How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[benedictus2]

Really? The reason I brought this up is to hopefully shed some light on some of the controversy surrounding the OT canon and the DC’s. It isn’t as sanitary as some such as Benedictus seem to believe. If one believes that this issue was truely settled at an earlier council it seems to me that it’s going to be difficult to explain away the prologues to the DC’s in the vulgate, the glossa ordinaire and the debate at Trent.

Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

**Council of Carthage**

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

You are correct that Cajetan did not think the DCs canonical by citing St Jerome. According to Cajetan: “Not be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldst find any where, either in sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.”
But this is a ridiculous position as he is pitting Jerome against the councils and the general concensus at the time.

This is really similar to going with Luther as against the Council of Trent’s final dogmatic decision. But this is not surprising considering the Protestants penchant to go solo on matters of doctrine.

 

[Dokimas]

Is there a Scripture verse that tells you we are to know something is “inspired” only if it doesn’t contain errors?

But clearly, yes, something can be inspired and have some errors. It may have a historical or scientific error, but never an error regarding a revealed Truth about God.

The CC’s authority does not extend to historical or scientific pronouncements.

It does not teach any error regarding faith or morals.

Seems your responses to my question are contradictory to each other.​

I agree something or someone can be inspired and yet have some errors, such as songs, many ‘Christian’ books… That’s why I believe the CC can be inspired and be in error in one or more beliefs.​

I also believe it is possible for something or Someone to be inspired and be without error. I do not believe the Bible is in error.

 

[Dokimas]

Do you have a Scripture verse that says how we know something is not the true word of God if it contains errors in chronology, culture, science etc?

Are you really saying, Amy, that if something has an error in any of those things that proves it’s not inspired?

Are you implying that the Bible has some errors or are you saying that there are ‘inspired’ works that should be in the cannon but aren’t because of the errors, or are you saying both or neither?

 

[benedictus2]

I agree something or someone can be inspired and yet have some errors, such as songs, many ‘Christian’ books… That’s why I believe the CC can be inspired and be in error in one or more beliefs.

Not in matters of faith and morals i.e. when it comes to doctrine.

I also believe it is possible for something or Someone to be inspired and be without error. I do not believe the Bible is in error.

Now you are the one being contradictory. If something / someone can be inspired and yet be in error, then how do you know that the Bible is not in error?

 

[benedictus2]

Are you implying that the Bible has some errors or are you saying that there are ‘inspired’ works that should be in the cannon but aren’t because of the errors, or are you saying both or neither?

As I said in a previous post to you, you have to define error. What sort of error? It is very easy to prove that there are errors in the Bible

 

[Dokimas]

Not in matters of faith and morals i.e. when it comes to doctrine.
Now you are the one being contradictory. If something / someone can be inspired and yet be in error, then how do you know that the Bible is not in error?

Faith. Not to mention, proof.

 

[Dokimas]

As I said in a previous post to you, you have to define error. What sort of error? It is very easy to prove that there are errors in the Bible

Like what?

I assume we are not speaking about the lies told by Satan or about the time some Jews said they wouldn’t eat until they had killed Paul. These are errors found in the Bible but are NOT errors by the inspired writers.

 

[SemperReformada]

Can you please cite your sources? What “prologues” to the DCs in the Vulgate? What was the debate at Trent and how do you know?

I’ll post something on Trent later today but for the Vulgate, Jerome and his prologues please read the article at www.newadvent.org under the canon of the OT.
NewAdvent.org:

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text (the Vulgate) went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.

NewAdvent.org:

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.

The pope sent out the Vulgate with the DC’s included in the binding and also w/ Jerome’s derogatory comments toward their canoncity. The point being that it’s not true that the canon was settled at an early date and it’s not true that Luther was unique or revolutionary in his views.

The above quotes come from newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

I don’t know how interested you are in this topic but there are several books that are pretty good and of course the debate between White and Michuta was really good. Both side presented their case very well.

 

[benedictus2]

Like what?

I assume we are not speaking about the lies told by Satan or about the time some Jews said they wouldn’t eat until they had killed Paul. These are errors found in the Bible but are NOT errors by the inspired writers.

I mean when you speak of errors there are different kinds of error.

For example, was the Bible correct about the science of the creation story? Some may perceive that as error.

 

[benedictus2]

Faith. Not to mention, proof.

Therefore this conclusion is purely subjective?
But you say proof. If provable then it is no longer a matter of faith.

So how do you prove that the Bible is inerrant?

 

[Dokimas]

I mean when you speak of errors there are different kinds of error.

For example, was the Bible correct about the science of the creation story? Some may perceive that as error.

Perception doesn’t make something in error. If perception made for truth, we’d all believing a lie about everything because someone perceives things differently than we do.​

Truth stands alone against perception if they differ.

 

[Dokimas]

Therefore this conclusion is purely subjective?
But you say proof. If provable then it is no longer a matter of faith.

So how do you prove that the Bible is inerrant?

God NEVER expected any of us to have faith without some measure of proof. That would be ‘blind faith’. If blind faith is correct, then all religions are correct. Christianity stands alone because Jesus was raised from the dead, an objective fact that we can believe in or not (have faith in or not).

 

[benedictus2]

When you quoted this from New Advent.

"In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. "

Why did you intentionally omit the rest of the text which went:

And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.

 

[benedictus2]

God NEVER expected any of us to have faith without some measure of proof. That would be ‘blind faith’. If blind faith is correct, then all religions are correct. Christianity stands alone because Jesus was raised from the dead, an objective fact that we can believe in or not (have faith in or not).

My question was, if you say there is proof, then prove that the Bible is inerrant. I am not disputing faith.

 

[SemperReformada]

Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

**Council of Carthage**

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

You are correct that Cajetan did not think the DCs canonical by citing St Jerome. According to Cajetan: “Not be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldst find any where, either in sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.”
But this is a ridiculous position as he is pitting Jerome against the councils and the general concensus at the time.

This is really similar to going with Luther as against the Council of Trent’s final dogmatic decision. But this is not surprising considering the Protestants penchant to go solo on matters of doctrine.

I am aware of the early councils but so what?? These councils were only provinicial and if you remember what I posted in my earlier posts…the church sent out the vulgate w/ Jeromes prefaces rejecting the DC"s canoncity.

If the issue was truly settled at Carthage or Hippo why on earth would the church send out a bible that clearly rejected the ruling of these two councils via Jerome’s prefaces/prologues to the DC"s contained within the vulgate?

Why would the major scriptural commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, also reject the fidings of the early councils and still be widely used if the issue was truely settled back in the 3rd or 4th century?

Why would there have been any debate at all at Trent on this issue if the canonocity of the DC’s were settled over a millenium before?

You say that Cajetan’s position is ridiculous but what makes you the better judge of what the facts are than Cajetan with regards on how to deal with the early councils and the DC’s? Cajetan was hardly a rebel. In fact, he was hand picked by the pope to confront Luther. By the way, if I remember correctly Cajetan cites Augustine’s opinion in support of how to interpret the councils decision.

Augustine didn’t see the issue settled at the time of the councils either and Augustine accepted the canonocity of the DC’s.

augustine:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal,
84NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8.

Clearly Augustine acknowledged the lack of unanimity in the Churches regarding the canon and gave advice on how to determine which books were truly canonical. This is striking because Augustine accepted the DC’s as canonical and would obviously been aware of what the councils had to say. If the issue was settled why didn’t Augustine simply say to accept the findings of the councils?

You claim that the general consensus of the time of Cajetan was that the DC’s were indeed canonical. What makes you assume that?

 

[benedictus2]

Perception doesn’t make something in error. If perception made for truth, we’d all believing a lie about everything because someone perceives things differently than we do.​

Truth stands alone against perception if they differ.

Brilliant! Very well said indeed. :clapping::clapping:

Now to the question, how do we know that what we perceive is the truth if perception can and does differ from truth?

After all, all of us go by perception. So how do we know how closely aligned to the truth our perceptions are?

 

[SemperReformada]

When you quoted this from New Advent.

Why did you intentionally omit the rest of the text which went:

And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.

How does the above change my point which was the vulgate contained Jerome’s prefaces to the DC’s which expressed his rejection of the DC’s as canonical scripture?

Since I clearly cited the source where I got the information from I don’t know why you would take issue with this.

 

[benedictus2]

I am aware of the early councils but so what?? These councils were only provinicial and if you remember what I posted in my earlier posts…the church sent out the vulgate w/ Jeromes prefaces rejecting the DC"s canoncity.

But the canon’s I quoted very specifically noted that these books were canonical.

If the issue was truly settled at Carthage or Hippo why on earth would the church send out a bible that clearly rejected the ruling of these two councils via Jerome’s prefaces/prologues to the DC"s contained within the vulgate?

Perhaps to show people that Jerome did have a lower regard for its canonicity but that they themselves consider it as canonical. You must remember that Jerome was very influential. Perhaps as a deference, they wanted to show his opinion. At the end of the day that is all it is - his opinion. You must remember that back in those days, the Bible is not in wide use as it is now. Most people who would have them would be scholastics. Jeromes commentaries are important to them.

Why would the major scriptural commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, also reject the fidings of the early councils and still be widely used if the issue was truely settled back in the 3rd or 4th century?

I’ve answered that one above.

Why would there have been any debate at all at Trent on this issue if the canonocity of the DC’s were settled over a millenium before?

Because not everyone is in agreement. That is why there was a debate. Obviously, Cajetan, believing the way he did and being very influential wanted to raise the issue.

You say that Cajetan’s position is ridiculous but what makes you the better judge of what the facts are than Cajetan with regards on how to deal with the early councils and the DC’s?

By the very simple reason that he took Jeroms’s position over the councils. That is why I posted his exact words.

As I said in that post, it is very much like siding with Luther now, when history has proven that these books have always been regarded as Canonical by the councils.

Cajetan was hardly a rebel. In fact, he was hand picked by the pope to confront Luther.

Yes, but his fidelity is not what is in question here. What is ridiculous was his summation that everyone and everything pertaining to the DC should bow to Jerome.

By the way, if I remember correctly Cajetan cites Augustine’s opinion in support of how to interpret the councils decision.

Augustine didn’t see the issue settled at the time of the councils either and Augustine accepted the canonocity of the DC’s.

If you mean by settled was it officially made dogma no. There was no need because these books were included in the readings for the Church. Luther’s action was what made it necessary for a difnitive stand be taken.

Luther himself did not question the canonicity until he decided he was going to come up with his own doctrine. He wanted to impose his own theology on the canon.

Clearly Augustine acknowledged the lack of unanimity in the Churches regarding the canon and gave advice on how to determine which books were truly canonical. This is striking because Augustine accepted the DC’s as canonical and would obviously been aware of what the councils had to say. If the issue was settled why didn’t Augustine simply say to accept the findings of the councils?

Even when something has been promulgated as dogma, not every one will agree. There will always be dissenters. We see that even today. But the fact remains that these books are regarded as canoninical by the councils.

You claim that the general consensus of the time of Cajetan was that the DC’s were indeed canonical. What makes you assume that?

By the fact that Cajetan keeps invoking Jerome against the councils.

 

[Dokimas]

My question was, if you say there is proof, then prove that the Bible is inerrant. I am not disputing faith.

Scientific, historical, archeological proofs galore, to mention a few.

 

[benedictus2]

How does the above change my point which was the vulgate contained Jerome’s prefaces to the DC’s which expressed his rejection of the DC’s as canonical scripture?

Since I clearly cited the source where I got the information from I don’t know why you would take issue with this.

Because the latter text shows you that the seeming issue in the text that you quoted was a moot point.