Protestant Canon

[stewstew03]

The position of Jerome is a mixed one.

How so?

Luther did not reject them, or if he did, seeing that they were translated and included in his translation seems an odd way to do so.

He rejected them as apocryphal, no?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

…Luther did not reject them…

He did not hold the Deuterocanon in the same regard as the rest of Scripture.
Am I wrong on this matter? Did Luther accept Judith, Sirach, Maccabees etc.
on par with Matthew, Exodus, Chronicles, etc?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I tried flipping through that, but it’s like 100 pages, so could you give me something
from that on Luther, because the excerpt you provided was talking about Lutherans,
not Luther himself. Your response to my calling Luther a “heretic” has yet to be un-
answered. Oh, and in addition to something on Luther himself from you Adobe File,
something positive between him and Catholics, I would really appreciate a second
citation, from a Catholic source that I can trust, not LutheranWorld.

Here are additional sources in case the official Lutheran site is unacceptable. Just google ‘From Conflict to Communion’ and many Roman Catholic, including the Vatican Radio have articles on the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity:

The full text of the document ‘From Conflict to Communion’ is available from the German Evangelische Verlangsanstalt and Bonifatius publishing house.
Text from page en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/06/17/lutherans_and_catholics:_from_conflict_to_communion/en1-702348
of the Vatican Radio website

You refer to Martin Luther as a heretic yet the Pontifical Council of Ecumenism refers to Luther as a 'witness to the Gospel:

1. Implicit rapprochement with Luther’s concerns has led to a new evaluation
   of his catholicity, which took place in the context of recognizing
   that his intention was to reform, not to divide, the church. This is evident
   in the statements of Johannes Cardinal Willebrands and Pope John
   Paul II.7 The rediscovery of these two central characteristics of his person
   and theology led to a new ecumenical understanding of Luther as
   a »witness to the gospel.«
   lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf

 

[ltwin]

Itwin, do you agree or disagree with the following statement by JND Kelly:

“For the great majority [of Church Fathers]… 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…” (Source: Early Christian Doctrines)

I’m not an expert on what the great majority of Church Fathers thought on the canon. I’ll take his word for it though. What I do know, and what the above quote acknowledges, is that they have been disputed from the time of the Church Fathers and even into the time of the Reformation.

Furthermore, if all it takes is minority dissent for you to have doubts about whether a book is inspired, do you also reject Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation? Or do you apply a different standard (i.e., “majority rules”)?

In regard to the New Testament books, I believe the church has come to a consensus that those books are inspired.

The issue over the Deuterocanon, from my perspective, is certainly not about majority versus minority (truth is not democratic). It is a long history prior to Trent of persons in good conscience raising doubts about their authenticity//authority. Many early Protestants also had concerns and chose not to derive doctrine from those disputed books (however Protestant Bibles still included the Apocrypha until the 19th century).

If I have asked uncomfortable questions in response to your posts on this thread, then feel free to bow out!

Its not that your questions are uncomfortable. It’s just that they seem to betray that you haven’t read the whole thread.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Here are additional sources in case the official Lutheran site is unacceptable. Just google ‘From Conflict to Communion’ and many Roman Catholic, including the Vatican Radio have articles on the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity:

You refer to Martin Luther as a heretic yet the Pontifical Council of Ecumenism refers to Luther as a 'witness to the Gospel:

I heard a lot about attempts for unity between Lutherans and Catholics, but heard very little
about Luther himself. He nailed a notice on a Church door, requesting considerable discus-
sions, but had already had a large following, teaching things contrary to Church doctrine.

The Pope at the time then sent a notice to Luther warning him to cease what he was already
doing and causing schism, otherwise he would be excommunicated. Luther burnt the threat
and was thus defined a heretic. TODAY, however, recently, Benedict XVI had apparently sug-
gested that Luther was not a heretic as he never intended to split, NEVERTHELESS, what
he had done many things still counted today as heresy.

I have yet to officially confirm for myself Luther’s status according to the Catholic Church.

Now don’t get me wrong, I have been aware of and glad for the possible reunification
of Lutherans and Catholics, and I do acknowledge that the Church was indeed cor–
rupt in some of their practices at the time, and I do even applaud Luther’s desires to
fix up the Holy Church, but that’s a long way before I will ever say “Luther was right.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I heard a lot about attempts for unity between Lutherans and Catholics, but heard very little
about Luther himself. He nailed a notice on a Church door, requesting considerable discus-
sions, but had already had a large following, teaching things contrary to Church doctrine.

The Pope at the time then sent a notice to Luther warning him to cease what he was already
doing and causing schism, otherwise he would be excommunicated. Luther burnt the threat
and was thus defined a heretic. TODAY, however, recently, Benedict XVI had apparently sug-
gested that Luther was not a heretic as he never intended to split, NEVERTHELESS, what
he had done many things still counted today as heresy.

I have yet to officially confirm for myself Luther’s status according to the Catholic Church.

Now don’t get me wrong, I have been aware of and glad for the possible reunification
of Lutherans and Catholics, and I do acknowledge that the Church was indeed cor–
rupt in some of their practices at the time, and I do even applaud Luther’s desires to
fix up the Holy Church, but that’s a long way before I will ever say “Luther was right.”

(Too late to edit, but can’t leave alone):

…TODAY, however, recently, Benedict XVI had apparently sug-
gested that Luther was not a heretic as he never intended to split, NEVERTHELESS, what
he had done are still counted today as heretical.

 

[JonNC]

How so?

He rejected them as apocryphal, no?

How so? Because initially Jerome writes that he doesn’t consider them canonical.

Luther did not consider them equal to the protocanon, but he certainly did not reject them as part of the Bible.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

He did not hold the Deuterocanon in the same regard as the rest of Scripture.
Am I wrong on this matter? Did Luther accept Judith, Sirach, Maccabees etc.
on par with Matthew, Exodus, Chronicles, etc?

No, that’s obvious by his writing. But that is not a rejection of them, as evidenced by his inclusion of them in his translation.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No, that’s obvious by his writing. But that is not a rejection of them, as evidenced by his inclusion of them in his translation.

Jon

He rejected them as Scripture, you just agreed, and there’s no to tip-toe around that.

Including the Deuterocanon in his translation means nothing without faith in it.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

How so? Because initially Jerome writes that he doesn’t consider them canonical.

INITIALLY, yes, but did he for all his life? No.

 

[stewstew03]

No, that’s obvious by his writing. But that is not a rejection of them, as evidenced by his inclusion of them in his translation.

Jon

Just to be clear - Jerome changed his mind and accepted the deuteorcanonical books as scripture (see “Against Rufinus” 402 AD). Similarly, Luther was once a devout Catholic, then changed his mind.

 

[stewstew03]

I’m not an expert on what the great majority of Church Fathers thought on the canon. I’ll take his word for it though. What I do know, and what the above quote acknowledges, is that they have been disputed from the time of the Church Fathers and even into the time of the Reformation.

So, because they were once disputed, you reject them? Solid reasoning…

In regard to the New Testament books, I believe the church has come to a consensus that those books are inspired.

But itwin - what about consensus with regard to the deuterocanonical books? You seem to accept consensus only when it’s convenient.

 

[JonNC]

Just to be clear - Jerome changed his mind and accepted the deuteorcanonical books as scripture (see “Against Rufinus” 402 AD). Similarly, Luther was once a devout Catholic, then changed his mind.

Is it clear he changed his mind, or simply deferred to the Church?

I have no doubt that Luther remained a devout Catholic, regardless of his dispute with Rome.
Catholic is not solely and only communion with the Bishop of Rome. Further, it is not relevant to the discussion since his translation came after his excommunication. Additionally, his opinion regarding the DC’s was permitted at the time.

Jon

 

[ltwin]

So, because they were once disputed, you reject them? Solid reasoning…

They weren’t “once” disputed. They were disputed right up to the time of Trent.

But itwin - what about consensus with regard to the deuterocanonical books? You seem to accept consensus only when it’s convenient.

No, I just don’t see the need to embrace an attitude fostered by the Catholic Counter-Reformation that the Deuterocanonical books are unquestionably Scripture.

 

[stewstew03]

They weren’t “once” disputed. They were disputed right up to the time of Trent.

Okay, but at the time of Trent they had been in ecclesiastical use for more than a millennium. Does that mean anything to you?

No, I just don’t see the need to embrace an attitude fostered by the Catholic Counter-Reformation that the Deuterocanonical books are unquestionably Scripture.

So, due to a polemic reaction to “Catholics” you completely disregard the deuterocanonical books. At the same time, you have absolutely no problem accepting other books that were “disputed right up to the time of Trent” - namely, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They weren’t “once” disputed. They were disputed right up to the time of Trent.

No, I just don’t see the need to embrace an attitude fostered by the Catholic Counter-Reformation that the Deuterocanonical books are unquestionably Scripture.

In its essence the absence of these books have nothing to do with their canonical status. Since the original KJV and Bibel both had them.

It has to do with it being cheaper to sell and the fact that they were not used by most of the dissenting factions in Protestantism. Now, it’s a little late to change and compete with all these “study” versions.

I honestly cannot even begin to comprehend how a book like Wisdom is not included:

Wisdom 2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;he reproaches us for sins against the law,and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,because his manner of life is unlike that of others,and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base,and he avoids our ways as unclean;he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true,and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God,

Check this article by Matt1618

 

[ltwin]

In its essence the absence of these books have nothing to do with their canonical status. Since the original KJV and Bibel both had them.

Actually, though the Apocrypha was kept as an appendix in Protestant editions of the Bible, they were not considered canonical. The 39 Articles of religion includes two lists of books, one termed “canonical” and the other list (the Apocrypha) is defined as:

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine . . . .

The Geneva Bible says much the same as the 39 Articles. The Westminster Confession was more explicit:

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings

So, they were not considered canonical, but they were kept in editions of the Bible in separate sections either between the Old and New Testaments (a placement reflecting their intertestamental nature) or after the New Testament.

It has to do with it being cheaper to sell and the fact that they were not used by most of the dissenting factions in Protestantism. Now, it’s a little late to change and compete with all these “study” versions.

Yes, Protestants removed the Apocrypha because they wanted to mass produce Bibles at cheaper costs, and since the Apocrypha was not canonical, it was justifiable to remove it.

 

[stewstew03]

They weren’t “once” disputed. They were disputed right up to the time of Trent.

No, I just don’t see the need to embrace an attitude fostered by the Catholic Counter-Reformation that the Deuterocanonical books are unquestionably Scripture.

In its essence the absence of these books have nothing to do with their canonical status. Since the original KJV and Bibel both had them.

It has to do with it being cheaper to sell and the fact that they were not used by most of the dissenting factions in Protestantism. Now, it’s a little late to change and compete with all these “study” versions.

I honestly cannot even begin to comprehend how a book like Wisdom is not included:

Wisdom 2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;he reproaches us for sins against the law,and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,because his manner of life is unlike that of others,and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base,and he avoids our ways as unclean;he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true,and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God,

Check this article by Matt1618

Good question.

Itwin - by what criteria did you exclude Wisdom? Surely the criteria are driven by sola scriptura principles (scripture as the final authority) so perhaps you could cite b/c/v that led you to exclude Wisdom?

 

[ltwin]

Itwin - by what criteria did you exclude Wisdom?

I didn’t exclude them by any criteria. I wasn’t alive when they were termed Apocryphal by Protestants, nor was I alive when Bible publishers made the decision to no longer include the Apocrypha in editions of the Bible.

Surely the criteria are driven by sola scriptura principles (scripture as the final authority) so perhaps you could cite b/c/v that led you to exclude Wisdom?

Sola Scriptura is a principle for judging doctrine and practice. It’s not a principle for determining Scripture.

I do not have enough knowledge about Wisdom to say why it was considered non-canonical. I know the deuterocanonical books were generally suspect because they were not found in the Hebrew canon. The pseudepigraphical nature of the work probably didn’t help matters. But, as I said, I don’t have enough knowledge on the specific reasons.

 

[stewstew03]

I didn’t exclude them by any criteria. I wasn’t alive when they were termed Apocryphal by Protestants, nor was I alive when Bible publishers made the decision to no longer include the Apocrypha in editions of the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is a principle for judging doctrine and practice. It’s not a principle for determining Scripture.

I do not have enough knowledge about Wisdom to say why it was considered non-canonical.

Thank you for your honest answers, ltwin!