Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

so if St John the Apostle told Polycarp that Ephesians was scared scripture: would your answer would be that St. John was a Catholic ?

Whatever it was that St. John the Apostle, who sat at the feet of the Word Made Flesh Himself, told Polycarp, I would listen to it very, very well! It would be as if Jesus himself were speaking.

I’m just sayin’.

And yes, St. John was a Catholic.

Does being a Catholic equal the Catholic Church?

No, being a Catholic does not equal the Catholic Church.

One becomes a Catholic when one is baptized.

 

[tester]

Quote:
The “tool” God used was the Catholic Church.

Yes, that’s all we’re saying. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Thais not TRUE
"We would not have the Bible is weren’t for the CC” is completely different.

Or calling the first books in the OT the Books of Moses? Or describing the Law of Moses?

common figure of speech : In Paul’s letter to the Romans; he gives all credit to God

Yet you don’t have a problem with saying that Moses parted the Red Sea?

Moses is a great example!

He failed to give God the glory for although it was Moses striking the rock, it was God working through Moses to bring the water. In a moment of anger, he took the credit for his own and failed to give it to God. This is why he was not allowed entry into the Holy Land

 

[PRmerger]

Thais not TRUE
"We would not have the Bible is weren’t for the CC” is completely different.

It is an absolutely true statement. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the codex that we call “the Bible”.

common figure of speech : In Paul’s letter to the Romans; he gives all credit to God.

As does the Catholic Church.

Yet, I note that you call it Paul’s letter, not God’s.

He failed to give God the glory for although it was Moses striking the rock, it was God working through Moses to bring the water. In a moment of anger, he took the credit for his own and failed to give it to God. This is why he was not allowed entry into the Holy Land

Indeed.

Clearly it is wrong to take credit for oneself what is given by God.

 

[Philthy]

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…
Lets take for example the Didache that supports full immersion baptism, …but probably best to not digress into that yet.

Hello friend -

Those of us who are aware of certain facts are left with some difficult choices in characterizing some of your responses during this thread. I mean no offense - honest.

The first comments you made in responding to “Why do (you) accept the NT canon?” simply missed the point entirely. You raised a number of irrelevant issues: inspired by God, penned through humans, guided by Holy Spirit and some other unprovable, unsubstantiated claims that simply failed to address the OP. Chief among those shortcomings are: how, exactly, you knew the NT to be divinely inspired, who, exactly, revealed it and when, exactly, it was revealed to the world.
Such comments IMHO would best be characterized as misunderstanding the question.

I and several others attempted to prod you into an awareness of the shortcomings of your reply. Your post above is an attempt to clarify your position somewhat. It also - to those of us aware of the facts - leaves us in a difficult position to classify your responses. The most positive characterization of those responses would be that you appear ignorant of some facts regarding the topic you introduced: the Didache. Others might conclude that you are distorting the facts, and they might do so wondering whether it was purposeful or accidental. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not truly familiar with the Didache. The Didache explicitly endorses several options relating to Baptism - options which are clearly not “views similar to” yours, which is what you claim the Didache as an “example” of the “earliest church” endorsed.
The first fact is that no one claims there is anything wrong with a “full immersion” baptism. Fundamentalists, OTOH, claim that there is something wrong with partial immersion baptism. Here is the CA tract from the “Faith” section dealing with the topic: catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp
You offering the Didache as proof that the earliest Christians believe as you believe regarding baptism is false. The Didache clearly endorses several options:
“In regard to Baptism - baptize…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water;…If you have neither, pour water three times on the head,…”

Perhaps you can point out the term “full immersion” in the above to validate your claim regarding the Didache, the early church and your beliefs? More than likely, however, this rebuke will go without a response.
I agree with you that this is not really the thread to delve into such issues. But in terms of the honesty you claimed, and the reason for some the responses you have gotten, it would be honest of you to acknowledge that what you presented - to someone who actually has a knowledge of the Didache and the early Church - might be justified in being viewed as less than completely honest.

Im married to a Protestant, BTW, so try to listen with an open mind to what I have said - Im not just bashing you or your beliefs. I trust that God has a reason for you to be where you are…

Blessings!

 

[clmowry]

If Catholics claimed that the God used the CC to formalize the canon of Scripture , very few Protestants would have an issue with that.

Isn’t’ that exactly what Catholic’s claim?
But the attitude of “We would not have the Bible is weren’t for the CC” diminishes the sovereignty of God.

How so? How does this statement differ in meaning from the first?

We would not have the Bible if it were not for the Church God used to create and preserve it.

Sure He “could” have done it some other way, just as He “could” have saved us in some other way than offering His Son on our behalf. But He didn’t.

Acknowledging what He did do and how He did it doesn’t diminish His sovereignty in any way.

=quote]
I can’t ever find an example of Paul taking any credit for the doing the work Christ, and neither should the CC… ALL honor and glory to Christ alone!!

Really? I would submit that Paul frequently “took credit” for the work Christ was performing through him. If you can call claiming that Christ was working through him “taking credit.”

I would suggest to you that in this regard the Church claims of itself no more, in fact significantly less, than what Paul claimed of himself.

Chuck

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hello friend -

Those of us who are aware of certain facts are left with some difficult choices in characterizing some of your responses during this thread. I mean no offense - honest.

The first comments you made in responding to “Why do (you) accept the NT canon?” simply missed the point entirely. You raised a number of irrelevant issues: inspired by God, penned through humans, guided by Holy Spirit and some other unprovable, unsubstantiated claims that simply failed to address the OP. Chief among those shortcomings are: how, exactly, you knew the NT to be divinely inspired, who, exactly, revealed it and when, exactly, it was revealed to the world.
Such comments IMHO would best be characterized as misunderstanding the question.

I and several others attempted to prod you into an awareness of the shortcomings of your reply. Your post above is an attempt to clarify your position somewhat. It also - to those of us aware of the facts - leaves us in a difficult position to classify your responses. The most positive characterization of those responses would be that you appear ignorant of some facts regarding the topic you introduced: the Didache. Others might conclude that you are distorting the facts, and they might do so wondering whether it was purposeful or accidental. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not truly familiar with the Didache. The Didache explicitly endorses several options relating to Baptism - options which are clearly not “views similar to” yours, which is what you claim the Didache as an “example” of the “earliest church” endorsed.
The first fact is that no one claims there is anything wrong with a “full immersion” baptism. Fundamentalists, OTOH, claim that there is something wrong with partial immersion baptism. Here is the CA tract from the “Faith” section dealing with the topic: catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp
You offering the Didache as proof that the earliest Christians believe as you believe regarding baptism is false. The Didache clearly endorses several options:
“In regard to Baptism - baptize…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water;…If you have neither, pour water three times on the head,…”

Perhaps you can point out the term “full immersion” in the above to validate your claim regarding the Didache, the early church and your beliefs? More than likely, however, this rebuke will go without a response.
I agree with you that this is not really the thread to delve into such issues. But in terms of the honesty you claimed, and the reason for some the responses you have gotten, it would be honest of you to acknowledge that what you presented - to someone who actually has a knowledge of the Didache and the early Church - might be justified in being viewed as less than completely honest.

Im married to a Protestant, BTW, so try to listen with an open mind to what I have said - Im not just bashing you or your beliefs. I trust that God has a reason for you to be where you are…

Blessings!

It endorses those options only when the first option taught by the Apostles is not available. There might be some circumstances where this is the case but certainly they are few and far between in this day and age. Even a fundamentalist would accept that “if” full immersion baptism was not possible; other options would have to be considered. However the Didache does accurately state the practice of the Apostles in regards to baptism which matches the views of my church and others.
I believe that is the only specific content from your post about the Didache I need to delve into and the statement I made about the Didache is accurate.
As far as my view of the canon, I have answered and addressed the similiarities between my view and the official Catholic stance. As you have not stated your view, which I assume is the infallible Catholic stance I cited, I am not sure what distinctions you see at this time.
Thanks

 

[PRmerger]

I would suggest to you that in this regard the Church claims of itself no more, in fact significantly less, than what Paul claimed of himself.

That is well put! :tiphat::bowdown::bowdown2:

 

[clmowry]

so if St John the Apostle told Polycarp that Ephesians was scared scripture: would your answer would be that St. John was a Catholic ?

No.

I would say St. John was “Catholic” because he was an Apostle of Christ.

His telling Polycarp that Ephesians was scripture would have nothing to do with that belief.

I would on the otherhand accept that Ephesians was scripture because the Apostle St. John and the other Apostles and their successor in union with Peter and his successors said so.

Does being a Catholic equal the Catholic Church?

I’m not sue I understand the question.

“Being a Catholic” would make one a member of “the Catholic Church”.

“The Catholic Church” is not however simply equal to the sum of its members.

Chuck

 

[Philthy]

It endorses those options only when the first option taught by the Apostles is not available.There might be some circumstances where this is the case but certainly they are few and far between in this day and age. Even a fundamentalist would accept that “if” full immersion baptism was not possible; other options would have to be considered.

You remain entirely confused and unresponsive to correction. There is no mention - not once - of full immersion. The only issue addressed is what type of water is present - thats it. You keep reading into it what you wish it said - that if you have running water full immersion is the appropriate mode, but it doesnt say that. Perhaps that is why you chose to ignore my specific request for you to point out where it addresses “full immersion”.

However the Didache does accurately state the practice of the Apostles in regards to baptism which matches the views of my church and others.

Restating that which you cannot prove does little to persuade those of us familiar with what the Didache actually says. You are simply wrong about this issue. The only question which remains is why you continue to belabor a point which you cannot make.

I believe that is the only specific content from your post about the Didache I need to delve into and the statement I made about the Didache is accurate.

Your lack of familiarity with what the Didache actually says, and what it does not, has already been conclusively addressed. What you have ignored is the basic questions regarding the canon:
When, exactly, was it revealed
Who, exactly, revealed it
How, exactly, was it revealed, and lastly

Saying “God revealed it through the Holy Spirit” isnt false, but it fails to address the topic at hand - if Scripture itself doesnt reveal that a NT canon of Scripture was revealed, why do you accept the NT canon?

Its really a SIMPLE question. Your inability to provide a SIMPLE answer speaks volumes more than what either of us writes…I apologize if my version of the truth appears harsh - I dont wish it to be so, but it is what it is.

Blessings!

 

[Rightlydivide]

Philthy;7082554You remain entirely confused and unresponsive to correction.

It is a common theme in this thread that those who disagree with my positions attempt to characterize me instead of dealing with my specific points. This is another example.

There is no mention - not once - of full immersion. The only issue addressed is what type of water is present - thats it. You keep reading into it what you wish it said - that if you have running water full immersion is the appropriate mode, but it doesnt say that. Perhaps that is why you chose to ignore my specific request for you to point out where it addresses “full immersion”.

The third option says when not enough water is available, then water is poured on the head. The only option to full immersion baptism is a belief that it is important that a person be standing in living water, or other water.
The Catholic article on this very topic confirms that this was immersion but in extreme circumstances they would pour.

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

I would agree that in dire circumstances when water is not available, other options would have to be considered.

Restating that which you cannot prove does little to persuade those of us familiar with what the Didache actually says. You are simply wrong about this issue. The only question which remains is why you continue to belabor a point which you cannot make

.
The article I just cited confirms the basic context of the Didache which shows the continuing practice of valid baptism is by immersion although certainly other circumstances could exist.

When, exactly, was it revealed
Who, exactly revealed it
How, exactly, was it revealed, and lastly
]Saying “God revealed it through the Holy Spirit” isnt false, but it fails to address the topic at hand - if Scripture itself doesnt reveal that a NT canon of Scripture was revealed, why do you accept the NT canon?

Since scripture is scripture the second it is penned, we have no indications that recognzing the scripture would have to occur at a time seperate from its writing. However, in a practical sense it likely took Christians some time. We know for example that Peter recognized Paul’s writings as scripture prior to his death. So the when part remains vague. I do not imagine the Catholic and Protestant view will differ substantially but I have been surprised beofre.
Question two, God revealed it.
It was revealed through the Holy Spirit. Scripture is revealed by God. Humans must recognize what God has done. In fact, different Christian groups do recognize different canons. This does not negate what God has done. One group is right and other groups are wrong. So in examining the evidence of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant canon, there are many factors one must consider in evaluating what group to belong to.

]Its really a SIMPLE question. Your inability to provide a SIMPLE answer speaks volumes more than what either of us writes…I apologize if my version of the truth appears harsh - I dont wish it to be so, but it is what it is.

What is your simple answer? How does it correspond with infallible Catholic doctrine or is it simply repeating it?
Can you answer your own questions more simple than I and tie it to infallible statements?

 

[TinaG]

Hi!

I think we are beginning to go around in circles, if not full loops.

Plainly the thread was set up in an attempt to get Protestants to see that the Catholic Church was necessary for the creation of the canon. This being a Catholic apologetic forum, that is to be expected and encouraged by the management. If we (Protestants) play the game, we will find every excuse for denying that, and Catholics every excuse for backing it up. Somehow Catholics think that such a recognition leads directly to a duty to Rome.

Not so fast! As a Christian I am a member of Christ’s body. His body was instrumental in developing the canon. However, His body is not coincident with that ecclesiastical fellowship with headquarters in Rome, Italy currently led by a German with a penchant for red shoes. Catholics admit as much when they say the Orthodox are a legitimate part of the Church (something many Orthodox dispute in the mirror position, from what I have read, and I do read on occasion).

I really do believe that God spoke to me and said that the Bible is His Word. I asked Him which one to get and He told me a NASB. That does not mean that is the only legitimate translation, just that that was the one I was to get. It was in a rack with a bunch of other Bibles, some of which I have learned later are wrong. I could have picked up a Watchtower translation. I think God told me and I followed Him. When I ran into the Westminster Confession of Faith, basically the Presbyterians say the same thing: it is by inward illumination that God reveals His Word. Not an ecclesiastical assembly. That was confirmation.

I can’t help it. I can’t even explain it much past that. But there have been 2000 years of Christians in the East and the West preserving Scripture for us today, and yes we do owe them a debt of gratitude. That does not however translate into allegiance to Rome. I also apologize for some heated comments I made yesterday that went farther than I should have. Please forgive me.

I really don’t have much else to contribute here.

-Tina “That’s About It I guess” G

 

[PRmerger]

Plainly the thread was set up in an attempt to get Protestants to see that the Catholic Church was necessary for the creation of the canon.

Yes!

Somehow Catholics think that such a recognition leads directly to a duty to Rome.

Well, not exactly.

What it leads to, necessarily, is a recognition of a few things:

-there is an infallible authority outside of Scripture
-the Bible alone as my sole rule of faith is untenable
-God’s Word has been revealed not just in written form, but through the Oral Tradition.

And, I might add, that this may not necessarily follow but it is a logical conclusion:
-if I accept that the CC was infallible in discerning this canon of Scripture then could it also be correct when it proclaims other truths in faith and morals?

 

[PRmerger]

I really do believe that God spoke to me and said that the Bible is His Word.

Right. It IS His Word. But you only know that “All generations shall call me blessed!” is theopneustos through the authority of the CC.

I asked Him which one to get and He told me a NASB.

Nothing wrong with that.

But there have been 2000 years of Christians in the East and the West preserving Scripture for us today, and yes we do owe them a debt of gratitude.

:tiphat:

That does not however translate into allegiance to Rome.

Fair enough.

But it does have profound implications upon how one regards such Protestant paradigms as “the Bible alone is my sole norm for faith”
and
“No one is infallible”
and
“Sacred Tradition is not part of the Deposit of Faith”.

I also apologize for some heated comments I made yesterday that went farther than I should have. Please forgive me.

shaw:

I really don’t have much else to contribute here.

:sad_bye:

 

[TinaG]

Well, one thing.

I regard tradition as subordinate to Scripture. It can inform our understanding of Scripture but not overwhelm it.

-Tina “Probably I will be Quiet Now. Nice Talking to You” G

 

[Philthy]

The third option says when not enough water is available, then water is poured on the head.

Really? Could you please quote that section for us? I dont have my Didache with me but I don’t believe it ever once addressed the quantity of water, but merely the quality of it(ie living, warm, etc.)

Since scripture is scripture the second it is penned, we have no indications that recognzing the scripture would have to occur at a time seperate from its writing.

This is no answer to a person in the 21st century seeking to know when, exactly, was Scripture revealed to be Scripture. It is absurd, really, that you would provide this as somehow addressing the issue of when Scripture was revealed to be Scripture.

However, in a practical sense it likely took Christians some time.

This is historical fact, not likely.

We know for example that Peter recognized Paul’s writings as scripture prior to his death.

This is inaccurate. We know, obliquely, that Peter found SOME of Paul’s letters difficult to understand and that they were distorted by some who read them - just like the other Scriptures. Unfortunately for your case, Peter does not identify which letters he is speaking about and we don’t have all of Pauls letters. Therefore we really don’t know if the ones we have are the ones Peter was speaking of.

So the when part remains vague. I do not imagine the Catholic and Protestant view will differ substantially but I have been surprised beofre.

The when part remains vague? How can you definitively say it has happened if you cannot identify when, how and through whom (or what) it happened?
Question two, God revealed it.

It was revealed through the Holy Spirit. Scripture is revealed by God. Humans must recognize what God has done. In fact, different Christian groups do recognize different canons. This does not negate what God has done. One group is right and other groups are wrong. So in examining the evidence of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant canon, there are many factors one must consider in evaluating what group to belong to.

Thank you for clearing it up - God reveals it through the Holy Spirit and we must recognize it, but how we are to recognize it is unknown to you.
I think you have presented a very good summary of the Protestant position - you are left to your own “examination of evidence” to arrive at your own conclusion and you recognize in doing so many will be wrong. Honestly, you must do better than this.

What is your simple answer?

The Canon of Scripture was revealed by God through the Holy Spirit’s protection in compiling, protecting and guiding the Catholic Church to reveal it to the Christian faithful through the Councils of Rome Carthage Hippo and Nicea. Very simple.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=Philthy;7085091]Really? Could you please quote that section for us? I dont have my Didache with me but I don’t believe it ever once addressed the quantity of water, but merely the quality of it(ie living, warm, etc.)

Why did you not address the quote that also supported my view that the first two options support immersion? The Catholic quote…

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

]This is no answer to a person in the 21st century seeking to know when, exactly, was Scripture revealed to be Scripture. It is absurd, really, that you would provide this as somehow addressing the issue of when Scripture was revealed to be Scripture.

While you might find my answer absurd, and once again instead of dealing with content people tend to want to characterize and use perjorative terms but I will remain focused on content, my answer is accurate.

]This is inaccurate. We know, obliquely, that Peter found SOME of Paul’s letters difficult to understand and that they were distorted by some who read them - just like the other Scriptures. Unfortunately for your case, Peter does not identify which letters he is speaking about and we don’t have all of Pauls letters. Therefore we really don’t know if the ones we have are the ones Peter was speaking of.

What we do have is a mention in the 60’s of Paul’s writings being scripture. So at least two letters were considered scripture (plural). As such this supports that scripture was known to be scripture in the Apostolic era.

.

Thank you for clearing it up - God reveals it through the Holy Spirit and we must recognize it, but how we are to recognize it is unknown to you.

I have previously anwered this question.

]I think you have presented a very good summary of the Protestant position - you are left to your own “examination of evidence” to arrive at your own conclusion and you recognize in doing so many will be wrong. Honestly, you must do better than this.

I believe that each person examines evidence. How do Catholics not examine evidence?
The answer is they do. Every person makes a determination to join or stay with a particular church. I have often heard Catholics say they rely on the determination of the church and not individual examination. However, every individual makes a determination about that.
In the case of scripture, four distinct groups have four distinct canons. It is apparent that groups recognize different canons. It is also the case that unless the canon does not matter, one group is right and the others are wrong.

The Canon of Scripture was revealed by God through the Holy Spirit’s protection in compiling, protecting and guiding the Catholic Church to reveal it to the Christian faithful through the Councils of Rome Carthage Hippo and Nicea. Very simple.

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

I see some big differences. Do you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Having heard some of the approaches put forth by our Protestant friends, let me now post a Catholic approach to determining the accuracy of the NT canon:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Philthy]

Why did you not address the quote that also supported my view that the first two options support immersion? The Catholic quote…

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The article and the reading of the Didache show that full immersion was the method in the first two. Only when water that is not large enough cannot be found does the third option kick in.
There are two major issues that I addressed in my last post. You stated

]I think you have presented a very good summary of the Protestant position - you are left to your own “examination of evidence” to arrive at your own conclusion and you recognize in doing so many will be wrong. Honestly, you must do better than this.

So I stated this about examination of evidence

I believe that each person examines evidence. How do Catholics not examine evidence?
The answer is they do. Every person makes a determination to join or stay with a particular church. I have often heard Catholics say they rely on the determination of the church and not individual examination. However, every individual makes a determination about that.
In the case of scripture, four distinct groups have four distinct canons. It is apparent that groups recognize different canons. It is also the case that unless the canon does not matter, one group is right and the others are wrong.

I also showed the infallible quote and your opinion in regard to the canon

The Canon of Scripture was revealed by God through the Holy Spirit’s protection in compiling, protecting and guiding the Catholic Church to reveal it to the Christian faithful through the Councils of Rome Carthage Hippo and Nicea. Very simple.

I then quoted infallible Catholic teaching that I believe, and am prepared to discuss, that does not match the above defintion

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

I have answered the question about how God revealed it. Whether you agree or not, I answered it.
Thanks

 

[PRmerger]

Well, one thing.

I regard tradition as subordinate to Scripture. It can inform our understanding of Scripture but not overwhelm it.

But one must acknowledge that Tradition came before the Bible.