Protestant Canon

[PRmerger]

I can’t.

Egg-zactly.

Just like I cannot cite where Jesus excludes the other 70 or so writings that Jews, Catholics and Protestants agree are not inspired.

Egg-zactly.

That’s why you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church each and every time you quote from the Bible.

The apocrapha is not Jewish canon and were and are not included in any of the 3 common division of the Jewish canon. If you don’t believe me, please research this for yourself.

This is begging the question.

You were asked to provide evidence that this is not part of the canon.

All you have done is repeated your premise.

It’s like someone coming to the CAFs and announcing, “The Bible teaches that the earth is 500 years old!”

And when he is asked to support his views he says, “Jesus says that it is 500 years old!”

And when asked to provide support for this he says, “I can’t. But he also doesn’t say that it’s millions of years old!”

:whacky:

And then he says, “I have already shown that the Bible teaches that the earth is 500 years old!”

We have the OT as part of our Bible because it points to Jesus.

Amen!

Jesus tells us what is the complete writings concerning Him and what must be fulfilled and the apocrapha is not mention in Luke 24:44.

Neither is Malachi. I assume that you do not reject Malachi as theopneustos?

 

[stewstew03]

I can see your logic, but God has charged the Jewish people with the keeping of the OT. We do not overide Him.

And who was “charged” with the Deposit of Faith? Luther? Calvin?

If the Church got the canon wrong in the 4th century (I.e., the deuterocanonical books are uninspired), then why trust Her judgment on the NT canon?

 

[PRmerger]

PR, and what about the fact the apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration?

2 Maccabees 2:24-32 and 2 Maccabees 15:39-40 (I didn’t post the text here as they are long. I’ll let you read them for yourself.)

Nowhere in these verses does it deny “all notion of inspiration”, drblank.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Maccabees 2:24-32 [/BIBLEDRB]

The above states that it is profitable for us to read, no? Where else does the Bible use the word “profitable”? Someplace where it talks about Scripture being inspired, yes?

[BIBLEDRB]2 Maccabees 15:39-40[/BIBLEDRB]

And where, exactly, in the above verses do you see the inspired writer denying “all notion of inspiration”?

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

I can CLEARLY read that the author is admitting that the task of writing Maccabees was arduous (see 26 and 27). That is clearly not inspired.

I have examined these passages from Maccabees as you recommended. However, like IP, I do not see this text denying its own inspiration. Does saying that something is arduous or difficult to write automatically make it uninspired? How does difficulty equal “not inspired”? In 2 Mac 2:27, the author states that he has a good come out of his uncomfortable toiling or writing of this text. These two particular verses (26 & 27) call to my mind an image of the Christian life. Suffering or picking up our crosses to follow Christ, but for a good… the promises of Christ. And, in knowing that we are called blessed if persecuted for holiness sake: for the reign of God is ours. Living as a faithful Christian is often an arduous task for me, but I know that my uncomfortable toiling and assiduous effort is worth His heavenly reward. For this reason, I cannot so easily equate difficulty with uninspired. Perhaps you can expound on your previous comment a bit to help me better understand how you drew this conclusion of arduous = not inspired.

Again, thank you for your responses and patience with my probing.

 

[JonNC]

I can see your logic, but God has charged the Jewish people with the keeping of the OT. We do not overide Him.

There was much dispute over what was canocial with the Jews, but there was a core of 22/24 books that were accepted by most. And the fact that the Apocrapha was universally rejected as canon by the Jews is overwhelming to the argument.

When did God charge the Jews with the OT canon? (An honest question)

For some reason, the majority opinion of the Fathers and the early Church, both east and west, was that they do belong, and those in the east thought even more books belong. I don’t believe the early Church was in any way overriding God with this majority view.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper I like what you posted and has lots of information tat makes interesting points!!

Thanks Spina,

I enjoy your posts also. I think it is interesting when Protestants Scholars reveal information which cause us to think about the issues differently than we might be used to thinking about them.

The celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus continues in his comments on Luther’s interpretation of Scripture, which as we all now know, was the basis upon which he criticized books of the NT.

“Luther asserts the basic principal that the Scripture interprets itself against both Rome and the enthusiasts. Each of these opponents claimed that something else other than Scripture itself validates the interpretation of Scripture. In Rome, it was the teaching office of the church to which the Holy Spirit had been promised. Among the enthusiasts, it was the particular gift of the Spirit which is given to individuals apart from Scripture.” Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 76-7

While Luther criticized the Church and the ‘enthusiasts’ for ‘adding something’ else other than Scripture, Luther was very much guilty of the same thing, although of course Luther never saw it that way, and as a ‘good Lutheran Theologian’, neither did Althaus. The ‘something’ in Luther’s case was his own individual authority. Luther added his authority to interpret Scripture TO Scripture in order to make Scripture say what he wanted it to say. He criticized the ‘enthusiasts’ for their claims to the ‘gift of the Spirit’, but what did Luther do anything differently?

“Luther also knows that only men who are moved by the Spirit of God can interpret the Scripture. But the spirit which enables them to interpret Scripture comes to them through the Scripture itself. If one expects it to come from outside Scripture and takes credit for such a spirit, the inevitable result will be that one ‘sets oneself above Scripture’ and interprets it according to his own whims and subjects it to his own spirit. Luther clearly recognized that Rome and the enthusiasts were in this respect both ‘enthusiasts’. They both subordinate Scripture to an alien law. Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 77

Although Althaus doesn’t say it or even infer it (remember, he is a good Lutheran), his comments do suggest that Luther was led by the Holy Spirit in a way, in a superior way, to that of the Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’. If a person believes that they have the Spirit (like the enthusiasts according to Luther), but they actually don’t (also according to Luther), then they are setting themselves above Scripture and interpret it according to their ‘own whims’. How can Luther (and Althaus for that matter) not see the (more than) possibility that this was exactly what Luther himself was doing? After all, hasn’t it been well documented that Luther did what all of the heretics of history have done, grasp onto one element of the Gospel message (in this case, Salvation), and emphasize it to the detriment of the rest of that message?

For the record, a heretic is someone who holds an incorrect belief. In that respect, Luther claimed that Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’, among many others were – heretics.

On this point the question turns to whether we can know for sure whether Luther, as opposed to the Catholics and enthusiasts, was ‘better led’ by the Holy Spirit in terms of the ‘rightness’ of his teaching. As for me, it would seem to be extremely hard to consider someone to be ‘properly’ led by the Holy Spirit if they incorrectly identify 4 whole books of the NT as being of questionable inspiration. After all, if someone was being properly led by the Holy Spirit, you would think that the Holy Spirit would preclude that person from making those kinds of disrespectful judgments about whole books of Holy Spirit text. If we have any doubts about this we can always turn to other issues.

Do we believe that Luther was being led by the Holy Spirit to recommend execution for the peasants, the Anabaptists, the Jews, and for ‘reluctant wives’, all the while quoting Scripture (furiously of course)? If not, then how are we supposed to believe that he was correct in ANYTHING that he taught, especially those dozens of things where he made radical departures from doctrines which had been accepted for many, many centuries? Are we supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit led him to correctly identify – let’s say for example – Salvation by Faith Alone – and those other 49 radical doctrines, but couldn’t keep him from making errant judgments on those 4 books of Scripture and couldn’t keep him from making those horrific recommendations about the fate of those various groups?

God Bless You Spina and Keep Those Great Posts Coming, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Thanks Spina,

I enjoy your posts also. I think it is interesting when Protestants Scholars reveal information which cause us to think about the issues differently than we might be used to thinking about them.

The celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus continues in his comments on Luther’s interpretation of Scripture, which as we all now know, was the basis upon which he criticized books of the NT.

“Luther asserts the basic principal that the Scripture interprets itself against both Rome and the enthusiasts. Each of these opponents claimed that something else other than Scripture itself validates the interpretation of Scripture. In Rome, it was the teaching office of the church to which the Holy Spirit had been promised. Among the enthusiasts, it was the particular gift of the Spirit which is given to individuals apart from Scripture.” Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 76-7

While Luther criticized the Church and the ‘enthusiasts’ for ‘adding something’ else other than Scripture, Luther was very much guilty of the same thing, although of course Luther never saw it that way, and as a ‘good Lutheran Theologian’, neither did Althaus. The ‘something’ in Luther’s case was his own individual authority. Luther added his authority to interpret Scripture TO Scripture in order to make Scripture say what he wanted it to say. He criticized the ‘enthusiasts’ for their claims to the ‘gift of the Spirit’, but what did Luther do anything differently?

“Luther also knows that only men who are moved by the Spirit of God can interpret the Scripture. But the spirit which enables them to interpret Scripture comes to them through the Scripture itself. If one expects it to come from outside Scripture and takes credit for such a spirit, the inevitable result will be that one ‘sets oneself above Scripture’ and interprets it according to his own whims and subjects it to his own spirit. Luther clearly recognized that Rome and the enthusiasts were in this respect both ‘enthusiasts’. They both subordinate Scripture to an alien law. Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 77

Although Althaus doesn’t say it or even infer it (remember, he is a good Lutheran), his comments do suggest that Luther was led by the Holy Spirit in a way, in a superior way, to that of the Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’. If a person believes that they have the Spirit (like the enthusiasts according to Luther), but they actually don’t (also according to Luther), then they are setting themselves above Scripture and interpret it according to their ‘own whims’. How can Luther (and Althaus for that matter) not see the (more than) possibility that this was exactly what Luther himself was doing? After all, hasn’t it been well documented that Luther did what all of the heretics of history have done, grasp onto one element of the Gospel message (in this case, Salvation), and emphasize it to the detriment of the rest of that message?

For the record, a heretic is someone who holds an incorrect belief. In that respect, Luther claimed that Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’, among many others were – heretics.

On this point the question turns to whether we can know for sure whether Luther, as opposed to the Catholics and enthusiasts, was ‘better led’ by the Holy Spirit in terms of the ‘rightness’ of his teaching. As for me, it would seem to be extremely hard to consider someone to be ‘properly’ led by the Holy Spirit if they incorrectly identify 4 whole books of the NT as being of questionable inspiration. After all, if someone was being properly led by the Holy Spirit, you would think that the Holy Spirit would preclude that person from making those kinds of disrespectful judgments about whole books of Holy Spirit text. If we have any doubts about this we can always turn to other issues.

Do we believe that Luther was being led by the Holy Spirit to recommend execution for the peasants, the Anabaptists, the Jews, and for ‘reluctant wives’, all the while quoting Scripture (furiously of course)? If not, then how are we supposed to believe that he was correct in ANYTHING that he taught, especially those dozens of things where he made radical departures from doctrines which had been accepted for many, many centuries? Are we supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit led him to correctly identify – let’s say for example – Salvation by Faith Alone – and those other 49 radical doctrines, but couldn’t keep him from making errant judgments on those 4 books of Scripture and couldn’t keep him from making those horrific recommendations about the fate of those various groups?

God Bless You Spina and Keep Those Great Posts Coming, Topper

Hi Topper: One thing that I think needs to be said is that Luther as well as anyone lese given that everyone has free will to choose as they will and interpret Scripture anyway they want, that being said anyone can also refuse to believe anyone’s interpretation. One also has the free will to believe that the Catholic Church alone determine whether a picticular interpretation is in line with Scripture and the meaning thereof.

 

[steido01]

Although Althaus doesn’t say it or even infer it (remember, he is a good Lutheran), his comments do suggest that Luther was led by the Holy Spirit in a way, in a superior way, to that of the Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’.

Come again? Althaus doesn’t say or even infer something, but you -in your wisdom- are able to divine what Althaus meant from what he actually didn’t mean? I… don’t even know how to respond to the contradiction here. :hypno:

If a person believes that they have the Spirit (like the enthusiasts according to Luther), but they actually don’t (also according to Luther), then they are setting themselves above Scripture and interpret it according to their ‘own whims’.

Aren’t Luther and the Roman Catholic Church are in agreement on that point? “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

How can Luther (and Althaus for that matter) not see the (more than) possibility that this was exactly what Luther himself was doing? After all, hasn’t it been well documented that Luther did what all of the heretics of history have done, grasp onto one element of the Gospel message (in this case, Salvation), and emphasize it to the detriment of the rest of that message?

Cut out the polemics here, and you’ve identified the different approaches that Lutherans and Roman Catholics take to the Gospel - one focused solely on the Cross, the other infusing our cooperation (or works). The question is which paradigm better reflects the history of the church catholic, the ECFs and -most importantly- what Christ Himself taught during His time on Earth? Obviously, we disagree here. That is why we dialogue, instead of simply accusing the other of being a heretic.

For the record, a heretic is someone who holds an incorrect belief. In that respect, Luther claimed that Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’, among many others were – heretics.

Lutherans don’t *typically *hurl the “heresy” card so cavalierly. We generally use “heterodox,” to show that those who hold wrong views are still Christians. Even so, I think the following quote from Luther is relevant to how Lutherans understand the term, opposed to how you imply it. “We must confess that the enthusiasts have the Scripture and God’s Word in other articles. Whoever hears and believes it form them will be saved even though they are unholy heretics and blasphemers of Christ.”

On this point the question turns to whether we can know for sure whether Luther, as opposed to the Catholics and enthusiasts, was ‘better led’ by the Holy Spirit in terms of the ‘rightness’ of his teaching. As for me, it would seem to be extremely hard to consider someone to be ‘properly’ led by the Holy Spirit if they incorrectly identify 4 whole books of the NT as being of questionable inspiration. After all, if someone was being properly led by the Holy Spirit, you would think that the Holy Spirit would preclude that person from making those kinds of **disrespectful judgments **about whole books of Holy Spirit text. If we have any doubts about this we can always turn to other issues.

There is nothing disrespectful about disputing the books that have always been in dispute. Were Jerome, Eusebius, Erasmus, Cajetan also disrespectful when they disputed their canonicity?

Do we believe that Luther was being led by the Holy Spirit to recommend execution for the peasants, the Anabaptists, the Jews, and for ‘reluctant wives’, all the while quoting Scripture (furiously of course)?

This is terribly out of context, and your communion held similar, if not identical, views on these issues of the day.

If not, then how are we supposed to believe that he was correct in ANYTHING that he taught,

What then are we to make of the teachings of the following popes? Alexander VI, Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Sergius III, John XII, Leo X, Innocent IV, Urban VI, John XV, Clement VII. We could easily make this an ad hominem war, but what would that accomplish? There are wicked people in this world and even within the Church. We are a sinful race. Let’s work toward reunion instead.

especially those dozens of things where he made radical departures from doctrines which had been accepted for many, many centuries? Are we supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit led him to correctly identify – let’s say for example – Salvation by Faith Alone – and those other 49 radical doctrines, but couldn’t keep him from making errant judgments on those 4 books of Scripture and couldn’t keep him from making those horrific recommendations about the fate of those various groups?

There’s nothing particularly radical about being saved by Grace through Faith.

 

[rfournier103]

I think the question should be “were the disputed books in the Jewish canon at the time Jesus lived?”

I have always understood that the Deuterocanon was indeed part of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ. If that was the case, then regardless of whether the Jews later discarded them or not, they SHOULD be included in the Christian canon, because THAT was the canon Jesus had.

Canonical apologetics isn’t my strongest area, but I am curious as to who gets to decide WHAT is inspired, and what is not? How can we tell?

To sum up…

**~WHO decided OT canon?

~HOW was the decision made?

~WHAT were the cononical books during Christ’s life?

~WHEN was the canon of the OT decided upon?**

I don’t think the where really matters, because if all the other questions are answered, the where is a non-factor…

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General warning:
Debate charitably folks.
The subject is the Protestant Canon, not who is and who is not a heretic.

 

[spina1953]

I guess as far as the Protestant goes who decides which books are inspired and how does one know what books are not inspired and how was that actually determined? Is it due only because of the Palestinian canon is thought to be the only canon of the Jewish OT. can be used by Christians, therefore the only authority regarding what doctrines that can be found there, rather than the Septuagint ?

 

[FAB]

I can see your logic, but God has charged the Jewish people with the keeping of the OT. We do not overide Him.

There was much dispute over what was canocial with the Jews, but there was a core of 22/24 books that were accepted by most. And the fact that the Apocrapha was universally rejected as canon by the Jews is overwhelming to the argument.

You need to know the history of why the Apocrapha was rejected by Jewish leaders.
These books were part of Jewish tradition which has been proven through the dead sea scrolls. The Jewish cannon was not settled until after the Catholic church had set the cannon we know as the bible with what is called the Apocrapha. Within these books contain the basis of the theology of such things a Purgatory. The Jewish leaders partly excluded these books for the very reason that the Catholic faith had accepted them.
Roll know up the time of Martin Luther, who made the assumption that since these books were not in the Jewish Cannon he was going to exclude them. They also didn’t work with his model of faith, so he excluded centuries of tradition and teaching to fit his vision.
As I said, with the discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been proven that the these books are proper to be included in the canon.

 

[JonNC]

=FAB;11669512]You need to know the history of why the Apocrapha was rejected by Jewish leaders.
These books were part of Jewish tradition which has been proven through the dead sea scrolls. The Jewish cannon was not settled until after the Catholic church had set the cannon we know as the bible with what is called the Apocrapha.

While it is true that the Jewish leaders did, as some point not consider the DC’s as canon, the more important point is that there were numerous Fathers in the early Churchwho also didn’t receive them as canon.

Within these books contain the basis of the theology of such things a Purgatory. The Jewish leaders partly excluded these books for the very reason that the Catholic faith had accepted them.
Roll know up the time of Martin Luther, who made the assumption that since these books were not in the Jewish Cannon he was going to exclude them

As I said, he often sites the “ancients”, which includes the some of the Fathers of the Church. It is more that he recognized them as excluded already be some.

They also didn’t work with his model of faith, so he excluded centuries of tradition and teaching to fit his vision.

Such as?

As I said, with the discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been proven that the these books are proper to be included in the canon.

Which DC books were found, in whole or in part, among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

I would hasten to mention to our Cahtolic friends that beating Protestants over the head with ‘heresy’ isn’t going to change their minds.

One of my best friends is a Baptist and I bought him the Lutheran Apocrypha Study Version - I’ll let you guess how I presented them to him.

“Here’s some of the bible you left out. Because you’re a heretic.”

or

“Your church may not view these books as scripture, but even Luther said they were good to read and useful and included them between the Old and New testaments in his Bible”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Any talk of heresy between Lutherans and Catholics is not consistent with our shared beliefs, per the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity:

1. Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, »Therefore
   regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such
   an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of them-
   selves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this
   area, there is unity in reconciled diversity« (ApC 448).82

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that at one time during the Reformation that Heresy and heretic was used by each, Catholic and Protestant, that term is not used now as it can only apply to those within the Catholic Church and not to those outside of it. Those Christians not of the Catholic faith, have every right to believe as they want whether one agrees with that belief or not. As Catholic’s we can only inform others as to our position and what we believe and maybe why we believe, but one can not fault others that do not share the Catholic belief. This is also true of non- Christians who have beliefs very much different from Catholic’s and non Catholic Christians.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It seems to me that at one time during the Reformation that Heresy and heretic was used by each, Catholic and Protestant, that term is not used now as it can only apply to those within the Catholic Church and not to those outside of it. Those Christians not of the Catholic faith, have every right to believe as they want whether one agrees with that belief or not. As Catholic’s we can only inform others as to our position and what we believe and maybe why we believe, but one can not fault others that do not share the Catholic belief. This is also true of non- Christians who have beliefs very much different from Catholic’s and non Catholic Christians.

Whey you state “Catholic belief” are you excluding Lutherans?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

I don’t write general warnings because I like to type.
Stay on the topic of the OP and drop the “heresy” remarks.

 

[Traverse]

As I said, with the discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been proven that the these books are proper to be included in the canon.

To be fair, non biblical writings were also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. So this doesn’t really mean anything.

 

[drblank1]

That’s why you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church each and every time you quote from the Bible.

Nope, I defer to the authority of the Holy Spirit that guides me and helps me understand scripture.

Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Thank you God.

This is begging the question.

You were asked to provide evidence that this is not part of the canon.

I have provided historical evidence yet your ignore it or make excuses as to why we can’t believe the Jewish historians.

Neither is Malachi. I assume that you do not reject Malachi as theopneustos?

But Jesus DOES include Malachi when he says “the Prophets” in Luke 24:44. Jesus included all 24 books in his statement, but again, does not include any of the apocrapha. The OT points to Jesus. The apocrapha does not.