Posted on 06/28/2008 3:25:43 PM PDT by NYer
You mean the alpha and the omega?
“...if the books were not manifest as inspired by their power and purity and supplementary conformity to each other then they would be obscure today, which is what the 7 extra books, relatively are.”
Your arguments are standing on their head now. First of all they are not extra books at all. The canon was established and used by Christians the world over and accept as such. The Catholic Church you describe is the entity that has authorized the Holy virtue of these books.
“And which are excluded for good reasons, fallible Reformers initial acceptance notwithstanding”
...and here you are contrary to your general argument that “the Catholic Church has no authority as men” yet you acquiesce to the act of men (Reformers) excluding specific Canon of the Holy Bible to meet their doctrinal needs. By doing this you concede that an authority is needed and required. The only question is who has the authority. Men like the Reformers, 1500 years from the death of Jesus Christ, or those that were closest to Him and who He instructed to “go out” and their then appointed bishops. But somehow you give more credence not to those “instructed” but those who go against who He instructed.
“Your arguments are standing on their head now.”
Your arrogance makes it obvious you ignore the evidence against you. Did you even read one of the links? (the first one seems to be broke, but here is another; http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html).
“The Catholic Church you describe is the entity that has authorized the Holy virtue of these books.”
It actually took approx. 1500 years for Rome to give us an “infallible canon,” as prior lists were not infallible and what Trent gave you differed from those of Hippo and Carthage.
Your own New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon, states,
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.”
“First of all they are not extra books at all”
The best evidence shows they were not part of the Jewish canon, the Scriptures as often invoked by Jesus and the disciples, with ancient authorities such as Philo, Josephus, Origin Tertullian Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus failing to validate them, while the most ancient list of Old Testament books, that of Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170) includes none of the apocryphal books (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).
Jerome states,
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...”(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
Cardinal Cajetan (an opponent of Luther) write this in 1532:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Though Jerome was later persuaded to include them, his prior exclusions show that such books were not part of the Jewish Scriptures, and that the canon was far from settled by Rome till Trent, and
While apocryphal books are included in some of the early manuscripts of the Septuagint, but besides having other problems, these date from the 4th and 5th centuries and do not necessarily indicate they were in the Jewish canon. It also contains works such as III Maccabees which Rome rejected as canonical.
However, “he that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Cor. 2:15), and Jesus promised “My sheep hear my voice” (Jn. 10:27), and from the beginning inspired utterance was known by it’s power, and at best what Rome could so was ratify what was manifest as inspired, along with some added books that were useful to confirm some of her unBiblical doctrine, such as praying to and for the departed.
>And which are excluded for good reasons, fallible Reformers initial acceptance notwithstanding<
“...and here you are contrary to your general argument that “the Catholic Church has no authority as men” yet you acquiesce to the act of men (Reformers) excluding specific Canon of the Holy Bible”
Your reasoning is shallow. My rejection of Rome’s additions is not that of acquiescence to the Reformers (in fact i reject infant baptism), any more than i “acquiesce” to Rome in believing in the Deity of Christ, etc. Rather my continued acceptance or rejection of a doctrine is due to it having failed sufficient warrant from Scripture or other evidence where applicable.
“The only question is who has the authority. Men like the Reformers, 1500 years from the death of Jesus Christ, or those that were closest to Him and who He instructed to “go out” and their then appointed bishops.”
Or perhaps we should follow after the Jews, who unlike Rome are actually explicitly stated to have been entrusted with the Scriptures (Rm. 9:4), and taught their “tradition of the elder’s” which they believed was divinely authoritative, but they manifested their fallibility in adding unScriptural laws (the teaching of Corban, etc.) and rejecting it’s Author, who subjected their teaching to the authority of Scripture. By such Rome is likewise shown to be unworthy of the implicit trust she demands, as like in the Pharisaical additions, some of her doctrines are also shown to lack sufficient Scriptural warrant or be contrary to that affirmed inspired revelation.
Equating yourself with the apostles is a example of extrapolation. The apostles claim to authority did not rest upon their pedigree, but upon their faith and Divine attestation of power, purity, and Scripture probity (2 Cor. 6:1-10; Rm. 15:16; 2 Cor. 12:12). The authenticity of the born again church does not rest upon formal ecclesiastical linkage, anymore than that of a true Jew rests upon physical lineage (Rm. 2:28, 29), and “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Lk. 3:8), but upon Abrahamic type faith in the essential gospel of the grace of God and it’s Christ, which is not that souls by their very works which have been done in God have truly merited eternal life (Trent, the sixth session decree on justification chapter xvi), but that righteousness is imputed to them who repent and believe with Biblical saving faith on the LORD Jesus and His sinless shed blood, and thus effectually confess the same (Rm. 3:9 — 5:1; Gal. 3:11; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tts. 3:5). And to those who do assurance is given that they now have eternal life (1 Jn. 5:13). To God be the glory. But watch thou in all things.
“somehow you give more credence not to those “instructed” but those who go against who He instructed.”
While you insist upon giving more credence to men above the Scriptures you should examine them by, i should dare not to “think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6), and should not give any full credence to anyone in essential doctrinal matters unless what they claim can demonstrably withstand Scriptural scrutiny, as the preaching of the LORD and men like the apostles could (Mt. 22:29; Lk. 24:47; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; 28:23), even as it is the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15), and that “we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Rom 15:4). Thanks be to God.
“My rejection of Rome’s additions”
(actually Reformer subtractions)
“...Rather my continued acceptance or rejection of a doctrine is due to it having failed sufficient warrant from Scripture or other evidence where applicable.”
Again, absolutely illogical argument. You have accepted the Protest Reformer subtractions as your authority on the Bible and theology, and with it the acceptace of their calcuable determination to change the Holy Word to fit their doctrine. You have accepted that authority as misplaced as it is. To deny this is weaving and bobbing with not only the truth but The Truth.
“The apostles claim to authority did not rest upon their pedigree, but upon their faith and Divine attestation of power, purity, and Scripture probity (2 Cor. 6:1-10; Rm. 15:16; 2 Cor. 12:12).”
Christ gave it to them, if you keep reading the bible as opposed to pasting from others’ websites possibly the Holy Spirit will allow you to see it in the Word.
May God’s Grace be upon you.
“You have accepted the Protest Reformer subtractions as your authority on the Bible.”
I stand amazed at the seeming inability of a Catholic like yourself to perceive one can actually come to his own conclusion or affirm that of another without accepting the latter as their authority. As i basically pointed out to you, if this was the case then i would be accepting Rome as my authority as well, while also being bound to all that the Reformers taught. Your inability to allow such seems to be a manifestation of the acceptance of the need for a cultic implicit trust and reliance in an authority (the RC autocracy), which renders proving all things by the Scriptures superfluous.
“if you keep reading the bible as opposed to pasting from others’ websites possibly the Holy Spirit will allow you to see it in the Word.”
Similarly, this slur also evidences a seeming disallowance that souls can actually come to warranted conclusions, rather than just parroting an authority. I assure you that i have read the Bible plenty in my 30 years as a Christian, and post a chapter online Mon-Fri that i have read, and can post far more worthy texts i have found that substantiate position if needed. And while i certainly do some research into issues (which i am hope you allow Catholic posters do as well), and have posted links for more direct info, yet much of my argumentation is my own, and thoughts of others must be weighed by me as to their veracity before i can stand behind them.
Rather than my stand requiring more Bible reading, it is such as those who place implicit trust in an autocratic authority that should do as the noble Bereans did (Acts 17:11), though according to her interpretation they cannot possible be right even they disagree with her in doctrines which she declares she has infallible defined.
“Your inability to allow such seems to be a manifestation of the acceptance of the need for a “cultic” implicit trust and reliance in an authority (the RC autocracy)...”
Yes I belong to a “cult” as you say that has as its authority Jesus Christ. I trust Him totally. Christ established one voice, one Church that is visible, first with the visible apostles, and then, their visible successors, the bishops of the visible churches. The Catholic Church is the Church of the Incarnation - as Jesus was visible, so is His Church. The Apostolic Churches, to include the Eastern Orthodox, are truly Churches established by Christ, plainly visible for all of mankind to know the truth that God wants all men to possess.
All you have to offer is a Scripturally refuted mantra that is manifestly instrumental towards the further spiritual decline of the nation. And Hell.
That is your own man-made interpretation of Scripture. You take verses from a Holy book whose every word was discerned BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to be the inspired Word of God to deny Catholic theology. Ironic and funny.
If you would be Biblical, then you then must prove (in like manner as we can substantiate other major doctrines) from the Scriptures a perpetuated Petrine papacy, paedo baptism, purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, praying to departed saints, etc.
And as said before, your logic that the entity that “gave us the Bible” (after 1500 years) is also it’s sole infallible interpreter would also mean that the church should have submitted to the interpretations of the scribes and the Pharisees, as the Jews gave us the O.T. (referred to as the “Scriptures”). But they were shown from the Scriptures that they were wrong, and likewise many RC doctrines fail Scriptural warrant or contradict them. The idea that Rome can be unreprovable is based upon her interpretation and is perverse, while implicit trust in her is historically shown to be dangerous, and is damnable to souls deceived by her. For whom we pray.
Those who are deceived by Calvin and his fantasies made at the wise age of 27 are in danger of perveting the Word of God.
Limited Atonement and a predestined elect are but two that attempt to limit the full powers of God. Chris is not limited in his salvific powers.
...and to qu0te you, “implicit trust in her (substitute Calvin) is historically shown to be dangerous, and is damnable to souls deceived by her. For whom we pray.”
“Limited Atonement and a predestined elect...”
Actually i reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement (there are even some “4 point Calvinists also), and find such Biblically reproved, and unnecessary to the rest of the TULIP, and their reasoning unwarranted (the failure of some to come to the wedding feast (Mt. 22:1-14) does not attribute inadequacy to the host, likewise neither nor does the rejection of the atonement).
As for predestination of Calvin, on that issue you must also denigrate Catholics like Augustine. I do not concur with all of TULIP, and cannot substantiate that non-elect infants are damned due to being culpable with Adam’s sin (Dt. 24:16; Rev. 20:13), nor do i believe we must fully reconcile the the dichotomy between God’s manifest sovereignty and man’s responsibility. God does seem to unconditionally sovereignly elect (Rm. 9), and sinful man cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws him (Jn. 6:44) and grants “repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18), but “God commandeth all men every where to repent”(Acts 17:300 as if they had the ability to do so, and so must this be the call of the born again preacher.
“implicit trust in her (substitute Calvin) is historically shown to be dangerous,”
Indeed, implicit trust in any man is ultimately dangerous, but this is not what sola Scriptura fosters, for though the Scriptures command obedience to rulers (Heb. 13:17), and establishes the necessity of teaches and inter dependence (1 Cor. 12), yet we are admonished “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes” (Psa 118:9). We may trust the Lord to guide them as we yield to Him, but we are shown by the Lord and His Holy Spirit that lovers of truth should prove all teaching by that which explicitly declared to be inspired, which is the Scriptures (Mk. 7:5:13; 22:23-33; Lk. 24:27; Acts 17:11, 18:28; 1 Ths. 5:21, 2 Tim. 3:16. etc.). To God be the glory.
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.