Protestant Canon

[PRmerger]

We have many priests. They are called true believers.

This is very Catholic! All of us who are baptized share in the royal priesthood of the One Priest, Jesus Christ.

But yes, we have ministers that lead us. But no where do the above comments, nor does the Bible give complete authority to the leadership of the church to interpret the Bible.

And without this leadership, you now have the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of the Bible is correct.

PR defers to the Catholic presbytery to tell her what to believe. I defer to the Holy Spirit and the Bible to test what I am taught; as instructed in the Word.

But since you cannot know what books belong in the Bible and what to exclude, you also defer to the Catholic presbyters to tell you what to believe is inspired.

BTW–how did you know that I am a “her”?

 

[PRmerger]

And without this leadership, you now have the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Incidentally, drblank, look at this nonexhaustive list of all the differing beliefs that come from departing from the leadership of the Church to guard and interpret the Scriptures:

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[PRmerger]

Someone has taught you error. It’s high time to unlearn it.

Indeed.

Almost everything that drblank has said has never been found in the Bible (for example: that the authorship of a book must be known, that the OT must be written in Hebrew, that there must be a “high level” of writing for it to be considered inspred–one can search from Genesis through Revelation and never find a single verse that says any of the above!)

As such, drblank has believed the words of a man, some* fallible* man, that has professed this, and he has been duped into believing something not found, at all, in the pages of the Bible.

 

[rfournier103]

The 4th century church didn’t get it wrong thanks to the guidance of the Lord. Canon was set at that time. The apocrapha wasn’t added as canon until Trent in response to the Reformation.

When you look at the criteria the early church used to determine what classified inspired works of God, none of the apocrapha met the entire standards as the 66 books.

I am not denying the books hold value, but only when used in the proper context (as they were used in the earlier church).

The Church never added any apocryphal books. What you insultingly refer to as the “apocrypha”, is actually the “Deuterocanon”.

From www.fisheaters.com/:

Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 – and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry

From catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm:

The first bible ever printed was the Gutenberg Bible, in the century BEFORE Luther started his Reformation. And the 7 books are indeed in that Bible. To see for yourself, click here.

Are they right? WAS the Deuterocanon in the Gutenberg Bible BEFORE the Council of Trent? Before the Reformation?

drblank, I was wondering if you were going to defend your position of the Church ADDING the Deuterocanon at the Council of Trent, and explaining to us HOW the Deuterocanon got into the Gutenberg Bible BEFORE the Council of Trent happened?

ALSO… If you also wouldn’t mid telling me WHO has the authority to decide the canon of the Bible, I’d appreciate that as well. I know the Holy Spirit guides us… But WHO would the Holy Spirit guide specifically?

 

[rfournier103]

If you mean apostolic succession, then no we do not. And I do not beleive the Catholic church does as well as there is no Biblical evidence to support the idea.

The catholic (notice little “c”) fathers did much to further the church and they were all not in agreement on many things. But both of the Bible scholars from the early church (Jerome and Origen) excluded the apocrapha. So I do agree with them in this instance.

I just don’t agree with the Catholic (capital “C”) church in adding to canon at Trent.

Again… how could the Deuterocanon be ADDED at the Council of Trent when it was already in the Bible???

It is well known that St. Jerome doubted their inspiration; but the settling of the canon was not St. Jerome’s decision to make.

From taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html:

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon * two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus * one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books *, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.”

• Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384).

Are you saying that the Council of Rome never happened? I await your rebuttal, drblank.

Have a splendid day ***

 

[rfournier103]

**I guess what I am trying to find out, drblank… how could the Church have added to the Canon, if those books were already there??? **

I think you got some bad intel somewhere. It’s okay, though. It happens to the best of us!

 

[FAB]

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

To be fair, I might have my Bible on the shelf next to a number of other books, a 1000 years from now if found together, it would not diminish the bible or the word of God.
The fact that the books were found with the books that are the canon is significant. It proves that they were recognized as part of the word of God.
It must also be stated that there were other books that were excluded from the canon because through study and the guidance of the Holy Spirit were found to be lacking.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Church never added any apocryphal books. What you insultingly refer to as the “apocrypha”, is actually the “Deuterocanon”.

From www.fisheaters.com/:

Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 – and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry

From catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm:

The first bible ever printed was the Gutenberg Bible, in the century BEFORE Luther started his Reformation. And the 7 books are indeed in that Bible. To see for yourself, click here.

Are they right? WAS the Deuterocanon in the Gutenberg Bible BEFORE the Council of Trent? Before the Reformation?

The quote from Fisheaters is somewhat misleading since Luther’s Bible also includes the seven books, plus the Prayer of Manasseh.

The Council of Jamnia is pure fiction.

 

[drblank1]

**I guess what I am trying to find out, drblank… how could the Church have added to the Canon, if those books were already there??? **

I think you got some bad intel somewhere. It’s okay, though. It happens to the best of us!

Sorry, I haven’t been around. Very busy but I do miss you all.

Because those writings were not canon does not mean they were not in the early Bible. Just as we have maps and other notes in our Bibles do not make those items canon, do they? Canon is considered from God’s mouth.

The Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that identified those writings as apocrypha.

Now my question for you, with all the identified problems with those writings, how could one assume that God would produce anything substandard that would be His written Word?

 

[drblank1]

Again… how could the Deuterocanon be ADDED at the Council of Trent when it was already in the Bible???

It is well known that St. Jerome doubted their inspiration; but the settling of the canon was not St. Jerome’s decision to make.

From taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html:

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon * two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus * one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books *, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.”

• Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384).

Are you saying that the Council of Rome never happened? I await your rebuttal, drblank.

Have a splendid day ***

The decree you cite was not even attributed to the Council of Rome until the end of 18th century by Faustino Arevalo. Further, I do not deny the council happened, but it is disputed the decree is a forgery. (Reviewed by F. C. Burkitt in Journal of Theological Studies vol. 14 (1913))

 

[drblank1]

Incidentally, drblank, look at this nonexhaustive list of all the differing beliefs that come from departing from the leadership of the Church to guard and interpret the Scriptures:

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

PR - I can do demonstrate same with the Catholic church evolving doctrine as well. But that is off topic.

 

[drblank1]

drblank, I was wondering if you were going to defend your position of the Church ADDING the Deuterocanon at the Council of Trent, and explaining to us HOW the Deuterocanon got into the Gutenberg Bible BEFORE the Council of Trent happened?

ALSO… If you also wouldn’t mid telling me WHO has the authority to decide the canon of the Bible, I’d appreciate that as well. I know the Holy Spirit guides us… But WHO would the Holy Spirit guide specifically?

I did not imply they were not a part of the earliest printed Bibles. I only stated what was considered canon/inspired until Trent.

There is no reliable evidence that the Catholic church decreed authoritatively (for the entire church) that the apocryphal writings as canon/sacred prior to Trent.

 

[drblank1]

**I guess what I am trying to find out, drblank… how could the Church have added to the Canon, if those books were already there??? **

I think you got some bad intel somewhere. It’s okay, though. It happens to the best of us!

BTW - I wanted to thank you. I feel you are VERY polite and respectful in you challenges of my positions. Not that others are not. I just feel you show EXTRA respect.

 

[drblank1]

The authors of many books are unknown! The Pentateuch is attributed to Moses only by tradition. Do you therefore throw your bible out? Your standards are pure opinion.

We can reasonably assume who wrote those books. We cannot do that with the apocrypha. They are undeniably unknown.

 

[drblank1]

Basically, the author concedes that it is an abridgement of another man‘s works and expresses concern as to whether a good job was done or not. This would not be the case had this book been truly inspired by God.

No where is the 66 books of the Bible are such statements made about God’s inspirational writings. Yes, life is hard as a Christian. But when God gives us a purposeful mission that is entirely His will to futher his kindom, it is a labor of love. We are not concerned that the work God guides us will or was substandard. What God accomplishes, is of the highest works. It is truly inspired, and a joy!!!

Bayou Catholic - I was interested in your response.

 

[rfournier103]

The 4th century church didn’t get it wrong thanks to the guidance of the Lord. Canon was set at that time. The apocrapha wasn’t added as canon until Trent in response to the Reformation.

When you look at the criteria the early church used to determine what classified inspired works of God, none of the apocrapha met the entire standards as the 66 books.

I am not denying the books hold value, but only when used in the proper context (as they were used in the earlier church).

I did not imply they were not a part of the earliest printed Bibles. I only stated what was considered canon/inspired until Trent.

There is no reliable evidence that the Catholic church decreed authoritatively (for the entire church) that the apocryphal writings as canon/sacred prior to Trent.

I guess I must have misunderstood what you meant in that first post. How could it be in the Bible, and NOT part of the Canon? So those seven books were in the Bible but not Canon?

I personally don’t give a flying fig what Protestants have as their Canon. It doesn’t affect me in the least. What I DO care about is when someone says the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit didn’t have the authority to decide this.

Of course we all say that the Holy Spirit guides us; but WHO does the Holy Spirit pick? The Baptists? The Catholics? The Seventh Day Adventists? The Pastor of Rev. Bruno’s Bible Grotto?

 

[Topper17]

Steido # 506 Prot Canon

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:

First of all steido, I am still waiting for an explanation about that insulting comment that you made about me. You remember - the comment that you made about how I am a ‘sock puppet’. Like I said, I am AGAIN respectfully asking for you to explain yourself. If you can’t ‘find the time’ then I will officially be offended. Was that your intention?

Now you have a comment to make to me about “you in your wisdom” and that I am ‘able to divine’? If you read the Althaus quote the first time around, you apparently didn’t understand it. I don’t mind though because it allows me to make my point again. The quote in question is as follows:

“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

My comment about this, to which you apparently took HUGE offense was:

“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?” Topper

First of all stiedo, I don’t think that you are in a position to take about ‘contradictions’. In addition, I have YET to meet a Lutheran who does NOT believe that Luther was ‘better led’ by the Holy Spirit than Catholics, the enthusists, Calvinists, and virtually everybody else in Christian history. Both Luther and Althaus seem to be in agreement on this matter and also seem to be in agreement with every Lutheran I have ever met. Althaus comments that Luther believed that “only men who are moved by the Spirit of God can interpret Scripture” AND of course we know that Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’ CANNOT correctly interpret Scripture (according to Dr. Martin Luther of course). The only conclusion that can be drawn, is that, according to Martin Luther, the Catholics and ‘enthusiasts’ were NOT ‘men who are moved by the Spirit of God’.

Now – as we have been reading, from a number of different sources, it is VERY clear that Luther interpreted Scripture according to his own personal psychological needs (the extreme need to ‘find’ Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture). Althaus’s term for this is when one ‘sets oneself above Scripture’ and interprets it according to his own whims and subjects it to his own spirit.’ My point which I am more than happy to make again, is that it appears while Luther and Althaus clearly understood the concept of man putting himself above Scripture and interpreting it according to their ‘own whims’, neither one of them seems to have been (psychologically?) ABLE to consider the obvious possibility – that ‘possibility’ being that it might actually be Luther who was setting himself above Scripture and interpreting it according to his own whims.’

After all, Luther had to have had SOME justification for deciding, all on his own, which books he was going to ‘demote’ to a secondary class of the NT. What could that have been? Althaus makes it very clear that Luther didn’t believe that Catholics and ‘enthusiasts’ were ‘moved by the Spirit of God’ to the point where they could not interpret. Of course, if you can’t interpret, and there is a ‘question’ about the NT canon, which there really wasn’t, then clearly, someone who IS actually moved by the Spirit of God should be the one to lead all of Christianity which books of the NT are worthy of using for setting doctrine. In Luther’s mind, he was “That Guy”.

If Luther really was ‘that guy’, then we should see clear evidence of how ‘well led’ he was by the Holy Spirit. In fact, what we have in many of his actions and writings, is evidence that Luther was not ‘that guy’ who was ‘better led’ than his opponents. What it really comes down to is the huge authority that Luther claimed (for himself) and the specific reasons for those claims, as opposed to the actions and writings of the man which indicate that he was not what he claimed himself to be.

So, that is “in my wisdom – what I am able to divine’ (using your terms). Hopefully you now understand the context. All that being said, I have to tell you that I am still very much looking for an explanation about your offensive comment and I will proceed (or not) based on your answer.

BTW, I recognize that many people find it necessary to view Luther’s views on Salvation as being something other than ‘radical’, but as we have read (and there is much more) Luther’s Salvational opinions were something that had never been taught previously in the history of Christendom. That is the textbook definition of ‘radical’.

God Bless You Stiedo, Topper

 

[drblank1]

I personally don’t give a flying fig what Protestants have as their Canon. It doesn’t affect me in the least. What I DO care about is when someone says the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit didn’t have the authority to decide this.

Of course we all say that the Holy Spirit guides us; but WHO does the Holy Spirit pick? The Baptists? The Catholics? The Seventh Day Adventists? The Pastor of Rev. Bruno’s Bible Grotto?

EXACTLY!!! For anyone to declare that the Holy Spirit gave them exclusive authority in all matter of faith is unbiblical. Even the apostles corrected each other at times. My church does not declare that and I am suspect of any church that does.

I am constantly told that I have been lied to and the I need to unlearn those lies. Yet, in my church, we are taught to test what our teachers preach using scripture as we all are instructed by the apostles. Don’t blindly accept those teachings. Pray and read the scriptures!!! In your church, you are commanded to believe whatever is declared as the Truth, or be accursed. Hmmmmmmmm…

And it has no affect on my faith that the Catholic church holds those writings as the Holy Word of God. Will I ever accept any Christian doctrine/dogma that comes from writings that promote ideas such as suicide is acceptable at times, prayers to spirits, expiatory sacrifice, worship of angels, redeeming souls after death, the use of magic, or purgatory (I personally feel bad that Catholics have to go to purgatory before Heaven - tounge in cheek)? No, because these ideas are contradictions to the harmony of the Word of God.

The evidence that those writings are not God’s Holy word is overwhelming. And any evidence that these writings should be considered the written Word of God is just about nonexistant.

The original idea of this thread is why the Protestant Bible doesn’t include the apocrypha. Not, why the Catholic Bible should not include them. So please don’t get defensive.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11678422]
Both Luther and Althaus seem to be in agreement on this matter and also seem to be in agreement with every Lutheran I have ever met. Althaus comments that Luther believed that “only men who are moved by the Spirit of God can interpret Scripture” AND of course we know that Catholics and the ‘enthusiasts’ CANNOT correctly interpret Scripture (according to Dr. Martin Luther of course). The only conclusion that can be drawn, is that, according to Martin Luther, the Catholics and ‘enthusiasts’ were NOT ‘men who are moved by the Spirit of God’.

I do not think Luther was more moved by the Spirit to interpret than Catholics or Calvinists. Certainly he was no more moved than the Fathers of the Church. I don’t think he was more moved than some of the recent popes.

Now – as we have been reading, from a number of different sources, it is VERY clear that Luther interpreted Scripture according to his own personal psychological needs (the extreme need to ‘find’ Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture). Althaus’s term for this is when one ‘sets oneself above Scripture’ and interprets it according to his own whims and subjects it to his own spirit.’ My point which I am more than happy to make again, is that it appears while Luther and Althaus clearly understood the concept of man putting himself above Scripture and interpreting it according to their ‘own whims’, neither one of them seems to have been (psychologically?) ABLE to consider the obvious possibility – that ‘possibility’ being that it might actually be Luther who was setting himself above Scripture and interpreting it according to his own whims.’

Unless you have specific 1st hand (by 1st hand, meaning Luther said so, or a doctor in Luther’s time diagnosed said) evidence that Luther recognized some personal psychological need, and then set out to find something in scripture responding to that need, your conclusion is speculative at best, and I could perhaps be driven by your own preconceived notions about Luther.

After all, Luther had to have had SOME justification for deciding, all on his own, which books he was going to ‘demote’ to a secondary class of the NT. What could that have been? Althaus makes it very clear that Luther didnt believe that Catholics and ‘enthusiasts’ were ‘moved by the Spirit of God’ to the point where they could not interpret. Of course, if you can’t interpret, and there is a ‘question’ about the NT canon, which there really wasn’t, then clearly, someone who IS actually moved by the Spirit of God should be the one to lead all of Christianity which books of the NT are worthy of using for setting doctrine. In Luther’s mind, he was “That Guy”.

Tim, I have been looking for a source of Luther’s prefaces to the DC books, so I don’t have spend the time typing them out here. I ask because, based on your accusation that I bolded, you clearly have read this as his intention in those prefaces. Maybe you could share them.

BTW, I recognize that many people find it necessary to view Luther’s views on Salvation as being something other than ‘radical’, but as we have read (and there is much more) Luther’s Salvational opinions were something that had never been taught previously in the history of Christendom. That is the textbook definition of ‘radical’.

Yeah. apparently Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict is one of those people. From the things that I’ve read that he has written, he may not have agreed with Luther’s view on justification, but he doesn’t consider it radical.

Jon

 

[drblank1]

EXACTLY!!! For anyone to declare that the Holy Spirit gave them exclusive authority in all matter of faith is unbiblical. Even the apostles corrected each other at times. My church does not declare that and I am suspect of any church that does.

I am constantly told that I have been lied to and the I need to unlearn those lies. Yet, in my church, we are taught to test what our teachers preach using scripture (as we all are instructed by the apostles). Don’t blindly accept those teachings. Pray and read the scriptures!!! In your church, you are commanded to believe whatever is declared as the Truth, or be accursed. Hmmmmmmmm…

And it has no affect on my faith that the Catholic church holds those writings as the Holy Word of God. Will I ever accept any Christian doctrine/dogma that comes from writings that promote ideas such as suicide is acceptable at times, prayers to spirits, expiatory sacrifice, worship of angels, redeeming souls after death, the use of magic, or purgatory (I personally feel bad that Catholics have to go to purgatory before Heaven - tounge in cheek)? No, because these ideas are contradictions to the harmony of the Word of God.

The evidence that those writings are not God’s Holy Word is overwhelming. And any evidence that these writings should be considered the written Word of God is just about nonexistant.

The original idea of this thread is why the Protestant Bible doesn’t include the apocrypha. Not, why the Catholic Bible should not include them. So please don’t get defensive.