Are Protestants preaching false doctrine/Blasphemy?

[Novocastrian]

A debate I keep finding myself in with my protestant acquaintances is what they call the “Apocrypha”. In my opinion, if all 73 books are Divinely inspired, then they are without error. What gives anyone ANY authority to remove even one word from the scripture, let alone add a word to alter the scripture??? Isn’t the unpardonable sin Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t referring to Divinely Inspired scripture as irrelevant or erroneous be going against the Holy Spirit, therefore blasphemy? And what I don’t understand is Sola Scripture as the center of belief yet, excluding the work of the 7 books removed from the Bible. That seems to contradict itself… going by scripture alone yet, the scripture they are so steadily rooted in is incomplete. . . . . . . .

If you want to keep the conversation civil, I’d recommend asking them why they’re called the Apochrypha. They word means ‘hidden’, and signifies that the Protestant Churches are unsure, and therefore cautious, as to their exact authority. There were a few Church Fathers who felt the same way about them, e.g. Jerome, on the basis that they appeared in the Greek but not in the original Hebrew, although we do now have Hebrew MSS for some of the books.

A good example of how a Protestant can deal with the Apocrypha reverently, yet without compromising the traditional Protestant uncertainty about the seven books, would be the latter part of the Church of England’s Article VI. Having given a list of the 39 books of the OT that everyone accepts, it goes on to say

And the other Books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; … It then lists the Apocryphal books.]

So a good Protestant in the Church of England should indeed read those books, and they’re included in the Church’s lectionary. In fact, this is where Ben Sira’s traditional name, Ecclesiasticus comes from; originally of doubtful authority, it was called Ecclesiasticus to signify that it was fit and proper to at least read from it at the liturgy. We’re just careful not to teach any doctrine from it which is not suggested within the books of Scripture that we all - Romans, Easterners, Protestants, Jews - acknowledge to be inspired by God’s Holy Spirit.

 

[Novocastrian]

dronald;10942065:

This is what Trent says:the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, ***as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, ***

and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."

With or without the Johannine Comma?

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;10941089]Point of fact: the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have, since day 1, used and accepted the books which are generally no longer in protestant bibles. Since each of those books was written in the pre-Christian era, and were preserved for centuries, there must have been a reason for that preservation, correct? The alternate title of Sirach, for example, is Ecclesiasticus, or “church book.” If it was not read in the assembly (and tradition says it was), why would it have been given that name?

Correct. And, they are the inter-testament books, meaning they record the history between the Malachi and the NT. Extremely important!

Point 2: Luther did not remove the books. He simply did not like them, declared by his own authority that they were not inspired by God, and segregated them from the others in the bible that bears his name.

Whether or not he liked them is irrelevent. Luther sites the disputes about them through the history of the Church. These disputes are undeniable.
Additionally, Luther does not claim any authority for himself, but states his opinion which, prior to Trent, was the privilege of all Catholics on this topic. Luther was under no requirement, as a result of his excommunication, to include books on Rome’s say so. He includes them, along with the Prayer of Manasseh, between the OT and NT (rather appropriate considering that this is the history they cover) in deference to the history of the Church.

The Deuterocanonical books were in most all King James Version bibles until about 1879, when the British Bible Society, if I remember correctly, removed them entirely. As a practical matter, let us take the subject matter of the just the books of the Maccabees: They speak of the banning of the practice of Judaism, or the worship of the God of Israel, in the centuries leading up to the birth of Christ. They speak of the Maccabean revolt, which restored the Mosaic law to Israel in time for Christ to be born under that law in order to fulfill that law. They speak of the re-dedication of the temple in Jerusalem - documenting the Jewish Holy Day of Hanukkah (the Jews do not have this in their canon!). Maccabees mention the resurrection and eternal life - less than two centuries before Christ preached the exact same message.

There are a number of other books that present quite well the Gospel of Christ, yet we do not include them. The DC’s belong in the Bible, however, because they have been there historically.

Jon

 

[pablope]

With or without the Johannine Comma?

what is the Johannine comma?

 

[pablope]

C

Whether or not he liked them is irrelevent. Luther sites the disputes about them through the history of the Church. These disputes are undeniable.

Jon

I do not think they were disputes…but contrary opinions. But for some, as I point out, these contrary opinions led to deep considerations and led these opinionated ones to submission to what the Church had decided.

 

[JonNC]

I do not think they were disputes…but contrary opinions. But for some, as I point out, these contrary opinions led to deep considerations and led these opinionated ones to submission to what the Church had decided.

The problem with “contrary opinions” is that the term, at least to me, implies wrong-doing. I don’t know if you mean it that way, however.
The fact is that right up to Trent the opinions or disputes were open and spoken of, and without consequence.

Jon

 

[pablope]

The problem with “contrary opinions” is that the term, at least to me, implies wrong-doing. I don’t know if you mean it that way, however.
The fact is that right up to Trent the opinions or disputes were open and spoken of, and without consequence.

Jon

Jon…really…could you explain more how having a “contrary opinion” implies wrong doing?

What I meant is having a “contrary opinion”…means disagreeing with a position…in this case, have an opinion contrary to the acceptance of the DC as being canonical. So how does this then translate to implying wrong doing?

 

[JonNC]

Jon…really…could you explain more how having a “contrary opinion” implies wrong doing?

What I meant is having a “contrary opinion”…means disagreeing with a position…in this case, have an opinion contrary to the acceptance of the DC as being canonical. So how does this then translate to implying wrong doing?

Sure. Sometimes the terms contrary or contrarian is used in a dismissive way, a negative way. You seem to not be using the term in that way.

Question: Could it be said that someone who holds the position that the DC’s are canonical hold a contrary position to the one that says they are not?

Jon