Protestants - Please participate in this Poll on the Canon.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
On another thread HERE the following statement was put forward as regards to what the “typical” protestant may do re: scripture
Radical said:
should not be used to establish doctrine. Their authority is the same as possessed by early church fathers who concluded otherwise…all are equal members of Christ’s church. It might be noted that certain groups of ECFs claim a thing called apostolic succession, but since the typical Protestant rejects that claim, the typical Protestant is free to look upon the earlier decisions wrt the canonicity of books as being open to review. In other words, a 16th or 21st century Protestant can consider whether “James” should be included in the NT canon for the same reasons that some ECFs asked the same question. Likewise, a 16th or 21st century Protestant can consider whether “the apocrypha” should be included in the OT canon for the same reasons that Jerome pondered the matter. As councils are quite capable of error, a council’s decision isn’t determinative.
Click to expand...
For Purposes of this poll I am interested ONLY in the opinions of those commonly referred to as “Protestants”, or those who’s church communities have sprung directly or indirectly from the “Reformation” of the 16th Century. So Catholics Please do not post on this thread. Thank you.

Would you say that you agree with the above quoted statement that the “typical protestant”, is free to include or exclude any book he or she chooses to from the canon of scripture?

Peace
James
 
Neither of these choices are really satisfactory for me. Since the books weren’t chosen by God and were chosen by early church fathers that eliminates the 2nd choice. And since God speaks to us even to this day I would say that things can change. I would say I take a uniquely Episcopalian view I guess.
 
nhylan said:
Neither of these choices are really satisfactory for me. Since the books weren’t chosen by God and were chosen by early church fathers that eliminates the 2nd choice. And since God speaks to us even to this day I would say that things can change. I would say I take a uniquely Episcopalian view I guess.
Click to expand...
But would you feel it is the individuals right to pick and choose?

Peace
James
 
Neither. I don’t think the “extra books” the Catholic Bible include are of the “quality” of the others, but I do feel they are useful and should be read and I am free to do so. They are certainly not forbidden books to protestants
 
Given these two choices - God set the canon or man sets the canon - I’d want it to be God at work! Eternal truth is at stake. And I accept that the Spirit guided the Church, the ECFs, and the Councils in a special way. We see it in the lives of the martyrs, the holiness of the Church leaders’ decisions, and in many other aspects of their faith. So who am I to question what God did through them? He guided them in their choice of canonical books to choose exactly what needed to be chosen. We use the full Septuagint canon.
 
I think I understand the question, but am not sure…

The way I figure it is I can either
(1) Go it alone and figure out for myself what my own personal canon will be. If I don’t like the book of James…excluded. If I like the writings of Ignatius…added.
(2) I can accept that God was working when he used human agencies a long time to sort these issues out. Therefore I accept what all Christians have accepted from the beginning.

Of course this does not deal with the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha or the 8 extra books the Orthodox include but nobody else includes. That is an issue me no touch with 10 foot pole.
 
Lutheranteach said:
Neither. I don’t think the “extra books” the Catholic Bible include are of the “quality” of the others, but I do feel they are useful and should be read and I am free to do so. They are certainly not forbidden books to protestants
Click to expand...
Was I not clear in my post? Was the quoted post not clear in it’s implication?

This is not about what books should or should not be included in the canon. This is about whether the “Typical” individual “protestant” has the authority to accept or reject books as "inspired’.

Do you, Lutherenteach, as a, “21st century Protestant (you) can consider (for yourself)whether “James” should be included in the NT canon”?

Peace
James
 
AmateurPianist said:
I think I understand the question, but am not sure…

The way I figure it is I can either
(1) Go it alone and figure out for myself what my own personal canon will be. If I don’t like the book of James…excluded. If I like the writings of Ignatius…added.
(2) I can accept that God was working when he used human agencies a long time to sort these issues out. Therefore I accept what all Christians have accepted from the beginning.

Of course this does not deal with the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha or the 8 extra books the Orthodox include but nobody else includes. That is an issue me no touch with 10 foot pole.
Click to expand...
You understand the question quite well.
But you see that “Radical” has stated that the “typical Protestant” is free to look upon the matter of canonicity with complete independance.
I am trying to find out if indeed this IS how the “Typical Protestant” views this. My guess is that it is not.

Peace
James
 
blazerdave said:
Given these two choices - God set the canon or man sets the canon - I’d want it to be God at work! Eternal truth is at stake. And I accept that the Spirit guided the Church, the ECFs, and the Councils in a special way. We see it in the lives of the martyrs, the holiness of the Church leaders’ decisions, and in many other aspects of their faith. So who am I to question what God did through them? He guided them in their choice of canonical books to choose exactly what needed to be chosen. We use the full Septuagint canon.
Click to expand...
So your response appears to be that, no the “the typical Protestant (as an individual) is (NOT) free to look upon the earlier decisions wrt the canonicity of books as being open to review”.

Peace
James
 
Absolutely! Individuals lack the holiness, the discernment, and the calling to determine the Canon. It’s not open to review.
 
JRKH said:
On another thread HERE the following statement was put forward as regards to what the “typical” protestant may do re: scripture

For Purposes of this poll I am interested ONLY in the opinions of those commonly referred to as “Protestants”, or those who’s church communities have sprung directly or indirectly from the “Reformation” of the 16th Century. So Catholics Please do not post on this thread. Thank you.

Would you say that you agree with the above quoted statement that the “typical protestant”, is free to include or exclude any book he or she chooses to from the canon of scripture?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Like several other posters, I’m not really happy with the way the question is posed. But since the main point of your question seems to be whether an individual can decide to reject parts of the Canon, I answered “no.” But I believe that God has “fixed” the Canon only in the sense that God guided the Church through a long process of discussion and consensus, which did not reach completely assured results with regard to the OT. So the OT canon is not, in my opinion, fixed to this day. I don’t think that Protestants who reject the deuterocanonicals, or Catholics who accept them as fully canonical, are going against divine revelation. Each has good reasons for their position. As an Anglican, I take that annoying “via media” approach and side with many Christians scholars throughout the centuries in saying that the deuteros should be read liturgically (and devotionally) by Christians but should not be regarded as a source for doctrine in the way that the undisputed books are. But I don’t claim that this is anything more than a reasonable attempt to do justice to all the evidence.

Edwin
 
The “canon” of scripture consists of those books that Christians use as scripture, be they Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic or ???.

That Catholics have a set number of books they use versus what Orthodox use verses what Protestants use…really doesn’t cause a problem for me or most Friends. Canonical development took place over many years and have been set by various institutions…so if those institutions feel the need to “canonize” a book and reject a different book…they must do as they feel necessary.

I’m sure God is able to speak through 3 & 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 as easily as He can through Exodus, Judith, and John.

Many Friends that I know use the Oxford Study Bible Expanded Edition…which includes the “deurtocanical” books used by Catholics…and expanded canon used by Orthodox…the “finger pointing” seems silly to me…but…that’s just me.🙂

The way the question is posed seems to be “lacking” something nebulous…as though the question format is trying to “proove” something…something that really has no bearing to our walk with God…just another point of division we share.
 
JRKH said:
You understand the question quite well.
But you see that “Radical” has stated that the “typical Protestant” is free to look upon the matter of canonicity with complete independance.
I am trying to find out if indeed this IS how the “Typical Protestant” views this. My guess is that it is not.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Given that is what you meant, then I voted no with the understanding that my “no” vote is not to be interpreted as a position on the “Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha” either way.
 
I would say that no, man does not have the right at this point to determine was is canonical and what is not. That being said there is the interpretive right of each reader based on their own experiences which influence meaning for all who read. I am also going via media on this one.
 
JRKH said:
You understand the question quite well.
But you see that “Radical” has stated that the “typical Protestant” is free to look upon the matter of canonicity with complete independance.
I am trying to find out if indeed this IS how the “Typical Protestant” views this. My guess is that it is not.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Oh…

I know of absolutely 0 organizations that profess an individual Christian is free to pick 'n choose what his personal canon of Scripture will be.

Are you sure that is what “Radical” meant? Sounds pretty farfetched to me.
 
JRKH said:
On another thread HERE the following statement was put forward as regards to what the “typical” protestant may do re: scripture

For Purposes of this poll I am interested ONLY in the opinions of those commonly referred to as “Protestants”, or those who’s church communities have sprung directly or indirectly from the “Reformation” of the 16th Century. So Catholics Please do not post on this thread. Thank you.

Would you say that you agree with the above quoted statement that the “typical protestant”, is free to include or exclude any book he or she chooses to from the canon of scripture?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Hi James,
As a Lutheran, I look to the Church and not my own decisions regarding the canon, just like most things that are not adiaphora. I would say, however, that it seems the times before the Reformation and Trent that theologians had leeway to discuss their value, and their canonicity without the condemnations and polemics of today. Maybe I’m wrong about that, though.

Jon
 
we have to defer to a governing body, to figure out which books were inspired. otherwise. why would 1 and 2 chronicles be in there? its a boar. although, read in conjunction with 1 and 2 kings. it makes more sense. Peace 🙂
 
JRKH said:
You understand the question quite well.
But you see that “Radical” has stated that the “typical Protestant” is free to look upon the matter of canonicity with complete independance.
I am trying to find out if indeed this IS how the “Typical Protestant” views this. My guess is that it is not.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
And the more I think about it, a “yes” answer means that we really don’t know and don’t even care what God’s Word is. You are free to include Clement and ignore James. I am free to include Ignatius and ignore Hebrews. Good grief, the Mormons are free to put their additions in. After all we don’t know and don’t care what God’s word is now do we. All we have is our best guesses and opinions. And it really does not matter if our best guess is wrong.
 
AmateurPianist said:
And the more I think about it, a “yes” answer means that we really don’t know and don’t even care what God’s Word is. You are free to include Clement and ignore James. I am free to include Ignatius and ignore Hebrews. Good grief, the Mormons are free to put their additions in. After all we don’t know and don’t care what God’s word is now do we. All we have is our best guesses and opinions. And it really does not matter if our best guess is wrong.
Click to expand...
😃 i had to look at the yes and no, carefully too. it kinda threw me off at first. lol! Peace 🙂
 
an individual, by definition, cannot establish or create a “canon”, so the wording of the question presumes the answer (I did not answer the poll). This poll is written in what I take to be very Catholic language: You either allow any/all individuals total free choice (no canon possible, no sense of authority) or you accept that God chose the canon. My Protestant upbringing taught me something in between: inspired by faith in God, religious leaders combine their intelligence and wisdom and determine a “canon.” This, then, is promoted down through the denomination hierarchy with varying degrees of authority and rigidity, depending on the denomination. I imagine that there are very few denominations that simply state that an individual can pick their own canon–besides, as I said, that is a contradiction in terms.

“canon”
can·on 1 (knn)
n.
  1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
  2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
a. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5.
a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).
b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top