Protestant Bible Superior

[Reuben_J]

Well why did Popes and others continue to deny some of the books were in the canon?

Usually a Council was convened to spell out certain doctrines or traditions when there were palpable dissension from within or without. You would have pockets of differences but if they were deemed serious enough, a Council would make an official stance on an already accepted and practised belief.

We have that even today . . even though the mass is standardised and universally celebrated, you would have certain priests who would make little innovation here and there. If the occurrence is widespread to be harmful to the Church, you may have an official document to spell out the correct practice which does not mean it is a new way of celebrating the mass. But perhaps a few hundreds years later some protagonists would say the order of the mass started from when the document was issued.

 

[adf417]

I’ve done some reading on the issues, and I’ve listened to some debates on the issue. Carthage and Hippo were provincial councils which is why the issue was not settled. As a matter of fact the New Catholic Encyclopedia states the following as the attitude of the Middle Ages:

So I’m surprised that so many on this board seems to think the canon was settled during the time of Luther when it is clearly a fact by Catholic own sources that this is not the case.

I think the trouble here is you are thinking about the OT canon (because thats where ours differ) and I would like to focus on the NT canon where ours are the same. There was not 100% agreement in the 27 books of the NT till the 4th century with evidence of some communities even later than that.

So my question was in terms of the NT only - what was the purpose of holding the councils? What was their intent?

Peace!!!

 

[exnihilo]

Whoa!! Did you seriously mean God’s word only has authority because the Church says it does? Augustine is saying something drastically different than what you said.

I’ve encountered this quote before and wondered if it hasn’t been pushed too far. I think it comes from Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus. I just now read it myself in context. It seems to me Augustine is saying in an argument he won’t believe a heretic who uses the Gospel to condemn or contradict what the Catholic Church teaches. He seems to be saying it was the Catholics who first taught him the Gospel so why shouldn’t he trust their teachings on what the Gospel means about certain matters.

I don’t think Augustine means that Holy Scripture only has authority or value because of the Church. But I do think Augustine would agree that the institution which brought the Gospel to all people has the authority to teach what constitutes Holy Scripture. I do think he would say that we shouldn’t trust someone who sets himself up as an authority against the Church when he uses Holy Scripture to condemn the Church which itself has the sole authority to even determine for us what is Holy Scripture.

 

[exnihilo]

I’ve done some reading on the issues, and I’ve listened to some debates on the issue. Carthage and Hippo were provincial councils which is why the issue was not settled. As a matter of fact the New Catholic Encyclopedia states the following as the attitude of the Middle Ages:…

So I’m surprised that so many on this board seems to think the canon was settled during the time of Luther when it is clearly a fact by Catholic own sources that this is not the case.

Speculation, doubt, and even different practice don’t necessarily mean something isn’t settled. Even in the Church today you can have individual Catholics, even clergy, who could be said to be going against the Church in settled matters.

I don’t find the question of what is the canon nearly as interesting as the questions of what does it mean to be canonical and how is the canon determined. What I find most interesting is a good solution to the problem you have when you set up the canon as the sole rule of faith and practice. When you did this I would think you need some sort of supernatural revelation since the Christian Faith is itself supernatural revelation. For Catholics we believe the Catholic Church can be so directed. For others it would seem to be a problem.

 

[rcwitness]

Well,purgation must take place, a cleansing necessary to enter His presence. That’s scriptural.
So, if one is not required to accept the idea of an intermediate state/place, I could say, yes, the Catholic doctrine, in a basic sense, is correct.

Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict

Purgatory “is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where man is forced to undergo punishment in a more or less arbitrary fashion.”​

Purgatory “is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints.”​

“The transforming “moment” of this encounter cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time.”​

Jon

Whoa!! Did you seriously mean God’s word only has authority because the Church says it does? Augustine is saying something drastically different than what you said.

You are right, that the Church does not “make” the Scriptures have authority. It is more accurate to say that the Church is able to say which books are Scripture and which books are not. And then also confirm Universal interpretation of certain messages.

First you were saying everyone a 1000 years before Lutherr agreed on the bible, now you tell us there was no bible for 200-300 years

There was, is, and always will be various opinions about the correct canon of Scripture. How can we know what is correct, if we are to give Scripture ultimate authority?

 

[rcwitness]

1. I think everyone knows the Bible is not God, if they didn’t they should be worshipping it. 2. Pope Damasus I did not settle the canon issue as church history up to Trent shows. Many leading and prominent church fathers had different list. 3. This is factually not true. Were people such as Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great not considered all of Christians? 4. Pope Gregory the Great? 5. I don’t see how that makes a difference in the canon, because those quotes comes from book that Protestants recognize as Canon.

As much as I would like to believe that Pope St Damasus delivered a Canon, with his Papal authority, we do not know that. I find it likely that he did not. Nevertheless, I think he had a hand in bringing the “fixed” canon to its proper development.

Why do you guys get so upset when someone does not just accept everything you say? This is a discussion forum for those with different beliefs and opinions.

Sorry, if you have this impression. Maybe there’s some truth to it. I try not to fall into these sorts of contempt. I try to understand, with the Spirit of God, what the Church Teaches and why.

 

[rcwitness]

This Catholic Saint had a great part in defending the true unity of the four written Gospels.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
Before Irenaeus, Christians differed as to which gospel they preferred. The Christians of Asia Minor preferred the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Matthew was the most popular overall.[37]*Irenaeus asserted that four Gospels,*Matthew,*Mark,Luke, andJohn, were canonical scripture.[38]Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction toMarcion’s edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel.[7][24]

Based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that thefourfold Gospelmust have still been a novelty in Irenaeus’ time.[39]Against Heresies3.11.7 acknowledges that many heterodox Christians use only one gospel while 3.11.9 acknowledges that some use more than four.[40]The success ofTatian’sDiatessaronin about the same time period is “… a powerful indication that the fourfold Gospel contemporaneously sponsored by Irenaeus was not broadly, let alone universally, recognized.”[41](The apologist and ascetic Tatian had previously harmonized the four gospels into a single narrative, theDiatesseroncirca 150–160)

 

[Duane1966]

Sorry man, but that makes no sense. The Apostles trusted the OT Canon that was used by Jews before them, did that mean they should have accepted all their beliefs?

There was no set Jewish Canon at the time of Christ. Many Jewish scholars do seem to think that at the time of Christ, Sirach was part of the Testament that most Jews used.

If you know anything about the formulations of the canon you would know how untrue that statement is.

I know a lot about the formulation of the canon, and that statement is very true.

So I’m surprised that so many on this board seems to think the canon was settled during the time of Luther when it is clearly a fact by Catholic own sources that this is not the case.

Actually, you need to learn to read more carefully. That source does not say that the canon was not settled at the time of Luther. Some forty odd years before the birth of Luther, at the Ecumenical Council of Florence the listing of books from the Council of Rome, which was always considered binding on the West, was approved as binding on the whole Church.

Here is the kicker, even if you say as many Protestants do, that since the Council of Florence was not ratified by the Orthodox it’s canons are not binding, it was still ratified by the Western bishops and Pope. The biblical canon for the Western Church was settled at Florence, and was considered binding on the Western Church by those bishops. Without a doubt, Luther and the Reformers knew those books were considered canonical by the Church, because the Church had declared them canonical at Florence!!!

That is why when you read even Catholics that have doubts about the books at that time, they never say the Church doesn’t recognize them as canonical. They always say even if a council said this, ignore it, go with Jerome.

There are two problems with this line of reasoning:

1.) I have yet to find a writing by Jerome that casts doubt upon the Deuterocanon after the Council of Hippo. He in fact quotes from them many times, declaring them Scripture.

2.) We now know that some of the reasons Jerome had for doubting the Deuterocanon were based on mistakes, like what language the Deuterocanonicals were originally written in.

 

[rcwitness]

There was no set Jewish Canon at the time of Christ.

This seems likely.

The Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission says that “the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

When protestants - not including Anglicans, Lutherans and others that hold a semi-Apostolic view on the Church and ecclesiology - say the Bible is the “word of God”, is it not understood that this is in a secondary sense? The Word of God is Jesus, an Icon of the Father – the Bible is the word in that it is an icon of Christ in text; the Church is also an icon of Christ in the same manner as the Bible – they should never be pitted against each other. Those baptized in the Trinity are also icons of Christ, as are the writings of the orthodox Fathers and Mothers. None of these are in competition with one another.

 

[SolaScriptura]

There was no set Jewish Canon at the time of Christ. Many Jewish scholars do seem to think that at the time of Christ, Sirach was part of the Testament that most Jews used.

There may have been some debate about some books, but to say there was no canon is an over simplification. As a matter of fact Jesus and Apostles constantly referred to the Scriptures when dealing with the Jews and Gentiles. So tell me if there was no canon then how could they refer to Scriptures to determine doctrine and bind the conscience of others?

I know a lot about the formulation of the canon, and that statement is very true.

OK, your claim is every Christian accepted the Canon that was decided at Cathage/Hippo right? If so explain why Jerome, Rufinus, Pope Gregory the Great, John of Damascus, Bede, the Glossa Ordinaria( 13th century commentary on the bible ), William Occham, Erasmus, and many others believed in a different canon that the one?

Actually, you need to learn to read more carefully. That source does not say that the canon was not settled at the time of Luther. Some forty odd years before the birth of Luther, at the Ecumenical Council of Florence the listing of books from the Council of Rome, which was always considered binding on the West, was approved as binding on the whole Church.

Here is the kicker, even if you say as many Protestants do, that since the Council of Florence was not ratified by the Orthodox it’s canons are not binding, it was still ratified by the Western bishops and Pope. The biblical canon for the Western Church was settled at Florence, and was considered binding on the Western Church by those bishops. Without a doubt, Luther and the Reformers knew those books were considered canonical by the Church, because the Church had declared them canonical at Florence!!!

That is why when you read even Catholics that have doubts about the books at that time, they never say the Church doesn’t recognize them as canonical. They always say even if a council said this, ignore it, go with Jerome.

There are two problems with this line of reasoning:

1.) I have yet to find a writing by Jerome that casts doubt upon the Deuterocanon after the Council of Hippo. He in fact quotes from them many times, declaring them Scripture.

2.) We now know that some of the reasons Jerome had for doubting the Deuterocanon were based on mistakes, like what language the Deuterocanonicals were originally written in.

Actually, even if I grant you Florence that is not until 1442. Your initial claim was every Christian agreed for 1000s of years before Luther. But even your assertions about Florence is not true. Here again is the Catholic Encyclopedia on Florence and the Canon:

The Council of Florence (1442)

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.(newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

So we see even the Catholic Encyclodpedia says Florence “advisedly” omitted the term canon and canonical. and “did not formally pass on their canonicity”. That is why the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to state it wasn’t until Trent that the canon issue was settled for Catholics.

Responding to your 2 points above:

1. Quoting from a book does not mean it is canonical. If you doubt Jerome didn’t agree with Hippo/Carthage canon then all you have to do is read your New Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is what it says about Jerome:

An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”, to borrow Jerome’s phrase.

1. Well again you should read your New Catholic Encyclopedia. It gives different reasons. I provided the link to you above.

 

[adf417]

OK, your claim is every Christian accepted the Canon that was decided at Cathage/Hippo right? If so explain why Jerome, Rufinus, Pope Gregory the Great, John of Damascus, Bede, the Glossa Ordinaria( 13th century commentary on the bible ), William Occham, Erasmus, and many others believed in a different canon that the one?

Greetings SolaScriptura, please provide us with the canon that these gentlemen all agreed to. It would be very helpful in this and many other discussions.

Also when you get a chance i would like you to answer my question…

So my question was in terms of the NT only - what was the purpose of holding the councils? What was their intent?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Greetings SolaScriptura, please provide us with the canon that these gentlemen all agreed to. It would be very helpful in this and many other discussions.

Also when you get a chance i would like you to answer my question…

Peace!!!

Hi ad,
We if the following link helps

Jon

bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

 

[adf417]

Hi ad,
We if the following link helps

Jon

bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

Yes it helps quite a bit Jon. Is shows there was not 100% agreement on the 27 books of the NT so that is why I ask SolaScripture my questions which I will await his/her answers.

Peace Jon!!!

 

[JonNC]

Yes it helps quite a bit Jon. Is shows there was not 100% agreement on the 27 books of the NT so that is why I ask SolaScripture my questions which I will await his/her answers.

Peace Jon!!!

True. And that was why the Lutheran reformers chose the more conservative usage of the disputed books, both OT and NT.
These threads sometimes take an either/or argumentative approach, when I don’t believe that was the case in the history of the Church. Certainly it wasn’t the case with the Lutheran reformers, nor with the Anglicans AFAIK.
I await SS’s reply as well

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

There … others?

The bible itself tells you there was no set canon. It says clearly the Sadducees only accepted the Torah. There is every reason to believe that many Jews at the time of Christ accepted Sirach. In regards to this Book, despite being rejected by modern Jews, Sirach is quoted as Scripture by the Jewish Talmud.

OK, your claim is every Christian accepted the Canon that was decided at Cathage/Hippo right?

No. We know for a fact that not every Christian accepted the canons decided at those Councils. Having said that, those councils did bind Catholics in Africa to that canon. As the Western Church was bound by the same at the Council of Rome. Two examples:

1.) I know Catholic academia today who do not believe the writings of Paul are inspired.

2.) There are Catholic academia today who write that the Church should change her stance on women’s ordination, even though the Church has infallibly shut the door on that happening.

Now by your logic, since these academia do not accept the Church’s teaching, the Church has not definitively settled the issue.

If so … one?

As I have said before, after the councils, you will be hard pressed to find Jerome casting doubt on the Deuterocanonicals, and in numerous letters he quotes from them calling them sacred, or inspired scripture.

Do you know when Gregory the Great said that? I do, and it was while he was in Constantinople, before he was pope!!! He is telling you that 1st Maccabees is not in the canon of the East, because the East had not settled their canon yet. His quote tells us nothing about what was considered canonical in the West.

By the way, I know of zero historians who do not admit that just because an ECF did not list a book in their canon, did not mean that they might not consider said book as sacred scripture. We see that with Athanasius, Origen, Rufinus…

I address the Glossa in the next passage.

Actually, even if I grant you Florence that is not until 1442. Your initial claim was every Christian agreed for 1000s of years before Luther. But even your assertions about Florence is not true. Here again is the Catholic Encyclopedia on Florence and the Canon:

Actually, what was said was:

why change the Bible what all Christians used for well over a thousand years

The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits this statement is true. From that same Catholic Encyclopaedia:

The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. **And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, **and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.

So yes, 1000 years for the West is about true, and about 800 for the East.

So we see even the Catholic Encyclodpedia says Florence “advisedly” omitted the term canon and canonical. and “did not formally pass on their canonicity”. That is why the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to state it wasn’t until Trent that the canon issue was settled for Catholics.

You better read the actual Council of Florence. When giving that listing of books, they interspersed the Deuterocanonicals throughout the OT (giving those books equal standing with the other in the OT), and then gives a listing of the NT books. By your logic, since this listing did not say canon, none of the books of the NT or OT were held as canonical by the Church. Also that council said all those books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and attached an anathema at the end. The only reason that council did not come out and call any of the books canonical is probably because the canon was already settled in their eyes.

Responding to your 2 points above:

1. Quoting from a book does not mean it is canonical. If you doubt Jerome didn’t agree with Hippo/Carthage canon then all you have to do is read your New Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is what it says about Jerome:

I have read copious amounts of it. Again, you, nor the article address what I said. After the councils, you will be hard pressed to find Jerome casting doubt upon the Deuterocanon. AND, he quotes from the Deuterocanonicals, in many places calling them the inspired word of God, well over fifty times!!! And against Rufinus, he admits his view on those books is in the minority, that the Church accepts a wider canon.

I would add this much to all those who try to say there was chaos about how the Church viewed the canon after the fourth century, there is a clue in Augustine’s writings, and what he says casts what Athanasius said in his Festal Letter in a different light.