Protestants and the Bible?

[JonNC]

yes

Thanks for all of this, Steve. It will take me time to review it, but I return to my question,
how do you know that those who were contemporaries of Luther or came later, whose view of the canon were similar to his, held their view of the canon because they “followed Luther”? How do you know they didn’t follow Cajetan? How do you know they didn’t come to the conclusion they did based on their own study?

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for all of this, Steve. It will take me time to review it, but I return to my question,
how do you know that those who were contemporaries of Luther or came later, whose view of the canon were similar to his, held their view of the canon because they “followed Luther”? How do you know they didn’t follow Cajetan? How do you know they didn’t come to the conclusion they did based on their own study?

Jon

I appeal to Augustine’s quote showing his mindset

"No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures no peaceable person against the Church. "
“On the Trinity” , Book 4 ch 6 para 10

In particular, "no peaceable person decides against the Church"

And since we know Augustine is a Catholic bishop, we know what Church He is appealing to.

 

[susanlo]

Thanks for all of this, Steve. It will take me time to review it, but I return to my question,
how do you know that those who were contemporaries of Luther or came later, whose view of the canon were similar to his, held their view of the canon because they “followed Luther”? How do you know they didn’t follow Cajetan? How do you know they didn’t come to the conclusion they did based on their own study?

Jon

I agree that many later reformers disagreed with Luther on many issues, but also did not accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture. They clearly had a mind of their own and didn’t blindly accept everything Luther taught or else Protestantism would have ended there.

I always thought that the Deuterocanonoical books weren’t in the Bible because it wasn’t believed to be inspired Scripture:

2 Maccabees: 37Since Nicanor’s doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in the possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring my story to an end here too. 38h If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.

Also, because the books are not perceived as inerrant:

Judith 1: It was the twelfth year* of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. At that time Arphaxad was ruling over the Medes in Ecbatana.a
2 Kings 24:1 In his days **Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon **came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years;

Baruch 6:2 When you reach Babylon you will be there many years, a long time—seven generations;* after that I will bring you back from there in peace.
Jeremiah 25:11 This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon** seventy years**.

Baruch 1:1 Now these are the words of the scroll which Baruch, son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah, son of Zedekiah, son of Hasadiah, son of Hilkiah, wrote in Babylon,a 2in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month,* at the time the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and destroyed it with fire.
Jeremiah 43 6 the men, the women, the [c]children, the king’s daughters and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam [d]and grandson of Shaphan, together with Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch the son of Neriah— 7 and they entered the land of Egypt (for they did not obey the voice of the LORD) and went in as far as Tahpanhes.

And they teach things that contradict Scripture:

Sirach 3:3 Those who honor their father atone for sins;

Judith 9:10 By the deceit of my lips, strike down slave together with ruler, and ruler together with attendant. Crush their arrogance by the hand of a female. 11 “Your strength is not in numbers, nor does your might depend upon the powerful. You are God of the lowly, helper of those of little account, supporter of the weak, protector of those in despair, savior of those without hope. 12 “Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Master of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all you have created, hear my prayer! 13** Let my deceitful words wound and bruise** those who have planned dire things against your covenant, your holy temple, Mount Zion, and the house your children possess.

Tobit 6:8 He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return.

That is just a few examples I found when researching on the web. There clearly seems to be a lot of complex reasons why one accepts the Deuterocanon as Scripture or not. I don’t think either side base their decision on what one person thought centuries ago.
I think it makes more sense to assess the value of the books based on their merit and not based on how someone commented years ago about them.

 

[Duane1966]

I agree that many later reformers disagreed with Luther on many issues, but also did not accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture. They clearly had a mind of their own and didn’t blindly accept everything Luther taught or else Protestantism would have ended there.

I always thought that the Deuterocanonoical books weren’t in the Bible because it wasn’t believed to be inspired Scripture:

2 Maccabees: 37Since Nicanor’s doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in the possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring my story to an end here too. 38h If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.

Also, because the books are not perceived as inerrant:

Judith 1: It was the twelfth year* of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. At that time Arphaxad was ruling over the Medes in Ecbatana.a
2 Kings 24:1 In his days **Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon **came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years;

Baruch 6:2 When you reach Babylon you will be there many years, a long time—seven generations;* after that I will bring you back from there in peace.
Jeremiah 25:11 This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon** seventy years**.

Baruch 1:1 Now these are the words of the scroll which Baruch, son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah, son of Zedekiah, son of Hasadiah, son of Hilkiah, wrote in Babylon,a 2in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month,* at the time the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and destroyed it with fire.
Jeremiah 43 6 the men, the women, the [c]children, the king’s daughters and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam [d]and grandson of Shaphan, together with Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch the son of Neriah— 7 and they entered the land of Egypt (for they did not obey the voice of the LORD) and went in as far as Tahpanhes.

And they teach things that contradict Scripture:

Sirach 3:3 Those who honor their father atone for sins;

Judith 9:10 By the deceit of my lips, strike down slave together with ruler, and ruler together with attendant. Crush their arrogance by the hand of a female. 11 “Your strength is not in numbers, nor does your might depend upon the powerful. You are God of the lowly, helper of those of little account, supporter of the weak, protector of those in despair, savior of those without hope. 12 “Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Master of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all you have created, hear my prayer! 13** Let my deceitful words wound and bruise** those who have planned dire things against your covenant, your holy temple, Mount Zion, and the house your children possess.

Tobit 6:8 He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return.

That is just a few examples I found when researching on the web. There clearly seems to be a lot of complex reasons why one accepts the Deuterocanon as Scripture or not. I don’t think either side base their decision on what one person thought centuries ago.
I think it makes more sense to assess the value of the books based on their merit and not based on how someone commented years ago about them.

Lol, how can they contradict Scripture, if they are Scripture?

 

[Duane1966]

Thanks for all of this, Steve. It will take me time to review it, but I return to my question,
how do you know that those who were contemporaries of Luther or came later, whose view of the canon were similar to his, held their view of the canon because they “followed Luther”? How do you know they didn’t follow Cajetan? How do you know they didn’t come to the conclusion they did based on their own study?

Jon

Jon, I have a general question for you, not just pertaining to the topic of the canon. Is it okay for someone to reject what the Church teaches based on his/her own study?

 

[Duane1966]

I think it makes more sense to assess the value of the books based on their merit and not based on how someone commented years ago about them.

Merit as decided by whom?

 

[Duane1966]

Also, because the books are not perceived as inerrant:
.

If this is your criteria, you better get ready to reject some of the OT you do accept. And maybe part of the NT!!! The following is taken from this link: douglasbeaumont.com/2014/09/11/defending-the-deuterocanonicals/

Critical scholars use the same kinds of arguments against OT books like Exodus and Daniel. Biblical scholars often respond that many passages in the Bible to be parabolic or apocalyptic in nature, and thus they are not to be taken in the literal sense that generates the problem (this is the case, for example, with Judith). And historians make mistakes. However, even if these are literal historical inaccuracies, they could be simple copyist errors such as we find in other OT books. For example, 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, while 2 Chronicles 22:2 indicates that he was forty-two years old. In the New Testament Gospel of Mark (2:26) it says David “went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest,” but 1 Samuel 21:1 says Ahimelech (Abiathar’s father) was the high priest. Yet these books are not rejected for that reason. If either of these strategies are legitimate for books in the Protestant canon, why can’t they be used for the Deuterocanonicals?

 

[Duane1966]

Jon, I have a general question for you, not just pertaining to the topic of the canon. Is it okay for someone to reject what the Church teaches based on his/her own study?

I should have worded this better. By the way, this has nothing to do with Luther. If someone rejects Church teachings based on his/her own study, publicly teaching things contrary to what the Church has decided, what should be the Church’s reaction, if the said person does not stop? Is excommunication warranted in that situation? Or should it be, we disagree with what someone is teaching, but to each his/her own? Again this has nothing to do with Luther.

 

[Duane1966]

Thanks for all of this, Steve. It will take me time to review it, but I return to my question,
how do you know that those who were contemporaries of Luther or came later, whose view of the canon were similar to his, held their view of the canon because they “followed Luther”? How do you know they didn’t follow Cajetan? How do you know they didn’t come to the conclusion they did based on their own study?

Jon

Jon, I have a general question for you, not just pertaining to the topic of the canon. Is it okay for someone to reject what the Church teaches based on his/her own study?

Jon, I should have worded my question (which have now become questions) better. By the way, this has nothing to do with Luther.

If someone rejects Church teachings based on his/her own study, publicly teaching things contrary to what the Church has decided, what should be the Church’s reaction, if the said person does not stop?

Is excommunication warranted in that situation?

Or should it be, we disagree with what someone is teaching, but to each his/her own?

Is it okay for someone to reject what the Church teaches based on his/her own study, perhaps even start a new church?

Again this has nothing to do with Luther.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I should have worded my question (which have now become questions) better. By the way, this has nothing to do with Luther.

If someone rejects Church teachings based on his/her own study, publicly teaching things contrary to what the Church has decided, what should be the Church’s reaction, if the said person does not stop?

Is excommunication warranted in that situation?

Or should it be, we disagree with what someone is teaching, but to each his/her own?

Is it okay for someone to reject what the Church teaches based on his/her own study, perhaps even start a new church?

Again this has nothing to do with Luther.

I think as a rule , no. Though I also believe the Church is bound to maintain orthodoxy, being consistent with its historic teachings.
Where the Church, however, allows for differing views, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is an example in your communion, then someone who holds perhaps a minority view should not be criticized for it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I should have worded my question (which have now become questions) better. By the way, this has nothing to do with Luther.

If someone rejects Church teachings based on his/her own study, publicly teaching things contrary to what the Church has decided, what should be the Church’s reaction, if the said person does not stop?

Is excommunication warranted in that situation?

Or should it be, we disagree with what someone is teaching, but to each his/her own?

Is it okay for someone to reject what the Church teaches based on his/her own study, perhaps even start a new church?

Again this has nothing to do with Luther.

I think the issue of excommunication is a more difficult one. While it isn’t meant to be a breaking of all ties between a member and the Church, it is perceived as “being kicked out”. That sense of finality often drives wedges of division deeper.
That doesn’t mean the Church can allow teaching that is contrary , assuming again that the Church itself is maintaining orthodoxy.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

That doesn’t mean the Church can allow teaching that is contrary , assuming again that the Church itself is maintaining orthodoxy.

Jon

Jon, thanks for your reply. Who decides what is orthodox? I contend as long as you have people willing to follow others that reject Church teaching, many times based on their studies that reach different conclusions, you will have divisions in the Church that continually multiply. In almost every split that has ever happened in Christendom, the ones who left, claimed to be reclaiming an orthodoxy that had been lost.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, thanks for your reply. Who decides what is orthodox? I contend as long as you have people willing to follow others that reject Church teaching, many times based on their studies that reach different conclusions, you will have divisions in the Church that continually multiply. In almost every split that has ever happened in Christendom, the ones who left, claimed to be reclaiming an orthodoxy that had been lost.

Would you say that the historic orthodoxy of the Church is apparent in the early councils, generally in the words the Fathers, etc? But you are right in that both sides claim orthodoxy. I don’t have an answer as to a solution, though I think the council model of the first millennium Church has the best chance of doing that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

I think the issue of excommunication is a more difficult one. While it isn’t meant to be a breaking of all ties between a member and the Church, it is perceived as “being kicked out”. That sense of finality often drives wedges of division deeper.
That doesn’t mean the Church can allow teaching that is contrary , assuming again that the Church itself is maintaining orthodoxy.

Jon

While excommunication is more of a time off, a cooling off period, if you may, it is the events that lead to it that play up the relationship much more, aggravating the ruling.

Understandably, its recipient could perceive it as being kicked out.

That’s of course, is far from the truth. Should such situation persist, it may result in an excommunication to a point of no return. Ordinarily, it shouldn’t, as in many cases of divorces where excommunication may be imposed.

 

[susanlo]

If this is your criteria, you better get ready to reject some of the OT you do accept. And maybe part of the NT!!! The following is taken from this link: douglasbeaumont.com/2014/09/11/defending-the-deuterocanonicals/

Critical scholars use the same kinds of arguments against OT books like Exodus and Daniel. Biblical scholars often respond that many passages in the Bible to be parabolic or apocalyptic in nature, and thus they are not to be taken in the literal sense that generates the problem (this is the case, for example, with Judith). And historians make mistakes. However, even if these are literal historical inaccuracies, they could be simple copyist errors such as we find in other OT books. For example, 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, while 2 Chronicles 22:2 indicates that he was forty-two years old.

I didn’t see this error in NIV. It looks like 2 Chronicles has 22 in about half of these versions and 42 in the other half. biblehub.com/2_chronicles/22-2.htm The NIV has a note that says that the Septuagint, Syriac and Hebrew texts vary in the age. I wonder how that discrepancy occurred.

In the New Testament Gospel of Mark (2:26) it says David “went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest,” but 1 Samuel 21:1 says Ahimelech (Abiathar’s father) was the high priest. Yet these books are not rejected for that reason. If either of these strategies are legitimate for books in the Protestant canon, why can’t they be used for the Deuterocanonicals?

This is an interesting discrepancy. Was Jesus or Mark wrong? I am seeing an explanation that the term used “epi” is often translated to “in the time of” or “in the days of.”
“According to Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the word epi can function simply as a “marker of temporal associations,” meaning simply “in the time of, at, on, for” (2000, p. 367). The phrase “in the time/days of” may be intended to modify Abiathar’s entire life, rather than just his priesthood. And, his “priesthood” could have been mentioned merely to clarify the person to whom Jesus was referring.” - apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1830

So, this did happen ‘during the days’ of Abiathar. The title can be carried with him to be used for his whole lifetime. For example: “When Pope Francis was a young boy…” He was not a pope as a child, but the title carries with him.

I am going to look into some of these discrepancies some more.

 

[GNM1999]

Scripture is infallible
Removes 7 books

 

[JonNC]

Scripture is infallible
Removes 7 books

I you speaking of Jerome, Cajetan, Luther, or someone else?

That’s a rhetorical question. My real question would be, have you read Luthet’s commentaries to those seven books? Yes, not only did Luther and his colleagues translate and include them, he wrote prefaces to each one. They were that important to him.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I you speaking of Jerome, Cajetan, Luther, or someone else?

That’s a rhetorical question. My real question would be, have you read Luthet’s commentaries to those seven books? Yes, not only did Luther and his colleagues translate and include them, he wrote prefaces to each one. They were that important to him.

Jon

Jon

How important to Luther, are those books really, when he writes

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

That says Luther segregates those books into “apocrypha” status, so people don’t confuse or mistake THOSE books for scripture, and THAT speaks volumes about what he thinks of those books.

Said and asked another way, since he thought those books weren’t scripture, why did those books even appear in his bible (albeit segregated into the apocrypha) in the first place? Was it just in case he goofed in demoting their status?

 

[pablope]

I you speaking of Jerome, Cajetan, Luther, or someone else?

That’s a rhetorical question. My real question would be, have you read Luthet’s commentaries to those seven books? Yes, not only did Luther and his colleagues translate and include them, he wrote prefaces to each one. They were that important to him.

Jon

Well…there are varying level of importance…important to him in what way? Important that he segregate them in a different section altogether?

 

[steido01]

How important to Luther, are those books really,

Rather than ask a rhetorical question with a preconceived answer, why not ask that question in earnest?

when he writes:
“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

Seems to me that to answer the question, we would need to know 1)In what way did Luther regard them as unequal to the Holy Scriptures, and 2)In what way are they profitable and good to read?

since he thought those books weren’t scripture, why did those books even appear in his bible (albeit segregated into the apocrypha) in the first place? Was it just in case he goofed in demoting their status?

It would seem either that Luther was a product of moronic educators, or you misrepresent or misunderstand Luther’s views on ‘Scripture’ and ‘Apocrypha.’