P
Peter_J
Guest
etc.
Two thoughts: First, how do we get them to see that? Second, remember what Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly to Protestants and carry a big stick.”
- Status
Two thoughts: First, how do we get them to see that? Second, remember what Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly to Protestants and carry a big stick.”
D
Della
Guest
Although Teddy, being a Protestant himself (and anti-Catholic, as well–hated the Irish) wouldn’t have said that, telling the truth in love can be like that, sometimes. It’s why CAF exists, isn’t it? To help our non-Catholic, as well as our Catholic brethren, come to know what the Church actually teaches. It takes lots of prayer, love, and patience–the latter two, I admit I often fail at. 
I
inocente
Guest
You’re not the first to think of this, and I think you have an uphill job.
One strategy is to prove that the non-deutercanonical (protocanonical) books refer to the deutercanonical books. Google took me to Jimmy Akin, who I think contributes to CA. He lists lots of possible cases, and says one day he’ll decide which ones he can prove. I looked at a couple.
The first says Matthew 4:4 could refer to Wisdom 16:26. But the bible at vatican.va says it refers to Deuteronomy.
The next says Matt 4:15 could refer to 1 Maccabees 5:15. But vatican.va gives no reference while the NIV gives Isaiah 9:1-2, which seems correct.
I think all the remaining possible references are probably also disputable, and so none can be proved, or it would have been done long ago.
Another strategy would be to prove that revelation is incomplete without those books. In other words that they alone contain something essential to salvation, and therefore the omission has prevented any Protestant from ever being saved. But if that’s not the case, if you can’t prove that, then not to put too fine a point on it, why would yon Protestant care?
D
Della
Guest
If I were you, I’d consult a good Catholic Bible commentary rather than a couple of examples given by Jimmy Akin. I recommend Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary because he references many of the Early Church Fathers and other theologians and cross-references subjects like this one.
I have never heard of this criteria. I never read it was a criteria the Church used in compiling the list of OT books in the canon, at any rate. If it is a valid criteria, the Song of Solomon certainly doesn’t meet it, and yet it is included in the canon which Protestants accept.
The question then becomes: why is that? As I stated in another post, which you may have missed, the reformers used the Jewish OT canon instead of the Church’s. The Jews certainly didn’t use the criteria you have used here. Their list excluded certain books written after a certain period of time, not because of their contents or lack thereof.
I
inocente
Guest
I do, but Akin one day hopes to find a verse in a protocanonical book which says "as it is written - " and then makes a reference which is unambiguously to a deutercanonical book, indicating that without that book, the bible is incomplete.
Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest who first worked out the big bang theory, said “The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation”, and then makes the point that “their doctrine of immortality and salvation …” is why “the Bible was given to us at all”. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
Without that doctrine the bible would just be an interesting set of old books with an interesting history. Yes, scholars would argue long into the night about the points you raise, but their decisions wouldn’t affect the rest of us.
What does affect us is the “doctrine of immortality and salvation”. If omitting some books damages the doctrine and prevents salvation then that is critically important. If not, then surely it’s just academic?
D
Della
Guest
Of course, what Mr. Akin hopes isn’t the point. Nor did I base my response on Mr. Akin’s comments.
No one made the claim that doctrine isn’t important, but you stated that the deuterocanonical books must show “that they alone contain something essential to salvation, and therefore the omission has prevented any Protestant from ever being saved.” And I pointed out that that was not the criteria the Church used for determining the OT canon and gave an example. You didn’t address my objection here.
P
Peter_J
Guest
hi inocente.
I certainly have nothing against either you or Mr. Akin (I’d need to know a lot more about him for one thing); but if I might reiterate what I told someone else recently, I really find it funny how almost every time I hear the name Jimmy Akin, the person bringing it up is Protestant.
I
inocente
Guest
I said it seems academic. All the history is easily available to everyone, you can start at Wikipedia, find the latest research at Google Scholar, and the books themselves are available online in several translations, for instance support.biblegateway.com/hc/en-us/articles/228180287-Are-the-deuterocanonical-books-the-Apocrypha-available-on-Bible-Gateway-
Everyone who is interested will know all of that. So imho something new would be needed, presenting a clear and present danger to spiritual safety, to generate wailing and gnashing of teeth rather than a meeh.
I
inocente
Guest
Hi. I googled the topic and his website was listed. Otherwise I know nothing of him, except that he’s a senior apologist at Catholic Answers, see catholic.com/profiles/jimmy-akinhi inocente.
I certainly have nothing against either you or Mr. Akin (I’d need to know a lot more about him for one thing); but if I might reiterate what I told someone else recently, I really find it funny how almost every time I hear the name Jimmy Akin, the person bringing it up is Protestant.
So you could always send him a PM.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright, I don’t disagree with any of that. As I said, I just find it funny how almost every time I hear that name, the person bringing it up is Protestant.
Okay. About what?
D
Della
Guest
Indeed, the history is available. That has nothing to do with the fact that the criteria you cited isn’t one used by either the reformers or the Church in deciding the OT canon.
“A clear and present danger” [to whose] spiritual safety" regarding what? The canon of the OT? I hardly think so. People who have never had a Bible in their hands may be saved–many who never learned to read or write may be saved. To think that one has to have the “right” Bible to gain salvation turns the Bible into an idol. I thought Baptists believed that only Christ can save us and nothing else–we Catholics certainly do.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I doubt very much that any Protestant converted to Catholicism because they suddenly realized they had an incomplete Bible!
The problem isn’t the canon of the Bible, it’s that it has been violently separated from the Church of Christ. It was never meant to be stolen and used as a substitute for the Church of Christ. THAT is the real problem. THAT is what is ANTI-BIBLICAL! THAT is what makes Protestantism false and dangerous to salvation.
I
inocente
Guest
The OP suggests that “If the Protestant canon is wrong, then sola scripture rests on very faulty ground indeed”.Indeed, the history is available. That has nothing to do with the fact that the criteria you cited isn’t one used by either the reformers or the Church in deciding the OT canon.
“A clear and present danger” [to whose] spiritual safety" regarding what? The canon of the OT? I hardly think so. People who have never had a Bible in their hands may be saved–many who never learned to read or write may be saved. To think that one has to have the “right” Bible to gain salvation turns the Bible into an idol. I thought Baptists believed that only Christ can save us and nothing else–we Catholics certainly do.
As you’ve just said there is no “right” bible, my work here is done
.And you also say the “problem isn’t the canon”.I doubt very much that any Protestant converted to Catholicism because they suddenly realized they had an incomplete Bible!
The problem isn’t the canon of the Bible, it’s that it has been violently separated from the Church of Christ. It was never meant to be stolen and used as a substitute for the Church of Christ. THAT is the real problem. THAT is what is ANTI-BIBLICAL! THAT is what makes Protestantism false and dangerous to salvation.
PS: Your caps lock key seems to BE broken, giving THE impression you SHOUT some words at random.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep. This is one of the trump cards of Catholicism.
One cannot know whether the Epistle of Clement is inspired or not…except for a deference to the authority of the Catholic Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The ever-present Catholic Both/And is at work here.
There is great value in showing love, compassion, care, concern for non-Catholics, but we can ALSO show them the error of their beliefs.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s not convincing to Protestants because they haven’t thought out their position.
It’s a blind belief they have in the canon.
But when questioned, “How is it that you know that [Text A] is inspired but [Text B] is not inspired?” their response is not well articulated.
D
Della
Guest
What work of yours is done here? You haven’t proved anything nor have you lessened the Church’s authority to decide the canon with your replies.The OP suggests that “If the Protestant canon is wrong, then sola scripture rests on very faulty ground indeed”.
As you’ve just said there is no “right” bible, my work here is done
Do you know why the canon of Scripture was compiled in the first place? It isn’t what you may think. It was compiled so that all the dioceses of the Church would be using the same books in the Church’s liturgies: the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours/Divine Office. It wasn’t compiled to prove this or that doctrine. And why is that? Because the Bible is not and never has been a proof-text for doctrine. Rather, the Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition–one that gives witness to the working of God among men, and the authority he gave those men to speak in his name. In the OT that includes the Patriarchs and Prophets and Priest. In the NT that is the Apostles and those they anointed to attend to the needs of the various dioceses throughout the world.
If you have the idea that everything we believe must explicitly cited in the Bible, you make the Bible into something it was never intended to be–the final authority. It isn’t. The Magisterium of Christ’s Church is the final authority, which indeed uses Scripture to decide matters of faith and morals, but not the Scriptures alone. If that were the case, there would have been no NT written at all for it is a witness to the early Church, but it does not take the place of the Church. It never has and it never will.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
In fact, the Christian faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.
And, the Bible reflects the kerygma that was given, once for all, to our Christian fathers. That is, the texts which were consonant with that which was already being preached were discerned to be theopneustos.
NOT “we read the Bible and then decide what we preach”.
I
inocente
Guest
You’ll see I highlighted two words in your post, where you speculate on what I may or may not think.
All I meant by “my work here is done” is I joined the thread to discuss the OP, and as we seem to agree there’s no “right” bible, from my point of view the topic has been answered.
But as you took the trouble to write your post, I’ll say what I think about those points, although further discussion would be off-topic.
Bible - Many generations ago, some books were collected by our forebears. Then, many generations later, for whatever reasons, their descendants decided to go their separate ways, each inheriting the work of the forebears. As far as I know, none of the descendants’ religions, including the Church, claim exclusive rights, since it was the work of their common forebears done under the guidance of God.
Authority - I believe strongly in the principle that in matters of faith each person must do what she thinks is right. Therefore I cannot tell anyone what she ought to believe, since she answers to God alone, not to me or anyone else. It’s a Baptist thing, don’t know whether other religions agree. Romans 14, “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. … So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God”. As a result, I only participate in discussions about authority when that principle is questioned.
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
I can say - I attend a Catholic church now, and used to attend a Baptist church. There is almost no one to talk scripture with at the Catholic church, as they just don’t read it - quite different than the Baptist church.
Is it better to have 66 and read them or 73 that collect dust.
Still working on Catholicism, miss the wonderful community and sermons at the Baptist church.
Is it better to have 66 and read them or 73 that collect dust.
Still working on Catholicism, miss the wonderful community and sermons at the Baptist church.
- Status