Protestant Consensus?

[josiah]

Church Militant:

I’d appreciate it if you’d mind your manners and not attempt to be insulting. I read really well and I’ve probably read more Prot & Evangelical lit than you’ll ever read…along with the whole Word of God. I don’t have to twist anything to make my case for the Catholic Church. Your whole argument about Trent is lame because you IGNORE the fact that that council as well as Florence both simply restated and reaffirmed the decision of Carthage… Like it or not you are wrong.

I’m gonna let the wise remark slide this time, but if it happens again I’ll report you in a flash and you can go bother the JWs or Mormons. I haven’t insulted you EVER…and there’s no reason to get slick mouthed when someone answers your allegations with facts. If you feel like you’re not getting anywhere with us…there is probably another non-Catholic forum that would be delighted to hear your “war stories”.
Pax vobiscum,

My oh my what a temper you have. Hey, don’t get nasty just b/c you’re frustrated and can’t give me any good answers to my questions. I never tried to verbally attack you (like you attacked me and threaten me). Anyone who chooses a name like Church Militant indicates to me a hostile personality, so I’m not surprised by your hostile threats. If my posts bother you that much then I would suggest don’t read them.

 

[michaelp]

Andreas Hofer:

I don’t know that the Church has a position on the dating of books. What I do know is that the profile of apocalyptic literature makes that later dating compelling. Apocalyptic is crisis literature. It tends to be projected back using a sage foretelling the future regarding the end times. The end times are actually now. Daniel’s use of the 4 empires and a 5th motif squares well with the Hasmonean empire (soon to be realized) as the 5th. Daniel also deals with interpretation, not prophecy. The shift to the interpreting angel begins in the latest of the minor prophets but only finds its full expression after the “cessation of prophecy” in the apocalyptic literature (which flourished from ca. 200 b.c. to a.d. 200). If the book is a work of apocalyptic, which the Jewish filing of Daniel under the Writings would suggest, then I don’t see why a later dating necessarily does harm to it.

I would strongly disagree. But the dating of Daniel would be a different story. I seriously doubt that the RCC would take such a liberal positions that came out of the age of higher criticism.

Therefore, this argument in relation to Josephus has little weight among conservatives. If it is really the reason that you reject the testimony of Josephus, then we can discuss it more. Would you accept the testimony of Josephus if you were persuaded that Daniel was written by Daniel in the 6th century?

 

[michaelp]

I have to ask, though, what that does to your claim to base your canon on the consensus of the early Church.

Because the only true concensus that the Church had was that of the Protocanonical books. The rest were in much doubt for 1600 years. I have a hard time believing that God would be idle for so long about His word, not moving within the Church to consent about His word. I have argued elsewhere that the majority of the Scripture was accepted almost immediately. The Jews never had a formal declaration of a canon because they did not need one. There was no significant dispute. When inspired Scripture was written, the community recognized it. They were not a international religion, therefore, it was not that difficult. The NT was accepted almost immdiately by the consensus of the Church. The only acceptions were Rev, 2 Pet, 2, 3, John and Jude. But they were generally accepted by the majority of the Church by the 3rd century. This seems to be the modus operandi as God works with the Body of Christ in the recognition of Scripture.

Now as you have seen with the Deuteros, this is not the case. The dispute went on for 1600 years, with the majority of the scholars of the Church disputing them to one degree or another. It seems to me that while the people have God have immediately recognized His voice, they did not and have not done so with the Deuteros. My contention is because God did not inspire them, and they are not “His voice.”

You would probably have to fall back on that Jewish canon, which you might be comfortable doing but I still contend that canon did not exist at such an early date.

Of course I go back to the canon of the Jews. The Christian church was made up of only Jews for the first 10 years. Christ was a Jew. All the apostles were Jews. Paul says about the Jews:

**Romans 3:1-2 **Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

What you want me to do is to say that all of these people did not know what inspired Scripture was even though God had intrusted them with it, and Christ and the Apostles quoted from it as Scripture. Do you think that God entrusted them with his word but did not let them know what His word is?

Also, why does the writer confine his treatment of the Augustinian faction after Jerome to Aquinas plus just a couple others. Whereas before he had documented the opposing view, from Jerome to the Reformation he doesn’t seem to want to include it. Aren’t we owed at least an attempt at an explanation of the seemingly unwarranted action of the fathers at Trent?

I think that he was just evidencing the massive amount of doubt that the Deuteros had during this time. If people did accept it, most accepted it as a “second canon.”

I wouldn’t expect a council with so much disregard for history and scholarship (as the article contends) to feel a need to retain more books of Scripture.

I could give you my opinion, but it would be based on my thoughts that Trent was purely reactionary and, therefore, misguided. Like their abiding anathema that exists upon all Protestants, which now they are trying to salvage and spin. In short, Trent did not consider the true contentions of those who were reforming. They were probebly so offended that anyone would challenge their authority that they were going to go against anything that the Reformers put forth. The Reformers said that we needed to settle this Deuterocanonical thing, rejecting them since there has been no consensus throughout history. Trent reacted and said, “We don’t listen to you. So if you reject them, we accept them.” It sounds simplistic, but it is probebly closer to the truth than you would like to admit.

Besides all of this. What is the deal with the unwritten traditions having the answer to this canon question for all these 1600 years of controversy and “sitting on it”? If the Church knew all these years what the canon was, why didn’t they make an “official” and “infallible” declaration of it for so long. Could it be because they did not know?

Hope you are having a good day,

Michael

 

[Mickey]

josiah:

My oh my what a temper you have. Hey, don’t get nasty just b/c you’re frustrated and can’t give me any good answers to my questions. I never tried to verbally attack you (like you attacked me and threaten me). Anyone who chooses a name like Church Militant indicates to me a hostile personality, so I’m not surprised by your hostile threats. If my posts bother you that much then I would suggest don’t read them.

Hate to burst your bubble Josiah, but Church Militant refutes your weak arguments masterfully!

 

[josiah]

Mickey:

Hate to burst your bubble Josiah, but Church Militant refutes your weak arguments masterfully!

Well then…please reiterate them.

 

[Mickey]

josiah:

Well then…please reiterate them.

Go back and read them for yourself. While you’re at it, you can review the posts by stumbler, funkyhorn, and catholic4areason.
To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant!

 

[John_Joseph]

Hi Michaelp, I would be very interested in your response to this earlier post:

funkyhorn:

I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 AD decreed…

“Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the **universal Catholic Church **accepts and what she must shun…”

For the sake of discussion I’ll add more of Pope Damasus I decree, “…The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, 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 list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees*, two books.”*

Is this not an official RCC pronouncement on the canonocity of the OT? If not, why?

Thank you.

 

[josiah]

For Mickey and the Church General…

Since you feel that I have misrepresented Matthew 5:18 (although I was using a catholic commentary) , why don’t you research the meaning of a jot and tittle for yourself and tell me you’re conclusion. I’ll be very eager know what you come up with. While you’re at it, maybe you can actually give some compelling reason why the apocrypha has so many errors!

As far as the other post are concerned, I think michaelp has dealt with them well.

 

[Church_Militant]

josiah:

My oh my what a temper you have. Hey, don’t get nasty just b/c you’re frustrated and can’t give me any good answers to my questions. I never tried to verbally attack you (like you attacked me and threaten me). Anyone who chooses a name like Church Militant indicates to me a hostile personality, so I’m not surprised by your hostile threats. If my posts bother you that much then I would suggest don’t read them.

What temper? you don’t even know what “Church Militant” means…go look it up since you’re such a scholar. http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/yawn1.gif
I’m not at all frustrated and I’ve given you very good answers…and true ones at that, with all due respect, in spite of the way you ridicule and mock our beliefs from your ignorance. If you refuse to listen…that’s on your head.

As for hostility…I mean what I said. Your posts are sarcastic and insulting and if you keep it up you can best believe one of us will report 'em. You NEED to go back and re-read the rules of this forum. I don’t have to skip your posts…I can probably recite them pretty much the same way most of us on here can because it’s all just the same old same old stuff that has already been answered in church councils and on this site day in and day out. You don’t want answers, you want to disparage the Catholic faith in some misguided effort at what you think is evangelism (that we don’t need…thanks anyway). It’s a vain attempt at proselytizing us…That is most definately NOT the purpose of this forum.

Look, I WAS Protestant and Evangelical and non-denominational for over 34 years and I returned to Catholicism because I discovered that those other religions are NOT the real NT Christianity, no matter what they say. It was as a result of just the kind of anti-Catholic attacks that you launch every time you’re in here that I began to look into the allegations and found them to be lies and misrepresentations. You don’t look deeply enough into all this to see it because you’re afraid it just might be true, and that’s fine with me so long as I don’t have to catch all that A/C flak from you and others. Unlike michaelp, who is both scholarly and respectful in all his posts…A good man that it’s a pleasure to have around and dialogue with.

One point of this particular thread is that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS among Protestants. You guys don’t even agree with Each Other. How in the world do you expect us to listen to you when there’s so much confusion? The real church that Christ founded still speaks with authority and love to the whole world. I and the other Catholics here will ALWAYS stand up with the truth for our faith to anyone who chooses to take issue with her.
Pax tecum,
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

 

[michaelp]

John Joseph:

Hi Michaelp, I would be very interested in your response to this earlier post:

For the sake of discussion I’ll add more of Pope Damasus I decree, “…The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus(Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, 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 list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees*, two books.”*

Is this not an official RCC pronouncement on the canonocity of the OT? If not, why?

Thank you.

This demonstrates that there were people who did believe in the validity of the Deuteros. I have never contended that there were not.

Pope Gregory the Great rejected Macc. How do you explain that? A bishop of Rome who inherited the “unspoken traditions of the Church” which supposedly included the canon, disagreed with what the RC Church believes about the canon. Did he not recieve this tradition? Did he not know where to find it? Was he a rebel Pope who did not believe in the unspoken tradition?

 

[michaelp]

One point of this particular thread is that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS among Protestants. You guys don’t even agree with Each Other. How in the world do you expect us to listen to you when there’s so much confusion? The real church that Christ founded still speaks with authority and love to the whole world. I and the other Catholics here will ALWAYS stand up with the truth for our faith to anyone who chooses to take issue with her.

CM: Hope that you are doing well.

I appreciate your conversion story, but for every story of conversion of an Evangelical to Catholocism, there is one for just the opposite. As you can see from this book. christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=1517331

You say that there is no consensus among evangelicals about the inclusion of the Deuteros? That is simply not true. I don’t think that you mean that, but the Deuteros are the subject of this thread. Among evangelicals there is universal consensus concerning the status of the canon.
Michael

 

[Mickey]

josiah:

For Mickey and the Church General…

Since you feel that I have misrepresented Matthew 5:18 (although I was using a catholic commentary) , why don’t you research the meaning of a jot and tittle for yourself and tell me you’re conclusion. I’ll be very eager know what you come up with. While you’re at it, maybe you can actually give some compelling reason why the apocrypha has so many errors!

As far as the other post are concerned, I think michaelp has dealt with them well.

Michaelp is extremely intelligent and it is obvious that he has extensive practice debating Catholics, especially on the subject of the deuterocanonicals. That being said, for every point he makes, there is a Catholic counterpoint every bit as compelling as michael’s argument. So in the end, michaelp proves nothing to me. I just re-read all the posts Josiah, and all aspects of this topic have been covered in detail. There is not much I can add. You tend to keep asking the same questions—questions which have already been addressed. In short, the protestant view of the canon will not change the mind of the learned Catholic. And the Catholic argument will not influence the determined protestant. And life goes on.

 

[John_Joseph]

michaelp:

This demonstrates that there were people who did believe in the validity of the Deuteros. I have never contended that there were not.

I’m not saying that you did. I’m trying to understand what you believe. I’ll even concede that there were/are “people” who did not believe in the validity of the Deuteros. I’m simply stating that as early as 397 AD there is strong evidence that the Catholic Church canonized the books of the current Catholic Bible.

michaelp:

Pope Gregory the Great rejected Macc. How do you explain that? A bishop of Rome who inherited the “unspoken traditions of the Church” which supposedly included the canon, disagreed with what the RC Church believes about the canon. Did he not recieve this tradition? Did he not know where to find it? Was he a rebel Pope who did not believe in the unspoken tradition?

Did Pope Gregory make these pronouncements as a sitting Pope? I would say no. His “Magna Moralia” was started in 578 AD and finished in 595 AD. He was Pope from 590 to 604 AD. Therefore, he started this work 12 years before he became Pope. Also, this work was of his own doing and not magisterial. Please provide hard evidence that this work was accepted by the Catholic Church.

Edited for poor spelling

 

[michaelp]

Did Pope Gregory make these pronouncements as a sitting Pope?

Respectfully, this are the post facto RCC ways of dealing with such varying beliefs that I do not accept.

You must still give a good reason why the Pope, who is supposed to be the carrier of the unwritten tradition that contained the canon, did not agree with this “unwritten tradition.” Did he not believe it? Or, more likely, did not have any concept of it the way the RCC does today.

Please provide hard evidence that this work was accepted by the Catholic Church.

Again, I am not saying that their universal was consensus one way or the other. Obviously, no one accepted Pope Damasus’ statement either. How do you explain that? Maybe it is because no one then viewed the infallibility of the Pope the way you do now. Both of these illustations serve to show this. But that is a different debate.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Mickey:

Michaelp is extremely intelligent and it is obvious that he has extensive practice debating Catholics, especially on the subject of the deuterocanonicals. That being said, for every point he makes, there is a Catholic counterpoint every bit as compelling as michael’s argument. So in the end, michaelp proves nothing to me. I just re-read all the posts Josiah, and all aspects of this topic have been covered in detail. There is not much I can add. You tend to keep asking the same questions—questions which have already been addressed. In short, the protestant view of the canon will not change the mind of the learned Catholic. And the Catholic argument will not influence the determined protestant. And life goes on.

But we do learn and are sharpened!!–Even if neither of us is convinced of the other position. I think that it is worth it. At the very least we will understand each other better and not talk past each other.

After all, I have more in comon with RCs than I do all liberal Protestants. What a great thing it is to hold a common confession about who Christ is.

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

CM: Hope that you are doing well.

I appreciate your conversion story, but for every story of conversion of an Evangelical to Catholocism, there is one for just the opposite. As you can see from this book. christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=1517331

You say that there is no consensus among evangelicals about the inclusion of the Deuteros? That is simply not true. I don’t think that you mean that, but the Deuteros are the subject of this thread. Among evangelicals there is universal consensus concerning the status of the canon.
Michael

I’m sorry michaelp (great name BTW and great patron saint!)
. Maybe I wasn’t clear…I reject the position of Evangelicals and all the other variants of non-Catholic Protestantism because there is no consensus of belief overall. I fully understand your statement about the DCs and Of course disagree with it. I noticed that you cite certain popes who allegedly rejected parts of the DCs…you will of course note that his statements (If accurately reported by your source.) were not ex-cathedra and therefore are not infallible and binding upon us. That’s not a dodge, but something that non-Catholics don’t seem to understand. That statements by any pontiff are not always meant to be taken to heart. If a pope said that all redheaded people were headstrong, that is not something that we are bound to believe since it’s just his opinion. Just like a comment about a book from the DCs. I personally stick with the facts that the canon was set at Carthage and the matter closed by Pope Innocent I in 405. all the other councils did was re-affirm that very same canon. That’s much the same as the way our current CCC cites past writings and councils as it lays out the things that we believe. It’s a re-affirmation of what we believe for the faithful to study. The only reason that Trent spoke to that issue at all is because it had been attacked by the Protestants. It was far from the things that you and most non-Catholics attempt to make of it. The church only speaks out when truth is attacked. If something has never been seriously questioned, then you’ll find that we have made no statements about it, though the Pope will sometimes re-affirm things in his letters and bulls.

 

[michaelp]

I noticed that you cite certain popes who allegedly rejected parts of the DCs…you will of course note that his statements (If accurately reported by your source.) were not ex-cathedra and therefore are not infallible and binding upon us. That’s not a dodge, but something that non-Catholics don’t seem to understand. That statements by any pontiff are not always meant to be taken to heart. If a pope said that all redheaded people were headstrong, that is not something that we are bound to believe since it’s just his opinion. Just like a comment about a book from the DCs.

There is a major difficulty with this theory CM. According to the RC threory on unwritten tradition, Pope Gregory would have known that his rejection of the Macc. was inaccurate, being a bearer of this tradition. Right? Not only this, but he knew of Cathage as well. Theoretically, you could be sitting here arguing with a pope concerning the Deuteros (or at least Macc.). It is interesting that you could be arguing with many people including Eck (Luther’s opponent) about this issue and they, who supposedly knew about the infallible statement of the Pope and Cathage, but rejected them. It seems that the modern Catholic church since Trent has a different view of authority than all of these of the past who so easily disagreed with Innocent, Rome, and Carthage.

The only reason that Trent spoke to that issue at all is because it had been attacked by the Protestants.

With this I agree.

It was far from the things that you and most non-Catholics attempt to make of it. The church only speaks out when truth is attacked. If something has never been seriously questioned, then you’ll find that we have made no statements about it, though the Pope will sometimes re-affirm things in his letters and bulls

But the Deuteros were seriously attacked by the fact that many people spoke against them until the Reformation. No one spoke up until the reformation. My contention is that they did not know which direction to go until then. When Rome was challenged, then it stood against this challenge by accepting the Deuteros out fo spite to the reformers.

Michael

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Unfortunately, my computer crashed on me this morning, so I’m going to have to bow out of the forums for a while (at least cut down drastically) until I can get it back from the shop. As Michael said, iron sharpens iron, so even if you don’t see anyone switching sides anytime soon keep up the charitable debate.

Michael, P.S. - I’d be very open to the earlier dating of Daniel because by and large I don’t listen to anything a “scripture scholar” says. I just thought that they might have something right for once. God bless.

 

[funkyhorn]

michaelp:

There is a major difficulty with this theory CM. According to the RC threory on unwritten tradition, Pope Gregory would have known that his rejection of the Macc. was inaccurate, being a bearer of this tradition. Right? Not only this, but he knew of Cathage as well. Theoretically, you could be sitting here arguing with a pope concerning the Deuteros (or at least Macc.). It is interesting that you could be arguing with many people including Eck (Luther’s opponent) about this issue and they, who supposedly knew about the infallible statement of the Pope and Cathage, but rejected them. It seems that the modern Catholic church since Trent has a different view of authority than all of these of the past who so easily disagreed with Innocent, Rome, and Carthage.

Its ok to argue with the Pope…faithful Catholics do it all the time and some were even made Saints for it. Popes can be wrong, just like anyone else can be wrong. When someone becomes Pope, they aren’t suddenly graced with infallable wisdom. They can be wrong about ANYTHING.

The doctrine of infallability just means that the Holy Spirit will protect the Pope from proclaiming something false as truth. I’m sure that there have been several Popes who thought things contrary to the truth, but they never tried to change the beliefs of the Church, despite what they thought. The Holy Spirit prevented it. Remember?–“and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it…”

Our understanding of infallability (and all other doctrines) aren’t different, just more developed. Our understanding of it is better in the light of other controversies, events, developments, etc. John Henry Cardinal Newman outlines this in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

“It is indeed sometimes said that the stream is clearest near the spring. Whatever use may fairly be made of this image, it does not apply to the history of a philosophy or belief, which on the contrary is more equable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full.”

michaelp:

But the Deuteros were seriously attacked by the fact that many people spoke against them until the Reformation. No one spoke up until the reformation. My contention is that they did not know which direction to go until then. When Rome was challenged, then it stood against this challenge by accepting the Deuteros out fo spite to the reformers.

You’re really making a big assumption when you say that the Church acted out of spite. The same could be said about the Reformers concerning any point of doctrine they proclaimed; that they proclaimed Sola Scriptura only out of spite for the authority of the Church.

Historically, the Church has always made infallable proclaimations (or restatements or clarifications) in reaction to false beliefs…not to spite, but to proclaim the Truth! These proclaimations were frequently made out of controversy. Look at even the earliest Ecumenical Councils…they would proclaim something and then condemn anyone who believed otherwise. Those beliefs weren’t just made up at that moment, they were things that had always been believed (in some form or other). And, of course, there was always some sort of heretical group already in existance who believed what the Church had just condemned.

But like you said, this is a whole other issue.

 

[funkyhorn]

michaelp:

Because the only true concensus that the Church had was that of the Protocanonical books. The rest were in much doubt for 1600 years…

…The NT was accepted almost immdiately by the consensus of the Church. The only acceptions were Rev, 2 Pet, 2, 3, John and Jude. But they were generally accepted by the majority of the Church by the 3rd century. This seems to be the modus operandi as God works with the Body of Christ in the recognition of Scripture.

Now as you have seen with the Deuteros, this is not the case. The dispute went on for 1600 years, with the majority of the scholars of the Church disputing them to one degree or another. It seems to me that while the people have God have immediately recognized His voice, they did not and have not done so with the Deuteros. My contention is because God did not inspire them, and they are not “His voice.”…

I still contend that the inspiration of the deuteros was infallably defined at Florence, before the reformation.

I would also like your thoughts on the consensus of the NT books during the Reformation. You accept the NT canon because you believe that there is a consensus about them, however, many Protestant scholars would say otherwise. Many omitted books from the NT canon, Luther edited books, and others even wanted to ADD books! Martin Luther is the most famous Protestant to contend the inspiration of any part of the NT…others include John Calvin, Erasmus, Eichorn, Dr. Whiston, James Martineau, John Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Karlstadt…Also, the same four books doubted by Luther are labeled Apocrypha' in a Bible from Hamburg in 1596. In Sweden, beginning in 1618, the Gustavus Adolphus Bible labels the four books as Apocryphal New Testament.’ This arrangement lasted for more than a century.

Why would these scholars who founded and developed the Protestant faith contend the NT canon so much if there had been such a historically accepted consensus amoung Christians?

I believe that their reasons for omitting or adding to the Bible (OT and NT) was primarily doctrinal. Thats why they left out the deuteros. Not because of any lack of consensus, but because the Word of God conflicted with their own personal beliefs.

There WAS a consensus as far as the entire Bible was concerned (Old and New Testament), but it existed in the Catholic Church only. The Reformers’ misguided ambitions to disprove Catholicism led them to take out, put in, or even edit the Word of God to fit their own beliefs. I *still * see Protestant Bibles published today that splice in the word “alone” or “only” into St. Paul’s writings!

You list a few scholars here and there that remotely allude to a disapproval of the deuteros, but forget that there were several COUNCILS of bishops who approved of them. It wasn’t just 5 or 10 bishops at these councils, but hundreds. And not just one or two councils, but at least six…and thats in addition to reaffirmations by Popes and major theologians. I would sure call that a consensus.

I’m with Church Militant on this one. There is no such thing as Protestant Concensus.