Protestant validity of scripture

[Shaolen]

A Baptist friend of mine posted:

"According to Shelley, when determining Scripture validity, the writing must,

1. Have life changing history to its readers,
2. Be read in Christian gatherings
3. Be authored by an original apostil."

What are your thoughts on these. #3 I would say the OT wasn’t written by apostles. Aren’t some of the NT writings disputed on who read them? Also aren’t there other ancient writings that very well could’ve fit this criteria?

 

[Della]

Whoever Shelley is his/her opinions seem to be pulled out of a hat–whose hat isn’t clear.

When the books of the Bible were compiled the criteria was a little different from “Shelley’s.” Indeed, it was a long, complex process as described in this article: catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm. I hope you can glean some good replies from it.

 

[dmar198]

A Baptist friend of mine posted:

"According to Shelley, when determining Scripture validity, the writing must,

1. Have life changing history to its readers,
2. Be read in Christian gatherings
3. Be authored by an original apostil."

What are your thoughts on these. #3 I would say the OT wasn’t written by apostles. Aren’t some of the NT writings disputed on who read them? Also aren’t there other ancient writings that very well could’ve fit this criteria?

Mark and Luke weren’t apostles. If by “original” he means “the Twelve,” then Paul wasn’t an original Apostle, he was second-generation. But he did see the Messiah, and he said the original Twelve gave him the right hand of fellowship, which signifies equality.

Also, the first two categories ought to lead your friend to include the Deuterocanonical Books, as Catholics do.

 

[steido01]

Yeah, your Baptist friend has a pretty stupid means of building a canon.

Please be careful not to present his unique views as if they were representative of “Protestantism.” Lutherans and Anglicans would sorely disagree with him.

 

[spiderweb]

A Baptist friend of mine posted:

"According to Shelley, when determining Scripture validity, the writing must,

1. Have life changing history to its readers,
2. Be read in Christian gatherings
3. Be authored by an original apostil."

What are your thoughts on these. #3 I would say the OT wasn’t written by apostles. Aren’t some of the NT writings disputed on who read them? Also aren’t there other ancient writings that very well could’ve fit this criteria?

Number 1 is definitely rather sketchy. This puts the judgment on it’s canonicity on the individual reader and whether it “moved” them in some manner. If that’s the criteria, for me personally Philemon and 3 John would be not part of sacred scripture. For someone else it might be Revelation or Jude, or any others.

 

[WD615]

A Baptist friend of mine posted:

"According to Shelley, when determining Scripture validity, the writing must,

1. Have life changing history to its readers,
2. Be read in Christian gatherings
3. Be authored by an original apostil."

What are your thoughts on these. #3 I would say the OT wasn’t written by apostles. Aren’t some of the NT writings disputed on who read them? Also aren’t there other ancient writings that very well could’ve fit this criteria?

As to,

1. having a “life changing history to its readers” is pretty subjective. In practice, this would mean nothing.
2. Also meaningless. Any book could possibly be read in Christian gatherings, especially if you already decided it was scripture.
3. Just so Shelley knows, the correct spelling is “apostle”.

Anyway, none of the Old Testament were written by apostles and you can’t prove that* all* of the Old Testament (Deuterocanon or not) was approved by the Apostles.

And you’re correct that some of the NT books don’t fit as well. By my count that would be Luke, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the letter of Hebrew (some people think it wasn’t written by Paul) for sure.

The biggest problem is that even if Shelley refined her criteria (and they are presented pretty sloppily), a Protestant would have to prove every book of the Bible was inspired Scripture. There’s just no way to accomplish it. Besides, with all the “historical-critical” scholarship going around today, it would be hard to arrive at certainty that you have the right Scriptures.

The Catholic arguments goes something like this: Christ was God, Christ assured the Church he founded of infallibility, His Church assures us that these 73 books are divinely inspired, inerrant Holy Scripture, God is Truth Himself, therefore these 73 books actually are divinely inspired, inerrant Holy Scripture.

But a Protestant couldn’t rely on such an argument.

 

[Della]

As to,

1. having a “life changing history to its readers” is pretty subjective. In practice, this would mean nothing.
2. Also meaningless. Any book could possibly be read in Christian gatherings, especially if you already decided it was scripture.
3. Just so Shelley knows, the correct spelling is “apostle”.

Anyway, none of the Old Testament were written by apostles and you can’t prove that* all* of the Old Testament (Deuterocanon or not) was approved by the Apostles.

And you’re correct that some of the NT books don’t fit as well. By my count that would be Luke, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the letter of Hebrew (some people think it wasn’t written by Paul) for sure.

The biggest problem is that even if Shelley refined her criteria (and they are presented pretty sloppily), a Protestant would have to prove every book of the Bible was inspired Scripture. There’s just no way to accomplish it. Besides, with all the “historical-critical” scholarship going around today, it would be hard to arrive at certainty that you have the right Scriptures.

The Catholic arguments goes something like this: Christ was God, Christ assured the Church he founded of infallibility, His Church assures us that these 73 books are divinely inspired, inerrant Holy Scripture, God is Truth Himself, therefore these 73 books actually are divinely inspired, inerrant Holy Scripture.

But a Protestant couldn’t rely on such an argument.

The funny thing is for centuries Protestants did rely on the Church’s definition of what consistutes Sacred Scripture. The original KJV contained the Deuterocanonical texts. They were taken out later. What we see in our day is some Protestants, generally on the Evangelical side, trying to redefine what is/isn’t Scripture to make it fit their historically anchorless spirituality and beliefs. I believe they will find that that way leads to unbelief, as does the “historical-critical” method. Any method not inspired by the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ to guide his Church into all truth, is doomed to fail, with potentially dire consequences.