Protestants and the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sword_of_Fire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve_b said:
Jerome’s translation included the deutero canon (link follows). Jerome was wrong in the beginning for doubting them, but he included them in the canon of the Vulgate just the same. Jerome ultimately came around to accepting the Deutero canon.** THAT** is an important point to make.

Re: Cajetan, he was also wrong for doubting them.

What’s important to take away from this is, neither Jerome or Cajetan changed the canon. Do you understand that point? Neither one had the power to change the canon. Do you understand THAT as well?

Jerome could not go over the head of a papal decree, [From Jurgens “Faith of the Fathers”, scroll to pg 406 for the list of books] books.google.com/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405&dq=The+Decree +of+Pope+St.+Damasus+I,+Council+of+Rome. +382+A.D&source=bl&ots=ZeUc7S4cIZ&sig=cU TkVsWkzas9JkjusNcC0I1H6Sc&hl=en&sa=X&ei= V2wUVMH3Fo2MyASvuILABQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v =onepage&q=The%20Decree%20of%20Pope%20St .%20Damasus%20I%2C%20Council%20of%20Rome .%20382%20A.D&f=false

and Cajetan could not go over the head of Florence, Session 11 (1442) an ecumenical council, 100 years before Trent. Books are listed beginning in paragraph 6 of session 11

Do you understand those points being made?

Are you thinking of this explanation perhaps?
The deutero canonical books are canonical books

This is the ancient Vulgate list of books (completed in the year 405 by Jerome) decided (not by Jerome) but by the Catholic Church
biblegateway.com/version…GATE/#booklist , as an aside, the following note explains. ** When you see an OT book name that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/, For example “Osee” = Hosea

this (canon) was the first Vulgate completed by Jerome in yr 405. Multiple local councils (Rome, Carthage, Hippo, and 2 ecumenical councils Florence and Trent) validated this canon of 73 books.
Click to expand...
Hi Steve
Considering your last sentence, do you consider the Orthodox canon(s) to be as much of violation of the local and western councils as a canon that lacks the DC’s?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Hi Steve
Considering your last sentence, do you consider the Orthodox canon(s) to be as much of violation of the local and western councils as a canon that lacks the DC’s?

Jon
Click to expand...
Howdy Jon,

I’ve asked this question in different ways, to all kinds of people, over the last 12 yrs on these forums. If I haven’t asked you already, it’s your turn my friend, to get the question 🙂

Could you please show me when/where the first time “in history” , “in writing”, the name “Orthodox Church” appears … properly referenced of course ? 😉 . Caveat. No one has given me an answer … yet. But I hope you have the answer.

Historically speaking, there is this distinction

2 II. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedi...CANON_OF_THE_OLD_TESTAMENT_OUTSIDE_THE_CHURCH

3 III. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

Needless to say which side I follow 😉
 
JonNC said:
I’d
But Luther insisted on their inclusion, not because he had to because Rome said so, but because they belong there. Now, I’m not aware if the order in which they are placed is canonical or not. The fact is he translated and included all seven, and then one more for good measure.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
=pablope;14042136]
Click to expand...
I do no think the OT order is canonical…but indeed, intent is quite important. There is the intent for scholarly study and there is “intent” for a different purpose altogether.
Click to expand...
Luther’s intent…well, he did put them with a separate index, and I forgot, what he did…that he either did not put numbers on the DCs…somehow.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any doubt that he did not consider them equal to the rest of the canon, and that probably influenced his decision to place them as he did. But he was not restricted in doing so.
Again…Jerome’s intent was different compared to that of Luther, I would say.
Click to expand...
Well, they lived a thousand years apart, with different perspectives and history, so of course there may be different intents. But the fact remains, that they both did not hold them to be canonical, they both did have the Catholic liberty to hold those views, and they both did include them in their translations.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I don’t think there is any doubt that he did not consider them equal to the rest of the canon, and that probably influenced his decision to place them as he did. But he was not restricted in doing so.
Click to expand...
isn’t it a moot point, as to whether or not he was restricted by the Church over the deuteros? He wasn’t commissioned to translate, right? If he was approved by a cardinal to regard the deuteros as non-canonical, then he would NOT be held responsible. The Cardinal would.
Well, they lived a thousand years apart, with different perspectives and history, so of course there may be different intents. But the fact remains, that they both did not hold them to be canonical, they both did have the Catholic liberty to hold those views, and they both did include them in their translations.
Click to expand...
Jerome was commissioned to translate Scripture. And he did not judge any decisions made by Damasus, or another pope, or a Council. Luther, on the other hand…
 
JonNC said:
I don’t think there is any doubt that he did not consider them equal to the rest of the canon, and that probably influenced his decision to place them as he did. But he was not restricted in doing so.

Yes…but the question is one of motive…and intent…what was his intent in doing so?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/09/luthers-outrageous-assertions-about.html

The Lutheran scholar and Luther expert Paul Althaus, observed, similarly:
He thereby established the principle that the early church’s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination . . . the canon is only a relative unity, just as it is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has in principle abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther’s prefaces were no longer printed in German Bibles. One may characterize his attitude in this way: The canon itself was, as far as Luther was concerned, a piece of ecclesiastical tradition and therefore subject to criticism on the basis of God’s word.
Well, they lived a thousand years apart, with different perspectives and history, so of course there may be different intents. But the fact remains, that they both did not hold them to be canonical, they both did have the Catholic liberty to hold those views, and they both did include them in their translations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rcwitness said:
isn’t it a moot point, as to whether or not he was restricted by the Church over the deuteros? He wasn’t commissioned to translate, right? If he was approved by a cardinal to regard the deuteros as non-canonical, then he would NOT be held responsible. The Cardinal would.

Jerome was commissioned to translate Scripture. And he did not judge any decisions made by Damasus, or another pope, or a Council. Luther, on the other hand…
Click to expand...
I’m not sure a commission to translate matters. It is the expressed opinion that has been spoken of in this thread and others. That said, perhaps had Cardinal Cajetan delved into translating and included 74 books but altered the order, he might have been in trouble.

I don’t think it is a matter of judging, but a matter of holding an opinion. Luther’s, while not exactly the same, was similar.

Jon
 
=pablope;14042740]

Yes…but the question is one of motive…and intent…what was his intent in doing so?
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2
Click to expand...
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

Well, of course he knew what the Church said. So did Cajetan, and Erasmas, and many others.
So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.
Click to expand...
And that was Luther’s view.

We always seem to go back to whether or not Luther was correct or not in his opinion. That’s not my point. My point is did he have the right to dispute certain books, and the answer is clearly yes.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/09/luthers-outrageous-assertions-about.html
Click to expand...
The Lutheran scholar and Luther expert Paul Althaus, observed, similarly:
He thereby established the principle that the early church’s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination . . . the canon is only a relative unity, just as it is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has in principle abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther’s prefaces were no longer printed in German Bibles. One may characterize his attitude in this way: The canon itself was, as far as Luther was concerned, a piece of ecclesiastical tradition and therefore subject to criticism on the basis of God’s word.
And Althaus is welcome to his opinion. The fact still remains that Luther had the same liberty as any other Catholic to dispute the books.

Jon
Click to expand...
 
steve_b said:
Howdy Jon,

I’ve asked this question in different ways, to all kinds of people, over the last 12 yrs on these forums. If I haven’t asked you already, it’s your turn my friend, to get the question 🙂

Could you please show me when/where the first time “in history” , “in writing”, the name “Orthodox Church” appears … properly referenced of course ? 😉 . Caveat. No one has given me an answer … yet. But I hope you have the answer.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what that has to do with my question. The names Orthodox and Catholic have applied to Christ’s Church since the early Church. Orthodox Christians will tell you, AFAIK, that they are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But back to my question, Steve. Do you take the same view about Orthodox churches having larger canons than the western canon of 73 books? For example, is it similarly wrong to include 3 Macc in the canon as it is to exclude 2 Macc?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
But back to my question, Steve. Do you take the same view about Orthodox churches having larger canons than the western canon of 73 books? For example, is it similarly wrong to include 3 Macc in the canon as it is to exclude 2 Macc?

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon, there is a humongous difference in what the Orthodox did to their canon and what you are trying to argue. The Orthodox added books whose canonicity was still in question, and had not been settled by any council yet. Nor at the time they added them, had any council ruled the canon was closed for adding books. There is a tremendous difference between that and disputing books whose canonicity had already been settled by a council.
 
Duane1966 said:
Jon, there is a humongous difference in what the Orthodox did to their canon and what you are trying to argue. The Orthodox added books whose canonicity was still in question, and had not been settled by any council yet. Nor at the time they added them, had any council ruled the canon was closed for adding books.
Click to expand...
Any idea here, why they still kept the books outside the canon once the canon was decided?
Duane1966 said:
There is a tremendous difference between that and disputing books whose canonicity had already been settled by a council.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Duane1966 said:
This is false. No Catholic has the right to dispute books that have been settled as canon, which is why you do not see Jerome disputing them after the council of Carthage in 397. He knew to do so would not make him Catholic.

Jon, the fact that Eck brings into play that these books are well known to have been settled at Florence speaks volumes. For a Catholic to have the liberty to dispute those books, they would have to not have been settled at Florence. But we know they were. Which is why Eck presses him on the issue.

If what you say is true about Catholics having the liberty to dispute those books at that time, it would have been useless for Eck to bring up the Catholic view at all. All Luther would have to do in reply is bring up the point that it is not a settled issue. But he obviously knows for Catholics at the time, that the issue is settled and binding. And since it’s bound, there was no liberty to dispute for a Catholic at that time. Which is why Luther plays the ‘*councils have erred’ *card.

If what you say is true about Catholics and liberty, then every Catholic has the right to dispute any book of the bible. Dispute the Trinity. Dispute the perpetual virginity of Mary. Dispute that abortion is wrong. And on and on…
Click to expand...
Then why was a cardinal, a papal legate, permitted to dispute books? Cajetan cleat disputes the canonicity of the DCs.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
He may have been wrong, but he was allowed. Dispute about them took place even at Trent

Jon
Click to expand...
This is false, as I showed earlier. Trent felt the issue of their canonicity was settled at Florence. Trent reaffirmed their canonicity unanimously. The dispute was whether to attach an anathema to them, as I posted earlier.
 
Duane1966 said:
This is false, as I showed earlier. Trent felt the issue of their canonicity was settled at Florence. Trent reaffirmed their canonicity unanimously. The dispute was whether to attach an anathema to them, as I posted earlier.
Click to expand...
It is not false. Trent set the canon after discussions which included arguments against the DC books. There was also the discussion of anathemas.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I’m not sure what that has to do with my question.The names Orthodox and Catholic have applied to Christ’s Church since the early Church. Orthodox Christians will tell you, AFAIK, that they are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
That’s what I want you to prove. Not just say it but prove it with evidence properly referenced as I have done that follows Re: the Catholic Church . I’ve asked this question in many different ways to many people of differing stripes over the last 12 years and no answer …YET.

The “Church” from the beginning has been the “ecclesia kata holos”, the Church according to the whole, the Catholic Church.

I’ve included evidence in writing, of where/whom/when the name Catholic Church comes from (properly referenced).

My question to you is, show me in history, where/whom/when the first time in writing, (properly referenced) “Orthodox Church” appeared.

Here are my examples, (properly referenced :cool: ) looking backwards in time from the council of Nicea for the name “Catholic Church”.

Nicene creed says multiple times

“I believe in”

Re: the Church, the creed states there are 4 marks of the Church we are to profess faith in. That it is

    • One
    • Holy
    • Catholic
    • Apostolic
    That was in 325 a,d,

    **Cyprian **~ 250 a.d. Cyprian calls the Church the Catholic Church Epistle 54
    **
    Irenaeus **~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm”]Chapter 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3, v 2-3]
    **
    Muratorian canon **~170 a.d. earlychristianwritings.co…uratoria n.html uses authority of the “Catholic Church” for the canon of scripture

    St Polycarp, Bp of Smyrna, disciple of St John~ 140 a.d. called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp

    St Ignatius, Bp of Antioch Disciple of St John ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. He was ordained by the apostles. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 . And Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church” in his writings.
    • **Ignatius **uses Christian (ch 2) and Catholic Church (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) .
    • As an aside, who/where would Ignatius learn to teach that warning against division from and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for committing and remaining in the sin of schism / division from the Catholic Church? **Paul **condemned division / dissention from the Church Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 and Jesus does NOT approve of division in His Church John 17:20-23 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 no one can say the HS inspired THEM, that is all those divisions we see today in Christianity. There is no expiration date to Paul’s warning and condemnation. And Ignatius is reminding as well those condemnations
    Where would Ignatius get the name “Catholic Church” from given he was already bishop of Antioch when the book of Acts was written.

    Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = Kataholos Church. (taken from the Greek) not an English translation of the Greek.
    J:
    But back to my question, Steve. Do you take the same view about Orthodox churches having larger canons than the western canon of 73 books? For example, is it similarly wrong to include 3 Macc in the canon as it is to exclude 2 Macc?

    Jon
    Click to expand...
    **When **did they add it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top