Was St. Augustine a Catholic?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jas 2:24 which historically, maybe you know this and maybe you don’t, but Luther got ticked off at James for writing that and wanted to throw James out of his bible. Like he did with 7 OT books

Luther is hardly alone in Church history in his criticism of James, and in fact is echoing sentiments made by Augustine. Ultimately, Luther translated James as inspired, so this criticism also is meaningless and can be equally aimed at catholic fathers.

Nor is he alone in saying that the books you are referencing are deuterocanonical. Jerome himself indicated the same. Also, Luther translated the Apocrypha, keeping them in a separate section, just as Jerome did.

Jerome ultimately accepted them.

 

[Hodos]

These are great opportunities to give references, properly referenced rather than just say it

Any translation still using the Vulgate as its base text.

poor to bad Translations mislead

First, it isn’t a poor or bad translation as it is consistent with argument Paul is making. But to your point, so does tradition that turns Paul’s argument on its head.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Where does any book in the scripture declare itself scripture?

Doesn’t have to. Scripture is canonical by its nature as God-breathed written revelation, not by virtue of a Table of Contents.

Prove it. Show your work.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

We should have a discussion

I thought that is what we are doing.

it’s drifting a bit off the topic of this thread. Open another thread where YOUR topic can be discussed

 

[Hodos]

Prove it. Show your work.

LOL. Okay. The Torah was accepted as God-inspired revelation even in the days of Joshua, his immediate predecessor. Didn’t need an ecumenical counsel 1500 years later to figure that out.

 

[Hodos]

I participate in the threads I care to participate in. You are free to open any thread you like. Also, it was YOUR topic because all I did was answer the OP on why Protestants could have reverence for Augustine. It was your rabbit hole my friend.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

These are great opportunities to give references, properly referenced rather than just say it

Any translation still using the Vulgate as its base text.

“properly referenced” means quote specifically so that one can go directly to the source described.

poor to bad Translations mislead

Hodos:

First, it isn’t a poor or bad translation as it is consistent with argument Paul is making. But to your point, so does tradition that turns Paul’s argument on its head.

False

 

[steve-b]

I participate in the threads I care to participate in. You are free to open any thread you like. Also, it was YOUR topic because all I did was answer the OP on why Protestants could have reverence for Augustine. It was your rabbit hole my friend.

I challenged that position.

 

[Hodos]

“properly referenced” means quote specifically so that one can go directly to the source described.

Again, I provided the specific context, as being any Vulgate based translation. I am sure you are aware of which Catholic translations use the Vulgate as its textual basis. But since maybe I am assuming too much, check the Douay Rheims for one.

False

Rebuttal without argumentation or evidence can be dismissed without argumentation or evidence. As I have demonstrated by provided the specific verses which demonstrate a righteousness by faith vs. works dichotomy, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that Paul is arguing otherwise.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Prove it. Show your work.

LOL. Okay. The Torah was accepted as God-inspired revelation even in the days of Joshua, his immediate predecessor. Didn’t need an ecumenical counsel 1500 years later to figure that out.

So why were 7 books in the OT removed by Protestants?

 

[Hodos]

I challenged that position.

You challenged my position that Protestants can revere Augustine? I am not seeing the connection between challenging our reason that we can revere Augustine, and trying to argue with me about sources of doctrinal authority. Sorry Charlie, its your rabbit hole.

 

[Hodos]

So why were 7 books in the OT removed by Protestants?

Why were they added by Catholics? The use of loaded terms like “added” or “removed” doesn’t prove anything. The fact of the matter is that copies of the Septuagint, much like early copies of the NT did have extra books. However, they weren’t the same in every copy (just as copies of the NT often had material not thought to be inspired in the way that for example Pauline letters were), and they were not held as having the same authority as the Hebrew canon by most first century Jews. We know for example that the Sadducees did not hold them as canonical, and the Pharisees largely didn’t as well, though they found them as useful material, for much the same reason we study the works of Josephus. I don’t see you arguing for inclusion of the Shephard of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“properly referenced” means quote specifically so that one can go directly to the source described.

Again, I provided the specific context, as being any Vulgate based translation. I am sure you are aware of which Catholic translations use the Vulgate as its textual basis. But since maybe I am assuming too much, check the Douay Rheims for one.

I’m not going to do your homework. YOU provide the text.

Hodos:

Rebuttal without argumentation or evidence can be dismissed without argumentation or evidence. As I have demonstrated by provided the specific verses which demonstrate a righteousness by faith vs. works dichotomy, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that Paul is arguing otherwise.

Where in the Vulgate is the text you’re referencing?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So why were 7 books in the OT removed by Protestants?

Why were they added by Catholics?

They were in the Septuigint. That was the Jewish scriptures written in Greek. Finished ~150 B.C.

 

[Hodos]

I’m not going to do your homework. YOU provide the text.

Again, check the Douay Rheims. I’m staring at it right now. Are you telling me you are incapable of doing a word search?

Coincidentally, it still also mistranslates Genesis 3:15, which has caused other doctrinal innovations.

 

[Hodos]

They were in the Septuigint. That was the Jewish scriptures written in Greek. Finished ~150 B.C.

Again, they varied from copy to copy of the Septuagint. You don’t find them in the Hebrew temple scrolls incidentally.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So why were 7 books in the OT removed by Protestants?

Why were they added by Catholics? The use of loaded terms like “added” or “removed” doesn’t prove anything. The fact of the matter is that copies of the Septuagint, much like early copies of the NT did have extra books. However, they weren’t the same in every copy (just as copies of the NT often had material not thought to be inspired in the way that for example Pauline letters were), and they were not held as having the same authority as the Hebrew canon by most first century Jews.

Scripture is scripture. The Jews of the Church Jesus established used the Septuagint.

Hodos:

We know for example that the Sadducees did not hold them as canonical, and the Pharisees largely didn’t as well, though they found them as useful material, for much the same reason we study the works of Josephus. I don’t see you arguing for inclusion of the Shephard of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas.

We’re talking about the proper authority to declare what books are or are NOT scripture.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

They were in the Septuigint. That was the Jewish scriptures written in Greek. Finished ~150 B.C.

Again, they varied from copy to copy of the Septuagint. You don’t find them in the Hebrew temple scrolls incidentally.

And you still don’t. But you find them in the bible the Catholic Church uses.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m not going to do your homework. YOU provide the text.

Again, check the Douay Rheims. I’m staring at it right now. Are you telling me you are incapable of doing a word search?

Coincidentally, it still also mistranslates Genesis 3:15, which has caused other doctrinal innovations.

Properly quote the source, then we’ll talk

 

[Hodos]

Scripture is scripture. The Jews of the Church Jesus established used the Septuagint.

Which Septuagint, the one that didn’t have Judith? How about the copies that don’t have Baruch? What about the ones that had Bel and the Dragon?

And again, if your answer is that we accept every book appended to a copy of scripture, does that include Shephard of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas? Clement II?