Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
Then evidently you must have a problem with the 27 NT book/epistle canon,because no where is it mentioned in Scripture.
Click to expand...
Agreement on the New Testament canon is one of the great communions we have with the Protestant faiths

ps. had to use faith in the plural
 
rcwitness said:
Agreement on the New Testament canon is one of the great communions we have with the Protestant faiths

ps. had to use faith in the plural
Click to expand...
Yes. But unfortunately when Protestants state if a tradition is substantially different than Scripture, than they are cherry picking. Again, no where is the NT canon mentioned in the Bible.
 
Nicea325 said:
Then evidently you must have a problem with the 27 NT book/epistle canon,because no where is it mentioned in Scripture.
Click to expand...
Stop with the Patrick Madrid hand me downs, Nicea 😛 It makes dialogue impossible. No one is talking about the canon, but rather, the source of apostolic doctrine.
 
rcwitness said:
My family and I (pregnant wife and 4yr old daughter) moved here a month ago. We are now living in the nation’s capitol, Brasilia.

I really thought about taking a couple cases of Spttd Cow in the shippment, but settled for a bottle of Milagro Special Reserve Anejo! I wish I had that today, its my birthday. but our shippment gets to the port on the 30th. Then I have to travel like 10 hrs to the coast in a box truck. Its an adventure!
Click to expand...
Brazil is beautiful, I am sure. I think I would stay with the Spotted Cow though lol
 
Nicea325 said:
Yes. But unfortunately when Protestants state if a tradition is substantially different than Scripture, than they are cherry picking. Again, no where is the NT canon mentioned in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Thats a big recognition regarding how and who established what is to be considered canon.

To tell you the truth, the DC’s arent so important for me as far as making the point that the bible needed an authoritative Church in order to establish a canon, but of course they are included in the canon which the earliest canon we hold to still as officially confirmed through the councils.

which council officially took out the DC’s? The truth is, is that Protestantism cannot come together by its very nature because if it did, it would need the same Spirit which holds the Catholic Church together.
 
rcwitness said:
Thats a big recognition regarding how and who established what is to be considered canon.

To tell you the truth, the DC’s arent so important for me as far as making the point that the bible needed an authoritative Church in order to establish a canon, but of course they are included in the canon which the earliest canon we hold to still as officially confirmed through the councils.

which council officially took out the DC’s? The truth is, is that Protestantism cannot come together by its very nature because if it did, it would need the same Spirit which holds the Catholic Church together.
Click to expand...
The odd thing is that I accept the deuterocanon. I’m still being argued with. Nothing makes you guys happy. Now I know why Zwingli went nuts 😛
 
When Jesus taught the Apostles and preached to the crowd it was oral. When the Apostles taught what Christ taught them it was oral. St. John himself said that no everything Jesus said did or taught or preach etc. was written down but that which one might come to believe. What has been written and became the New testament only supplements what was taught by oral tradition.
 
rcwitness said:
Thats a big recognition regarding how and who established what is to be considered canon.

To tell you the truth, the DC’s arent so important for me as far as making the point that the bible needed an authoritative Church in order to establish a canon, but of course they are included in the canon which the earliest canon we hold to still as officially confirmed through the councils.

which council officially took out the DC’s? The truth is, is that Protestantism cannot come together by its very nature because if it did, it would need the same Spirit which holds the Catholic Church together.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Per_Crucem said:
The odd thing is that I accept the deuterocanon. I’m still being argued with. Nothing makes you guys happy. Now I know why Zwingli went nuts 😛
Click to expand...
I guess my point was that the actual DC books aren’t the heart of the matter. I don’t think doctrine is based on them. I think the content of the Protestant bible and Catholic bibles are not a huge division. If it was the NT, that would be alot more difficult. I don’t want to keep arguing and emphisize the common faith we do have.

Protestants are free to accept using and believing a Catholic Bible and vise versa, because everything in the Protestant is in the Cat. But translations can get a little sticky, then Interpretations even more so.

A Catholic can look at the Bible as a testament to the Pope, like I do. From its contents within and its gathering, approving and preserving. Protestants can look at the Bible as a source protected from human corruption. Catholics can look at that same protection in detailed history of Church preservation.

both partys need to apply the Word in truth. individuals are held accountable personally in the end, but along the way we have each other to help and be helped.

The Reformation raised alot of questions about the power that the Church had and the way it can be abused. It also raised questions about the authority that exists even though it may be abused. We cannot just change some things without changing the hearts of the apostolic successors. In the New Testament times, the least in the Church can have the Lord working in him. But its not just about stealing the Church’s book and handing it out like its some Robbin Hood fantasy. I am kinda interested in the ‘Matthew Bible’ which John Rogers translated and was severely punished for. What does that mean? Why did these Reformers not work with the Church? Why did the Church react so harshly?
 
rcwitness said:
I guess my point was that the actual DC books aren’t the heart of the matter. I don’t think doctrine is based on them. I think the content of the Protestant bible and Catholic bibles are not a huge division. If it was the NT, that would be alot more difficult.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right.
The Reformation raised alot of questions about the power that the Church had and the way it can be abused. It also raised questions about the authority that exists even though it may be abused. We cannot just change some things without changing the hearts of the apostolic successors. In the New Testament times, the least in the Church can have the Lord working in him. But its not just about stealing the Church’s book and handing it out like its some Robbin Hood fantasy. I am kinda interested in the ‘Matthew Bible’ which John Rogers translated and was severely punished for. What does that mean? Why did these Reformers not work with the Church? Why did the Church react so harshly?
Click to expand...
I can understand why the Church reacted so harshly. They were proven right in many ways. They were worried about an explosion of denominations and that’s precisely what happened. So no, the princes of the RCC were right to react the way they did. They did torture people (via the State), they did excommunicate. I respect them to the extent that they actually believed in Hell and were worried about mortal souls going there. A lot less gushy than we are today.

However, the freeing of the Gospel from medieval supersitition was worth it. Post tenebras lux.
 
=rcwitness;11974269]I guess my point was that the actual DC books aren’t the heart of the matter.** I don’t think doctrine is based on them**. I think the content of the Protestant bible and Catholic bibles are not a huge division. If it was the NT, that would be alot more difficult. I don’t want to keep arguing and emphisize the common faith we do have.
Click to expand...
It s interesting because, from my reading of them, there seems little to dispute, certainly little to say, “this doesn’t belong”, or “this one should be included”. If anything, I find it curious why the Prayer of Manasseh isn’t, as it is so inspiring.

Jon
 
Randy_Carson said:
Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books – Short Answer
By Gary Michuta
catholic-convert.com/blog/2014/04/30/why-protestants-reject-7-books-of-the-bible-the-short-answer/

The short answer is this: When Luther was cornered in a debate over Purgatory, his opponent, Johann Eck, cited 2 Maccabees against Luther’s position. Luther was forced to say that Second Maccabees could not be allowed in the debate because it wasn’t canonical. Later in the debate, Luther appealed to St. Jerome for rejecting Maccabees (the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Florence all included Macabees as canonical Scripture).

By appealing to Jerome, he also rejected all the other books Jerome rejected (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Daniel 13, and sections of Esther).

From then on, Luther (and all Protestants) have been trying to justify this removal. Luther in 1534 thought Baruch was ”too skimpy” and not lofty enough to be from the scribe of Jeremiah. He also had problems with certain historical elements in Baruch. But in the long run, it really came down to Jerome’s rejection.

As a side note, Jerome rejected it because he thought that a Hebrew manuscript tradition, known as the Masoretic Text, was identical to the inspired originals and all other copies were made from this text. Since the Deuteros were not part of the MT, he rejected them as not being of the canonical Scripture.

What Jerome could not have known was that there were many different Hebrew manuscripts in circulation during the first century and that the Greek Septuagint, a translation made by the Jews around 200 BC, at least in parts, appears to be a very literal translation of a more ancient Hebrew text tradition that is now lost.

This means that Jerome’s idea of “Hebrew truth” (I.e., only that which is found in the Hebrew MT is true) has been demonstrated to be an error. With Jerome’s position no longer tenable, Protestantism really doesn’t have a historical leg to stand on in regards to their OT canon.
Click to expand...
Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the "Apocrypha"
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/04/four-surprising-facts-about-john-calvin.html

John Calvin:


  1. *]Admitted the Deuterocanon teaches Purgatory, veneration of the Saints, exorcisms, and other doctrines denied by Protestants;

    *]Admitted that the Deuterocanon was considered canonical by many of the Fathers, including Augustine and the Council of Florence;

    *]Admitted that the Deuterocanon should be read in the Church; and

    *]Quoted part of the Deuterocanon as Scripture.

    Given this, does anyone reading this still think that Protestants got this one right?
 
rcwitness said:
I guess my point was that the actual DC books aren’t the heart of the matter. I don’t think doctrine is based on them. I think the content of the Protestant bible and Catholic bibles are not a huge division. If it was the NT, that would be alot more difficult. I don’t want to keep arguing and emphisize the common faith we do have.
Click to expand...
True enough…until you recall that Protestants are quick to dismiss purgatory as an invention of the Catholic Church to make money during the middle ages because they can’t find anything supporting purgatory in their truncated scriptures.

If they HAD Maccabees, a lot of ink (and blood) may not have been spilled.
 
Randy_Carson said:
True enough…until you recall that Protestants are quick to dismiss purgatory as an invention of the Catholic Church to make money during the middle ages because they can’t find anything supporting purgatory in their truncated scriptures.

If they HAD Maccabees, a lot of ink (and blood) may not have been spilled.
Click to expand...
Hi Randy,
For the record, ISTM that the big issue on the Lutheran side was things like private masses, indulgences, etc. The idea of purgation has never left the Lutheran understanding. Even in 2 Macc there is no evidence of an intermediate state/place.

I, for one, frankly don’t care much what Calvin said, but I agree that
  1. many of the Fathers endorsed them,
  2. early synods endorsed them
  3. the East, likewise endorses them
    4)there’s some pretty cool stuff in them
So, they should be included, and read from, and taught from, what has been the Lutheran practice in Europe all along.

Jon
 
SyroMalankara said:
Not sure what the last sentence means in relation to this topic, my point is that all the varying Canons are equally valid, as long as they have Synodal approval by the Church. The Armenian Canon, used by Armenian Catholics and Orthodox alike; the Syriac Canon, used by Syriac Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Syro-Malankara Catholics, Syriac Orthodox, and Malankara Orthodox alike; etc.** The varying Canons were never a point of contention within the Communion of Churches, even when they were different for each of the Churches - as long as Communion and unity of Faith were maintained.**

I am not really sure what you mean by “Universal Canon”, they varied for each Church in the Catholic Communion, and still do to this day.
Click to expand...
Just want to comment on the bolded. I’m glad to see another person here make this statement.

This is a point I often try to make in discussions with “Bible Only” Christians…That if they look at the bulk of Christian history the canon of Scripture was never seen as that critical. What was more important was the Communion of the Church - unified in faith. In other words the visible, and authoritative Church.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Just want to comment on the bolded. I’m glad to see another person here make this statement.

This is a point I often try to make in discussions with “Bible Only” Christians…That if they look at the bulk of Christian history the canon of Scripture was never seen as that critical. What was more important was the Communion of the Church - unified in faith. In other words the visible, and authoritative Church.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree, JR. But that makes me ask, if the canon isn’t a point of contention, then why do Catholics make it a point of contention with Protestants?
 
Per_Crucem said:
I don’t disagree, JR. But that makes me ask, if the canon isn’t a point of contention, then why do Catholics make it a point of contention with Protestants?
Click to expand...
I’m glad you asked that…😃

Usually it is because the protestants (and here I mean mainly of the heavy duty “Bible only” variety) make it a point of contention. This can happen in different ways…
Fo instance…
  1. The subject of praying to for the dead / purgatory comes up…The BO protestant says, “Show me praying for the dead in the bible”…I say sure, and give him 2 Maccabees. His response is - “That’s not in the bible”…and the conversation instantly turns to what constitutes the canon of Scripture. This gets deep into history and the traditional relationship between the authority of the written word and the authority of the visible Church.
  2. The assertion is made by the BO protestant about not adding or taking from this book. My response is that the protestants already did this when they removed books. (usually the other person has been taught that the Catholics added books. Again this digs deep back into history and the relationship between the word and oral tradition etc…
  3. Or the conversation might be revolving around the “unity” of the early Church locations - were they locally independent or part of one great, organized whole? In this, especially before 400 AD there can be little doubt that the Church relied on it’s structure - even amid persecution - to protect the Gospel and spread the Good News.
So the reason it becomes contentious between protestants and Catholics is because of the reliance that the protestant places on “Bible Alone”.

Now - in groups such as the Lutherans who are not so adamant…the canon is really less of a problem. In discussions on matters of purgatory etc. you would accept our using Maccabees as a reference.

sorry - got a bit wordy there…

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top