Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[FaithfulAndTrue]

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

I was referring to 1 John 4:1…

Testing the Spirits

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

That’s different than putting God to the test. It’s putting something to the test to make sure it is from God. Your quotes from Luke and Proverbs are regarding doubting His abilities and power as God.

Also consider Gideon in Judges 6 regarding the meat & unleavened bread and the fleece. He asked God for a sign to ensure the voice he was hearing actually was God.

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

lol, thanks for the tip.

I was referring to John chapter 1 (John 1:1-3 quoted)…

The Deity of Jesus Christ

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing * came into being that has come into being.

The Greek word used for “Word” is “Logos” which is defined as…

of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates achanging universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose inJohn 1.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

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

Yup. Not Scripture. But something outside of Scripture.

Ok.

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

I’m just sayin’

Exactly! :extrahappy:

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

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.

No argument there!

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.

Well, I’m not going to take the time to reply to this post or any of the others you made in an attempt to pick apart my post. I don’t have the time or desire to address with a well explained answer to each individual point you’ve made.

For the most part, it seems you are either misunderstanding what I’m trying to say based on a preconceived notion of what you think I believe or you are trying to manipulate what I’m saying to make a broader statement about what you believe. I’m not sure which but, either way, I’ll pass.

As a former Catholic, I’ve offered my perspective about why I accept the NT canon which was the topic of the thread. If my reasons for accepting the NT canon aren’t enough for you, that’s OK with me.

 

[Philthy]

Hello friend!

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.

I think you and I had a fairly in depth discussion of this issue a year ago. We had made considerable progress (IMHO) but, if my memory serves me correctly, you had had enough for a bit…maybe I’ll go dig out where we left off…

The bottom line is not what we are contending, as you posit. The bottom line is this:
Why do you accept the NT canon? You obviously believe it to be a revealed truth of the faith. When, exactly, do you believe it was revealed? Who, exactly, revealed it? How, exactly, did they reveal it to you? These are relatively simple questions for an educated Catholic to answer. We always take heat from Protestants for adhering to the Magisterium, and get accused of a “traditions of men” faith. And yet, from our perspective it would seem that your acceptance of the NT canon is nothing but a tradition of men. So we want to know: WHY do you accept the NT canon?

Blessings!

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I’m not going to take the time to reply to this post or any of the others you made in an attempt to pick apart my post.

As you wish.

But why join the CAFs if you’re not willing to engage in a discussion?

(And my “attempt to pick apart post” is how it works here on the CAFs.)

As a former Catholic, I’ve offered my perspective about why I accept the NT canon which was the topic of the thread. If my reasons for accepting the NT canon aren’t enough for you, that’s OK with me.

Your reasons, Faithful, are quite good. I’m just pointing out that they are not Scriptural.

Thus, you believe and submit to Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from the Bible.

Perhaps as a Protestant, before coming to this thread, you did not realize this, but now, if you have any degree of intellectual honesty, you will acknowledge this fact.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I was referring to 1 John 4:1…

That’s different than putting God to the test. It’s putting something to the test to make sure it is from God. Your quotes from Luke and Proverbs are regarding doubting His abilities and power as God.

Also consider Gideon in Judges 6 regarding the meat & unleavened bread and the fleece. He asked God for a sign to ensure the voice he was hearing actually was God.

Problem: the discernment of spirits is not a universal gift.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]

I was referring to John chapter 1 (John 1:1-3 quoted)…
…
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

Hence it refers to Jesus, not the Bible.

 

[TinaG]

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.

Hi,

These are good criticisms. I don’t know the answer.

-Tina “” G

 

[jphilapy]

Remember the Jews, without an infallible guide, at a minimum, had some idea of what was and what wasn’t scripture.

I think you would need to be careful with your own agument. The jews for some time did have the Urim and Thummim which qualifies as infallible. Likewise they had prophets which also qualify as infallible. In short we don’t really know what happened to them but we have no reason to conclude that they didn’t have access to God’s guidance, or that they didn’t have God guiding them in the recognition of scripture. Perhaps an example of the jewish leadership acting infallibly would be when they were told by God to rebuild the temple.

Jeff

 

[jmcrae]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing * came into being that has come into being.

This is not referring to the Bible - this is referring to Christ Himself - He proceeded forth from the Father, from out of the Father’s “mouth” (if the Father can be said to have a mouth) - when the Father said, “Let their be light” there was no sound or language - the Word that proceeded forth and caused all that exists to come into existence, is itself, Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is called the Son because He proceeded (and continually proceeds) from the Father.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

As you wish.

But why join the CAFs if you’re not willing to engage in a discussion?

(And my “attempt to pick apart post” is how it works here on the CAFs.)

I’m willing to engage in discussion, I simply don’t have the time to reply to 60 individual points in multiple postings.

Your reasons, Faithful, are quite good. I’m just pointing out that they are not Scriptural.

Thus, you believe and submit to Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from the Bible.

Perhaps as a Protestant, before coming to this thread, you did not realize this, but now, if you have any degree of intellectual honesty, you will acknowledge this fact.

OK, I guess I’ll just have to continue to live my life with my established pattern of intellectual dishonesty

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Problem: the discernment of spirits is not a universal gift.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]

I fail to see how this is a problem?

Hence it refers to Jesus, not the Bible.

Exactly. The Bible (literally the physical book itself) is not Jesus, but everything contained in the book is the Word of God. And we know that the Word became flesh and that flesh is Jesus.

That’s why it irks me when someone makes a statement like, “the Catholic Church gave us the Bible”. To me, that implies that the Catholic Church gave us the Word of God (Jesus) which is not true because He existed from the beginning. Anyway, that’s just a personal pet peeve of mine.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

This is not referring to the Bible - this is referring to Christ Himself - He proceeded forth from the Father, from out of the Father’s “mouth” (if the Father can be said to have a mouth) - when the Father said, “Let their be light” there was no sound or language - the Word that proceeded forth and caused all that exists to come into existence, is itself, Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is called the Son because He proceeded (and continually proceeds) from the Father.

We are in agreement.

 

[jmcrae]

OK, I guess I’ll just have to continue to live my life with my established pattern of intellectual dishonesty

I don’t see how you have a choice - it would be impossible to remain Protestant, without picking and choosing pretty much at random from the Holy Tradition.

The Canon of Scripture, good - the Trinity, good - the Hypostatic Union, good - anything to do with Mary or the Pope, bad.

Reason? Dunno. Just “feels” right. It was the same group of people who gave us all of these teachings - at the times that they came up with things that I agree with, they must have been being guided by the Holy Spirit, but with regard to the things I disagree with, they must have been being deceived by the Devil.

 

[Cat_Herder]

OK, I guess I’ll just have to continue to live my life

Does your life include going to a church building on Sunday? Where is that in the Bible?

 

[jmcrae]

Does your life include going to a church building on Sunday? Where is that in the Bible?

Ah, yes - another component of Holy Tradition that most Protestants give assent to. (While still rejecting that same Tradition when it speaks about Mary and the Pope.)

 

[jmcrae]

We are in agreement.

Good. So the Word that we are to follow is Jesus Christ.

Not (specifically, or only) the Bible.

 

[jmcrae]

Exactly. The Bible (literally the physical book itself) is not Jesus, but everything contained in the book is the Word of God. And we know that the Word became flesh and that flesh is Jesus.

Sorry, what?

Are you saying that the Bible became flesh and dwelt among us??!

That’s why it irks me when someone makes a statement like, “the Catholic Church gave us the Bible”. To me, that implies that the Catholic Church gave us the Word of God (Jesus) which is not true because He existed from the beginning.

No, no, no. The Bible is not “the Word of God” in the same way that Jesus is the Word of God.

Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, became flesh and dwelt among us.

The Bible did not.

The Bible was constructed by human beings - Prophets of Israel who worked for the King of Israel, and Bishops of the Catholic Church who worked with and for the Pope of the Catholic Church, were the men who wrote the text of the Scriptures, and who established the canons of the Old and New Testaments, and who translated the books into the common languages, and who ensured that every Church would receive a copy, to be read out at Mass during the LIturgy of the Word. They were inspired by God, and they were preserved from making errors (meaning, they were infallible) but they were not, themselves, God - and the texts that they were writing down, translating, and copying, were not the person of Jesus - they were words written on paper.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Sorry, what?

Are you saying that the Bible became flesh and dwelt among us??!

No, no, no. The Bible is not “the Word of God” in the same way that Jesus is the Word of God.

Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, became flesh and dwelt among us.

The Bible did not.

The Bible was constructed by human beings - Prophets of Israel who worked for the King of Israel, and Bishops of the Catholic Church who worked with and for the Pope of the Catholic Church, were the men who wrote the text of the Scriptures, and who established the canons of the Old and New Testaments, and who translated the books into the common languages, and who ensured that every Church would receive a copy, to be read out at Mass during the LIturgy of the Word. They were inspired by God, and they were preserved from making errors (meaning, they were infallible) but they were not, themselves, God - and the texts that they were writing down, translating, and copying, were not the person of Jesus - they were words written on paper.

So you don’t consider that which is contained in the Bible to be the Word of God?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Does your life include going to a church building on Sunday? Where is that in the Bible?

The Pauline Epistles were written to churches. What is a church if not an assembly of people? And in Acts 20 the disciples came together to break bread and listen to Paul preach on the first day of the week.

 

[jmcrae]

So you don’t consider that which is contained in the Bible to be the Word of God?

It is given by the inspiration of God, and in that sense it is the Word of God, but it is not Jesus - the Bible did not create you, or the world and all that is in it, and the Bible did not die on the Cross for our sins, nor raise itself back to life on the third day, nor ascend into Heaven to judge the world at the right hand of the Father.

 

[jmcrae]

The Pauline Epistles were written to churches. What is a church if not an assembly of people?

It seems as if they met together every day, though - not just on Sundays.

And in Acts 20 the disciples came together to break bread and listen to Paul preach on the first day of the week.

Yes, this is a description of the Mass - but most Protestants would not say that there is any mention of the Mass in Scripture, just as someone who isn’t used to the idea of going to Church on Sunday would necessarily see this verse as an example of church-going on Sunday, or extrapolate from it that the people of the Early Church attended church services on Sundays, in general.