Questions About the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal Books

[CuriousDave]

The age old controversy,

But I do not know much about the subject. There are countless arguments about why these books should not be canonical, but if the largest Church communion accepts them then there must be something to it…

Anyway, a few questions of my own:

1. Why did some Church councils decide to include Old Testament books that the Jews never considered canonical? I know there was no defined list, but from what I have read the Jews were confident of what books they considered to be inspired.
2. One of the books claim to not be inspired (cannot remember which). The counter-argument to this is that the authors may not know they were inspired. But that would that not mean that the Holy Spirit guided the author to write that he was not inspired by said the Holy Spirit; basically the Holy Spirit lying?
3. Why did Martin Luther suddenly declare some of the books that were commonly accepted are not inspired? What was his backing, and was he the first or alone? (might actually ask this question on a Protestant forum)
4. Does a deuterocanonical book really need a direct reference to be considered inspired? My memory is really malfunctioning today, but one of the OT books (I would say in the Pentateuch) describes an event, and then says it is also written in another book in order to prove the authenticity of the event; a book that is considered apocryphal by all denominations. And is it really enough to have canonized books allude to deuterocanonical books to prove it is inspired?
5. For the Book of Tobit, it is claimed magic was to heal Tobit’s blindness (fish gall on his eyes) and to remove the demon Asmodeus (fumes from the burning liver and heart). Are there any other examples of the like (supernatural acts being performed using animal parts) in the Old Testament that can refute the argument that it is magic?

I think that’s all for now, might add more in response to answers. Please keep all answers topical, I am mainly interested in getting the questions answered but you are welcome to throw in your best argument in your opinion for the canonization of these books, unrelated to the questions themselves if may be. I may have used Deuterocanonical and Apocrypha interchangeably at times, or used them incorrectly. Please do not make claims without any backing/evidence, opinions are welcome if stated. I appreciate being corrected if I have made any mistakes or inaccurate claims myself.

 

[JRKH]

Don’t know how much I can offer but I will try…

1. Why did some Church councils decide to include Old Testament books that the Jews never considered canonical? I know there was no defined list, but from what I have read the Jews were confident of what books they considered to be inspired.

I’m not at all sure this is as clear as some would like to make out.

1. The Septuagint was compiled by Jewish Scholars and was widely used among Jews outside of Palestine. Why would they include books that were not inspired?
2. In Paul’s letter to Timothy he makes the oft quoted statement that "All Scripture is useful…Since Paul and Timothy were working in the “Greek” speaking communities the Septuagint would have been the most widely used “Scriptures”. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that when Paul spoke of “All Scripture” to Timothy, he was speaking of the Septuagint.

1. Why did Martin Luther suddenly declare some of the books that were commonly accepted are not inspired? What was his backing, and was he the first or alone? (might actually ask this question on a Protestant forum)

This is a tricky question and there can be different explanations.
First of all, there was indeed some debate over certain books. Comments by St Jerome, who translated the bible into Latin, are often cited as evidence that perhaps these books should not have been included.
However…Multiple councils of Bishops of the Church upheld the inspiration of these books and so the comments of certain individuals cannot be placed above the prayerful decision of the Church in council.
Luther’s reasons for declaring books to be not inspired is also a complex one. Some, like the Epistle of James simply did not agree with his view of faith and justification. As to the OT books…I understand that he did not actually remove the books but took the view that some others had taken, that the books were not on the same level as the rest of the OT. He took the books and placed them in a separate section between the OT and the NT. It was later that they were removed altogether as a cost saving measure by printers…

1. Does a deuterocanonical book really need a direct reference to be considered inspired? My memory is really malfunctioning today, but one of the OT books (I would say in the Pentateuch) describes an event, and then says it is also written in another book in order to prove the authenticity of the event; a book that is considered apocryphal by all denominations. And is it really enough to have canonized books allude to deuterocanonical books to prove it is inspired?

No - there are other books in the OT which are accepted by all but which were not directly referenced by Christ or the Apostles. What the books DO have is the consistent and ancient approval of the Church (both the RC and the EO) - the Church to which Christ gave authority to “Bind and Loose” - “Whatever”.

I hope that at least something above is of help to you.

Peace
James

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Read Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary G. Michuta, available at Amazon. It contains the entire history of the deuterocanonical books. Deuterocanon is a word applied in the 16th century. They are Scripture, like all the rest of the ‘books’ in the Catholic Bible.

 

[pablope]

The age old controversy,

But I do not know much about the subject. There are countless arguments about why these books should not be canonical, but if the largest Church communion accepts them then there must be something to it…

Essentially, all bibles would be the same, containing the same books, till about 1826 or so, when the British Foreign Bible Society decided not to print the DC books…to save money on printing costs.

 

[highrigger1]

The age old controversy,

But I do not know much about the subject. There are countless arguments about why these books should not be canonical, but if the largest Church communion accepts them then there must be something to it…

Anyway, a few questions of my own:

1. Why did some Church councils decide to include Old Testament books that the Jews never considered canonical? I know there was no defined list, but from what I have read the Jews were confident of what books they considered to be inspired…

Only Trent canonized scripture. No church wide council did that before Trent. The reason is that the Reformers in arguments were reminding Catholics that the deterocanicals were apocrypha according to Jerome who translated the Vulgate. Since the deurocanicals were being used to support some RCC dogma like praying to the dead they were included in the canon at Trent.

1. One of the books claim to not be inspired (cannot remember which). The counter-argument to this is that the authors may not know they were inspired. But that would that not mean that the Holy Spirit guided the author to write that he was not inspired by said the Holy Spirit; basically the Holy Spirit lying?

Have no idea what you are referring to.

1. Why did Martin Luther suddenly declare some of the books that were commonly accepted are not inspired? What was his backing, and was he the first or alone? (might actually ask this question on a Protestant forum

He of course was not the first. Eusebius also criticized the book of James. There were doubters of some of those books way back when. Luther did not like James refuting Paul. But he included James and all 27 in his translation to German and in fact included the deuterocanicals.

1. Does a deuterocanonical book really need a direct reference to be considered inspired? My memory is really malfunctioning today, but one of the OT books (I would say in the Pentateuch) describes an event, and then says it is also written in another book in order to prove the authenticity of the event; a book that is considered apocryphal by all denominations. And is it really enough to have canonized books allude to deuterocanonical books to prove it is inspired?

Trent says the deuterocanicals are suitable for determining doctrine. The Reformers say no. So it stands today.

1. For the Book of Tobit, it is claimed magic was to heal Tobit’s blindness (fish gall on his eyes) and to remove the demon Asmodeus (fumes from the burning liver and heart). Are there any other examples of the like (supernatural acts being performed using animal parts) in the Old Testament that can refute the argument that it is magic?

God spoke through Baalams donkey in Numbers.

I think that’s all for now, might add more in response to answers. Please keep all answers topical, I am mainly interested in getting the questions answered but you are welcome to throw in your best argument in your opinion for the canonization of these books, unrelated to the questions themselves if may be. I may have used Deuterocanonical and Apocrypha interchangeably at times, or used them incorrectly. Please do not make claims without any backing/evidence, opinions are welcome if stated. I appreciate being corrected if I have made any mistakes or inaccurate claims myself

No problem about which words to use. The NJB in its introduction calls them apochrypha also. I was surprised to see that. Peace, JohnR

 

[JRKH]

Only Trent canonized scripture. No church wide council did that before Trent.

Let’s see what councils DID have to say about the canon of Scripture:
From: Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Six separate councils over the course of 1000 years and held in widely separated places, all approved the same list of books without change and the last council - of Florence was an ecumenical council…not a local one.

The reason is that the Reformers in arguments were reminding Catholics that the deterocanicals were apocrypha according to Jerome who translated the Vulgate. Since the deurocanicals were being used to support some RCC dogma like praying to the dead they were included in the canon at Trent.

As one can deduce from the long list of consistent councilior determinations, all that was left for Trent to do was to ratify the already long established canon. The one thing that Trent DID do that was different was to officially close the canon. This was necessitated by Luther’s tampering.
Jerome may have had his concerns about the deutero’s but I would remind you that Jerome submitted his will to that of the Church in council…Just as the Judaizers did in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.
the matters of specific teachings issues is a matter for another thread.

Trent says the deuterocanicals are suitable for determining doctrine. The Reformers say no. So it stands today.

Yes so it stands today…
The protestants take the word of a single man (Luther) over the consistent determinations of multiple councils…Which is more biblical?

Peace
James

 

[highrigger1]

Let’s see what councils DID have to say about the canon of Scripture:
From: Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Six separate councils over the course of 1000 years and held in widely separated places, all approved the same list of books without change and the last council - of Florence was an ecumenical council…not a local one.

As one can deduce from the long list of consistent councilior determinations, all that was left for Trent to do was to ratify the already long established canon. The one thing that Trent DID do that was different was to officially close the canon. This was necessitated by Luther’s tampering.
Jerome may have had his concerns about the deutero’s but I would remind you that Jerome submitted his will to that of the Church in council…Just as the Judaizers did in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.
the matters of specific teachings issues is a matter for another thread.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

p59
“For the first fifteen hundred years of christianity, no christian
church put forth a difinintive list of Bible books. Most christians
had followed St. Augustine and included the “Apocrapha” in the canon,
but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders.”

None of those synods you list counted churchwide. This book was written for Catholics.

The protestants take the word of a single man (Luther) over the consistent determinations of multiple councils…Which is more biblical?

No. We take real history to tell the truth of what happened. Trent was necessary to canonize the bible. They were not just doing it over for fun.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

p59
“For the first fifteen hundred years of christianity, no christian
church put forth a difinintive list of Bible books. Most christians
had followed St. Augustine and included the “Apocrapha” in the canon,
but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders.”

None of those synods you list counted churchwide. This book was written for Catholics.

No. We take real history to tell the truth of what happened. Trent was necessary to canonize the bible. They were not just doing it over for fun.

Peace, JohnR

I’m afraid both Lienhard and you are mistaken on this one.

The Bull of Union with the Copts 4 Feb 1442 from the Council of Florence (every bit as much an Ecumenical Council as Trent, especially given that one of its chief aims was reunion with the Eastern Churches) defined the canon of the OT [Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 706 (1334-1335)]. This can also be found in Norman P. Tanner, SJ, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, I:527.

The early Ecumenical Councils also reaffirmed the teachings of previous Councils.

Nicea II is a true Ecumenical Council, but I have not been able to find a statement issued by it regarding the OT canon. JRKH, if there is one, please let me know. That would greatly help.

 

[highrigger1]

I’m afraid both Lienhard and you are mistaken on this one.

The Bull of Union with the Copts 4 Feb 1442 from the Council of Florence (every bit as much an Ecumenical Council as Trent, especially given that one of its chief aims was reunion with the Eastern Churches) defined the canon of the OT [Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 706 (1334-1335)]. This can also be found in Norman P. Tanner, SJ, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, I:527.

The early Ecumenical Councils also reaffirmed the teachings of previous Councils.

Nicea II is a true Ecumenical Council, but I have not been able to find a statement issued by it regarding the OT canon. JRKH, if there is one, please let me know. That would greatly help.

Fr,

I doubt it. There is no good reason for Trent to canonize for a second time. Makes no sense. They knew it had not officially been done before. Peace, JohnR

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Fr,

I doubt it. There is no good reason for Trent to canonize for a second time. Makes no sense. They knew it had not officially been done before. Peace, JohnR

Not so. (1) It’s a matter of public record, as I showed you, the Florence defined the OT canon. (2) Early Ecumenical Councils frequently reaffirmed the teachings of previous Ecumenical Councils. In both cases read the acts of the councils.

There is no doubt about this.

 

[CuriousDave]

God spoke through Baalams donkey in Numbers.

I did not make my question clear enough. I meant a human using animal parts to perform supernatural deeds.

Luther placed them in a different section, like an appendix, without pages. Same with about 4/5 books he disagreed in the NT…James, Revelation, Hebrew and one or two epistles.

Luther later revoked his opposition to those books and added them in in the end, though.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the reference.
Let’s look at that Mr Lienhard has to say…

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

Note carefully the highlighted items. At the time of the Reformation, the canon was called into question, indicating that it was not particularly a question before. In fact neither the Eastern Church or the Western Church had any problem with the Deutero’s .
Yes there were those within the Church who had concerns, but the Church, repeatedly and in council upheld the same canon, time after time.
And if one were to examine any Bible in any Church or Monastery in Christendom, one would find the Duetero’s included.
Also note that the council of Trent “defined the limits”, that is closed the canon. It made no changes in the Canon. This step that was made necessary in order to protect God’s word from tampering.

p59

“For the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity, no christian
church put forth a definitive list of Bible books. Most christians
had followed St. Augustine and included the “Apocrapha” in the canon,
but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders.”

I would dispute this based upon the councils I listed above. Now if there had been different canons proposed by the different councils THEN one could say that there was no “definitive” list. What was absent until Trent was the “Limits”. The Closing of the Canon.
Prior to the Protestant Reformation this was not necessary since Scripture was safely held within Christ’s Church.
As for the comment about Augustine v Jerome is interesting but of little import since the Holy Spirit, Speaking through the Church and in multiple councils had made it clear which books were to be included…

None of those synods you list counted churchwide.

And yet each council came up with the same list of books…Interesting…MOST interesting…Sounds to me like the Holy Spirit really was making a point!!!

No. We take real history to tell the truth of what happened. Trent was necessary to canonize the bible. They were not just doing it over for fun.

This is completely false. Trent was called to deal with a whole host of problems that arose from the Protestant Reformation. Settling the Bible canon was but one of the issues and needed to be dealt with. In fact if one looks at the documents from Trent one will see that much of the council was devoted to matters other than the canon of Scripture.

Now having explained all of this I will ask again…Which is more NT biblical, accepting the word of a Church council - indeed multiple Church councils - ALL of which agree - or accepting the word of one man???

Peace
James

 

[Filioque]

Fr… Lienhard is a Jesuit from Fordham who is well known for both his scholarship, and his opposition to the “party line” Fr. Leinhard has made several controversial statements, to the point that some of his books have been printed by the Intervarsity Press (Protestant book pulblisher) because they did not contain ideas that reflected Catholic teachings.

The second issue which was touched upon by another poster is that it would be false to assume that Jews at the time of our Lord or the Apostles were of one mind. My family are Sephardic Jews, (Spanish and Portugese) our customs and theology is in some ways different than the Ashkinazi (Eastern European) Jews. There are other smaller groups which have a different slant on things. At the time of Jesus, the texts of the scriptures that were accepted by Jews were still fluid. The books that were accepted by the majority of Jews in the mid 600’s AD were not accepted by all Jews everywhere. As pointed out earlier, the LXX (Septuagent) was accepted and used by most Jews outside of Israel at the Time of Jesus, and by many within Israel at the time as authorative. The LXX includes all of the books found in the OT in Catholic Bibles, and many other denomination’s OT canon.

 

[Valentine_Angel]

I did not make my question clear enough. I meant a human using animal parts to perform supernatural deeds.

I apologize to everyone for how I shall express my points on this, I’m not a theologian. I also tend to internalize Scripture but have trouble remembering chapter and verse. So here goes…

It is my understanding that when animal sacrifices were made to God by the priests, fire would consume it (holocaust), like when that prophet proved God was the true God and made the false prophets look like idiots. The fire came down from heaven, from God. The offerings to the false gods were never consumed, except perhaps by cricket song…The main point is that all things are God’s creation, and He can use whatever He wishes in having His will come to pass. Tobias believed what his father told him (Tobit 5: 16) “Go with this man [the angel Raphael]; God who dwells in heaven will prosper your way, and may his angel attend you.” Raphael even reminds him of this before his wedding. He didn’t have to be reminded when God uses the gall to heal his father. After demonstrating their faith and trust in God, only then does the angel reveal his name “God heals.”

So it has nothing to do with what is used (dead animals, a mule, fish guts, mud), but faith and trust in God, Who Is the One Who performs the miracle. And that is what distinguishes it from witchcraft.

I hope this is helpful. :yup: God be with you! :heaven:

 

[highrigger1]

Not so. (1) It’s a matter of public record, as I showed you, the Florence defined the OT canon. (2) Early Ecumenical Councils frequently reaffirmed the teachings of previous Ecumenical Councils. In both cases read the acts of the councils.

There is no doubt about this.

Fr,

I like my book. You like yours. Mine makes sense because there would be no reason for Trent to settle it if your book were correct. Lets throw our books at each other and settle it that way?

Why dont you give me the quotes from those councils or at least one of them? Officially Church wide only please. I am willing to look at them and keep my mind open. But we may have to throw books anyway. Mine was written for Catholics and published by the Liturgical
Press for the Order of St Benedict,Collegeville, Minn.The author has tremendous credits and expertise in the subject matter. I would be very surprised if he does not know his subject.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Thanks for the reference.
Let’s look at that Mr Lienhard has to say…

Note carefully the highlighted items. At the time of the Reformation, the canon was called into question, indicating that it was not particularly a question before. In fact neither the Eastern Church or the Western Church had any problem with the Deutero’s .
Yes there were those within the Church who had concerns, but the Church, repeatedly and in council upheld the same canon, time after time.
And if one were to examine any Bible in any Church or Monastery in Christendom, one would find the Duetero’s included.
Also note that the council of Trent “defined the limits”, that is closed the canon. It made no changes in the Canon. This step that was made necessary in order to protect God’s word from tampering.

JRKH,

Of course they Deuterocanicals were included. Jerome included them also in his Vulgate but he specified them as apochrypha (questionable for doctrines). Trent did not close the canon. It defined the limits as known but did not close it.

As for the comment about Augustine v Jerome is interesting but of little import since the Holy Spirit, Speaking through the Church and in multiple councils had made it clear which books were to be included…

Trent was needed to make it clear. Closing the canon was not an issue and Trent did not do that anyway. More could be added if the RCC wanted to. .

And yet each council came up with the same list of books…Interesting…MOST interesting…Sounds to me like the Holy Spirit really was making a point!!!

This agreement came together informally quite early except for the DCs. Jerome said they were apochrypa in the Vulgate.

This is completely false. Trent was called to deal with a whole host of problems that arose from the Protestant Reformation. Settling the Bible canon was but one of the issues and needed to be dealt with. In fact if one looks at the documents from Trent one will see that much of the council was devoted to matters other than the canon of Scripture.

I agree but the Trent decision on the canon was necessary to settle the issue.

Now having explained all of this I will ask again…Which is more NT biblical, accepting the word of a Church council - indeed multiple Church councils - ALL of which agree - or accepting the word of one man???

Not sure what you are getting at. If it is the DCs, I have no problem with them in the bible as protestants often do anyway. But they were not the traditional fully accepted books by the palestinian Jews and in my opinion do not meet the rule of faith so I would not consider them the same as the rest of scripture. I agree with Jerome. No church council tells me what to believe. Peace, JohnR

 

[Filioque]

Sadly comments like “I like my book, you like yours” are not getting us anywhere. Nor the use of the same vocabulary with differing defenitions.

There is the truth about history, and there are fabrications. One of the stories is correct, they can’t both be. Some of the more liberal modern Catholic scholars are quick to discount portions of or entire books as they hold hard to keep moral and theological teachings. There are those who justify homosexual behavior, or belief in an orderly creation by discounting the story of Adam as just a myth, or not permitting homosexual marriage as a social convention that ensures the survival of the tribe, but not a real moral issue. These problems, or perceived problems based on a system of Biblical “Scholarship” invented by some Protestant scholastics at the end of the 19th Century called Biblical Criticism, which selects passages that don’t appear to fit either because of Grammer, vocabulary or context. Rather than accept that in the process of the Formation of the Bible, God allowed a process of editing to take place before the books were ready to be canonized, they reject anything that they perceive as contrary to their own educated minds. This leads us to a re-invention of the older rejection of books that contain doctrine or moral codes that individuals just don’t want to accept, or which contradict their newly found teachings.

Since the advent of Protestantism there has been a difference in what the Apocrypha means. At first many Protestants accepted and understood that it was considered by Jews and Catholics alike as a Secondary Canon, not because it was of lesser value, or because it was not the inspired word of God, but rather because the source documents were not originally written in Hebrew. Later some Jews decided that any books not written in Hebrew were suspect, but this does not reflect the understanding and belief of all Jews at the time.

As for Trent. Yes Trent did have to settle or re-affirm what was already Catholic (Universal) teaching on Scripture. What had been established teaching (not just on Scripture) was being denied publicly. The Faith of millions was put into jeopardy by those who denied the veracity of books of the Bible, and of teachings of the Church. We see how this lead to the decay of Faith quite readily. There are many Catholic Ideas that Dr. Martin Luther held which his followers dismantled, Luther was an advocate of Marian Devotion, his followers came to deny it and become abusive regarding it. We see justification by various Protestant sects for divorce, and later (in the 20th Century) Artificial Birth Control became acceptable at a Lambeth Congress, whereas prior to that All Protestants held it to be immoral. When one denies what was held in the past, and becomes the arbitrator of what he wants to believe over what has always been believed, religious belief becomes not something that reflects what God has revealed, but what we want God to reflect or our imagination.

 

[mikelionheart]

Fr,

I like my book. You like yours. Mine makes sense because there would be no reason for Trent to settle it if your book were correct.
Peace, JohnR

Nonsense argument.

Just like transubstantiation, Trent made it formal because it had not been challenged before then.

Your version of history is childish.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH,

Now having explained all of this I will ask again…Which is more NT biblical, accepting the word of a Church council - indeed multiple Church councils - ALL of which agree - or accepting the word of one man???

What I am getting at is this.
The Church system - established in the NT for dealing with troubling issues is the councilior model. We see this in the form of instruction from Christ in Mt 18:15-18, and we see this instruction put into practice in the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. In both cases, the instruction and the execution is to try to handle things quietly and locally but if necessary, we are to “Tell it to the Church” and then we are to “Listen to the Church”, for the Church has the authority to “Bind and Loose”…“Whatever”.

So when the matter of the Judaizers came up in Antioch and it could not be settled - even by St Paul himself, the matter was taken before the Elders of the Church. It was their decision, in council and guided by the Holy Spirit that determined correct doctrine on the matter. Furthermore, the decision of that council was not only binding on Antioch, but on the universal Church.

Thus we can see that the councilior model is the biblical model.

If it is the DCs, I have no problem with them in the bible as protestants often do anyway. But they were not the traditional fully accepted books by the palestinian Jews and in my opinion do not meet the rule of faith so I would not consider them the same as the rest of scripture. I agree with Jerome. No church council tells me what to believe. Peace, JohnR

Then you are not following what Christ, in the bible says to do.
The Holy Spirit caused both Christ’s instruction and the Council of Jerusalem to be recorded and included in Scripture. We know that the Holy Spirit does not do things for no reason. The Holy Spirit also caused to be recorded a number of admonitions by multiple authors calling us to unity - spiritual, visible unity.
John 17:20-21
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Rom 15:5-6
5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

I hope you will consider this carefully in light of what you said above, as I am sure you consider the Bible to be THE source for teaching and for how to view the Church…and I am sure that you wish to follow Christ and his sacred word to the absolute best of your ability.
So - If you feel strongly about the Protestant view of “church” structure and methods of interpretation etc. being biblical, I invite you demonstrate, from Scripture, clear and compelling evidence for the “Local independent” view and “invisible church” view and especially the the, “No church council tells me what to believe”, view…

So the ball is in your court now…Where in the NT is the clear and consistent support for these positions?

Peace
James

 

[Erich]

The books that were accepted by the majority of Jews in the mid 600’s AD were not accepted by all Jews everywhere.

The books that were accepted by the majority of Jews at the time of Christ were not accepted by all Jews everywhere.

When the Lord chastised the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he stated they were in error because they did not know the Scriptures. He further states, “have you not read what God said to you?” (Mt. 22:31). The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures.

Never mind that the Sadducees accepted only the written Law of Moses as authoritative and rejected subsequent revelation. As a result, the Sadducees denied many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees and by Jesus, including the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the meting out of rewards and punishment after death.