Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[tester]

No, but** they had the final** say-so.

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

Emphasis added by tester.

It seems we have a different “world” view on how God works.

Ultimately, the church councils did not decide if a book was Scripture; **that was decided when the human author was chosen by God to write. **In order to accomplish the end result, including the preservation of His Word through the centuries, God guided the early church councils in their recognition of the canon.

If you want to say that the CC was a humble servant of God and was used to preserve His Word ; that’s fine :

Hardly a Protestant anywhere would have an issue with that.

But to claim the CC “decided” or “without the CC you wouldn’t even have a Bible” is in conflict with Protestant understanding of the Sovereignty of God.

The point is God doesn’t even need your, my, or the CC’s corporation to have His Sovereighn Will be done.

God can use unbelieving leaders like Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me………I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,”

Regarding Pharaoh: (Exodus 9:15)
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

Regarding Pilate (John 19)
Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above…

 

[PRmerger]

Ultimately, the church councils did not decide if a book was Scripture; **that was decided when the human author was chosen by God to write. **In order to accomplish the end result, including the preservation of His Word through the centuries, God guided the early church councils in their recognition of the canon.

I won’t disagree with you on this, tester, except for the “ultimately” part. The CC* did* decide, ULTIMATELY, what books were Scripture and what weren’t.

If you want to say that the CC was a humble servant of God and was used to preserve His Word ; that’s fine :

Hardly a Protestant anywhere would have an issue with that.

Ok. But what it leads to, ultimately, if one is intellectually honest, is 2 conclusions:

-Scripture is NOT the final authority on matters of faith and morals. Thus, Sola Scriptura is put to rest when a Protestant acknowledges that the CC was a humble servant of God and was used to preserve His Word.

-there is a thing as the Church being infallible, for unless you think the Church erred in discerning what was theopneustos, you must acknowledge this charism of infallibility exists in the CC.

But to claim the CC “decided” or “without the CC you wouldn’t even have a Bible” is in conflict with Protestant understanding of the Sovereignty of God.

It, sadly, is a* false *dichotomy proffered by some Protestants. There is no real contrast between saying “without the CC you wouldn’t even have a Bible” and the Sovereignty of God.

The point is God doesn’t even need your, my, or the CC’s corporation to have His Sovereighn Will be done.

Ok. But the reality is God did indeed use the CC to discern and preserve His Word for your benefit.

God can use unbelieving leaders like Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me………I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,”

Regarding Pharaoh: (Exodus 9:15)
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

Regarding Pilate (John 19)
Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above…

And believers like Peter and Paul, too, when they worked miracles. And Moses, no?

 

[tester]

Rejected because of Irenaeus you’re saying?
.

that AND the points earlier in the post

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

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapters 1 to 14

ummm … some of those were written yet by 180 AD

 

[tester]

I won’t disagree with you on this, tester, except for the “ultimately” part. The CC* did* decide, ULTIMATELY, what books were Scripture and what weren’t.

No : and that is the point we can not move past.

 

[PRmerger]

that AND the points earlier in the post

Well, then, you’re using an outside authority to determine what’s not inspired!

That’s our very point to put to death Sola Scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

No : and that is the point we can not move past.

Why can’t you move past it? You seem to have acknowledged that it was indeed the CC which, as a humble servant of God. was used to preserve His Word.

If it wasn’t “ultimately” the CC, when was it? Initially?

 

[Cat_Herder]

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.

This is the spiral argument for the proof of the contents of the Bible:

Short version: We know God exists from science and reason; God and history prove the Resurrection; the Resurrection proves the Church and her authority; the Church’s authority establishes the contents of the Bible.

Long version:
An unknown First Cause caused the Big Bang.
The Big Bang caused interstellar gas.
The interstellar gas caused stars to form, one of which is the Sun.
The stars caused planets to form.
One of these planets is Earth. Ice forms on earth as it cools.
The Sun warms and melts the ice into liquid water.
Life forms from the water and humans evolve.​

In 33 AD, a Jewish carpenter claims that there is a God Who is the First Cause responsible for all of the above, that He is God’s Son, that mankind is fallen, and that He is the Redeemer. He is crucified.
His Disciples claim He rose from the dead. The Romans, despite being a global superpower, were unable to exterminate these disciples and ultimately were converted themselves–which is impossible unless the First Cause referred to above caused both the Resurrection of the Lord and the victory of the Disciples.
The leaders of these Disciples, the Episcopate of the Catholic Church, with the Bishop of Rome as their leader, settled numerous disputes, one of which was what books constitute the Holy Bible.

Said Bible contains this statement:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 24:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Before 1500 AD the only Christians were the captial-C Catholics and the Orthodox. If both Churches lost any teaching of Jesus between 33 AD and 1500 AD, then Jesus’s promise that His word would not pass away was not kept and Christianity is not the true religion. You could claim that some Protestant came along after 1500 AD and “rediscovered” the lost teachings, but that doesn’t change the necessary consequence that some word of Jesus had passed away for a time, and He promised that this wouldn’t happen.

It is that simple.

 

[tester]

Well, then, you’re using an outside authority to determine what’s not inspired!

That’s our very point to put to death Sola Scriptura.

what definition of SS are you using?

try this instead:

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura** is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion**. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
."** Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible**,”​

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):The holy and inspired** Scriptures are fully sufficient** for the proclamation of the truth.

St Augustine:
This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

 

[Cat_Herder]

what definition of SS are you using?

Sola scriptura means Bible alone. You must prove that your definition of SS is authoritative from the Bible alone or else there is no such thing.

 

[tester]

Sola scriptura means Bible alone. You must prove that your definition of SS is authoritative from the Bible alone or else there is no such thing.

No i don’t: The Bible isn’t a dictionary (and wasn’t written in Latin)

 

[PRmerger]

As for the 4 Gospels, two were written by eye witnesses and two were written by close disciples of eye witnesses.

Incidentally, if you’re a “bible-alone” advocate, then the above comment is dubious.

How do you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were eyewitnesses or “close disciples of eyewitnesses”?

What Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew? Matthew the tax collector? If that’s your answer, how do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

what definition of SS are you using?

try this instead:

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura** is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion**. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
."** Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible**,”

Well, tester, they *all *fall apart, don’t they if you acknowledge that the CC was a humble servant of God and was used to preserve His Word?

For, Scripture was not used to determine Scripture (that begs the question of course!), and the ultimate authority on what is inspired is not Scripture but the Church.

---

 

[Cat_Herder]

"Cat Herder:

Sola scriptura means Bible alone. You must prove that your definition of SS is authoritative from the Bible alone or else there is no such thing.

No i don’t:

Then you have admitted the Bible is not the sole authority.

And they all lived happily ever after.

THE END

 

[jmcrae]

No i don’t: The Bible isn’t a dictionary (and wasn’t written in Latin)

Everything required for belief must be plainly stated in the Bible or else it is optional, is that not correct? Therefore, the belief that everything required for belief is in the Bible is - optional for belief, because it isn’t found plainly stated in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapters 1 to 14

Please cite where Ireneaus proclaims Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be the 4 gospels. I did not see that anywhere.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still building from this quote of yours
"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. "

I offered an example of Polycarp knowing that letter of Ephesians was scripture"

you replied in post 375:
Regarding Polycarp referencing the letter of Ephesians as Scripture; you stated that

then in post #381 you stated that the examples used was NOT Scared Tradition because Christain man , Trusted Traveler were not part of the Magisterium .

and now I am asking you "was Polycarp in 140 AD part of the Magisterium.? "

I suspect that you have a “gotcha” that you want to spring on us once the question has been answered.

Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. From the Wikipedia article:

“Magisterium” refers to the teaching authority of the Church.[1] This authority is understood to be embodied in the episcopacy, which is the aggregation of the current bishops of the Church in union with the Pope (excluding Eastern Orthodox Bishops and the Society of St. Pius X), led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who has authority over the bishops, individually and as a body, as well as over each and every Catholic directly. According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so either non-infallibly or infallibly.

Therefore, as a bishop, Polycarp was part of the Church’s magisterium. However, and this is important, individual bishops are not infallible. Consequently, although Polycarp was part of the teaching authority of the Church, he may have made theological errors if he taught doctrines which were not in union with the official teachings of the Church.

IOW, as part of the episcopate, he was a member of the Magisterium which is, collectively, infallible. Individually, Polycarp, like every bishop, could have erred on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It was “common knowledge” that Paul wrote Ephesians…
Paul had authority beacuse of his miracles and the eyewitnesses to his miracles:

Paul as an apostle of Christ wrote scripture.

So did Luke, and he was not an apostle. One did not have to be an apostle to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

More importantly, your phrase “common knowledge” sounds like a pretty good explanation for why the Bible itself does not record the details of Mary’s death and Assumption, infant baptism, auricular confession and so on.

Come to think of it, “common knowledge” sounds an awful lot like “Sacred Tradition” to me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I agree that the canon is not determined by the individual. That’s not what I asked. I asked how each individual KNOWS that the canon is correct. It is my contention that MOST (if not all) non-Catholics simply accept the book handed to them by the believer(s) who is (are) teaching them about Jesus. The book is just handed on from one believer to another at this point in history.

However, what happens when you travel back in time to see what was going on in the very earliest days of the Church? Non-Catholics would be forced to admit (if they could see history unfolding before their eyes) that the Bible was formed by the Church (not the other way 'round) and that the Church in question is undeniably the Catholic Church now headed by Benedict XVI.

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 rejecte
d Hebrews, are we to conclude that it wasn’t inspired? Or is it better to conclude that it wasn’t yet recognized?

Read by whom? Christians who were members of the one Church which began to call itself the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century? And no, the Church did not reject the Book of Hebrews since it appears in every list of inspired books from the fourth century on.

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.

It is correct that inspired scripture does not need authentication - no one argues that it does, and this is a popular, dog-eared, Protestant strawman.

However, the “church” that you speak of is not a bunch of proto-evangelicals; the Church of the period in question was undeniably Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Well, in that Irenaeus is contradicting Scripture (1Tim 3;15), he is wrong. But, based on other quotes recognizing Sacred Tradition, (see below) I suspect he is not dissing the Church, but rather affirming the value of Scripture.

“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser…” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2).

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):The holy and inspired** Scriptures are fully sufficient** for the proclamation of the truth.

Refuted here.

St Augustine:
This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

Indeed. This is quite consonant with Catholic teaching. Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally so.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No i don’t: The Bible isn’t a dictionary (and wasn’t written in Latin)

Yeah, you really do.

Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.