Which Canon is Right? With Michael Kruger

[BBAS 64]

There's only one church, there can only be one church, by whatever name. And it's not divided over basic beliefs. So, for example. the church assembled the writings of NT Scripture as well as the entire canon of the bible and hammered out the doctrine of the Trinity. The church teaches that baptism regenerates and that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and that a believer may compromise his state of justice and so lose his salvation and that salvation involves a journey throughout whatever time God grants us in this life with whatever time and opportunity and grace and knowlege/revelation we have to work out our salvation, after which God decides our eternal destinies. And that's consistent with Scripture and the ECFs as well.

Good Day, Fhansen

consider:

No, the Church Didn’t Create the Bible

Now the Roman denomination has defined for herself her own Canon at Trent, that would be correct.

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

Most non- Roman Christians use the Jewish OT, as they received the oracle of God.

In Him,

Bill

 

[fhansen]

Good Day, Fhansen

consider:

No, the Church Didn’t Create the Bible

Now the Roman denomination has defined for herself her own Canon at Trent, that would be correct.

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

Most non- Roman Christians use the Jewish OT, as they received the oracle of God.

In Him,

Bill

After the fact, some latter day Christians have used a version of the Jewish OT canon. The date of its establishment is debated as well as whether or not there even exists a fixed Jewish canon in the manner in which Christians have conceived and defintively determined theirs to be. But note that the Jews also did not accept Jesus as messiah, and Christians do not perform animal sacrifices for sin, and Pharisees and Sadducees held contradictory beliefs over signficant matters and there's quite a bunch that we do not blindly accept from any other religion. God's church was given the authority to understand and to teach His will, having received the basic teachings from the beginning. And then to decide on matters as they become controversial, assemble the canon as necessary, etc. Someone has to do it.

As to the authorship, these are sound teaching IMO:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[pescador]

There's only one church, there can only be one church, by whatever name. And it's not divided over basic beliefs. So, for example. the church assembled the writings of NT Scripture as well as the entire canon of the bible and hammered out the doctrine of the Trinity. The church teaches that baptism regenerates and that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and that a believer may compromise his state of justice and so lose his salvation and that salvation involves a journey throughout whatever time God grants us in this life with whatever time and opportunity and grace and knowlege/revelation we have to work out our salvation, after which God decides our eternal destinies. And that's consistent with Scripture and the ECFs as well.

Saying that "there's only one church, there can only be one church, by whatever name. And it's not divided over basic beliefs" is not scriptural. While there is one body of Christ, there are many denominations, each with its own doctrine.

Have a look at the beginning of Revelation. "To the seven churches in the province of Asia..."

Seven churches written about by the Apostle John, each with its own pluses and minuses.

For example, Revelation 2:1-7...

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God."

So should I believe you or Scripture?

 

[fhansen]

Saying that "there's only one church, there can only be one church, by whatever name. And it's not divided over basic beliefs" is not scriptural. While there is one body of Christ, there are many denominations, each with its own doctrine.

Have a look at the beginning of Revelation. "To the seven churches in the province of Asia..."

Seven churches written about by the Apostle John, each with its own pluses and minuses.

For example, Revelation 2:1-7...

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God."

So should I believe you or Scripture?

Oh, ok, I'll take it back; God prefers cafeteria style, with confusion and disagreement abounding. That way everyone can be satisfied. Baptism regenerates and it absolutely does not, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and He's not at all: it's just an occasional memorial service type-thing, infant baptism is valid and it's not, Jesus is God and He's not, man is justifed by faith alone but not by faith alone, all plausibly enough supported by Scripture alone.

 

[pescador]

Oh, ok, I'll take it back; God prefers cafeteria style, with confusion and disagreement abounding. That way everyone can be satisfied. Baptism regenerates and it absolutely does not, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and He's not at all: it's just an occasional memorial service type-thing, infant baptism is valid and it's not, Jesus is God and He's not, man is justifed by faith alone but not by faith alone, all plausibly enough supported by Scripture alone.

Are you really that confused? I will pray for you to gain better understanding of Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Are you really that confused? I will pray for you to gain better understanding of Scripture.

Oh, PLEASE, why not just enlighten me with your astute understanding instead? Why just hold it to yourself? Not particularly charitable ya know . But maybe I'm a lost cause. But give me a chance anyway. Proclaim your infallible truths.

 

[pescador]

Oh, PLEASE, why not just enlighten me with your astute understanding instead? Why just hold it to yourself? Not particularly charitable ya know . But maybe I'm a lost cause. But give me a chance anyway. Proclaim your infallible truths.

You don't want to "listen" to what I write so I won't waste my time.

John 8:31-32, "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

 

[fhansen]

You don't want to "listen" to what I write so I won't waste my time.

John 8:31-32, "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

You're right, between the two I'll listen to Him.

 

[pescador]

You're right, between the two I'll listen to Him.

Good choice! Why have you waited until now?

 

[fhansen]

Good choice! Why have you waited until now?

Havent had to wait-started a long time ago. And you may be there too, I dont know as while I've stated some basic tenets of the faith revealed to us by Christ you've only witheld your knowledge so far-and apparently supported the idea that a lack of unity in the faith is ok anyway?

 

[The Liturgist]

Good Day, Chevyontheriver

Jerome never said he did not accept them. He recognized the use of the books in the Church as they are read by the Church and historically he is correct and he did translate them.

As to the authority of Jerome:

Cardinal Cajetan (contemporary of Luther) wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:




Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Now I find the words of this Cardinal to be quite interesting and really do find his words more compelling historically authoritative ( pre-Trent) then any thing you may add at this point. Just to add this Cardinal would be in agreement with Luther on the question.

Are you willing to take historical correction as suggested by this Cardinal (pre-trent)?

We see here before Jerome and is consistent with the Church of Jerome's time:

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

I agree.

In Him,

Bill

Well, I wouldn’t be, because as I see it, between the Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox and the Counter Reformation, which was really an internal reformation of the Roman Catholic church driven by those criticisms of Martin Luther which were unassailable (for example, the obvious problem of the sale of indulgences) as well as an internal awareness of the corruption of the pontificate of Alexander VI of the Borgias, the failure of his successor Julius II to secure the church through military expansionism in Italy, and the extreme destruction wrought on Rome under the pontificate of Leo X when the German soldiers of Emperor Charles rebelled and sacked the city, as well as concerns over, among other things, a proliferation of dubious liturgical forms in some churches and also the sensuous character of Renaissance art (which led to Mannerism, and then the Baroque), there were a lot of problems, and the opinions of cardinals from this period should be taken with a grain of salt. Some Cardinals before Trent had really good ideas, like Cardinal Quinones plan to repopularize and de-devotionalize the Roman Breviary, something which even Vatican II has sadly failed to achieve, but which the Anglicans did achieve, and which was never an issue in the Eastern churches. Others such as those supporting the inquisition, not so much.

Certainly neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Oriental Orthodox nor the Church of the East would be bound by the suggestions of this pre-Tridentine cardinal.

 

[The Liturgist]

Saying that "there's only one church, there can only be one church, by whatever name. And it's not divided over basic beliefs" is not scriptural. While there is one body of Christ, there are many denominations, each with its own doctrine.

Actually that idea does contradict Scripture, because we are commanded to worship Christ in Spirit and in Truth and there can only be one Truth, personified by our Lord Jesus Christ, and to say otherwise would require multiple Bodies of Christ.

Rather, it follows that the schisms that have divided us into denominations in some cases are due to actual doctrinal errors.

That said, the difference between the Roman Catholic Church, the traditional liturgical Protestants, including but not limited to Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians, and others, and the Eastern churches are very slight, and this creates the hope for ecumenical reconciliation, because a great many of these schisms, for example, the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox schism, which has partially begun to heal, or the Great Schism of 1054, were the result of misunderstandings, politics, and so on, and other schisms have resulted from denominations embracing heresies they later repented of.

There is however room for a diversity of forms of worship within the Church Catholic, up to a certain extent. Specifically, the sacraments and their importance cannot be downplayed; achieving a unified sacramental theology and reconciling the Credobaptist-Memorialist churches with the Sacramental churches is the one of the two main challenges facing the ecumenical movement, the other being the takeover of the mainline Protestant churches by corrupt modernist churches.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Good Day,

Yes I have one of my best friends in a member of the Church of Rome and has a copy.

In Him,

Bill

So you DID get to pick up and read page 390 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia? And you are claiming that page 390 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia was accurately quoted by you in your post immediately above your citation? Can you verify that please? Because I find that VERY far fetched.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

You cite this as supportive of your argument, but have you actually read it? I have used this as a teaching tool for multiple years. I fail to understand how you think it supports your argument. Can you quote the relevant paragraphs from it that you think support your argument?

 

[fhansen]

Now I find the words of this Cardinal to be quite interesting and really do find his words more compelling historically authoritative ( pre-Trent) then any thing you may add at this point. Just to add this Cardinal would be in agreement with Luther on the question.

Are you willing to take historical correction as suggested by this Cardinal (pre-trent)?

Cardinals are wrong all the time, so can popes be with matters of personal opinion. Either way a cardinal, even the most intelligent, learned, and holy, in no way defines dogma for the church by himself on matters of faith and morals. It just doesn't much matter what so-and-so said. It matters what the church comes to rest on.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Cardinals are wrong all the time, so can popes be with matters of personal opinion. Either way a cardinal, even the most intelligent, learned, and holy, in no way defines dogma for the chruch by himself on matters of faith and morals. It just doesn't much matter what so-and-so said.

If BBAS were correct in citing Catholic ‘experts’ then Catholic Bibles would be shorter than they are AND Orthodox Bibles would be just as short.

 

[pescador]

Havent had to wait-started a long time ago. And you may be there too, I dont know as while I've stated some basic tenets of the faith revealed to us by Christ you've only witheld your knowledge so far-and apparently supported the idea that a lack of unity in the faith is ok anyway?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[fhansen]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Whatever. Its all pretty plain from our posts.

 

[pescador]

Whatever. Its all pretty plain from our posts.

You thin this is "pretty plain"...

Havent had to wait-started a long time ago. And you may be there too, I dont know as while I've stated some basic tenets of the faith revealed to us by Christ you've only witheld your knowledge so far-and apparently supported the idea that a lack of unity in the faith is ok anyway?

Can you spell "run-on sentence"? "And you may be there too, I dont know as while I've stated some basic tenets of the faith revealed to us by Christ you've only witheld your knowledge so far-and apparently supported the idea that a lack of unity in the faith is ok anyway?"

Also, check your apostrophe key (or else your typing).

In response to what I think you meant... a) How can I withhold my knowledge if I've posted what I think? b) A lack of unity in the faith is apparent everywhere regardless of who supports it. It's a reality, and has been since Christianity began. Try reading Paul's epistles.

Here is a clear example... 1 Corinthians 1:12: "What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” "

 

[pescador]

Whatever. Its all pretty plain from our posts.

Do you have multiple personalities? "our posts..."