Poll on the Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TriuneUnity said:
And yet you make no mention of Roman Catholic clergy and scholars at the same time who expressed similar views on which books were and were not canonical, why?

EDIT: And where it what you quoted does it say that James, Jude, Revelation et al. were written by Satan? Also, this quote only appears in Luther’s original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther’s Bible dropped the “epistle of straw” comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out.
Click to expand...
  1. It boils down to authority, something which Luther expressly rejected and I would love to see you try and formulate an argument against this. Before taking the extereme step of holding an Eccumenical Council to make the Canon of scripture Doctrinal and thus declare any individual or orginization who would dare publish a bible Sans any canonical book anathema (Trent does just this) they tried to reason with Luther and his Reformation Co-horts. Please, just accept our authority and we can move on, but that’s not what they were interested in. Point in fact, they were more convicned of their own personal authority (I can demonstrate this) and there for they rebuked the efforts of the Church which lead directly to the Church holding trent which in effect declares Luther and his friends Anathema.
  2. My argument about Luther regarding James as written by Satan is a writing style known as hyperbole… While Luther never said this, and while certainly you can’t hold a position that he believed this, it accurately relflects the idea that Luther very much did believe that James et. al not the inspired work of God, and there for may very well lead one to perdition. Look at what Luther says about James, he clearly states that James contradicts Paul, point in fact he doesn’t but consider this from Luthers POV… If you truely did believe James contradicted Paul, but declaring a works based salvation (James did no such thing, rather he more succinctly said that which it took Paul a little more ink to say) then it is quite fair to say that Luther indeed felt that reading James was dangerous and would lead one to perdition… After all the Jews really did feel that a works (of the Levitical Law) based salvation was the reality of Gods plan for us, and look where it got them? Straight to a broken faith condemed by the very Eternal Word of God made flesh!
  3. I already noted that Luther lost in his public campiagn to defrock these books. When it became clear that he had no support in dropping books from the NT, it then made sense to drop your own personal campagin.
 
JonNC said:
There is a major difference between questioning and rejecting. I think a charitable dialogue about the different views on the canon is valuable (not irrelevent) today, just as it was for St. Jerome through the centuries to Luther and Cajetan.
I know there are some on both sides that disagree.

Jon
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true. The fact one is questioning anything can easily lead to rejection. Well I disagree and find it irrevelant today,because it was already settled at the councils. How long has it been now? To re-open the issue of the canon will only open up an entire new can of worms.
 
Nicea325 said:
Not necessarily true. The fact one is questioning anything can easily lead to rejection. Well I disagree and find it irrevelant today,because it was already settled at the councils. How long has it been now? To re-open the issue of the canon will only open up an entire new can of worms.
Click to expand...
It’s not possible to argue that Luther merely questioned the Epistle(s), and revelation… As Luther explicitly used the verbage “I reject the Epistle…” with regard to SS James, then built the case against the rest of the books he rejected upon his work rejecting James.
 
crazzeto said:
It’s not possible to argue that Luther merely questioned the Epistle(s), and revelation… As Luther explicitly used the verbage “I reject the Epistle…” with regard to SS James, then built the case against the rest of the books he rejected upon his work rejecting James.
Click to expand...
I agree. However,the fact he explicitly said reject does not remove the notion he did reject other NT texts and the 7 OT books.
 
crazzeto said:
Are you sure you didn’t mistype that? Reads a little odd…
Click to expand...
Sorry,I’ll try and explain. Luther did say: “I REJECT…” Correct? So it is impossible to say he did REJECT other books? Make sense now?
 
Nicea325 said:
Sorry,I’ll try and explain. Luther did say: “I REJECT…” Correct? So it is impossible to say he did REJECT other books? Make sense now?
Click to expand...
Are you arguing it’s impossible to say he rejected the other books because he didn’t explicitly state I reject? I"m not so sure that’s a tenable argument, particularly when he uses verbage like

“…can not find Christ in…”

in his discourses on James, and the other books… With “can not find Christ in” meaning it couldn’t possibly have been written by one of the Apostles… I refer you to the posting on James with special emphisis earlier in this thread.

“As to this book of the Revelations of John, I will let everybody please himself. I will not bind anyone to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I find many things defective in this book, so that I look upon it as neither apostolic nor prophetic. My first and principal reason is, that the Apostles did not concern themselves with visions, but they prophesied in clear and simple words This is reason enough for me not to think much of it, because Christ is neither taught nor known in it”

So Luther starts out saying he’s not going to bind others to his opinion in the case of Revelation (fine enough), however notice the verbage at the end of his introduction to the book?

“because Christ is neither taught nor known in it”

Luther some how failed to find Jesus in Revelation, at all!!! We all know how he feels about writings in which Jesus can’t be found don’t we?
 
=Nicea325;6587055]Not necessarily true. The fact one is questioning anything can easily lead to rejection.
Click to expand...
This kind of contradicts your previous pointing to Jerome as submitting to the Church, even though he questioned the canonicity of the D-C’s as many did following him until, and frankly after Trent.
Well I disagree and find it irrevelant today,because it was already settled at the councils. How long has it been now? To re-open the issue of the canon will only open up an entire new can of worms.
Click to expand...
That’s fine, and you don’t have to talk about it, though your number of posts on this thread indicate that it is relevent to you in some way.
That said, my understanding of the 50 plus years of dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics is that your opinion is not shared by Catholic leaders.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
This kind of contradicts your previous pointing to Jerome as submitting to the Church, even though he questioned the canonicity of the D-C’s as many did following him until, and frankly after Trent.

That’s fine, and you don’t have to talk about it, though your number of posts on this thread indicate that it is relevent to you in some way.
That said, my understanding of the 50 plus years of dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics is that your opinion is not shared by Catholic leaders.

Jon
Click to expand...
Not exactly,because care to show me where Jerome possessed the same attitude about them as Luther? Including Luther’s sentiments about certain NT txts? I do not recall ever reading any of Jerome’s s works where he says: I reject…

Yes it is revelant to historical Christianity due the the fact the canon IS settled just like the Trinity,Incarnation,Christ two-natures,etc,etc. Should those doctrines also be in question? Or have they been settled by the councils? I do not see much fuss over those doctrines by the majority of Christians,but the OT.

My opinion is not shared by Catholic leaders? Really? Provide the name of those Catholic leaders who are in favor the 39 OT canon or question the 7 books?
 
crazzeto said:
Are you arguing it’s impossible to say he rejected the other books because he didn’t explicitly state I reject? I"m not so sure that’s a tenable argument, particularly when he uses verbage like

“…can not find Christ in…”

in his discourses on James, and the other books… With “can not find Christ in” meaning it couldn’t possibly have been written by one of the Apostles… I refer you to the posting on James with special emphisis earlier in this thread.

“As to this book of the Revelations of John, I will let everybody please himself. I will not bind anyone to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I find many things defective in this book, so that I look upon it as neither apostolic nor prophetic. My first and principal reason is, that the Apostles did not concern themselves with visions, but they prophesied in clear and simple words This is reason enough for me not to think much of it, because Christ is neither taught nor known in it”

So Luther starts out saying he’s not going to bind others to his opinion in the case of Revelation (fine enough), however notice the verbage at the end of his introduction to the book?

“because Christ is neither taught nor known in it”

Luther some how failed to find Jesus in Revelation, at all!!! We all know how he feels about writings in which Jesus can’t be found don’t we?
Click to expand...
LOL! 😃 Put it this way,I agree to what you have been saying. Luther did not have to explicitly say: I reject… I think his attitude says it loud and clear.
 
Nicea325 said:
Not exactly,because care to show me where Jerome possessed the same attitude about them as Luther? Including Luther’s sentiments about certain NT txts? I do not recall ever reading any of Jerome’s s works where he says: I reject…

Yes it is revelant to historical Christianity due the the fact the canon IS settled just like the Trinity,Incarnation,Christ two-natures,etc,etc. Should those doctrines also be in question? Or have they been settled by the councils? I do not see much fuss over those doctrines by the majority of Christians,but the OT.

My opinion is not shared by Catholic leaders? Really? Provide the name of those Catholic leaders who are in favor the 39 OT canon or question the 7 books?
Click to expand...
No, Catholic leaders are willing to dialogue. They do not consider dialogue irrelevent, which you seem to be saying.

Luther’s actions - to state opinions about the canon, and yet include the entire (western) canon in his translation plus the Prayer of Manasses is entirely like St. Jerome. Questioning and discussing is what theologians do. It seems it is apologists on both sides that prefer polemics and condemnations.

Jon
 
Holly3278 said:
I would have to say that I most agree with the third statement.
Click to expand...
i do also… but one of those… the one about the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible… well… i dont go so far as to say that the Bible does not depend on the Church… far from it… but i do think that most of what is written in the Bible can be understood by a child… a child of about 10 or so…

however there is a lot that cannot be understood by a child… and should not even be READ by a child…

namely the Old Testament… :eek:😃

seriously… too violent for children to be reading… They wouldn’t u/stand it… Heck, i barely u/stand it myself… i understand that God had to get rid of all the demon-worshippes, which is what the pagans were… whether anyone realized it fully or not… so i kinda u/stand why even children had to be killed… and why they had all those wars, etc… but still… it makes me cringe reading about all that killing…

anyhow… there is something about the Word that just shows you that its true… but still… we need a Church because… there are many things we cannot understand… and even the things that a “child” can understand… i probably shouldn’t say that cuz people get different things wrong all the time… Like, for instance, people can read the Old and New Tetaments… parts of those books… and STILL believe in OnceSavedalwaysSaved… How they can do that is WAY beyond me… so if a person is going to read the Bible, s/he should read the WhOLE thing… but few people seem to do that…

🤷
 
TriuneUnity said:
I would probably say that of the three choices, choice number 2 is probably the most sound. While statement 1 is also correct, in that the authority of Scripture is authoritative and canonical only because it is inspired… it fails to include the church as being that which the Scriptures were written to. Therefore, being that the church and only the church hears the voice of its Shepherd, the church and only the church, will be able to recognize His voice. So, the church is essential because it is the recipient, and Scripture doesn’t benefit anyone unless someone receives it. So, as statement 2 indicates, **the church has no authority to decide the canon, because God is the author and only He is fit to decide the canon, **but the church does publicly announce the Scriptures and recognizes the Scriptures.

Choice number 3, for the above mentioned reasons, fails to recognize the differences that statement 2 does.
Click to expand...
Do you think that inspiration was the sole criteria used by the church for canonization? Or do you think the church fathers viewed other writings as inspired and authoritative but chose not to include them in the canon for other reasons? Obviously the church viewed the NT writings as inspired but i dont think these documents where looked upon by the early church as the only ones being inspired. If the early church had a broader view of inspiration than most have today this needs to taken into consideration when discussing the canonization process. Many writings were quoted by the early church as having authority or scriptural status and inspiration that were never later canonized. I think its somewhat of an oversimplifciation to claim it was simply a matter of the church recognizing what was inspired and what wasnt.
 
I don’t know how to answer the poll…because of the wording that implies something else…

The Church looks at the Bible as God as the author working through men…it has different layers of meaning…but the Church looks to Scripture in context to its whole…everything is interconnected…and the Church through many years and many people decided through prayerful reflection of the Holy Spirit of which books to be comprised…in context of the universality of faith and truth of Jesus Christ.

So…the above statement would be the one I would pick…this one basicallyl condensed from the catechism. I think it is right, believe it.
 
I voted 1, but I think 2 is also true, and I would’ve voted for both had that been an available option.
 
I voted 2. One weakens the position of the Catholic Church. I did not vote for 3 because it adds steam to those who are anti-Catholic BECAUSE they disagree with what is in the canon of scripture. The church validated the canon through extensive study cross-correlating the various books. Therefore, she objectively discriminated between what is scripture, and what is merely valuable to study.
 
It seems to me that when debating heresy the early church used tradition rather than Sripture as the final court of appeal and used tradition to establish the true exegesis of those writings. However they viewed tradition as being confirmed by Scripture. I think the early church viewed tradition and Scripture as two mediums expressing the same revelation. If one medium was stressed more than the other it wasnt intended to make the other subordinate in authority. The early church as a whole do seem to imply the correct exegesis at the time belonged exclusively to the church where the rule of faith or tradition of the church preserved the testimony of the apostles in its true form.
 
It is a little strange to use a Catholic Forum by a non-Catholic with a poll that for me doesn’t state the fullness of the Church’s way of relating to Scripture…it is like these old guys put the Bible together with their own bias, took out a whip, and said, “Obey!!!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top