“...if the books were not manifest as inspired by their power and purity and supplementary conformity to each other then they would be obscure today, which is what the 7 extra books, relatively are.”
Your arguments are standing on their head now. First of all they are not extra books at all. The canon was established and used by Christians the world over and accept as such. The Catholic Church you describe is the entity that has authorized the Holy virtue of these books.
“And which are excluded for good reasons, fallible Reformers initial acceptance notwithstanding”
...and here you are contrary to your general argument that “the Catholic Church has no authority as men” yet you acquiesce to the act of men (Reformers) excluding specific Canon of the Holy Bible to meet their doctrinal needs. By doing this you concede that an authority is needed and required. The only question is who has the authority. Men like the Reformers, 1500 years from the death of Jesus Christ, or those that were closest to Him and who He instructed to “go out” and their then appointed bishops. But somehow you give more credence not to those “instructed” but those who go against who He instructed.
“Your arguments are standing on their head now.”
Your arrogance makes it obvious you ignore the evidence against you. Did you even read one of the links? (the first one seems to be broke, but here is another; http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html).
“The Catholic Church you describe is the entity that has authorized the Holy virtue of these books.”
It actually took approx. 1500 years for Rome to give us an “infallible canon,” as prior lists were not infallible and what Trent gave you differed from those of Hippo and Carthage.
Your own New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon, states,
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.”
“First of all they are not extra books at all”
The best evidence shows they were not part of the Jewish canon, the Scriptures as often invoked by Jesus and the disciples, with ancient authorities such as Philo, Josephus, Origin Tertullian Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus failing to validate them, while the most ancient list of Old Testament books, that of Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170) includes none of the apocryphal books (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).
Jerome states,
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...”(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
Cardinal Cajetan (an opponent of Luther) write this in 1532:
“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.”
Though Jerome was later persuaded to include them, his prior exclusions show that such books were not part of the Jewish Scriptures, and that the canon was far from settled by Rome till Trent, and
While apocryphal books are included in some of the early manuscripts of the Septuagint, but besides having other problems, these date from the 4th and 5th centuries and do not necessarily indicate they were in the Jewish canon. It also contains works such as III Maccabees which Rome rejected as canonical.
However, “he that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Cor. 2:15), and Jesus promised “My sheep hear my voice” (Jn. 10:27), and from the beginning inspired utterance was known by it’s power, and at best what Rome could so was ratify what was manifest as inspired, along with some added books that were useful to confirm some of her unBiblical doctrine, such as praying to and for the departed.
>And which are excluded for good reasons, fallible Reformers initial acceptance notwithstanding<
“...and here you are contrary to your general argument that “the Catholic Church has no authority as men” yet you acquiesce to the act of men (Reformers) excluding specific Canon of the Holy Bible”
Your reasoning is shallow. My rejection of Rome’s additions is not that of acquiescence to the Reformers (in fact i reject infant baptism), any more than i “acquiesce” to Rome in believing in the Deity of Christ, etc. Rather my continued acceptance or rejection of a doctrine is due to it having failed sufficient warrant from Scripture or other evidence where applicable.
“The only question is who has the authority. Men like the Reformers, 1500 years from the death of Jesus Christ, or those that were closest to Him and who He instructed to “go out” and their then appointed bishops.”
Or perhaps we should follow after the Jews, who unlike Rome are actually explicitly stated to have been entrusted with the Scriptures (Rm. 9:4), and taught their “tradition of the elder’s” which they believed was divinely authoritative, but they manifested their fallibility in adding unScriptural laws (the teaching of Corban, etc.) and rejecting it’s Author, who subjected their teaching to the authority of Scripture. By such Rome is likewise shown to be unworthy of the implicit trust she demands, as like in the Pharisaical additions, some of her doctrines are also shown to lack sufficient Scriptural warrant or be contrary to that affirmed inspired revelation.
Equating yourself with the apostles is a example of extrapolation. The apostles claim to authority did not rest upon their pedigree, but upon their faith and Divine attestation of power, purity, and Scripture probity (2 Cor. 6:1-10; Rm. 15:16; 2 Cor. 12:12). The authenticity of the born again church does not rest upon formal ecclesiastical linkage, anymore than that of a true Jew rests upon physical lineage (Rm. 2:28, 29), and “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Lk. 3:8), but upon Abrahamic type faith in the essential gospel of the grace of God and it’s Christ, which is not that souls by their very works which have been done in God have truly merited eternal life (Trent, the sixth session decree on justification chapter xvi), but that righteousness is imputed to them who repent and believe with Biblical saving faith on the LORD Jesus and His sinless shed blood, and thus effectually confess the same (Rm. 3:9 — 5:1; Gal. 3:11; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tts. 3:5). And to those who do assurance is given that they now have eternal life (1 Jn. 5:13). To God be the glory. But watch thou in all things.
“somehow you give more credence not to those “instructed” but those who go against who He instructed.”
While you insist upon giving more credence to men above the Scriptures you should examine them by, i should dare not to “think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6), and should not give any full credence to anyone in essential doctrinal matters unless what they claim can demonstrably withstand Scriptural scrutiny, as the preaching of the LORD and men like the apostles could (Mt. 22:29; Lk. 24:47; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; 28:23), even as it is the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15), and that “we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Rom 15:4). Thanks be to God.