The Protestant Canon

[Nihilist Virus]

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

So how do we know which texts are divinely inspired and which aren't?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why did God wait 120 years after telling Noah about the flood to flood the earth?

So that Noah could make the ark.

Why did Jesus wait until the year 5 BC or so before coming to earth? Why not sooner? Why not later?

Irrelevant. The Old Testament is not attested to be false, but rather outdated. No amount of delay by the messiah would've made the OT false.

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...

Yes, that is a serious indictment. From the outside looking in, it looks like Jehovah is just the god of the Jews among a slew of cultural gods.

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

So which books of the Bible are divinely inspired and which ones might be removed at a future date?

 

[Resha Caner]

So which books of the Bible are divinely inspired and which ones might be removed at a future date?

You already know you'll get a variety of answers to that question. I assume you already know that some who claim the Christian label already dismiss that any of the Bible is divinely inspired.

Maybe you also know such is a general symptom of the age. Claiming divine inspiration is to claim a specific being had a hand in the writing of the Bible just as there are disputed claims associating specific teachings/stories with Homer, Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, Shakespeare, and so on. It has grown into a (yet small) movement of Presentism that challenges a whole host of claims about the past, with the most extreme rejecting anything more than a few centuries old. We discussed it in my history program, and I recall my professor expressing bewilderment and concern.

But the skeptic's game is the easiest game to play. It doesn't take much.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So how do we know which texts are divinely inspired and which aren't?

I would trust the ecumenical council for that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I would trust the ecumenical council for that.

Having been wrong for over a thousand years, wouldn't you say their track record is a bit spotty?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You already know you'll get a variety of answers to that question. I assume you already know that some who claim the Christian label already dismiss that any of the Bible is divinely inspired.

Maybe you also know such is a general symptom of the age. Claiming divine inspiration is to claim a specific being had a hand in the writing of the Bible just as there are disputed claims associating specific teachings/stories with Homer, Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, Shakespeare, and so on. It has grown into a (yet small) movement of Presentism that challenges a whole host of claims about the past, with the most extreme rejecting anything more than a few centuries old. We discussed it in my history program, and I recall my professor expressing bewilderment and concern.

But the skeptic's game is the easiest game to play. It doesn't take much.

For a quick minute you were my favorite Christian on these forums. Then you ruined it by continuing to ignore, redact, and distract. I see you've not changed.

 

[Resha Caner]

For a quick minute you were my favorite Christian on these forums. Then you ruined it by continuing to ignore, redact, and distract. I see you've not changed.

I prefer some give and take - someone who will put some skin in the game rather than just sit on the sidelines and criticize. It takes some investment to have a meaningful conversation. Still, it might help to play in the shallow end for a while rather than diving directly into the deep end.

I find Presentism a very curious thing, and I wonder what you think of it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Having been wrong for over a thousand years, wouldn't you say their track record is a bit spotty?

Been wrong about what?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I prefer some give and take - someone who will put some skin in the game rather than just sit on the sidelines and criticize. It takes some investment to have a meaningful conversation. Still, it might help to play in the shallow end for a while rather than diving directly into the deep end.

To my knowledge, I gave you everything you wanted. I answered every last question of yours. You not only failed to answer my questions, but you deliberately redacted some of my posts and selectively replied, along with making a game out of it (particularly in your conversation with @cvanwey).

I find Presentism a very curious thing, and I wonder what you think of it.

Aside from being totally irrelevant, that is a very stupid idea that would make no sense to anyone with a mere cursory understanding of quantum mechanics.

Is there any fruit in our future interaction or are we simply done? I believe two things: first, that you have a long backlog of questions to answer, and second, that you have no intention to do so (nor have you ever had one).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Been wrong about what?

So how do we know which texts are divinely inspired and which aren't?

I would trust the ecumenical council for that.

Having been wrong for over a thousand years, wouldn't you say their track record is a bit spotty?

Been wrong about what?



Are you not following the conversation? Obviously they were wrong about the canon because they changed it. They were not correct both before and after the change.

 

[Resha Caner]

To my knowledge, I gave you everything you wanted. I answered every last question of yours. You not only failed to answer my questions, but you deliberately redacted some of my posts and selectively replied, along with making a game out of it (particularly in your conversation with @cvanwey).

Actually, he indicated he had the closure he was looking for.

Aside from being totally irrelevant, that is a very stupid idea that would make no sense to anyone with a mere cursory understanding of quantum mechanics.

It's relevant because it is a particular view of history. Knowing if you held that view is important to a conversation about the history of the canon. Now I know you do not hold that view. You accept it is possible to know things about the distant past.

Is there any fruit in our future interaction or are we simply done? I believe two things: first, that you have a long backlog of questions to answer, and second, that you have no intention to do so (nor have you ever had one).

I asked you to pick one question. You did. I answered. You said I failed. You never explained why I failed. I would need to know that in order to continue. But if you want to shun me, I will honor that and trouble you no more.

 

[SPF]

So which books of the Bible are divinely inspired and which ones might be removed at a future date?

In 367, Athanasius lists the 27 documents of the New Testament alone, and he is quickly followed by Jerome and Augustine in the church in Europe. At the councils of Hippo Regius in 393, and Carthage in 397, the church in the west as a body approved the 27 documents alone as Scripture.

Closed Canon
"Since A.D. 397 the Christian church has considered the canon of the Bible to be complete; if it is complete, then it must be closed. Therefore, we cannot expect any more books to be discovered or written that would open the canon again and add to its sixty-six books. Even if a letter of Paul were discovered, it would not be canonical. After all, Paul must have written many letters during his lifetime in addition to the ones that are in the New Testament; yet the church did not include them in the canon." Charles C. Ryrie (1999-01-11). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Kindle Locations 1958-1962). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As I don't believe Luther's opinion about the Deuterocanonicals is de facto authoritative, this probably doesn't concern me too much. Somewhat pragmatically Lutherans--at least in the English speaking world--tend to use the Protestant Canon; but there is no official Lutheran position about the status of the Deuterocanonical books.

We don't believe that Luther was inspired to do what he did, or even had some "authority" to define the Canon; instead we view what Luther did as engage in a very old and very complicated conversation. A conversation that's been going on for a very long time.

At the time Luther translated the Bible into German, there had never been a definitive position made. None of the Ecumenical Councils addressed the topic (keeping in mind that Lutherans only accept the first seven of the Ecumenical Councils as being Ecumenical Councils), and a study of patristics, of what the holy fathers of the Church have said over the centuries provides no clear, unambiguous, and unanimous position.

Some point to a selection of local synods from the 4th century (i.e. the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo) as being authoritative--but by their very nature they are local synods and provide instruction and guidance on such matters for within their diocese. As, conversely, we have other local synods (I'm thinking notably the Council of Laodicea) which is from the same time period, but doesn't agree with the aforementioned western synods.

And so, fundamentally, the Canon is not the result of either divine or ecclesiastical fiat; but is rather a much more organic product of a living faith among the people. And because of that, because the Canon evolved through the general consensus of the Faithful, and because of diversity of opinion on certain books throughout the Christian world (this has always been the case), it just doesn't seem possible that anyone is in any position to make a definitive, authoritative pronouncement.

The only way that the issue could be resolved would be through an ecumenical council; but that happening is unlikely, to put it extremely mildly. Of course from the perspective of Rome, there already has been one--the Council of Trent--but since no one who isn't in communion with Rome accepts Trent as authoritative or ecumenical that may settle the matter for Roman Catholics, but doesn't for us Lutherans, or others not in communion with Rome. The Orthodox, likewise, have their reasons and synods, such as the pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem which kind of(?) addressed the Canon of the Old Testament, largely as part of a broader refutation of Calvinism.

For most Protestants the matter is considered settled, largely because their confessional texts say so, and since most Protestants today trace themselves through some form or expression of the Reformed tradition or else through the Anglican tradition, the traditions established in those older Reformed and Anglican confessional texts, even if not subscribed by the denominations which evolved from them, have left their continued mark.

This sort of history is important to know because it's critical to the ongoing disputes over the Deuterocanonical books.

TL;DR -- As a Lutheran my position on whether the Deuterocanonical books are Canonical or not is I don't know. Some might argue that not knowing should be a huge problem, but we get by just fine.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, he indicated he had the closure he was looking for.

He gave me an "agree" when I said you failed the test.

It's relevant because it is a particular view of history. Knowing if you held that view is important to a conversation about the history of the canon. Now I know you do not hold that view. You accept it is possible to know things about the distant past.

Well, anyone who believes that is stupid. Do you also want to ask me if I deny Relativity, or that the earth is a sphere? I would certainly have to deny Relativity to affirm that proposition.

I asked you to pick one question. You did. I answered. You said I failed. You never explained why I failed. I would need to know that in order to continue. But if you want to shun me, I will honor that and trouble you no more.

You never asked why you failed. You said, "Rats. I had such high hopes." I took that as sarcasm, particularly when considering what you had said to "answer" my question:

Sigh. What I hear in this question is: Which of Jesus' goals would you fail to accomplish if you were exactly like Jesus? Umm … well … if you're exactly like Jesus, then you'll accomplish what Jesus did. In fact, if you're exactly like Jesus, then you essentially are Jesus.

So, the answer to your question would be: You wouldn't fail.

But the question is so fractally bad, I don't see how you can be anything but embarrassed to ask it.

Did I pass the test?



You start off with a sigh. Then you reinterpret the question for no reason. You then respond to your own strawman. You then say that my question is "fractally bad" and that I should be "embarrassed to ask it." Then you, in a clearly sarcastic tone, ask if you passed the test.

So if this has all been a big joke to you, the least you can do is just cease now and admit so instead of continuing to pretend you're serious. Clearly, you're not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In 367, Athanasius lists the 27 documents of the New Testament alone, and he is quickly followed by Jerome and Augustine in the church in Europe. At the councils of Hippo Regius in 393, and Carthage in 397, the church in the west as a body approved the 27 documents alone as Scripture.

Closed Canon
"Since A.D. 397 the Christian church has considered the canon of the Bible to be complete; if it is complete, then it must be closed. Therefore, we cannot expect any more books to be discovered or written that would open the canon again and add to its sixty-six books. Even if a letter of Paul were discovered, it would not be canonical. After all, Paul must have written many letters during his lifetime in addition to the ones that are in the New Testament; yet the church did not include them in the canon." Charles C. Ryrie (1999-01-11). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Kindle Locations 1958-1962). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

The problem with Ryrie's conclusion is that the local synods he mentions didn't really settle the matter. After all, debates over even some books of the New Testament continued for centuries afterward; not to mention that the Old Testament Canon as defined in those western synods would be at odds with Ryrie and other modern Protestant positions.

Ryrie is correct that even if we found a long lost epistle of St. Paul it wouldn't be added to the Canon; but Ryrie isn't quite correct that the Canon was closed with Carthage in 397. There has never been a definitive "closing" of the Canon; as the subject has been debated since then right up until the present day.

The topic of the Canon is not clean and clear, but messy and complicated. It always has been.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In 367, Athanasius lists the 27 documents of the New Testament alone, and he is quickly followed by Jerome and Augustine in the church in Europe. At the councils of Hippo Regius in 393, and Carthage in 397, the church in the west as a body approved the 27 documents alone as Scripture.

Closed Canon
"Since A.D. 397 the Christian church has considered the canon of the Bible to be complete; if it is complete, then it must be closed. Therefore, we cannot expect any more books to be discovered or written that would open the canon again and add to its sixty-six books. Even if a letter of Paul were discovered, it would not be canonical. After all, Paul must have written many letters during his lifetime in addition to the ones that are in the New Testament; yet the church did not include them in the canon." Charles C. Ryrie (1999-01-11). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Kindle Locations 1958-1962). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I'm sorry, but what you've said and quoted here is completely useless to the conversation. To say that the canon has been closed since circa 400AD is wrong because the Protestants have modified it. Have you read the OP? And how can your source seriously attest that there were 66 books all along?

This entire thread is about the removal of the Apocrypha and you've dug up a source that seemingly doesn't even know what the Apocrypha are.

 

[Resha Caner]

He gave me an "agree" when I said you failed the test.

Yet your question was based on his question, and in his thread he said he had closure on the topic. So did he or didn't he? Thus begins the convoluted tale. I would prefer leaving him out of it. This is between you and me, and handling it that way would eliminate one of the many complications.

You never asked why you failed. You said, "Rats. I had such high hopes." I took that as sarcasm, particularly when considering what you had said to "answer" my question:

Here was your question:
Suppose you're Satan in the year 10BC. You have some goals:

1.) Convince God's chosen people to worship you
2.) Convince God's chosen people to worship a false god
3.) Convince God's chosen people to stop following the covenant

In what way would you fail to achieve these goals by incarnating yourself as a man and living the life that Jesus did?

As I said, the issues here are fractal. This is going to be a tough slog, but OK. Let's start with some of the foundational issues and work our way up.

#1 - I consider Satan a real being, but I don't know him personally. I don't like using real beings/people I don't know to answer speculative questions they had no part in. Would you accept an alteration to your question where we just go with some general hypothetical person? If so, you'll need to give me specifics about this hypothetical person as we proceed.

#2 - The phrase "incarnating yourself as a man and living the life that Jesus did". Given this is a condition of your question, explain to me how this hypothetical person is different than Jesus?

#3 - Feel free to tell me how I failed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As I don't believe Luther's opinion about the Deuterocanonicals is de facto authoritative, this probably doesn't concern me too much. Somewhat pragmatically Lutherans--at least in the English speaking world--tend to use the Protestant Canon; but there is no official Lutheran position about the status of the Deuterocanonical books.

We don't believe that Luther was inspired to do what he did, or even had some "authority" to define the Canon; instead we view what Luther did as engage in a very old and very complicated conversation. A conversation that's been going on for a very long time.

At the time Luther translated the Bible into German, there had never been a definitive position made. None of the Ecumenical Councils addressed the topic (keeping in mind that Lutherans only accept the first seven of the Ecumenical Councils as being Ecumenical Councils), and a study of patristics, of what the holy fathers of the Church have said over the centuries provides no clear, unambiguous, and unanimous position.

Some point to a selection of local synods from the 4th century (i.e. the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo) as being authoritative--but by their very nature they are local synods and provide instruction and guidance on such matters for within their diocese. As, conversely, we have other local synods (I'm thinking notably the Council of Laodicea) which is from the same time period, but doesn't agree with the aforementioned western synods.

And so, fundamentally, the Canon is not the result of either divine or ecclesiastical fiat; but is rather a much more organic product of a living faith among the people. And because of that, because the Canon evolved through the general consensus of the Faithful, and because of diversity of opinion on certain books throughout the Christian world (this has always been the case), it just doesn't seem possible that anyone is in any position to make a definitive, authoritative pronouncement.

The only way that the issue could be resolved would be through an ecumenical council; but that happening is unlikely, to put it extremely mildly. Of course from the perspective of Rome, there already has been one--the Council of Trent--but since no one who isn't in communion with Rome accepts Trent as authoritative or ecumenical that may settle the matter for Roman Catholics, but doesn't for us Lutherans, or others not in communion with Rome. The Orthodox, likewise, have their reasons and synods, such as the pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem which kind of(?) addressed the Canon of the Old Testament, largely as part of a broader refutation of Calvinism.

For most Protestants the matter is considered settled, largely because their confessional texts say so, and since most Protestants today trace themselves through some form or expression of the Reformed tradition or else through the Anglican tradition, the traditions established in those older Reformed and Anglican confessional texts, even if not subscribed by the denominations which evolved from them, have left their continued mark.

This sort of history is important to know because it's critical to the ongoing disputes over the Deuterocanonical books.

TL;DR -- As a Lutheran my position on whether the Deuterocanonical books are Canonical or not is I don't know. Some might argue that not knowing should be a huge problem, but we get by just fine.

-CryptoLutheran

Ok, so tell me what part of this is wrong:

We have absolutely no way whatsoever of knowing whether a text is divinely inspired or not, but rather we canonize according to popular opinion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok, so tell me what part of this is wrong:

We have absolutely no way whatsoever of knowing whether a text is divinely inspired or not, but rather we canonize according to popular opinion.

From an outsider's vantage point that probably isn't wrong. But from the vantage point of faith we trust in the Spirit's work to keep us in true faith; and that includes the received texts of Scripture.

There's a reason why in the Creed, I believe, that we confess our faith in the Holy Spirit and our faith in the Church near to one another; it is a confession of faith that God is present and at work from within the Church, even when the Church is comprised of completely fallible people.

The kind of absolutist certainty that is often demanded by many just isn't part of the Lutheran way of being.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yet your question was based on his question, and in his thread he said he had closure on the topic. So did he or didn't he? Thus begins the convoluted tale. I would prefer leaving him out of it. This is between you and me, and handling it that way would eliminate one of the many complications.



Here was your question:
Suppose you're Satan in the year 10BC. You have some goals:

1.) Convince God's chosen people to worship you
2.) Convince God's chosen people to worship a false god
3.) Convince God's chosen people to stop following the covenant

In what way would you fail to achieve these goals by incarnating yourself as a man and living the life that Jesus did?

As I said, the issues here are fractal. This is going to be a tough slog, but OK. Let's start with some of the foundational issues and work our way up.

#1 - I consider Satan a real being, but I don't know him personally. I don't like using real beings/people I don't know to answer speculative questions they had no part in. Would you accept an alteration to your question where we just go with some general hypothetical person? If so, you'll need to give me specifics about this hypothetical person as we proceed.

#2 - The phrase "incarnating yourself as a man and living the life that Jesus did". Given this is a condition of your question, explain to me how this hypothetical person is different than Jesus?

#3 - Feel free to tell me how I failed.

Suppose I pretended to be a Christian. I went to church. I tithed regularly. I prayed with my family. But in my heart I held complete and utter contempt for God, and in my private thoughts I cursed him without ceasing. According to your utterly absurd strawman, I'd be a Christian.

Satan, pretending to be Christ, would still be Satan on the inside. Is there a part of that you don't understand?