The Protestant Canon

tampasteve said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, to me, it seems as soon as the individual recognizes that all true believers in Christ having suffered the cross for our sins, and risen, and believing on Him as their savior, are the Body of Christ. And because we are instructed to welcome the stranger, all true believers must do that, and thus we are all together when we do welcome the stranger the true catholic (universal) Church. In other words, we already are in the catholic Church.

tampasteve said:

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.

Click to expand...

Protestants do not generally claim that the church is able to make infallible judgments. We do not believe that the canon was determined by the church. The author of the article misunderstands the protestant position.

The author incorrectly proposes an equivalence between the idea that the Holy Spirit was at work in making sure the Bible was in no way heretical and the RCC.'s infallibility doctrine. He conflates infallibility with God's guidance. He is wrong to consider that Protestants believe in infallibility at all. What both Catholics an Protestants agree on is Devine guidance not a particular human's or group of human's infallibility. He also seems to ignore the differences between Protestant Bibles and RCC Bibles. Obviously Protestants did not agree that the original compilers of the books for the Bible were infallible as they removed some of them.

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.

Interesting article. The author makes a huge leap from the premises to the conclusion...

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

The basic argument:

1. Protestants would agree that the Holy Spirit guided the Church's discernment in terms of a consensus concerning the canon of Scripture, and since it was so guided, Protestants allow for at least one infallible judgment by the Church.

2. There's no good reason to allow for only one such judgment.

Therefore, "they can enter into the fullness of our Christian faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!"

Even if 1 and 2 are granted, there is a huge leap to the conclusion. Why should it be assumed that the numerous judgments made by RCC are, in fact, infallible? Perhaps some are simply in error. Just because the Church has made at least one infallible judgment, doesn't entail that all the RCC's judgments are infallible. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that if they were each brought to the table for consensus by all Christian denominations (RCC, EO, various Protestants, etc), there would be no consensus on a good number of them. It's not a tight argument.

Halbhh said:

Well, to me, it seems as soon as the individual recognizes that all true believers in Christ having suffered the cross for our sins, and risen, and believing on Him as their savior, are the Body of Christ. And because we are instructed to welcome the stranger, all true believers must do that, and thus we are all together when we do welcome the stranger the true catholic (universal) Church. In other words, we already are in the catholic Church.

Click to expand...

small 'c' is crucial. Captital 'C' means nothing.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is the best 'protestant canon' available. Although its not an official canon (Protestants are always reforming/ Scriptures interpret scriptures/2 Timothy 3:16). Protestants don't like to claim 'we KNOW everything or rule over anything' (always aware that 'pride' can creep into our own lives, our denominations/churches and our nations). We must be humble before our creator because the Sovereignty of God is of the upmost importance to one's faith and walk in Christ.

I don't know I found myself hating the article as I read it, because it seemed to be written to make some kind of ideological point, and at some point the historian that lives in me got mad at it. Although, at times I can also be unhappy with some Protestants on the canon because they likewise try to project onto the ancients their own motivations, ideas etc. I would say more, but I'm a little unsure of all the rules here...

tampasteve said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am not limited to the Canon although I spent most of my Bible study there. There are many volumes about many things that may be useful for instruction. I do not need an ecumenical council to tell me what to read. I read Benjamin Franklin, the Jewish Talmud, Josephus, Eusebius and Jerome. I studied the Hebrides Revival and the Azusa Street Revival.

Jesus was instructing his disciples in Matthew 18:

19 “assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

Since this was written the Holy Spirit went to give instructions to many.

The main problem I see is that (as so often happens) all Protestants are treated as if they hold identical beliefs on everything.

But even if we ignore that problem, there is no real reason that I can see for the statement that Protestants DO accept the idea of an infallible canon.

To the extent that any of the creeds or council decisions are accepted, it's because the church in question considers the decisions made to be in accord with Scripture, which is the real authority.

The article is just propaganda. There is one body of Christ: His church. Catholics can make any claim that they want against other Christians, but that goes against the teachings of the Lord.

Catholic councils put the books together, through Christ. This is one problem I have with Sola Scriptura. Why couldn't God lead the Catholic Church if Apostolic Succession is as true as they say? As solid as it was 2000 years ago? I don't know. It's very confusing. I go one minute "Luther rebelled smartly.", then "Roman Catholicism is responsible for Christianity today.", then I go, "Well the Eastern Orthodox just kept Catholicism without the Pope." I don't know.

Trev, Apostolic Succession doesn't have much to do with this. And the main benefit of Apostolic Succession (in the various denominations which maintain that system) is continuity and orderliness in church affairs. It doesn't confer infallibility on anyone.

dqhall said:

The Jews have a Biblical tradition:

Leviticus 23:26 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 27 “However on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement. It shall be a holy convocation to you. You shall afflict yourselves and you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh. 28 You shall do no kind of work in that same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement for you before Yahweh your God. 29 For whoever it is who shall not deny himself in that same day shall be cut off from his people. 30 Whoever does any kind of work in that same day, I will destroy that person from among his people. 31 You shall do no kind of work: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 32 It shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall deny yourselves. In the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall keep your Sabbath.”

This Biblical tradition is ignored, even though some reckon it is scripture as it is in the Bible.

Click to expand...

As a Gentile, i look to see if the OT laws are repeated in the NT. If they are i'll follow them, if a man-made tradition is added to scripture, i will stay clear of such.

Moses was the human mediator between God and the Israelites for the laws. Now Christ is the mediator between God and man. Galatians 3:18-22

The 7th day Sabbath (Friday sunset-Saturday sunset 'Jerusalem time zone') is the only commandment (out of the 10) given by God I don't observe. I thank Christ for the 1st day/8th day/the Lord's day because he rose from the dead to give us life eternal.

There are many commandments in the OT which were given to the Israelites i don't follow literally. The nazarite vow of Samson (numbers 6:1-21), i don't follow literally because its not repeated literally in the NT. In Acts 21:23-24 the vow to shave your head for purification i don't follow, but i try to understand what they symbolise and mean spiritually. There's both a spiritual and practical application for a Christian in a nazorite vow, however if your to follow that vow literally it would be extremely difficult and challenging.

The 6th commandment is repeated by Christ in the NT, - 'turn the other cheek', Paul also tells a Christian to exchange the literal sword (part of the armour of God) and use scripture as your weapon....yet in Ecclessiaties 3:8 i don't believe there is a time for hate or war anymore.

I can't tell a Hebrew (eg-someone like Paul who can even trace their tribe lineage back to Benjamin) what OT laws to follow, i'd be a hypocrite for doing so. It was the same for James in the church of Jerusalem when they heard that Gentiles were accepting Christ. James wrote to them and instructed them to 'keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.' Acts 21:25

I try not to pluck the mote out of my brothers eye, when i know there's a huge beam in my own. Its only through Christ that beam will get smaller and smaller.

If a man-made tradition is added to scripture though, i'd stay clear of it.

tampasteve said:

It makes claims that the " Eastern Orthodox also have never had one" in regards to a council, which is ridiculous. Essentially the article is a mess of ridiculous claims that are easily refuted.

Click to expand...

Trying to remember where the first seven universally held Ecumenical Councils were...

The First Council of Nicaea in 325, the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, the Third Council of Constantinople from 680–681 and finally, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.

Hmmm, all of these appear to have been held in or around the ROMAN Capitol of Constantinople....

None of them oddly were called by the Bishop of Rome.

We also have the following councils that are considered to be ecumenical

1. Council in Trullo (692) debates on ritual observance and clerical discipline in different parts of the Christian Church.
2. Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) (879–880) restored Photius to the See of Constantinople. This happened after the death of Ignatius and with papal approval.
3. Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341–1351) affirmed hesychastic theology according to Gregory Palamas and condemned Barlaam of Seminara.
4. Synod of Iași (1642) reviewed and amended the Peter Mogila's Expositio fidei (Statement of Faith, also known as the Orthodox Confession).
5. Synod of Jerusalem (1672) defined Orthodoxy relative to Catholicism and Protestantism, defined the orthodox Biblical canon.
6. Synod of Constantinople (1872) addressing with nationalism or Phyletism in the unity of Orthodoxy.

tampasteve said:

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.

Click to expand...

That article is ultimately suggesting the idea of Church men establishing themselves in authority over all of Christ's Churches, which is something that Lord Jesus showed He is against. Only HE is ultimate Head of His Church, not a "bishop of bishops", which is the idea that article is leading to and the various councils the Catholic 'system' devised by their own authority.

Since your avatar shows you are a Lutheran, how can you not see this, otherwise Luther's 95 Theses should never have come to light.

Obviously certain men trying to establish themselves as head of Christ's Church created a problem which Martin Luther noticed, and God must have noticed also, otherwise there would have been no Protestant rebellion. Nowhere in God's Word are we taught to pray to angels or to Mary. Jesus taught us to pray to The Father when we pray. So those kind of traditions show men trying to usurp Christ's Authority over His Word.