Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[tqualey]

Hi, FaithfulAndTrue,

I had a hunch those words sounded familiar…

Now, hang on that thought for a minute. The Nicene Creed was developed in about 325AD and the Apostles Creed in 390AD - and about that same time the Catholic Church forumulated the Canon fo Holy Scripture.

These documents are viewed by you as not only valid - but inerrant. Now, if there is no problem with the Creeds and the NT - how could there possibly be any question about the 46 Books of the OT identified in the Canon by the Catholic Church. These Books stood the test of time for about 1,100 years.

God bless

Hi tqualey,

A lot of that wording is similar to the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds.

 

[Philthy]

I read the faith statement from the EFCA. It is pretty minimalist - its less than two pages total. There really is no depth to it and as such it probably appeals to those lacking much depth. They barely address issues let alone the implications of those issues in the lives of believers. And, just for the record, they never declare what the NT canon is and they only claim that the ORIGINAL writings are inerrant, not the ones we have. We, of course, do not have any of the original writings. In short - the faith statement is very unimpressive, impractical and subject to change.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Translation: you don’t have a reasonable answer: when and how does God exercise his authority to interpret Scripture?

It could be better translated as: “I’d rather not keep repeating myself. If you want to know my response, please feel free to refer to my previous posts.”

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Hi, FaithfulAndTrue,

I had a hunch those words sounded familiar…

Now, hang on that thought for a minute. The Nicene Creed was developed in about 325AD and the Apostles Creed in 390AD - and about that same time the Catholic Church forumulated the Canon fo Holy Scripture.

These documents are viewed by you as not only valid - but inerrant. Now, if there is no problem with the Creeds and the NT - how could there possibly be any question about the 46 Books of the OT identified in the Canon by the Catholic Church. These Books stood the test of time for about 1,100 years.

God bless

I’ve never claimed that the creeds where inerrant.

As for the OT, the CC added the Apocryphal books to the OT (1546 AD) as a response to the Reformation (1517 AD). The arguments for and against its divine inspiration could easily be its own large thread.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

I read the faith statement from the EFCA. It is pretty minimalist - its less than two pages total. There really is no depth to it and as such it probably appeals to those lacking much depth. They barely address issues let alone the implications of those issues in the lives of believers. And, just for the record, they never declare what the NT canon is and they only claim that the ORIGINAL writings are inerrant, not the ones we have. We, of course, do not have any of the original writings. In short - the faith statement is very unimpressive, impractical and subject to change.

“…it probably appeals to those lacking much depth.”

Well that’s rather presumptuous (and insulting) on your part. You can find people who lack theological and spiritual depth in any faith based organization. I know I’ve met many Catholics who could be described that way, but that doesn’t mean that all or even most are …because that would be presumptuous on my part.

“In short - the faith statement is very unimpressive,…”

I don’t think anyone is looking to impress you.

“…impractical and subject to change.”

It may be subject to change in the same regard as the Nicene Creed has changed since it was first written. The exact wording may change and clarity may be added, but the theological core of it will not.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, FaithfulAndTrue,

I apologize - I jumped to a conclusion! You are so right - you never did say that the creeds were inerrant. I had assumed that since you had provided this from a church source you belived to be true (inerrant) that it all followed.

My point was that, the Catholic Church has a long history - and if you firmly believe that God is Three Persons and not three gods, that Jesus Christ is the True God and True Man, that Mary is the Mother of God and that Christ, suffered, died and rose again to save us from sin. These are all original Catholic doctrines. The same God Inspired Church that gave you the NT identified the inspired works of what we called the OT. And, yes, this is the same Church that Christ founded on Peter and said the Gates of Hell would not prevail.

As I see it, this is really a long string of unbroken articles of Faith that have developed as Christianity developed. It did not arise fully formed - a lot of the work moved from understandins to defined doctrine because of the work of heretics who wanted to craft their own set of beliefs.

Accepting the NT as inerrant yet rejecting other documents becuase they are not inerrant (e.g., OT and creeds previously listed for starters) puts one in an awkward position, in my opinion. About 1,500 years passed after the Canon was closed when removing 7 books fromt he OT was the new tradition of men.

At the time these works were put in the Canon, none of the original authors were alive or any contemporaneous witnesses. The Catholic Church is saying that the written documents were examined word for word and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit certain works were taken as Inspired. Other works were seen as holy and inspirational - but, not inspired. And, still others were seen as pure fabrication like the Gnostic Gospels.

My guess is that if your group is adhering to the NT - it really needs to examine why this set of books has been determined to be inerrant - on their own. This would be not piggy backing on the work done by the Catholic Church and doing original research to make a decision. Now, it should be noted that while original research is very good - the promise made by Christ to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them all truth - was not make to those who left the Apostolic Group. These were the first bishops of the Catholic Church.

The same really applies to areas of doctrine as identified in the Creeds previously listed. If your church is using these Creeds of the Caholic Church - what is the basis for thinking that they are inerrant? Could God have more or less persons? What makes us think that Christ was True God and True Man? Could Christ lie to us - like saying His Body and Blood were really hidden under the forms of Bread and Wine? Heavy issues for those wishing to form their own church as they leave the one founded by Christ on Peter.

God bless

I’ve never claimed that the creeds where inerrant.

As for the OT, the CC added the Apocryphal books to the OT (1546 AD) as a response to the Reformation (1517 AD). The arguments for and against its divine inspiration could easily be its own large thread.

 

[PRmerger]

As for the OT, the CC added the Apocryphal books to the OT (1546 AD) as a response to the Reformation (1517 AD). The arguments for and against its divine inspiration could easily be its own large thread.

Did you know that the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome in the 4th century, had the deuterocanons in them? They were removed by the Reformers, not added by the CC.

 

[Cat_Herder]

As for the OT, the CC added the Apocryphal books to the OT (1546 AD) as a response to the Reformation (1517 AD).

Negatory and negative.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve never claimed that the creeds where inerrant.

As for the OT, the CC added the Apocryphal books to the OT (1546 AD) as a response to the Reformation (1517 AD). The arguments for and against its divine inspiration could easily be its own large thread.

You should actually read the proclamations of the Council of Trent, before referencing them. If you read the decision regarding the Old Testament, you will see that they are affirming the traditional 46-book canon as found in the Council of Carthage, which is, in its own turn, quoting from the First Council of Nicea - not “adding” anything - nor allowing anything to be subtracted from it.

As no one had yet formally closed the canon of the Old Testament, they took the opportunity to do that, as well - but they didn’t make any actual changes to the canon that was used by St. Jerome in the early part of the 400s AD. (And yes, we know that St. Jerome disagreed with the canon at one point in his career, believing the Palestinian canon to be correct - but he was being obedient to the Bishops and especially to Pope Damasus and Pope Innocent I by including them, and ultimately he also came to their point of view, realizing later on that the Palestinian canon was created as an anti-Christian gesture by the Jews in 90 AD, and was not the canon used by Christ and the Apostles, as he had originally thought. )

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Did you know that the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome in the 4th century, had the deuterocanons in them? They were removed by the Reformers, not added by the CC.

I’m aware of the Latin Vulgate. They were included but they were not canonized until the 16th century.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m aware of the Latin Vulgate. They were included but they were not canonized until the 16th century.

No part of the Old Testament was “canonized” until then - the canon of the Old Testament was closed at the Council of Trent because this had not yet been done. They weren’t giving a different canon, or adding anything to the canon - they were just closing it, for the first time ever.

If you say that the Book of Tobit “became Scripture” at Trent, then you also have to say that the Book of Genesis (and every other book of the Old Testament) “became Scripture” at Trent - they were all at the same level.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jmcrae,

Thank you for an excellent post.

God bless

You should actually read the proclamations of the Council of Trent, before referencing them. If you read the decision regarding the Old Testament, you will see that they are affirming the traditional 46-book canon as found in the Council of Carthage, which is, in its own turn, quoting from the First Council of Nicea - not “adding” anything - nor allowing anything to be subtracted from it.

As no one had yet formally closed the canon of the Old Testament, they took the opportunity to do that, as well - but they didn’t make any actual changes to the canon that was used by St. Jerome in the early part of the 400s AD. (And yes, we know that St. Jerome disagreed with the canon at one point in his career, believing the Palestinian canon to be correct - but he was being obedient to the Bishops and especially to Pope Damasus and Pope Innocent I by including them, and ultimately he also came to their point of view, realizing later on that the Palestinian canon was created as an anti-Christian gesture by the Jews in 90 AD, and was not the canon used by Christ and the Apostles, as he had originally thought. )

 

[tqualey]

Hi, FaithfulAndTrue,

I Googled the following inquiry, “Where did the Bible come from?” and got a bunch of hits.

And, while there were numerous explanaitons on how the OT developed over time and the different writers that were involved - there was really very little history on the NT. Those that had any mention at all about the Catholic Church being involved in the process seemed to focused on the effort to withhold books or make alterations that suited the Catholic Church - but, that this fraud had been detected using UV light and modern technology. The NT according to the sites I read was really developed by ‘the early Christians’ preserving the letters that had been written by the Sacred Writers.

A steady diet of this type of distorted history being out there on the internet may explain a lot of misunderstanding that exists.

I am mentioning this just as a general observation… there appears to be a real effort to accept the NT but reject the source that provided the NT. Yes, the principal author is God who worked through the writers He chose - but, there were other writers out there - some like the Gnostics who only wanted to cause harm to the young Catholic Church. Make the decision on which books were inspired was done by the Catholic Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Rejecting or down-playing this reality is only to distort one’s own history.

God bless

I’m aware of the Latin Vulgate. They were included but they were not canonized until the 16th century.

 

[Philthy]

“…it probably appeals to those lacking much depth.”

Well that’s rather presumptuous (and insulting) on your part. You can find people who lack theological and spiritual depth in any faith based organization. I know I’ve met many Catholics who could be described that way, but that doesn’t mean that all or even most are …because that would be presumptuous on my part.

This is the same error you made when we discussed theological diversity within Protestantism and attempted to demonstrate that the same could be said of the CC since there individual Catholics have lots of different opinions. The issue above is not about “people who lack theological and spiritual depth”. It is about the credibility of the EFCA’s faith statement. The statement itself is very weak. The fail to define the canon of Scripture, they fail to define Baptism, its effects, its form, they don’t discuss the consequences of sin for a believer, they don’t discuss divorce, contraception, etc etc etc. I reiterate: “In short - the faith statement is very unimpressive,…” Read a single section of the Catechism of the CC, or the Augsberg Confession, even, and you will see what I mean. That ECFA statement is an embarrasment - ask any reformed Protestant and they’ll agree with me.

I don’t think anyone is looking to impress you.

I think you were in an attempt to add some level of credibility to the practical authority of SS to function by referring us to that statement of faith.

“…impractical and subject to change.”

It may be subject to change in the same regard as the Nicene Creed has changed since it was first written. The exact wording may change and clarity may be added, but the theological core of it will not.
And what, exactly, is the “theological core” of it, because they never mentioned that term and I am unfamiliar with it.