Protestant Canon

[PRmerger]

Nope!!! I do read the early catholic writings on the subject. I also read Roman Catholic writing as well as Protestant. When you study the Word, look at criteria that determines God’s spoken Word, that is not blindly following anyone. I guess you could say and am blindly following the Holy Spirit on the subject.

What criteria do you use to determine what’s God’s Word?

Please list them here.

And please tell me where you got this criteria from.

(It can’t be from the Bible, BTW. So that means you are using something OTHER than the Bible to determine truths about God.)

 

[PRmerger]

The thief had zero opportunity to perform any good work (baptism or any other sacrament), yet he was saved.

Can you say the book, chapter and verse that says that the Good Thief was never baptized?

(Answer: it’s not found in the Bible. Anywhere. As such, you have been duped into believing another man-made tradition, drblank. You have been proclaiming that the Good Thief was never baptized, but that’s not found in the Bible).

 

[drblank1]

True. And then they passed this charism on to their successors, the Catholic bishops.

Jesus hand-picked the apostles to witness his acts firsthand and gave the apostles supernatural powers. Only their writings are superior.

[/quote]

#1 The Church as defined in the Bible is the Body of Christ (the complete congregation of true believers).
#2 Protestant believe that God has revealed himself in his entirety in the 66 books. We derive ONLY our believes from God.
#3 The Bible doesn’t just equip us for good works. 2 Timothy 16,17 says it equips of for EVERY good work.

It is not man I follow, but God-only!!!
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[drblank1]

Can you say the book, chapter and verse that says that the Good Thief was never baptized?

(Answer: it’s not found in the Bible. Anywhere. As such, you have been duped into believing another man-made tradition, drblank. You have been proclaiming that the Good Thief was never baptized, but that’s not found in the Bible).

Where does it indicate he was? He was saved at the cross. Jesus specifically said Himself that he was save because He believed. Nothing else was required. Or are you questioning Jesus’ authority now too?

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus hand-picked the apostles to witness his acts firsthand and gave the apostles supernatural powers. Only their writings are superior.

Yes. This is very Catholic.

You have been following a man-made tradition.

That seems kind of an odd statement coming from you my friend.

Why? I don’t have a problem with man-made traditions. It is you who has an objection to that, right?

#1 The Church as defined in the Bible is the Body of Christ (the complete congregation of true believers).

Ok.

But that means you follow the Church and NOT the Bible when it comes to believing that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

So that means you are NOT a Bible Alone believer.

#2 Protestant believe that God has revealed himself in his entirety in the 66 books. We derive ONLY our believes from God.

And since the Bible NEVER says that, you are not following your own belief.

#3 The Bible doesn’t just equip us for good works. 2 Timothy 16,17 says it equips of for EVERY good work.

Except the Bible never tells you what belongs in it.

That comes from men.

It is not man I follow, but God-only!!!

Each and every time you have said, “It is agreed” here on this thread, you have been following men.

To wit:

You are partially correct that we do not know for certain who wrote Hebrews, but it is most certainly agreed upon that it was Paul, Luke, or Barnabas. And most agree it is most likely a sermon of Paul’s. It is **agreed **that Hebrews is an writing of an apostle.

It is universally **agreed **the apocrypha writers are unknown and written during the silent prophetic age and God spoke exclusively through OT prophets. And since God tells us that the Jews determine OT canon and they universally reject the apocrypha, you are overriding God yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

Where does it indicate he was?

That’s not our paradigm, remember, drblank?

It is YOU who have believed that man-made tradition that everything we believe must be found in the Bible.

We don’t profess that, (especially since the Bible never says this.)

It’s perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to believe things not found in the Bible.

But you are not supposed to do this.

Except here you are proclaiming that the Good Thief was never baptized…but you don’t have a Bible verse to support this.

He was saved at the cross. Jesus specifically said Himself that he was save because He believed.[/qutoe]

Nothing else was required.

I think here you are adding to Scripture.

Maybe he was baptized. Maybe he wasn’t.

You just don’t know, do you?

 

[drblank1]

What criteria do you use to determine what’s God’s Word?

Please list them here.

And please tell me where you got this criteria from.

(It can’t be from the Bible, BTW. So that means you are using something OTHER than the Bible to determine truths about God.)

I do not determine what is considered God’s Word. Please go back and read my previous postings. There is much criteria listed there.

But you are off course for this thread. It is not what is considered canon for the NT. The idea of the thread is why Protestant exclude the apocryphal writing as God’s Word. I defer to God’s command and follow the Jewish people. And on the apocrypha, there is no debate with the Jews. It is not God’s spoken Word. Yes, I go with God on this one.

But if you want criteria why we consider these writing not from God’s mouth, let’s revisit just a subset of the reasons:

• written during the non (silent) prophetic age
• not written in Hebrew
• some texts apologize for errors and defect
• some text teach immoral practices like suicide, lying, and worship of angels, and magic
• Jewish historians excluded them when citing Jewish canon
• Origen and Jerome (the two chief Biblical scholars of the early church) both rejected those books as inspired
• the writers are completely unknown
• the writers lay no claim to inspiration of God
• they have ridiculous stories as one man is said to have died 3 separate deaths in 3 different locals
• there are historical inaccuracies
• Manual of Discipline found with the Dead Sea scrolls reject them as inspired.
• Jesus specifically excludes them when he cites canon. Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35.
• Jesus and the apostles never quote any of the books.
• they contain text unbecoming of God’s authorship.

A big list, but not exhaustive. Certainly not what I would consider from the mouth of our Holy Father.

 

[drblank1]

That’s not our paradigm, remember, drblank?

It is YOU who have believed that man-made tradition that everything we believe must be found in the Bible.

We don’t profess that, (especially since the Bible never says this.)

It’s perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to believe things not found in the Bible.

But you are not supposed to do this.

Except here you are proclaiming that the Good Thief was never baptized…but you don’t have a Bible verse to support this.

He was saved at the cross. Jesus specifically said Himself that he was save because He believed.[/qutoe]

 

[drblank1]

Yes. This is very Catholic.

Why? I don’t have a problem with man-made traditions. It is you who has an objection to that, right?

Ok.

But that means you follow the Church and NOT the Bible when it comes to believing that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

So that means you are NOT a Bible Alone believer.

And since the Bible NEVER says that, you are not following your own belief.

Except the Bible never tells you what belongs in it.

That comes from men.

Each and every time you have said, “It is agreed” here on this thread, you have been following men.

To wit:

What you just don’t understand, men are guided by the Holy Spirit. We are all just instruments used by God. Men provide us NOTHING!!! Only God does. I do not follow man-made tradition. Only God-made doctrine.

You can split hairs all you want. You are fine with man-made traditions in your faith. My faith come entirely from God’s Word, which the Holy Spirit USED men to provide to and for us.

 

[drblank1]

Yes. This is very Catholic.

It is very catholic, Catholic, Protestant, and Christian.

 

[PRmerger]

I add nothing as to why Jesus said he was saved.

Except when you say the Good Thief (named St. Dismas in Catholic tradition) was never baptized.

That’s adding to Scripture.

Since you have no idea whether he was baptized or not.

 

[PRmerger]

What you just don’t understand, men are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Indeed.

We are all just instruments used by God.

Very Catholic, this!

Men provide us NOTHING!!!

Well, Catholic men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, provided you with the 27 book canon of the NT.

I do not follow man-made tradition. Only God-made doctrine.

In just the past few hours I have given you about 3 man-made traditions you’ve been duped into following.

Now, some of them are Holy Spirit-inspired traditions–such as the 27 book canon of the NT–but a lot of what you have said are things NEVER FOUND in a single page of the Bible…

and the biggest man-made tradition you’ve been fooled into believing is the one that says that everything we believe about God has been contained in the Bible alone.

That’s something you only believe because you heard a man tell you that.

My faith come entirely from God’s Word,

As it should.

Except that God’s Word is not contained ONLY in the Bible.

That’s a man-made tradition.

which the Holy Spirit USED men to provide to and for us.

Yes.

Catholic men.

Catholic bishops, to be exact.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not determine what is considered God’s Word. Please go back and read my previous postings.

Excellent. Then you are “blindly following” the Church, just like the rest of us Catholics.

There is much criteria listed there.

That doesn’t make sense. The Bible lists criteria for how we know something belongs inthe Bible?

How do we know that it belongs in the Bible in the first place, to list the criteria?

But if you want criteria why we consider these writing not from God’s mouth, let’s revisit just a subset of the reasons:

• written during the non (silent) prophetic age

What Bible verse says this?

• not written in Hebrew

And this?

• some texts apologize for errors and defect

This is not a criterion. It is simply a statement.

 

[PRmerger]

*]some text teach immoral practices like suicide, lying, and worship of angels, and magic

So are you saying that you know from some other source that suicide, lying, worship of angels and magic are bad?

Where did you get that idea from?

From the Bible?

Well, that can’t be your source. Because we’re trying to figure out what belongs in the Bible, right?

Incidentally, the above statement about excluding things that talk about magic means that we would have to exclude such fanatical things as talking donkeys, right?

What book talks about Balaam’s donkey speaking?

Should we not exclude that book, too?

 

[PRmerger]

*]Jewish historians excluded them when citing Jewish canon

Irrelevant.

SDA say that Saturday is the day of worship, but they don’t speak for all of Christendom.

*]Origen and Jerome (the two chief Biblical scholars of the early church) both rejected those books as inspired

And yet St. Jerome deferred to the authority of the CC and kept them in his Vulgate.

*]the writers are completely unknown

No one knows who wrote Hebrews, or, really,* any* of the books of the OT.

*]the writers lay no claim to inspiration of God

Claiming to be inspired is irrelevant. The Koran claims to be inspired of God, too. And yet we don’t presume that just because something says it’s inspired that this makes it so.

*]they have ridiculous stories as one man is said to have died 3 separate deaths in 3 different locals

It’s only as ridiculous as the story of a talking donkey.

*]there are historical inaccuracies

Jesus made a botanical inaccuracy when he said the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds.

Should we throw out the gospel where there is this botanical inaccuracy?

*] Manual of Discipline found with the Dead Sea scrolls reject them as inspired.

My understanding is that the DSS included the deuterocanon.

*] Jesus specifically excludes them when he cites canon. Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35

No. They are included. Sirach, Baruch, Tobit are prophets.

*] Jesus and the apostles never quote any of the books.

Then we’d all have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum—none of which are quoted in the NT. And we’d have to add Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and maybe some pagan poets—which are quoted in the NT

*] they contain text unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Then you have to exclude 1 Samuel which states that "Saul went into a cave to relieve himself’.

That’s very, very "unbecoming of God’s authorship.’

A big list, but not exhaustive.

It is a list that would throw out a whole lot of books in your Bible, drblank, and add a whole bunch of books, including the Koran.

And, I would add, it’s completely arbitrary.

I could just as well say, “Jesus 1 and 2 Kings, Nehemiah and Malachi when he quotes Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35”

And I could say that the OT must be written in Greek in order for it to be considered inspired.

And I could say that anything written about talking animals needs to be rejected.

My list would be as arbitrary as yours.

 

[drblank1]

So are you saying that you know from some other source that suicide, lying, worship of angels and magic are bad?

Where did you get that idea from?

From the Bible?

EXACTLY!!! Those ideas of contradictions to the rest of the Bible.

Well, that can’t be your source. Because we’re trying to figure out what belongs in the Bible, right?

Incidentally, the above statement about excluding things that talk about magic means that we would have to exclude such fanatical things as talking donkeys, right?

What book talks about Balaam’s donkey speaking?

Should we not exclude that book, too?

God is not invoked in the magic called out in Tobit. It is pure magic. And I know the Catholic argument with Jesus and mud. The difference, is Jesus is God and could have simply healed the bind man. But He used mud as a way to minister His message. There is a HUGE difference.

And how does the miracle of God causing a donkey to speak constitute magic? Are you saying we should classify all of God’s miracles as magic? That’s a dangerous road you go down?

PR, the bottom line is this. Considering all the issues with the apocryphal writings and how they do not compare with the rest of the Bible, do you consider these words from the mouth of God. Yes or No. What say you?

 

[Topper17]

‘The Wittenberg reformers, however, used an explicitly theological (emphasis McGrath) criterion in evaluating the Fathers: how reliable were they as interpreters of the New Testament? On the basis of this criterion, Augustine was to be preferred, and Origin was to be treated with some suspicion. The humanists were not prepared to use such an explicitly theological criterion in evaluating the relative merits of the Fathers, thus heightening the tension between the two movements.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 62 (another excellent book from this distinguished Protestant Theologian and Church Historian)

As we have been reading, Luther judged books (yes whole books) of the Bible on the basis of his newly developed theology of Salvation by Faith Alone. * Here McGrath informs us that Luther also ‘evaluated’ the Fathers on the basis of the same theological criterion.* As we know from a variety of sources, Luther “preferred” Augustine. This must mean (as we ALWAYS hear), that in developing Salvation by Faith Alone, Luther was only ‘following’ Augustine. I wonder if, in reality, Augustine’s views could be used to support SBFA? I wonder if.
I think that it is worth mentioning that none of the early Church Fathers who questioned the canonicity of James, mentioned that it was because James spoke against Salvation by Faith Alone. The reason – nobody prior to Luther had ever ‘heard’ of Salvation by Faith Alone. Luther on the other hand mentions that James refuted his version of Salvation very bluntly and clearly:

1522 version: “In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words]. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. [PE version: "rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture] He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.”(LW, 35:395-398)

“In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.” LW 35, p. 396

Although McGrath states that Luther’s misgivings about four of the books of the NT gained little support, it is certainly no coincidence that the four books that Luther questioned just happen to be the exact same four books that the Lutherans have demoted to the antilegomena. And somehow, Lutherans claim that their church is following the judgments of the ancient church in the matter, and not Luther, and yet, there is not one Father who questioned those exact same four books. So who, specifically and exactly, provided the guidance for the Lutheran Church demoting four books of the NT into a category from which doctrine cannot be set? Only Luther – (Solo Marto).

“One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation. Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2

We should notice that McGrath calls the Catholic response an ‘obvious riposte’. The reason that the Catholic response was ‘obvious’ is their response makes so much sense and is so logical. Of course they would make that criticism, because it was so obviously reflected the truth. What I find interesting is that Protestants are still denying that the Reformers based their theology on a version of Scripture which had been ‘cleansed’ of those ‘pesky’ books which refuted their theology, like James and 2 Maccabees. Of course, the Reformers said that that was not so, but I would suggest that it is NOT coincidental that 2 Maccabees speaks of praying for the dead and that James refutes Salvation by Faith Alone.

There is no basis for criticizing the Catholic Church for claiming that the Reformers established their theology on the basis of a ‘Scripture’, “only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” After all, McGrath, the eminent Protestant Theologian and Church Historian, says that it is an ‘obvious riposte’.

 

[drblank1]

Irrelevant.

SDA say that Saturday is the day of worship, but they don’t speak for all of Christendom.

And yet St. Jerome deferred to the authority of the CC and kept them in his Vulgate.

No one knows who wrote Hebrews, or, really,* any* of the books of the OT.

Claiming to be inspired is irrelevant. The Koran claims to be inspired of God, too. And yet we don’t presume that just because something says it’s inspired that this makes it so.

It’s only as ridiculous as the story of a talking donkey.

Jesus made a botanical inaccuracy when he said the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds.

Should we throw out the gospel where there is this botanical inaccuracy?

My understanding is that the DSS included the deuterocanon.

No. They are included. Sirach, Baruch, Tobit are prophets.

Then we’d all have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum—none of which are quoted in the NT. And we’d have to add Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and maybe some pagan poets—which are quoted in the NT

Then you have to exclude 1 Samuel which states that "Saul went into a cave to relieve himself’.

That’s very, very "unbecoming of God’s authorship.’

It is a list that would throw out a whole lot of books in your Bible, drblank, and add a whole bunch of books, including the Koran.

And, I would add, it’s completely arbitrary.

I could just as well say, “Jesus 1 and 2 Kings, Nehemiah and Malachi when he quotes Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35”

And I could say that the OT must be written in Greek in order for it to be considered inspired.

And I could say that anything written about talking animals needs to be rejected.

My list would be as arbitrary as yours.

They are not arbitrary. These are serious issues with the text. Protestants have a different standard.

You can say that the OT must be written in Greek. The Pope can say that himself. And it wouldn’t matter. Only God decides the keepers of the OT and that is not Christians. I know you continue to ignore that reason and the many other I have listed, but NO Christian overrides God. God bless you my friend.

And yes, I classify all the books of the Koran as not from God’s mouth. They deny Jesus as the son of God. John was very clear. Anyone who denies the Son, is antichrist. Or do you now reject St. John’s teaching in 1 John?

 

[PRmerger]

Then we’d all have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum—none of which are quoted in the NT. And we’d have to add Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and maybe some pagan poets—which are quoted in the NT

I want to acknowledge that the above quote comes from the great MarcoPolo, another CAFS member who posted this a longgg time ago, and which I have saved all these years because it is so good.

 

[PRmerger]

EXACTLY!!! Those ideas of contradictions to the rest of the Bible.

You don’t have “the rest of the Bible”.

You have NO BIBLE, because we are starting BEFORE the Bible, in order to discern what BELONGS in the Bible.