When, exactly, did Protestantism proclaim their canon for holy scripture?
MoreCoffee -
Many of us have been asking Andrew and Nathan that question for many months now... crickets, evasion, and a constant repetition that Protestants did this.
Many of us have been asking when "the Church" "All Christianity" "All Christians" declared what books are and are not inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inspired words of God (all equal in every way) as claimed but... yeah....crickets, evasion and a constant repetition of that claim the "The Church" did that.
Many of us have been asking WHAT books were listed "by all the Apostles", asked for something from the 12-14 Apostles that has this list but... here again... crickets, evasion and a constant repetition of that claim "The Apostles declared this."
And many of us have TRIED (for months) over and over and over, to even determine WHAT books they are talking about. Everyone knows what books The Catholic Church embraced in 1546... we know what books the Church of England endorsed around the same time (and how so)... we know what books the Westminister Confession lists... we know what books Luther included in his translation... we know what books are the in Coptic Bible... we know what books Jerome put in his translation (and how he regarded them), we know what books are in the Greek Orthodox Bible... and we know they aren't the same. YET Andrew and Nathan insists there is ONE corpus here, ONE Bible - the one all 12-14 Apostles listed in their mass memo, they just won't say WHICH books they are even talking about. We ask and ask but.... crickets, evasions, and repetitions that there is ONE set of "them" and all we need to is read that memo that all the Apostles sent out and we'd know which.
It seems the heart of the "problem" is Nathan's admission that he often doesn't read what is conveyed to him and Andrew says "I could care less." Both probably explain the crickets.
But MoreCoffee,
You're missing something. Our friends don't accept the position of The Catholic Church here.
Both Nathan and Andrew most often do NOT view the "them" as EQUAL to the rest, as fully canonical (Okay, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, something they sorta do but sorta don't). They don't agree with the post 1546 view of your denomination. They hold that "them" must be in every tome printed, published or sold with the word "BIBLE" on the cover (some international law) BUT they don't say what "them" are (probably NOT the list Trent declared) and they don't consistently argue "they" are fully canonical or equal to the rest (although again, sometimes they do... sometimes they don't... and often they won't say). The main issue of these two is that "them" (whichever "them" are) MUST in every tome with "BIBLE" on the cover, the needed international law - not in HOW they are to be regarded. To my knowledge, The Catholic Church at Trent did NOT declare that all 73 books MUST be in every tome printed or published or sold that has BIBLE on the cover, only that it embraces those specific 73 as its Scripture. To my knowledge, Trent said nothing about publishing houses or book stores. Our friend's issue does not appear to be HOW "they" (?) are to be regarded but that there must be some international law that mandates that "them" (and only "them") must be in all Bibles.
.
