Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

For example, the Jews somehow recognized what was scripture without an infallible guide to declare what was and what wasn’t scripture.

This is incorrect. There was no consensus–that is, the Jews had no certitude that their canon was the correct one given by God. Some believed only the Torah. Some believed i the Torah plus the Prophetic books. Some believed in the Talmud.

The church in the first few centuries had some idea, no matter how imperfect, what was and what wasn’t scripture. Sure there was debate and dialogue but it’s not as if it was total chaos.

Right.

As another example we can look at the canon of the OT. It wasn’t infalliblly defined until Trent and while there was some controversy surrounding the deutero’s it’s not as if Christians were in complete confusion.

This is also incorrect. At the Council of Rome in 382 the CC discerned a canon of 46 books of the OT and 27 NT books.

Anyway, as Sproul has penned, a Protestant is pretty much left believing in a fallible collection of infallible books.

Huh?

While I was Protestant I would have had no problem admitting that the early church formed the canon. I would not have accepted that the church at any point was infallible. I believe the more interesting question would be why accept the NT canon from the early church but not the OT canon?

There are many great Catholic apologists out there and a lot of really brilliant arguments to support our Church but there are also quite a few popular arguments circulated here that just plain overstate the case for the Church.

Of course this is not the ONLY argument presented which refutes the Protestant paradigm.

But to say that it has no merit is to be intellectually dishonest.

Clearly, if one accepts the CC’s authority in discerning the NT canon, 2 conclusions must be acknowledged:
-there is an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture which is being obeyed.
-this authority was infallible in declaring the NT canon. And was given this charism on multiple occasions.

 

[Pwrlftr]

This is incorrect. There was no consensus–that is, the Jews had no certitude that their canon was the correct one given by God. Some believed only the Torah. Some believed i the Torah plus the Prophetic books. Some believed in the Talmud.

Precisely what is incorrect? Since I never said that there was a consensus and fully acknowledged that some groups held to one canon and other groups to another your response misses the point.

You believe that because there were some disagreement between groups they had no certitude as to what made up the OT canon? If I remember correctly each group recognized the Torah as scripture therefore even the Saducees had some knowledge, no matter how imperfect, of what was and what wasn’t scripture.

Your statement to me was that one would have no idea of what was and what wasn’t scripture without an infallible guide.

Did the Jews, without an infallible guide have some idea what was scripture? Yes they did as can be demonstrated by Jesus comments to them in the NT. Never once did Jesus excuse the Jews because they were without an infallible guide to discern what is and what isn’t scripture. He (Jesus) held the Jews accountable for what was in the scriptures.

Paul also held the Jews accoutable for knowing what is in the scriptures. Instead of me posting a bunch of verses take a little time and do a search for the word “scripture” in your favorite bible version and see what you come up with and how it is used.

Do you really think that the OT Jews gathering in their synagogues had no idea what was and what wasn’t scripture just becuase the didn’t have an infallible decree issued to them explicitly listing the books of the OT? Remember the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. One has to at least have some knowledge of what the thing is that they are being entrusted with. How can you be entrusted with something you don’t have the ability to recognize?

This is also incorrect. At the Council of Rome in 382 the CC discerned a canon of 46 books of the OT and 27 NT books.

What I said was that Trent was the first infallible decision on the OT canon not that there were no earlier councils which listed the OT canon. If you want to debate this point have at it.

However, my point stands no matter what council you want to use. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the early church, even without an infallible council to guide them, had some idea, no matter how imperfect, of what was and what wasn’t scripture. They managed to recognize the gospels and other books of the NT as well. They also managed to somehow have an idea of what the OT canon was.

Earlier in this thread you said that without an infallible giude one would have no idea as to what is and what isn’t scripture and that just clearly isn’t the case.

Of course this is not the ONLY argument presented which refutes the Protestant paradigm.

But to say that it has no merit is to be intellectually dishonest.

Your argument that one would have no idea as to what is and what isn’t scripture without an infallible guide is unsound. Whether it has little merit or no merit should not be the issue.

Is it really better to be known as the Catholic who uses unsound argumentats which have litttle merit as opposed to the Catholic who uses unsound arguments which have no merit?

BTW, if I were you I would leave accusations of honesty/dishonesty out of the conversation and I will do the same.

Clearly, if one accepts the CC’s authority in discerning the NT canon, 2 conclusions must be acknowledged:
-there is an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture which is being obeyed.
-this authority was infallible in declaring the NT canon. And was given this charism on multiple occasions.

When I was a Protestant I would have agreed with your first point.

To a Protestant your second point is going to be a non sequitor.

Why would a Protestant have to acknowledge that the authority was infallible?

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I converted a while back…so I am now Catholic.

Awesome! That must not have been easy…

As a side note, due to some injuries I can no longer compete in powerlifting and now am a svelte 230 pounds and losing more weight each week. As a benefit of losing the weight I can now runa few miles without feling like my heart is about to explode out of my chest.

Injuries:bummer; running and feeling better:glad to hear it

PR thinks that it isn’t possible to have any certainty at all as to what is and what isn’t scripture without an infallible guide…this line of argumentation may seem like a convenient stick to beat over the head of Protestants but it is based on unsound thinking. For example, the Jews somehow recognized what was scripture without an infallible guide to declare what was and what wasn’t scripture.

Very different, I think.
The Jews were bound to accept the canon by their leaders.
Your use of the word “recognized Scripture” is ambiguous and suspect since we know their were different Jewish canons.

The church in the first few centuries had some idea, no matter how imperfect, what was and what wasn’t scripture. Sure there was debate and dialogue but it’s not as if it was total chaos.

And why wasnt it chaos? Because they had the Church to keep them united.

As another example we can look at the canon of the OT. It wasn’t infalliblly defined until Trent and while there was some controversy surrounding the deutero’s it’s not as if Christians were in complete confusion.

The infallible declaration is a true technicality. The Church had declared the canon well over a thousand years earlier. It was not an issue until Luther’s time.

Anyway, as Sproul has penned, a Protestant is pretty much left believing in a fallible collection of infallible books.

Yeah, this never rang true with me…how can you hang your hat on it? It either undermines the veracity with which you accept some of the NT (ie James 2:24) or undermines the infallibility of Scripture per se. It does represent an intellectually honest position from a Protestant perspective, though.

While I was Protestant I would have had no problem admitting that the early church formed the canon. I would not have accepted that the church at any point was infallible.

“A” canon or “THE” canon? The former term refers to a fallible collection of books, the latter to those books intended by God to be received. For example, do you believe the canon could potentially change - books could be added or deleted - or not?

There are many great Catholic apologists out there and a lot of really brilliant arguments to support our Church but there are also quite a few popular arguments circulated here that just plain overstate the case for the Church.

I dont doubt that! Glad to basically be on the same side of the debate - I thank God for that.

Blessings!

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

If this sermon represents the EFCA at large, then the EFCA denies that Mary is the Mother of God for no good reason. Denying Her that title raises a host of old heresies, including Nestorianism, the one that the Nicene Creed was meant to root out.

I didn’t even bother clicking on your link because in the EFCA Statement of Faith under item #4 (pasted below), it states quite plainly that Mary is the mother of Jesus…

1. We believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, fully God and fully man, one Person in two natures. Jesus-Israel’s promised Messiah-was conceived through the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father as our High Priest and Advocate.

efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

 

[PRmerger]

Precisely what is incorrect?

That the Jews knew what books was truly the sacred revelation of God.

Since I never said that there was a consensus and fully acknowledged that some groups held to one canon and other groups to another your response misses the point.

Exactly. There was no consensus.

It took the Catholic Church to discern which of the ancient texts were inspired and which were not.

You believe that because there were some disagreement between groups they had no certitude as to what made up the OT canon?

No. They had the witness of their fathers. So as far as certitude I suppose it depended upon what Levite priest they listened to.

If I remember correctly each group recognized the Torah as scripture therefore even the Saducees had some knowledge, no matter how imperfect, of what was and what wasn’t scripture.

Ok.

Your statement to me was that one would have no idea of what was and what wasn’t scripture without an infallible guide.

Exactly. And it took the Catholic Church to discern this. Even the Jews had no consensus.

Did the Jews, without an infallible guide have some idea what was scripture? Yes they did as can be demonstrated by Jesus comments to them in the NT. Never once did Jesus excuse the Jews because they were without an infallible guide to discern what is and what isn’t scripture. He (Jesus) held the Jews accountable for what was in the scriptures.

Yes, they had “some idea”, but they couldn’t agree. It took the CC to discern this.

Paul also held the Jews accoutable for knowing what is in the scriptures.

Reference?

And you’re saying he held them accountable for knowing that Isaiah was inspired but that the Prayer of Manassah was not?

 

[PRmerger]

Do you really think that the OT Jews gathering in their synagogues had no idea what was and what wasn’t scripture just becuase the didn’t have an infallible decree issued to them explicitly listing the books of the OT?

Again, they had “some idea”, just no consensus. I think you’re confusing your arguments.

Certitude is different than “some idea”. You seem to be switching back and forth between these 2 concepts.

Which one are you arguing from?

At any rate, it took the CC to discern, infallibly, which were* theopneustos* and which weren’t.

Remember the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. One has to at least have some knowledge of what the thing is that they are being entrusted with. How can you be entrusted with something you don’t have the ability to recognize?

Fair enough.

They just couldn’t decide definitively; it took the CC to discern this.

What I said was that Trent was the first infallible decision on the OT canon not that there were no earlier councils which listed the OT canon. If you want to debate this point have at it.

Trent only reaffirmed what had been the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium since the time of the Apostles.

However, my point stands no matter what council you want to use. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the early church, even without an infallible council to guide them, had some idea, no matter how imperfect, of what was and what wasn’t scripture.

pwrlftr, Sacred Tradition existed from the earliest days of the church. Thus, there was an infallible guide even before the first council which discerned, then affirmed the canon of Scripture.

They managed to recognize the gospels and other books of the NT as well. They also managed to somehow have an idea of what the OT canon was.

Again, see my comment about choosing your position. Certitude vs “some idea”.

Earlier in this thread you said that without an infallible giude one would have no idea as to what is and what isn’t scripture and that just clearly isn’t the case.

Nope. I said they would have no certitude. * Not* “no idea”.

Pick one, please.

Your argument that one would have no idea as to what is and what isn’t scripture without an infallible guide is unsound. Whether it has little merit or no merit should not be the issue.

As above.

Is it really better to be known as the Catholic who uses unsound argumentats which have litttle merit as opposed to the Catholic who uses unsound arguments which have no merit?

Of course it is better to be known as a Catholic who uses sound arguments.

BTW, if I were you I would leave accusations of honesty/dishonesty out of the conversation and I will do the same.

That sounds fair!

Why would a Protestant have to acknowledge that the authority was infallible?

Well, what error, then, did the CC make in discerning the theopneustos Scriptures? Did they err in including Revelation and excluding the Gospel of Thomas?

If, as I suspect, the average Protestant believes that Revelation is inspired, then the CC correctly–and infallibly–discerned this. And they re-affirmed it on multiple occasions, meaning this charism of infallibility existed on multiple occasions.

Thus, Protestants ought to acknowledge that there was an outside authority they use as the norm of their faith; and this outside authority was infallible, and on multiple occasions!

 

[Cat_Herder]

I didn’t even bother clicking on your link because in the EFCA Statement of Faith under item #4 (pasted below), it states quite plainly that Mary is the mother of Jesus…

efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

My question is, why then do you say Mary is not the mother of God?

 

[tqualey]

hI, FaithfulAndTrue,

You’re right! It certainly does! I went to the site and read it right there - right where you said it would be!

4. We believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, fully God and fully man, one Person in two natures. Jesus-Israel’s promised Messiah-was conceived through the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father as our High Priest and Advocate.

But, you know what … much of wording sounded somewhat familiar - so I went to the bottom of the page to look for a citation. Unfortunately, there wasn’t one there. Do you know where most that wording came from?

God bless

I didn’t even bother clicking on your link because in the EFCA Statement of Faith under item #4 (pasted below), it states quite plainly that Mary is the mother of Jesus…

efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pwlftr,

I think you have a number of valid ideas here… I would like to address one, if I may…

Precisely what is incorrect? Since I never said that there was a consensus and fully acknowledged that some groups held to one canon and other groups to another your response misses the point.

You believe that because there were some disagreement between groups they had no certitude as to what made up the OT canon? If I remember correctly each group recognized the Torah as scripture therefore even the Saducees had some knowledge, no matter how imperfect, of what was and what wasn’t scripture.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the groups agreed on the First Five Books. So, I would guess tht makes for a consensus.

Your statement to me was that one would have no idea of what was and what wasn’t scripture without an infallible guide.

I think this is where it gets a bit tricky, Pwlftr. The ancient Jews did not have something (at least to the best of my knowledge) like the Gnostic Gospels to contend with. I see these as the forerunners of today’s computer hackers - people who get into mischief for the purpose of destroying the authenticity of other people’s written work. While there must have been others besides the Gnostics who tried to disrupt the early Catholic Church - I do not think the Jews had such an organized problem.

The fact that the Sadducees only accepted the First Five Books and no more has never really been explaned as to why this was - contrasted with the Pharisees who accepted those and the other Books (scrolls?) as well. What did the Pharisees know or think they knew that the other groups didn’t?

God bless

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

My question is, why then do you say Mary is not the mother of God?

lol, I think you’re trying way too hard to be a contrarian. It stated that Jesus was God incarnate and that Mary is the virgin mother of Jesus. So if Jesus is God incarnate and Mary is the mother of Jesus then it makes logical sense that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate.

If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

 

[PRmerger]

lol, I think you’re trying way too hard to be a contrarian. It stated that Jesus was God incarnate and that Mary is the virgin mother of Jesus. So if Jesus is God incarnate and Mary is the mother of Jesus then it makes logical sense that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate.

If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

I think we just want to make sure what you and your church professes, as there are so many folks who object to the Catholic dogma of Mary as* theotokos.*

Glad you’re on the same page as us on this one! :extrahappy:

 

[Cat_Herder]

lol, I think you’re trying way too hard to be a contrarian. It stated that Jesus was God incarnate and that Mary is the virgin mother of Jesus. So if Jesus is God incarnate and Mary is the mother of Jesus then it makes logical sense that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate.

:clapping:

But as you can see from the sermon I linked to, not everyone in the EFCA agrees, unfortunately.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

hI, FaithfulAndTrue,

You’re right! It certainly does! I went to the site and read it right there - right where you said it would be!

4. We believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, fully God and fully man, one Person in two natures. Jesus-Israel’s promised Messiah-was conceived through the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father as our High Priest and Advocate.

But, you know what … much of wording sounded somewhat familiar - so I went to the bottom of the page to look for a citation. Unfortunately, there wasn’t one there. Do you know where most that wording came from?

God bless

Hi tqualey,

A lot of that wording is similar to the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi tqualey,

A lot of that wording is similar to the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds.

Well, the Council of Nicea was populated by bishops.

Catholic bishops.

And there was a pope in attendance too.

 

[Philthy]

The same is quite true within the CC. No two people within the CC will have the *exact *same theological beliefs on all matters. A simple survey of the forums here will tell you that. Some will have slight disagreements and some will completely contradict your particular viewpoint as well.

It is not true at all. There are no “two people within the CC”. You are projecting your Protestant reality into the CC. There is the teaching of the Church and it is clear to all through the Catechism, encyclicals etc. People who happen to disagree with what the Church teaches are not relevant to the discussion. Protestants, depending upon their particular beliefs, are largely free to believe whatever they wish to believe Scripture is telling them. Even within Protestant churches their particular doctrines have changed over time - like their stance on contraception, for example. Not so with the CC.

OK first of all, those two posts were a page apart so I’m not trying to avoid or redirect anything… I addressed your “born of water and Spirit” statement by saying that there are many passages and verses in the Bible that are difficult to understand. So what?

So what??? It’s a requirement for entering Heaven, thats what!! Are you trying to tell me that Christ would leave us guessing at something that our salvation hinges on?

While we may not know which “water” Jesus means (and we could possibly even debate about what Spirit means), that doesn’t mean we can’t know the overall meaning of the verse. That’s because Jesus made many more statements about what we had to do to achieve salvation than just this one.

Im sorry but you are simply spinning your wheels and trying to “avoid and redirect” rather than answer the question - what is meant by water and spirit? Take all the verses you wish to guess might explain this one and simply answer the question: Do you know what it means or not? My guess, and my entire point, is that you don’t know what this verse means because, like much of the NT, it is descriptive rather than affirmative and requires interpretation. That was my entire point. And this is not a trivial verse - it is a requirement for going to Heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

People who happen to disagree with what the Church teaches are not relevant to the discussion. Protestants, depending upon their particular beliefs, are largely free to believe whatever they wish to believe Scripture is telling them.

This is the essence of the discussion. Protestantism’s refrain is “The bible tells me…”

If a Christian reads the bible and discerns that the Holy Spirit told him that Malachi 1:11 means A, then who is another Christian to tell him, “No, it means not-A”.

Thus, no Protestant can ever really tell another that another’s interpretation is wrong.

 

[Philthy]

“my opinion is based upon fact unlike yours”

Well, if your opinion is factual and mine (which you say you don’t even understand) is not then I’m not even going to bother rehashing everything with you again.

Translation: you don’t have a reasonable answer: when and how does God exercise his authority to interpret Scripture?

 

[Acadiana_Tiger]

These arguments do skip over the basic question which deals simply with “who handed you the bible, and then who handed them the bible?” and so on. Jesus works though men. He gave Peter and his successors the Keys to the Kingdom and the authority to bind and loose. All Christians aren’t even sure if the purported authors of the some of the NT really wrote those books. How are we to know then that these unsigned, unwitnessed and unnotarized documents are the Word of God? Through the witnessing of men guided by the Holy Spirit.

How is the Church (and the Pope) “arrogating” itself to the Holy Spirit when Jesus gave Peter the keys? Was Peter arrogating himself when he acted according to the authority of the keys?

Jesus knew that he had to give his Church a way to works out the “nuts and bolts” of his kingdom. So he gave the Church “authority”. The Church defined the New Testament canon, but only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit - and the fact that the Church paid attention to what Jesus said and did.

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.

In contrast we believe the Holy Spirit speaks directly to individual believers and testifies to the truth of the Scripture. That does not mean that God does not use men, but the glory belongs to God, not to the Church. For anyone to believe that the Church per se is a credible witness to the world is laughable. None of us, without the power of the Holy Spirit, can effectively witness to Christ. Nor can we believe.

-Tina “Sola Gloria Deo” G

 

[Acadiana_Tiger]

1. They have God as their author. Any human council, simply confirming what Christians already believed (for example the 27 book canon was accepted prior to any regional synod).
   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 for anyone who might attempt to talk me out of believing a 27 book canon unless I accept it for the reason they do.
2. All Christian groups accept a 27 book canon. While there were a few areas that may not have been definite about the 27 book canon according to some authors, I will add that most of these authors who profess a lack of belief in the 27 book canon held heretical views contrary to scripture. Specifically individuals who may have believed in the inspiration of Clement, the Shepherd, or the Epistle of Barnabas. I am prepared to name names so I hope anyone who disagrees is prepared to defend all of their views.
3. Christians recognize what God has done. In the New Testament, absolutely no human authority or councils made the Jews accept scripture. Yet the Apostles, like Paul, did recognize Old Testament books as being scriptural.

Matthew 23:2-3 (New International Version, ©2010)
2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Significance? Jesus told us that the Pharisees, even through sinful persons, must be listed to. Why? Because they “sit in Moses’ seat.” “Moses’ seat”? “Chair of Peter”? Authority? Why would Jesus lend authority to those sitting in “Moses’ seat”?

Take for example what Paul wrote in 2nd Timothy 3:15. I can expand on this line of thinking if need be.
4. It is the New Testament of groups that I believe accurately reflect the teachings contained in them.

This is a good start, there will be other topics that come up. I will do my best to answer all questions while being very careful to conform to guidelines

 

[Acadiana_Tiger]

Randy,

I have not personally concluded anything about the New Testament canon and its completeness. Why should I? The canon was set in the fourth century and I know of no reason why that decision should not be accepted, just as there is no reason for me not to accept the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds as true declarations of my faith.

I get the impression that you believe that with the Reformation all who did not remain Catholic must somehow have developed amnesia about what had been taught for the previous 15 centuries – beginning anew with a sort of tabula rasa. From my perspective, that simply is not the case.

Pastor Gary, what is clear is that, since the Reformation, there has been a steady separation from core Catholic beliefs and dogma with the primary interest of…distancing belief and teaching “from what the Catholics believe.” We see this with the Eucharist and Marian doctrine:

*“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.” (Martin Luther, Sermon, September 1, 1522).*Does that look like mainline non-Catholic belief regarding the “Mother of Our God” (Elizabeth at the Visitation)?