How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[PRmerger]

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.

So then, Amy, do you believe that the mustard seed is indeed the smallest seed in God’s kingdom?

(It is not)

That clearly is a minor error in botany that is in the Bible.

In your paradigm, we ought to throw out the Gospel that states this, yes?

Of course, your paradigm is not supported by Scripture–for there are no verses that say: we know something is not the true word of God if it contains errors in chronology, culture, science etc. That is a man-made tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Here’s a NT example of the word “UNTIL”:

· For He [Christ] must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” 1 Cor 15:25

In your understanding of the word “UNTIL” you must believe that Christ won’t reign after he has put his enemies under his feet.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s no evidence from the Bible for you belief, IMO, as I’ve stated over and over again.

What?? Doki! NOW you’re saying that something has to be in the Bible for us to practice it.

BEFORE you said this:

I believe we’ve had this discussion before and** I’ve never said ‘don’t do it unless it’s in the Bible.’** What I’ve said is that if something is taught as truth, it sould not contradict the Bible, directly or indirectly.

 

[PRmerger]

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

We are not saying that Mary had children after she died.

We are giving an example of how the word “until” was used in ancient languages.

The inspired authors’ use of the word “until” implied only one thing: up to that particular point in time. It does not assume that a change occurred subsequently.

How do we know this? Because of the example of the use of the word “until” in 2 Sam. And also in 1 Corinthians, if you insist on a NT example.

 

[Joshua27]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

I can agree with this statement, but what’s also true is that one ceases to be Catholic as well. If we are to be steeped in history, we are lead back to Judaism and Israel as God is “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”.

The New Testament (those books selected) is validated - not because an authority (like CC) says they are valid - but is validated whenever an author leans back onto the Old Testament as truth…

• In the Gospels, Christ is recorded quoting Old Testament frequently
• In the Acts, The Apostles are recorded “using (and quoting) scripture” to convert believers (and since the NT wasn’t composed yet, this was refering to OT)
• In Paul’s Letters, Paul frequently quoted OT whether Psalms or another passage.
• In Revelation, John records angels specifically shouting (and quoting) references to Exodus and other fulfillments from Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea and Jeremiah.

---

The NT has no (zero) foundation - or meaning - without the OT, so while there are several books that were “approved” to be collected together (and some weren’t), any book that stands on the OT or records the fulfillment of the OT gives authority - not to the bishops or the CC who collected them together - but to THE Authority (The Author and Inspirer) who sourced the OT.

…but somebody may’ve given this answer already (I should’ve read before posting )

 

[Dokimas]

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.

I don’t think you are correct. If everyone the gets baptized in the NT repented first and babies can’t repent, then they are excluded. A verse does not have to spell it out as you would like. A process of elimination works just fine and it is logical.

 

[Dokimas]

Here’s a NT example of the word “UNTIL”:

· For He [Christ] must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” 1 Cor 15:25

In your understanding of the word “UNTIL” you must believe that Christ won’t reign after he has put his enemies under his feet.

Would you like me to show you again all the verses in the NT with ‘until’ and it’s obvious there is a change after the ‘until’?

 

[Dokimas]

We are not saying that Mary had children after she died.

We are giving an example of how the word “until” was used in ancient languages.

The inspired authors’ use of the word “until” implied only one thing: up to that particular point in time. It does not assume that a change occurred subsequently.

How do we know this? Because of the example of the use of the word “until” in 2 Sam. And also in 1 Corinthians, if you insist on a NT example.

Where there changes after these uses of ‘until’?

Mt 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

Mt 5:26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

Mt 10:11 "Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out.

Mt 13:30 ‘Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’"

Mt 23:39 “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

Mt 27:45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.

Mr 9:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, He commanded them that they should tell no one the things they had seen, till the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Lu 1:80 So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.

Joh 16:24 "Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

Ac 10:30 So Cornelius said, "Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,

Ac 23:12 And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

1Co 16:8 But I will tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost.

Then there’s the logic of the Matthew 1:25. Newly weds don’t stay celebate. There’s the obvious reason Mary was to remain virgin until Jesus’ birth. After His birth, there’s a marriage to fulfill.

 

[SemperReformada]

We are not saying that Mary had children after she died.

We are giving an example of how the word “until” was used in ancient languages.

The inspired authors’ use of the word “until” implied only one thing: up to that particular point in time. It does not assume that a change occurred subsequently.

How do we know this? Because of the example of the use of the word “until” in 2 Sam. And also in 1 Corinthians, if you insist on a NT example.

PR,

I believe the English word “until” is used to translate several different Greek terms in the NT and it’s not as easy as comparing the use of “until” in your Douay or RSV and then coming to a conclusion.

Robert Sungenis and a Protestant apologist (I can’t remember his name…Horton??) debated this issue, the use of until and the Greek terms, several years ago. You can go to Robert’s website and read about how the Greek which I believe is “heous hou” is used throughout the scriptures.

It was too tedious for me but you or one of the other posters may enjoy it.

 

[PRmerger]

Would you like me to show you again all the verses in the NT with ‘until’ and it’s obvious there is a change after the ‘until’?

First you’ll have to tell me if you believe that the verses from 2 Samuel and Corinthians show that “until” can mean only “up to a certain point, but not after”.

Do you believe that, Doki? Do those verses in Scripture show my point?

Yes, or no?

Please be honest and let me know if you can see that those verses do not indicate that Michal had children after she died or that Christ does not reign after he puts his enemies at his feet.

I really need to know that you can see how the word “until” is used in those verses. Please answer as my friend, and as my brother in Christ. :flowers:

 

[rinnie]

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.

But you asked me did you not where Baptism replaces Circumcisism? Lets stick to the facts. You asked where circumcision replaced Baptism. I did show you did I not. You asked for the scripture I provided it did I not.

Now the ole ball and chain is in on the action here. He is a former Protestant he wants to know what an alien baptism is. He never heard of it. Could you explain to him what a alien baptism is?

 

[Cinette]

*I believe that it was C S Lewis who wrote that Pride is the basis of sin and I do accept this.

I believe that to be more effective in posting we should first of all pray for inspiration and discernment. We need patience and should pause before posting and reflect. There are often posters that make our blood boil with outrageous statements and we get excited and may react aggressively and then regret what we say. We can be more effective if we pause, take in everything that is posted, exercise control and then post. We will find that we will restrain ourselves and hold back on certain remarks we might feel inclined to make. U have noticed certain individuals who have changed radically over a period of time going from aggressive and angry to…normal!

I have noticed that often pride gets in the way and that is not good.

*

 

[benedictus2]

I can agree with this statement, but what’s also true is that one ceases to be Catholic as well. If we are to be steeped in history, we are lead back to Judaism and Israel as God is “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”.

The New Testament (those books selected) is validated - not because an authority (like CC) says they are valid - but is validated whenever an author leans back onto the Old Testament as truth…

• In the Gospels, Christ is recorded quoting Old Testament frequently
• In the Acts, The Apostles are recorded “using (and quoting) scripture” to convert believers (and since the NT wasn’t composed yet, this was refering to OT)
• In Paul’s Letters, Paul frequently quoted OT whether Psalms or another passage.
• In Revelation, John records angels specifically shouting (and quoting) references to Exodus and other fulfillments from Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea and Jeremiah.

Well not necessarily. It is true that Christianity will always be Judeo-Christian in tradition. And that is what we have always claimed. But one cannot go back to the OT concept of salvation because Jesus has already fulfilled it.

The Bible in fact cannot be read correctly without reading it through the lense that is Christ. Christ is what makes sense out of the Bible.

At the same time, one cannot understand Christ without a reference to the OT because He is the fulfilment of the OT.

So you are quite wrong to say that we have to go back to Judaism. Judaism was waiting for the Messiah. In Christianity, the Messiah had already come.

So Cardinal Newmans; statement still stands as it is because Protestantism is not a fullfillment of Christianity but to a degree (depending on which denomination you belong to) is corruption of it. Here I must explain that when I mean corruption, I only refer to doctrine and not to the follower.

The NT has no (zero) foundation - or meaning - without the OT, so while there are several books that were “approved” to be collected together (and some weren’t), any book that stands on the OT or records the fulfillment of the OT gives authority - not to the bishops or the CC who collected them together - but to THE Authority (The Author and Inspirer) who sourced the OT.

…but somebody may’ve given this answer already (I should’ve read before posting )

But that begs the question because one has to declare first that the OT is indeed inspired. This is the quandary that you are in.The God of the OT did not make an appearance to someone and declared these books of the OT are canonical.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][SIGN][/SIGN][/SIGN]

“the pillar and support of the truth”; this is a functional description of the church, [SIGN]not a Biblical definition[/SIGN]. 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.

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.

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.

Oh No! Better check the bible then to fine the biblical definition.[SIGN][/SIGN] 1 Tim 3:15 Better check it out. Then come back and tell me what you read?

 

[benedictus2]

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

Are you trying to bait me with these personal remarks?

Nope. You have clarified your position on Baptism and I apologized and do apologize because I completely misunderstand your point.

With regards the canon, well you haven’t exactly as I have previously explained because you are coming into the discussion as I assume an agnostic and according to you the Bible is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and neither is it inerrant.

Now you’ve got me wondering how you can hold your position on infant baptism when you do not believe in the Bible.

 

[benedictus2]

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

If you actually bothered to look at our discussion, you will know that I have done that. So I suggest you look at my other posts to him.

You would be a much better debater if you actually do that.

It is unfortunate that the other thread we were in had been pulled. Then you would get exactly what I am talking about.

 

[PRmerger]

If you actually bothered to look at our discussion, you will know that I have done that. So I suggest you look at my other posts to him.

You would be a much better debater if you actually do that.

It is unfortunate that the other thread we were in had been pulled. Then you would get exactly what I am talking about.

You have been nothing but a charitable warrior for the Faith, dear benedictus! :knight1:

 

[larkin31]

But you asked me did you not where Baptism replaces Circumcisism? Lets stick to the facts. You asked where circumcision replaced Baptism. I did show you did I not. You asked for the scripture I provided it did I not.

You sure did. But as I said, it is a metaphorical comparison, not a literal one, since the folks that Paul is speaking to in Colossians can NOT have been baptized as children. It is chronologically impossible. Is there any more than this one passage? I am curious.

 

[rinnie]

You sure did. But as I said, it is a metaphorical comparison, not a literal one, since the folks that Paul is speaking to in Colossians can NOT have been baptized as children. It is chronologically impossible. Is there any more than this one passage? I am curious.

Yes there is a great passage that even says infants.

In Luke 18:15 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this they rebuked them, Jesus however called the children to Himself and said Let the Children come to me and do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen I say to you whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.

Now Jesus said we all must be baptised in order to enter heaven. Now if Jesus said Do NOT PREVENT them, how could withholding Baptism not be preventing them?

Now think about what Jesus just said. Now let me ask you why did Jesus say let the infants and children come to me, don’t hold them back, and the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision now did he Because if you had to make a concious decision in order to enter heaven no Child could enter.

 

[rinnie]

You sure did. But as I said, it is a metaphorical comparison, not a literal one, since the folks that Paul is speaking to in Colossians can NOT have been baptized as children. It is chronologically impossible. Is there any more than this one passage? I am curious.

Now you explain this to me. Even in the books of the N.T. that were written in the first century, Now this is when Children WERE raised in the faith, why is it that it is NEVER mentioned that they have to make a decision for Christ. But as Rom 6:3 it is already assumed that they had already been baptised in Christ.

Also if Baptism was not to be done right away, then there would be scripture that states that Children at the age of reason started joining the Church. But as you can see Infants and Parents have always been a part of the Church. My Mother took me within the first month of my life and every single Sunday since.

Here is another thing, why would the scripture not just say for example the Philippian jailer who was converted was baptised with his entire household. Now why would it not say the jailer and his wife only, simple because it was his entire house, children included. If Children were to be EXCLUDED it would be stated.