Protestants and the Bible?

[steve_b]

Luther, like others, held that the DC books were not of the same level of the other books, this is true. Keep in mind that what protestant communions do is up to them. Luther held no particular authority or power over them.

Jon.

• Re: authority, Luther obviously thought he had the authority to do what he did. He was of course wrong.

J:

Curiously, the Lutherans never did declare a 66 book canon, and although American Lutherans sadly came under Reformed influence to one degree or another, Lutheranism still worthy of reading and teaching, which is the definition of canon that Cajetan referred to.

Lutherans by using Luther’s canon, + apocrypha, (duly identified as apocrypha in their bible) did/does by de facto, declare a 66 book canon.

But let’s not ignore Luther’s quote to remove all doubt

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."

Luther’s quote is clear. In his mind, the apocrypha isn’t scripture…ergo NOT canonical
J:

You’ll have to ask them why. I’ve said this before I became Anglican, that American Lutherans need to do a better job of using Bibles that have them, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Pardon me for asking, but I’m curious, how is moving from one Protestant sect to another, fixing anything?
J:

Indeed, the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope has been consistent in its view of the canon, but Luther cannot be held accountable in a way different than others of his era and prior.

that comment ignores and excuses error. Here are the facts. Before Luther was even born, the canon was fixed by Florence, an ecumenical council. The canon was the same since 382. Meaning the canon was the same for 1140 years. And Luther knew that. Don’t take my word for it, here are Luther’s own words #[ 19 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12347438&postcount=19), refer to the last comment on that post

And the Catholics you elude to…so did they know where the scriptures came from. And those Catholics you eluded to? Did they change the canon? NO!. and THAT’S the point isn’t it? . Luther on his own, DID change the canon.
J:

But again, every communion has its ability to choose: Holy Orthodoxy has various canons bigger than the west, and many Anglicans use the 73 book canon.

Jon

That argument presumes there is some separate but equal clause somewhere in God’s ledger, equalizing all non Catholic religious groups, with the Catholic Church that God Himself, established…

Just for the record , There’s no chance of you convincing me of that idea.

 

[rcwitness]

Just for the record , There’s no chance of you convincing me of that idea.

I’m not buyin’ that! Jon is pretty persuasive, especially when he’s right.

 

[pablope]

Luther,

Not many points, particular on the sacraments, ISTM. But again, every communion has its ability to choose:

Holy Orthodoxy has various canons bigger than the west, and many Anglicans use the 73 book canon.

Jon

Yes, but their view of what is meant by “canonical” is different the way we understand or argue about it.

So I would say citing the Orthodox is not quite correct and a misnomer, unless you cite what they mean by “Canonical”…hence their different canon on some aspects of the Orthodoxy.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397). This of course included the Carthaginian Biblical canon, which is thus TECHNICALLY binding on the modern Eastern Orthodox Church. Yet, in terms of practice, the Antiochian (and thus Byzantine) parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to use pre-Carthaginian books in their local canons …and for the simple reason that these books (e.g. 3 & 4 Maccabees or the apocryphal Esdras, etc.) were always read in the church of Antioch. The fact that the council of Carthage excluded these books (because they contain some problematic material) was ignored. And it’s because of this neglect of the Carthaginian canon (as authorized by both Trullo and Nicaea II) that modern Eastern Orthodoxy (coming out of the Antiochian Liturgical tradition) often include such books in their published canons today. Yet, technically, they SHOULD consider themselves bound by Trullo’s and Nicaea II’s authorization of Carthage.

In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical.” …because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not buyin’ that! Jon is pretty persuasive, especially when he’s right.

except when he’s wrong

 

[rcwitness]

except when he’s wrong

This is what Jon said,

JonNC, "… But again, every communion has its ability to choose: Holy Orthodoxy has various canons bigger than the west, and many Anglicans use the 73 book canon.

This is actually a fact. The Church does not endorse coercion or violent means to suppress the freedom of choice. It use to be a problem for many members who did desire to do so.

But the fact is, men will defy everything under the sun… and some claim the Spirit is leading them.

The only thing we have is our lives to offer Him, and His Eucharist to gather unto. And when we gather, we have the body of Scripture read from. And what we give authority to, will be our authority.

 

[steve_b]

This is actually a fact. The Church does not endorse coercion or violent means to suppress the freedom of choice.

Where did I say it does?
r:

But the fact is, men will defy everything under the sun… and some claim the Spirit is leading them.

yes, and what point is it you’re trying to make?
r:

The only thing we have is our lives to offer Him, and His Eucharist to gather unto. And when we gather, we have the body of Scripture read from. And what we give authority to, will be our authority.

There is no such thing as a separate but equal clause for those who are separated from the Catholic Church. That’s the point I was making. #237

Look at the topic. Luther removed 7 books from the canon. No amount of playing with language will change that fact.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’ve said this before I became Anglican, that American Lutherans need to do a better job of using Bibles that have them, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

Just noticed that you have become Anglican. Perhaps that has happened for awhile and I might have missed it. Been here for more than 10 years already though I must admit that I came in sporadically, due to other priorities, thus often didn’t realize what’s going on here.

I am curious though, hope this is not too personal, that if you have to convert from a Lutheran, I thought it would be to Catholicism. You didn’t but all the best anyway as an Anglican on your faith journey.

Wonder if it was an upgrade to a more traditional type of Christianity for you?

God bless.

Reuben

 

[rcwitness]

Where did I say it does?

I was kinda giving you a hard time for saying you would never be convinced of Jon’s statement. He merely said every communion has the ability to choose their Canon. I agree, though i strongly believe we should submit to the authoritive Canon of the Catholic Church. And i think Luther could have received afifirmation of the Canon from the Church even before Trent.

There is no such thing as a separate but equal clause for those who are separated from the Catholic Church. That’s the point I was making. #237

Look at the topic. Luther removed 7 books from the canon. No amount of playing with language will change that fact.

Yes, your quote from Luther stating that the deuteros were NOT equal to Scripture does seem to support the notion of the thread.

 

[rcwitness]

Just noticed that you have become Anglican. Perhaps that has happened for awhile and I might have missed it. Been here for more than 10 years already though I must admit that I came in sporadically, due to other priorities, thus often didn’t realize what’s going on here.

I am curious though, hope this is not too personal, that if you have to convert from a Lutheran, I thought it would be to Catholicism. You didn’t but all the best anyway as an Anglican on your faith journey.

Wonder if it was an upgrade to a more traditional type of Christianity for you?

God bless.

Reuben

I just noticed too. And just when i was about to join the Lutheran faith!

 

[steve_b]

I was kinda giving you a hard time for saying you would never be convinced of Jon’s statement. He merely said every communion has the ability to choose their Canon.I agree, though i strongly believe we should submit to the authoritive Canon of the Catholic Church. And i think Luther could have received afifirmation of the Canon from the Church even before Trent.

Here’s is the problem

by you saying “I agree” to what Jon said, you

• invalidated the rightful authority of the Catholic Church to bind and loose with the keys on matters of faith. By agreeing “every Communion” has that ability, is NOT Catholic teaching.
• You gave Luther power he didn’t have as if he DID have that power to establish his own canon. And you think the Church would have agreed with that understanding even prior to Trent? Really?

r:

Yes, your quote from Luther stating that the deuteros were NOT equal to Scripture does seem to support the notion of the thread.

Seems to support?
#[ 237 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14008756&postcount=237) , had this internal link as well #[ 19 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12347438&postcount=19),

His quotes are lethal to him

 

[steve_b]

I just noticed too. And just when i was about to join the Lutheran faith!

Now I understand the positions you take.

 

[rcwitness]

Now I understand the positions you take.

far from it. I think you are misunderstanding me.

I was saying that anyone has “the ability” to do what they wish. It doesn’t mean it has come from above.

And I meant Luther could have sought the confirmation of the true Canon, and received it, even before Trent. Trent finalized, closed and specifically addressed all the parts of each canonized book. Since not all the ancient manuscripts had all the same passages.

 

[steido01]

And I meant Luther could have sought the confirmation of the true Canon, and received it, even before Trent. Trent finalized, closed and specifically addressed all the parts of each canonized book. Since not all the ancient manuscripts had all the same passages.

From whom? Perhaps the papal legate to Germany? Who was that?

Oh, yes. Dear Cardinal Contarini, who shared Luther’s views on the canon.

 

[rcwitness]

From whom? Perhaps the papal legate to Germany? Who was that?

Oh, yes. Dear Cardinal Contarini, who shared Luther’s views on the canon.

He could have asked Cardinal Contarini what Rome’s position is.

 

[steve_b]

I meant Luther could have sought the confirmation of the true Canon, and received it, even before Trent.

Luther even admitted he knew where He got the scriptures and admitted much more. Did you not open this link I gave you? # 19

Luther’s quote

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).

That is a lethal admission from him
r:

Trent finalized, closed and specifically addressed all the parts of each canonized book. Since not all the ancient manuscripts had all the same passages.

100 years before Trent, and BTW, Florence was also an ecumenical council. So I would just pose the following question,

what part of the following statement from the council of Florence, giving the list (canon) of scriptural books, sounds like a mere suggestion, totally open for debate, and not an absolute defined list of books to be believed in?

Florence wrote (all emphasis mine)

"Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches … It professes … It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.*
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees;

the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.*"
From Session 11 (1442) or ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5"

Count the books. It’s 73.

Again, historically speaking, this council took place 100 years before Trent, 1100 + years after pope Damasus I, decreed the same canon at the council of Rome in 382.

Look at Luther’s quote again.

 

[rcwitness]

Luther even admitted he knew where He got the scriptures and admitted much more. Did you not open this link I gave you? #19

Luther’s quote

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).

That is a lethal admission from him

100 years before Trent, and BTW, Florence was also an ecumenical council. So I would just pose the following question,

what part of the following statement from the council of Florence, giving the list (canon) of scriptural books, sounds like a mere suggestion, totally open for debate, and not an absolute defined list of books to be believed in?

Florence wrote (all emphasis mine)

"Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches … It professes … It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.*
*Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees;

the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
From Session 11 (1442) or ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5"

Count the books. It’s 73.

Again, historically speaking, this council took place 100 years before Trent, 1100 + years after pope Damasus I, decreed the same canon at the council of Rome in 382.

Look at Luther’s quote again.

Yes. And I haven’t disagreed with anything you’ve posted.

I am a huge fan of Pope St Damasus. Though I’m not sure the Damascene list is legitimately from 382.

If it was, why did St Jerome still question the deuteros? Or did he no longer after then?

 

[steve_b]

Yes. And I haven’t disagreed with anything you’ve posted.

I am a huge fan of Pope St Damasus. Though I’m not sure the Damascene list is legitimately from 382.

If it was, why did St Jerome still question the deuteros? Or did he no longer after then?

Jerome was obedient to Damasus. Therefore, the Vulgate had the 73 canonical books we’re familiar with. Jerome ultimately came to the understanding, and no longer intellectually or theologically doubted, that those 7 books we’re talking about, belong in the canon. One could say, his obedience served him well.

 

[rcwitness]

Jerome was obedient to Damasus. Therefore, the Vulgate had the 73 canonical books we’re familiar with. Jerome ultimately came to the understanding, and no longer intellectually or theologically doubted, that those 7 books we’re talking about, belong in the canon. One could say, his obedience served him well.

but that was after 382. He was commissioned to do the NT

 

[kdbueno]

Protestant by reason of its eternal word, is by reason a protestantism by heart.

 

[steve_b]

but that was after 382. He was commissioned to do the NT

WHEN the canon OT & NT books was decreed by Damasus THEN the bible was written.

The Vulgate, a Latin translation, was translated from both the OT Greek texts (the Septuigint) and the NT Greek texts into Latin by Jerome.