Can you explain why Luther revisited the canon and considered removing Revelation, James, and Hebrews?
Here your misrepresenting Luther on that issue The link I found deals directly with that issue. Have you ever read any of Martin Luther's writings ? If so, which ones ? I honestly believe your parroting secondary information on this and that you never read Luther's writings concerning this.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/apocrypha.html
Why does the canon of Moody Institute differ from the Canon of Carthage, Rome, Hippo, Florence, Trent, and St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate?
Moody Bible Institute and Saint Jerome rejected the Apocrypha. So your question totally distorts the reality here. Likewise Cartage, Rome, Hippo , Florence did not approve of the same exact Apocrypha books as the Council of Trent in 1546ad. The Apocrypha is rejected on the grounds that it is not written by an OT Prophet or one who had the prophetic gift. Whereas the " Law " which is all 5 books Moses wrote, the " Prophets "' which consist of the Major and minor prophets and the " Kethubhim " were written by an OT Prophet or one who had the prophetic gift. And that is it this threefold OT Hebrew Canon that Jesus and the Apostles followed.
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
I’m preparing to end my participation in this thread so I will make a few final replies, and in a separate post, provide a conclusionI don’t mean for these to be rhetorical questions! Please answer them succinctly without referring me to some dispensationalist theologian who I’ve “obviously never read the works of”.
I answered them already. And also I did not refer you to only dispensational theologians. I referred you to various ones like Presbyterians, Baptist and so on who in some cases were not dispensationalist. I own a various systematic theology sets which covers all the major Protestant groups. I suggust that you better read Protestant works period since evidently your unaware of their positions or their specific argumentation.
The claims I’ve made is that whenever the Body of Christ held a Council that proclaimed a Canon, they ALWAYS include deuterocanonical books. Do you deny this fact? ['/quote]
What I deny is that they never approved the same exact deuterocanonical books as proclaimed by the Council of Trent in 1546ad. Your question fails to deal with the specific issues of the Protestant / Roman Cartholic debate on the OT Canon.
[quote]The whole point of bringing up the Council of Jamnia is to provide factual evidence that there was dispute among the Jews as to what was and was not inspired. The Jews of the Diaspora, who many argue were more faithful than the Pharisees in Jerusalem, considered the deuterocanonicals in the Septuagint as inspired scripture.
Ecclesiastes and the Song of Soloman there were some questions on amoung the Jews. The OT Hebrew Canon was already collected long before 90ad. These books were still Scripture. Even those who used the LXX affirmed the OT Hebrew Canon listing. That is the evidence which favors the Protestant position on this issue.
The Canon is not " made " by any council regardless if they Jewish or Christian. I reject that presupposition in which you embrace. The Canon is not determined when the people of God all agree on what is and want is not Scripture. God alone determined the Canon and the people of God merely collect what is already Scripture. The Canon was increase only with the addition of the New Testament. You did not deal with the position I presented on this thread.
I’ve even cited Protestant scholars who accept this. This is historical evidence that contradicts your claim that the canon was realized as it was written.
I have been unable to track down those quotes of yours. And I do suspect that they were miscited by you as it is usually the case when Roman Catholics cite Protestants on something.I All Evangelicals reject the Apocrypha as Scripture. You ignored all Protestant works which presents the evidence for the Protestant OT Canon. The Jewish Scholars David Kimhci ( 1160-1232 ad ) and Elias Levita ( 1465-1549ad ) researched and affirmed the final collection of the OT Hebrew Canon was completed in the 5th cent BC. You ignored Jewish Scholar studies on this issue. Your basically trying to tell Jews they are incorrect in affirming the OT Hebrew Canon rather follow instead the OT Canon of the RCC.
The Council of Jamnia is the only council I know of that lists an O.T. canon that does not contain deuterocanonical books. Am I being misleading here?
Yes you are. A council does not " make " Scripture. God alone did that. The fact is though the LXX was used they still rejected the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. The LXX is a translation only. Your entire presupposition is what lead to your error on this.
Do you deny this? Then show me a Christian Council that affirms the Protestant O.T. canon.
What I denied is that the deutercanonlicals were considered as Scripture by Jesus and the Apostles and the Jews of Palestine. Also a Church council does not " make " Scripture as your assuming. The OT Canon was collected by Israel. And Protestants use the OT Hebrew Canon of the Jews in Palestine. As the deuterocanonical books were written by a Prophet or one with the prophetic gift as the Law, The Prophets and the Kethubhim were.
Regarding the Nicene Creed… Show me where I made the claim that “catholic” (which means “universal”) in the Creed means the Roman Catholic Church.
It is the position of the RCC is that it is the onlytrue Church. It is the RCC position that the Church started at Pentecost. It colors your eyes to the real meaning of the word Catholic.
My issue is with your definition of “apostolic church” and “one baptism for the remission of sins”. You can twist these phrases any way you like. I will say this one final time, of all the pre-reformation writings regarding baptism, they ALL describe baptism in terms held by most Christians, that it is more than “meaningful” and that it is more than “merely getting wet” for infants.
You can't refute Scripture on what it teaches regarding the church. Also citing less than 11 early church fathers for some sort of Baptism regeneration falls well short for your claims. What you don't have is the Apostles themselves teaching it and yet you claim it was taught by them. Has the Bishop of Rome infallibly defined statements of Jesus and the Apostles which are not recorded in Scripture ? All Protestants reject baptismal regeneration as defined and held by the RCC. So your whole statements are colored with false statements. I claimed my position is taught in Scripture. Therefore what you presented did not deal with my position at all.
With regard to the true Catholic Church based on the authority of Scripture is the ttrue catholic church consist of all those who have been born again since Pentecost ( Acts 2 ) and baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ body ( 1 Cor, 12:13; Acts 1:5; 11:15 ) and completed at the premillennial pretribulational rapture ( 1 Thes, 4:13-18, 1 Cor. 15:51-52, Rev. 3:10, 1 Thes. 1:10; 5:9 ; Rev 6:16-17 ) regardless of their denomination or sect ( 1 Cor. 1:11-17 ) . In the local sense the word " church " is used of the group of professed believers in any one locality. Thus we read of the church of Jerusalem ( Acts 8:1; 11:22 ) , in Ephesus ( Acts 20:17 ) , in Cenchrea ( Rom. 16:1 ) , and in Corinth ( 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1 ) . We read of the church of Laodiceans ( Col. 4:16 ) and of the Thessalonians ( 2 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1 ) . Sometimes the term is in the plural form, as in the churches of Galatia ( Gal. 1:2 ) , of Judea ( 1 Thes. 2:14 ) , and of Asia ( Rev. 1:4 ) . The local Churches together are to be a faithful replica of the true church, the universal church.
These writings are consistent with scripture and consistent with the clear wording of the Nicene Creed. If anyone is “reading back” into the early Creeds, it is you. I have patristic writings to support my position, you have absolutely none, just a Protestant tradition (and only a subset at that) based on an interpretation of scripture for which there is absolutely no pre-reformation evidence that it was ever held.
I claimed my position is taught in Scripture. You therefore did not honestly deal with my position. And your still making false claims concerning baptismal regeneration as Protestants all reject it as held by the RCC. Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith for doctrine. You cited less than 11 early church fathers on baptismal regeneration and even they did not hold it as held by the RCC. That is where your anachronism is taking place.
Why do you keep making an issue out of the one or two times I asked you to provide historical evidence of your view on baptism? You and I both know there is no pre-reformation evidence that your view of baptism was ever held. But instead of acknowledging this, you make the ridiculous claim that “we cannot know what the early church believed because we do not have all of their writings”.
MY claim was my view was taught and held by Jesus and the Apostles in Scripture. I claimed Scripture for my position . You did not deal with my position at all there and instead resorting to a strawman argument. Truth is not determined by when it is discerned by Christians but rather on if it is taught in Scripture or not. Your placing the writings of the early church fathers on equal authority with Scripture in your statements. And citing less than 11 early church fathers falls well short of your claims and the fact they did not hold to baptismal regeneration and held by the RCC. Once again we see anacharonism by you there.
We also have absolutely no evidence that this view was opposed. I realize we can’t claim “unanimous consent” that EVERY one believed this but the evidence is overwhelming.
Unanimous consent is the claim made by the RCC itself in condemning Protestants at Trent. And cited less than 11 people prior to 300ad. That falls well short of the claims of the RCC is my point.
Now you are saying that great church leaders such as Justin Marytr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Augustine, Barnabas, Ignatius, Cyprian, Ambrose, “departed from what was taught in scripture” and that their teachings differ from what was meant in the Nicene Creed! And you accuse me of “reading back” into history!
I stated that they incorrectly held to a wrong meaning of regeneration . Yet did not embrace the position as held by the RCC. By the way, you overlook the fact you reject teachings embraced by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian , Hippolytus, Barnabas and Ignatius. These men I stated were Premillennial . So what I get here is your saying they were right on baptismal regeneration and wrong on Premillennialism right ? This shows you do not follow tradition as you claimed to. The reality is they taught truth mixed with error as I said before. Your statements indicate your implying that they were infallible in their teaching when they were not.
Regarding creeds and “statements of faith” … I didn’t say anything negative about “statements of faith”. I merely pointed out that many Protestants do not appear to put much stock in the creeds of the early church. Visit any website of an Evangelical Protestant church and try to find any reference to the Apostles, Nicene, or any other Creed. You simply won’t find any. Instead, you will find a “statement of faith”. I brought this up because you claim that all Protestants “affirm” these councils, but then later rescinded and claimed that it was only the creeds to which all Protestants hold.
That is so easy to refute your claim. Here is a Protestant Apologetic web site which the Creeds of the early church posted.
http://www.carm.org/creeds.htm
So then why do they feel the need to establish their own creeds? (As I was writing this a thought dawned on me: In nearly every Evangelical Protestant statement of faith, they will make claims to “Sola-Scriptura”, yet in none of the Creeds of the Ecumenical Councils you claim Protestants “affirm”, they profess that scripture is the only infallible means of God’s revelation. Instead they say things like “we believe in one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic church” (perhaps considered a “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”????). The early creeds do not say “we believe we are saved by faith alone” but they do say “we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. …hmmm… now I see why they need to create there own creeds)
Your statements clearly show to me and everyone the level of double standards you use. Are you aware that Catholic Web sites generally have the Catechism of the Catholic Church posted which is in a way a statement of faith on the RCC approved of and signed by John Paul II ? So it's alright for Roman Catholics to post their statement of faith and Protestants can't post theirs according to you ? Statement of faiths are intended only to proclaim what they believe the Scripture teaches. These Creeds are also subject to the authority of Scripture. The 7 Ecumentcial Councils did not deal with the specific issues regarding Sola Scripture or faith alone. They neither condemn nor approved it. They therefore are evidence one way or the other contrary to your claims. The issue of the five Solas took place in the 1500's during the time of the Reformation. Protestants claim their views are taught in Scripture therefore you did not deal with their position.
Regarding Apostolic Succession … Yes some Anglicans and some Lutherans reject Apostolic Succession. Guess which ones? The ones that broke away from their church and no longer have succession! Of course they’re going to reject it!
The RCC and Eastern Orthodox deny that Anglicans and Lutherans have this claimed Apostolic Sucession. Your statement indicates a lack of study of Anglican and Lutheran theology. I guess you don't care what their scholars have in their systematic theology works.
Apostolic Succession is most certainly taught in scripture. I have an entire post on it in another thread. You can do a search for the word “Semicha”. In my post, I appeal to numerous new and old testament scriptures as well as the Jewish roots of our faith and early church writings. The notion of an apostolic head of a church in a particular region is also clearly taught in scripture, as is the concept of an “Al-bayit” or “master of the palace”.
Apostolic Sucession as held by the RCC is not taught in Scripture. But rather distorts Scripture. Your position is based on what is called " Replacement Theology ", Amillennialism , an Allegorical method of interpretation of Scripture and anachronism for that false teaching. I do not believe you read for yourself the writings of the early church fathers prior to 300ad based and that you depend on secondary information for your conclusions.
Regarding baptism and Acts 15 … I think it’s interesting that you claim to be an expert on “exegetical systematic theology”. The whole purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was how to deal with the Law and how it does or does not apply to gentiles. It has absolutely nothing to do with baptism. You are reading this in to scripture. Jesus great commission was to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Feel free to call Jesus’ great commissioning “ceremonialism” or “ritualism”. I will accept the position of the church fathers, the creeds, and my own non “exegetical” treatment of scripture.
Sorry you missed Acts 15:1 totally from your reading. The issue was with regard to the issue that ordinances are necessary for to be saved. Which is the heresy you embrace though in your case you view it as baptism which is the only difference. You did not deal with my specific issue. You mispresented me on baptism. I hold to believers baptism meaning only those who believe or repent are baptized. So baptism is a part of my beliefs contrary to your claims. Sorry but Jesus nor the Apostles held to your position.
Scripture alone is infallible rule of faith for doctrine whereas the church fathers were not infallible nor their writings are equal with Scripture. You have no exegesis of the Scripture as the Bishop of Rome has not proclaimed any interpretation of Scripture . Rome has not provided an interpretation of Scripture for it's memebers and yet your now here claiming your own " exegetical treatment of Scripture " when the RCC itself does not gave one . I guess your practing private judgement of Scripture. Your acting like a Protestant in that.
Regarding your accusation that I was never a Protestant … I know this is petty but here you are changing your story again. I can find many posts where you use the words “if you were ever really a Protestant…”. Have I ever studied the “systematic theology sets” you listed? No! Is this a necessary condition for you to “take seriously” that a person is Protestant? I’ll bet less than 5% of the faithful have ever bothered looking into this. My understanding of the teachings of various Protestant denominations comes from what I was taught by the pastors and in their bible studies. I’m sorry if it bothers you so much that I ultimately disagreed with some of their teachings.
Thank you for your information. You never studied none of the various Protestant systematic theologies and are therefore not able to provide a proper presention of their beliefs of which you reject. When someone rejects a theology it is best to make sure you study it before rejecting it otherwise you end up looking like you do not know what your talking about with others as is the case here with you. Just because you may not have been taught correctly is an excuse at all. You were an untaught person in a Protestant church just as there are untaught people in the RCC. It is best for those in any group to study it's beliefs that way one knows why they are a part of it or why they leave it. Most often those who leave Protestant churches to become Roman Catholic do not know Protestant beliefs and display a lack of knowledge of their teachings. I have yet to find one that properly defines the five solas as held by the Reformers. That is my personal experience with such people. My only issue is that you are not fully aware of the five solas of the Reformation nor have you properly represented them in any of your post. That is my problem with you and nothing else. People have a right to join any church that they want to. I have no problem with this at all. My concern is what Scripture teaches and on if such and such a church is teaching it correctly or not. I do believe in freedom of religion by the way. So you can't incorrectly think that people are anti-roman catholic or whatever with you at all. Our issue is really on what Scripture says and nothing more.