Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

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

Indeed.

I’ve found that many non-Catholic posters here are right-on-the-edge of provocative in their posts, then express a reaction that’s quite out of proportion to their inflammatory remark, then profess:

• "Well, I know why I’m not Catholic 'cause I just ask a simple question and see how you all treat me?
• or “You’re insulting so I’m not going to respond to you anymore.”

which seems to me to be the CAF version of taking your ball and going home.

Do you all remember that as a child? You’re all having a great time playing kickball and then suddenly the boy who brought the ball is mad because we “took away” his home run (which was actually a foul ball). He says, “Fine. If you’re not going to let me have my way I’m going home. With my ball. Hmmmph!”

These types of people…well, it’s hard to play with them isn’t it?

 

[tester]

On a personal note: I enjoy a spirited debate: “iron sharpen iron”.
But I didn’t appreciate being accused of contempt for Catholicism and threaten to be reported for the EXACT same claims made by your Catholic brethren:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

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.

When I provided examples of Catholic who made the EXACT claim the reply was.

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

I guess it is your right.
Similar to calling someone who disagrees with Obama a “racist”

I though a retraction or apology may have been offered as I was accused of “contempt for Catholicism”
So then my choice becomes: do I “play” by these rules or not:

 

[PRmerger]

On a personal note: I enjoy a spirited debate: “iron sharpen iron”.
But I didn’t appreciate being accused of contempt for Catholicism and threaten to be reported for the EXACT same claims made by your Catholic brethren:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

When I provided examples of Catholic who made the EXACT claim the reply was.

I guess it is your right.
Similar to calling someone who disagrees with Obama a “racist”

I though a retraction or apology may have been offered as I was accused of “contempt for Catholicism”
So then my choice becomes: do I “play” by these rules or not:

As you wish.

 

[PRmerger]

I though a retraction or apology may have been offered as I was accused of “contempt for Catholicism”
So then my choice becomes: do I “play” by these rules or not:

And, just so you know, I retract nothing for I did not accuse you of “contempt for Catholicism”; I only offered you a warning to make certain that what you proclaim Catholicism teaches is, in truth, what Catholicism teaches.

However, I did offer you this:

I can see why you repeated it.

 

[Philthy]

On a personal note: I enjoy a spirited debate: “iron sharpen iron”.
But I didn’t appreciate being accused of contempt for Catholicism and threaten to be reported for the EXACT same claims made by your Catholic brethren:

Originally Posted by PRmerger
When I provided examples of Catholic who made the EXACT claim the reply was.
I guess it is your right.
Similar to calling someone who disagrees with Obama a “racist”
I though a retraction or apology may have been offered as I was accused of “contempt for Catholicism”
So then my choice becomes: do I “play” by these rules or not:

I would tend to agree with you here, tester, that you had done nothing but repeat an error that you had reasonable cause to believe represented Catholic doctrine.

I don’t find the statement that Scripture is a “subset” of Tradition particularly offensive - I think its just a slightly less accurate way of expressing that Tradition produced more than one form of revelation through the Church - the Mass, for example. But that is just me…

Ultimately it seems like a distraction from the real issue of why Protestants accept the NT canon established by the CC as the one sovereignly determined by God. What is the basis for accepting it?

I guess we’ll never get an actual answer to the unanswerable question…

Blessings!

PS How does it feel under the bus there PRMerger? They don’t call me Philthy for nothin!

 

[PRmerger]

PS How does it feel under the bus there PRMerger? They don’t call me Philthy for nothin!

Huh? What does that mean? Who threw me under the bus?

And, what does “Philthy” mean? Is it supposed to be a suggestion of being “filthy”? Is your name Phil?

 

[Philthy]

Huh? What does that mean? Who threw me under the bus?

I thought you might have regarded my support for tester’s repeating the “subset” info a form of being “thrown under the bus” - it was a joke really. Any time you have to explain a joke it is defacto a bad one.

And, what does “Philthy” mean? Is it supposed to be a suggestion of being “filthy”? Is your name Phil?
Yes and Yes - it’s a hybrid.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought you might have regarded my support for tester’s repeating the “subset” info a form of being “thrown under the bus” - it was a joke really. ** Any time you have to explain a joke it is defacto a bad one**.

I didn’t see it as your supporting tester instead of me.

Yes and Yes - it’s a hybrid.

So the name does indeed seem puzzling–why a reference to being filthy?

 

[TinaG]

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1:

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
cont’d

 

[TinaG]

My earlier point was based on Paragraph V above. If I am out in left field, so are all Reformed Christians. For those who would say, “Tina, I see you base your belief in a human authority, that is the WCF”, I would point again to the fact that the WCF insists on the direct work of God in the heart of the believer. I was at that point before I ever heard of the WCF.

-Tina “That Says it More Eloquently than I Can” G

 

[guanophore]

On a personal note: I enjoy a spirited debate: “iron sharpen iron”.
But I didn’t appreciate being accused of contempt for Catholicism and threaten to be reported for the EXACT same claims made by your Catholic brethren:

It may be that you are not aware that your attitudes toward the Catholic faith being contemptuous.

There is a bias on this board toward Catholicism. It is a missionary environment, so Catholic Answers have more value than non-Catholic answers. The purpose of CAF is to provide information about the Catholic faith, not to provide information from theologies who have departed from what the Apostles believed and taught.

When I provided examples of Catholic who made the EXACT claim the reply was.

Good examples, and glad you were able to show us where you had been misinformed.

Similar to calling someone who disagrees with Obama a “racist”

Seems kinda juvenile…

I though a retraction or apology may have been offered as I was accused of “contempt for Catholicism”

So then my choice becomes: do I “play” by these rules or not:

Do you think it is impossible for you to have a discussion without your contempt? I guess if you can’t then it is best that you not “play”, as your contempt will eventually get you suspended anyhow.

 

[TinaG]

No comments on the excerpt from the WCF?

-Tina “Jumping Up and Down and Clamoring For Attention” G

 

[PRmerger]

-Tina “Jumping Up and Down and Clamoring For Attention” G

LOL! I’ve never trusted someone who says, “I don’t like to be the center of attention.” Of course you do! We all do!

As for the WCF, one comment: where is the verse that supports their doctrine “Scripture interprets Scripture”? 2Pet 1:20 does not say anything remotely close to that.

 

[guanophore]

No comments on the excerpt from the WCF?

-Tina “Jumping Up and Down and Clamoring For Attention” G

Ok, if you insist.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1:

By what authority do the people take it upon themselves to depart from the confession of faith passed down to us from the apostles?
Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] ]/quote]

Actually, the Scriptures say differently.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

 Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

It seems that there is a foundational acceptance that God revealed Himself to the Church, but then a belief that God was unable or unwilling to preserve and propogate the Truth within that One Church He founded. The Church then is assumed to be apostate, and is classified as unsure in it’s establishment and comfort, and corrupted by the flesh. This assumption demonstrates the belief that the flesh of man (corruption) is stronger than the ability of God to preserve His word where He placed it.

It also makes the (false) assumption that everything committed by God to the Church is found written in the Scriptures. The Aposltes never taught this, nor was it believed prior to the innovation of such a notion at the Reformation. It is an idea invented to support the rejection of the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church.

I am not sure what the last line means - perhaps that God is no longer revealing His will to the Church?
Westminster Confession of Faith:

The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

And by whose authority are they determined to be Scripure? That is the question of the thread.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

The books were not "commonly called Apocrypha, except by those who rejected the teaching of the Church, which called them Deuterocanonicals. By whose authority then are they determined to be uninspired? And why these, but not the others which were included in the canon with them in 382? Where in the WCF do they claim that God instructed them to remove these books?
Westminster Confession of Faith:

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

This notion is another Reformation invention to negate the authority appointed by Christ. The Scriptures, though authoritative, are not an “authority to be obeyed” in the same sense that people are. The reason that authority is given to persons instead of scriptures is because the Holy Writings do not have the characteristics that are necessary to wield authority, such as ability to make acts of the will, discernment, abiliity to take responsibility, etc. These characteristics are unique to persons.

But yes, they writings are to be received as the Word of God.

 

[guanophore]

Westminster Confession of Faith:

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

While many of these characteristics are true of scripture, there are some here that are not entirely accurate. Scripture was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith, or to be “perfect” in the sense of being complete. If that were the case, then there would be no need for a Church. The Scriptures cannot be “infallible” because writings do not “act”,and action is required for fallibility to exist.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:

This statement is simply invented, and has no basis in fact.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

And what about subtracting? What was the reason to subtract what God had entrusted to the Church?

The CC also teaches that the public revelation of Christ was ended with the death of the last Apostle, but the Word of God that was committed to the Church were never traditions of men. This statement in itself is one of those very “traditions of men” that is being “added”! Committing the very act it states should not be done.

[12]
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

So, the traditions of men are ok, as long as they are not Catholic ones?
Westminster Confession of Faith:

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

This seems to accept that there are some parts that are hard to understand, as scripture itself does testify.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

The Church does appeal to the Scriptures, but in the matter of controversies of religion, this was not what Jesus instructed.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:

This is an absurd statement, since interpretation is a function of persons, not writings, however Holy. Yet, the CC does teach that the proper understanding of Scripture must be consistent with all that is written. One of the basic principles of scriptural interpretation, using the context in which it was written, was abandoned at this point, as the Reformers believed they could interpret it apart from it’s context.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

Yes, but the place where the most clarity is spoken is that Faith which produced the Scriptures.
Westminster Confession of Faith:

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

Another fine example of a tradition of men which is being added that has no consistency with the faith of those that produced those Scriptures, and which principle, being unscriptural itself, cannot be found within them.

 

[TinaG]

Hi!

I appreciate your comments. This is the first time I have heard any criticism of this, and it is interesting to see your perspective. Thank you for taking the time to write.

I may pick one of your objections, research it, and respond in depth.

-Tina “Not that I have any Depth” G

 

[Philthy]

Hi!

I appreciate your comments. This is the first time I have heard any criticism of this, and it is interesting to see your perspective. Thank you for taking the time to write.

I may pick one of your objections, research it, and respond in depth.

-Tina “Not that I have any Depth” G

Hi Tina!

Guanophore presented you with a lot to think about, and his commentary is excellent. I will not overwhelm you but will leave you with one simple thought: Anytime a group of people feel the need to explain something about the faith and to declare it as the norm, they are establishing a tradition. It’s really that simple. They claim to represent Scripture’s intent and they claim Scripture clearly articulates what they are saying, but they don’t simply let Scripture speak for itself, which is exactly what they would do if ALL of what they claimed were true. No research is required to acknowledge this point!

Blessings!

 

[TinaG]

Hi Tina!

Guanophore presented you with a lot to think about, and his commentary is excellent. I will not overwhelm you but will leave you with one simple thought: Anytime a group of people feel the need to explain something about the faith and to declare it as the norm, they are establishing a tradition. It’s really that simple. They claim to represent Scripture’s intent and they claim Scripture clearly articulates what they are saying, but they don’t simply let Scripture speak for itself, which is exactly what they would do if ALL of what they claimed were true. No research is required to acknowledge this point!

Blessings!

Hi, Philthy!

I think he presented the Catholic perspective on it, which you of course agree with. I do not, for reasons which either I need to develop further, retract, or understand better before I present them. I think most of them lie outside the confines of this thread. As far as this thread goes, I feel that I have answered it rather fully: this is why I accept the NT canon, and I really haven’t thought much about it past that. Some of Mr. G’s comments probably are several threads worth in themselves.

I think this thread is probably over. The question was asked and Protestants answered. It is not surprising that we disagree with each other. As a novice at this I am rather pleased that we didn’t dredge up the tired old invective one more time. May more threads be irenic in tone, though this one did have some departures.

I feel like I have made a few new friends.

-Tina “NOW let the Mudslinging, Wild Accusations, Back-Biting and Name Calling Commence in Earnest until They Shut It Down” G

 

[Zooey]

Well, since I have yet to answer the question that started all this:
The truth is, that I accept the NT canon because I grew up on it. As a tiny little girl, I can remember my great-grandmother reading the Bible to me–in Dutch, the only language she ever learned to read (& that on her own; she never went to school. She was a girl from a poor family, & she worked from the time she was a tiny child).
And then there was my grandmother, telling me stories of the monks of ancient times, saving the Bible for us, though they worked far into the night, by the light of a burning oily rag, to “save the Bible for us! Imagine how they must have loved Jesus, to devote their whole lives to preserving His story for me to read to you tonight”!
I was awestruck. I still am.
Indeed, the first time I saw a real, live, walking-around monk, I stopped dead in my tracks & stared…I often wonder what he must have thought of this odd child, staring at his hands, imagining them working through to the first light, to save the Bible for the world.
It would no more occur to me to tamper with the canon of the New Testament that was preserved for us, than it would occur to me to try to fly off the top of the henhouse.

It may not, you see, be a polished answer always, but when you grew up the teacher’s daughter, you knew the value of a book; and the Bible was above any other book in that world I inhabited.
And the history was always with us. It lived in our hearts, it grew in our minds. There was a sacredness to the lives that had gone before us.
Oddly, you know what, in that devoutly Methodist Holiness world? I heard about the debt we owed the Catholic Church all the time. It went with the territory: It was the Catholics who decided what went into the New Testament, & until the invention of the printing press, it was those fabled (yet very human, surely) monks who copied the words over, & over, and over again.
I still think the monks were the real heroes. Better than fancy dressed knights with fancy horses & fancy names any day of the week. They saw a need in God’s kingdom, & threw themselves headlong into the breach. If that’s not a hero, whatever is, then?

 

[PRmerger]

Oddly, you know what, in that devoutly Methodist Holiness world? I heard about the debt we owed the Catholic Church all the time. It went with the territory: It was the Catholics who decided what went into the New Testament, & until the invention of the printing press, it was those fabled (yet very human, surely) monks who copied the words over, & over, and over again.

I thank you for your thoughts, Zooey. They are honest and insightful.

One thing to add:
Once it is acknowledged that the CC discerned “what went into the NT” 2 conclusions must be reached:
-there is an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture that non-Catholic Christians submit to
-this authority was INFALLIBLE (unless, of course, you believe they made an error in determining the canon) on multiple occasions.