Protestant Dilemma on the Canon

Here are some tests a protestant can use to determine what which books are inspired by God, and which are not:
1- was it written by a prophet?
2- was it written by an apostle or one associated with one?
3- does the book tell the truth about God?
4- Does it affirm what Christ and His apostles taught?

These are a few of the tests a Protestant can use to determine if a book is inspired by God.

1- Probably from common sense and what the church at the time believed. There is no reason to think that the church in the first century did not know who wrote the gospels or the letters. They would not have accepted an anonymous work as Scripture. They would have known who wrote it.
2- Papias
3-You can't know "if the book tells the truth about God without appealing to Scripture". There are "foundational" books in the Scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be authoritative from the start. For the OT it was the books of Moses. These books lay the foundation for the rest of the OT. For the NT, it was the gospels.
4- You cannot know "what Christ and His apostles taught without appealing to Scripture" because all that we have from them is found only in the NT.

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

1- No problem appealing to a tradition if that is all we have.
2- We have no reason not accept Papias on this issue. "He is described as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp" by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (c. 180)." We have no reason not to accept this. This does not mean Papias was right about everything.
3-What apostolic "tradition"? Again, not all traditions are right and Scripture does not teach apostolic succession. Bishops and apostles are 2 different offices and the qualifications for each are different.
4- Again, give me an example of something that Jesus said and did that is not recorded in the Scripture and tell me how you know this? What facts do you have that confirm this?

In regards to the canon issue, we both know from history that the OT apocrypha was in dispute for centuries. It was not considered inspired-inerrant Scripture by the Jews or the church and it was not until Trent that it was infallibly declared to be Scripture. That is over 1500 years.

Jay,

You ask



Did the Jews believe that Esther was Scripture?



The Jews disputed Esther even until the fourth century A.D. It was disputed in the Talmud in Tractate Megillah, 7a.

Even Protestant Scholars recognize that Esther was questionable in the early centuries, as F.F. Bruce says:



When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon. We cannot say confidently that they accepted Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as scripture, because evidence is not available.97 (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/)


Some of the Fathers also disputed Esther:



Specifically, Melito omits the book of Esther.77 In fact, concerning Harris’s strong claims of universal use by the early Church Fathers of the Hebrew-now-Protestant Old Testament, there is an abundance of contrary evidence. Athanasius includes Baruch and the deuterocanonical additions to Daniel.78 Cyril includes Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and excludes Esther.79 Gregory of Nazianzus omits Esther.80 Amphilochies notes of his fellow scholars that only “some include Esther.”81 Epiphanius includes the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.82 Theodore of Mopsuestia denies the divine inspiration of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,83 as well as Job, Song of Songs, and Ezra84. Tertullian, who accepted “the whole instrument of Jewish literature,” and who gives the impression that he knows exactly what it contains, uses an Old Testament that is “evidently co-extensive with the Septuagint (including the ‘Septuagintal plus’).”85 He accepted Wisdom, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the Greek ‘additions’ to Daniel as authentic.86 (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/)

A church can be right about some things and wrong about others. I have no counter facts or reasons not accept that the early church got it right about the NT canon. If someone wants to present some arguments and facts to show I am wrong then present them.

If "The Jews disputed Esther even until the fourth century A.D" what led them to include it in the canon of the OT?

Didn't Jerome accept Esther as Scripture?