The Protestant Canon

[Nihilist Virus]

Martin Luther was the first person to organize the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament into the Apocrypha, which he then placed in between the two Testaments. If he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, then why did he not remove the Apocrypha altogether, seeing as how it no longer exists in Protestant Bibles? Further, if he actually was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why did he want to remove other books such as James and Revelation? If he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why did the Protestants accept his reorganization and ultimately remove the Apocrypha?

The main problem that Christians have with the Mormon religion, as far as I understand things, is not the fact that it is a new religion. (After all, the Book of Mormon is only five years younger than the current Protestant Bible with the Apocrypha removed.) The problem that Christians have with Mormonism is that Mormonism has added to what is presumably a closed canon. So the obvious question, then, is, "What was the Holy Spirit doing for over a millennium while a fake version of the Bible was the only thing in circulation?" Why did the canon take nearly two thousand years to close when nothing was being added to it? Or is it the case that the canon still isn't correct? If so, how do you know what to believe and what not to believe?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The problem is that other religions, including the ones posted in this forum,
when tested, test false.

 

[Sketcher]

Protestants go with the Hebrew canon, with the understanding that not everything in the Septuigant was considered canon by the Jews that had already been using it. It would therefore be wrong to consider it a fake Old Testament, when it's the understanding that the Apocryphal books were not divinely inspired that seemed to fade over the years. According to my understanding of Mormonism, they consider all of their extra books Scripture, so it's not really a good comparison.

 

[Dale]

Martin Luther was the first person to organize the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament into the Apocrypha, which he then placed in between the two Testaments. If he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, then why did he not remove the Apocrypha altogether, seeing as how it no longer exists in Protestant Bibles? Further, if he actually was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why did he want to remove other books such as James and Revelation? If he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why did the Protestants accept his reorganization and ultimately remove the Apocrypha?

The main problem that Christians have with the Mormon religion, as far as I understand things, is not the fact that it is a new religion. (After all, the Book of Mormon is only five years younger than the current Protestant Bible with the Apocrypha removed.) The problem that Christians have with Mormonism is that Mormonism has added to what is presumably a closed canon. So the obvious question, then, is, "What was the Holy Spirit doing for over a millennium while a fake version of the Bible was the only thing in circulation?" Why did the canon take nearly two thousand years to close when nothing was being added to it? Or is it the case that the canon still isn't correct? If so, how do you know what to believe and what not to believe?

You raise some complicated problems in a brief OP, but I will answer the point on Mormons.

Nihilist: "The problem that Christians have with Mormonism is that Mormonism has added to what is presumably a closed canon."

There are many problems with Mormonism, including polygamy. The Christian God is pre-existent from eternity and the Christian God is infinite. Mormon leaders have cast considerable doubt on both of these concepts.

A thread I did on this several years ago:

Mormons Doubt that their God is Infinite
Controversial Christian Theology' started by Dale, Apr 7, 2010.

Link
Mormons Doubt that their God is Infinite

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Protestants go with the Hebrew canon, with the understanding that not everything in the Septuigant was considered canon by the Jews that had already been using it. It would therefore be wrong to consider it a fake Old Testament, when it's the understanding that the Apocryphal books were not divinely inspired that seemed to fade over the years. According to my understanding of Mormonism, they consider all of their extra books Scripture, so it's not really a good comparison.

Thanks, but this does not address the issue brought forward in the OP. Let's rephrase it like this. How would you feel if a few of the books from the Book of Mormon were interspersed in your personal Bible? "...1 Kings, The adventure of Moroni, 2Kings, ...". How does that lineup look to you? Regardless of whether you know to disbelieve in The Adventure of Moroni, how would you feel if literally every Bible in existence was like this for well over a millennium? And how is the actual history of it any different for you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You raise some complicated problems in a brief OP, but I will answer the point on Mormons.

Nihilist: "The problem that Christians have with Mormonism is that Mormonism has added to what is presumably a closed canon."

There are many problems with Mormonism, including polygamy. The Christian God is pre-existent from eternity and the Christian God is infinite. Mormon leaders have cast considerable doubt on both of these concepts.

A thread I did on this several years ago:

Mormons Doubt that their God is Infinite
Controversial Christian Theology' started by Dale, Apr 7, 2010.

Link
Mormons Doubt that their God is Infinite

Thanks but that doesn't answer my question much. Further, the Bible promotes polygamy as well. So I find that to be an incredibly bizarre accusation to make against Mormonism.

The fact that some Mormons believe something about God that differs from you is irrelevant. In fact I purposely used Mormonism as an example to show you how problematic it is to have false statements in your Bible. That was the whole point of why I compared it to the Apocrypha.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think the gritty realities of the canon are something to be embraced rather than shunned. To me it's a living example of the Spirit moving among and encouraging discussion and growth within the Christian community.

One of my favorite aspects of Lutherans is their earthy engagement with Christianity that wrestles with it, warts and all, rather than trying to purge and purify as some churches do.

 

[cloudyday2]

Thanks but that doesn't answer my question much. Further, the Bible promotes polygamy as well. So I find that to be an incredibly bizarre accusation to make against Mormonism.

Here is a quote from Martin Luther in case you haven't seen it. Martin Luther was also highly antisemitic, so it's ironic that he followed the Jewish lead on the OT canon. Of course neither of these tidbits answers the question in the OP.
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."
Polygamy in Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[Sketcher]

Thanks, but this does not address the issue brought forward in the OP. Let's rephrase it like this. How would you feel if a few of the books from the Book of Mormon were interspersed in your personal Bible? "...1 Kings, The adventure of Moroni, 2Kings, ...". How does that lineup look to you? Regardless of whether you know to disbelieve in The Adventure of Moroni, how would you feel if literally every Bible in existence was like this for well over a millennium? And how is the actual history of it any different for you?

Well, if I knew to disbelieve it as part of the canon, that would be part of the faith tradition that I would have been instructed in. That tradition would also inform me of why the books would be interspersed where they are among the Scriptures. Which in turn would inform my opinion of how I felt about that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, if I knew to disbelieve it as part of the canon, that would be part of the faith tradition that I would have been instructed in. That tradition would also inform me of why the books would be interspersed where they are among the Scriptures. Which in turn would inform my opinion of how I felt about that.

If. If you were instructed correctly. How would you know if you were, and what about those who aren't? Also, why would God allow these false doctrines to persist for nearly two millennia?

 

[Sketcher]

If. If you were instructed correctly. How would you know if you were, and what about those who aren't? Also, why would God allow these false doctrines to persist for nearly two millennia?

False doctrines are older than Christianity itself, and false doctrines that were rebuked in the New Testament itself still need to be rebuked today, unfortunately. They're like weeds, they're always just there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

False doctrines are older than Christianity itself, and false doctrines that were rebuked in the New Testament itself still need to be rebuked today, unfortunately. They're like weeds, they're always just there.

The existence of false doctrine is not the issue. It's the existence of false doctrine in the Bible. See the difference?

 

[Sketcher]

The existence of false doctrine is not the issue. It's the existence of false doctrine in the Bible. See the difference?

People abuse canonized passages for their false doctrines all the time, and you opened with apocryphal books that should never have been understood to be canon. The Protestant canon weeds out the apocryphal books, but there are still plenty of false doctrines that are taught that don't use them heavily, or use them at all, by denominations that either use these books, or don't. I'd say that's the bigger problem.

 

[BigV]

The problem is that other religions, including the ones posted in this forum,
when tested, test false.

"Other" religions test false? Or ALL religions test false?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

People abuse canonized passages for their false doctrines all the time, and you opened with apocryphal books that should never have been understood to be canon.

They were considered to be deuterocanonical, and now Protestants are saying they are non-canonical. Assuming that Protestantism is the correct version of Christianity, and assuming that Christianity is the correct religion, we're then left to wonder: why did God wait 1500 years to fix this? You've not addressed why that would make sense.

If we make assumptions and then our conclusion makes no sense, you know what we do with the assumptions. At least, I assume you do.

The Protestant canon weeds out the apocryphal books,

Yes, after 1500 years. Why?

Let me walk you through this again.

Let's assume that the removal of these books is a divinely inspired action. (Because if it's not, then Protestants are heretics. Right?)

It would then follow that the Holy Spirit inspired a man to not remove them, but reorder them and label them under a new section (Apocrypha). And this divinely inspired person also wanted to remove James and Revelation, among other NT works.

I know that God uses flawed vessels. That's a theme of the Bible. But Martin Luther at least needs to be inerrant on the topic in which he's been divinely inspired. Because if he isn't inerrant, then he wasn't divinely inspired. And it looks like he was in error because here we are still using James and Revelation.

So could you explain how Luther was divinely inspired? Or if not, then who in the Protestant publishing house was inspired to start printing Bibles without the Apocrypha? And once you've proven this person or these people were divinely inspired, I'd still need to know for what good reason this was delayed 1500 years.

Of course there's also the possibility that we still don't have the canon right, and that's just as feasible as the Protestant canon. Because what's another 200 years when we already had been waiting 1500?

but there are still plenty of false doctrines that are taught that don't use them heavily, or use them at all, by denominations that either use these books, or don't. I'd say that's the bigger problem.

There are lots of problems in the world. Many of which are more important than this. But I am only talking about the purity of the Protestant canon.

 

[Sketcher]

They were considered to be deuterocanonical, and now Protestants are saying they are non-canonical. Assuming that Protestantism is the correct version of Christianity, and assuming that Christianity is the correct religion, we're then left to wonder: why did God wait 1500 years to fix this?

Regrettably, it took longer to fix anti-Semitism within the church, and anti-Semitism was rife enough to fuel any disinterest in fixing it until the Reformation. I wouldn't say the anti-Semitism is fully fixed even now. But we are becoming more receptive to dealing with it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Regrettably, it took longer to fix anti-Semitism within the church, and anti-Semitism was rife enough to fuel any disinterest in fixing it until the Reformation. I wouldn't say the anti-Semitism is fully fixed even now. But we are becoming more receptive to dealing with it.

It seems like you're saying that early Christians inserted texts into the Jewish canon in order to spite the Jews, and that the bulk of church history has Christians leaving the texts in there also out of spite. Is that your argument? If not, then I have no idea what the relevance of your post is. Further, you've ignored easily about 80% of my points. Lastly, your argument as I understand it implies that the Bible can be polluted for thousands of years, leaving open the obvious question: How do we know it isn't currently polluted, possibly irredeemably so?

 

[Resha Caner]

Like many of the topics here, the discussion of the canon is a long one. What was listed in the OP is only a few tidbits of canon history. Long before Luther people such as Jerome and Eusibius indicated they thought many of those same books were apocrypha.

In essence, the question here is the same as any "problem of evil" question. Why does God allow anything?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Martin Luther was the first person to organize the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament into the Apocrypha, which he then placed in between the two Testaments. If he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, then why did he not remove the Apocrypha altogether, seeing as how it no longer exists in Protestant Bibles? Further, if he actually was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why did he want to remove other books such as James and Revelation? If he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why did the Protestants accept his reorganization and ultimately remove the Apocrypha?

The main problem that Christians have with the Mormon religion, as far as I understand things, is not the fact that it is a new religion. (After all, the Book of Mormon is only five years younger than the current Protestant Bible with the Apocrypha removed.) The problem that Christians have with Mormonism is that Mormonism has added to what is presumably a closed canon. So the obvious question, then, is, "What was the Holy Spirit doing for over a millennium while a fake version of the Bible was the only thing in circulation?" Why did the canon take nearly two thousand years to close when nothing was being added to it? Or is it the case that the canon still isn't correct? If so, how do you know what to believe and what not to believe?

The apostles established a church to handle these matters. Martin Luther is not an ecumenical council.

 

[SPF]

why did God wait 1500 years to fix this? You've not addressed why that would make sense.

Why did God wait 120 years after telling Noah about the flood to flood the earth? Why did Jesus wait until the year 5 BC or so before coming to earth? Why not sooner? Why not later? Why did God choose the Israelites to be His chosen people and not another race? Why did God do x at x time, etc etc...

Nobody is going to be able to answer your question because God hasn't told us.