Posted on 11/10/2009 11:07:30 AM PST by GonzoII
Not sure who the author is...
“A common misconception about the doctrine of irresistible grace is that it implies men are forced to accept Christ and men are dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. Of course neither of these are accurate descriptions of the doctrine of irresistible grace as revealed in the Bible. In fact the heart of irresistible grace is the transforming power of the Holy Spirit whereby He takes a man dead in his trespasses and sins and gives him spiritual life so that he can recognize the unsurpassing value of God’s offer of salvation. Then having been set free from the bondage of sin, that man willingly comes to Christ.”
The analogy I’ve heard is that if you are in the dark, and someone turns on the light, will you see? It is an imperfect analogy, since a person COULD shut their eyes real tight, but I’m sue you understand the intent.
I don’t want to defend predestination, because that is part of what is taught in scripture, but not the whole. The whole tenor of scripture is that we responsible to God for our choices. And I see no sign in the scripture that God FORCES someone to believe. I tend to view it as something beyond our understanding, like prayer - we are told to pray, we are told it has value - so does it make God do something He would not otherwise do? Does it prevent God from doing something if we do NOT pray about it? God is sovereign, yet our prayers have value. Makes no sense to me.
Again, the analogy is very imperfect. The hard predestinationists seem to say one has responsibility without choice, which I find odd. Taken to its logical extreme, why preach repentance?
Still, it is taught in the scripture, as is our responsibility to repent. Makes no sense to me.
Guess I’m not bright enough to understand everything...in spite of what I tell my wife.
Sure. The intent is recognizable. I would relate it to people that I have known in real life, though. I knew two people (unrelated and at different times) who as adults received cochlear implants and rejected them after they experienced hearing for either the first or for a long time. That is how I perceive God's Grace. In most cases, people will receive it gratefully and make that walk along the Via of Christ. But there are some that will refuse it. The Calvinist viewpoint calls for irresistible Grace; if man has free will, then there is no such thing.
I guess that it really depends upon what you consider the role of the sovereign to be. The model of the Middle East monarchs tended to be the king as the center of power, with his mother as the one that the ordinary people could appeal to. The absolute kings of that time had the power of instantaneous life and death, yet there was a path of appeal.
Another possibility is that prayers do not affect God, who is everywhere and everywhen, but that the prayers are actually reflections or indications of our own selves. After all, our lives are not really about glorifying God, who is already all glorious; they are about how we live them and what decisions we make and why. It is our imitation of Christ that matters. One man praising God more or less does not matter to the Supreme God of All Creation in terms of His total Glory. But it does matter to the man.
Again, the analogy is very imperfect. The hard predestinationists seem to say one has responsibility without choice, which I find odd. Taken to its logical extreme, why preach repentance?
Still, it is taught in the scripture, as is our responsibility to repent. Makes no sense to me.
Predestination to hell is not Scriptural; the possibility of predestination to Heaven is. We don't know where Judas Iscariot wound up; we have not a clue.
Guess I’m not bright enough to understand everything...in spite of what I tell my wife.
Wives know. And they stay with us in spite of what they know.
“We don’t know where Judas Iscariot wound up; we have not a clue.”
We have more than a clue, we have the Word of God. Have you not read?
“For the Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to the that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” - Mark 14:21
“Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray Him.” - John 6:70-71
“Weren’t you following? The Reformed God changes the people from being unable to follow Him into being unable NOT to follow Him. Robot slaves, as it were, being made from free people. They have no choice in the matter.”
After seeing you that prefer your own imagination to the Word of God, regarding Judas, I now understand how you come to such twisted conclusions of God’s sovereignty in salvation. I see you didn’t deal with the Scriptures posted however. SCRIPTURE, SCRIPTURE, SCRIPTURE
We have more than a clue, we have the Word of God. Have you not read?
“For the Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to the that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” - Mark 14:21
“Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray Him.” - John 6:70-71
It does not say that he was sent to hell. Jesus called Peter satan. Yet, would you say that Peter was in hell? You are interpreting Scripture on your own. And on the face of it, going far beyond the interpretation of the Church or the Fathers.
“Weren’t you following? The Reformed God changes the people from being unable to follow Him into being unable NOT to follow Him. Robot slaves, as it were, being made from free people. They have no choice in the matter.” After seeing you that prefer your own imagination to the Word of God, regarding Judas, I now understand how you come to such twisted conclusions of God’s sovereignty in salvation. I see you didn’t deal with the Scriptures posted however. SCRIPTURE, SCRIPTURE, SCRIPTURE
I cannot deal beforehand with Scriptures that you post in a subsequent post because I cannot read your mind in what you are going to do in the future. Sorry, that's a drawback of being mortal.
Let's see you respond to the statement that the Reformed position, as outlined in the WCF, is that men cannot follow the Reformed God until they are hijacked by the Reformed Holy Spirit and then they unable to NOT follow the Reformed God. This is converting men against their will, according to Reformed thought. Which is my original stated position.
So Christ says that it would have been better for Judas to have never been born, and you think he might be in heaven? How ridiculous is that? Once again, Scripture is clear and yet you think it is murky. Brings to mind a Scripture passage: “The natural person DOES NOT ACCEPT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” - 1 Corinthians 2:14
By the way, I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I couldn’t care less what “the Church or the fathers” thought or think about the issue.
“I cannot deal beforehand with Scriptures that you post in a subsequent post because I cannot read your mind in what you are going to do in the future. Sorry, that’s a drawback of being mortal.”
I was speaking of these, which you have had since yesterday at 4:15pm CST.
Ephesians 2:1-9 explains salvation from start to finish
our part - “You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desire of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind.”
Man is dead spiritually - unable to even see the kingdom of God (John 3:3)
God’s part - “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved - and raised us up with Him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. FOR BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED THROUGH FAITH. AND THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN DOING; IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT A RESULT OF WORKS, so that no one may boast. FOR WE ARE HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
We are spiritually dead, but God makes us spiritually alive. Why? “So that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.”
Romans 9:14-16 “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then IT DEPENDS NOT ON HUMAN WILL OR EXERTION, but on God, who has mercy.”
Romans 10:20 “I have been found by those WHO DID NOT SEEK ME; I have shown myself to those WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.”
Until you start dealing with Scripture, I will not address your twisted interpretation of the reformed positions. If you’ll notice, my posts include Scripture to support my position, while yours are void of anything but your personal opinion.
“I guess that it really depends upon what you consider the role of the sovereign to be.”
Psalm 135:6 - “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.”
Psalm 115:3 - “Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases.”
Isaiah 46:10 - “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my pleasure.”
Deuteronomy 32:39 - “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.”
Isaiah 55:8 - “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heaven are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
I was speaking of these, which you have had since yesterday at 4:15pm CST.
Isn't that kind of you? Well, to the crux of the matter; you asked me what was wrong with the Reformed position and I posted it from the Westminster Confession. If that is not good enough, be good enough yourself to say so and why, rather than set out a deadline, again, after the fact. If you post separate posts at different times, addressing different aspects of the same matter, be good enough to wrap it up with a summary, rather than expect me to pick through the chaff in order to find the rare grains of wheat.
Now. You post Paul and the OT to me to explain Christ, is that right? Except for a portion of a verse from John. Okay, so my point is that Calvin is saying that men are unable to follow Christ and after election by the Holy Spirit and the hijacking of the soul, thereafter unable NOT to follow Christ. I say bosh and pish tosh. Why? To begin with, let us examine the Scriptures which address the ability of a man to reject God and his own salvation after gaining the Faith.
It is written, NOW UNTO HIM THAT IS ABLE TO KEEP YOU FROM FALLING-Jude 24. So we ask, how does God keep us from falling? We stand BY FAITH-Ro 11:20. However, SOME SHALL DEPART FROM THE FAITH-1 Tim 4:1. HAVING DAMNATION, BECAUSE THEY HAVE CAST OFF THEIR FIRST FAITH-1 Tim 5:12. We are warned that, IF ANY MAN DRAW BACK, MY SOUL SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM-Heb 10:38. God keeps you from falling through your faith. If you cast off your faith or draw back, God will have no pleasure in you. The Bible urges us, do not DRAW BACK (from faith)…UNTO PERDITION-Heb 10:38,39.
Jesus tells us, FOR HIM HATH GOD THE FATHER SEALED-Jn 6:27. When we are saved, God gives us His Spirit. Can we be unsealed? It is written, AFTER THAT YE BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED WITH THAT HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE, WHICH IS THE EARNEST OF OUR INHERITANCE UNTIL THE REDEMPTION OF THE PURCHASED POSSESSION-Eph 1:13,14. Note, THE EARNEST OF OUR INHERITANCE. "Earnest" or arrabon means money deposited by the purchaser and forfeited, if the purchase was not completed. It was thought to be a Phoenician word which was introduced into Greece. In modern Greek, arrabona is an engagement ring. Regretfully, some modern Bible versions have translated this word incorrectly, which has caused some confusion. The Bible gives us the formula for completing a purchase. Jesus paid it completely by His shed blood; however, we must hold on to our faith, for we stand by faith. We must hold THE BEGINNING OF OUR CONFIDENCE STEDFAST UNTO THE END-Heb 3:14. We enter into a contract (or covenant, or solemn agreement) when we receive Jesus. Jesus is the Groom, and we are the bride. He gives us a pledge or token of this contract, a ring, in a manner of speaking. He cannot break His contract with us. He will never leave or forsake the contract. The price of the purchase has been paid. Now, we receive an engagement ring (the Holy Spirit) as a deposit; thus, we are sealed unto Jesus as His bride. During this period of being sealed, temptations come against us to try to draw us away. We are tested to see if our love for Jesus is real. Will we wait for our Bridegroom faithfully, no matter what temptations come? Or will we stop waiting, and go off to serve another? We have been bought for a price. Jesus died for us. Yet we can "take off the ring," and choose to serve another. The Holy Spirit gives us the power to stand against the enemy. He promises no temptation will come against us that is more than we can bear. Our love and faith are being tested. If we hold firm until He calls us home, we become His bride. If we fall away, the engagement ring is forfeited. We cannot keep it, as the Holy Spirit is a guarantee that we are His, and we are waiting faithfully in love. Many do forfeit the engagement ring. They leave their first love and go to another. The other leads us to death, the lake of fire.
It is written, THE FOUNDATION OF GOD STANDETH SURE, HAVING THIS SEAL, THE LORD KNOWETH THEM THAT ARE HIS-2 Tim 2:19. WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD THROUGH FAITH UNTO SALVATION-1 Pe 1:5. How does God keep us? How do we stand? It is by faith. If we lose our faith, we are not standing sure, and are not kept by the power of God. For, WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM-Heb 11:6.
God tells us, WHEN THE RIGHTEOUS TURNETH FROM HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jesus, his faith), AND COMMITTETH INIQUITY, HE SHALL EVEN DIE THEREBY (go to hell). BUT IF THE WICKED TURN FROM HIS WICKEDNESS (repents), AND DO THAT WHICH IS LAWFUL AND RIGHT, HE SHALL LIVE THEREBY-Ezek 33:18,19. These people thought they could not lose salvation. God seems to be displeased that they thought, once saved, always saved. He speaks through Ezekiel with words that seem to explode: (17)-THY PEOPLE SAY, THE WAY OF THE LORD IS NOT EQUAL: BUT AS FOR THEM, THEIR WAY IS NOT EQUAL. These words are for every person who believes once saved, always saved. The way of God, once you surrender to Jesus, is all your sins are erased. They are not remembered. But, if you turn back to sin (turn from your faith), all your good deeds are equally not remembered. God’s ways are totally just. When the RIGHTEOUS MAN DOTH TURN FROM HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND COMMIT INIQUITY...HE SHALL DIE IN HIS SIN, AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH HE HATH DONE SHALL NOT BE REMEMBERED-Ezek 3:20. This includes baptism. Jesus said, regarding baptism, THUS IT BECOMETH US TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS-Mt 3:15. Once you are saved, if you fall away, then you need to repent.
Paul said, I KEEP UNDER MY BODY, AND BRING IT INTO SUBJECTION: LEST THAT BY ANY MEANS, WHEN I HAVE PREACHED TO OTHERS, I MYSELF SHOULD BE A CASTAWAY-1 Cor 9:27. Paul knew we could lose salvation as also exemplified in the following. BEHOLD THEREFORE THE GOODNESS…OF GOD…IF THOU CONTINUE IN HIS GOODNESS: OTHERWISE THOU ALSO SHALT BE CUT OFF (if you do not continue in faith and obeying the Gospel, you shall be cut off). AND THEY ALSO, IF THEY ABIDE NOT STILL IN UNBELIEF, SHALL BE GRAFTED IN: FOR GOD IS ABLE TO GRAFT THEM IN AGAIN-Ro 11:22,23. They can be saved, but fall into unbelief and lose salvation. However, if they repent and believe again, God can save them again (a second time).
Therefore I say to you paulist, that a further examination of Scripture would do you well in order to more fully understand it. If you would take sola interperata upon yourself, why, then, you may take the meaning of Scripture to be any way you wish. The Church's 2000 year history of doctrine predates all of Scripture. The Didache was probably written before any of what is in the NT now was written. Scripture was chosen by these same men who developed the doctrine and the Faith. Sneer at the Apostles and spit at the Church as you wish, but that Bible in your hand and the doctrines of, for example, the Trinity, and Sunday worship, were also laid down by these men. If you repudiate the Church, then you must repudiate the Bible that you thump so fiercely.
Psalm 135:6 ...Psalm 115:3...Isaiah 46:10...Deuteronomy 32:39...Isaiah 55:8
I ask you what you consider the role of the sovereign to be and you give me five OT verses. In prior posts, you lay heavily on Paul. Are you Christian? Do you have an opinion on what you consider the role of the sovereign to be?
“If you repudiate the Church, then you must repudiate the Bible that you thump so fiercely.”
Not hardly. The Catholic Church of 2009 is nothing like the church of 50, 75, or 200 AD. The canon of NT scripture was largely agreed to by 150 AD.
Heck, Roman Catholics were allowed to debate canon, and many did, including Erasmus, until the Council of Trent in the 1500s. Please do not pretend that the Roman Catholic Church is what makes scripture scripture. GOD does that, and we either believe or do not believe. The Roman Catholic Church only affects what Roman Catholics believe. The Council of Trent wasn’t binding on the Orthodox, nor on any Protestant.
The Didache was probably written around 100 AD, which would be AFTER the New Testament. Some argue for a slightly earlier date, others argue for as late as 200 AD. The copy found in the 1800s was probably written around 1000 AD, and no one knows if it accurately reflects the Didache of 200 AD. However, since it doesn’t seem to know about ‘real presence’ in the Eucharist, referring to broken bread & thanksgiving, and seems to have no concept of ‘priests’ or the Mass, it is probably accurate enough for what it is - which is NOT scripture!
Not hardly. The Catholic Church of 2009 is nothing like the church of 50, 75, or 200 AD. The canon of NT scripture was largely agreed to by 150 AD.
The Catholic Church of 2009 did not create the Canon of Scripture. Saying that the Canon was largely agreed to by 150 AD is like saying that a literary anthology is largely done when deciding upon the genre. You've read through the progression of acceptance; there were many more books considered than were put in and at the end there were some major surprises. The Canon was largely agreed to by the time of Nicea in 325, but was not accepted until the councils in the early 400s.
Heck, Roman Catholics were allowed to debate canon, and many did, including Erasmus, until the Council of Trent in the 1500s.
I'm not aware of Erasmus debating the Canon of Scripture. As a matter of fact, in his Catechism (entitled Explanation of the Apostles' Creed) (1533), Erasmus took a stand against Luther's teaching by asserting the unwritten Sacred Tradition as just as valid a source of revelation as the Bible, by enumerating the Deuterocanonical books in the canon of the Bible and by acknowledging seven sacraments.[25] He called "blasphemers" anyone who questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary and those who defended the need to occasionally restrict the laity from access to the Bible.[26] In a letter to Nikolaus von Amsdorf, Luther objected to Erasmus’ Catechism and called Erasmus a "viper,", "liar," and "the very mouth and organ of Satan." [27] (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus - hardly the greatest source in the world, I realize, but this is consistent with other sites I hurriedly googled).
Please do not pretend that the Roman Catholic Church is what makes scripture scripture. GOD does that, and we either believe or do not believe. The Roman Catholic Church only affects what Roman Catholics believe. The Council of Trent wasn’t binding on the Orthodox, nor on any Protestant.
This is not entirely true. What is in your New Testament? Why are you not reading the Shepherd of Hermas? The Gospel of Peter? The Acts of Peter and Paul? It is as binding upon you as a Baptist as it is upon any Catholic. And the NT was set 1600 years ago, not intially in Trent.
The Didache was probably written around 100 AD, which would be AFTER the New Testament. Some argue for a slightly earlier date, others argue for as late as 200 AD. The copy found in the 1800s was probably written around 1000 AD, and no one knows if it accurately reflects the Didache of 200 AD. However, since it doesn’t seem to know about ‘real presence’ in the Eucharist, referring to broken bread & thanksgiving, and seems to have no concept of ‘priests’ or the Mass, it is probably accurate enough for what it is - which is NOT scripture!
Scholars are leaning towards an earlier writing than 100 AD. It may have developed in various editions parallel to the development of the earliest Church. It certain appears to have been heavily influenced by the Gospel of Matthew and may have been written in parallel with it. It is certainly not Scripture in the same manner that the current Catechism is not Scripture, yet it was a document of the early Church which the faithful leaned heavily on - what to believe and what to do.
In the Didache, the local ministers are bishops and deacons, as in Paul's epistle Philippians (1:1) and Clement. Presbyters are not mentioned, and the bishops are clearly presbyter-bishops, as in Acts, 20, and in the Pauline Epistles. But when Ignatius wrote in 107, or at the latest 117, the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons were already considered necessary to the very name of a Church, in Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. It is probable that in Clement's time there was as yet no monarchical episcopate at Corinth, though such a state did not endure much past Clement's time in any of the major Christian centers.
So, it seems to me that there was significant transition between the Didache and Ignatius; probably some significant time as well.
“The Canon was largely agreed to by the time of Nicea in 325, but was not accepted until the councils in the early 400s.”
The canon was almost set by 325. The bulk of it - the Gospels and Acts and the Epistles of Paul & 1 John & 1 Peter - these were pretty much universally accepted by 150 AD.
“In these publications the attitude of Erasmus towards the text of the New Testament is an extremely radical one, even if he did not follow out all its logical consequences. In his opinion the Epistle of St. James shows few signs of the Apostolic spirit; the Epistle to the Ephesians has not the diction of St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews he assigns with some hesitation to Clement of Rome. In exegesis he favoured a cold rationalism and treated the Biblical narratives just as he did ancient classical myths, and interpreted them in a subjective and figurative, or, as he called it, allegorical, sense.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm
In addition, the Apocrypha held an ambiguous position, because not all considered it to be canonical:
“The majority view is that expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term canonical as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:
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 (Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.
This is a fair summary of the overall view of the Western Church from the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century. Jerome’s opinion dominated.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/04/michuta-canon-dilemma.html
Most Protestants follow Calvin’s thought - that the scriptures are self-authenticating, or not at all. As a practical matter, ANYONE can decide what they consider scripture, which is why, when I discussed things with Mormons, we sometimes had to agree to disagree. If you do not agree on the canon, then you WILL disagree on doctrine!
“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.
The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).
The same article has the following Church Fathers quoting from the Deuterocanonicals:
The Didache, Pseudo-Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Pope Damasus (Council of Rome), Council of Hippo, Augustine, Council of Carthage, Apostolic Constitutions (AD 400), Pope Innocent I, The African Code, AD 419) and, well, Jerome:
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, 'This is not the time to discuss such matters'" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
The Apocrypha was and was not considered as canonical. The Catholic Church has always allowed a somewhat odd idea of canon. The Old & New Testaments were good for doctrine - what Protestants would call scripture, since all or every scripture is good for teaching, rebuke, etc. The Apocrypha was considered full canon by some, while others, such as Jerome, said it was good for church reading, but not for doctrine. And Jerome’s opinion carried a LOT of weight!
When Luther broke out the Apocrypha, he wasn’t particularly radical for that day & age.
Also, with Hebrews: “”While the Council of Carthage of the year 397, in the wording of its decree, still made a distinction between Pauli Apostoli epistoloe tredecim (thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle) and eiusdem ad Hebroeos una (one of his to the Hebrews) (H. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 92, old n. 49), the Roman Synod of 382 under Pope Damasus enumerates without distinction epistoloe Pauli numero quatuordecim (epistles of Paul fourteen in number), including in this number the Epistle to the Hebrews (Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 84). In this form also the conviction of the Church later found permanent expression. Cardinal Cajetan (1529) and Erasmus were the first to revive the old doubts, while at the same time Luther and the other Reformers denied the Pauline origin of the letter.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm
As for what it means to be in the canon - if you can have a set of ‘sub-scripture’ - the Council of Trent discussed it, but made no decision on what ‘canon’ meant.
“Additional details around the discussion in the general congregation of Feb 12th are provided by Duncker:
“Cardinal Cervini, reporting the previous day’s discussion in his Classis, brought up the two points still to be settled : First, whether a distinction is to be made between Sacred Books from which the foundations of our teaching are drawn and those which, though truly canonical, are not so in the same sense as the former (Acts: “not of the same authority”) but are received by the Church so that from them the multitude may be instructed, such as the books of Proverbs, Wisdom and so on. This distinction would seem to be pertinent (…Acts:…does not seem off the point), because this question is still much disputed and not yet determined by the Church, though Augustine and Jerome and other ancient writers often spoke of it.
After having mentioned incidentally that Cardinal Pacheco was against this distinction, Severoli (and the Acts) only say that “Although many esteemed it useful and even not less necessary (Acts: ‘yet less necessary’), nevertheless the view of several (Acts: Of the majority’) prevailed, that this question be left intact to posterity (Acts: ‘be omitted and left*) as it was left to us by our Fathers.” The General of the Servites, Bonucci, insisted, in his turn, “. . . that this question must surely be left intact (Acts omit this part of his statement) as, in points on which Jerome and Augustine disagree, the Church has not been accustomed to pass judgment (Acts: ‘the Synod should not pass judgment, as the Church has not been accustomed to do so’).”
…The question was not yet settled, for that same night the Cardinal legates reported to Rome that the point about the degrees of the books of the Old Testament, which had come up during the debate, had still to lie examined, as many of the ancient holy Doctors had said that some were canonical and suited to settle dogmas and that others did not have so much authority but were only “agiographi” (sacred writings).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol 15, pgs 285-286”
There is also some question on the listing of books between the African Councils and Trent...it is hard to decipher, since there were multiple name changes involved.
You quote Jerome:
“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
He wasn’t discussing the Apocrypha and canon here. The full quote starts with: “In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?...”
Following the judgment of the churches refers to using Theodotion’s version of Daniel instead of “Aquila, Symmachus, [or] the Seventy”. Jerome didn’t approve of Theodotion’s translation, but he was willing to follow the judgment of the churches in using it.
Still, a few sentences after your quote, he continues: “If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.”
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.