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?

---

Biblical Comprehension and high distrust for teaching and high trust for scriptures.

Today I disagree with some Biblical scholars who have more information than the early church teachers. We have advantages that they didn't as most of them never had a completed NT for the first few hundred years as there were letters written in different places and cities that had to travel and be copied. (I believe it was all written in the first century but not in a study hall where they were all together).

When I do a Bible Study, I prefer to study the Bible and not someone's commentary on the Bible. (Last Resort) Look at the level of responsibility here...

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16

Inspired literally means the breath of God.

2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

According to these passages, I'm not missing anything if I never read a page, commentary, or work outside of the scriptures.

I have a choice:
1. Where does God want us to focus our study efforts? Scriptures of commentaries?
2. Every commentary or preacher, whether today or the 1st century can be examined or evaluated by their Biblical interpretation. Is their teaching, doctrine, or practice aligned with the text?
3. When they disagree, whose right?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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?

---

What? I already granted the alternate answer as being "true" and going from there.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know what you mean by group of men got everything wrong except this one thing. Who are we talking about here?

---

The church leaders who said "this is canonical and this is not".

I trust that their understanding and statement of what is cannon is true.

DirtDiver said:

---

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?

---

You've moved from "how do we know these books are scripture" to "was Jesus historically real. I'm good with evidence for Jesis being a real person, but it's a separate topic.

The question is why we should trust the particular books that are in there belong?

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

I trust that their understanding and statement of what is cannon is true.

---

Even though they got basically everything else wrong, from a baptist perspective?

---

Oh so far from it! The trinity and the Nicaean creed, the full deity of Christ, the incarnation, the authority of scripture, and most importantly of all as we roll these things into one: the gospel. The fact that God became man, lived a perfect life and took the punishment of our sins on the cross.

Yeah, I like to think me and Ol' Athanasius could sit down over a nice bowl of mediterranean food at Cava and talk about what we agree on for a couple of hours. Then at the end of the conversation, I would probably say, "Athenasius, my friend, this has been nice. But I don't speak Greek and I'm afraid I didn't understand a word you said. Would you like to do this again next week?"

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

I trust that their understanding and statement of what is cannon is true.

---

Even though they got basically everything else wrong, from a baptist perspective?

---

Oh so far from it! The trinity and the Nicaean creed, the full deity of Christ, the incarnation, the authority of scripture, and most importantly of all as we roll these things into one: the gospel. The fact that God became man, lived a perfect life and took the punishment of our sins on the cross.

Yeah, I like to think me and Ol' Athanasius could sit down over a nice bowl of mediterranean food at Cava and talk about what we agree on for a couple of hours. Then at the end of the conversation, I would probably say, "Athenasius, my friend, this has been nice. But I don't speak Greek and I'm afraid I didn't understand a word you said. Would you like to do this again next week?"

---

So you believe in infant baptism, sacramental confession, the real presence in the Eucharist, synergistic salvation, a three fold episcopate inhereted from the apostles, church leaders must be ordained by an apostle or their successor, the intercession of the saints, perpetually virgin Mary, a gospel that does not teach faith alone.... I can keep going.

---

I don't agree with those things. Now here's the crazy part: Me and Athanasius could talk about them, and I could walk away from the conversation saying, "That was a good conversation with another saint."

It's just like how I don't agree with Tim Keller on everything. Or CS Lewis. Heck, even my best friend and I disagree on topics and have wonderful conversations about those things!

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

I trust that their understanding and statement of what is cannon is true.

---

Even though they got basically everything else wrong, from a baptist perspective?

---

Oh so far from it! The trinity and the Nicaean creed, the full deity of Christ, the incarnation, the authority of scripture, and most importantly of all as we roll these things into one: the gospel. The fact that God became man, lived a perfect life and took the punishment of our sins on the cross.

Yeah, I like to think me and Ol' Athanasius could sit down over a nice bowl of mediterranean food at Cava and talk about what we agree on for a couple of hours. Then at the end of the conversation, I would probably say, "Athenasius, my friend, this has been nice. But I don't speak Greek and I'm afraid I didn't understand a word you said. Would you like to do this again next week?"

---

So you believe in infant baptism, sacramental confession, the real presence in the Eucharist, synergistic salvation, a three fold episcopate inhereted from the apostles, church leaders must be ordained by an apostle or their successor, the intercession of the saints, perpetually virgin Mary, a gospel that does not teach faith alone.... I can keep going.

---

I don't agree with those things. Now here's the crazy part: Me and Athanasius could talk about them, and I could walk away from the conversation saying, "That was a good conversation with another saint."

It's just like how I don't agree with Tim Keller on everything. Or CS Lewis. Heck, even my best friend and I disagree on topics and have wonderful conversations about those things!

---

Perfect. So we should pick and choose what these men got right based on our own understanding. Can we not pick and choose which books they picked to include or exclude from the NT to be correctly or incorrectly included or excluded?

---

Of course you can do that! Heck, you can even be an atheist and claim it's all made up, and there's not a thing i can do to stop you. Why do you think Mormons and jehova's witnesses have different translations and different canons of what they consider to be inspired scripture?

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

WoI trust that their understanding and statement of what is cannon is true.

---

Even though they got basically everything else wrong, from a baptist perspective?

---

Oh so far from it! The trinity and the Nicaean creed, the full deity of Christ, the incarnation, the authority of scripture, and most importantly of all as we roll these things into one: the gospel. The fact that God became man, lived a perfect life and took the punishment of our sins on the cross.

Yeah, I like to think me and Ol' Athanasius could sit down over a nice bowl of mediterranean food at Cava and talk about what we agree on for a couple of hours. Then at the end of the conversation, I would probably say, "Athenasius, my friend, this has been nice. But I don't speak Greek and I'm afraid I didn't understand a word you said. Would you like to do this again next week?"

---

So you believe in infant baptism, sacramental confession, the real presence in the Eucharist, synergistic salvation, a three fold episcopate inhereted from the apostles, church leaders must be ordained by an apostle or their successor, the intercession of the saints, perpetually virgin Mary, a gospel that does not teach faith alone.... I can keep going.

---

I don't agree with those things. Now here's the crazy part: Me and Athanasius could talk about them, and I could walk away from the conversation saying, "That was a good conversation with another saint."

It's just like how I don't agree with Tim Keller on everything. Or CS Lewis. Heck, even my best friend and I disagree on topics and have wonderful conversations about those things!

---

Perfect. So we should pick and choose what these men got right based on our own understanding. Can we not pick and choose which books they picked to include or exclude from the NT to be correctly or incorrectly included or excluded?

---

Of course you can do that! Heck, you can even be an atheist and claim it's all made up, and there's not a thing i can do to stop you. Why do you think Mormons and jehova's witnesses have different translations and different canons of what they consider to be inspired scripture?

---

Let me rephrase: Can we selectively edit the canon and still have the true revealed word of God?

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

WoI trust that their understanding and statement of what is cannon is true.

---

Even though they got basically everything else wrong, from a baptist perspective?

---

Oh so far from it! The trinity and the Nicaean creed, the full deity of Christ, the incarnation, the authority of scripture, and most importantly of all as we roll these things into one: the gospel. The fact that God became man, lived a perfect life and took the punishment of our sins on the cross.

Yeah, I like to think me and Ol' Athanasius could sit down over a nice bowl of mediterranean food at Cava and talk about what we agree on for a couple of hours. Then at the end of the conversation, I would probably say, "Athenasius, my friend, this has been nice. But I don't speak Greek and I'm afraid I didn't understand a word you said. Would you like to do this again next week?"

---

So you believe in infant baptism, sacramental confession, the real presence in the Eucharist, synergistic salvation, a three fold episcopate inhereted from the apostles, church leaders must be ordained by an apostle or their successor, the intercession of the saints, perpetually virgin Mary, a gospel that does not teach faith alone.... I can keep going.

---

I don't agree with those things. Now here's the crazy part: Me and Athanasius could talk about them, and I could walk away from the conversation saying, "That was a good conversation with another saint."

It's just like how I don't agree with Tim Keller on everything. Or CS Lewis. Heck, even my best friend and I disagree on topics and have wonderful conversations about those things!

---

Perfect. So we should pick and choose what these men got right based on our own understanding. Can we not pick and choose which books they picked to include or exclude from the NT to be correctly or incorrectly included or excluded?

---

Of course you can do that! Heck, you can even be an atheist and claim it's all made up, and there's not a thing i can do to stop you. Why do you think Mormons and jehova's witnesses have different translations and different canons of what they consider to be inspired scripture?

---

Let me rephrase: Can we selectively edit the canon and still have the true revealed word of God?

---

No, we cannot. The canon nis not the canon because you or me or the bishop of Alexandra or the pope said it's the canon. The canon is the canon because it's the word of God.

Therefore, logically, If we change what God said, it is not the word of God any longer and, in turn, not the canon

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

WoI trust that their understanding and statement of what is cannon is true.

---

Even though they got basically everything else wrong, from a baptist perspective?

---

Oh so far from it! The trinity and the Nicaean creed, the full deity of Christ, the incarnation, the authority of scripture, and most importantly of all as we roll these things into one: the gospel. The fact that God became man, lived a perfect life and took the punishment of our sins on the cross.

Yeah, I like to think me and Ol' Athanasius could sit down over a nice bowl of mediterranean food at Cava and talk about what we agree on for a couple of hours. Then at the end of the conversation, I would probably say, "Athenasius, my friend, this has been nice. But I don't speak Greek and I'm afraid I didn't understand a word you said. Would you like to do this again next week?"

---

So you believe in infant baptism, sacramental confession, the real presence in the Eucharist, synergistic salvation, a three fold episcopate inhereted from the apostles, church leaders must be ordained by an apostle or their successor, the intercession of the saints, perpetually virgin Mary, a gospel that does not teach faith alone.... I can keep going.

---

I don't agree with those things. Now here's the crazy part: Me and Athanasius could talk about them, and I could walk away from the conversation saying, "That was a good conversation with another saint."

It's just like how I don't agree with Tim Keller on everything. Or CS Lewis. Heck, even my best friend and I disagree on topics and have wonderful conversations about those things!

---

Perfect. So we should pick and choose what these men got right based on our own understanding. Can we not pick and choose which books they picked to include or exclude from the NT to be correctly or incorrectly included or excluded?

---

Of course you can do that! Heck, you can even be an atheist and claim it's all made up, and there's not a thing i can do to stop you. Why do you think Mormons and jehova's witnesses have different translations and different canons of what they consider to be inspired scripture?

---

Let me rephrase: Can we selectively edit the canon and still have the true revealed word of God?

---

No, we cannot. The canon nis not the canon because you or me or the bishop of Alexandra or the pope said it's the canon. The canon is the canon because it's the word of God.

Therefore, logically, If we change what God said, it is not the word of God any longer and, in turn, not the canon

---

We're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that each of the individual 27 books of the NT canon were correctly recognized? 5 of the books are anonymous. Many of the books claim to be written by the an apostle, but so do many books that were left out. Why should we believe these guys happened to get this right while getting so much terribly wrong?

---

Oh you misunderstand, I don't believe the canon is the canon just because faithful church leaders said it was 1700 years ago. As I said, I don't believe that it's right because they said it's right. I believe it's right because it's what God has preserved for us.

God promised us his word would remain in Matthew 24:35, and he has used flawed men to bring about his purposes all throughout scripture, so I believe he used flawed men like the early saints to protect hid word, and even saints today to do the same.

The church, including its saints and bishops, does not decide what's scripture. No church father "created" the canon. The canon is what God made it. The authority of scripture, which should be fully believed and obeyed, does not depend on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly on God.

It's like how the trinity isn't the trinity because the Council of Nicaea said it's the trinity. The trinity is the trinity because it is God's nature. The council didn't create the trinity.

ETA: I don't like how you implied the claim that "they got so much wrong." So very man early church fathers worked very hard and studied scripture well with the intention to know and love God more so I won't stand for that slander.

I came to the conclusion that Matthew is the word of God because he has sustained its position within scriptures. I would never belittle God's sovereignty to say that scripture is canon or that it was preserved because of the hard work of the saints before me, and not because of God's sovereign will and power to make it so. God can accomplish his means without us.

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

I came to the conclusion that Matthew is the word of God because he has sustained its position within scriptures. I would never belittle God's sovereignty to say that scripture is canon or that it was preserved because of the hard work of the saints before me, and not because of God's sovereign will and power to make it so. God can accomplish his means without us.

---

Respectfully, that doesn't answer the question. You're essentially saying because Matthew is in the bible, it belongs in the bible.

Let's try it this way: How do you know Matthew belonged in there to begin with? Did God tell you, or did humans relay that message to you?

---

You are correct. I know Matthew belongs in the Bible because it is there. I believe it is true because I believe God has the power to do his will, and because it is there and accepted within what I consider orthodoxy, I know it is his will. That's what faith is all about.

Alpha Texan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

I came to the conclusion that Matthew is the word of God because he has sustained its position within scriptures. I would never belittle God's sovereignty to say that scripture is canon or that it was preserved because of the hard work of the saints before me, and not because of God's sovereign will and power to make it so. God can accomplish his means without us.

---

Respectfully, that doesn't answer the question. You're essentially saying because Matthew is in the bible, it belongs in the bible.

Let's try it this way: How do you know Matthew belonged in there to begin with? Did God tell you, or did humans relay that message to you?

---

You are correct. I know Matthew belongs in the Bible because it is there. I believe it is true because I believe God has the power to do his will, and because it is there and accepted within what I consider orthodoxy, I know it is his will. That's what faith is all about.

---

And did God tell you this is the way to know what books belong in the bible, did other humans tell you this, or did you come up with that criteria yourself?

Bird Poo said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

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 do not mean to offend, but this seems like an arrogant position related to the question at hand.

---

It 100% is. I'm making a point to a guy who came here to start a divisive thread.

My bad

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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?

---

What? I already granted the alternate answer as being "true" and going from there.

---

Maybe I missed it. What's the alternative answer?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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?

---

What? I already granted the alternate answer as being "true" and going from there.

---

Maybe I missed it. What's the alternative answer?

---

The post above yours said he is not open to alternative answers.

OP just set this thread up to let people give their non-RCC thoughts and then he argues with them. He just likes to argue.

Edit to add the quote from above:

The Banned said:

---

Does that mean I'm actually open to alternative answers? No it does not.

---

Sure, and I think I've given you my answer but you don't want to accept it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And the saints that God used to assemble his scripture were correct on this topic while being wrong on others. Just like how I think the pope is right on some issues and wrong on others. Just like how I think Piper is right on some issues and wrong on others. Just like how I think my best friend is right on some issues and wrong on others. Just like how I think my boss is right in how he approaches some topics at work and wrong on others. And how I think that even the politicians I vote for are right on some answers and wrong on others.

If you believe that those early saints were fully right, and had total and clear divination, then why has the Roman Catholic Church continued to study theology throughout its entire life and make new statements? If those early church father's theology was infallible, then surely there has been no need to continue studying theology. Continuing to use Athanasius as an example, surely you can see that there are some areas of the Roman Catholic Church's theology that he would disagree with today, right?

The Banned said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Alpha Texan said:

---

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 do not mean to offend, but this seems like an arrogant position related to the question at hand.

---

It 100% is. I'm making a point to a guy who came here to start a divisive thread.

---

Divisive? I'm asking why believers should have confidence that the men who told us "these books belong in the NT canon, and these other books do not" were correctly recognizing between the two sets, when they apparently made numerous other serious errors. We're called to have an answer for why we believe, so I don't see how asking questions on that very topic is anything other than a brainstorming session.

Do I have my position on the matter? Yes I do. Does that mean I'm actually open to alternative answers? No it does not.

ETA: And as I said in my OP, the idea of how we can "know" anything is the catalyst for the deconstruction movement. It should concern us all, and as a parent myself, something I want to be ready to have an answer for if my children ever struggle with this issue.

---

I absolutely agree that we should follow up our faith with reason where we can. It doesn't have to be either/or. But there does have to be a foundation of faith, and for some that never happens. What is your fool proof answer that someone can actually know and trust the scriptures?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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?

---

What? I already granted the alternate answer as being "true" and going from there.

---

Maybe I missed it. What's the alternative answer?

---

Common Catholic/EO claim: The Church decided the canon

The alternate Protestant answer: the Church just recognized the canon.

Those are the two options, and I granted the protestant alternate answer for the sake of discussion. If you think there is a 3rd, feel free to offer it. I've never heard anyone else give a coherent one

A is A said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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?

---

What? I already granted the alternate answer as being "true" and going from there.

---

Maybe I missed it. What's the alternative answer?

---

The post above yours said he is not open to alternative answers.

OP just set this thread up to let people give their non-RCC thoughts and then he argues with them. He just likes to argue.

Edit to add the quote from above:

The Banned said:

---

Does that mean I'm actually open to alternative answers? No it does not.

---

---

My OP: Grant the protestant position, say I'm not expecting to convert anyone, and make the appeal that this is an important topic because of the deconversion movement

My followups: asking a bunch of questions.

Your conclusion: I just like to argue

Sincerely have no idea how you get there without assuming some pretty negative things about me without asking anything about me.

I will grant that you caught my typo after the fact. It was a late night post. I have corrected my mistake.

Alpha Texan said:

---

Sure, and I think I've given you my answer but you don't want to accept it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And the saints that God used to assemble his scripture were correct on this topic while being wrong on others. Just like how I think the pope is right on some issues and wrong on others. Just like how I think Piper is right on some issues and wrong on others. Just like how I think my best friend is right on some issues and wrong on others. Just like how I think my boss is right in how he approaches some topics at work and wrong on others. And how I think that even the politicians I vote for are right on some answers and wrong on others.

If you believe that those early saints were fully right, and had total and clear divination, then why has the Roman Catholic Church continued to study theology throughout its entire life and make new statements? If those early church father's theology was infallible, then surely there has been no need to continue studying theology. Continuing to use Athanasius as an example, surely you can see that there are some areas of the Roman Catholic Church's theology that he would disagree with today, right?

---

Again, this doesn't answer the question I asked:

And did God tell you this is the way to know what books belong in the bible, did other humans tell you this, or did you come up with that criteria yourself?

If you don't want to answer it, that's fine, but the questions you asked me are downstream of this question.

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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?

---

What? I already granted the alternate answer as being "true" and going from there.

---

Maybe I missed it. What's the alternative answer?

---

Common Catholic/EO claim: The Church decided the canon

The alternate Protestant answer: the Church just recognized the canon.

Those are the two options, and I granted the protestant alternate answer for the sake of discussion. If you think there is a 3rd, feel free to offer it. I've never heard anyone else give a coherent one

---

What do you mean the church decided the canon? At the Council of Trent? You'd have to at least grant that it wasn't "decided" until then.