Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

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

This comment borders on contempt for Catholicism. It would behoove you, if you wish to continue posting, to show a little more respect for your hosts, Girolamo.

 

[Girolamo]

This comment borders on contempt for Catholicism. It would behoove you, if you wish to continue posting, to show a little more respect for your hosts, Girolamo.

Fair enough, and apologies. My mood in that comment wasn’t conveyed (or understood). I do want to ask if you know the etymology of hocus pocus. Maybe that will help clear it up?

But that’s twice that you replied without answering. The first time you indicated that Trent didn’t argue apostolic authorship (origin) in their decision on the canon. That’s crazy, man!

 

[PRmerger]

We are ALL equals before the King.

That is a very Catholic doctrine you’re professing.

A tradition of sin does not make sin a proper rite.

Who has declared sin “a proper rite”?

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.

Fair enough.

How does one determine which book is given higher priority or authority? Does Scripture tell us, or must we use an extra-biblical tradition to discern this?

For example:
– There is very little evidence that the Pastoral epistles were written in the first century, much less than by Paul himself.

Ok.

– There was no prophecy of a new set of scriptures, nor was there a dictate from God for there to be such.

Meaning?

– 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?

Is there something in Scripture that tells us what to do if this happens? If not, then I suppose we must use an extra-biblical tradition to discern the answer to this.

Incidentally, are you proposing that anything written by Paul is theopneustos? If so, how do you know this?

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.

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304qq.asp

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!!!

How is it you know that Paul’s epistles are theopneustos?

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough, and apologies

Accepted.

My mood in that comment wasn’t conveyed (or understood). I do want to ask if you know the etymology of hocus pocus. Maybe that will help clear it up?

Absolutely I do.

It was a disrespectful antecedent to the consecration in its origin; and your comment is disrespectful to Catholicism today.

But that’s twice that you replied without answering. The first time you indicated that Trent didn’t argue apostolic authorship (origin) in their decision on the canon.

Sorry. You’re confusing me with someone else. I never mentioned Trent in my posts here.

 

[PRmerger]

The first time you indicated that Trent didn’t argue apostolic authorship (origin) in their decision on the canon. That’s crazy, man!

Incidentally, are you proposing that you agree with Trent, a Catholic council, that apostolic authorship is a criterion for a text being theopneustos?

If so, then this seems to be an argument for extra-biblical authority, yes?

 

[Girolamo]

That is a very Catholic doctrine you’re professing.

Untrue! A member of the Roman Catholic organization is not allowed to interpret the bible for himself (or herself). This is a large part of what some of the reformation was about, as well as the reactionary response. In particular, I point to Tyndale who was murdered because he wanted the ‘boy that pushes the plow’ to know as much scripture as the priest class.

Moreover, the very structure of Catholicism (episcopalian) is against this. RC has a lot of layers of “better” in it.

Who has declared sin “a proper rite”?

My point with this comment is that a sinful tradition doesn’t validate that sin as a righteous act, just because it is tradition. Tradition is NO guide. Scripture is clear that there are famines and rains in the outpouring of his spirit and that those “rains” come independent of man’s organization.

The Pharisees were big proponents of tradition–and that is one of the primary reasons they rejected the Messiah. Are they justified for it? No.

Fair enough.

How does one determine which book is given higher priority or authority? Does Scripture tell us, or must we use an extra-biblical tradition to discern this?

Neither. Scripture and tradition are not the only hermeneutic tools. There are other areas of knowledge (science) that can help us. This is how we know that John 1 is referring to the logos of philosophy, not somehow the bible. Additionally, we know that the ekklesia was a political body, not a religious organization. This makes a major impact on how we view why the Apostles were persecuted. It wasn’t because of a religion. They were preaching about a new Kingdom, with a new King, and the Ekklesia (political body) of that Kingdom. Imagine if someone in the US were preaching about a new government, with a new type of leader (not just electing a different one), and a new congress! Historical perspective is paramount.

But going back to rightly dividing the Bible, I would place the “Histories” as foremost. By Histories I mean the Gospels and Acts. They are superior because they paint a ‘big picture’. They encompass all that Jesus and the apostles did, what they said, and what that means for us. Then I would put general epistles next. Any epistle that was not written to one regional group is also going to have a big picture approach. Hebrews, for example, is huge. It’s the explanation of the Old Covenant, with why and how it became the new covenant. It’s an instruction for all of us.

Somewhere down the line I would place the Epistles of Paul to the churches. I’m not saying his words were inferior in these, but in order to understand the specifics, it’s important to understand the big picture. In a sense, those who value the epistles over the Gospels (for doctrine), are missing the forest for the trees.

I would place Revelation next.

Lastly, I would place the Pastorals. They are almost certainly pseudopigraphs. How do we know they weren’t written by the ‘antichrists’ that James speaks of, who preach a different Gospel?

I put them at the bottom because 1. manuscript evidence against them as first century documents, and 2. they are completely different in their message. They allow for the nicolaitan heresy to thrive!

Is there something in Scripture that tells us what to do if this happens? If not, then I suppose we must use an extra-biblical tradition to discern the answer to this.

There’s nothing in scripture that told us to codify the works of his apostles in the first place. Personally, I would take them seriously–assuming authorship is validated.

Incidentally, are you proposing that anything written by Paul is theopneustos? If so, how do you know this?

Nope. But I do think that the words of the original apostles are to be revered over any tradition or decree of man. Scripture is clear that the apostles (12) are special (12 thrones in heaven, etc). We can’t take that lightly.

How is it you know that Paul’s epistles are theopneustos?

I didn’t say that. I don’t assume that they are. But they do give us insight as to what this crazy Kingdom is all about!! I mean, look at it from a historian’s perspective. The epistles are primary resources to what he and the other apostles believed.

 

[PRmerger]

Untrue! A member of the Roman Catholic organization is not allowed to interpret the bible for himself (or herself).

That, Girolamo, is a very uninformed comment. Catholics are exhorted to read, and interpret, the Sacred Scriptures.

Here’s an example: I’m planning a dinner party for 40 people and I’m stressing out about food preparation. Before the party I decide to go to Adoration, and before the Blessed Sacrament I open the Word randomly to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves.

I am certainly free to interpret that verse as, “Don’t worry, PR! I will take care of you! No one will go away from your home hungry.”

However, we must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic).

You believe this, too. You would not affirm a Biblical scholar who reads Scripture and concludes, “I interpret verse (A) to mean that there are many gods.” You would propose that he must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written.

 

[PRmerger]

Moreover, the very structure of Catholicism (episcopalian) is against this. RC has a lot of layers of “better” in it.

Again, you are professing a very uninformed understanding of Catholicism.

(Unless you can provide an example of Church teaching which proclaims that we are* not* equal before the King…)

And you’ll have to find something that contradicts this, from the Catechism:

It means knowing the unity and true dignity of all men: everyone is made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[PRmerger]

The Pharisees were big proponents of tradition–and that is one of the primary reasons they rejected the Messiah. Are they justified for it? No.

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension that customs, or man-made traditions, are equal to Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Neither. Scripture and tradition are not the only hermeneutic tools. There are other areas of knowledge (science) that can help us.

Fair enough.

Can you tell us what “other areas of knowledge” tell us whether these verses are inspired or not? (Google, BTW, is not an “area of knowledge” )

-My breath is offensive to my wife
-All generations shall call me blessed
-And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

 

[PRmerger]

But going back to rightly dividing the Bible, I would place the “Histories” as foremost. By Histories I mean the Gospels and Acts. They are superior because they paint a ‘big picture’.

I might declare, of my own authority, that “any author of Scripture who was present at the Sermon on the Mount is given priority over those who were present at the healing of Jairus’ daughter.”

[SIGN1]This is the definition of arbitrary.[/SIGN1]

They encompass all that Jesus and the apostles did, what they said, and what that means for us.

And what of the Gospel of Thomas? By what criteria do you reject its canonicity? Does it not speak of “all that Jesus and the apostles did, what they said, and what that means for us?”

 

[PRmerger]

There’s nothing in scripture that told us to codify the works of his apostles in the first place.

'zactly! You need an outside authority to know that the works of the apostles are theopneustos! :extrahappy:

Scripture is clear that the apostles (12) are special (12 thrones in heaven, etc).

LOL! That’s begging the question, isn’t it?

We (that is, Catholics on this thread) are positing that you only know what’s Scripture because the Catholic Church told you it was Scripture.

So each and every time you propose, “Scripture is clear about ____” or “The Bible says ___” you’re giving tacit authority to an extra-biblical tradition that has declared this to be so.

I didn’t say that. I don’t assume that they are.

As you wish. Then you cannot claim that “Scripture is clear” about anything. You “don’t assume” that it is, yes?

 

[kepha1]

Why do Protestants reject the authority that gave them what they think is authoritive apart from the authority that canonized the New Testament books?
I suppose Protestants accept the canon of the New Testament on the same grounds as they accept the Trinity as clarified at the Council of Nicae.

 

[Girolamo]

Ok, post bombing is not going to help the discussion. It’s a cheap tactic. There’s no reason you needed more than 2 posts to answer my one. But none-the-less, I will try to do you that same courtesy–as difficult as your post bombing makes it.

That, Girolamo, is a very uninformed comment. Catholics are exhorted to read, and interpret, the Sacred Scriptures.

Here’s an example: I’m planning a dinner party for 40 people and I’m stressing out about food preparation. Before the party I decide to go to Adoration, and before the Blessed Sacrament I open the Word randomly to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves.

I am certainly free to interpret that verse as, “Don’t worry, PR! I will take care of you! No one will go away from your home hungry.”

However, we must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic).

LOL. You don’t see the glaring doublethink in that?

Maybe it’s just ignorance. I mean that sincerely. Because what you described is not interpretation, but application. There is a very strong distinction. Those are all works of the Holy Spirit–who works on an individual level.

You believe this, too. You would not affirm a Biblical scholar who reads Scripture and concludes, “I interpret verse (A) to mean that there are many gods.” You would propose that he must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written.

No, he must interpret scripture according to the best of his knowledge. No one can direct the Spirit. All we can do is provide an honest and open vessel, and God is clear that he honors any who are willing.

You must also understand that I don’t fear wrong interpretation. I just don’t like the enforcement of it!

If a man writets heresy, God’s children will find him out. If God’s Holy Spirit is responsible for the writing, interpretation, and application of His word, then what man can screw it up for one of His lambs? But each person is responsible for who they listen to. Will you follow the Spirit, or will you follow man?

Again, you are professing a very uninformed understanding of Catholicism.

(Unless you can provide an example of Church teaching which proclaims that we are not equal before the King…)

And you’ll have to find something that contradicts this, from the Catechism:

The very structure of your organization does that. Nicolaity means conquering the laity. This structure of hierarchy that you have lords one over another. The nature of your priesthood is antithetical to the equality of the brotherhood. There was NO priesthood established in the first century. Your catechism misses the point. I never said RC doesn’t teach that humans are unequal in nature (that’s the Calvinist heresy), rather the nature of your organization.

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension that customs, or man-made traditions, are equal to Sacred Tradition.

There is NO SUCH THING as Sacred Tradition. Don’t you see all the exhortations agianst Judaizers and legalization in scripture? When Christ was crucified, he ended the need for tradition. There is no more temple. There are no more sacrifices. The veil between God and Man has been torn. You can see the iconoclasm of Paul in Acts 17.

Fair enough.

Can you tell us what “other areas of knowledge” tell us whether these verses are inspired or not? (Google, BTW, is not an “area of knowledge” )

-My breath is offensive to my wife
-All generations shall call me blessed
-And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

It’s nice that you engage in willful intellectual dishonesty, but I assume that the original question about “Protestant” beliefs was sincere. Perhaps I am wrong? I’m not going to engage with you if you insist on hacking up my comments in order to create straw men.

I might declare, of my own authority, that “any author of Scripture who was present at the Sermon on the Mount is given priority over those who were present at the healing of Jairus’ daughter.”

This is the definition of arbitrary.

It’s all arbitrary! Don’t you get it? Yes, some like to let others do the thinking for them, but that’s no excuse before God. God will judge every individual on his or her own merits, and “but I went with tradition” is no excuse, just as it was no excuse for Israel.

The Sermon on the mount is superior because it IS the words of Christ. The Gospels are the most reliable texts we have, and I have no reason to believe that Matthew lied. Given the choice between Matthew and “sacred tradition” I will follow Matthew.

And what of the Gospel of Thomas? By what criteria do you reject its canonicity? Does it not speak of “all that Jesus and the apostles did, what they said, and what that means for us?”

1. The Gospel of Thomas is well known to be a pseudopigraph.
2. The Gospel of Thomas teaches a different Christ than the one taught by the Synoptics

A better question might have been to ask my position on the Epistle of Barnabas. I think that it is on par with the pastorals.

 

[Girolamo]

'zactly! You need an outside authority to know that the works of the apostles are theopneustos!

You’re assuming I believe that they are!

Take the Federalist papers, for example. They aren’t law. They aren’t the Constitution. But they provide an excellent example of what the constitution is supposed to be about. In a sense, they (and the Antifederalist papers) were the witnesses to the Constitution. It’s THEIR interpretation. Likewise for the Gospels and the Epistles. I’m comfortable with following that. And we have enough evidence because of the synoptics (and other sources), that what is recorded about Jesus is likely true.

But this whole idea that specific, letters that were certainly revered, somehow become magic? No. God’s spirit is the end all. He speaks to individuals, not organizations.

LOL! That’s begging the question, isn’t it?

We (that is, Catholics on this thread) are positing that you only know what’s Scripture because the Catholic Church told you it was Scripture.

So each and every time you propose, “Scripture is clear about ____” or “The Bible says ___” you’re giving tacit authority to an extra-biblical tradition that has declared this to be so.

You have to remember that I am not a typical Protestant–if I can be called one at all. So you’re going to hear VERY different things from me. As I said in my first post, I agree that mainstream Protestants have to answer their cognitive dissonance.

I didn’t give any authority to tradition, in any part of my post. 12 means 12. Not a succession. This shouldn’t be a difficult concept to understand.

---

and now I know that a post can contain up to 6000 characters. So please, cut with the cheap forum tactics.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, post bombing is not going to help the discussion. It’s a cheap tactic. There’s no reason you needed more than 2 posts to answer my one.

Look, Girolamo. There are a variety of ways to post. None of the ways I’ve posted here is prohibited. I posted in the manner I did because I wanted to get the posts out there in short bursts, in between eating dinner and attending to other needs.

[SIGN]I am free to post in the manner I have posted. [/SIGN]

Again, it is not against the rules. So please refrain from commenting on my posting style–that IS against the rules of polite discourse.

In fact, I’m going to post this now and then attend to other things, and then come back do do another reply to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe it’s just ignorance. I mean that sincerely.

I appreciate your honesty. Many come here proclaiming they know what the CC teaches.

It’s refreshing to see someone acknowledge his ignorance of Catholic teaching.

Because what you described is not interpretation, but application. There is a very strong distinction. Those are all works of the Holy Spirit–who works on an individual level.

Please describe the difference between interpretation and application.

You’re proposing that non-Catholics are free to interpret Scripture in any manner that they like, and Catholics are not allowed this freedom? Is that your position?

No, he must interpret scripture according to the best of his knowledge. No one can direct the Spirit. All we can do is provide an honest and open vessel, and God is clear that he honors any who are willing.

Fair enough. So if he reads the Scriptures and concludes (interprets? applies?) that there are many gods, he is free to do this, in your paradigm?

You must also understand that I don’t fear wrong interpretation.

Ok. So if someone reads Scripture and concludes that God is not Trinity but a Quadrinity, then you’re good with that?

If a man writets heresy, God’s children will find him out.

Who determines if it’s heresy? An outside authority is required for that, no?

 

[PRmerger]

You have to remember that I am not a typical Protestant–if I can be called one at all. So you’re going to hear VERY different things from me.

Girolamo, if I’ve learned one thing after posting here over 6500 times, there is no such thing as a “typical Protestant”. Sadly, you folks have diverged into tens of thousands of denominations, each claiming their unique interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, that it’s impossible to know what any Protestant believes.

Heck, you guys can’t even agree on whether one should worship on Saturdays or Sundays, on whether baptism is an ordinance or a sacrament, on whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or had other children…:whacky:

Of course the things you say will be very different from moondweller, Dokimas, 1234, Richard Kastner, and all the Protestants who’ve posted on the CAFs. That’s the fruit of your divorce from the faith which was transmitted by the Apostles. Chaos and confusion. :sad_yes:

 

[Girolamo]

Now I know why the first century Christians didn’t permit a woman to teach.

 

[PRmerger]

Now I know why the first century Christians didn’t permit a woman to teach.

Why is that? Please elaborate. And, lest you appear contradictory, I’ll help you by reminding you of a comment you made earlier.

We are ALL equals before the King.