How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Dokimas]

You are the one that questioned me on it. You said it only said feed, not lead. I told you tend means to lead the sheep. You asked for the word that meant lead and I showed you the word was tend.

Looking closely at the meaning from the Greek, I’m not sure if leading is the major idea. Surely people will follow those that tend correctly and lovingly.

What I was wondering is why you originally wanted me to consider this verse?

 

[Dokimas]

Huh? So you are saying that when Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church you are saying it did not mean it would be free from error So you are saying the Holy Spirit would not be free from all error

I’m saying the Holy Spirit will do what He does WITHOUT error. We do what we do with His guidence and sometimes wrongly thus in error. This would include the church.

 

[rinnie]

You said to look it up in the dictionary. So I did. I knew that you were using the wrong definition of “tend” even though you were pretending to know what you were talking about. Now you are changing the issue again and stating that the apostles defined it differently. No, they didn’t. They don’t define it at all. YOU are defining it as you see fit, and claiming the dictionary and the apostles as sources, but neither one of them supports you.

Why don’t you just say what really is the truth: “I believe that Jesus, through Peter, is both leading us and tending us, like a shepherd both cares for and guides his flock.” Instead of telling people that they should read the dictionary to see that it agrees (not) with you.

No I am not changing anything at all. I said that the word tend in the dictionary is used as directed, That is what the Apostles are to do direct the People to the fullness of the Truth. That is what tend means. To lead means to direct and to tend means to be directed to. Its the same thing! I said to lead and tend are the same thing. To lead is to guide, and to tend is to be directed to. Same Thing!!

 

[Dokimas]

So when Jesus said that the Church was the pillar of all truth, and he was sending the advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, you are saying he didn’ t mean it? How you figure

Jesus means what He says. I’m saying we DON’T alway correctly understand, thus the error that follows.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus means what He says. I’m saying we DON’T alway correctly understand, thus the error that follows.

But that’s the point WE are not to go by what we understand, WE are to go by what the Church teaches because the Church has the fullness of the Truth.

He promised us that. So if you go by the Teachings of the RCC you are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. No error can follow!!

 

[simspt]

Your question is the heart of this thread and I don’t think a Protestant has answered it yet.

Protestants that I have talked with agree that they believe the HS guided the CC and by providence God chose the CC as the delivery tool so to speak to deliver the NT. That the NT is basically the tradition of the CC is historically undeniable. The Church fathers when speaking on tradition refer to doctrine which the Lord or his apostles committed to the CC, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents. It has been a much smaller percentage of Protestants that i know who claim that the CC was basically corrupt teaching erroneous doctrine and that their church has somehow got “back to unadulterated NT Christianity”. Obviously this view has its problems but i dont think this by any means is the majority Protestant position. For those it is one must ask how could the CC make a good decision about the NT canon and mostly poor decisions about everything else.

 

[PRmerger]

If you know, then why ask?

It’s a way of presenting my thoughts. Kind of like thinking aloud. And kind of a way to make a rhetorical statement.

I would not call my arguments “arguments of the day”. They tend not to change much over the months here.

That’s why I love ya, larkin! You truly are honest about the fact that you change and contradict yourself.

And I don’t mean this in any coy way. I do appreciate your honesty.

But correct, like any intelligent person, I use the arguments and verses that support my argument.

Except that you say the authors could be mistaken, lying, exaggerating or interpolating for things which are unattractive to you. Isn’t that a little…um…convenient?

 

[Cinette]

Here’s the verse in question…

Joh 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Notice Jesus is speaking to the disciples, not the present day CC and its leaders.You assume that Jesus was giving instructions to the Apostles only for their generation and then when that was done to close the door of the Church and throw away the key. You do not accept Apostolic Succession and the Deposit of Faith. This makes no sense.

Notice the problem isn’t with the Holy Spirit guiding but with His church (disciples) following.

Note: The Holy Spirit will always do His part. We don’t always follow or understand correctly. *Here you are absolutely correct. The Holy Spirit cannot be guiding all the churches (especially the denominations that broke away) He guides the Church Christ founded.*We meaning ALL of us include the leaders of ALL churches including the CC.Think!

Blessings
Cinette

 

[larkin31]

I said to lead and tend are the same thing.

No. You are wrong.

But I am done with this. You obviously don’t understand.

 

[larkin31]

Your question is the heart of this thread and I don’t think a Protestant has answered it yet.

As a former Protestant, I will answer: on the basis of institutional authority.

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus means what He says. I’m saying we DON’T alway correctly understand, thus the error that follows.

Individually that is correct. But not so for the Church. Because that makes promising the guidance pointless don’t you think?

That reminds of Cassandra in the Iliad. She will always be able to foretell the future but no one would believe her. Do you honestly think that God would leave His people in such an uncertain state.

 

[benedictus2]

yes, Pilate.

now will either one of you address the issue: does a source have to be 100% accurate and inerrant to be useful? Do you hold this standard when, say, asking a neighbor for information or, say, reading a newspaper, or, say, reading about clinical trials of an antibiotic before you accept your doctor’s prescription? Do you ask him for proof that his medical sources are inerrant?

Actually, speaking for myself, I don’t always take my doctors prescription with 100% confidence. I google the contra-indications from the Pharmaceutical company first

But taking an ordinary person as an example he probably does. Because he believes the doctor to be an authority in this matter.

Would he accept it if the doctor suddenly gives him financial advice or started talking about the latest cosmological discovery? Probably not.

This is why I keep going back to definition of terms. When we talk about in-errancy, we have to define what we mean.

 

[benedictus2]

Here’s the verse in question…

Joh 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Point 1: Notice Jesus is speaking to the disciples, not the present day CC and its leaders.

Point 2: Notice the problem isn’t with the Holy Spirit guiding but with His church (disciples) following.

Note: The Holy Spirit will always do His part. We don’t always follow or understand correctly. We meaning ALL of us include the leaders of ALL churches including the CC.

I have numbered your arguments so that I can answer them accordingly.

Point 1: Are you seriously saying that the promise for guidance was only to the apostles? Well think about this, the first intimation of a canon was in the 3rd century, almost 200 years after the last apostle has passed away. So, since according to you the promise no longer applies, then we cannot believe the Bible at all. Also, Paul was not part of the twelve. Does that mean his epistles were not guided by the Holy Spirit?

Point 2: But as I have said before, the following is not the problem. The promise was to be guided into all truth. That is why we can say that what the Church teaches is true.

The promise is to be led into all truth, not that they will follow perfectly the truth to which they have been led.

Christ did not say that His Church will be sinless, rather that His Church will be led into truth.

So many people fail to understand that distinction. But unless you understand that difference you will not understand the claim to infallibility.

An example I gave once was a philandering father. The philandering father knows the truth that adultery is wrong. And he tells his son accordingly, that adultery is wrong (and yes of course he is being a hypocrite).

Contrast that with a father who by choice contrary to his belief has remained faithful but tells his son and everyone he know that it is perfectly okay to commit adultery - the more the merrier. He even goes to say that as a matter of fact you should seek your own pleasure at all times so go after as many women as you want.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit is what the first instance is. Peter Kreeft made a very good observation. He said that he found that even during the rennaisance when the corruption was so bad, the Church never lowered its teaching to its practice. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

 

[benedictus2]

post deleted, duplicate of previous one

 

[Cinette]

I have numbered your arguments so that I can answer them accordingly.

Point 1: Are you seriously saying that the promise for guidance was only to the apostles? Well think about this, the first intimation of a canon was in the 3rd century, almost 200 years after the last apostle has passed away. So, since according to you the promise no longer applies, then we cannot believe the Bible at all. Also, Paul was not part of the twelve. Does that mean his epistles were not guided by the Holy Spirit?

Point 2: But as I have said before, the following is not the problem. The promise was to be guided into all truth. That is why we can say that what the Church teaches is true.

The promise is to be led into all truth, not that they will follow perfectly the truth to which they have been led.

Christ did not say that His Church will be sinless, rather that His Church will be led into truth.

So many people fail to understand that distinction. But unless you understand that difference you will not understand the claim to infallibility.

An example I gave once was a philandering father. The philandering father knows the truth that adultery is wrong. And he tells his son accordingly, that adultery is wrong (and yes of course he is being a hypocrite).

Contrast that with a father who by choice contrary to his belief has remained faithful but tells his son and everyone he know that it is perfectly okay to commit adultery - the more the merrier. He even goes to say that as a matter of fact you should seek your own pleasure at all times so go after as many women as you want.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit is what the first instance is. Peter Kreeft made a very good observation. He said that he found that even during the rennaisance when the corruption was so bad, the Church never lowered its teaching to its practice. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

I think you have made an excellent case Benedictus. It certainly deserves reflection and to be taken seriously.

God bless all
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

Protestants that I have talked with agree that they believe the HS guided the CC and by providence God chose the CC as the delivery tool so to speak to deliver the NT. That the NT is basically the tradition of the CC is historically undeniable. The Church fathers when speaking on tradition refer to doctrine which the Lord or his apostles committed to the CC, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents. It has been a much smaller percentage of Protestants that i know who claim that the CC was basically corrupt teaching erroneous doctrine and that their church has somehow got “back to unadulterated NT Christianity”. Obviously this view has its problems but i dont think this by any means is the majority Protestant position. For those it is one must ask how could the CC make a good decision about the NT canon and mostly poor decisions about everything else.

Exactly!

 

[benedictus2]

I think you have made an excellent case Benedictus. It certainly deserves reflection and to be taken seriously.

God bless all
Cinette

Thank you

 

[benedictus2]

Acts.

Where does the Bible say Peter was the one leader or pope?

Actually, it is more evident in the gospels than in Acts that Peter is the leader not by His own choice but by God’s choice.

In Matthew 16. Jesus promises to build his church upon him after his confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. So Jesus says only God the Father could have revealed that to him. God the Father could have given the revelation to anyone or everyone of the apostles, but no, God the Father Himself singles out Peter. When Jesus made the pronouncement, it was like He was confirming the Father’s choice.

Notice how in all that confusion (the apostles did not know what to reply to Jesus’s question), Peter cuts through all that and makes a proclamation of who Jesus is and what His mission is. The truth about Christ came forth not from Christ Himself but through Peter. And this is the way the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit WILLLED it.

In Luke 22:31-32 Jesus said: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Why not just pray for all of them? Wouldn’t that have been easier? No, he prays for only one, Peter and he in turn is to strengthen the others.

After the resurrection, both John and Peter go to the tomb but even though John got to the tomb first, he waits at the door till Peter arrives and Peter goes into the tomb first.

John 21 has already been cited. But I want to make this one point. Jesus tells Peter to tend and feed MY sheep. Not any, sheep but His sheep. So I think one way of finding out whether we are indeed the Lord’s sheep is to check who is tending and feeding us. Is it Peter and his successor.

In Acts -

After Pentecost - Peter was the one who spoke out and preached.

At the Council of Jerusalem Peter was the one who spoke out and made the decision regarding circumcision.

When God made the revelation regarding the gentiles (Acts 10) , it was Peter to whom it will be revealed even though it was Paul who would spread the gospel to the gentiles. In Cornelius vision, he was told to summon Peter.

There are many texts in the Bible that prove Peter’s primacy

Lastly I would like to pay a closer attention to Luke 5:1-13.

When the crowd was pressing on Jesus at the Lake of Gennesaret He decided to hop onto a boat. There were two but He chose specifically Simon’s.

They put out a little bit from the shore and from Peter’s boat Jesus started preaching. Think of about that, the word of God is being proclaimed by Christ from Peter’s boat. And it will always be the same. The barque of Peter (as the Catholic Church is called ) will always be the one through which the Truth of Christ will be proclaimed.

And notice what happens next, after Christ has preached to the crowd, he tells him to put out into the deep. And after the big catch, after Peter’s “Lord, depart from me I am sinful man” what does Christ do?

Some of the other apostles were around him at the time as well, but the text goes: Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.”. Notice how the object of that commission is specifically Simon Peter. He could have given the address to everyone, yet He specifically singles out Peter.

I often say that when people have issues with the Catholic Church, it is usually Christ they really have an issue with or more precisely Christ’s will and choices. In the above references, it is clear that it was Christ who chose Peter to be His prime apostle.

 

[benedictus2]

In some cases, yes. It has been verified by enough other sources that what it claims in some cases is very likely true.

In other cases, there has been no verification at all, and the claims are very likely not true.

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?

 

[larkin31]

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?

“Need”?

Because it is the topic, and I am discussing it with a Christian???