Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[4thelamb]

Be that as it may, did the Canon just magically appear all in one book one day?

I’m sorry, your theory sounds too much like hocus pocus to me.

Of course those “somebodies” were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But in an age where illiteracy was the norm, learned men were needed to do the sifting, and the most learned men of the time were the clergy of… the Church.

Usually reality is somewhat grittier than our wishful thinking…

Hocus Pocus?? What? Did you really just say that? Have you even read your Bible? Everything you just called ‘hocus pocus’ is Truth spoken in Biblical language by a girl who obviously spends time in scripture. Maybe if you were more familiar with the Word of the God you profess to believe in you wouldn’t dare utter something so clumsy! The power, influence, guidance, and real presence of the Spirit has revealed more Truth to the human race than all the history books, historians, scholars, astronomers, astrologers, universities and scientists the world has ever known….combined. I’d believe, ANYDAY, the inspired Word of the Living God, over anything I’ve learned in schools or otherwise, about the “literacy rates of the ages.

I’m very sorry…but belittling the strength and might of the Holy Spirit is one thing that I believe should arouse what the Bible calls, ”righteous anger”, in every person who calls himself a believer.

 

[4thelamb]

yes

 

[4thelamb]

Hi, Randy!

If I told you it was because of direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, what would your answer be? My guess is that somehow you are trying to establish the necessity of the institutional church as a witness to Scripture. As a convert you should know that some Protestants regard that insistence as an arrogation of the role of the Holy Spirit - man is arrogating to himself a role the Holy Spirit has claimed for His own. and is treading on dangerous ground in insisting that the witness of the Church is necessary for the Bible to be credible. I hope that is not your position.
G

This is correctly and appropriately reffering to “Blasphemy against the Spirit” and the Church of Rome rides dangerously close to it every time She declares that it is because of Her and not God’s Sovereignty that we have received the Scriptures.
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.(Matt 12:31)
Romanists teeter carelessly and sloppily on the border-line of this sin every time members in Her Communion arrogantly claim that Almighty God, in any way, needed Her “permission” and/or “blessing” before giving His “Inspired Word” to the world.
“The Gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures [of the O.T.] reguarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”(Rom 1:2)
The Gospel which God gave men containing a “knowledge of truth that leads to godliness–a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time”(Titus 1:1-2)
"This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:3-4)

Friends, when you heard words that powerful, you either believe scripture to be wholly and truthfully from God Almighty, or you don’t believe in them at all.
If God chose to use the Roman Empire and its Church, as the tool to formalize, evangelize and spread the Gospel Message of Christ to the far reaches of the known world, then so be it as God willed it. But Rome can boast of its own works, role and significance in the Kingdom of God, NO MORE than can Egypt, through whom God displayed his mighty power and authority with plagues, in order to free his people Israel.

 

[Borealis]

Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were read at Mass in several churches in the early centuries, while books such as Revelation, Hebrews, James and Jude were often left out of the acceptable readings.

The early Christians were just as moved by the Holy Spirit as the Christians of today, but they had no certainty of which books were inspired or not. It took a definitive Council of the Church to make the final determination.

Any claim to the contrary is in direct contradiction with recorded history, and denies God’s word: the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church,

 

[Randy_Carson]

I answered that already.
“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 several other reasons but these will suffice”

No because of how we define that word differently.

Christians cannot add to what God has revealed. I can easily discuss the shortcomings of the few books that were considered if you are interested.

Absolutely. His Church, defined as those who are saved according to the book of Acts, have accepted what He revealed to them.

The common thread in your responses is that one portion (a large portion?) of your decision matrix hinges upon the testimony of Christians who “handed on” the scriptures to you. The word for “handed on” is tradere from which we get the word “tradition”.

So, would it be accurate to say that at least some aspect of your reasoning relies on tradition to determine the canon of the NT?

In other words, you are relying on something outside of scripture in order to determine the canon of scripture?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Doesn’t God speak to you? Is the indwelling Holy Spirit silent to you? May He only speak through the Magisterium, and is not permitted to speak to individual Christians?

“Direct revelation?” is a potent term. Everything lines up to make it clear that those books are God’s Word. But faith is a gift of God, and ultimately I believe they are His Word because He granted me faith to believe it. Did He speak to me? Did I hear Him correctly? I have to trust Him on that, and trust Him to correct me where necessary. That also is a gift of faith - there seems to be an infinite number of levels of faith, one outside the next, involved in these things.

Years ago I read a book called “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” but that was after I already believed. All the evidence I have ever seen convinces me they are God’s Word and no other books are in the NT Canon. But that is certainly not on the basis of some “infallible proclamation” or other declaration or compulsion from the church mandating faith.

-Tina “Potentially Tractable” G

Tina-

Are you then saying that God gives personal revelation to each individual Christian regarding the accuracy of the NT canon?

Don’t Mormons rely on a similar approach to determining that the Book of Mormon is also the Word of God?

This sounds like “burning in the bosom” to me…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, there was direct revelation, and historical continuity. Christians did not sit around waiting for the Council of Trent to decide what books were canonical - they already had the Old Testament, and they accepted the apostolic writings immediately as Scripture. They did not wait for the Pope to tell them anything. There was no need for a Magisterium.

This is incorrect on multiple levels.

First, the Church did not wait until the Council of Trent to determine the canon. The canon was affimed by numerous councils beginning as early as the fifth century. Since there were many writings floating around, there was not always agreement as to what was and was not scripture…thus, your statement that “they accepted the apostolic writings immediately as scripture” is problematic. Finally, of course there was “need for a Magisterium” since the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Without that authority, some Christians would have continued in the early belief that the Protoevangelium of James and Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians WERE scripture. The “magisterium” of the Church served to correct the error.

That does not mean there was not a lot of controversy and discussion about things. But I think the canon was set very early - I think both John of Damascus and Athanasius list the canon as we know it - not sure if Revelation was accepted yet. But it was not some Council that set it. Rather it was the whole mind of the whole church. Not a papal pronouncement.

Agreed. However, your misunderstanding is in not realizing that “the whole church” was the Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, that settles everything. The question is being asked of Protestants, please remember.

-Tina “Please Fasten Your Seatbelts” G

It does.

Apart from an infallible authority, individual believers are basically following the same subjective path that Mormons and Muslims take.

All CLAIM to be led by the Spirit, yet some believe in the baptism of infants while others do not. Obviously, the Spirit is not leading EACH and EVERY believer into “all truth” on a one-on-one basis.

If errors like this are possible in matters of doctrine, we have no reason to believe that individual Christians are any more infallible in matters of canon.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is it so hard to realize, that “the church”, that kept (and held as authoritative) the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles (Letters), during the 300 years between Christ’s ressurection and the Council at Nicea, was NOT the Roman Catholic Church?

Because that would be revisionist history.

So what’s the point in saying that Scripture came to us through believers in the early churches as guided by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles in their “writings”. The early christians used their “writings” for instruction, public reading, and to guide them in their faith (Much like we do today, except we have all of them combined into one book). If you think there was “one” church before Rome incorporated itself into christianity(at Nicea), uniting it under the heirarchy and authority of the Roman Empire, you’re severly mistaken and have located a major contributing factor in your confusion.

Hardly. The earliest Christians began to call their church the “Catholic Church” as early as the end of the first century…that’s within the lifetime of at least one living apostle, John.

The idea that the Catholic Church did not come into existence until after the time of Constantine is wishful thinking at best.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is correctly and appropriately reffering to “Blasphemy against the Spirit” and the Church of Rome rides dangerously close to it every time She declares that it is because of Her and not God’s Sovereignty that we have received the Scriptures.
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.(Matt 12:31)
Romanists teeter carelessly and sloppily on the border-line of this sin every time members in Her Communion arrogantly claim that Almighty God, in any way, needed Her “permission” and/or “blessing” before giving His “Inspired Word” to the world.
“The Gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures [of the O.T.] reguarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”(Rom 1:2)
The Gospel which God gave men containing a “knowledge of truth that leads to godliness–a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time”(Titus 1:1-2)
"This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:3-4)

Friends, when you heard words that powerful, you either believe scripture to be wholly and truthfully from God Almighty, or you don’t believe in them at all.
If God chose to use the Roman Empire and its Church, as the tool to formalize, evangelize and spread the Gospel Message of Christ to the far reaches of the known world, then so be it as God willed it. But Rome can boast of its own works, role and significance in the Kingdom of God, NO MORE than can Egypt, through whom God displayed his mighty power and authority with plagues, in order to free his people Israel.

Jesus established one church (Matthew 16:18-19) built upon Peter the rock, and that Church has a name, the Catholic Church.

These is one faith, one Lord, one baptism, one Shepherd, one flock, one Body, one Church. The Catholic Church continues “to formalize, evangelize and spread the Gospel” just as she has done since the day of Pentecost.

And yes, God used Catholics to pen, promulgate, preserve, protect, and preach the Scriptures tp the far reaches of the known world.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were read at Mass in several churches in the early centuries, while books such as Revelation, Hebrews, James and Jude were often left out of the acceptable readings.

The early Christians were just as moved by the Holy Spirit as the Christians of today, but they had no certainty of which books were inspired or not. It took a definitive Council of the Church to make the final determination.

Any claim to the contrary is in direct contradiction with recorded history, and denies God’s word: the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church,

:clapping:

 

[Rightlydivide]

Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were read at Mass in several churches in the early centuries, while books such as Revelation, Hebrews, James and Jude were often left out of the acceptable readings.

The early Christians were just as moved by the Holy Spirit as the Christians of today, but they had no certainty of which books were inspired or not. It took a definitive Council of the Church to make the final determination.

Any claim to the contrary is in direct contradiction with recorded history, and denies God’s word: the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church,

It is anachronistic to use the word Mass has it relates to the services of the early church. It is not a main point of my answer to your statements but bears mention

All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa. The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397)

As far as denying God’s word and being a contradiction to history

These 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.

This is the Catholic view and I believe it matches more with what I am saying than what you are saying.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The common thread in your responses is that one portion (a large portion?) of your decision matrix hinges upon the testimony of Christians who “handed on” the scriptures to you. The word for “handed on” is tradere from which we get the word “tradition”.

So, would it be accurate to say that at least some aspect of your reasoning relies on tradition to determine the canon of the NT?

In other words, you are relying on something outside of scripture in order to determine the canon of scripture?

I do not believe that is the common thread. The common thread is that Christians recognized what God gave the church. As far as the distinction about God being outside of scripture, I have a hard time specifically stating how what God breathes (scripture) is outside of Him. You would not see that distinction but based upon my answer and other answers, it is clearly the distinction which seperates our views possibly.
Like I said, the official view of Catholicism is not so far from my view. I actually think that many Catholics, not you necessarily, are arging further than what the official view is.

 

[JonNC]

Don’t ask me. It makes no sense to me why they accept the Church’s acceptance of the 27 books of the New Testament but not the full Canon of the Old Testament that the Church accepts.

Perhaps, Holly, for the same reasons that some of the early fathers had questions about them, as did Cardinal Cajetan, a Luther contemporary. There were some even at Trent who were not convinced regarding dueterocanon.

Martin Luther of course wanted to even take out the Book of James in the New Testament from what I understand

James, along with a few others, were questioned as far back as Eusebius, hence the term “antilegomena” - in dispute.
*“Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.” *

What Luther did say about its canonicity is similar:
“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

and

*“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, **I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. *However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

He praises it, because it vigorously promulgates the law of God.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were read at Mass in several churches in the early centuries, while books such as Revelation, Hebrews, James and Jude were often left out of the acceptable readings.

The early Christians were just as moved by the Holy Spirit as the Christians of today, but they had no certainty of which books were inspired or not. It took a definitive Council of the Church to make the final determination.

Any claim to the contrary is in direct contradiction with recorded history, and denies God’s word: the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church,

Was there truly ecumenical Council of the Church, prior to the schism, that made said final determination? And if there was, why did the eastern patriarchates alter it?

Jon

 

[fermat]

Why is it so hard to realize, that “the church”, that kept (and held as authoritative) the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles (Letters), during the 300 years between Christ’s ressurection and the Council at Nicea, was NOT the Roman Catholic Church? So what’s the point in saying that Scripture came to us through believers in the early churches as guided by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles in their “writings”. The early christians used their “writings” for instruction, public reading, and to guide them in their faith (Much like we do today, except we have all of them combined into one book). If you think there was “one” church before Rome incorporated itself into christianity(at Nicea), uniting it under the heirarchy and authority of the Roman Empire, you’re severly mistaken and have located a major contributing factor in your confusion.

Then which church was it? Was it the Lutheran church that brought us the bible? Was it the Baptist church that brought us the bible? Was it the Anglican church that brought us the bible? If not the only Christian church in existence at the time, who was it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is anachronistic to use the word Mass has it relates to the services of the early church. It is not a main point of my answer to your statements but bears mention

Just as it is anachronistic to use the word “trinity” when discussing the Godhead of the first century, I suppose.

Get serious…the worship service that Catholics experience today is largely the same as that of the Apostles - being centered, as Jesus commanded, on the Eucharist.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as the distinction about God being outside of scripture, I have a hard time specifically stating how what God breathes (scripture) is outside of Him.

You are relying on an authority other than the Bible itself to testify to the canon of scripture. This is necessary, of course, because the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents.

So, while you are the beneficiary of the work of the Catholic Church which was led by the Holy Spirit to inerrantly establish the canon of the NT, but you are (seemingly) unwilling to admit that this is the case. You prefer to credit vague, shadowy “Christians” of the early centuries without admitting that they were all Catholics.

 

[TinaG]

Tina-

Are you then saying that God gives personal revelation to each individual Christian regarding the accuracy of the NT canon?

Don’t Mormons rely on a similar approach to determining that the Book of Mormon is also the Word of God?

This sounds like “burning in the bosom” to me…

I think a lot of people don’t bother to think it through, whether Catholic or Protestant.

At some point you simply trust Christ to show you the truth. Either He does or He doesn’t.

-Tina “Trusting” G

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are relying on an authority other than the Bible itself to testify to the canon of scripture. This is necessary, of course, because the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents.

So, while you are the beneficiary of the work of the Catholic Church which was led by the Holy Spirit to inerrantly establish the canon of the NT, but you are (seemingly) unwilling to admit that this is the case. You prefer to credit vague, shadowy “Christians” of the early centuries without admitting that they were all Catholics.

The authority I rely on is God because He is the author of scripture.
The “table of contents” is merely a list of what God already inspired and gave to Christians. Not that you believe this, but the table of contents does not make the Bible, its the other way around. Scripture is scripture the minute it is penned.
As far as what the early church was, I have studied enough to know who is following what the apostles taught as recorded in inspired scripture.
To keep the conversation focused, how does my view disagree with what I posted from Catholic doctrine specifically?.