Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[Cat_Herder]

And in Acts 20 the disciples came together to break bread and listen to Paul preach on the first day of the week.

Okay, but where did they do that—their homes, or a church building? (Acts 2:46)

Doesn’t the Bible say to sell all nonessential property to benefit the poor? (Acts 2:45) If you really believe in sola scriptura, you’d better find a way to justify that church building from the Bible alone, pronto.

 

[PRmerger]

IOK, I guess I’ll just have to continue to live my life with my established pattern of intellectual dishonesty

It would seem that some are willing to do this rather than consider the consequences of being intellectually honest.

It would necessarily mean their church, while professing the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith, is actually submitting to the Sacred Tradition of the CC.

And it would necessarily mean that this intellectually honest individual must conclude that the charism of infallibility exists–on multiple occasions!–within the CC.

But, sadly, some are so anti-Catholic that they would choose to be intellectually dishonest rather than follow where Truth leads.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Okay, but where did they do that—their homes, or a church building? (Acts 2:46)

Doesn’t the Bible say to sell all nonessential property to benefit the poor? (Acts 2:45) If you really believe in sola scriptura, you’d better find a way to justify that church building from the Bible alone, pronto.

First of all, the Bible does not say that churches MUST meet inside someone’s home. The Bible doesn’t have to contain a statement or law for everything you do (legalism). For example, it doesn’t explicitly say in the Bible that I can watch TV! So therefore, how can I justify watching TV?! That reasoning would be absurd. To me, this is the same kind of thing.

Second of all, if you have a church with a few hundred people, how is a building considered nonessential? How many people in a congregation have a home large enough to accommodate that many people?

Lastly, sola scriptura doesn’t mean that you can’t accept anything outside the Word of God to be true. It means that the Word of God is the final authority when there is a question or discrepancy. Traditions are fine, but if a tradition is contrary to the Word of God, then how can we say that it is acceptable? I would think Christians of all types would agree with that.

 

[PRmerger]

Lastly, sola scriptura doesn’t mean that you can’t accept anything outside the Word of God to be true. It means that the Word of God is the final authority when there is a question or discrepancy.

Well, if by Word of God you mean Jesus, then yes. But if you mean Scripture, then that paradigm is* contrary* to Scripture, and thus Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition condemned by Christ.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Well, if by Word of God you mean Jesus, then yes. But if you mean Scripture, then that paradigm is* contrary* to Scripture, and thus Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition condemned by Christ.

If one believes that the scriptures are the very words (lowercased) of God spoken through the prophets, Jesus, and apostles; and one also believes that Jesus is God (member of the Godhead), how can one conclude that the scriptures would ever contradict the Word (capital) of God (Jesus), or the Father or the Holy Spirit for that matter?

If you don’t believe that the scriptures are the very words of God spoken through the prophets, Jesus, and apostles, I guess that is the core difference between us.

I’d also be interested to read where Christ condemned sola scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

If one believes that the scriptures are the very words (lowercased) of God spoken through the prophets, Jesus, and apostles; and one also believes that Jesus is God (member of the Godhead), how can one conclude that the scriptures would ever contradict the Word (capital) of God (Jesus), or the Father or the Holy Spirit for that matter?

Now, Faithful, I have not said that Scriptures contradict the Word of God. I have said that Sola Scriptura, a man-made, non-Scriptural tradition, contradicts the Word of God.

I’d also be interested to read where Christ condemned sola scriptura.

You stated that Sola Scriptura states that Scripture is the final authority (see post below). ** Scripture actually states that it is the Church which is the final authority.**

[BIBLEDRB]1 tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Originally Posted by **FaithfulAndTrue **
Lastly, sola scriptura doesn’t mean that you can’t accept anything outside the Word of God to be true. It means that the Word of God is the final authority when there is a question or discrepancy

.

 

[jmcrae]

If one believes that the scriptures are the very words (lowercased) of God spoken through the prophets, Jesus, and apostles; and one also believes that Jesus is God (member of the Godhead), how can one conclude that the scriptures would ever contradict the Word (capital) of God (Jesus), or the Father or the Holy Spirit for that matter?

They won’t. But someone who is reading them outside of the Tradition for which they were written could easily interpret them wrongly, or miss things that refer obliquely to the Tradition, without naming it directly.

The Scriptures have to be read in context, and this means that not only do you have to read whole chapters instead of just isolated verses, it also means that you have to read it in the context of the same Holy Tradition that originally produced it, of which it is a part.

Keep in mind that the reason for establishing the canon of the Scriptures in the first place, was so that priests would know which books are acceptable to be read out during the Liturgy of the Word at Mass, and when praying the Divine Office.

If these questions had not come up, no one would ever have thought of establishing a canon of Scripture in the first place (let alone argue among themselves about it for nearly 200 years) - so, without the Catholic Mass and without the Catholic traditions around prayer, we would have no Bible, to begin with - there would have been no need for it.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Now, Faithful, I have not said that Scriptures contradict the Word of God. I have said that Sola Scriptura, a man-made, non-Scriptural tradition, contradicts the Word of God.

You stated that Sola Scriptura states that Scripture is the final authority (see post below). ** Scripture actually states that it is the Church which is the final authority.**

[BIBLEDRB]1 tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
.

So if there is a clear discrepancy between the scriptures and the church, you believe the church wins out? Keep in mind that the scriptures are the words of God. Unless you don’t believe that is the case?

If you accept that scripture has the final authority in discrepancy, that is sola scriptura. If you accept the church has the final authority in discrepancy, you deny the very authority of God because that means that His words in scripture must be incorrect.

Paul is discussing how important it is for leaders of the church to conduct themselves properly because the church is the pillar of Truth. And I totally agree with that—no church = no propagation of the Truth. Likewise a church with poor pastorship = no propagation of the Truth.

 

[jmcrae]

So if there is a clear discrepancy between the scriptures and the church, you believe the church wins out? Keep in mind that the scriptures are the words of God. Unless you don’t believe that is the case?

The Church is Christ’s body here on earth. It can’t act or teach except according to the mind of Christ (who is God), just as your body can’t act except according to your mind.

If we perceive a conflict between the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church, the problem is not with either the Scriptures, or the teachings of the Church, but rather, with our own lack of understanding.

If you accept that scripture has the final authority in discrepancy, that is sola scriptura. If you accept the church has the final authority in discrepancy, you deny the very authority of God because that means that His words in scripture must be incorrect.

The Church, since it is the author of the Scriptures, is the final interpreter of the Scriptures. Not us. We can potentially interpret the Scriptures incorrectly, because we are fallible, but the Church cannot, because the Church thinks with Christ’s mind.

When I speak of the Church, I am speaking of the organization that Christ established here on earth, with Peter as its first Pope, or Chief Shepherd, and the Apostles as its first Bishops, and which continues today under the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI.

Indeed, it is only because the Church teaches with the mind of God that the Scriptures are God’s word - because it is the Church who produced the Scriptures.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The Church is Christ’s body here on earth. It can’t act or teach except according to the mind of Christ (who is God), just as your body can’t act except according to your mind.

If we perceive a conflict between the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church, the problem is not with either the Scriptures, or the teachings of the Church, but rather, with our own lack of understanding.

The Church, since it is the author of the Scriptures, is the final interpreter of the Scriptures. Not us. We can potentially interpret the Scriptures incorrectly, because we are fallible, but the Church cannot, because the Church thinks with Christ’s mind.

When I speak of the Church, I am speaking of the organization that Christ established here on earth, with Peter as its first Pope, or Chief Shepherd, and the Apostles as its first Bishops, and which continues today under the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI.

Indeed, it is only because the Church teaches with the mind of God that the Scriptures are God’s word - because it is the Church who produced the Scriptures.

“The Church, since it is the author of the Scriptures…”

I think that is the core difference in our theological positions.

 

[Cat_Herder]

First of all, the Bible does not say that churches MUST meet inside someone’s home. The Bible doesn’t have to contain a statement or law for everything you do (legalism).

But the Bible says disciples of Christ must sell their property and give it to the poor. Please explain how your explanation differs from that of the Pharisees when Jesus questioned them regarding providing for one’s family.

Lastly, sola scriptura doesn’t mean that you can’t accept anything outside the Word of God to be true. It means that the Word of God is the final authority when there is a question or discrepancy.

Where are you getting this definition from? The Bible? I don’t think so.

Traditions are fine, but if a tradition is contrary to the Word of God, then how can we say that it is acceptable? I would think Christians of all types would agree with that.

That question is moot because no Catholic tradition contradicts the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspires both, so such a contradiction is impossible.

 

[Cat_Herder]

“The Church, since it is the author of the Scriptures…”

I think that is the core difference in our theological positions.

That the Scriptures were written by inspired men who belonged to the people of God?

 

[jmcrae]

“The Church, since it is the author of the Scriptures…”

I think that is the core difference in our theological positions.

What is your narrative, then, as to how we got the Scriptures?

Who were the holy men, inspired by God, who wrote them? What religion did they practice? What Church did they attend? How did they make their living? Can we know their names?

Or did God pen the Scriptures personally, and then drop them in book format from the sky into Jerusalem somewhere, to be discovered there by St. Jerome, who then, on his own initiative, started translating them and making copies of them?

Who was St. Jerome? What religion did he practice? How did he earn his living? During the forty years that it took him to translate and copy the Scriptures, was there anyone helping him? Where did the money come from, for the ink and parchment? Who cooked his meals, and how did that person earn her living? Why did it take him forty years to complete this task?

Most importantly - what motivated St. Jerome to change his mind about what books to include, some time around 405 AD?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

But the Bible says disciples of Christ must sell their property and give it to the poor. Please explain how your explanation differs from that of the Pharisees when Jesus questioned them regarding providing for one’s family.

I explained it quite clearly but you deleted that part from my quote. If you need even further explanation, how about Matthew 26:6-16? Keep in mind that you’re challenging me on whether or not a church building (a very modest one I might add) to accommodate too large a group of people to worship Christ at a house is appropriate?

Where are you getting this definition from? The Bible? I don’t think so.

Did you read the definition? Because if you did, you would see why that doesn’t matter.

That question is moot because no Catholic tradition contradicts the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspires both, so such a contradiction is impossible.

Fair enough. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that there are no contradictions. Just because there is presently no conflict doesn’t prevent one from ever occurring or one at least being proposed. How does the church discern whether or not a proposed tradition would be sanctioned? Surely at some point it would need to be confirmed that it at least does not contradict scripture?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

What is your narrative, then, as to how we got the Scriptures?

Who were the holy men, inspired by God, who wrote them? What religion did they practice? What Church did they attend? How did they make their living? Can we know their names?

Or did God pen the Scriptures personally, and then drop them in book format from the sky into Jerusalem somewhere, to be discovered there by St. Jerome, who then, on his own initiative, started translating them and making copies of them?

Who was St. Jerome? What religion did he practice? How did he earn his living? During the forty years that it took him to translate and copy the Scriptures, was there anyone helping him? Where did the money come from, for the ink and parchment? Who cooked his meals, and how did that person earn her living? Why did it take him forty years to complete this task?

Most importantly - what motivated St. Jerome to change his mind about what books to include, some time around 405 AD?

I consider the author to be the Holy Spirit. The human writers were merely the means as to which they were recorded in written form.

 

[jmcrae]

I consider the author to be the Holy Spirit. The human writers were merely the means as to which they were recorded in written form.

That’s not “a narrative.”

When you talk to your child about where he came from, do you just say, “God made you,” and leave it at that?

It’s true that “God made you,” but God has a particular method that He uses, that involves the material cooperation of mothers and fathers - and at some point, your child wants to know the details. He wants to know, what did my mother do, and what did my father do, to cooperate with God in creating me? How did they know (or suspect) that they were cooperating with God in creating me? (Or did they know, at the time?) How did God communicate with them, so that they would know that He wanted to create me, and needed their cooperation?

It’s also true that the Holy Spirit gave us the Scriptures, but that’s not the substance of the narrative. The Holy Spirit required the cooperation of human beings. Who were these human beings, and what, exactly, did they do? How did they know (or suspect) that they were writing Scripture? (Or did they know, at the time?)

 

[jmcrae]

How does the church discern whether or not a proposed tradition would be sanctioned?

A “proposed tradition” is a contradiction in terms. The Holy Tradition is the body of oral and written teaching that was left to us by the Apostles. The Church discerns it; the Church does not create it, or come up with it.

If a new insight comes about, it is carefully tested (just like the canon of the New Testament was discerned and tested - it was not simply plucked from thin air, or invented) to ensure that it is, indeed, part of the deposit of the Faith, and not something from outside of it.

Surely at some point it would need to be confirmed that it at least does not contradict scripture?

Not only that it does not contradict Scripture, but that it also does not contradict any other part of the Holy Tradition, either. It would not be enough, simply that it does not contradict Scripture.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

A “proposed tradition” is a contradiction in terms. The Holy Tradition is the body of oral and written teaching that was left to us by the Apostles. The Church discerns it; the Church does not create it, or come up with it.

If a new insight comes about, it is carefully tested (just like the canon of the New Testament was discerned and tested - it was not simply plucked from thin air, or invented) to ensure that it is, indeed, part of the deposit of the Faith, and not something from outside of it.

Not only that it does not contradict Scripture, but that it also does not contradict any other part of the Holy Tradition, either. It would not be enough, simply that it does not contradict Scripture.

Yeah, I know it sounds that way. That’s why I really don’t like to use the word “tradition.” “Insight” is perhaps a better word but still not totally encapsulating what I’m attempting to express. At any rate, I completely understand your explanation. My point is that if the church will not sanction something that is against scripture, then how is that any different than the definition I supplied for sola scriptura (something outside the scripture can be true but it can’t contradict scripture)?

 

[jmcrae]

Yeah, I know it sounds that way. That’s why I really don’t like to use the word “tradition.” “Insight” is perhaps a better word but still not totally encapsulating what I’m attempting to express. At any rate, I completely understand your explanation. My point is that if the church will not sanction something that is against scripture, then how is that any different than the definition I supplied for sola scriptura (something outside the scripture can be true but it can’t contradict scripture)?

The difference is that “sola scriptura” makes a lot of things “optional” that the Holy Tradition tells us are necessary, since part of the idea behind it is, “If I can’t find this commandment in the Bible, then I don’t have to follow it, if I don’t want to,” or, “If I can’t find any reference to this doctrine in the Bible, then I’m not required to believe it,” which opens the door to all kinds of heresy.

The Church will not sanction anything that goes against the Scriptures (adding a new Sacrament) but nor will it sanction anything that goes against any of the rest of the Holy Tradition, either (such as deleting any of the Sacraments, simply because they aren’t mentioned by name in the Bible).

Does that make sense?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The difference is that “sola scriptura” makes a lot of things “optional” that the Holy Tradition tells us are necessary, since part of the idea behind it is, “If I can’t find this commandment in the Bible, then I don’t have to follow it, if I don’t want to,” or, “If I can’t find any reference to this doctrine in the Bible, then I’m not required to believe it,” which opens the door to all kinds of heresy.

The Church will not sanction anything that goes against the Scriptures (adding a new Sacrament) but nor will it sanction anything that goes against any of the rest of the Holy Tradition, either (such as deleting any of the Sacraments, simply because they aren’t mentioned by name in the Bible).

Does that make sense?

Absolutely. I understand and can appreciate that perspective completely. However, reality is a delicate balancing act no matter which side of the fence you’re on because the opposite statement could easily be made: If it isn’t in the Bible, declaring it as part of the Truth opens the door to all kinds of heresy.