Sola scriptura has no strong and reliable foundation!

[MarysSon]

Your original point was the OT canon was decided in the 4th century. The evidence from Trent shows there was still debate. Why is that?

Note: Luther was not at Trent. However, Cardinal Cajetan was.

The historical evidence is abundantly clear that the Canon was decided in the 4th century - and reiterated FIVE times in 7 years.

As I stated earlier - it doesn't matter if there was still some debate within certain members of the Church. The guarantee that the Church would be led to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-16) was given to the CHURCH - not the individual.

Trent simply closed the canon that had already existed for over 1000 years.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You see, the majority opinion doesn't mean truth.

How does that answer the question I posed to you?

Please answer my question.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus' words are easy to understand but difficult to practice. It is just the opposite with regard to Paul's

Did Paul mislead people in his epistles?

 

[redleghunter]

Paul quotings of Jesus are not found in the Gospel books.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul preaches the same Gospel message as Christ in Luke 24:40ff.

Paul also quotes the Lord here in 1 Corinthians 11:

1 Corinthians 11: KJV

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The apostle Paul stated he was taught directly by Jesus Christ :

Galatians 1: KJV

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24 And they glorified God in me.


Taking into consideration the above, one can only come to two conclusions:

1. Paul is faithfully delivering the message of Jesus Christ.

2. Paul is deceiving the Galatians.

There is no wiggle room here. Paul threw down the gauntlet in Galatians chapter 1.

So what is it? #1 or #2?

 

[redleghunter]

Let’s see what the Bible says:
1 Cor. 7:14
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been SANCTIFIED through her believing husband."

As I educated you in my last post, submission to one's husband is compared to submission TO THE LORD. Submission to the Lord is HOLY. It sanctifies.

Well said.

 

[redleghunter]

The historical evidence is abundantly clear that the Canon was decided in the 4th century - and reiterated FIVE times in 7 years.

As I stated earlier - it doesn't matter if there was still some debate within certain members of the Church. The guarantee that the Church would be led to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-16) was given to the CHURCH - not the individual.

Trent simply closed the canon that had already existed for over 1000 years.

I believe Trent accomplished one canon whereas in the tradition of the Church there were actually a division of the canon fidei and canon morum.

For example, Roman Catholic historian and Council of Trent expert, Hubert Jedin in his tome Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent observes statements from Cardinal Seripando:

(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages [Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271].

[Link of quoted material: Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Cajetan's Quote on the Apocrypha is Fraudulent?]

Link of book quoted source book: Papal Legate at the Council of Trent


Note: for those not familiar with Cardinal Seripando:

Girolamo Cardinal Seripando [Catholic-Hierarchy]

 

[Philip_B]

Fair enough.
But, if I am reading the above bolded statement correctly - who said that the Deuterocanonicals contain "ALL" we need for salvation?? Certainly not the Catholic Church.

Hi, in fairness you are misreading the intent. I was simply addressing the point that the Anglican position on the Deuterocanonicals namely that they are helpful and good for instruction, however whilst they can be used to support a doctrine, for a doctrine to be seen as essential it must be able to be demonstrated from the Canon Proper, and it is certainly valid, and indeed helpful to support that further from the Deuterocanonicals. No one is saying, and no-one said anyone said that the Deuterocanonicals contain everything necessary for salvation.

In another discussion I demonstrated a point using these passages

Numbers 21:8-9
And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.’ So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

John 3:14-15
And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:7
For the one who turned towards it was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Saviour of all.​

Whilst Numbers and John make sense the passage in John is better understood when you include the witness of the Wisdom of Solomon, which most scholars believe was intended by the author.

 

[MarysSon]

Hi, in fairness you are misreading the intent. I was simply addressing the point that the Anglican position on the Deuterocanonicals namely that they are helpful and good for instruction, however whilst they can be used to support a doctrine, for a doctrine to be seen as essential it must be able to be demonstrated from the Canon Proper, and it is certainly valid, and indeed helpful to support that further from the Deuterocanonicals. No one is saying, and no-one said anyone said that the Deuterocanonicals contain everything necessary for salvation.

In another discussion I demonstrated a point using these passages

Numbers 21:8-9
And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.’ So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

John 3:14-15
And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:7
For the one who turned towards it was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Saviour of all.​

Whilst Numbers and John make sense the passage in John is better understood when you include the witness of the Wisdom of Solomon, which most scholars believe was intended by the author.

Ahhh - so I take it that you agree with their canonicity?

 

[MarysSon]

I believe Trent accomplished one canon whereas in the tradition of the Church there were actually a division of the canon fidei and canon morum.

For example, Roman Catholic historian and Council of Trent expert, Hubert Jedin in his tome Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent observes statements from Cardinal Seripando:

(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages [Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271].

[Link of quoted material: Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Cajetan's Quote on the Apocrypha is Fraudulent?]

Link of book quoted source book: Papal Legate at the Council of Trent

Note: for those not familiar with Cardinal Seripando:

Girolamo Cardinal Seripando [Catholic-Hierarchy]

And once again - it doesn't matter how many "personal" canons existed before the closing of the Canon at Tent. As I have stated - the guarantee that the Church would be led to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-16) was given to the CHURCH - not the individual.

Besides - it would seem that Cardinal Seripando DIDN'T do his homework.
As Jerome himself stated - the ONLY reason he had misgivings about the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical Books was because of the protests from the Jews at the time whose counsel he caught in translating the OT to Latin. They (The Jews) held to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple canon after having ejected the Deuterocanonicals from their canon.

 

[Philip_B]

Ahhh - so I take it that you agree with their canonicity?

I think my formal position on their canonicity is clear. I have also expressed a private opinion that I believe that there is a very good argument for them to be part of the canon. I am for the moment happy or them to be deuterocanonical.

On a personal note, I am find you frequent use of bolding, bolding + underline, bolding + italics, bolding + underline + italics, coupled with occasional Upper Case makes your posts difficult to read, and rather than helping me absorb meaning I am distracted from the text. Clearly all these things have a place and a function, but for myself (and for others I imagine), could I ask you, please, for some restraint in their use in order that I may more easily comprehend what you have to say.

 

[MarysSon]

I think my formal position on their canonicity is clear. I have also expressed a private opinion that I believe that there is a very good argument for them to be part of the canon. I am for the moment happy or them to be deuterocanonical.

On a personal note, I am find you frequent use of bolding, bolding + underline, bolding + italics, bolding + underline + italics, coupled with occasional Upper Case makes your posts difficult to read, and rather than helping me absorb meaning I am distracted from the text. Clearly all these things have a place and a function, but for myself (and for others I imagine), could I ask you, please, for some restraint in their use in order that I may more easily comprehend what you have to say.

The Deuterocanonical books ARE part of the Canon of Scripture . . .

 

[Philip_B]

The Deuterocanonical books ARE part of the Canon of Scripture . . .

In your Church, yes they are. I have no problem with that. I accept that, and I accept that you have a position on that. Indeed I think I have been exceedingly clear about my understanding and acceptance of that.

I hope I HAVE been clear on that!

 

[redleghunter]

And once again - it doesn't matter how many "personal" canons existed before the closing of the Canon at Tent. As I have stated - the guarantee that the Church would be led to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-16) was given to the CHURCH - not the individual.

Besides - it would seem that Cardinal Seripando DIDN'T do his homework.
As Jerome himself stated - the ONLY reason he had misgivings about the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical Books was because of the protests from the Jews at the time whose counsel he caught in translating the OT to Latin. They (The Jews) held to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple canon after having ejected the Deuterocanonicals from their canon.

There is more, however it seems you are not interested in the scholarship on the matter.

I posted from a Roman Catholic historian and expert on Trent. Showing the tradition leading up to Trent. These were no rogue theologians or Cardinals but as pointed out the most respected of their time.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi, in fairness you are misreading the intent. I was simply addressing the point that the Anglican position on the Deuterocanonicals namely that they are helpful and good for instruction, however whilst they can be used to support a doctrine, for a doctrine to be seen as essential it must be able to be demonstrated from the Canon Proper, and it is certainly valid, and indeed helpful to support that further from the Deuterocanonicals. No one is saying, and no-one said anyone said that the Deuterocanonicals contain everything necessary for salvation.

In another discussion I demonstrated a point using these passages

Numbers 21:8-9
And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.’ So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

John 3:14-15
And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:7
For the one who turned towards it was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Saviour of all.​

Whilst Numbers and John make sense the passage in John is better understood when you include the witness of the Wisdom of Solomon, which most scholars believe was intended by the author.

I believe you have nicely and clearly explained the tradition of the canon leading into Trent.

 

[MarysSon]

There is more, however it seems you are not interested in the scholarship on the matter.

I posted from a Roman Catholic historian and expert on Trent. Showing the tradition leading up to Trent. These were no rogue theologians or Cardinals but as pointed out the most respected of their time.

I don't know how many times I have to explain that no single Cardinal, bishop or priest - no matter HOW respected is the voice of the Magesterium. How ever many people disagreed with the Canon of Scripture that was declared by the Church in the 4th century and was reiterated MANY times after doesn't matter if the decision had already been made by the Holy Spirit. As I posted earlier:

During a period of 37 years at the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times.

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).
- At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

This was the position of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit.
Any dissenting opinions are irrelevant.

 

[MarysSon]

In your Church, yes they are. I have no problem with that. I accept that, and I accept that you have a position on that. Indeed I think I have been exceedingly clear about my understanding and acceptance of that.

I hope I HAVE been clear on that!

Just pointing out your attempt to differentiate between "canon" and "deuterocanon" - as if they weren't both canonical.

 

[Philip_B]

Just pointing out your attempt to differentiate between "canon" and "deuterocanon" - as if they weren't both canonical.

I accept that I accept your position and that you accept my accepting your position and that you do not accept my position.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't know how many times I have to explain that no single Cardinal, bishop or priest - no matter HOW respected is the voice of the Magesterium. How ever many people disagreed with the Canon of Scripture that was declared by the Church in the 4th century and was reiterated MANY times after doesn't matter if the decision had already been made by the Holy Spirit. As I posted earlier:

During a period of 37 years at the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times.

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).
- At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

This was the position of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit.
Any dissenting opinions are irrelevant.

Please show me the declarations of each of the above councils and synods.

 

[Philip_B]

Yeah, much of the teachings deviated from the truth. For ex: Trinity in the Bible is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not according to political Nicene Creed that brings in co-equality.

To be frank I regard this claim as a bold assertion - I would hold that the Nicene Creed does not require the adjective which I take to be incorrect as well. Rather I would affirm that the Egalitarian nature of the Holy Trinity is attested to in Scripture and affirmed by both reason and tradition.

Not again. Paul is referring to OT when he wrote that. Scripture status for NT was developed only in fourth century by men with different canons.

Whilst the canon of the New Testament was not in stone at the time of the writing of the Pauline Corpus, neither was the Old Testment. On the basis of the evidence one would conclude that the reference is probably to the canon of the Septuagint which would also include he Deuterocanonicals.

Yes, without His words and life, no salvation. Salvation is not through elements of compressed bread and grape juice or wine taken frequently!

This is a straw man argument. You can not suggest that people say that, that it i not true, therefore what those people say is not true given the quiet fact that is not what they say, and not what the Bible says, though perhaps you should read Paul of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Righttruth]

How does that answer the question I posed to you?

Please answer my question.

Please indicate the reply no. to get back to your question