What is the Reason to Believe that the Bible is Less Than 73 Books (all inerrant and inspired)?

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11336350]Which would those be?
Why not the 73 books?

James? Revelation? 2,3John? 2Pe?
Are these “vigorously affirm[ed]” as well?

Of course we vigorously affirm James, Revelation, Jude, Herbrews, and the rest.

Are we to rely on THESE books to form doctrine?

We rely on them to support doctrine. We also respect the early Church’s dispute regarding them.

You are misinformed, my friend.

He is not misinformed. Prior to Trent dispute regarding books was permitted. See Erasmus, and Cajetan, contemporaries of Luther who disputed certain books as well.

No moreso than denying the necessity of circumcision despite the objections of many in the early Church, or the insistance on Jesus’ being true God and true man despite the array of churchmen aligned against it
In essence, it is the Holy Spirit guiding the Magisterium of the Church, through Jesus’ promise, that matters, not some kind of populatiy contest or democratic vote. THAT particular error is the main protestant error. It is the same error that Korah made (see Numbers 11), which St. Jude reiterated (Jude 1:11). Oh, I forgot: we’re not to form doctrine from Jude, are we?

No, but it certainly can be used to support doctrine. As for the Magisterium, that’s great. The problem is you can claim it the same as Orthodoxy can, that this group of good Christian men are guided by the Holy Spirit in a way that prevents error, but we don’t see the same canon of scripture between the groups, and we don’t see the same doctrines, even though you share the same Tradition. You can say that they are protected from error all you want, but it doesn’t make it necessarily so.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Of course we vigorously affirm James, Revelation, Jude, Herbrews, and the rest.

You can? Why not 1,2Maccabees, then?
What is your criteria?

We rely on them to support doctrine. We also respect the early Church’s dispute regarding them.

What does “respect the early Church’s dispute regarding them” mean, exactly?

He is not misinformed. Prior to Trent dispute regarding books was permitted. See Erasmus, and Cajetan, contemporaries of Luther who disputed certain books as well.

Do you have a Magisterial source for that?
Having a few scholars dispute something is hardly any reason to claim that this dispute is legitimate, at least if you’re being intellectually honest. After all, Luther also “disputed” many things that he shouldn’t have.

No, but it certainly can be used to support doctrine.

Really? Why? Luther said it was clearly NOT of Apostolic origin.
Why can James be used and 2Maccabees NOT be used? Is this a case of special pleading?

As for the Magisterium, that’s great. The problem is you can claim it the same as Orthodoxy can

Not the same claim at all. The office of St. Peter subsists in only one Church. The definition of the Magisterium is, according to the Catholic Church:

“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.”

[ccc 100]

You can say that they are protected from error all you want, but it doesn’t make it necessarily so.

True dat. However, when Jesus makes that promise, I would hope you’d have just a little more respect.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11336872]You can? Why not 1,2Maccabees, then?
What is your criteria?

First, it isn’t my criteria. It is the criteria of the Lutheran Church. Not all protestants practice individual judgement in that way. I think very well Lutherans can use 1,2 Macc, Wisdom, etc. to support doctrine.

What does “respect the early Church’s dispute regarding them” mean, exactly?

Explained before, but there are ECFs and others within Church history, St. Jerome, Eusebius, and others, who have held these books in dispute. The Lutheran communion takes that into account. It is a respect for the Fathers of the Church. Read the article.

Do you have a Magisterial source for that?
Having a few scholars dispute something is hardly any reason to claim that this dispute is legitimate, at least if you’re being intellectually honest. After all, Luther also “disputed” many things that he shouldn’t have.

What disciplinary actions did Cardinal Cajetan suffer for his statements regarding the DC’s

“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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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.”

Without discipline, it is clear he had the liberty to dispute them.

Really? Why? Luther said it was clearly NOT of Apostolic origin.
Why can James be used and 2Maccabees NOT be used? Is this a case of special pleading?

Read the article. Otherwise, I don’t think I mentioned Luther. He wasn’t the only one who said they are not of apostolic origin. That doesn’t mean they can’t be used to support doctrine. We use the councils in the same way.

Not the same claim at all. The office of St. Peter subsists in only one Church. The definition of the Magisterium is, according to the Catholic Church:

Again, your claim. Its ok to claim it. I wouldn’t expect anything different from the CCC.

True dat. However, when Jesus makes that promise, I would hope you’d have just a little more respect.

You’re assuming that the promise is meant only and exclusively for one see of the Universal Church. That’s what your communion believes. I know that. My comment is not in regard to Christ’s promise to protect His Church, just the Catholic claim that it is intended only and exclusively for the Bishop of Rome and those in communion with him.
I have overwhelming respect for all of Christ’s promises, just not always in the Catholic interpretation of same.

Jon

 

[steido01]

You can? Why not 1,2Maccabees, then?
What is your criteria?

Have you even glanced at the link we posted earlier?

What does “respect the early Church’s dispute regarding them” mean, exactly?

Precisely that. It means that the early Church, which literally had the Apostles and their immediate successors leading them, disputed the books - which means, in keeping with the true Apostolic teaching - that we must likewise approach these books in a similar manner.

Do you have a Magisterial source for that?
Having a few scholars dispute something is hardly any reason to claim that this dispute is legitimate, at least if you’re being intellectually honest.

Cajetan and Erasmus weren’t merely “a few scholars.” Cajetan was the Roman theologian of his day, and he was bitterly opposed to Luther. He represented Pope Leo X in Wittenberg, where he served as the Papal legate - if being given the authority to represent the Pope by the Pope doesn’t qualify as a “Magisterial source,” I don’t know how to appease you. Look, you can be pleased with the decision your communion made at Trent, but you can’t take part in revisionist history and pretend ‘it always was that way,’ while maintaining that you’re “intellectually honest.”

Really? Why? Luther said it was clearly NOT of Apostolic origin.
Why can James be used and 2Maccabees NOT be used? Is this a case of special pleading?

Source where the Lutheran Confessions (or even Luther himself!) said the Apocrypha could not be used to support doctrine already found in the universally-accepted Scriptures?

Not the same claim at all. The office of St. Peter subsists in only one Church. The definition of the Magisterium is, according to the Catholic Church…

Ah, so Rome is triumphant and Orthodoxy is another protestant sect. I’m not sure our Eastern friends would agree with you.

 

[JonNC]

Have you even glanced at the link we posted earlier?

Precisely that. It means that the early Church, which literally had the Apostles and their immediate successors leading them, disputed the books - which means, in keeping with the true Apostolic teaching - that we must likewise approach these books in a similar manner.

Cajetan and Erasmus weren’t merely “a few scholars.” Cajetan was the Roman theologian of his day, and he was bitterly opposed to Luther. He represented Pope Leo X in Wittenberg, where he served as the Papal legate - if being given the authority to represent the Pope by the Pope doesn’t qualify as a “Magisterial source,” I don’t know how to appease you. Look, you can be pleased with the decision your communion made at Trent, but you can’t take part in revisionist history and pretend ‘it always was that way,’ while maintaining that you’re “intellectually honest.”

Source where the Lutheran Confessions (or even Luther himself!) said the Apocrypha could not be used to support doctrine already found in the universally-accepted Scriptures?

Don,
At the end of the quote from Cajetan; **"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.” **
this sounds exactly like what Lutherans talk about regarding the DC’s. Sometimes I’m miffed by the outrage.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Don,
At the end of the quote from Cajetan; "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.”
this sounds exactly like what Lutherans talk about regarding the DC’s. Sometimes I’m miffed by the outrage.

Jon

Exactly. He was bitterly opposed to Luther, but not when it came to the canon. Kind of throws a wrench into Roman Catholic post-Trent revisionism when even the “anti-Luther” agreed with Luther regarding ‘canon’ - because it was ok for Catholics to do so (before Trent, of course).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

First, it isn’t my criteria. It is the criteria of the Lutheran Church. Not all protestants practice individual judgement in that way. I think very well Lutherans can use 1,2 Macc, Wisdom, etc. to support doctrine.

Great. So you do accept the doctrine of, say, Purgatory?

Explained before, but there are ECFs and others within Church history, St. Jerome, Eusebius, and others, who have held these books in dispute. The Lutheran communion takes that into account. It is a respect for the Fathers of the Church. Read the article.

Does it also say that they accepted the inspiration of these books, deferring to the Magisterium?

What disciplinary actions did Cardinal Cajetan suffer for his statements regarding the DC’s

Certainly no less than, say, Fr. Raymond Brown received.

Without discipline, it is clear he had the liberty to dispute them.

You’re not implying that if the Church doesn’t “discipline” someone they condone and agree with the teachings, are you? That would be … dishonest.

Read the article. Otherwise, I don’t think I mentioned Luther. He wasn’t the only one who said they are not of apostolic origin. That doesn’t mean they can’t be used to support doctrine. We use the councils in the same way.

Except Apostolic origin (from the Apostles or Apostolic men) is one of the primary criteria for determining whether a book can be used for doctrinal purposes.

Again, your claim. Its ok to claim it. I wouldn’t expect anything different from the CCC.

IF you really examine that claim, you’ll find out that it has the support of history and scripture. You know, the scripture from which we can determine doctrine?

You’re assuming that the promise is meant only and exclusively for one see of the Universal Church. That’s what your communion believes.

It’s what logic demands extrapolating from the words of Christ. Or else, as has been stated before, Matthew 18 makes absolutely no sense.

I know that. My comment is not in regard to Christ’s promise to protect His Church, just the Catholic claim that it is intended only and exclusively for the Bishop of Rome and those in communion with him.

Not “the Bishop of Rome” apart from the holder of the office of St. Peter, who ALONE was promised the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11337073]Great. So you do accept the doctrine of, say, Purgatory?

Purgatory isn’t one of our doctrines, but that said, there is significant convergence of thought between our communions on the topic of purgation.

1. Today, Lutheran and Catholic teaching integrates purgation with death, judgment, and the encounter with Christ. Recent Catholic and Lutheran understandings of purgation sound remarkably similar. While the word “purgatory” remains an ecumenically charged term, and for many Catholics and Lutherans signals a sharp division, our work in this round has shown that our churches’ understandings of how the justified enter eternal glory are closer than expected.

1. In light of the analysis given above, this dialogue believes that the topic of purgation, in and of itself, need not divide our communions.240

Bolding is the commission’s. The document is long, but remarkable.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Does it also say that they accepted the inspiration of these books, deferring to the Magisterium?

Certainly the undivided Church.

Certainly no less than, say, Fr. Raymond Brown received.

I don’t know about Father Raymond, but Cardinal Cajetan was a “rock star” in the Catholic Church at the time for his opposition to Luther.

You’re not implying that if the Church doesn’t “discipline” someone they condone and agree with the teachings, are you? That would be … dishonest.

No, and that’s not what I said. The Church may not have agreed with Cajetan, but it did permit him to say it, and Erasmus as well.

Except Apostolic origin (from the Apostles or Apostolic men) is one of the primary criteria for determining whether a book can be used for doctrinal purposes.

Indeed.

IF you really examine that claim, you’ll find out that it has the support of history and scripture. You know, the scripture from which we can determine doctrine?

Yes. And even Nicea canon 6 seems to dispute the claim that the jurisdiction of Rome is somehow different than that of Alexandria. That claim has been disputed long before the Reformation.

Not “the Bishop of Rome” apart from the holder of the office of St. Peter, who ALONE was promised the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

And later promised to all the apostles. The keys are the possession of the entire Church, given first to St. Peter, then to the others.

Jon

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Certainly the undivided Church.

OK, so the undivided Church had authority?
From where does someone derive the authority to split from the Church?

I don’t know about Father Raymond, but Cardinal Cajetan was a “rock star” in the Catholic Church at the time for his opposition to Luther.

As was Fr. Brown in many peoples’ eyes, although he had some un-orthodox views in my opinion.

No, and that’s not what I said. The Church may not have agreed with Cajetan, but it did permit him to say it, and Erasmus as well.

And from this you conclude what exactly?
If you didn’t imply that they at least condoned his beliefs, then why mention it at all?

Indeed.

So, you disagree with Luther’s insistance that these books were not Apostolic?

Yes. And even Nicea canon 6 seems to dispute the claim that the jurisdiction of Rome is somehow different than that of Alexandria.

That’s quite a stretch. Please point out where this is disputed.
All it’s saying is that the local bishop is presumed to have jurisdiction over his diocese, JUST AS THE CHURCH TEACHES TODAY. Sorry for yelling, but I think this argument is disingenuous.

And later promised to all the apostles. The keys are the possession of the entire Church, given first to St. Peter, then to the others.

Ahh, I see the source of the problem here. Bad understanding yields bad ecclesiology.

Your statement above is factually in error.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11337382]OK, so the undivided Church had authority?
From where does someone derive the authority to split from the Church?

Let’s start with the Great Schism. Apparently, both sides felt they had the authority.

And from this you conclude what exactly?
If you didn’t imply that they at least condoned his beliefs, then why mention it at all?

I mentioned it because some want to hold Luther to a different standard. Cajetan gets a pass, but Luther doesn’t. Luther’s views on the canon are not unique in the history of the Church. In fact his views in large measure come from his study of the historic Church.

So, you disagree with Luther’s insistance that these books were not Apostolic?

I would say I think Luther could have given more deference to the majority opinion about them. But let’s remember that these were his opinions, just like mine are mine.

That’s quite a stretch. Please point out where this is disputed.
All it’s saying is that the local bishop is presumed to have jurisdiction over his diocese, JUST AS THE CHURCH TEACHES TODAY. Sorry for yelling, but I think this argument is disingenuous.

Typically, I am not accused here of being disingenuous. Understanding you are new here, let me just say that canon 6 describes the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction as similar to that of Alexandria’s. Its a bit off topic, but search the site and you’ll see I participated in discussions about the topic before. I would also offer that the Orthodox position is not too dissimilar to ours on the matter. I don’t believe they are disingenuous on the issue, nor do I think so of the Catholic view.

Ahh, I see the source of the problem here. Bad understanding yields bad ecclesiology.
Your statement above is factually in error.

No. I think I understand it pretty well.

Jon

 

[Abu]

steido01 #115
Conversely, doesn’t declaring a book to be Scripture, despite the objections of some of the ECFs and the practice of the early church, essentially lend itself to a simple denial of historical fact (and Scripture!)?

The reality is that the books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

Disputes among theologians are not uncommon, which is precisely why Christ gave His Church through His Supreme Vicar St Peter, and not theologians, His authority to define His truths.

JonNC #119
As for the Magisterium, that’s great. The problem is you can claim it the same as Orthodoxy can, that this group of good Christian men are guided by the Holy Spirit in a way that prevents error, but we don’t see the same canon of scripture between the groups, and we don’t see the same doctrines, even though you share the same Tradition. You can say that they are protected from error all you want, but it doesn’t make it necessarily so.

Such a weak posture against the reality of Christ’s ringing mandate to St Peter and His successors belies the error and confusion so evident also in the further calumny below.

#126
The keys are the possession of the entire Church, given first to St. Peter, then to the others.

False. See Post #66 – the Keys of the Kingdom were one of several promises given to St Peter ALONE.

What is really quite bizarre is the myopic refusal to acknowledge the very evident words of Christ as establishing His Church with His authority to teach in His Name:
“The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Thus did His institution, the Catholic Church, proclaim and enable that unity which exists and will exist until the end of time. The many thousands of disparate sects, each with its own self-will, are the obvious result of that disunity and chaos when Christ is not heeded.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi Pork,
Luther held that they did not rise to the level of the rest of scripture, but they were good - good for teaching and reading.

Thank you Jon. So next question would be why did he believe so, that they were not inspired and inerrant?

Back to me for a second, my personal view is the historical dispute regarding them should cause two things: 1) to consider them in their usage with that dispute in mind, and 2) trust the Church, the historic Church, that they belong in scripture.

so your personal belief is that they are inspired and inerrant…that is your definition of scripture?

Whether or not Luther would say he did not know for sure, I can’t say, other than what I’ve said above; his personal opinion - and it is important to recognize that he over and over makes clear that his assessments were his opinion - was that they did not rise to the level of the other books.

My opinion in reading multiple posts that speak to the deuteros’ being disputed and then citing St Jerome as an example seems to be a very weak argument. He was a translator, albiet a very good one, who studied Hebrew as a way to keep his mind off his passions and he deferred to the Church to know if the deuteros were inspired and inerrant. In short, to say “St Jerome” disputed the books is not the complete answer and really not the answer. It would be similarly wrong for me to say Luther’s position or belief was X when X occured in 1515 and not 1535 or 1540.

PnP

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Let’s start with the Great Schism. Apparently, both sides felt they had the authority.

Sure. Just like in Numbers 16 both Moses and Korah felt like they had authority.

I mentioned it because some want to hold Luther to a different standard. Cajetan gets a pass, but Luther doesn’t.

Luther would have been OK too if he only talked about things that he felt were abuses such as selling of indulgences (the Church agrees that Simony is wrong). Or if he were just speculating about canonicity of certain books. But he didn’t stop there … FAR from it!

I would say I think Luther could have given more deference to the majority opinion about them. But let’s remember that these were his opinions, just like mine are mine.

If they were stated as “this is my opinion” then it would have been different. It was NOT.

Typically, I am not accused here of being disingenuous. Understanding you are new here, let me just say that canon 6 describes the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction as similar to that of Alexandria’s.

I disagree. And I’m not new here. Although I haven’t been participating much for a while (work responsibilities, etc.).

Its a bit off topic, but search the site and you’ll see I participated in discussions about the topic before. I would also offer that the Orthodox position is not too dissimilar to ours on the matter. I don’t believe they are disingenuous on the issue, nor do I think so of the Catholic view.

No. I think I understand it pretty well.

Then please reference where the keys were promised to the rest of the Apostles.

 

[JonNC]

=Porknpie;11337554]Thank you Jon. So next question would be why did he believe so, that they were not inspired and inerrant?

I have had difficulty finding his prefaces to them online, but I’ll keep looking

so your personal belief is that they are inspired and inerrant…that is your definition of scripture?

My personal belief is that the Universal Church, with some dispute, has ascribed to them the status of canonical. Typically, when both east and west agree about something, I want to agree, as well. It doesn’t always work that way.

My opinion in reading multiple posts that speak to the deuteros’ being disputed and then citing St Jerome as an example seems to be a very weak argument. He was a translator, albiet a very good one, who studied Hebrew as a way to keep his mind off his passions and he deferred to the Church to know if the deuteros were inspired and inerrant. In short, to say “St Jerome” disputed the books is not the complete answer and really not the answer. It would be similarly wrong for me to say Luther’s position or belief was X when X occured in 1515 and not 1535 or 1540.

Oh, I think St. Jerome was much more than a translator! Didn’t he quite well defend the perpetual virginity of Mary against Helvidius? But I understand your point. One needs to look more deeply into the disputes than just Jerome.

Jon

 

[adf417]

I disagree. And I’m not new here. Although I haven’t been participating much for a while (work responsibilities, etc.).

I can vouch for Jon, I have never thought him to be disingenuous. Stubborn, yes! but disingenuous, nah.

Peace!!!

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

I think it’s important to remember that the Protestant OT is based upon the original Jewish canon, which doesn’t recognize the Deuteros as scripture but merely secular Jewish history history.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11337569]Sure. Just like in Numbers 16 both Moses and Korah felt like they had authority.

The sticky part is knowing which is Moses.

Luther would have been OK too if he only talked about things that he felt were abuses such as selling of indulgences (the Church agrees that Simony is wrong). Or if he were just speculating about canonicity of certain books. But he didn’t stop there … FAR from it!

So, because you disagree about, say, sola fide, it is proper to hold him to a different standard on his opinion regarding the canon of scripture?

If they were stated as “this is my opinion” then it would have been different. It was NOT.

Oh, but it is. Examples:

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, **to state my own opinion **about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

“"About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel.

I disagree. And I’m not new here. Although I haven’t been participating much for a while (work responsibilities, etc.).

Then I will ignore the charge that I was disingenuous, and leave it at I knew you would disagree, and do not consider you disingenuous for doing so.

Then please reference where the keys were promised to the rest of the Apostles.

To start with, John 20:22

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I can vouch for Jon, I have never thought him to be disingenuous. Stubborn, yes! but disingenuous, nah.

Peace!!!

Thank you.
I like the word strident more than stubborn but my wife would agree with you.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Thank you.
I like the word strident more than stubborn but my wife would agree with you.

Jon

Oh I’m going to write that one down and commit to memory.

Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident…

I think I got it now

PnP

 

[JonNC]

Oh I’m going to write that one down and commit to memory.

Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident
Strident…

I think I got it now

PnP

You’re not so wishy-washy yourself, Pork.

Jon