S
SextusEmpiricus
Guest
On this last point - it seems as though it would be easy to write in accord with scripture if you are the one choosing the scriptures, no?
- Status
Sure. The CC chooses not to include 3 Macc, so in that sense…
As I told Judas, I’m not convinced it is a good thing that different communions have different canons of scripture. On the other hand, it has always been the case, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. I suspect that even if Rome and the EO were to come to reconciliation, that there would still be multiple canons of scripture. I also suspect that if Rome and Lutheranism came to reconciliation, the Deuterocanon would not particularly stand in the way.
Jon
R
rfournier103
Guest
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church maintained the Tradition of it’s 73 Book Canon from the advent of the Bible until the Canon was challenged by the Protestants in the 1500s.
Since there was no written declaration (it was just “understood” that that was the Canon); the Council of Trent was needed to ‘put their foot down’ define what the Canon WAS, even though the 73-book Bible was “in play” for centuries.
Of course, many Protestant theologans question the inspiration of the ‘disputed 7’, although I have no idea what gives THEM the authority to do so after more than a milennium of inclusion in the Canon.
Just yesterday I read a piece by Norman L. Geisler in the Christian Apologetics Bible about the Canon of Scripture (it belongs to my father-in-law who was a Pentecostal minister; my wife is now Catholic). In short, Geisler basically said that it was obvious that they were not inspired, and didn’t belong in the Bible… They were never referred to by Christ and the Apostles (Catholic schollars will disagree…), etc…
Basically, each Christian has to decide for himself which camp he’s going to be in; because each side will put their argument out there, and we have to decide whose is the more convincing…
Since there was no written declaration (it was just “understood” that that was the Canon); the Council of Trent was needed to ‘put their foot down’ define what the Canon WAS, even though the 73-book Bible was “in play” for centuries.
Of course, many Protestant theologans question the inspiration of the ‘disputed 7’, although I have no idea what gives THEM the authority to do so after more than a milennium of inclusion in the Canon.
Just yesterday I read a piece by Norman L. Geisler in the Christian Apologetics Bible about the Canon of Scripture (it belongs to my father-in-law who was a Pentecostal minister; my wife is now Catholic). In short, Geisler basically said that it was obvious that they were not inspired, and didn’t belong in the Bible… They were never referred to by Christ and the Apostles (Catholic schollars will disagree…), etc…
Basically, each Christian has to decide for himself which camp he’s going to be in; because each side will put their argument out there, and we have to decide whose is the more convincing…
S
SextusEmpiricus
Guest
Agreed - so there is no authority that can speak on behalf of Christians to say “the deuterocanon is inspired” or “the book of Mormon is not inspired.” There may be majorities and minorities on either side, but based on what you and others have said – Christians with a minority view on a topic are free to dissent from authority. Taking this further, it seems the canon is still technically open. If I read the Gospel of Thomas, or 3 Maccabees, and determine on my own that those books are inspired, who is to say otherwise?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
So the Deuterocanon are indeed part of the Holy Scriptures? I don’t think Luther held
that view, and I don’t think Lutherans hold that view either, therefore they reject them.
Either one accepts all 73 books of the Roman Catholic Bible as all Holy Scripture or
accept only the Protestant Canon of 66 books and reject the other books. So which
is your position?
At least at some point, I agree, Jerome was very skeptical and even reluctant
to accept the Deuterocanon on par with the rest of the Bible. Seeing, however,
how he later did accept them as Holy Scripture, his name cannot be used as
part of a reason to discount the books rejected by Protestants.
“…insofar as his pen writes that which is in accord with scripture…”, which I do
believe is the same pen that denies the Apocrypha as the Word of God and on
par with Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms, the Four Gospels, and Revelation. Please, if
I am wrong, cite for me where Luther never disqualifies the Deuterocanon in any
shape or form.
We might have discussed this before, but I read that you are “Evangelical Catholic
(Lutheran Church Missouri Synod),” but what does that mean? Are you of Luther’s
denomination or of the Roman Catholic Church? That religious description given in
your heading is a little blurry to me.
R
rfournier103
Guest
It depends on what church/denomination you belong to.
Lutherans will tell you that the Canon is closed. Baptists will tell you that the Canon is closed. Catholics will tell you that the Canon is closed. Greek Orthodox will tell you that the Canon is closed.
If you belong to a church/denomination/Christian community and respect their teachings; it will be the clergy of said denomination that has already decided what the Canon is. Unless you decide to found your own Christian church…
That’s not true, either. For those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, they have an authority. For those in communion with the Greek Orthodox, they have theirs. Each speaks on behalf of Christians.
For Lutherans, the canon technically is open, since our confessions do nothing to name or close it. But the early church does a significant amount of effort to distinguish attested from disputed from rejected. There is no way a Lutheran communion would use 3 Macc in order to establish doctrine. And for us, that is the point, not a set Table of Contents. As for Lutherans dissenting from Lutheran authority, on this issue there is some leeway. I’ve said here before that I think our communion could/should hold the DC’s in even higher regard than we do. I’m allowed to hold the opinion because our view of the canon of scripture is pre-Trent. Other communions, such as the CC, limit that dissent. The CC does so with Trent, and Catholics ought to hold that position.
Jon
L
ltwin
Guest
There is consensus among all Christians on the core of the Old and New Testaments. Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox agree about that. There are some books that are disputed.
The Book of Mormon is in a whole other category. It is new revelation written 1800s America. Catholics and Protestants are disputing books written in antiquity. So, disputes over the Deuterocanon and any leeway that certain denominations give to either regard or disregard them has nothing to do with the canon being “open” since these books have always been candidates for canonization.
This is not the Catholic view. The Catholic Church has spoken and Catholics, regardless of their own personal views, ultimately are expected to obey the Catholic Church on matters of faith.
For Protestants, there is more truth to this. However, even Protestants recognize that something as important as the canon of Scripture is not made up by individual choice. The Protestant consensus has been that the Deuterocanon, while written by godly men, is not inspired.
Notice that we are talking about disputed texts. Furthermore, we are talking about ancient disputed texts.
An open canon implies continued revelation. No one is proposing continued revelation and the creation of new biblical texts. The issue is over those ancient texts that have historically been disputed.
Obviously, the first question you’d be asked is “on what basis do you believe these to be inspired?”
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
What is said and celebrated at the altar is the same:
S
SextusEmpiricus
Guest
Is this not what Luther did? This relates to my earlier post about there being a million Luthers since the Reformation.
L
ltwin
Guest
That’s not how Luther saw it. He was reforming the Catholic Church in those areas in Germany where such reform was possible.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Yeah, but he went too far. A man cannot breastfeed a child (normally anyway?),
that being a mother’s job, and what Luther did essentially was trying to do what
is supposed to be the Church’s job.
S
SextusEmpiricus
Guest
If the canon is “closed” then nothing can be added OR removed, right? Based on what JonNC wrote, there have not been any ecumenical councils to close the canon (unless I misunderstood, which is quite possible since I read through the posts rather quickly in order to catch up).
Therefore, if the canon is not closed, people (or groups) are free to add/remove texts to suit their own beliefs.
The bottom line for me, as an outsider looking in, is that the Reformation opened the floodgates. Perhaps this was good for Christianity, I cannot say, but it does seem that the schisms are endless. Catholics appeal to history, and Protestants appeal to righteousness – until groups like the Mormons come along and Protestants, curiously, will also appeal to history.
NB: by “righteousness” I refer to the “scraping of barnacles” as I have heard it referred to by the philosopher Peter Kreeft.
S
SextusEmpiricus
Guest
From what I understand, Luther did not so much “reform” the Catholic Church as much as he broke apart from it and established his own.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
How do you explain uninterrupted apostolic succession of Lutherans? We did not leave the holy Church. We pray for the pope.
L
ltwin
Guest
Correct. But a closed canon does not preclude the possibility that certain books are in dispute. Yes, the Deuterocanon is in dispute among Christians, but no major Christian tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) is proposing new revelation. The question is whether certain books that have always been disputed and controversial are part of the canon. Disputed books going back to antiquity are not new revelation. They are old revelation that have been historically disputed.
I believe he’s referring to the lack of any official declaration that the canon is closed. There isn’t any official declaration. However, in practice. all Protestants act as if the canon is closed.
Well, if people feel free to do that, they haven’t. Protestants are not adding new revelations to the Bible. The only thing they did was to segregate/remove books that had always been disputed.
This is fundamentally different from what Joseph Smith and the Mormons believe. They both officially and practically have an open canon. They’ve added the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants to the status of canonical. These are new revelations.
But Protestants did not appeal to righteousness. Luther appealed to justification by faith alone, and not by the righteousness of man.
He also appealed to church tradition. He saw himself as reforming and restoring true doctrine and practice. Most of the other reformers saw themselves doing the same thing. They did appeal to history and the church fathers.
Protestants object to Mormonism because we believe it is a false religion. History is one part of that argument because the new revelations of Joseph Smith cannot be historically authenticated.
But when it comes to the history of the Deuterocanon, Protestants can point to an authentic history of dispute.
S
spina1953
Guest
I went online to find out about Apostolic Sucession of the Lutheran Church. So far as I can see, it depends on which Lutheran Church is speaking about as some Lutheran Churches say they do and other Lutheran Churches say they do not. Also, from what I have been reading, the Church of England and the Lutheran Church do not have real Apostoltic sucession since they broke away from the Latin rite Church (Catholic Church). whereas the Orthodox do have valid Apostolic sucession due to the fact that they did not break away from their Patriarchs. So in the end it depends on whether or not all Lutheran Churches agree as to the meaning of Apostolic sucession.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I can’t argue against your points but isn’t it remarkable that every lesson, offertory and Eucharist preface prayer is the same in both churches?.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Even Free Church–Baptist, Congregational Reformed follow lectionary ashes2fire.bravehost.com/rcl/
S
spina1953
Guest
I suppose so as I really do not know as I did not attend Lutheran Churches, so I will take your word for it; that Lutheran Churches preface their prayers as Catholic Churches do. However, since I have been reading about the Lutheran Church concerning Apostolic sucession it appears that there is no clear understanding or consensus in unity, that is to say not all Lutheran Churches are in accord with each other as to Apostolic sucession and have different underdstandings of it.
- Status