Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[Philthy]

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?

Well, technically it wasnt the “Roman” Catholic Church, it was, and is, the Catholic Church. But back to your intended question, Why is it hard? Because of the facts!
First off - where do we have even a hint of this “church” existing in history? No where. There are simply no facts to support what you are proposing. The only thing that you offer is an attempt to explain how it “might” have happened if it were not the Catholic Church that accomplished it (guided, of course, by the HS). That, perhaps, there was some other church that magically got everyone in a world divided by so many things - not the least of which was communicating in a timely fashion - to agree on a canon. In contrast to your pure speculation there are plenty of facts to support the existence of a Catholic Church from well within the first century. Plenty of writings to support a unity and hierarchy within it to accomplish such a daunting task, and the witness of many holy men and women (ie Saints and martyrs) who bear witness to its holiness.

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).

In case you are ignorant of the facts, not all of the NT was written or inspired by Apostles. Some Apostles contributed, some did not and, in addition, some none Apostles had works included in the NT.

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.

Of course there was one church. Everyone in the upper room on the day of Pentecost comprised the church - it was born of the Holy Spirit, founded on Peter (and the other 12). It remained united to the Apostles although its geographical identity changed considerably by the missionary journeys of the Apostles. How is that not “one” church? It is, and has always been one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Blessings!

 

[TinaG]

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.

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

Here we get into “What is the Catholic Church” - which title the Roman patriarchy has asserted it has sole custody of. There has not been a united catholic church since the Nestorians went into schism. “Catholic” = “universal”. I think there have been threads on this (which I have not read, to be honest). To claim that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same as the church of the first century is a profound distortion of history. There is historical continuity, but the changes have been radical. The reformers were booted out of the Roman Catholic Church against their will when they compared the writings in the newly-rediscovered Greek with the state of their contemporary church, which had become highly secularized, compromised, and weak. I think it was something like a 1000 year interval when Rome had not paid attention to matters doctrinal because it was too caught up in political machinations before the Reformation.

I expect I know what you will come back with here, so I will shortcut to it. I think Leo X totally and completely botched dealing with Luther. He regarded Luther as a political problem and was more interested in sacking Germany to the benefit of the Italians than he was interested in truth. The Reformation is possibly one of the most complex political and religious events ever to have happened on earth, and experts who have spent lifetimes studying it have come to different conclusions as to what it means. Today we should try to heal the breach, as Christians. But we should not compromise Christ to do so, whether to do so from a Catholic point of view or a Protestant.

I don’t know much about Catholicism. I haven’t had much time to look at these things. I start from a Reformed basis (I don’t even know much about THAT) and one reason I hang around here is to see where the differences actually are.

There have been many, many councils of bishops. Some of them have been contradictory (look at 1 and 2 Ephesus, for example). Or the Arian Councils of bishops, fully as authoritative as the non-Arian of the day. They have erred.

To say that God is incapable of telling a Christian where His word lies indicates someone things God is incompetent or inept.

-Tina “Both Incompetent and Inept” G

 

[PRmerger]

The authority I rely on is God because He is the author of scripture.

That’s very Catholic of you to say that!

The “table of contents” is merely a list of what God already inspired and gave to Christians.

Indeed.

And how was it that He “gave to Christians” this table of contents?

Not that you believe this, but the table of contents does not make the Bible, its the other way around.

The Bible makes the table of contents? How so?

Scripture is scripture the minute it is penned.

Ok.

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?.

Your view does not disagree necessarily with Catholic doctrine; it’s just a little poorly thought out.

It sounds like you’re unable to understand that you are actually acknowledging an authority outside of Scripture** each and every time you quote Scripture.

 

[Rightlydivide]

That’s very Catholic of you to say that!

Indeed.

And how was it that He “gave to Christians” this table of contents?

The Bible makes the table of contents? How so?

Ok.

Your view does not disagree necessarily with Catholic doctrine; it’s just a little poorly thought out.

It sounds like you’re unable to understand that you are actually acknowledging an authority outside of Scripture** each and every time you quote Scripture.

Well how does one respond to a comment that their views are poorly thought out and they are unable to understand something?

I suppose I will just continue to participate in the thread when there is something specific that catches my eye.
Good day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Jesus established the Catholic Church as His body on earth. Either you trust Him in this or you don’t.

 

[TinaG]

Well how does one respond to a comment that their views are poorly thought out and they are unable to understand something?

Some of us learn to live with it. Try being an adolescent girl sometime around a bunch of older guys…That was a while ago but I remember.

I suppose I will just continue to participate in the thread when there is something specific that catches my eye.
Good day.

I like your contributions!

-Tina “Press On!” G

 

[fermat]

Well how does one respond to a comment that their views are poorly thought out and they are unable to understand something?

I suppose I will just continue to participate in the thread when there is something specific that catches my eye.
Good day.

Thanks. I have been on here a long time preparing to explain our beliefs for those who seek clarification or from defend them to those who wish to challenge them.
I am ready for this one.

You can’t quit now!

 

[Rightlydivide]

You can’t quit now!

That was not a challenge to my beliefs. I was a nicer way of calling someone a moron.

 

[Rightlydivide]

But when there is content, I will address it. One of the problems with that is essentially I support offical Catholic belief for the most part. It understands that scripture is scripture because of God and not what the church did.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The authority I rely on is God because He is the author of scripture.

Amen. Every Catholic agrees that God is the author of scripture. And we also recognize that those authors were referring to themselves as the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century. In effect, Catholics wrote the New Testament.

The “table of contents” is merely a list of what God already inspired and gave to Christians.

Correct. And there is no inspired table of contents contained within the pages of the Bible itself. Therefore, the table of contents is provided by a source OUTSIDE of scripture. Thus, sola scriptura is disproved.

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.

Of course I believe it. What you have written here is correct.

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.

Interesting. Since the Early Church Fathers held to doctrines that were clearly Catholic (as opposed to Baptist or Protestant, etc.), I would have expected you to conclude that the Catholic Church is the only “denomination” teaching the fullness of the gospel.

To keep the conversation focused, how does my view disagree with what I posted from Catholic doctrine specifically?.

Not really the subject of the thread. I am focused on understanding how Protestants (and Baptists ) determine that the NT books are inspired since the Bible itself contains no inspired table of contents.

Those who are more honest readily admit their debt to the Catholic Church. Others cannot stomach this…

 

[OraLabora]

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.

I’m sorry but your ad hominem attack is hardly called for. I asked a simple question: how was the Canon assembled? I asked if it the various books just magically appeared in an assembled collection called the Bible. Moreover I most emphatically did not deny the role of the Holy Spirit in my post, if you’d take the time to simmer down your anger and actually read it. I said that the Holy Spirit certainly was involved in guiding the holy men that sifted through all the writings of the time, and determining which ones were canonical.

“Have you ever read your Bible”, was not charitable nor called for. As a Benedictine Oblate I pray the Liturgy of the Hours every day and practice lectio divina. The content of the LOH is almost entirely biblical. Ask anyone who prays all 5 canonical hours of the LOH daily, plus the Mass readings, plus personal daily readings, how much “Bible” he or she gets. You might be surprised to find that it is considerably more than the average Protestant reads in a day.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Amen. Every Catholic agrees that God is the author of scripture.

Correct. And there is no inspired table of contents contained within the pages of the Bible itself. Therefore, the table of contents is provided by a source OUTSIDE of scripture. Thus, sola scriptura is disproved.

Of course I believe it. What you have written here is correct.

Interesting. Since the Early Church Fathers held to doctrines that were clearly Catholic (as opposed to Baptist or Protestant, etc.), I would have expected you to conclude that the Catholic Church is the only “denomination” teaching the fullness of the gospel.

Not really the subject of the thread. I am focused on understanding how Protestants (and Baptists ) determine that the NT books are inspired since the Bible itself contains no inspired table of contents.

Those who are more honest readily admit their debt to the Catholic Church. Others cannot stomach this…

This is the second such comment from a Catholic in under an hour. I do believe I am honest however if you do not I cannot make you think I am.
The earliest church held views similiar to mine although people with views that do not match scripture did in many cases have their views represented as well. However, as time goes on fewer and fewer people had their views represented that agreed with mine.
Lets take for example the Didache that supports full immersion baptism, congregational polity, the eucharist not being seperated from its context as a meal, and no words of institution that would allow for the Catholic understanding of the Lords Supper …but probably best to not digress into that yet.

 

[clmowry]

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

Exactly how did He do this for you?

Chuck

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is the second such comment from a Catholic in under an hour. I do believe I am honest however if you do not I cannot make you think I am.
The earliest church held views similiar to mine although people with views that do not match scripture did in many cases have their views represented as well. However, as time goes on fewer and fewer people had their views represented that agreed with mine.
Lets take for example the Didache that supports full immersion baptism, congregational polity, the eucharist not being seperated from its context as a meal, and no words of institution that would allow for the Catholic understanding of the Lords Supper …but probably best to not digress into that yet.

We’ve debated some of these topics before, and I’m happy to do so again. However, for the purposes of THIS thread, I simply continue to ask how God specifically revealed to you that the 27 NT books you have in your Bible are, in fact, inspired.

 

[TinaG]

Randy,

[QUOTEThose who are more honest readily admit their debt to the Catholic Church. Others cannot stomach this…
[/QUOTE]

This is a totally unfair dichotomy. It is also what I suspected you were after in my first post on this thread, which you later denied, saying you were “merely curious”. But I digress.

You are saying either we agree with you or we are dishonest and cannot stomach the statement you make. You exclude the possibility that someone can be honest and in that honesty reject the statement you make (wherever it is the facts lie).

If there is a well, and the well gives forth living water, and the water is channeled to me, I focus on the water and the well, not the channel. I suspect sometimes that Catholics insist that what is important here is the channel, not the well, and not the water.

In this case God acts independently of the institutional Roman Catholic Church. I could turn your false dichotomy around and state that honest people agree and there are those who cannot stomach the idea. There is a debt to the Catholic Church, I suppose, but not necessarily to the Roman Catholic Church which claims that title. As a member of the catholic (universal) church but not the Roman Catholic Church I am then part of the creator of the debt. I also wonder at your emphasis on the minor and neglect of the overwhelmingly significant: God has spoken. Whether through a church or Balaam’s donkey (and He has done both) the point is that He has spoken.

God has spoken to me. He speaks to many, many people. He does not need to use the church as a mediator between God and man, because He Himself is the mediator between God and man.

-Tina “Ok, I should be Silent More Often” G

 

[PRmerger]

Those who are more honest readily admit their debt to the Catholic Church. Others cannot stomach this…

Indeed.

Once the participant understands this concept, the implications are huge.

I place no judgment on those who are treading through these waters yet unwilling to jump in. It’s scary, but one must seek the kingdom above all things.

 

[Rightlydivide]

We’ve debated some of these topics before, and I’m happy to do so again. However, for the purposes of THIS thread, I simply continue to ask how God specifically revealed to you that the 27 NT books you have in your Bible are, in fact, inspired.

And I answered that question in your OP and elaborated when asked…so…guess I will hang around and look for any specific content I can interact with?

 

[TinaG]

Exactly how did He do this for you?

Chuck

You trust Him.

Do you trust Him on your own? No. Faith is a gift from God. How do you know you believe? Well, you see that you do believe, and a minute ago you know you did not. What if you are wrong, and you believe falsely? Then you trust Him to make it right. There may be other "what if"s and the answer is always to trust Him. People fail you, but God does not. What if something happens that make it looks like He failed you? You still trust him. Is life hard? Trust him. Put those faith muscles to work. Trust Him. Pray for more faith. Talk to other believers. Read the Bible back to God. I ask God to show me what to do. Sometimes I get a logical answer. Sometimes I think He does not answer and things go wrong so I will trust Him. Sometimes I find out later He answered but it was in an entirely different way than I expected.

I cannot perceive reality on my own very well. I can be misled and deceived by others smarter and bigger than I am. I am one small weak girl in a big bad world. Without God there is no hope and no future except to be someone’s lunch or trophy. He is my defender, shield, ally, hope, future, riches, against which nothing compares. All is mirage and shadow in comparison. He alone is worthy of my trust.

God gave me faith. It was supernatural and I can’t really explain it. All I can do is mutter like this incoherently.

-Tina “Barely a Candle in the Darkness” G

 

[TinaG]

Indeed.

Once the participant understands this concept, the implications are huge.

I place no judgment on those who are treading through these waters yet unwilling to jump in. It’s scary, but one must seek the kingdom above all things.

Sigh.

-Tina “Still a Blockhead” G

 

[PRmerger]

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?

The Catholic Church is not Roman. There are 23 different rites, of which the Latin (or Roman) rite is only one.

As for this early church which kept and held as authoritative the Gospels, it was a church that had bishops and a pope, celebrated the Liturgy in the Eucharist, prayed for the dead, venerated Mary…

So what’s the point in saying that Scripture came to us through believers in the early churches as guided by the Holy Spirit?

To demonstrate that the Bible alone is not sufficient. All Christians submit to the authority of the Catholic Church each and every time they quote Scripture, whether they acknowledge it or not. Willingly or unwittingly.