Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok, so you've determined the quantity of controvery that's allowable in this particualrlar case?
True, the east actually included even more books in their canon. As for the differences, the east and west agree on the teachings that the Reformers objected to.
The controversy spans centuries.
The east does not agree with the papacy or its power and neither did the reformers in general.
There was a relatively tiny amount of controversy compared to acceptance within the ancient chruches until today. Meanwhile the Reformers had issues with both canons.
And that has exactly nothing to do with the doctrinal objections to the apocrypha.
Tiny? It was not tiny.
I replied to what you posted regarding the differences between east and west. Your post is below. The power of the papacy, and sometimes the papacy itself, was part of the objections during the reformation.
Relative to the consensus as demonstrated by the canon actually used, yes, tiny. You've listed a handful of dissenters, which means nothing much in itself.
And you know as well as I that the discussion centered on the acrocrypha -and why the Reformers would be motivated to reject it due to theological differences between it and some of their positions.
You really don’t get it. The controversy was large and not just about the CC deuterocanonical books but the other books that were added and then removed as evidenced by the different books between the east and the western churches and between the different proposed books to include in different councils.
There are indeed books of the apocrypha that supports CC doctrines like purgatory for example. But the end goal of the reformers regarding the apocrypha was to remove them from the canonical books and relegate them to a different section where the books should not be used to determine matters of doctrine. You see that in the KJV of the times which included the apocrypha but apart from the inspired texts. This would return the apocrypha to where it was before the CC included them along the inspired texts. The reformers, just like the group there I cited above, did not believe that the books of the apocrypha were inspired.
You're not getting it. It's a matter of who decides. You? Or the Church? This individual or that? Not even Augustine could make that decision for the Church even though he agreed with the Catholic canon. The Church decided-and ran with- that's its job, whether small and persecuted or big and powerful. There is no controversy.
There was no place where the books were originally relegated. They were contested by some while others, at council as it should be done, decided on the matter-and later councils consistently reconfirmed the same, correct, decision.
The value to not commit adultery does not hinge upon the 7th commandment. it's there implicitly from the marriage covenant, which is legally binding. When you set it as the law of your life, the product of which will be not to commit adultery (or at least that's the goal). This is a good product/goal, and I'm not saying these are not good things to keep, but they don't touch upon the deeper heart issues or values where our motivations come from. This root issue with your friend is not whether adultery (or having a second partner, etc...) is moral/immoral. That's the superficial symptom of a much deeper-seated issue. He may blindly keep the 7th commandment and not commit adultery, but this does not critically address the deeper moral compass that tells him to go somewhere else. This is the problem of the 10; they do not critically address the issues, but rather are focused on outward superficial morality that hopes to calibrate inwardly. Christ's approach is flipping this, where we address the inward first, and our outward actions are an outflowing.
Here is your bias in full display. We discussed earlier the errancy of man and that man runs the church so is not a matter of “the” church deciding anything but a matter of men deciding things. Men, even those is high positions in the church, are open to the biases that power and self serving decisions bring. Some have a pet doctrines and arguments for or against doctrines that they choose to take. The history of your church perfectly shows how corruption becomes like a cancer and has to be removed. The head of the church is Jesus not some elected official.
I disagree and I posted evidence to that effect. So now is your turn.
They were relegated to “good to read” but not for deciding matters of doctrine. This is how the people that I cited and the council of Laodicia thought of them.
No, it's just wisdom being displayed: coming to understand how God works in His world.
That's certainly not a position I offered. What we discussed was that God ensures that we have a means to know the truth with a degree of certainty DESPITE man's weaknesses, limitations, imperfection and sin. He works in and through the human-populated Church that He established to hold, preserve, and proclaim that truth.
Then you, as well, are prone to error. unless you're exclusively and infallibly immune to such things.
Yes, that the point. While many people disagreed on the correct contents of the NT canon, and Reformers continued to stir that controvery up again centuries later, God's church nonetheless presented the world with a particular canon and then consistently continued to use the same one until this day. The practical and messy and mundane steps of human involvement in this process is essential-and you're just speculating on or imagining how it worked.
Yes, God inspired the books of Scripture-and many other books were surrounded in controversy as well, including the antilegomena, but God managed to provide His church with the correct canon nonetheless, just as God used men in Jerusalem to settle a dispute involving legalism in Acts 15 or to work out the doctrine of the Trinity in Nicaea when heretical views arose.
So what is that-besides your infallbile dogmatic personal opinion as influenced by a group of men some 5 centuries ago?
You provided no evidence as to the canon that the Church actually USED-only evidence that shows that some people disagreed with the church. What else is new?
The Council of Laodicea rejected the Book of Revelation and added other books that are rejected by all today. Fortunately by the hand of God the larger church did not recognize nor sanction the decisions made at that local council, as it has done at times when appropriate in the case of some other local councils.
To this day the church teaches that constant renewal of the Church and continuous conversion of its people, leaders and laity alike, is essential. Vigilance, due to human weakness and sin, is sometimes lacking as it was in the Assembly of God church I used to attend where scandal ended up destroying it. People do bad things. Does that mean that God's "deposit of faith", the teachings He gave us, are necessarily corrupted? Not at all; people just fail to heed those teachings, finding ways to disobey them, following Adam's lead in Eden with or without any claims of theirs to the contrary. The human heart can be quite deceitful, and prideful, and covetous, etc.
So we ignore the 7th comandment but still need to be cognizant of another bit of legality, the marriage contract? Either way, nothing was said about setting the commandment as the law of one's life, but of the benefit of simply having awareness of the law even while one might actually be trying to avoid and ignore it, and how it ended up affecting the heart as that law contributed to initiating and informing an internal struggle. IOW, the law still serves its role as a tutor and a "convictor of sin", of showing us our failure to love to put it best- even as it has no power to cause us to comply and obey in the way God desires, by the heart.
That’s quite the OP-Ed you wrote there. No evidence but all opinion. I’ve been providing evidence for the last few posts showing that the Apocrypha was not universally accepted by the 6th century and you have not posted any evidence of your own. I work with evidence not opinion. So I’m going to answer your post with I disagree with your opinion until you can provide evidence that we can discuss.
Nonsense. Aside from avoiding plenty of specific points I made, for some reason you accept the contemporary new testament canon even tho it still wasn't universally accepted in the16th century. And it's been clearly demonstrated that the Catholic Church for its part continously used the same 73 book bible from at least the 4th century until this very day! And meanwhile the eastern churches from ancient times till now haven't done things much differently. And that defines the actual usage of practically the entire Christian world for centuries.
Nonsense? From the one that has not provided one shred of evidence? That’s rich. It seems that the times that we’ve had a conversation you turn quite dismissive when asked for evidence. You need to understand that the object here is not to win the argument at all costs but to have an exchange and examination of evidence. That is how we further understanding. Bye now. You can now have the last word.
Indeed, and this is why we don't need the 10 because we have the HS. I'm not ignoring the 10 but that doesn't mean its the thing that leads me, it doesn't because it only has superficial results and quite frankly I'm not interested in superficial results. your friend needs Christ, not the 10, even after he has gone through it the hard way, he still needs Christ, not the 10, and his wife and person he commit adultery with all need Christ not the 10. no amount of repeating "thou shall not commit adultery" until it is all they can think of changes this.
But why would anyone need that community if the HS is all we need? The ten flow from the HS, BTW, they're not opposed to His will.
And yet the bible instructs us to do that very thing: to steer sinners from their sin when we're aware of it.
but it's a cut and paste version. if you smuggle in the 10 based on his will then what about the rest of his will? Ex 24 is the first covenant of the 10 but it is not just the 10 and that is quite clear in the passage. who told you to separate the 10 from God's law? what authority do you have to do this? Jesus doesn't isolate the 10, his reference is the whole thing.
the 10 only do this superficallly. your friend was overwhelmed with lust for another and in that pressure he buckled. what power does the 10 have to prevent this? would naming it have reduced that lust or act upon it? his actions are of that of his own kingdom, not of God's, he did not deny himself in his actions he denies Christ, this didn't have to be adultery, it could have been anything (even things uncommented in the 10). overlap does not mean authority, it is only Christ.
The ancient churches and the ECFs retained the ten, and Jesus and Paul both spoke of the ten specifically, as being the commandments that fulfull the law, as the commandments that mean eternal life as they're obeyed. There's a reason for all that because, for one thing, contrary to some contrary theologies, man must be righteous/obedient and live accordingly in order to enter heaven. The fact that the only way to do that is by and with the Holy Spirit does not change the fact that it must be done. So the law, cut and paste or otherwise, remains handy. That's not by my authority but that's obviously what the churches received. The rest is speculation.
He never committed adultery-that was part of the point because apart from his faith, which includes and is the object of knowledge received, which also includes the law, he'd probably never have resisted, he wouldn’t have had the presence of God with him, the grace with which to fight the battle.
