francisdesales
Member
Solo said:
Not according to history.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
The Bible Aloneâ€ÂSola Scriptura†But thats not in the bible
- Thread starter biblecatholic
- Start date
Not according to history.
francisdesales wrote:
Not according to history.[/quote:8aa5e]
Deuterocanonical means 'belonging to the second canon'; and that term was first used in 1566 by a Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena. Those books were omitted from early canons and their acceptance among early Christians was not at all universal like the 39 books of the Old Testemant contained in the Hebrew Bible. The canonicity of the deuteroncanical books was NOT definitively confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.
You can check those names and places yourself but unless all the history books I'm reading are wrong...that's just how it is.
francisdesales
Member
Veritas said:
These books were just as accepted and part of Scripture as the NEW TESTAMENT DEUTEROCANONICALS - James, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, and Revelation. They (OT AND NT Deutero's) were accepted by 3 Councils of the late 300's AD. The Canon, OT and NT, was defined by Trent, but was accepted over 1000 years before. When something is officially defined, it doesn't mean that that was the first time something was accepted by the Church. It means that "discussion is over".
I have adequately shown that the Church Fathers accepted ALL of the books we call Scriptures by the end of the second century.
My question to you, then is "Why do you accept the NT, but not the OT Deutero's, when they were defined the same time? Why aren't you being consistent and toss out the NT Deutero's as well?"
The answer is obvious - Luther didn't like the theology contained within them. He ALSO tried to eliminate Hebrews, James, and Revelation. Fortunately for Protestantism, brighter minds prevailed on the NT Deutero's. Too bad they couldn't contain the damage he had already done to Christendom by removing accepted books from the Bible.
Regards
F
Fnerb
Guest
francisdesales said:
I can honestly not find that anywhere. All the references I have read point to the above mentioned date of 1546.
francisdesales said:
Funny how information can be spun from any direction - whether it be prodestant or catholic.
Luther had questions regarding the authorship of Hebrews.
Luther had questions regarding James and it's seeming opposition to Paul's letters.
Luther had stated his views on the "obscurity" of Revelations.
However, Lutherans do not regard Luther's words as a final authority on this or any other subject. The books and words of Scripture stand on their own authority.
R
Rick W
Guest
I don't stand against the Catholic Church. Never have. Nerver will. On the other hand I can't say I support all the things the Church does or doesn't do. If I did I'd probably lay claim to being a member of the Catholic Church.
But I must challenge the validity of the argument that because something isn't in the bible then it's good or it's bad. There are a lot of things we ALL follow that aren't in the bible, especially if one is searching for the word of the doctrine in question. The word trinity isn't in the bible, the word sacrament or sacraments isn't in the bible ... heck, the word bible isn't in the bible. Pediophilia isn't in the bible but we know this practice is not to be followed.
Also, what more is needed to come to the knowledge of the message Christ brought from God?
If I'm to be scholarly in biblical doctrine to follow Christ then that leaves out the mentally handicapped and those not so gifted for the focus of study of scripture. The message is simple, uncomplicated and forthright so no matter who you are or where you're from you can understand the love of God through His Son Jesus Christ. The bible isn't mental, it's not technical nor is it only for those gifted in translation, study or research. The Gospel is a message to the hearts of men, it's the "Good News" sought and held by faith to those who believed God before His Son was glorified. His message is supposed to release us from the chains of bondage, not entangle us once again with a new set of restrictions, laws, ordinances, rites, rituals and regulations. Again, the message of Christ is for the heart. The Gospel is not a new set of do's and don't's.
The agreement, "It's not in the bible" is an empty assertion that has no basis for sound debate. On any issue.
But I must challenge the validity of the argument that because something isn't in the bible then it's good or it's bad. There are a lot of things we ALL follow that aren't in the bible, especially if one is searching for the word of the doctrine in question. The word trinity isn't in the bible, the word sacrament or sacraments isn't in the bible ... heck, the word bible isn't in the bible. Pediophilia isn't in the bible but we know this practice is not to be followed.
Also, what more is needed to come to the knowledge of the message Christ brought from God?
If I'm to be scholarly in biblical doctrine to follow Christ then that leaves out the mentally handicapped and those not so gifted for the focus of study of scripture. The message is simple, uncomplicated and forthright so no matter who you are or where you're from you can understand the love of God through His Son Jesus Christ. The bible isn't mental, it's not technical nor is it only for those gifted in translation, study or research. The Gospel is a message to the hearts of men, it's the "Good News" sought and held by faith to those who believed God before His Son was glorified. His message is supposed to release us from the chains of bondage, not entangle us once again with a new set of restrictions, laws, ordinances, rites, rituals and regulations. Again, the message of Christ is for the heart. The Gospel is not a new set of do's and don't's.
The agreement, "It's not in the bible" is an empty assertion that has no basis for sound debate. On any issue.
Drew
Member
Vic C. said:
Before responding to the above, I want to give my opinion that claims that the Catholic church is a cult are patently incorrect.
The word "cult" has certain connotations of mind control, charismatic leaders, and isolation from mainstream society that obviously do not apply to the RCC. To claim it is a cult is to engage in the basest form of "argument by smearing". Unfortunately, there are those in this forum that seem to have perfected that form of "debate".
My thoughts re Vic's post are not fully formulated. I will say that I believe that the nature of the "gift" of salvation is such that it can indeed be rejected when initially offered or even after years of "walking the walk". Although I wish it were not the case, I think that people can indeed "lose" their salvation.
So while it is a gift, we have to accept it and that involves more than a one time intellectual commitment to the proposition that Jesus died for my sins and is Lord of the Universe. I am presently of the mind that "accepting the gift" does indeed involve some "work" on our part. I think that salvation is overwhelmingly the work of God but I do not understand Eph 2:8-9 to imply that some level of continued commitment and effort is not required in order to not effectively "give the gift back".
I have not thought a lot about this, so my opinion is somewhat soft.
Vic C.
Member
Good points, Fnerb. Many have reservations about the authorship of Hebrews. Also, if we look at Hebrews and James from a "Jewish" perspective, both books make sense and do not contradict Paul's revelations.
Speaking of Revelation 8-) the more I learn about that book, the more I want to pull my hair out! LOL One thing is for sure, it's NOT a book we should use to formulate Christian doctrine, which I suspect was Luther's concern. It is apocalyptic in nature and should be studied with that in mind.
Rick, good post and I agree with you, despite the fact that I too can get a bit technical at times. Especially on the finer points, when grammer and syntax are concerned. Bottom line is, scripture itself never changes, only man's understanding and interpretation does. ...and certainly the message of the Gospels NEVER changes.
Thank you Lord.
jgredline
Member
Fnerb said:
I was thinking about this while driving to work....This goes show a couple of things..
That Luther was a ''man'' who made mistakes like the rest of us...
And that God was determined to complete his bible ''his way'' and that was the 66 books contained in the canon....
Vic C.
Member
I agree with Javier, I always respect your opinions, even if I don't always agree. I do "ask" you to consider two things before you "formulate" a response;
Romans 11:6 But if by grace, no longer is it of works; else grace no longer becomes grace. But if of works, it is no longer grace; else work is no longer work. (written to Jewish believers explaining how the Gentile believer has been brought into the fold... and it was not by observing any law)
Adam Clarke wrote this:
and especially:
2 Cor 12:9 And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Therefore, I will rather gladly boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may overshadow me.
(litv)
I agree that one may initially refuse, but who in their "right mind" really believes they can undue what God has done once the gift is accepted? Does anyone really think they can rewrap the gift, hand it back to God and say, "I don't want this gift anymore". :o
Romans 11:6 But if by grace, no longer is it of works; else grace no longer becomes grace. But if of works, it is no longer grace; else work is no longer work. (written to Jewish believers explaining how the Gentile believer has been brought into the fold... and it was not by observing any law)
Adam Clarke wrote this:
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom11.htm
and especially:
2 Cor 12:9 And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Therefore, I will rather gladly boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may overshadow me.
(litv)
I agree that one may initially refuse, but who in their "right mind" really believes they can undue what God has done once the gift is accepted? Does anyone really think they can rewrap the gift, hand it back to God and say, "I don't want this gift anymore". :o
francisdesales
Member
jgredline said:
What evidence do you have that there are only 66 books in the canon? Where did this "6" number mean, in Scriptures, again?
I find it ironic that you have a "double unholy" number for your canon. Seventy three, on the other hand, is perfection in the trinity...
But symbolism aside, what historical evidence can you give me that there are only 66 books? You admit Martin Luther can be wrong on the NT Deutero's, but he COULD NOT BE WRONG on the number of OT books?
I find that as very selective reasoning. God gave the Church 73 books. It is too bad that your bible doesn't have them all.
Regards
francisdesales
Member
Solo said:
I would like to add this to anyone interested in the Catholic Church and its definition of itself. The Church tried to do this at Vatican One, completing only part of its work before the Council was interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Infallibility was defined - but believed from the beginning. However, this was only part of what the Church desired to reflect upon. The "minutes" show that there was to be more documents forthcoming. Vatican Two continued the teachings of the Church. This is seen in Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes. This gives us a more clear understanding of how the Church sees itself with respect to itself, (clergy and laity) as well as how the Church sees itself in comparison to the rest of the world. In this document, the Church realized that it was the fullness of the faith - BUT NOT the entirety of its members existed in its visible form. That is why, in the newer Catechism that explains this teaching better (the Baltimore Catechism came before Vatican 2), we find what the Church had always believed regarding WHO was in the Church and what that meant. Read the Constitution on the Church and you will find a clearer teaching on this matter.
Regards
francisdesales
Member
Fnerb said:
Ah. Here, I believe, is the confusion.
The Catholic Church defines something "officially" when a teaching needs to be authoritatively determined and more precisely defined. Thus, the Church had always believed that Jesus was God. They worshipped Him AS God in their Liturgy. However, in the 300's, a priest named Arius taught that Jesus was NOT God, NOT the same essence as the Father. He used Scriptures to back up his claim. He presented a legitimate argument that drew many people in the East to follow him. St. Jerome said "the Church woke up and found itself nearly Arian". It was considered one of the most serious of heresies to invade the Church. Because of this, the Church felt it necessary to DEFINE what WE believe. We "know" Jesus is God - the Spirit tells us so. We realize that He is because we worship Him. We read the Scriptures in the same manner. Not as if He is a demigod. Or that God inhabited Jesus body at the baptism and left it before he died on the cross.
This short history lesson is to give you the reason WHY the Church defines things. It is our leaders' responsibility to protect the "Traditions" (teachings) given, to feed and protect the flock from the "wolves". Thus, the Church, in this case, emphatically denies Arius' claim and at Nicea in 325, the Church states that Christ is divine. Using the powers given to her from above, the Church declares the belief of the Church using her power to bind and loosen.
Now, regarding the subject at hand, the Deuterocanonicals. The same thing is at work. Several councils in the West had gotten together (Carthage and Rome) and came up with the same OT/NT list. Other men, such as St. Augustine, did the same thing. This list, this canon, was accepted as Scriptures. While several men through the next 1000 years would disagree, this voice was never serious enough to warrant a counciliar declaration (such as at Nicea with Jesus' divinity).
With the Protestant Reformation and Luther, however, that changed. There were more serious threats to the Tradition and Canon that had been previously accepted by the Church. So at Trent, the issue was closed. The Canon was OFFICIALLY set - although it had been set in the late 300's. I have also posted many writings from Fathers who had recognized that the Deutero's were Scripture, men such as Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Hilary of Poiters, Tertullian, and the rest of the big names preceding 400 AD. Thus, we can say that the Church had already accepted the Deuterocanonicals - both OT and NT - before 400 AD. It was officially recognized to cut off all argument at Trent.
Fnerb said:
That is a circular argument, Fnerb. The Scriptures do not stand on their own authority because they do not witness to THEMSELVES. The vast majority of the NT books do not claim to be inspired by God. They are writings, bibliographies and moral exhortations. They were initially written to aid Christians maintain their faith. The writers were not writing letters with the idea of putting together a larger collection in 40 years. The ONLY thing that allows us to KNOW the Scriptures is the human witnesses that look at the writings - ALL of them - and are able to determine which ones WERE inspired based on what they had ALREADY BEEN TAUGHT ORALLY! Thus, those men were given teachings by the Apostles. When coming across a writing, they were able to use that knowledge and analyze the letter, judging whether it was a legitimate representation of their beliefs. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas was eliminated, although it claimed to have been written by an Apostle. Upon reading it, the men who sat at the foot of the Apostles recognized it was NOT Scriptures BECAUSE it didn't mesh with what they had been taught.
It doesn't work the other way around, though. This would be a circular argument to take an already-compiled collection and then say "it is Scriptures" based on what it already says. Christianity is a historical religion and relies on its witnesses and those men whom they have passed on the witness to.
Regards
F
Fnerb
Guest
First, thank you for the "history lesson". It was informative.
Just a few reactive thoughts...
My first thought while reading this was that without Sola Scripture, we have no litmus test. I understand that early teachings were not written down but were taught orally by the apostles. However, we do not have the luxury of having Paul or Peter around to give sermons. All we have is the bible. The only thing we have that we can use to test any thoughts, words, actions, or even doctrine is Gods Word. Therefore if something we do or say, or some form of church doctrine openly is against scripture, we much distance ourselves from it.
However as this relates to the Deutoronicals, I think I am understanding your point. You are saying that these books are indeed scripture, and therefore are tested against His word.
Have you caused me to doubt my faith or my membership of a Lutheran synod? No. However, you have caused a spark that I wish to delve deeper into. Could you by chance provide an sources for the above information? As I said, the few sites that I looked up did point to 1546.
Thanks Fran.
francisdesales said:
Just a few reactive thoughts...
My first thought while reading this was that without Sola Scripture, we have no litmus test. I understand that early teachings were not written down but were taught orally by the apostles. However, we do not have the luxury of having Paul or Peter around to give sermons. All we have is the bible. The only thing we have that we can use to test any thoughts, words, actions, or even doctrine is Gods Word. Therefore if something we do or say, or some form of church doctrine openly is against scripture, we much distance ourselves from it.
However as this relates to the Deutoronicals, I think I am understanding your point. You are saying that these books are indeed scripture, and therefore are tested against His word.
Have you caused me to doubt my faith or my membership of a Lutheran synod? No. However, you have caused a spark that I wish to delve deeper into. Could you by chance provide an sources for the above information? As I said, the few sites that I looked up did point to 1546.
Thanks Fran.
Fnerb,
Both fran and I have posted alot of information about the church fathers and the Deuterocanonicals in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28406
Both fran and I have posted alot of information about the church fathers and the Deuterocanonicals in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28406
francisdesales
Member
Fnerb said:
The operative word is "SOLO". It means "alone". The bible alone does not stand alone. It stands WITH a community of witnesses who verify that it is true. These same witnesses have received the original teachings and can interpret it correctly. Books read in a vacuum can be misinterpreted. Yes, the Bible is critical to knowing our faith. It is very important to us Catholics. Where we disagree on is destroying the witnesses that support the Bible. The word "solo" is never once implied regarding the Bible as a rule of faith. I cannot comprehend this very basic lack in the Bible IF it was a true rule!
Fnerb said:
My intent is not to drag you kicking out of your particular faith community. I only present information about my faith and let God do what He wills. I don't see how regarding the Deuterocanonicals will instantly make someone Catholic or lead them to move from Lutheranism.
A lot of my research was done with the Church Fathers. However, here is some information on the history.
The first is a list of allusions of OT Deutero's found in the NT. It further lists some of the many illustrations of how the Church Fathers considered the Deutero's as Scriptures. A tell-tale sign is when they quote from a Protocanonical book, like Exodus, and in the same sentence, quote from a Deuterocanonical book like Wisdom without making any distinction. When a person makes an argument from two sources, he regards them as having the same authority. Otherwise, his argument is diluted. In some cases, these Fathers explicitly calls them "Scriptures".
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
This next one is a list of quotes taken from the New Testament when the NT author quotes the OT. In the majority of cases, the NT writer quotes the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew version. This leads us to believe (as well as when people like Origen state it) that the Christian Church used the Greek version of the OT which included what we call the Deuterocanonicals. There was no distinction back then, a separate section in the back of the Bible, as the KJV had done. It is also instructive to know that the Jews SPECIFICALLY BANNED the Septaugint BECAUSE the Christians were using it and wanted to quash the Christian sect and their Scriptures that differed.
http://scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
This site, while not dealing with the OT, discusses in detail how the Church felt about the NEW TESTAMENT Deuterocanonicals. This is very rarely discussed by Protestant apologists because there is no reason to accept the NT Deut's but not the OT Deut's which were accepted at the same exact councils in the late 300's. Upon reading the various matrixes included, you will see that some of the Church Fathers didn't think that Hebrews or Revelation belonged in Scriptures. There was some discussion regarding the NT Deut's just as there was with the OT.
When Marcion made a concerted move to set his own canon which ELIMINATED the ENTIRE OT and much of the NT, the Church finally had to do something to standardize what the Christian church would call "Scriptures". At that point, you begin to see a number of "lists" by many Fathers. The question, of course, is why does the intelligent Protestant accept without question 2 John, 3 John, James, Hebrews, and Revelation - while all seven of the OT Deuterocanonicals are rejected out of hand? Because of the Jews? The Jews also rejected the NT Deut's!
http://www.ntcanon.org/
The last site is a link to the Catholic Encycylopedia on the OT canon. The purpose here is to give information on the Councils that accepted the OT canon as we have it today, ratified 1000 years at Trent. I have found this Encyclopedia to be pretty thorough on historical entries. I find that many Protestants will quote from it as an authority when trying to make a point about something else. Of course, it is a Catholic source, but I find this one does not have an apologetic basis. It gives all the evidence, even when incrinimating, such as on "Indulgences". If you read it, I am certain you will come away with the idea that it was presented in a neutral manner. For example:
"At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha."
Here is a quick sentence on those Councils that Trent merely affirmed later...
"The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
I hope this helps your search. Needless to say, this has nothing to do with other issues that we may still disagree on.
Regards
biblecatholic
Member
Heidi said:
would you show me where the in the bible that the bible says it is the FINAL authority. now make sure it says its the FINAL authority.
francisdesales
Member
Heidi said:
None. But that doesn't make it the ONLY source of revelation. That is your convoluted logic at work. NOTHING is above the Bible and NOTHING is above Apostolic Tradition, since they BOTH come to us from God.
Apologetics sometimes helps:
Special revelation + general revelation = God's total revelation
Scripture is special revelation, everything outside scripture that is true together with scripture makes up God's total truth. Most churches would approve of this apologetic model - I think (?). It is supposed to cover all contingences.
If apologetics doesn't help apologies often do.
Special revelation + general revelation = God's total revelation
Scripture is special revelation, everything outside scripture that is true together with scripture makes up God's total truth. Most churches would approve of this apologetic model - I think (?). It is supposed to cover all contingences.
If apologetics doesn't help apologies often do.