Augustines view of total depravity would be defined as Calvinism today.
So who canonized the OT?
If the Calvinists were really following all of St. Augustineâs teachings, they would all be celibate Catholic priests, nuns, and monks, since he believed that our sexuality is the source of concupiscence, and in order to avoid it, one must altogether avoid sex, including within marriage.
The Council of Trent, December 13, 1545, to December 4, 1563.
Pardon me but the books of the bible were already in existence and being used as such by the church. Was not the OT already considered to be scripture at that time? Peter even calls Paulâs works scripture 2Peter 3:16.
Thatâs going a little far. The Jews had the LXX, at the time of Christ, after all, and they officially canonized the OT in 90 AD at Jamnia. Christianity, being a religion rooted in Judaism, simply incorporated the already existing Jewish scriptures as the Old Testament.
Awesome.This may help a little
The wonders of U Tube!!
http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/4/zQZBukPUwAA
The various councils and pronouncements were just affirming what already existed in the churches.The Jews themselves will tell you that Jamnia had no authority to give a canon of the Scriptures. It was not a Council; it was a group of theology students. Their âcanonâ was simply the reading list that was handed out to the students by their instructors for their particular studies. It was never intended as a complete list of the Old Testament Scriptures.
If it is the Christian Bible,then the Catholic Church with its bishops as I stated. Now not to change the subject,but many non-Catholics claim the Jews already adhered to a 39 OT canon prior to Jesus,but as of today I have never found such a source confirming it as a fact.
How was it a protestant kind of process?Essentially, itâs pretty clear that the canon was not decided by dictate from on high so much as came together organically through widespread and universal use of certain books, both OT and NT. It was a very, dare I say, Protestant kind of process.
Scripture is the word of God.
Yes Jesus is the Word.
Agreed, the good news is the word of God.
I think that both the Book of Sirach and the Book of Wisdom contain âthat which pertaineth unto salvation.â I donât think there is a clearer image of Christ than in the Book of Wisdom, and if you want to know how to behave around the King of Kings, you canât go wrong following the Wisdom of Sirach. And you also canât go wrong in imitating the Maccabees in their struggle to the death for their faith. Clearly, it would have been of comfort and inspiration to the early Martyrs, and I am sure it provides similar consolation to those who die for their faith today in China and in the Middle East.
Did you check out* âIts THE Topicâ** just above it? *Awesome.
Oh contraire the bible did exist as individual letters and books. They were actually addressed to churches or individuals in existance at the time. It was copied and passed around to the churches for instruction doctrine and reproof. How or why would the ECFâs allow questionable material to be used by the church if it was not of God? In your paradigm you allege church leaders guided the church by ST apart from the word. The entire framework for Christianity is contained in scripture and was implemented from the beginning.
There is no distinction made between them in Catholic Bibles - they are placed in their proper order (not separated into a different section) and there is nothing to differentiate them from the rest of the Old Testament. If I hadnât grown up Protestant and memorized the 39 books in order, I wouldnât even realize there was anything different about them.