Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[TinaG]

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.

Hi Again! (Now that the thread is over)

I doubt you have ever read Warfield’s “Augustine’s Doctrine of Knowledge” in which B.B. Warfield discusses at length how we know things - including the canon. The arguments are both too complex and beyond me for me to failthfully reproduce here. He seems to be saying that Augustine held that the authority of the church was below that of Scripture. He discusses the “view that Augustine based the authority of the Scriptures immediately upon the dogmatic authority of the Church,” quotes Catholic theologians, and refutes them.

When I understand this well enough maybe I can bring his points forward for discussion.

-Tina “In Over My Head” G

 

[Philthy]

Hi Again! (Now that the thread is over)

I doubt you have ever read Warfield’s “Augustine’s Doctrine of Knowledge” in which B.B. Warfield discusses at length how we know things - including the canon. The arguments are both too complex and beyond me for me to failthfully reproduce here. He seems to be saying that Augustine held that the authority of the church was below that of Scripture. He discusses the “view that Augustine based the authority of the Scriptures immediately upon the dogmatic authority of the Church,” quotes Catholic theologians, and refutes them.

When I understand this well enough maybe I can bring his points forward for discussion.

-Tina “In Over My Head” G

Hi Tina!

Attempting to argue through Warfield that Augustine, a bishop in the Catholic Church who was later canonized by the Catholic Church and given the honorary title of Doctor of the Church, somehow held views contrary to said Church will not be convincing, IMHO. We’ll end up disagreeing with what he meant by what he said - just like what happens with Scripture…

Blessings!

 

[MarianD]

The Catholic church is older than the bible? The bible as YOU know it.

The Catholic church did not exist before God’s word existed. No one needed your church to recognize the OT Scriptures. Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture.
No one needs to posess infalibility in order for God to use them to recognize what already was Scripture.

#1: The Bishops who made up the Church (before it split into Latin and Byzantine AKA Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) were the ones who got together and decided which books would be part of the New Testament canon. Any historian will tell you this, as this is the most basic of Biblical knowledge.

#2: The Old Testament’s canon was decided by Rabbis. Kind of like how the Church decided on the New Testament…

#3: Peter was the Bishop of Rome. So you pretty much just said “The Church recognized a Bishop’s writing as scripture, and that makes it scripture”. You just backed up the Catholic view.

 

[onenow1]

If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?

Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?

Thanks.

Hi,
After reading all the posts have a terrible eye ache,anyway thought I would add this to the discussion.>>Where in Scripture did Jesus give instructions to His Apostles to write a NT Gospel?

I personally find the words of Martin Luther quite compelling to the topic at hand so it is interesting that in his Commentary on St. John,he said "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/sorigin.htm

St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 A.D.), an Apostolic Father of the Church, and the Bishop of Antioch, wrote the following letter as he was being taken in chains to Rome to be martyred. It is believed that in this letter, the words Catholic Church, were used for the first time. See the New Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) ref 830, note 307

God Bless
onenow1

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Again! (Now that the thread is over)

I doubt you have ever read Warfield’s “Augustine’s Doctrine of Knowledge” in which B.B. Warfield discusses at length how we know things - including the canon.

You are correct.

(Do you like reading that statement? I liked typing it! )

The arguments are both too complex and beyond me for me to failthfully reproduce here. He seems to be saying that Augustine held that the authority of the church was below that of Scripture.

Well, that’s why Augustine was Catholic, then, eh?

“Yet this Magisterium** is not superior **to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” CCC 86

 

[TinaG]

You are correct.

(Do you like reading that statement? I liked typing it! )

You have my permission to say it as often as you like.

Well, that’s why Augustine was Catholic, then, eh?

“Yet this Magisterium** is not superior **to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” CCC 86

What do you think of the distinction between the Church being a witness to Scripture, as opposed to the Church authenticating it? In the first case it agrees it is inspired, in the second Scripture is not inspired unless the Church says it is.

-Tina “Hair Splitter Extraordinaire - You Should See My Split Ends” G

 

[PRmerger]

What do you think of the distinction between the Church being a witness to Scripture, as opposed to the Church authenticating it? In the first case it agrees it is inspired, in the second Scripture is not inspired unless the Church says it is.

-Tina “Hair Splitter Extraordinaire - You Should See My Split Ends” G

The distinction is this: God used the Catholic bishops to infallibly discern which of the over 400 ancient Christian texts were theopneustos. So what was inspired was inspired, not because the CC made it inspired, but because the CC discerned that it was.

They were bound by the Word of God as professed through Sacred Tradition; they knew what it was that was taught orally, and then discerned which of the early “Christian” writings conformed to this.

Thus, if an early text stated something like Jesus miraculously made some of his toys come to life, they dismissed it, as this was not part of the Sacred deposit of faith that had been ORALLY handed down from the Apostles, and the bishops* they* anointed, and then the bishops they anointed…until the council of Hippo in the 4th century.

 

[TinaG]

The distinction is this: God used the Catholic bishops to infallibly discern which of the over 400 ancient Christian texts were theopneustos. So what was inspired was inspired, not because the CC made it inspired, but because the CC discerned that it was.

They were bound by the Word of God as professed through Sacred Tradition; they knew what it was that was taught orally, and then discerned which of the early “Christian” writings conformed to this.

Thus, if an early text stated something like Jesus miraculously made some of his toys come to life, they dismissed it, as this was not part of the Sacred deposit of faith that had been ORALLY handed down from the Apostles, and the bishops* they* anointed, and then the bishops they anointed…until the council of Hippo in the 4th century.

Well, it would have been inspired whether the CC discerned it was or not. I think that is what you are saying, and then following that, you are saying God caused the CC to discern what He had done in inspiring.

I think you are saying the Magisterium is subordinate to the one revelation contained in the Sacred Tradition and the Bible. If you maintained - and I don’t think you do - that Tradition is subordinate in some sense to the Bible, you have come much closer to Sola Scriptura than I think you do. We would say that you can know what is in Tradition by what the Bible says. You would argue they are interrelated, ja?

-Tina “There I Go with the German Again” G

 

[PRmerger]

Well, it would have been inspired whether the CC discerned it was or not. I think that is what you are saying, and then following that, you are saying God caused the CC to discern what He had done in inspiring.

Indeed. Similarly, God caused Matthew, Mark, Paul, Moses, Peter etc to write His inspired Word.

I think you are saying the Magisterium is subordinate to the one revelation contained in the Sacred Tradition and the Bible.

Yes. The Magisterium is its servant.

If you maintained - and I don’t think you do - that Tradition is subordinate in some sense to the Bible, you have come much closer to Sola Scriptura than I think you do.

You are correct.

Again!

We would say that you can know what is in Tradition by what the Bible says. You would argue they are interrelated, ja?

-Tina “There I Go with the German Again” G

Ja.

Where Sacred Scripture is, there is Sacred Tradition.

Where Sacred Tradition is, there is Sacred Scripture.

 

[TinaG]

Indeed. Similarly, God caused Matthew, Mark, Paul, Moses, Peter etc to write His inspired Word.

Yes. The Magisterium is its servant.

You are correct.

Again!

Ja.

Where Sacred Scripture is, there is Sacred Tradition.

Where Sacred Tradition is, there is Sacred Scripture.

Hi!

Are you saying then that there is nothing in ST that is not in SS?

-Tina “Polishing Off Her Magnifying Glass” G

 

[Cruxis117]

Hi!

Are you saying then that there is nothing in ST that is not in SS?

-Tina “Polishing Off Her Magnifying Glass” G

Not at all. It is merely that the two are intertwined. You can find many things from Sacred Tradition in Sacred Scripture, but Sacred Scripture came from, and is complementary with Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi!

Are you saying then that there is nothing in ST that is not in SS?

-Tina “Polishing Off Her Magnifying Glass” G

Well, there’s at least ONE thing I can think of immediately:

The canon of Scripture.

-PR “Case Closed!” merger"

 

[TinaG]

Well, there’s at least ONE thing I can think of immediately:

The canon of Scripture.

-PR “Case Closed!” merger"

Very clever and funny.

-Tina “I asked for It” G

 

[Girolamo]

I found this thread (and this site) by asking google to tell me why Protestants accept the canon. It’s not because I had no clue, but with a few tweaks I know how to find what I’m looking for. In all honesty, I was looking for something intelligent–at least something more intelligent than the dribble I hear from the majority of Biblians. At least the Catholics aren’t mind numbingly boring with their response. It’s easy, and that’s that.

The fact is, mainstream Protestants (I shudder to call them reformers) have very little intellectual integrity (or capacity–your choice). On almost every church bulletin you’ll find a “what we believe” section. Without fail, the first two are reaffirmations of Catholic dogma:

1. The absolute, inspired, and closed canon, and
2. Trinitarian dogma

Yet there’s nothing in the way of why they accept these catholic doctrines. Anyone who has a lick of Calvinism in them will claim that God’s sovereignty overrides any possible error. Of course, the logic in that (they use the scriptures to defend their position on sovereignty) is astounding–if not depressing.

Protestants who aren’t as articulate as the rapid Calvinists respond with even more hilarity, as seen on this thread.

Now, let me clarify. I’m not saying that the reformers should have just thrown everything out and started from scratch. However, the more we learn, the more we need to adjust what we believe. I believe it was in “On Genesis” where Augustine exhorted his readers to not be morons in the light of science. Good theology will always line up with the logical, physical, and other laws of science that God also created.

That said, the canon has some serious problems.

1. Several of the minor epistles lack credible evidence of apostolic authorship. In fact, the less reliable books become even more sparse the further back you go, until they actually disappear. Most of the Pastoral epistles are negligable in terms of apostolic authorship. So what do we do? Do we adjust in the light of science? No, the overwhelming consensus (catholic and protestant alike) is to stick our heads in the sand and reply with same tired old wineskins of rheoric. Catholics say tradition and protestants say either the holy spirit or sovereignty. All of those answers beg the question.
2. We have already caught the Catholics sticking their hands in the cookie jar with the Johanine Comma. How can we be sure they didn’t tinker with more?

There are more, but these are two important ones.

So, Catholics AND Protestants. Tell me about the manuscript problem with the Pastorals. Then defend the Johanine Comma.

Thanks!

 

[PRmerger]

1. Several of the minor epistles lack credible evidence of apostolic authorship.

Curious, indeed!

Who deemed “apostolic authorship” a criterion for entry into the canon?

 

[cooterhein]

I’m a little late to the party on this topic, but…

If you are Protestant, why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as being canonical?

In the interest of determining which books were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit, hundreds of men put centuries of work into getting it right. They were able to demonstrate that they rejected text that wasn’t inspired and accepted what was. I accept the results because they got it right and they demonstrated that they got it right.

As to the question of whether or not the Holy Spirit protected them from error, I (again) put it in the hands of the people responsible for doing the work. Did they say the Holy Spirit protected them from error? No, they did not, and it was over 500 years before anyone began to suggest that He did. The notion that God protected them from error in this way and that He did so entirely without their knowledge is certainly possible, but it is entirely without precedent and so improbable that I easily dismiss it.

Is it therefore impossible to know with certainty that they did not err, absent the protection of the Holy Spirit? I answer that it was within the realm of possibility for them to err, but we can know with certainty that they did not. Provided that they were able to clearly demonstrate that they did not err. Which they did. (Demonstrate, that is).

Specifically, how did you personally conclude that each of the NT books contained in your Bible are the inspired Word of God and that there are no others that should be included?

I haven’t duplicated the research of the people who initially canonized the NT, it that’s what you mean. But I have looked at their criteria for accepting some and rejecting others. I’ve had the chance to learn some things about the Synoptic Problem, how John fits in with the other Gospels, and the ways in which tradition succeeded and sometimes failed to deliver on the authorship of certain books. I’ve looked at the reasoning that went into some of the books that received serious consideration but were rejected, and I’ve spent some time on Revelation and the reasons it was such a hard sell.

As it turns out, they did good work. Not that I’m surprised. And it’s not really a matter of me giving it a seal of personal approval, as if that means anything. It’s more like I’m an observer of the work they did, and they were able to demonstrate (to me or anyone else) that they acted with good reason and they did a good job.

So that’s why I personally conclude that those 27 books should be included and no others should be included. I looked at the process that some of the books went through (particularly the more controversial ones), and I saw what anyone can see if they look at what happened: They did a good job and arrived at the right canon for the NT.

The Catholic and Greek Orthodox OT canons are a different story. It actually requires the exact same process of evaluation, but it leads to a different conclusion. From what I understand, though, this process of evaluation is rather foreign to Catholics- even for those who are apologists working at CA. I’ve spoken with a couple of them on topics related to this, and it seems like there’s a strong desire to eschew the evaluation process altogether in favor of picking the right people to put your faith in and assuming that they’re always right.

When I pointed out that the Catholics and the Orthodox each have esteemed leaders that demand this kind of faith and that they came up with different OT canons, the CA apologists were unable to tell me anything about what the Catholic people got right that the Orthodox got wrong, and they were unable to tell me anything about a particular book or chapter that the Catholics knew and the Orthodox didn’t. In my experience with Catholic aplogists, it all comes down to putting your faith in the right people. And seriously, it takes at least half an hour to get them to talk about anything else.

I’ve often wondered what it would be like to speak with a pope or some other bishop about what it’s like to be personally or collectively guided by the Holy Spirit to infallible truth that is protected from error. I don’t believe they actually are, but I’m still curious about what kinds of feelings they’d describe. I seriously doubt that I’ll ever have such an opportunity, though.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m a little late to the party on this topic, but…
In the interest of determining which books were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit, hundreds of men put centuries of work into getting it right. They were able to demonstrate that they rejected text that wasn’t inspired and accepted what was. I accept the results because they got it right and they demonstrated that they got it right.

As to the question of whether or not the Holy Spirit protected them from error, I (again) put it in the hands of the people responsible for doing the work. Did they say the Holy Spirit protected them from error? No, they did not, and it was over 500 years before anyone began to suggest that He did. The notion that God protected them from error in this way and that He did so entirely without their knowledge is certainly possible, but it is entirely without precedent and so improbable that I easily dismiss it.

Is it therefore impossible to know with certainty that they did not err, absent the protection of the Holy Spirit? I answer that it was within the realm of possibility for them to err, but we can know with certainty that they did not. Provided that they were able to clearly demonstrate that they did not err. Which they did. (Demonstrate, that is).
I haven’t duplicated the research of the people who initially canonized the NT, it that’s what you mean. But I have looked at their criteria for accepting some and rejecting others. I’ve had the chance to learn some things about the Synoptic Problem, how John fits in with the other Gospels, and the ways in which tradition succeeded and sometimes failed to deliver on the authorship of certain books. I’ve looked at the reasoning that went into some of the books that received serious consideration but were rejected, and I’ve spent some time on Revelation and the reasons it was such a hard sell.

As it turns out, they did good work. Not that I’m surprised. And it’s not really a matter of me giving it a seal of personal approval, as if that means anything. It’s more like I’m an observer of the work they did, and they were able to demonstrate (to me or anyone else) that they acted with good reason and they did a good job.

So that’s why I personally conclude that those 27 books should be included and no others should be included. I looked at the process that some of the books went through (particularly the more controversial ones), and I saw what anyone can see if they look at what happened: They did a good job and arrived at the right canon for the NT.

The Catholic and Greek Orthodox OT canons are a different story. It actually requires the exact same process of evaluation, but it leads to a different conclusion. From what I understand, though, this process of evaluation is rather foreign to Catholics- even for those who are apologists working at CA. I’ve spoken with a couple of them on topics related to this, and it seems like there’s a strong desire to eschew the evaluation process altogether in favor of picking the right people to put your faith in and assuming that they’re always right.

When I pointed out that the Catholics and the Orthodox each have esteemed leaders that demand this kind of faith and that they came up with different OT canons, the CA apologists were unable to tell me anything about what the Catholic people got right that the Orthodox got wrong, and they were unable to tell me anything about a particular book or chapter that the Catholics knew and the Orthodox didn’t. In my experience with Catholic aplogists, it all comes down to putting your faith in the right people. And seriously, it takes at least half an hour to get them to talk about anything else.

I’ve often wondered what it would be like to speak with a pope or some other bishop about what it’s like to be personally or collectively guided by the Holy Spirit to infallible truth that is protected from error. I don’t believe they actually are, but I’m still curious about what kinds of feelings they’d describe. I seriously doubt that I’ll ever have such an opportunity, though.

Thanks for your interesting and insightful post.

In the end, the point is that an outside authority (outside of Scripture, that is) was used to discern God’s revelation.

That, I think, is the conclusion of all of this.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your interesting and insightful post.

In the end, the point is that an outside authority (outside of Scripture, that is) was used to discern God’s revelation.

That, I think, is the conclusion of all of this.

Addendum:

An additional conclusion is the sacredness of the Oral Tradition. The Catholic bishops, in discerning which of the over 400 “Christian” texts where theopneustos, rejected those writings which did not conform to the Oral Teaching, that is, the Tradition, of the Apostles, as handed down by their successors.

Thus, the Gospel was whole and entire before a single word of the New Testament was ever written.

 

[kepha1]

Thanks for your interesting and insightful post.

In the end, the point is that an outside authority (outside of Scripture, that is) was used to discern God’s revelation.

That, I think, is the conclusion of all of this.

Addendum:

An additional conclusion is the sacredness of the Oral Tradition. The Catholic bishops, in discerning which of the over 400 “Christian” texts where theopneustos, rejected those writings which did not conform to the Oral Teaching, that is, the Tradition, of the Apostles, as handed down by their successors.

Thus, the Gospel was whole and entire before a single word of the New Testament was ever written.

I would re-word the OP question to:
Why do Protestants reject the Magisterial human authority superintended by the Holy Spirit who gave us the canon of the New Testament?

Oral Tradition is definately sacred, and was sacred to the Jews who orally taught infallibly from the Torah and if they got it wrong they were stoned to death. It’s funny how you never hear about sacred Oral Jewish Tradition when Protestants start re-defining Catholic Traditon. Just the few verses where Jesus condemns the traditions that the bad guys made up to impress the Temple leaders at the expense of their parents. So Jesus condemns all tradition? That flaming zinger has always bugged me.

Magisterial human authority superintended by the Holy Spirit is rejected for several reasons, many have already been mentioned and none of them hold water.

One thing I don’t think has been mentioned is the denial of the Incarnation Principle. This leads to the denial of Peter who binds on earth. It has led to the reduction of 7 sacraments to 2, and in some cases, none at all. In order to see how Protestants deny the Incarnation Principle, it must first be explained.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=560 (Dr. Jeff Mirus)

Here is a few quotes:
It is the basis of the Church, a visible society which itself serves as a living connection between God and man, a sort of meta-sacrament for the transmission and embodiment of grace…"

*"…By contrast, Catholicism flowers in nature, transforming and elevating not only man himself but man’s culture. The astonishing achievements of Catholic culture over two millennia—in art and literature, sculpture and architecture, education and government, work and play, fast and feast—are one and all rooted in the Incarnational principle. *

But even the Incarnational principle is not so much explained as demonstrated, not so much taught as lived. It was lived first by Christ Himself, born of Mary and protected by Joseph, in Bethlehem, in a stable, in a manger—and so at length in us.

I think Protestants fail to understand what we mean by Church, and it’s probably our fault for not demonstrating and living the Incarnation principle.

The Holy Spirit superintends the Church to teach infallibly, which includes the canon of the New Testament.

 

[Girolamo]

Why do Protestants reject the Magisterial human authority superintended by the Holy Spirit who gave us the canon of the New Testament?

I can’t speak for others by here is my answer.

1. There is no establishment of “magisterial human authority” in scripture. The polity of the Kingdom is quite clear, according to the words of Jesus. The servant is greater than the Master. There is no male and female. John exhorts against the sin of Nicolaity (quite clearly a reference to lording one class over another). We are our own priests. We are ALL equals before the King. A tradition of sin does not make sin a proper rite.
2. I don’t automatically accept every “book” of the bible as equal. This is one of the biggest failures in modern Christianity in my opinion. Not every book is equal, nor should they be treated as such. For example:
   – There is very little evidence that the Pastoral epistles were written in the first century, much less than by Paul himself.
   – There was no prophecy of a new set of scriptures, nor was there a dictate from God for there to be such.
   – What happens if Paul’s other letters are unearthed? Do we add them to the canon? What about the ones specifically eluded to in his epistles?
   – The Johaninne comma is an example where the “magisterial human authority” got it WRONG, and I think it’s quite clearly intentional, given the nature of the debates on the Trinity and the Trinitarian’s insistence on killing, excommunicating, and other vile actions against those who disagreed. Don’t worry, I also attack Calvin for his treatment of Michael Servetus.
3. Quite clearly Paul’s exhortations are recommendation and not decrees (dogmas). The reason each letter is quite different (with some overlap) is because they were finely tuned to a SPECIFIC group and their specific issues. So without some of the other letters, the ones we have are hypo-contextual!!!

But of course, I wouldn’t expect Catholics to follow this line of reasoning, given their penchant for hocus pocus.