Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

So Sacred Tradition has the ‘missing’ words of Christ? And the world is able to contain ALL of them?

It depends by what you mean by ALL. Clearly the FULLNESS of Christ’s “words” have been completed and revealed in the Catholic Church. But, of course, the INFINITE wonder of God’s revelation cannot be contained in the world.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Oh, Faithful, absolutely it does matter. That is, if Truth matters.

Well, when you read my sentence out of context like that, it sounds that way, yes. Of course Truth matters. That wasn’t what I was saying. The point is, no two people in any church are going to agree exactly what the full theological Truth is. Differences within churches of any denomination or affiliation can be small or they can be great.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, when you read my sentence out of context like that, it sounds that way, yes. Of course Truth matters. That wasn’t what I was saying. The point is, no two people in any church are going to agree exactly what the full theological Truth is.

Fair enough. We seem to be disagreeing, then, on the significance of individual differences on spiritual or theological matters.

What Joe-Catholic in the pews believes is, indeed, irrelevant as it pertains to his representing the Catholic faith, if it is not consonant with the teachings of the Catholic faith.

And how does one know what the CC teaches? (See above reference.)

Now, what does your church teach and how does one know?

Differences within churches of any denomination or affiliation can be small or they can be great.

Yes. And it proves that the Bible alone (with the Holy Spirit, granted) cannot be the source of Truth.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Fair enough. We seem to be disagreeing, then, on the significance of individual differences on spiritual or theological matters.

What Joe-Catholic in the pews believes is, indeed, irrelevant as it pertains to his representing the Catholic faith, if it is not consonant with the teachings of the Catholic faith.

Right. And the same could be said for myself as well. Just because there are Mormons, JW, and other cults, is irrelevant to what the faith is at my particular church and it’s affiliations statement of faith.

And how does one know what the CC teaches? (See above reference.)

Now, what does your church teach and how does one know?

If you’re interested, here is the affiliation’s website… efca.org/

The statement of faith is listed here… efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

Yes. And it proves that the Bible alone (with the Holy Spirit, granted) cannot be the source of Truth.

I guess we’ll just leave it at agreeing to disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

Right. And the same could be said for myself as well. Just because there are Mormons, JW, and other cults, is irrelevant to what the faith is at my particular church and it’s affiliations statement of faith.

That’s not quite true though.

All of those faiths have divorced themselves from the Tradition which brought them the Sacred Scriptures.

Isn’t that the point of this entire thread? When one divorces himself, he finds himself floundering among partial truths and uncertainties.

If you’re interested, here is the affiliation’s website… efca.org/

The statement of faith is listed here… efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

Interesting. It’s the basic info that’s found in my grade schoolers’ religion books.

I mean this with no disrespect, but I do mean to say that it’s a very grade-schoolesque theology.

What’s not to agree with those very basic dogmas?

I guess we’ll just leave it at agreeing to disagree.

Well, that’s your choice of course, but I will continue this dialogue if not for you then for the many, many lurkers here.

I find many non-Catholic Christians have a very evanescent argument, and, in the end, leave for lack of refutation.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Right. And the same could be said for myself as well. Just because there are Mormons, JW, and other cults, is irrelevant to what the faith is at my particular church and it’s affiliations statement of faith.

Are you familiar with the recent huge debate over the “pre-millennial” part?

 

[pablope]

Well, if it sounded as if I meant to imply that everyone outside of the CC is unified, that is in NO WAY my intention and NOT my position. My point is that churches are made up of people and those people will believe vastly different things. It doesn’t matter what the official church denomination or affiliation is.

When you state “believe vastly different things”…where talking about the dogma of the denomination or interpretation of the Bible?

 

[pablope]

Oh, Faithful, absolutely it does matter. That is, if Truth matters.

Originally Posted by FaithfulAndTrue View Post
It doesn’t matter what the official church denomination or affiliation is.

I agree that it does matter. For a different denomination will stress one thing and another another thing…there is no unity of belief. And that, I think, humbly speaking, it what sets the CC when compared with the Protestants…there is universality of belief, of dogma, of authority.

 

[pablope]

Well, when you read my sentence out of context like that, it sounds that way, yes. Of course Truth matters. That wasn’t what I was saying. The point is, no two people in any church are going to agree exactly what the full theological Truth is. Differences within churches of any denomination or affiliation can be small or they can be great.

no two people in any church are going to agree exactly what the full theological Truth is.

I think you are talking, not of belief, but the understanding of that theological truth?

• Differences within churches of any denomination or affiliation can be small or they can be great.*

Isn’t this then the reason why there is a need for an authority to settle the difference, big or small? Otherwise, this is what you see in the present day Protestants where there are now 35,000 denominations.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Philthy,

Sorry I am late … just joined and have been reading up on past posts to this thread. Yours is an excellent post!

God bless

These are irrelevant speculations that don’t even begin to justify the plethora of theology that emerged from the Reformation. The fact of the matter is that sola scriptura causes a division in our understanding of what God is saying to us through Scripture. That is a fact.
That is what the Reformation has given birth to. That doesnt mean it is all bad, but that part of it - sola scriptura - has done nothing good.

Blessings!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, FaithfulAndTrue,

Well, I was unable to come up with any … so, since this can be done by you so easily, please…

Here is the question:

**Originally Posted by jmcrae
Name even one heresy that came about by declaring something as truth that isn’t based on some kind of misunderstanding of something from the Bible? **
Please provide at least one heresy and addresses this issue.

Thank you.

God bless

I could easily do that but I don’t think that is going to be a productive direction for this conversation because then we’re going to go back and forth on whether specific things are heresy or not—and we both know in the end that we’re going to disagree just as much as we did at the beginning.

The point is that you should be able to see how that philosophy creates a situation in which a heresy could just as easily be declared as Truth just as the opposite statement that was posed to me could (and has).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, FaithfulAndTrue.

You covered a lot of ground here … some of which I think needs to be reassessed.

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.

Based on that line of reasoning, FaithfulAndTrue somoking tobacco isn’t mentioned either - yet some justify condeming it from Scripture. Drinking alcoholic beverages - Christ and the apostles drank wine And, while drunken behavior is condemned, the mere consumption of wine (usual beverage at that time) is identified - they were not serving grape juice at Cana (not invented until 1869 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape_juice ) and even Paul encouraged Timothy in this regard. Oh, and don’t forget dancing. Now, the dance that took place in Herod’s court prior to the beheading of John the Baptist is not what usually takes place in most social gatherings today - or even in 1517 - yet some justify condeming it from Scripture. Actually, it would be more accurate to say, their interpretation of Scripture.

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?

Good point - - and really, what we are seeing here is the transition from the Apostles going to the Temple to worship and then (without actual buildings designated as churches) using existing structures - like people’s homes. You have just identified a major limitation.

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.

Here is where the rubber really meets the road, FaithfulAndTrue. The basis for this is that either the meaning of Scripture is quite plain and easily understood that any literate person can determine the proper course of action by simply reading what Scripture has to say about that particular subject. Another way this statement can be viewed is that the Holy Spirit will actually enlighten and guide the true seeker of God’s Will in a particular matter by merely reading what is already written in Scripture.

Maybe this will be seen as a ‘straw-man argument’. It could be! So, let me invite you to explain exactaly what it is you mean if I have misconstructed your statement.

The proof of error in these two statements lies all around us - with 20,000+ groups, assemblies, organizations, fellowships, gatherings, cults and the like - all claiming to be a church of some type, all claiming to follow Christ, and all disagreeing with one another on what a certain verse from Authorative, God-Breated, Inerrant Scripture really means. Truly the only thing these thousands of groups believe in is that the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) with Peter being given the authority to bind and lose ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he so choses(!) - is that the Catholic Church is wrong.

God is One. All of these groups teaching contradictory doctrines (the traditions of men) flys in the face of the Unity that Christ taught.

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.

For about 400 years there was no Canon. Catholics living during these times of terrible and murderous persecutions by the Roman Empire may have had some of the letters written by the Inspired Writers. But, the Inspired Writers were not the only people who wrote - and, as the gnostic gospels prove - some had real mischief in mind to discredit the belief of the Faithful of Christ’s Church.

As I see it, Solo Scriptura fails because not one of the schismatic groups would recognize the authority given by Christ to the Catholic Church - and they certainly were not going to defer to any other church in this matter of interpretating Scripture.

Of course there would be interpretations and churches being founded by “milk maids and plough boys…” at the time of Luther’s death. But, since no real limits were established by the schimatics, and everyone is ‘obviously’ Divinely Inspired to do whatever it is they are doing. then it must be at least acceptable.

Accepting the NT canon really did not mean that much - as long as it could be interpreted by anyone as they so chose.

God bless

 

[Tontodonati]

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?

The 27 books of the New Testament were deemed canonical by the Church of Rome because they reflected what the twelve apostles and the early Christians had learned from Jesus. Without the Church of Rome, the many separate Churches and sects in existence today would still be squabbling over which books should be in the Bible the same way they are squabbling over its correct interpretation.
The books of the New Testament were deemed canonical toward the end of the fourth century. The most important criteria for accepting them as such are the following three:

1. Apostolicity. An apostle or one of his close associates had to be the author.
2. Orthodoxy. The books had to be in line with faith, preaching and beliefs of the whole Catholic Church (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria of Egypt).
3. Liturgical use. Only the books which were used regularly during services by the Catholic Church were considered canonical.
   The current 27 books of the New Testament were suggested by the bishop of Alexandria of Egypt, St. Athanasius, during the Easter letter to his faithful, in the year 367. The same 27 books were approved by the synod of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus. It was later ratified by the synod of bishops held at Hippo, North Africa, in the year 393, and ratified again at Carthage, also in North Africa, in 397. The synod of bishops held at Carthage ratified not only the 27 books of the New Testament but also the books of the Old Testament included in the Catholic Bible to this very day. Pope Innocent approved the entire list of books in the year 405.

 

[PRmerger]

The 27 books of the New Testament were deemed canonical by the Church of Rome because they reflected what the twelve apostles and the early Christians had learned from Jesus. Without the Church of Rome, the many separate Churches and sects in existence today would still be squabbling over which books should be in the Bible the same way they are squabbling over its correct interpretation.
The books of the New Testament were deemed canonical toward the end of the fourth century. The most important criteria for accepting them as such are the following three:

1. Apostolicity. An apostle or one of his close associates had to be the author.
2. Orthodoxy. The books had to be in line with faith, preaching and beliefs of the whole Catholic Church (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria of Egypt).
3. Liturgical use. Only the books which were used regularly during services by the Catholic Church were considered canonical.
   The current 27 books of the New Testament were suggested by the bishop of Alexandria of Egypt, St. Athanasius, during the Easter letter to his faithful, in the year 367. The same 27 books were approved by the synod of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus. It was later ratified by the synod of bishops held at Hippo, North Africa, in the year 393, and ratified again at Carthage, also in North Africa, in 397. The synod of bishops held at Carthage ratified not only the 27 books of the New Testament but also the books of the Old Testament included in the Catholic Bible to this very day. Pope Innocent approved the entire list of books in the year 405.

Excellent.

Bottom line:

• an authority outside of Scripture was used to discern and proclaim God’s revelation
• this authority was given the charism of infallibility.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tontodonati,

An excellent post!

I want you to know that you really shocked me… honest! I had never thought of how much more chaos we would be having had the Canon not been decided prior to 400. You are soooooooooooooooooooo right … the fighting over which books to accept (in addition to their Sola Scriptura) would add a whole new dimension to utter confusion.

Serioulsy, for al the Protestants out there reading this - just think about it. There would be no end to the divisions … making todays splintering groups look truly solid.

God bless

The 27 books of the New Testament were deemed canonical by the Church of Rome because they reflected what the twelve apostles and the early Christians had learned from Jesus. Without the Church of Rome, the many separate Churches and sects in existence today would still be squabbling over which books should be in the Bible the same way they are squabbling over its correct interpretation.
The books of the New Testament were deemed canonical toward the end of the fourth century. The most important criteria for accepting them as such are the following three:

1. Apostolicity. An apostle or one of his close associates had to be the author.
2. Orthodoxy. The books had to be in line with faith, preaching and beliefs of the whole Catholic Church (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria of Egypt).
3. Liturgical use. Only the books which were used regularly during services by the Catholic Church were considered canonical.
   The current 27 books of the New Testament were suggested by the bishop of Alexandria of Egypt, St. Athanasius, during the Easter letter to his faithful, in the year 367. The same 27 books were approved by the synod of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus. It was later ratified by the synod of bishops held at Hippo, North Africa, in the year 393, and ratified again at Carthage, also in North Africa, in 397. The synod of bishops held at Carthage ratified not only the 27 books of the New Testament but also the books of the Old Testament included in the Catholic Bible to this very day. Pope Innocent approved the entire list of books in the year 405.

 

[jmcrae]

Sacred Tradition has the ‘missing’ words of Christ?

It is oriented toward what Jesus intended to establish.

An interpretation of the Scriptures that goes against the Holy Tradition can be known to be a false interpretation. The Holy Tradition hasn’t got a tape recording of everything Jesus said, but we can know that Jesus wants us to go to Confession, for example, because the Holy Tradition teaches us that Confession is a Sacrament, which is a sign established by Jesus that actually does the thing it signifies, for our benefit.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Interesting. It’s the basic info that’s found in my grade schoolers’ religion books.

I mean this with no disrespect, but I do mean to say that it’s a very grade-schoolesque theology.

I wonder if you would use the same measure for the Nicene Creed? It’s not like it is on a level that is infinitely more complex than this. Statements of faith usually are very cut & dry and to the point in their theology.

What’s not to agree with those very basic dogmas?

I know throughout our exchange that you are passionately against items #2 and #7. I also suspect you will be against the “premillennial” part of item #9 since that is not the CC’s position.

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder if you would use the same measure for the Nicene Creed? It’s not like it is on a level that is infinitely more complex than this. Statements of faith usually are very cut & dry and to the point in their theology.

I had asked what your church teaches.

In response to that same question I would never provide the Nicene Creed. I’d refer them to this: vatican.va/

and this: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#892

I know throughout our exchange that you are passionately against items #2

Not against #2 at all. How could I be against the Bible when my Church codified, compiled and preserved it for you and your church?

As for it being the complete revelation and final authority, well, the CC proclaims that the Scriptures are materially sufficient, but not formally so. Thus, one must understand this with greater than a gradeschooler’s understanding of theology.

and #7.

As will most Protestant paradigms which have divorced themselves from the faith of the apostles, #7 is partially true. I agree with #7, but not that the Church is not ONLY that which #7 proclaims.

I also suspect you will be against the “premillennial” part of item #9 since that is not the CC’s position.

That is true. I do disagree with #9. I stand corrected.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hello friend!

I think you and I had a fairly in depth discussion of this issue a year ago. We had made considerable progress (IMHO) but, if my memory serves me correctly, you had had enough for a bit…maybe I’ll go dig out where we left off…

The bottom line is not what we are contending, as you posit. The bottom line is this:
Why do you accept the NT canon? You obviously believe it to be a revealed truth of the faith. When, exactly, do you believe it was revealed? Who, exactly, revealed it? How, exactly, did they reveal it to you? These are relatively simple questions for an educated Catholic to answer. We always take heat from Protestants for adhering to the Magisterium, and get accused of a “traditions of men” faith. And yet, from our perspective it would seem that your acceptance of the NT canon is nothing but a tradition of men. So we want to know: WHY do you accept the NT canon?

Blessings!

Philthy,

I converted a while back…so I am now Catholic. As a side note, due to some injuries I can no longer compete in powerlifting and now am a svelte 230 pounds and losing more weight each week. As a benefit of losing the weight I can now runa few miles without feling like my heart is about to explode out of my chest.

PR thinks that it isn’t possible to have any certainty at all as to what is and what isn’t scripture without an infallible guide. I think that is an accurate summary…you can go back and search through the thread and see her answer to my question.

At any rate, this line of argumentation may seem like a convenient stick to beat over the head of Protestants but it is based on unsound thinking. For example, the Jews somehow recognized what was scripture without an infallible guide to declare what was and what wasn’t scripture. The church in the first few centuries had some idea, no matter how imperfect, what was and what wasn’t scripture. Sure there was debate and dialogue but it’s not as if it was total chaos.

As another example we can look at the canon of the OT. It wasn’t infalliblly defined until Trent and while there was some controversy surrounding the deutero’s it’s not as if Christians were in complete confusion.

Anyway, as Sproul has penned, a Protestant is pretty much left believing in a fallible collection of infallible books.

While I was Protestant I would have had no problem admitting that the early church formed the canon. I would not have accepted that the church at any point was infallible. I believe the more interesting question would be why accept the NT canon from the early church but not the OT canon?

There are many great Catholic apologists out there and a lot of really brilliant arguments to support our Church but there are also quite a few popular arguments circulated here that just plain overstate the case for the Church.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I wonder if you would use the same measure for the Nicene Creed? It’s not like it is on a level that is infinitely more complex than this.

If this sermon represents the EFCA at large, then the EFCA denies that Mary is the Mother of God for no good reason. Denying Her that title raises a host of old heresies, including Nestorianism, the one that the Nicene Creed was meant to root out.