How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[benedictus2]

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.

Aaah, my fault. Completely misunderstood your position on this one. I thought even though it was done to you as a child you still didn’t believe in it.

Mea culpa.:imsorry:

So there you are. Even though the Biblical evidence of its practice is small, there is no Biblical evidence at all that it was forbidden or that it is not done.

 

[rinnie]

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?

Who said they were baptized as infants. I said that that scripture proves that Baptism replaced circumcision. I do not see where you are comming from.

And Paul is talking about trading one initiation for another, If this were not true why do we not have to have our infants circumcisied anymore in order to enter heaven? That is just what this discussion is about, actually Paul is saying the opposite to what you are implying.

It has nothing to do with the teachings of adults Paul is saying that in Christ through baptised we are circumcisied with a circumcision NOT ADMINISTED by hand, by snipping off a part of the Body. Paul is saying we now circumcisied by Baptism which is a symbolic terms. It is the false teaches that demamned physical circumcision of the Colossians. I have no clue what you are talking about here:shrug:

Baptism has replaced physical circumcision like the scripture says quite clear. In Baptised we no longer have to have stripping off a piece of skin on the PHYSICAL body we are circumcised into the heart with our dear Lord Jesus through baptism.

Ironically did you happen to read the scripture before that.

See to it that no one captivates you with empty seductive philosphy according to HUMAN tradition.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Which is exactly why I said that scripture is proof that baptism of infants is not forbidden. Circumcision had been replaced by Baptism now.

If Paul meant to EXCLUDE infants he would have NOT chosen Circumcision as a parallel for Baptism.

The comparison between the is an appropriate one. In the O.T. if a MAN wanted to become a Jew he had to believe in the God of Israel I the N.T. if a MAN wants to become a Christian he MUST Believe in God and Jesus and be baptised.

In the O.T circumcision of babys was of course under the old law circumcision of adults was indeed rare. Since there were FEW converts to Judaism. They were usually baptised into the faith from infants. The same way the CC does it now.

 

[Amy1966]

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.”

You need to keep studying to come to the truth, which you will find in “some” Protestant Bibles.

I could easily ask you if the word of God is inerrant and infallible? If you answer yes, then you must discard part of your Catholic Bible that contains the DC"s and if you no, then you bring reproach upon yourself and the Word of God. So either way you cannot convince the true Father, but with men it is possible.

There is no proof that the early “Catholics” believed the DC’s were divine as the council of Nicea stated that they were NOT, but this council was not ecumenical until later and then it was pick and chose which parts were declared ecumenical which parts were not. The part that the DC’s were not divinely inspired was rejected.

The next time you visit Israel and speak to the most devout Jew and ask them about the history of the DC’s; so will look at you like you are an idiot and others will flat out tell you they are not from God, but none of them will say they are the word of God, but what would they know?

 

[larkin31]

Which is exactly why I said that scripture is proof that baptism of infants is not forbidden…

Well, no kidding. No one said that there was. I was even wrongly accused of making the claim.

The Bible does not preclude alien baptism either. I don’t mean it as a joke; I only mean that to say that something is not expressly prohibited is not much of an argument either way–and no one here is claiming that it is prohibited anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

As some of you fellow catholics here have said, there are 5 mentioned. Of the multiple thousands of adults that got baptized in the NT, only 5 households. The odds are they did NOT have young children, thus they were all baptized. If the account was that hundreds of household were baptized, you’d have a good argument.

How does it* contradict* Scripture that infants were baptized, esp. when you acknowledge that households were baptized–even if it’s only 5?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, no kidding. No one said that there was. I was even wrongly accused of making the claim.

The Bible does not preclude alien baptism either. I don’t mean it as a joke; I only mean that to say that some is not expressly prohibited is not much of an argument either way–and no one here is claiming that it is prohibited anyway.

Doki was.

He’s been saying that he has no problems with Church rituals that aren’t Scriptural, just ones that contradict it. If we could find a verse that prohibits infant baptism, then he’d have a point…but, he’s still not been able to provide one.

 

[larkin31]

Doki was.

He’s been saying that he has no problems with Church rituals that aren’t Scriptural, just ones that contradict it. If we could find a verse that prohibits infant baptism, then he’d have a point…but, he’s still not been able to provide one.

maybe he is relying on the traditional history of teaching of his denomination rather than only scripture

I saw what he wrote. He said that the passages include repentance, which seems to require some maturity beyond infancy. That makes some sense to me. It’s not a clincher for me, by any means (logically), but I see some point to it, and there have been no passages offered that show baptism of any individual too you to provide repentance. I don’t think that it is that big a deal, but I also see merits to both sides, with neither one being more convincing than the other.

 

[Amy1966]

The Church is defined as the Pillar of All Truth.

“the pillar and support of the truth”; this is a functional description of the church, not a Biblical definition. Just as the Apostles are not the definition of the church; they are individual Christians which collectively make up the church.

So how does the Bible or God define the church?

Paul gives an example:

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their {Lord} and ours: ______ 1 Corinthians 1:2

Isn’t that beautiful definition? Collectively they are to guard the truth given to them by God.

Please click HERE; this is what the church is in it greatest detail given to man from God. I would ask you to pay careful attention to verses 4-7, verse 11-12, then just carefully read the rest it will be good for your soul and your understanding as to how God defines the church and emphasis the importance of EACH individual, none above the other, all making some type of contribution, each given a specific gift from the spirit according to His will.

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.

No he instructed the Elders or Overseers to preach the Gospel of Repentance, Salvation, of God, of Jesus Christ - ever how you want to state it - preach the Gospel and the whole counsel of God. He commanded every Christian to be prepared to give an account for the hope that lies within them.

He promised EACH Christian to guide them into His truth for His glory and their are so many INDIVIDUAL examples of both men and women in both the OT & NT; so your assumption that limits or imposes you bias onto Scripture by making this claim that it was given only to the Apostles is a false assumption and very dangerous to ones soul. This also implies that the “Apostles” are the “church”, which is only true in the since that they are part of the body of believers called Christians.

Now I ask you?
Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
___________1 John 4:1

I ask you how an individual is able to discern good spirits from bad spirits or in this context true preaching from false preaching of God’s word if they are unable to be lead by the Holy Spirit? So you see it is one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit to guide the true Christian into all truth. Why does Hebrews tell us to pray to God for wisdom, which He promises to give generously to all who ask if you cannot discern the truth? You see you have not discerned the spirit of truth.

"But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. _________ John 4:23

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. ____________ 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ** then put this with what Jesus said in John 17**
*
"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. _________ John 17:17*

In summary; one cannot understand the difference between God’s truth without discernment and the work of the Holy Spirit is to lead each individual to discernment of truth and understanding of truth and furthermore we can add that without the work of the Holy Spirit no Christian would have the gift of faith to even believe His truth to become a Christian in the first place according to God.

So you theology contains only partial truth, but also partial error which makes it very dangerous to ones soul in my opinion.

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.

That in itself is a strange doctrine since the Catholic Church is never mentioned by God implicitly much less explicitly in I Timothy 3:15 or any of Scripture much less a promise that such an imaginary “church” was promised not to fall away from His teachings. God does say that those who He chose to save before the foundation of the world would not only be the “saved”, but also persevere to the end. Jesus did say “I will build my church”, which is ongoing and that only a few will ever enter into His rest. That is sound Biblical doctrine in my opinion and correct understanding of Scripture.

 

[Amy1966]

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?

God does not error and the writer of the Holy Word of God is God; therefore His word, the Scripture does not error. Anyone who believes otherwise can call themselves Christian in name only.

 

[crazzeto]

God does not error and the writer of the Holy Word of God is God; therefore His word, the Scripture does not error. Anyone who believes otherwise can call themselves Christian in name only.

I think the problem with your thinking is that you believe that the bible existed from the time of Christ as is, that simply isn’t the case. In fact the Orthodox fathers disagreed, sometimes hotly, about which books should be considered inspired. Among disputed books were James, Hebrews, Revelation and the 7 DC’s. So the question being put to you is, how do you know we got it right? Where is the proof outside of the authority of the Church?

 

[Amy1966]

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

It matters what God’s standard says, not mans and here is what God has to say; so you either believe Him or you don’t…I do!!

*12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. __________ 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 *

Incorrect personal interpretations comes from many sources, but the primary source is that they do not have the Holy Spirit, which means they are not even a Christian even though they call themselves “Christians”. Did Jesus say that only a few would be saved or not? Was this true in the OT or not? I hope you see the point and I also hope you are saved by God.

 

[simspt]

God does not error and the writer of the Holy Word of God is God; therefore His word, the Scripture does not error. Anyone who believes otherwise can call themselves Christian in name only.

do u really think your particular view of inspiration, inerrancy and infallibiltiy is essential to ones salvation?

 

[Amy1966]

Hi Amy,
Do you think the early church clearly delineated their view of the DCs as devotional vs inspired and not both? If so can you give an example. I am interested in this subject and have been recently trying to educate myself on the early church and canon process, thanks for the encouragement. My personal view on inerrancy and infallibilty is irrelavent however i am interested in how you would argue against someone who claimed to believe in the same type of inerrancy and infallibility as you do but disagreed with you on biblical interpretation. Your question to me reminds me of an article i read about two evangelical scholars (Norm Geisler and Robert Gundry) claiming inerrancy and disagreeing with each other. Gundry believed that the evangelist who wrote Matthew used ahistorical additions to the infancy story in Matt 1 and 2. He believed that inerrancy must be viewed in light of the authorial intent of the gospel writer. The story of Jesus was adapted to appeal to the intended audience. Geisler didnt like Gundry’s use of redaction criticism and argued that Gundry’s interpretation methodology was antithetical to their shared doctrine of inerrancy. However Geisler never addressed the hermaneutic issue because of his presupposition of how inerrancy should be used. Here you have two evangelical believers disagreeing to the point where one was kicked out of the evangelical theological society. I have included the link to Gundry’s defense because i think it somewhat reflects the nature of some of the posts that have shown up here in relation to disagreements about interpretation.

etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-1/26-1-pp095-100_JETS.pdf

If you believe what God has written below than you should already have the answer to your question but if you do not believe or not sure you believe, then you also have the answer to your question and that would be very bad for your soul.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. __________ 1 Corinthians 2:12-16

Incorrect personal interpretations comes from many sources, but the primary source is that they do not have the Holy Spirit, which means they are not even a Christian even though they call themselves “Christians”. Did Jesus say that only a few would be saved or not? Was this true in the OT or not? I hope you see the point and I also hope you are saved by God.

 

[Amy1966]

Hey I did the google search as you suggested and this is what I found.

jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/false_doctrines.htm

And also this.

reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.98.11.htm

If this is the site you are referring to, would you care to explain how this is supposed to bolster your argument?

Actually you’re wrong there. The DCs were always part of the canon. The reason Luther had them removed was because he had an issue with purgatory. You see, instead of just allowing Scripture to speak for itself, Luther wanted to impose his will on scripture.

Luther didn’t want all of the DCs to be removed. He only wanted Mac to be removed because it was the one that contained references to purgatory. But since his motives would be so obvious if he removed only one, he was forced to remove them all.

Do you really think that 1 person is more credible than all the others who have gone before him? I mean those who for the past 1000 years have had no issues with it until he came.

That to me just shows his pride. And where there is pride, there the devil is also. So one tends to think, who was egging him on to do this? The Holy Spirit? Highly unlikely.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it was truly laudable that he called the Church heirarchy to task for their corruption and terrible sins. We are all called to do that - admonish the sinner.

But, pride took over and he decided he will be a a law unto itself and chop up the word of God.

Is it any wonder that he would write later on that they themselves have become much, much worse than that which they were trying to reform.

Keep searching and pull as may sites as you can and those are but two of many, but as you can see there is grave error and therefore is not from God and not canonized by the inspiration of God or written by God.

We can even argue that Trent was nor ecumenical and Tim Staples among others have given a variety of dates as to when Canon was “official” by your church. So even among those within your church there is no unity on it. But the Christian has no doubts about what is or is not the word of God because the gift of faith, discernment and of salvation is all of Him.

 

[crazzeto]

Keep searching and pull as may sites as you can and those are but two of many, but as you can see there is grave error and therefore is not from God and not canonized by the inspiration of God or written by God.

We can even argue that Trent was nor ecumenical and Tim Staples among others have given a variety of dates as to when Canon was “official” by your church. So even among those within your church there is no unity on it. But the Christian has no doubts about what is or is not the word of God because the gift of faith, discernment and of salvation is all of Him.

Why don’t you provide direct links, it’s not our job to flush out your sources.

 

[larkin31]

God does not error and the writer of the Holy Word of God is God; therefore His word, the Scripture does not error. Anyone who believes otherwise can call themselves Christian in name only.

This is a very narrow definition of being Christian. There is nothing like this in the Apostle’s Creed, for example.

Do you believe that Moses lived to be exactly as old as the Bible says? That he had children at 75 years old? That water covered the earth above the height of the tallest mountains after 40 days of rain?

 

[Stephen168]

You need to keep studying to come to the truth, which you will find in “some” Protestant Bibles.

Which Protestant Bibles?

There is no proof that the early “Catholics” believed the DC’s were divine as the council of Nicea stated that they were NOT, but this council was not ecumenical until later and then it was pick and chose which parts were declared ecumenical which parts were not. The part that the DC’s were not divinely inspired was rejected.

Who wrote the DC? When did the Council of Nicea become ecumenical?

 

[Dokimas]

Okay number 1 good job, and right answer.

#2. Infant Baptism was practiced in the N.T and replaced Circumcism in the O.T.

There’s no evidence from the Bible for you belief, IMO, as I’ve stated over and over again.
BTW, are you a Bible teacher or theologian that you can tell me I answered the first question correctly?

 

[Dokimas]

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]

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?

OT and NT were written in different languages so it’s hard to compare.​

Using your OT verse to compare with the Mary verse, it would be apples with apples if Mary died at child birth.