Protestant Council to Determine Canonicity

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SextusEmpiricus

Guest
Recently I was reading about the various councils (Trent, Carthage, etc.) that determined the Christian canon, and it occurred to me that I could find no material on Protestant councils. I thought CAF would be an appropriate place to ask this question: Is the Protestant canon closed? And if so, how was the Protestant canon determined?
 
read the Protestant confessions of the Reformation era. They are the closest things to a church council you will find.
 
SextusEmpiricus said:
Recently I was reading about the various councils (Trent, Carthage, etc.) that determined the Christian canon, and it occurred to me that I could find no material on Protestant councils. I thought CAF would be an appropriate place to ask this question: Is the Protestant canon closed? And if so, how was the Protestant canon determined?
Click to expand...
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I Of the Holy Scripture

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

39 Articles of Religion

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

The French Confession of Faith

III. These Holy Scriptures are comprised in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, as follows: the five books of Moses, namely: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the first and second books of Samuel, the first and second books of the Kings, the first and second books of the Chronicles, otherwise called Paralipomenon, the first book of Ezra; then Nehemiah, the book of Esther, Job, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs or Maxims of Solomon; the book of Ecclesiastes, called the Preacher, the Song of Solomon; then the book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecharaiah, Malachi; then the Holy Gospel according to St. Mathew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke, according to St. John; then the second book of St. Luke, otherwise called the Acts of the Apostles; then the Epistles of St. Paul: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon; then the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the first and second Epistles of St. Peter, the first, second, and third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude; and then the Apocalypse, or Revelation of St. John.

IV. We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith.
 
I can’t speak for protestants, but we Lutherans specifically did not define a cannon in our Confessions. This was intentional, as the cannon was not settled in the Roman Catholic church at the time (there was plenty of disagreement at, and after, Trent within the Roman Catholic church). While most Lutherans today have moved the deuterocanonical books to the back of the Bible and consider them “useful, but not Scripture,” it is entirely open for scholarly discussion. Many Lutherans and Roman Catholics forget this fact.
 
ltwin said:
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I Of the Holy Scripture

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

39 Articles of Religion

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

The French Confession of Faith

III. These Holy Scriptures are comprised in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, as follows: the five books of Moses, namely: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the first and second books of Samuel, the first and second books of the Kings, the first and second books of the Chronicles, otherwise called Paralipomenon, the first book of Ezra; then Nehemiah, the book of Esther, Job, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs or Maxims of Solomon; the book of Ecclesiastes, called the Preacher, the Song of Solomon; then the book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecharaiah, Malachi; then the Holy Gospel according to St. Mathew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke, according to St. John; then the second book of St. Luke, otherwise called the Acts of the Apostles; then the Epistles of St. Paul: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon; then the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the first and second Epistles of St. Peter, the first, second, and third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude; and then the Apocalypse, or Revelation of St. John.

IV. We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

How do Protestants determine whether or not a book is divinely inspired? From my understanding of Catholicism, Church Bishops determine which books are inspired and Catholics simply take their word for it (I realize this is an oversimplification). I understand Protestants do not believe in church authority or church infallibility, so does each Protestant decide on his or her own which books are divinely inspired? For example, as young Protestants are forming their faith, are they required to read Apocryphal writings to determine whether or not they are divinely inspired (e.g., Gospels of Mary or Thomas)? Or do the Confessions work in the same manner as Catholic dogma?

Thank you again for your response.
 
steido01 said:
I can’t speak for protestants, but we Lutherans specifically did not define a cannon in our Confessions. This was intentional, as the cannon was not settled in the Roman Catholic church at the time (there was plenty of disagreement at, and after, Trent within the Roman Catholic church). While most Lutherans today have moved the deuterocanonical books to the back of the Bible and consider them “useful, but not Scripture,” it is entirely open for scholarly discussion. Many Lutherans and Roman Catholics forget this fact.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Does this mean that the Lutheran canon is still open? Or is it closed?
 
I found this article about the Lutheran Canon.
While the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a cannon, it is widely regarded as the canon of the Lutheran Church.
Click to expand...
So, the consensus is that the Lutheran Canon is closed.
 
SextusEmpiricus said:
Recently I was reading about the various councils (Trent, Carthage, etc.) that determined the Christian canon, and it occurred to me that I could find no material on Protestant councils. I thought CAF would be an appropriate place to ask this question: Is the Protestant canon closed? And if so, how was the Protestant canon determined?
Click to expand...
I hope this will help you:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

There is no such thing as a protestant council…where, for one they thing, they could not even agree on the essentials, and one needs a patriarch to call one.
 
SextusEmpiricus said:
Does this mean that the Lutheran canon is still open? Or is it closed?
Click to expand...
In general practice? It’s more or less closed. But to outright proclaim it as ‘closed’ is not doing justice to the Lutheran understanding of Scripture. I cannot stress enough that the question you are asking does not compute to us Lutherans. In the words of one author, we do not focus on making “some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.”

The link below provides an adequate description of how Lutherans typically view the cannon:

internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

In short, and at the risk of oversimplifying the issue, the Lutheran method of defining Scripture is essentially the pre-Tridentine Catholic view.
 
steido01 said:
In general practice? It’s more or less closed. But to outright proclaim it as ‘closed’ is not doing justice to the Lutheran understanding of Scripture. I cannot stress enough that the question you are asking does not compute to us Lutherans. In the words of one author, we do not focus on making “some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.”

The link below provides an adequate description of how Lutherans typically view the cannon:

internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

In short, and at the risk of oversimplifying the issue, the Lutheran method of defining Scripture is essentially the pre-Tridentine Catholic view.
Click to expand...
Thank you this is helpful. But if it is the pre-Tridentine view, why are the deuterocanonical books excluded? Were not those books part of the pre-Tridentine canon?
 
steido01 said:
I can’t speak for protestants, but we Lutherans specifically did not define a cannon in our Confessions. This was intentional, as the cannon was not settled in the Roman Catholic church at the time (there was plenty of disagreement at, and after, Trent within the Roman Catholic church). While most Lutherans today have moved the deuterocanonical books to the back of the Bible and consider them “useful, but not Scripture,” it is entirely open for scholarly discussion. Many Lutherans and Roman Catholics forget this fact.
Click to expand...
That is actually not true. The Catholic Church closed the Canon of Scripture in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I. After that there was no real disagreement of the canonicity of Scripture until Martin Luther decides in the 16th century that he wanted to only use the Hebrew Canon and not the Alexandrian Canon that was accepted until that time. The Council of Trent only declared firmly what had already been declared at the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage and what was firmly closed by Pope Innocent I.

Blessings!
 
SextusEmpiricus said:
Thank you this is helpful. But if it is the pre-Tridentine view, why are the deuterocanonical books excluded?
Click to expand...
Well, they aren’t technically excluded. Again, I have to stress my earlier post that Lutherans did not define a cannon. It has become common practice in America that the deuterocannonical books are not included, but it is not official.
SextusEmpiricus said:
Were not those books part of the pre-Tridentine canon?
Click to expand...
There was no official Roman Catholic cannon before Trent - local councils and synods codified slightly-varying (but largely identical) cannons (and some even with approval of popes), but no one standard was used across the entire church. Scholars were free to openly dispute the cannonicity of the deuterocannoncical books, and many did. In fact, one of Luther’s biggest critics, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, openly disputed the church’s decision to include them in the cannon before and at Trent. Erasmus, another notable Catholic contemporary of Luther’s, also disagreed with the council.
 
landon13 said:
That is actually not true. The Catholic Church closed the Canon of Scripture in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I. After that there was no real disagreement of the canonicity of Scripture until Martin Luther decides in the 16th century that he wanted to only use the Hebrew Canon and not the Alexandrian Canon that was accepted until that time. The Council of Trent only declared firmly what had already been declared at the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage and what was firmly closed by Pope Innocent I.

Blessings!
Click to expand...
.
👍

…That there may have been those that disagreed is of no import for the Church alone has the authority to close the Canon. Most Lutherans tell me Scripture interprets Scripture is their norm for interpretation. Obviously they reject Church Authority as the Catholic Church defines it and the Office of the Papacy. Thus how could there be a Lutheran opinion of what defines Canon of the Scripture when the Scriptures themselves had no
table of contents?. It’s impossible. Thus with that framework it would make sense it’s
neither.
 
steido01 said:
Well, they aren’t technically excluded. Again, I have to stress my earlier post that Lutherans did not define a cannon. It has become common practice in America that the deuterocannonical books are not included, but it is not official.

There was no official Roman Catholic cannon before Trent - local councils and synods codified slightly-varying (but largely identical) cannons, no one standard was used across the church. Scholars were free to openly dispute the cannonicity of the deuterocannoncical books, and many did. In fact, one of Luther’s biggest critics, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, openly disputed the church’s decision to include them in the cannon before and at Trent. Erasmus, another notable Catholic contemporary of Luther’s, also disagreed with the council.
Click to expand...
  1. We are taking about the official list of books in the Bible the CANON, not an artillery piece, a CANNON. I hate to be a nitpicker, but its harder to take your argument over the canon seriously when you can’t spell the word canon.
  2. As you know, the canon was determined in the 5th century by the Church. Individuals, yes even a cardinal, can dispute all they want to, that doesn’t mean the canon wasn’t closed. Many a Catholic theologian, and yes even cardinals (I’m thinking of you Martini), dispute issues such as female priests or contraception, nonetheless those issues are settled. An issue isn’t settled in the Church by gaining 100% agreement by all Catholics, an issue is settled by the Magisterium.
  3. Even if we granted your argument and said the canon was open until Trent, the canon was still validly closed by Trent by the same authority that defined the Trinity against Arianism - i.e. the Catholic Church. If you reject the Church’s authority to close the canon, you must also reject her authority to define the Trinity or write the Nicean Creed.
  4. The canon is nothing more than those books which are allowed to be read at Mass. No one after Pope Innocent closed the canon, in the fifth c, read any books at Mass other than those contained in modern Catholic Bibles. No one read, for example, First Clement, or the Didache, let alone the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Mary. Trent formally defined the canon, as it had to in the face of Luther’s decision to drop books out, but the issue was long settled.
  5. How exactly would Protestants even in principal close the canon? To what authority could they possible appeal to to do this? They can’t appeal to Scripture to define what makes up Scripture (that would be a circular argument, thus invalid).
 
landon13 said:
That is actually not true. The Catholic Church closed the Canon of Scripture in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I. After that there was no real disagreement of the canonicity of Scripture until Martin Luther decides in the 16th century that he wanted to only use the Hebrew Canon and not the Alexandrian Canon that was accepted until that time. The Council of Trent only declared firmly what had already been declared at the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage and what was firmly closed by Pope Innocent I.
Click to expand...
A letter to a single local bishop hardly “closes” an issue, and a local council’s decision does not speak for the entire church. While these episodes certainly formed a basis for Trent’s eventual decision, pretending that the Roman Catholic church was in total agreement on the canon before Trent is simply historical ignorance. Please take some time to read about Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus of Rotterdam - two very prominent Catholics who did not believe the deuterocanon was on the same level as Scripture.
Thus how could there be a Lutheran opinion of what defines Canon of the Scripture when the Scriptures themselves had no table of contents?
Click to expand...
Mary, the paradox that you’re proposing accurately represents protestant denominations that teach “Scripture! Scripture! Scripture” and forget where Scripture came from, but it is not an accurate representation of the Lutheran understanding of Scripture. Please take a moment to read the link I provided in my previous post.
 
SextusEmpiricus said:
Thank you this is helpful. But if it is the pre-Tridentine view, why are the deuterocanonical books excluded? Were not those books part of the pre-Tridentine canon?
Click to expand...
When the authority of the CC was thrown out by the Reformers and their successors.

This should give you an idea of how it all started…the removal of the DC books from protestant bibles:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

handsonapologetics.com/King_James_Bible.htm

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the “Apocrypha” as somehow being the last vestige of “popery” pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the “Apocrypha”) as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther’s Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments).

The “Apocrypha” remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the “bigger” Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the “Apocrypha.” The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800’s enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the “Apocrypha” was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called “Apocrypha” and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther’s gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an “Apocrypha” appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

forum.chnetwork.org/index.php/topic,11538.0.html

The deletion of the Deuterocanonical books in the King James Version (which originally included them) was not the work of any denominational authorities. Instead, it came about because the printers contracted to print copies of the Authorized Version were restricted in the amount they could charge for a Bible. The printers noted that Protestants generally, and the majority of Church of England adherents in particular, following the lead of Martin Luther and the Lutherans in Germany, did not seem to consider the Deuterocanonicals (which non-Catholics preferred to call Apocrypha, or “doubtful”) divinely inspired. They then proceeded to cut those pages out of the copies they printed, thereby reducing the amount of material and labor required and increasing their profit. Few complaints were registered, and the custom of leaving the “Apocryphal books” out of the King James Version was de facto established.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top