Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mayihelp2 said:
all though i like reading some of the “historical facts–”

this exersize – seems to dwell in the arena that saidn paul said to timithy – advoid stupid and dumb arguments–

The most important – concanal writings – are the ones that get you “baptised” in the Holy spirit-- meaning that in 1john 2:27 –

1 John 2:27 - Bible Gateway

BibleGateway.com
27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things …

fortuitously i know people and have been taught how to hear the voice on the Holy Spirit–

meaning my personal relationship with Jesus is established with mark 16:15-20

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: they will function in the 9 gifts of the spirit-- and including dream s and visions-

in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

the early CHURCH FATHERS-- also believed that the
  1. the earth was flat
  2. the earth was the center of the universe
  3. that the universe rotated around the earth
  4. the earth was stationary and stood still
  5. and what were the stars?
so it is obviously a case that they could make them selves believe any thing that was error

you guys on this forum-- can’t even-- get your head around "praying in tongues- and doing the interpretation-

and you think you can understand – the history of religious canon?

as an EVANGELICAL Catholic-- who functions- as the Lord gives me direction-

you guys obviously get lost in “mental assent” and ego gratification
Click to expand...
Hi mayihelp2: The ECF’s might have believed as most people did in those days that the earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, the universe rotated around the earth, the earth was stationary and stood still and the stars were called orbs. all that was based on what they believed at that time and one can not fault them for that as they did not have any other means of knowing different.

I am not sure what you mean that we on this forum are praying in tongues. I do think that there are plenty of posters here in this forum that have a great deal of knowledge of the Catholic Church and of the Canon of Scripture, and I rather doubt that we get lost in mental assent and ego gratification. I am not sure where you get all this from as it seems to me that the discussion goes well even when one disagrees.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Technically, St.Jerome informed the Pope of his time, who commissioned Jerome to transliterate the already canonized Deutero books from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek into the Vulgate =Latin text.

St. Jerome questioned the Deutero’s because he did not have the original Hebrew counter parts to transliterate them only the Greek.When he approached the Pope about his dilemma, the Pope instructed Jerome to include them in the Vulgate, because Jesus and the apostles taught from them and quoted from the Deutero’s. Jerome conceded.

There are over 300 deutero quotes and references in the New Testament scriptures.
Click to expand...
One would think Jesus at least would know what
was Sacred Scripture and what wasn’t without the
help of the Protestants???
 
marywarfield said:
One would think Jesus at least would know what
was Sacred Scripture and what wasn’t without the
help of the Protestants???
Click to expand...
Hi marywarfield: I agree with what you said. One almost gets the impression that all this time Catholic’s have had it wrong and only the Protestants got it right. yet, protestants can not agree on interpretation as it is all over the place with SS type of thinking. How can they truly know or even understand how inspiration works and how can they determine which books are inspired without the Catholic Church? They can not ever agree on what doctrine is since they tend to decide as a church they are correct and others are not and when one looks at the yellow pages on Churches so many claim to be Bible based but each has a different interpretation of what the Bible says and means. its a wonder that they have not decided to make up their own Bible with whatever books they want that they feel is in line with their beliefs.
 
Per_Crucem said:
I think the most interesting part of the discussion is that, at the time Luther debated Eck, he still believed in Purgatory.

Be that as it may, I do not reject the Deuterocanonicals and our Confessions refer to them as Scripture.
Click to expand...
I’m not intending to throw a punch, but this would only say that Luther was fallible. I don’t know anything about that meeting, but why would Luther argue to the negative if he believed in Purgatory?
 
POJIUJH said:
I’m not intending to throw a punch, but this would only say that Luther was fallible. I don’t know anything about that meeting, but why would Luther argue to the negative if he believed in Purgatory?
Click to expand...
He wasn’t arguing about purgatory per se. The subject of the debate was manifold, but as it related to purgatory, the subject was indulgences. Eck brought 2 Maccabees into the debate, to which Luther responded by arguing that an appeal to Maccabees was weak because the canonicity of the book had historically been disputed in the Church.
 
spina1953 said:
Hi marywarfield: I agree with what you said. One almost gets the impression that all this time Catholic’s have had it wrong and only the Protestants got it right. yet, protestants can not agree on interpretation as it is all over the place with SS type of thinking. How can they truly know or even understand how inspiration works and how can they determine which books are inspired without the Catholic Church? They can not ever agree on what doctrine is since they tend to decide as a church they are correct and others are not and when one looks at the yellow pages on Churches so many claim to be Bible based but each has a different interpretation of what the Bible says and means. its a wonder that they have not decided to make up their own Bible with whatever books they want that they feel is in line with their beliefs.
Click to expand...
You can do better than this, spina. The last time I read this argument on CAF, I fell off my dinosaur.
 
Per_Crucem said:
You can do better than this, spina. The last time I read this argument on CAF, I fell off my dinosaur.
Click to expand...
Well in his defense one gets tired of every discussion
that has “Protestant” in it or “SS” ending up
spinning it’s wheel deeper in the mud with Luther and
Lutherans. Perhaps Spina is just opening the discussion
to the wider Protestant world the majority of which
are not Lutherans and could care less about Luther.

more to the point I would like Lutherans and
Protestants to respond to the earlier dialogue of
Jesus and the Apostles quoting from the Deutero/Canonicals.
Why does that fact lack significance to Protestants?
 
steido01 said:
Except for many great minds of the Roman Church, including Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus - who both would oppose Luther on other topics? 🤷
Click to expand...
But there is a fundamental difference, these great minds of the CC, what ever they said, in the end, they alway said defer or seek the guidance of the Church…nor cause schism or disobedience, nor did they say, decide for yourself.
 
Gabriel of 12 said

"Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12
Technically, St.Jerome informed the Pope of his time, who commissioned Jerome to transliterate the already canonized Deutero books from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek into the Vulgate =Latin text.

St. Jerome questioned the Deutero’s because he did not have the original Hebrew counter parts to transliterate them only the Greek.When he approached the Pope about his dilemma, the Pope instructed Jerome to include them in the Vulgate, because Jesus and the apostles taught from them and quoted from the Deutero’s. Jerome conceded.

There are over 300 deutero quotes and references in the New Testament scriptures."

Does no one except the Pope that pointed this out to Jerome
think this is significant? Protestants just go Yes but…

This is why I so often despair at any possibility of
meaningful unity between Catholics and others.
For us Catholics ANYTHING Jesus said, touched, walked
on, liked, wore, crucified on, or approved of is sacred.
We even have a Milk Grotto where Mary supposedly
dripped a couple drops of breast milk feeding Jesus. Lol.
Catholics compete with each other trying to get tiny
handfuls of dirt from the original
Colosseum because the blood of martyrs spilled on it.
If Jesus, his Mother or the Apostles bled, spit or dripped
on it it is forever sacred.
And that would include books of the Bible that
Jesus Christ saw worthy to quote from.

But the Protestant world? “Yes but…”
 
Per_Crucem said:
“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.” Gregory.

"

Those are a couple.
Click to expand...
Let us take the first one…i think it is by Cajetan, not Gregory.

This part, he cites what Jerome says:

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.

In this part, he states that they should be canonical, his conclusion, he seems to go against Jerome’s opinion:

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." Gregory.

And seems to say, by this way, one can understand the decision at Carthage and by Augustine. 🤷
 
Hi marywarfield: Thanks for the defense. it is true that while Protestants at large do reject the Deotero-canonical books and take to some sort of SS and it appears from Lutheran posters that they alone properly understand how SS is to be used, apparently the rest od Protestantdom has their own idea of what and how SS works. The OP is about Protestants rejecting the DC books and not really about how Lutherans are somehow Catholic but still reject all of the Catholic Churches teachings and doctrines which is fine to argue but I thought it was Protestants at large rejecting not only Lutherans, since they are not the only one’s that started it all with Luther at the helm. As a matter of fact it appears that not all Lutherans are in union with each other from what some Lutheran posters have said. Lutherans have rejected plenty of things that are Catholic doctrine yet want us to believe that they are Catholic too which makes n sense to me.

I am more interested in why so many Protestants want to reject the DC books and why they think it not inspired or and how they came about deciding they were not inspired, which is why the Op’s question. blessing and peace.
 
marywarfield said:
Gabriel of 12 said

"Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12
Technically, St.Jerome informed the Pope of his time, who commissioned Jerome to transliterate the already canonized Deutero books from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek into the Vulgate =Latin text.

St. Jerome questioned the Deutero’s because he did not have the original Hebrew counter parts to transliterate them only the Greek.When he approached the Pope about his dilemma, the Pope instructed Jerome to include them in the Vulgate, because Jesus and the apostles taught from them and quoted from the Deutero’s. Jerome conceded.

There are over 300 deutero quotes and references in the New Testament scriptures."

Does no one except the Pope that pointed this out to Jerome
think this is significant? Protestants just go Yes but…

This is why I so often despair at any possibility of
meaningful unity between Catholics and others.
For us Catholics ANYTHING Jesus said, touched, walked
on, liked, wore, crucified on, or approved of is sacred.
We even have a Milk Grotto where Mary supposedly
dripped a couple drops of breast milk feeding Jesus. Lol.
Catholics compete with each other trying to get tiny
handfuls of dirt from the original
Colosseum because the blood of martyrs spilled on it.
If Jesus, his Mother or the Apostles bled, spit or dripped
on it it is forever sacred.
And that would include books of the Bible that
Jesus Christ saw worthy to quote from.

But the Protestant world? “Yes but…”
Click to expand...
Hi marywarfield: Thanks for posting Gabriel 12’s post it is great information on why the DC books were included and why St. Jerome needed guidance in the work he was doing in translating the Bible into Latin.
 
Per_Crucem said:
You can do better than this, spina. The last time I read this argument on CAF, I fell off my dinosaur.
Click to expand...
Hi Per Crucem: I was not making an argument I was rather saying what is apparent to anyone who reads and studies and even speaks to those who are not of the same faith can see that there is a wide difference in understanding SS. The Lutherans have their own understanding while other denominations have theirs and they do not agree with each other on it. many denomination say that they have the correct interpretation and understanding of the Bible and others are wrong. There are also extreme groups who take SS to the extreme and then there are the so called cults that do much harm in what they teach using whatever means to indoctrinate.

Just because you think the argument is old does not mean that is serves no purpose or that it is somehow incorrect as it has not changed. I can say more but for now I think I did ok imho.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Athanasius and Hilary were before the Vulgate.

As to those after the Vulgate…well, sure, they didn’t use a different translation because the Vulgate was the only one.

So it’s okay, in your view, to reject the DC books as Scriptural, as long as you don’t translate the Bible?
Click to expand...
Oh, great now you want to reinvent history also? by attributing that Jerome and others started their own theology and own Church communities based on the false assumption that their opinions of the Deutero books redirected Christians minds and faith to agree with their assumptions?

By you reaching deeper into Catholic history, searching for opinions when they never reach the faithful’s faith, does not justify your opinion. When Athanasius was holding to a different canon before the final canon was settled.

Mixing historical subjects of the canon does not free you from your previous false assumptions of an opinion of Jerome as compared to Luther’s action.

In regards to the OP, do protestants reject the Deutero canon books? because of Luther the man’s opinion to discard what is inspired of God and what is not?

Or do protestants base their rejection of the Deutero canon of books by their own infallible authority to do so?

This is the meat and potatoes, not opinions of Great Catholic Saints who never have the authority to rename the Deutero canon of books as not inspired of God.

Attempts at changing the discussion to another subject is not an escape of the true facts.

Peace be with you
 
marywarfield said:
more to the point I would like Lutherans and
Protestants to respond to the earlier dialogue of
Jesus and the Apostles quoting from the Deutero/Canonicals.
Why does that fact lack significance to Protestants?
Click to expand...
For Lutherans, the problem is really and English-speaking Lutheran problem having more to do with cheap English Bible printers than deep seated angst about the books.

The books in question are in our theology (our Confessions cite them) and hymns and combined with our recent publication of our rather excellent study version of the Apocrypha, I’m certain the problem will be short lived.
 
I don’t think most protestants have an articulated reason. Its just, that’s the bible they first read and therefore they trust it. Many do not seem to be aware there has never been any consensus as to the exact contents of the scripture, that it’s history is very contentious and far from settled. I think the more sophisticated try to argue from Judaism, that the canon at the time of Jesus for the Jews was like how the protestants and modern Jews have it, but I find explanations like that wanting when it is not at all clear if there was a canon in an exact form as it was.

I think the best argument going for the protestant is that most of the books included in the Orthodox, Catholic and Oriental canons of scripture are highly disputed and many of the early lists leave them out, therefore, to be safe, we leave them out of the bible. I do not know how a protestant can positively deny the wisdom of Solomon being scripture and yet affirm the 3 john as scripture by any objective standard.

We really only have tradition to rely upon in this regard.
 
marywarfield said:
Well in his defense one gets tired of every discussion
that has “Protestant” in it or “SS” ending up
spinning it’s wheel deeper in the mud with Luther and
Lutherans. Perhaps Spina is just opening the discussion
to the wider Protestant world the majority of which
are not Lutherans and could care less about Luther.
Click to expand...
Because of the wide swath of anabaptist and non-denominationals on this forum, Mary? Lol

Plus the thread was about Luther.
more to the point I would like Lutherans and
Protestants to respond to the earlier dialogue of
Jesus and the Apostles quoting from the Deutero/Canonicals.
Why does that fact lack significance to Protestants?
Click to expand...
Though I am sure that Jesus would have read the DC books (he observed Hannukah, after all), none of the DC books are quoted directly. At best, there are allusions in the NT to the DCs (like in Hebrews) but never a direct quote. I don’t know how significant that ks one way or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top