Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant

Christian Resources ^ | William Webster

[boatbums]

I’ve read with interest Francis (Frank) Beckwith’s book, Return to Rome, because like him, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools through my primary grades and a preparatory school run by a Benedictine monastery throughout my high school years. And, like Dr. Beckwith, in my teens I turned away from the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity altogether but was converted in my early twenties and began attending a Protestant Evangelical church. And for the past thirty seven years I have been a committed Evangelical Protestant. I was also quite interested in reading Dr. Beckwith’s book because he had been President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his decision to revert to the Church of Rome and I was intrigued to learn the reasons that had formed his decision. After reading his book it became clear to me that Beckwith’s decision to return to Rome was based on his conviction that the Protestant Evangelical church is deficient on two important points. He is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church can claim historical validation for being the one true church established by Christ and that the Evangelical church is therefore a schismatic movement. He believes the Roman Church is the ultimate authority established by Jesus and that her teachings are therefore authoritative. He says:

Unless I capriciously cherry-picked the Catholic tradition, I could not justifiably accept the Early Church’s recognition and fixation of the canon of scripture—and its correct determination and promulgation of the central doctrines of God and Christ (at Nicea and Chalcedon)—while rejecting the Church’s sacramental life as awell as its findings about its own apostolic nature and authority. I was boxed into a corner, with the only exit being a door to a confessional. At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for me to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established. That’s not a risk I was willing to take…It occurred to me that the burden was on me, and not on the Catholic Church, to show why I should remain in the schism with the Church in which my parents baptized me, even as I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.1

And secondly, and more importantly, he believes the Protestant Evangelical faith is deficient biblically with respect to its overall teaching on the gospel, justification and salvation. It is the subject of justification and salvation that Beckwith devotes most of his attention to in his book. He says:

…it is the Reformation notion of imputed righteousness that, ironically, puts the Reformers partially in the Pelagian camp. This is because the Reformers and Pelagians agree that God’s infused grace is not necessary for justification…For me, all things considered, the Catholic view has more explanatory power than the Protestant view. This is why it made sense to me that the Early Church Fathers…were so Catholic in their teachings. They held to a view that, I believe, does the best job of accounting for all the New Testament’s passages on justification and sanctification.2

And so, being convinced that the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas can be historically validated and that Rome’s salvation teachings are fully consistent with Scripture, Beckwith has issued a challenge to Evangelicals to give serious consideration to the claims of Rome and reconsider their commitment to their Protestant faith and the legitimacy of the Reformation and to follow him into the embrace of Roman Catholicism:

Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had no ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity.3

Dr. Beckwith quotes approvingly from Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his review of Noll and Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over? Frank personally italicizes his comments for emphasis, as a clear challenge to Evangelicals:

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church…(emphasis added).4

And then in these comments, by implication, he is challenging evangelicals to consider that they have no legitimate reasons to remain in what he calls “schism” with the Church of Rome:

Professor Trueman’s reasoning would serve as a catalyst for reorienting my sense of whether the Catholic Church or I had the burden in justifying the schism in which I had remained for over thirty years…I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.5

Now, I take such a challenge seriously. I have asked myself the same questions that Beckwith himself asked and over the years through the challenge of Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others, I have been motivated to study and research the pertinent doctrinal and historical issues related to Roman Catholicism and the Reformation covering the general subject of authority and salvation. I have sincerely sought to answer the question, Can the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church be validated biblically and historically? Is this Church truly the one true Church established by Jesus Christ? That study has been going on now for more than twenty five years and I remain a committed Evangelical Protestant precisely because of the truth of Scripture and the facts of history. This study has resulted in the writing of several books on the gospel and particular historical issues related to the history of the development of doctrine and the writings of the Church fathers on subjects such as the authority of scripture, the canon, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. In this research I have been able to bring to light much information that had previously been unavailable in the English language in the writings of the church fathers. So I have approached the reading of Return to Rome with great interest indeed. After reading the book, I must say that my overall reaction was one of deep sadness and disappointment. Frank Beckwith is winsome, obviously very bright and seemingly very sincere. But his arguments historically and biblically in support of Rome and which form the basis of his decision to embrace that church are unconvincing. Historically, Beckwith demonstrates a superficial understanding of the church fathers. There are a great many historical facts that he is either ignorant of or has chosen to turn a blind eye to. Ignorance can forgiven to some degree because he himself admits that he had no training and very little exposure to the writings of the church fathers. He says he gave only about three months of study to their writings prior to his decision to revert to Rome. And from the references he gives in his book it would seem that this study was under the direction of Roman Catholic apologists who are well known for proof–texting the writings of the church fathers giving anachronistic meaning to their writings that was foreign to what they actually say. For example, Roman Catholic apologists see the term tradition in the writings of the fathers and immediately import a present day Roman Catholic understanding to the term that the church fathers did not embrace. Or they will read a church father extolling the person and position of the apostle of Peter and immediately jump to the conclusion that such appellations apply to the bishops of Rome in support of the dogma of the papacy when the fathers themselves never make such an association in their writings. This approach applies to numerous examples that Beckwith references in his book such as prayers to the dead, confession and the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beckwith titles the section on historical doctrine, I Hear the Ancient Footsteps, in which he seeks to defend distinctive Roman Catholic teachings historically. I can personally say, that after twenty five years of research, as opposed to three months, that I also hear ancient footsteps and they do not point in the direction of the present day Roman Catholic Church and its dogmatic teachings. The fact of the matter is, Rome has added dogmas to the ancient rule of faith that was supported by the unanimous consent of the fathers and which was grounded in the written Scriptures. Dogmas which can find no warrant either in Scripture or the tradition of the church, and which in some cases completely contradict the ancient tradition of the Church, and which the Roman Catholic Church declares are necessary for salvation. But the most serious problem with Dr. Beckwith’s book and the one that caused me such disappointment is his caricature of the Reformed Evangelical faith in its teachings on salvation and secondly his assertions regarding the official teachings of Roman Catholicism on justification and salvation. He claims to have a thorough understanding of the teaching of the Reformed faith. He says:

To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing.6

Throughout his book Beckwith makes confident assertions about the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and he is convinced that these teachings are much more consistent, as was pointed out above, with Scripture than those of the Protestant Evangelical and Reformed faith. As a Reformed Evangelical and former Roman Catholic I have thoroughly read and studied all the official Roman Catholic documents on salvation including the Council of Trent, Vatican One, Vatican Two, The Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as papal decrees and official catechisms and the writings of Ludwig Ott. Having read Beckwith’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest. In this presentation I want to deal with a number of historical issues related to doctrine and dogmas that Beckwith alludes to that impinge upon the subject of the authority and the nature of the church and then address in a summary fashion the issues related to the gospel and salvation for that subject will be taken up in much greater detail by others.

Authority

The subject of authority is foundational to an understanding of Roman Catholicism and directly impinges on the issues of the gospel and salvation in two ways. Firstly, in that the authority claims of Rome, which involve the teachings on the papacy, scripture and tradition and the canon, have been elevated to the level of dogma by Rome. What this means is that these teachings embody essential doctrines which define the meaning of saving faith. That is, unless a person fully submits to and embraces them he does not possess saving faith and he cannot be justified. Vatican I, for example, states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.7

Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such...All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I). Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:

A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition) B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.

Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added).8

This kind of teaching should give great pause to anyone considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This Church is claiming the authority to bind men’s souls eternally by the promulgation of doctrines such as he Assumption of Mary that have neither scriptural nor traditional support based solely on her own supposed authority. Certainly there are many, many Roman Catholics who though they have never been formally excommunicated are nonetheless informally in that state since they do doubt and even deny certain dogmas and are thereby guilty of heresy. Secondly, the authority claims of Rome impinge on the issues of the gospel and salvation because she claims to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture as the one true church established by Christ and therefore whatever she authoritatively decrees is infallible. Thus, whatever Rome teaches regarding the gospel and salvation is infallible, divine truth.

Ultimate Authority and Historical Claims to Be the One True Church Beckwith states that he is convinced that the Church of Rome is the one true church established by Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the claim of the Roman Church herself. And that claim is set forth by both allusions to and expositions of Scripture and by appeals to historical practice and the writings of the church fathers. The question is, Do the Scriptures, the facts of history and the writings of the church fathers support the Roman Catholic claims for authority in her teachings of papal rule and infallibility and her claims to the one true church? The papal teachings which are foundational for Roman Catholic authority were given dogmatic definition by the First Vatican Council in 1870 where that Council asserted its claims for papal primacy and papal infallibility. This was the first instance of the teaching of papal infallibility being dogmatically defined but the teaching of papal primacy was dogmatized many centuries previous to Vatican I in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam. So with regard to papal primacy and rule Vatican I is simply reaffirming a dogma that had been decreed by the bishop of Rome some five hundred and eighty years previous. Unam Sanctam states:

And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads—for had she two heads, she would be a monster—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ‘My,’ he said, speaking generally and not particularly, ‘these and those,’ by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’…Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.9

Vatican I set forth its teachings on the basis of the exposition of three major passages of Scripture related to the apostle Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. It also reconfirmed the teachings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century and the principle defined by Trent of authoritative interpretation and the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. This principle states that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interepret Scripture and that it is illegitimate to interpret Scripture that contradicts what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. Trent states:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.10

Of the three passages of Scripture used to support Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the most important is Matthew 16:16-19:

And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’

The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.

[boatbums]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

This sounds to me like the Catholic Church teaches that anyone can be saved as long as they sincerely seek God and they try to be good people, doesn't it you? This is just like I imagined as a kid, that when I died, God took all my good works on one side of a scale and all my sins on the other side and whichever side was heaviest, determined if I went to heaven or hell. This wording makes it sound like everything Jesus went through on the cross was just so he could "open the gates of heaven" and then we needed to do the rest to earn our way there.

I'm sure there will be forthcoming all manner of wiggle-words and rationalizations to explain, in the oh-so-philosophical way, reasons why there really IS no contradiction in what was said at all and it is only OUR error that prevents us from fully understanding the deep intellectualism that it takes to truly be able to grasp Catholicism. They have had two-thousand years to hone that line. Anything but admit that ONLY the word of God is without error.

[Zuriel]

**Until our love for someone causes them to be open to our arguments, they will not and can not hear us.**

True. But testify we must, for who are we to judge whether someone is ‘good ground’ or not, when casting forth the ‘seed’. Some good ground can be seem hard and dry, but only needing a rain to allow the seed to take root and grow. Paul taught us in Philippians 1:14-18 that he was glad if the Word gets out, even if the messenger is less than perfect in heart.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Placemarker

[JCBreckenridge]

Again they accept the same lists of books as Canon. Can we proceed onto the real issues - that of Petrine Primacy?

[JCBreckenridge]

I can answer all these questions easily.

[JCBreckenridge]

“They do not claim to be Orthodox”

Then we can dispense of their claim to be Orthodox or connected to them.

[Natural Law]

"Then show scripture teaching of the assumption of Mary."

Just as soon as you show the Scripture that says 100% of the Revealed Word is found in Scripture.

[Rashputin]

Give the guy a break.

He probably used to make a living on real estate closings and has now been "led" to a second career after seeing a "Be An Author" course in a work from home advertisement.

Besides, how many of the target audience will check what he says instead of just lapping up the same old vomit?

At least he isn't a plagiarist implying a date for the Rupture with "Fourteen Reasons for Fourteen" or something similar. He's just using the standard, tried and true, lies and distortions that everyone else in his chosen field uses. I mean, they had to give up the stories about aborted infants buried in basements since they all accept infanticide so he just follows standard practice of misquoting, partial quotes, and lack of context.

The guy is a fine example of the "go along to get along" approach to career building that's a perfect reflection of the "go along to get along" "Christianity" he claims is correct. Lawyer or not, how can you blame him for following standard practice?

[verga]

It’s actually a rather pathetic exhibition of a limited knowledge base trying desperately to be relevant and included.

That is literally the exact same way I feel about the protestants on FR.

[verga]

Telling people the truth or telling them what they want to hear?

The problem is that you are not telling the truth. I have cited non-Catholic sources to you time and time again and you refuse to do the tiniest amount of research. You are a perfect example of everything you claim is wrong with the public school system.

Ignoring my posts will not help your cause, it just shows the intellectual dishonesty of protestantism, and the inability of homeschoolers to defend a position.

[verga]

Like I said protestantism is pure unadulterated intellectual dishonesty. Thank you for confirming that which is already widely believed and accepted. I rejoice daily in the fact that God opened my eyes and allowed me to return to full communion with His glorious Catholic Church.

[Hot Tabasco]

Part of the problem is understanding what the church really is. It is an organism, not an organization

Thank you, it's a little clearer now......

[verga]

Specifically state which Mosaic law allowed work to be done on the sabbath.

If I am not mistaken the protestant Bible does still have the book of Exodus in it.

Exo 16:21 And they gathered it morning by morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted.

Exo 16:22 And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.

Exo 16:23 And he said unto them, This is that which Jehovah hath spoken, Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy sabbath unto Jehovah: bake that which ye will bake, and boil that which ye will boil; and all that remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

Exo 16:24 And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not become foul, neither was there any worm therein.

Exo 16:25 And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a sabbath unto Jehovah: to-day ye shall not find it in the field.

Exo 16:26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.

How about Circumcision.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

Is circumcision still required or only baptism

How about the Dietary laws.

Lev 11:2 "Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth.

Lev 11:3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.

Lev 11:4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

Lev 11:5 And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

Lev 11:6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

Lev 11:7 And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.

Lev 11:8 You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

Lev 11:9 "These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.

Lev 11:10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

Lev 11:11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses.

Do you consume pork, crab or lobster?

Seems like Jesus told Peter to violate at lest a couple of those.

Act 11:6 Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air.

Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.'

Act 11:8 But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'

Act 11:9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.'

Seems like Jesus told Peter to change those. Have you ever tosssed around the old pigskin which is part of the detestable carcass?

Tell me which bothers you more, that Catholics actually read the Bible or that we understand it better than you?

[verga]

Show me in the law of Moses what was broken.

Forgot to add this one as well. Exo 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Exo 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

[daniel1212]

Again they accept the same lists of books as Canon

The list differs, unless you refused to read what they variously said, as provided. More:

Can You Tell Me How Many Books Are There In The Orthodox Bible?

The Old Testament

"The official version of the Old Testament authorized by the Orthodox Church for use in worship and reading is that of the Septuagint. The number of books in the Septuagint Old Testament edition of the Bible are forty-nine books, twenty-seven in the New Testament."

"The Roman Catholic edition omits two books from the Old Testament. The Council of Trent, in the third session (1546), excludes Ist Esdras and the 3rd Maccabees that was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870. The preservation of all the Holy Books of the Holy Bible expresses the vigilance of the Orthodox Church in guarding and preserving the Bible and its truth throughout the ages unadulterated." (Source: What Is The Holy Bible? by Rev. George C. Papademetriou, Ph.D., Director of the Library and Instructor of Systematic Theology, Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology., Brookline, Massachusetts., 1986., pp.3-4). Quoted in "Holy Scripture In The Orthodox Church," "The Bible," Compiled by Father Demetrios Serfes- http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

Biblical books are listed per row, with the traditional canons listed per column.
+ = book is canonical in that tradition
d = deuterocanonical (in the Vulgate column)
Alternate names and apocryphal status are noted
See this chart for help with the various Ezra book names

	Luther	King James/ English	Vulgate	Greek	Slavonic/ Russian	Syrian	Coptic	Ethiopian	Armenian
Pentateuch	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Joshua	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Judges	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Ruth	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Samuel	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Kings	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Chronicles	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Ezra	+	+	1 Ezra	2 Esdras	1 Esdras	+	+	+	+
Nehemiah	+	+	2 Ezra		+	+	+	+	+
Tobit	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Judith	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Esther	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Additions to Esther	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Job	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Psalms	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Proverbs	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Qohelet	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Song of Songs	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Wisdom of Solomon	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Sirach	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Isaiah	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Jeremiah	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Lamentations	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Baruch	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Letter of Jeremiah	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Ezekiel	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Daniel	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Additions to Daniel	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	+	+
Twelve Prophets	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
1 Maccabees	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	different book with same name	+
2 Maccabees	apocrypha	apocrypha	d	+	+	+	+	different book with same name	+
3 Maccabees				+	+	+		different book with same name	extra- canonical
4 Maccabees				appendix
Prayer of Manasseh	apocrypha	apocrypha	appendix	+	+	+		+
3 Ezra		apocrypha 1 Esdras	appendix	1 Esdras	2 Esdras			+	extra- canonical
4 Ezra		apocrypha 2 Esdras	appendix		3 Esdras		+	+	extra- canonical
Psalm 151			appendix	+	+	+	+	+
Jubilees								+
Enoch								+
4 Baruch								+
Letter of Baruch (2 Baruch 78.1-86.1) [East Syrian only]						+

last updated 21 April 2008 http://www.bombaxo.com/canonchart.html (EO author)

In the history of the Orthodox Church there have been inconsistencies not only by the Church Fathers, but also by many local and even Ecumenical Synods as to which Canon is to be used. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius support the use of the Hebrew Canon, where as John Chrysostom and Basil the Great support the use of the Alexandrian Canon. Although the local Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 stipulated that the Alexandrian Canon was to be used, the second Canon of the Council of Trullo (691) sanctioned the use of the Hebrew Canon.

The Orthodox Church accepted the Alexandrian Canon (Septuagint LXX) as divinely inspired, appropriate for reading in Church, and on a personal reading level. The shorter or Hebrew Canon remained as the Canon par excellence, and was most valuable for giving validity to basic Christian doctrines....

Not only are there inconsistencies between the use of the two different Canons, but there are also inconsistencies in the different Traditions of Orthodoxy on which books are to be included in the greater Canon. For example, the Russian Orthodox Tradition or the Slavonic Bible includes 2 Edras, whereas the Greek Orthodox Tradition of the Septuagint does not. This lack of uniform use led P. Bratsiotes to make the following observation (quoted by S. Agourides in his article The Bible in the Greek Orthodox Church, p. 240): "It is for this reason that the fixing of the Canon of the Old Testament is proposed as one of the subjects of a future Great Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church". So even today, the issue of the Old Testament Canon remains open for discussion. - http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/old_testament.html --------------------------------------

As for Petrine Primacy, the issue is about infallibility and supreme power (above councils) and jurisdiction using that power. Read what they said about that as was provided

[daniel1212]

Meaning you give your RC explanation why they are distinctively titled priests and are required (apart from special cases) to be celibate. But which is contrary to the Holy Spirit in the NT.

You are the one who is part of the incessant promotion of a particular church here, and the issue is the basis for authenticity of it and is ministers. What is the basis for your full assurance that Rome is the one true infallible church? Being the steward of Scripture? Historical descent? Inheritor of promises?

[MarkBsnr]

Not according to Jesus.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 10:25-30 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

Truly believe? With human fallibility, is true belief possible? It can come very close, I grant you. But truly?

[daniel1212]

Another: http://orthodoxstudybible.com/uploads/BibleBooksChart.pdf Also includes Ps. 151

[MarkBsnr]

“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

Peter was also bishop of Antioch. Well researched.