Protestant Council to Determine Canonicity

[landon13]

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

Those were not “local” councils. They were Church councils of the Catholic Church. The only reason why people debated the Apocrypha is because it was not part of the Hebrew canon which means if you didn’t know that there are no copies of it in Hebrew. Now archaeologists have found some copies of various parts of the apocrypha in original Hebrew. The Church didn’t debate the official decree of the Papacy or the Church Councils because they were agreed upon by the entire Church.

Lets look at various bishops who created lists of inspired books:

Mileto, Bishop of Sardis in, 175 AD
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185 AD
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 325 AD
Pope Damascus in AD 382, prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books
The Council of Hippo in AD 393 approved present OT and NT of 73 books
The Council of Carthage in AD 397 approved same OT and NT canon. This is the council protestants take as the authority for the NT canon of books
Pope St. Innocent I in AD 405 approved the 73 book canon and closed the canon of the Bible

Lets also take a look at a quote by Martin Luther himself:

We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics- that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it

Luther supports that without the decision of the Church, we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired.

St. Augustine says:

I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic church directed me to do so.

 

[Lancer]

Originally Posted by steido01
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.

Some facts for accuracy—on the RCC Canon of Scripture…46 OT and 27 NT books of the Latin Vulgate are the Canon of RCC…open for discussion?..have at it…but it is not open as to their authenticity as Divinely Inspired…and being part of the Canon of Scripture…that was settled before Lutherans came into existence.

Pax Christi

Council of Trent
First period at Trent

After exhaustive preliminary discussions in the various congregations, two decrees were ready for debate at the fourth session (8 April, 1546), and were adopted by the fathers. In treating the canon of Scripture they declare at the same time that in matters of faith and morals the tradition of the Church is, together with the Bible, the standard of supernatural revelation;** then taking up the text and the use of **the sacred Books they declare the Vulgate to be the authentic text ****for sermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations. An alteration intended to improve: textual emendations made by the editor–text…not the books].
newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

For additional clarity…

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

 

[PietroPaolo]

Stiedo01 name one Christian, prior to the Reformation, who held the exact list of 66 books found in modern Protestant Bibles. Just ONE. Thanks.

 

[landon13]

Stiedo01 name one Christian, prior to the Reformation, who held the exact list of 66 books found in modern Protestant Bibles. Just ONE. Thanks.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

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.

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.

Thank you for your response.

Regarding disagreements, it seems that these issues in the Catholic Church are settled by the Magisterium (though I’m sure a Catholic will correct any misunderstanding), but how are disagreements in the Lutheran church settled? Is there a Lutheran Magisterium? Or did all Lutherans agree on the canon at the moment of the Reformation? This probably seems too simple, but I am unfamiliar with how Luther constructed his canon; was there a gradual understanding among pre-Reformation “Lutherans” that certain books were not Divinely Inspired? (Please note, I do understand that Lutheranism did not technically exist before the Reformation, but certainly there were those with “Lutheran sympathies” before the 16th century).

Obviously, what I am struggling to understand is the issue of authority. For Catholics, it seems there is a clear authority, namely, the Bishop of Rome. One can argue whether or not this is a legitimate authority, but that is not the issue here. Instead, the issue here is authority within Protestant churches, particularly as it relates to the canon. Can any Protestant, as Luther did, and apparently Calvin, simply reject certain books as long as they offer sound, scholastic reasoning? I grew up Presbyterian, and I seem to recall a verse in the bible (Revelation?) regarding adding/subtracting to scripture. I have always understood this to mean that a believer cannot add or subtract books from the bible, but perhaps my ignorance is showing.

Thanks again for your response.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

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.

Again, very helpful (though it is quite a bit to read). Thank you Pablope.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

.

 

[steido01]

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.

A repeated slip of the finger! Thank you.

1. 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.

I cannot, and will not, defend modern Catholics who disagree with their own church’s beliefs. I have much more in common with you, friend, than I do with them. If Cajetan and Erasmus were simply “individuals” who disagreed, then why allow them to continue teaching their errors? And why should the “individual” views of a local council and a single letter to a local bishop serve as testimony for the entire church? Perhaps most perplexing, if the canon was officially settled before Trent, why bother having an open debate regarding it at the council? Wouldn’t the mere fact that there was a debate mean that the ‘already-closed’ issue was, indeed, not yet settled?

1. 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.

When a council or pope rules in accordance with Scripture, as a Lutheran, I accept that teaching as it reflects the authority of Scripture; when a council contradicts Scripture, then that council has erred. Councils and popes have historically proven themselves to contradict each other - I’d rather place my trust in Scripture. “On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused.”

1. 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.

I am glad we agree that Trent formally defined the cannon.

1. 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).

You’ll have to ask a protestant. If you read the link I provided, you’ll see that Lutherans do not define Scripture in the same way that Reformed folks do. We’re rather old-fashioned. And sometimes, we misspell ‘canon.’

 

[PietroPaolo]

pablope;10876975:

This raises another interesting question, to which you may not know the answer: Do Lutherans view Martin Luther in the same way Catholics view the Pope? I understand the term “pope” is not used, but I am referring to characteristics, not nomenclature.

(The same question for followers of John Calvin).

They can’t. Even if they believed everything Luther wrote was infallible (they don’t) it still wouldn’t be the same as the pope as the pope is a current, living, breathing man who can make decisions TODAY. Luther said his last word 500 yrs ago. He can’t settle disputes actively today the way a pope can.

BTW, they don’t view Luther’s writings as a standard they must adhere to. Here is Luther from his famous 95 Thesis:

MartinLuther:

“inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh” (Thesis 3) 
“God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest” (Thesis 70)
“That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish” (Thesis 25)

No Lutherans believe these today.

 

[steido01]

Stiedo01 name one Christian, prior to the Reformation, who held the exact list of 66 books found in modern Protestant Bibles. Just ONE. Thanks.

I’m not a protestant. How can I speak for them? Pietro, please understand that I cannot defend a group I am not a part of.

I loathe when people simply cut-and-paste large sections of text, but I think this may help explain the Lutheran view and simultaneously address the issue of ‘authority’ as it has been brought up in this thread:

An authoritative, absolutely reliable, Scripture requires an authoritative, absolutely reliable table of contents, but there is no easy way around the historical question. Rome answers by asserting that the Holy Spirit guided the Council of Trent to vote correctly on the truth, and Protestants tend to look for earlier, divinely guided events leading to canonization.

The Lutheran approach to this problem is surprising in that we don’t seek to establish such a table of contents. We hold that the lack of definitive historical evidence cannot simply be eliminated by properly consecrated people getting together and taking a Spirit-guided vote, and so there ultimately isn’t anything we can do about it. In other words, no amount of voting, liturgical development, or theological reflection can answer for us whether Hebrews was written by an apostle or at least a close associate. The evidence just isn’t there.

So what’s our answer? Well, go back to that word, “canon.” “Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have 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.

Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:

1. 
   *] A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
   *] Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

1. 
   From: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[PietroPaolo]

A repeated slip of the finger! Thank you.

I cannot, and will not, defend modern Catholics who disagree with their own church’s beliefs. I have much more in common with you, friend, than I do with them. If Cajetan and Erasmus were simply “individuals” who disagreed, then why allow them to continue teaching their errors?

Of course they were simply “individuals” - what else were they? Were they ecumenical councils? Were they Popes? Could they exercise the Magisterium of Church? Further, if you are going to cite Erasmus and Cajetan, perhaps you ought to include a quote and a source for their dissent on the canon. I’d like to see exactly what they said as so much of your argument turns on their writings.

Perhaps most perplexing, if the canon was officially settled before Trent, why bother having an open debate regarding it at the council? Wouldn’t the mere fact that there was a debate mean that the ‘already-closed’ issue was, indeed, not yet settled?

Why is this perplexing? I know Catholics that don’t believe in the Divinity of Christ. Does that mean the issue isn’t settled? Of course not. Again, Catholic belief is not determined by unanimity. It is determined by the Magisterium of the Church.

When a council or pope rules in accordance with Scripture, as a Lutheran, I accept that teaching as it reflects the authority of Scripture; when a council contradicts Scripture, then that council has erred. Councils and popes have historically proven themselves to contradict each other - I’d rather place my trust in Scripture. “On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused.”

No Council or Pope has ever contradicted Scripture, they may have contradicted your personal interpretation of Scripture, but not Scripture itself.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I’m not a protestant. How can I speak for them? Pietro, please understand that I cannot defend a group I am not a part of.

Your church, the LCMS, hold a 66 book canon of scripture. **Thus, again, I ask you - provide ONE name of ONE Christian who lived prior to the Reformation and who held the exact list of 66 book in your LCMS Bible. Just ONE. **Certainly, there must have been one person in all of Christendom for the first 3/4’s of Christianity who got the canon right. Or was the Holy Spirit awaiting Luther et al in the 16th century after Christ to finally get around to giving us the correct contents of Scripture?

I’m not asking about ‘Protestants’ if you don’t care for the term - I’m asking about YOUR BIBLE.
LCMS:

Bible Translation Recommended
December 2003

A statement from the Commission on Worship of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

After careful study and consultation, the Commission on Worship is recommending the English Standard Version (ESV) as the primary Bible translation for the new LCMS hymnal and its companion volumes.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

When a council or pope rules in accordance with Scripture, as a Lutheran, I accept that teaching as it reflects the authority of Scripture; when a council contradicts Scripture, then that council has erred. Councils and popes have historically proven themselves to contradict each other - I’d rather place my trust in Scripture. “On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused.”

You seem to be saying, and please correct me if I have misunderstood, that you have just as much authority to decide Christian doctrine, including the canon, as any pope or council. Perhaps the difference is that you do not claim infallibility. If that is the case, do you consider that you may be wrong about the inspiration of a particular book or a particular doctrine? And further, if that is the case, would that not result in perpetual second-guessing? Under this paradigm, it seems no one could ever be sure which books are inspired, and which Christian doctrine is “true.” I do not see how any movement could stand the test of time without any solid footing. Who would want to follow the Person of Christ if one can never be sure of who he was or what he taught?

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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?

No Protestant Councils. Nope, none, zero, nada, zilch. Protestantism started in the 1,500’s and it is not a Church, but various ecclesial communities with various differing beliefs.

There is no such thing as a Protestant Canon because there is no such thing as a Protestant Church.

And how can you have a Canon without an authority from properly ordained ministers as delineated in the New Testament (The laying of the hands by those in authority - iow - by direct Apostolic succession)?

It would be Plagiarism for me to go and get some buddies and say that “we” will define what the canon of Scriptures is outside the Church that Christ founded. Think about it, I am declaring that the Holy Spirit privately revealed to me and my buddies the actual books of the Bible without the Church. But get this… I’m going to say that those books are the most popular books used by the Jewish people (OT) and the most popular books used by the Catholic Church (NT). That way I can say that my private revelation is consistent with the majority of the consensus of people I think are wrong!

Goodness… the irony!!!

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

No Protestant Councils. Nope, none, zero, nada, zilch. Protestantism started in the 1,500’s and it is not a Church, but various ecclesial communities with various differing beliefs.

There is no such thing as a Protestant Canon because there is no such thing as a Protestant Church.

And how can you have a Canon without an authority from properly ordained ministers as delineated in the New Testament (The laying of the hands by those in authority - iow - by direct Apostolic succession)?

It would be Plagiarism for me to go and get some buddies and say that “we” will define what the canon of Scriptures is outside the Church that Christ founded. Think about it, I am declaring that the Holy Spirit privately revealed to me and my buddies the actual books of the Bible without the Church. But get this… I’m going to say that those books are the most popular books used by the Jewish people (OT) and the most popular books used by the Catholic Church (NT). That way I can say that my private revelation is consistent with the majority of the consensus of people I think are wrong!

Goodness… the irony!!!

Certainly there is some well-defined authority within the protestant community? And this gets to the crux of the matter - how do Protestant believers come know which books are divinely inspired? If it is first through a fallible pastor, then do the believers come to pray/meditate on what the books are and arrive at their own conclusions? It is perplexing to me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Certainly there is some well-defined authority within the protestant community?

There is not. Each individual community will have its own authority, and when a group of people doesn’t agree with that authority they leave that community and start another one, and it has been like this for the last 500 years.

The really sad part is that most of the people mean well. And most of the people do try to mold their lives to Jesus Christ, in their own way. I do as well, but the difference is that I (Like other Catholics) have some boundaries around me to help me don’t stray away from the faith. Also sadly, not every Catholic follows the boundaries set by the Church.

And this gets to the crux of the matter - how do Protestant believers come know which books are divinely inspired? If it is first through a fallible pastor, then do the believers come to pray/meditate on what the books are and arrive at their own conclusions? It is perplexing to me.

Here is how they believe it:

Because it is said by someone other than the Catholic Church… I know… it is also sad as well.

Most people don’t realize how difficult the process was to determined the divinely inspired text from the non-divinely inspired text. Especially when you consider how the Church was heavily persecuted, tortured and murdered for those first 300-400 years.

It is only by the Grace of God that the Church survived and that the Church was able to discern the texts that were inspired. When you really think about it - How can you validate a text which the originals are not found? By comparing it with the Living Tradition of the Church? How else can you determine the consistency of the Words that are written in those books? By those who have been chosen by God to tend His sheep.

We don’t see anything in Scriptures to give sole authority to the Written Word. We see plenty in Scriptures to support the authority of the Church over all other mediums of communication.

Case closed.

 

[pablope]

You seem to be saying, and please correct me if I have misunderstood, that you have just as much authority to decide Christian doctrine, including the canon, as any pope or council.

You basically said what those who threw out the authority of the Church are doing, without realizing it.

Perhaps the difference is that you do not claim infallibility. If that is the case, do you consider that you may be wrong about the inspiration of a particular book or a particular doctrine? And further, if that is the case, would that not result in perpetual second-guessing? Under this paradigm, it seems no one could ever be sure which books are inspired, and which Christian doctrine is “true.” I do not see how any movement could stand the test of time without any solid footing. Who would want to follow the Person of Christ if one can never be sure of who he was or what he taught?

 

[ltwin]

How do Protestants determine whether or not a book is divinely inspired?

As the confessions quoted above say, from the witness of the Holy Spirit and the common consent of the church; those books that are commonly received as inspired are included. The Apocrypha are not deemed to be inspired, though they useful for private edification.

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?

You are stretching when you say, “Protestants do not believe in church authority.” The matter of the canon for Protestants is a settled issue.

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)?

No. They are handed a Bible and told, “This is the written Word of God. It contains all things necessary to salvation and life.”

Or do the Confessions work in the same manner as Catholic dogma?

In some ways they do. Because a particular group believes a particular confession be a reliable exposition of Scripture, it can be “authoritative” for that particular group.

However, there are plenty of Christian groups who don’t list the books of the Bible at all because the matter of the canon is already settled and there is no need to put it in writing.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As the confessions quoted above say, from the witness of the Holy Spirit and the common consent of the church; those books that are commonly received as inspired are included. The Apocrypha are not deemed to be inspired, though they useful for private edification.

**Who did the Holy Spirit witnessed to, for the Canon outside the Catholic Church?

The Common consent of what Church? And has this Church been on earth since Christ and His Apostles?**

You are stretching when you say, “Protestants do not believe in church authority.” The matter of the canon for Protestants is a settled issue.

For which Protestants?

No. They are handed a Bible and told, “This is the written Word of God. It contains all things necessary to salvation and life.”

Thanks for your honesty. Who determined that it contains all things necessary to salvation and life?

In some ways they do. Because a particular group believes a particular confession be a reliable exposition of Scripture, it can be “authoritative” for that particular group.

The Church of The Spaghetti Monster comes to mind…

However, there are plenty of Christian groups who don’t list the books of the Bible at all because the matter of the canon is already settled and there is no need to put it in writing.

This book contains all things necessary for salvation and life and there is no need to list its contents??? I’ll have to meditate on this for awhile…

 

[working4u]

There is not. Each individual community will have its own authority, and when a group of people doesn’t agree with that authority they leave that community and start another one, and it has been like this for the last 500 years.

The really sad part is that most of the people mean well. And most of the people do try to mold their lives to Jesus Christ, in their own way. I do as well, but the difference is that I (Like other Catholics) have some boundaries around me to help me don’t stray away from the faith. Also sadly, not every Catholic follows the boundaries set by the Church.

Here is how they believe it:

Because it is said by someone other than the Catholic Church… I know… it is also sad as well.

Most people don’t realize how difficult the process was to determined the divinely inspired text from the non-divinely inspired text. Especially when you consider how the Church was heavily persecuted, tortured and murdered for those first 300-400 years.

It is only by the Grace of God that the Church survived and that the Church was able to discern the texts that were inspired. When you really think about it - How can you validate a text which the originals are not found? By comparing it with the Living Tradition of the Church? How else can you determine the consistency of the Words that are written in those books? By those who have been chosen by God to tend His sheep.

We don’t see anything in Scriptures to give sole authority to the Written Word.

We see plenty in Scriptures to support the authority of the Church over all other mediums of communication.

Case closed.

thanks for defining why the catholic understanding is different than that of the protestant understanding of the bible–

yes this guy kinda agrees with you

The Church is Hypnotized!

youtu.be/d99fX7N1Qjw