Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[Philthy]

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);

Again, that is done to play by HIS rules as a Sola Scriptura adherent.

Why don’t you argue as follows…
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!

Why don’t we use that syllogism? We do, sometimes! But we don’t need to! We only use it for Sola Scriptura adherents who take the first premise as true - otherwise it doesnt make sense. But the key is that the argument is only presented to those who accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Notice that Joe has not refuted it, but has only claimed that if we use it we claim our “belief in the inspiration of the Bible apart from the infallibility of the Church”. But again we place that premise first not because it is OUR belief, but because it is HIS. And that, like almost everything else Catholics provide him, goes right over his head.

He’s been on these forums and he usually embarrasses himself - repeatedly - with his inconsistencies

Blessings!

 

[byfaithalone]

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! …

Thank you for posting this. I saved it for future reference.

 

[byfaithalone]

The Catholic church is older than the bible? The bible as YOU know it.

The Catholic church did not exist before God’s word existed. No one needed your church to recognize the OT Scriptures. Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture.
No one needs to posess infalibility in order for God to use them to recognize what already was Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic church is older than the bible?

Yes. The Bible did not exist for the first 400 years. The Church started at Pentecost.

The bible as YOU know it.

Huh?

The Catholic church did not exist before God’s word existed. No one needed your church to recognize the OT Scriptures.

So how is it that you know that “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” is inspired? Is there something objectively* theopneustos* about that verse that just lets you know?

Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture.

Ok. Peter was a Catholic bishop.

No one needs to posess infalibility in order for God to use them to recognize what already was Scripture.

And how do you recognize what’s Scripture (without, of course, begging the question)?

 

[Philthy]

The Catholic church is older than the bible? The bible as YOU know it.

If you mean to imply that your definition of the Bible is somehow different than mine then please tell us what you mean. By the Bible I mean the collection of the OT and NT placed together. What do you mean by the term Bible?

The Catholic church did not exist before God’s word existed.

Please notice that I am more careful with my terminology than to say anything as foolish as this! You have followed well in Joe Mizzi’s footsteps: distorting my comments to what you wish to argue against rather than arguing against what I actually said. Well done Joe Jr!
I said the Church is older than the Bible. I did not say that the Church is older than God’s word, for I am well aware that “In the beginning was the word…” from John 1.

No one needed your church to recognize the OT Scriptures. Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture.

Sorry but this is not quite accurate. Paul wrote many letters. We do not have all of them. Peter recognized that SOME of Pauls letters were Scripture - unfortunately he did not mention which letters he was referring to.

No one needs to posess infalibility in order for God to use them to recognize what already was Scripture.

Then why would you bring up Peter’s recognition of Paul’s letters as Scripture? Is it not because you believe Peter was infallible in doing so?

Welcome to the forums!

 

[byfaithalone]

Did Peter need someone to tell him what Scripture was?

 

[PRmerger]

Did Peter need someone to tell him what Scripture was?

We don’t know, do we? Unless you have a verse that says he knew this all by himself.

At any rate, YOU needed someone else to tell you what Scripture was. And so did I. And so does every single Christian who reads his bible today. For Scripture does not tell us what’s theopneustos and what’s not, does it?

 

[byfaithalone]

We don’t know, do we? Unless you have a verse that says he knew this all by himself.

At any rate, YOU needed someone else to tell you what Scripture was. And so did I. And so does every single Christian who reads his bible today. For Scripture does not tell us what’s theopneustos and what’s not, does it?

Yes, I did. And God reavealed the Scriptures to us. All the glory goes to Him.

 

[Tomster]

We don’t know, do we? Unless you have a verse that says he knew this all by himself.

At any rate, YOU needed someone else to tell you what Scripture was. And so did I. And so does every single Christian who reads his bible today. For Scripture does not tell us what’s theopneustos and what’s not, does it?

Thanks PR

 

[Tomster]

The Catholic church is older than the bible? The bible as YOU know it.

The Catholic church did not exist before God’s word existed. No one needed your church to recognize the OT Scriptures. Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture.
No one needs to posess infalibility in order for God to use them to recognize what already was Scripture.

Wrong again.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I did. And God reavealed the Scriptures to us. All the glory goes to Him.

Amen!

Now, you have acknowledged that there is an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture to which you have submitted.

And, you admit this authority is INFALLIBLE. (Unless you doubt that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos and are wondering if the Church erred in rejecting the Gospel of Thomas?)

 

[tester]

Amen!

Now, you have acknowledged that there is an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture to which you have submitted.

And, you admit this authority is INFALLIBLE. (Unless you doubt that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos and are wondering if the Church erred in rejecting the Gospel of Thomas?)

I don’t see how the church ‘gives authority’ to the Bible by witnessing to its veracity. The Bible is authoritative because it is the inspired Word of God, whatever anyone says about it.

It is true that during the first centuries, Christians endeavoured to identify the canon of the New Testament (i.e. the books that make up the Holy Bible). Previously, God enabled the Jews to recognize the canonical books of the Old Testament. God, who inspired the Scriptures, made sure that His people would possess and acknowledge His Book.

Though Christians and their leaders are fallible and liable to make mistakes, yet God’s providence guaranteed that their decisions were correct. Christ’s people recognize the Word of their Master. ‘The sheep hear his voice…a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers…and they shall hear my voice…My sheep hear my voice’ (John 10).

I wonder what’s the point of your bold assertion that the church gives authority to the Bible. Is it perhaps to show that the Catholic Church has authority over the Bible or that the Bible was given by the Catholic Church? Roman Catholic apologists often make the above claims, but it could be shown that both are false.

1. The Catholic Church does not have authority over the Bible.

Since the Bible is the Word of God (whether we believe it or not), how can mere men give authority to the Word of their Creator and Lord? Even the Catholic Church does not assume this proud position in its official writings. ‘Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86). Can a servant give authority to his master? Of course not! Neither can the church give authority to the Word of her Lord.

1. The Bible was not given by the Catholic Church.

The Bible is inspired by God: is not given by the church, but to the church. Catholic apologists are so eager to elevate the authority of their church, that they even flatly contradict the teaching of their own church. The First Vatican Council declared:

The books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.

**The Scriptures are the rule of faith because they are the Word of God and not because they were approved by the authority of the church. **

 

[Tomster]

I don’t see how the church ‘gives authority’ to the Bible by witnessing to its veracity. The Bible is authoritative because it is the inspired Word of God, whatever anyone says about it.

It is true that during the first centuries, Christians endeavoured to identify the canon of the New Testament (i.e. the books that make up the Holy Bible). Previously, God enabled the Jews to recognize the canonical books of the Old Testament. God, who inspired the Scriptures, made sure that His people would possess and acknowledge His Book.

Though Christians and their leaders are fallible and liable to make mistakes, yet God’s providence guaranteed that their decisions were correct. Christ’s people recognize the Word of their Master. ‘The sheep hear his voice…a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers…and they shall hear my voice…My sheep hear my voice’ (John 10).

I wonder what’s the point of your bold assertion that the church gives authority to the Bible. Is it perhaps to show that the Catholic Church has authority over the Bible or that the Bible was given by the Catholic Church? Roman Catholic apologists often make the above claims, but it could be shown that both are false.

1. The Catholic Church does not have authority over the Bible.

Since the Bible is the Word of God (whether we believe it or not), how can mere men give authority to the Word of their Creator and Lord? Even the Catholic Church does not assume this proud position in its official writings. ‘Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86). Can a servant give authority to his master? Of course not! Neither can the church give authority to the Word of her Lord.

1. The Bible was not given by the Catholic Church.

The Bible is inspired by God: is not given by the church, but to the church. Catholic apologists are so eager to elevate the authority of their church, that they even flatly contradict the teaching of their own church. The First Vatican Council declared:

The books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.

**The Scriptures are the rule of faith because they are the Word of God and not because they were approved by the authority of the church. **

Sorry Tester. You are wrong. The teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church is the rule of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how the church ‘gives authority’ to the Bible by witnessing to its veracity.

The Church does not “give authority” to the Bible. The Church discerned, through the guidance of the HS, what was theopneustos.

That is, there was an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture, that you submit to.

And, it’s an INFALLIBLE authority.

So, by a simple acknowledgment that God used the CC to canonize the Scriptures you are acknowledging two things:
-there is an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture–that is, the CC.
-this authority is infallible

The Bible is authoritative because it is the inspired Word of God, whatever anyone says about it.

Ok. But what books were “The Bible”. Was it the writings of the Shepherd of Hermes? Was it the Didache? Was it Revelation? Was it Titus?

Who knows?

Only through the CC’s authority do you know!

 

[PRmerger]

Previously, God enabled the Jews to recognize the canonical books of the Old Testament. God, who inspired the Scriptures, made sure that His people would possess and acknowledge His Book.

Do you know that the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc could not agree on the canon of the OT?

Though Christians and their leaders are fallible and liable to make mistakes, yet God’s providence guaranteed that their decisions were correct.

YES! That’s a wonderful definition of the CC’s teaching on infallibility! :extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:

You see that the Church was capable of giving a guarantee that their decision was correct in the canon of Scripture…and it naturally follows that the Church is capable of guaranteeing other decisions are “correct”, that is, infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder what’s the point of your bold assertion that the church gives authority to the Bible.

Again, I did not state that the Church “gives authority to the Bible”.

The Bible is inspired by God: is not given by the church, but to the church.

Amen!

Thus, you have an infallible authority outside of Scripture to which you have submitted.

The books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.

Amen!

The Scriptures are the rule of faith because they are the Word of God and not because they were approved by the authority of the church.

Indeed. By its authority. An authority OUTSIDE of Scripture. That’s infallible.

 

[tester]

Thus, you have an infallible authority outside of Scripture to which you have submitted.

not following the “thus…”

how did God work out the Old Testament canon?

 

[byfaithalone]

Yet you can’t prove me to be wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

not following the “thus…”

If you believe, as you stated, that God used the CC to discern what was theopneustos, then you acknowledge that there is an authority outside of Scripture: the CC.

And, unless you believe the CC is mistaken, you believe this authority was infallible in its pronouncement.

how did God work out the Old Testament canon?

Again, through the CC.

 

[clmowry]

The Catholic church is older than the bible? The bible as YOU know it.

You know of a bible that predates the Church?

The Catholic church did not exist before God’s word existed. No one needed your church to recognize the OT Scriptures. Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture.
No one needs to posess infalibility in order for God to use them to recognize what already was Scripture.

This would be Peter and Paul, the founders of the Church in Rome (among other places) that founded the Churches before they wrote leters to them which were later declared afirmed to be part of the body of scripture.

This is the Church that came after the bible?

How can that be?

Chuck