Now that I'm back, more on the Canon!

[The_Iambic_Pen]

RodK:

Have you ever heard The Bible Answer Man debate between White and James Akin?

I’ve heard of this debate, but I have yet to hear or read it.

Thanks everyone for all of the information! So, could I be correct in saying that from 382 on, every official canon list contained the Deuterocanonicals? If this is the case, to give the Deuterocanonicals any special status at Trent is not in any way justified, as they had shared an equal place with the rest of the Scriptures for over a thousand years. To say they were added at Trent is to say that all other Scriptures were added then as well. Is this accurate, or were the Deuterocanonicals considered as a valid yet somehow separate part of the canon until Trent? Thanks!

God bless!

 

[jimmy]

RodK:
I’ve heard of this debate, but I have yet to hear or read it.

Thanks everyone for all of the information! So, could I be correct in saying that from 382 on, every official canon list contained the Deuterocanonicals? If this is the case, to give the Deuterocanonicals any special status at Trent is not in any way justified, as they had shared an equal place with the rest of the Scriptures for over a thousand years. To say they were added at Trent is to say that all other Scriptures were added then as well. Is this accurate, or were the Deuterocanonicals considered as a valid yet somehow separate part of the canon until Trent? Thanks!

God bless!

They were always considered scriptural. The only thing significant about Trents statement on the issue is that it attached an anathema to the list of canons. Nothing was changed.

 

[Skripper]

RodK . . . To say they were added at Trent is to say that all other Scriptures were added then as well. . . .
God bless!

Exactly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Timidity:

I was going to point that out, but how does that differ from Luther? He accepted the authority of others on the Epistle of James, for example.

St. Jerome submitted to the judgment of the Church, despite his personal opinion. Luther eleveated his personal opinion above the judgement of the Church. That’s the difference.

Thus, St. Jerome did indeed quote from the deuterocanonicals as Holy Scripture, and not just merely for edification but to give authority to doctrines of the Church when defending against heterodox opinions…"Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2]" Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, *To Oceanus, *Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

"For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5]* “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.”*** And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1]** “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”(Psalm 39:6) Also after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son,** we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, WHICH IS INSCRIBED WITH HIS NAME, SOLOMON SAYS: "GOD CREATED MAN TO BE IMMORTAL, AND MADE HIM TO BE AN IMAGE OF HIS OWN ETERNITY."(Wisdom 2:23)** And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above–that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen–teaches us that man does possess God’s image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: “It is an unruly evil … therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,”(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of “the image” simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word “glory.” … Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"— Jerome, Letter 51, NPNF2, VI:87-8

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RodK:
I’ve heard of this debate, but I have yet to hear or read it.

Thanks everyone for all of the information! So, could I be correct in saying that from 382 on, every official canon list contained the Deuterocanonicals? If this is the case, to give the Deuterocanonicals any special status at Trent is not in any way justified, as they had shared an equal place with the rest of the Scriptures for over a thousand years. To say they were added at Trent is to say that all other Scriptures were added then as well. Is this accurate, or were the Deuterocanonicals considered as a valid yet somehow separate part of the canon until Trent? Thanks!

God bless!

Councilar decisions were binding and gave us the mind of the Church on the matter. However, just like today, some Catholics differ with what they believe to be non-immutable decisions of the Church. Thus, before Trent, we have some like Cardinal Cajetan who differed in their opinion as to the inspired nature of not only the deuterocanonicals, but also some portions of the New Testament. Before the “anathemas” of Trent, this view was not heretical, but was clearly contary to the judgment of the Church as was made clear by the Council of Florence. Trent made that judgement clearly immutable.

 

[LatinCat]

Timidity:

St. Jerome?

But St. Jerome changed his positition to be in line with the bishops, especially the bishop or Rome. So eventually he did accept them at the request of the Church.

 

[Timidity]

Genesis315:

If that were true, why do the Orthodox have those books too?

But don’t the Orthodox have books that the Catholic consider apocryphical? 1 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, and an extra Psalm?

The point being that you can’t use the Orthodox canon to justify the Catholic canon.

 

[Catholic2003]

Timidity:

But don’t the Orthodox have books that the Catholic consider apocryphical? 1 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, and an extra Psalm?

The point being that you can’t use the Orthodox canon to justify the Catholic canon.

That’s the Oriential Orthodox with the extra books, not the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Timidity:

…you can’t use the Orthodox canon to justify the Catholic canon.

We don’t. We use the authority of the Catholic Church as the basis for the Catholic Canon. However, I think the point that you ought to consider…

EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH until Protestantism accepted the longer recession of Daniel, the longer recession of Esther, Judith, Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, and 1 & 2 Maccabees. ALL OF THEM, including Eastern Orthodoxy. That’s 100% of all Christian Churches for over 1500 years. Then came Protestantism and their rejection of the Christian Bible.

By what authority did Protestantism reject this recession of Daniel, for example. Origen accepted it. Jerome accepted it. Every Christian Church accepted it. The only ones to reject it also rejected Jesus Christ as their Savior. Surely Protestants are not relying upon them as their authority, are they?

Or is it part of Protestant doctrine that one can simply omit chapters and versus, and entire books from the Bible that they dont’ particularly like?

 

[Bishopite]

[The Iambic Pen]

In my search, I have come across the website of James White. I have browsed his site many times before, and I am sure most of you have heard of him. For those few of you who haven’t, he is a Protestant of the Calvinist persuasion, who runs a ministry which counters various cults and non-Christian religions. Among these false groups, he has included Catholicism.

One of his articles

was a fictionalized account about a meeting between a Protestant couple considering Catholicism, a Protestant pastor, a recent convert to Catholicism, a rather unskilled Catholic apologist, and James White himself. In this article, the bumbling Catholic doesn’t stand a chance against James White’s knowledge and debating skills. In the end, the couple is saved from their almost disastrous decision, and the Catholics walk away in defeat.
Unfortunately, James White likes to pat himself on the back often and I’ve debated his followers on his website. They are very clever as is he in their arguments but if one knows a bit about Catholic vs reformed Protestant theology, then they can’t answer many questions posed to them and of course they can’t explain the early Church looking so “Catholic.” White teaches reformed baptistic theology which isn’t found in Scripture nor the early Church fathers. They also tout monergism which also is not a theological truth found in the Bible. Reformed Calvinist i.e. RC Sproul teach and practice padeobaptism (infant baptism) and as does a friend of mine, who is a reformed pastor. He mentioned to me that James White isn’t really “reformed” in his theology as he doesn’t accept padeobaptism as did the early reformers like Luther and Calvin.
I’ve listened to many of Whites debates, read his book on Catholicism and he is easily refuted. Remember, James White is simply one of thousands of Protestant denominations all proclaiming they have the doctrinal “truth” about what Scripture means under the banner of sola scriptura; something also NOT found in Scripture nor the early Church.

A good book for those wanting to refute Calvinist theology read Jimmy Akins “The Salvation Controversy” or Robert Sungenis’ book “Not by Faith Alone.”