How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Cinette]

Is there any reason a Protestant should not accept what the bishops did at those councils? Surely I can acknowledge the RCC as being right about some things without saying they’re right about everything? And in fact I think the RCC is right about most things, since we have more points of agreement than disagreement. But when they’re right, it’s because they’re right, not because they have more authority than any other Christian guided by the Holy Spirit, which is available to all Christians.

*When Jesus founded His Church he said to the Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and that He would be with us always… So are you saying that the H Spirit is sometimes right and sometimes he fails us? Are you saying that Jesus did not keep his promise? Only sometimes?

If the RCC is right it is because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Cinette*

 

[larkin31]

Actually the post you cite is an excellent example supporting what I’m saying. Note my caveat: “if Allison is right.” I very carefully made it clear that I knew Allison might be mistaken or exaggerating. And I said in my earlier post that I generally assume that people are not lying outright, although of course it’s a possibility one can never exclude altogether when dealing with sinful human beings.

Allison is almost certainly not a liar, but he is a fallible human being with a strong bias in favor of conservative low-church Anglicanism. So I take his conclusions tentatively, aware that someone else (or my own closer reading of the primary sources) might be able to show that he is mistaken or exaggerating (or even conceivably lying or interpolating, but that’s highly unlikely).

I do in fact apply this methodology consistently. It’s the only reasonable way to deal with fallible human sources.

Of course, that creates tension when we deal as Christians with texts that we take on faith as infallible. It means that we must distinguish between what we can say as historians (which always leaves open the possibility of error) and what we must say as believers. But there’s no contradiction between the two approaches, because historians are always dealing with probability.

Note that even when dealing with fallible human sources, personal trust does play a role. I’m less likely to assume that Allison is a liar than that some ancient anonymous writer (say, the author of one of the non-canonical Gospels) is a liar, in part because I think I have reasons to have basic confidence in Allison’s character. And given his standing as a bishop and a scholar, I’m also going to assume (until I see evidence to the contrary) that any errors into which he has fallen are going to be fairly subtle.

Edwin

Again, this is very reasonably put.

 

[Cinette]

I am not going to debate that “Love is God” for the reasons I have already stated. It is all the same debate. I will only say that if you think that Christian love is somehow truer or better than, say, Buddhist love or Hindu love because they worship false Gods, then I likely would at least make a few remarks. But let’s not debate whether there IS a God or not.

*I am curious to learn how you can participate in a thread on “How do Protestants defend the canon of the NT” and make valid arguments and offer enlightenment on the subject since you are agnostic!
*
Cinette

 

[larkin31]

*I am curious to learn how you can participate in a thread on “How do Protestants defend the canon of the NT” and make valid arguments and offer enlightenment on the subject since you are agnostic!
*
Cinette

Same way you can.

 

[Hisalone]

Same way you can.

Most excellent point!

 

[Cinette]

Most excellent point!

*I remember you Hisalone! Ha! You and Larkin are of the same ilk - you come on the threads to provoke. I come on the threads to learn and participate constructively and you are there to shoot people down and have nothing of value to contribute.

Cinette *

 

[Dokimas]

The devil only has influence over Man not God.

Of course.

The Pope can be influenced by the devil over his own human thoughts and actions. But that has nothing to do with scripture and teaching the word of God. I never said it had anything to do with Scripture.

Just like the Pope and bishops can sin, they are human and open to sin like the rest of us. But God never promised us that our Pope or Bishops or Priests would never fall from Grace. God promised us that the teachings of the Church never would.

**** IMO, the problem with you idea here is that the church is made up of humans, that’s why, as you’ve pointed out even about the pope and bishop, the church can make mistakes****…

 

[Dokimas]

I gave you the scripture. Go back and read it again. Jesus told Peter to feed the sheep.

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?

 

[larkin31]

*I remember you Hisalone! Ha! You and Larkin are of the same ilk - you come on the threads to provoke. I come on the threads to learn and participate constructively and you are there to shoot people down and have nothing of value to contribute.

Cinette *

And just what “contribution” did this post of yours make? You have been becoming more caustic and personal of late. Practice what you preach.

 

[monina]

You’re being absurd. You think that you are being logical, but you are not simply because your pique has been raised.

Humans everyday all over the world come to understandings between each other and share commonalities in their subjective experiences and points of view and agree to certain standards that they generalize into codes, laws, and expectations. It’s how families are run, neighborhoods are run, villages are run, nations are run. To claim as you are that EITHER one must believe that there is an objective morality (outside human consciousness) OR one must abandon moral expectations altogether is to commit the “EITHER/OR” fallacy (also known as “horns of the dilemma” or “false dichotomy”).

 

[monina]

You confuse “were” with “may be.”

Edwin

My bad.

Correction:

Originally Posted by monina forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Why would that be the alternative?

*You *don’t present historical evidence as if you believe the writers -]were/-] may be exaggerating, mistaken, interpolating or lying.

If you really believed that paradigm (which I am certain you don’t else, by necessity, you would be more tentative in your statements) then why should we believe anything you write??? If you believe your sources MAY BE exaggerating, lying, mistaken or interpolating then what credibility do you have?

IOW, if you believe what you cite could be incorrect, why should we give anything you say any consideration whatsoever? That seems to me to be a ludicrous position to take.

 

[monina]

Note that even when dealing with fallible human sources, personal trust does play a role. I’m less likely to assume that Allison is a liar than that some ancient anonymous writer (say, the author of one of the non-canonical Gospels) is a liar, in part because I think I have reasons to have basic confidence in Allison’s character. And given his standing as a bishop and a scholar, I’m also going to assume (until I see evidence to the contrary) that any errors into which he has fallen are going to be fairly subtle.

Edwin

And now we’re less likely to have any basic confidence in your musings given you don’t even trust your own sources. They COULD BE lying, mistaken, exaggerating or interpolating.
[SIGN1]
Remember that, Folks, every time Edwin cites a source! [/SIGN1]

 

[larkin31]

My bad.

Correction:

If you really believed that paradigm (which I am certain you don’t else, by necessity, you would be more tentative in your statements) then why should we believe anything you write??? If you believe your sources MAY BE exaggerating, lying, mistaken or interpolating then what credibility do you have?

IOW, if you believe what you cite could be incorrect, why should we give anything you say any consideration whatsoever? That seems to me to be a ludicrous position to take.

Do you formulate opinions, or read to learn, about anything other than religion? Your standard is extremist, and I actually think that you do not live by it yourself.

 

[benedictus2]

You haven’t followed my conversation with PR.

She asked me about Jerome and prologues, that’s it, nothing more. I repsonded by citing the article from newadvent.org and copied a section that was germane to what she asked about.

Okay. I’ll go back and check your discussion.

 

[benedictus2]

yeah, that’s just what I would say…

Wanna know how I knew that? I have a crystal ball too called “Scripture volume 2 - How to interpret volume 1”

 

[benedictus2]

Sacred Tradition and the teachings after the Bible; the leadership of the CC (the CC) is the only answer I can see from the exchanges I’ve had with my catholic brothers and sisters. Of course, I agree with the point I think you are driving at and disagree with the idea of the inerrancy of ST and the CC.

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.

 

[benedictus2]

I respond the same way when reading some historical accounts.

So you are saying that the Bible is historically correct?

 

[benedictus2]

Exactly. No logic at all in your paradigm.

Well, Pilot’s existence can be proved by historical records.

That Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple cannot. That Jesus taught the Beatitudes cannot.

[sign1]All the things that you’ve posted about Jesus and the apostles and the pharisees you only know because the Scriptures tell you. [/sign1]

Yet you also claim that the Scriptures lie, exaggerate, are mistaken and interpolate. That’s a very tenuous position to hold and, quite frankly, quite indefensible.
What you have to understand about Larkin is he does not know which side of the fence to debate from.

He’s got that all muddled in his brain that is why a lot of people are having a hard time making sense of his posts.

One moment he post from an agnostic view point, then cites the Bible not realizing that he can’t do that because that means he is claiming the Bible as authority. But he can’t see the error in that kind of reasoning.

By the way, who is Pilot? Or do you all mean Pilate?

 

[Cinette]

And just what “contribution” did this post of yours make? You have been becoming more caustic and personal of late. Practice what you preach.

*You have still not answered my question about what contribution you can make given that you are agnostic! As for myself I actually came on to read mostly because I am extremely busy and when I saw your name I was really curious as to your participation. I remembered you from another thread and then Hisalone came on the scene. We can be of whatever denomination and even agnostic but we must be friendly. I have often defended atheists/agnostics as I have known and lived with them and some are really good people. What I find difficult is to deal with people who are hostile.

I am too busy to participate and take a peep to see how the debate progresses. It will be interesting to observe what exactly you have to contribute.

Cinette*

 

[monina]

By the way, who is Pilot? Or do you all mean Pilate?

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!!