Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[joe370]

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.



Hey Randy, as a former non-Catholic I use to ask myself that question as well as this one:

If we were to hypothetically remove the Catholic Church from history, would we all still have a bible today? I concluded that the answer is no. Other than schismatic movements, teaching heretical things, no other church existed, and I might add, by hypothetically removing the CC from history, the EOC and all of the PC’s follow, leaving us with a history absent of all churches. Some no doubt will insist that we still had the other patriarchates, as if they weren’t Catholic Churches, but the were Catholic Churches, along with the rest of the CC’s in other geographical areas:

The respective sees, with their presumed apostolic founders, comprised the one Catholic Church:

* Rome (Sts. Peter and Paul)
* Constantinople (St. Andrew)
* Alexandria (St. Mark)
* Antioch (St. Peter)
* Jerusalem (St. James)

 

[joe370]

We’ve debated some of these topics before, and I’m happy to do so again. However, for the purposes of THIS thread, I simply continue to ask how God specifically revealed to you that the 27 NT books you have in your Bible are, in fact, inspired.

Well, as a former non-Catholic I would always point to 2 Timothy 3: 16, until I realized how circular that reasoning really was, just as it would be circular to state that the CC is forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth because the CC tells me so. That too would be circular reasoning, but we have faith, and it is biblical, that the HS is forever guiding the CC into all truth (unless someone here can point to another church built on Kepha that existed early on) - and if we didn’t then that would make the bible, which is the non-catholics final authority - suspect. Any non-Catholic, who does the research, can see that it was the CC via the various councils, that defined the canon of scripture. Thus far, no one here has come up with a viable alternative, other than to say: the canon of scripture, bound and codified, simply always existed and none of the books that comprise sacred scripture were ever questioned as to their divine authenticity, which simply is not true. 7 books of the NT were questioned as to their authenticity by some, in certain parts of the Roman Empire, for the first 300 years of Christianity, which was why the CC eventually convoked and settled the matter. If I am wrong, and some one can prove it, I will be the first to admit it.

To admit that the CC played a crucial role in determining the canon of scripture, is to admit that the CC is the church founded by Jesus, and that is why non-catholics here refuse to admit that, just as I did for so long, until I decided to remove my biases and my myopic glasses and see the CC for what it really is - the church of Matthew 16, but do love and respect all of the non-catholic churches too. Heck, most of my family (and extended family) - belong to non-catholic churches.

 

[joe370]

Hey Tina…

Actually, inspiration is an objective act apart from the Church deciding what is inspired. Apparently you believe Scripture is inspired only because the church says it is. God has been cut out of the equation.

-Tina “Probably Better not to Cut God out of Things” G

The CC cut God out of things? I don’t understand. Catholics believe in the inspiration of sacred scripture because of God, not because of the fallible leaders comprising the CC. The fallible apostles wrote infallibly because of God, and those fallible apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus, to fallible successors, who continued to safeguard doctrinal truth, and passed those doctrinal truths on to their fallible successors, who eventually codified sacred scripture, and we can trust that the CC councils included the correct inspired books in the bible, and excluded the incorrect uninspired books from the bible because of God, as opposed to the fallible leaders that comprised the CC in the latter part of the 4th century. God gets all the credit.

As a former non-catholic I always wondered where the Table of Contents, of my bible, came from, and the answer is: the CC via council. Heck, the 4 gospels as well as Hebrews, are all anonymous writings; it was catholic tradition that put a name to those books in the 2nd century.

The Shepherd of Hermas was considered canonical Scripture by some of the ECF’s, such as Irenaeus, during the period in which the NT was being canonized, but the CC via council eventually jettisoned it; why do you trust that the CC via council, got it right regarding a book that was, for a time, considered canonical? There were other books that are not found in our bible, that were also considered canonical, by certain CC leaders, but it was the CC via ecumenical council that eventually decided to leave them out.

If the individual Christian, today, can discern for themselves, matters of faith, morals and doctrine, as they are moved by the holy spirit, then so could the individual Christians in the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th century, that embraced those books, that are not included in our bible today, as they too were moved by the holy spirit, which could mean that those books, not found in our bible, could have been canonical after all, but I don’t think that you would admit that - would you?

Your thoughts friend?

By the way, could you elaborate on the following:

“inspiration is an objective act apart from the Church deciding what is inspired.”

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.

Your question presupposes that all Protestants believe that it is up to each individual to independently discern the canon for him/herself. That, of course, is a caricature perpetuated by Catholic apologists. I’ve never met anyone who claimed that the canon is determined by the individual.

Catholics are fond of using the argument that were it not for the Church [defined here as the Roman Magisterium], we would have no knowledge of the canon. That is demonstrably false on historical grounds. Virtually every book of the NT was being read as scripture in the early centuries of the post-apostolic church well before there was any kind of “council” that drew up a list. That doesn’t mean every book was read in every sector of the church all at once. For example, the church in Rome (the alleged See of the infallible Magisterium) at one point in church history did not regard the letter to the Hebrews as genuine, (which is sort of ironic, sine the author to the Hebrews was probably writing for a Roman audience). Eventually the eastern practice of regarding Hebrews as genuine (and especially the influence of Athanasius) won over Rome and Hebrews was accepted.

But for that time in which Rome rejected Hebrews, are we to conclude that it wasn’t inspired? Or is it better to conclude that it wasn’t yet recognized?

The way it works is this: Independent of our knowledge, the Holy Spirit inspires scripture. Then, through ordinary human learning, the church collectively comes to recognize the fingerprints of the Holy Spirit. So the church recognizes the canon, it doesn’t determine it. Can later “lists” of books be helpful? Yes. But to say those lists is the point when we came to “know” what is and what is not scripture is erroneous. One can only put on a list what one has already come to know is true. The list simply reflects our previous recognition. Scripture, being inspired, needs no external authentication so that the testimony rests not on man, but God.

 

[PRmerger]

So the church recognizes the canon, it doesn’t determine it. Can later “lists” of books be helpful? Yes. But to say those lists is the point when we came to “know” what is and what is not scripture is erroneous. One can only put on a list what one has already come to know is true. The list simply reflects our previous recognition.

Well, of course, Miguel. The CC discerned what is theopneustos.

The point is, you, as a non-Catholic, tacitly submit to the authority of the CC each and every time you quote Scripture.

And, because of this you tacitly submit to Sacred Tradition, and tacitly submit to the doctrine of infallibility (unless you believe that the CC erred in discerning that Revelation is inspired and the Gospel of Phillip is not?)

Scripture, being inspired, needs no external authentication so that the testimony rests not on man, but God.

But, what is Scripture? Is this inspired: “All generations shall call me blessed!”

And how do you know?

 

[tester]

Ok. But who decided that the criteria for authorship of Scripture is that

1. he had to work miracles
2. he had to be an apostle?

And, do the other authors of Scripture fit that criteria?

I think…no.

Did Mark work miracles?
What about Matthew?
And David?

No that alone is not the standard for all of scripture: I was talking about Polycarb and a one letter

Once again : still building from the PRMerger statement:

"Now, clearly, without the Catholic Church to tell you that this verse is part of the Holy Bible, no one of his own authority–using science, or logic, or geometry–could discern that this is inspired. "

As a point of logic; all I would have to of provide ONE example to prove the statement as false.

I was using the specific example of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians that in 140 AD Polycarp called it Scripture.

You moved the discussion from the specific to the general.

Granted Polycarp was a bishop; but in 140AD but by what “authority” did Polycarp decide that of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians was scripture: was it his own authority?

Is a single bishop or a Council of Bishops required to proclaim what is scripture?

In 140AD are bishops the only ones to recognize scripture when they saw it?

When Christian Leader reads the letter in public; would Strong Believer regard it as the Inspired Word of God?

Now we can go to the general : please explain how the Jews KNEW the Books of Moses and the Prophet Isaiah were inspired without the Catholic Church…

I doesn’t matter if every Jew every where believed that every book of the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired.

Keep in mind
That prior to the Council of Trent there was widespread agreement on what were the God Inspired writings that would become our New Testament even though in certain areas there were some disagreements about certain books.
After to the Council of Trent there was widespread agreement on what were the God Inspired writings that would become our New Testament even though in certain areas there were some disagreements about certain books.

 

[PRmerger]

As a point of logic; all I would have to of provide ONE example to prove the statement as false.

Ok.

And you would have to prove that Polycarp, as a bishop, did not have Sacred Tradition as his source for discerning Ephesians was theopneustos.

So, could you provide proof of this, please?

Granted Polycarp was a bishop; but in 140AD but by what “authority” did Polycarp decide that of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians was scripture: was it his own authority?

Absolutely not.

Is a single bishop or a Council of Bishops required to proclaim what is scripture?

In 140AD are bishops the only ones to recognize scripture when they saw it?

No, but they had the final say-so.

That’s the point of this entire thread, no?

 

[PRmerger]

When Christian Leader reads the letter in public; would Strong Believer regard it as the Inspired Word of God?

Whether he did or didn’t is irrelevant. Strong Believer may have regarded the Gospel of Thomas as inspired.

You do not.

Why?

Because the CC has told you that the GofT is NOT inspired.

That is the one and only reason you know with certainty that Ephesians is inspired and the GofT is not.

Now we can go to the general : please explain how the Jews KNEW the Books of Moses and the Prophet Isaiah were inspired without the Catholic Church.

Again, as I told you, not all Jews considered the Prophet Isaiah inspired.

See the Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots…

 

[PRmerger]

Now we can go to the general : please explain how the Jews KNEW the Books of Moses and the Prophet Isaiah were inspired without the Catholic Church.

**The Catholic Church **discerned which OT books were to be included in the Christian Scriptures.

The Jewish canon of 39 books did not exist as a codified unit until about 90AD, well past the establishment of the Catholic Church. Some Jews rejected some of the books by the Prophets (like Isaiah).

Christians, however, continued to use the old 43-book Old Testament, until the mid-1600s,

I doesn’t matter if every Jew every where believed that every book of the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired.

Huh?

Keep in mind
That prior to the Council of Trent there was widespread agreement on what were the God Inspired writings that would become our New Testament even though in certain areas there were some disagreements about certain books.
After to the Council of Trent there was widespread agreement on what were the God Inspired writings that would become our New Testament even though in certain areas there were some disagreements about certain books.

Ok.

That seems to be a point that a Protestant would not like to admit. It was a Catholic council, an infallible Catholic council, which discerned, for you, the canon of Scripture.

That is a testament to
-the authority of an entity outside of Scripture as the norm for the Christian faith
-the existence of Sacred Tradition
-the dogma of infalliblity.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Well, of course, Miguel. The CC discerned what is theopneustos.

If the CC is the church catholic, I’d agree. If the CC is the Roman Catholic Church (as I suspect you believe), then I would disagree. Many churches, not just the one in Rome was involved in that discernment process.

The point is, you, as a non-Catholic, tacitly submit to the authority of the CC each and every time you quote Scripture.

How so, exactly? Would you say that Roman Catholics “tacitly submit to the authority” of the Synagogue (Judaism) every time they quote the Old Testament?

And, because of this you tacitly submit to Sacred Tradition, and tacitly submit to the doctrine of infallibility (unless you believe that the CC erred in discerning that Revelation is inspired and the Gospel of Phillip is not?)

I’m just not following you here. What do we need “Sacred Tradition” and “infallibility” for and what makes you think, without Rome’s help, we’d all be reading the gospel of Philip right now? There seems to be a number of unstated assumptions in this claim. What might those be?

But, what is Scripture? Is this inspired: “All generations shall call me blessed!”
And how do you know?

Yes. I know because God wrote it. So how do you know? Wait…let me anticipate a response:

1. Because Rome says so. (But how do you know Rome is right?)
2. Because Jesus gave Rome primacy by virtue of Peter having established his see there. (And how do you know this?)
3. Because reliable church history puts Peter in Rome, his bones, etc. (So what?)
4. Because Peter alone was the “rock” upon whom the church was built. (That’s highly debatable, but even so, how would this entail infallibility?)
5. Because the gates of hell won’t prevail. (But why can’t that be indefectibility that applies to the church as a whole? Why does it have to have the specific meaning of infallibility in matters of faith and morals for the Roman Pontiff and the Church gathered in Ecumenical council etc.?)
6. Because Rome defined this about itself at Vatican 1. (Which begs the question.)
7. Does not (Does too.)
8. We can prove inspiration–we don’t just assume it! (No, you can’t. Inspiration is self-evident. You cannot reason to it with fallible human reason. You preach scripture, you don’t prove it. But go ahead and try.)
9. Start with the reliability of the NT backed by great manuscript evidence. At this point, we’re reading scripture as history, not an inspired text, lest we beg the question. (Fine–I accept this. Dr. Seuss has great manuscript evidence too, by the way.)
10. Then establish that Jesus was who he said he was and demonstrated this fact by rising from the dead. (I’m completely on board!)
11. Since he was God and we can believe God, then whatever he says goes. (Yep.)
12. He said he’s establish a church and endow it with infallibility and his own teaching authority. (Highly debatable.)
13. So if this church then says the Bible is inspired, you have it on Jesus’ authority that it is. (That would follow if Jesus did endow a specific church with that authority. But even if he did, how did that church come to know which books are scripture? Answer: in order for a book to be recognized as scripture, the book first has to be scripture. Thus the inspired scripture can be known without having to first be infallible. Otherwise you’d be saying that in order to know X, you first have to know that you know X. But by a second application of this logic, you’d have to know that you know that you know ad infinitum. Therefore, if X is knowable immediately, then we don’t need to first know that we know and so an infallible canon-discerner isn’t necessary in the first place.)
14. And the church that Jesus founded is none other than the Roman Catholic Church. (Again, highly debatable.)

Perhaps you have another way of answering this, but the so-called “spiral argument” for inspiration falters at many points and in any case simply can’t bridge the gap from human reason to certitude about divine revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

If the CC is the church catholic, I’d agree. If the CC is the Roman Catholic Church (as I suspect you believe), then I would disagree.

Absolutely not, Miguel. The CC is not Roman.

There are 23 Catholic sui juris churches (often called “Rites”), all in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Many churches, not just the one in Rome was involved in that discernment process.

Ok. But it was churches that had bishops, priests, the liturgy and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

How so, exactly?

In that you would not know that “All generations shall call me blessed!” unless the CC had proclaimed this to be inspired.

You would not know that Malachi 1:11 is inspired, were it not for the CC.

You would not know that the Gospel of Phillip is not inspired and the Gospel of Mark is, were it not for the CC.

Would you say that Roman Catholics “tacitly submit to the authority” of the Synagogue (Judaism) every time they quote the Old Testament?

Absolutely not. As stated earlier, the Jews did not codify their canon until well after the Catholic Church was established.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m just not following you here. What do we need “Sacred Tradition” and “infallibility” for and what makes you think, without Rome’s help, we’d all be reading the gospel of Philip right now? There seems to be a number of unstated assumptions in this claim. What might those be?

That, Miguel, is the essence of this thread.

How do you, a non-Catholic know that the Gospel of Phillip is not inspired and the Gospel of Mark is?

To say that “I know what’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” and “I know what’s in the Bible because it’s inspired” is simply begging the question.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m just not following you here. What do we need “Sacred Tradition” and “infallibility” for and what makes you think, without Rome’s help, we’d all be reading the gospel of Philip right now? There seems to be a number of unstated assumptions in this claim. What might those be?

The assumption is that there is nothing in this phrase, “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” that tells you it is theopneustos. One cannot discern using logic, science, inspiration, geology, archeology, astronomy, etc etc etc, that those words are inspired.

The only way you know them to be part of God’s Word is because the CC discerned it to be inspired.

Yes. I know because God wrote it. So how do you know? Wait…let me anticipate a response:

1. Because Rome says so. (But how do you know Rome is right?)

Right back at 'cha, Miguel. How do *you *know Rome is right? Perhaps you ought to be quoting from the Gospel of Thomas and telling your family that Jesus really, truly made animals come to life from the dirt while playing as a toddler.

The fact that you don’t believe the GofT is inspired is because, tacitly, you know that Rome was right in this discernment.

1. Because Jesus gave Rome primacy by virtue of Peter having established his see there. (And how do you know this?)

From history. Isn’t it mentioned in the Didache? I believe I read that.

1. Because reliable church history puts -]Peter in Rome, his bones, etc. (So what?)/-] the Church in Rome

1. Because Peter alone was the “rock” upon whom the church was built. (That’s highly debatable, but even so, how would this entail infallibility?)

That, by itself, does not entail infallibility. More on that later.

1. Because the gates of hell won’t prevail. (But why can’t that be indefectibility that applies to the church as a whole? Why does it have to have the specific meaning of infallibility in matters of faith and morals for the Roman Pontiff and the Church gathered in Ecumenical council etc.?)

It doesn’t specifically apply to the Church on matters of faith and morals.

1. Because Rome defined this about itself at Vatican 1. (Which begs the question.)
2. Does not (Does too.)
3. We can prove inspiration–we don’t just assume it!

'zactly!

(No, you can’t. Inspiration is self-evident.

That, with all respect, Miguel, is simply an absurd comment.

How could you could read “My breath is offensive to my wife” and have “self-evidence” of inspiration? :whacky:

You cannot reason to it with fallible human reason.

Why, Miguel, that’s exactly the point of this thread. You need *an outside authority, *something extra-Biblical, that tells you what is inspired. Scripture cannot testify to itself. That’s a nonsensical statement.

You preach scripture, you don’t prove it. But go ahead and try.)

Ok. I have no disagreement with you here.

1. Start with the reliability of the NT backed by great manuscript evidence. At this point, we’re reading scripture as history, not an inspired text, lest we beg the question. (Fine–I accept this. Dr. Seuss has great manuscript evidence too, by the way.)

Ok.

1. Then establish that Jesus was who he said he was and demonstrated this fact by rising from the dead. (I’m completely on board!)
2. Since he was God and we can believe God, then whatever he says goes. (Yep.)
3. He said he’s establish a church and endow it with infallibility and his own teaching authority. (Highly debatable.)
4. So if this church then says the Bible is inspired, you have it on Jesus’ authority that it is. (That would follow if Jesus did endow a specific church with that authority. But even if he did, how did that church come to know which books are scripture? Answer: in order for a book to be recognized as scripture, the book first has to be scripture.

Indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

1. Then establish that Jesus was who he said he was and demonstrated this fact by rising from the dead. (I’m completely on board!)
2. Since he was God and we can believe God, then whatever he says goes. (Yep.)
3. He said he’s establish a church and endow it with infallibility and his own teaching authority. (Highly debatable.)
4. So if this church then says the Bible is inspired, you have it on Jesus’ authority that it is. (That would follow if Jesus did endow a specific church with that authority.

Yup.

But even if he did, how did that church come to know which books are scripture? Answer: in order for a book to be recognized as scripture, the book first has to be scripture.

Ok.

Thus the inspired scripture can be known without having to first be infallible.

Ok. And how did it “come to be known”?

That’s the question I’m dying to hear answered on this thread by non-Catholics!

By the witness of the early Christians?

By osmosis?

How?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Well, for starters, Peter refers to Paul’s letters indirectly as scripture in that, after speaking about them, he says “the rest of the Scriptures” which I take to mean the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament. That seems to indicate that Paul’s letters were widely circulated throughout the early Church and considered to be Scripture very early on.

2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation ; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

As for the 4 Gospels, two were written by eye witnesses and two were written by close disciples of eye witnesses. Also there are no conflicts between them. Other “gospels” were not written by eye witnesses nor by direct disciples of an eye witness, they were written a couple to a few centuries later and contain theological conflicts.

As for the remainder of the NT…

Acts was written by Luke who was a close disciple of Paul. Based on that and the credibility of his Gospel, I can easily reconcile it as inspired.

1 Peter & 2 Peter, which Peter was obviously an eye witness.

1 John, 2 John, 3 John, & Revelation were all written by John who was an eye witness.

James was written by James the half brother of Jesus. While we may disagree on his kinship or not, either way, he was a witness. It’s clear to me when reading James that it is inspired and is theologically consistent with the other NT books.

The authorship of Hebrews is unknown but it’s theologically consistent and seems to be obviously (to me) inspired when I read it.

Jude is written by the “brother of James” which would make him an eye witness. Jude also is theologically consistent and seems to be obviously (to me) inspired.

 

[tester]

That, Miguel, is the essence of this thread.

How do you, a non-Catholic know that the Gospel of Phillip is not inspired and the Gospel of Mark is?

To say that “I know what’s inspired because it’s in the Bible” and “I know what’s in the Bible because it’s inspired” is simply begging the question.

The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 300 AD, while Philip himself died 80 AD, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing.
Most scholars hold a 3rd century date of composition. The gospel of Philip was NOT written by the Apostle Philip or anyone who had ever met Jesus or an Apostle. The original writing of the gospel of Philip is dated to the 3rd century A.D. at the earliest, at least 200 years after Jesus’ death. The only value in studying the gospel of Philip is in learning what heresies existed in the early centuries of the Christian church.

By AD 180, the four gospels had clearly established themselves as the key witnesses to Jesus as several ancient witnesses make clear.

And by 180 A.D. Irenaeus (c 130-202 A.D.) wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: “The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…”

about 150 years prior to the First Council of Nicaea

There ya go: gospel of Philip REJECTED

BTW How did Irenaeus discern that Mathew . Mark, Luke , and John were even scripture to begin with? Did he meet with a Council of Bishops?

 

[PRmerger]

Otherwise you’d be saying that in order to know X, you first have to know that you know X.

Not at all. I may not know what to do, and after prayer discern that I must do X.

But by a second application of this logic, you’d have to know that you know that you know ad infinitum. Therefore, if X is knowable immediately,

Who says that X (that is, the canon of Scripture) was knowable immediately?

 

[PRmerger]

The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 300 AD, while Philip himself died 80 AD, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing.

Ok. Irrelevant, but ok.

Most scholars hold a 3rd century date of composition. The gospel of Philip was NOT written by the Apostle Philip or anyone who had ever met Jesus or an Apostle.

Ok. But, again, tester, who made the criterion that one had to have met Jesus or be an apostle in order for his writings to be considered theopneustos?

Does Scripture state this is a requirement?

The original writing of the gospel of Philip is dated to the 3rd century A.D. at the earliest, at least 200 years after Jesus’ death. The only value in studying the gospel of Philip is in learning what heresies existed in the early centuries of the Christian church.

By AD 180, the four gospels had clearly established themselves as the key witnesses to Jesus as several ancient witnesses make clear.

Source?

And by 180 A.D. Irenaeus (c 130-202 A.D.) wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: “The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…”

about 150 years prior to the First Council of Nicaea

There ya go: gospel of Philip REJECTED

Rejected because of Irenaeus you’re saying?

BTW How did Irenaeus discern that Mathew . Mark, Luke , and John were even scripture to begin with? Did he meet with a Council of Bishops?

Please provide your source that he discerned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and not Thomas, Philip, Paul and Matthew.

 

[jmcrae]

Not at all. I may not know what to do, and after prayer discern that I must do X.

Who says that X (that is, the canon of Scripture) was knowable immediately?

A lot of Bishops argued for a really long time over nothing, if it was.

The Canon of the New Testament wasn’t discerned until the late 300s AD, and wasn’t declared closed until Pope Innocent I did so, in about 405 AD, when he promulgated the Canon of the New Testament to every Christian parish on earth (since all of them were in full communion with him and under obedience to him at that time) and, due to the obligation of obedience to the Pope, all disputes among the Bishops regarding what is and what is not to be considered the New Testament (which had been going on for 200 years by that time) stopped, and the monasteries took on the job of making a copy of the Scriptures for every parish in Christendom - a task that took a very long time, but resulted in such treasures as the Book of Kells and the Lindesfarne Gospels, among others.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, for starters, Peter refers to Paul’s letters indirectly as scripture in that, after speaking about them, he says “the rest of the Scriptures” which I take to mean the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament. That seems to indicate that Paul’s letters were widely circulated throughout the early Church and considered to be Scripture very early on.

Indeed. And how did a person discern that Peter’s letters and not the Epistle of Barnabas was inspired?

As for the 4 Gospels, two were written by eye witnesses and two were written by close disciples of eye witnesses. Also there are no conflicts between them. Other “gospels” were not written by eye witnesses nor by direct disciples of an eye witness, they were written a couple to a few centuries later and contain theological conflicts.

And, does Scripture tell us that one had to be an eyewitness or “close disciple of the eye witness” to be considered inspired?

Or are you promoting a tradition not found in Scripture?

As for the remainder of the NT…

Acts was written by Luke who was a close disciple of Paul. Based on that and the credibility of his Gospel, I can easily reconcile it as inspired.

Based on what? Firstly, where does Acts say it was written by Luke?

1 Peter & 2 Peter, which Peter was obviously an eye witness.

Again, is this a tradition you’re following that Scriptures had to be written by an eyewitness?

Or do you have a chapter and verse from Scripture that says this is required?

The authorship of Hebrews is unknown but it’s theologically consistent and seems to be obviously (to me) inspired when I read it.

Well! It sounds as if you’re saying that authorship doesn’t really matter?

These are arbitrary criteria you’ve established:
-must be an eyewitness
-but if we don’t even know who wrote it, it’s ok, 'cause we’re going to assume he was an eyewitness 'cause he says things that others said.



If it’s “theologically consistent” it *sounds *like you’re talking about Sacred Tradition. They had the teachings and theology first, then wrote it down. Yes?
]