Trent Horn to debate OT canon

[RaisedCatholic]

the Church doesn’t address supposed errors in inspired Scripture. As Horn pointed out, even among Protestants they have differing conclusions as how to explain the supposed contradictions contained in the Protocanon. Even atheists have their “gotcha” examples which will never be answered to their satisfaction.

Christie’s point though was the difference in the “order” how Protestants vs. Catholics determine if a text is Scripture or not. Protestants don’t assume anything, but TEST the Scriptures FIRST. Non-Protestants determine a text is Scripture FIRST, and THEN address the errors. The latter seems to be a bit circular & backwards approach. It would similar to a Protestant saying, “The Protocanon & the NT are Scripture, and NOW we’ll deal with the apparent errors.” But Protestants don’t approach these two groups of text this way. They do the reverse.

And Protestants coming to different conclusions isn’t the same as Rome not being able to reconcile the errors in the Deuterocanon. Giving more than one explanation to reconcile an error still results in the error being reconciled, but not being able to reconcile an error at all is not the same. Yeah, I remember Trent Horn making that comment, and I thought it was rather a weak argument. It’s not even close to the same thing.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Is it that the Protestant Canon views both as inconsistent, or not adding anything knew, or unverifiable? I think it would be worth exploring this since Trent Horn was attempting to establish what qualities a book must have in order to be accepted and asked Christie what qualities he uses to accept books/defend the smaller canon.

From Christie’s arguments, the difference between how a Protestant determines a particular work is God-breathed vs how a non-Protestant (or at least a Catholic) determines it is a matter of godly criteria, like the work lacking errors & contradictions BEFORE determining it is Scripture or not, whether or not it was written by miracle-performing prophets of God or apostles of Christ, and if they were written during a period of time before prophecy (or the apostles themselves) ceased. No one would embrace “adding” anything written after AD 95 after the death of the last apostle John. Likewise, for Protestants they would not embrace “adding” anything after 400 BC after prophecy ceased. And as Christie asked Trent, if prophecy continued after this time, why don’t we find an active prophet engaging with God in an active prophetic ministry at the caliber of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, or the latter prophets like Zechariah, Malachi, Haggai, etc. in the Deuterocanonical books? I don’t believe Trent addressed this.

I wonder if the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books are viewed in the same light as the gnostic books and if so, what does that tell us about the Protestant perspective?

In terms of Protestants, they view them the same. They were both written after 400 BC, but before the NT books. There was no active prophet or prophetic ministry during this time to validate any of these books were breathed-out by God. And many of them, include 1 Enoch, contradict previous Scriptures. Christie pointed this out in the debate, and gave examples in his book, including contradictions between 1 Enoch & Genesis 6.

RaisedCatholic:

But your comment doesn’t address why you aren’t saying Trent should stop discussing it, like you are here.

Thats because i didnt say that. Please dont put words in my mouth RC.

No offense was meant. But I never said that you said this. Your earlier comment was you don’t understand why people are continuing to discuss the debate because, “the debate is over.” Does that include just non-Catholics, or also Trent Horn, Gary Michuta, & William Albrecht - all Catholics - who continue to discuss the debate even though “the debate is over”? I am just wondering why you aren’t saying THEY should stop discussing it too, since they are continuing to discuss it?

 

[Magnanimity]

However, the Catholic & Orthodox disagree on not only the OT canon, but also several other important issues, like the supremacy of the papacy, the Filioque, etc.

What these two communions agree on far surpasses what they disagree on, with the juridical primacy of the pope being the only real hang up that seems difficult to resolve.

However, your response is deflective. It is the individual without a God-ordained authoritative voice to settle matters of dispute who is in tricky waters with regard to any canon at all. You are an inheritor of conciliar pronouncements on the NT canon. You just presume their authority? How could you possibly know that the epistle of Jude is inspired writing? Or 3rd John? Or Revelation or Titus? The three points you listed would not be enough, by themselves, to determine that those writings are in fact inspired scripture. They were all disputed early on. The church of the first millennium settled it for you and bequeathed you your NT. But presumably you don’t accept its claim of apostolic succession, so…? And, the church eventually settled that the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1,2 Clement, etc aren’t inspired scripture. But if church councils are capable of error, perhaps these writing actually do belong in our NT.

 

[adf417]

I am just wondering why you aren’t saying THEY should stop discussing it too, since they are continuing to discuss it?

You are implying i said you or we should stop discussing this. Please show us where I said this. I did not. I said it was silly to debate the debate. Its over and those who watch it can form their own opinions as some have. If you wish to continue discussing it please feel free to do so. But please stop putting words in my mouth.

Peace!!!

 

[MarkRome]

The Protocanon & the NT are Scripture, and NOW we’ll deal with the apparent errors.” But Protestants don’t approach these two groups of text this way. They do the reverse.

Right. Martin Luther ripped out the Deuterocanon because he decided that they taught “errors” which meant things that were contradictory to what he believed. He also wanted to remove the book of James, calling it an “epistle of straw”. In additions, he also relegated Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation as disputed books. Moreover, he added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 to clear up that “error”. Not exactly an inspiring way to treat Scripture.
If Luther had his way with his “errors” then Protestants would also be missing books of the NT.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Christie addressed this at least twice in his debate with Trent, when he mentioned that Protestants use the same (or at least similar) godly criteria for the NT books that Catholics and Protestants use for the books of the Hebrew Bible: 1) lack or errors and contradictions with previous or later inspired Scripture, 2) written by miracle-performing prophets or apostles to validate their work (or those of their close contemporaries) were God-breathed Scripture (like Paul validating Luke’s), 3) written during a specific time period before prophecy ceased (before 400 BC for the OT, and before 100 BC for the NT before the apostle John died) and not afterwards. But when it comes to the Deuterocanon, Christie pointed out in the debate that Catholics like Horn suddenly change their apologetics, and don’t say there aren’t “actual” errors in them, but they change the genre of the text from Historical (like Judith and Tobit which is how the NABRE Table of Contents lists them), to “allegory.” Like Christie pointed out in the debate, why use different criteria for these 7 books, and change the original genre of these books as a way of avoiding addressing these irreconcilable errors?

So, Protestants are not dependent on the previous NT lists of Catholic councils (since they did not produce the exact same lists, as Christie pointed out in the debate). And Christie corrected Horn that Protestants don’t “assume” the Deuteros are not inspired, because they use these same godly criteria for ANY writing. Rather, it is the Catholic that BEGINS by assuming the Deuteros are Scripture without testing them FIRST. But by doing that, they non-falsify these errors as being “apparent” rather than the potential of them being real.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I think you are missing my point. You said the debate is over and it is silly to continue discussing it. All I asked was, “do you believe it is also silly for Horn, Michuta, and Albrecht to continue discussing it as well?” I didn’t accuse you of anything, nor putting words in your mouth. I asked you a simple question that you still have not answered. If “no,” they why it it “not silly” for them to continue discussing this for over 70 minutes, while it is “silly” for people on this forum to continue discussing it? If “yes,” it is silly for them too to continue discussing this, then why haven’t you said this? Don’t read into what I am asking. Just address my actual question.

And for anyone, including @MarkRome @adf417 @Magnanimity or anyone else who would like to listen to both post-debate interviews, the first one is of Horn, and the second isone of Christie, here they are:

Post Debate with Trent Horn (This is Gary Michuta’s and William Albrecht’s channel).

Post debate with Steve Christie. (This link is also on Gary’s and William’s channel as well).

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

The Protocanon & the NT are Scripture, and NOW we’ll deal with the apparent errors.” But Protestants don’t approach these two groups of text this way. They do the reverse.

Right. Martin Luther ripped out the Deuterocanon because he decided that they taught “errors” which meant things that were contradictory to what he believed. He also wanted to remove the book of James, calling it an “epistle of straw”. In additions, he also relegated Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation as disputed books. Moreover, he added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 to clear up that “error”. Not exactly an inspiring way to treat Scripture.
If Luther had his way with his “errors” then Protestants would also be missing books of the NT.

Your comment has nothing to do with the context of my comment, which was that Christie pointing out to Horn in the debate the subjectivity and non-falsifiability of BEGINNING with assuming that these 7 books are Scripture. By assuming this FIRST, then if there are indeed irreconcilable errors in them, then since Scripture cannot contain errors, Horn is not actually addressing them but instead changing the genre of the text (from Historical to Allegorical) in order to avoid dealing with these errors as being real and not just apparent.

And as far as Luther goes: 1) He didn’t “rip” them out of his Bible. He included them in his German translation, just in an uninspired section in-between the OT and NT; 2) it wasn’t because they “disagreed with his theology”; 3) Luther could not find them in the Targums like he could with the books of the Hebrew Bible, and he learned the Jews of antiquity rejected them: 4) regarding James, Luther only said that in the Preface in his FIRST commentary of his German translation. The subsequent ones omitted this, and he ended up keeping James and these other NT books even in his first, and later, translations; 5) early Catholics rejected James and these same NT books too. The difference is that Luther included them, while those early Catholics didn’t. Christie brought all this up in his book and/or his debate with Horn.

So, these common Catholic arguments are fallacious and outdated, which even Michuta urges Catholics to stop using them, because Protestants can easily debunk them.

 

[MarkRome]

So, these common Catholic arguments are fallacious and outdated

No, they aren’t. I know many Protestants want to whitewash what Luther did with the Holy Scriptures because it really is bad. I mean really bad, especially coming from one who supposedly staked his life on the Bible. His heritage is riddled with hypocrisy and unfortunately, the damage he inflicted still exists today.

I like what St. Jerome said. He was initially against the Deuterocanon books being included in the Vulgate, but the Church said they were inspired, and he changed his heart. He said, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”

I wish you well. God bless.

 

[adf417]

Just address my actual question.

I did

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

RaisedCatholic:

So, these common Catholic arguments are fallacious and outdated

No, they aren’t. I know many Protestants want to whitewash what Luther did with the Holy Scriptures because it really is bad. I mean really bad, especially coming from one who supposedly staked his life on the Bible. His heritage is riddled with hypocrisy and unfortunately, the damage he inflicted still exists today.

What I was referring to was the false accusation that Luther “ripped” those books out of the Bible, which - again - he didn’t because they were in his German translation. That is what makes these arguments fallacious and outdated, because Luther didn’t do that. And, again, Luther had HISTORICAL and Scriptural reasons for rejecting these books, NOT because they “disagreed with ‘his’ theology.” Again, this is NOT the reason he rejected them. Again, research the “actual” reasons, not the fallacious reasons people post on the Internet.

As far as Luther’s hypocrisy, that has nothing to do with why Luther rejected these books, or whether they belonged in the OT to begin with. That is an ad hominem argument, criticizing the person doing it, rather than the reasons “why” they did it. And Luther is not alone here. Numerous Catholics engaged in hypocrisy too, so does this mean we should dismiss “everything” they said and did, including their agreement on the Catholic canon? Or course not!

Some questions from the debate worth pondering on:

1. Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what the canon was, so how could the OT “develop” after the time of Christ?
2. the Council of Trent stated the OT was communicated from Jesus to His apostles to their successors to the Council of Trent from “hand to hand.” How could this happen if the OT canon “developed” later?
3. if the OT canon was transmitted “hand to hand,” then why does the New Catholic Encyclopedia state: “the Council of Trent REMOVED the book of 3 Esdras from the canon”?
4. why did the Ecumenical Council of 2 Nicaea of 787 affirm the fourth century LOCAL Councils of Hippo and Carthage that affirmed 3 Esdas as being part of “the OT canonical Scriptures,” which conflict with the later ECUMENICAL Councils of Florence and Trent that omitted it?

At the very least, I would encourage you to watch the two post debate interviews I linked above. Doing this will give a more balanced approach. It is too easy to just believe one side without hearing the other.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Actually you didn’t. But I respect the fact that you don’t want to actually address my question in the context of how I actually asked it. But that is certainly your prerogative not to.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

For anyone who is interested, both Trent Horn and Steve Christie engaged in post-debate interviews. The one with Trent is here:

Post-debate with Trent Horn

Here is the one with Steve Christie:

Post-debate with Steve Christie. NOTE: This link is also found on the post-debate interview with Trent Horn. Plus, this one is longer, because it addresses not only the debate, but it also critiques the post-debate interview with Trent Horn. It appears to clarify some assumptions and accusations made in the interview.

 

[po18guy]

What “canon”? None is mentioned. “The scriptures” are mentioned, but no definition is given. No list. No canon. We do know that about 91% of the quotes in the New Testament, including those attributed to our Lord, come from the Septuagint collection. And, that appears to be a collection rather than a canon.

There are rumors about a supposed Jewish council after the sacking of Jerusalem, but there are sharp differences on this. In any event, any canon decided upon after Christ had been rejected and put to death is highly suspect to the Christian.

For the primary reformer to consult with religious authorities who denied Jesus, so as to ascertain the OT “canon”, is nonsensical - even surreal. His visceral hatred of the Church drove him off the rails. In hating the Pope, he became what he hated - except that he utterly lacked authority to do what he did.

And, authority is the crux of the matter.

 

[adf417]

Actually you didn’t. But I respect the fact that you don’t want to actually address my question in the context of how I actually asked it. But that is certainly your prerogative not to.

And i respect the fact that you dont want to actually acknowledge my response as answering your question directly when actually it did. But that is certainly your prerogative to not do so.

Peace!!!

 

[MarkRome]

What I was referring to was the false accusation that Luther “ripped” those books out of the Bible, which - again - he didn’t because they were in his German translation.

He ripped them out of the list of inspired books. You even said that he included them but Luther didn’t believe they were inspired. Therefore, he ripped them out. It is a very fitting and accurate word. He played fast and loose with the canon and ironically he is held in such high esteem for sola scriptura. Of course, he had no authority to determine the inspired canon, old or new Testament.

Unfortunately, Protestants today use an incomplete Bible.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

What “canon”? None is mentioned. “The scriptures” are mentioned, but no definition is given. No list. No canon.

We don’t need a pre-Christian “list” to know what it included, or that there was. Jesus clearly expected the Jews to know what the canon was, since He held them accountable to knowing what it was (“Have you not read?” / “The Scriptures say” / “It is written” etc.) As Christie pointed out in the debate, the Council of Trent stated that Jesus passed the canon onto His disciples, who passed it onto their successors, and then onto Trent “from hand to hand.” The Catechism says the same thing, as does Dr. David Anders from EWTN (“the proper OT canon was out there [in the first century]”). So, a “developing” OT canon would have been foreign to the first century church.

91% of the quotes in the New Testament, including those attributed to our Lord, come from the Septuagint collection

Jimmy Akin writes elsewhere that the number is closer to between 2/3 to 80%. Regardless, even the apostles Matthew & John deviated from the LXX in their gospels & the book of Revelation. And when they did utilize the LXX, they only cited books from the Hebrew Bible when they cited them AS SCRIPTURE by using one of these phrases above.

There are rumors about a supposed Jewish council after the sacking of Jerusalem

That was Jamnia, but it was a rabbinical school, not a council, which did not “decide” on the canon. It was addressing an already established canon they had inherited from their Pharisaic forefathers. They weren’t “deciding” if additional books should be added to it, but rather discussed TWO books (Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon, or possibly just Ecclesiastes) are truly inspired or not & belong in the canon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

For the primary reformer to consult with religious authorities who denied Jesus, so as to ascertain the OT “canon”, is nonsensical

That’s because they knew from antiquity what belonged in the OT & what didn’t. Even the apostle Paul stated that the Jews were “entrusted” with the oracles of God, and then goes on to reveal these “oracles” as “the Law & the Prophets,” which Paul quoted “it is written” from the Psalms & Isaiah. This same Greek word “entrusted” is used in the NT to describe Jesus “entrusting” the apostles with the gospel. Just as the apostles needed to know what the gospel was before they were “entrusted” with it, likewise the Jews needed to know what the oracles of God were before they could be “entrusted” with it. And “oracles” is the same Greek word to describe OT books like in Nahum 1:1; Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1.

Luther also learned the Deuteros were not in the Targums like the books in the Hebrew Bible. So, he had multiple historical & Biblical reasons for not rejecting them as part of the canon. Luther was well-educated - more educated than many Cardinals & even the Pope in his time. He earned two Bachelors, two Masters, and a Doctorate. His rejection came from his knowledge of Jewish & Church history - not merely by talking to a few Jewish rabbis.

His visceral hatred of the Church drove him off the rails. In hating the Pope, he became what he hated

Luther didn’t “hate” the church. That is revisionism. Luther even dedicated his “95 Theses” TO THE POPE! It wasn’t until the Pope threatened to excommunicate him - and then did - did Luther speak out against the hypocrisy of the pope, who along with the Archbishop of Mainz, were behind Johann Tetzel’s selling of indulgences in order to finance St. Peter’s Square & get the Archbishop out of debt to Rome for financing his second bishopric.

But Christie’s opening statement goes back to the OT books themselves for a set canon, and even the NABRE acknowledges the 3-fold division of the Scriptures mentioned in the Foreword to Sirach as the same 3-fold division in the Hebrew Bible today.

authority is the crux of the matter.

Yes, it is. The authority of church who the Council of Trent left the canon open potentially add more books, and even “removed” the book of 3 Esdras (source: the New Catholic Encyclopedia) vs the authority of Christ who held the Jews accountable for knowing what it included & what it didn’t.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You even said that he included them but Luther didn’t believe they were inspired. Therefore, he ripped them out. It is a very fitting and accurate word.

“Ripping them out” implies physicall removing them. Placing them in a separate uninspired but “edifying” section is not the same thing. This is how Catholics of antiquity viewed them, including Augustine - part of the OT, but “ecclesiastical” (meaning edifying), but not “canonical” (meaning God-breathed). This is why even the Glossa Ordinaria (the Study Bible of the latter Middle Ages) enumerated EVERY one of the Deuteros and not only called them “apocrypha” but also stated ALL of them were “not in the canon,” while simultaneously stating ALL of the books in the Hebrew Bible were “part of the inspired OT.”

he had no authority to determine the inspired canon,

Nor did he claim “HE” did. He appealed to the history of the church which considered them “ecclesiastical & edifying” but not “canonical,” as well as the Jews who God “entrusted the oracles of God” to (Romans 3:2), meaning the OT Scriptures.

Unfortunately, Protestants today use an incomplete Bible.

Yet, the Council of Trent “removed 3 Esdras from the canon” (source: New Catholic Encyclopedia). The church can claim to do many things. But what it can’t do is “define” what Scripture is and what it is not, and then later claim it is not Scripture later, which is what happened at Trent. And according to Gary Michuta, Trent left the canon “open” to potentially “add” more books to the Bible, in the event Rome reconciles with the Orthodox Church. So, I’m afraid ROME - not Protestants - have an “incomplete Bible.”

A lot of this is covered in the debate, as well as the post-debate interview with Christie. If you haven’t watched either, I would highly recommend you watch both.

 

[po18guy]

You completely lost me. Sorry.