Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

The canon is not because of some subsequent authority. It is because God is the author of scripture and committed it to the church. What I have been saying all along although this is more succinct.
That is why I have been pointing out that in many cases Catholics are arguing against their own official doctrines.

You are creating a false dichotomy. The Church’s authority vs God’s authority. Of course, the Church’s authority comes only from God!

Just like we parents say we have been given authority by God to tell our children they cannot watch a certain movie, or have to be home at a certain time.

Each and every time you quote Scripture you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church, given authority by God, to discern what was theopneustos and what was not.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, inspiration is an objective act apart from the Church deciding what is inspired.

Of course. The Church only discerned, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what was theopneustos. (They did this* infallibly, *I might add, unless you think they made a misake. )

 

[TinaG]

You are creating a false dichotomy. The Church’s authority vs God’s authority. Of course, the Church’s authority comes only from God!

Just like we parents say we have been given authority by God to tell our children they cannot watch a certain movie, or have to be home at a certain time.

Each and every time you quote Scripture you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church, given authority by God, to discern what was theopneustos and what was not.

See post 2 on this thread.

-Tina “I knew it! I knew that’s where you were going!” G

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are creating a false dichotomy. The Church’s authority vs God’s authority. Of course, the Church’s authority comes only from God!

.

That is not what the quote says.

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

They are not canonical because the Catholic Church or any church approved them with authority.

 

[clmowry]

Actually, inspiration is an objective act apart from the Church deciding what is inspired. Apparently you believe Scripture is inspired only because the church says it is. God has been cut out of the equation.

-Tina “Probably Better not to Cut God out of Things” G

I guess we need to change this thread to “Why do Catholics accept the NT canon?”

In any case, you seem to preclude God acting through His Church.

Scripture is scripture because God inspired some members of His Church to consign to writing certain things.

Similarly we have scripture because He also inspired some members of His Church to preserve those writings and protect them from corruption.

Why do you presume He did one but could not or did not do the other?

Chuck

 

[PRmerger]

They are not canonical because the Catholic Church or any church approved them with authority.

Exactly. It was the CC which discerned which books were inspired and which weren’t.

That is, you would not know that “my breath is offensive to my wife” is theopneustos except for the authority of the CC.

 

[clmowry]

That is not what the quote says.

In your restatements of this Catholic teaching you quoted, you seem to be ignoring [or at least deemphasizing] the last phrase?

Chuck

"These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church. "

 

[Rightlydivide]

Exactly. It was the CC which discerned which books were inspired and which weren’t.

That.

Is that what the quote says?

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

It appears to be an interpretation that goes beyond the infallible statement. Explain how your view matches up with infallible Catholic doctrine please. Is your view also found in the catechism as well? I do not see the term discern in this regard

 

[PRmerger]

In contrast we believe the Holy Spirit speaks directly to individual believers and testifies to the truth of the Scripture.

*“But when he, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will teach you all the truth.”
John 16:13

Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is “teaching” them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, “once saved always saved”, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD.*
   Originally posted here.

 

[Rightlydivide]

In your restatements of this Catholic teaching you quoted, you seem to be ignoring [or at least deemphasizing] the last phrase?

Chuck

"These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church. "

In post 78 I state that as well. I cannot be ignoring or deemphasizing this unless post 78 is disregarded. I have also included the full quote on a number of occasions. I do not think that is ignoring it. I am the one to quote it.
I have had to address the issue of authority specifically and some of my threads have included an emphasis on that.

 

[PRmerger]

Is that what the quote says?

Yes, it is indeed.

Unless you think that the Bible just fell out of the sky, completely bound and intact?
(And in King James English, no less!)

It appears to be an interpretation that goes beyond the infallible statement. Explain how your view matches up with infallible Catholic doctrine please. Is your view also found in the catechism as well? I do not see the term discern in this regard

The written books were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached the Catholic bishops.

Nothing more, and certainly nothing less!

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, it is indeed.

!

They do not seem the same to me. However, I have stated my view and I believe you have stated yours.
Good day

 

[PRmerger]

They do not seem the same to me. However, I have stated my view and I believe you have stated yours.
Good day

I appreciate your providing the quote. :tiphat:

It does indeed confirm what we’ve been saying on this thread.

Originally “posted” in the Decrees of the First Vatican Council:
Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in

* written books and
* unwritten traditions,

which were

* received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself,
* or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit,
* **and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us...**

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical

* not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
* nor simply because they contain revelation without error,
* but because,
      o being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit,
      o they have God as their author,
      o** and were as such committed to the church. **

 

[PJM]

=Randy Carson;7073276]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.

Asuming that you do accept the Bible; do you accept the ENTIRE NT?

You may wish to re-read Mt. 16:19, 18:18, 2 Tim. 3:15-17, 1 Tim. 3:15 and John 17:17-19. Especially verse 19.

Love and prayers,

 

[TinaG]

*“But when he, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will teach you all the truth.”
John 16:13

Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is “teaching” them the truth. However, there can be only one truth*. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, “once saved always saved”, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD.
   Originally posted here.

Trust Christ.

The Catholic Church can be equally contrasted with other denominations. In my own denomination, doctrinal statements are usually made with a caveat that “this is the best understanding of the situation we have” without claiming infallibility. Not so with Catholics, who insist on something that is neither needed nor desired regarding infallibility. I am willing to admit I could be wrong on something. The Catholic Church, however, on principle refuses to ever admit it could even have the possibility of doctrinal error. You read into the Protestant melange your own inherent inadmissability of error. Thankfully we are, for the most part, free of that.

There is no refuge within Catholicism from uncertainty, as no one can really agree on what is Tradition, or even on what has been infallibly defined, and there are controversies such as between the Thomists and the Molinists. Protestants can “agree to disagree” but seemingly Catholics are only allowed to do so with other Catholics. Catholics disagree on almost everything, including what is the nature of authority and the role and significance of the Pope. Nor are you sure as to what Scriptures have been infallibly interpreted. But you try to claim that you are all on the same page when you speak to Protestants. The situation is really much more complex than that, is it not?

-Tina “I can be wrong” G

 

[PRmerger]

Trust Christ.

Amen.

However, it is clearly NOT Christ telling one denomination that the Eucharist is His Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity and another denomination that it isn’t. That, Tina, is from the Author of Confusion.

I am willing to admit I could be wrong on something.

Not only could be. But will be. You will be wrong on some doctrinal issue. That’s the definition of fallible.

The Catholic Church, however, on principle refuses to ever admit it could even have the possibility of doctrinal error.

I find great comfort in that, Tina.

If you don’t believe that the CC could ever pronounce a doctrinal teaching infallibly, then you ought not ever quote Scripture without a nagging doubt in the back of your mind, *“Perhaps this is NOT the Word of God, but only the words of men when I quote Malachi 1:11 or Luke 1:4” *

-Tina “I -]can be/-] WILL BE wrong at some point in my doctrinal pronouncements” G

 

[PRmerger]

There is no refuge within Catholicism from uncertainty, as no one can really agree on what is Tradition, or even on what has been infallibly defined, and there are controversies such as between the Thomists and the Molinists. Protestants can “agree to disagree” but seemingly Catholics are only allowed to do so with other Catholics. Catholics disagree on almost everything, including what is the nature of authority and the role and significance of the Pope. Nor are you sure as to what Scriptures have been infallibly interpreted. But you try to claim that you are all on the same page when you speak to Protestants. The situation is really much more complex than that, is it not?

-Tina “I can be wrong” G

If one wants to know what the Catholic church teaches, one can look at our Catechism.

I see no Catechism in the 30,000 other Christian denominations. Each is up to his own authority to determine what his own doctrine is. And, when one disagrees with the other’s interpretation, he leaves to form his own church.

 

[TinaG]

Amen.

However, it is clearly NOT Christ telling one denomination that the Eucharist is His Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity and another denomination that it isn’t. That, Tina, is from the Author of Confusion.

 

[TinaG]

If one wants to know what the Catholic church teaches, one can look at our Catechism.

I see no Catechism in the 30,000 other Christian denominations. Each is up to his own authority to determine what his own doctrine is. And, when one disagrees with the other’s interpretation, he leaves to form his own church.

Have you looked for catechisms? Have you heard of Luther’s Small Catechism? We have a reformed catechism. I think other bodies have catechisms as well…And confessions of faith. And I suspect you are just spouting opinions you have picked up from other CA posters without basis in fact. Have you done research on this?

-Tina “I have a copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith if You Wanna Borrow It” G

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

No, I am curious as to how non-Catholics explain their acceptance of the NT canon apart from the fact that the Catholic Church did all the heavy lifting in the first few centuries.

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).

Good point. Someone can be honestly and sincerely in error. However, more realistically, folks have to do some real gymnastics to blot out the historical record which shows the role of the Catholic Church in developing the canon. It is my experience that many folks come at this subject with an “the Romish Church cannot possibly have contributed anything positive to Christianity” presupposition.

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.

And this is an error. God Himself provided the well, the channel and the water, and He expects us to maintain both the well and the channel in order to receive refreshment. Abandonment of the channel, for example, leads to the eventual cutting off of the water. This is what has happened, IMHO, to Protestantism which no longer has the fullness of the Living Water that God desires for all His children to receive.

In this case God acts independently of the institutional Roman Catholic Church.

This is completely false. The “institutional Roman Catholic Church” is the only Church founded by Jesus Christ. She is the body of Christ, and all who are saved will do so because of their connection to her.

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.

Again, since the Catholic Church (there is no Church known officially as the “Roman” Catholic Church), IS the sum total of the Body of Christ, what you have written here makes little sense. Everyone who is saved will be so because of their connection to the Catholic Church - whether they realize their relationship to her in this life or not.

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.

Jesus is the one mediator. Why do non-Catholics believe that Catholics think otherwise?

However, God has clearly established His Church (just as He promised He would), and we are wise to remain in close communion with Him through her.

But for THIS thread, perhaps you could share your testimony about how God revealed to you personally that each of the 27 books of the NT (and no others) are His inspired Word? Apart from this, I’m guessing that you simply took someone else’s word on the matter…