Protestant Canon

[ltwin]

It seems to me that if the Catholic Bible has 46 OT Books and 27 NT books and the Protestants have 39 OT Books and 27 NT Books it is obvious to me that there is a difference between the Catholic Church canon and the Protestant canon as to what is considered inspired. I would like to say that most of my Protestant friends so not even know of the Deutrocanonical books as they do not seem to have them in the KJV Bibles. So it appears that they are not in the Protestant canon.

Well of course they aren’t part of most Protestants’ canon. But the KJV did have the Apocrypha in it until the mid-1800s.

 

[ltwin]

That is motive: to cut down costs.

Intent: Not used.

It’s just plain sad. The full Word of God didn’t make the cut with the publishers.

Not one voice raised an objection?

I mean, if both Catholics and Orthodox have a minimal agreement on the DC’s in Catholic Bibles and we can both trace our origin and Tradition back to Christ and the Apostles.

Who is to say otherwise?

Where is this divine revelation that said: “You must take these books out”.

We can trace these books all the way back in our Tradition and our Councils.

Where is yours? And the others?

If all that can be shown is a publishing decision…

Publishers made the decision for pragmatic reasons. But they never could have done that if Protestants really thought the Apocrypha was authoritative in confirming doctrine. Obviously, most Protestants didn’t and don’t believe that. Even so, they kept the Apocrypha in their Bible for several centuries because they thought they were beneficial for Christians to read.

And the “tradition” the Protestants were following in is the same tradition the Reformers followed in questioning the DCs place in the canon in the first place. Once they made the decision to not use the DCs to derive doctrine, it was not inevitable that it ceased to be considered “biblical” (as shown by the fact that it continued to be placed in the Bible), but over time Protestants did see fit to remove it.

Anyway you look at it, it was certainly not a matter of “The full Word of God didn’t make the cut with the publishers.” The truth is that Protestants did not treat the Apocrypha as the “full Word of God.” Either they doubted on some level that it was God’s Word or that it had the same authority as the Old and New Tests. Otherwise, what was the use in stressing that NO doctrine should be derived from it? In short, the action of Protestant publishers was fully consistent with Protestant belief about the “authoritativeness” of the Apocrypha.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) stated “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of 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.” **The Westminster Assembly which wrote the Confession was an assembly of theologians, not Bible publishers.
**
The action of nineteenth century Bible publishers only explains the historical accident by which the Apocrypha no longer appears in the pages of most Protestant Bibles. Even if this historical accident never happened and 100 percent of Protestant Bibles in 2014 contained the Apocrypha, it would still not change how Protestants have historically treated such books. They would not use them for doctrine. At the most, Protestants would have a larger category of Bible stories to draw inspiration from.

 

[Topper17]

It has already happened in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue with the conclusion that “church dividing” issues are essentially gone.

Hi EV,

Thanks for your response.

Remember I left for my Christmas vacation, I told you I would read “From Conflict to Communion”. I read all 89 pages and I also read the Jimmy Akin article that Jon recommended. You see, I really would like to see our two communions reach a REAL communion, meaning one where the things that divide us are actually addressed and dealt with, rather than just being ignored for the sake of an agreement in name only.

It might not be surprising, but if I were involved in the joint dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans, I would probably be ‘more aggressive’. This thing has been going on for 50 years, and to date, they have not addressed papal infallibility. They are nibbling around the edges and dealing with all of the small stuff. I applaud the progress, but seriously – 50 years and to date they have ignored one of the fundamental issues? At this rate it will be a couple of hundred years before anything of any importance will be decided.

What do you think the Lutherans are going to be willing to concede? Do you think they will withdraw that insulting official teaching that the pope is the anti-Christ? After all, they haven’t in 50 years, so why should we Catholics think they will in the next 50?

There is a benefit to these discussions though. It seems that it has furthered the trend of Lutheran Theologians converting to Roman Catholicism. Dr. Michael Root is listed in the “From Conflict to Communion” as a 2009 Lutheran participant. In 2010, one year later, he swam the Tiber, following in the path of a series of notable Lutheran Theologians:

Richard John Neuhaus (1990)
Robert Walkin (1994)
Paul Quist (2005)
Richard Ballard (2006)
Paul Abe (2006),
Thomas McMichael
Mickey Mattox
David Fagerberg
Bruce Marshall
Reinhard Hutter
Philip Max Johnson

It appears that Root, after being introduced to Catholic theology in a way that forced him to actually think about it, was compelled to ‘swim’. I think that the more of this will happen as more people become familiar with what the Church actually teaches rather than what they have heard or read from the its opponents.

I believe that your statement that “’church dividing’ issues are essentially gone”, is massively ‘optimistic’, that is unless Lutherans have decided to sign on to papal infallibility and the authority of Ecumenical Councils to determine dogma (for starters). It seems that you believe that Lutherans and Catholic now agree on the doctrine of Salvation. In the past I have seen (mostly liberals of both our communions) focus on the ‘nice sounding’ phrases which would lead people to believe that there is meaningful agreement on the tough issues.

On the other hand it appears that there has been progress, and for that Praise God. As an example, and in the context of your comment, there has been some progress on Salvation, however, a great deal still divides us. As the Akin article points out, we might be working towards becoming better able to define terms (such as ‘faith’) in a common manner. However, on issue of the requirements for Salvation, we are far apart.
Jimmy Akin puts this in perspective:

“We may be put the relationship between the two concepts (Protestant and Catholic belief on Salvation) as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope = Catholic idea of charity”

I think this is an excellent synopsis of the situation. The Protestant version of Salvation is correct, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t ‘go far enough’. In other words, it is incomplete, and because it is incomplete, it is not correct. Now – this is not to say that some Protestants don’t agree with the Catholic version of Salvation, because I think some do. If I remember, Dave Armstrong once wrote that there at least 17 different competing Protestant versions of Salvation. What a mess!

However, if you are one of those who actually agree with the Catholic teaching on salvation, then you are opposed to Luther’s version. So EV, this is ‘pick your poison’ time, because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that Protestants and Catholics agree on Salvation, AND that they also agree with Luther, because it is very clear that Luther did not agree with anybody previous to himself on salvation. His radical Salvation by Faith Alone had never been taught in previous Christian history, and if you need proof of that fact, we have Luther himself as evidence. He never spent any time doing anything but refuting the Church on the issue, and never (as was his habit), ever backed up one little bit trying to find common ground or claiming that he had been ‘misunderstood’.

If you want to admit that you believe differently than Luther, you can of course claim that he was ‘right for the wrong reasons’ or maybe ‘wrong for the right reasons’, or maybe even ‘wrong for the wrong reasons’. But unless you agree with him, then you will have to admit that the Rebellion that he fostered was done for the purpose of promoting a doctrine which you have found to be false. Furthermore, it was on the basis of his belief in Salvation that Luther criticized the canon, so if you disagree with his version of Salvation, then you must agree that his criticism of the canon was wrong/misplaced/errant (insert a term).

So again, pick your poison. Which way is it?

God Bless You EV, Topper

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Publishers made the decision for pragmatic reasons. But they never could have done that if Protestants really thought the Apocrypha was authoritative in confirming doctrine. Obviously, most Protestants didn’t and don’t believe that. Even so, they kept the Apocrypha in their Bible for several centuries because they thought they were beneficial for Christians to read.

And the “tradition” the Protestants were following in is the same tradition the Reformers followed in questioning the DCs place in the canon in the first place. Once they made the decision to not use the DCs to derive doctrine, it was not inevitable that it ceased to be considered “biblical” (as shown by the fact that it continued to be placed in the Bible), but over time Protestants did see fit to remove it.

Anyway you look at it, it was certainly not a matter of “The full Word of God didn’t make the cut with the publishers.” The truth is that Protestants did not treat the Apocrypha as the “full Word of God.” Either they doubted on some level that it was God’s Word or that it had the same authority as the Old and New Tests. Otherwise, what was the use in stressing that NO doctrine should be derived from it? In short, the action of Protestant publishers was fully consistent with Protestant belief about the “authoritativeness” of the Apocrypha.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) stated “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of 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.” **The Westminster Assembly which wrote the Confession was an assembly of theologians, not Bible publishers.
**
The action of nineteenth century Bible publishers only explains the historical accident by which the Apocrypha no longer appears in the pages of most Protestant Bibles. Even if this historical accident never happened and 100 percent of Protestant Bibles in 2014 contained the Apocrypha, it would still not change how Protestants have historically treated such books. They would not use them for doctrine. At the most, Protestants would have a larger category of Bible stories to draw inspiration from.

Ah! Thanks, that’s more in line with what I’m looking for. Off to investigate

 

[ltwin]

Ah! Thanks, that’s more in line with what I’m looking for. Off to investigate

The Westminster Confession is what the more Presbyterian Protestants would say. Anglicans were more positive about the Apocrypha. The 39 Articles of Religion said:

“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:”

 

[Novocastrian]

Ah! Thanks, that’s more in line with what I’m looking for. Off to investigate

The best comparison is probably Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.

 

[Novocastrian]

I mean, if both Catholics and Orthodox have a minimal agreement on the DC’s in Catholic Bibles and we can both trace our origin and Tradition back to Christ and the Apostles.

I’m looking at my Catholic edition NRSV and can’t find the Prayer of Manasseh. How is this different?

(I’m not saying it’s not different, but I want to know why you think it should be…)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Topper

Your comments are welcome. The issue of papal infallibility is a concern for Lutherans. The Dialogue points out that Lutherans accept the papacy as first among equal pontiffs and that Luther merely wanted Pope Leo to address the abuses and had no plan to leave the Catholic Church. Papal infallibility is a sticking point for Orthodox and Anglicans as well as Lutherans since it became dogma in 1869.

 

[spina1953]

Hi EV,

Thanks for your response.

Remember I left for my Christmas vacation, I told you I would read “From Conflict to Communion”. I read all 89 pages and I also read the Jimmy Akin article that Jon recommended. You see, I really would like to see our two communions reach a REAL communion, meaning one where the things that divide us are actually addressed and dealt with, rather than just being ignored for the sake of an agreement in name only.

It might not be surprising, but if I were involved in the joint dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans, I would probably be ‘more aggressive’. This thing has been going on for 50 years, and to date, they have not addressed papal infallibility. They are nibbling around the edges and dealing with all of the small stuff. I applaud the progress, but seriously – 50 years and to date they have ignored one of the fundamental issues? At this rate it will be a couple of hundred years before anything of any importance will be decided.

What do you think the Lutherans are going to be willing to concede? Do you think they will withdraw that insulting official teaching that the pope is the anti-Christ? After all, they haven’t in 50 years, so why should we Catholics think they will in the next 50?

There is a benefit to these discussions though. It seems that it has furthered the trend of Lutheran Theologians converting to Roman Catholicism. Dr. Michael Root is listed in the “From Conflict to Communion” as a 2009 Lutheran participant. In 2010, one year later, he swam the Tiber, following in the path of a series of notable Lutheran Theologians:

Richard John Neuhaus (1990)
Robert Walkin (1994)
Paul Quist (2005)
Richard Ballard (2006)
Paul Abe (2006),
Thomas McMichael
Mickey Mattox
David Fagerberg
Bruce Marshall
Reinhard Hutter
Philip Max Johnson

It appears that Root, after being introduced to Catholic theology in a way that forced him to actually think about it, was compelled to ‘swim’. I think that the more of this will happen as more people become familiar with what the Church actually teaches rather than what they have heard or read from the its opponents.

I believe that your statement that “’church dividing’ issues are essentially gone”, is massively ‘optimistic’, that is unless Lutherans have decided to sign on to papal infallibility and the authority of Ecumenical Councils to determine dogma (for starters). It seems that you believe that Lutherans and Catholic now agree on the doctrine of Salvation. In the past I have seen (mostly liberals of both our communions) focus on the ‘nice sounding’ phrases which would lead people to believe that there is meaningful agreement on the tough issues.

On the other hand it appears that there has been progress, and for that Praise God. As an example, and in the context of your comment, there has been some progress on Salvation, however, a great deal still divides us. As the Akin article points out, we might be working towards becoming better able to define terms (such as ‘faith’) in a common manner. However, on issue of the requirements for Salvation, we are far apart.
Jimmy Akin puts this in perspective:

“We may be put the relationship between the two concepts (Protestant and Catholic belief on Salvation) as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope = Catholic idea of charity”

I think this is an excellent synopsis of the situation. The Protestant version of Salvation is correct, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t ‘go far enough’. In other words, it is incomplete, and because it is incomplete, it is not correct. Now – this is not to say that some Protestants don’t agree with the Catholic version of Salvation, because I think some do. If I remember, Dave Armstrong once wrote that there at least 17 different competing Protestant versions of Salvation. What a mess!

However, if you are one of those who actually agree with the Catholic teaching on salvation, then you are opposed to Luther’s version. So EV, this is ‘pick your poison’ time, because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that Protestants and Catholics agree on Salvation, AND that they also agree with Luther, because it is very clear that Luther did not agree with anybody previous to himself on salvation. His radical Salvation by Faith Alone had never been taught in previous Christian history, and if you need proof of that fact, we have Luther himself as evidence. He never spent any time doing anything but refuting the Church on the issue, and never (as was his habit), ever backed up one little bit trying to find common ground or claiming that he had been ‘misunderstood’.

If you want to admit that you believe differently than Luther, you can of course claim that he was ‘right for the wrong reasons’ or maybe ‘wrong for the right reasons’, or maybe even ‘wrong for the wrong reasons’. But unless you agree with him, then you will have to admit that the Rebellion that he fostered was done for the purpose of promoting a doctrine which you have found to be false. Furthermore, it was on the basis of his belief in Salvation that Luther criticized the canon, so if you disagree with his version of Salvation, then you must agree that his criticism of the canon was wrong/misplaced/errant (insert a term).

So again, pick your poison. Which way is it?

God Bless You EV, Topper

Hi Topper 17 Awlsome work!!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m looking at my Catholic edition NRSV and can’t find the Prayer of Manasseh. How is this different?

(I’m not saying it’s **not **different, but I want to know why you think it should be…)

I saw the 2 negatives and thought, oh oh a positive in disguise

Novo, for me this is rather simple. The Church in Her authority to bind and lose - loosened the Prayer of Manasseh.

On a personal level, I lean more towards the EO understanding of Scriptures , but I am bound by my Faith and Her decree of what is or isn’t considered canonical.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The best comparison is probably Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.

I cringed, a lot, at this comparison.

St. Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria and is a Doctor of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11610727]

Remember I left for my Christmas vacation, I told you I would read “From Conflict to Communion”. I read all 89 pages and I also read the Jimmy Akin article that Jon recommended. You see, I really would like to see our two communions reach a REAL communion, **meaning one where the things that divide us are actually addressed and dealt with, rather than just being ignored for the sake of an agreement in name only. **

Hi Tim,
Something we agree on.

It might not be surprising, but if I were involved in the joint dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans, I would probably be ‘more aggressive’. This thing has been going on for 50 years, and to date, they have not addressed papal infallibility. They are nibbling around the edges and dealing with all of the small stuff. I applaud the progress, but seriously – 50 years and to date they have ignored one of the fundamental issues? At this rate it will be a couple of hundred years before anything of any importance will be decided.

I think you are selling both side short. There have been deep and intense dialogue between the communions, the intensity and depth not always shared with the laity.

What do you think the Lutherans are going to be willing to concede? Do you think they will withdraw that insulting official teaching that the pope is the anti-Christ? After all, they haven’t in 50 years, so why should we Catholics think they will in the next 50?

Concede? If I asked what the Catholic Church is willing to concede, you would quite rightly say “nothing”. And I would applaud that. I expect nothing less from the Lutheran side. I don’t believe true unity will come from the expectation or demand of concession, but instead through convergence
As for the papacy being anti-Christ, there are specific charges involved. Unity will not come without those charges being resolved, and once resolved there would be no need of even the phrase. Similarly, the charges of heresy leveled at our beliefs would likewise be lifted.
Reconciliation.

There is a benefit to these discussions though. It seems that it has furthered the trend of Lutheran Theologians converting to Roman Catholicism. Dr. Michael Root is listed in the “From Conflict to Communion” as a 2009 Lutheran participant. In 2010, one year later, he swam the Tiber, following in the path of a series of notable Lutheran Theologians:

And Pelikan and others have gone East. I have often heard it said that it is the obligation of a Lutheran to wake each morning and determine if continued division from the Bishop of Rome is warranted. For those who have come to the decision that it is no longer warranted, I say be blessed in word and sacrament there. I am not there.

I believe that your statement that “’church dividing’ issues are essentially gone”, is massively ‘optimistic’, that is unless Lutherans have decided to sign on to papal infallibility and the authority of Ecumenical Councils to determine dogma (for starters). It seems that you believe that Lutherans and Catholic now agree on the doctrine of Salvation. In the past I have seen (mostly liberals of both our communions) focus on the ‘nice sounding’ phrases which would lead people to believe that there is meaningful agreement on the tough issues.

Again, we agree. Twice in one thread.
The issue you mention is why, I believe, Lutherans tend to drift East rather than to Rome.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Tim,
Something we agree on.

I think you are selling both side short. There have been deep and intense dialogue between the communions, the intensity and depth not always shared with the laity.

Concede? If I asked what the Catholic Church is willing to concede, you would quite rightly say “nothing”. And I would applaud that. I expect nothing less from the Lutheran side. I don’t believe true unity will come from the expectation or demand of concession, but instead through convergence
As for the papacy being anti-Christ, there are specific charges involved. Unity will not come without those charges being resolved, and once resolved there would be no need of even the phrase. Similarly, the charges of heresy leveled at our beliefs would likewise be lifted.
Reconciliation.

And Pelikan and others have gone East. I have often heard it said that it is the obligation of a Lutheran to wake each morning and determine if continued division from the Bishop of Rome is warranted. For those who have come to the decision that it is no longer warranted, I say be blessed in word and sacrament there. I am not there.

Again, we agree. Twice in one thread.
The issue you mention is why, I believe, Lutherans tend to drift East rather than to Rome.

Jon

I’ve read, for example, the conversion of Fr Newhaus to Catholicism was even before the Declaration on Justification.

 

[Novocastrian]

I cringed, a lot, at this comparison.

St. Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria and is a Doctor of the Church.

He was indeed. Who wrote:

From Festal Letter 39:

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

1. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

1. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; **that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read **by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The **Wisdom **of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the **Teaching **of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Source.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

He was indeed. Who wrote:

Source.

I am well aware of St. Athanasius. I would not compare him to the Westminster group.

 

[Novocastrian]

I saw the 2 negatives and thought, oh oh a positive in disguise

Novo, for me this is rather simple. The Church in Her authority to bind and lose - loosened the Prayer of Manasseh.

On a personal level, I lean more towards the EO understanding of Scriptures , but I am bound by my Faith and Her decree of what is or isn’t considered canonical.

That’s fair enough, but you should recognise that you can’t entirely claim a common tradition with the Eastern Churches on the canon. There are differences. If the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestant canons are significant, then so are yours.

 

[Novocastrian]

I am well aware of St. Athanasius. I would not compare him to the Westminster group.

Neither would I, in general. But when it comes to the canon, he’s not that far off.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s fair enough, but you should recognise that you can’t entirely claim a common tradition with the Eastern Churches on the canon. There are differences. If the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestant canons are significant, then so are yours.

Again here we go on the tangent that because Billy and Willy have differences, then it’s ok for Mickey to have differences with Billy and Willy.

Is this the only reasonable argument?

I can claim a common tradition with the Eastern Church because we both come from Apostolic Tradition. For many centuries we were one Church. It is you who cannot tell me that I don’t have a common Tradition with them because of our differences. We both trace our origins to the Apostles. Whereas, your communion (and the others from Protestantism) cannot claim this outside of the Catholic Church. Any continuity you have from Tradition and Scriptures is from the Catholic Church.

So even when the Westminster Confession is schismatic, at least they met and established a guideline as to what constitutes Scriptures for their communion. Even if I don’t agree with their exclusions.

If you want to take a stand on historical facts, that’s fine. Make your argument to that effect. But if you are going to make a stand because of the Billy and Willy fight… well…
that’s lame.

 

[Novocastrian]

Again here we go on the tangent that because Billy and Willy have differences, then it’s ok for Mickey to have differences with Billy and Willy.

Is this the only reasonable argument?

I can claim a common tradition with the Eastern Church because we both come from Apostolic Tradition. For many centuries we were one Church. It is you who cannot tell me that I don’t have a common Tradition with them because of our differences. We both trace our origins to the Apostles. Whereas, your communion (and the others from Protestantism) cannot claim this outside of the Catholic Church. Any continuity you have from Tradition and Scriptures is from the Catholic Church.

So even when the Westminster Confession is schismatic, at least they met and established a guideline as to what constitutes Scriptures for their communion. Even if I don’t agree with their exclusions.

If you want to take a stand on historical facts, that’s fine. Make your argument to that effect. But if you are going to make a stand because of the Billy and Willy fight… well…
that’s lame.

My point is this. You cannot appeal to a common apostolic tradition when you disagree. One of you is wrong, and one of you is right.

With regard to history; if you’re going to argue that you and the Orthodox are close because you come from the same historical origin, well, so do we! In fact, by that reasoning, we are closer, because our split was so much later! You think that there were Catholic bishops in Constantinople up until the middle of the eleventh century or thereabouts; well, they were in Canterbury until the sixteenth.

You cannot claim that similarity equals some kind of unity with one group but not with another. The Orthodox are not Roman Catholic. They have a different canon. We have a different canon. You either accept those differences or gloss over; you cannot continue to pick and choose.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Tim,
Something we agree on.

Again, we agree. Twice in one thread.
The issue you mention is why, I believe, Lutherans tend to drift East rather than to Rome.

Jon

Hi Jon,

First of all, let me say that I too am extremely disturbed by our agreement. We will have to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Please let me check my ‘heresy meter’ to see if I have somehow slipped in off the doctrinal mountaintop. Nope - whew - I’m still orthodox.

Thank Goodness. That can only mean that you are the one who is “moving” - towards Truth of course.

Seriously, I am working on responding to something else you said and might be able to get to this tomorrow, but plan to watch the Man take on the little girl, so maybe not.

God Bless You Jon, Topper