If the Scripture is inspired then why do the Protestant reject the Deutrocanonical Books?

[The_Preacher]

Give me a break.

It’s not my place to give you a break, only to faithfully proclame to you the Gospel or “good news” that Jesus already has. The problem is that like the dwarfs (as Lewis called them in "The Final Battle) people prefer their opinions to the facts. :sad_yes:

 

[JonNC]

I think it’s time to ask just what the canon, or should I say canons are, as there have been and are many. A canon is simply a list of books of scripture which are held to be authentic. That is, a person without extencive formal training in ancient writings may safely believe what is in them. (I should note however that canons seldom take into consideration the fact that there are frequently differing versions of canonical books.) History and theology are chock-a-block with ancient manuscripts, most of which have their adhearants. We’ve all encountered sensationalist popular books about this “newly discovered” Gospel which the church supposidly repressed for some nefarious reason or other. A few are rejected as outright frauds. Some are rejected because they contradict the perpoderance of accepted writings. The Masorites who established what we inherited as the Old Testament Canon refused to consider any book available at that moment only in Greek, not Hebrew. There are authentic manuscripts which came to light after the canon was set. Technically, the Lutheran Church has no closed canon, though most Lutherans don’t know it! Even the rejected books often contain passages held to be authentic. A canon is a scholarly decision, not inspired except in that the scholars are hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit in shepherding the flock. Canons are for the laiety. Scholars routeenly use non-canonical material because they have the skill to evaluate it safely. Most of what we have and pastor from is authentic, valid, non-canonical material. It is called loosly the Tradition of the Church. The “Didache” or “Teachings of the Fathers” is one outstanding example. It is a first or second century book of Church Order and unimpeachable in it’s authority. The Magesterium of the Church is it’s teaching authority and it does not rely upon Scripture alone or any canon of Scripture. The real issue is rejecting the Church and relying only on the Bible, not what books are in the Bible. It’s like puting all your faith and hope in the compas and rejecting the sails, rudder and hull! How long can you tred water?

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6633

Q. Do Lutherans believe in an open canon? That is, could there be more than the 66 books than we have in the Bible? And, what about Luther’s doubts about the canonicity of certain books in the Bible (for example, James and Revelation)?

A. In his chapter on the canon in The Word of the Lord Grows, the late LCMS New Testament scholar Dr. Martin Franzmann summarized well the LCMS position on the question of the limits of the Biblical canon: “The question of the limits of the canon may be theoretically open; but the history of the church indicates that it is for practical purposes closed.” Dr. Franzmann’s comments here mean, finally, that the extent of the canon is an historical question and for us today it is really a moot question. When we bind ourselves to the “canonical Scriptures” we hold to the 66 books of the Bible that historically authenticated themselves to the church as God’s inspired Word.

Luther’s opinion regarding the canonicity of the Epistle of James, which in his 1522 preface to this book he called an “epistle of straw”–as well as his opinions regarding the book of Revelation–are well known. But his opinion on the canonicity of these books has no bearing on his conviction that the canonical Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. Luther expressed various opinions regarding the canonicity of certain books of the New Testament, and this is of historical interest. But his commitment to the infallibility of the divine revelation given in the Scriptures remained unwavering. Luther himself was well aware of the history of the development of the biblical canon, including the historic distinction between the “antilegomena” (books “spoken against”) and the “homologoumena” (books unanimously attested as apostolic) [See articles on “antilegomena” and “canon” in the Christian Cyclopedia.] Significantly, Luther’s opinions regarding James and Revelation did not prevent him from revering these books and teaching from them as God’s Word; in fact the Scripture lesson read in Lutheran churches in Luther’s time on the Feast of the Reformation was from Revelation.

 

[The_Preacher]

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6633

If my studies with the ELCA compelled me to swim the Tiber, the loome of the LCMS sent me walking, nay running in abject terror across it. :bigyikes: People are uncridically impressed by doctorated. A doctorate marks a persone as extrodinary and nothing else. Extrodinarally good, or extrodinarally bad. As with spirits, the challange is in the disurnment.

 

[JonNC]

If my studies with the ELCA compelled me to swim the Tiber, the loome of the LCMS sent me walking, nay running in abject terror across it. :bigyikes:

Curious. What about the LCMS would affect you this way? I could understand it with the ELCA’s *warp speed, Scotty *move to the Protestant liberal left, both doctrinally and politically.

Jon

 

[The_Preacher]

Curious. What about the LCMS would affect you this way? I could understand it with the ELCA’s *warp speed, Scotty *move to the Protestant liberal left, both doctrinally and politically.

Jon

True, the ELCA and the LCMS are diverging faster than the edges of the galexy after the big bang. The problem is that while the ELCA is going Protestant left, the LCMS long ago went Protistant right. Both have gorged themselves of a fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good an evil: Protistant Rationalism.

 

[JonNC]

True, the ELCA and the LCMS are diverging faster than the edges of the galexy after the big bang. The problem is that while the ELCA is going Protestant left, the LCMS long ago went Protistant right. Both have gorged themselves of a fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good an evil: Protistant Rationalism.

That’s an interesting perspective, considering the current LCMS president’s move toward “contempoary” worship and the like. But I see your point, as some of the things I see about scripture, for example, sound more like fundamentalism than Lutheranism.
Thanks for your view.

Jon

 

[The_Preacher]

That’s an interesting perspective, considering the current LCMS president’s move toward “contempoary” worship and the like. But I see your point, as some of the things I see about scripture, for example, sound more like fundamentalism than Lutheranism.
Thanks for your view.

Jon

:tiphat: He who is not against us is for us. Even so, come Lord Jesus. Next year in Jeresulem.

 

[SIA]

It’s not my place to give you a break, only to faithfully proclame to you the Gospel or “good news” that Jesus already has. The problem is that like the dwarfs (as Lewis called them in "The Final Battle) people prefer their opinions to the facts. :sad_yes:

Problem is, the facts prove you wrong and you still won’t admit it. Paul addresses folks like you in his letters. I’ll pray for you.

 

[CWBetts]

Problem is, the facts prove you wrong and you still won’t admit it. Paul addresses folks like you in his letters. I’ll pray for you.

That doesn’t carry alot of weight coming from someone in a church that came into being because a king couldn’t control his libido

 

[SIA]

That doesn’t carry alot of weight coming from someone in a church that came into being because a king couldn’t control his libido

And you are the King of One Liners here. I don’t attribute much weight to that.

 

[CWBetts]

And you are the King of One Liners here. I don’t attribute much weight to that.

The Anglican Church was founded by Henry the VIII. Why? The pope would not grant a divorce! THis is an undisputed fact.

 

[sambos671]

The Anglican Church was founded by Henry the VIII. Why? The pope would not grant a divorce! THis is an undisputed fact.

To be honest he wanted a son to secure the Kingdom. Catherine didn’t provide one and Anne was hot. However, his kingdom was at stake because of heir issues. Not necissarily all about libido. Also the Catholic Monestaries and churches had all that wealth that he couldn’t access.

 

[CWBetts]

To be honest he wanted a son to secure the Kingdom. Catherine didn’t provide one and Anne was hot. However, his kingdom was at stake because of heir issues. Not necissarily all about libido. Also the Catholic Monestaries and churches had all that wealth that he couldn’t access.

Ok so it was libido and greed

 

[The_Preacher]

Ok so it was libido and greed

It is regretable that faith is so often conscriped into serving the state. Remember how Christianity became the state religion of Rome? Then the Quran was in fact redacted by the Sultan Omar to increase his power (he destroyed all record of what Muhamad had taught, as Muhamad taught it). The entire Old Testament was redacted to accomodate and validate the Davidic Kings when Israel coelessed from a nomadic people into a nation. Luther would have been barbecued had not the German Princes found him so useful in throwing off the Holy Roman Emperor. I have an SS belt buckle my father brought back from WWII proclaiming “Got Mit Us!” And of course Uncle Sam slathers “One Nation Under God” all over everything. Ever thus has it been. Makes it dammed hard to preach the Gospel.:banghead:

 

[sambos671]

It is regretable that faith is so often conscriped into serving the state. Remember how Christianity became the state religion of Rome? Then the Quran was in fact redacted by the Sultan Omar to increase his power (he destroyed all record of what Muhamad had taught, as Muhamad taught it). The entire Old Testament was redacted to accomodate and validate the Davidic Kings when Israel coelessed from a nomadic people into a nation. Luther would have been barbecued had not the German Princes found him so useful in throwing off the Holy Roman Emperor. I have an SS belt buckle my father brought back from WWII proclaiming “Got Mit Us!” And of course Uncle Sam slathers “One Nation Under God” all over everything. Ever thus has it been. Makes it dammed hard to preach the Gospel.:banghead:

Actually, Constantine validating Christianity in the empire at his Milan edict (allowed for religious tollerance) was a major reason Europe was evangelized. Including England and Ireland. And since the Irish can be attributed for saving the Major early works of christianity and philosophy it was a good thing. though admittedly there were some bad effects.

 

[The_Preacher]

Actually, Constantine validating Christianity in the empire at his Milan edict (allowed for religious tollerance) was a major reason Europe was evangelized. Including England and Ireland. And since the Irish can be attributed for saving the Major early works of christianity and philosophy it was a good thing. though admittedly there were some bad effects.

You get a smily face on your quiz the answer to question one was Constantine. As to Celtic (pronounced Keltic thank you), that’s a different ball of wax. It apparently arrived by sea, probably a passanger on the tin trade. First century at latest, it definately predates the edict of Melan and though very orthadox, it was distince in it’s particulars. It was only when the Roman Church finally made it’s way tortuously overland through all that barbarian muck that the Celtic Church submitted to Roman convention. And my patrelinial people did that for the sake of the unity of the Body. The reason the Irish were able to preserve learning while western civilizatioin was in the toilet was that Rome was never able to conquer God’s garden retreet, Erin. Something about “The men fight like gods, the women fight like deamons and the children encircle like us like packe of wolves, the place is posessed.” So Ireland didn’t fall with the Roman Empire. It’s taken the Protistant Brits a long time to get almost as smart as the Romans. Why did the Irish evangulize Europe? Because leaving Erin was considered the greatest sacrefice a man or monk could make to God. But then, what would a thick Irish Mick like me be knowing?

 

[sambos671]

You get a smily face on your quiz the answer to question one was Constantine. As to Celtic (pronounced Keltic thank you), that’s a different ball of wax. It apparently arrived by sea, probably a passanger on the tin trade. First century at latest, it definately predates the edict of Melan and though very orthadox, it was distince in it’s particulars. It was only when the Roman Church finally made it’s way tortuously overland through all that barbarian muck that the Celtic Church submitted to Roman convention. And my patrelinial people did that for the sake of the unity of the Body. The reason the Irish were able to preserve learning while western civilizatioin was in the toilet was that Rome was never able to conquer God’s garden retreet, Erin. Something about “The men fight like gods, the women fight like deamons and the children encircle like us like packe of wolves, the place is posessed.” So Ireland didn’t fall with the Roman Empire. It’s taken the Protistant Brits a long time to get almost as smart as the Romans. Why did the Irish evangulize Europe? Because leaving Erin was considered the greatest sacrefice a man or monk could make to God. But then, what would a thick Irish Mick like me be knowing?

Did you mean why didn’t the Irish evangelize Europe? How about St. Brendan? He seemed to want to travel to evangelize. Also, what about Maewyn Succat who was given the title of having been responsible for evangelizing Ireland?