How was the Protestant Canon Divinely Inspired?

[Nihilist Virus]

That which is excluded from a religious text is more important than that which is included. We can at least agree that this is true for Christianity, since any missionary would rather give out a text that only contains the Gospel of John rather than a text that contains all of the gospels, including the ones that were deemed heretical.

Since Protestants disavow the Apocrypha, we can conclude that their Bible was not finished until the Apocrypha was officially removed.

So we're left wondering a few things. What was the Holy Spirit doing for over a thousand years while every copy of the Bible contained the Apocrypha? If the Holy Spirit divinely inspired the removal of the Apocrypha, then he did so through Martin Luther. Why, then, did Martin Luther leave the Apocrypha in the Bible? He reorganized the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and put them at the end, renaming them as "Apocrypha." Why not remove them if he's divinely inspired? The Apocrypha weren't officially removed from Protestant Bibles until centuries later. Further, if Martin Luther was divinely inspired, why did he also doubt the authenticity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation?

I understand that there is the theme of God using flawed vessels to accomplish his will, such as Moses and Gideon. But don't they have to actually get the job done? Martin Luther didn't get the job done, and it's difficult to accept that his opinions on what should or shouldn't be canon were divinely inspired due to his views of the aforementioned New Testament books. And even if we were to accept that Martin Luther was divinely inspired, the question still stands: what was the Holy Spirit doing for over a thousand years? "Jesus didn't quote the Apocrypha" or "the Jews rejected the Apocrypha" are off topic as they don't address the issues above.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How was the Protestant Canon Divinely Inspired?

All Scripture was Divinely Inspired.

How ?

By Yahuweh (God) (HE IS DIVINE).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How was the Protestant Canon Divinely Inspired?

All Scripture was Divinely Inspired.

How ?

By Yahuweh (God) (HE IS DIVINE).

Please no sarcastic comments. It's a serious question. Thanks.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Please no sarcastic comments. It's a serious question. Thanks.

No sarcasm used.
I answered DIRECTLY FROM GOD'S WORD.

Accept His Word, or not.

 

[HTacianas]

How was the Protestant Canon Divinely Inspired?

All Scripture was Divinely Inspired.

How ?

By Yahuweh (God) (HE IS DIVINE).

That doesn't really answer the question. If all scripture is divinely inspired, how do we know what scripture is?

Were the books of the Septuagint divinely inspired or only the books of the later Jewish canon?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

When this subject typically comes up the usual answers revolve around the notion that these books were not the removed, but they were not formally accepted into "the Hebrew canon", but there were in fact 3 approaches to canon books in ancient Israel prior to the Roman-Judean wars, according to Josephus. (the Saducees only formally recognized the Pentateuch, the Pharisees the Protestant canon more or less, while the Essenes view was very loose not really having a strict view, where they freely used the Deutero-canonical books as well as certain apocrypha like the book of Enoch.) Besides this the use of individual scrolls were standard! (Without the invention of a Codex, aka ancient books in Ad 200+, there really wouldn't be any Canonization issues so to to speak until the council of Jamnia that started the compiling of the Talmud etc. which also formally excluded the more recent books (The NT, Deuterocanonicals and apocrypha) from "The Hebrew Canon")



But your questions I think do point to some of the underlying problems with various notions of the Creed of Sola Scriptura followed by many Protestants.

 

[Tree of Life]

Your historical analysis betrays an ignorance of the actual history of the canon.

The "apocrypha" are documents which are neither part of the Hebrew canon nor the New Testament. These books are all jewish books and were all written before the New Testament era. They have never been considered inspired by the Jews.

By the time of the first century, the Hebrew canon was complete. The only thing left for the church to recognize was the full New Testament canon. We have partial lists with Irenaeus (2nd century) and Origin (3rd century) along with the Muratorian fragment (3rd century). None of these lists recognize apocryphal books.

Our first full canonical list comes from Athanasius in his easter letter during the 4th century. It does not include the apocrypha. The Council of Carthage later in the 4th century publishes a list which does contain the apocrypha, but this inclusion of the apocrypha is controversial. Carthage commissions Jerome to produce a latin translation of the whole canon (the Vulgate). Jerome does not want to include the apocrypha because he does not believe them to be inspired, but he submits to the rulings of Carthage.

After Jerome the Roman church clung to the latin Bible and slowly lost touch with the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the Humanist movement that there arose a renewed interests in original manuscripts. This presaged the Reformation which finally officially excluded the apocrypha in both the English 39 articles (16th century) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (17th century). Luther did the 95 Theses at 1517. So you have an official exclusion of the apocrypha from the canon within 50 years of this, not "centuries later".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That doesn't really answer the question. If all scripture is divinely inspired, how do we know what scripture is?

Were the books of the Septuagint divinely inspired or only the books of the later Jewish canon?

Ask the Author. (I think many times in Scripture this is written)

Trusting the Author of Life, the Author of our faith, is required for life, right ?

And if He can not be trusted, nobody can be.

 

[HTacianas]

Ask the Author. (I think many times in Scripture this is written)

Trusting the Author of Life, the Author of our faith, is required for life, right ?

And if He can not be trusted, nobody can be.

Scripture does not state what scripture is.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Scripture does not state what scripture is.

Again, who will someone trust, the Author of Scripture, or very fallible men ?

 

[tampasteve]

Ask the Author. (I think many times in Scripture this is written)

Trusting the Author of Life, the Author of our faith, is required for life, right ?

And if He can not be trusted, nobody can be.

This is the same approach the LDS take. "Pray upon it and see if the Holy Spirit leads you to believe the Book of Mormon is true". No, there must be more to the answer, as was actually shown above, than to "Ask the Author". If we are simply to pray upon it then that leaves us open to adding (or deleting) more scriptures, of which there are some reasonably good contenders to be added to the canon.

 

[rockytopva]

I have come to believe in the seven churches as congregations birthed as ages...

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

This is not to say the congregations are any certain denomination, but it is to say they came down in time. The first church was Messianic and it existed that way until the Apostle Paul. I believe most churches these days are Laodicean, except for those who have kept their traditions birthed to them in time.

The Protestant Canon, then, came out of Sardisean times, and was divinely inspired when Martin Luther heard these words, "The Just Shall Live By Faith."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This is the same approach the LDS take.

But do they trust in and rely upon Yahuweh (God) ? (no, although if they turn to Him, they can be saved)

Again, who will someone trust, the Author of Scripture, or very fallible men ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If we are simply to pray upon it then that leaves us open to adding (or deleting) more scriptures, of which there are some reasonably good contenders to be added to the canon.

Most people do not trust the Author, and so are led astray. That's a "given", stated clearly in His Word.

 

[tampasteve]

But do they trust in and rely upon Yahuweh (God) ? (no, although if they turn to Him, they can be saved)

They believe they do, but to further that discussion would take the thread off course. I simply am showing that a group that believes there is a full other volume of scriptures uses the approach you say we should rely upon alone, which would make that approach unreliable to mainstream Christians.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

They believe they do, but to further that discussion would take the thread off course. I simply am showing that a group that believes there is a full other volume of scriptures uses the approach you say we should rely upon alone, which would make that approach unreliable to mainstream Christians.

Everyone must choose what they are going to do.
As written, almost everyone refuses to turn to the Author, the Creator, to serve Him.
They have chosen their own path.

 

[cloudyday2]

The "apocrypha" are documents which are neither part of the Hebrew canon nor the New Testament. These books are all jewish books and were all written before the New Testament era. They have never been considered inspired by the Jews.

By the time of the first century, the Hebrew canon was complete...

I agree with your larger point that the Apocrypha was never considered to be inspired to the same degree as the New Testament canon, but to say that the Apocrypha was NEVER considered inspired by the Jews and Early Christians is maybe an oversimplification. After the Jewish revolts, only the Pharisees survived to define Rabbinic Judaism and the Jewish canon. At the time of Jesus there were other sects like the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Sadducees only considered the Pentateuch to be inspired, and the Essenes considered the Book of Enoch and Jubilees and other Apocryphal texts to be inspired.

The New Testament authors themselves sometimes refer to the Apocryphal literature in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. The whole concept of rebellious angels under the devil's leadership came from the same Jewish communities who wrote the Apocryphal texts.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When this subject typically comes up the usual answers revolve around the notion that these books were not the removed, but they were not formally accepted into "the Hebrew canon", but there were in fact 3 approaches to canon books in ancient Israel prior to the Roman-Judean wars, according to Josephus. (the Saducees only formally recognized the Pentateuch, the Pharisees the Protestant canon more or less, while the Essenes view was very loose not really having a strict view, where they freely used the Deutero-canonical books as well as certain apocrypha like the book of Enoch.) Besides this the use of individual scrolls were standard! (Without the invention of a Codex, aka ancient books in Ad 200+, there really wouldn't be any Canonization issues so to to speak until the council of Jamnia that started the compiling of the Talmud etc. which also formally excluded the more recent books (The NT, Deuterocanonicals and apocrypha) from "The Hebrew Canon")



But your questions I think do point to some of the underlying problems with various notions of the Creed of Sola Scriptura followed by many Protestants.

This is a question for Protestants. Futher, the Bible was already in codex form for the millennium prior to Luther's reordering. That is what I'm asking about.

 

[rockytopva]

I have come to believe in the seven churches as congregations birthed as ages...

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

This is not to say the congregations are any certain denomination, but it is to say they came down in time. The first church was Messianic and it existed that way until the Apostle Paul. I believe most churches these days are Laodicean, except for those who have kept their traditions birthed to them in time.

The Protestant Canon, then, came out of Sardisean times, and was divinely inspired when Martin Luther heard these words, "The Just Shall Live By Faith."

Messianic - I believe the Messianic church was divinely inspired on the day of Pentecost with Saint Peter
Martyr - I believe the early Gentile church was divinely inspired with Saint Paul's conversion
Orthodox - I believe the Orthodox church was divinely inspired with Constantines victory against Rome.
Catholic - I believe the Catholic church was divinely inspired along with the reign of Charlemagne.
Protestant - I believe was divinely inspired with Martin Luther's vision that, "The just shall live by faith."
Wesleyan - Along with other names, I believe began with John Bunyan's, "The Pilgrims Progress"
Laodicea - I believe the Charismatic movement came out of these times. Most people these days could care less about church doctrine.

Seven congregations!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your historical analysis betrays an ignorance of the actual history of the canon.

The "apocrypha" are documents which are neither part of the Hebrew canon nor the New Testament. These books are all jewish books and were all written before the New Testament era. They have never been considered inspired by the Jews.

By the time of the first century, the Hebrew canon was complete. The only thing left for the church to recognize was the full New Testament canon. We have partial lists with Irenaeus (2nd century) and Origin (3rd century) along with the Muratorian fragment (3rd century). None of these lists recognize apocryphal books.

Our first full canonical list comes from Athanasius in his easter letter during the 4th century. It does not include the apocrypha. The Council of Carthage later in the 4th century publishes a list which does contain the apocrypha, but this inclusion of the apocrypha is controversial. Carthage commissions Jerome to produce a latin translation of the whole canon (the Vulgate). Jerome does not want to include the apocrypha because he does not believe them to be inspired, but he submits to the rulings of Carthage.

After Jerome the Roman church clung to the latin Bible and slowly lost touch with the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the Humanist movement that there arose a renewed interests in original manuscripts. This presaged the Reformation which finally officially excluded the apocrypha in both the English 39 articles (16th century) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (17th century). Luther did the 95 Theses at 1517. So you have an official exclusion of the apocrypha from the canon within 50 years of this, not "centuries later".

So if the Apocrypha shouldn't have been in there, then why was it in there and what was the Holy Spirit doing for a thousand years? Did you even read the OP? This isn't the first time you've answered me without reading beforehand. From what I can tell, you're saying that Jerome was divinely inspired to suggest that the Apocrypha should be left out. And he managed to... suggest that? Is that your argument? That the Holy Spirit inspired one man to do something and the mission was not successful?