The Protestant Canon

[pescador]

The origin of the Protestant Canon of Scripture is well documented. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, was a Catholic priest who decided he could do a better job of interpreting a collection of early Catholic writings compiled into a book by the bishops of the Catholic Church, than the Catholic Church could do. So he defected from the Catholic Church and founded his own church, based on "the Bible alone", which obviously meant his personal interpretations of the Bible, including the trashing of 10 books of God's Holy Word that every Christian on Earth had used for the preceding 1,200 years. His own followers were near the point of rebellion over trashing the writings of the Apostles, so he had to back down on the three New Testament books he planned on getting rid of. But he still trashed seven books of the Holy Bible whose contents didn't agree with some of his new ideas. Before he died, there were already half a dozen other Protestant denominations which had defected from his church because they didn't agree with his biblical interpretations. The doctrinal chaos of Protestantism had begun. Today there are over 6,000 registered Protestant denominations, the number increasing every year. They exist in open defiance of the stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be one, even as I and My heavenly Father are one". Jesus recognized that truth can exist only in unity, because truth cannot contradict truth, and contradictory beliefs/teachings therefore necessarily mean false beliefs/teachings.

You wrote, "Today there are over 6,000 registered Protestant denominations, the number increasing every year. They exist in open defiance of the stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be one, even as I and My heavenly Father are one". So, by saying so, you mean that the Catholic Church is the only true church; Protestant churches are not. And you want people to discuss this with you? Seriously?

The Body of Christ is the one true church, according to the Bible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, he did name his new capitol after himself

Yeah, he did that. And tried to make it as important as Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

 

[BobRyan]

It is really a thread about the Protestant's Canon, how it came to be, and as the article claims, why Protestants really should be Catholics based on that process.
Article: Why the Protestant View of the Canon of Scripture should make them Catholic

I can't quote the article because it is quite short, and taking any part of it alone would take the body out of context.

Steve, I hope your thread produces some good exchanges. But I see a number of errors or falsehoods or simple denominational clap-trap in the article that we are using as the jumping off point for the discussion, such that I would hardly know where to start. The Protestant Canon, so-called, is nothing more or less than what the ancient church gave us, so what else is there to say? I'll be watching, though.

The OT Canon was already finalized by the OT church 400 years before Christ according to the first century Jewish historian Josephus, and is the same text used by Protestants today - so unless "Protestants are the OT Jewish church" that is not the "Protestant Canon". -- NT Confirmation of that fact seen here #52 )

Luke 24 uses the phrase "IN all the scriptures"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

In the model "you couldn't know what was in the scriptures until we gave you the list to use" -- that statement by Luke "could not exist" at that time. (Elephant in living room)

The NT Canon is the same for both Catholics and Protestants - so while the Jewish church of the OT is not the author of it -- still it would be hard to argue that either Catholics or Protestants own it - both of them have the exact same one and it was handed to them by the NT church of the first century A.D.

 

[Davy]

IMHO, it is one of the most divisive books. IMHO, we should bring back the punishment for false prophets. I think my favorite laugh is

88 reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988: The Feast of Trumpets

I don't agree at all with that.

Christ's Book of Revelation doesn't stand alone in The New Testament. The Signs Lord Jesus gave for the end in His Olivet discourse parallel the Seals of Revelation 6. And events written in it cover events in The Old Testament also.

Revelation is written more in the style like the Old Testament prophets. Many don't study the prophets, but only stay in The New Testament Books. So it's their lack of Bible study and God not opening it up to their spiritual ears that causes the divisiveness.

Another problem with men's doctrines in the seminaries of Preterism. I was raised in a Protestant Church that relied on partial Preterism, so they did not teach Revelation, but believed it was mostly past history. It's not.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Yeah, he did that. And tried to make it as important as Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

At that point Rome was quickly becoming a backwater. That was decided at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome"

 

[grasping the after wind]

Except that our infallibility (the pope's and the Church's) proceed from the Holy Spirit...
IT was the Church, though, that decided what was, and what wasn't Scripture, guided by the Church, and you accept 93% of what the Catholic Church declared to be Scripture.
I don't think he's ignoring the differences at all. The point is that the Church declared what the Bible was, and for the most part, you agree with the Church.
None of the authors of Scripture have been declared infallible. We believe their writings were inerrant and guided by the Holy Spirit, which is different.

I agree that there is a big difference. The author of the article was somehow unaware of that difference.

 

[BobRyan]

the article referenced in the OP includes this statement -

================== begin quote
"Some Protestants also accept the authority of the ecumenical councils in Church history, starting with the council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts (chapter 15), the council of Nicea (325 AD) and so forth. But Protestants today can't have an ecumenical council and they have never had one since Martin Luther despite tons of disagreements and controversies causing division. (notice the Eastern Orthodox also have never had one) They never explain why they selected a certain point in history to say "After THIS particular year, the Church authority to make infallible judgments is gone!"

"So, in conclusion, Protestants do indeed affirm that Jesus established a Church that can make infallible judgments for all Christians! So once they drop the assumption that this authority was limited only to a single topic (the canon of Scripture) then they can enter into the fullness of our Christian faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!"
========================== end quote

So "the canon aside" for a minute - what that article is claiming is that if there is a church council - for example the one in Acts 15 that is guided by God to make a decision -- then why aren't all church councils all during 2000 years of history - all infallible?

Question for those authors - when the Jews convened a council to judge Christ's claim to be the Messiah around the time of Passover 2000 years ago - did they come to an infallibly correct conclusion?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I don't agree at all with that.

Christ's Book of Revelation doesn't stand alone in The New Testament. The Signs Lord Jesus gave for the end in His Olivet discourse parallel the Seals of Revelation 6. And events written in it cover events in The Old Testament also.

Revelation is written more in the style like the Old Testament prophets. Many don't study the prophets, but only stay in The New Testament Books. So it's their lack of Bible study and God not opening it up to their spiritual ears that causes the divisiveness.

Another problem with men's doctrines in the seminaries of Preterism. I was raised in a Protestant Church that relied on partial Preterism, so they did not teach Revelation, but believed it was mostly past history. It's not.

The churches in the East were against the inclusion of Revelation 1,800 years ago, so it never made it into our public reading. But we have had a monastery there for over a thousand years, dedicated to St. John the Theologian.

Monastery of Saint John the Theologian - Wikipedia

 

[Davy]

The churches in the East were against the inclusion of Revelation 1,800 years ago, so it never made it into our public reading. But we have had a monastery there for over a thousand years, dedicated to St. John the Theologian.

Monastery of Saint John the Theologian - Wikipedia

Not interested in monasteries. The last one I visited (in Spain) was where the Spanish Inquisition started.

Revelation is part of God's Word, there is no doubting that, for those who study it that is. And like I said, Christ's Olivet discourse parallels the Seals of Revelation 6. There are also other Scripture parallels from both the Old Testament and New Testament Books. For many new believers they try to tackle it without first getting into a study of the Old Testament Books and previous New Testament Books. So they lack the understanding in the rest of The Bible which is required to understand much of Revelation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The OT Canon was already finalized by the OT church 400 years before Christ according to Josephus and is the same text used by Protestants today - so unless "Protestants are the OT Jewish church" that is not the "Protestant Canon".

Luke 24 uses the phrase "IN all the scriptures"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

In the model "you couldn't know what was in the scriptures until we gave you the list to use" -- that statement by Luke "could not exist" at that time. (Elephant in living room)

The NT Canon is the same for both Catholics and Protestants - so while the Jewish church of the OT is not the author of it -- still it would be hard to argue that either Catholics or Protestants own it - both of them have the exact same one and it was handed to them by the NT church of the first century A.D.

The Jewish Canon was not finalized until after the Christian Canon. The Sadducees didn't accept anything but the Torah, while Pharisees more. Interestingly, the Essenes seem to accept the LXX. So there wasn't one Jewish Canon.

 

[Root of Jesse]

At that point Rome was quickly becoming a backwater. That was decided at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome"

Yes, so the government decided. The Church never did.

 

[BobRyan]

Luke 24 uses the phrase "IN all the scriptures"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

In the model "you couldn't know what was in the scriptures until we gave you the list to use" -- that statement by Luke "could not exist" at that time. (Elephant in living room)

The Jewish Canon was not finalized until after the Christian Canon. .

Not according to Christ,
John 5:39 You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me;


not according to Luke in Luke 24, and not according to the first century Jewish historian Josephus -- and not according to the Berians in Acts 17
Acts 17:11
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

And not according to Timothy's parents and/or Paul's instruction to Timothy
2 Tim 3:
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God

And not according to Peter
2 Pet 3
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Luke 24 uses the phrase "IN all the scriptures"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

In the model "you couldn't know what was in the scriptures until we gave you the list to use" -- that statement by Luke "could not exist" at that time. (Elephant in living room)



Not according to Christ,
John 5:39 You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me;

Not to belittle Jesus, whom we know knew what Scriptures were true, but I don't see that he named them anywhere.

not according to Luke in Luke 24, and not according to the first century Jewish historian Josephus -- and not according to the Berians in Acts 17
Acts 17:11
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Which Scriptures???

And not according to Timothy's parents and/or Paul's instruction to Timothy
2 Tim 3:
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God

Which Scriptures?

And not according to Peter
2 Pet 3
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And yet, again, which Scriptures.
As I stated, Sadducees rejected all but the Torah. Essenes had their own set of Scriptures, which differed from both Sadducees and Pharisees.
No, Jesus, Luke, Josephus, Paul, Timothy and Timothy's parents didn't enumerate, in Scripture, what those Scriptures were. First, the Catholic Church determined what was Canon of Scripture, then Judaism codified theirs.

 

[BobRyan]

Not to belittle Jesus, whom we know knew what Scriptures were true, but I don't see that he named them anywhere.

Which Scriptures???

your question exposes the flaw in your own argument.

IN all the examples from scripture that we see in my prior post #52 -- those who hold your POV could not accept the parts in red -- because they would constantly respond
--"that is still undefined to us - we don't know what that is",
- "what do you mean by "all the scriptures?",
- "what do you mean when you say "the scriptures"
- "we don't know what you are talking about"

dead giveaway that neither the Bible writer NOR his readers took your POV

Not to belittle Jesus, whom we know knew what Scriptures were true, but I don't see that he named them anywhere.Which Scriptures???

Which Scriptures?


And yet, again, which Scriptures.

exactly! that is the problem with your argument -- the elephant in your livingroom

It is not just Josephus' statement on that historical fact you must ignore - but so also Christ's statement about "the scriptures" and Luke's statement about "all the scriptures" and Peter's statement about the "rest of scripture" other than Paul's writing

 

[Valletta]

The OT Canon was already finalized by the OT church 400 years before Christ according to the first century Jewish historian Josephus, and is the same text used by Protestants today - so unless "Protestants are the OT Jewish church" that is not the "Protestant Canon". -- NT Confirmation of that fact seen here #52 )

Luke 24 uses the phrase "IN all the scriptures"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

In the model "you couldn't know what was in the scriptures until we gave you the list to use" -- that statement by Luke "could not exist" at that time. (Elephant in living room)

The NT Canon is the same for both Catholics and Protestants - so while the Jewish church of the OT is not the author of it -- still it would be hard to argue that either Catholics or Protestants own it - both of them have the exact same one and it was handed to them by the NT church of the first century A.D.

The truth is that Jews disagreed with each other as to what was considered Holy Scripture. Josephus came up with a list around 100 A.D. as to what he thought should be the OT canon. The Catholic Church decided that the Church was not under the authority of those who rejected Jesus in regard to the OT canon or anything else.

 

[HatGuy]

Recently a article was posted that I think is worth having a conversation in the open forums.

Please note, this is NOT a debate thread about why Catholics are wrong about things not in the Bible or their individual faith practices, that is a different conversation and will be considered Off Topic to this thread.

It is really a thread about the Protestant's Canon, how it came to be, and as the article claims, why Protestants really should be Catholics based on that process.
Article: Why the Protestant View of the Canon of Scripture should make them Catholic

I can't quote the article because it is quite short, and taking any part of it alone would take the body out of context.

My critique of this article is perhaps a little different.

The closing statement of the article says:

"So, in conclusion, Protestants do indeed affirm that Jesus established a Church that can make infallible judgments for all Christians! So once they drop the assumption that this authority was limited only to a single topic (the canon of Scripture) then they can enter into the fullness of our Christian faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!"​

I think the categorical mistake made in these sorts of discussions is that it is assumed "Church" = institution, when it is obvious from scripture (and reason) that Church = the people of God. In other words, Church = Christians.

In which case, the entire argument and sentence above makes such perfect sense that it makes no sense at all. When the author says that "Jesus established a Church that can make infallible judgements for all Christians," they are essentially saying that Jesus established a community that can make infallible judgements for itself.

Well, duh. In a sense, no one denies that the Church (Christians) are tasked with making judgement on Christians. In a sense, that authority is infallible due to the Holy Spirit in every believer, but given that everyone is therefore 'infallible' it stands to reason that infallibility is irrelevant and without meaning.

I know what he is trying to say - that there exists an institution called "Church" that resides over, and has authority over, Christians. But who are those Christians then? Is 1 Peter 2:9 only referring to the magisterium? I know enough Catholic theology to know that the Catholic church would not teach it that way.

Is there a Church in the Church? Who is this extra Church that makes judgements over a smaller, less authoritative Church? Did Jesus establish two churches? I mean, what exactly does this all even mean?

Protestants have always relied on the authority given to the Church to create the canon and govern itself. That isn't really an argument. Protestants have simply claimed that that history belongs to all Christians, not a magisterium. It's the magisterium that has always been the contention, not whether or not Tradition should be respected or whether or not the Church has authority to decide on things like canon. It's this idea that there is somehow a different Church that resides over the Church, a magisterium and institution that somehow possesses more of the Holy Spirit and somehow can make true claims of our collective history... that's where the true contention lies, and (in my opinion) what the author of that article should address. But the article is unfortunately, and obviously, not written to be very sophisticated. Not every article should be, I guess, but nevertheless it's not a very well-thought through argument.

 

[BobRyan]

The truth is that Jews disagreed with each other as to what was considered Holy Scripture. Josephus came up with a list around 100 A.D.

Josephus "came up" with the statement that the canon was already in the temple - and had been there for over 400 years - and the Jews all knew it. So it was not just "a list" but rather an artifact actually in the temple for that period of time that he was referencing.

What is more "these Jews" - that wrote the NT and their readers have a Hebrew Bible - and their NT text makes a references what the Bible writers called "all the scriptures" (As we saw here in detail)

Luke 24 uses the phrase "IN all the scriptures"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

In the model "you couldn't know what was in the scriptures until we gave you the list to use" -- that statement by Luke "could not exist" at that time. (Elephant in living room)

Not according to Christ,
John 5:39 You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me;

not according to Luke in Luke 24, and not according to the first century Jewish historian Josephus -- and not according to the Berians in Acts 17
Acts 17:11
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

And not according to Timothy's parents and/or Paul's instruction to Timothy
2 Tim 3:
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God

And not according to Peter
2 Pet 3
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The Catholic Church decided that the Church was not under the authority of those who rejected Jesus in regard to the OT canon or anything else.

The Catholic Church showed up "late" to the party. By then the NT text was already written and the Jews of Christ day already heard him teach "from all the scriptures" according to the Bible writers themselves.

That means not only could the Catholic church not write the OT - they also had no control over the Jews of Christ day listening to Him preach 'from all the scriptures" to defined for them - what that was.

These facts of history appear to be irrefutable.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Recently a article was posted that I think is worth having a conversation in the open forums.

Please note, this is NOT a debate thread about why Catholics are wrong about things not in the Bible or their individual faith practices, that is a different conversation and will be considered Off Topic to this thread.

It is really a thread about the Protestant's Canon, how it came to be, and as the article claims, why Protestants really should be Catholics based on that process.
Article: Why the Protestant View of the Canon of Scripture should make them Catholic

I can't quote the article because it is quite short, and taking any part of it alone would take the body out of context.

If the article means by "Canon" the creeds, our church, the Christian Reformed Church, believes in the truths of our creeds. However, they can be changed if someone demonstrates that any part of a creed disagrees with the inspired Scriptures. In fact, a part of the Belgic Confession has been changed because it was colored by the times of its writing instead of the Bible. Will the Catholic Church change any part of the Popes' declarations considered inspired??

 

[pescador]

If the article means by "Canon" the creeds, our church, the Christian Reformed Church, believes in the truths of our creeds. However, they can be changed if someone demonstrates that any part of a creed disagrees with the inspired Scriptures. In fact, a part of the Belgic Confession has been changed because it was colored by the times of its writing instead of the Bible. Will the Catholic Church change any part of the Popes' declarations considered inspired??

I very much doubt that the RCC will change anything. That would be admitting error or infallibility.

 

[BobRyan]

I very much doubt that the RCC will change anything. That would be admitting error or infallibility.

Hi - I think you mean "That would be admitting error or fallibility".