Deuterocanonical books

[JonNC]

=steve b;13523261]Speaking of the topic, there IS division. No question about it. It’s crystal clear.

Your founder separated 7 books from the canon and called those books unequal to scripture.

I didn’t know Christ did that.

I would suggest, apologetics as a whole, really doesn’t change that much. Has all the squishy ecumenical speak produced less division? I would suggest it has not only solidified the divisions that are already there, but produces another wave of division, because the language is sooooooo sloppy it further confuses the already confused.

I’ll let you take your complaint to the PCPCU.

I don’t see it as an either/or.

Maybe, but some of your comments don’t reflect the theological dialogue today.

I would say, apologetics and theology are partners not adversaries

Unless apologists make them so.

Luther is an excommunicated heretic. That’s history. What’s changed?

Example of the above:
** If Roman Catholics recognize an authentically evangelical thrust surging through the more or less adequate formulas of Luther and Reformation anthropology in general, then they must see in it a theology of grace that is a valid complement to their own and other traditional formulations.

Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal. He accurately theologized the cardinal point of the Christian vision of human existence in its relationship to God at a time when the Catholic hierarchy, caught in the whirlpool of the Renaissance and the real politik of emerging nation states, could not hear him.** - Rev. Michael J. Scanlon, O.S.A.

He removed books from the bible, & added words to the bible that caused huge divisions in people’s faith

He did neither, but read what Scanlon says.

We all have a right to our own opinions but not to our own truth. Jerome while having his own opinions, was obedient to the decree of pope Damasus on the canon of scripture. That’s the point. And history shows, Jerome made the right decision

And you don’t have a right to a false truth that the canon was set, even for the Catholic Church before Trent. It didn’t happen that way.

Luther otoh had his own standards, and not only had no interest in being led by the Church but was excommunicated for his errors as a heretic. And unless you know differently, he never reconciled with the Church or changed his heretical views.

His excommunication had nothing to do with his view of the canon, and that’s an important point in our discussion. Unless you are willing to hold others to the standard you want to hold Luther, your position is, at best contradictory.

What did the Church say about the canon? Florence, an ecumenical council, named the same books in the canon as the council of Rome in 382. That’s the point. Neither Jerome, nor Cajetan changed that or even attempted to change it.

If Florence set the canon, then all Orthodox churches would have the same canon.

Luther did change it.

You can’t have it both ways Steve. If he changed the canon, then Trent would have confirmed it.

Wrong.

What part of the Church does Jesus say that Peter has no rule over? And since not even the gates of Hell prevail against Our Lord’s Church, Peter’s successors have that same authority. You’ve seen the arguments and the defense many times

And herein is the real difference between the position of the Bishop of Rome, and the early Church, and the Councils, which do not recognize this kind of supremacy. But that’s another discussion.

Councils have authority over the entire Church as well…WHEN the bishops are in complete union with each other, AND when they are in communion with the pope.

And that hasn’t happened in a thousand years.

Now I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter

I do too, Steve.

Pelagius and pelagianism

again, from Scanlon:

The theological atmosphere that influenced Luther was very confusing. While all of the medieval theologians had affirmed the divine initiative in granting the grace of salvation, the theology Luther received was infected by Nominalism (a problematic form of late medieval philosophy), especially through his teacher, Gabriel Biel.

Interest in the human role in the process of salvation had increased. This interest is evident in the ambiguous interpretations given to the old adage, “God does not deny grace to those who do what is in them.” The orthodox interpretation of this adage is that God does not deny further grace to those who do what they can with the grace given to them.

The heretical interpretation of the same adage (a view known as semi-Pelagianism, which was condemned by the Council of Orange in 529 using the later works of Augustine) is that God does not deny grace to those who do what they can on their own.** It was this latter, heretical interpretation that Luther received from Biel.** The emphasis shifted to what human beings must do to please God, and the “God” of Nominalism was the being of arbitrary omnipotence.

It was Biel’s ideas that Luther was taught as Catholic teaching.
Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Preface to 2 Maccabees (1534)
" It is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred scriptures " and
" However the whole thing is left ( i.e. left in the canon referring to 2 Macc) and refered to the pious reader to judge and to decide " ( i.e. He’s not excommunicating people who hold to a different canon )

and also

" Yet it’s words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred scripture "
LW 35:350-351 ( referring to 1 Macc)

He quotes Sirach as Scripture in LW 31:187

And again 74 books in the bible is evidence that he held them as canonical, but he held some in higher value than others .

Luther also quoted the POM as scripture in LW1:296,and the additions to Daniel in LW11:112, LW12:201, LW 18:330, LW 37:322, LW44:223 , and often quotes Tobit against the Apologists of his day .

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13523592]
Luther’s quote “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

Yes, Steve, that is what he said. That was his opinion

What part of Luther’s statement is NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR? Apocrypha is NOT EQUAL to scripture to Luther

Yes, that is what he said. That was his opinion

All Protestants copied Luther’s canon. Unless you think they came up with the same canon all on their own. Which I would find REALLY hard to believe.

There are Anglicans who hold to a 73 book canon. Lutherans do not define doctrinally a canon. It is usage that matters. For doctrine, we look to the attested, and support from the disputed. The rejected play no role. The DC’s are not used for doctrine, but they are used liturgically, and in hymnody. Cajetan, and to an extent, Jerome, would define that as ecclesiastical canon. So, yes, I perfectly well can view them as canon.

They followed his canon

That’s what they chose. That was their choice, to look at the history of the canon of scripture in the west, and choose how they wanted to arrange their canon. They were not lemmings. Luther held a gun to no one’s head.

In my other posts I showed you that Jerome, out of obedience, translated 73 books into the Latin Vulgate. It doesn’t matter his personal POV, he included all 73 books out of obedience to the decree of Damasus.

Luther chose to translate 74 books into German in his translation, out of respect for the history of the canon in the western Church.
If personal views don’t matter, why are you so intent in condemning Luther’s personal views, particularly when they, in many ways are within the mainstream of historic Catholic thought? Why is it you want to hold Luther to a separate standard than you hold Jerome, or Cajetan, or numerous others?

And 2 ecumenical councils, Florence 1442, and Trent 1546, validated that same canon. Damasus got it right and so did Jerome’s decision to follow Damasus…

Neither council was ecumenical, by your own standard in your previous post. But for Catholics, they are valid, and non-Catholics ought to respect that standard, which, in many ways, I think is a good one. But Trent does not set a canon for the universal Church, as proven by Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, both east and west having different canons.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Speaking of the topic, there IS division. No question about it. It’s crystal clear.

Your founder separated 7 books from the canon and called those books unequal to scripture.

I would suggest, apologetics as a whole, really doesn’t change that much. Has all the squishy ecumenical speak produced less division? I would suggest it has not only solidified the divisions that are already there, but produces another wave of division, because the language is sooooooo sloppy it further confuses the already confused.

I don’t see it as an either/or.

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. *Always be prepared to make a defense *πολογίαν apologia ] to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

I would say, apologetics and theology are partners not adversaries

Luther is an excommunicated heretic. That’s history. What’s changed?

He removed books from the bible, & added words to the bible that caused huge divisions in people’s faith

The Gospel According to Luther Father Greg Lockwood explains the gospel according to Luther. Fr. Gregory Lockwood … 5636 (Non-Catholic, history, Martin Luther, Protestant, Protestant …
Radio Shows

Martin Luther

Lutheranism

We all have a right to our own opinions but not to our own truth. Jerome while having his own opinions, was obedient to the decree of pope Damasus on the canon of scripture. That’s the point. And history shows, Jerome made the right decision

Luther otoh had his own standards, and not only had no interest in being led by the Church but was excommunicated for his errors as a heretic. And unless you know differently, he never reconciled with the Church or changed his heretical views.

What did the Church say about the canon? Florence, an ecumenical council, named the same books in the canon as the council of Rome in 382. That’s the point. Neither Jerome, nor Cajetan changed that or even attempted to change it.

Luther did change it.

Wrong.

What part of the Church does Jesus say that Peter has no rule over? And since not even the gates of Hell prevail against Our Lord’s Church, Peter’s successors have that same authority. You’ve seen the arguments and the defense many times

Councils have authority over the entire Church as well…WHEN the bishops are in complete union with each other, AND when they are in communion with the pope.

The pope always has the right of veto power.

Now I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter

Heresies were not always but often named after their founders.

Examples

Arius and Arianism
Pelagius and pelagianism
Calvin and Calvinism
Luther and Lutheranism

1. Florence is rejected by every church but the RCC
2. I see no evidence of a veto power of the pope in early councils , only a primacy of honor .
3. Again with the founder business I will state again Jesus the Messiah is my only founder
4. Last I checked seperated brethren == heretics
5. And you throw in some propaganda from a radio show
6. He removed nothing from the scriptures

 

[JonNC]

1. Florence is rejected by every church but the RCC
2. I see no evidence of a veto power of the pope in early councils , only a primacy of honor .
3. Again with the founder business I will state again Jesus the Messiah is my only founder
4. Last I checked seperated brethren == heretics
5. And you throw in some propaganda from a radio show
6. He removed nothing from the scriptures

1. And if he is to be accused of adding something, it is the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[Don_Ruggero]

1. Last I checked seperated brethren == heretics

The phrase “separated brethren” has been moved beyond. Saint John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint:

42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another /…/.

The language and polemics of the past should find themselves consigned to the same oblivion as the excommunications of the past.

 

[Duane1966]

1. Florence is rejected by every church but the RCC

Actually it is accepted by the Catholic Church. And it was accepted by the Orthodox representatives, the fact that they later backtracked on the agreement does not lessen its ecumenical status, as the criteria for being declared an ecumenical council was met.

Starwars, I am interested to know what you feel the criteria for declaring a council ecumenical should be?

1. I see no evidence of a veto power of the pope in early councils , only a primacy of honor .

I have heard you say before that you accept the first four ecumenical councils. Well early on we see veto power in 449 A.D., right between the third and fourth council.

from Shameless Popery:

But in between # 3 and # 4, in 449 A.D., was the Second Council of Ephesus. It’s remarkable, in that it attempted to declare the Monophysite heresy to be the truth, on behalf of the Church. In the original Council of Ephesus, a Monophysite priest named Eutyches was condemned for refusing to acknowledge the dual natures of Christ. ** But in the Second Council of Ephesus, the Robber Council declared that Eutyches was the orthodox one, condemning his opponents, and declaring that Christ only has one nature. Now, if both the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Ephesus are valid Councils, we’d have a serious problem:* the Church would have just proclaimed heresy,*** contradicting both Herself and Scripture.

But that’s not the case: we know the Second Council of Ephesus is invalid, and have known it from the start. As the council was closing, the papal legate (the pope’s representative to the Council), Hilarius, expressed the judgment of Rome: “Contradicitur!” With a single word, he declared the Council invalid in the name of the pope. Leo himself confirmed this, and it’s from him that we have the name “Robber Council.”

There are a few things remarkable about this:

First, it’s only on the basis of the papacy that we can reject the Second Council as an invalid Robber Council. That is, it’s on this basis alone that we can coherently say why this isn’t a Council at all. After all, the Robber Council was attended by about 130 Bishops, just a little less than the First Council of Constantinople, which is considered an Ecumenical Council. And the Robber Council was drawn from a wider swath of Christendom than First Constantinople. So by all appearances, it was an Ecumenical Council. And you can’t say it wasn’t an Ecumenical Council just because it was heretical, or later condemned. That’s circular logic — a Council isn’t a Council if you happen to think it’s right. So the only reason we can say that the Robber Council wasn’t a true Council, rather than a true Council that decreed error, is by recognizing that the Council.

Second, the Eastern Orthodox accepted the Pope’s authority in declaring the Second Council of Ephesus to be invalid. They also deny the Second Council of Ephesus, and refer to it in Pope Leo’s terms: as the Robber Council. Historically, the reason the Eastern Orthodox rejected it as a Council wasn’t that it was wrong, but because it had been condemned by the papal legate, and then the pope.

Third, those condemned by the Council looked to the Pope to find out the Council’s Validity. Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus, one of the men condemned by the Robber Council, appealed to the Pope, and said, “I await your sentence, and if you command me to abide by my condemnation, I will abide by it.” This is an Eastern Bishop acknowledging that the Pope, and not an unapproved Council, has the final say.

 

[mattp0625]

Christ did not start His church or commission disciples to carry on His church in 16th century Germany. Likewise, there is not a Protestant church commissioned in first century Middle East by Christ or His apostles

 

[mattp0625]

And Jude, too, but so did many dating back to Eusebius. In fact, Luther mentions that James was “rejected by the ancients” and yet he still “praises it.”

So, no, while Luther struggled with James , others did not, and I am not aware of theological problems with any of them. And there is certainly not any problem regarding sola scriptura.

Jon

I see many Protestants trying to support Sola Fide in light of James - the only place where the words faith and alone appear together in the bible- or in light of Matthew 25.

I also see folks trying to say the woman in Revelations is the nation of Israel. (Two persons and then a woman which means a nation?)

Hebrews mentions spirits of just men made perfect in heaven (not an empty heaven until the last day) as well as the priesthood.

Sola scriputura- scripture alone is the sole authority for all matters of faith- is also no where in the bible. 2 Tim 3 says scripture is “profitable”. I don’t see profitable as meaning sole authority. 2 Tim 4 says that Mark is profitable for the ministry, too. Mark is the sole authority? No.

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;13524381]I see many Protestants trying to support Sola Fide in light of James - the only place where the words faith and alone appear together in the bible- or in light of Matthew 25.

Yes. Luther had trouble with that. Others did not. I don’t. I don’t even think the CC has trouble with the idea that we access grace by faith alone

I also see folks trying to say the woman in Revelations is the nation of Israel. (Two persons and then a woman which means a nation?)

I’m not aware of this in Lutheran teaching

Hebrews mentions spirits of just men made perfect in heaven (not an empty heaven until the last day) as well as the priesthood.

Yes. I’ve seen that too. Not a Lutheran teaching, either. We know the saints in Heaven pray for us. My prayer is to be cleansed at the moment of death, purged in order to enter Heaven

Sola scriputura- scripture alone is the sole authority for all matters of faith- is also no where in the bible. 2 Tim 3 says scripture is “profitable”. I don’t see profitable as meaning sole authority. 2 Tim 4 says that Mark is profitable for the ministry, too. Mark is the sole authority? No.

Sole rule and norm for holding doctrine and Teachings accountable, is how the Lutheran confessions phrase it. It is a post apostolic-era practice.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Christ did not start His church or commission disciples to carry on His church in 16th century Germany. Likewise, there is not a Protestant church commissioned in first century Middle East by Christ or His apostles

Correct. There is only one True Church, where the word is preached and sacraments administered. There are, however, a number of traditions within the Church. The Church does not subsist solely in communion with the Bishop of Rome

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

Correct. There is only one True Church, where the word is preached and sacraments administered. There are, however, a number of traditions within the Church. The Church does not subsist solely in communion with the Bishop of Rome

Jon

It matters if you believe in continuous apostolic succession or that Christ initiated a Church where conflicting doctrine is not supposed to exist.

 

[Duane1966]

Yes. Luther had trouble with that. Others did not. I don’t. I don’t even think the CC has trouble with the idea that we access grace by faith alone

Jon

Jon, in your mind is accessing the same as salvation or justification? To me saying access to grace is a far cry from saying saved or justified by faith alone.

 

[JonNC]

It matters if you believe in continuous apostolic succession or that Christ initiated a Church where conflicting doctrine is not supposed to exist.

Of course it matters, though I believe continuous apostolic succession is not simply the laying on of hands.
All of what you’ve said is correct

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, in your mind is accessing the same as salvation or justification? To me saying access to grace is a far cry from saying saved or justified by faith alone.

I don’t see justification and salvation as entirely the same because I am capable of rejecting grace in this life.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Neither council was ecumenical, by your own standard in your previous post. But for Catholics, they are valid, and non-Catholics ought to respect that standard, which, in many ways, I think is a good one. But Trent does not set a canon for the universal Church, as proven by Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, both east and west having different canons.

Jon

Both councils are ecumenical, as they meet the criteria that has been set for an ecumenical council. Criteria I might add that was in place at the early councils.

Jon, we cannot just pick and choose which councils we submit to. By your standard, early Christians could reject the Council of Jerusalem (which I am sure there were some), because of its ruling on circumcision and Gentiles, and say to the Apostles, this council has no authority over us or the Church Universal, since we disagree with it.

By the standard you have set, Nicaea is not ecumenical, as Arius and his group did not accept it. How can it be ecumenical if it was not accepted by the Church Universal?

We can easily see that acceptance by the Church Universal is not the criteria that must be met for a council to be ecumenical.

 

[JonNC]

Both councils are ecumenical, as they meet the criteria that has been set for an ecumenical council. Criteria I might add that was in place at the early councils.

Jon, we cannot just pick and choose which councils we submit to. By your standard, early Christians could reject the Council of Jerusalem (which I am sure there were some), because of its ruling on circumcision and Gentiles, and say to the Apostles, this council has no authority over us or the Church Universal, since we disagree with it.

By the standard you have set, Nicaea is not ecumenical, as Arius and his group did not accept it. How can it be ecumenical if it was not accepted by the Church Universal?

We can easily see that acceptance by the Church Universal is not the criteria that must be met for a council to be ecumenical.

How many of the patriarchs of the Church accept Trent?

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

How many of the patriarchs of the Church accept Trent?

Jon

So patriarchal acceptance is your criteria? Do all have to accept, or just majority? How many councils do you accept?

 

[Duane1966]

Jon, I meant to ask how many councils does your branch of Lutheranism accept?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I meant to ask how many councils does your branch of Lutheranism accept?

I think the LCMS officially acknowledges 4, but also accepts the teachings of the other three

Jon