Clouseau

There are at least three different NT canons.

The one the Roman Catholic Church handed on to protestants.

It's odd, is it not, that all Protestant Reformers, some of whom were burned at the stake, described the Papacy as the Antichrist, yet people are still parroting this comfy old Roman Catholic tale that those very same Reformers accepted RC authority regarding the NT canon. Of course, as is well known, the Reformers excluded the RC's so-called 'deuterocanonical' books, and RCs not infrequently chide Prots for throwing out God's Word. It seems that some people want it both ways. (And how can God's word be 'deuterocanonical' anyway? The whole project is surely mis-conceived.)

It must occur to impartial observers that those Reformers made their own choice of canon in both Testaments, and such disinterested parties might suppose that, had it been possible, the Reformers would have selected a NT canon that differed from that of the arch-heretical RC. But they did not do so. So the impartial observer must consider the possibility that the NT canon is so egregiously different from all else of its type that even polar opposites have to agree on its content.

But no-one seems to do so.

Ray Moscow

Maybe this will help.

There is much more to Christian history than just "RCC" vs. "Protestant". Yes, that's the big thing in Western Europe and the Americas, but not so much elsewhere.

Clouseau

It will help to take minds off the topic, and I'm sure some people will be grateful.

Ray Moscow

Not really. I think the Reformation was theologically an assertion of a theology drawn from some Paul's writings at the expense of everything else, and what else was there to throw out from the NT?

The gospels? Yes, one could throw out the synoptics based on their different soteriology, but that would tend to undercut the whole Christian enterprise, wouldn't it?

Acts? Well, that's part of the Paul story, so why kick it out?

James? Well, Luther didn't like it ("a book of straw"), but it stayed in.

Revelation? Again, Luther didn't like it ("not a biblical book"), but what the hell.

I suppose one could jettison 1&2 Peter, Jude and 1, 2, 3 John without missing too much divergent doctrine, but Luther & Calvin seemed OK with these, too, as far as I remember.

Anyway, I don't see how the "NT canon" was so obviously anything but a tradition that the reformers kept by inertia, as much as anything. Luther for one didn't accept the authority of at least 2 NT books.

Ray

Clouseau

Is the RCC, marked by oppression, censorship and even murder, preferable to Bible based religion? Is compulsory confession and Mass attendance for all to be preferred to the presence of evangelicals?

Ray Moscow

Ha! How about door number 3, Monty?

I would rather have neither of the above.

Clouseau

I' m sure. But which of the two?

Ray Moscow

I suppose whichever would have been less likely to kill me or otherwise harm me.

Unfortunately, I think it's a tossup between the RCC and the Reformers.

Clouseau

In that case you opt for evangelicals, who have no record of violence. So it makes more sense for you to suppose that Protestants chose and choose their NT despite it being the choice of the wretched rebellious Catholics who were not fit to run a corner shop, let alone a continent.

Ray Moscow

Both the Reformers and evangelicals have a terrible history of violence. Where do you get the strange idea that they do not?

The RCC does, too.

No, I do not suppose the Protestants choose to keep the NT in spite of the RCC.