Reasons for dropping 7 books from the canon?

[anodos]

Yes, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in their canon of scripture.

Cool. Thanks!

 

[Pitcharan]

Yes, he is not telling the truth–and you really should ask yourself why that is the case. (Again, people seem to fall for anything they hear on the TV, which is really amazing to me.)

I think Rev. Mark J. Gantley is telling the truth and why should I ask myself why or why not he is true?

The deuterocanonicals were indeed placed in a separate section between the Old and New Testament, but they were still part of the Bible.

Rearranging the order of books of the Bible is also tampering if done by an unauthorised person.

If you want to call it an appendix, fine, but you’re totally ignoring Luther’s system of Biblical theology and ordering of books.

I think no individual has authority to define his own system of Biblical theology and ordering of books

The information about James, Hebrews, the Letters of John and the Book of Revelation is just out-and-out false. And either way, it’s not “removing books.” Luther translated them and included them in The Bible.

Even translation is required to be authorised.

 

[anodos]

Unfortunately, your claim doesn’t jibe with history or even the contemporary situation. The Church has always had a diverse biblical canon. Even within the Catholic Church itself, (Latinate versus Eastern Rites) there’s diversity in the biblical canon–both in content and theology–which has never been a cause of schism, nor even a real issue as far as I know. I’m sure you don’t think that diversity causes the Catholic Church to acknowledge and propagate a “God of confusion.”

By the way, the term “absolute truth” is simply nonsensical. Statements are either true or they aren’t; there aren’t some true things that are more true than other true things.

Thanks for your responses to this thread, Dave Noonan. You have reminded me that the canon of scripture has varied to some extent throughout Christian histroy, not only between the list approved by the Council of Trent and that of the NIV or similar arrangments.

Am I correct in thinking that you do not see one collection as “more inspired” or “right” than others? If so, you probably know better than I do what questions I should ask next (since you’ve probably answered them many times before! ). Do you have a thread or website that you could point me to that would help me to understand what your view of scripture and its role or authority in Christianity is?

 

[teachccd]

."

By the way, the term “absolute truth” is simply nonsensical. Statements are either true or they aren’t; there aren’t some true things that are more true than other true things.

So your statement refutes itself…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think Rev. Mark J. Gantley is telling the truth and why should I ask myself why or why not he is true?

Actually, I’m not sure why you think Rev. Mark Gantley’s information is correct since he cites no sources. Individually he has no particular recognized expertise in either Bible or Reformation History.

Of course you are free to believe whatever you like. But you don’t have to take my word for it either. Go down to your local library at take a look at Luther’s 1534 edition of the Bible—Luther’s first complete Bible. (Be aware that later editions of “Luther’s Bible” published in later centuries and not by Luther can and do vary.) First note the title of the work, that the book contains “the entirety of Holy Scripture.” Luther proclaims quite clearly that everything in the book is Scripture. Then flip to the table of contents for the Old Testament. You will note that the deuterocanon is present and listed at the end of the list of the Books of the Old Testament. (Again see post #9 regarding Luther’s theology of the Bible and the ordering of books.) Then refer to the New Testament. Same thing. This is a matter of the ordering of books, not “removing books” or creating an “appendix.”

Rearranging the order of books of the Bible is also tampering if done by an unauthorised person.

If you refer back to your post, you will note that your assertion was that Luther “removed books.” This is a false and likely calumnious statement. You’d also need to show where the Catholic Church claims that books must be in a particular order, in their opinion. Such a statement may exist, but I don’t know of it.

I think no individual has authority to define his own system of Biblical theology and ordering of books

Again, your assertion is that Luther “removed books.” Please prove your assertion.

Even translation is required to be authorised.

Catholic Biblical scholars create translations of the Bible all the time as part of their work. (See for example, Raymond Brown’s translation of The Gospel according to John in the Anchor Bible.) They don’t seem to need authorization each time they do that.

 

[rdscheirer]

From what I have learned over the years-Lutheran revert to Roman Catholic in 2002- Luther wanted to get rid of Revelation, Esther, and got rid of parts of Daniel and wanted the Letter to James removed as well-Why?

His philosophy on the Gospel was to “Sin and sin abundantly” because you will be saved. That is a direct quote. If you disagree look it up.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thanks for your responses to this thread, Dave Noonan. You have reminded me that the canon of scripture has varied to some extent throughout Christian histroy, not only between the list approved by the Council of Trent and that of the NIV or similar arrangments.

Am I correct in thinking that you do not see one collection as “more inspired” or “right” than others? If so, you probably know better than I do what questions I should ask next (since you’ve probably answered them many times before! ). Do you have a thread or website that you could point me to that would help me to understand what your view of scripture and its role or authority in Christianity is?

You’re welcome.

Yes, for me, seeing one collection being, as you put it: “more inspired” or more “right” than all of the others easily leads one to a sort of exclusivist conclusion that the Holy Spirit was working only in one particular corner of the early church and simultaneously leaving the vast majority of the universal Church to its own devices. I see this as a dangerous perspective, as not very logical, and not very biblical (e.g. Jn 14:18). One can also see the negative fruits of this perspective; the Latinate Church over the centuries has eventually alienated every other apostolic church and then subsequently a huge proportion of its own members. I think any honest theology of the Bible must theologically confront the fact that churches with equally valid apostolic roots and equally valid sacraments came to somewhat different conclusions on the matter of the biblical canon. They weren’t wildly different conclusions, but they were indeed different. If any one church continues to claim to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit there will never be reconciliation. You can’t own God.

So I don’t have a particular website to point you too regarding my own view on this issue, but it’s probably not so different than Martin Luther’s or St. Augustine’s (since Luther was an Augustinian). I think Luther’s view that the Bible is the “carrier” of Christ (much like the manger held the infant Jesus) is a very useful analogy. As Christians we don’t worship a book, and ultimately it’s not the book that matters, it’s Jesus Christ. I agree with Luther’s understanding of the Bible in that not all parts bring us to the essence of Christ and salvation in an equally effective manner; for me, the Sermon on the Mount is ultimately more important than the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-8. I think this is also borne out in the Western liturgy (lex orandi/lex credendi). Some parts of the Bible are for good reason excluded from the Lectionary; we stand for the Gospel reading, etc. Some parts of the Bible are just not that relevant any longer in light of the overwhelming grace of the Incarnation (Jn 1:14).

In much the same way St. Augustine taught that there can be multiple interpretations of the same text (e.g. Confessions XII, 27) so we also shouldn’t cling too tightly to our notion of “being right” all the time. We are ALL unfortunately human and ALL sinners and ALL products of our own time; therefore we will never get it all completely right in this life (1 Cor. 13:12). To claim to be a perfect interpreter and a perfect teacher is in my view to claim equality with God. We have to face facts and what we learn over time squarely and openly. Thus I believe interpreting the biblical text in light of our understanding of the times is part of the on-going and never-ending work of the Church. It’s very hard work but it’s essential work.

I also agree strongly with St. Augustine in that our starting point for the interpretation of Scripture has to be love of God and neighbor: “So anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them but cannot by his interpretation somehow build up this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.” (de Doctrina Christiana).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

From what I have learned over the years-Lutheran revert to Roman Catholic in 2002- Luther wanted to get rid of Revelation, Esther, and got rid of parts of Daniel and wanted the Letter to James removed as well

See above posts. Not true. I would be curious where you learned this.

 

[teachccd]

You’re welcome.

Yes, for me, seeing one collection being, as you put it: “more inspired” or more “right” than all of the others easily leads one to a sort of exclusivist conclusion that the Holy Spirit was working only in one particular corner of the early church and simultaneously leaving the vast majority of the universal Church to its own devices. I see this as a dangerous perspective, as not very logical, and not very biblical (e.g. Jn 14:18). One can also see the negative fruits of this perspective; the Latinate Church over the centuries has eventually alienated every other apostolic church and then subsequently a huge proportion of its own members. I think any honest theology of the Bible must theologically confront the fact that churches with equally valid apostolic roots and equally valid sacraments came to somewhat different conclusions on the matter of the biblical canon. They weren’t wildly different conclusions, but they were indeed different. If any one church continues to claim to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit there will never be reconciliation. You can’t own God.

So I don’t have a particular website to point you too regarding my own view on this issue, but it’s probably not so different than Martin Luther’s or St. Augustine’s (since Luther was an Augustinian). I think Luther’s view that the Bible is the “carrier” of Christ (much like the manger held the infant Jesus) is a very useful analogy. As Christians we don’t worship a book, and ultimately it’s not the book that matters, it’s Jesus Christ. I agree with Luther’s understanding of the Bible in that not all parts bring us to the essence of Christ and salvation in an equally effective manner; for me, the Sermon on the Mount is ultimately more important than the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-8. I think this is also borne out in the Western liturgy (lex orandi/lex credendi). Some parts of the Bible are for good reason excluded from the Lectionary; we stand for the Gospel reading, etc. Some parts of the Bible are just not that relevant any longer in light of the overwhelming grace of the Incarnation (Jn 1:14).

In much the same way St. Augustine taught that there can be multiple interpretations of the same text (e.g. Confessions XII, 27) so we also shouldn’t cling too tightly to our notion of “being right” all the time. We are ALL unfortunately human and ALL sinners and ALL products of our own time; therefore we will never get it all completely right in this life (1 Cor. 13:12). To claim to be a perfect interpreter and a perfect teacher is in my view to claim equality with God. We have to face facts and what we learn over time squarely and openly. Thus I believe interpreting the biblical text in light of our understanding of the times is part of the on-going and never-ending work of the Church. It’s very hard work but it’s essential work.

I also agree strongly with St. Augustine in that our starting point for the interpretation of Scripture has to be love of God and neighbor: “So anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them but cannot by his interpretation somehow build up this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.” (de Doctrina Christiana).

So, in this line of thinking, the Book of Mormon could be an inspired text could it not? And I would have to add the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses perhaps? I mean if there is no line to be drawn then any book that claims inspiration should be considered at least that it might be. Am I correct?

If you debate my above claim then you have to agree that there are certain inspired texts that truly are the Word of God in contrast to writings that are historically useful but not inspired, If you agree with my above claim then all scripture is relative and anyone can hold that any writing is inspired with no authoritative guidance.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So, in this line of thinking, the Book of Mormon could be an inspired text could it not? And I would have to add the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses perhaps? I mean if there is no line to be drawn then any book that claims inspiration should be considered at least that it might be. Am I correct?

If you debate my above claim then you have to agree that there are certain inspired texts that truly are the Word of God in contrast to writings that are historically useful but not inspired, If you agree with my above claim then all scripture is relative and anyone can hold that any writing is inspired with no authoritative guidance.

Certainly a Church that wants to maintain a sense of historic continuity would want to select a biblical canon from among the books that at least one of the ancient churches has historically included in their biblical canon. (But then again, people do whatever they want all the time.) The Book of Mormon, or say, last week’s issue of Newsweek can make no such historical claim.

You’re really mischaracterizing this, I hope unintentionally, as sort of an “anything goes” situation—which isn’t at all the case. Simply for ease of discussion, the full list of all the books that have at least some decent potential historic claims to biblical canonicity can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon (scroll down).

Your Church has declared a particular subset of those books to be canonical. Other Churches, with equally valid claims to apostolicity, have historically selected a different subset of books than did the Latinate Church. It’s been that way from the time Churches started to compile Bibles in the fourth century when the codex came into greater use. The other ancient Churches either refused to follow the lead of the Latinate Church in this regard, or they had no idea what the Latinate Church was doing, or if they did know, they didn’t care. And this diversity in the biblical canon (at least as far as I know) was never an issue until the Reformation.

 

[Abu]

Dave Noonan #47
a sort of exclusivist conclusion that the Holy Spirit was working only in one particular corner of the early church and simultaneously leaving the vast majority of the universal Church to its own devices….the Latinate Church over the centuries has eventually alienated every other apostolic church and then subsequently a huge proportion of its own members.

How farcical to think that the Holy Spirit could be contradictory, and that Christ is in error! Further to think that there are “other apostolic” churches as a free-for-all – believe and live as you will.

Don’t you know what Jesus teaches? He gave His Supreme Vicar St Peter infallibility:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20)

In much the same way St. Augustine taught that there can be multiple interpretations of the same text (e.g. Confessions XII, 27) so we also shouldn’t cling too tightly to our notion of “being right” all the time. We are ALL unfortunately human and ALL sinners and ALL products of our own time; therefore we will never get it all completely right in this life (1 Cor. 13:12). To claim to be a perfect interpreter and a perfect teacher is in my view to claim equality with God.

How strange to think that St Augustine is infallible but Christ’s popes are not when teaching faith and morals, as mandated by Christ who IS God!

#50
Your Church has declared a particular subset of those books to be canonical. Other Churches, with equally valid claims to apostolicity, have historically selected a different subset of books than did the Latinate Church.

A claim to apostolicity while rejecting Christ’s mandate to St Peter and his successors is the reason for the errors.

 

[teachccd]

Certainly a Church that wants to maintain a sense of historic continuity would want to select a biblical canon from among the books that at least one of the ancient churches has historically included in their biblical canon. (But then again, people do whatever they want all the time.) The Book of Mormon, or say, last week’s issue of Newsweek can make no such historical claim.

You’re really mischaracterizing this, I hope unintentionally, as sort of an “anything goes” situation—which isn’t at all the case. Simply for ease of discussion, the full list of all the books that have at least some decent potential historic claims to biblical canonicity can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon (scroll down).

Your Church has declared a particular subset of those books to be canonical. Other Churches, with equally valid claims to apostolicity, have historically selected a different subset of books than did the Latinate Church. It’s been that way from the time Churches started to compile Bibles in the fourth century when the codex came into greater use. The other ancient Churches either refused to follow the lead of the Latinate Church in this regard, or they had no idea what the Latinate Church was doing, or if they did know, they didn’t care. And this diversity in the biblical canon (at least as far as I know) was never an issue until the Reformation.

I am only observing what you are posting and commenting on what I see. If mere historicity is the deciding factor for the canon of Scripture then where does the word “inspired” come into play? I think that the key here is not the diversity in canonical acceptance but rather what Jesus had in mind when He established His Church. To say that because the Orthodox canon contains more books and the Protestant canon contains less allows one to conlcude that there is a diversity in the inspired text is nonsensical. This is comparable to allowing one to accept the Arian heresy because it was historical and diverse. It is utter nonsense.

Now, you are very articulate and fervent in your efforts here. But I cannot find favor in accepting that scripture is relative to the majority vote over an apostolic Church that has a leader who was chosen by Christ and, through succession, is still visible today. If you do not believe the words of Jesus when He said, “You are Kephas and upon this kephas I build my church”, then anything I or anyone here says will be suspect in your understanding.

On the one hand you are dismissing the “anything goes” idea all while at the same time stating that any canon of Scritpure is valid to the group who accepts it as long as there is antiquity in the choices made. I am not “mis-charachterizing” this as I am merely commenting on exactly what is at hand in your posts. Thank you for hearing me and God bless you…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

I guess that Dave had nothing else to say…