How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Dokimas]

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:

Context tells a lot. A person can’t do anything after they die in this life. Mary did not die in child birth. Apples with apples.​

As for Jesus reigning, of course He’ll reign forever past, present and future. However, the scope of the reigning may change. I’m not sure if ‘scope’ is the word I’m looking for.​

Again, context, context, context.

 

[Dokimas]

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:

PR, you asked me about two verses. I’ve given you several I have not see a response. Could you please tell me whether or not you see my point by using these verses?

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.

 

[simspt]

But the issue is not whether Protestants believe the NT is inspired by God. We all believe God inspires scripture. The issue was whether supporting the NT (as a collection born out of the CC’s decision) gives authority to the CC…well the answer is in all of our common belief of “Inspiration”.
.

From my understanding God used two mediums to deliver the testimony of Christ and the Apostles, the Church and the Scriptures. Accepting the NT canon requires faith in the Church’s decisions in their proper recognition and selection of the documents that eventually made up the canon. Inspiration was not exclusively the only criteria used by the church in its decisions to include/exclude documents. The Church viewed other things inspired inlcuding other writings that didnt seem to make the cut. Apostolicity seems to have been more of an issue than inspiration. This is not to say they potentially would have accepted a document that wasnt thought to be inspired, but rather that inspiration wasnt necessarily the exclusive possession of the NT docs. Orthodoxy im sure was also a major criteria in their selection. The historical fact that the Church played a huge role in the NT canon in no way undermines the authority of Scripture or the providence and role God played but it does IMO promote the concept that the Bible was created in the cradle of the Church and if the Bible was given authority by God then surely the Church who delivered it to us was also given authority since they both originated from the same source Christ and the Apostles.

 

[minkymurph]

I have not read all the posts on this thread so I apologise if any of these points have been discussed before or if I have missed anything.

In my experience, both Protestants and Catholics, generally speaking, don’t know how the Canon of scripture was decided historically. Apologies of course to those who do, but a lot of Protestants and Catholics I talk to don’t know how the Canon of Scripture was decided.In my personal opinion, it is necessary to know how it was decided before coming to a conclusion. A well educated atheist will take you apart if you don’t!

The historical facts are as follows: As far as I know Protestants go with the Council of Jamina concerning the Old Testament Canon as Luther went with the Council of Jamnia. The Council of Jamnia’s canon excluded the Deutero-canoninical books. The Council of Trent went with the Council of Alexandria’s canon which included them. These books have been disputed from St Augustine’s time, and possibly before. Protestants I have talked to would say Luther was guided by the Holy Spirit in rejecting them. Protestants and Catholics agree on the New Testament Canon.

The Canon of Scripture is dependent on what you believe as historical evidence is sketchy. The big question for those who are Christian is, were the Deutero-canoninical books inspired? If one believes they were not inspired, why not? If one believes they were inspired, why do they believe they were inspired? To me, this question has to be answered before one could proceed any further.

I personally believe they were inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Context tells a lot. A person can’t do anything after they die in this life. Mary did not die in child birth. Apples with apples.​

As for Jesus reigning, of course He’ll reign forever past, present and future. However, the scope of the reigning may change. I’m not sure if ‘scope’ is the word I’m looking for.​

Again, context, context, context.

I agree with you: context is very, very important.

But, I am asking you, dear Dokimas, my friend and brother in Christ, if you can honestly see this point: in 2 Samuel the verse that discusses Michal indicates that she had no children until the day she died. Can you see how the use of the word “until” is used in this context does not mean anything about what happened afterwards?

And the same for the verse in Corinthians–does it not show the use of the word “until” does not mean anything about what happened afterwards?

Can you please, as I know you are a gentleman, let me know that you see my point there?

I am appealing to you as a gentleman, as a Christian, as my friend to please answer!

 

[PRmerger]

PR, you asked me about two verses. I’ve given you several I have not see a response. Could you please tell me whether or not you see my point by using these verses?

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.

Yes, I agree, Dokimas, that there are verses in Scripture that show the use of the word “until” to mean a change occurred afterwards.

Do you agree that there are also verses in Scripture that show it means only up to a certain point (like in 2 Sam and Corinthians)?

 

[larkin31]

I know buddy I was just messin with you. But I would really like to hear your comment on the question that I asked you.

What question?

 

[PRmerger]

What question?

This one:

Okay then answer this question, You read what I said about Jesus saying heaven is for children like these.

Now if you must be baptised in order to gain eternal life, and Jesus said heaven is for babys like these, how could that not be saying that infants, and children should be Baptised? Why would Jesus say do not hinder them, and why would he say babys are indeed in heaven? But then turn around and refuse them baptism? Would that not be a direct contradiction?

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe I was unclear, because yours was the point I was trying to make. “How do protestants defend the canon of the NT?” By supporting whichever NT book that stands on the foundation of the OT.

I’m not certain what you’re saying, Joshua. Are you saying that if there were some ancient texts which “stands on the foundation of the OT” you’d consider them inspired, too?

 

[benedictus2]

I have not read all the posts on this thread so I apologise if any of these points have been discussed before or if I have missed anything.

In my experience, both Protestants and Catholics, generally speaking, don’t know how the Canon of scripture was decided historically. Apologies of course to those who do, but a lot of Protestants and Catholics I talk to don’t know how the Canon of Scripture was decided.In my personal opinion, it is necessary to know how it was decided before coming to a conclusion. A well educated atheist will take you apart if you don’t!

The historical facts are as follows: As far as I know Protestants go with the Council of Jamina concerning the Old Testament Canon as Luther went with the Council of Jamnia. The Council of Jamnia’s canon excluded the Deutero-canoninical books. The Council of Trent went with the Council of Alexandria’s canon which included them. These books have been disputed from St Augustine’s time, and possibly before. Protestants I have talked to would say Luther was guided by the Holy Spirit in rejecting them. Protestants and Catholics agree on the New Testament Canon.

The Canon of Scripture is dependent on what you believe as historical evidence is sketchy. The big question for those who are Christian is, were the Deutero-canoninical books inspired? If one believes they were not inspired, why not? If one believes they were inspired, why do they believe they were inspired? To me, this question has to be answered before one could proceed any further.

I personally believe they were inspired.

That is a fairly good summation but excludes a few important things.
First, the council of Jamnia canon insisted on the books that are used by Jews in the west failed to consider the African and HellenisticJews who have always used the Septuagint. The Septuagint is how the OT came to the Christians and there are NT texts that reference the DCs.

Secondly, Luther did not really want to get rid of all the DCs - only Mac2 because of the references to purgatory. But because he had no ground for getting rid of Mac2 by itself, he had to get of all DCs because he could use the fact that the council of Jamnia rejected these books.

Thirdly, if the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded on earth, then it is the same Church that is being guided by the Holy Spirit to determine which books are canonical not a Jewish council. Of late, scholars have questioned whether the Jamnia council did take place. It is still hypothetical at this stage. Some scholars also think that a canon was not determined at the council if there was one.

 

[benedictus2]

There is no such thing as “proof” either way on this matter.

I just keep asking if there is anything else other than these few scriptural passages. I know that it says some households were baptized. These, and Colossians…anything else?

Larkin, first your post said the scripture was silent on this. We have just shown you it is not.
Here’s my post 702

benedictus2:

Not entirely. When the apostles baptized whole households, it is more probable that there are babies, than that there are none.

Jesus said let the little children come to me. If to come to a life of grace in Jesus is through baptism then, this Jesus Christ obviously wants the children to be there as well.

Further more, when Christ gave the great commissioning before his ascension:
Matthew 28:19-20 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

From here, it is obvious that no one is to be excluded. He also says to baptize and teach them. The teaching in the ways of our Lord starts from the very beginning.

The command is to baptize. No age specifications.

 

[benedictus2]

First, let me say that your font is SO much easier on the eyes, I wish it was the standard font (and not something we needed to always set).

I say thte same thing to anyone who uses a bigger font. CAF should take pity on us who no longer have perfect eyesight. This is the reason I use big fonts - to help me and to help those who read my post.

Maybe I was unclear, because yours was the point I was trying to make. “How do protestants defend the canon of the NT?” By supporting whichever NT book that stands on the foundation of the OT. Truly, the NT is the fulfillment of the OT, but we can’t know “what” was fulfilled without the OT. IMO, it’s not enought to say “Christ is the fulfillment of the Law”…what does that mean? “What law” should be the question most ask but many (Catholic & non-Catholic) do not. Also “fulfillment” does not mean “complete, so done away with”. “Until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter is removed from the law until ALL are fulfilled”.

Yes. Very good point. Something that a few totally miss. Someone said to me that Christ freed us from the rules and the law of the OT

Judaism was the “Lock”, while Christ is the “Key”. We can’t know what the key fits into without having the lock present. This is the reason why I say, “we have to go back to Judaism” in order to understand the “why” for many of Christ’s teachings and actions. Judaism provides the prophetic shadowpictures that Christ is to fulfill. Many have been fulfilled, and many more still need to be fulfilled upon the Second Advent.

Yes. That’s good clarification. As I said in my post, one cannot truly understand Christ without understanding Judaism.

I agree with the assessment on corrupt doctrine, but it’s widespread in the whole of Christianity, and Catholicism was not imune to corruption.

This one is quite wrong. If we believe in the NT and believe that Christ is God, then we know that He would fulfill His promise that His Church will be guided into ALL TRUTH.

I’d dare say that “Christianity” itself is not a fulfillment of Christ, as Christ did not come to start a religion,

No we do not claim that Christianity is a fulfillment of Christ. Christ needs no fulfillment - He is God. Christianity is an expression of who Christ is.

but a church (a statement which most readers overlook).

Yes, yes, yes. That is what we keep reiterating in this forum as well. This indeed He did. And that is the Catholic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

But the issue is not whether Protestants believe the NT is inspired by God. We all believe God inspires scripture. The issue was whether supporting the NT (as a collection born out of the CC’s decision) gives authority to the CC…well the answer is in all of our common belief of “Inspiration”.

Simpst gave a very good reply to this in post 721. This is also how I would reply.

It’s like asking if Judas’ betrayal was of his own decision (authority), Satan’s, or in God’s. Many could argue and say “if Judas didn’t choose to betray Christ, there would not be salvation, so Judas was the reason for Salvation”…others could argue, “if Satan didn’t inhabit Judas, then there would be no Salvation, so Satan caused Salvation”…But from Roman 8:28 [NT (lol)] “…we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

I cannot reply to this section completely without going into pre-destination. So I offer a short reply: Judas betrayed Christ by his own choice. Judas had free will.

So ultimately, God was the authority behind the betrayal because it was His plan to save us.

Very untrue. God did not author the betrayal anymore than God authored the mass murder of people at Jonestown. The “I” (need to emphasize that this is purely my understanding) see it, Judas is a betrayer. God knows this. So He uses this to bring about His plan for salvation. There is nothing so bad that God cannot use to make something even more beautiful.

This is why at Easter we sing : O happy fault,O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Likewise, regardless of who physically authored or collected the NT (or OT for that matter), the credit returns to God…not man.

Yes, the credit is always to God. That was never in contention. But we have to ask what has God willed? The Church is God’s will, God;s choice. He could have willed to simply write the books Himself when He was still on earth but He did not do that. Instead what He chose to do is build a Church, within whose bosom these books will written and canonized.

I think that is something that most protestants fail to get. This is Christ’s will. If one has an issue with that, then in truth they have an issue with Christ.

The Church is God’s gift to humanity, the gate to heaven.

 

[Dokimas]

I agree with you: context is very, very important.

But, I am asking you, dear Dokimas, my friend and brother in Christ, if you can honestly see this point: in 2 Samuel the verse that discusses Michal indicates that she had no children until the day she died. Can you see how the use of the word “until” is used in this context does not mean anything about what happened afterwards?

And the same for the verse in Corinthians–does it not show the use of the word “until” does not mean anything about what happened afterwards?

Can you please, as I know you are a gentleman, let me know that you see my point there?

I am appealing to you as a gentleman, as a Christian, as my friend to please answer!

Here’s the post you ‘quoted’ and I highlighted where I answered you the best I can.

[SIGN]Originally Posted by Dokimas​

Context tells a lot. A person can’t do anything after they die in this life. Mary did not die in child birth. Apples with apples.​

As for Jesus reigning, of course He’ll reign forever past, present and future. However, the scope of the reigning may change. I’m not sure if ‘scope’ is the word I’m looking for.​

Again, context, context, context.[/SIGN]

I agreed with you on both issues but in context.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, I agree, Dokimas, that there are verses in Scripture that show the use of the word “until” to mean a change occurred afterwards.

Do you agree that there are also verses in Scripture that show it means only up to a certain point (like in 2 Sam and Corinthians)?

Are you asking me to anwer this again?​

The key is CONTEXT.

A woman getting married after she is pregnant not by her husband and remains ununited with her husband until the baby is born is most likely interpreted as …

I think you can agree that because of your ST you have to interpret differently than the straight forward understanding of this situation.

 

[rinnie]

Are you asking me to anwer this again?​

The key is CONTEXT.

A woman getting married after she is pregnant not by her husband and remains ununited with her husband until the baby is born is most likely interpreted as …

I think you can agree that because of your ST you have to interpret differently than the straight forward understanding of this situation.

Would you not agree with that about all scripture in general. Did God not say that no one can define scripture only him because we could not think like God only humans.

Remember what he said to the Apostles when he was teaching and they did not understand what he was talking about. Remember how he told them they will come to understand because he would be sending the advocate the Holy Spirit to teach them.

 

[rinnie]

This one:

:yup:

 

[rinnie]

Are you asking me to anwer this again?​

The key is CONTEXT.

A woman getting married after she is pregnant not by her husband and remains ununited with her husband until the baby is born is most likely interpreted as …

I think you can agree that because of your ST you have to interpret differently than the straight forward understanding of this situation.

I do.

Like in acts 15:11 we will be saved through the grace of Jesus.

Then in Phil. 2:12 work out your salvation with fear and trembling…

If I did not understand ST and SS I would think I am already saved and do not have to work out anything. But Thank goodness the Church showed me how to put scripture in comtext.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s the post you ‘quoted’ and I highlighted where I answered you the best I can.

[sign]Originally Posted by Dokimas​

Context tells a lot. A person can’t do anything after they die in this life. Mary did not die in child birth. Apples with apples.​

As for Jesus reigning, of course He’ll reign forever past, present and future. However, the scope of the reigning may change. I’m not sure if ‘scope’ is the word I’m looking for.​

Again, context, context, context.[/sign]

I agreed with you on both issues but in context.

Thank you for answering, my dear gentlemanly friend! :kiss4you:

So we are agreed, then, based on context, that sometimes the Scriptures–both in the OT and the NT–use the word “until” to mean “only up to a certain point”. (Although I must say that there’s nothing in the context of either 2 Sam or Corinthians which tells us this. With 2 Samuel it’s common sense that tells us she didn’t have children after she died–not the context of the verses; and with Corinthians it’s all the other verses in Scripture which tell us Jesus reigns forever. So it’s *not *context in these examples)

Then, we can say that Matthew’s verse about Joseph not knowing Mary “until” she gave birth is*** not ***proof whatsoever that Mary had relations with Joseph. The context does not give us any clues about how “until” is used in this verse.

:yyeess:

 

[BILL_PICK53]

God invites people to join God in what He is doing. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Jesus Christ is the only One teaching the truth and the only One with the truth,you must be SENT to have the truth, how can you know the truth if you are not sent and not has been sent ONY the Apostle ,not One preacher has been sent and that is why we have over 32,000 non-cathloic churchs to day