Simple and babe like truth : Scriptural sufficiency

[alanjeddy]

i never said my logic is inspired or inerrant. I can err as all men can and do. This is why you should reject your church’ claim it cannot err. Fallible men can and do err.

I agree. Thats what you church has done in many cases.

None of these passages you quote here come even close to saying we need an infallible interpreter.

You are just plain ignorant, I am sorry but i have to say it. This is the very protestant thinking that has precipitated 30,000 splintered protestant denominations. I am sorry justasking4 but you have lost all these religeous debates.

 

[Selene]

Where do the apostles teach that Mary was conceived without sin, assumed into heaven or prayed to?
If the doctrines of the church are claimed to be based on "“deposit of faith, once and for all delivered to the saints.” and the only apostolic writings we have are the Scriptures and they don’t teach that then you don’t have all doctrines based on the Scriptures.

Christ is the lamb of God who will be sacrificed so that man’s sins would be forgiven and man would be redeemed. In Isaiah 66:20, God required the Israelites to bring their offerings in clean vessels. Since God requires offerings to be brought in clean vessels, it stands to reason that Christ who is the lamb of God will also be brought forth in a clean vessel. Mary was the vessel that would bring forth the Christ child. It is important for Mary to be without sin for two reasons:

1. Mary is to give the sacred humanity to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity to redeem us from sin. Therefore, at no time could that humanity be under the contagion of sin itself. Christ is born pure and had nothing to do with sin. He was not born from sin. If Mary had sin, then Christ would be born from sin, which would not make any sense at all because Christ is the lamb of God who is sinless and born pure. Christ received his humanity from his mother Mary; therefore, the humanity he received from her must also be pure and not under the contagion of sin because Christ was without sin.
2. Christ is a living fire. He is holiness. Holiness destroys sin. If Mary was born with original sin, she would have been destroyed once the Christ child was conceived in her womb because Sin cannot contain holiness. Mary is like the burning bush. The fire burned but did not consume the bush because the bush did not have any sin. If Mary had the original sin, the living fire conceived in her would kill her because Sin can never contain holiness.

 

[system]

You are just plain ignorant, I am sorry but i have to say it. This is the very protestant thinking that has precipitated 30,000 splintered protestant denominations. I am sorry justasking4 but you have lost all these religeous debates.

I agree with you alanjeddy!!
It saddens me when I see our protestant brothers and sisters blinded by the anti-catholic bias that they are exposed to. I don’t blame them for not believing our doctrines though. They are just following what they have been taught. Maybe one day they will open their heart and see that there is another side to every story,

It should not be about battling Scripture passages back and forth. There will never be enough passages to “prove it from scripture” to a protestant who just doesn’t want to listen.

Unless we put ourselves in the other person’s position we will never be able to speak the same language.

God bless all of you.

 

[alanjeddy]

Christ is the lamb of God who will be sacrificed so that man’s sins would be forgiven and man would be redeemed. In Isaiah 66:20, God required the Israelites to bring their offerings in clean vessels. Since God requires offerings to be brought in clean vessels, it stands to reason that Christ who is the lamb of God will also be brought forth in a clean vessel. Mary was the vessel that would bring forth the Christ child. It is important for Mary to be without sin for two reasons:

1. Mary is to give the sacred humanity to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity to redeem us from sin. Therefore, at no time could that humanity be under the contagion of sin itself. Christ is born pure and had nothing to do with sin. He was not born from sin. If Mary had sin, then Christ would be born from sin, which would not make any sense at all because Christ is the lamb of God who is sinless and born pure. Christ received his humanity from his mother Mary; therefore, the humanity he received from her must also be pure and not under the contagion of sin because Christ was without sin.
2. Christ is a living fire. He is holiness. Holiness destroys sin. If Mary was born with original sin, she would have been destroyed once the Christ child was conceived in her womb because Sin cannot contain holiness. Mary is like the burning bush. The fire burned but did not consume the bush because the bush did not have any sin. If Mary had the original sin, the living fire conceived in her would kill her because Sin can never contain holiness.

A very powerful and sacred example of how the Holy Spirit can guide us in matters of the Holy Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teachings.

 

[sandusky]

You know why Dave; read here, here, here, and here.Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.

Augustine, *De unitate ecclesiae, *3, as cited by Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 157.It seems, De Maria, that Augustine’s understanding of the magisterium, and your understanding of it are at variance; he’s not as keen about the bishops’ authority as you are.You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.

Augustine, *In Epistolam Johannis tractus, *2. See NPNF Series I, VII:469.

 

[guanophore]

You are just plain ignorant, I am sorry but i have to say it. This is the very protestant thinking that has precipitated 30,000 splintered protestant denominations. I am sorry justasking4 but you have lost all these religeous debates.

Come, now alan! What would Jesus do?!

Heb 5:2
deal gently with the ignorant and wayward

Of course he is ignorant! The question is, why is he here? Why does he keep coming back? What does he want or need? Why does he think he can find it here?

 

[alanjeddy]

Come, now alan! What would Jesus do?!

Heb 5:2
deal gently with the ignorant and wayward

Of course he is ignorant! The question is, why is he here? Why does he keep coming back? What does he want or need? Why does he think he can find it here?

I believe our church is under attack today more than ever. Look at the disunity among us Catholics. 75% of us do not even go to Mass and the devil whispers in our ears it’s not a sin. 60 % of us Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The same percentage believe it is okay to take the life of an unborn child, Then satin whispers another lie in our ears, don’t worry you haven’t sinned and what is our collective response?
We stop going to confession. Disunity is rampant in our church. To us much has been given and much is expected.

justasking4 is only interested in perpetuating this disunity by attacking our beliefs. Ask yourself are these attacks coming from him because he loves his Protestant faith, or is he driven more from a hatred of the Catholic faith.
I know you are going to say ok but he still deserves our compassion and love and you are right. Jesus did say we must love our enemies.

There is a spiritual battle rageing and the salvation of our souls is at stake.

 

[De_Maria]

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God**.**

Augustine, *De unitate ecclesiae, *3, as cited by Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 157.It seems, De Maria, that Augustine’s understanding of the magisterium, and your understanding of it are at variance; he’s not as keen about the bishops’ authority as you are.

How so? I couldn’t find the entire document from which you took this statement but I found a larger piece which affords more context:

***Augustine (“De unitate ecclesiae”, [on the Unity of the Church]3):
“Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case.” He goes on: “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

***Let us examine it in detail:
***Augustine (“De unitate ecclesiae”, [on the Unity of the Church]3):

***First let us note that the entire document is on the Unity of the Church. Now, why would Augustine undermine the authority of the Bishops upon which the Church is built? Let us quote St. Ignatius of Antioch who best expounds this authority: Where the Bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the Bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. Since then, St. Augustine is himself a Bishop, why would he shoot himself in the foot?

But lets continue examining this quotation.

---

"Let us not hear, this I say, this you say;

***In other words, their individual words carry no weight. Pretty much, that describes the Protestant modus operandi. Protestants love to explain their interpretation of the Scriptures. But St. Augustine here rejects that notion.

***but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe.

***Here it sounds as though St. Augustine reverts to an individual interpretation of the Scriptures saying, “this is what the Lord says”, but no, read on.

---

There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case." ***

What is this “let us seek the Church”? Doesn’t he know where the Church is to be found?

No, what he is saying is “let us ASK the Church”. Let us bring our case to the Church. That is where we will find the truth.

The final statement in this quote is the one you provided:

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.

And this is a very Catholic statement. It simply recognizes that individual Bishops are not infallible.

So, from this brief quote, I believe that St. Augustine and I agree mighty well on the Magisterium. Especially since St. Augustine also said these things:

***“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH.”
Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

“I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves.”
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.

****** “What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons.”
St. Augustine, Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.***
capd.com.au/Links-CAPD/The-Origin-of-the-False-Doctrine-of-Sola-Scriptura.htm

However, if you disagree with how I’ve interpreted his words, perhaps you can provide a larger sampling of his treatise and we can delve further into his thoughts.

I’ll examine your other quote in the following message.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

It seems, De Maria, that Augustine’s understanding of the magisterium, and your understanding of it are at variance; he’s not as keen about the bishops’ authority as you are.

Again, Sandy, you quote Augustine in a way which seemingly teaches against the authority of the Church and Her Traditions. But he doesn’t. Neither in your previous message nor in this one.

You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.

Augustine, *In Epistolam Johannis tractus, *2. See NPNF Series I, VII:469.

A simple rebuttal is this, you posted earlier that Augustine warned against agreeing with Bishops because they might say something against the Scriptures.

So, if the Bishop of Hippo is here counseling us that the Scriptures alone are the source of doctrine, then he is teaching against the Scriptures. We should not agree with him.
But he isn’t. There is no statement here about sola Scriptura. The essence of this Scripture is that God has put a provision in the Scriptures to ensure they are not interpreted erroneously. I’ll point to it:

1 Tim 3:15 The Church is the Pillar and Foundation

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[sandusky]

De Maria:

The final statement in this quote is the one you provided:

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.

There’s more between your ending, and the final statement I provided:Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the church proved by human documents but by divine oracles.What are those human documents?

He continues:Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.He then makes his comments about the bishops erring, and ones not agreeing with the bishop who errs against the scripture. One must be able to understand the scripture, if one is urged to identify a bishop’s erring; Augustine’s statements wouldn’t make much sense, if it were otherwise.
De Maria:

A simple rebuttal is this, you posted earlier that Augustine warned against agreeing with Bishops because they might say something against the Scriptures.

So, if the Bishop of Hippo is here counseling us that the Scriptures alone are the source of doctrine, then he is teaching against the Scriptures. We should not agree with him.

But he isn’t. There is no statement here about sola Scriptura.

Quite the contrary; what there is no statement about is that of an ”oral tradition.”

Notice that Augustine does not say, ”He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have one thing to read, and another thing passed on orally.
De Maria:

The essence of this Scripture is that God has put a provision in the Scriptures to ensure they are not interpreted erroneously.

The essence of what scripture?

 

[De_Maria]

There’s more between your ending, and the final statement I provided:

Why don’t you post the whole thing or point to its website? I’ve already shown how the reference is eminently Catholic.

Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the church proved by human documents but by divine oracles.

Note that he is proving the CHURCH. Now why would he want to prove the Church from Divine oracles if he didn’t want to prove the Divine Authority of the Church?

What are those human documents?

I don’t know.

He continues:Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.

Excellent!!! I hope he referred to some Scriptures.

He then makes his comments about the bishops erring, and ones not agreeing with the bishop who errs against the scripture. One must be able to understand the scripture, if one is urged to identify a bishop’s erring; Augustine’s statements wouldn’t make much sense, if it were otherwise.

Yeah!!! Exactly!!! And how does one make sure he understands the Scripture? If I know St. Augustine, he is leading up to this very thing. The only way to know the Scriptures is to believe the Church which the Scriptures tell you is infallible. That is why he is proving the Church from the Scriptures. Keep on.

Quite the contrary; what there is no statement about is that of an ”oral tradition.”

**

Because that is contained in the Church. As are the Scriptures.
**

Notice that Augustine does not say,”He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have one thing to read, and another thing passed on orally.

But, unless Augustine is contradicting ALL his other documents, by we, he means the Church. Augustine’s assumption is the existence of a teaching Church. Otherwise, Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo would not be teaching but passing out Bibles. And to teach, this Church must speak and Her Words are God’s Word and these Words are always confirmed in Scripture.

But as I challenged before. Post the whole thing or point to it. I GUARANTEE that Augustine arrived at a Catholic conclusion and that you are simply quoting out of context.

Either that, or St.Augustine contradicted his own words from different writings.

The essence of what scripture?

1 Tim 3:15, Matt 18:17 and many others.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You know why Dave; read here, here, here, and here.

These don’t answer the question. Unless you really cite post-AD 70 rabbis as your source AGAINST the Christian book of Daniel used by every Church of Christ since the advent of Christ. Really? Is that your authority? Those who reject Jesus Christ as Lord? I’m glade Origen, Jerome, and all the rest of Christ Church don’t share your enthusiasm for that so-called authority.

**St. Augustine: **“We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

PS. I agree with Augustin, and neither my bishop nor my pope err with regard to the canonical Scriptures–which by the way include ALL God’s written Word, not the truncated version of the Protestant Bible.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

These don’t answer the question. Unless you really cite post-AD 70 rabbis as your source AGAINST the Christian book of Daniel used by every Church of Christ since the advent of Christ. Really? Is that your authority? Those who reject Jesus Christ as Lord?

Sure they do. I posted four links, Dave, and the rabbis were only one of those.

The canonicity of those books were always in question—it took until Trent to finally “authenticate” them.

itsjustdave1988:

St. Augustine: “We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

Is that an ex-cathedra statement? Of course not! The only infallible guide to Christian conduct is contained within the protestant canon.

itsjustdave1988:

PS. I agree with Augustin, and neither my bishop nor my pope err with regard to the canonical Scriptures–which by the way include ALL God’s written Word, not the truncated version of the Protestant Bible.

Popes never err, do they Dave…

And don’t forget that for you, scripture includes ALL of your ORAL TRADITIONS, which are subject to change, deviation, corruption, and fabrication.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sure they do. I posted four links, Dave, and the rabbis were only one of those.

The canonicity of those books were always in question—it took until Trent to finally “authenticate” them.

The thread is about *Scriptural sufficiency. * ***That you would need to reference non-Scriptural sources ****proves the point that Scripture is not formally sufficient * in determining which chapters and verses of Daniel are inspired, and which are not.

The problem with the “rest” of your links, is that not one of them actually addresses the issue of the Book of Daniel, but instead gloss over it. They either lack scholastic rigor or scholastic integrity.

For example, your links cite in support of their position, the authority of St. Jerome, but ***St. Jerome accepted the larger version of the Book of Daniel. *** This is admitted by even Protestant Bible scholars. So, if Origen, Jerome, and all the Churches of Christ accepted the larger version of the Book of Daniel, then the unanimous consent of ALL CHRISTIANITY was that the larger book of Daniel was the inspired word of God…then Protestants truncated God’s Holy Word.

Contrary to the sloppy research done by your web links, it is clear from all the Christian mansucripts of Sacred Scripture before the advent of Protestantism of other than fragmentary form that NO CHURCH OF CHRIST rejected the larger version of the Book of Daniel until Luther’s, Calvin’s and Zwingli’s Church, and all those of their “tradition.” Protestants were wrong about Daniel! They would have been correct if they simply follow the rule of faith affirmed by those NEO-Catholics of the early Church, like St. John Chrysostom:

it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter

, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
Instead, since Scripture is NOT sufficient, what do Protestants do? They cite Jerome. Observe:

From your web link: “Christian scholar Jerome (ca. 331-420) …did not include them in his translation of the Bible.”

But is this true? NO.

According to the Protestant commentary within the New Oxford Annotated Bible,

“… the ancient Greek version of the Book of Daniel is considerably longer than the surviving Hebrew text. … All Greek witnesses

place the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Jews in Dan ch. 3…The Greek translation made by [2nd cent. Hebrew scholar] Theodotion … includes all the outstanding passages in the Greek Daniel as integral parts of the book … The Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic versions follow Theodotion…. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate followed Theodotion.”
continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

When Protestant authors claim that “we simply follow Jerome” then why don’t they accept Jerome’s larger recension of the Book of Daniel? Sound like nothing but smoke and mirrors to me.

Moreover, one need only read St. Jerome’s works to conclude that the claims of your web links are false. Observe:

** St. Jerome** refutes the contrary accusation that he rejected the larger version of Daniel in his refutation against Rufinius (ca. AD 401):

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?

But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Likewise, Origen, in defending against Africanus’ charge that some portions of Origen’s version of Scripture are forgeries, stated: “I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna …” (Origen, To Africanus in Philip Schaff’s ANF, IV:387).

Note that Origen here is specifically defending the portion of Daniel he considers "Scripture” which Protestants reject. Origen goes on to defend these portions of the ancient version of the Book of Daniel against Africanus’ charge of forgery by asserting the History of Susanna as “found in every Church of Christ” (Origen, ibid). In the same work, Origen refers to those Scripture versions having the History of Susanna (Dan ch 13), Bel and the Dragon (Dan ch. 14), and the Song of the Three Children (Dan 3), as “our version” (ibid.) of Scripture.

Why aren’t they part of the Protestant version of Scripture? They were part of Origen’s version. They were part of Jerome’s version. They were “found in every Church of Christ” since apostolic times according to our most ancient Christian testimony on the matter. By what authority do Protestants truncate the inspired Word of God?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is that an ex-cathedra statement?

Of course not. But it is a clear refutation against your ridiculous attempt to portray St. Augustine as some sort of proto-Protestants. St. Augustine was CATHOLIC, and held to a CATHOLIC BIBLE and the AUTHORITY of CATHOLIC TRADITION.

Popes never err, do they Dave…

Neither I or the Catholic Church has ever claimed that the ope can never err, however, it is Catholic teaching that “the supreme Pontiff is…not able to be heretical by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI).

Contrary to the link you provided to White’s poor research, the case of Honorius is a perfect example of of how the pope can never teach heresy, according to the earliest historical testimony about the case. For example,

According to Pope John IV (640-642), Honorius did not teach monothetilism, but taught was that there were not two contrary wills in Christ:So, my aformentioned predecessor [Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh, and certain ones converting this to their own meanings suspect that he taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth" (Denzinger 253)Furthermore, every patristic scholar is well aware that St. Maximus of Constantinople was the unwavering champion against monothetilism. St. Maximus too do defended Honorius in the same manner as John IV above in a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, saying that when he confessed one will of the Lord, the authentic meaning was that he denied Christ had a will of the flesh, of concupiscence. ***In defining Honorius, St. Maximus of Constantinople appeals to the testimony of Abbot John Symponus, ***who wrote the letter for Honorius.

And don’t forget that for you, scripture includes ALL of your ORAL TRADITIONS…

Wrong again. My “Scripture” is the Bible which was written no later than the first century and first canonized in the 4th century. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, and his Gospel is promulgated by Scripture (Bible) and Tradition–each being the infallible proclamation of the deposit of faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The canonicity of those books were always in question—it took until Trent to finally “authenticate” them.

The larger version of the book of Daniel was considered inspired Scripture by all the Christian Churches since the advent of Christ. Then Luther carving it out of “his” Bible.

According to even Protestant sources…

Protestant historian Philip Schaff states:

                                             "The council of **Hippo in 393**, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of **Carthage in 397**, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, ***fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures***, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.... The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when **Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414**) repeated the same index of biblical books. **This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century**, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session." (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)

From another scholarly Protestant source, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232), refers to the earlier synod of Rome in AD 382:

                                             "**A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament **(also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent."

It is clear from the Qumran findings (which also included fragments from the Book of Tobit and the Book of Sirach), that Jews of the 1st century accepted different Hebrew versions of the same Sacred books. For example, there were different versions of the Book of Jeremiah discovered at Qumran. There was also evidence that portions of the larger recension of the Book of Daniel were discovered among these Qumran findings. [cf. Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, *The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), pg. 482-501].

My challenge to you or any Protestant willing to take up the challenge is this: by what authority do the Protestants truncate the the inspired Book of Daniel accepted by all Christian Churches since the advent of Christ? Doesn’t this ONE example disprove the formal sufficiency of Scripture?

 

[alanjeddy]

The larger version of the book of Daniel was considered inspired Scripture by all the Christian Churches since the advent of Christ. Then Luther carving it out of “his” Bible.

According to even Protestant sources…

Protestant historian Philip Schaff states:
From another scholarly Protestant source, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232), refers to the earlier synod of Rome in AD 382:
It is clear from the Qumran findings (which also included fragments from the Book of Tobit and the Book of Sirach), that Jews of the 1st century accepted different Hebrew versions of the same Sacred books. For example, there were different versions of the Book of Jeremiah discovered at Qumran. There was also evidence that portions of the larger recension of the Book of Daniel were discovered among these Qumran findings. [cf. Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, *The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible

, (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), pg. 482-501].

My challenge to you or any Protestant willing to take up the challenge is this: by what authority do the Protestants truncate the the inspired Book of Daniel accepted by all Christian Churches since the advent of Christ? Doesn’t this ONE example disprove the formal sufficiency of Scripture?

Perhaps I am being overly simplistic but in Sola Scriptura we have
the root problem why Proteatantism has truncated and splintered into thosands of different denominations because there is no authority to discern what is authentic scriptural interpretation. Protestants hang their heart on Timothy 3:16-17 in the King James Version, the verse reads this way:"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrinee, for reproof, forcorrection, forrr instructionin righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good wworks.

Protestants fail to realize that the context of 2 Timothy is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. So it follows that Sola Scriptura is not only non biblical but the source of an immense amount of disunity in the scriptual interpretation by Protestants.
The proof of the pudding…30,000 denominations.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

The thread is about Scriptural sufficiency. That you would need to reference non-Scriptural sources proves the point that Scripture is not formally sufficient in determining which chapters and verses of Daniel are inspired, and which are not.

And, IMO, you worship Mary and the saints, and earn your salvation on your own merit.

There; we’ve each defined and described the other’s belief.

Sola Scriptura

itsjustdave1988:

Contrary to the sloppy research done by your web links, it is clear from all the Christian mansucripts of Sacred Scripture before the advent of Protestantism of other than fragmentary form that NO CHURCH OF CHRIST rejected the larger version of the Book of Daniel until Luther’s, Calvin’s and Zwingli’s Church, and all those of their “tradition.” Protestants were wrong about Daniel! They would have been correct if they simply follow the rule of faith affirmed by those NEO-Catholics of the early Church, like St. John Chrysostom:

You use an extract on a homily about 2 Thess to “prove” that the Catholic version of the book of Daniel is correct?

And as far as sloppy research concerning this, what makes you an expert? Some letters after your name?

According to R.K. Harrison, B.D., M.Th., Ph.D., and author of numerous books on the O.T.,In the Greek translations of Daniel three or four pieces are added that are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic text as it has come down to us. These are the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. These additions have all been rejected from the canon by the Protestant churches because they are not contained in the Hebrew canon.Harrison deals with the Qumran findings, and concludes what I’ve posted above.

itsjustdave1988:

Why aren’t they part of the Protestant version of Scripture? They were part of Origen’s version. They were part of Jerome’s version. They were “found in every Church of Christ” since apostolic times according to our most ancient Christian testimony on the matter.

Being “found in every Church of Christ” is a far cry from being accepted as inspired.

According to Turretin, with respect to all of the apocrypha, including Daniel, that’s not true:The Jewish church, to which the oracles of God were committed (Rom 3:2), never considered them as canonical, but held the same canon with us (as admitted by Josephus, *Against Apion,….*They are never quoted as canonical by Christ and the apostles like the others. And Christ, by dividing all the books of the Old Testament into three classes (the law, the Psalms, and the prophets), clearly approves of the canon of the Jews and excludes from it those books which are not embraced in these classes. **The Christian church for four hundred years recognized with us the same and no other canonical books…**That includes the additions of the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.

itsjustdave1988:

The larger version of the book of Daniel was considered inspired Scripture by all the Christian Churches since the advent of Christ. Then Luther carving it out of “his” Bible.

Wrong again; Luther’s view of the canon. I suppose you’ll “poison the well” with that source as well.

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #97)

By what authority do Protestants truncate the inspired Word of God?

As Calvin responded to the RCC’s absurd claim that scripture owes its authority to the RCC:Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to the decree of the Church? It is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste.

itsjustdave1988:

My challenge to you or any Protestant willing to take up the challenge is this: by what authority do the Protestants truncate the the inspired Book of Daniel accepted by all Christian Churches since the advent of Christ?

You’ve killed your challenge from your own postings Dave, in which, you are all over the map.

You claim that those books were accepted as inspired by the Church “since the advent of Christ” on the one hand, and on the other hand, quote Schaff as saying that they weren’t part of an official canon until the fourth century—which is it, Dave? Will you make up your mind?

You like Schaff so much, here’s a quote from the beginning of of the section of chapter 9, the chapter from which you quoted earlier:At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the ***number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.***That’s hardly a unanimous acceptance of the church, from, as you say, ”the advent of Christ.”

Seems to me, you’ll go to any length, even contradicting yourself, to make a point. :tiphat: