Apocrypha? Pope added?

[Ani_Ibi]

Calvinator:

2.) IMHO your second point applies to your church. A few bishops gathered together to rule on what is and what isn’t scripture.

We should have waited 1500 years for Luther to do it? Or 2000 years for Chuck Swindoll to do it? Because the fact of the matter is that, for some Protestants, the canon is not closed. It is fair game. And it is still being changed.

Calvinator:

4.) Wrong conclusion. I would guess most of the Catholics who have rejected the deutero’s throughout the ages as well as the reformers and later protestants who also reject the deutero’s accepted the inerrancy of scripture.

You persist in separating individual Catholics from the Magisterium. Inventing an infallible interpretor for us when we already have one.

Calvinator:

Believing that there are errors in scripture is one thing and possibly not recognizing scripture or perhaps believing something is scripture when it is not is another thing altogether.

How?

Calvinator:

Interestingly enough you bring up the inerrance of scripture. That is one of the reasons to reject parts of the deutero’s. Don’t one or two of the books have historical errors in them?

Historical errors? Which ones? Which errors? What is your evidence? What is the relevance of historical errors?

Calvinator:

Scripture hasn’t been unstable since Luther, I guess that’s to obvious for you to see.

It has been unstable. And obvious for everyone to see. It still is unstable in some sectors. That too is obvious for everyone to see. But I have already posted at length on this.

Calvinator:

Go to any bookstore…pretty much anywhere in the world and look through each of the available Bibles. See what books are listed. Go online and look around at the various versions of the Bible. I’m sure you can find some differences here, in a world this big there has to be somebody out there that is “confused” but the one out of a million doesn’t prove your assertion.

I didn’t use your methods to prove my assertion. If you had read what I posted, you would know that and wouldn’t be throwing away good time building strawmen.

Calvinator:

Okay, what is your definition of flaming?

Inflammatory rhetoric meant to intimidate as opposed to straightforward clear reference and reason.

Calvinator:

Asking “C’mon, who is confused?” is probably not on anybody’s list of…flames.

Faulty authority.

Calvinator:

You simply made a gross over exageration and now are caught in it.

That went over my head. It might mean something to you. But it means nothing to me. Unfounded accusations just don’t go very far on CAF. You should know that by now.

Calvinator:

BTW, flaming is, I’m pretty sure, against the rules here. Please report my post to the moderators so they can explain to you what a “flame” is and what it isn’t…okay?

If you are so eager to be reported to the moderators, then report yourself.

Calvinator:

The deutero’s were never cosidered canonical by any of the reformers were they?

I see you are evading my point – more than once now. That serves what purpose exactly? That you can?

Calvinator:

I’ve quickly read over the link you provided and I just don’t see the point.

Noted. It is very clear to the average reader.

Calvinator:

From my point of view they should not have ever been included.

Well finally after all those words and manoeuvres we get to the nuts and bolts of your point of view. You don’t think they should have been included.

And who are you again?

Calvinator:

Why read something that will only serve to lead one astray?

Is that what Luther said?

Calvinator:

Didn’t your church have a “forbidden books” list or something? Of course it did.

Yes, Luther’s writings.

Calvinator:

If secular books can damage ones faith, how much more so could the deutero’s?

You tell us. I suspect you are about to anyway.

Calvinator:

You are not alone in making the pointless statement about the deutero’s being included in the KJV.

So? What’s your point? Leaving them in, taking them out, putting them back in again proves what to the folks in the pews? The little people? Riiiiiight. They have no power. And the ‘academy of scholars’ does. But I have already explained this several times. The fact that you choose to ignore it is no comment on its veracity.

 

[Calvinator]

Because the fact of the matter is that, for some Protestants, the canon is not closed.

Some Protestants? How many are some? How many people do you think on either side of the argument are trying to change the canon right now at this very moment?

You persist in separating individual Catholics from the Magisterium. Inventing an infallible interpretor .

I simply made a point that one can believe in the inerrancy of scripture and not fully discern what scripture is.

I believe your Pope Benedict XVI is an example of this. I am pretty sure he believes in the inerrancy of scripture even though he wrongly beleives the deutero’s to be canonical.

BTW, I am probably being charitable when I say that the majority of catholics believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

How?

How? Well…let’s see.

To most people who beleive in the inerrancy of scripture it simply believe that there are no errors in scripture.

Whether they recognize or rightly discern what scripture is has nothing to do with whether or not there are errors in scripture.

Historically your church has taught the inerrancy of scripture while at the same time holding the deutero’s as canonical.

From your point of view a reformer such as Calvin held the inerrancy of scripture but wrongly rejected the deutero’s.

If you don’t get it, I can’t make it more plain.

Historical errors? Which ones? Which errors? What is your evidence? What is the relevance of historical errors?

If I remember correctly the book of Judith places Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, over the Assyrians (he was king of Babylon) at Nineveh. Nineveh fell seven years before his accession.

b.) the rebuilding of the Temple is dated, just about a century too early.

It has been unstable. And obvious for everyone to see. It still is unstable in some sectors. That too is obvious for everyone to see. But I have already posted at length on this.

Yeah…okay.

If you had read what I posted, you would know that and wouldn’t be throwing away good time building strawmen.

What strawman am I building? Have I missed a post from Ani Lbi that was directed at me? Heaven forbid that I have erred. Could it be that you have switched context somwhere in this thread?

At one point you said taking the deutero’s out of the Bible confused people. The thread is about the Pope supposedly adding the deutero’s to the Bible. maybe I missed something.

Inflammatory rhetoric meant to intimidate as opposed to straightforward clear reference and reason.

I see, asking a question is bad…yup…got it.

Faulty authority.

Yup…we can’t have common sense rule the day, got it.

Unfounded accusations just don’t go very far on CAF. You should know that by now.

I like how you make a gross exageration. You know, the one where you said “Before 1880 the KJV included the deuteros. Then they took it out. Then they put it back in. This achieved two things. It disallowed folks to choose what they would read, even if just for their own edification. And it confused them.”

I asked who it confused and you start the “Oh, I’ve been flamed” rhetoric.

If you are so eager to be reported to the moderators, then report yourself.

I just figured you would listen to them. Being professional apologists (I think they are at least) I assumed they could better explain what a flame is.

I see you are evading my point

Okay, restate what your point is 'cuz I don’t know what I am evading.

Noted. It is very clear to the average reader.

I guess you are average then.

They weren’t considered canonical, so what is the point?

You don’t think they should have been included.

And who are you again?

Oh, c’mon. It’s convenient to play the authority card but that just ends discussion.

Is that what Luther said?

Why does it matter what Luther said?

So? What’s your point? Leaving them in, taking them out, putting them back in again proves what to the folks in the pews? The little people? Riiiiiight. They have no power. And the ‘academy of scholars’ does. But I have already explained this several times. The fact that you choose to ignore it is no comment on its veracity.

And you have power in your church? The RCC is now a democracy? When did this happen?

Have you demonstrated who it is that was confused? Have I missed that or am I building a straw man again by asking you a question or better yet, am I “flaming” you?

 

[Calvinator]

What I don’t understand, though, is how exactly did God reveal to you that the deuteros are not inspired.

Janet,

I don’t have an adequate answer to your question. Eventually you will get back to the infallible authority issue and I don’t have a clean way to explain this.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet,

I don’t have an adequate answer to your question. Eventually you will get back to the infallible authority issue and I don’t have a clean way to explain this.

I still don’t understand how you can be so sure the deuteros don’t belong in the canon and why you have decided to accept the authority of Protestant tradition. But, apparently you have, and like you said, we won’t see eye to eye on this issue.

Still, I admire the fact that you remain silent when you don’t have an adequate answer. There’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[NotWorthy]

I still don’t understand how you can be so sure the deuteros don’t belong in the canon and why you have decided to accept the authority of Protestant tradition. But, apparently you have, and like you said, we won’t see eye to eye on this issue.

Still, I admire the fact that you remain silent when you don’t have an adequate answer. There’s nothing wrong with that.

To be honest with you,I’m more impressed with Calvin’s silence in the face of the lack of charity we’ve given him on some of these threads.

Too often we assume that since we disagree, we’re allowed to chastise. Calvin’s restraint recently has been very admirable, in my opinion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Janet,

I don’t have an adequate answer to your question. Eventually you will get back to the infallible authority issue and I don’t have a clean way to explain this.

And there is the whole issue in a nutshell. In order to claim the Church “fell into error,” protestants must deny the Kharisma of Infallibility. And having denied it, they cannot now claim it for themselves.

So in issues of debate like this, the question is, “But couldn’t you be wrong?” If the Protestant says “Yes,” then clearly we are fully validated in taking the other side of the debate. And if he says, “No,” then he’s claiming infallibility (that’s what infallibility means, can’t be wrong.)

So in this discussion, I ask you, “But couldn’t you be wrong?”

 

[Calvinator]

And there is the whole issue in a nutshell. In order to claim the Church “fell into error,” protestants must deny the Kharisma of Infallibility. And having denied it, they cannot now claim it for themselves.

So in issues of debate like this, the question is, “But couldn’t you be wrong?” If the Protestant says “Yes,” then clearly we are fully validated in taking the other side of the debate. And if he says, “No,” then he’s claiming infallibility (that’s what infallibility means, can’t be wrong.)

So in this discussion, I ask you, “But couldn’t you be wrong?”

The authority issue is certainly a big issue, perhaps the biggest?

I could be wrong but so could your church.