Protestant Canon

[SextusEmpiricus]

To my understanding it depends on who you’d ask. Now, if you flip it and ask it the other way, most mainstream Christians would say no.

If Christianity operates like a democracy, then I suppose you are correct – but that was not my understanding of Christianity (it goes without saying that I am obviously not an expert).

Side question; so as a Skeptic along the lines of Pyrrho, do you believe that truth even exists? Do you believe in existence at all? I ask because your position on Epistemology and even Metaphysics would shape how you personally would approach the idea of anything labeled “canon” or “truth” … or even “protestant.” lol

Probably best reserved for the Philosophy forum…

The idea of something declared “inspired” in one era, and subsequently declared “un-inspired” in another era is intriguing, no?

 

[Kliska]

Do you disagree with Judas Thaddeus then? It seems there was consensus on the canon, though perhaps not without some dissension.

There was general consensus on the NT, but several books that were debated. Don’t quote me, but I believe it was at least 21 of the books pretty much everyone down the line agreed upon, as there were only a handful that were actually debated. The OT discussion revolved around the Jewish acceptance as well.

 

[Kliska]

If Christianity operates like a democracy, then I suppose you are correct – but that was not my understanding of Christianity (it goes without saying that I am obviously not an expert).

Ah, but we believe in true right and wrong. It gives the power of a sure measuring stick, and God is the measuring stick and the One that gets to call it. You should get to know Him.

Probably best reserved for the Philosophy forum…

The idea of something declared “inspired” in one era, and subsequently declared “un-inspired” in another era is intriguing, no?

True, but not all agree on the labels applied, either Jew or Christian.

 

[spina1953]

I don’t mean this flippantly, but you seem to be saying they are inspired but not taken as seriously as the other inspired books…?

I don’t think you flippant at all; it is a good question. yes, from what I have been reading it seems that they are I fact inspired. it seems that at the time of Jesus, there were still disputes over the canonicity (acceptance as a part of the Bible) of some of these books (Deuterocaonial) part of the hesitation was due to the fact that some of them were written in Greek instead of Hebrew. There are two main traditions in the matter, the Palestinian and the Alexandrian. The rabbis who met at Jamnia, accepted 39 books( which in the Jewish method of dividing them were counted as 24 books. These books were called the Palestine Canon. The attitude of Greek speaking Jews and rabbis who lived outside Palestine is seen in the practice of the rabbis in Alexandria. The Alexandrian Canon was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars and became the Scriptures commonly use by the early Christian authors. It appears that Jewish religious leaders who lived outside Palestine accepted the Deutro canonical books as inspired just as the early Christians did. The various writings collected to form the Old Testament grew out of a long and varied development since none of the authors thought of themselves as composing divinely inspired literature which could be used as a guide by succeeding generations. I think that as time went by those books called deuterocanon are thought to be inspired in some way. I have read them many times and I think that they are inspired but that’s MHO. PS. They are not on the same par as the rest of Scripture, yet, they are inspired as I said.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Thanks for the response. Who is Cajetan? I have not heard of him.

He was a learned philosopher, a cardinal in the Catholic Church, papal legate to Wittenberg, and famous opponent of Martin Luther.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The relevance that I see as far as this discussion is the contention that the canon was indeed a point of contention (lol) even before the reformation. As someone else mentioned the reformation didn’t happen in a vacuum and there were reasons that theologians of the day (even in the RCC) were questioning the inclusion of certain books.

Yes, the Deuterocanon was often speculated,
even by Catholic bishops, but every council
discussing the Canon ended the same way,
Deuterocanon stays.

 

[JonNC]

You continue to appeal to this idea that there were some within the Catholic Church (RCC?) that agreed with Luther. I’m just curious, how is that relevant? (Perhaps it is relevant, but I’m not sure).

It is relevant in the fact that Catholics, prior to the Council of Trent had the privilege of disputing the canonicity of books, and there are numerous instances of this all through Church history up to and including the Council of Trent.

Unless one believes it proper to set up one standard to apply to all other Catholics in this regard, and a second standard to apply to Luther, it is relevant.
Luther, in his prefaces, states his opinion. These opinions do not appear in the Book of Concord, and therefore are not doctrine for Lutherans. Luther had a right to his opinion regarding any book, just as his contemporaries, Erasmus and Cajetan had a right to their’s.
Whether or not they agreed with Luther is irrelevant. What is relevant is the privilege, which cannot be denied him without setting up a double standard.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The the affirmation of the Canon in the Council of Trent was actually a REaf-
firmation of the Council at Florence in 1442, which reaffirmed the Decree of
Gelasius in 550, which reaffirmed the Fourth Council of Cathage 419, which
reaffirmed the Third Council of Carthage in 397, and the Council of Hippo in
393, ALL THE WAY BACK TO **382 **at the Council of Rome (also: Decree of
Damasus).

The only reasons why Trent is such a big deal in canonical history
is mainly because (1) the Canon had never been under such an at-
tack before the explosive appearance of Protestantism and (2) the
Protestant Propaganda NEEDS Trent to be when the Catholics de-
cided to include the Deuterocanon, otherwise Protestants just may
be wrong, but they’re not going to let that happen.

The issue is not whether Carthage or Hippo or Rome established a canon. The issue is that none of these are ecumenical councils, and therefore are not binding on the whole Church, evidenced by the fact that other sees have differing canons. This doesn’t deny the fact that they approve the Deuterocanon, as they do, but local synods are not ecumenical councils. Even Florence and Trent don’t apply to the whole Church, were not approved by the other sees, and are therefore not ecumenical.

Regardless, prior to Trent, Catholics had the privilege to dispute books, and express their dispute about them, and therein is the difference between Trent and all the others. If Florence or Hippo had been binding regarding the canon of scripture, a Cardinal such as Cajetan, would not and could not dispute the Deuterocanon in the way he did.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The issue is not whether Carthage or Hippo or Rome established a canon. The issue is that none of these are ecumenical councils, and therefore are not binding on the whole Church, evidenced by the fact that other sees have differing canons. This doesn’t deny the fact that they approve the Deuterocanon, as they do, but local synods are not ecumenical councils. Even Florence and Trent don’t apply to the whole Church, were not approved by the other sees, and are therefore not ecumenical.

Regardless, prior to Trent, Catholics had the privilege to dispute books, and express their dispute about them, and therein is the difference between Trent and all the others. If Florence or Hippo had been binding regarding the canon of scripture, a Cardinal such as Cajetan, would not and could not dispute the Deuterocanon in the way he did.

Jon

I believe the Council of Florence and Council of Basel (the latter I for–
got to mention) were both ecumenical in nature. And yes again, even
Catholics have disputed certain books, but nevertheless the councils
I listed show that the Deuterocanon belongs. In the end, God had his
way, not Luther’s, not Rabbi Akiva’s, but HIS way.

And besides, you have totally disqualified yourself by rejecting
Trent, Florence, and Basel, because that is called “moving the
goalpost,” meaning no matter what we Catholics would say, e-
ven if the point is valid, you will change the rules so we’ll never
win. Also, what ecumenical council ever approved the Protest-
ant Canon?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

… If Florence or Hippo had been binding regarding the canon of scripture, a Cardinal such as Cajetan, would not and could not dispute the Deuterocanon in the way he did.

Jon

Let me add too, ONE Cardinal has no authority alone, and that’s what makes the Church
WORK, and why your thousands of splintered fragments of Protestant Churches do not.

 

[JonNC]

I believe the Council of Florence and Council of Basel (the latter I for–
got to mention) were both ecumenical in nature. And yes again, even
Catholics have disputed certain books, but nevertheless the councils
I listed show that the Deuterocanon belongs. In the end, God had his
way, not Luther’s, not Rabbi Akiva’s, but HIS way.

And besides, you have totally disqualified yourself by rejecting
Trent, Florence, and Basel, because that is called “moving the
goalpost,” meaning no matter what we Catholics would say, e-
ven if the point is valid, you will change the rules so we’ll never
win. Also, what ecumenical council ever approved the Protest-
ant Canon?

No ecumenical council ever approved any canon of scripture. And that’s the point. And it isn’t moving the goalpost. It is recognizing a fact of history. Florence is only a council for the Roman Church. The eastern patriarchs did not approve it in the end.

So, where did God have His way? The Greek and Russian canons are different. The Roman canon is different.
Luther had his opinion on what the canon of scripture should look like. So did Jerome, and so did Cajetan, and so did Erasmus. They were all permitted to hold those opinions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Let me add too, ONE Cardinal has no authority alone, and that’s what makes the Church
.

You are right; one Cardinal has no authority, but he was permitted his opinion. It was allowed! Until Trent. But even Trent did not bring about a canon approved by everyone, even if one does not consider non-Catholic western communions.

and why your thousands of splintered fragments of Protestant Churches do not WORK,

My splintered fragments? I’m a member of the LCMS. The splintered fragments you refer to generally come from the Reformed movement. Be that as it may, everyone of them is a splinter of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it hasn’t worked so well as you think.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No ecumenical council ever approved any canon of scripture. And that’s the point. And it isn’t moving the goalpost. It is recognizing a fact of history. Florence is only a council for the Roman Church. The eastern patriarchs did not approve it in the end.

So, where did God have His way? The Greek and Russian canons are different. The Roman canon is different.
Luther had his opinion on what the canon of scripture should look like. So did Jerome, and so did Cajetan, and so did Erasmus. They were all permitted to hold those opinions.

Jon

So “no ecumenical council ever approved any canon of scripture,” meaning that the Canon
of Scripture can be whatever we want it to be? That has to be what you’re saying, anything
goes essentially is what I’m inferring from this reply. I could even accept the Book of Enoch
as Scripture and, under your apparent logic, nobody can tell me I’m wrong for doing so.

That doesn’t sit well for me.

My knowledge is admittingly scant on Cajetan and Erasmus, but I know something in-
teresting about Jerome. You claim that he rejected the Deuterocanon all his life, or so
your lack in mentioning otherwise suggests. Jerome actually change his mind later on,
as suggested by how he used the books in his later writings.

And I say again, the Council of Florence and Council of Basel were ecumenical
councils, not that I think that is an absolute requisite, but just to entertain your
demands, both of those councils approved. Having met you demands, however,
you then changed the rules, so it IS moving the goalpost.

And Luther almost outed the Book of Revelation, he really wanted to, among other
books in the New Testament, but only didn’t because of what everybody else said.
I can’t see why you rest your soul on this rebellious friar.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

. . . Be that as it may, everyone of them is a splinter of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it hasn’t worked so well as you think.

Jon

Not quite, I think most are splinters of one another. First few diverged
from the Catholic Church, then others came from those first few, and
so on.

 

[JonNC]

Not quite, I think most are splinters of one another. First few diverged
from the Catholic Church, then others came from those first few, and
so on.

And all from the Catholic Church.

Sad, really.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

And all from the Catholic Church.

Sad, really.

Jon

Very sad, yes, breaking away from the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11554014]So “no ecumenical council ever approved any canon of scripture,” meaning that the Canon of Scripture can be whatever we want it to be? That has to be what you’re saying, anything goes essentially is what I’m inferring from this reply. I could even accept the Book of Enoch as Scripture and, under your apparent logic, nobody can tell me I’m wrong for doing so.

That doesn’t sit well for me.

Actually, it isn’t what I’m saying, though the fact is that there are different canons, and always have been. One looks at the history of the Church to see what we would do with a book such as the one you have mentioned. How does the early Church handle it? What were the views regarding it. The fact is, in a general way, books tend to be attested, disputed, or rejected. At least in the western Church, it seems that the attested and disputed books combine to be 73. How each western communion uses those books does vary.

My knowledge is admittingly scant on Cajetan and Erasmus, but I know something interesting about Jerome. You claim that he rejected the Deuterocanon** all his life, or so your lack in mentioning otherwise suggests**. Jerome actually change his mind later on, as suggested by how he used the books in his later writings.

I made no such claim, though it may have been the case. He simply chose to include them as Church leaders of his time requested. In a similar way, Luther too includes them, and he didn’t have to.

And I say again, the Council of Florence and Council of Basel were ecumenical
councils, not that I think that is an absolute requisite, but just to entertain your
demands, both of those councils approved. Having met you demands, however,
you then changed the rules, so it IS moving the goalpost.

Which Eastern Orthodox see accepts Florence? If the EO accepts Florence, then it is ecumenical.

And Luther almost outed the Book of Revelation, he really wanted to, among other books in the New Testament, but only didn’t because of what everybody else said.

Because of what everybody else said! Kind of like Jerome, eh?
He had his views on the Antilegomena, as well, views that have their roots in the early Church, particularly Eusebius. Luther was not alone in any of this. And take note that all of the Antilegomena was and is accepted among virtually all non-Catholic western Christians.

I can’t see why you rest your soul on this rebellious friar.

I don’t. I rest my soul on Jesus, who is Christ.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

It is true that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli broke away from the Catholic Church. Martin Luther and other leaders of the Protestant refomation did reject the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, claiming instead that the sense of Scripture was plain enough for individuals to interprete it on their own with the Spirit’s help However, once Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, he soon discovered that his interpretations were just one among many. As new Protestant leaders emerged with more novel doctrines, many of them challenged Luther’s interpretations and called him a heretic. The reformation movment shattered into a number of warring sects because each sect’s leader claimed to have the correct interpretation and none of them had a higher, decieve authority to which they could appeal. The teachings of these various new Protestant groups could not have all been true, since many of their ideas stood in controdiction to one another. Luither translated the Bible into German so every man could read it and act on it according to his own private interpretation. However, because of the Peasant rebels insisted that they were acting according to divine law and cited Scripture as justifacation for their political and social demands, Luther in responce to the peasants appeal was a couple of harsh tracts repudiating them, with the second tract calling for their massacre by the nobility. Luther also because of this dismissed the bibical book of Revelaton as “neither apostolic nor prophetic” sayng that “I feel an adversion to it and for me this is a sufficient reason for rejecting it.” Now look at it there so many different denominations that claim to have the correct interpretation of Scripture, how is one to know with any certainty which is true. To decide what books belong in the Bible by personal interpretation goes against any unity at all. The Catholic Church decided that the Deutrocanonical books are inspired in some way shows that the Holy Spirit was and is acting through the Catholic Church.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Actually, it isn’t what I’m saying, though the fact is that there are different canons, and always have been. One looks at the history of the Church to see what we would do with a book such as the one you have mentioned. How does the early Church handle it? What were the views regarding it. The fact is, in a general way, books tend to be attested, disputed, or rejected. At least in the western Church, it seems that the attested and disputed books combine to be 73. How each western communion uses those books does vary.

So it doesn’t matter, to each his own, I’m still inferring. And besides, though Wikipedia isn’t
always a reliable source, it appears that the Deuterocanon is agreed upon by most Church
Traditions, including Western, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and even the Assyrian
Eastern tradition. Protestantism is of the minority:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament

I made no such claim, though it may have been the case. He simply chose to include them as Church leaders of his time requested. In a similar way, Luther too includes them, and he didn’t have to.

But the difference is that you use Jerome to support rejection of the Canon,
despite how he later on used them in his later writings as Canon Scripture.
Luther rejected the books, kept them nonetheless, yet never repealed his
personal views.

Because of what everybody else said! Kind of like Jerome, eh?
He had his views on the Antilegomena, as well, views that have their roots in the early Church, particularly Eusebius. Luther was not alone in any of this. And take note that all of the Antilegomena was and is accepted among virtually all non-Catholic western Christians.

Again, you can’t isolate the opinions of a few individuals and found a religion on the few.
And again, Jerome did not hold his views against the Deuterocanon as you’re insisting.
What matters is the overall view, not the few blips of error which the majority overrules.

I don’t [rest *my

soul on this rebellious friar]. I rest my soul on Jesus, who is Christ.
Good to hear, but you trust Jesus in so much as from
Luther’s pen, not the Church which Christ established.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11554268]So it doesn’t matter, to each his own, I’m still inferring. And besides, though Wikipedia isn’t always a reliable source, it appears that the Deuterocanon is agreed upon by most Church
Traditions, including Western, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and even the Assyrian
Eastern tradition. Protestantism is of the minority:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament

I think it does matter, to a degree. And yes, even though Lutherans have a different take on the canon, Protestantism seems to be the minority view regarding the deuterocanon.

But the difference is that you use Jerome to support rejection of the Canon,
despite how he later on used them in his later writings as Canon Scripture.
Luther rejected the books, kept them nonetheless, yet never repealed his
personal views.

No, I don’t. I use Jerome as evidence that Catholics always had the liberty to hold an opinion regarding the canon. Further, I don’t believe Luther rejected the books. Certainly I don’t think Lutheranism rejects them. We view them in light of the disputed nature of the books, pre-Reformation. My personal view is that we could/should hold them in even high regard than we do, particularly here in America.

Again, you can’t isolate the opinions of a few individuals and found a religion on the few. And again, Jerome did not hold his views against the Deuterocanon as you’re insisting. What matters is the overall view, not the few blips of error which the majority overrules.

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jerome did not consider them canon, at least at some point. What matters is there has never been a unanimous view regarding the canon of scripture, even pre-Reformation.

Good to hear, but you trust Jesus in so much as from
Luther’s pen, not the Church which Christ established.

No. Luther’s pen, only insofar as his pen writes that which is in accord with scripture, and the confessions. And I am in the Church which Christ founded, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jon