The Bible, as it is today, how did it come about, & what did Emperor Diocletian have to do with it?

[zeland2236]

The Bible, as we have it today, where did it come from, and what did the Emperor Diocletian have to do with it?​

Diocletian was Emperor of Rome from 284 to 305. Under his reign he instituted the last, and most intense persecution of the early Church. In 303 AD, Diocletian issued an edict ordering all Christian church buildings to be destroyed, and all sacred writings were to be surrendered to authorities to be burned. Most Christians in possession of any sacred writings would sooner die than surrender them. There was one problem however. There were writings that were known to be authentic and inspired, and writings that were known to be not so. However, there were some writings whose authenticity people were not sure about. So, there arose the question: “was a Christian required to die for a questionable piece of scripture’?

This was the impetus for deciding which writings were inspired, and which ones were not. It took about another hundred years for the inspired writings to be assembled into what we now know as the Bible.

The actual work of assembling the Bible, and determining what books should be included in it, was began by The Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and finished by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. These two African councils, under the guidance of St. Augustine, listed 46 books for the Old Testament, and 27 books for the New Testament. These findings were re-affirmed by the Council of Carthage in 419, sent to Rome and were approved by Pope Boniface I. From that date, all doubt, as to the inspired canon of scripture ceased. So it was the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible.

Now I have a few questions that have confused me for a long time, so I would appreciate any serious replies the readers of this post wish to offer.

I assume that all protestants accept the authority of the Bible, and yet they reject the Authority of the Church that gave us the Bible. If the Catholic Church has no authority, then the Bible has no authority. Either the Church was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it assembled the Bible or it wasn't. If it was, then the Catholic Church would know better than anyone else as to the correct meaning of the scriptures. (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18).

If it was not under the guidance of the Holy Sprite, then the whole Bible is suspect. Some have said that the Church made a mistake when they included the 7 books of the Apocrypha, if that is true, then what other errors did the Church make that we don't know about?

Second question. Is the Bible necessary for salvation? Any comments would be appreciated.




Both Catholic and Protestant historians confirm the above events. Below I have listed two sources.

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham. This book is available at Amazon, and online at the following link.
Where we got the bible

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham.

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/howbible.htm

Protestant source, “History of the Christian Church, Vol. lll – Nicene and post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, by Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893) Page 609 (see attached file below)

 

[Thedictator]

The early Church and the Catholic Church today are not the same, the name catholic was just one of many names used for the Church, also used was: Church of God, Church of Christ, Christian Church, The way, and many more other names. Not all of the early Churches recognized the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, most of the African and Eastern Churches never did recognize the illegal seizure of Power of the Pope. We really do not owe the Roman Catholic Church anything.

 

[Radagast]

This was the impetus for deciding which writings were inspired, and which ones were not.

False. We have lists of inspired books that go back before Diocletian.

I assume that all protestants accept the authority of the Bible, and yet they reject the Authority of the Church that gave us the Bible.

In the 4th century, the "Catholic Church" (as distinct from Orthodox Church) did not yet exist.

Some have said that the Church made a mistake when they included the 7 books of the Apocrypha, if that is true, then what other errors did the Church make that we don't know about?

Transubstantiation, Mariolatry, Indulgences, and the concept of the Papacy.

 

[Athanasius377]

I assume that all protestants accept the authority of the Bible, and yet they reject the Authority of the Church that gave us the Bible.

The church merely recognized which books were inspired. The church does not have the authority to "canonize" any book.

Either the Church was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it assembled the Bible or it wasn't

The church did not assemble a bible. Again it recognized which books were inspired.

Some have said that the Church made a mistake when they included the 7 books of the Apocrypha, if that is true, then what other errors did the Church make that we don't know about?

Have you read the Apocrypha? The superstition, laughable historical inaccuracies, giving a number of books of the OT that excludes the Apocrypha.

And by the way, that's not a typo. That is the number of books given by the council. Keep in mind Baruch was often attached to Jeremiah in the Greek Septuagint so it may simply be how the books were counted.

 

[zeland2236]

The early Church and the Catholic Church today are not the same, the name catholic was just one of many names used for the Church, also used was: Church of God, Church of Christ, Christian Church, The way, and many more other names. Not all of the early Churches recognized the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, most of the African and Eastern Churches never did recognize the illegal seizure of Power of the Pope. We really do not owe the Roman Catholic Church anything.

That is not true, they are the same and your facts are incorrect, because if you are correct the Christ was not true to his word to preserve his church from error, but I must say that your way of getting around the problem is unique.

I suppose you don't agree with the Protestant historian Phillip Schaff and his statements either.

Christ started the Catholic Church, and It will exist, free from error, till the end of time. (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:19). What do these two verses mean to you?

 

[zeland2236]

The church merely recognized which books were inspired. The church does not have the authority to "canonize" any book.


The church did not assemble a bible. Again it recognized which books were inspired.

Have you read the Apocrypha? The superstition, laughable historical inaccuracies, giving a number of books of the OT that excludes the Apocrypha.

And by the way, that's not a typo. That is the number of books given by the council. Keep in mind Baruch as often attached to Jeremiah so it may simply be how the books were counted.

Unfortunately, history does not agree with you.

 

[redleghunter]

The Bible, as we have it today, where did it come from, and what did the Emperor Diocletian have to do with it?​

Diocletian was Emperor of Rome from 284 to 305. Under his reign he instituted the last, and most intense persecution of the early Church. In 303 AD, Diocletian issued an edict ordering all Christian church buildings to be destroyed, and all sacred writings were to be surrendered to authorities to be burned. Most Christians in possession of any sacred writings would sooner die than surrender them. There was one problem however. There were writings that were known to be authentic and inspired, and writings that were known to be not so. However, there were some writings whose authenticity people were not sure about. So, there arose the question: “was a Christian required to die for a questionable piece of scripture’?

This was the impetus for deciding which writings were inspired, and which ones were not. It took about another hundred years for the inspired writings to be assembled into what we now know as the Bible.

The actual work of assembling the Bible, and determining what books should be included in it, was began by The Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and finished by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. These two African councils, under the guidance of St. Augustine, listed 46 books for the Old Testament, and 27 books for the New Testament. These findings were re-affirmed by the Council of Carthage in 419, sent to Rome and were approved by Pope Boniface I. From that date, all doubt, as to the inspired canon of scripture ceased. So it was the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible.

Now I have a few questions that have confused me for a long time, so I would appreciate any serious replies the readers of this post wish to offer.

I assume that all protestants accept the authority of the Bible, and yet they reject the Authority of the Church that gave us the Bible. If the Catholic Church has no authority, then the Bible has no authority. Either the Church was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it assembled the Bible or it wasn't. If it was, then the Catholic Church would know better than anyone else as to the correct meaning of the scriptures. (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18).

If it was not under the guidance of the Holy Sprite, then the whole Bible is suspect. Some have said that the Church made a mistake when they included the 7 books of the Apocrypha, if that is true, then what other errors did the Church make that we don't know about?

Second question. Is the Bible necessary for salvation? Any comments would be appreciated.




Both Catholic and Protestant historians confirm the above events. Below I have listed two sources.

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham. This book is available at Amazon, and online at the following link.
Where we got the bible

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham.

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/howbible.htm

Protestant source, “History of the Christian Church, Vol. lll – Nicene and post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, by Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893) Page 609 (see attached file below)

View attachment 230048

Please confirm if I am summarizing your position correctly.

You are arguing that human souls cannot determine what is or is not of Divine origin, that given this inability they require a self assured infallible magisterium to determine what is of God.

And based on this self assured infallible magisterium we should all thank the Roman Catholic church for giving us the Bible.

Did I get is right?

 

[FireDragon76]

The church merely recognized which books were inspired. The church does not have the authority to "canonize" any book.

Right, which is why traditionally Lutherans have an open canon and Zeland's argument just doesn't apply.

Luther himself was not all that dogmatic about which books exactly were inspired and which were not. "Whatever pushes Christ" was the crucial criteria. Of course, he also considered the best scholarship of the day, and harbored doubts about a number of New Testament books.

 

[Athanasius377]

Unfortunately, history does not agree with you.

Actually, it does agree with my position. There are several really good treatments of the subject if you are willing to invest the time. The first is Bruce Metzger's The canon of the New Testament, FF Bruce's The canon of Scripture, And Michael Krueger's The Canon Revisited. There are other works and I am sure someone else will can chime in with other good books. Even if you don't accept their conclusions you will at least know what the other side's position is.

 

[zeland2236]

Please confirm if I am summarizing your position correctly.

You are arguing that human souls cannot determine what is or is not of Divine origin, that given this inability they require a self assured infallible magisterium to determine what is of God.

And based on this self assured infallible magisterium we should all thank the Roman Catholic church for giving us the Bible.

Did I get is right?

Dear redleghunter,

Thanks for your reply. No, you have not exactly summarizing my position correctly. First of all, correct me if I am wrong, your use of the term "self assured" sounds a bit derogatory. In any event, let me restate what you think I said.

Christ is a God of infinite perfection and precision and as such, doesn't make mistakes. Christ came to earth and He founded His Church on the 12 apostles (the first Bishops of the Catholic Church). (Matthew 16:18-19) and Christ gave Peter and the apostle’s absolute authority to make rules and regulations to govern His church – “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Later in Matthew 18-18, He gives the same authority to all the apostles as a group: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” This is Christ’s assurance that when the Bishops meet in a council, they will be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Some people think that after a few hundred years the Catholic Church went off in to left field. This idea is most illogical and unscriptural. Is a God of infinite perfection and precision going to allow his Church to fall apart? NO!

Christ did not start a “Bible Believing” Church, He started a teaching Church, a Church which he promised to keep free from error “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Christ commanded the apostles to teach everything he had taught them (Matthew 28:19-29) “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Christ promised to be with his Church all days, even to the end of the world. This teaching authority is what we call the “Magisterium”. The Catholic Church is a necessary means of salvation, established by Christ, and it will exist, error free, for all time till the end of the world.

Is the Bible necessary for salvation? NO! The Bible did not come into existence till around 400 AD. So for the first 400 years of Christianity the people learned the faith from the teaching Church that Christ established. Also, until the invention of the printing press around the 16th Century, there effectively were no bibles for people to read. The few bibles that existed were in Latin, but most people couldn’t read, so effectively, for the first 1600 years of Christianity, there was no bible, so how did people learn the faith? They learned it from Christ’s teaching Church.

Now to answer your question: You are arguing that human souls cannot determine what is or is not of Divine origin, that given this inability they require a self-assured infallible magisterium to determine what is of God.

Some “human souls”, those inspired by God – prophets, gospel writers, councils of the church, can be inspired by God. But for you and I, the average person in the pew, we need an infallible source or authority to give us the correct meaning of the scriptures. Do you know why we need a central authority to give us the correct interpretation of the scriptures? Because the Bible says so.

“15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:15-17).

Here Peter has given a perfect description of Protestantism – “the error of the unwise”, the fallacies of an every man is his own pope, religion. Private interpretation of scripture is condemned by the Bible (2 Peter 1:20; and 2 Peter 3:15-17).

Do you have eyes to see? Just look at the proliferation of errors of Protestantism’s man-made system of theology that for the last 500 years (from the time of Martin Luther) has produced one error upon another, an accumulation of hundreds of errors that has splintered into thousands of Protestant churches (see attached chart by Time-Life Magazine), teaching ideas that were never taught by the early church, or the apostles (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30). All because if the lack of a divinely instituted and guided central authority.

Lastly, I am not saying that you should thank the Roman Catholic Church for giving us the Bible, but you should at least be aware that she did so.

May I suggest that you watch the following interview, as it will shed much light on our discussion. Dr. Anders was a Presbyterian historian who did his Ph.D. in Reformation history.

I hope this helps.

zeland

 

[redleghunter]

First of all, correct me if I am wrong, your use of the term "self assured" sounds a bit derogatory. In any event, let me restate what you think I said.

No sir it was not derogatory.

Your OP in certain terms is telling the world the Catholic church gave us the Bible so we must listen to her for truth. Then you just responded to me at length that the church derived its authority from the Bible.

You have the Bible as being authoritative because the Church gave it that authority. But you then tell us that the church receives this authority from Holy Scriptures.

A bit circular isn't it?

Therefore, the infallible authority the church claims must be self assured. Because if you say such authority came from Holy Scriptures, then the church obviously did not make the Scriptures authoritative in the first place.

 

[zeland2236]

No sir it was not derogatory.

Your OP in certain terms is telling the world the Catholic church gave us the Bible so we must listen to her for truth. Then you just responded to me at length that the church derived its authority from the Bible.

You have the Bible as being authoritative because the Church gave it that authority. But you then tell us that the church receives this authority from Holy Scriptures.

A bit circular isn't it?

Therefore, the infallible authority the church claims must be self assured. Because if you say such authority came from Holy Scriptures, then the church obviously did not make the Scriptures authoritative in the first place.

Dear Red,
OK, I stand corrected on the derogatory point.

Now you have misread something. The authority of the Church comes directly from Christ. I merely pointed out where the Bible shows that. The Church existed before the bible. The bible gets its authority from the Church, and the Church gets it's authority from Christ.

Quoting St. Augustine "But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”

zeland

PS, Did you watch Dr. Anders interview?

 

[zeland2236]

Dear Red,
OK, I stand corrected on the derogatory point.

Now you have misread something. The authority of the Church comes directly from Christ. I merely pointed out where the Bible shows that. The Church existed before the bible. The bible gets its authority from the Church, and the Church gets it's authority from Christ.

Quoting St. Augustine "But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”

zeland

PS, Did you watch Dr. Anders interview?

 

[Athanasius377]

Luther himself was not all that dogmatic about which books exactly were inspired and which were not. "Whatever pushes Christ" was the crucial criteria. Of course, he also considered the best scholarship of the day, and harbored doubts about a number of New Testament books.

True. Although Luther was also recounting some of the disputes as told to us from Eusebius among others. I don't think later Lutherans such as Chemnitz were open as Luther was. At least that's my reading.

 

[Lost4words]

Dear redleghunter,

Thanks for your reply. No, you have not exactly summarizing my position correctly. First of all, correct me if I am wrong, your use of the term "self assured" sounds a bit derogatory. In any event, let me restate what you think I said.

Christ is a God of infinite perfection and precision and as such, doesn't make mistakes. Christ came to earth and He founded His Church on the 12 apostles (the first Bishops of the Catholic Church). (Matthew 16:18-19) and Christ gave Peter and the apostle’s absolute authority to make rules and regulations to govern His church – “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Later in Matthew 18-18, He gives the same authority to all the apostles as a group: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” This is Christ’s assurance that when the Bishops meet in a council, they will be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Some people think that after a few hundred years the Catholic Church went off in to left field. This idea is most illogical and unscriptural. Is a God of infinite perfection and precision going to allow his Church to fall apart? NO!

Christ did not start a “Bible Believing” Church, He started a teaching Church, a Church which he promised to keep free from error “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Christ commanded the apostles to teach everything he had taught them (Matthew 28:19-29) “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Christ promised to be with his Church all days, even to the end of the world. This teaching authority is what we call the “Magisterium”. The Catholic Church is a necessary means of salvation, established by Christ, and it will exist, error free, for all time till the end of the world.

Is the Bible necessary for salvation? NO! The Bible did not come into existence till around 400 AD. So for the first 400 years of Christianity the people learned the faith from the teaching Church that Christ established. Also, until the invention of the printing press around the 16th Century, there effectively were no bibles for people to read. The few bibles that existed were in Latin, but most people couldn’t read, so effectively, for the first 1600 years of Christianity, there was no bible, so how did people learn the faith? They learned it from Christ’s teaching Church.

Now to answer your question: You are arguing that human souls cannot determine what is or is not of Divine origin, that given this inability they require a self-assured infallible magisterium to determine what is of God.

Some “human souls”, those inspired by God – prophets, gospel writers, councils of the church, can be inspired by God. But for you and I, the average person in the pew, we need an infallible source or authority to give us the correct meaning of the scriptures. Do you know why we need a central authority to give us the correct interpretation of the scriptures? Because the Bible says so.

“15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:15-17).

Here Peter has given a perfect description of Protestantism – “the error of the unwise”, the fallacies of an every man is his own pope, religion. Private interpretation of scripture is condemned by the Bible (2 Peter 1:20; and 2 Peter 3:15-17).

Do you have eyes to see? Just look at the proliferation of errors of Protestantism’s man-made system of theology that for the last 500 years (from the time of Martin Luther) has produced one error upon another, an accumulation of hundreds of errors that has splintered into thousands of Protestant churches (see attached chart by Time-Life Magazine), teaching ideas that were never taught by the early church, or the apostles (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-30). All because if the lack of a divinely instituted and guided central authority.

Lastly, I am not saying that you should thank the Roman Catholic Church for giving us the Bible, but you should at least be aware that she did so.

May I suggest that you watch the following interview, as it will shed much light on our discussion. Dr. Anders was a Presbyterian historian who did his Ph.D. in Reformation history.

I hope this helps.

zeland

View attachment 230130

Well written and seems about right to me.

 

[redleghunter]

Now you have misread something. The authority of the Church comes directly from Christ.

Yet we find that out from what exactly? The correct answer is the New Testament. Or is it your point none of the NT was authoritative until the 3rd or 4th century?

I merely pointed out where the Bible shows that.

That's because the words of Christ and the apostles were written down in their own time and became authoritative once spoken and written down. To make the assertion the words of Christ and the apostles were not authoritative until the church said so hundreds of years later does not line up with history. The apostolic fathers and early fathers quoted from the 27 books of the NT long before there was a Latin Vulgate Bible. And called them Scriptures.

Early Christian NT References

Did the early fathers quote from the NT books because the church made them authoritative or did they quote them because they were authoritative as being of apostolic origin?

Irenaeus makes this clear:

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

The Church existed before the bible.

You mean the Latin Vulgate Bible. I agree, but the church was never without the OT and the writings of the NT authors. The church and NT writings were concomitant as Irenaeus points out.

The bible gets its authority from the Church, and the Church gets it's authority from Christ.

The question is how do you know that?

We only know the commands and words of Christ through the received writings of the apostles. So you are still claiming you get your authority from Scriptures, yet the church somehow made those same Sciriptures authoritative. It's a form of the self licking ice cream cone clause. Or circular argument.

What's interesting is your words above make the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures a servant to Rome.

PS, Did you watch Dr. Anders interview?

I don't subscribe to Doctrinal Development as does Rome.

 

[redleghunter]

Right, which is why traditionally Lutherans have an open canon and Zeland's argument just doesn't apply.

Luther himself was not all that dogmatic about which books exactly were inspired and which were not. "Whatever pushes Christ" was the crucial criteria. Of course, he also considered the best scholarship of the day, and harbored doubts about a number of New Testament books.

Luther was actually a moderate when it came to the disputed OT and NT books. There were more zealous Roman Catholic cardinals at Trent who argued against making the deuterocanon books as part of the protocanon. As you know being a student of Church history it was not so neat and tidy as our Roman friends present.

The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, waded into the dispute leading up to and during Trent. He noted one respected theologian stanchly loyal to the Pope, Cardinal Seripando. Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin elaborates:

“[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. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasizedthat in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. 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.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

Jedin continues:

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin also adds later:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse…Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

 

[Radagast]

Some people think that after a few hundred years the Catholic Church went off in to left field.

The Counter-Reformation itself recognised the fact that the Catholic Church had gone off the rails by Luther's time.

Is a God of infinite perfection and precision going to allow his Church to fall apart?

Possibly the Catholic Church isn't God's Church, then.

The Bible did not come into existence till around 400 AD.

False.

The OT was there in Jesus' time, and the NT was all written before 100. The Gospel, Acts, and Pauline Epistles were recognised as canonical very early on.

Lastly, I am not saying that you should thank the Roman Catholic Church for giving us the Bible, but you should at least be aware that she did so.

I got my Old Testament from the Jews.

I got my Greek New Testament from the Orthodox.

The Catholic Church did give us some things, though... like the Inquisition.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Bible, as we have it today, where did it come from, and what did the Emperor Diocletian have to do with it?​

The actual work of assembling the Bible, and determining what books should be included in it, was began by The Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and finished by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. These two African councils, under the guidance of St. Augustine, listed 46 books for the Old Testament, and 27 books for the New Testament. These findings were re-affirmed by the Council of Carthage in 419, sent to Rome and were approved by Pope Boniface I. From that date, all doubt, as to the inspired canon of scripture ceased.

That is pure prevaricating propaganda. In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther!


● Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther (which never actually mentions God and its canonicity was disputed among Jews for some time) among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia)
Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.
● The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults
● John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.
● The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture)
● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)
His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
● Likewise Rufinus:
38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.
These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon of Scripture)
●Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)
● The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] 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 (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

Furthermore, the (standard) RC objection against the Protestant lack of an assuredly true and reliable complete canon via an infallible magisterium would also apply to the majority of RC history, in addition to the time of Christ, despite the Lord and the apostles referencing so many OT writings as as being the word of God, as being Scripture, as having authority, which their opposition never contended against as being so.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So it was the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible. Now I have a few questions that have confused me for a long time, so I would appreciate any serious replies the readers of this post wish to offer.

I assume that all protestants accept the authority of the Bible, and yet they reject the Authority of the Church that gave us the Bible. If the Catholic Church has no authority, then the Bible has no authority. [/FONT]

As your premise is false, so also is your conclusion. It is not an infallible church that is essential for knowing what writings are of God, or gives authority to Scripture but the latter began upon the prophetic and doctrinal foundation of Scripture.

The question for you is, if an infallible magisterium is essential for assuredly knowing what is of God (writing and men), as Catholicism presumes, then how could an authoritative body of inspired writings be established by the time of Christ?

And if the valid historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation are the infallible authorities on what it is and means, then 1st century souls should have submitted to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses, rather than following itinerant Scripture-quoting preachers.

Either the Church was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it assembled the Bible or it wasn't. If it was, then the Catholic Church would know better than anyone else as to the correct meaning of the scriptures. (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18).

Besides your false premise that assuredly knowing what writings are of God requires an infallible authority, that a correct judgment means all else the authority says is correct is a logical fallacy. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

If it was not under the guidance of the Holy Sprite, then the whole Bible is suspect. Some have said that the Church made a mistake when they included the 7 books of the Apocrypha, if that is true, then what other errors did the Church make that we don't know about?

Once again, as your premise is false so also is your conclusion. While conciliar decrees can be correct and important, the progressive corporate establishment of inspired writings as well as of men as being of God and thus authoritative is essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation.

Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)

Which is what is lacking today. Catholicism presumes too much of an office, and too little of Scripture, the only substantive body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and in which she is substantially <a href="Deformation of the New Testament Church and context of the Reformation "> absent and contrary to </a>, while evangelicalism presumes too much of Scripture as far as practical authority is concerned, and too little of the magisterial office established thereby. The rest of Protestantism fails more. And both (and I) fail of the degree of holiness and faith the prima NT church exampled needed for the church of the living God to manifest itself as being so, and as grounded in and supporting the Truth. Time for greater repentance.

Second question. Is the Bible necessary for salvation? Any comments would be appreciated.

Yes and no: The word of God is essential, and God provided a very limited scope of revelation of His character, power, will and ways to a very limited scope of people such as Adam, Lamech, Enoch, Abraham etc. But when it was time to reveal Himself and His character, power, will and way far more fully to a nation, and preserve it, then He did so in writing. Which is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.

It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word. (2 Chronicles 34:15)

One can hear Scriptural Truth without a Bible and become born again. However, just as the church began on the prophetic and doctrinal foundation of Scripture, so any claim to be preaching the word of God is subject to testing by Scripture, just as that of the apostles was. (Acts 17:11)

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham.

But again, consistent with your logic that the magisterial stewards of Divine revelation are the infallible authorities on what it is and means, then 1st century souls should have submitted to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses, rather than following itinerant Scripture-quoting preachers.[/QUOTE]