How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[benedictus2]

Scientific, historical, archeological proofs galore, to mention a few.

Just saying that is not proving it.

Say, just take 1 item - historical. Prove that the Bible does not have any error historically.

 

[Dokimas]

Just saying that is not proving it.

Say, just take 1 item - historical. Prove that the Bible does not have any error historically.

What’s your point?

We don’t have time or space to quote all the volumes written on the subject, so why don’t you just get to your point?

 

[benedictus2]

What’s your point?

We don’t have time or space to quote all the volumes written on the subject, so why don’t you just get to your point?

My point is that your claim on being able to determine whether something / someone can be inspired yet still be in error is completely subjective.

Here is why I think you cannot prove that historically there is no error.

Take the last supper accounts. In the synoptics it is a passover meal. In John it isn’t.

 

[larkin31]

Brilliant! Very well said indeed. :clapping::clapping:

Now to the question, how do we know that what we perceive is the truth if perception can and does differ from truth?

After all, all of us go by perception. So how do we know how closely aligned to the truth our perceptions are?

I agree with Dokimas: just make your claim. Your questions are fair, but why don’t you just give your answer to your own question as well?

My answer is that wisdom and experience and the collective voice of community tend to correct us when our perceptions do not match reality. But even this does not occur 100% of the time. Plenty of people (I imagine) go to their graves living lies and believing false things.

 

[larkin31]

My point is that your claim on being able to determine whether something / someone can be inspired yet still be in error is completely subjective.

All claims made by humans are subjective. One human mind is doing the thinking and stating the words. The sentences you type are all subjective.

You still are masking your point. What is wrong with a “subjective claim”?

 

[larkin31]

Take the last supper accounts. In the synoptics it is a passover meal. In John it isn’t

. yeah, John rubs out the jewishness of Jesus in that way.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you implying that the Bible has some errors or are you saying that there are ‘inspired’ works that should be in the cannon but aren’t because of the errors, or are you saying both or neither?

Yes, the Bible has some scientific errors! Unless you really think that a mustard seed is the smallest seed in the kingdom? (It is not.)

[bibledrb]Matt 13: 31-32[/bibledrb]

 

[benedictus2]

All claims made by humans are subjective.

Nope. If I say that water is made of H2O that is not subjective. That is plain objective truth. If I say that this water is too hot, that is subjective depending on my tolerance for heat.

One human mind is doing the thinking and stating the words. The sentences you type are all subjective.

Nope again. If I type that the earth revolves around the sun that is not subjective. That is objective truth.
If I say I like pink and you say you like blue. That, is subjective.

You still are masking your point. What is wrong with a “subjective claim”?

Well as Dokimas pointed out, Truth stands apart from perception if they diverge. There is objective Truth. And this applies to the canon of Scriptures.

 

[benedictus2]

I agree with Dokimas: just make your claim. Your questions are fair, but why don’t you just give your answer to your own question as well?

Because I want to know what Dokimas’s answer is not my own answer

My answer is that wisdom and experience and the collective voice of community tend to correct us when our perceptions do not match reality.

Not always true. The collective voice of the community for many years was against a heliocentric universe.

But even this does not occur 100% of the time. Plenty of people (I imagine) go to their graves living lies and believing false things.

I am sure of that. But this discussion is about the canon of Scripture. We have history to verify our perceptions against. Semper Refomada has done great job on that area.

 

[Dokimas]

My point is that your claim on being able to determine whether something / someone can be inspired yet still be in error is completely subjective.

Here is why I think you cannot prove that historically there is no error.

Take the last supper accounts. In the synoptics it is a passover meal. In John it isn’t.

And the CC is 100% objective? I guess all truth has elements that are subjective AND objective.

 

[larkin31]

Not always true. The collective voice of the community for many years was against a heliocentric universe.

Of course “not always”. If we always followed the history of teaching on a matter, we would still be believing some egregious falsehoods, the structure and movement of the solar system being just one of them.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, the Bible has some scientific errors! Unless you really think that a mustard seed is the smallest seed in the kingdom? (It is not.)

[bibledrb]Matt 13: 31-32[/bibledrb]

If God through His writers, can’t get it correct about a mustard seed, how do we know He can get anything correct if He’s all knowing?

Maybe the answer is as simple that you and I don’t know what God knows so when the verse you quoted may not mean exactly what you think it means?​

Interesting that you think the CC is 100% correct or inerrant and all it’s ‘official’ documents and teachings.

 

[larkin31]

Nope. If I say that water is made of H2O that is not subjective. That is plain objective truth. If I say that this water is too hot, that is subjective depending on my tolerance for heat.

No, your statement is subjective. (first of all, it is written in English, and uses the phrase “made of,” which is a vague, generalized verb phrase). What you are claiming may be verified to correspond very highly with our estimates of reality, but the statement itself is not “objective” at all. In fact, language itself is divorced from reality and is only a mental construct to aid us in our approximate understandings of reality. But, as with all subjective knowledge and communications, the representations are all subjective and approximate.

 

[benedictus2]

And the CC is 100% objective? I guess all truth has elements that are subjective AND objective.

Nope some truths are just plain objective with nothing subjective about them. Water is H2O.

Some truths are indeed subjective. It is true that if you pour boiling water on my skin it will hurt (subjectively for me) but not to someone suffering from leprosy.

There is a subjectiveness to the truths about Christianity because a lot of the things we believe are lived and perceived through faith. There is something very subjective about faith. But the truth about the object of that faith can be objective.

Going back to the canon, subjectively as a protestant some might want to go with Luther and excise the DCs. But if you want to approch this objectively, then you have to read and understand why the DCs were included in the canon.

 

[larkin31]

If God through His writers, can’t get it correct about a mustard seed, how do we know He can get anything correct if He’s all knowing?

Maybe the answer is as simple that you and I don’t know what God knows so when the verse you quoted may not mean exactly what you think it means?​

Interesting that you think the CC is 100% correct or inerrant and all it’s ‘official’ documents and teachings.

extremists come in many stripes and colors

they exist outside the RCC in equal numbers

unfortunately

 

[Dokimas]

Nope some truths are just plain objective with nothing subjective about them. Water is H2O.

Some truths are indeed subjective. It is true that if you pour boiling water on my skin it will hurt (subjectively for me) but not to someone suffering from leprosy.

There is a subjectiveness to the truths about Christianity because a lot of the things we believe are lived and perceived through faith. There is something very subjective about faith. But the truth about the object of that faith can be objective.

Going back to the canon, subjectively as a protestant some might want to go with Luther and excise the DCs. But if you want to approch this objectively, then you have to read and understand why the DCs were included in the canon.

Sorry, your not being totally objective to put your faith in the DC and the CC, for that matter. BTW, I don’t put faith in Mr Luther.​

I don’t put much stock in my ability to discern right or wrong, truth or error. My hope if that the Holy Spirit will guide (through the Bible and the study of It, thought other believers including church, etc.).

 

[Dokimas]

extremists come in many stripes and colors

they exist outside the RCC in equal numbers

unfortunately

Inside and outside.

We do need to take care who or what we call extreme. I’m sure Christian martyrs could be called extreme, the apostles of the 1st century and Jesus Himself.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree something or someone can be inspired and yet have some errors, such as songs, many ‘Christian’ books.

I think the better word for this in this context, is “creative” rather than “inspired”.

That’s why I believe the CC can be inspired and be in error in one or more beliefs.

So who do you think is doing the “inspiring” of the CC? The Holy Spirit?

 

[benedictus2]

No, your statement is subjective. (first of all, it is written in English, and uses the phrase “made of,” which is a vague, generalized verb phrase).

What does having it written in English have to do with whether truth is objective or subjective.

Do we need to go back again to terminologies of what we mean by subjective?

What you are claiming may be verified to correspond very highly with our estimates of reality, but the statement itself is not “objective” at all.

My statement that water is H2O does not depend on any subjective perception. No matter what you do or whatever language, water will remain H2O even if the letters they use to represent that truth is in Cyrillic or Greek.

In fact, language itself is divorced from reality and is only a mental construct to aid us in our approximate understandings of reality.

Yes, but whatever language you may use, some realities are just that - objective.
But, as with all subjective knowledge and communications, the representations are all subjective and approximate.
Nope. Some are but not all. Communication is subjective in the sense that there is always the "I’ communicating.

 

[PRmerger]

No, your statement is subjective. (first of all, it is written in English, and uses the phrase “made of,” which is a vague, generalized verb phrase).

I don’t think you understand what “subjective” vs “objective” means.

Objective means that anyone who investigates will come to the same conclusion.

Thus, saying “water is H2O” is an objective statement–for anyone who investigates this–whether he’s from Tanzania, is a polygamist, thinks the earth is 6000 years old, prefers Coke over Pepsi–will come to the SAME CONCLUSION.

Saying something is written in English proves something is subjective?