Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

Is that infallibility a property of the Scriptures, the Church, or of God?

Scriptures cannot be infallible, as this is a human characteristic. Books cannot be infallible. They can be inerrant.

As for God, saying He is infallible is as inadequate as saying the ocean has the quality of being wet.

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.

Fair enough.

But we have established 2 things:
-the Church’s popes and bishops were infallible throughout the course of the numerous councils from the 4th century on, which discerned and affirmed the canon of Scripture.

-there is a source outside of Scripture that non-Catholic Christians submit to.

It seems to me God should get the credit for communicating to us, rather than the Church taking credit for having heard Him

Like most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but both/and.

God is infallible. The Church?

Well, Tina did admit that the Church was infallible, just not “intrinsically” so. So that’s a common ground at least that we have!

See how the dialogue has advanced?
There is now agreement, at least among some NCCs, that:

• God used the Church, the Catholic Church, to canonize the Scripture.
• And this Church was infallible…at least on this one occasion. (Actually, on multiple occasions through history with different popes and councils throughout the centuries.)

 

[Philthy]

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

I wasnt commenting on the direction of the thread I was commenting on Mizzi’s comments, and he isnt in the 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.

No it doesnt, and if Im not mistaken you never actually made your point, you assumed we knew what it was. What continues to be demonstrated is that you are missing the point of this thread. I will try again. The Sovereignty of God is not the issue. We all agree that God Sovereignly determined the canon of the NT. I believe that, JWs believer that, Mormons believe that, Eurantians believe that, Catholics believe that, Protesants believe that, and even Muslims do. The question, tester, is

**WHY DO YOU ACCEPT THE NT CANON PUT FORTH BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS THE ONE GOD SOVEREIGNLY DETERMINED?? **

Why don’t you accept any of the other ones which claim to be determined by God’s sovereignty. How do you know that the one you accept is the one that God sovereignly determined? Get it?

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

You are correct that I am careful with words. I have an aptitude for it and I continually try to improve on it because I know that in order to truly understand others and to truly communicate to others requires explicit accuracy with words. I occassionally will drift off topic - mea culpa.

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

If you think I have leveled an insult you may wish to bring it to the attention of the moderators - they can prune it out of thread. I apologize for not being more charitable.
You can ignore me if you wish. However, if you truly wish to reach folks though, you need to deal with the question Randy asked at the beginning of the thread. And I dont think it is uncharitable of me to suggest that you havent done so yet.

Blessings!

 

[PRmerger]

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 don’t stop there, tester.

How did God let His will be known?

He revealed it to men.

Without using Scripture.

His Word came through…

Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

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

You are misrepresenting Catholic teaching, tester. The CC does not proclaim that the Sacred Scriptures are a subset of Tradition. To continue the mathematical metaphor, Scripture is a* product* of Tradition, not a subset of it.

If you persist in proclaiming this falsehood, and cannot provide any church document which professes that SS is a subset of ST, (and I assure you, you will not find any such document) you will be reported for contempt for Catholicism.

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

Our faith does indeed profess that we are not a religion of the Book. That designation is for Muslims and fundamentalists. We are a religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”

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

At some point you must tell the Muslim, “Without Christ, you cannot be saved”.

You proclaim that, I am certain.

Do not deny us the right to say the same thing to you.

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

Forgive my skepticism, but I doubt you could articulate any Catholic doctrine, with appropriate apologia and Scripture verses which elucidate that doctrine.

In fact, I challenge you to provide a full articulation of any church doctrine, what we believe, AND WHY. You will not be able to.

Thus, you are not rejecting Catholic doctrine. For you know it not.

 

[Philthy]

Scriptures cannot be infallible, as this is a human characteristic. Books cannot be infallible. They can be inerrant.

As for God, saying He is infallible is as inadequate as saying the ocean has the quality of being wet.

Fair enough.

But we have established 2 things:
-the Church’s popes and bishops were infallible throughout the course of the numerous councils from the 4th century on, which discerned and affirmed the canon of Scripture.

-there is a source outside of Scripture that non-Catholic Christians submit to.

Like most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but both/and.

Well, Tina did admit that the Church was infallible, just not “intrinsically” so. So that’s a common ground at least that we have!

See how the dialogue has advanced?
There is now agreement, at least among some NCCs, that:

• God used the Church, the Catholic Church, to canonize the Scripture.
• And this Church was infallible…at least on this one occasion. (Actually, on multiple occasions through history with different popes and councils throughout the centuries.)

 

[tester]

You are misrepresenting Catholic teaching, tester. The CC does not proclaim that the Sacred Scriptures are a subset of Tradition. To continue the mathematical metaphor, Scripture is a* product* of Tradition, not a subset of it.

If you persist in proclaiming this falsehood, and cannot provide any church document which professes that SS is a subset of ST, (and I assure you, you will not find any such document) you will be reported for contempt for Catholicism.

Actually I was deliberately not specific about who makes the claim: I had remembered reading from Catholic people making the claim.

Now going forward I will never make that claim again .

But I would expect to see you correct other Catholics for proclaiming this falsehood.

Shoud we consider starting another thread on this issue so other Catholics will not be reported for contempt for Catholicism.?

all post below are from Catholics

“God’s Inerrant Word” is not the same as any Joe’s interpretation of Scripture. It is the Church’s interpretation of Holy Tradition (which preceded the New Testament) and Scripture (which is a subset of Holy Tradition.

“Bible” is not in scripture. Does that mean the Bible is not biblical?
What many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, fail to understand, is that the Bible is a subset of Tradition. Consider what was taught and universally believed BEFORE the canon of the Bible:…

…
We Catholics propose to have a better norma norman than Sola Scriptura.

That is Sacred Tradition of which I believe Sacred Scripture is a subset.
…

once again i am sorry : I was just repeating what I had often read here on the forums.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually I was deliberately not specific about who makes the claim: I had remembered reading from Catholic people making the claim.

Indeed. You ought to have said, “Some Catholics claim _________”
to which, of course, we all would say, “What some Catholics “claim” should not be misinterpreted for what the Church professes.” As we all know, there are some Catholics who claim that abortion is their right.

Now going forward I will never make that claim again .

:tiphat:

But I would expect to see you correct other Catholics for proclaiming this falsehood.

If I see misrepresentations of the Catholic faith, you can be assured that I will be on top of it.

Shoud we consider starting another thread on this issue so other Catholics will not be reported for contempt for Catholicism.?

Your concern for other Catholics is…well, I think if it’s truly coming from Christian charity, it’s heartwarming. But I suspect a little sarcasm in the above comment and I find sarcasm to be the refuge of the weak.

all post below are from Catholics

Best to look to Catholic teaching when proclaiming what Catholicism “says”.

Which is why, when you say you “reject” some Catholic doctrines I say, “No, you don’t. You don’t even know what the Catholic Church teaches.”

once again i am sorry : I was just repeating what I had often read here on the forums.

I can see why you repeated it.

 

[guanophore]

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 mean, the end of the discussion about the origin of the NT canon?

We are in agreement with our separated brethren that the NT is an act of God. God acted by, for, and about Catholics in creating the NT. That is why it is called a product of the Catholic Church. Why is this so difficult to accept? Do you believe God is not able to work through humans to accomplish His will, or just not Catholic humans?

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

I am sure that God could have created a Bible any way He wanted. He could have had it drop out of the sky fully formed, but He did not. He decided to do it through the Catholic Church.

I am sure He could have entered this world any way He liked, and arrived fully grown as a man, but He chose not to do so. He chose to be born of a woman.

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

Why is this a problem? In addition to my question above (do you think God can’t use Catholics to bring about His will?) do you think there was no need for validation of the Bible?

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

This does seem like a shocking Truth to many of our separated brethren. They are so accustomed to the heresy that the Church ought to be “bible based” that they have lost sight of the Truth that Jesus founded the Church prior to a word of the NT ever being written. He did not create a NT collection, then instruct that a chuch be built by extracting doctrine from it’s pages. He trained 12 Aposltes, and laid the foundation of His Church with them.

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.

I am glad we are in agreement that God used the CC to create an infallible table of contents.

What do you mean when you say “the CC is infallible”?

Or the claim (that by accepting the NT canon one is accepting the authority of the CC to create the table of contents)

Can you explain why it is a problem to accept the authority of the Catholic Church in this matter?

Or the claim (that without the CC you could not be saved)

Do you understand why we say this? Jesus only founded One Church. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but by Him. All who are saved are baptized into Him, and He becomes their Head. He is the Head of His One Body, the Church, therefore, all who are saved are members of His Church. There is no one who is saved who is not saved through the Catholic Church. Apparently you believe that nothing good can come out of the CC, including Jesus, but I wanted you to know why we say this.

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

Yes, this seems to work both ways.

It seems odd to us that anyone would believe they could be saved without becoming a part of His One Body, the Church.

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

Not necessarily. There are some Protestants that sincerely want to know what we believe, and why, and sometimes, the more preposterous it sounds, the more curious they may be.

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

Indeed, this is how we understand it. There is only One Baptism, and One Body, therefore, all who are baptized into Christ are baptized into His One Body, the Church. Now there are some who are validly baptized that are clinging to heresies (unknowingly), such as the belief that the Church founded by Christ comes out of the Bible. These heretical beliefs result in a lack of perfection in our unity.

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

I have not read very many of your posts, tester, but I am really wondering if you really “knowingly reject” CC doctrines. It seems more likely that you are rejecting that which you don’t know and understand.

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

I am sure it seems quite complete to you, since it is all you have ever known. For the record I will say that my separated brethren that follow the portion of the faith they have recieved, however abbreviated it may be, most sincerely with devotion are much better disciples of Christ than the average Catholic in the pew, who don’t even realize they were baptized into the fullness of the faith.

You stand in the tradition of Apollos, except that you do not appear to be very open to the Apostolic instruction.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Even if one does not accept the infallibility of the Church, then it seems prudent that one would accept that the Church did make at least one infallible decision in the case of the NT. However, I have learned from my separated brethren that, in order to compeletly deny that God can work through Catholics, some of the Reformed members here have said that the doctrine of SS “assumes a canon”
or that it is a “fallible collection of infallible books”.

For these reasons, I am very curious by what basis Protestants accept the NT canon. Some Protestants have no difficulty accepting that it is an infallible decision of the infallible Church, but they are usually Anglican or Lutheran.

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 think it is the other way around, really. I think that the doctrine of SS requires an infallible canon. How does one know for sure that they are using SS, if they are not sure what Scripture is? How can adherants of SS know for sure which books are really scripture?

Oh, I left one response out. Another response is that “the Catholic Church is not wrong all the time - they just happened to get it right that time”. Kinda like a broken clock being right twice a day.

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.

Yes, I would agree on this. There is more than ample evidence in Scripture to show that God works through His enemies to bring glory to Himself. However, when the canon was being formed, the CC was not acting in enmity against God. The bishops gathered, prayed, fasted, sought God diligently, and begged the HS to guide their decisions. They debated, and searched out the Truth, then made a choice, committing their steps to God. When an organization, kingdom, or person seeks to serve God in this way, then God does work His Sovereign will through them, and they are bestowed with honor.

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

Then why are we even having all this anti-Catholic sentiment from you?

 

[guanophore]

Hi!

Is that infallibility a property of the Scriptures, the Church, or of God?

Fallibility means the ability to make a mistake. Since the Scriptures can’ t this, they do not qualify (or need) the gift of infallibility. We refer to them as inerrant and inspired.

God does not make mistakes, either, so He does not need the gift of infallibility. Only people have this tendency toward wrong, and there fore, need to be protected from it by God’s grace.

Just because the Church got something right once does not mean it possesses infallibility intrinsically.

Indeed not, and no such claim is made. the Church is infallible because of her Divine Elements, by grace. If there is any intrinsic infallibility in the church, it comes from the fact that Jesus is her Head, and the HS is her Soul. These intrinsic divine elements protect the Church from error, not her human elements.

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:

Why can’t we do both? The reason that the Church can act infallibly is because of His grace. We are grateful that He is willing and able to work infallibly through such broken vessels.

 

[guanophore]

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

from tester: 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.

"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

Tester, have you considered that you can intuitively sense that the NT, being the most widely recognized evidence of the authority of the CC, itself is a testimony? Setting aside the other implications of that authority, this question (why do you accept the NT canon?) brings to light the role of authority in the Church. It may be that this subject makes you so defensive, that your reactions are what is driving the direction of the thread.

I honestly don’t believe that any of us here would expect you to stop rebelling against the Shepherd Jesus appointed to feed and care for you just by answering this one question. I think that is quite a far stretch, don’t you?

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.

It also seems somewhat prejudicial.

I do think there are as many poorly catechized Protestants as there are Catholics, and there is a large percentage of Fundamentalists who have never given a moment’s thought to the Source and history of their Bible.

 

[guanophore]

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

You are right that this is outside the scope of this thread. Suffice to say that some of the patriarchies were separated by war and politics, and there are differences in the received books. The bulk of the debate from Jerome was the lack of knowledge or availability at the time of any original Hebrew copies of the Deuterocanonicals. Even the Jews of Jesus day did not claim to know of any copies of these books that were not in Gk, and therefore, they did not consider them part of the original canon.

Had Jerome been able to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of his doubts would have immediately cleared.

The books disputed by Eusebius were resolved at the council in 382. Or, it might be more accurate to say that the church made a decision about the canon at that time. Clearly, dispute continued. :yup:

Jerome, like all other faithful scholars and theologians, submitted his opinions to the Church, as Gods vehicle of Divine Revelation.

 

[JonNC]

guanophore;7104269]You are right that this is outside the scope of this thread. Suffice to say that some of the patriarchies were separated by war and politics, and there are differences in the received books. The bulk of the debate from Jerome was the lack of knowledge or availability at the time of any original Hebrew copies of the Deuterocanonicals. Even the Jews of Jesus day did not claim to know of any copies of these books that were not in Gk, and therefore, they did not consider them part of the original canon.

Are the eastern patriarchates who continue with a canon different from that of Rome, who now have the knowledge of Trent, still wrong?

Had Jerome been able to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of his doubts would have immediately cleared.

Would you say that this would also have been true for Cajetan, those at Trent who disputed the DC’s, and perhaps even Luther?

The books disputed by Eusebius were resolved at the council in 382. Or, it might be more accurate to say that the church made a decision about the canon at that time. Clearly, dispute continued. :yup:

OK.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Now going forward I will never make that claim again.

Going forward you can cite this as a correct profession of what the Catholic church believes: Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (bold mine)

But I would expect to see you correct other Catholics for proclaiming this falsehood.

Just so you know, I am judicious but admittedly more tolerant in the errors proclaimed by my Catholic brethren, as is my right.

 

[guanophore]

Are the eastern patriarchates who continue with a canon different from that of Rome, who now have the knowledge of Trent, still wrong?

They made an agreement not to bicker about it. Would that the same would happen with the Protestants!

Eastern Catholics have no concept or language like the Westerns do about Purgatory either, and they agreed not to bicker about that, as well as the filoque, and other matters that were separating.

 Would you say that this would also have been true for Cajetan, those at Trent who disputed the DC's, and perhaps even Luther?

I would like to believe that, because their decision was based on the same premise.

That is why Cardinal Newman thought “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[rben20]

Protestants just accept the NT canon because that is what they are told. They don’t bother asking how the bible got put together. It’s like they believe it fell from the sky or something…the bible cannot be a witness to itself ppl!

 

[simspt]

“an authoritative list of books is not the same as books that are authoritative” I think Bruce Metzger said this. Recognition of authoritative writings was a long and messy process. The Church always viewed itself as authoritative in its decisions to recognize or reject writings. If it wasnt authoritative then why should any Protestant or Catholic accept as authoritative only writings that were recognized by this Church. Im not sure if i understand the OP implications. Many Protestants do take for granted the canon, Creeds and doctrines of the CC (I was guilty of it). On the other hand many are very aware of their roots.

 

[JonNC]

Protestants just accept the NT canon because that is what they are told. They don’t bother asking how the bible got put together. It’s like they believe it fell from the sky or something…the bible cannot be a witness to itself ppl!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;7105618]They made an agreement not to bicker about it. Would that the same would happen with the Protestants!

No argument.

Eastern Catholics have no concept or language like the Westerns do about Purgatory either, and they agreed not to bicker about that, as well as the filoque, and other matters that were separating.

That’s an interesting door which, perhaps, some of our differences could pass through, such as differing expressions of the real presence.

I would like to believe that, because their decision was based on the same premise.

Me too. And I plead ignorance of the Lutheran view of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Thanks for your feedback, my friend.
Jon

 

[Philthy]

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

Well, what can we say? That my typically offensive approach to apologetics has driven tester away from further debate. Not really. Perhaps he is justified in ignoring my posts, but he chose to engage PRmerger afterward, so apparently he was still open to discussion when he felt he had a leg to stand on. But he has gone missing. The problem appears to be that the more level-headed and non-inflammatory posters PRmerger and Guanophore have calmly reiterated some of the points I made. So where is the rebuttal?
There is none, apparently, and my guess is that tester has retreated to that secret place that “99% of Protestants” go to when this discussion becomes more than they can - or wish to - handle. But I still love them! This appears to be the unanswerable question for many of our Protestant bretheren:

**WHY DO YOU ACCEPT THE NT CANON PUT FORTH BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS THE ONE GOD SOVEREIGNLY DETERMINED?? **

Why don’t you accept any of the other ones which claim to be determined by God’s sovereignty. How do you know that the one you accept is the one that God sovereignly determined?

IMHO the answer is not difficult for them, just distasteful!

Blessings!