Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
You are of course, correct.
Hey, Catholics are constantly accusing non-Catholics as a whole of hate and anti- and I don’t see any of them chastise each other for mind reading.
Hypocrisy much?
You're really asking for it, ain't ya?! They'll soon drown you with cut and pasted volumes of text about rules from their Holy Babbles, one of the 30,000 versions of interpretations they've got.
As to those OT books in contention, Luther in part, apparently relied upon Jerome's opinion of them, which most likely was influenced by those coming before himself.
That the Hebrew "canon" (the Hebrews had no such word as "canon" although they employed the concept) was limited to what is now found in "protestant" bibles, was not a new concept. Luther did not invent the point of view. His own view was similar to that which Jerome held. Don't let yourself be mistaken, for reason Jerome was directed to include what he himself referred to as Apocrypha.
Don't believe me? That would be ok, for I myself am no authority, and am reliant upon those whom can study the ancient languages.
I can however, provide link to those whom may, for one whom does seems to know a semi-ancient style of Latin. He provides link to the pages he is translating and excerpting from --- and is showing the source text itself as something of a "sidebar" footnote, with the work of the translated excerpt and commentary, thankfully provided in English. Otherwise I could not read much of any of it, at all.
For those reluctant to follow links, below is a portion of discussion, with excerpted translation apparently included, bracketed in quotation marks.
I don't know if it will be of any help, but here's a link to Jerome's Prologus Galeatus in Latin.
- First, those books that are truly Scripture must be reverenced and adored and should be distinguished from the non-canonical books which the Hebrews include among the Apocrypha Therefore here we have distinguished, and I have distinctly enumerated, first the canonical books, and afterwards the non-canonical ones: between which moreover stands as much distance as between certainty and doubt. For the canonical books were completed by the Holy Spirit who spoke them.
- Second, the non-canonical books, or the Apocrypha, as Nicolas says, are read for devotion and the information of our morals but nevertheless their authority for proving those things which come into doubt or contention and for the confirming of church doctrine is not reputed as proper just as Jerome says in his prologue on Judith and upon the books of Solomon. But the canonical books have such great authority that whatever it contains is firmly true and cannot be shaken. For just as in philosophy truth is recognized through a reduction to first principles (principia) known per se: thus also the truth is recognized in the writings handed down by the holy doctors inasmuch as to those things that are held faithfully through a reduction to the canoncial scriptures which are held in divine revelation, which in no way can be considered false.
- Third, a glowing reference to Jeromes helmeted prologue (prologus galeatus) on the books of the Kings, at which point, Nicholas enumerates what is today the Protestant list of Old and New Testament books, then wearing Jeromes helmet he goes to war against the canonicity of the Apocrypha enlisting Augustine, Rufinus, et al.
(Church leaders only confirmed what was already treated authoritatively due to its linkages to the apostles and Paul)
The early church fathers (97-180) quoted from 28 of the 29 New Testament books. In fact, EVERY New Testament book was referenced pre-150 except Philemon and 3 John. The 170 A.D. Muratorian Canon had only excluded Hebrews, James, and 3 John. [And if Catholics want to make that an issue, they should talk...given that their first canonization of the Apocrypha came in 1546...and they didn't canonize dead saints until 995]
The Holy Spirit canonized the Bible; the Church merely received it -- reaffirming what the early church Fathers had already recognized in their writings as authoritative [for example, Hippolytus recognized 22 books his writings...he lived 170-235]
Irenaeus cited 21 of these books...Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, acknowledged 15 books.
We have a volunteer? Upset for not being pinged to loose mention of hypocrisy? This is rich!
Thank you. And yes, I'll be sure to tip the waiters/waitresses. Perhaps some time later this week, I'll try the veal. <*^')
Given that the first Catholic canonization of the Apocrypha came in 1546, upon what "authority" then did the Catholic church exclude the Apocrypha from the Bible for so long...IF, indeed, 'twas REALLY Scripture?
That sounds a lot like an experience I had some years ago. I was having breakfast with a Catholic priest and some family members and we were talking about our favorite Bible verses. I said mine was Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”. The priest looked at me and said, “That sounds Protestant to me.”
How do you think you guys can discuss or critique the bible when you don't even know what the bible says??? Luther decided good works are useless for salvation??? Where did Luther get that idea??? Do you even have a clue??? [Iscool]
How ironic Iscool:
The apostle Paul also made it clear to the Galatians that they could nullify grace. Consider these three passages he wrote to them:
Galatians 2:21:
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!
Galatians 3:1-3: 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
Galatians 5:4: You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. [Example of grace nullification]
The apostle Paul also told the Romans 11:5-6: 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then IT CANNOT BE BASED ON WORKS; IF IT WERE, GRACE WOULD NO LONGER BE GRACE.
Simply put: Grace is an unearned, undeserved, unmerited gift!
#1 8 For it is BY GRACE you have been saved, THROUGH FAITHand this is NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT God 9 NOT by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)
#2 Works nullify grace! ...at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it CANNOT be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Romans 11:5-6; cf. Gal. 2:15-16 -- justified by faith in Christ; not works of the law)
#3 We didn't qualify for eternal life; No, He qualified us: ...giving joyful thanks to the Father, who HAS qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. (Col. 1:12) [Do you see the PAST tense there -- "HAS qualified you" -- too many seem to neglect too much of God's past tense actions & lean too heavily ONLY on either a present or future tense focus].
#4 Even considering future tense...what does Paul say? ...being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Phil. 1:6)
Are you really saying the explanation about Luther NOT removing ANY books from the Bible is "MY" own personal intrepretation of that fact? Or do you prefer blithe ignorance?
Just because your church, according to you, "esteems" some Scripture less than others doesn't mean it is a truthful or wise position to take. Jesus sure seemed to esteem the Old Testament Scriptures pretty highly as he often quoted passages verbatim and he established HIS authority from them. They had and have an intrinsic authority because ALL Scripture is God-breathed - HOLY SPIRIT revealed all the way from Genesis to Revelation. The fact that the Bible contains the very word of God qualifies it ALL as fully authoritative to the believer regardless of what any religion thinks about it.
The Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphal books have NEVER been considered as Divinely-revealed, God-breathed sacred Scripture regardless of whose canon they appeared in. That IS the difference.
Catholics like to accuse Luther of removing books he didn't think agreed with his theology - even though it is a solid FACT that he did not take out those books in his German translation - but do not seem to see the hypocrisy in the Council of Trent ADDING those books to the canon and esteeming them as inspired Scripture along side all the other books of the Bible because one of them alluded to a possibility of another place between earth and heaven/hell. Of the meager number of verses that they use to somehow prove a place called "Purgatory", they NEEDED one obscure sentance in a book - which never really comes close to the doctrine of Purgatory - to bolster their case against the Reformation. Didn't work then, STILL won't work now.
And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? " (Mark 11:27-28)
Rome is not the only one to presume all those without its sanction are renegades. Indeed, according to the Roman ethos of authority, those who followed a holy man in the desert who ate locusts and an Itinerant Preacher of Galilee were following schismatics, as these men did have the sanction of those who sat in the seat of Moses, and reproved them.
Luther is not Christ, but rather than a perpetual infallible magisterium, God often preserved truth by raising up men from without the magisterium to reprove them. And thus the church began and thus it continues as the body of Christ, the "household of faith" (Gal. 6:10) - which is the only one true church, being the "one body" into which souls are baptized into at conversion, by the one faith in the one Lord and one God and Father of all. (1Cor. 12:13)
What is the basis (Scripture, etc.?) for your full assurance that Rome is the one true church?
Excellent question! If he got together a Council and persuaded a majority of the magesterium to agree with him and then made an "official" ex cathedra pronouncement, then "faithful" Catholics really have no choice in the matter - they HAVE TO accept it.
The process of the development of doctrine in the Church - of the magesterium "growing" in her full understanding of the truth like an acorn growing into a mature oak tree would explain that whole switcheroo nicely! It's always worked in the past.
Who makes that idiotic claim???
And just who decided THAT?
A Church Council and the popes...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...
Maybe she's doing the best she can with what she's got to work with, God bless her soul... :)
This is true at first, but it remains that Scripture was the supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . Thus Lk. 24:44; Acts 17:3,11; 18:28; 24:23.
And the fact is that most of the writings of our Bible were established as Scripture by the time of Christ (though as today, it was not universal), and without an assuredly infallible magisterium. Your argument that we must have one to authoritatively determine what writings Scripture all consists of ignores the means by which they were established in the past (due to their qualities an attestation.
And rather than the reality RCs paint as being the result of not infallible magisterium determining the canon, the 66 book Prot canon has seen overall acceptance since early in the Reformation, and Catholicism does not see one identical canon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.