ss again

  • Thread starter Thread starter benhur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ed,

Have you viewed any of Father Barron’s stuff. Check him out on YouTube. He has a great way if making sense of the faith in short little 10 min clips.

Here is his video on this issue of authority.

youtu.be/RWYwBDqFsuE
 
I think as you discern you should keep these words from Protestant Carl Trueman in your head. He is dead right.

"“Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day.”

-Carl Trueman, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary

So you really should start at Cstholicism and then say I am protesting x y and z. And have solid indisputable reasons for x y and z.
It might help if you put your above quote in context…

Protestant Carl Trueman review and criticism of the book “Is the Reformation Over?: An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism”

Here is what he says in his review above the above book (the entire paragraph you took your quote from though not the entire article"…

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot go down that path myself, primarily because of my view of justification by faith and because of my ecclesiology; but those who reject the former and lack the latter have no real basis upon which to perpetuate what is, in effect, an act of schism on their part. For such, the Reformation is over; for me, the fat lady has yet to sing; in fact, I am not sure at this time that she has even left her dressing room.
 
It might help if you put your above quote in context…

Protestant Carl Trueman review and criticism of the book “Is the Reformation Over?: An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism”

Here is what he says in his review above the above book (the entire paragraph you took your quote from though not the entire article"…

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot go down that path myself, primarily because of my view of justification by faith and because of my ecclesiology; but those who reject the former and lack the latter have no real basis upon which to perpetuate what is, in effect, an act of schism on their part. For such, the Reformation is over; for me, the fat lady has yet to sing; in fact, I am not sure at this time that she has even left her dressing room.
Thanks for the full quote,

I don’t see it changing the message though. 🤷

Many Protestants start out with “Protestantism is true and stand alone”.

It is really looking at it backwards though.

They should be protesting something, as Trueman is, or they should be catholic.
 
Ed,

Have you viewed any of Father Barron’s stuff. Check him out on YouTube. He has a great way if making sense of the faith in short little 10 min clips.

Here is his video on this issue of authority.

youtu.be/RWYwBDqFsuE
I watch EWTN everyday. I think I’ve seen just about everything father Baron has had on EWTN (at least since I started watching EWTN a few years back). You are right in what you say about him.

Ed
 
No that’s really totally different.

The whole reason for McGrath’s argument is that there is no Magesterium or ability to define concise doctrine in Protestantism.
I don’t agree with you, not at this point anyway.
 
I don’t agree with you, not at this point anyway.
I havn’t chimmed in here and don’t intend to… but wanted to say thanks edkw for joining this forum and making this thread rather lively. 😃
 
Thanks for the full quote,

I don’t see it changing the message though. 🤷

Many Protestants start out with “Protestantism is true and stand alone”.

It is really looking at it backwards though.

They should be protesting something, as Trueman is, or they should be catholic.
Read the entire article. What he says about the state of Protestantism is another biggie, a really big big biggie, that nearly drove me to abandon Protestantism and head for Rome. But as Trueman says at the end of the article…“For such, the Reformation is over; for me, the fat lady has yet to sing; in fact, I am not sure at this time that she has even left her dressing room.” and I am with hanging in there with him at this point.

Ed
 
The book you refer to above “The Canon of Scripture” by F.F. Bruce I read about 20 years ago. He was one of the most highly regarded Protestant scholars and historians of the 20th century. I can tell you for a fact that he rejected the Deuterocanonical books as belonging in the canon of Scripture.

Ed
Yes I know Ed. Sorry if I implied otherwise. I just wanted to give another viewpoint showing there is even more to the story than “the council of Carthage or Hippo approved the canon”.

Peace!!!
 
Yes I know Ed. Sorry if I implied otherwise. I just wanted to give another viewpoint showing there is even more to the story than “the council of Carthage or Hippo approved the canon”.

Peace!!!
I understand what you are saying. I sure need to do a lot of reading on this issue. My ignorance on this topic…me thinks me should just keep my mouth shut…ed
 
I need to do a lot of research on this issue in order to make any kind of reasonable decision about this or even open my mouth at all to comment.

Ed
Ed,

Think this as you do your research:
  • The same Church that decided that the 7 books were scripture
  • Is the same Church that decided the 27 books of the New Testament were scripture out of a couple of hundred writings
I would argue based on reason: If you can not trust this Church on the former, then neither can you trust it on the latter.

The great news is that this Church decided what was scripture based on the apostolic faith and teachings handed down through time. This is all due to Christ promising to be with his Church until the end of time, and promising to guide it to all Truth.

You do understand that the canon of scripture was put together by The Church for education in the faith but also to have a universal set of readings at Mass. And those that decided what was scripture were Catholic Bishops (at Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence, and Trent). That’s why Catholics refer to the bible as a Catholic book, written by, for and about Catholics and the Catholic faith.

Catholics are the original bible Christians. 🙂
 
I read the article you mentioned a while back and watched the video yesterday. The video was thought provoking but I need to do a lot of research, from both the Catholic and Protestant perspective before making up my mind on this one.

Ed
Saw the article. There are no lists before 383 yet some were proposed way before that,as I posted…but for sure from 383 it was set by the church…the part of the article is biased by saying Luther dropped the books," on nothing more than on his say so". Not sure but just the fact that others before him had similar reservations makes me question the sincerity of the article.
 
Saw the article. There are no lists before 383 yet some were proposed way before that,as I posted…but for sure from 383 it was set by the church…the part of the article is biased by saying Luther dropped the books," on nothing more than on his say so". Not sure but just the fact that others before him had similar reservations makes me question the sincerity of the article.
Some of the best and brightest included (Jerome for example, the guy responsible for the Vulgate translation). Do you really want me to come up with a list?

Ed
 
Saw the article. There are no lists before 383 yet some were proposed way before that,as I posted…but for sure from 383 it was set by the church…the part of the article is biased by saying Luther dropped the books," on nothing more than on his say so". Not sure but just the fact that others before him had similar reservations makes me question the sincerity of the article.
Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent at Augsburg in 1518, rejected the deuterocanonical books…

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
 
Saw the article. There are no lists before 383 yet some were proposed way before that,as I posted…but for sure from 383 it was set by the church…the part of the article is biased by saying Luther dropped the books," on nothing more than on his say so". Not sure but just the fact that others before him had similar reservations makes me question the sincerity of the article.
From The New Catholic Encyclopedia…

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.".

I could go on and on but won’t.

Ed
 
I understand what you are saying. I sure need to do a lot of reading on this issue. My ignorance on this topic…me thinks me should just keep my mouth shut…ed
No!, not at all! Ignorance is only a bad thing when coupled to a closed mind.😉
 
From The New Catholic Encyclopedia…

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.".

I could go on and on but won’t.

Ed
agreed but depending on the rebuttals.good stuff again, thanks…maybe you can help but I thought Catholics also rejected a few books from septuagint but some one here said they included them all
 
agreed but depending on the rebuttals.good stuff again, thanks…maybe you can help but I thought Catholics also rejected a few books from septuagint but some one here said they included them all
I don’t know benhur. Not sure I should even be talking on this subject until I get more educated. I need to know if the “supposed” Protestant "propaganda I have heard for decades concerning this issue is just that, Protestant "propaganda, or truth.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top