S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Yeah he does have a book. Its called Why Protestant Bibles are smaller. Its supposed to be a response to Gary Machudas book Why Catholic Bibles are bigger.
- Status
S
SJacob7
Guest
Ok, thanks.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
True, but as he stated in the round table discussion, those councils were simply addressing certain aspects of Christ’s nature at each council. It’s not like Nicaea I was “defining” the completeness of Christ’s nature. At Trent, they “defined” the canon by it’s boundaries, limited to 46 books in the OT & 27 books in the NT…but then left the canon open for the potential to include additional inspired books in the future. That means the canon isn’t really “defined” completely - even now. If it were, it would say “these books, and these books only, no more, no less.” But since it’s not, Trent is saying it doesn’t know what the complete canon is. A piece of literature is either God-breathed, or it’s not. And Trent is saying there might be inspired Scripture not part of their canon, but they don’t know what it is. In Protestantism, their canon is complete & cannot be added to.
It’s church history that is inconsistent with the canon, & it’s the councils that pronounced doubts to certain deuteros, not myself.
But the point is that not all “saints” & Doctors of the Church espoused to the exact same books, and many of them rejected the deuteros, especially those in the first few centuries of the church. And many of them accepted books not found in Catholic OTs and specifically called them “Scripture.” Even early versions of the Septuagint included books not found in the Catholic OTs, and even in councils & lists of saints, ECFs, & Doctors of the Church.
@SJacob7 according to the video, that is the title of the book, and he stated it was in response to a challenge Trent Horn made when he called into Catholic Answers Live. He also stated that he later learned about Gary Michuta’s book, & made the title as a sort of play-on-words.
Last edited:
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
I stand corrected
A
adf417
Guest
What makes you think Trent was trying to define “the completeness” of the canon? The passing over of the other few books should give you an idea that was not the intension. If they canonized 26 books and passed over the 27th book would this be easier to see? With the example of multiple councils defining the nature of Christ (which btw is still incomplete itself) should also show how the church is sound in not trying to fully define everything about Christ including His written word.
Are you sure about that? Do you speak for all of Protestantism?
Peace!!!
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Not quite correct, it just means they did not make a decision regarding the other books but they did know that those 46 books in the OT are divinely inspired.
That is not correct either. Trent only said they were not making a judgment on the remaining books. The remaining books, they knew all about. They did not say they don’t know if there are other books out there and some day we might come across them or similar thoughts.
Which protestant council or committee decided the protestant canon or was it just a decision made by Martin Luther and how do you know he was divinely inspired?
There are times when Christians disagree but Christ said take it to the Church and Paul stated that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, so the divinely inspired canon was decided by the Church. In all charity, that settles it.
God bless
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
The point about Protestantism is that either a writing is inspired (God-breathed) or it’s not. By Trent “not making a judgment on the remaining books,” they are saying they don’t know if those books in the east that they “passed over” are inspired. Yes, they were aware of them, and they “passed over” making a judgment as far as their inspirational status. But by not declaring them as being “inspired” like the rest of the “defined” books in their Biblical canon, and simply leaving it “open,” they were saying they don’t know if they are inspired or not. Simply saying they “passed over” judgment doesn’t change the fact they didn’t know if they were inspired or not. So, they really don’t have a closed canon like Protestants do.
And, no, Luther was not divinely inspired. No one has ever claimed that. As the round table discussion mentioned, Protestants accepted the “smaller” canon of the Pharisees, which is backed up by Jimmy Akin right here at Catholic Answers, as well as other Catholic apologists mentioned in the discussion.
Let me put it this way: are books like 3 Esdras & the other books in the east that Trent “passed over” inspired or aren’t they. Simply saying “they were passed over” doesn’t answer the question.
Jesus & the apostles knew what the OT canon boundaries were. They knew what was God-breathed Scripture what wasn’t, especially since it was written prior to their births. Do you think they didn’t pass on to the later church what the canon was? Would Jesus build a church that didn’t know for certain what the OT canon boundaries were?
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
No, because it doesn’t answer the question about whether those books are God-breathed or not. At least a “Trent didn’t know & neither does Rome” answer is at least honest. Saying they were “passed over” is avoiding the question.
But again, you can’t say you have a canon of inspired Scripture with specific boundaries. The councils not being exhaustive in their description of the nature of Christ is not the same as knowing whether a book is God-breathed or not, if a council is saying “this is Scripture.” Look at it this way: Jesus knew what was Scripture & what wasn’t, which means the apostles did too, especially since OT Scripture was written prior to the time they lived. Do you think Jesus would build a church and not tell them what the complete Biblical canon was, and they would not be certain what the boundaries were? Would they not pass down to the church what the Biblical boundaries were? How could the later church not know what it was?
Protestantism has its roots back to the Reformation & the Reformers, and none of them believed in the inspiration of those 7 extra books, and they all espoused to the “smaller” Bible. Anyone who claims to be a Protestant, but accepts any of these 7 extra books is not truly a Protestant. And the reason Protestants don’t accept those books is because the Pharisees didn’t, as attested to by Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers & other Catholic apologists. And according to the round table discussion, Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees.
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
Yes. Its the same thing.adf417:
But again, you can’t say you have a canon of inspired Scripture with specific boundaries. The councils not being exhaustive in their description of the nature of Christ is not the same as knowing whether a book is God-breathed or not, if a council is saying “this is Scripture.
Yes that s exactly what happened.
Before i comment on this statement i would like to call @JonNC and @GKMotley and ask if this is one of those statements they consider to be “folly”. It is my understanding it falls under their definition especially if it had come from a Catholic.
Peace!!!
G
GKMotley
Guest
Yep. As a general statement, it is. Saith GKMotley.
But then, Anglicans of a particular stripe don’t make any claim to be protestant. Quite the contrary.
But then, Anglicans of a particular stripe don’t make any claim to be protestant. Quite the contrary.
As a reference, my phrase: regarding practice and doctrine, use of the term Protestant is folly.
From my POV, yes. @RaisedCatholic ‘s is an excellent example of how the term Protestant should not be used.
If any tradition gets to decide what is or isn’t Protestant, it would be Lutherans, as it was The Lutheran reformers who filed the formal protest.
Lutheranism’s handling of the canon of scripture is far more conservative than simply “espousing a smaller Bible”. By this I mean Lutheranism evaluates books based on their treatment by the early Church and ECF’s. And that guides their usage.
The Confessions do not have a defined 66 or 73 or 74 (the number in Luther’s Die Bibel) book canon.
I find much of the deutercanon inspiring, even if some hold them as not inspired.
Finally, I entirely reject the claim that “ Protestantism has its roots back to the Reformation & the Reformers…”. The Lutheran reformers would spin in their graves to hear that.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I understand that, though if as you say Martin Luther was not divinely inspired
then it just makes sense that in order to know if books are divinely inspired, the person making that decision should also be divinely inspired with wisdom to choose, which leaves me questioning Luther’s decision. Not being divinely inspired, where does he get the right to make that decision.
If I remember right in the video, Mr. Lofton pointed out that there is not an official list of books stating what the actual first century canon was.
This again is where I agree with Mr. Lofton and not just in regards to this discussion but other discussions by many others here at CAF. It seems that Jimmy Akin, as smart as he is, is referenced way too much as the official authority in Catholic matters. I seem to think part of the reason for this is due to the name of this ministry, Catholic Answers. It is a good ministry, Mr. Akins is very wise, but they can be speak fallibly, perhaps say something not quite correct or say it incorrectly and be quoted out of context and sometimes just give the answer based on their limited knowledge. So when I hear, Jimmy Akins, said this or said that, I take it with a grain of salt. That would apply to other apologists also and goes back to Mr. Lofton’s question,
where is the 1st century source? not something written or said in 2020.
There have been many doctrines and dogma and inspirations given to Christians over time, even just basic foundational Christianity. Everything has not come to the Church all at once.
In other words, the divine inspiration on what books were to be included in the canon came through the Holy Spirit over time, so yes to your question.
God bless
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Bible Christians make the assertion that Saint Jerome did not think the books of the Deuterocanon were inspired. But they back off entirely when you mention that he was faithful to the Pope. Can’t have it both ways, guys and gals! Cherry picking is best confined to the orchard.
Neither was Saint Jerome, doctor of the Church as he is, or any of the other individuals who shared his opinon Pope or council. He humbled himself and was obedient to the Church.
Neither Saint Jerome nor any German or Swiss 1500 years later, had the authority to declare any book or letter inspired or not inspired.
Neither was Saint Jerome, doctor of the Church as he is, or any of the other individuals who shared his opinon Pope or council. He humbled himself and was obedient to the Church.
Neither Saint Jerome nor any German or Swiss 1500 years later, had the authority to declare any book or letter inspired or not inspired.
There is no need to back off that fact. It is also true that the Church was not in schism at the time, so the fact that he was faithful to the Pope us not unexpected.
He also didn’t deny his belief, AFAIK.
I agree there is no reason to deny St Jerome’s loyalty, but claiming it is cherry-picking is an unnecessary comment.
Further, the liberty that St Jerome displayed in his opinion was permitted of all Catholics until Trent. Luther, Cajetan and many others exercised it.
And Luther never claimed he did. He says, repeatedly, he is stating his opinions, which he was permitted to do. He included all 73 books of the traditional western canon plus the Prayer of Manasseh.
That said, the Bishop
Of Rome speaks only for those in communion with him, evidence being that Eastern patriarchs have always had a different canon.
Last edited:
What matter is settled?
And you brought up “any German”.
The Catholic Church has spoken for Catholics.
Luther never said he was. Luther did two things; he made it clear he was stating his opinion, and he made significant references to the ECFs.
So, no, Luther wasn’t divinely inspired and never claimed to be. And no pope has been divinely inspired ( except St. Peter if you choose to refer to him as a pope).
That leaves open the possibility of books being added or subtracted.
It also leads to the question: if this is true, why did the Holy Spirit hide full knowledge of the canon of scripture from the early Church?
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
St. Peter was the first Pope and when preceding popes are speaking from the Chair of Peter they are being divinely inspired.
Last edited:
That is a Catholic opinion. There is no scriptural or early Church reference.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
That is just an opinion.
- Status