The Reliability of the Canon

5,041 Views | 113 Replies | Last: 10 days ago by Faithful Ag
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:41p, 8/18/26
Most times the canon conversation goes like this:

Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

Let's grant that the Protestant answer is true (despite the varying canons, debate about what belonged in/out, etc). The next logical question is: why should we trust that they recognized the correct books? How are we sure they didn't get it wrong? These same guys got the most important issue, salvation itself, wrong. Depending on your branch of Protestantism, they got Baptism wrong. The Eucharist wrong. Heck, they identified the OT books incorrectly, showing that they were clearly capable of making canonical errors. The list keeps going.

But, for some reason, the one tradition needed for sola scriptura to possibly be true (a correct NT canon) just happens to be the only one they got correct? The bible doesn't make the claim that these 27 belong and others do not. We only believe these are the word of God, handed down by the apostles, because those guys said so. So why should we trust that they were correct in recognizing this as truth when they got everything else so wildly wrong?

I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but it is a worthwhile question to consider, especially if you have kids. The growing deconstruction movement in the evangelical community is predicated on this idea that all these things we "know" are just things we're taught as kids and never question. But once they are finally questioned, the answer they get always misses the point: why do we believe these specific books are the Word of God? Especially when there are others that claim that about their own books, and that our book is not.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 12:45p, 8/18/26
AG
The Banned said:
I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church....just as the Nicene Creed says. I just don't believe it is the one that Rome commandeered.
Reply Quote
10
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 12:46p, 8/18/26
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church....just as the Nicene Creed says. I just don't believe it is the one that Rome commandeered.

Why do you believe that? Where does that belief come from?
Reply Quote
1
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 12:53p, 8/18/26
AG
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church....just as the Nicene Creed says. I just don't believe it is the one that Rome commandeered.

Why do you believe that? Where does that belief come from?

What occurred at Nicea can be substantiated by Scripture so I am fine calling it a legitimate Council and the Creed that came of it is good
Reply Quote
3
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 12:55p, 8/18/26
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church....just as the Nicene Creed says. I just don't believe it is the one that Rome commandeered.

Why do you believe that? Where does that belief come from?

What occurred at Nicea can be substantiated by Scripture so I am fine calling it a legitimate Council and the Creed that came of it is good

How do you know what Scripture is or isn't? That was the whole point of the OP...
Reply Quote
1
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:09p, 8/18/26
AG
One thing that comes to mind is when Peter equates Paul's writings to "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3.
Reply Quote
1
A is A
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:11p, 8/18/26
AG
The Banned said:

I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church


Because it isn't
Reply Quote
4
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 1:13p, 8/18/26
10andBOUNCE said:
One thing that comes to mind is when Peter equates Paul's writings to "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3.


What makes 2 Peter Scripture? How do we know?
Reply Quote
2
A is A
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:14p, 8/18/26
AG
The RCC made significant changes (to the creed itself too) after 900+ years of agreement.

If you don't have a problem with the RCC making significant changes in doctrine, why question evangelicals?
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to A is A • 1:26p, 8/18/26
A is A said:
The RCC made significant changes (to the creed itself too) after 900+ years of agreement.

If you don't have a problem with the RCC making significant changes in doctrine, why question evangelicals?

Establishing a uniform canon of "these books are in and these books are out" was a significant change. Should I have a problem with the guys who did that?

Jesus said He was the son of God. That was a significant change to the established understanding of the Messiah. Should I have a problem with that?

The NT saying that salvation is through faith and not through the Law was a significant change. Should I have a problem with that?

ETA: It would be cool if you'd stick with the topic at hand instead of making it a Catholic bashing thread, when I specifically said I wasn't trying to convince anyone of that
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 1:39p, 8/18/26
AG
Faithful Ag said:
10andBOUNCE said:
One thing that comes to mind is when Peter equates Paul's writings to "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3.


What makes 2 Peter Scripture? How do we know?

Cuz it was written by the first Pope! Duh! Ex-cathedra brah!
Reply Quote
2 edits
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 1:41p, 8/18/26
10andBOUNCE said:
Faithful Ag said:
10andBOUNCE said:
One thing that comes to mind is when Peter equates Paul's writings to "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3.


What makes 2 Peter Scripture? How do we know?

Cuz it was written by the first Pope! Duh!

Why do you believe Peter actually wrote it?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:47p, 8/18/26
AG
Peter identifies himself in the first sentence.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 1:52p, 8/18/26
10andBOUNCE said:
Peter identifies himself in the first sentence.

And? It couldn't have been forged?

The Gospel of Thomas says it was written by Thomas.
Reply Quote
2
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:59p, 8/18/26
AG
I am better with multiple choice tests...

Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 2:01p, 8/18/26
It's not a test... It's a genuine question that many people ask and leads to them falling away. It's a question that we should be ready to give an answer for. Not trying to say you're wrong or bad for not having one, but it's not something to shrug off either.
Reply Quote
1
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 2:08p, 8/18/26
AG
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church....just as the Nicene Creed says. I just don't believe it is the one that Rome commandeered.

Why do you believe that? Where does that belief come from?

What occurred at Nicea can be substantiated by Scripture so I am fine calling it a legitimate Council and the Creed that came of it is good

If that is true, why the heck did they need to have the council?
Reply Quote
1
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to A is A • 2:10p, 8/18/26
AG
A is A said:
The Banned said:

I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church


Because it isn't

There's some enlightenment for you! Dang! And all this time I thought it was. I guess I will just have to pick whether I want to be a JW or a Mormon or a Presbyterian, but wait, which version of Presbyterianism ... ok, I will just go non-denominational, but wait, that's actually a denomination. ... I am so confused.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 2:21p, 8/18/26
The Banned said:
Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

I don't understand the alternative answer.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 2:22p, 8/18/26
Martin Q. Blank said:
The Banned said:
Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

I don't understand the alternative answer.

It's not about an alternative answer. It's asking the further question: why should we believe they recognized what was and wasn't scripture correctly?
Reply Quote
3
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 2:28p, 8/18/26
AG
The Banned said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The Banned said:
Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

I don't understand the alternative answer.

It's not about an alternative answer. It's asking the further question: why should we believe they recognized what was and wasn't scripture correctly?

I appreciate the effort here because as you correctly point out, the inevitable result of the "deconstructionists" is that they will sooner than later have us believing it was all just a fairy tale.

But you are never going to get a straight answer to your question because to do so would be the dialectical equivalent of throwing oneself on an unpinned grenade.
Reply Quote
1
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 2:30p, 8/18/26
The Banned said:
Most times the canon conversation goes like this:

Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

Let's grant that this is true (despite the varying canons, debate about what belonged in/out, etc). The next logical question is: why should we trust that they recognized the correct books? How are we sure they didn't get it wrong? These same guys got the most important issue, salvation itself, wrong. Depending on your branch of Protestantism, they got Baptism wrong. The Eucharist wrong. Heck, they identified the OT books incorrectly, showing that they were clearly capable of making canonical errors. The list keeps going.

But, for some reason, the one tradition needed for sola scriptura to possibly be true (a correct NT canon) just happens to be the only one they got correct? The bible doesn't make the claim that these 27 belong and others do not. We only believe these are the word of God, handed down by the apostles, because those guys said so. So why should we trust that they were correct in recognizing this as truth when they got everything else so wildly wrong?

I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but it is a worthwhile question to consider, especially if you have kids. The growing deconstruction movement in the evangelical community is predicated on this idea that all these things we "know" are just things we're taught as kids and never question. But once they are finally questioned, the answer they get always misses the point: why do we believe these specific books are the Word of God? Especially when there are others that claim that about their own books, and that our book is not.


I love the curiosity! Asking the big and hard questions and doing the research has been one of the biggest learning experiences and blessings of my life.

Now, to the question, why should we trust that they recognized the correct books?

Answer: You should only trust them if the content is true. To determine truth you should have a framework for testing the truth. This is how the early guys recognized scripture.

Here are a few of the things that convince me of the Biblical text's authenticity:
1. Description of nature, the curse, the purpose of man.
2. Corroboration in archaeology. Look for works by Titus Kennedy and Joel Kramer.
3. Fulfilled Prophecy: Read Psalms 22 and you will see why Jesus quoted verse 1 from the cross.
4. Fulfilled prophecy in the NT
5. Jesus use of the OT scriptures
6. Internal consistency - how we can eliminate the gnostic gospels
7. factual errors - how we can eliminate the gnostic gospels
Reply Quote
1
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 2:42p, 8/18/26
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church....just as the Nicene Creed says. I just don't believe it is the one that Rome commandeered.

Why do you believe that? Where does that belief come from?

What occurred at Nicea can be substantiated by Scripture so I am fine calling it a legitimate Council and the Creed that came of it is good

If that is true, why the heck did they need to have the council?

Constantine trying to keep the peace?
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 2:47p, 8/18/26
AG
The Banned said:
It's not a test... It's a genuine question that many people ask and leads to them falling away. It's a question that we should be ready to give an answer for. Not trying to say you're wrong or bad for not having one, but it's not something to shrug off either.

I just didn't know how we were going to get past a question like "how do you know something wasn't forged?" Can we really KNOW at the end of the day? I can talk about how there were many copies made and it was sent and used amongst the first Christians and it was preserved with the early church and those who succeeded the apostles. Faith is going to play a role in any defense we give.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 2:49p, 8/18/26
DirtDiver said:
The Banned said:
and Most times the canon conversation goes like this:

Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

Let's grant that this is true (despite the varying canons, debate about what belonged in/out, etc). The next logical question is: why should we trust that they recognized the correct books? How are we sure they didn't get it wrong? These same guys got the most important issue, salvation itself, wrong. Depending on your branch of Protestantism, they got Baptism wrong. The Eucharist wrong. Heck, they identified the OT books incorrectly, showing that they were clearly capable of making canonical errors. The list keeps going.

But, for some reason, the one tradition needed for sola scriptura to possibly be true (a correct NT canon) just happens to be the only one they got correct? The bible doesn't make the claim that these 27 belong and others do not. We only believe these are the word of God, handed down by the apostles, because those guys said so. So why should we trust that they were correct in recognizing this as truth when they got everything else so wildly wrong?

I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but it is a worthwhile question to consider, especially if you have kids. The growing deconstruction movement in the evangelical community is predicated on this idea that all these things we "know" are just things we're taught as kids and never question. But once they are finally questioned, the answer they get always misses the point: why do we believe these specific books are the Word of God? Especially when there are others that claim that about their own books, and that our book is not.


I love the curiosity! Asking the big and hard questions and doing the research has been one of the biggest learning experiences and blessings of my life.

Now, to the question, why should we trust that they recognized the correct books?

Answer: You should only trust them if the content is true. To determine truth you should have a framework for testing the truth. This is how the early guys recognized scripture.

Here are a few of the things that convince me of the Biblical text's authenticity:
1. Description of nature, the curse, the purpose of man.
2. Corroboration in archaeology. Look for works by Titus Kennedy and Joel Kramer.
3. Fulfilled Prophecy: Read Psalms 22 and you will see why Jesus quoted verse 1 from the cross.
4. Fulfilled prophecy in the NT
5. Jesus use of the OT scriptures
6. Internal consistency - how we can eliminate the gnostic gospels
7. factual errors - how we can eliminate the gnostic gospels

Thanks for the thought out answer. I want to understand fully. Here is how I'm understanding what you're getting at. Because you personally agree these things seem to be in line, then you can believe they belong?
Reply Quote
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 2:50p, 8/18/26
The Banned said:
A is A said:
The RCC made significant changes (to the creed itself too) after 900+ years of agreement.

If you don't have a problem with the RCC making significant changes in doctrine, why question evangelicals?

Establishing a uniform canon of "these books are in and these books are out" was a significant change. Should I have a problem with the guys who did that?

Jesus said He was the son of God. That was a significant change to the established understanding of the Messiah. Should I have a problem with that?

The NT saying that salvation is through faith and not through the Law was a significant change. Should I have a problem with that?

ETA: It would be cool if you'd stick with the topic at hand instead of making it a Catholic bashing thread, when I specifically said I wasn't trying to convince anyone of that


Quote:
Jesus said He was the son of God. That was a significant change to the established understanding of the Messiah. Should I have a problem with that?


Yes, unless it's true.

Considered to be one of the prophesies of the Messiah.
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15 but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (Lit: God with us).


Quote:
The NT saying that salvation is through faith and not through the Law was a significant change. Should I have a problem with that?

While many teach and believe this, I don't think it's supported by the Biblical text. Salvation in the OT has always been by grace through faith. See Genesis 15 and Romans 4 for the explanation. Specifically in the person, promise, and/or work of God and through Jesus. See also Galatians for the inadequacy of the law.

The Law succeeds in identifying sin, God's holy character, helping us understand how we should relate to God and others, but is incapable of making us righteous. This requires a heart change which is promised in the fullness of the new covenant.

"Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!"
Deuteronomy 5:29
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 2:55p, 8/18/26
The Banned said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
The Banned said:
Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

I don't understand the alternative answer.

It's not about an alternative answer. It's asking the further question: why should we believe they recognized what was and wasn't scripture correctly?

If there's not an alternative answer, why is a "Protestant" answering it?
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 2:59p, 8/18/26
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
It's not a test... It's a genuine question that many people ask and leads to them falling away. It's a question that we should be ready to give an answer for. Not trying to say you're wrong or bad for not having one, but it's not something to shrug off either.

I just didn't know how we were going to get past a question like "how do you know something wasn't forged?" Can we really KNOW at the end of the day? I can talk about how there were many copies made and it was sent and used amongst the first Christians and it was preserved with the early church and those who succeeded the apostles. Faith is going to play a role in any defense we give.

Yes, faith is going to play a role on both sides, but that's not the point. We're saying that this group of men got basically everything wrong (so they aren't reliable) but they also got this right (somehow now reliable). If they were unreliable, why should we trust any of it? And if they got it right, why shouldn't we trust them on the rest of it?

Reply Quote
5
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 3:02p, 8/18/26
AG
I don't know what you mean by group of men got everything wrong except this one thing. Who are we talking about here?
Reply Quote
Alpha Texan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:24p, 8/18/26
AG
An important note that I think OP fails to realize: Most protestants recognize the early church leaders as just that: the early church leaders. They don't think that the Christian church blipped into existence for the first time when Luther hammered the paper to the door. Protestants claim their ecclesial heritage through the ranks of the faithful saints who lived when the Roman Catholic Church was more biblical (in the words of a protestant) than it is now. Protestants still claim Athanasius, Augustine, etc..

Traditional Baptists, for example, don't think that they are the one true church of all history, only being a few hundred years old. Traditional Baptists recognize that many saints have come before them that have contributed to the Catholic Church, despite not being Baptists.
Reply Quote
1
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 3:37p, 8/18/26
The Banned said:
DirtDiver said:
The Banned said:
and Most times the canon conversation goes like this:

Catholic/EO: Who decided the canon?

Protestant: No one decided it. They simply recognized it

Let's grant that this is true (despite the varying canons, debate about what belonged in/out, etc). The next logical question is: why should we trust that they recognized the correct books? How are we sure they didn't get it wrong? These same guys got the most important issue, salvation itself, wrong. Depending on your branch of Protestantism, they got Baptism wrong. The Eucharist wrong. Heck, they identified the OT books incorrectly, showing that they were clearly capable of making canonical errors. The list keeps going.

But, for some reason, the one tradition needed for sola scriptura to possibly be true (a correct NT canon) just happens to be the only one they got correct? The bible doesn't make the claim that these 27 belong and others do not. We only believe these are the word of God, handed down by the apostles, because those guys said so. So why should we trust that they were correct in recognizing this as truth when they got everything else so wildly wrong?

I recognize that I'm not going to convince anyone on this board that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but it is a worthwhile question to consider, especially if you have kids. The growing deconstruction movement in the evangelical community is predicated on this idea that all these things we "know" are just things we're taught as kids and never question. But once they are finally questioned, the answer they get always misses the point: why do we believe these specific books are the Word of God? Especially when there are others that claim that about their own books, and that our book is not.


I love the curiosity! Asking the big and hard questions and doing the research has been one of the biggest learning experiences and blessings of my life.

Now, to the question, why should we trust that they recognized the correct books?

Answer: You should only trust them if the content is true. To determine truth you should have a framework for testing the truth. This is how the early guys recognized scripture.

Here are a few of the things that convince me of the Biblical text's authenticity:
1. Description of nature, the curse, the purpose of man.
2. Corroboration in archaeology. Look for works by Titus Kennedy and Joel Kramer.
3. Fulfilled Prophecy: Read Psalms 22 and you will see why Jesus quoted verse 1 from the cross.
4. Fulfilled prophecy in the NT
5. Jesus use of the OT scriptures
6. Internal consistency - how we can eliminate the gnostic gospels
7. factual errors - how we can eliminate the gnostic gospels

Thanks for the thought out answer. I want to understand fully. Here is how I'm understanding what you're getting at. Because you personally agree these things seem to be in line, then you can believe they belong?


Yes. Taking a page from J. Warner Wallace, cold case homicide investigator atheist turned Christian, "everything is possible, not every answer is reasonable".

In your initial post, you laid out how the following:
Quote:
How are we sure they didn't get it wrong? These same guys got the most important issue, salvation itself, wrong. Depending on your branch of Protestantism, they got Baptism wrong. The Eucharist wrong. Heck, they identified the OT books incorrectly, showing that they were clearly capable of making canonical errors. The list keeps going


These things are all possible. Given that they are possible, we need to determine if the conclusions are reasonable so that we don't get fooled. If we get fooled, that's typically okay unless there are consequences. What are the consequences if God has reveled Himself to us and we make a conscious choice to dismiss, ignore, or pursue life independently from Him?

I don't want to make that mistake. My faith in Jesus was initially built on a high degree of faith and little evidence. (That evidence was little but super powerful as it was the evidence of my own sinfulness). My faith was challenged with all of the options out there. When filtering through the options, other religions, gnostic gospels, etc, it helps to have a framework of truth and run things through them. I wanted to know if my intial faith in Jesus was a foolish pursuit.

One example: The Quran teaches that Jesus didn't die. (written approx 600 A.D), the gospel writers detail His death and resurrection. These 2 options can not be true at the same time. The options are:

1. Jesus never existed.
2. Jesus existed and died.
3. Jesus existed and never died.

Which option of the 3 has the most evidence to support it being true?
Reply Quote
1
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Alpha Texan • 3:40p, 8/18/26
Alpha Texan said:
An important note that I think OP fails to realize: Most protestants recognize the early church leaders as just that: the early church leaders. They don't think that the Christian church blipped into existence for the first time when Luther hammered the paper to the door. Protestants claim their ecclesial heritage through the ranks of the faithful saints who lived when the Roman Catholic Church was more biblical (in the words of a protestant) than it is now. Protestants still claim Athanasius, Augustine, etc..

Traditional Baptists, for example, don't think that they are the one true church of all history, only being a few hundred years old. Traditional Baptists recognize that many saints have come before them that have contributed to the Catholic Church, despite not being Baptists.

I think the OP's point is that these early church leaders believed and taught in things many Protestants reject today. For example: Baptismal Regeneration, The Eucharist, The sacraments, etc.

So why accept some things and reject other things?
Reply Quote
6
Alpha Texan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 3:48p, 8/18/26
AG
Faithful Ag said:
Alpha Texan said:
An important note that I think OP fails to realize: Most protestants recognize the early church leaders as just that: the early church leaders. They don't think that the Christian church blipped into existence for the first time when Luther hammered the paper to the door. Protestants claim their ecclesial heritage through the ranks of the faithful saints who lived when the Roman Catholic Church was more biblical (in the words of a protestant) than it is now. Protestants still claim Athanasius, Augustine, etc..

Traditional Baptists, for example, don't think that they are the one true church of all history, only being a few hundred years old. Traditional Baptists recognize that many saints have come before them that have contributed to the Catholic Church, despite not being Baptists.

I think the OP's point is that these early church leaders believed and taught in things many Protestants reject today. For example: Baptismal Regeneration, The Eucharist, The sacraments, etc.

So why accept some things and reject other things?

I reject some things and accept others because I am capable of spiritual triage. I can disagree with people and recognize what topics are more important than others, this also helps me to disagree with someone while recognizing that they are a saint. Why I reject some things that a person says and accept others depends on our understandings of scripture.

I've only ever known 1 person who was fully man and not fully God whose theological opinions I endorse entirely, and that person is me, but I don't even claim to believe that my theology is perfect. Does any group or denomination within the church share a hivemind in which they all agree on all theological topics?
Reply Quote
1
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 3:51p, 8/18/26
Faithful Ag said:
10andBOUNCE said:
One thing that comes to mind is when Peter equates Paul's writings to "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3.


What makes 2 Peter Scripture? How do we know?


What is the evidence that supports 2 Peter being scripture and what is the evidence that would make that case that it's not?
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 3:54p, 8/18/26
AG
Faithful Ag said:
Alpha Texan said:
An important note that I think OP fails to realize: Most protestants recognize the early church leaders as just that: the early church leaders. They don't think that the Christian church blipped into existence for the first time when Luther hammered the paper to the door. Protestants claim their ecclesial heritage through the ranks of the faithful saints who lived when the Roman Catholic Church was more biblical (in the words of a protestant) than it is now. Protestants still claim Athanasius, Augustine, etc..

Traditional Baptists, for example, don't think that they are the one true church of all history, only being a few hundred years old. Traditional Baptists recognize that many saints have come before them that have contributed to the Catholic Church, despite not being Baptists.

I think the OP's point is that these early church leaders believed and taught in things many Protestants reject today. For example: Baptismal Regeneration, The Eucharist, The sacraments, etc.

So why accept some things and reject other things?

If they taught things that aligned with Scripture, then their teachings should be used. If it was grey area, then perhaps not.

All that matters now is that we have both their teachings as well as the complete canon of Scripture.
Reply Quote
Last Page
Page 1 of 4 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.