Catholicism
(05-09-2020, 11:32 PM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(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?

Again, what are the epistles of Paul that are supposedly missing from the “Protestant Bible”, as you put it? Please name them. This is the first time I’ve heard of these.
Reply
(05-10-2020, 12:38 AM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(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.

You’re not Sola Scriptura so you don’t care if the Bible is complete or not? I have a question for you: Do you believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are factual or mythical?
Reply
[quote pid='1420147' dateline='1589112229']
You’re not Sola Scriptura so you don’t care if the Bible is complete or not? I have a question for you: Do you believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are factual or mythical?

[/quote]

Wingfold, while I respect the question and really am not sure what DJRESQ is arguing, I ask that you not ask this question in this thread. Start another thread for that question. That is a multifaceted issue, one which gets people's blood boiling on all sides. 

It is a great way to derail the discussion.
[-] The following 2 users Like Justin Tertius's post:
  • MagisterMusicae, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-10-2020, 07:59 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Again, what are the epistles of Paul that are supposedly missing from the “Protestant Bible”, as you put it? Please name them. This is the first time I’ve heard of these.

I'm pretty sure he's thinking of the lost :
  • A first Epistle to the Corinthians which came before the one we call first (mentioned at 1 Cor 5.9)
  • Another epistle to the Corinthians which seems to have come between the first and second (Cf 2 Cor 2.4, 7.8-9)
  • An epistle to the Ephesians which came before the one we have in Scripture (Cf Eph 3.3-4)
  • An epistle Laodiceans (Cf Col 4.16)
I think he's trying to suggest that if you try to defend the New Testament Canon based on the Bible without reference to some external authority, you would likely appeal to 2 Pt 3.15-16, to suggest that all St Paul's letters should be in Scripture.

I think he is then trying to, assuming you would accept this point, then point out that we know from Scripture that not all of St Paul's letters are in Scripture.

If that's the line of argumentation it is a bit of a Straw Man unless you've admitted this point or argued this. I don't recall you having done that.

It does prompt the question, however, as to how we can know which books of the New Testament ought to be included. You were taking issue with the Deuterocanon, but what about the Canon of the New Testament, since a list is not found in Scripture, which if one accept Sola Scriptura is a bit of an issue. If Scripture is the only rule, then what is the rule to determine what rules are part of the rule. We can't circularly appeal to the rule to determine what rules are in the rule.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Justin Tertius, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-09-2020, 11:15 PM)Wingfold Wrote: 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.

Apparently you didn't watch those videos I provided.

That's a shame that you're not keen on engaging with what you're provided.

Several Fathers did question some of the deuterocanonical books as inspired, but the Septuagint contained all of them from the time of Christ.

No one asserted that the Septuagint had additions until E.E. Ellis in the mid 1980s, and since then only a few scholars have asserted this. In all of their books, including Ellis' The Old Testament in Christianity absolutely no proofs or references are given for this hypothesis. It is in fact, quite striking because the surrounding text is full of hundreds of references, and then he throws in this speculation that the Septuagint was added to after Christ, without any support. It is a bare assertion and from what I can tell supported by only two other authors who also give no outside support for their theories except to reference ... Ellis.

Even, however, if the LXX were added to after Christ, it is very clear from the Dead Sea Scrolls that before and contemporaneous with Christ the Deuterocanon was accepted by some Jews as Canonical, and Christ even alludes to stories found only in the Deuterocanon.

One of the most striking proofs is that the Saducees, who did not accept the Deuterocanon, quote from it in tempting Christ. The natural assumption is that they were doing this because Christ and his followers accepted at least the book of Tobit (3.8) which they reference when they ask him the question about the seven husbands to the one wife (Mt 22. 25-27).

So we have proof that some Jews accepted the Deuterocanon at the time of Christ, we have indications in Scripture from Christ which reference the Deuterocanon, and we have the Septuagint that includes the Deuterocanon and absolutely zero proof that the Deutercanon was later added to the Septuagint.

It certainly seems like grasping at straws to speculate to defend what is an indefensible position.

I'd still encourage you to watch those videos.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Justin Tertius, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-10-2020, 07:59 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Again, what are the epistles of Paul that are supposedly missing from the “Protestant Bible”, as you put it? Please name them. This is the first time I’ve heard of these.

Missing epistles of Saint Paul.
 
1.  Saint Paul's prior epistle to the Corinthians.  See 1 Corinthians 5:9 (KJV):  "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators."  
 
2.  Saint Paul's prior epistle to the Ephesians.  See Ephesians 3:3:  "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery as I wrote afore in few words."  
 
3.  Saint Paul's epistle of the Laodiceans.  See Colossians 4:16:  "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."  
 
4.  Another epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians.  See 2 Corinthians 2:8.
 
And there is also the text quoted by Saint James that is not found anywhere else in the Bible.  See James 4:5:  "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" 

In addition to those texts, there are numerous books mentioned in the Old Testament that have been lost to us.  God never stated -- anywhere -- that He would preserve all the inspired texts, and it is a demonstrable fact that He did not.

Thus, the Evangelical's sole rule of faith is incomplete, and he cannot possibly know whether he believes everything that God revealed in inspired writings because he does not have the entirety of them.  No one does.

I assume that poses no problem for many people, but personally I could never accept that.   
Reply
(05-10-2020, 05:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-09-2020, 11:15 PM)Wingfold Wrote: 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.

Apparently you didn't watch those videos I provided.

That's a shame that you're not keen on engaging with what you're provided.

Several Fathers did question some of the deuterocanonical books as inspired, but the Septuagint contained all of them from the time of Christ.

No one asserted that the Septuagint had additions until E.E. Ellis in the mid 1980s, and since then only a few scholars have asserted this. In all of their books, including Ellis' The Old Testament in Christianity absolutely no proofs or references are given for this hypothesis. It is in fact, quite striking because the surrounding text is full of hundreds of references, and then he throws in this speculation that the Septuagint was added to after Christ, without any support. It is a bare assertion and from what I can tell supported by only two other authors who also give no outside support for their theories except to reference ... Ellis.

Even, however, if the LXX were added to after Christ, it is very clear from the Dead Sea Scrolls that before and contemporaneous with Christ the Deuterocanon was accepted by some Jews as Canonical, and Christ even alludes to stories found only in the Deuterocanon.

One of the most striking proofs is that the Saducees, who did not accept the Deuterocanon, quote from it in tempting Christ. The natural assumption is that they were doing this because Christ and his followers accepted at least the book of Tobit (3.8) which they reference when they ask him the question about the seven husbands to the one wife (Mt 22. 25-27).

So we have proof that some Jews accepted the Deuterocanon at the time of Christ, we have indications in Scripture from Christ which reference the Deuterocanon, and we have the Septuagint that includes the Deuterocanon and absolutely zero proof that the Deutercanon was later added to the Septuagint.

It certainly seems like grasping at straws to speculate to defend what is an indefensible position.

I'd still encourage you to watch those videos.

Ok, I watched the videos - well, all of the first one and part of the second one.

When I think about it, I'm not sure it's worth arguing over. For the record, I have a New American Bible and have read quite a bit from Baruch and Wisdom and see nothing wrong with them. In fact, many of the verses are quite insightful. Understand that I'm not against these books. For instance, I think it's great that the RSV and ESV published Catholic Editions and included the deuterocanonicals. 

That said, a quick Google search tells me that they were not part of the Hebrew canon, unless they were buried in the existing books like the additional Esther and Daniel chapters. I know they were in the Vulgate but initially, Jerome wasn't going to include them and they weren't added to the Septuagint until years after Christ's life on Earth. If Jesus knew about them and raised no objections to their not being included, or at least considered secondary, then why should I care? They are good reads and yes, my faith life will be enhanced by them but as to their canonicity, I'm content to leave others to duke that out.  

What is truly important is following Christ and not allowing our faith walks to become obscured by the traditions of men like the Pharisees did. Jesus took great umbrage with that and I'm with Jesus on this one.
Reply
(05-11-2020, 01:55 AM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-10-2020, 07:59 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Again, what are the epistles of Paul that are supposedly missing from the “Protestant Bible”, as you put it? Please name them. This is the first time I’ve heard of these.

Missing epistles of Saint Paul.
 
1.  Saint Paul's prior epistle to the Corinthians.  See 1 Corinthians 5:9 (KJV):  "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators."  
 
2.  Saint Paul's prior epistle to the Ephesians.  See Ephesians 3:3:  "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery as I wrote afore in few words."  
 
3.  Saint Paul's epistle of the Laodiceans.  See Colossians 4:16:  "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."  
 
4.  Another epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians.  See 2 Corinthians 2:8.
 
And there is also the text quoted by Saint James that is not found anywhere else in the Bible.  See James 4:5:  "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" 

In addition to those texts, there are numerous books mentioned in the Old Testament that have been lost to us.  God never stated -- anywhere -- that He would preserve all the inspired texts, and it is a demonstrable fact that He did not.

Thus, the Evangelical's sole rule of faith is incomplete, and he cannot possibly know whether he believes everything that God revealed in inspired writings because he does not have the entirety of them.  No one does.

I assume that poses no problem for many people, but personally I could never accept that.   


Ok...so, where's the scandal? When Protestants say, "The canon is closed" they mean nothing else is coming. I don't know too many Protestants who know for sure that some texts haven't been lost over time. What we do believe is that what we have is entirely sufficient and entirely trustworthy.
Reply
(05-11-2020, 01:38 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-11-2020, 01:55 AM)DJRESQ Wrote:
(05-10-2020, 07:59 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Again, what are the epistles of Paul that are supposedly missing from the “Protestant Bible”, as you put it? Please name them. This is the first time I’ve heard of these.

Missing epistles of Saint Paul.
 
1.  Saint Paul's prior epistle to the Corinthians.  See 1 Corinthians 5:9 (KJV):  "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators."  
 
2.  Saint Paul's prior epistle to the Ephesians.  See Ephesians 3:3:  "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery as I wrote afore in few words."  
 
3.  Saint Paul's epistle of the Laodiceans.  See Colossians 4:16:  "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."  
 
4.  Another epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians.  See 2 Corinthians 2:8.
 
And there is also the text quoted by Saint James that is not found anywhere else in the Bible.  See James 4:5:  "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" 

In addition to those texts, there are numerous books mentioned in the Old Testament that have been lost to us.  God never stated -- anywhere -- that He would preserve all the inspired texts, and it is a demonstrable fact that He did not.

Thus, the Evangelical's sole rule of faith is incomplete, and he cannot possibly know whether he believes everything that God revealed in inspired writings because he does not have the entirety of them.  No one does.

I assume that poses no problem for many people, but personally I could never accept that.   


Ok...so, where's the scandal? When Protestants say, "The canon is closed" they mean nothing else is coming. I don't know too many Protestants who know for sure that some texts haven't been lost over time. What we do believe is that what we have is entirely sufficient and entirely trustworthy.
The point is not whether "nothing else is coming." 

The point is:  How does an Evangelical figure out whether or not his doctrine contradicts something in his "sole rule of faith" when he does not possess his complete "sole rule of faith"?  

For example, how does he answer the question as to whether he believes exactly what Saint Paul included in his "prior epistle" to the Corinthians when he doesn't know, except for one phrase, what Saint Paul wrote there?

Was that epistle inspired?
Reply
Quote:That said, a quick Google search tells me that they were not part of the Hebrew canon, unless they were buried in the existing books like the additional Esther and Daniel chapters. I know they were in the Vulgate but initially, Jerome wasn't going to include them and they weren't added to the Septuagint until years after Christ's life on Earth. If Jesus knew about them and raised no objections to their not being included, or at least considered secondary, then why should I care? They are good reads and yes, my faith life will be enhanced by them but as to their canonicity, I'm content to leave others to duke that out.  

What is truly important is following Christ and not allowing our faith walks to become obscured by the traditions of men like the Pharisees did. Jesus took great umbrage with that and I'm with Jesus on this one



MM already addressed you assertion that the deutercanonical books being inserted above. 

As to leaving the deutercanonical debate to others to duke out, that already was done. The local councils of Carthage and Rome and the approbation of Pope St. Damasus, as well as the Council of Florence (in 1439 I believe) and finally Trent have dealt with that issue definitively: the deutercanonical books are Sacred Scripture inspired by God. That is what the Christian Church which Jesus Christ founded to teach the nations, believes.

And Jerome wasn't going to include. But guess what, he did. Because the Church said they're Scripture. And Jerome was a faithful Catholic.

And you can't just bump this off and say that your "faith walk" with Jesus is all that matters. Doctrine matters. Jesus Christ taught things, which people need to believe to be saved. He gave a definitive teaching and confided that to the Apostles and His Church. If you think that you can just go it alone and ignore Jesus' teaching to the Church and the Apostles and still have a serious "faith walk", you are confused. 

And again, just dismissing Apostolic teaching as traditions of men and calling the Catholic Church pharisaical isn't going do. If the Tradition is from God, then you put run tbe risk of being against the Gospel.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Justin Tertius's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)