Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[Rightlydivide]

But one must acknowledge that Tradition came before the Bible.

Do you see how hard that is for people who think that scripture is an actual account of everything from the beginning? Scripture tells us blow by blow exactly what happened and what Christ actually said. Traditions not found in scripture does not have a specific setting, a time, the exact words or anything like scripture.
So we know that oral traditions became scripture but the ones who didnt lose all their context and origin. We know about the “rock” because of Matthew writing it down and telling us everything. No Sacred Tradition from sources outside of scripture can shed any specific light on what he told us Christ said.

 

[TinaG]

But one must acknowledge that Tradition came before the Bible.

Hi!

Here we go again. Is it a CAF tradition that every topic of disagreement between Catholic and Protestant be touched on in the course of a thread?

No. One must not necessarily acknowledge that there is a Tradition equal in authority to Scripture. And, “In the Beginning was the Word.” Not Tradition. The Word. Christ called Himself the Word, not the Tradition. The Jews were Sola Scriptura before the Christians were. The Jews had the Torah and the Prophets and the Histories, and the early Christians accepted the Gospels, etc., as Scripture when they were written. No “infallible” authority was needed. They stood by themselves, as the Holy Spirit testified. This is what I meant in Post 2 where it is wrong for the Church to arrogate to itself powers that the Holy Spirit has reserved for Himself.

David was before Christ. David was a type of Christ. That does not mean he was Christ’s equal or superior. There is a logical fallacy here I could not resist pointing out.

Your turn. You know the lines. We can crank the machine until we run out of responses.

-Tina “Maybe I will be Quiet THIS time” G

 

[PRmerger]

No. One must not necessarily acknowledge that there is a Tradition equal in authority to Scripture. And, “In the Beginning was the Word.” Not Tradition.

Catholics believe that this Word is Jesus Himself. And He spoke via 2 means: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

The Word. Christ called Himself the Word, not the Tradition.

Fair enough. And He did not call Himself the Scripture either.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture tells us blow by blow exactly what happened and what Christ actually said.

Huh? Blow by blow exactly what happened?

Traditions not found in scripture does not have a specific setting, a time, the exact words or anything like scripture.

Ok.

No Sacred Tradition from sources outside of scripture can shed any specific light on what he told us Christ said.

That is, as we’ve shown ad nauseum here, untrue. *No source in Scripture gave you the canon of Scripture. * That was from a source OUTSIDE of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

and the early Christians accepted the Gospels, etc., as Scripture when they were written.

There were over 400 “Christian” texts that were extant in the first days of Christianity. Many were proposed to be theopneustos, but were later rejected by the Catholic bishops.

So simply because an early Christian or 2 considered something to be inspired did not make it so.

No “infallible” authority was needed.

Indeed it was. Unless you’re wondering if the Church erred in rejecting the Gospel of Thomas?

They stood by themselves, as the Holy Spirit testified.

I don’t know what this means.

David was before Christ. David was a type of Christ. That does not mean he was Christ’s equal or superior. There is a logical fallacy here I could not resist pointing out.

Good point.

However, I never said that because Tradition came before Scripture it was necessarily superior.

 

[Philthy]

I said:
"Philthy:

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 definition

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…

I am interested in discussing specifically what you believe the above section of the Vatican 2 statement says that “does not match” my definition. In particular, in an attempt to clearly understand what, exactly, is being said, I would like you to comment on why the term “after they had been composed by unaided human skill” was included in the sentence. What is the purpose for including it? I think including that phrase changes the meaning considerably and I am not sure you appreciate how it alters what they are actually saying and how that would relate to my statement. I dont know what you are thinking, but I’m interested in hearing that which you are prepared to discuss.
In addition, it would be nice if after clarifying the above, you could unite your understanding of the above statement to these which precede it:

1. 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 [16].

1. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

Blessings!

 

[PRmerger]

Well, one thing.

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

Tradition is the Word of God as it was taught to the Apostles by Jesus. Where there is Tradition, it is reflected in the Scriptures. Where there is Scripture, it is reflected in Tradition.

Tradition cannot be separated from Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi!

Here we go again. Is it a CAF tradition that every topic of disagreement between Catholic and Protestant be touched on in the course of a thread?

No. One must not necessarily acknowledge that there is a Tradition equal in authority to Scripture.

The Bible points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth and to Tradition as something to which we must hold fast.

And, “In the Beginning was the Word.” Not Tradition. The Word. Christ called Himself the Word, not the Tradition.

The word “Word” here has nothing to do with scripture, so the argument is meaningless.

The Jews were Sola Scriptura before the Christians were. The Jews had the Torah and the Prophets and the Histories, and the early Christians accepted the Gospels, etc., as Scripture when they were written.

The Jews were not sola scripturists…they had oral tradition as well.

No “infallible” authority was needed. They stood by themselves, as the Holy Spirit testified. This is what I meant in Post 2 where it is wrong for the Church to arrogate to itself powers that the Holy Spirit has reserved for Himself.

You were wrong in post 2 and you’re wrong now. The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit protects her from teaching error.

 

[TinaG]

Tradition is the Word of God as it was taught to the Apostles by Jesus. Where there is Tradition, it is reflected in the Scriptures. Where there is Scripture, it is reflected in Tradition.

Tradition cannot be separated from Scripture.

The Bible points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth and to Tradition as something to which we must hold fast.

The word “Word” here has nothing to do with scripture, so the argument is meaningless.

The Jews were not sola scripturists…they had oral tradition as well.

You were wrong in post 2 and you’re wrong now. The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit protects her from teaching error.

These things are found in Tradition, according to the Catholic Church. How do we know that? Because the Magisterium said so. How do we know the Magisterium is right? Because they say they are.

Better the “one-legged stool” of Sola Scriptura than the one legged and subjective stool of the Magisterium. which tells you what Scripture is, how to interpret it, what Tradition is, and what it itself is. There is no objective way to test anything the Magisterium says. Somehow everything gets interpreted in favor of the interests of the Magisterium.

How do you trust anything the Magisterium says? You cannot trust bishops (here we go again with the news, and with history - read about the Avignon kleptocracy sometime) with what we can prove they do, let alone with what they claim they can do that we cannot test. They just assert they are right. Their track record is not exactly stellar regards personal morality or even regarding performance in office. They make a very high claim for themselves that they do not go anywhere near living up to. Successors of the apostles? Too often they have been interested in political power or wealth. And the pope tolerates it, as popes always have. There are Catholics who live holy and godly lives, too often in spite of the leadership. They have broken faith with the people they claim to lead.
How can you trust them?

This is of course wandering off topic.

-Tina “Sola Scriptura” G

 

[PRmerger]

These things are found in Tradition, according to the Catholic Church. How do we know that? Because the Magisterium said so. How do we know the Magisterium is right? Because they say they are.

Better the “one-legged stool” of Sola Scriptura than the one legged and subjective stool of the Magisterium. which tells you what Scripture is, how to interpret it, what Tradition is, and what it itself is. There is no objective way to test anything the Magisterium says. Somehow everything gets interpreted in favor of the interests of the Magisterium.

How do you trust anything the Magisterium says? You cannot trust bishops (here we go again with the news, and with history - read about the Avignon kleptocracy sometime) with what we can prove they do, let alone with what they claim they can do that we cannot test. They just assert they are right. Their track record is not exactly stellar regards personal morality or even regarding performance in office. They make a very high claim for themselves that they do not go anywhere near living up to. Successors of the apostles? Too often they have been interested in political power or wealth. And the pope tolerates it, as popes always have. There are Catholics who live holy and godly lives, too often in spite of the leadership. They have broken faith with the people they claim to lead.
How can you trust them?

This is of course wandering off topic.

-Tina “Sola Scriptura” G

So then we’re back to the question: how do you know that the Bible is theopneustos?

Because the Magisterium said it is.

If you can’t trust the Magisterium, then you can’t quote any verse in Scripture without a little voice whispering, “Maybe it’s just a man who wrote this and not God at all”.

 

[clmowry]

Better the “one-legged stool” of Sola Scriptura than the one legged and subjective stool of the Magisterium.

What in the world would lead you to believe that personal interpretaion of scripture is not subjective?

Chuck

 

[TinaG]

What in the world would lead you to believe that personal interpretaion of scripture is not subjective?

Chuck

As opposed to personal interpretation of whether the Magisterium is trustworthy, and then personal interpretation of what they say?

You have only removed the problem one step.

-Tina “All in Favor of Personal Interpretation Say Aye” G

 

[TinaG]

So then we’re back to the question: how do you know that the Bible is theopneustos?

Because the Magisterium said it is.

If you can’t trust the Magisterium, then you can’t quote any verse in Scripture without a little voice whispering, “Maybe it’s just a man who wrote this and not God at all”.

Sorry. The voices in my head usually don’t say that. This is really only an answer of despair:“I have to trust that sorry lot because I have no alternative.” I have a better alternative, and that is to trust Christ. You have left God out of the equation. Again. But we have been over this ground.

-Tina “Worried about the voices in your head” G

 

[clmowry]

As opposed to personal interpretation of whether the Magisterium is trustworthy, and then personal interpretation of what they say?

You have only removed the problem one step.

-Tina “All in Favor of Personal Interpretation Say Aye” G

That’s not even remotely close to true.

You really think it is easier to pull all of the truths of chirstianity from scripture all by your lonesome than it is to understand what is taught in the catechism with the aid of a trained teacher?

But thank you for admiting that personal interpretation is a “problem”. Most non-Catholics are not so quick to admit this.

Chuck

 

[TinaG]

That’s not even remotely close to true.

You really think it is easier to pull all of the truths of chirstianity from scripture all by your lonesome than it is to understand what is taught in the catechism with the aid of a trained teacher?

But thank you for admiting that personal interpretation is a “problem”. Most non-Catholics are not so quick to admit this.

Chuck

Sigh. We can only really understand truth with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Do you really fail to grasp that? Is the Church an adequate substitute for the Holy Spirit? Is there presumption in such a claim? Do YOU understand everything the Catholic Church teaches? I have been told no one does. Not all things are necessary for salvation. The things that are are lucid in Scripture.

The “problem” is solved when one realizes one is indeed in contact with Ultimate Truth Who is not subjective. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one can come to the Father without Him. A church that insists that it is the way, the truth and the life and no one can come to God except through it seems to be thrusting itself into a place that is perilous. We have freedom in Christ, freedom to live holy and godly lives in Christ, by faith and with grace, because of Him. The church can help, but it also hinders.

-Tina “Well, I DID stop posting on this thread ” G

 

[4thelamb]

As for this early church which kept and held as authoritative the Gospels, it was a church that had bishops and a pope, celebrated the Liturgy in the Eucharist, prayed for the dead, venerated Mary…
.

Ha…wow…prove that!!
No. Obviously the early church did NOT come complete with popes, bishops, intercessions, rosearies, statues, beads prayers for dead etc… Obviously these are all integrations with pagan peoples over the centuries. The ordination of priests didn’t even come along until much after the Roman Empire united the church and blended it with its own pagan religions and customs (Roman and Greek mythology) that had been the former state religion. Even many of the statues of Roman gods were simply renamed for some of the apostles. Easy enough fix right?

 

[PRmerger]

You have only removed the problem one step.

It’s interesting that you used the word “problem” here.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry. The voices in my head usually don’t say that.

'zactly!

And do you know why?

It’s because…

you

get

that

the CC made an infallible determination!

I have a better alternative, and that is to trust Christ.

What does that mean? How does Christ tell you that the NT canon is theopneustos? What does that look like?

 

[PRmerger]

Ha…wow…prove that!!

That’s a little rude. You wouldn’t speak like that to a stranger if you were face to face. More to the point, you shouldn’t speak like that to a sister in Christ.

But I will indulge you.

Obviously the early church did NOT come complete with popes, bishops, intercessions, rosearies, statues, beads prayers for dead etc…

Yes to popes, bishops, intercessions.

No to rosaries. It’s true that rosaries did not become a tradition until later times. But, I didn’t mention rosaries in my list, did I?

Don’t know about statues.

Yes to prayers for the dead.

The ordination of priests didn’t even come along until much after the Roman Empire united the church and blended it with its own pagan religions and customs (Roman and Greek mythology) that had been the former state religion. Even many of the statues of Roman gods were simply renamed for some of the apostles. Easy enough fix right?

Can you cite your source for this, lamb?

 

[guanophore]

If I told you it was because of direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, what would your answer be?

I would be curious about how you came by it.

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.

Why would you hope that?

Do you not think Jesus established a visible church.

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

What is the “contrast”? Is there some reason both can’t be true?

That does not mean that God does not use men, but the glory belongs to God, not to the Church.

For some reason you seem to think that Jesus is not One with His Holy Bride, the Church. What makes you think there is some kind of separation?

Eph. 3: 9 …"to make everyone see* what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in* God who created all things; 10so **that through the church the wisdom of God **in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord

You are right, God does “use men”. He used them to be the foundation of His One Body, the Church, through which the wisdom of God is made manifest to the world. Your Bible did not drop magically out of the sky. It is a product of the HS, working the manifold wisdom of God through the church.

For anyone to believe that the Church per se is a credible witness to the world is laughable.

It seems that you are suffering from a very deficient understanding of the Church founded by Christ. Clearly your concept is diametrically opposed to the Apostolic perspective referenced above. How do you suppose it is that your concept of the Church drifted so far from what the Apostles believed and taught?

None of us, without the power of the Holy Spirit, can effectively witness to Christ. Nor can we believe.

-Tina “Sola Gloria Deo” G

Somehow, in your mind, you have separated the HS from the Church. This is probably what is at the root of your deficient perception.