

-God–is His Holy Name Jehovah?

-Jesus–Is Jesus the reincarnation of Michael the Archangel?

-Death–is it soul sleep or do we have eternal life?

-Hell–does it exist or is it only figurative?

-Humanity–are we totally depraved or ontologically deprived?

All of the fundamental questions about God and our relationship with him…now no one knows for sure what’s true and what’s the offspring of the Father of Lies.

THAT’s the way in which division matters.