abacabb3,
I (and others) have offered you the answers inline and I have also pointed you to other content that painfully details answers.
AMR, you need to come to grips that you are digging up again feelings you have from another thread (I am presuming the one on Confessionalism). No one else on this thread has accused me of defending the Catholic position, this is something that you have only come up with.
In my first post, I stated my position:
From a historical and interpretive viewpoint they don't "feel" canonical, nor do they appear to generally make the claim. However, I don't find anything heretical taken within the proper context and the works are useful for understanding inter-testmental Israel, so why is there the big to-do?
Several times I have written things like the following:
Being that I believe the LBC 1689, outside the issue of the Sabbath, is a good synopsis of what the Christian faith is, I am not here arguing in favor of the Deutero-canon's canonicity. However, we need to have reasons for our convictions summarized in these confessions. I would like to tease these reasons out.
Now, if you would have read what I wrote at face value, that might have settled it. However, because you expect everyone else to be of the same sort of mindset as it pertains to Confessionalism, you appear incapable in this conversation of offering a rationale that defends the position of the Confession. I should, afterall, just accept what the Confession says at face value.
However, the Confessions are a summation of beliefs, they are not a rationale for all our beliefs. And, in the dozes of threads I have started in Semper Reformada (a few inveighing against Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism), I have always offered and sought after rationales on pertinent topics.
I have asked for yours and you have retreated behind a Confession and strong-armed tactics into intimidating me with moderation.
Such tactics are not becoming for you and everything you have said thus far do not reflect highly upon your ability to even explain why you believe what you believe.
In my second post I wrote:
The question is based upon what authority are they not inspired by the Spirit?
In response, the answers I have received have been, "Well, the only the Spirit inspired the real Scriptures." Intellectually, you must be able to ascertain this is hardly a compelling answer to the question to someone who does not share our convictions, because they can simply answer the same. So, for the rest of the thread I have been "poking and prodding" so we can get into the evidence that the Holy Spirit has spoken through only the genuine Canon.
...all the while never offering up your own rationale for why these extra-biblical books should be excluded...
-
"they don't "feel" canonical"
-
"nor do they appear to generally make the claim"
-
"the Jews were "entrusted with the oracles of God."
-
"The fact they are called "the second canon" heavily mitigates them being equivalent to Scripture anyhow"
I wrote all of these things in this thread before you just made that unsubstantiated accusation against me. You are simply wrong, and I would appreciate an apology.
...even going so far to say that you see nothing particularly in error as long as "context" is considered.
Why is this a bad thing? Baruch defends monergism. Wisdom of Solomon accurately prophesies our Lord's passion. Some of the suspect passages given proper interpretation (not only according to me, but thinkers such as James WHite) do not defend the positions the RCC think they do.
And now you become indignant when I question your motives?
Of course, because you made patently false accusations and even when politely prodded, have not defended what you actually believed but instead overtly tried to intimidate me. You have taken a thread, which was meant to be useful in discussing the Deuterocanon, and have turned it into a litmus test where unless someone adopts an identical mindset as yours, they are "not reformed." Being that I have done nothing here to reject Reformed thought, any Confession, or anything of the sort, you have way overstepped your bounds.
It is only after all this provocation, that you finally state your true intent: "For those wondering, I am picking the minds of people here so that I can defend the Protestant view of Canon to Catholics. I am seeing presuppositions here, but not a rationale that actually defends why we exclude the Deuterocanon."
This is quite simply wrong. I have already stated my intent before that post. You are not paying attention, you owe me an apology. See post 10, I already quoted it in this reply.
Why is it you did not lead with this statement rather than the obtuse tactics up to this point?
I did not anticipate the obtuseness in how the Canon would be defended. I am actually surprised that
I am the only person in this thread to offer a rationale beyond "the Holy Spirit bears witness to only the Canon as we know it." I did not have to think I would have to ask a very simple question, "Why can't anyone make that claim, what's your proof that the Holy Spirit so does testify?"
I still have not received an answer. Ironically, I have done the msot to answer the question that I myself asked.
Do you honestly think your heretofore hidden approach of adopting a contrary view of the canon would not raise the heat felt by those of us who are Reformed in our thinking?
It has only raised your heat, I do not sense animosity in anyone else's posts. Nor do I see the patently inaccurate accusations in their replies which are found in yours.
I mean, why was there a need to play whack-a-mole games like this in this safe-haven forum where our views should be quite clear?
Just because you are a mod, I ask you as a Christian brother, do not make reference to this unless I have broken the rules. You should be ashamed because I have quoted in this reply explicit evidence that your accusations are in error. Being that they are in error, and I have done nothing to violate the rules, you should not raise the spectre of the ramifications of breaking rules.
You have continued to overlook the confessional content provided, claiming it is assertions only.
"Continued?" You offered one link in your previous reply. "Continued" implies you have offered outside evidence more than once, which you have not.
Let's put this very simply:
- Why is the canon received by the church? (Catholic can ask the same)
--- the heavenliness of the matter, (Catholic can claim the same)
--- the efficacy of the doctrine, (Catholic can claim the same)
--- the majesty of the style, (Catholic can claim the same)
--- the consent of all the parts, (Catholic can claim the same)
--- the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), (Catholic can claim the same)
--- the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, (Catholic can claim the same, as long is that this is consistent with their views on the Role of the RCC. Obviously they do not uphold Sola Scriptura.)
--- the many other incomparable excellencies, and (Catholic can claim the same)
--- the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: (Catholic can claim the same)
--- yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, (<--implying the characteristics stated above) (Catholic can claim the same)
- is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (Catholic can claim the same)
As you can see, I have not "continued" to ignore any of these points. They are essentially summed up as "the Holy Spirit testifies..." but a Catholic can simply make the same claim. I ask you again, I think this is the 3rd or 4th time, why are you correct in saying the Holy Spirit so testifies and the Catholic is wrong?
Now you can continue to claim the above are but mere assertions devoid of rationale, but I must disagree. The rationale is clearly spelled out in the confessional statements that accurately summarize the teachings Scripture so cited therein.
The rationales you have provided are insufficient in the defense of the Deuterocanon to those who do not adhere to the Confession. I totally understnad what the COnfession is getting at. I can "feel" the Holy Spirit does indeed testify. I have said so in the OP. However, how we "feel" is not a compelling argument to those who do not share our convictions.
When you review C. Daniel's content on the same topic, you will find detailed discussion of the hyphenated items I list above from the confession.
I will happily review it when you stop throwing false accusations, apologizing for the ones you have made, and address the issue as to why we can feel secure the Holy Spirit does indeed testify.
