Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[tester]

I think it is significant that neither you, tester nor byfaithalone aka “dont let the door hit you in the *** on the way out” has responded to my posts 200 and 201 regarding Joe Mizzis weak arguments against the Catholic position. Both tester and byfaithalone claimed agreement with his arguments, but chose not to respond to my dismantling of his opinions. You game?

ok:
one of your first points were to dispute that the purpose of this thread is to ultimately convince us about the infallibility of the Catholic Church:
I say that is where this is leading ( and has gone) : you say it isn’t.

Many of your other points were based on your position that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is wrong: these forums are filled with that debate ; and I chose not to hijack this thread with another sola scriptura debate…

I see it this way: God using a kingdom , organization, or a person to accomplish his Sovereign Will does not necessarily (it may or may not) bestow any honour on that kingdom , organization, or person.

I thanked the CC for being a humble servant of God in collecting a preserving Scared Scripture:

 

[PRmerger]

I see it this way: God using a kingdom , organization, or a person to accomplish his Sovereign Will does not necessarily (it may or may not) bestow any honour on that kingdom , organization, or person.

Indeed. The CC claims no honor for itself.

I thanked the CC for being a humble servant of God in collecting a preserving Scared Scripture:

You have a seeking, honest heart in saying this.

However, you must take this acknowledgment to its logical conclusion:
-unless you think that this humble servant, the CC, erred in its preservation of Scriptures you must conclude that the Councils which discerned and affirmed the canon did so INFALLIBLY.

-and you understand, then, that this canon is an extra-biblical discernment. Thus, the Bible alone as our sole rule of faith is untenable.

 

[TinaG]

Indeed. The CC claims no honor for itself.

You have a seeking, honest heart in saying this.

However, you must take this acknowledgment to its logical conclusion:
-unless you think that this humble servant, the CC, erred in its preservation of Scriptures you must conclude that the Councils which discerned and affirmed the canon did so INFALLIBLY.

-and you understand, then, that this canon is an extra-biblical discernment. Thus, the Bible alone as our sole rule of faith is untenable.

Hi!

Is that infallibility a property of the Scriptures, the Church, or of God? Just because the Church got something right once does not mean it possesses infallibility intrinsically. On occasion I have actually done something right (brownies, even!) but that does not mean I am an Infallible Brownie Maker.

It seems to me God should get the credit for communicating to us, rather than the Church taking credit for having heard Him. God is infallible. The Church? :nope:

-Tina “Avoiding Baking Brownies for the Foreseeable Future” G

 

[tester]

Indeed. The CC claims no honor for itself.
…
However, you must take this acknowledgment to its logical conclusion:
-unless you think that this humble servant, the CC, erred in its preservation of Scriptures you must conclude that the Councils which discerned and affirmed the canon did so INFALLIBLY.

-and you understand, then, that this canon is an extra-biblical discernment. Thus, the Bible alone as our sole rule of faith is untenable.

Consider this:

IF it was God’s will that the Gospel of Peter was to be in included in the New Testament canon; would it be included? YES!!!

IF it was God’s will that the Book of Hebrews was to be in excluded in the New Testament canon; would it be excluded? YES!!!

For 99 % of knowledgeable Protestants; that is the end of the discussion.

But the claim that if were not for the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

or the claim that the authority of the Catholic Church validates the Bible.

or the claim that the Sacred Scripture is a subset (a SUBset!!) of your Sacred Tradition.

or the claim that the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church (vs. the Church of the Book)

or the claim that because the early Church had been used by God to prepare an infallible table of contents that the Catholic Church is infallible.
Or the claim

… We’re simply showing that to accept the NT canon is to accept the authority (an infallible authority at that!) of the CC

Or the claim

Without the CC you could not be saved.

Would be viewed as “mistaken” ( the most charitable word I can use) by 99% of knowledgeable Protestants.

And PRmerger , after almost 6000 posts , you should know that !!

By way of example: when witnessing to a Muslim , never use your study Bible with all personal notes scribbled through out . Because the from the Muslim viewpoint ,it is sacrilegious to write on God’s Scared Word. So if you need to show a Muslin a Bible passage , uses an unmarked copy.

IN THE SAME WAY ; stating “Without the CC you could not be saved” to protestant kills the discussion.

Even if you meant that protestants are imperfectly or unknowingly “connected” to the CC…

FYI : I knowingly reject several CC doctrines and yet I am a reborn Child of God and am assured of my salvation.

You are following in the tradition of Apollos: zealous, but following a truncated Gospel.

And FYI ; again ; I am NOT following a truncated version of the Gospel!!

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, this is not the case. There was great dispute among the Jews about the OT canon. The Church chose the Alexandrian Septuagint because this was the collection used by Jesus adn the Apostles. Yes, they did receive the apostolic writings as scripture, but they did so BECAUSE they were from the Magesterium. The Magesterium is the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ - the Apostles and the bishops in unity with them.

Are you really saying you don’t beleive any teaching authority existed?

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.

That is what a papal announcement is - it is a declaration of the mind of the Church. Yes, there were earlier regional councils prior to the Council in 382 that closed the canon officially. Yes, those were all Scripture as soon as they were written, and were recognized as such by the Teaching Authority put in place by Christ. However, one must be mindful that 400+ books were also floating around at the time, claiming to be inspired. that is why it was necessary to close the canon.

 

[guanophore]

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?

It is hard for me because I know the CC is not Roman, and that most of the NT was written before the Roman Rite emerged in the 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).

Yes. they were Catholics, writing for Catholics about the Catholic faith.

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.

If you think Rome “incorporated itself into Christianity at Nicea” then YOU are the one who has located the major contributing factor in your confusion.

Indeed, there was only one Church, and has always only ever been one Church. Jesus founded Only one, has only ONE BODY.

The first description of this One Church is used by Luke in Acts 9:31 “kath holos” meaning the Church throughout (universal). This description stuck, and the early fathers used this term to describe the ONE CHURCH the same throughout the world that Jesus founded. All who were not members of it were considered apostates and heretics.

 

[guanophore]

Hocus Pocus?? What? Did you really just say that? Have you even read your Bible? Everything you just called ‘hocus pocus’ is Truth spoken in Biblical language by a girl who obviously spends time in scripture.

Well beloved girl, it was not the Holy Scriptures, which are Catholic, that were being referred to but your interpretations of them. YOu can take biblical language and “speak” it into any kind of perspective you want, that does not make it Truth. Jesus revealed the Truth to His Church, and the Church created the Bible. The Bible cannot be properly understood apart from the context in which it was produced, which is the Catholic Church.

I’m very sorry…but belittling the strength and might of the Holy Spirit is one thing that I believe should arouse what the Bible calls, ”righteous anger”, in every person who calls himself a believer.

Yes, it should. However, those comments are not made about the Holy Spirit, but about the girl who studies. She may think she has the same voice as the HS, and that all which is in her mind is exactly consistent with the HS, but that is not the case.

The HS does not show one girl someting contrary to what He has already infallibly revealed to the Church.

Any girl who thinks He has is just spouting hocus pocus, or as my grandmother used to say “full of beans”.

 

[guanophore]

This is correctly and appropriately reffering to “Blasphemy against the Spirit” and the Church of Rome rides dangerously close to it every time She declares that it is because of Her and not God’s Sovereignty that we have received the Scriptures.

If what you were saying were true, then you would be right. However, it is not.

The Church declares that the Scriptures were written, promulgated, preserved and canonized by Catholics by the power of the Holy Spirit. Nothing infallible like thiscan be done apart from the Sovereignty of God. So you see, we don’t have the “and not” thinking you do. We accept that God works through people to accomplish His will. It was His will that Catholics should write, make copies, keep safe, and eventually close the canon of Scripture, so He worked His will through the Church, just as He said He would.

And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.(Matt 12:31)
Romanists teeter carelessly and sloppily on the border-line of this sin every time members in Her Communion arrogantly claim that Almighty God, in any way, needed Her “permission” and/or “blessing” before giving His “Inspired Word” to the world.

Dear girl, you seem to be harboring a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment. You also seem to have dived into this debate without having read the forum rules. So, for the record, it is required in order for you to participate here that you respect our faith. The use of the term “Romanists” is considered derogatory. Especially to those of us who are non-Roman Catholics.

CAF is not provided as a venue for you to vent your anti-Catholic polemics. We are here to give information to people who are honestly seeking Catholic Answers. If you have only come her to insult us, you are in the wrong place. I am behind in this thread, so you may have been told this already.

Friends, when you heard words that powerful, you either believe scripture to be wholly and truthfully from God Almighty, or you don't believe in them at all.

Did you think that, because the Scriptures came to us through people, that we did not believe they come from God.

Do you think that, since we know the Son of God came to us through a lowly peasant woman, that He did not come from God?

If God chose to use the Roman Empire and its Church, as the tool to formalize, evangelize and spread the Gospel Message of Christ to the far reaches of the known world, then so be it as God willed it.

I think you have some confusion about history. The canon of scripture had already spread all over the Empire and was closed centuries prior to what we know call the HOly Roman Empire.

But Rome can boast of its own works, role and significance in the Kingdom of God,

I am curious what you mean by “Rome” in this sentence.

NO MORE than can Egypt, through whom God displayed his mighty power and authority with plagues, in order to free his people Israel.

It seems you are equating “Rome” in the sentence above to Egypt. Is that right?

 

[guanophore]

The authority I rely on is God because He is the author of scripture.
The “table of contents” is merely a list of what God already inspired and gave to Christians.

Actually, this is a very good description of Sacred Tradition. God is the author of it, and it is merely a faithful handing down (paradosis) of what God has already inspired (breathed into the Church).

Not that you believe this, but the table of contents does not make the Bible, its the other way around. Scripture is scripture the minute it is penned.

Yes, Catholics do believe this. The problem is that there were 400+ books floating around all claiming to be inspired Scripture. The Church was led by the HS to discern and close the canon to prevent error.

As far as what the early church was, I have studied enough to know who is following what the apostles taught as recorded in inspired scripture.

Yes, much of what the Apostles believed and taught is recorded in Scripture, but it was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. Nor was it intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

To keep the conversation focused, how does my view disagree with what I posted from Catholic doctrine specifically?.

The Catholic Church teaches that scripture is to be read through the lens of Sacred Tradition. When it is read apart from these Apostolic Teachings, the meaning can be misunderstood, and it creates division and error.

 

[guanophore]

Here we get into “What is the Catholic Church” - which title the Roman patriarchy has asserted it has sole custody of.

Can you show what makes you think this?

Also, can you explain what “Roman patriarchy” means?

There has not been a united catholic church since the Nestorians went into schism. "Catholic" = "universal".

What was it about heresies being present that makes you think the Church is not united? There are heresies recorded in the NT! Do you think that meant the One Church founded by Christ no longer existed? Unity is not defined by those who depart from it.

That is like saying that Jesus had no more apostles because Judas left.

  I think there have been threads on this (which I have not read, to be honest). To claim that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same as the church of the first century is a profound distortion of history.

Perhaps you can explain this. However I guess it is off topic in this thread. I will start a new one.

Here ya go. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7101867#post7101867

I hope some others on this thread who believe the same will come have that discussion.

There is historical continuity, but the changes have been radical. The reformers were booted out of the Roman Catholic Church against their will when they compared the writings in the newly-rediscovered Greek with the state of their contemporary church,

Tina, it appears that your historical information is quite distorted. The Reformers embraced heresies, which automatically separated themselves from Communion with the Church. They did not need to be “booted out”, since they had already left. What the Church did was clarify that the beliefs they had embraced were, indeed, a significant departure from what the Aposltes believed and taught.

As for the writings, I am not sure what “newly discovered Greek” you could be talking about here. The major factor in the availability of the Scripture had to do with the invention of the printing press (by a Catholic) whose first printed book was a Catholic Bible. Before that time, all Bibles were copied tediously by monks in candelight.

 which had become highly secularized, compromised, and weak.  I think it was something like a 1000 year interval when Rome had not paid attention to matters doctrinal because it was too caught up in political machinations before the Reformation.

We can certainly agree that there was much corruption in the European clerics at the time of the Reformation. I am not sure what you mean b y “not paid attention to matters doctrinal”. Perhaps you are saying that error was being practiced and taught, and that it needed to be addressed much earlier and much more strongly? If this is the case, then we are in agreement.

IT was the political machinations that precipitated the Reformation, not the doctrine.

I expect I know what you will come back with here, so I will shortcut to it. I think Leo X totally and completely botched dealing with Luther. He regarded Luther as a political problem and was more interested in sacking Germany to the benefit of the Italians than he was interested in truth.

Yes, although, one has to admit that Luther was only a small pebble that set off a great landslide. His writings, much to his later dismay, were also used for political and economic rebellion. This rebellion was festering for a long time, and had it not been for Tetzel, it would have been some other small matter that triggered the landslide of the Reformation.

The Reformation is possibly one of the most complex political and religious events ever to have happened on earth, and experts who have spent lifetimes studying it have come to different conclusions as to what it means.  Today we should try to heal the breach, as Christians.  But we should not compromise Christ to do so, whether to do so from a Catholic point of view or a Protestant.

Amen!

Yes, Luther was right about one thing - people are always in need of Reform. However, he extended his call to Reform to the doctrine of Christ, which did not need any reform.

 I don't know much about Catholicism.  I haven't had much time to look at these things.  I start from a Reformed basis (I don't even know much about THAT) and one reason I hang around here is to see where the differences actually are.

I think you came to the right place, and I appreciate your candor.

 There have been many, many councils of bishops.  Some of them have been contradictory (look at 1 and 2 Ephesus, for example). Or the Arian Councils of bishops, fully as authoritative as the non-Arian of the day.  They have erred.

How do you determine that these heretical councils were “fully as authoritative” as the ones under the Apostolic authority of the Church founded by Christ?

 To say that God is incapable of telling a Christian where His word lies indicates someone things God is incompetent or inept.

-Tina “Both Incompetent and Inept” G

I agree completetly. That is why I am always telling Christians who don’t believe in Sacred Tradition that the must believe God is incompetent or inept.

 

[Philthy]

ok:
one of your first points were to dispute that the purpose of this thread is to ultimately convince us about the infallibility of the Catholic Church:
I say that is where this is leading ( and has gone) : you say it isn’t.

You know, tester, there’s a reason why people use quote features - its so that what was ACTUALLY said can be differentiated from a distortion of what was said. Here is what I actually said:
Philthy Post 200:

The Bible is not required to “prove” the infallibility of the Church, it is merely an instrument supporting the reasonableness of believing it to be true. He always pulls this garbage - sets up a false premise attributed to his Catholic opponent and then refutes it. The issue of his being asked how he knows that Bible is inspired is to refute his own position of claiming to proclaim truths of the Gospel.

Your comments, in the context of an apologetics forum, are embarrasing - you mischaracterized my comments, missed the point of them, and left your argument basically to be “you say so and I say no”.

Many of your other points were based on your position that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is wrong: these forums are filled with that debate ; and I chose not to hijack this thread with another sola scriptura debate…

Well, gosh, that’s really a stimulating rebuttal to the numerous points I raised - since “many…points were based on my position that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is wrong…” you won’t actually address ANY of them? Hmmm thats odd for someone who has plenty to say on several threads. All I can say is thank you for making me look so good.

I see it this way: God using a kingdom , organization, or a person to accomplish his Sovereign Will does not necessarily (it may or may not) bestow any honour on that kingdom , organization, or person.

And your point would relate to the current topic how, exactly? Do you think that perhaps you could develop your idea in its entirety so that we might all understand it’s relevance to the topic? My goodness, get your act together!

I thanked the CC for being a humble servant of God in collecting a preserving Scared Scripture:

Well done! On what basis - aka Why - do you accept that they actually did collect and preserve it without corrupting, adding, subtracting, etc. As far as I can tell, the basis appears to be your need to rationalize and make workable Sola Scriptura.

Blessings!

 

[guanophore]

Well how does one respond to a comment that their views are poorly thought out and they are unable to understand something?

You might consider giving thought to the possibility that it might be true.

I suppose I will just continue to participate in the thread when there is something specific that catches my eye.
Good day.

Thank you for your patience.

Some of us are under the impression that it is impossible to be educated, and still be a fundamentalist, so you have to bear with us.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I don’t think you need to take that to yourself, Rightly. It was a general comment. It is also a true comment. There are many people that cannot accept anything from the Catholic Church, including Christ!

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.

I am sure it seems this way to most “bible christians”.

However, as time goes on fewer and fewer people had their views represented that agreed with mine.

Yes, of course. That is because it is the duty of the Church to combat heresy. Jesus promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”, and so He did. That meant that the heretical views are not the ones that were preserved.

Lets take for example the Didache that supports full immersion baptism, congregational polity, the eucharist not being seperated from its context as a meal, and no words of institution that would allow for the Catholic understanding of the Lords Supper …but probably best to not digress into that yet.

You are right, they are off topic issues, but maybe not as much “issues” as you think. The Catholic Church teaches that immersion is “the fullest sign” of the Sacrament, though pouring is acceptable, as reflected in the Didache. Congregational polity does not preclude the authority of the Bishop, which was accepted by those who composed the Didache, as well as those to whom it was addressed.

I am not sure what you mean by words of institution being lacking…they are written write there in the NT…but that is also beyond the scope of the thread.

 

[guanophore]

That was not a challenge to my beliefs. I was a nicer way of calling someone a moron.

No, I don’t think so. I am sorry you took it that way, but realistically, a moron is not capable of thinking things through to their logical conclusion, so telling them that have not done so would have no value.

 

[Philthy]

Consider this:

IF it was God’s will that the Gospel of Peter was to be in included in the New Testament canon; would it be included? YES!!!

IF it was God’s will that the Book of Hebrews was to be in excluded in the New Testament canon; would it be excluded? YES!!!

For 99 % of knowledgeable Protestants; that is the end of the discussion.

You are correct, and that only means that 99% havent really thought very long and very hard about things, or lack the intellectual capacity, or honesty, to do so. You consideration above simply isn’t persuasive in accepting a NT canon. Who says the Gospel of Peter isnt part of the NT? You? Who says Hebrews is part of the NT canon? Luther? There are different NT canons: Mormons, JWs, Eurantia, etc etc. Apparently this can only be so “because it is God’s will”. But this doesnt answer the question of how we know which is the correct canon and it doesnt address the issue of WHY YOU ACCEPT THE CANON THAT YOU ACCEPT. :banghead:
Perhaps if I phrase it this way it will make more sense to you:
So I ask you, IF it was God’s will that Protestants be ignorant of the irrationality of their postion, would they be? YES!!! Perhaps now you see why your “argument” is lacking?

Blessings!

 

[tester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tester
ok:
one of your first points were to dispute that the purpose of this thread is to ultimately convince us about the infallibility of the Catholic Church:
I say that is where this is leading ( and has gone) : you say it isn’t.

You know, tester, there’s a reason why people use quote features - its so that what was ACTUALLY said can be differentiated from a distortion of what was said. Here is what I actually said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy Post 200
The Bible is not required to “prove” the infallibility of the Church, it is merely an instrument supporting the reasonableness of believing it to be true. He always pulls this garbage - sets up a false premise attributed to his Catholic opponent and then refutes it. The issue of his being asked how he knows that Bible is inspired is to refute his own position of claiming to proclaim truths of the Gospel

so in the spirit of honesty : you left out your first 5 words in your quote feature

from tester
**Quote:

Your purpose is to convince me about the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and that consequently I should submit to Rome’s authority.
To do so, you ask me how I know that the books of the Bible are inspired.

from Philthy

False from the get go.

The Bible is not required to “prove” the infallibility of the Church, it is merely an instrument supporting the reasonableness of believing it to be true. He always pulls this garbage - sets up a false premise attributed to his Catholic opponent and then refutes it. The issue of his being asked how he knows that Bible is inspired is to refute his own position of claiming to proclaim truths of the Gospel.**

so a claim was made : you said it was false:
i stand by my claim of the actual direction of this thread:

your statement about the 99% of protestants lacking intellectual capacity comment shows you missed the point i was making about the sovereignty of God in dertmining the canon of scripture.

I know the style of posters like you that have the ability to parse out word or phrases that are actually off topic:

keep the insults to yourself; I will not respond to your postings

 

[JonNC]

No, this is not the case. There was great dispute among the Jews about the OT canon. The Church chose the Alexandrian Septuagint because this was the collection used by Jesus adn the Apostles. Yes, they did receive the apostolic writings as scripture, but they did so BECAUSE they were from the Magesterium. The Magesterium is the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ - the Apostles and the bishops in unity with them.

guano, I do not wish to interject in the back-n-forth, but I have a few questions, seeking your perspective, and that of others should they offer.

You say here the Church chose the Septuagint,
1) how long ago, and why is the OT canon different amongst the various patriarchates, east and west?
2) why has there been since the time of Jerome, considerable debate within the western Church regarding the canonicity of the dueterocanon, even at the Council of Trent? When, in fact, was the canon of the OT set? And which ecumenical council set it?

Regarding the NT,
Eusebius speaks of books in dispute, at what point is this dispute resolved?

Jon

 

[TinaG]

Hi!

I just think I have gotten in over my head on this thread. I don’t want to waste your time or offend you and continue to frustrate you in attempting to discuss matters I know little about. Someone might think I know what I am talking about.

I should have quit the thread a while ago. It would take me a lot of reading to know some of the things you are bringing up, and I don’t have the time. I fear I am misrepresenting the Reformed position on things I have not worked out yet.

Maybe some other time, some other place.

-Tina “Triple Sigh” G.

 

[Craig_W]

Tina

I just think I have gotten in over my head on this thread. I don’t want to waste your time or offend you and continue to frustrate you in attempting to discuss matters I know little about. Someone might think I know what I am talking about.

I should have quit the thread a while ago. It would take me a lot of reading to know some of the things you are bringing up, and I don’t have the time. I fear I am misrepresenting the Reformed position on things I have not worked out yet.

Maybe some other time, some other place.

That is truly a reply with no guile.

God Bless You
Craig W

 

[PRmerger]

shows you missed the point i was making about the sovereignty of God in dertmining the canon of scripture

No Catholic denies the sovereignty of God in “determining” the canon of Scripture, tester.

As you have boldly proclaimed: God used the CC to make an infallible determination, through Church councils consisting of bishops and popes.

The logical consequence of this acknowledgment is that
-you accept that there is an authority outside of Scripture
-this authority is infallible, at least once.