Is there any reason a Protestant should not accept what the bishops did at those councils? Surely I can acknowledge the RCC as being right about some things without saying they’re right about everything? And in fact I think the RCC is right about most things, since we have more points of agreement than disagreement. But when they’re right, it’s because they’re right, not because they have more authority than any other Christian guided by the Holy Spirit, which is available to all Christians.
I have NO problem with God using whom He will. He used some of the original apostles to write the Gospels and letters. He caused them to be copied and passed around. He caused the 27 books of the NT to be chosen. It is all to HIS glory and He will not share the glory with anyone of the vessels He uses. Seems the CC or some of it people want the CC to get some of the glory.since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?
Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.
Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?
This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"
What Protestants are trying to argue this? I’m certainly not.For clarification here; What I find amusing here is that Protestants are trying to argue from afar, pretending that Protestant new man made theologies are in existence
No, it’s not.Matthew 16:14-18 of Jesus building his Church upon Peter comes from Jesus and is taught for 2000 years by the Early Church Fathers, Saints and Martyrs. Only those who oppose this apostolic biblical interpretation from Jesus is a late interpretation from Protestants.
If you agree with it, it’s yours. I never said you made it up.There is only one interpretation of Matthew 16 and it certainty is never my interpretation.
That still gives you a lot of liberty!Please don’t confuse or make the mistake that Catholic biblical interpretations as being mine, because I am never at liberty to interpret scripture contrary to the Early Church Fathers, Saints, Martyrs and the Magisterium of the Catholic church.
Luther did not invent the designation “apocrypha,” nor was he the first to question these books.
I agree with you Luther was not the first to attach “apocrypha” or to question the books. Upon these 7 books being debated by Catholic heavy weights. The books remained in the canon books but! were labeled as “Deuterocanonical” books by the Catholic Church never “apocrypha”.
Martin Luther was the only one to include the apocrypha “uninspired” title officially to the 7 canon books. St. Jerome and others questioned them, but officially called them “Deuterocanonical” referencing these books kept being discussed, not neccessarily they came to us in a second language “Greek” which duetero references.
I can’t do that, but I can retrain my evangelical students one class at a time (and since the class limit for the Bible intro I teach is going up from 30 to 40, and since I’ll be teaching two sections of this next semester, I’ll get to “retrain” even more next year than this year!).
But as you admit below, that Church has not remained unchanged.The hard physical evidence is the presence of the Catholic Church in every age since Pentecost.
No, that is not what the Eastern Churches (not in communion with Rome) do.Christians not in communion with the Apostolic successors of Peter and the Apostles in the present day Magisterium united with Peter’s successor in the Popes, must rely on a man made faith based on the misinterpretations of doctrine from the canon of bible books the Catholic Church has brought to us in every age.
No, we believe that your interpretation of Jesus’ words is not the only possible one.Jesus promises to remain with Peter and his Church until he returns. You and Orthodox not in communion with Peter’s successor the Pope, believe that Jesus lied
The Orthodox do not believe that.and thereby remains many Church’s
The Orthodox don’t believe that. Most Protestants don’t believe that.and Peter’s church disappeared
Actually, I believe that the person who came up with the 33000 denomination figure counted something like 280 denominations within the Catholic Church alone. I think that’s crazy–but then I’m not the one using the 33,000 figure!leaving what is the count today over 33000 christian denominations + the Catholic Church?
Thank you–you just granted everything I’ve been claiming, and you contradicted the claim that the present Roman Communion is identical to the Church Jesus founded. So what are we arguing about?Since the Chalcedon break, no Apostolic Catholic Church be it Eastern or Western has ever been the same. Until the Nestorian Church were ever to come back into the fold, we don’t have the exact same Church Jesus founded.
Sure–when you like the changes you say they are “eating meat,” and when you don’t like them you rail against human alterations of Sacred Tradition. This may work for you, but it’s not very convincing to outsiders, is it?This Apostolic growth from the death of the last living apostle, has continued to today. By appearances a change may show a change, but the Apostolic teachings and Traditions remain fully intact. Paul is the apostle which taught Christians to get off the “milk” and begin to eat the meat of the Gospel. Eating the meat of the Gospel is what you see the Catholic Church maturing in clarification and defending the Apostolic Teachings unchanged.
Are you saying that the Orthodox are part of the same Church that you are? They don’t think so. By that standard I can claim (and in fact I do) that I’m part of the same Church you are, even though you think I’m not!In summary; There is never two churches from East and West, these remain one in one body of Jesus Christ
Incorrect. The term Deuterocanonical was first coined by Sixtus of Siena in 1566 in his work Bibliotheca sancta ex praecipuis Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoribus collecta. Jerome explicitly refers to the DC books in his writings as Apocrypha.I agree with you Luther was not the first to attach “apocrypha” or to question the books. Upon these 7 books being debated by Catholic heavy weights. The books remained in the canon books but! were labeled as “Deuterocanonical” books by the Catholic Church never “apocrypha”.
Correction,the church did not decide for God,but it was God and WHO He used to decide. He used His Church and its bishops. I do not know why it is such a difficult historical fact for Protestants to accept? I always hear and read nothing but circular arguments and dodging and weaving to deny historicla facts. Bible scholars who cover the canon and all say the same thing: The Catholic Church and its bishops gave us the Bible in one volume.I believe that the canon was already predetermined by God and whatever the historical process was of deciding exclusion/inclusion it was simply a matter of discerning what already was foreknown and foreordained by God.
Do Catholics believe this? Because the alternative as I see it is the church deciding for God what the canon would be.
Yes Jerome had a different opinion,but he put aside his will for the authority of the church,which is why he included the 7 books. He was NOT the voice of the entire church.Finally,the early church used the LXX as its Bible and even many Protestant Study Bibles affirm it.Incorrect. The term Deuterocanonical was first coined by Sixtus of Siena in 1566 in his work Bibliotheca sancta ex praecipuis Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoribus collecta. Jerome explicitly refers to the DC books in his writings as Apocrypha.
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.” (Preface to the books of Samuel and Kings)
Apparently the person who came up with this figure counted a separate “denomination” for each country in which a religious body existed. Apparently the Catholic Church exists in 280 countries. My point is that these figures are in no way an estimate of the number of actual divided churches with separate beliefs existing in the world. Catholics need to **stop using these figures. **I do not understand the stubborn attachment of online Catholic apologists to this figure, even after it has been repeatedly debunked. You can make your point about Protestant disunity without the 33,000 figure.Actually, I believe that the person who came up with the 33000 denomination figure counted something like 280 denominations within the Catholic Church alone. I think that’s crazy–but then I’m not the one using the 33,000 figure!
Excuse me? 28,000 denominations within the Catholic Church? I would love to read the source claiming there exist 280 denominations within Catholicism. I would like to read the names of such ‘denominations’ within the Catholic Church.
Many people would say that indeed that is the case, yes. It all depends on your criteria.**The question is whether in fact the RCC as it exists today is exactly the same as the Church Jesus founded. To all appearance it pretty clearly isn’t. **
And is the U.S. government the same today as it was in 1789? To all appearance it pretty clear isn’t. Does that mean its core fundamentals and standards also no longer exist today as it did in 1789?
There is certainly continuity, but the Eastern Churches can claim just as much continuity. Indeed, superficially I’d say that any of them look like they have more continuity in most respects.
Worship for one thing. The much derided “lack of doctrinal development” for another.That is a general statement. Name what has been more in contiunity?
I am sorry, but you did not answer my question. I will ask it again.Correction,the church did not decide for God,but it was God and WHO He used to decide. He used His Church and its bishops. I do not know why it is such a difficult historical fact for Protestants to accept? I always hear and read nothing but circular arguments and dodging and weaving to deny historicla facts. Bible scholars who cover the canon and all say the same thing: The Catholic Church and its bishops gave us the Bible in one volume.
I do not hear or read anyone denying the U.S. forefathers gave us the U.S. Constitution. It is history and all factual.
I believe that the canon was already predetermined by God and whatever the historical process was of deciding exclusion/inclusion it was simply a matter of discerning what already was foreknown and foreordained by God.
Do Catholics believe this?
I can understand your point of view. First of all, I am not an apologist,so I cannot defend the references or the exact number of denominations. Frankly, I think there are no accurate numbers due to fact there does exist thousands of denominations,so in essence,numbers have no revelance to the disunity.Apparently the person who came up with this figure counted a separate “denomination” for each country in which a religious body existed. Apparently the Catholic Church exists in 280 countries. My point is that these figures are in no way an estimate of the number of actual divided churches with separate beliefs existing in the world. Catholics need to **stop using these figures. **I do not understand the stubborn attachment of online Catholic apologists to this figure, even after it has been repeatedly debunked. You can make your point about Protestant disunity without the 33,000 figure.
Edwin
Predetermined by God? No,because it was a process taking nearly 400 years. God guided the church though the process,but I do not believe he predetermined it and the church had to determine His predetermination.I am sorry, but you did not answer my question. I will ask it again.
I am not quite sure how the “process” of canonization taking 400 years means that it was not predetermined by God. Could you clarify that statement, Nicea?Predetermined by God? No,because it was a process taking nearly 400 years. God guided the church though the process,but I do not believe he predetermined it and the church had to determine His predetermination.
I’ll use the terms influence or sway toward an action or opinion. The fact there existed many writings and many not in accordance with Apostolic teachings;hence gnostic and heretical teachings were factors,which “predetermined” to a large extent the outcome: canon of scripture.I am not quite sure how the “process” of canonization taking 400 years means that it was not predetermined by God. Could you clarify that statement, Nicea?
So just to clarify…Predetermined by God? No,because it was a process taking nearly 400 years. God guided the church though the process,but I do not believe he predetermined it and the church had to determine His predetermination.
I understand what you are saying. I don’t think it’s sound at all, though. The fact that heretical and gnostic texts existed does not mean that God did not predetermine the outcome of the Church recognizing the canon of Scripture. God creates history, therefore, it necessitates that He uses history in order to reach the end for which He created it. No?I’ll use the terms influence or sway toward an action or opinion. The fact there existed many writings and many not in accordance with Apostolic teachings;hence gnostic and heretical teachings were factors,which “predetermined” to a large extent the outcome: canon of scripture.
Make sense?