Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The question is, “Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?” I will start off by clarifying that I don’t pretend to speak on behalf of any denomination but I can speak on behalf of myself as a former Catholic who accepts the NT canon and why I accept it. If my reasons for acceptance aren’t enough to convince you, that’s just fine by me. I’m here to offer my perspective—not to wage some kind of theological battle.

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem acknowledging that councils of church fathers got together to compile what is inspired. What I take exception with are statements like, “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible” as if the Catholic Church has some kind of monopoly on the Word of God. The Word existed from the beginning—before their was anything BUT the Word.

Now, having said that, how else do I personally come to a conclusion about accepting the NT? Well, obviously since none of us were eye witnesses to be able to verify the Truth first hand, we have to start with a baseline of what happened in the life of Christ before we can go very far. That means figuring out which Gospels to accept. It stands to reason in my mind that an eye witness account or one recorded by someone once removed (i.e. an eye witness tells me the story and I write it down) would be the two best types of sources. In addition to that, they all better agree or how can you trust any of them? That leaves us with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All other “gospels” were written by others who were much more removed than once and do not completely agree theologically throughout.

Indeed. And how did a person discern that Peter’s letters and not the Epistle of Barnabas was inspired?

And, does Scripture tell us that one had to be an eyewitness or “close disciple of the eye witness” to be considered inspired?

That’s a good question that I might also pose to you. What I will say is that a something is either inspired or it’s not. Someone declaring it inspired doesn’t make it so and someone declaring it not to be inspired doesn’t make it not so.

Historically, for something to be considered inspired, it generally met three criteria…

1. The writer was a prophet or an apostle or had direct access to one.
2. It couldn’t contradict writings that were already considered scripture (OT or NT).
3. It had to be widely accepted.

That sounds reasonable enough test of the Spirit to satisfy me to a level of acceptance.

Or are you promoting a tradition not found in Scripture?

Give me a break.

Based on what? Firstly, where does Acts say it was written by Luke?

I’m sure that you’re aware that Acts is addressed to “Theophilus” just like the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:3 & Acts 1:1). I don’t know about you but that’s pretty compelling evidence to me. Additionally, many of the early church father’s (e.g. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome) agreed that he was the writer.

It’s also worth noting that Luke wasn’t a very well known individual so it’s not likely that someone would try to pass of their writing as his. It would make a lot more sense to take on the identity of someone much more well known if that was to be the case.

Again, is this a tradition you’re following that Scriptures had to be written by an eyewitness?

Or do you have a chapter and verse from Scripture that says this is required?

Puhhhlease. Let’s not try to put words in each other’s mouth. You and I both know that Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses. The author of Hebrews was not a witness (Heb 2:3). And Paul is arguably not a witness depending on how you want to define the word.

Well! It sounds as if you’re saying that authorship doesn’t really matter?

Well ultimately the author is the Holy Spirit if it is inspired. However, the human element does matter. For example, if the Holy Spirit inspires me to write an epistle today, who’s going to believe that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit to the point of it being widely accepted as having the same authority as scripture?

These are arbitrary criteria you’ve established:
-must be an eyewitness
-but if we don’t even know who wrote it, it’s ok, 'cause we’re going to assume he was an eyewitness 'cause he says things that others said.

lol, OK, now you’re really exaggerating what I said just to be childishly hostile. I’d appreciate if we could keep the conversation on the adult level.

Let me ask you, what criteria do you think the councils used? Because I don’t see it being far off from what I listed above. Clearly the councils recognized Hebrews as being inspired despite its unknown authorship so I’m sure you’ll agree that it was inspired. Well, how do you reconcile it as such then?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

CONTINUED…

If it’s “theologically consistent” it *sounds *like you’re talking about Sacred Tradition. They had the teachings and theology first, then wrote it down. Yes?

I’ll try to avoid using the term “Sacred Tradition” because I suspect we’re going to define that differently. Instead, I’ll try to be more explicit.

What we call the OT existed (in written form) and was well established well before the time of Christ. So if one was to accept Christ as the Messiah, wouldn’t He have to meet all of the existing theological (scriptural) requirements? Wouldn’t his teachings have to be consistent? For example, if Jesus said that there are 44 gods instead of One God, I’d hope that we’d have a few Jewish eyebrows raised.

Now, a note taker didn’t follow Jesus around writing down everything he did and said as he did it and said it. So, yes, there is definitely a gap between the events and the writing of the Gospels but keep in mind that they were written in considerably less than a generation by the eye witness or someone who had direct access to the eye witness. So that’s pretty hard for me to label that as an oral tradition much less any kind of tradition.

Similarly, the epistles were not an oral tradition either since they were letters written to a specific audience. It wasn’t as if Paul gave a presentation to the church at Ephesus and generations later someone put quill to papyrus.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Incidentally, if you’re a “bible-alone” advocate, then the above comment is dubious.

How do you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were eyewitnesses or “close disciples of eyewitnesses”?

What Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew? Matthew the tax collector? If that’s your answer, how do you know?

Rather than taking the time to type out all of my reasons as to why, let me ask you, do you doubt the authorship of those Gospels? Because if you do, you are in a very serious minority—especially if you don’t believe that they weren’t at least (to quote myself) “eye witnesses or close disciples of eye witnesses.”

 

[PRmerger]

Rather than taking the time to type out all of my reasons as to why, let me ask you, do you doubt the authorship of those Gospels? Because if you do, you are in a very serious minority—especially if you don’t believe that they weren’t at least (to quote myself) “eye witnesses or close disciples of eye witnesses.”

No, I don’t doubt the authorship of the Gospels. However, since the Gospel of Mark doesn’t say that it was written by Mark,(that was added by the publisher/printer) and it doesn’t *say *he was an eye-witness, the only reason I (or you, in fact) know that Mark wrote it is because someone else told us.

And that someone else is the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

What we call the OT existed (in written form) and was well established well before the time of Christ.

That’s not true. The Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots did not agree on the OT Scriptures.

The Jewish canon was not defined until 90AD, well after the establishment of the Catholic Church.

So if one was to accept Christ as the Messiah, wouldn’t He have to meet all of the existing theological (scriptural) requirements?

I won’t argue with that.

Wouldn’t his teachings have to be consistent? For example, if Jesus said that there are 44 gods instead of One God, I’d hope that we’d have a few Jewish eyebrows raised.

Yes, and this is a testament to Sacred Tradition. The teaching existed first, orally, and then was written down.

Now, a note taker didn’t follow Jesus around writing down everything he did and said as he did it and said it. So, yes, there is definitely a gap between the events and the writing of the Gospels but keep in mind that they were written in considerably less than a generation** by the eye witness or someone who had direct access to the eye witness.**

How do you know this (the bolded section). Scripture does not state that Mark was an eyewitness, nor that he had direct access to the eye witness.

Is there something in Luke that states he spoke to the Virgin Mary in order to know that she said, “All generations shall call me blessed?”

If not, how do you know that he witnessed this?

Is it by tradition?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem acknowledging that councils of church fathers got together to compile what is inspired. What I take exception with are statements like, **“The Catholic Church gave us the Bible” as if the Catholic Church has some kind of monopoly on the Word of God. The Word existed from the beginning—before their was anything BUT the Word. **

So you worship… a book.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Historically, for something to be considered inspired, it generally met three criteria…

1. The writer was a prophet or an apostle or had direct access to one.
2. It couldn’t contradict writings that were already considered scripture (OT or NT).
3. It had to be widely accepted.

That sounds reasonable enough test of the Spirit to satisfy me to a level of acceptance.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 4:12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem acknowledging that councils of church fathers got together to compile what is inspired. What I take exception with are statements like, **“The Catholic Church gave us the Bible” as if the Catholic Church has some kind of monopoly on the Word of God. The Word existed from the beginning—before their was anything BUT the Word. **

And, by the way, the Lord thy God is not a book.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem acknowledging that councils of church fathers got together to compile what is inspired.

That is a worthy acknowledgment. :tiphat:

Now, the logical conclusion of that is:

1. you believe at least on multiple occasions, that the Church was given the charism of infallibility.
2. you must conclude that there is something OUTSIDE of the Scriptures that you use to guide your faith. That OUTSIDE something is the authority of the Catholic Church.

What I take exception with are statements like, “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible” as if the Catholic Church has some kind of monopoly on the Word of God.

Well, the Church did give you the Bible, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that this means the CC has “some kind of monopoly on the Word of God.”

The Word existed from the beginning—before their was anything BUT the Word.

If by Word you mean Jesus, the Eternal Logos, then, yes. But, the Word of God as Scripture did not exist “from the beginning”.

It stands to reason in my mind that an eye witness account or one recorded by someone once removed (i.e. an eye witness tells me the story and I write it down) would be the two best types of sources.

Indeed.

In addition to that, they all better agree or how can you trust any of them? That leaves us with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

That’s fine.

But this is another example of your accepting something that’s not in Scripture.

The manuscripts/scrolls which were painstakingly translated by Catholic monks in the earliest days after the canonization of Scripture did not include “The Gospel according to Luke”. That was added by Sacred Tradition.

All other “gospels” were written by others who were much more removed than once and do not completely agree theologically throughout.

That is circular reasoning: I know it’s not Scripture because it doesn’t profess what’s in Scripture. And it doesn’t profess what’s in Scripture 'cause it’s not in Scripture.

That’s a good question that I might also pose to you. What I will say is that a something is either inspired or it’s not. Someone declaring it inspired doesn’t make it so and someone declaring it not to be inspired doesn’t make it not so.

Of course. The CC did not have the “power” to make something inspired. But it did have the authority to discern that the Gospel of Mark is inspired but the Gospel of Thomas is not.

Historically, for something to be considered inspired, it generally met three criteria…

1. The writer was a prophet or an apostle or had direct access to one.
2. It couldn’t contradict writings that were already considered scripture (OT or NT).
3. It had to be widely accepted.

Ok. But those criteria are not found in Scripture. That’s a tradition that you’ve accepted.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure that you’re aware that Acts is addressed to “Theophilus” just like the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:3 & Acts 1:1). I don’t know about you but that’s pretty compelling evidence to me.

Of course. But it’s an extra-biblical tradition that you’ve acknowledged. Again.

Additionally, many of the early church father’s (e.g. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome) agreed that he was the writer.

Yup. Not Scripture. But something outside of Scripture.

It’s also worth noting that Luke wasn’t a very well known individual so it’s not likely that someone would try to pass of their writing as his. It would make a lot more sense to take on the identity of someone much more well known if that was to be the case.

Ok.

But you’re accepting authorship based on *something other *than Scripture.

I’m just sayin’

You and I both know that Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses.

Exactly! :extrahappy:

Thus, being an eye-witness is an arbitrary, non-Scriptural criterion.

The author of Hebrews was not a witness (Heb 2:3).

Right. And I find it quite curious indeed that you accept an unknown author as inspired.

How so?

Because it was decided for you by an outside authority.

Well ultimately the author is the Holy Spirit if it is inspired. However, the human element does matter. For example, if the Holy Spirit inspires me to write an epistle today, who’s going to believe that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit to the point of it being widely accepted as having the same authority as scripture?

No argument there!

Let me ask you, what criteria do you think the councils used? Because I don’t see it being far off from what I listed above. Clearly the councils recognized Hebrews as being inspired despite its unknown authorship so I’m sure you’ll agree that it was inspired. Well, how do you reconcile it as such then?

Right, Faithful. Perhaps the Councils used the above criteria–and they considered the reading that were being proclaimed at the Liturgies–but the point, not to be understated is this:

[SIGN]-whatever criteria they used were NOT DELINEATED IN SCRIPTURE. [/SIGN] They used an extra-Biblical channel (read: Sacred Tradition) to discern this.

 

[PRmerger]

Similarly, the epistles were not an oral tradition either since they were letters written to a specific audience. It wasn’t as if Paul gave a presentation to the church at Ephesus and generations later someone put quill to papyrus.

Firstly, how do you know this? Is this from Scripture?

Secondly, of course I’m not going to argue that the epistles are written–but the channel used to discern which epistles were theopneustos was the channel of Sacred Tradition.

 

[fermat]

Just went I think this thread is over!

 

[Pwrlftr]

Firstly, how do you know this? Is this from Scripture?

Secondly, of course I’m not going to argue that the epistles are written–but the channel used to discern which epistles were theopneustos was the channel of Sacred Tradition.

Hello PRmerger,

Is it your contention that one can have no degree of certainty regarding what is and what isn’t scripture without an infallible body, in this case the Catholic Church, making the discernment for them?

I’ve tried to follow this thread but there are quite a few posts and what seems to be a fair amount of discussion of very minute points.

 

[IrishJoe]

Yes! This is a wonderful example of Sacred Tradition: the witness of the early Christians.

Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (often simply called To the Philippians) composed around 110 to 140 AD directly quotes Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and calls it Scripture.

St Jude’s epistle quotes things that aren’t in the bible…

 

[PRmerger]

Hello PRmerger,

Is it your contention that one can have no degree of certainty regarding what is and what isn’t scripture without an infallible body, in this case the Catholic Church, making the discernment for them?

Yes.

I will give you a list of verse, some Scripture and some not. Can you tell us which is theopneustos and which isn’t (without, of course, using google)? You (that is, we) need an authority which discerned it to be so!

• All generations shall call me blessed!
• O you who believe! Remember God’s favor to you when there came against you forces, so We sent against them a strong wind and forces which you did not see, and God is Ever- Seeing what you do.
• My breath is offensive to my wife.
• For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
• Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.
• Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD.
• And seek assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble ones.
• I will go and do what the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them

 

[IrishJoe]

Surely they’re all out of context and the books would have to be read as a whole?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yes.

I will give you a list of verse, some Scripture and some not. Can you tell us which is theopneustos and which isn’t (without, of course, using google)? You (that is, we) need an authority which discerned it to be so!

• All generations shall call me blessed!
• O you who believe! Remember God’s favor to you when there came against you forces, so We sent against them a strong wind and forces which you did not see, and God is Ever- Seeing what you do.
• My breath is offensive to my wife.
• For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
• Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.
• Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD.
• And seek assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble ones.
• I will go and do what the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them

Let’s say I fail your test, miss every one of them. What does that prove? It certainly doesn’t prove your point that one would have no certainly what is and what isn’t scripture without the Church infallbily defining the canon. At the most, it would prove that I failed your test to discern whether a few single verses were scripture but that isn’t really what the discussion is about is it?

By the way, the need for an authority is one thing, having no certainty without an infallbile authority is an entirely different thing.

Remember the Jews, without an infallible guide, at a minimum, had some idea of what was and what wasn’t scripture. In the gospels we see Jesus holding the Jews responsible for knowing what was in the scriptures. We don’t see Jesus excusing them because they didn’t have 100% certitude. What do you make of the OT Jews? You may claim that certain sects, the Saducees perhaps, rejected certain books but that just dodges my point. The Saducees accepted the Torah so they too had some idea what scripture is. Remember you contention, based on your reply above, is that one could have no certainty at all as to what is and isn’t scripture and the OT Jews apparently did have some degree of certainty, as to what was and what wasn’t scripture. How did they discern the scriptures?

What of the Christians that lived before an infallible pronouncement of either the OT or NT canon? Do you really believe they had no certitude at all as to what was and wasn’t scripture? Certainly you will find some debate and discussion as to the canon but to claim that they had no idea (no certainty at all) is way over stating your case.

I believe your argument is way over reaching. While it may seem convenient to beat a Protestant over the head with this type of argument it still isn’t a good argument.

 

[PRmerger]

Surely they’re all out of context and the books would have to be read as a whole?

Take it from the specific to the general.

How would one know, after reading an entire book, that it is inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s say I fail your test, miss every one of them. What does that prove? It certainly doesn’t prove your point that one would have no certainly what is and what isn’t scripture without the Church infallbily defining the canon. At the most, it would prove that I failed your test to discern whether a few single verses were scripture but that isn’t really what the discussion is about is it?

Fair enough. Arguable, but I won’t belabor the point.

By the way, the need for an authority is one thing, having no certainty without an infallbile authority is an entirely different thing.

Ok. Then where do you think this authority erred? Do you believe it ought to have omitted the book of Revelation and included the Acts of Carpus?

Remember the Jews, without an infallible guide, at a minimum, had some idea of what was and what wasn’t scripture. In the gospels we see Jesus holding the Jews responsible for knowing what was in the scriptures.
We don’t see Jesus excusing them because they didn’t have 100% certitude. What do you make of the OT Jews? You may claim that certain sects, the Saducees perhaps, rejected certain books but that just dodges my point. The Saducees accepted the Torah so they too had some idea what scripture is. Remember you contention, based on your reply above, is that one could have no certainty at all as to what is and isn’t scripture and the OT Jews apparently did have some degree of certainty, as to what was and what wasn’t scripture. How did they discern the scriptures?

Ok. They had their canon (again, arguable, but I will concede this point for the sake of this discussion.)

They knew, then, by the witness of their fathers what was inspired?

What of the Christians that lived before an infallible pronouncement of either the OT or NT canon? Do you really believe they had no certitude at all as to what was and wasn’t scripture?

Yes. See your comment below.

Certainly you will find some debate and discussion as to the canon but to claim that they had no idea (no certainty at all) is way over stating your case.

Certitude? No. “No idea”–of course they had “some” idea.

I believe your argument is way over reaching. While it may seem convenient to beat a Protestant over the head with this type of argument it still isn’t a good argument.

The fact that you are discomfited by the repercussions tells me that you have some degree of intellectual honesty, and that you get the point.

To wit: if you accept the NT canon, you accept
-an outside authority in some areas of your faith.
-this authority has been infallible, and infallible on multiple occasions.

 

[TinaG]

Hi!

You might be interested in reading this - Calvin’s statement on the thread topic.

ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html

I have read it but I don’t know that I agree with it all.

-Tina “” G

 

[jmcrae]

Hi!

You might be interested in reading this - Calvin’s statement on the thread topic.

ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html

I have read it but I don’t know that I agree with it all.

-Tina “” G

He does not solve the problem of how we recognize Scripture as Scripture.

It is a plain historical fact that the Bishops of the Catholic Church debated for two centuries before the final canon of the New Testament was fully established, so his idea, which seems to boil down to “it’s obvious to anyone who reads it that it’s Scripture, simply by reading it” doesn’t seem to hold water - if the best educated men in the civilized world couldn’t agree on it for two hundred years, how is the average house wife or farmer supposed to do so? Calvin would answer, “By the testimony of the Holy Spirit” - so, did the Bishops of the Early Church lack the Holy Spirit, then? (In which case, why trust the canon that they eventually did come up with? Did they lack the Holy Spirit, and then suddenly gain Him? How would we know whether they did, or not, without the authority of the Church to guide us?)

And how does anyone infallibly identify that one has the Holy Spirit’s testimony, when there are more than 400 distinct religions, each founded on what the originators believed sincerely to be the testimony of the Holy Spirit? Obviously, at least 399 of them are incorrect - but Calvin would have no way of identifying which 399 of them are incorrect, since all 400 of them testify, and sincerely believe, that the Holy Spirit is guiding them.