The Protestant Canon

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,968
2,886
Minnesota
✟208,027.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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 that references what the Bible writers called "all the scriptures"




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.
As I said, there was no one Jewish canon. The Apostles used the Greek Septuagint to teach from, and that is why the Catholic Church chose the Septuagint for their OT source when selecting text for the OT portion of the Bible. The Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. There were differences in the readings at masses, and the Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text. The process spanned centuries, the first historical list of the NT books, in the very same order we use today, was credited to Saint Athanasius in the mid 300s. The Catholic Church officially gave the world the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s, the same books we use today.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,968
2,886
Minnesota
✟208,027.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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??
When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, anytext that was not 100 percent in keeping with Catholic teaching (as handed down through the Apostles and popes) was rejected. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,592
49
The Wild West
✟461,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Agree

Agree

And Eastern Orthodox Bibles, and Ethiopian Orthodox Bibles, and Church of the East Bibles. The fact is, the canon is not as clear cut as the author wants people to think that it is.

This type of writing generally appeals to people that are already convinced of an opinion, or looking for validation on an opinion they lean towards.

I agree.

It is also interesting to consider the Coptic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Bibles are almost identical in content to the standard-issue Vulgate (and also much of what they have that the Vulgate lacks, Jerome translated anyway, “lest they perish entirely” and Jerome did translate the Psalter and the Deuterocanonical Books from the Septuagint, which is the Greek Old Testament).
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,592
49
The Wild West
✟461,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
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.

It is read by the monks on Mount Athos in between the Vesperal Liturgy and Paschal Vigils I am told, and the Coptic (Oriental Orthodox) church does the same thing as part of one epic eight hour plus Paschal Liturgy.

Interestingly, the Copts read a very good Paschal Homily attributed to St. Athanasius, rather than the Paschal Homily attributed to St. John Chrysostom you use.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,592
49
The Wild West
✟461,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
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.

Rather nicely put, dear Uncle Wayne.
 
Upvote 0

Victor in Christ

Jehovah Tsidkenu
Jun 9, 2020
1,151
439
British Isles
✟17,662.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As I said, there was no one Jewish canon. The Apostles used the Greek Septuagint to teach from, and that is why the Catholic Church chose the Septuagint for their OT source when selecting text for the OT portion of the Bible. The Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. There were differences in the readings at masses, and the Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text. The process spanned centuries, the first historical list of the NT books, in the very same order we use today, was credited to Saint Athanasius in the mid 300s. The Catholic Church officially gave the world the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s, the same books we use today.

Lets have a look to see what the bible says........

Revelation 1:9 'I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.'

If the Catholic Church existed before John penned Revelation/the Epistles of John/the book of John, who then exiled John (when he was in tribulation) to the isle of Patmos for preaching the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ?

was it the Roman Catholic Church?

What Empire/Nation had the power to exile John to Patmos?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
Exactly right.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As I said, there was no one Jewish canon. The Apostles used the Greek Septuagint to teach from, and that is why the Catholic Church chose the Septuagint for their OT source when selecting text for the OT portion of the Bible. The Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. There were differences in the readings at masses, and the Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text. The process spanned centuries, the first historical list of the NT books, in the very same order we use today, was credited to Saint Athanasius in the mid 300s. The Catholic Church officially gave the world the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s, the same books we use today.

Speak for yourself as y'all left out 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It is read by the monks on Mount Athos in between the Vesperal Liturgy and Paschal Vigils I am told, and the Coptic (Oriental Orthodox) church does the same thing as part of one epic eight hour plus Paschal Liturgy.

Interestingly, the Copts read a very good Paschal Homily attributed to St. Athanasius, rather than the Paschal Homily attributed to St. John Chrysostom you use.

Yup, and the Monastery of Patmos reads it as well. Ill have to look up the Pascal homily of Athanasius. (when Ive had more coffee)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,592
49
The Wild West
✟461,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Yup, and the Monastery of Patmos reads it as well. Ill have to look up the Pascal homily of Athanasius. (when Ive had more coffee)

Let me know if you find it, because my copy of it is a poor translation in a giant trilingual folio of the services for Holy Week through Pascha. (with the Greek title “PASCHALION”)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,229
4,189
37
US
✟910,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I think three questions are at play here:

1. Whatever happened to Peter's Church?

2. Are the Catholics correct and was Peter really the first Pope?

3. If Peter really was the first Pope why did the Catholic Church change? A lot of what Peter and the other Apostles taught and practiced are mostly not in today's churches even in many Protestant churches. But, something to think about, if Peter really was the first Pope and the Church never changed its practices than the Reformation would have never happened. We would all still be Catholics today and Catholicism would still be the major religion of the world. There would have been no reason for the reformers to reform.


Sadly, I don't think we will ever know the answer to those three questions. If we did than there would be zero division between Protestants and Catholics.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.

Protestants accept infallibility and always have.

that is:

If they accept that the books of the canon were inspired then they accept God performs tasks through men, in that case as author guiding the pen. That is the meaning of infallibility.

The provenance and choice of canon is visible in history, and who chose them, both as books that were rejected as well as accepted. The first proposed canon was rejected by Rome.

so if Protestants accept the canon is inspired then For the duration of those tasks of selection God guided the choice. So the selectors were infallible.

otherwise the canon becomes “ a fallible collection of infallible books” a nonsense.

That Is the basis of the claim of infallibility, that men are not infallible,but an act is infallible if guided by God. Some are empowered to do this. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the term.

Scripture states this power, to “ bind and loose”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
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



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
See. that's what YOU'RE missing, Bob. That was the question that was asked back then. 20 years after Christ died, what Scriptures? 100 years from Chrit's death, what were the Scriptures? The Jews were inconsistent, and Christian writings were new, and not available to everyone all the time. So you cannot answer the question. They did, prayed for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and determined, for example, that the Shepherd of Hermas did not belong, and Jude did. And Maccabees did. Etc. Christ gave his apostles and their successors the authority, and they used it.
 
Upvote 0