Some Protestant s complaint about The Church added 7 books

[alchemon]

The irony to the Protestant argument of the valid Word is that “their” Bible is basically the result of an ecumenical council of early Protestants. Thus, the idea of sola scriptura is at best circular reasoning (ie the Bible is valid because it is the Bible) without admitting to the idea of a Tradition.

 

[JonNC]

The irony to the Protestant argument of the valid Word is that “their” Bible is basically the result of an ecumenical council of early Protestants. Thus, the idea of sola scriptura is at best circular reasoning (ie the Bible is valid because it is the Bible) without admitting to the idea of a Tradition.

Pardon my befuddlement. What Protestant council are you speaking of.
Sola scriptural does not exclude Tradition.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[JohnR77]

I thought of a new response. (At lesst I’ve never heard ths)
The response is to act slightly baffled and admit that the Catholic Church did indeed add books. However thats the wrong number. We added not 7 but 27 books.

Actually, I want to congratulate you on your excellent point. I think it is best to move the discussion to the canon of the 27 New Testament books because Protestants cannot defend with anything close to infallibility the canon of the N.T. The earliest list of those 27 books does not come up in extant texts until about AD 370.

The canon of the O.T. usually gets bogged down with secondary arguments over their worthiness.

After pointing to the necessity of the authority of the Catholic Church for the 27 New Testament books, then I will go to the secondary argument of O.T. and point out how the Bibles before Luther included the 7 Deuterocanonical Books.

defendingthebride.com/bb/judith.html

defendingthebride.com/bb/manuscripts.html

.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, I want to congratulate you on your excellent point. I think it is best to move the discussion to the canon of the 27 New Testament books because Protestants cannot defend with anything close to infallibility the canon of the N.T. The earliest list of those 27 books does not come up in extant texts until about AD 370.

The canon of the O.T. usually gets bogged down with secondary arguments over their worthiness.

After pointing to the necessity of the authority of the Catholic Church for the 27 New Testament books,

I think it is indefensible to deny the role of the Church Catholic in the compilation of the NT scripture. Further, there is no reason to deny it. To deny something because the Catholic Church was involved in its development leaves out the vast majority of what most Christians believe. Most confess the creeds, and acknowledge, to one degree or another, the importance of the early councils. The Catholic church was involved in these.

then I will go to the secondary argument of O.T. and point out how the Bibles before Luther included the 7 Deuterocanonical Books.

And so did Luther’s translation. Some of them even included, and do so to this day, other books that we in the west, Catholic or nonCatholic, do not have. Luther included the Prayer of Manasseh, not found in most western Bible.
So, I think it is valid to point out the facts you raise here.

Jon

 

[Genesis315]

I think it is indefensible to deny the role of the Church Catholic in the compilation of the NT scripture. Further, there is no reason to deny it. To deny something because the Catholic Church was involved in its development leaves out the vast majority of what most Christians believe. Most confess the creeds, and acknowledge, to one degree or another, the importance of the early councils. The Catholic church was involved in these.

And the Protestant ecclesial communities were involved in none of that–they didn’t even exist. It makes no sense, therefore, for them to accept those things, but reject the Church that produced them.

 

[DavidFilmer]

FWIW, the original 1611 King James Bible included the Apocrypha.

A CoE Englishman told me that, in England, it is difficult to find a KJV that doesn’t include it. He had never seen one until he came over here. He didn’t even know that such a thing exists.

Martin Luther’s 1534 translation included the Apocrypha (though completely separated out; this was the first time anyone separated them like this).

 

[JonNC]

And the Protestant ecclesial communities were involved in none of that–they didn’t even exist. It makes no sense, therefore, for them to accept those things, but reject the Church that produced them.

Others will have to speak for themselves, so I’m speaking for me.
I belong to one of the major political parties. I almost always vote for their candidates, but I don’t always agree with everything in their platform. Should I reject that political party?

It would make no sense for me to reject everything the Catholic Church teaches, when so much of what we believe is the same. That the Catholic Church teaches something doesn’t mean I must reject that teaching, simply because the Catholic Church teaches it.

Lutherans confess the three creeds. Our mass is very similar to yours. We accept what is taught in the early councils of the Church. Where we agree, we should give thanks to God.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

FWIW, the original 1611 King James Bible included the Apocrypha.

A CoE Englishman told me that, in England, it is difficult to find a KJV that doesn’t include it. He had never seen one until he came over here. He didn’t even know that such a thing exists.

Martin Luther’s 1534 translation included the Apocrypha (though completely separated out; this was the first time anyone separated them like this).

Not positive, but I think Luther’s was also the first western Bible to include the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[alchemon]

Jon,

In reference to your question earlier, I apologize for loosely using the term ecumenical council. But to answer your question:

It is well known that Luther struggled/took issue with many books of the Bible. Initially, the Reformers included the deuterocanical books after the New Testament, but there was no consensus on which books were canonical. For most Protestants in the United States, this was resolved at the Assembly of Westminster 1647. From then until the early/mid 1800s including the deuterocanical books was standard by publishers in Britain (ie many English translations). They were then removed which is why most English Protestant bibles do not include them in any way.

Of course with Protestantism we are dealing with many different histories and theologians so this answer may not apply directly to you. In general though, it is true that every Protestant Bible was the result of a group of men, with a defacto leader that heavily influenced thinking or by adopting the ipso facto English bible (King James Version) for the later evangelical groups. Luther and Calvin were part among the early Reformers while others came later.

And with regards to sola scriptura vs tradition: again in dealing with Protestants the answer depends. Many do not believe in any tradition while most of your Old World Protestants do. The issue is that if sola Scriptura means all tradition must be compatible/provable by the Word, then what tradition is used to establish canon in and of itself? The Bible must the. Be “self-evident” which it clearly is not (see Luthers issues with James vs Paul as an example). Thus, for true inspiration, one must appeal to an extra biblical tradition unless one resorts to circular reasoning.

 

[adf417]

Not positive, but I think Luther’s was also the first western Bible to include the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

And this whole time I thought you were positive on this matter.

Peace!!!

 

[Ignatius]

Actually, I want to congratulate you on your excellent point. I think it is best to move the discussion to the canon of the 27 New Testament books because Protestants cannot defend with anything close to infallibility the canon of the N.T. The earliest list of those 27 books does not come up in extant texts until about AD 370.

The canon of the O.T. usually gets bogged down with secondary arguments over their worthiness.

After pointing to the necessity of the authority of the Catholic Church for the 27 New Testament books, then I will go to the secondary argument of O.T. and point out how the Bibles before Luther included the 7 Deuterocanonical Books.

defendingthebride.com/bb/judith.html

defendingthebride.com/bb/manuscripts.html

.

Absolutely, the real issue is the 27 Book New Testament Canon that was declared by Pope Damasus I in 382. As you pointed out, non of the Protestant groups were involved, they didn’t even exist.