Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Right you are. Hence my initiation of the thread…but you knew that.

It can be quite unsettling for the non-Catholic to realize that much of what he or she believes and has received has come down through the centuries from the Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Himself.

The options are to ignore this or to fabricate an alternate account of history…or to dig deeper into the historical record. And as Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

Then he became a Catholic himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

I did read your response. I gathered that you reasoned your way to an acceptance of the NT canon (and perhaps the Bible as a whole). Which is fine.

I am cognizant of the fact that the testimony of others before you played a part in your decision making process.

The living witness of the Church is what Tradition is all about. Thank you for that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

This is all good.

But why these 27 and no others? Mormons could say the same…and they have a bunch more books than you do. So, how did God speak to you regarding these 27 books specifically?

 

[PRmerger]

The confusion is sad. Not necessarily demonic, however. There are times when I suspect demonic activity, though, like every time someone disagrees with me.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on the influence the Author of Confusion has had on this obscenity, IMHO.

I find the Catholic Church’s unwillingness to learn one of its saddest features. Problems with clerical celibacy were on the agenda at Nicea, and today we still have priests with sexual problems in the daily news.

Ah. So here we have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.

So we’ve had, what, 2 hours of dialogue, Tina? Quick on the draw you are!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You just described characteristics of the post Apostolic church. But but because that is not the topic of the thread lets get into that in another setting, and we do not submit to the authority of the Catholic Church in this matter.
This is what the Catholic Church teaches. it is different from what you are saying in my estimation.

Wow.

If the celebration of the Eucharist, veneration of Mary (and the saints) and other distinctively “Catholic” doctrines are actually “characteristics of the post Apostolic church”, then I have to ask: Why are you not following the earliest believers in these practices?

 

[TinaG]

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on the influence the Author of Confusion has had on this obscenity, IMHO.

Ah. So here we have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.

So we’ve had, what, 2 hours of dialogue, Tina? Quick on the draw you are!

It is not the only thing wrong with the CC, only the most obvious. Is it unreasonable to require that those we should trust be trustworthy? The cover-up bothers me a lot more than the abuse. They did this to themselves. Or are you going to blame Luther for this one? Note it didn’t take very long for someone to mention Luther and the book of James, which I think has a much shorter fuse around here…But that was an example of an unwillingness to learn, which you did not address. I find the Godwin’s law reference amusing but an aside. Sorry if I was offensive with the reference. Probably I should get off before I make more thoughtless comments.

Talk later, ok?

-Tina "So Now What? G

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. Scripture is not scripture because of “authority”. The Catholic Church teaches that is subsequent ie after the fact.

You are acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church which recognized that these 27 books were inspired on behalf of the world while rejecting others that had equally good (or greater) reasons for including them in the canon.

The Catholic Church rejected some books that many true Christians wanted to include.

The Catholic Church accepted some books that many true Christians doubted. (3 John and Philemon don’t even mention the name of Jesus…what led you personally to accept them as inspired Scripture?)

Whether you admit it or not, you accept the judgment of the Catholic Church on this matter just as all those of your faith tradition who came before you did, as well.

 

[fermat]

PRmerger;7079277:

Paul clearly calls for married clergy as a norm.

Where does Paul state this?

The priesthood is designed to try and mimic Jesus as much as it can. The Latin rite of the church has long had the tradition of celibacy. Jesus was celibate, so it can’t all that wrong.

There are other rites of the Catholicism that allow for a priest to be ordained after marriage. There is also the ‘pastoral provision’ that allows for married Anglican priest to be received into the church as Latin rite priests. In short, celibacy in the church is not an absolute.

PRmerger;7079277:

God is perfectly capable of protecting His Word without the involvement of the clergy.

He is perfectly capable of anything, which begs the question as to why did he use the clergy to protect the bible for so very many centuries?

 

[clmowry]

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.

Yep.

Putting aside for a second the fact that this type of “argument” is a complete logical fallacy, it is an accusation that if the accuser ever bothered to investigate would convict their own community long before it convicted Catholicism.

Far and away, the preponderance of sexual abuses are committed by married men against members of their own family.

So we can conclude what about all married men and to the validity of any institutions to which they might belong?

Oh yeah, the same thing we can conclude about all priests and the validity of the Catholic Church: absolutely nothing.

Chuck

 

[Randy_Carson]

And again with the indication that people who disagree are not honest or truthful…

Okay…some may simply be ignorant of the facts of history. Others may have been misinformed about the history of the canon by teachers whose own knowledge and motives may be called into question. Still others may have been told of the Catholic Church’s role in the development of the canon and rejected it because of their own prejudices.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are these Catholics forgetting that they believe in a three legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium? They seem to be saying Scripture only has authority because of the other two legs. Is this correct Catholic teaching?

-Tina “Wondering” G

This is not Catholic theology, and I have not read anything in this thread to suggest that anyone believes the false notion you put forth.

Scripture has authority because it is “God-breathed”.

The question on the table is how individual believers know that each of the books of the NT canon are God-breathed?

Rightlydivide describes a process of reasoning which includes consideration of the testimony (or tradition) of the believers who were in the Lord before him.

You spoke of “trusting in the Lord” - a position that would suffice anyone in Salt Lake City.

 

[clmowry]

The question on the table is how individual believers know that the NT canon is accurate?

Not to correct the OP but…this thread is supposed to be about how non-Catholics come to know the NT cannon but for some reason we keep coming back to what Catholic believe on this subject.

I think I know what the reason might be for this phenomenon but there seems to be too few willing expound upon their position on the subject to really tell.

Chuck

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually I believe the question was how did “protestants” decide upon the contents of their one legged stool.

Chuck

Heh. Nicely put.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will always bring up official Catholic doctrine to make sure I am not arguing against an interpretation that does not match it.

This is greatly appreciated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Canon, if I’m not mistaken, simply means “list”.

Therefore, while God is the author of scripture, the Church (under the direction of the Holy Spirit) recognized which books should and should not be included in the list of inspired books.

No informed Catholic believes that by virtue of its own pronouncements the Church “made” a book inspired. However, MANY a non-Catholic believes that Catholics believe that the Church had the authority to do so.

The Church inerrantly RECOGNIZED those books that were and were not inspired. Consequently, all of Christianity owes a debt to the Catholic Church for its role in the development (and preservation, etc.) of the Bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

To the contrary, we have been saying the opposite. We believe that scripture is scripture for one and only one reason: it is “God-breathed”.

What we have been saying is that the canon exists because God used the Catholic Church to recognize what was and was not “God-breathed” and formalized the list of NT books as early as the fourth century.

Sadly, many modern Bible Christians fail to admit, recognize or appreciate their debt because acknowledgement that the Catholic Church played such a huge role in the formative stages of Christianity would bring other more unsettling questions to mind.

Make sense?

 

[fermat]

I would highly recommend Were We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Bishop Henry Graham. The title link will take you to the online version of the book.

 

[tester]

The honest, logical, historical and truthful answer to “I know it’s Scripture because _______” is this:
“because the CC told me”.

Consider Polycarp: (ca. 69 – ca. 155)

Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (often simply called To the Philippians) composed around 110 to 140 AD is described by Irenaeus as follows:
There is also a forceful epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians, from which those who wish to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth

In his letter to Philippians: Chapter 12 he quotes the letter to the Ephesians

supakoo.com/rick/PolycarpToPhilippians-2010-03-28.pdf

Note he uses the term Scriptures:
Note what New Testament books he is quoting or referencing…

Questions:
How did Polycarp know those letters were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 140AD?

12
For I am confident that you are well versed in the Scriptures, and nothing is hid from you; but to me this is not granted. Only,** as it is said in these Scriptures**, “be angry but do not sin,”64 and “do not let the sun go down on your anger.”65 Blessed is the one who remembers this, and I believe that it is so with you. Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal Priest himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in longsuffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you a share and place with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. Pray for all the saints.66 Pray also for the kings, and for magistrates, and princes, and for those who persecute you and hate you,67

64 [XR] Eph 4.26, quoting Ps 4.5
65 [XR] Eph 4.26
66 [XR] 1Ti 2.1
67 [XR] Mt 5.44

 

[tester]

The honest, logical, historical and truthful answer to “I know it’s Scripture because _______” is this:
“because the CC told me”.

Consider Irenaeus

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic “Against the Heresies,”

**Questions:
How did Irenaeus know those writings were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 180AD? **

 

[fermat]

Consider Irenaeus

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic “Against the Heresies,”

**Questions:
How did Irenaeus know those writings were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 180AD? **

No one has ever made the claim that in order for something to be true, a council has to define it to be so. To the contrary, most council are called to declare something false and provide the correct teaching.

I understand your point. What is significant about the church’s role is that after the canon was defined, it was accepted by all Christians until Luther challenged it. There were questions about what is scripture and what is not for many, many years. Those questions stopped after the church exercised its authority and settled the issue.