Protestant Bibles

[Maccabees]

Mr. Maccabees wrote: Quote:
My comment was based on an article Anglcian Henry Howorth wrote for another scholarly Protestant journal called The International Journal of the Apocrypha. The following is passage in question: “The Dominicans, the great champions of Papal claims, continued to attack Luther, and especially did they do this at Rome, where one of them, Silvester Maccolini surnamed Prierias, the official censor made an especialassault upon him… Luther answered [Prierias] in the words of Augustine that the only authority he could accept in the matter was the CanonicalScriptures. What Luther actually meant at this time by the phrase “eislibris, qui Canonici appellantur” is not quite clear, for we now find him in the Resolutions commenting on the Thesis published in 1518 quoting Sirach. (Luther’s Works, Weimar, Ed. I. 603) while in his answer to Pierias hequotes Tobias (667) in each case apparently as authoritative” (Howorth, Sir Henry, “The Bible Canon of the Reformation,” International Journal of the Apocrypha, 20, Series VI (Jan. 1910), 12).

Luther says of Sirach in 1533,
Quote:
This is a useful book for the ordinary man. The author concentrates all his effort on helping a citizen or housefather to be Godfearing, devout, and wise; and on showing what the relationship of such a man should be to God, the Word of God, priests, parents, wife, children, his own body, his servants, possessions, neighbors, friends, enemies, government, and anyone else. So one might well call this a book on home discipline or on the virtues of a pious householder. This indeed is the proper “spiritual discipline,” and should be recognized as such.”(LW 35:348)

What I find interesting is that this quote below from you is not substantiated by your above quote:
Quote:
What is is also interesting is that in his debates with Eck he quoted the dueterocanonicals as scripture. As to use them against the church. WHen he is the loosing side of the scripture debate such as 2 Maccabeees he turns the table and all of the suddent the dueterocanonicals are not scripture.

Where did Luther quote the apocrypha to Eck as Scripture, and then reverse his usage? Please provide the reference.

Well I did provide the info for the debate was 2 years prior to his debate with Eck my point is the flip flop on the issue substitue Silvester Maccolini for Eck. I was quoting from memory so the names were reversed but the thesis of flip flop remains the same.
I find it funny you doubt the critical thinking skills of the PHD Anglican scholar I use to support my theses. But on the other hand I should blindly accept all the cut and paste protestnat scholars you come up with. That is hypocritical to say the least. You don’t question your own sources as opinion but you question mine. Another point in regarding our exchange useless and thus the end of my participation.
Your constant spin is amusing. Luther subscribed to the doctrine of sola scriptura but in his earlier writings such as the 95 theses he uses the dueteros to support his dogmas then later on he declares these scriptures cannot form dogma. Critical thinking and honest observation is something that lacks in your post.
Your great at cutting and pasting all of James Whites footnotes. Your quite talented.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees said:

That is the problem with you nearly all your references are from Lutheran and Protestant sources how about taking the quotes directly from the church fathers and councils instead of the spin Luthernans apply to the fathers and the white washing they do on Luther’s inconsisten doctrines and hatred of any sect besides himself which included Jews.

This is a response to reading Luther in context? I rely on those books and authors that know Luther best, that’s why I cite Luther’s works. I am well acquainted with many of the Catholic books about Luther. I have compiled a broad overview here:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm

If you are referring to other quotes I utilized about say, Eusebius, or Cajetan, etc. I suggest you back-up your unfound charge of “spin.” As it stands now, it is meaningless.

Mr. Maccabees then said………

Luther not only wrote ‘On the Jews and their lies,’ but also dubious and intolerant works such as ‘Against the Sabbatarians’, ‘Against the Antinoman,’ and ‘Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.’ In the latter, Luther called for the stabbing and slaying of peasant rebels which triggered the death of an estimated 100,000 human beings. These rebels were not only Christians but were mostly slaughtered after their surrender to the German princes. Nor did Luther apologize for his treatise even after world criticism. In his response to his critics in “An Open Letter on the Harsh Book,” Luther reiterated his venom: “Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now; Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and slay, as though among mad dogs, put to flight, and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained.” In all these harsh treatises, Luther provided an abundance of Biblical passages to justify his attack on his enemies. And, or course (sarcastically speaking), his actions:

(edited to fit word count)

This is a well-written paragraph. However, unless you are the author Jim Walker, these are NOT your words. They can be found in Mr. Walker’s article, “Martin Luther’s Dirty Little Book: On The Jews And Their Lies.” The article can be found here: nobeliefs.com/luther.htm. Considering the web site appears to be run by atheists, and it seems you are not an atheist, I have my doubts as to whether or not you are Jim Walker. I find this sadly funny, especially since Mr. Maccabees said later:

I find it funny you doubt the critical thinking skills of the PHD Anglican scholar I use to support my theses. But on the other hand I should blindly accept all the cut and paste protestnat scholars you come up with. That is hypocritical to say the least. You don’t question your own sources as opinion but you question mine. Another point in regarding our exchange useless and thus the end of my participation. Your constant spin is amusing. Luther subscribed to the doctrine of sola scriptura but in his earlier writings such as the 95 theses he uses the dueteros to support his dogmas then later on he declares these scriptures cannot form dogma. Critical thinking and honest observation is something that lacks in your post. Your great at cutting and pasting all of James Whites footnotes. Your quite talented.

Now, who is really the pro at cutting and pasting? The difference between you and I is I’m not scared to list my sources, and I can provide a complete context and reference for everything I cite. Nor do resort to blatant plagiarism as you do.

Yours is an interesting method of dialog.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Maccabees said:

Quotes from Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their lies,” 154 No Lutheran spin that you seek just the direct words of Luther. aka the truth about luther

Cultural conformity can betray Christian judgment. The Nazi’s did use Luther’s criticism of the Jews occasionally, but far less than we might expect. They were not really interested in promoting the Christian faith, so they were often reluctant to use Luther too much.

Luther was born into a society in which anti-Judaic feeling ran high. The Jews were said to be the only, “outsiders.” They were frequent scapegoats in medieval Europe. John Eck, the famed 16th century Catholic apologist was far worse than Luther in his anti-judiasm.

Luther’s society was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ.

Luther began his career favorably to the Jews. In 1523 he published Jesus Christ was born a Jew. He expressed his sympathy to them saying that he would not have become a Christian either if he had been born a Jew under the papacy. He had high hopes that a proper understanding of the gospel would bring the Jews to faith. Luther was very naïve in this, not taking into account the situation of medieval Jewry in Europe. After twenty years of failing to convert the Jews through his writings, Luther became rather virulent in his criticism of the Jews. He believed the stories about the Jews attempts to convert Christians and he saw them as disturbers of the Christian faith. He wrote things no Christian should have written. It should be kept in my mind though that he wrote them from a position far different than current anti-Semitism.

I would not go so far as to malign the entire career of Luther based on Luther’s comments about the Jews. Luther did direct abusive language against these groups: Anabaptists, lawyers, the papacy, and the Jews. Luther felt these four groups were united in the conviction that men were ultimately made right before God by the law. Anabaptism held a moralistic view of the gospel with an emphasis on the heavy burden of righteousness placed upon men in order to be accepted before God. Lawyers made their living by imposing the law. The papacy was viewed as the antichrist, which promoted a false religion with a false view of salvation through obedience to the law. The Jews had a religion based upon works righteousness. When Luther attacked these groups it was an attack on the devil who is the underlying spirit of works righteousness.

Further, “On the Jews and Their Lies” was a response to a letter from Count Schlick of Moravia. The letter contained a Jewish attack against Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Christian exegesis of the Old Testament that the Count wanted answered. Unfortunately, this letter and attack have been lost, so we are unaware of the exact tone of argument Luther was responding to.

The first few sections were Biblical in nature, dealing with biblical arguments put forth by Jews (allegedly). Luther defended Mary in the third section against charges that the Holy Mother was a prostitute, and that her offspring was a demon’s child.

Luther wrote in a polemical tone that used vulgarity and harshness as a deliberate rhetorical tactic. The language used was usually consistent with the tenor of whichever polemical contest he was engaged in. It is also important to understand that Luther thought he was living in the last days, and that the papists, Anabaptists, Jews, and Turks were the Devil’s servants attacking the true church.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Maccabees:

Luther’s hate speech is so obvious in its true context (except to Luteher admirers like You)
that his own denomination is rightly admitting to the bigotry founded abundantly in Luther’s writings.

lol. Catholic apologetics at its best.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

ahimsaman72:

Wow, Mac, I’m impressed - :nope: by your lack of humility. Moderators must be asleep - or maybe just approving of your zeal. Can’t tell which.

I would like to know the answer to this as well.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

TertiumQuidInstead of dialogue and critical thinking You cut and paste articles from protestant authors inclined to support your postion.

It’s called research. At least I don’t pass off someone else’s words as my own.

Look I could do the same with Catholic Authors but I am trying to invlvove some critical thinking here.

I wish you would substantiate your opinions with some documentation.

Something you refuse to do our dilaogue is fruitless at this point and your dismissal of Luther as just making a nother mistake in his articles on the Jews instead of pointing the the obvious rantings of a madman is completely dishonest and an insult to Jews everywhere.

You wrote this before I said anything about Luther’s attitude of the Jews. You must have magic powers.

You completely misinterpret the catholic concept of tradtion looking for decrees. WEll the obvious answer is the answers were found at Trent. Usually Only after controversy is tradition infaliably defined.The earliest councils affirmed the tradition of the trinity and nature of Jesus. But according to your line of thinking these teachings did not exist till the pope decreed it.That’s stupid and a misrepresentation of catholcism. THe Popes declared what was always the majority opinion of the church as Jesus as trinity and later having a fully human and divine nature.

Lol, Like when Pope Gregory the Great said 1 Maccabees was not canonical. Click here: christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The constant rule of faith remains the same Luther in many instances in retrospect broke with tradition unilaterally. And yes not listing the books of the Bible in the table of contents broke with tradition.

Prove it.Prove an infallible table of contents.

Anyways the point is you are making to much of him he was not pope nor bishop but popular with the reformers becuase he agreed in dissenting from church doctrine like them. But alas he decided not to join the reformation because according to him none of the reforemrs were as right as ERasmus the self proclaimed genius.

Ok, then we’ll use Pope Leo X giving his approval of a Bible translation that said the apocrypha was not canonical.

And your smug comment at the end tells the real objective to win an argument instead of critical thinking

LOL!

WE should be looking for the truth not winning debates by cutting and pasting slanted quotes from protestant authors. Like I said I could play that game and nothing would be settled but since you want to win instead of wanting to think logically about the formation of the Bible I choose to end this fruitless discusssion.

Ok, fine by me. Regards,

James Swan

 

[Maccabees]

Oh boy Now I know where you get your misinofrmation. Instead of reading all the protestant apologists websites and doing your cut and paste for this debate.

Try reading the church fathers and popes in context.
Take for instance you take on Pope Gregory that denied the dueteros as canonical well your exactly right based on your modern day protestnat suppostion and premise.
Many popes and fathers would not use the word canon to describe these book but they would desribe them as inspired and the term as “it is written” or scripture such is the case with Pope Gregory and others you use against the church. The word canon referred to the books officially designated by the Jews. That doesn’t mean these books were not deemed inspired or scripture the same guys who would not say they were not in the canon would say they were scripture is that a contradiction. (Read the Primary sources here not just anti-catholic apologist Pope Gregory’s commentary on Job refers to many dueteros in the context I have explained as being inspired “it is written” etc) Not really when taken into the ancient context of taking the conservative opinion of the canon as being the closed set of books by the Jews. As you have admitted the new testament was not officially closed at this point either. And Yes their is an inspired list of contents it was at the council of Florence and Trent which reaffirmed Florence these were the first truly ecunemical councils that dealt with the councils. THe earlier african councils were not ecnumical but important local synods that witness teh majority opinion of the church of its day. Were theire disagreemetns between the councils sure their was as their was no ecumecial council not official decree. But you cannot beleive in an inspired table of contents for you don’t beleive in a church that could infalliably decree anything. THus to you like Luther the new testament and the old testament is up for grabs.

But continue to cut and paste and impress yourself all you want with out of context quotes and modern day understandings of canon development. And yes my assertion that their was a normal tradition of inclduing the dueteros of the old and new testament with no sepearation form the rest of the old and new testment stand. Not until Luther seperated these books and rearranged the canon was this tradtion broken. ANd even Luteher included these books in a sepearte section of the Bible not until the 1800’s did it become normal and the majority practice to drop alltogether the duteros.
Please read the fathers in context the primary sources and not just the one or two comments taken out of context to prove a point. Also looks for the normal rule of faith instead of always pointing out the exception to prove your point. THere were bishops who rejected Nicea do you go to them to prove your heretical view points. Well you seem to go to the minoirity viewpoints on other things to prove your point despite the majority opinion witnesses to by Councils.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Oh boy Now I know where you get your misinofrmation. Instead of reading all the protestant apologists websites and doing your cut and paste for this debate.

Are you saying that all protestant scholarship can’t be trusted? Hey look, i’m not the guy posting someone else words as if they were my own- you are.

Try reading the church fathers and popes in context.

I try to read everything in context, even Luther’s view of the canon. you should try it some time!

Take for instance you take on Pope Gregory

Gregory specifically states 1 Maccabees is not canonical. Most RC’s try to say it was his opinion previous to being pope.

And Yes their is an inspired list of contents it was at the council of Florence and Trent which reaffirmed Florence these were the first truly ecunemical councils that dealt with the councils.

You need to provide an infallible council that says “the NT books need to be in this particular order and no other” in order to chastise Luther.

But you cannot beleive in an inspired table of contents for you don’t beleive in a church that could infalliably decree anything. THus to you like Luther the new testament and the old testament is up for grabs.

The real point i’m making: from your RC perspective you have no right to critisize Luther for the order of the NT books.

But continue to cut and paste and impress yourself all you want with out of context quotes and modern day understandings of canon development.

The evidence of this thread shows I have done my homework, I don’t need to plagarize, and you can’t refute the scholarship i’ve relied on.

And yes my assertion that their was a normal tradition of inclduing the dueteros of the old and new testament with no sepearation form the rest of the old and new testment stand.

I don’t recall really discussing this with you.

Not until Luther seperated these books and rearranged the canon was this tradtion broken. ANd even Luteher included these books in a sepearte section of the Bible not until the 1800’s did it become normal and the majority practice to drop alltogether the duteros.

Better look up Cardinal Ximenes and the consent of Pope Leo X of his work.

Please read the fathers in context the primary sources and not just the one or two comments taken out of context to prove a point.

I suggest you read Luther in context.

Also looks for the normal rule of faith instead of always pointing out the exception to prove your point. THere were bishops who rejected Nicea do you go to them to prove your heretical view points. Well you seem to go to the minoirity viewpoints on other things to prove your point despite the majority opinion witnesses to by Councils.

I agree with William Webster:

“The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.”

Regards, James Swan

 

[Maccabees]

Look you are making some asserttions of pure calumny I did not cut and paste anywhere in our debate and attribute as my own writings anywhere in our debate on the canon. You my sir are the master of the cut and paste. THe only article i copied from was a series of quotes from Luther and the commentary that accompanied it. If one would use a brain you could have figured out I didn’t exactly have that information in my head. I didn’t think I had to spell out the fact I didn’t memorize those quotes and the accompanied commentary. But since you are the master of spin make of it what you will.

As for the rest your talking in circles your reading into the quotes what William Webster tells you what the fathers said and the popes said. The words may be the same but they mean entirely differnet things. Justification Santification Saved all these words are used by Christians but although the words are the same they mean entirely different things thatn say from a Catholic Perspective to a Baptist perspective.
Same with canon as it was not closed officially till Trent it only referred canon was the books as defined by the rabbinical Jews.
I didn’t say Luther had no right to question the dueteros. It was open to debate at the time. I said he had no right to make the distinction as to sepearte the books in an entirely differnt section of the Bible all by himself. That broke with tradition. The case had not been settled at the time as if they were canonical or not. He unilaterlly made the decision by himself.
He did something beyond theological speculation. He did something only the church herself had the authority to do. That was to declare the dogma of canon.

Thus “Luther denied the right of the church to decide in matters of canonicity: canonicity was to be determined by the internal worth of the book.” (Albert Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church)
This is the exact opposite line of reasoning most Catholics have come to understand what the canon of the Bible was.
"I would not believe the Gospel unless the authorityof the Catholic Church moved me to this) St Augustine Against the Letter of Manichaeus Entitled “Fundamental” 5,6

If Luther was right and the canon was subjective and determined by the interal worth of the book which usually meant his gospel of grace and faith alone (law and gospel) and of course he denied this occured in HEbrews, Jude, Jame and Revelation than why do Protestants have the same unifrom canon today when obviously Lutehr did not agree with the other reformers. Than do you have the right to declare your own canon differnt from Luther or Calvin etc. If not then agian why?

I point out these things not to win a cut and paste debate but to think. WHy do Protestants believe in the same fixed canon when it contradicts historical fact that to Luther canon was related to dogma not constand tradition. Considering each protestant tradtion had distinct dogmas that sepearte themselves shouldn’t the canon be differnet also as some books in the Bible would demphazise a particular denominations belief some books such 2 Peter would contradict symbolic baptism for the Baptist who beleives it is a symbol he should have the right to throw it out then. Just as Lutehr threw out James when it contradicted his pet doctrines. Think man just don’t run to William Webster to avoid the logical.

 

[Maccabees]

I agree with William Webster:

“The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.”

Gee agreeing with an anti-catholic apologist who slants and misinterprets quotes for a living. Why don’t I find this suprising. Look for the truth or something that wins debates. You have chosen the latter. Like said try broadening your horizons a little and read some catholic sources. Or objective sources such as acclaimed protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelley perhaps the most brilliant and unbiased historian to come down the pipe in the last century.

Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the 22, or 24, books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism[than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books which are rejected by Protestants.
In the first 2 centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of , these additional books as inspired and to have treated themwithout question as scripture.” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53),
Kelley notes that Jerome departs from this tradition and course a minority who read him side with him until Trent but was that the normal rule of faith for the church?

"For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament, to which , breaking away once for all from the ancient Hebrew enumeration, he attributed forty foour books. The same inclsusive attitude to the Apocrapha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I despatched to Exuperius bishop of Toulouse in 405. (Early Christian Doctrines, 55),

How do Kelley and Webster study the same church history and come to 2 entirely different conclusions?
Well one is doing a master spin job (after all Webster makes his living as an anti-catholic apologist) and one is doing the work of a historian reporting the facts of history as it actually happened. Not reading into anceint documents modern protestant understandings of what denoted canon. As I admit the canon was not finalized till Trent but their was a constant rule of faith and tradition which denoted what was sacred scripture and this was handed down from and through the church not any indidual. Where their dissenters from the more constand and dominant tradtion sure there was. But if you study any other dogma. All dogmas has dissenters and objections including the trinity and divinity and humanity of Jesus. But it is through the church that the full truth is determined not the indivdual. Luther changed all that making the individual the arbriter of truth for even the canon was his to make and determine.
From this modern reformation standpoint Webster makes his false supositions and assertions.

 

[Maccabees]

And as far as Rufinas and Athanatius are concerned they use the scientific disticntion for the first Rabbinical Jewish canon. In their conservative nature they hesitate to equate a Christian canon that was still in development to a closed canon received from the Synagogue. However later elsewhere they both use the duetrocanonicals as Holy Scripture. So what gives to the Bipolar way they treated these text? In the growth and development of doctrine and canon it gave away to higher authority of the Councils Rufinas bitterly inveighs against St Jerome for earlier having dared to cut off the deuterocanonical books in his Apologia Contra Hieronymum, Lib. II. He would do that unless he beleived it was Holy Scripture of course what is funny is that Jerome appears to retract from his earlier postion to be in line with the Church and the recent Local Councils that Jerome was familiar with as he was a constant pen pal of Pope Damascus who in his local Synod in Rome ruled in favor of the dueteros.

Jerome
“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

 

[Maccabees]

When one takes into account the high regard he had for papal and church authority which disagreed on Jerome on this issue one can understand the retraction.
“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,’ since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain’ and the garden inclosed,’ I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.’ Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.’ Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,’ ye are the salt of the earth,’ ye are “vessels of gold and of silver.” Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.”
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15:1-2(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

If Jerome could rethink his postion perhaps William Webster should rethink his. But alas Webster is his own authority in the confusion and anarchy of protestantism where every man is his own pope and council.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr Maccabees informed me:

Look you are making some asserttions of pure calumny I did not cut and paste anywhere in our debate and attribute as my own writings anywhere in our debate on the canon.

Do you recall writing these words below Mr Maccabees? While not on the subject of “canon” they indeed are found within this thread:

That is the problem with you nearly all your references are from Lutheran and Protestant sources how about taking the quotes directly from the church fathers and councils instead of the spin Luthernans apply to the fathers and the white washing they do on Luther’s inconsisten doctrines and hatred of any sect besides himself which included Jews.

Luther not only wrote ‘On the Jews and their lies,’ but also dubious and intolerant works such as ‘Against the Sabbatarians’, ‘Against the Antinoman,’ and ‘Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.’ In the latter, Luther called for the stabbing and slaying of peasant rebels which triggered the death of an estimated 100,000 human beings. These rebels were not only Christians but were mostly slaughtered after their surrender to the German princes. Nor did Luther apologize for his treatise even after world criticism. In his response to his critics in “An Open Letter on the Harsh Book,” Luther reiterated his venom: “Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now; Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and slay, as though among mad dogs, put to flight, and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained.” In all these harsh treatises, Luther provided an abundance of Biblical passages to justify his attack on his enemies. And, or course (sarcastically speaking), his actions were always through Christian “love” of his enemies, as he audaciously wrote: "The merciless punishment of the wicked is not being carried out just to punish the wicked and make them atone for the evil desires that are in their blood, but to protect the righteous and to maintain peace and safety. And beyond all doubt, these are precious works of mercy, love, and kindness

This is a well-written paragraph (with periods and correct spelling!). However, unless you are the author Jim Walker, these are NOT your words. They can be found in Mr. Walker’s article, “Martin Luther’s Dirty Little Book: On The Jews And Their Lies.” The article can be found here: nobeliefs.com/luther.htm. Considering the web site appears to be run by atheists, and it seems you are not an atheist; I have my doubts as to whether or not you are Jim Walker.

The funniest part is when you went on to say,

Instead of dialogue and critical thinking You cut and paste articles from protestant authors inclined to support your postion.

Perhaps plagiarism is ok on these boards- I briefly tried to find a list of rules for these forums, but came up empty. I moderate on a very popular board, and we enforce rules against plagiarism. Ironically, we are a group moderators that are all Protestant.

Regards, James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr Maccabees informed me:

You my sir are the master of the cut and paste. THe only article i copied from was a series of quotes from Luther and the commentary that accompanied it. If one would use a brain you could have figured out I didn’t exactly have that information in my head. I didn’t think I had to spell out the fact I didn’t memorize those quotes and the accompanied commentary. But since you are the master of spin make of it what you will.

The majority of quotes I have provided in this thread are not “cut and paste” but come from my countless hours of research on Luther. Very few quotes that I utilized in this thread are available on-line. Even when I quoted William Webster, I happen to have his book right here in front of me. If I have quoted anyone out of context, please provide the context and show me where. This is exactly what I do. This is not being a “master of spin” but rather having an intelligent discussion.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees said:

As for the rest your talking in circles your reading into the quotes what William Webster tells you what the fathers said and the popes said. The words may be the same but they mean entirely differnet things. Justification Santification Saved all these words are used by Christians but although the words are the same they mean entirely different things thatn say from a Catholic Perspective to a Baptist perspective.

-snip-

Think man just don’t run to William Webster to avoid the logical.

Who tells you “what the fathers said and the popes said”? Who gives you your interpretation of the popes and fathers? Explain to me why your subjective interpretation is to be trusted over the research of William Webster. Are you an authority on the canon? What are your credentials? Has the Pope given you an infallible interpretation on what all the ECF’s have said?

Just because Webster is Protestant, doesn’t mean his research is flawed.I find it quite telling that there are not any serious attempts to refute the 3 volume set authored by William Webster and David King, “Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.” Perhaps you should get these books.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees said:

I didn’t say Luther had no right to question the dueteros. It was open to debate at the time. I said he had no right to make the distinction as to sepearte the books in an entirely differnt section of the Bible all by himself. That broke with tradition. The case had not been settled at the time as if they were canonical or not. He unilaterlly made the decision by himself. He did something beyond theological speculation. He did something only the church herself had the authority to do. That was to declare the dogma of canon.

This is spurious. Luther simply followed in the tradition of Jerome, rather than the tradition of Augustine, Hippo, and Carthage. A large number of theologians followed Jerome’s lead, and voiced opinions about the apocrypha. Luther was among these theologians. And why should Luther have followed Hippo and Carthage anyway? They were clearly in error. Webster points out,

“* Roman Catholics are quick to point out that the canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned. However, the Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.* (Source: Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 360-361)

When was the last time you read 3 Maccabees, Mr. Maccabees?

Regards, James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr Maccabees said:

Thus “Luther denied the right of the church to decide in matters of canonicity: canonicity was to be determined by the internal worth of the book.” (Albert Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church) This is the exact opposite line of reasoning most Catholics have come to understand what the canon of the Bible was."I would not believe the Gospel unless the authorityof the Catholic Church moved me to this) St Augustine Against the Letter of Manichaeus Entitled “Fundamental” 5,6

I can’t comment on Sundberg since I don’t have his book. I would like to see the quote in context. On the other hand, Calvin has put Augustine’s words in their context:

I am aware it is usual to quote a sentence of Augustine in which he says that he would not believe the gospel, were he not moved by the authority of the Church (Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament. c. 5). But it is easy to discover from the context, how inaccurate and unfair it is to give it such a meaning. He was reasoning against the Manichees, who insisted on being implicitly believed, alleging that they had the truth, though they did not show they had. But as they pretended to appeal to the gospel in support of Manes, he asks what they would do if they fell in with a man who did not even believe the gospel—what kind of argument they would use to bring him over to their opinion. He afterwards adds, “But I would not believe the gospel,” &c.; meaning, that were he a stranger to the faith, the only thing which could induce him to embrace the gospel would be the authority of the Church. And is it any thing wonderful, that one who does not know Christ should pay respect to men?

Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his meaning, by thus expressing himself a little before: “When I have praised my own creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between us; or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us to certainty, afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and follow those who invite us, in the first instance, to believe what we are not yet able to comprehend, that waxing stronger through faith itself, we may become able to understand what eve believe—no longer men, but God himself internally strengthening and illuminating our minds?” These unquestionably are the words of Augustine (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4); and the obvious inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to suspend our faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church, but only to intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who are not yet enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by reverence for the Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. In this way, though the authority of the Church leads us on, and prepares us to believe in the gospel, it is plain that Augustine would have the certainty of the godly to rest on a very different foundation.

(Calvin’s Institutes, I:7, 2-3)

Hope you enjoyed the quote!

Regards, James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees said:

If Luther was right and the canon was subjective and determined by the interal worth of the book which usually meant his gospel of grace and faith alone (law and gospel) and of course he denied this occured in HEbrews, Jude, Jame and Revelation than why do Protestants have the same unifrom canon today when obviously Lutehr did not agree with the other reformers. Than do you have the right to declare your own canon differnt from Luther or Calvin etc. If not then agian why?

Again: Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives:

1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian
2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology

In Hebrews and Revelation, I could argue that Luther did not consistently argue against the canonicity of these books. In the case of James, I could successfully argue that Luther understood the Protestant way of harmonizing James & Paul, but yet rejected the book for historical reasons. In the case of Jude, I could argue again his primary rejection of the book was historical.

What I have been arguing all along is that Luther’s historical arguments are one of the factors for evaluating canonicity. On the other hand, Luther was in error in his historical evaluation, perhaps for this reason: Jaroslav Pelikan has pointed out,

“According to his knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest church fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles…he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title ‘apostolic fathers.’ He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” [Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 84].

I have also argued that Roman Catholics, if they are going to be true to their Church’s history, have absolutey NO right to critisize Luther.

As to the heart of your question: Protestants have the canon they do, not because your Popes and councils declared them the word of God, but because God gave us His Word. The canon is determined by God, while canonicity is recognized by the people of God. J.I. Packer has rightly said, “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.” (God Speaks to Man, p.81). If the RCC includes books like the apocrypha in their canon, and it can be demonstrated that these books are not canonical, one is forced to conclude the RCC cannot recognize God’s word from his non-word.

You can’t seriously be suggesting that one cannot know what is God’s word without an infallible decree from one of your popes or councils. If this is the case, all Christians previous to Trent had no certainty which books were supposed to be in the Bible.

Regards, James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr Maccabees said:

I point out these things not to win a cut and paste debate but to think.

The majority of words i’ve cut and pasted are yours. The rest of it was typed out. I wish the majority of books i’ve been through were available to “cut and paste.” they are not.

WHy do Protestants believe in the same fixed canon when it contradicts historical fact that to Luther canon was related to dogma not constand tradition.

spelling and grammar aside, I have no idea what you’re asking.

Considering each protestant tradtion had distinct dogmas that sepearte themselves shouldn’t the canon be differnet also as some books in the Bible would demphazise a particular denominations belief some books such 2 Peter would contradict symbolic baptism for the Baptist who beleives it is a symbol he should have the right to throw it out then.

No, because on the essential: “salvation by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone” the large majority of Protestants agree. We have more unity than you think.

Just as Lutehr threw out James when it contradicted his pet doctrines. Think man just don’t run to William Webster to avoid the logical.

He did a bad job throwing it out. It was in his Bible translation. Luther says he cannot include James among his “chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” Luther simply questioned the book. Had he thrown it out, it would not have appeared in his Bible, along with the above comment from his preface.

I consider William Webster’s work excellent. I utilize him as an expert on the subject when needed.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[mlchance]

TertiumQuid:

If the RCC includes books like the apocrypha in their canon, and it can be demonstrated that these books are not canonical, one is forced to conclude the RCC cannot recognize God’s word from his non-word.

That’s a mighty big if.

The deuterocanonical texts were used by the earliest Christians as well as the Jews in Palestine, as the Dead Sea Scrolls clearly confirm. The Alexandrian canon of which they are a part were affirmed by early Church councils (albeit none of the of the universal church but only local councils). The fact that a universal council did not affirm them until Trent is not relevant because any who studies Catholic history knows that the Church almost always makes such affirmations only when there is controversy.

Part of the controversy Trent responded to was the fact that some Protestant groups were dismantling the canon of Scripture that had been used by Christians since the beginning of the Church.

By the way, nice quote from Packer. I’ve long admired his work as one of the few sensible evangelicals. He’s a nice contrast to the shrillness of bulk of evangelicalism.

– Mark L. Chance.