E
E.E.N.S
Guest
I thought you said that you were raised Catholic, no? You should therefore know the answer to this question, right?
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
We are not discussing versions or corruptions,but the canon.
Irrevelant to the question at hand.
Where is the canon factor authenticated?
Yes,but still does not answer my question proposed to you.
How is this related to your acceptance,denial or rejection of the acceptance of the 27 NT canon?
Indeed,but do the prophets ever mention a canon?
Okay,but do you ever plan to answer the question?
One more time:
Where does written Scripture mention a single word of a 27 NT canon? Why do you accept it?
N
Nicea325
Guest
A Catholic belief long in existence before any Protestant existed.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And even more significant is the fact that Jerome submitted his will to Christ Church,as oppose to Luther and other reformers who were more concerned with their own agendas. That is the difference between Jerome and Protestants.Protestanism foundation is self-centered,hence Luther and others who followed his path show it clearly.
WRONG! Your history is seriously flawed and distorted. The canon was FIXED way back in the 5th century. Trent merely re-AFFIRMED what was set,not determined the canon.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I see…very telling response…I thought you said that you were raised Catholic, no? You should therefore know the answer to this question, right?
N
Nicea325
Guest
One more time:
Where does written Scripture mention a 27 NT canon? Why do you accept it?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Wait, wait, wait…you often mention how you “know” some particular Catholic doctrine because you yourself were Catholic at some point, and because I point this out to you when you ask “what is the Church to a Catholic?”, this somehow ends up as a “very telling response”?? What is your implication? I would like to know, as it eludes me. Or are you merely being sarcastic?
K
keyser_soze
Guest
I absolutely LOVE this question and as a catholic to protestant convert a couple of years ago it is a question that I have asked and dwelt on for quite some time! I will attempt below to walk you through my logic the best I can.
First off, the ultimate authority is of course God but I think we all, at least on this forum, know that and this is not what you are getting at. What you mean is that some scripture is tough to understand and therefore, how can we know with absolute assurance that we are right and know truth? Further, do these differences that we have in truth matter? These are the very questions that lead me from being a catholic to agnostic or perhaps atheist and now to bible believing christian.
I believe that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate interpreter of the Bible for us. I believe that if we humble ourselves and seek Him that He will reveal truth to us. I believe that humans, in their sin nature, will continue to mess up the truth and argue and fight about doctrine. I believe that many catholic brothers and sisters also differ on doctrine as well. Many caholics flat out don’t understand what the “requirements” are to be justified with Christ. Heck, some don’t even know what justification for our sins mean…
I believe that the writings of the bible are sufficient for salvation and that is backed up by scripture itself. I believe that scripture tells us that we must compare everything back to it. Here are a couple of verses that I draw this from:
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
So I take away that scripture is the ultimate authority and it is sufficient. I also take away that we are to always compare anything we are told back to scripture and then and ONLY THEN if it aligns with scripture are we to believe. So ultimate authority is God in scripture.
P
ProdigalAnglicn
Guest
How do we decide which books are canonical and which are not? Tradition of usage. That’s how the New Testament Canon came into being, largely. The statement of various church councils on scripture were not dictates from on high about what books to use (I also find it hilarious that both RCs AND secular skeptics make this mistake) but more an acknowledgement of those books already used frequently and universally in throughout the church at the time.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Bravo! After four or five years onthis site, someone has come up with a new information. Please know that I am being completely serious when I applaud you, So let’s address this new (new to me, that is
) information.Catholics claim Martin Luther said Faith is all that is needed for salvation and works mean nothing. But when I read Luther’s writings I discovered that is a false assumption.
“…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” - “An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” Luther’s German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546
It’s important that you remeber that as we discuss, because it disproves the motive Catholics claim ML had for objecting to James.
The second point I will bring up is the fact that Luther is clearly objecting to the Book being taught in school for doctrinal purposes. He claims it can confuse the readers so they think “faith” is unnecessary!!! So far he seems to be in complete agreement with the RC concerning faith & wroks!
Now the third, less improtant, point is that Luther wrote his German translation on his own accord. He was not commissioned by anyone and he did it so the average Christian could read for themselves. Yet, he included the Book of James among the inspired writings!!! He did not append it with the apocrypha, - just exactly the why Jerome arrange the his Latin translation.
Wow, I enjoyed that.
(continued…)
G
Ginger2
Guest
Well, this one has been dispelled so many times it’s ridiculous, but I will address it once more as a thank you for the above excerpt.
Catholics say Luther added a word to the Bible to create a new doctrine
If this were true, why don’t Protestant Bibles contain that “added” word?
- because he didn’t add a word. Translating from one language to another in a coherent matter requires using appropriate grammar for that specific language.
SEE BELOW Luther’s letter in context:
“I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
“not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer
brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no
money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet
drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a
vast number of such everyday cases…
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German
tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may be
clearer and more complete. …
We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother
in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they
will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
them.
… So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: “Ut quid perditio
haec?” and in Mark 14: “Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?”
Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate
it: “Why has this loss of salve occurred?” But what kind of
German is this? What German says “loss of salve occurred”? And
if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is
lost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is
still obscure and uncertain. … But a German would say “Ut quid, etc…” as “Why this
waste?” or “Why this extravagance?” Even “it is a shame about the
ointment” - these are good German, in which one can understand
that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done
wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used
it better." - Martin Luther
Following this reasoning, the word “only” is appropriate in the German, but would not be appropriate in English translations - which it is not.
Since Protestant Bibles do not use the word “alone” in the English translations of Protestant Bibles, the whole argument is mute.
Thanks again!
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
Your question is flawed since you are asking me to prove something based on what I believe, when I have already stated I don’t believe what you claim I believe.
Maybe someone else can explain it to you since you are obviously unwilling to discern what I write.
Good luck,
Ginger
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
First off, welcome to the forum! I see that you just signed up here.
Even looking to the very earliest Christian writings, (some of who were the very disciples of the Apostles), we see this to be true.
Here I quote Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle:
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 A. D. 110]).
And here I will quote Clement of Rome, (a successor of Peter):
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1A.D. 95]).
Scripture is profitable, yes, and highly so, but it is not now, nor was it ever intended to be the final authority, or sole rule of faith.
That is part of it when it comes down to authority, yes.
I would have to say that they do. What do you say? One example would be that Scripture tells us that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet not all Protestants believe that. (Why is that?)
I hear this quite often, but let me ask this, how do you know who is, and who is not, being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation? To continue with my example above on the necessity of baptism: Is it Christian A, who believes baptism is necessary? or is it Christian B, who believes it is merely symbolic? Who’s to say?
You are correct, but it is not the Church that is divided on teaching, but rather the sons and daughters of the Church who err by picking and choosing what they want to believe, rather than submitting to the authority that Christ established, the Church.
Same as above, this is the fault of the individual Catholic, not the Church. The same could be, and must be, said about Protestants too, no?
Here you go on to quote 2 Timothy, however, the verse says that “all scripture is profitable…” not that it is sufficient. The very fact that we are able to know which books/letters comprise the canon of the New Testament relies on some outside authority.
You may believe that, however Scripture itself does not claim this, rather it says that the “pillar and foundation of truth is the Church…” and that he who does not listen to the Church is to be treated as a heathen and an outcast. Christ gave His Church, through Peter, His vicar on earth, the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses will be loosed in heaven.
Even looking to the very earliest Christian writings, (some of who were the very disciples of the Apostles), we see this to be true.
Here I quote Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle:
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 A. D. 110]).
And here I will quote Clement of Rome, (a successor of Peter):
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1A.D. 95]).
Scripture is profitable, yes, and highly so, but it is not now, nor was it ever intended to be the final authority, or sole rule of faith.
P
ProdigalAnglicn
Guest
No, it relies on tradition. The books which now make up the New Testament were already widely and universally used throughout the church before any council said anything about an official canon. The councils were merely affirming this fact.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Hmmm… then I have a question:
The split between the Orthodox and Rome came long after Jerome’s Vulgate and relatively shortly before Trent. If the canon was already known and accepted by the entire church by the fifth century, and only officially re-affirmed at Trent, Why are the bibles different?
However, you are correct in stating the canon for the Old Testament was set long before Trent - even before Jesus!
The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):
It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).
Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.
Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and “St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament …”
Since the earliest Jewish canon agrees with the current Jewish canon, the Jews obviously never removed books.
Since the earliest Christian canons agree and the deuteros were not included,
And since they were contested when first being considered for inclusion, as states the CE, they were not originally part of the canon …
Therefore it is evident they were added to the Bible - not removed as Catholics claim.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
I understand Luther’s argument, however it presupposes that the original intent of the author was to include it. While it is perfectly good German to include the word allein, it is just as good German to not include it.
For example Romans 3:28
So halten wir es nun, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben. (Luther’s version)
Denn wir urteilen, daß ein Mensch durch Glauben gerechtfertigt wird, ohne (Eig. außerhalb, getrennt von) Gesetzeswerke. (Elberfelder’s version)
Notice how the latter did not include the word allein? Again, Luther did add the word (as he admits), and while he does give his defense, it presumes the original author’s intent to include it.
K
keyser_soze
Guest
E.E.N.S. - Thanks for the reply. I will look further into the references you made as I have zero familiarity of them at this time.
I ask you 2 follow-up questions. What do you make of the Bereans being noble-minded? Why didn’t Paul slap them up the side of the head with some importance of tradition talk or explain that they can’t possibly think that scripture is going to back up all his teachings?
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
What do you make of the book of Galatia and Paul getting all fired up at the addition to the gospel? Even Peter was being swayed by the Judaizers but Paul did not back down and the gospel remained salvation through faith alone…
I guess it’s a perspective thing but I can almost feel/see/imagine Paul getting very upset with this notion of adding to the gospel message which is SIMPLE; SALVATION through faith in the work of Christ. People were being SAVED right out of the gate BEFORE scripture was written (I know this is typically a catholic point in the debate) but I do not shy away from it because I think its a better point for the argument that salvation is through faith alone. In my opinion, if faith PLUS works saved, the Pharisees and Jews of the first century would NOT have struggled with the gospel so much.
I ask you 2 follow-up questions. What do you make of the Bereans being noble-minded? Why didn’t Paul slap them up the side of the head with some importance of tradition talk or explain that they can’t possibly think that scripture is going to back up all his teachings?
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
What do you make of the book of Galatia and Paul getting all fired up at the addition to the gospel? Even Peter was being swayed by the Judaizers but Paul did not back down and the gospel remained salvation through faith alone…
I guess it’s a perspective thing but I can almost feel/see/imagine Paul getting very upset with this notion of adding to the gospel message which is SIMPLE; SALVATION through faith in the work of Christ. People were being SAVED right out of the gate BEFORE scripture was written (I know this is typically a catholic point in the debate) but I do not shy away from it because I think its a better point for the argument that salvation is through faith alone. In my opinion, if faith PLUS works saved, the Pharisees and Jews of the first century would NOT have struggled with the gospel so much.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
You are partially correct, yes, but you omit the fact that there were several other books that were commonly accepted as Scripture (one example being the Letter of Clement), and the Revelations of John (among others) were commonly not looked upon as Scripture.
P
pablope
Guest
Which Apostle and which Letter? Only two or three apostles are known to have written letters, the others maybe did not even know how to write.But I will respond to one point you made, simply because I can’t resist.
Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
1 Thess 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren
As your post already made clear, the Apostles were writing letters to the churches and those letters were being read in the churches. So you are mistaken to say, " The apostles were long dead before their writings began to be circulated "
The qoute you cited in Cor refers to the that particular letter because of the its content and the issues concerning the church at corinth.
You forgot the latter part of my response…the Roman persecution…that is one factor, and the fact that copies had to be handwritten, done undercover, difficulty in disseminating the letters…copies had to be hand delivered…so this took several days…and some had to be shipped by sea most likely…messages had to had delivered too…so it took awhile for an epistle to actually become widespead…so my comment stands. The Apostles were indeed long dead before these were circulated and well known in all places where the christians were.
P
ProdigalAnglicn
Guest
Yes, 7 of the 27 books were on the fringe (IIRC 2 Peter, Jude, James, Hebrews, the Johannine Letters and Revelation), but were never, as far as I know, specifically excluded. But these questions had more to do with authorship than with content (with the possible exception of Revelation).
My point that there was widespread agreement with the vast majority of the NT, that disagreements were minor and that the councils were affirming rather than dictating the canon stands, though.
And, with all due respect, the early catholic church is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. “The Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible” is not a correct statement. The RCC as we know it today grew out of the 11th Century.
My point that there was widespread agreement with the vast majority of the NT, that disagreements were minor and that the councils were affirming rather than dictating the canon stands, though.
And, with all due respect, the early catholic church is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. “The Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible” is not a correct statement. The RCC as we know it today grew out of the 11th Century.
- Status