SPLIT: Sola Scriptura debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornAgainRN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have another question which I didn’t see raised yet (perhaps I missed it). If the Catholic Church only added the Deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in the 1500s, why are they also in the Orthodox Canon, given that the two groups split 500 years earlier?

Or to put it another way, why don’t the Orthodox use the Protestant canon?
 
snarflemike said:
I have another question which I didn’t see raised yet (perhaps I missed it). If the Catholic Church only added the Deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in the 1500s, why are they also in the Orthodox Canon, given that the two groups split 500 years earlier?

Or to put it another way, why don’t the Orthodox use the Protestant canon?
Click to expand...
Because the Deuterocanonical books were in the Old Testament, but the early Catholic church wasn’t universal in them being as authoritative as the Hebrew canon. This is supported by Jesus authority of the Hebrew canon in Luke 11:49-51 & Luke 24:27 & 44-45. Keep in mind the ‘Deuterocanonical’ books were around, but Jesus did not acknowledge them in them in these verse, or elsewhere. I assume that the Greek Orthodox has them too, If they do, it is because they split in the 11th Century from the Catholic church, which became known as 'The Great Schism," which occurred before the Reformation, when later Reformers realized that those books weren’t authoritative,which is why they removed them.
 
BornAgainRN said:
(only 2 weren’t), by Jesus acknowledging the Hebrew canon in the passages from Luke, Jesus was declaring them to be authoritative.
Click to expand...
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah. aren’t quoted, making it 8. How come the LXX is almost exclusively quoted yet the epistles of the apostles contain no explicit warning against using them? Were they that careless with the result that the Church, which the gates of Hades cannot overwhelm, fell into error concerning the canon for so long?
 
BornAgainRN said:
Because the Deuterocanonical books were in the Old Testament, but the early Catholic church wasn’t universal in them being as authoritative as the Hebrew canon.
Click to expand...
Let’s see - the Catholic Church recognized them as being scripture, and the Orthodox Church recognized them as being scripture. Before 1500 that’s about as universal as one can get.

Tell me again when any Church council listed the Protestant canon as the true canon?
 
BornAgainRN said:
Because the Deuterocanonical books were in the Old Testament, but the early Catholic church wasn’t universal in them being as authoritative as the Hebrew canon. This is supported by Jesus authority of the Hebrew canon in Luke 11:49-51 & Luke 24:27 & 44-45. Keep in mind the ‘Deuterocanonical’ books were around, but Jesus did not acknowledge them in them in these verse, or elsewhere. I assume that the Greek Orthodox has them too, If they do, it is because they split in the 11th Century from the Catholic church, which became known as 'The Great Schism," which occurred before the Reformation, when later Reformers realized that those books weren’t authoritative,which is why they removed them.
Click to expand...
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 11:49-51[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]Luke 24:27[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]Luke 24:44-45[/BIBLEDRB]

I don’t see an exhaustive list in any of those passages. Nor is there a reference to “Rabbi Bob’s list” or any such thing. In fact, there are no references to the historical books at all! (you know the missing ones: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah) There are even a couple of wisdom/poetic books missing! (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon)

Wikipedia has a nice chart about the Old Testament canon in various traditions. Some of these traditions were basically out of contact with Rome since the time of the Apostles. However,most of the Deuterocanonicals are accepted by all of them (the Ethiopian Church does not accept 1 & 2 Maccabees but do accept some other books that no other Apostolic Church does).

It should be noted that all Christians, except those developing from the Protestant Reformation, hold the same beliefs concerning Mary, the Eucharist, Confession, etc. They have differing ways of expressing those beliefs but if you take the time to go through them carefully, you will find they are the same as Catholics’.
 
BornAgainRN,

I know there is a lot to go through in this thread, so certainly I don’t expect a fast response to the various points I raised yesterday in Post #79 & Post #80 (although I am still interested in your comments when you have time). But there is one question that I brought up which has a bearing on two of the posts you made today addressed to other people.

Here are the sections from your posts, to which I will add emphasis with bold-faced highlighting:
BornAgainRN said:
Jesus acknowledged the Hebrew canon as authoritative (which was completed around 430 B.C.) by referring to them in passages like Luke 11:49-51; 24:27; 24:44-45, etc., but He never acknowledged the ‘Deuterocanonical’ books as being authoritative. Although He read out of the Septuagint (which contained it), Jesus, nor any Bible writer, acknowledged or quoted from it. And even though Jude quoted from Enoch, he didn’t say the book was authoritative, & although not every OT book was quoted (only 2 weren’t), by Jesus acknowledging the Hebrew canon in the passages from Luke, Jesus was declaring them to be authoritative.
Click to expand...
BornAgainRN said:
Because the Deuterocanonical books were in the Old Testament, but the early Catholic church wasn’t universal in them being as authoritative as the Hebrew canon. This is supported by Jesus authority of the Hebrew canon in Luke 11:49-51 & Luke 24:27 & 44-45. Keep in mind the ‘Deuterocanonical’ books were around, but Jesus did not acknowledge them in them in these verse, or elsewhere. I assume that the Greek Orthodox has them too, If they do, it is because they split in the 11th Century from the Catholic church, which became known as 'The Great Schism," which occurred before the Reformation, when later Reformers realized that those books weren’t authoritative,which is why they removed them.
Click to expand...
In light of this, I will present once more a question I raised yesterday in Post #80 and ask for your reply:

I ask you to define for me exactly what you mean by the term “authoritative.” The way I see it, the only essential question is whether or not a text in question is divinely inspired. If it is, then it belongs in the Bible, and if it is not then it doesn’t. So please clarify what you mean when you speak of a book being authoritative, and how such a term is relevant to this discussion.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This thread is not, repeat not, about the Deuterocanonicals, but about Sola Scriptura and whether or not it is a valid scripturally supported doctrine.

Please get back on topic and drop all discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Any further such off topic posts will incur infractions.
 
BornAgainRN, one litle thing: Where in the Bible does it say you could used the Bible only to interpret the Bible? Just wondering!
 
:)I hope it wasn’t anything I posted asking questions BornAgainRN (Steve). 🤷
 
JustaServant said:
Who told you the Bible is a neutral source?
The Bible you have, that your preacher has when he preaches this drivel, is a Catholic work. It was put together by the Catholic Church, written by Catholics: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Jude, James, and Peter.
Why are you using a Book the Catholic Church gave you to disprove Catholic doctrine?
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?
That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
BARN, would you please answer the above?
 
Bit of a side question.

So we have the Bible in print. And sense the Bible alone isn’t enough to have the full truth; then are the Traditions of the Church written down somewhere? Or are they only passed down verbally?

Just wondering…

Because these debates on sola scripture always come down to:
  1. Early church fathers disagree
  2. 2000 years of church practice disagree
  3. Your personal interpretation doesn’t have authority
So I’d sure like to get my hands on the tradition - written down - to better study/ understand Catholic dogma.
 
Side question.

If this issue of sola scripture comes up so often, could it not be addressed by the tradition of the Church being printed as well and read along with the Bible; sense it is always Scripture and Tradition?
 
jpennstar said:
Side question.

If this issue of sola scripture comes up so often, could it not be addressed by the tradition of the Church being printed as well and read along with the Bible; sense it is always Scripture and Tradition?
Click to expand...
Oral traditions of the RCC are printed in several books. The Catechism of the RCC is a good start. Also, see Study Bibles approved by the RCC.
 
Hi, BornAgain RN. You are correct that Scripture is God’s word, but God’s word is more than just Scripture. Scripture says the Apostles’ oral preaching constituted also God’s word, not man’s word. “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers,” 1 Thes 2:13.

We Catholics do not consider ourselves authorized to disregard any portion of God’s word, including the Apostles’ oral preaching which has been handed down to us in what we call the Apostolic Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top