Bible question for Protestants

[JamesTheJust]

I wouldn’t argue Trullo to be ecumenical, for the same reason as those of the west after the 7th.

Slightly off topic, but I’m curious: what makes the first 7 Councils ecumenical but the others not?

From a Lutheran perspective, there has never been an ecumenical council define the canon of scripture.

Even though Nicaea II did, and Eastern Bishops acknowledged the fact?

We don’t deny the importance of the local synods, but they were not ecumenical, and the early Church and Fathers expressed differing views of the canon. We take into consider all of this, and handle books accordingly.

Sure, some Fathers (before Rome, Hippo, and Carthage; only Rufinus disagreed afterwards) disagreed with the Catholic canon, but not a single one held to the Protestant canon of today.

However, we Catholics can say that the majority of Fathers held to the 73-book canon that we have today.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I wasn’t looking to support a “perfect protestant canon”, but only to respond to your claim that virtually all the Church Fathers support the canon of Rome.

But that’s not my claim. I claim that a majority did so, making the patristic consensus the Catholic canon.

One can assume from Ecclesiastical he means read in the Church, used to teach the faithful.

Or we could assume that that designation is for books which he’s against but the Church is for.

The issue remains; there has not been a universally approved canon, the Reformation notwithstanding.

Never said there was. In fact, I have said multiple times that there is almost no universally agreed upon doctrine among the Fathers.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Look up Eusebius, St. Jerome, Cardinal Cajeton, and Erasmus. Tell me if they were “heretics.”

The disputed books have been disputed since the beginning of His church.

None of those individuals preached heresy, nor did they leave His church over the canon. Luther et al did both. But wasn’t the question, if you disagreed with say 1 John, but your ecclesial community didn’t, would you leave and start a new one with the book excised? It’s a hypothetical,

 

[JRRTFAN]

These were local councils, specific to their bishoprics. These cannot logically speak for all Christians - and what do you make of the Eastern canons if these local councils did not recognize the books accepted in the East? You’re grasping at straws if you try to claim these local councils spoke for the entirety of the church. Very few Roman Catholic apologists still try to pass off this argument.

Where do you find the Eastern church rejecting any of the canon? They did and do accept the same canon with their own additions, they accept more not less. Please explain why the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus both contain the Catholic canon and not the European Lutheran canon. Printer’s error?

 

[steido01]

None of those individuals preached heresy, nor did they leave His church over the canon. Luther et al did both.

Luther did not leave “over the canon.” He was excommunicated for disagreement with other teachings. If you hold Luther accountable for his view of the canon, you must hold other Catholic theologians accountable for theirs - especially when they agree with Luther on this particular matter.

But wasn’t the question, if you disagreed with say 1 John, but your ecclesial community didn’t, would you leave and start a new one with the book excised? It’s a hypothetical,

If you’re attempting to build your hypothetical on the false premise that Luther “left” the Roman Catholic Church because of its view on the canon, you’ll be disappointed if you take to history. The RCC didn’t codify a canon until after Luther’s death! You give your answer to your hypothetical, and I’ll give you mine.

 

[Novocastrian]

Where do you find the Eastern church rejecting any of the canon? They did and do accept the same canon with their own additions, they accept more not less. Please explain why the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus both contain the Catholic canon and not the European Lutheran canon. Printer’s error?

They don’t have the Lutheran canon, if we can even say that there is such a thing, but neither do they contain everything enjoined by the Council of Trent. Several NT verses are missing from each, notably the pericope adulterae. The Maccabean literature is missing from Vaticanus. Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and the Shepherd too.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

How do you know what books should be in the Bible? The Catholic would say “because the Catholic Church has ruled on it”, but since the Church has no real authority on the matter, what would you say?

“Jerome said that the Apocrypha were not canon,” even though he later changed his mind.

“The Bible wasn’t finalized until the Council of Trent,” even though councils before prove otherwise.

“There’s no Hebrew copy of any of the ‘extra books’,” even though there are.

“No part of the New Testament quote these ‘other books’,” even though it does.

“Tobit with the fish heart and the liver and the gall is witchcraft,” even though there’s
no indication that it’s witchcraft and there are other strange things done in the Bible
that worked miracles . . .

So many excuses, all weak, all desperate, just for the sake of being distant from the Roman Catholic Church . . . oy.

 

[Novocastrian]

“Jerome said that the Apocrypha were not canon,” even though he later changed his mind.

“The Bible wasn’t finalized until the Council of Trent,” even though councils before prove otherwise.

“There’s no Hebrew copy of any of the ‘extra books’,” even though there are.

“No part of the New Testament quote these ‘other books’,” even though it does.

“Tobit with the fish heart and the liver and the gall is witchcraft,” even though there’s
no indication that it’s witchcraft and there are other strange things done in the Bible
that worked miracles . . .

So many excuses, all weak, all desperate, just for the sake of being distant from the Roman Catholic Church . . . oy.

Thanks for your contribution. I am particularly impressed by your willingness to engage the discussion we’re actually having here, as opposed to what you imagine we’re saying.

 

[JamesTheJust]

If you’re attempting to build your hypothetical on the false premise that Luther “left” the Roman Catholic Church because of its view on the canon, you’ll be disappointed if you take to history. The RCC didn’t codify a canon until after Luther’s death! You give your answer to your hypothetical, and I’ll give you mine.

Trent wasn’t even the first Ecumenical Council to directly dogmatize the canon. That would be Ferrara-Florence, which took place 100 years before Trent.

 

[Nicea325]

House:

No, the church is not infallible. The church can be wrong. I believe the issue of the canon is fallible.

Really? Even when it defined and declared core doctrines: Trinity,Hypostatic Union,etc? Is it possible they were wrong?

I am not even sure many Catholics even believe their canon is infallible, seeing as though many Catholics have told me that if the Orthodox were to rejoin, the Catholic Church would readily accept the Orthodox canon as legitimate, for use in the liturgy just as surely as the Catholic canon. If Catholics believe their canon is infallible, surely there is some room for dissent as they are willing to acknowledge that the Orthodox canon is legitimate to be used in the liturgy?

Then the entire canon is still open?

If Catholics believed their canon was infallible, wouldn’t they insist that the Orthodox accept their canon to be received back into full communion?

Goes deeper than just the canon.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

As far as the Eastern Orthodox canon is concerned, Catholics have not dogmatically ruled against the inspiration of the additional books. That is true as far as I know. However, in the holy councils of the Church she has firmly upheld the inspiration of the canon common to Latin Christendom since the end of the Fourth Century. When the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.3) says to the contrary,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings,

That is quite a different matter, which falls under the anathematization of Trent. The Calvinist-Catholic argument is of an entirely different nature from the Catholic-Orthodox difference.

Similarly, with Cajetan (as if he were a figure devoid of controversy in his day), the fact that he disputed the “canonicity” of the deuterocanonical books (comments he, unlike the Reformers, made in implicit submission to the correction of the Church) is not the same thing as saying that he disputed their inspiration. If Cajetan intended the latter, we can say he was in error as he was in certain other things, but unless this can be adduced with certainty, it is better to apply the most charitable reading to his writing. Rejection of the deuterocanon was certainly not characteristic of mainstream Catholic scholarship in Cajetan’s time.

Agreed though that Luther did not leave the Church over the issue of canon. That was really a secondary issue. The Protestant canon is merely a symptom of more fundamental problems.

 

[JonNC]

=JamesTheJust;11624759]But that’s not my claim. I claim that a majority did so, making the patristic consensus the Catholic canon

Good. We agree.

Or we could assume that that designation is for books which he’s against but the Church is for.

Perhaps.

Never said there was. In fact, I have said multiple times that there is almost no universally agreed upon doctrine among the Fathers.

Again, we agree. It seems, at least historically, what our communions disagree on, regarding the canon of scripture, is how we respond to the diverse views of the Fathers of the NT antilegomena, and the DC’s.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=QNDNNDQDCE;11626576]As far as the Eastern Orthodox canon is concerned, Catholics have not dogmatically ruled against the inspiration of the additional books. That is true as far as I know. However, in the holy councils of the Church she has firmly upheld the inspiration of the canon common to Latin Christendom since the end of the Fourth Century.

Ok. Explain this to me. My understanding, from what Catholics say, is that books are either inspired or they are not, and, how can one know for sure if one’s canon is true. ISTM that to say the Cc at Trent has not dogmatically ruled against the additional EO books puts Catholics in the same position. If one doesn’t know if 3 Macc, for example, is inspired… It is either is, or it isn’t, and if the CC has determined a 73 book canon since Carthage and Hippo, why is it the CC doesn’t know about 3 Macc?

Similarly, with Cajetan (as if he were a figure devoid of controversy in his day), the fact that he disputed the “canonicity” of the deuterocanonical books (comments he, unlike the Reformers, made in implicit submission to the correction of the Church) is not the same thing as saying that he disputed their inspiration. If Cajetan intended the latter, we can say he was in error as he was in certain other things, but unless this can be adduced with certainty, it is better to apply the most charitable reading to his writing. Rejection of the deuterocanon was certainly not characteristic of mainstream Catholic scholarship in Cajetan’s time.

Then why not the same level of “charitable reading” to Luther? Luther’s view of the DC’s isn’t far different than Cajetan’s. Luther was no longer under the authority of Rome when he and his colleagues translated, and yet he/they translated and included them the DC’s anyway, in clear deference to the history of the western Church.

Agreed though that Luther did not leave the Church over the issue of canon. That was really a secondary issue. The Protestant canon is merely a symptom of more fundamental problems.

Not only was he not excommunicated from the Church because of his view of the canon, it probably isn’t a driving issue of Church division between Catholics and Lutherans. I am currently reading the DC’s, published by the LCMS!

I’d be interested to know what you think the more fundamental problems are.

Jon

 

[JamesTheJust]

Sorry, Q, but Trent closed the canon. If Trent had never taken place, and we only had Ferrara-Florence, then the possibility of other books being inspired would still be there. But what Trent did was take our 73-book canon and say, “nothing more, nothing less.”

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Although I am not a Protestant as such ,I have been known to protest against error(as both catholic and Protestants do ,as is evidenced in these differing points of view “discussions”.)

William Tyndall is a man I believe, God used mightily in the translating of the original Greek and together with ( simultaneously )the invention of the printing press, delivered God’s Word into the hands of the masses; history and the God of history subsequently baring witness to the complete 66 books and so authority is declared thereby (William Tyndall also in the giving up his life in the arduous and "painful "process ).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Which Protestant has said that the church has no real authority on the matter?

I think the church is authoritative in regards to many things, it’s simply not the highest authority.

I think that this is the crux of the question.
Are there levels of authority?
Are there different, competing truths?
Goes back to the question that Pilate asked.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I’m currently reading the DC’s. I didn’t find anything in Judith that I objected to doctrinally, and Wisdom, so far, seems wonderful.
So, it seems that if the issue was doctrine for Luther, he would have kept Judith and Wisdom.

Incorrect.

The issue WAS doctrine, only he needed a “beard” (an excuse) which he found in the Alexandrian vs Palestinian canon.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And Luther was before Trent.

Even though I don’t accept your premise (since the canon was in fact decided prior to Trent, at least certainly as to which books to include although maybe not which ones to exclude), there’s a hugh problem with your statement: AFTER Trent, all the faithful should have then accepted the proclaimed canon.

 

[JonNC]

Incorrect.

The issue WAS doctrine, only he needed a “beard” (an excuse) which he found in the Alexandrian vs Palestinian canon.

Then what was the doctrine, specific to Judith, that Luther claims keeps it from the canon, or even you claim made Luther keep it from the canon? And that doctrine specific to Wisdom of of Solomon?
I haven’t found anything in either that contradicts Lutheran doctrine. OTOH, maybe there was something that contradicted what Luther believed that doesn’t happen to be Lutheran doctrine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sorry, Q, but Trent closed the canon. If Trent had never taken place, and we only had Ferrara-Florence, then the possibility of other books being inspired would still be there. But what Trent did was take our 73-book canon and say, “nothing more, nothing less.”

Thanks, James. That seems more like what I’ve heard, and to the credit of the CC, more consistent.

Jon