Catholicism
(05-09-2020, 07:28 PM)Justin Tertius Wrote:
Quote:I've always been curious as to the Protestant viewpoint on Scriptural authority and the books/concepts that are not included in the Protestant Bible. 

Is it necessary for a Protestant to have all of scripture?  What does he do if he does not have it all?  Does that matter to him?

If there is something missing from the written word of God as a Protestant understands that term, how does he/she figure out everything that God expects that person to believe?   

For instance, do you believe that the Bible teaches that all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  Where does that idea come from?


This.

The idea of Sola Scriptura is self contradictory. It states that all things a Christian needs to know for salvation are found in the bible. But where are the Books of Sacred Scripture ever enumerated in Scripture? Where is the list of what is Scripture in Scripture? It isn't there. By the standard set, a Protestant really can't know infallibilly that the list of Books contained in the Bibles are what constitute Scripture. 

And it can't be what is quoted in the New Testament. St. Jude quotes the book of 1 Enoch and that isn't Scripture. St. Paul quotes a pagan philosopher, and that isn't Scripture. 

Christ didn't definitively settle the issue of the canon which the Jews were debating.

The historical fact is that the Canon of the Bible was settled in the late 4th and early 5th century by the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant just assume that the Catholic Church's decision was right, in part, but then just leave it there. Infallible only once.

I agree that the measuring stick for what is canonical and what is not can’t be based on whether it was quoted in the NT. Non-canonical books were quoted but that doesn’t make them Scripture and, conversely, some OT books were not quoted and are still regarded as Scripture (Judges, Song of Solomon and some others). Protestants accept 39 OT books as canon because those were the books that made up the Hebrew Bible of Jesus’ day that He considered complete and authoritative. Sure, the RC Church added the others but let’s not forget that they also added Tradition and gives it equal weight to Scripture. On who’s authority? Not Jesus’ authority and it should be remembered that our Lord had a very low view of Tradition (Mark 7:6-8). Was it not Pope Pius IX who said at the first Vatican Council, “I am tradition”?
Reply
(05-09-2020, 08:08 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Ok, consider this. The deuterocanonicals weren’t included in the Hebrew Scriptures of Jesus’ day; He quoted them often and considered them a complete, closed canon. The Jews had the books arranged in a different order from Genesis to Chronicles which puts into proper perspective the bookended murders Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:34-35.  

My turn for a question. Given the RC Church’s tendency to create Tradition and equate it with the Bible, how do Protestants know that the deuterocanonicals are not just Catholic add-ons like the doctrines added to Tradition? Because the Magisterium said so?

WRONG!

The Septuagint were the Scriptures in Jesus's day.  While the Torah certainly was in Hebrew, the other writings that made up the tanakh were likely in the Koine Greek (the lingua franca of the day) which was in the form of the Septuagint that contained the deuterocanonicals.

It wasn't until a century after the death and Resurrection of Christ that the Rabbinical Jews fell out of favor using the Septuagint (gee, I wonder why) and they developed a new text known as the masoretic text to remove all forms of Christian theology.  The great Dr. Luther went to this text crafted by Rabbis who corrupted the Scriptures for his inspiration for his Bible.

Even Protestant scholars admit that if one wants to understand the Scriptures Jesus and the early Church referred to, they went with the Septuagint (LXX) and not the masoretic texts that proceeded the early Church.
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • antiquarian, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-09-2020, 08:08 PM)Wingfold Wrote: My turn for a question. Given the RC Church’s tendency to create Tradition and equate it with the Bible, how do Protestants know that the deuterocanonicals are not just Catholic add-ons like the doctrines added to Tradition? Because the Magisterium said so?

That you could put "create" and "Tradition" next to each other suggested you don't understand the Catholic concept of Tradition.

Tradition comes from the Latin tradere (to hand on), exactly what St Paul said he was doing : "Tradidi quod et accepi" ("I have handed on what I have received") (1 Cor 15.3). When we speak of Tradition, we are speaking of what is "handed on" so "create" simply doesn't fit with handing on what is received, and it is not tradition if it is not received.

For a Catholic there is one Divine Tradition. It comes in two forms : Written and Oral. The written Tradition is Scripture, in which at various times God inspired men to write what He wished they would write. The oral traditions are what St John speaks about at the end of his Gospel : "There are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." This includes what the Holy Spirit, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak." (Jn 16.13)

So even the Holy Spirit is merely passing on some Tradition, not some new creation.

The role of the Magisterium is not to "create" but preserve. When certain doctrines need clarification, she clarifies, but does not "create" any new doctrine. She condemns error, and makes more explicit what is already in Tradition.

As regards the Deuterocanonicals, I'd suggest the following two videos as a good Catholic response to Protestant claims :



[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Justin Tertius, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-09-2020, 09:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote: The Septuagint were the Scriptures in Jesus's day.  While the Torah certainly was in Hebrew, the other writings that made up the tanakh were likely in the Koine Greek (the lingua franca of the day) which was in the form of the Septuagint that contained the deuterocanonicals.

It wasn't until a century after the death and Resurrection of Christ that the Rabbinical Jews fell out of favor using the Septuagint (gee, I wonder why) and they developed a new text known as the masoretic text to remove all forms of Christian theology.  The great Dr. Luther went to this text crafted by Rabbis who corrupted the Scriptures for his inspiration for his Bible.

Even Protestant scholars admit that if one wants to understand the Scriptures Jesus and the early Church referred to, they went with the Septuagint (LXX) and not the masoretic texts that proceeded the early Church.

To be fair, there were a variety of different versions of the Old Testament in circulation at the time of Our Lord. St Mark and other do present Our Lord quoting from variants that are clearly the Septuagint (LXX) text, such as Mark 7.6–7 when Our Lord quotes Isaiah 29.13 with the LXX variant. It could be that Mark just put the LXX version he was using in, or that Christ used it, but either way, we know the quotation of the LXX here was inspired.

The New Testament used both the Masoretic and LXX, but by almost a 10:1 margin prefers the LXX, which of course did contain the Deuterocanon.

We know that at least some groups accepted the Deuterocanon at the time of Our Lord, like the community at Qumran, where among the Dead Sea Scrolls we find copies of Deuterocanonical books.

We know that the Sadducees (Priests) and Samaritans also did not accept anything as inspired except the Torah, while they certainly used other writings, these were helps only. So we have some groups accepting 5 books, some 22, some 24, some 39, some 46, some even more. The best argument from the text of the New Testament is that the version most quoted was the LXX with 46 books including the Deuterocanon.

So while it is false (and Wingfold wrong) to claim that the text in use at the time of Our Lord was the Protocanon only (39 books); it is also not correct to claim that the LXX (with 46 books) was the version used either. Both were used by different people, but the New Testament writers certainly preferred the LXX.

There are indisputable references in the New Testament, however, to the Deuterocanon, like Heb 11.35 which is reference to 2 Macc 7, but there are many other references which are not so clear.

Whatever you might think of Jimmy Akin, he did back in the late 1990s provide a pretty decent list : http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
Reply
(05-09-2020, 08:08 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 05:14 PM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 02:21 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. 

I've always been curious as to the Protestant viewpoint on Scriptural authority and the books/concepts that are not included in the Protestant Bible. 

Is it necessary for a Protestant to have all of scripture?  What does he do if he does not have it all?  Does that matter to him?

If there is something missing from the written word of God as a Protestant understands that term, how does he/she figure out everything that God expects that person to believe?   

For instance, do you believe that the Bible teaches that all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  Where does that idea come from?

Yes, Protestants want to have all of Scripture, a complete canon. Now, here’s where you tell me that if the deuterocanonicals aren’t included in a Protestant’s Bible, it is incomplete, so how can a Protestant be satisfied with that? Then I say that he/she is content that he/she has the whole canon and then you say, on what/who’s authority do you say that. The Church’s? The Church includes them. 

Ok, consider this. The deuterocanonicals weren’t included in the Hebrew Scriptures of Jesus’ day; He quoted them often and considered them a complete, closed canon. The Jews had the books arranged in a different order from Genesis to Chronicles which puts into proper perspective the bookended murders Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:34-35.  

My turn for a question. Given the RC Church’s tendency to create Tradition and equate it with the Bible, how do Protestants know that the deuterocanonicals are not just Catholic add-ons like the doctrines added to Tradition? Because the Magisterium said so?

The answer to your question is yes.  Protestants can know that the Deuterocanonical books are Scripture because the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has so stated.  When you have an infallible Church, you can know with certainty what the Scriptures entail, and we know that the Church established by Christ is infallible.

But to get back to my point, I wasn't really referring to the Deuterocanonical books.  I was referring to the other inspired books that are missing from the Protestant Bible as the Protestant understands the term "the Bible" to mean.  Doesn't that cause a problem?  

Does the Evangelical hold the position that not all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  How do you understand 2 Peter 3:15-16?
Reply
(05-09-2020, 10:29 PM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 08:08 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 05:14 PM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 02:21 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. 

I've always been curious as to the Protestant viewpoint on Scriptural authority and the books/concepts that are not included in the Protestant Bible. 

Is it necessary for a Protestant to have all of scripture?  What does he do if he does not have it all?  Does that matter to him?

If there is something missing from the written word of God as a Protestant understands that term, how does he/she figure out everything that God expects that person to believe?   

For instance, do you believe that the Bible teaches that all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  Where does that idea come from?

Yes, Protestants want to have all of Scripture, a complete canon. Now, here’s where you tell me that if the deuterocanonicals aren’t included in a Protestant’s Bible, it is incomplete, so how can a Protestant be satisfied with that? Then I say that he/she is content that he/she has the whole canon and then you say, on what/who’s authority do you say that. The Church’s? The Church includes them. 

Ok, consider this. The deuterocanonicals weren’t included in the Hebrew Scriptures of Jesus’ day; He quoted them often and considered them a complete, closed canon. The Jews had the books arranged in a different order from Genesis to Chronicles which puts into proper perspective the bookended murders Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:34-35.  

My turn for a question. Given the RC Church’s tendency to create Tradition and equate it with the Bible, how do Protestants know that the deuterocanonicals are not just Catholic add-ons like the doctrines added to Tradition? Because the Magisterium said so?

The answer to your question is yes.  Protestants can know that the Deuterocanonical books are Scripture because the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has so stated.  When you have an infallible Church, you can know with certainty what the Scriptures entail, and we know that the Church established by Christ is infallible.

But to get back to my point, I wasn't really referring to the Deuterocanonical books.  I was referring to the other inspired books that are missing from the Protestant Bible as the Protestant understands the term "the Bible" to mean.  Doesn't that cause a problem?  

Does the Evangelical hold the position that not all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  How do you understand 2 Peter 3:15-16?

What other inspired books are missing from the Protestant Bible? Yes, we believe Paul’s epistles are inspired. Not sure what you’re driving at with the reference to 2 Peter 3:15-16. The untaught and unstable who distort Scripture?
Reply
(05-09-2020, 09:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 09:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote: The Septuagint were the Scriptures in Jesus's day.  While the Torah certainly was in Hebrew, the other writings that made up the tanakh were likely in the Koine Greek (the lingua franca of the day) which was in the form of the Septuagint that contained the deuterocanonicals.

It wasn't until a century after the death and Resurrection of Christ that the Rabbinical Jews fell out of favor using the Septuagint (gee, I wonder why) and they developed a new text known as the masoretic text to remove all forms of Christian theology.  The great Dr. Luther went to this text crafted by Rabbis who corrupted the Scriptures for his inspiration for his Bible.

Even Protestant scholars admit that if one wants to understand the Scriptures Jesus and the early Church referred to, they went with the Septuagint (LXX) and not the masoretic texts that proceeded the early Church.

To be fair, there were a variety of different versions of the Old Testament in circulation at the time of Our Lord. St Mark and other do present Our Lord quoting from variants that are clearly the Septuagint (LXX) text, such as Mark 7.6–7 when Our Lord quotes Isaiah 29.13 with the LXX variant. It could be that Mark just put the LXX version he was using in, or that Christ used it, but either way, we know the quotation of the LXX here was inspired.

The New Testament used both the Masoretic and LXX, but by almost a 10:1 margin prefers the LXX, which of course did contain the Deuterocanon.

We know that at least some groups accepted the Deuterocanon at the time of Our Lord, like the community at Qumran, where among the Dead Sea Scrolls we find copies of Deuterocanonical books.

We know that the Sadducees (Priests) and Samaritans also did not accept anything as inspired except the Torah, while they certainly used other writings, these were helps only. So we have some groups accepting 5 books, some 22, some 24, some 39, some 46, some even more. The best argument from the text of the New Testament is that the version most quoted was the LXX with 46 books including the Deuterocanon.

So while it is false (and Wingfold wrong) to claim that the text in use at the time of Our Lord was the Protocanon only (39 books); it is also not correct to claim that the LXX (with 46 books) was the version used either. Both were used by different people, but the New Testament writers certainly preferred the LXX.

There are indisputable references in the New Testament, however, to the Deuterocanon, like Heb 11.35 which is reference to 2 Macc 7, but there are many other references which are not so clear.

Whatever you might think of Jimmy Akin, he did back in the late 1990s provide a pretty decent list : http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

Yes, they used the Septuagint but the deuterocanonicals weren’t added to this edition until after the time of Christ. The early writers were divided on their canonicity. Irenaeus, Tertullian and abd Clement of Alexandria supported them but Athanasius, Origen and Jerome did not. Jerome was pressured into including them in the Vulgate.
Reply
(05-09-2020, 11:04 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 10:29 PM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 08:08 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 05:14 PM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 02:21 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Scripture is its own authority because it is the written Word of God whose life is Himself. 

I've always been curious as to the Protestant viewpoint on Scriptural authority and the books/concepts that are not included in the Protestant Bible. 

Is it necessary for a Protestant to have all of scripture?  What does he do if he does not have it all?  Does that matter to him?

If there is something missing from the written word of God as a Protestant understands that term, how does he/she figure out everything that God expects that person to believe?   

For instance, do you believe that the Bible teaches that all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  Where does that idea come from?

Yes, Protestants want to have all of Scripture, a complete canon. Now, here’s where you tell me that if the deuterocanonicals aren’t included in a Protestant’s Bible, it is incomplete, so how can a Protestant be satisfied with that? Then I say that he/she is content that he/she has the whole canon and then you say, on what/who’s authority do you say that. The Church’s? The Church includes them. 

Ok, consider this. The deuterocanonicals weren’t included in the Hebrew Scriptures of Jesus’ day; He quoted them often and considered them a complete, closed canon. The Jews had the books arranged in a different order from Genesis to Chronicles which puts into proper perspective the bookended murders Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:34-35.  

My turn for a question. Given the RC Church’s tendency to create Tradition and equate it with the Bible, how do Protestants know that the deuterocanonicals are not just Catholic add-ons like the doctrines added to Tradition? Because the Magisterium said so?

The answer to your question is yes.  Protestants can know that the Deuterocanonical books are Scripture because the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has so stated.  When you have an infallible Church, you can know with certainty what the Scriptures entail, and we know that the Church established by Christ is infallible.

But to get back to my point, I wasn't really referring to the Deuterocanonical books.  I was referring to the other inspired books that are missing from the Protestant Bible as the Protestant understands the term "the Bible" to mean.  Doesn't that cause a problem?  

Does the Evangelical hold the position that not all of Saint Paul's epistles are inspired?  How do you understand 2 Peter 3:15-16?

What other inspired books that are missing from the Protestant Bible? Yes, we believe Paul’s epistles are inspired. Not sure what you’re driving at with the reference to 2 Peter 3:15-16. The untaught and unstable who distort Scripture?
I mentioned 2 Peter because, in that epistle, Saint Peter refers to all of Saint Paul's epistles and calls them "scripture."  

But the Evangelical doesn't have all of Saint Paul's epistles in his Bible.  

Is that not considered problematic?  How does he know whether Saint Paul did not refer to a doctrine that the Evangelical denies if said Evangelical does not possess that particular part of the Bible?
Reply
(05-09-2020, 11:32 PM)DJRESQ Wrote: But the Evangelical doesn't have all of Saint Paul's epistles in his Bible.  

I'm confused. I was raised as an Evangelical and spent the first 30 years of my life a a protestant. The New Testament of my Bible then, the KJV, and my Bible now, the D-R, are identical in the books. In fact, the only difference I've ever noticed is that the protestants call the Apocalypse 'Revelation'.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
(05-10-2020, 12:14 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 11:32 PM)DJRESQ Wrote: But the Evangelical doesn't have all of Saint Paul's epistles in his Bible.  

I'm confused. I was raised as an Evangelical and spent the first 30 years of my life a a protestant. The New Testament of my Bible then, the KJV, and my Bible now, the D-R, are identical in the books. In fact, the only difference I've ever noticed is that the protestants call the Apocalypse 'Revelation'.
But we Catholics don't have all of Saint Paul's epistles either.  The missing epistles are mentioned in the New Testament.

And we don't have all the OT either.  That, too, is referenced in the NT.

But those things don't pose a problem for us because we don't believe in Sola Scriptura. 

If I were a Protestant, that would bother me.  If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, I would need to have it all so I could figure out my complete rule of faith.  An incomplete rule of faith would be meaningless to me.  I wouldn't know whether I was supposed to believe in something that I don't know about.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)