Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[Randy_Carson]

If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?

Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?

Thanks.

 

[TinaG]

If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?

Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?

Thanks.

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

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?

Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?

Thanks.

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.
   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

 

[TinaG]

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.
   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

Hi!

Well put.

-Tina “Mumblemouth” G

 

[Rightlydivide]

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.

 

[gcnuss]

If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?

Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?

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.

 

[fermat]

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

Why is it so far fetched to believe that the NT came to us through the church, as guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[duffyk4]

How exactly do you know which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit? What did Christians use before the canon was put in place, and before the books of the NT were even written? What Bible verses can you use to back up your statements?

 

[Holly3278]

If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?

Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?

Thanks.

Don’t ask me. It makes no sense to me why they accept the Church’s acceptance of the 27 books of the New Testament but not the full Canon of the Old Testament that the Church accepts. Martin Luther of course wanted to even take out the Book of James in the New Testament from what I understand.

 

[Holly3278]

How exactly do you know which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit? What did Christians use before the canon was put in place, and before the books of the NT were even written? What Bible verses can you use to back up your statements?

We know which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit because the Church Councils infallibly declared which ones were canonical and which ones were not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Come again?

Matthew 10:17-19 (New International Version)
17"Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.

Of course the Church is called to be a witness. As Augustine wrote in the fourth century, "Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

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

Was it direct revelation from the Holy Spirit in your case? Does this mean that God must (and does) speak to each individual Christian on this matter?



Actually, I’m just looking for some honest answers to a difficult question. How did you come to accept that these 27 books - no more and no less - are the inspired Word of God?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Okay. How do you know that they have God as their author?

1. 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.

Agreed. All Christian groups accept the 27-book canon as established by the earliest Christians who were, it so happens, all members of that Church which began calling itself the Catholic Church prior to the end of the first century. But that’s not really my point. So, you’re saying that one of the reasons you accept the 27 books is because other Christians before you have done so? Isn’t this an acceptance of Tradition?

1. 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.
   Take for example what Paul wrote in 2nd Timothy 3:15. I can expand on this line of thinking if need be.

Okay, I guess…how does this help you conclude that these 27 and no others are inspired?

1. 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

Again, because others before you have embraced these 27, you are receptive of them, also?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Not at all. I simply wonder how many non-Catholics are as open to accepting the NT canon as part of the patrimony received from the Catholic Church as you seem to be…that’s all.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=Randy Carson;7075890Okay. How do you know that they have God as their author?

I answered that already.
“As far as having God as their author, Christians conclude this based upon fulfilled prophecy, personal testimony in how the teachings in it have changed lives, it is without error in any area, and apostolic authorship as attested by the church throughout history. There are several other reasons but these will suffice”

Agreed. All Christian groups accept the 27-book canon as established by the earliest Christians who were, it so happens, all members of that Church which began calling itself the Catholic Church prior to the end of the first century. But that’s not really my point. So, you’re saying that one of the reasons you accept the 27 books is because other Christians before you have done so? Isn’t this an acceptance of Tradition?

No because of how we define that word differently.

Okay, I guess…how does this help you conclude that these 27 and no others are inspired?

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

Again, because others before you have embraced these 27, you are receptive of them, also?

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

 

[TinaG]

Come again?

Matthew 10:17-19 (New International Version)
17"Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.

Of course the Church is called to be a witness. As Augustine wrote in the fourth century, "Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

Was it direct revelation from the Holy Spirit in your case? Does this mean that God must (and does) speak to each individual Christian on this matter?



Actually, I’m just looking for some honest answers to a difficult question. How did you come to accept that these 27 books - no more and no less - are the inspired Word of God?

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

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

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

-Tina “Potentially Tractable” G

 

[TinaG]

Why is it so far fetched to believe that the NT came to us through the church, as guided by the Holy Spirit?

Not sure how to respond to this.

-Tina “Sometimes Silent” G

 

[TinaG]

How exactly do you know which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit? What did Christians use before the canon was put in place, and before the books of the NT were even written? What Bible verses can you use to back up your statements?

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

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

In several Bible passages the apostles refer to each other’s writings as Scripture. Peter, for example, lumps Paul’s writings and OT Scriptures together, and I think Paul does that with Luke. Paul commands that his letters be read to congregations as authoritative.

-Tina “Lord Let Me Hear Your Voice!” G

 

[TinaG]

We know which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit because the Church Councils infallibly declared which ones were canonical and which ones were not.

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

-Tina “Please Fasten Your Seatbelts” G

 

[OraLabora]

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

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

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

The Councils had many books to chose from, many of which did not enter the Canon for various reasons including heresy. Somebody had to sift through all that to determine the Canon. Of course those “somebodies” were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But in an age where illiteracy was the norm, learned men were needed to do the sifting, and the most learned men of the time were the clergy of… the Church.

Usually reality is somewhat grittier than our wishful thinking…

 

[4thelamb]

Why is it so far fetched to believe that the NT came to us through the church, as guided by the Holy Spirit?

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