Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[guanophore]

1. They have God as their author. Any human council, simply confirming what Christians already believed (for example the 27 book canon was accepted prior to any regional synod).

I think as you study history, it will become abundantly clear to you that this is a false statement. Except for the God as their author part.

Besides, an Ecumenical council is not a “human council”, it is an infallible Church council. It is made infallible by the HS, who is present, and guides the decisions that are made. That is why, when James wrote the letter to the Gentiles, he could say “it seemed right to the HS and to us”.

As far as having God as their author, Christians conclude this based upon fulfilled prophecy, personal testimony in how the teachings in it have changed lives, it is without error in any area, and apostolic authorship as attested by the church throughout history.

There are errors in the Scriptures. Their inerrancy is in the area of faith and morals, not science, language, or other areas. There are places where mistakes were made by the authors and transcriptionists.

But yes, they are attested to by the Church throughout history, from the time they were penned, until the canon was closed.

During the Reformation, some people decided to reject the testimony of the historic Apostolic Church, and rejected some of the books used by Jesus and the Apostles.

There are several other reasons but these will suffice for anyone who might attempt to talk me out of believing a 27 book canon unless I accept it for the reason they do.

It appears that our reasons for accepting it are the same.

2. All Christian groups accept a 27 book canon.  While there were a few areas that may not have been definite about the 27 book canon according to some authors, I will add that most of these authors who profess a lack of belief in the 27 book canon held heretical views contrary to scripture. Specifically individuals who may have believed in the inspiration of Clement, the Shepherd, or the Epistle of Barnabas.   I am prepared to name names so I hope anyone who disagrees is prepared to defend all of their views.

There was plenty of dispute among Christians that did not hold heretical views, also. Revelation was one of the hotly contested books.

1. Christians recognize what God has done. In the New Testament, absolutely no human authority or councils made the Jews accept scripture.

I think you misunderstand the nature of authority, and of councils. They are infallible because God makes them so, not because humans are involved. Besides, the Church adopted the Septuagint because it was the collection of holy writings used by Jesus and the Apostles, not because there was any agreement among the Jews. Clearly, not all the Jews did accept the Scriptures that Jesus did.

It is the New Testament of groups that I believe accurately reflect the teachings contained in them.

It seems like what you are saying is that other people who believe the same doctrines you do accept the canon, and therefore, it is an accurate collection of books.

 

[byfaithalone]

I think as you study history, it will become abundantly clear to you that this is a false statement. Except for the God as their author part.

How so? The Scripture were Scripture before any council declared them to be. The OT Scriptures needed no council to declare them God’s word. No man can declare what Scripture is. They can only recongize, by the leading of God, what already is Scripture.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sorry to not answer as much.
My health has absolutely stunk the last two days.

I do not believe there are any contradictions (science, history, morals, doctrine) anything in scripture. Its one of the things after I got saved and was reading all of the contemporary scholars that convinced me their case was all hat and no horse.

I am curious about your statements about ecumenical councils. The local regional synods were not infallible. However, I understand Catholics believe Trent was?
Thank you

 

[byfaithalone]

Sorry to not answer as much.
My health has absolutely stunk the last two days.

I do not believe there are any contradictions (science, history, morals, doctrine) anything in scripture. Its one of the things after I got saved and was reading all of the contemporary scholars that convinced me their case was all hat and no horse.

I am curious about your statements about ecumenical councils. The local regional synods were not infallible. However, I understand Catholics believe Trent was?
Thank you

They believe their leaders are infallible on fatih and morals. No human being is infallible.
The Catholic Church claims ITSELF to be infallible. God never once said man would be infallible on any matter.

 

[tester]

As these posts have gone into the area of infallibility of the Catholic Church and the canon of scripture Dr Joe Mizzi writes on the this very subject: (and the question in the OP)

I tend to agree with his points.

Your purpose is to convince me about the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and that consequently I should submit to Rome’s authority.

To do so**, you ask me how I know that the books of the Bible are inspired.** You are not satisfied with my reasons, not least because the evidence is subjective. In other words, you’re saying that there’s no other way to be sure about the canon unless I accept the authority of an infallible church.

It is curious that I gave personal reasons for my convictions, just as you have requested, but you immediately turned back to me protesting: ‘That’s all subjective!’ Well, of course it is. That’s exactly what you have asked me for!

I am not attempting to prove the Bible’s inspiration on the grounds of my subjective beliefs. The Bible is what it is apart from my convictions. Objective truth is independent of our beliefs. If the world denies that the Bible is true, so be it. The Bible is still the Word of God. Let God be true, and every man a liar. The sun still shines even if all the people of the world were blind.

It is true, of course, that Muslims and Mormons can say similar things about their books. That does not necessarily prove what is claimed; it just shows that people can be mistaken and deceived. This fearful reality greatly humbles my intellectual pride because I realize that it was not by my searching and understanding that I came to know God and His Word. The lost sheep did not find the Shepherd; it was the Good Shepherd who sought after and found the lost sinner. I can never thank God enough for opening my eyes to see and believe His Word.

**Furthermore, you argue that the only sure foundation for our knowledge is the witness of an infallible Church. In other words, you reason this way:

The Church is infallible.

The Church states that the Bible is inspired.

Hence, we can be sure that the Bible is inspired. **

You probably don’t realize that your argument about subjectivity can be applied with equal force to your position. When I ask you why you believe that the books of the Bible are inspired, you appeal to the constant witness of the church over 2000 years.

Well and good.
You can add that piece of valid evidence to the reasons in my list, for **I too regard the witness of the church to be generally reliable and trustworthy (though not infallible). **

As a matter of fact, I also mentioned this reason in my answer.
** I wrote: ‘First of all, I was influenced by the testimony and teaching of the church (the Roman Catholic Church in my childhood, and by the writing of godly Protestant authors later on) to a high and reverent esteem of the Bible.’**

Your conviction that the Bible is inspired rests on your presupposition that the church is infallible. Can’t you see that this is also subjective? How do you know for sure that the church is infallible?
From a purely logical point of view, we cannot avoid an element of subjectivity.

You got yourself entangled in your own thesis. Remember your original aim, namely to convince me that the church is infallible? Now look where you place that proposition. You place it in as the first premise rather than at the conclusion of the argument. You did not prove that the church is infallible; you’re simply assuming that it is.

To complicate matters, you use the Bible to justify your presupposition on the infallibility of the church. Take a second look at your argument:

‘I believe that Jesus established a Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth and this is why I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.’

You start with a truth taken from the Bible, namely that Jesus established the church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
And again, you take another truth from the Bible, namely that the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth.
** But in all this you’re assuming that the Bible is inspired (otherwise you cannot be sure that what it teaches about the church is certainly true);** and finally you come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.
That’s a classic example of circular argumentation. You are begging the question by tacitly assuming the truth of the conclusion (‘the Bible is inspired’) in the first premise (‘the church is infallible because the inspired Bible so teaches’).

**Why don’t you argue as follows instead, since your real intention is to prove the infallibility of the church?

The Bible is the inspired Word of God.

The Bible teaches that the church is infallible.

Therefore the church is infallible. **

… If you do, you must first of all assert your belief in the inspiration of the Bible apart from the infallibility of the Catholic Church! …

 

[clmowry]

Double sigh.

And how do you objectively discern that the burning in your heart is the Holy Spirit and not Tina’s wishful thinking?

It is a apparently “lucid in Scripture” for millions of people that there is a whole other book that we should be reading.

It is “lucid in scripture” for many others that Christ was just a man.

It is “lucid in scripture” for some that unless you are baptized by full immersion in living water you are going to hell.

It is “lucid in scripture” for others that baptism is completely unnecessary.

There are a billion people that see that it is “lucid in scripture” that the Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ to lead us to salvation.

All of these different beliefs come from people making the exact same claim that you make.

One of two things is obviously true.

Either one cannot be objectively certain that they are being led by the Holy Spirit to individual truth.

Or the Holy Spirit leads people to different truths.

The second would make God the father of lies, which only leaves us with the first.

Chuck

Sigh. We can only really understand truth with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Do you really fail to grasp that? Is the Church an adequate substitute for the Holy Spirit? Is there presumption in such a claim? Do YOU understand everything the Catholic Church teaches? I have been told no one does. Not all things are necessary for salvation. The things that are are lucid in Scripture.

The “problem” is solved when one realizes one is indeed in contact with Ultimate Truth Who is not subjective. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one can come to the Father without Him. A church that insists that it is the way, the truth and the life and no one can come to God except through it seems to be thrusting itself into a place that is perilous. We have freedom in Christ, freedom to live holy and godly lives in Christ, by faith and with grace, because of Him. The church can help, but it also hinders.

-Tina “Well, I DID stop posting on this thread ” G

 

[clmowry]

How so? The Scripture were Scripture before any council declared them to be. The OT Scriptures needed no council to declare them God’s word. No man can declare what Scripture is. They can only recongize, by the leading of God, what already is Scripture.

Yet we have claims to two opposing claims to what constitutes Old Testament scripture as we type.

Chuck

 

[Philthy]

How can you trust them?

This is of course wandering off topic.

-Tina “Sola Scriptura” G

Wandering off the topic?! Hardly, dear - it is the crux of the issue. You claim not to trust the Catholic bishops and hierarchy. Fair enough. Who do you trust Tina? Your answer, no doubt, is that you trust God and His Word. We would give the same answer. And with respect to the canon of Scripture, you accept it because you have received a private revelation regarding Scripture, correct? That is awesome! Unfortunately, however, I havent heard you claim that along with this revelation that God has privately revealed the intended meaning of the often vague, confusing and apparently contradictory information contained in that canon. So who, then, do you trust for that Tina? Yourself? I’ll gently point out to you that the Scripture that God revealed to you points to a church as the pillar of truth, not private revelation. What do you do with that Tina? I will also point out to you that you are not alone in claiming to have received private revelation and that unfortunately that puts you not only in the company of some very holy people, but some very unholy ones as well.
The vast majority of believers will not receive a private revelation regarding Scripture - what should we do? Whom should we trust?
Not looking for a fight - just dealing with reality as I see it…in the context of an apologetics forum.

Blessings!

 

[clmowry]

Sorry to not answer as much.
My health has absolutely stunk the last two days.

Sorry to hear that. We have a bug running around in my neck of the woods.

I hope it is nothing more serious than that.

In any case:

May God send you healing in mind body and spirit accoring to His will.

Amen.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

This is much more reasonable than most presentations.

I’m kind of surprised that anyone would claim that their faith in the authority of the Catholic Church can be objectively proven.

Perhaps that assertion was not made and I’m just reading it into the response?

Chuck

As these posts have gone into the area of infallibility of the Catholic Church and the canon of scripture Dr Joe Mizzi writes on the this very subject: (and the question in the OP)

I tend to agree with his points.

 

[PRmerger]

In other words, you’re saying that there’s no other way to be sure about the canon unless I accept the authority of an infallible church.

EXACTLY.

Unless you know of a way to determine that “my breath is offensive to my wife” is theopneustos without being told it is?

 

[tester]

Originally Posted by tester

In other words, you’re saying that there’s no other way to be sure about the canon unless I accept the authority of an infallible church.

EXACTLY.

you did notice in context that was presented as a logical fallacy ?

Catholics CLAIM that The Bible states the Church is infallible.

The Church states that the Bible is inspired.

Hence, we can be sure that the Bible is inspired.

Why don’t you argue as follows instead, since your real intention is to prove the infallibility of the church?

The Bible is the inspired Word of God.

The Bible teaches that the church is infallible.

Therefore the church is infallible.

… If you do, you must first of all assert your belief in the inspiration of the Bible apart from the infallibility of the Catholic Church! …

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by tester

you did notice in context that was presented as a logical fallacy ?

Catholics CLAIM that The Bible states the Church is infallible.

The Church states that the Bible is inspired.

Hence, we can be sure that the Bible is inspired.

Why don’t you argue as follows instead, since your real intention is to prove the infallibility of the church?

The Bible is the inspired Word of God.

The Bible teaches that the church is infallible.

Therefore the church is infallible.

… If you do, you must first of all assert your belief in the inspiration of the Bible apart from the infallibility of the Catholic Church! …

Please answer the question, tester.

How is it, without any outside authority, that you would know whether a verse is theopneustos?

My breath is offensive to my wife–is that inspired or not? And how would you know?
(Please don’t beg the question by saying “It’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” or “It’s in the Bible because it’s inspired.”

 

[tester]

EXACTLY.

Unless you know of a way to determine that “my breath is offensive to my wife” is theopneustos without being told it is?

Please answer the question, tester.

How is it, without any outside authority, that you would know whether a verse is theopneustos?

My breath is offensive to my wife–is that inspired or not? And how would you know?
(Please don’t beg the question by saying “It’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” or “It’s in the Bible because it’s inspired.”

‘First of all, I was influenced by the testimony and teaching of the church (the Catholic Church in my childhood, and by the writing of godly Protestant authors later on) to a high and reverent esteem of the Bible.’

I too regard the witness of the church to be generally reliable and trustworthy (though not infallible).

 

[PRmerger]

‘First of all, I was influenced by the testimony and teaching of the church (the Catholic Church in my childhood, and by the writing of godly Protestant authors later on) to a high and reverent esteem of the Bible.’

I too regard the witness of the church to be generally reliable and trustworthy (though not infallible).

Ok.

So you (and Joe Mizzi) are acknowledging that it’s only through an outside authority, the CC, that you know what’s* theopneustos?*

 

[PRmerger]

I too regard the witness of the church to be generally reliable and trustworthy (though not infallible).

Interesting.

Then you’re not certain that the Gospel of Mark is inspired? The CC could have erred in proclaiming it theopneustos? And there’s the possibility that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired? The CC possibly erred in rejecting that book?

 

[tester]

Interesting.

Then you’re not certain that the Gospel of Mark is inspired? The CC could have erred in proclaiming it theopneustos? And there’s the possibility that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired? The CC possibly erred in rejecting that book?

i am confident in God’s sovereighnty in protecting his Sacred Word.

In the context of this thread;

The cause is God, the effect in the Canon of Scripture:

The “tool” God used was the Catholic Church.

God can use unbelieving leaders like Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me………I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,”

God can also use believers (many examples). And note that the believers did not take the credit or Glory for doing God’s work.

And THAT is the point.

If Catholics claimed that the God used the CC to formalize the canon of Scripture , very few Protestants would have an issue with that.

But the attitude of “We would not have the Bible is weren’t for the CC” diminishes the sovereignty of God.

I can’t ever find an example of Paul taking any credit for the doing the work Christ, and neither should the CC… ALL honor and glory to Christ alone!!

 

[PRmerger]

i am confident in God’s sovereighnty in protecting his Sacred Word.

In the context of this thread;

The cause is God, the effect in the Canon of Scripture:

The “tool” God used was the Catholic Church.

:extrahappy::dancing:

Your acknowledgment is bold, honest and shows you are a true seeker.

It necessarily follows then that:

-there is an infallible authority outside of Scripture
-the Bible alone as my sole rule of faith is untenable
-God’s Word has been revealed not just in written form, but through the Oral Tradition.

And, I might add, that this may not necessarily follow but it is a logical conclusion:
-if I accept that the CC was infallible in discerning this canon of Scripture then could it also be correct when it proclaims other truths in faith and morals?

God can use unbelieving leaders like Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me………I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,”

God can also use believers (many examples). And note that the believers did not take the credit or Glory for doing God’s work.

And THAT is the point.

I repeat to you the most eloquent words of** clmowry:**

I would submit that Paul frequently “took credit” for the work Christ was performing through him. If you can call claiming that Christ was working through him “taking credit.”

I would suggest to you that in this regard the Church claims of itself no more, in fact significantly less, than what Paul claimed of himself.

I can’t ever find an example of Paul taking any credit for the doing the work Christ, and neither should the CC… ALL honor and glory to Christ alone!!
Reply With Quote

[BIBLEDRB]col 1:24[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:1[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 cor 14:6[/BIBLEDRB]

I notice St. Paul never says, “you know I’m giving all credit to God when I say I’m speaking in tongues, or making up for what’s lacking in Christ’s sufferings, or proclaiming to you the good news…”

 

[PRmerger]

That’s a classic example of circular argumentation. You are begging the question by tacitly assuming the truth of the conclusion (‘the Bible is inspired’) in the first premise (‘the church is infallible because the inspired Bible so teaches’).

No, not circular. Our belief in the infallibility of the Church is based on a spiral argument.

We first understand that the Bible is reliable, as merely a historical document. Then we understand, based on this reliable Bible, that an infallible Church was founded. From that we take that this infallible Church determined that the Bible is inspired. And this inspired Bible proclaims that the Church is infallible.

[SIGN]So spiral. Not circular. [/SIGN]

However, without the CC, non-Catholics way to determine inspiration is, indeed, circular. “I believe it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” and “I believe it’s in the Bible because it’s inspired.”

 

[Philthy]

As these posts have gone into the area of infallibility of the Catholic Church and the canon of scripture Dr Joe Mizzi writes on the this very subject: (and the question in the OP) I tend to agree with his points.

“Dr” Joe has a medical degree, not a theological one. If you truly wish to see just how weak most of his arguments are, please review any of his debates with John Martignoni at biblechristiansociety.com

Your purpose is to convince me about the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and that consequently I should submit to Rome’s authority.
To do so**, you ask me how I know that the books of the Bible are inspired.**

False from the get go. The Bible is not required to “prove” the infallibility of the Church, it is merely an instrument supporting the reasonableness of believing it to be true. He always pulls this garbage - sets up a false premise attributed to his Catholic opponent and then refutes it. The issue of his being asked how he knows that Bible is inspired is to refute his own position of claiming to proclaim truths of the Gospel.

You are not satisfied with my reasons…because the evidence is subjective… words, you’re saying that there’s no other way to be sure about the canon unless I accept the authority of an infallible church.

There is no logical or historically valid reason for doing so.

I am not attempting to prove the Bible’s inspiration on the grounds of my subjective beliefs. The Bible is what it is apart from my convictions. Objective truth is independent of our beliefs. If the world denies that the Bible is true, so be it. The Bible is still the Word of God.

This is classic Mizzi. He’s being asked to justify his belief and, instead of doing so, attempts to circumvent the issue by asserting that “The Bible is what it is apart from my convictions” and he follows that comment with “Objective truth is independent of our beliefs.” But what does this tell us about the Bible and its relationship to being the word of God? Nothing - it does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the Bible actually is the Word of God. It demonstrates that IF it is, it is so independent of his opinion and if it is NOT it is not independent of his opinion. Its a true but worthless statement in his argument.

It is true, of course, that Muslims and Mormons can say similar things about their books. That does not necessarily prove what is claimed; it just shows that people can be mistaken and deceived.

Precisely, Joe - people, like Joe Mizzi can be mistaken and deceived. Thats why we need some level of objectivity in making the claims we make. That objectivity comes from a number of sources, none of which he has provided.

This fearful reality greatly humbles my intellectual pride because I realize that it was not by my searching and understanding that I came to know God and His Word. The lost sheep did not find the Shepherd; it was the Good Shepherd who sought after and found the lost sinner. I can never thank God enough for opening my eyes to see and believe His Word.

Private revelation is the only way to know the Bible is the Bible? Is that his claim?

Furthermore, you argue that the only sure foundation for our knowledge is the witness of an infallible Church. In other words, you reason this way:
The Church is infallible.
The Church states that the Bible is inspired.
Hence, we can be sure that the Bible is inspired.
You probably don’t realize that your argument about subjectivity can be applied with equal force to your position. When I ask you why you believe that the books of the Bible are inspired, you appeal to the constant witness of the church over 2000 years.

Ahh, but the “subjectivity” now extends to OBJECTIVE history, unlike his position. This is a big difference. This objective historical evidence is also complemented by what Scripture actually says about the Church, unlike his purely subjective private opinions.

To complicate matters, you use the Bible to justify your presupposition on the infallibility of the church.

But there is a subtle difference that escapes him: the “use” of the Bible is not the SOLE basis for the argument. We have the testimony of Saints and martyrs, history, and miracles as well. Joe confuses the fact that adding the Bible to the mounting evidence amounts to the foundation of the argument for the Church - he is mistaken.

You start with a truth taken from the Bible, namely that Jesus established the church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Again, he is mischaracterizing the argument. We do not “start” with the Bible. He does. The Catholic Church is older than the Bible and the Bible was revealed to us through the Church - how could we “start with the Bible” for our proof? What is actually happening is that as Catholics we frequently have to defend our position to Protestants like Joe by using THEIR standard - the Bible. IF we can prove the Church from Scripture (not that we HAVE to) then we can effectively reach well-intentioned but confused individuals like Joe. This basic point apparently went right over his head.
Again, the fact that we CAN use the Bible to reaffirm what we believe about the Church does not mean that we “start” with the Bible.

con’d