How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Cinette]

Seems to me an honest agnostic is looking for answers even though they don’t have any at this time.

I remember reading the story of a well educated husband and wife that were challenged to look into the claims of Jesus (specifically His resurrection). This challenge came from one of there Christian parents.

It took them a while to find time to look into this issue (actually I think one of them looked into the conversion of Paul). After their separate search, they both concluded Jesus was raised from the dead and Paul’s conversion was worth noting. They both became a Christian and wrote a ‘book’ entitled The Agnostic that Dared to Search. I think there is info on line if you ‘google’ that title.

That is not the point Dokimas. One welcomes everybody and one wants them to participate; to be open and engaging no matter their beliefs. It is just that they must answer questions. You can’t debate with someone who just makes statements and does not back up the statements. You have to be serious about participation on the threads.

Cinette

 

[Contarini]

Well then, what is exactly your position with regards this debate.?

First this then, that, never quite able to make up his mind.

So where does Larkin stand. Not Agnostic, not protestant, not catholic, nothing. Pretty sad state to be. Pretty scary too.

You would be a better witness for your faith and a better online debater if you focused on the substance of what Larkin is saying instead of dismissing him by sneers at his honest search for truth.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

False assumption right here. You assume that this promise must mean precisely what you say it means.

If she is not infallible, then her Scripture can contain errors as well.

Bad argument, which distracts from the genuinely strong argument about the canon. It’s quite possible logically to affirm that Scripture is inerrant because God inspired it. But if the Church is fallible, then it is possible that some mistakes were made in determining which books are part of Scripture. There might conceivably be some perfectly inerrant book buried underneath the desert somewhere. And that is, to quote the scholastics, “inconvenient.”

Only when you believe that someone is infallible can you accept that one of her decrees is infallible as well.

Non sequitur. The Church does not make Scripture inerrant, but recognizes Scripture. (I actually don’t use the word “inerrancy” for what I believe about Scripture, but that’s another discussion.)

The Church doesn’t need to be infallible–just right.

The problem for Protestants arises with the question: if the Church isn’t infallible, how do you know that it was right on those issues where modern scholars would generally disagree with early Christians’ assessments of authorship and historicity?

But it is quite possible logically that the Church could have gotten all its decisions about the canon correct without being infallible, and at any rate this has nothing whatever to do with the inerrancy of whichever books rightfully belong in the canon.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

I have exactly the opposite opinion. It’s very hard for me to accept that you have really thought through the implications of what you are saying. Are you seriously claiming that you are personally infallible? Are you seriously claiming that I know for certain that you are an honest person (when I’ve never met you and know you only as a set of words on a screen)? But if you are fallible, like everyone else absent special divine guidance, then by your standard I shouldn’t listen to anything you say. And if I don’t know you personally (and hence have no reason to be certain that you are not lying through your teeth in everything you say), then why should we talk at all, by your standards?

Were you under the impression that scholars generally claim infallibility? Go to the nearest university (or True Catholic University, if you don’t trust anyone else) and ask them if the scholarly sources they cite are fallible. They will tell you that of course they are, and that that’s why they try to use multiple sources and use critical thinking.

If most people without scholarly training really go around assuming that either sources are totally infallible or totally untrustworthy, that would explain a lot of the uncritical acceptance of propaganda that goes on in our society. But it’s a very disturbing idea.

There’s no polite way to say this–you don’t have a clue as to how scholarship works.

Infallibility is no part of scholarly methodology, and it should be no part of any normal human evaluation of information. If you normally assume that your favored sources of information cannot be mistaken or misleading, then you are abdicating your responsibility as a rational person created in God’s image.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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]

Indeed–remember that I use critical thinking about the sources I cite rather than just assuming that they are infallible (as you apparently do).

You seriously think that this makes me *less *trustworthy than you?

Edwin

 

[larkin31]

Well then, what is exactly your position with regards this debate.?

First this then, that, never quite able to make up his mind.

So where does Larkin stand. Not Agnostic, not protestant, not catholic, nothing. Pretty sad state to be. Pretty scary too.

I have answered fully where I stand on this issue and others.

Are you trying to bait me with these personal remarks?

 

[rinnie]

#1. No I don’t and I can’t John 21:5 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

#2. IMO, infant baptism and perpetual virginity of Mary to name two … and that the CC is 100% correct in all its teachings.

Okay number 1 good job, and right answer.

#2. Infant Baptism was practiced in the N.T and replaced Circumcism in the O.T. And infant baptism was practiced according to Apostolic Tradition since the time Jesus instituted it as a sacrament. So in order to truly deny it you would have to say that you deny Tradition. Proof was shown in many scripture on this site. All in the housedhold were baptised etc.

Next the Virginity fo the Blessed Mother. According to scripture the blessed Mother is the ark of the New Cov. She was the Ark that contained the word.

Now lets see if scripture that is written in the bible can help us. It can.

The Church Fathers knew there was something greater then the temple in Marys womb comparing it to the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44. This gate shall remain shut it shall not be opened and no one shall enter b it, for the Lord the God of Israel has entered it and therefore it shall remain shut. Mary was the dwelling place of the Almighty like the ark of the New covenant in the O.T.

Now consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews but it did exist. The Protevangeium of James written around A.D. 120 says Mary was a concecrated Virgin.

Now lets go back to scripture. The Angel tells Mary in Luke the HolySpirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overhadow you. Now in those days meant to have marital relations. Now Mary knew what that meant why else would she say how can this be I do not know Man? She knew how babies were made. Now that would be a stupid question for her to make UNLESS she made a VOW of Virginity.

Now lets go back to the Ark of the Covenant in the O.T. If Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark 2 Sam 6:6-8 should it be a big shock that Joseph understood quite clear that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone?

And yes I agree with you on both accounts. THis is the teaching of the CC. Infant Baptism, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

It was taught by the Aposltes and Early Fathers of the Church since the time of Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

The Matthew 1:25 verse that says Mary remained a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus.

And 2 Sam 6:23 says that Michal had no children until the day she died.

Clearly, in Biblical language UNTIL does not necessarily mean a change in action after a certain point.

[SIGN]Unless, Dokimas, you’re claiming that Michal had a baby after the day she died? [/SIGN]

Virtually all verse about baptism includes repentance. Logic tells us that babies can’t repent. Thus the person getting baptized must be old enough to understrand repentance.

So what verse in Scripture does infant baptism contradict, Dokimas? I’d like to see where it says “do not baptize infants!” or “only adults can be baptized!”.

Incidentally, isn’t there a passage in Scripture where someone is saved because of her parent’s faith? If a baby’s parents have faith in God’s saving grace, then that ought to be sufficient for infant baptism…

What verses contradict this?

 

[rinnie]

IMO, here’s another CC teaching that is incorrect: OT circumcism is NT baptism. There’s just no evidence for this to be correct, but the NT is pretty clear they are different. Did you know Jews baptized before the NT?

Yes I knew that Dokimas. But what did John say when he was giving baptism. Did he not say that only he can baptise in water but one is coming who will Baptise in the Spirit and fire.

Remember when John Baptised Jesus and the heavens were opened up and the Holy Spriit decended upon Jesus. Remember what John said when Jesus asked him to baptise him, He said he was not worthy to even strap the sandles of Jesus.

But Jesus said ALLOW IT NOW for thus it is fittting for US to FULFILL all RIGHTEOUSNESS. Then he allowed it.

Remember the Dove our symbol of the Holy Spirit?

And there is evidence that Baptism replaces circumcism. Paul tells us that in Col. 2:11-12

 

[benedictus2]

Come on now. Then all those adults in the NT could not or should not get baptized because they were too old to get the totally free gift. That’s silly, IMO.

Actually that is not what PR is saying at all.

Here is what she wrote: *" Infant baptism is PROOF that Catholics believe that God’s gift of salvation is totally free and undeserved and that we do not WORK our way into salvation! For that cute little babe has done NOTHING–no works, no acts of repentance–in order to merit God’s gift."
*
What she is trying to say here is that because baptism (salvation) is a free gift, then no one should be excluded from this gift for the very reason that it is free.

 

[benedictus2]

For anyone interested in how various Protestant denominations (and other groups) have determined the canon, here is a good place to start.

We already know. We knew before and Semper Reformada posted brought it up at the beginning of this thread.

What would be a good place to start for you would be to read Semper’s posts and the ensuing discussion.

 

[benedictus2]

Seems to me an honest agnostic is looking for answers even though they don’t have any at this time.

I remember reading the story of a well educated husband and wife that were challenged to look into the claims of Jesus (specifically His resurrection). This challenge came from one of there Christian parents.

It took them a while to find time to look into this issue (actually I think one of them looked into the conversion of Paul). After their separate search, they both concluded Jesus was raised from the dead and Paul’s conversion was worth noting. They both became a Christian and wrote a ‘book’ entitled The Agnostic that Dared to Search. I think there is info on line if you ‘google’ that title.

But Larkin was a believer then he became agnostic. He has to come to terms first with why he no longer believes.

 

[larkin31]

…And there is evidence that Baptism replaces circumcism. Paul tells us that in Col. 2:11-12

I don’t see how this can be a reference to infant baptism. Here is the entire section of Colossians:

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

These men (and women, perhaps?) to whom he is speaking could not have been baptized by Jesus as infants. Paul is not speaking of having traded one literal practice of infant initiation for another, because of course the adults in his audience did not know Jesus when they were infants and were not ministered to by him in any way when they were. They encountered the teachings of Jesus as adults, and this is what Paul must logically be referring to. It is a metaphorical comparison between two acts of initiation, not a literal trading of one for the other…at least not in this passage… Are there more passages like this one?

 

[monina]

Indeed–remember that I use critical thinking about the sources I cite rather than just assuming that they are infallible (as you apparently do).

You seriously think that this makes me *less *trustworthy than you?

Edwin

Ok.

But if you don’t even have confidence in your sources, why should we?

Each and every time you cite something we can validly say, “Well, the authors could be lying, mistaken, exaggerating or interpolating…”

 

[larkin31]

Ok.

But if you don’t even have confidence in your sources, why should we?

Each and every time you cite something we can validly say, “Well, the authors could be lying, mistaken, exaggerating or interpolating…”

Do you use the money in your purse even though it may be counterfeit?

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t see how this can be a reference to infant baptism. Here is the entire section of Colossians:

These men (and women, perhaps?) to whom he is speaking could not have been baptized by Jesus as infants. Paul is not speaking of having traded one literal practice of infant initiation for another, because of course the adults in his audience did not know Jesus when they were infants and were not ministered to by him in any way when they were. They encountered the teachings of Jesus as adults, and this is what Paul must logically be referring to. It is a metaphorical comparison between two acts of initiation, not a literal trading of one for the other…at least not in this passage… Are there more passages like this one?

I think you’re missing the point here. The burden of proof actually rests on you and not on us that infant baptism should not be allowed.

Since there is no text at all that says that infant baptism is a no-no, then it is up to you and to those who oppose infant baptism to prove that it should not be so.

When you do that, you also have to bear in mind that historically, from the very beginning of the Church, she has always baptized infants.

The first recorded dissent was from Tertullian in the 4th century and it had nothing at all to do with the rightness or wrongness of it, but more to do with the political situation in his time.

The dissent against infant baptism in its present form came only with the reformation and not even all of the reformers. Luther and Calvin believed in infant baptism. It was only Zwingly he went against this practice.

 

[crazzeto]

Do you use the money in your purse even though it may be counterfeit?

I only use the money which I know not to be counterfit

 

[Contarini]

Ok.

But if you don’t even have confidence in your sources, why should we?

I have a reasonable degree of confidence in the sources I cite. I don’t cite sources that I think are incorrect. But of course I always cite them in the knowledge that they might be incorrect. In some cases the possibility is vanishingly small. In others it’s quite large, and in that case I indicate this. So, in the example you yourself chose I said “if Allison is correct,” because my argument in that case rested on one source, and while Allison is a serious scholar he also clearly had a theological agenda (to show that his low-church Calvinist version of Anglicanism is the original one and was partially displaced in the seventeenth century by one he regarded as less orthodox). If I found the same argument made in multiple sources which were clearly not dependent on each other, then I would have a lot more confidence. But it would never be absolute, because as the proverb goes, “to err is human.”

What baffles me is that this is not as obvious to you as it is to me–that you seem to think that there are infallible scholarly sources out there. What are these sources and why are you so confident in them?

Each and every time you cite something we can validly say, “Well, the authors could be lying, mistaken, exaggerating or interpolating…”

Of course. But why *wouldn’t *you say this about any human source whatsoever, no matter who cites it?

What are your reasons for believing that there are infallible scholarly sources out there?

Edwin

 

[benedictus2]

I only use the money which I know not to be counterfit

I think I’ll use only the counterfiet one and save the “real” stuff for a rainy day? :newidea:

Hmmm, naughty girl B2. :nunchuk:

 

[larkin31]

I think you’re missing the point here. The burden of proof actually rests on you and not on us that infant baptism should not be allowed.

I have never suggested, nor ever argued, for prohibiting infant baptism. I said just the opposite, when I stated my feelings about baptism and my own baptism. You are not reading my posts with much understanding. This explains a lot to me now, actually.

I have no opposition to infant baptism. I am simply curious about the Biblical references to it. So far I have seen none, but I am not opposed to the practice for any reason whatsoever. It was done to me, and I had it done to a child of mine. I have just never actually examined the practice Biblically.