The Protestant Canon

tampasteve said:

I agree, but then the RCC would say that Christ is also the head, the Pope is his representative here. I don't agree with that premise, but that is what most Catholics would say, I believe.


I am not sure what you are getting at. I certainly do not agree with the conclusions of the article, you must not have read the other post I made in this thread.

Click to expand...

I only read your first post.

Trev T said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rather than say "Catholic" instead I prefer the term "Pre-schism". One oddity is that although Revelation is included in our canon, it is the only NT book that is not read publicly in church.

GreekOrthodox said:

Rather than say "Catholic" instead I prefer the term "Pre-schism". One oddity is that although Revelation is included in our canon, it is the only NT book that is not read publicly in church.

Click to expand...

Too bad, because Revelation is most relevant in today's times, as Christ's return gets closer.

GreekOrthodox said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bottom line, we've seen that there isn't any agreed-upon set of ecumenical councils. Various of the historic church bodies each have a different lineup of councils considered to be ecumenical. That, in turn, damages the notion that if a council is "ecumenical," it is also infallible.

Davy said:

Too bad, because Revelation is most relevant in today's times, as Christ's return gets closer.

Click to expand...

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

The author has it backwards. Because of the infallibility of scripture the Catholics can be Christian. Not all are. Neither are all Protestants.

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...

The churches had a canon that included most of the books put in the canon, long before an official vote was held.

No one needed the RC to define the canon - it was presumptuous to think that it was even necessary.

Tree of Life said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why not state, then, what the protestant position is???

grasping the after wind said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Albion said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except for those 7 books you guys cut out...

GreekOrthodox said:

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.

Click to expand...

Considering that Constantine took the government of the Empire out of Rome, and left it to the Church, and that the government was responsible for calling most of these councils, meh. Not odd at all...

The article contains this statement near the end: "So once they [Protestants] 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!

This is exactly the kind of attitude that no Christian should have! Who is so arrogant as to state that Protestants "can enter into the fullness of our Christian faith"?

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not the church; it is just a denomination. This centuries-old arrogance must come to an end.

Mark 3:24-25, "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

Matthew 12:25, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and no town or house divided against itself will stand."

Luke 11:17, "But Jesus, realizing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and a divided household falls."

Should we believe Jesus' warnings? Or not?

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...

The article doesn't use sound reasoning, (or develop an argument why protestants should be catholic) it's more of a preaching to the choir type article.

In terms of how the Canon came to be, it's strange that the Orthodox churches are left out of the equation.

pescador said:

The article contains this statement near the end: "So once they [Protestants] 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!

This is exactly the kind of attitude that no Christian should have! Who is so arrogant as to state that Protestants "can enter into the fullness of our Christian faith"?

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not the church; it is just a denomination. This centuries-old arrogance must come to an end.

Mark 3:24-25, "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

Matthew 12:25, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and no town or house divided against itself will stand."

Luke 11:17, "But Jesus, realizing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and a divided household falls."

Should we believe Jesus' warnings? Or not?

Click to expand...

And yet, the Catholic Church stands, doesn't she?

Root of Jesse said:

And yet, the Catholic Church stands, doesn't she?

Click to expand...

As does the Protestant Church! Either we're one body in Christ or we're not.

pescador said:

As does the Protestant Church! Either we're one body in Christ or we're not.

Click to expand...

I've always believed that. It's Christ's Church, universal. You've chosen your way of enacting what He said, and I've chosen mine.

Root of Jesse said:

Considering that Constantine took the government of the Empire out of Rome, and left it to the Church, and that the government was responsible for calling most of these councils, meh. Not odd at all...

Click to expand...

Well, he did name his new capitol after himself

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.

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...

It's not about the Protestant's canon at all. It is just about church history and the fact that at some point protestants diverged from Catholicism. It mentions Eastern Orthodoxy is diverging as well.

The canon of scripture was never actually decided at any council but through a series of discussions and heresies that put the 27 books that we have as firmly 'in' while some others were though of positively and some negatively.

That is history. It is church history and it is common to all orthodox denominations. The split isn't over canon, but the use to which it is put.