Some people believe that Scripture is God's word due to having heard it and believing. Like it says in John 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." That's also how some people believed in Jesus even during His time on earth. Others unfortunately just follow the opinion of whatever crowd they are in.
"1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."
- John 10:1-5
They let the Rabbinic israelites decide the Old Testament for them.
The other books were israeli too but they were older sects that fell out of prominence.
>admits that his Bible is man-made and fallible
Intellectual dead-end.
5 months ago
Dirk
My apprehension of the bible is fallible
What's the infallible authority by which you claim to have nailed down the canon? Can I get a source for that doctrine in your church?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>My apprehension of the bible is fallible
Duh. >What's the infallible authority by which you claim to have nailed down the canon?
The Holy Spirit. You can keep your man-made canon, though.
5 months ago
Dirk
How did the spirit communicate the canon to you? How is the resulting canon infallible?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Jesus said the holy spirit would guide The Church via the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. He also said the Holy Spirit wouldn't leave the Church. The Church of that time still exists.
5 months ago
Dirk
Answer my questions
5 months ago
Anonymous
How did the spirit communicate the canon to you? How is the resulting canon infallible?
whoops accidentally said "Holy Spirit" twice. To answer your question though the early church believed that the Holy Spirit guided the ecumenical councils over the following centuries. The results of the councils were the canon among other things. We believe the canon is infallible because we believe in the divinity and real presence of the Holy Spirit in The Church.
5 months ago
Dirk
The ecumenical councils did not produce a canon. Local councils and other sources contradict the catholic canon.
What happened at Trent, specifically? Did someone say "this is the canon" and everyone else said "yeah the spirit told this guy the canon"?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Stop lying homosexual
5 months ago
Dirk
5 months ago
Anonymous
What is that supposed to mean?
5 months ago
Dirk
These are the ecumenical councils. None of them are on your list. They did not produce a canon.
5 months ago
Anonymous
So what?
5 months ago
Dirk
Read our conversation again
5 months ago
Anonymous
There's more than one person in this thread. Why does it make a difference whether the council that decided the canon was ecumenical?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>no reply
5 months ago
Anonymous
The canon was decided at the Council of Carthage which was a synod of bishops. It was confirmed at others. The belief is the same however. The bishops were guided by the Holy Spirit. I don't know much about the council of Trent I'm not Catholic.
5 months ago
Dirk
Which part of that sequence was infallible?
5 months ago
Anonymous
I'm pretty sure it was infallibly confirmed at Trent. Before that, it didn't need to be infallibly confirmed because every Christian had the same beliefs.
5 months ago
Dirk
>every christian has the same beliefs (canon)
But that's not true
http://bible-researcher.com/canon4.html
5 months ago
Anonymous
How many Churches do you think existed back then, ya little weasel?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>The bishops were guided by the Holy Spirit
5 months ago
Dirk
Which? Infallibly?
How many Churches do you think existed back then, ya little weasel?
What?
A number of these sources predate Carthage
5 months ago
Anonymous
How many denominations do you think there were? They all had the same beliefs.
5 months ago
Dirk
Are you avoiding the issue or are you lost?
5 months ago
Anonymous
What issue? They all belonged to the same Church. No one was debating the against the Church (except heretics).
5 months ago
Dirk
There were different canons within the same church. There was no ecumenical council ruling on the issue to declare the stance of the whole church. I just linked them to you.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Why does that matter? Once the canon was decided, they all agreed.
5 months ago
Dirk
Are you referring to Trent? The 17th century?
5 months ago
Anonymous
No the council of Rome. Lol. Wtf?
5 months ago
Dirk
There were competing canons after the council of Rome, if the gelasian decree is even authentic to that council. Did you click the link? Are you being disingenuous or just lazy?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>There were competing canons
Let me try asking one more time. Why do you think that it matters how the deuterocanon was classified by individual theologians? Do you think they were trying to start their own churches with a different canon? Do you think they were challenging the authority of the Church? Do you think they were having pillow fights, but instead of pillows they were using modern printed bibles? Please help me to understand what point you think you are making, and why that matters in the context of modern Protestant biblical canon.
5 months ago
Dirk
So they didn't all agree, right? And there wasn't an ecumenical council on it, right? Answer yes or no
5 months ago
Anonymous
>So they didn't all agree, right?
Who is "they"? Church fathers? Popes? Church congregations? Theologians?
>And there wasn't an ecumenical council on it, right?
Why does that matter?
>Answer yes or no
You're actually autistic. Holy shit!
5 months ago
Dirk
I just refuted both these assertions in this conversation and I don't want to breeze by them
The whole process was guided by the Holy Spirit. I don't know how it works but I have faith it guided the council. How about you cut to the chase and present where you see that IS fallible and your countervailing point?
Infallibly?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>I just refuted both these assertions
What assertions? Lmao. What the frick are you smoking?
The whole process was guided by the Holy Spirit. I don't know how it works but I have faith it guided the council. How about you cut to the chase and present where you see that IS fallible and your countervailing point?
You're just making ad hominem arguments. Imagine someone has no denominational affiliation and has just come to believe in Jesus. Why should they accept the 66-book Protestant canon as a collection of inspired works?
5 months ago
Dirk
That's not what ad hominem means
The basis of the evidence
How did your church arrive at a canon? Did they meet in council over years and study, or did someone claim god told them and everyone rolled with it?
5 months ago
Anonymous
It's an ad hominem in the technical sense of the term. >An ad hominem argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive use of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Argument_from_commitment
Merely saying that Catholics have the same problems with determining the canon as Protestants, does not actually address the question of how you determine the canon. It may be that both Prots and Catholics have no way of knowing what the canon is. So, you're just avoiding the question.
5 months ago
Dirk
Answer my question. It gets to the heart of the issue.
He's fallible but he's not really significant on this issue
I would say the authorities we trust are the extant records of the early church and what they accepted as canon, text criticism that can identify inauthentic texts, and the expert scholars who study those sorts of issues. There's enough certainty that the canon holds confessional status for most Protestants.
How do you? You just listen to some guy in a funny hat, who's more qualified because he went to a special priest school. You know we can read the Bible too, right?
Being a prot is worse than being a muslim.
muslims worship a 7th cen satan worshipper
prots worship several 16th century satan worshippers
how embarrassing!
>How do Protestants determine the canon of scripture?
>IV. The authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God.i
>V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture,k and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.l
>k 1 Tim. 3:15.
>l 1 John 2:20,27; John 16:13,14; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; Isa. 59:21.
Me, John Protestant, decides. Expect, huge epic changes next year!
Some people believe that Scripture is God's word due to having heard it and believing. Like it says in John 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." That's also how some people believed in Jesus even during His time on earth. Others unfortunately just follow the opinion of whatever crowd they are in.
Okay so why 66 books instead of 81?
"1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."
- John 10:1-5
Huh? Do Prots even understand what they are quoting?
That's just a cope
Don't speak such of our Lord's words.
They get a cannon, and shoot it at the works for consideration. Anything left counts
Tweets.
They let the Rabbinic israelites decide the Old Testament for them.
The other books were israeli too but they were older sects that fell out of prominence.
Any canon after Marcion is invalid
pick and choose. it's a loose canon, after all.
Fallible authorities
But how does that work exactly?
>Your authorities: fallible
>My authorities: infallible
The same way it works for you, just without the extra step of blindly trusting some group of clergy on the topic
>admits that his Bible is man-made and fallible
Intellectual dead-end.
My apprehension of the bible is fallible
What's the infallible authority by which you claim to have nailed down the canon? Can I get a source for that doctrine in your church?
>My apprehension of the bible is fallible
Duh.
>What's the infallible authority by which you claim to have nailed down the canon?
The Holy Spirit. You can keep your man-made canon, though.
How did the spirit communicate the canon to you? How is the resulting canon infallible?
Jesus said the holy spirit would guide The Church via the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. He also said the Holy Spirit wouldn't leave the Church. The Church of that time still exists.
Answer my questions
whoops accidentally said "Holy Spirit" twice. To answer your question though the early church believed that the Holy Spirit guided the ecumenical councils over the following centuries. The results of the councils were the canon among other things. We believe the canon is infallible because we believe in the divinity and real presence of the Holy Spirit in The Church.
The ecumenical councils did not produce a canon. Local councils and other sources contradict the catholic canon.
What happened at Trent, specifically? Did someone say "this is the canon" and everyone else said "yeah the spirit told this guy the canon"?
Stop lying homosexual
What is that supposed to mean?
These are the ecumenical councils. None of them are on your list. They did not produce a canon.
So what?
Read our conversation again
There's more than one person in this thread. Why does it make a difference whether the council that decided the canon was ecumenical?
>no reply
The canon was decided at the Council of Carthage which was a synod of bishops. It was confirmed at others. The belief is the same however. The bishops were guided by the Holy Spirit. I don't know much about the council of Trent I'm not Catholic.
Which part of that sequence was infallible?
I'm pretty sure it was infallibly confirmed at Trent. Before that, it didn't need to be infallibly confirmed because every Christian had the same beliefs.
>every christian has the same beliefs (canon)
But that's not true
http://bible-researcher.com/canon4.html
How many Churches do you think existed back then, ya little weasel?
>The bishops were guided by the Holy Spirit
Which? Infallibly?
What?
A number of these sources predate Carthage
How many denominations do you think there were? They all had the same beliefs.
Are you avoiding the issue or are you lost?
What issue? They all belonged to the same Church. No one was debating the against the Church (except heretics).
There were different canons within the same church. There was no ecumenical council ruling on the issue to declare the stance of the whole church. I just linked them to you.
Why does that matter? Once the canon was decided, they all agreed.
Are you referring to Trent? The 17th century?
No the council of Rome. Lol. Wtf?
There were competing canons after the council of Rome, if the gelasian decree is even authentic to that council. Did you click the link? Are you being disingenuous or just lazy?
>There were competing canons
Let me try asking one more time. Why do you think that it matters how the deuterocanon was classified by individual theologians? Do you think they were trying to start their own churches with a different canon? Do you think they were challenging the authority of the Church? Do you think they were having pillow fights, but instead of pillows they were using modern printed bibles? Please help me to understand what point you think you are making, and why that matters in the context of modern Protestant biblical canon.
So they didn't all agree, right? And there wasn't an ecumenical council on it, right? Answer yes or no
>So they didn't all agree, right?
Who is "they"? Church fathers? Popes? Church congregations? Theologians?
>And there wasn't an ecumenical council on it, right?
Why does that matter?
>Answer yes or no
You're actually autistic. Holy shit!
I just refuted both these assertions in this conversation and I don't want to breeze by them
Infallibly?
>I just refuted both these assertions
What assertions? Lmao. What the frick are you smoking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
Heresy is very diverse
The whole process was guided by the Holy Spirit. I don't know how it works but I have faith it guided the council. How about you cut to the chase and present where you see that IS fallible and your countervailing point?
This anon beat me to it.
Mind the SEEZM!
This is incredibly painful to watch, thank you for sharing this.
But how do those fallible authorities choose the books, and why do you believe they choose they right ones?
The same method your church used
You're just making ad hominem arguments. Imagine someone has no denominational affiliation and has just come to believe in Jesus. Why should they accept the 66-book Protestant canon as a collection of inspired works?
That's not what ad hominem means
The basis of the evidence
How did your church arrive at a canon? Did they meet in council over years and study, or did someone claim god told them and everyone rolled with it?
It's an ad hominem in the technical sense of the term.
>An ad hominem argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive use of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Argument_from_commitment
Merely saying that Catholics have the same problems with determining the canon as Protestants, does not actually address the question of how you determine the canon. It may be that both Prots and Catholics have no way of knowing what the canon is. So, you're just avoiding the question.
Answer my question. It gets to the heart of the issue.
I'm asking about you, can you be specific?
Is Martin Luther one of them?
He's fallible but he's not really significant on this issue
I would say the authorities we trust are the extant records of the early church and what they accepted as canon, text criticism that can identify inauthentic texts, and the expert scholars who study those sorts of issues. There's enough certainty that the canon holds confessional status for most Protestants.
Same
Hate to break it to you but you got the 66 books meme from him.
>text criticism that can identify inauthentic texts
So do you reject the epistles not written by Paul and 2 Peter?
Who is 2 peter?
The Second Epistle of Peter
Like with anything protestant, it's whatever they feel or like
How do you? You just listen to some guy in a funny hat, who's more qualified because he went to a special priest school. You know we can read the Bible too, right?
>You know we can read the Bible too, right?
How did you determine the canon of that Bible you're reading? Same question, numbnuts.
basically copied the OT canon from the rabbis that personally rejected jesus and the NT from the church.
Being a prot is worse than being a muslim.
muslims worship a 7th cen satan worshipper
prots worship several 16th century satan worshippers
how embarrassing!
>How do Protestants determine the canon of scripture?
>IV. The authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God.i
>i 2 Pet. 1:19,21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13.
>V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture,k and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.l
>k 1 Tim. 3:15.
>l 1 John 2:20,27; John 16:13,14; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; Isa. 59:21.
How do Catholics determine which authority to determine the canon of scripture for them?
They don't, they just steal other churches' canons.
>i-i-i-it canonized itself!!!
Jag är bög helvete
They trust the Roman Catholic Apostolic church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ