I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[jmcrae]

“Why do I list myself as protestant?”!!! So where is that…where am I listed as a protestant!!!..

I am a Catholic… where does it say otherwise???

OH no, have I been kicked out… what is going on here???

In your right-hand column, under “Religion”, it says, “Protestant.”

Join Date: June 14, 2007
Posts: 173
Religion: Protestant

 

[kelman]

It is SS, via private interpretation, that gave rise to disagreements…and the refusal to give up pride…and not practice humility.

There is nothing prideful in prayerfully studying Scripture. God has commanded that we do so. As for private interpretation, I submit that mine is no more fallible than yours.

Look at the disagreements between the reformer themselves.

True, they had disagreements concerning some points in the Bible. That is to be expected and no different from the ECFs who also did not always think alike.

There is…would Jesus leave us orphans? Which do you think is the pillar and ground of truth?

I agree that Jesus did not leave us orphans - He left us with the inspired Word of God. God says Scripture is sufficient to “complete” the man of God and lead us to salvation(2Tim 3:15-17).

Where did Jesus instruct to settle differences?

We see that disciplinary actions are to be taken by the churches. To strengthen us so that we do not fall prey to false teachings Paul does not entrust us to the church but rather to God and to Scripture (Acts 20:32).

 

[kelman]

Trent affirmed prior decisions because Luther and company started tinkering with the Canon.

That was my point. The prior pope’s declaration was obviously neither sufficient or official.

Prior to Luther and company, were there disputes about the canon?

Yes there were. Many ECFs besides Athanasius and Eusebius recognized only the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible… Melito of Sardis(170AD), Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus(730AD). Really too many to list.

After the proclamation of Pope Damasus…were there disputes about the canon? How many Bibles had different lists?

At the least, many ECFs did not agree with Damasus’ canon.

Athanasius and Eusebius…were local bishops…making the decisions for their local sees…Pope Damasus made it for the one, holy, Catholic Chuch.

Yes, which points to the fact that regardless of Damasus, the canon was not settled.

 

[PRmerger]

There is nothing prideful in prayerfully studying Scripture. God has commanded that we do so.

No one here was saying that one is being prideful in prayerfully studying Scripture, kelman.

The pride is attached to an inability to ability to defer to an authority.

As for private interpretation, I submit that mine is no more fallible than yours.

Fair enough.

And when you quote Scripture and believe it means and another person believes this same verse means , in your paradigm, what is the solution?

True, they had disagreements concerning some points in the Bible. That is to be expected and no different from the ECFs who also did not always think alike.

And yet when the ECFs disagreed there was a source that they could defer to who would authoritatively discern which position was consonant with the paradosis.

I agree that Jesus did not leave us orphans - He left us with the inspired Word of God. God says Scripture is sufficient to “complete” the man of God and lead us to salvation(2Tim 3:15-17).

Catholics give a hearty Amen! to this, kelman.

We see that disciplinary actions are to be taken by the churches. To strengthen us so that we do not fall prey to false teachings Paul does not entrust us to the church but rather to God and to Scripture (Acts 20:32).

You are creating a false dichotomy here. The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore there is no either Christ OR the Church. And the Scriptures are a product of the Church, so, again, there cannot be an either/or here.

 

[PRmerger]

That was my point. The prior pope’s declaration was obviously neither sufficient or official.

Catholicism does not claim that any pope’s declarations are “sufficient”, kelman.

Just like Jesus’ declarations weren’t sufficient. (We also have the words of his apostles.) Not to mention that if Jesus had only offered declarations but had not offered himself as the Lamb of God, then where would we be?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, which points to the fact that regardless of Damasus, the canon was not settled.

Could you please provide a source for a Bible that existed after Damasus but before the Reformation that included a different canon?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Could you please provide a source for a Bible that existed after Damasus but before the Reformation that included a different canon?

The Church sent out the Vulgate complete with Jerome’s prefaces to the deuterocanonoical books listing them as not on par with canonical scripture, so that’s one. There were large bodies of work (commentaries) during the middle ages that, though they included the deutero’s, that placed the deutero’s in a seperate category other than canonical scripture. The glossa ordinaire, which was the major scripture commentary used during the middle ages, comes to mind and additionaly there were in fact several versions of the Bilble such as Cardinal Ximenes work that clearly placed the deutero’s outside the canoncial scriptures. If I remember correctly Cardinal Ximenes work received the approval of Pope Leo X (??).

There is a pretty good article at newadvent.org under the OT canon that get’s into this issue a little bit but not in much detail. I think for more detail you are going to have to read some more work by Bruce, Metzger and Beckwith.

Also, there is a little controversy as to whether the Damasus decree is legitimate or not. Regardless, the issue was finally settled at Trent but even at the council there is no evidence that the council fathers thought the canonocity of the duetero’s was fully settled by an earlier council. The issue just wasn’t fully settled until Trent. What happened before Trent is really somewhat irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the deutero’s are or are not canonoical.

 

[David_Castlen]

LOL…I was just wondering because you’ve got Protestant down as your religion:

"About David Castlen

Religion

Protestant"

?Oh my, does anyone know how I can get this taken off my personal information. Obviously, when I was looking into being a Catholic I must have been going to the sight… I wonder what the date is of my indicating that I “am” a protestant. You can take the boy out of the Baptist but you can’t take the Baptist our of the boy. help someone tell me how to get this information corrected???/ sight

 

[PRmerger]

The Church sent out the Vulgate complete with Jerome’s prefaces to the deuterocanonoical books listing them as not on par with canonical scripture, so that’s one.

Well, as they were included in this Bible, this example does not fit my criterion.

I am asking for examples of Bibles that differed from the canon confirmed by Pope Damasus, prior to the Reformation.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my, does anyone know how I can get this taken off my personal information. Obviously, when I was looking into being a Catholic I must have been going to the sight… I wonder what the date is of my indicating that I “am” a protestant. You can take the boy out of the Baptist but you can’t take the Baptist our of the boy. help someone tell me how to get this information corrected???sight

Go to your Profile (white tab at the top), go to Control Panel, then Edit Your Details, and in the middle of the page is a place to fill in your religion.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Well, as they were included in this Bible, this example does not fit my criterion.

I am asking for examples of Bibles that differed from the canon confirmed by Pope Damasus, prior to the Reformation.

Luther included them in his translation of the Bible but they were not included in his canon. As far as I know all the Bibles which came out at and just after the reformation included the deutero’s.

If your point is that they, the deutero’s, were included regardless of the status which they were given you are likely correct.

 

[PRmerger]

Luther included them in his translation of the Bible but they were not included in his canon. As far as I know all the Bibles which came out at and just after the reformation included the deutero’s.

If your point is that they, the deutero’s, were included regardless of the status which they were given you are likely correct.

My point is that contrary to what kelman has asserted, the Church did affirm and confirm the canon of Scripture in the 4th century at the Council of Rome in 382, re-affirmed and confirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393, the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, Second Council of Nicea in 787, Council of Florence 1442 and finally dogmatically proclaimed at the Council of Trent in 1546.

The codicil to this is, of course, that anyone who quotes Scripture does so at the authority of the Catholic Church. Whether they acknowledge it or not.

 

[Pwrlftr]

My point is that contrary to what kelman has asserted, the Church did affirm and confirm the canon of Scripture in the 4th century at the Council of Rome in 382, re-affirmed and confirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393, the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, Second Council of Nicea in 787, Council of Florence 1442 and finally dogmatically proclaimed at the Council of Trent in 1546.

The codicil to this is, of course, that anyone who quotes Scripture does so at the authority of the Catholic Church. Whether they acknowledge it or not.

The canon was the issue that got me originally thinking about converting. To me it’s kind of hard to ignore the weight of several early councils even if one wants to disregard Trent.

 

[kelman]

True, and true. The Old Testament Canon of Trent is the one we go by today, and is considered infallible because of being promulgated by Trent.

The point I was attempting to make is why was not the first “infallible” papal promulgation not sufficient to settle for all time this business about the canon….I just wondered why this was the case?

There were a variety of Old Testament Canons going around before the Council of Trent,……

But doesn’t even the New Catholic Encyclopedia claim the OT Hebrew canon is that which the Protestants follow today? ” For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, Canon, Biblical’ (Washington D.C. Catholic University, 1967) p. 29.

…… but the one they promulgated seems to have been in widest use for the majority of the Christian era, and corresponds with that which would have been used by Christ and the Apostles, since the Palestinian canon cannot have come into existence before the fall of the Temple, in 70 AD,….

I’m not sure why you think that the Palestinian canon “could not have” originated before 70AD. There is evidence to say otherwise.

……and since (being Greek) the Early Church must have been using the Alexandrian canon (identical to Trent’s canon) rather than either the Palestinian canon (which did not yet exist) or the canon of the Sadducees (First Moses through to Fifth Moses; aka the Pentateuch).

We really can’t be sure that that’s true, can we? After all, didn’t Athanasius (296-373), who was bishop of Alexandria where the Septuagint was produced, refuse to include the Apocrypha in his list of the inspired OT canon claiming it was not in the Hebrew OT canon?

 

[jmcrae]

The point I was attempting to make is why was not the first “infallible” papal promulgation not sufficient to settle for all time this business about the canon….I just wondered why this was the case?

He wasn’t actually proclaiming on the Old Testament - only on the New Testament.

But doesn’t even the New Catholic Encyclopedia claim the OT Hebrew canon is that which the Protestants follow today? ” For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, Canon, Biblical’ (Washington D.C. Catholic University, 1967) p. 29.

The Jews didn’t actually have a need to settle on a particular canon of Scripture until after the Temple era.

I’m not sure why you think that the Palestinian canon “could not have” originated before 70AD. There is evidence to say otherwise.

What evidence would that be?

The first recorded use of it is at the School of Jamnia in 90 AD. (The Jamnian school didn’t actually have any authority to set a canon for the Jews as a whole, but they set that particular canon as a norm for their own students, because they wanted the students to stick with Hebrew originals - keep in mind that the Hebrew versions of the other seven books were not available at that particular period of history.)

We really can’t be sure that that’s true, can we? After all, didn’t Athanasius (296-373), who was bishop of Alexandria where the Septuagint was produced, refuse to include the Apocrypha in his list of the inspired OT canon claiming it was not in the Hebrew OT canon?

That, I don’t know. What I do know is that Jerome’s opinion was formed, not by the oral history of the Apostles, but by the opinions of Jewish scholars who lived in Palestine - who would have had no reason to support the Christian Old Testament, and in fact would have had every reason to oppose it, since it prefigures Christ so clearly - especially the Book of Wisdom.

 

[kelman]

No one here was saying that one is being prideful in prayerfully studying Scripture, kelman.
The pride is attached to an inability to ability to defer to an authority.

Surely, you realize many do not believe that Rome is the only authority?

And when you quote Scripture and believe it means and another person believes this same verse means , in your paradigm, what is the solution?

My understanding of Scripture finds its basis in my church, in past and present theologians and that of my own understanding. I doubt your solution would be very different since your church has “officially” interpreted very few Scriptures.

And yet when the ECFs disagreed there was a source that they could defer to who would authoritatively discern which position was consonant with the paradosis.

Except they didn’t “defer” their opinions, did they? That’s why we have knowledge of their disparate views.

We see that disciplinary actions are to be taken by the churches. To strengthen us so that we do not fall prey to false teachings Paul does not entrust us to the church but rather to God and to Scripture (Acts 20:32).

You are creating a false dichotomy here. The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore there is no either Christ OR the Church.

The church is not the Lord Jesus nor is He the church. When we are told to go to God and the Scriptures that does not mean to go to the church. Had Paul wanted to say “go to the church” he could have, however, he declined to.

And the Scriptures are a product of the Church, so, again, there cannot be an either/or here.

I would disagree. The Scriptures are the God-breathed words of God penned by human hands, therefore, they are the product of God.

That was my point. The prior pope’s declaration was obviously neither sufficient or official.

Catholicism does not claim that any pope’s declarations are “sufficient”, kelman.

If Damasus’ promulgation at the council of Rome was not sufficient to “officially” establish the canon then what makes the pope’s at Trent sufficient?

 

[jmcrae]

Surely, you realize many do not believe that Rome is the only authority?

St. Ignatius of Antioch advised his readers in 107 AD to defer to the Bishop of Rome when disputes arose. His advice was often repeated, especially by St. Irenaeus (Adverses Haereses) and others.

Except they didn’t “defer” their opinions, did they? That’s why we have knowledge of their disparate views.

They look to the Holy Tradition of the Apostles, just like we do.

Had Paul wanted to say “go to the church” he could have, however, he declined to.

St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth.

I would disagree. The Scriptures are the God-breathed words of God penned by human hands, therefore, they are the product of God.

Every human being involved with bringing the Scriptures to the Church was either a Bishop of the Catholic Church or an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

If Damasus’ promulgation at the council of Rome was not sufficient to “officially” establish the canon then what makes the pope’s at Trent sufficient?

Pope Damasus had no intention of promulgating the canon of the Old Testament - his concern was the New Testament. The Council of Trent had the intention of promulgating the canon of the Old Testament, and did so deliberately.

 

[PRmerger]

Surely, you realize many do not believe that Rome is the only authority?

Of course. We all agree that God is our authority.

But this, naturally, prompts the question: how do you know what God has proclaimed?

There is only ONE way, and that is through the Church, kelman.

My understanding of Scripture finds its basis in my church, in past and present theologians and that of my own understanding. I doubt your solution would be very different since your church has “officially” interpreted very few Scriptures.

Fair enough. And when 2 Christians disagree on a particular verse, how is this solved in your church’s paradigm?

The church is not the Lord Jesus nor is He the church.

Well, yes and no.

When we are told to go to God and the Scriptures that does not mean to go to the church.

That’s interesting. I don’t know of any verse that says to go to the Scriptures but not to the church. Can you cite that please?

In fact, what I have read in the Scriptures is that they say to go to the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

 

[kelman]

CopticChristian said:

You admit that human nature errors and causes disagreement. I don’t claim perfection for the humanity of the OHCAC, Orhtodox, Oriental Church however there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…and if as you say there is an alternative then it was not by humanity that this one deposit of Faith exists.

No, actually I said there was no alternative. If there was such a place, where we would know perfect truth all the time, we would take it. However, such a utopia does not exist, iow, there is no utopia in which we have all the answers all the time.

 

[CopticChristian]

Surely, you realize many do not believe that Rome is the only authority?

My understanding of Scripture finds its basis in my church, in past and present theologians and that of my own understanding. I doubt your solution would be very different since your church has “officially” interpreted very few Scriptures.

Except they didn’t “defer” their opinions, did they? That’s why we have knowledge of their disparate views.

The church is not the Lord Jesus nor is He the church. When we are told to go to God and the Scriptures that does not mean to go to the church. Had Paul wanted to say “go to the church” he could have, however, he declined to.

** I would disagree. The Scriptures are the God-breathed words of God penned by human hands, therefore, they are the product of God. **
If Damasus’ promulgation at the council of Rome was not sufficient to “officially” establish the canon then what makes the pope’s at Trent sufficient?

You have a link with reality. Hands. Those hands belong to someone. Many of the books of the Bible like Hebrews has no authors name. I believe that there are others. Many of the epistles attributed to Paul were not written by Paul. So how do you know that these are God breathed. Someone elses hands touched them. Someone elses eyes read them and someone elses mind said yup…nope…this one and not that one are God Breathed. Who had those hands? There were hands that were rasied and agreed and thus we have the God breathed Bible. How did that happen?