Critiquing: How Do We Know the Protestant Canon of Scripture Is the Correct One?

September 4, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Canon Dispute — Authorship Concerns — Pauline Writings — Christian Doctrine — Debating Views

---

Logical Coherence and Consistency

Introduction The content discusses several key questions about the Protestant canon of Scripture, focusing on the validity of the 66-book canon, authorship of the New Testament, and addressing dissenting views on Paul’s apostleship. It includes arguments intended to justify the Protestant canon and offers counterpoints to various criticisms.

1. Protestant vs. Catholic Canon

Claim:

“The Jews never considered any of those books as part of the Hebrew canon. Now to me that’s significant.”

This assertion implies that Jewish acceptance of certain texts is a crucial determinant of their canonicity. However, it does not address why Jewish criteria should be definitive for Christian scripture. The argument lacks substantiation and does not explore why Jewish canon decisions should necessarily influence Protestant canon choices. Additionally, the reliance on historical consensus can be questionable as history itself is subject to interpretation and may involve selective emphasis.

Logical Fallacy: The content commits a genetic fallacy by suggesting that because the Jews did not include the Apocrypha, Christians should not either. The origin of a belief does not inherently determine its truth.

2. Authorship of New Testament Books

Claim:

“I don’t know why anybody would say that the authorship of 20 of the 27 books are not known.”

This statement dismisses a widely recognized scholarly concern without providing substantial evidence to the contrary. The discussion would benefit from a deeper engagement with the scholarly evidence and reasons behind these claims.

Counter-Argument:

“We have internal evidence regarding many of the other letters from Paul that he wrote these letters.”

Here, the reliance on “internal evidence” is presented, yet the criteria for validating internal evidence are not clearly defined. This approach assumes that internal claims of authorship are sufficient without considering external validation or historical context.

3. Pauline Apostleship and Writings

Claim:

“It’s hard to be a real Christian and dismiss Paul.”

This strong statement presumes that adherence to Paul’s writings is essential to Christian identity, which might be controversial among different Christian denominations. It lacks an exploration of why Pauline authority should be considered universally binding.

Argumentation Style: The argument here is largely ad hominem as it questions the legitimacy of those who reject Paul’s apostleship rather than addressing the substance of their claims. It also creates a false dilemma by suggesting one cannot be a Christian if they reject Paul, disregarding the diversity of Christian beliefs.

4. Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias: The content often displays confirmation bias, selectively using historical and theological evidence that supports the Protestant canon while dismissing or ignoring contrary evidence without thorough analysis.

Availability Heuristic: The arguments often rely on readily available examples and authorities like Jerome, without considering the full spectrum of scholarly opinion or the broader historical context.

5. Claims Lacking Substantiation

Unsubstantiated Claim:

“The apocrypha did not become part of the canon officially until the Council of Trent in the 17th century.”

While this is historically accurate, it is presented without context on the development of the canon and why the timing of canonization matters to its validity.

Testing Alleged Promises: The content does not address how one might empirically test the promises of God. Claims about divine inspiration and canonical authority are made without proposing methods for verification.

6. Evidence-Based Belief Mapping

Mapping Belief to Evidence: The degree of belief in the Protestant canon is not adequately matched to the degree of available evidence. The arguments lack robust evidentiary support and rely heavily on theological presuppositions.

Conclusion The content provides a passionate defense of the Protestant canon but falls short in logical coherence and substantiation of claims. It often relies on logical fallacies and cognitive biases, which undermine its persuasive power. A more rigorous approach, including empirical testing and comprehensive engagement with contrary evidence, would strengthen the arguments significantly.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!