tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post1725468538522939293..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Welcome Envoy Participants: Compare & ContrastJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31374831847544186362009-01-12T18:52:00.000-05:002009-01-12T18:52:00.000-05:00Responded to your comments on beggars all, was won...Responded to your comments on beggars all, was wondering if you were still interested, interacting to this points on your blog?<BR/><BR/>https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=2416096723929820095Taphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04375511506567572806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27680435465491784312008-02-12T16:51:00.000-05:002008-02-12T16:51:00.000-05:00EA, dear brother in Jesus, whose precious blood is...EA, dear brother in Jesus, whose precious blood is offered for our sins:<BR/><BR/>Yes. The issue of food sacrificed to idols was settled--yet open for debate. What do the Apostles make of your criticism, I wonder?<BR/><BR/>You wish to force a contradiction on ontological grounds, as if by defining something as "authoritatively decided" always must equal "authoritatively decided once and for all." You make a false dichotomy. I'm sorry if this confuses you or incites you to imagine wry observation that is in fact mundane. I find no fault or ambiguity in it. <BR/><BR/>Christ himself gave authority to the apostles who we know through written record, including Holy Scripture also passed on that authority to successors. He also explicitly gave authority to his Church which He himself founded. I know of no record where He removed either. Until you can show me that He did so, I am little inclined to find your would-be criticism cogent, let alone appropriate. <BR/><BR/>Regarding Carrie’s article, I’ve started through it. So far, nothing new, but we’ll see.<BR/><BR/>Still, as always, I pray for your true blessing in Christ our savior. May we all come to eternal salvation through the Lamb of God. May all you do as His agent be made fully effective by the very power of the Holy Spirit among us and let no man resist it.------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71432693239186599062008-02-12T14:10:00.000-05:002008-02-12T14:10:00.000-05:00Theo said: "Settled: Yes.--Unless by "settled" you...<B><I>Theo said: "Settled: Yes.<BR/>--Unless by "settled" you mean "beyond debate." It was settled to the full extent that the councils addressed the canon and the Pope sanctioned their harmony. Since it was not dogma, it could still be debated and any disparity that could be found in the slightest between Hippo and Carthage would be prime for such.</I></B><BR/><BR/>In what sense what is it "settled" if it could still be debated?<BR/><BR/>To be settled means to be established, to have ceased moving, to be defined.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><I>Theo said: "To the full extent that the councils addressed the canons.</I></B>" <BR/><BR/>And what was that? Since the proceedings of these councils are lost to history and the participants are unavailable for comment, the question as to what the extent was that these councils addressed the canon is an open question. This entire 'explanation' rests upon an equivocation of terms.<BR/><BR/>The fact that the canonicity of certain books was still debated is proof positive that their status was not 'settled'.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Theo said: "I'll add a question you failed to ask: was it settled FOREVER?<BR/><BR/>Settled forever: No.<BR/>--That did not happen until Trent--or so I have long thought, but Carrie has just brought to our attention that some small fraction of that might still be unsettled, being officially placed in the 'unknown' column. We'll see."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Settled, but open for debate. Defined for the entire Church, except it might still be unsettled.<BR/><BR/>Again where's that certainty when you really need it?EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48735086551878444742008-02-11T17:43:00.000-05:002008-02-11T17:43:00.000-05:00"Was the Canon of Scripture (both the NT & the OT)...<I>"Was the Canon of Scripture (both the NT & the OT) settled for the Universal Church once the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were ratified by Pope Zosimus?"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry I did not answer you more directly.<BR/><BR/>Settled: Yes. <BR/>--Unless by "settled" you mean "beyond debate." It was settled to the full extent that the councils addressed the canon and the Pope sanctioned their harmony. Since it was not dogma, it could still be debated and any disparity that could be found in the slightest between Hippo and Carthage would be prime for such.<BR/><BR/>I'll add a question you failed to ask: was it settled FOREVER?<BR/><BR/>Settled forever: No. <BR/>--That did not happen until Trent--or so I have long thought, but Crrie has just brought to our attention that some small fraction of that might <I>still</I> be unsettled, being officially placed in the "unknown" column. We'll see.<BR/><BR/>The thing that is curious to me is if this is indeed so, how it matters... to Catholics. You see, if I discovered today that some portion of the canon is unsettled, it has zero effect on me as I have the authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition under the direct promise of Christ to send the Paraclete. To me, Christianity is not a religion "of the book." Alas, this would not be so were I fettered by sola scriptura, for then my only unquestionable source of truth would in itself be in question. <BR/><BR/>This is the sort of thing I was talking about in another thread when I observed the tendency for articles on this site intended to attack the Church having the opposite effect.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>theo said: "The only constraint was the edict of the council (of Jerusalem), and for as long as that edict stood, it was sin for any Christian who was aware of it to flaunt it without prudence."<BR/><BR/>When was this edict rescinded? And by whom?</I><BR/><BR/>I do not know. Am I required to know? <BR/><BR/>We do know that it was rescinded, however, for we have records of Christian communities not under the ban in the same generation by the time of Justin Martyr, who described many of the contemporary practices and as implied in the epistles of St. Paul. <BR/><BR/>Does my not knowing mean that it's still binding on me? I think not. Are you trying to imply it never was binding on even the Christians of that day? I don't know. It is your turn, my fellow laborer.<BR/><BR/>Your bro,<BR/>--Theo------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59347610352352980822008-02-11T17:06:00.000-05:002008-02-11T17:06:00.000-05:00Theo said: "However, the OT canon was more controv...Theo said: <B><I>"However, the OT canon was more controversial, and between various statements, its composition was altered--authoritatively, but not necessarily in the final form it had at Florence and other later councils.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, the canon as it exists had been established well before the Reformation--but it had not been dogmatically stated until after: at the Council of Trent.<BR/><BR/>If Dr. Sippo is still following this, he might correct me if I'm mistaken; however, I believe this is also what he conveyed."</I></B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry this doesn't clarify the matter to my mind. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Theo said: <B><I>"I'm sorry that you are confused and that my poor communication skills seem unequal to assist in your clarity."</I></B><BR/><BR/>A direct 'yes' or 'no' response to the following question would be ideal.<BR/><BR/>Was the Canon of Scripture (both the NT & the OT) settled for the Universal Church once the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were ratified by Pope Zosimus?<BR/><BR/>Theo said: <B><I>"The only constraint was the edict of the council (of Jerusalem), and for as long as that edict stood, it was sin for any Christian who was aware of it to flaunt it without prudence."</I></B><BR/><BR/>When was this edict rescinded? And by whom?EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22844086671840236192008-02-11T16:17:00.000-05:002008-02-11T16:17:00.000-05:00EA:I'm sorry that you are confused and that my poo...EA:<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that you are confused and that my poor communication skills seem unequal to assist in your clarity.<BR/><BR/>All decisions of councils are binding on all of the Church--or on whatever potion of the Church that is targeted by the canon law. Not all directives or statements are dogmatic. Not all necessarily universal for all time. For a specific example that I pray you will find reasonable please reflect on the first Council of Jerusalem as recorded in a source I also pray you will find reasonable: the book of Acts. <BR/><BR/>In that account we see that the Church ordered in a manner that was bound all Christians to obtain from particular kinds of meat in spite of the Master's explicit teaching that it is not what a man puts into his mouth that defiles him, but what comes out. Many of these were eye witnesses to Christ's teaching, and Peter himself had experienced a direct revelation from Our Lord affirming that no food is now unclean. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, a situation had arisen whereby in order to keep the weak from sinning, the Council commanded that all refrain from what would otherwise be lawful. The only constraint was the edict of the council, and for as long as that edict stood, it was sin for any Christian who was aware of it to flaunt it without prudence.<BR/><BR/>As to the exact edict and canon of Hippo, I cited it as establishing the NT canon in a more exact sense because to my knowledge its composition was never successfully challenged afterword. However, the OT canon was more controversial, and between various statements, its composition was altered--authoritatively, but not necessarily in the final form it had at Florence and other later councils.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, the canon as it exists had been established well before the Reformation--but it had not been dogmatically stated until after: at the Council of Trent.<BR/><BR/>If Dr. Sippo is still following this, he might correct me if I'm mistaken; however, I believe this is also what he conveyed.<BR/><BR/>If you remain confused, I again apologize for whatever gaps are due to my own failings.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, I ask our gracious Lord to bless and purify all of your studies and effort dedicated to the advancement of His kingdom and that you and I both be rewarded By God according to our deeds, and better wherever they fall short of the mark.<BR/><BR/>In His Holy Name, I submit this as your servant and brother,<BR/>--Theo------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57129634152544150772008-02-11T15:13:00.000-05:002008-02-11T15:13:00.000-05:00Theo said: "The canon had been established long be...<B>Theo said: <I>"The canon had been established long before Trent: the NT canon since Hippo: and although there was no reason to prevent the issue from being debated from then until Trent when it was made a mater of dogma."</I></B><BR/><BR/><B>Art Sippo said: <I>"They (the DeuteroCanonical books) were affirmed by Hippo which was the council that settled the OT and NT Canon for the Universal Church."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I'm still confused; you say that Hippo settled the <B><I>NT Canon</I></B> while Dr. Sippo says that <B><I>both the NT & the OT Canons</I></B> were settled at Hippo. Additionally, Dr. Sippo states that the Canon was defined for the <B><I>Universal Church</I></B>. Maybe I have this wrong, if so please correct me; I thought that in order for a doctrine to be defined for the Universal Church, it has to be an infallible (ex cathedra) teaching, otherwise it IS NOT binding on the Universal Church. <BR/><BR/>What was established by the Council of Hippo? The OT Canon? The NT Canon? Both? Neither? Also, was what was established at Hippo (once ratified by Pope Zosimus) binding on the Universal Church or not?<BR/><BR/>Many Thanks,<BR/>EAEAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76365451192799638192008-02-11T14:46:00.000-05:002008-02-11T14:46:00.000-05:00"Theo, It was "ea" who said that, not me. You were..."Theo, <BR/><BR/>It was "ea" who said that, not me. <BR/><BR/>You were responding to another commenter."<BR/><BR/><BR/>oops! sorry to you and EA.:<BR/><BR/>See, I told you I make plenty of mistakes. <BR/><BR/>E.A. <BR/>I can't speak for him; however, I suspect that Dr. Sippo and I are not making mutually exclusive statements, but expressing the same (or quite similar) thing in different ways. I suspect you're dealing with what is more a difficulty of my own limited ability to communicate effectively rather than a difficulty of doctrine.<BR/><BR/>The canon had been established long before Trent: the NT canon since Hippo: and although there was no reson to prevent the issue from being debated from then until Trent when it was made a mater of dogma. <BR/><BR/>Carrie, regarding your comment about the Vulgate, I'm out of my depth to answer cogently, as the particulars of what you describe are not something I've ever looked into. The implications might prove interesting as far as my personal understanding of Trent is concerned. We'll see.<BR/><BR/>Humbly submitted, I remain your servant and brother in Christ, <BR/><BR/>--Theo.------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81078258021935343702008-02-11T14:31:00.000-05:002008-02-11T14:31:00.000-05:00The Church closed the canon at Trent.Okay, this co...<I>The Church closed the canon at Trent.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, this comment was correctly directed at my comment.<BR/><BR/>I guess it depends on how you defined "closed". But the fact that Trent purposely left some books from the Vulgate undefined as far as their canonicity, that is "open" in my mind.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-91101743981130615592008-02-11T14:29:00.000-05:002008-02-11T14:29:00.000-05:00Theo said: "Dear Carrie: beloved of Christ and sis...<B><I>Theo said: "Dear Carrie: beloved of Christ and sister..."</I></B><BR/><BR/>First of all, I'm EA and I'm a man.<BR/><BR/>Secondly,<BR/><BR/><B><I>"We'd gotten along fine for 15 centuries without stating the canon dogmatically..."</I></B><BR/><BR/><B><I>"Up until Trent, there would have been no reason why theologians could not debate the canon in good faith and as rightful ministers of the Gospel."</I></B><BR/><BR/>With all due respect, you're simply illustrating the confusion within Catholicism regarding the first infallible definition of the Canon. You claim it was first defined infallibly at Trent. Dr. Sippo on the other hand claims it was first infallibly defined when Pope Zosimus ratified the Councilar Decrees from Hippo (and Carthage). <BR/><BR/>If Dr. Sippo is correct, then theologians were not <I>'free'</I> to debate the Canon. <BR/><BR/>Since you are both putting forth mutually exclusive propostions, at least one of you must be incorrect on this point.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10453384662773343172008-02-11T14:26:00.000-05:002008-02-11T14:26:00.000-05:00As one who is himself so often insensitive, I most...<I>As one who is himself so often insensitive, I most humbly remind you of your own sensitivity to accusations of motive? Perhaps you might consider the effect that you have in stating things like "This smacks of a classic 'bait and switch' scam." </I><BR/><BR/>Theo, <BR/><BR/>It was "ea" who said that, not me. <BR/><BR/>You were responding to another commenter.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40011433507464701422008-02-11T14:10:00.000-05:002008-02-11T14:10:00.000-05:00In the above, I wrote in part: "...the Church (obv...In the above, I wrote in part: "...the Church (obviously) saw no need to state the canon dogmatically. Until then we did not ask 'What is the canon beyond doubt,' because there was no need. We'd gotten along fine for 15 centuries <B>without it</B>..."<BR/><BR/>This was a poor place for me to use a pronoun. I should have written"<BR/>"...the Church (obviously) saw no need to state the canon dogmatically. Until then we did not ask 'What is the canon beyond doubt,' because there was no need. We'd gotten along fine for 15 centuries <B>without stating the canon dogmatically</B>..." <BR/><BR/>Thanks much,<BR/><BR/>--Theo------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66193090534869081162008-02-11T13:52:00.000-05:002008-02-11T13:52:00.000-05:00"Trent settles the issue": this is an attractive p...<I>"Trent settles the issue": this is an attractive position to adopt if you're Catholic. However, when pressed about the 'late definition of the Canon at Trent', Catholic apologists insist that the Canon was defined earlier. This smacks of a classic 'bait and switch' scam."</I><BR/><BR/>Dear Carrie: beloved of Christ and sister by the power of He who created us all:<BR/><BR/>I do not agree. I would hope it is clear to all Catholics--whether they are active defenders of the Church or not--that the council of Trent made the canon a matter of dogma, <I>also</I> that the canon had already been defined prior is also clear, <I>and</I> also that the canon remained a matter that could be properly debated prior to Trent. There is no bait and switch: merely history. <BR/><BR/>Please consider that up until the Reformation and the removal of the tempering roles of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Authority in succession by the introduction of Sola Scriptura, the Church (obviously) saw no need to state the canon dogmatically. Until then we did not ask "What is the canon beyond doubt," because there was no need. We'd gotten along fine for 15 centuries without it, depending upon the authority of the Church and Tradition as rules of faith to settle any uncertain issues and also to allow what issues might remain debated without harm to Christendom or the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is a good answer for Catholics, and it is not a good answer for our Protestant brothers and sister--which again leads back to the obvious question of how then those who profess sola scriptura know without doubt what "scriptura" they depend upon as their sole rule of faith. As far as I can tell by your position, Protestants ought to be as beholden to revelation revealed in the books Macabees as they are to those of Romans--or just as easily beholden to neither.<BR/><BR/>I have noted elsewhere that the questioning of the canon by reformers was by no means an unconventional thing: Up until Trent, there would have been no reason why theologians could not debate the canon in good faith and as rightful ministers of the Gospel. It was the introduction into the mix of saying that "only" these books (meaning the new protestant canon" are our rule of faith, and all others are either false or merely edifying, that was unconventional--and in my view (and that of the Church from what I can tell) was heretical. <BR/><BR/>It is for this reason that from my Catholic perspective I say that the reformers "removed" books from the canon: not that they ripped out books that were immutably part of it, but that they forever ruled out their inclusion, which unless they claimed apostolic authority themselves, they could not do. <BR/><BR/>Further, the implication of sola scriptura must be that the canon is absolutely correct and without fault, even if we try to claim those who set it, did so fallibly. <BR/><BR/>The result is that by the time Trent formed as a council it was the reformers who actually required a defacto infallible canon: lest anyone claim that the books of Maccabeus or "Fred’s Gospel" for that matter applied as rule of faith. The Catholic council, under the ultimate leadership of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised as Paraclete, countered this defacto claim of the reformers by stating the canon dogmatically.<BR/><BR/>I realize that this answer does not satisfy your own doctrine; however, please know that it is not birthed of deception, and to me it is both reasonable and clear--and as far as I know, may be viewed as doctrinally and historically accurate.<BR/><BR/>As always, I write by God's good grace as your servant and brother,<BR/>--Theo<BR/><BR/><BR/>As a polite PS: <BR/>As one who is himself so often insensitive, I most humbly remind you of your own sensitivity to accusations of motive? Perhaps you might consider the effect that you have in stating things like <I>"This smacks of a classic 'bait and switch' scam."</I> I assure you that nobody is trying to "scam" anyone; rather; we hold these beliefs and encourage others to investigate them for the only good reason to hold them: that they are the best picture of truth we can know.<BR/><BR/>May God bless you with all good things you need for His kingdom's sake. <BR/>Your bro,<BR/>--Theo------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-263549744044769232008-02-11T10:59:00.000-05:002008-02-11T10:59:00.000-05:00Theo says: "The Church closed the canon at Trent.....<B><I>Theo says: "The Church closed the canon at Trent....the question of whether or not any other book is to be added to or removed from the canon is settled for us Catholics..."</I></B><BR/><BR/>"Trent settles the issue": this is an attractive position to adopt if you're Catholic. However, when pressed about the 'late definition of the Canon at Trent', Catholic apologists insist that the Canon was defined earlier. This smacks of a classic 'bait and switch' scam.<BR/><BR/>Art Sippo is trying to establish that the Canon passed by Hippo / Carthage and ratified by Pope Zosimus established once and for all the Canon for the Catholic Church and that subsequent Councils merely reiterate it. It seems as though there is disagreement within Catholicism as to when the Canon was established definitively. <BR/>Where is that 'certainty' when you need it?<BR/><BR/>To Sippo's point that ALL Councils that cite the books of the Canon reiterate the same list as was passed from Hippo / Carthage and approved by Zosimus; but why are NO direct references made in any of the Councilar Pronouncements stating that the definition of Zosimus (and / or of Hippo / Carthage) still stand(s)? In other words, why don't the Councils of Basle / Florence and others DIRECTLY cite the "infallible" definition of the Canon instead of (or in addition to) an enumeration of the books? If the definition of Zosimus was recognized by the fathers of other Ecumenical Councils as being binding on the Universal Church, why don't any of them cite Zosimus directly? That would be a much more direct appeal and would also lend credence to the early acceptance of Papal Infallibility. Instead what we have is a series of events which undercut support for both the early definition of the Canon <B>AND</B> Papal Infallibility.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71291620343789795372008-02-11T09:15:00.000-05:002008-02-11T09:15:00.000-05:00"That book may still be inspired and deserving a p..."That book may still be inspired and deserving a place in your Catholic canon, you can never know until your Church makes a decision to accept or reject."<BR/><BR/>Carrie, precious sister in Christ: <BR/>The Church closed the canon at Trent. Unless I'm mistaken (a fair possibility: I am mistaken often enough.), it is dogmatically so. If so, the question of whether or not any other book is to be added to or removed from the canon is settled for us Catholics, who recognize the authority of the Magesterium; and we have specific authority to cite in the event any rogue Catholic asserts another canon. <BR/><BR/>I leave the obvious follow-up question for you and your readers to both fashion and answer as the Holy Spirit of God leads.<BR/><BR/>As always, I remain by His good grace,<BR/>Your servant and brother in Christ,<BR/>---Theo------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49975946203067070062008-02-10T06:47:00.000-05:002008-02-10T06:47:00.000-05:00Again you forget that Hippo was a session of the T...<I>Again you forget that Hippo was a session of the Third Council of Carthage and it was Pope Zosimus who declared it to represent official Church teaching. The only reason to consider the local synod at Carthage as magisterial was because of Pope Zosimus' declaration in 418. This is why it is CRITICAL to understand the actual history and not play word games.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not playing word games, Art, but you implied that the Tridentine Fathers quoted Zosimus when in fact they did not. And I think the viewpoint of the Tridentine fathers is important since they were trying to make a final decision on the matter. <BR/><BR/>As far as the rest of the argument, I will have to go back and read your post again. I have forgotten all the particulars.<BR/><BR/><I>As I said earlier, not every book used in the Early Church was considered inspired. The line had to be drawn somewhere. The Church was guided to draw the line with Apoc1Esdras outside the canon.</I><BR/><BR/>No, that line was not drawn with regards to Apoc1Esdras. The Tridentine fathers passed over that book and a few others in silence. That book may still be inspired and deserving a place in your Catholic canon, you can never know until your Church makes a decision to accept or reject.<BR/><BR/><I>In fact I would argue that there is no way for mere-men unguided by the Holy Spirit to discern the Canon using any human based methodology.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think any Protestant would disagree. However, we don't need a select group of men to be infallible to be guided by the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>But the fact remains that the early church made judgments on the canon based on what appears to us as human-based methodology, things like apostolic authorship, church usage, etc. It is not like they threw lots or something. So these "methods" can still be evaluated years later for assurance in areas of dispute.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57009018033562672092008-02-09T16:51:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:51:00.000-05:00Carrie:Again you forget that Hippo was a session o...Carrie:<BR/><BR/>Again you forget that Hippo was a session of the Third Council of Carthage and it was Pope Zosimus who declared it to represent official Church teaching. The only reason to consider the local synod at Carthage as magisterial was because of Pope Zosimus' declaration in 418. This is why it is CRITICAL to understand the actual history and not play word games.<BR/><BR/>As to the criteria used to include books in the canon you seem to forget that there was a process of discernment. The decision was not made by men but "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The Canon was not derived by human reasoning, but rather through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. The decision was not the mechanical result of methodology. <BR/><BR/>There never was any time when 3 books of Esdras were considered canonical. Only 2 were. And for a century before Hippo, the two were Ezra and Nehemiah.<BR/><BR/>In all honesty, a question was raised about which books were being referred to as "the two" and there is sufficient ambiguity that we cannot say with certainty what the Fathers of Hippo thought. But they referred the list to The 'Transmarine' Church for final confirmation and we know what the Popes intended.<BR/><BR/>The only major difference between Apoc1Esdras and Biblical Ezra is the addition of the one story about the elephant. As John showed in his paper, the rest of Apoxc1Esdras was derived from Biblical EZRA. Many Fathers thought Apoc1esdras was just a textual variation on Ezra. <BR/><BR/>The elephant story was an excellent wisdom parable and the Fathers often quoted it. But it was not anything major. It did not teach any new doctrines and was not critical for any revealed truth. Its inclusion or exclusion in the canon really changed nothing. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the wisdom sections of the deuteros were well known and used by Jesus and his disciples in their teachings. The additions to Esther changed it from a secular story to a religous one. Baruch contained Messianic Prophecy. The additions of Daniel likewise fleshed out his story and represented a more complete section of the Daniel cycle of stories that5 circulated in the 2nd century BC. Maccabeees described the "abomination of desolation" predicted in Daniel and gave the history for the Maccabean revolt and for the feast of Dedication which Jesus himself celebrated. Also, the Deuteros gave the same interpretation of the Aquedah (the sacrifice of Isaac) that St. James had in his epistle. They assist us in understanding where St. James was coming from.<BR/><BR/>As I said earlier, not every book used in the Early Church was considered inspired. The line had to be drawn somewhere. The Church was guided to draw the line with Apoc1Esdras outside the canon. <BR/><BR/>In fact I would argue that there is no way for mere-men unguided by the Holy Spirit to discern the Canon using any human based methodology. To do so is pure Pelagianism.<BR/><BR/>This does not diminish the value of the one section in Apoc1Esdras that was unique. It was a good story, but not an INSPIRED story.<BR/><BR/>ArtArt Sippo:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15193733514828584260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86284037346094312282008-02-09T16:30:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:30:00.000-05:00Nope. You are assuming that without any proof. Man...<I>Nope. You are assuming that without any proof. Many people have assumed that Jesus was referring to the death of Zechariah in Chronicles which was the last book collected in the current Jewish listing of the Tanach. But there was no fixed order to the Tanach in Jesus' day and Chronicles was not listed last until several centuries after Christ. Besides, the story in Chronicles preceded the Babylonian exile. So Zechariah was not the last person killed in the pre-Christian era.<BR/><BR/>But he and Abel both had their blood cry to heaven for vengeance. There is a very good article about this here:<BR/><BR/>www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/jesus_use_of_old_tesament_themes.doc<BR/><BR/>This is a relevant quote from that article:<BR/><BR/>In fact, Edersheim states that there was a Jewish legend that Zechariah's blood "did not dry up those two centuries and a half, but still bubbled on the pavement, when Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple and at last avenged it." his is a relevant quote from that article:<BR/><BR/>In fact, Edersheim states that there was a Jewish legend that Zechariah's blood "did not dry up those two centuries and a half, but still bubbled on the pavement, when Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple and at last avenged it."<BR/><BR/>Please note that the author does not find any reference to the canon in this statement.</I><BR/><BR/>This same author also says:<BR/><BR/><I> As for Zechariah, which Zechariah Jesus was referring to in making this statement has been the subject of much debate. In Matthew, he is specified as the "son of Berechiah." Three primary options exist. One is that Jesus was referring to Zechariah who is designated in Zechariah 1:1 as the son of Berechiah. However, nowhere does scripture record this Zechariah as having been murdered by the Israelites on the temple grounds. The second option is that Jesus is referring to Zechariah, son of Jehoiada the priest, who is written of as being murdered in the court of the temple (2 Chr. 24:20-22). Some arrive at this last option based on commonalties between the context of this judgment in Matthew and the account of his death. This view held by the majority of commentators, would lead to Jesus' reference to blood shed from "Abel to Zechariah" being a reference not necessarily chronological according to time, but according to the Old Testament text. Thus, ui`ou/ Baraci,ou may be a later addition to the text, although there are no textual variants or other evidence of such an addition.16 Another option is that Jesus is referring to someone in his lineage other than his immediate paternal father.17 However, others have disputed the theory on Chronicles being the last book of the older form of the Old Testament canon. Those who argue this opt for the first option or a third option that Jesus is referring to another Zechariah, as Berechiah was a common name in Judaism.</I><BR/><BR/>You seem to suffer from a bad case of reading miscomprehension, Dr. Sippo. Here's the whole paragraph from which your quote is taken:<BR/><BR/><I>What usually tips the scales in favor of this being the son of Jehoida is the striking similarities in context between this account and Jesus' words in Matthew with the reference to the stoning taking place in the house of the Lord and Zechariah's cry for God to avenge his blood. Furthermore, the record of Zechariah's death became the symbol for the way Israel treated the prophets. In fact, Edersheim states that there was a Jewish legend that Zechariah's blood "did not dry up those two centuries and a half, but still bubbled on the pavement, when Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple and at last avenged it."19 It is likely, then, in light of the similarities in context and the way this Zechariah's death was thought of in Jewish tradition, that Jesus was intending to make reference to this prophet in stating that his blood would fall on them.20 This may also explain his description of him being killed "between the temple and the altar" having the intention of pointing out which Zechariah he was indicating.</I><BR/><BR/>1. Notice that Ms. Rieske is taking about the death of Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, which in the paragraph immediately beforehand, is stated to be recorded in 2 Chronicles 24.<BR/><BR/>2. She says that those who reject the majority position (the majority position is that Chronicles was the last book of the Jewish canon) take the first position or a third option.<BR/><BR/>a. Position 1: Jesus was referring to Zechariah who is designated in Zechariah 1:1 as the son of Berechiah. However, nowhere does scripture record this Zechariah as having been murdered by the Israelites on the temple grounds. <BR/><BR/>b. Position 3:Jesus is referring to another Zechariah, as Berechiah was a common name in Judaism. She also notes: Jesus is referring to someone in his lineage other than his immediate paternal father. <BR/><BR/>This would be a variation of "another Zechariah."<BR/><BR/>c. The paragraph from which you wrested your acontextual quote is supporting the second position, not the first or third (which are taken in opposition to the second). You seem confused about this statement: <B> This view held by the majority of commentators, would lead to Jesus' reference to blood shed from "Abel to Zechariah" being a reference <I> not necessarily chronological according to time</I>, but according to the Old Testament text. </B>However, others have disputed the theory on Chronicles being the last book of the older form of the Old Testament canon. Those who argue this opt for the first option or a third option that Jesus is referring to another Zechariah, as Berechiah was a common name in Judaism.<BR/> <BR/>So, you have a big problem here, for Ms. Rieske is advocating position 2, not 1 or 3. Why? Because, when you read those who argue for the canonical, not chronological order you find them arguing that 2 Chronicles is placed outside the chronological/historical order in the older Jewish canon. For example, here is Bahnsen:The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.<BR/><BR/>Rieske says that those who oppose the majority position do so on by taking positions 1 or 3 NOT the position that the reference is to Zechariah in 2 Chronicles.<BR/><BR/>The third speaks for itself.<BR/><BR/>The first refers to the Book of Zechariah. Zechariah 1:1 places Zechariah's authoriship in the reign of Darius - historically, chronologically, after Chronicles. So, we're left with Edershiem writitng in support of the SECOND view, the majority view, which, according to Rieske affirms that the reference is to the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles. She is not taking your position at all.<BR/><BR/>If you can't read a simple article like that one, I have to wonder about your mastery of the others you quoted in your last response to EA.<BR/><BR/><I>But even if Jesus was referring to the Tanach, that is immaterial. What we are discussing is the Christan OT not the Jewish Bible. Whatever the Jews did before Christ does not bind the Church.</I><BR/><BR/>You're shifting the argument. You are bound to what Jesus actually affirms, and Jesus does not refer to the DC's but to the content of the Jewish canon, which excludes them. <BR/><BR/><I>If the Biblical canon was closed before Christ as Beckwith claims then there could be no NT.</I><BR/><BR/>Irrelevant. What is in question here is the inclusion of the DC's as part of the OT canon. You're conflating 'the biblical canon' with the 'OT canon.' These are not convertible. They intersect, but they are not convertible.<BR/><BR/>"The Church" can add to the canon by particular authors being inspired to write. The NT was written because the Holy Spirit inspired certain authors. <BR/><BR/>However, I don't think this is what you have in mind. You have in mind the idea that "the Church" can add to the canon by decree, not be inspiration. So, can we conclude that you affirm these decrees are "inspired?" <BR/><BR/>Let's take an example from your list of canonical books, Wisdom of Solomon to illustrate the differences here to see where this might lead.<BR/><BR/>Why don’t we begin by quoting some scholarly observations by the author of the standard modern commentary on this particular book of the OT apocrypha:<BR/><BR/>“Thus the author of Wisd is quite capable of constructing sentences in true period style (12:27; 13:11-15), and his fondness for compound words is almost Aeschylean. His manner at times has the light tough of Greek lyric poetry (17:17-19; 2:6-9; 5:9-13), and occasionally his words fall into an iambic or hexameter rhythm. He employs…Greek philosophical terminology,” D. Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Doubleday 1979), 15-16.<BR/><BR/>“These characteristics, in addition to the author’s many favorite ‘theme words and expressions which recur throughout the work, argue for unity of authorship, and make the hypothesis that Wisd is a translation of a Hebrew original virtually untenable,” ibid. 16-17.<BR/><BR/>Now the book clearly intimates Solomonic authorship. But I don’t think one can seriously contend that Solomon wrote in Greek—especially the kind of Greek we encounter in Wisdom.<BR/><BR/>So that would make Wisdom the work of forgery. My theory of inspiration does not extend to inspired forgeries. You, Dr. Sippo may beg to differ,and if you think the decrees that add to the canon are "inspired" then that means you affirm that the Church can, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, canonize forgeries.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63437990693517487602008-02-09T09:51:00.000-05:002008-02-09T09:51:00.000-05:00The section in Gary Michuta's book that deals with...<I> The section in Gary Michuta's book that deals with the deliberations from Trent on the canon is on pages 234ff. The material of most interest is on pages 235 and 236. It is all there. The Council Fathers made reference to the Third Council of Carthage (of which Hippo was one session), the letter of Pope St. Damasus, and of course Florence.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for getting back to me with the page numbers.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I saw that section, but I didn’t think that was what you were referring to when you said:<BR/><BR/><I>[ea: Do the Tridentine Fathers cite Zosimus?]<BR/><BR/>They not only quote him, but Hippo and Florence as well. This was discussed in detail in the ACTA of the Council as they prepared the Canons of the 4th Session. I refer you to Gary Michuta's book "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" for the details.</I><BR/><BR/>Gary’s books says:<BR/><BR/>“That night, the Cardinal Legates wrote that all three Particular Congregations had agreed on the accep¬tance of the Books of Scripture pure and simple, "...as was done by many of the ancient Fathers, by the third Provincial Council of Carthage, by that of Pope Gelasius, by Innocent 1, and lastly by the Council of Florence.”<BR/><BR/>So there is no quote or even a reference to Zosimus, and no quoting of the Councils, just a reference. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I was expected something more than just that brief reference in the legate’s letter. <BR/><BR/><I> Carrie: I forgot to comment on The sad and dyspeptic Mr. White's views concerning St. Augustine and 3Esdras.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that article was written by James Swan, not White. And I disagree with you, it does show an inconsistency in the Church’s method for choosing the books of the canon since books that were used by the Fathers and the Church were left out (as I elaborated on from Brown & Fitzmyer).<BR/><BR/>I did read Michuta’s book section on Esdras and he says “Many things are questionable about Esdras. The Council of Carthage may have included Esdras on its list. We don’t know for certain” which conflicts with what Bett seems to say in his article, so I am not sure whom to believe, Michuta or Bett. Either way, 3 Esdras may or may not be canonical, the Church has not been able to figure that out it appears.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8545307631601805832008-02-09T09:18:00.000-05:002008-02-09T09:18:00.000-05:00The rest of your comments are childish jibes not w...<B>The rest of your comments are childish jibes not worthy of comment.</B><BR/><BR/>Considering the withering, condescending, and uncharitable adjectives that you use in describing those that don't agree with you, I would suggest that YOU remove the log from your own eye. Advice, by the way, that you have received before.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43632176330481522752008-02-09T08:27:00.000-05:002008-02-09T08:27:00.000-05:00recclyhpEa sez:1) Jesus is not referring to Jewish...recclyhpEa sez:<BR/><BR/><B>1) Jesus is not referring to Jewish "Tradition", but Jewish Scripture.</B><BR/><BR/>Nope. You are assuming that without any proof. Many people have assumed that Jesus was referring to the death of Zechariah in Chronicles which was the last book collected in the current Jewish listing of the Tanach. But there was no fixed order to the Tanach in Jesus' day and Chronicles was not listed last until several centuries after Christ. Besides, the story in Chronicles preceded the Babylonian exile. So Zechariah was not the last person killed in the pre-Christian era.<BR/><BR/>But he and Abel both had their blood cry to heaven for vengeance. There is a very good article about this here:<BR/><BR/>www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/jesus_use_of_old_tesament_themes.doc<BR/><BR/>This is a relevant quote from that article:<BR/><BR/><B> In fact, Edersheim states that there was a Jewish legend that Zechariah's blood "did not dry up those two centuries and a half, but still bubbled on the pavement, when Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple and at last avenged it." </B><BR/><BR/>Please note that the author does not find any reference to the canon in this statement.<BR/><BR/>But even if Jesus was referring to the Tanach, that is immaterial. What we are discussing is the Christan OT not the Jewish Bible. Whatever the Jews did before Christ does not bind the Church. If the Biblical canon was closed before Christ as Beckwith claims then there could be no NT. If the Church could add the NT books to the biblical Canon she could add others as well. Considering the extensive use that Jesus and the Apostles made of the deuteros (See DeSilva) it was reasonable for hte Church to have done so.<BR/><BR/>Beckwith admits in the introduction to his book that the standard understanding about the origina of teh OT canon supports the Catholic position and he says that he wants to support the Reformation view. So from the very beginning he is prejudiced and has already assume dhte conclusion which he then tries to justify.<BR/><BR/>Sadly he is totally out of touch with the majority of experts. James Vanderkam is a reformed expert on Qumran and in his books he has made it clear that the Jewish Biblcial canon was not defined as Beckwith claims in the 2nd Century BC but in the 2nd century AD. This is the position of the majority of experts including Vanderkam, Frank Moore Cross, John Barton, Lee Martin McDonald,and James A. Sanders (all of whom are Protestants). <BR/><BR/>The rest of your comments are childish jibes not worthy of comment.<BR/><BR/>And Fr. Brown supported the Catholic Canon unequivocally. His comments about apocryphal Esdras do not challenge that.<BR/><BR/>I still don't understand why protestants keep looking for the Catholic Church to attack scholars. It is a well known principle in academe that schalrs are granted leeway in their research. You have been brainwashed into thinking of Catholicism as repressive. It never has been.<BR/><BR/>Carrie: I forgot to comment on The sad and dyspeptic Mr. White's views concerning St. Augustine and 3Esdras. They are pathetic and embarrassing for him. He has nothing to say that is worth reading or commenting about. instead read John Bett's articles and the section on Esdras in Gary's book. (It starts right afer the section on Trent that I noted above.)<BR/><BR/>ArtArt Sippo:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15193733514828584260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65670709591010616832008-02-09T07:39:00.000-05:002008-02-09T07:39:00.000-05:00The section in Gary Michuta'd book that deals with...The section in Gary Michuta'd book that deals with the deliberations from Trent on the canon is on pages 234ff. The material of most interest is on pages 235 and 236. It is all there. The Council Fathers made reference to the Third Council of Carthage (of which Hippo was one session), the letter of Pope St. Damasus, and of course Florence. It is as i remebered it.<BR/><BR/>artArt Sippo:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15193733514828584260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32014313113107609662008-02-08T23:33:00.000-05:002008-02-08T23:33:00.000-05:00The Council of Sippo continues...The Council of Sippo continues...EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43461592510062457612008-02-08T22:20:00.000-05:002008-02-08T22:20:00.000-05:00(Raymond E.)Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pon...(Raymond E.)Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and again in 1996. He was professor emeritus at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary in New York where he taught for 23 years. He served as president of the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature (1976-7) and the Society of New Testament Studies (1986-7). He was a Roman Catholic priest in the diocese of Baltimore, Maryland. Widely regarded as one of America's preeminent biblical scholars, Brown was awarded 24 honorary doctoral degrees by universities in the USA and Europe, many from Protestant institutions.[3]<BR/><BR/>Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown<BR/><BR/>Question for Dr. Sippo. Was Fr. Brown ever censored by the Vatican for his work? Thank you.my3sonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510684704270413697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29671934137852621092008-02-08T21:05:00.000-05:002008-02-08T21:05:00.000-05:00Hi Carrie!This is a verbatim quote from Webster:"T...Hi Carrie!<BR/><BR/>This is a verbatim quote from Webster:<BR/><BR/>"The universal practice of the Church as a whole up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish Canon."<BR/><BR/>This is manifestly not true. Some people questioned the place of the Deuteros in the canon but MOST did not. <BR/><BR/>Webster also argues with Geisler that the Deuteros were added to the the Bible at the time of the Deformation for theological support against the Protestants. This is also not true. As I have shown, the Deuteros were used and quoted as Scripture for the entire period from the 2nd Century onward.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, I think you are not understanding the importance of the authority of the Magisterium. As I stated before, right is right if nobody is right and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. The Holy Spirit spoke definitively in the late 4th and early 5th Century several times in support of the Long Canon every Church Council that dealt with this issue explicitly sided with the Long Canon. There is no question that this was defined infallibly long before Trent. In fact this is what Trent actually said that it was doing:<BR/><BR/><B>DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES <BR/>The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament:<BR/>{THE LISING FOLLOWS}<BR/>But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>During the deliberations, they discussed all these matters but the Bishops did not for one moment think that they were closing the Canon. They were merely explicitly support the Traditions that they had received. Note how important is was to them that they were following the traditional usage of the Church and the contents of the Vulgate.<BR/><BR/>Questions did arise as to whether the decree from Florence was part of the Council. That is because it was promulgated after the Council in an attempt to heal the breach with the Jacobites. But this was a formal document sent by the Pope along with the Canons of the Council which explicitly set forth the faith of the Church. Whether or not the document was part of the Council in the technical sense, it was a definitive statement of Catholic Doctrine and thus was formally infallible. <BR/><BR/>It always surprises me that Protestants want Catholic Doctrine to fall from heaven with no ambiguity or discernment needed. When you say that the hammer did not come down on Ximenes and Cajetan you act as if it should have. Why can't you see that the teaching authority was exercised in a pastoral way for the most part? Persuasion and rational arguments was how they dealt with this issue. <BR/><BR/>There is another point which I have hesitated to bring up because it very subtle and hard for most of my opponents to understand. <BR/><BR/>The Eastern Church accepted eh Traditional authority of the Deuteros even though some of their scholars thought they were not canonical. For them denying that the Deuteros were Biblical did not deny their importance and use within the Church.<BR/><BR/>Many in the West likewise questioned the place of the Deuteros in the Canon but they also quoted them as Scripture anyway. This is because they considered them to be inspired Scripture but not Canonical. The term 'canonical' was in their minds meant being part of the Jewish Bible. Obviously, the Deuteros were not that.<BR/><BR/>Placing them in a third category did not diminish their importance or mean that they were not part of the Bible, but rather placed them in an intermediate position between the OT and the NT. The term 'Ecclesiatical' was often applied to them to show that they had importance in the Church that they had not had in the Synagogue.<BR/><BR/>As to other books like Mannassah and 3 Esdras, I think we need to be realistic. There was a wide literature from both Jewish and Christian sources that came down from antiquity. The Christian Church discerned that some books were good, others were bad and others acceptable with reservations. Not every religious text was considered inspired or authoritative. You have to draw the line someplace. <BR/><BR/>When the Magisterium confirmed the canon from Hippo, it did just that. It did not necessarily condemn other books but it said that THESE books were fit to be read publicly in the Church.<BR/><BR/>And I would reiterate that this was not a human effort. the Holy Spirit superintended the Church in this endeavor and guided it int he truth. This is not continuing revelation. it is the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit who "will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26)."<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, by arguing with you I am making a concession to the hardness of your hearts. Godly people would accept the teaching the Church as a religious submission to Christ in his Mystical Body. As such, the declaration of Hippo in and of itself commands assent regardless of any other evidence. <BR/><BR/>In fact I know that I am unable to convince you people of anything. You do not need rational arguments. You need a new heart. All that I can do is to show you that my position is rational. After that, you must be called by the Holy Spirit to repent of your errors and submit to God. My arguments are mere an aid to that.<BR/><BR/>The idea that I must give you arguments that compel your assent is pure Pelagianism. And it is the supreme error that lies at the root of Protestantism. When Luther was at Wurms, he was asked to submit to the solemn teachings of the Church. His answer was that he refused to do so unless he was personally convinced. <BR/><BR/>This was his actual act of apostasy and it harkens back to the sin in Genesis when the Devil said that our First Parents did not have to believe God but their eyes would be opened and they would see for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Faith is not believing because you understand it to be true. It is believing because God has revealed it and He can neither deceive nor be deceived. <BR/><BR/>Look back at the history of the Bible in the Church. There was no Tradition from the Apostles about Biblical content. The content of the Bible was discerned by the Church over a period of 4 centuries. Prior to Hippo, there were only private opinions about the content of the canon. After Hippo every Magisterial statement on the Canon from Popes and Councils was the same. Certain private opinions differed from that, but those individuals had have no teaching authority.<BR/><BR/>The issue is consistency. There are no Magisterial documents that reject the Deuteros as Scripture. The Catholic Church has been consistent in its Magisterial teaching on this point and has never taught otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile. the Protestant dismissal of the Deuteros is an innovation. The Deuteros were part of the Church's Bible from the very beginning. By not publishing them and not reading them, you are not following "the more critical attitude of Jerome", you are in fact setting out on your own in a direction completely different than anyone had done before. <BR/><BR/>By what authority do you challenge the tradition of the Church? What gives you the right to do so?<BR/><BR/>Answer: Your own willfulness. Nothing more. You have created new religions unrelated to the historic Catholic religion. You had no right to do this but you did it anyway.<BR/><BR/>In the end, my position follows the consistent teaching of the Popes and the Councils. Yours is based on the opinion of mere-men.<BR/><BR/>Nolo contendere! You put our faith in Luther. I put mine in God.<BR/><BR/>ArArt Sippo:https://www.blogger.com/profile/15193733514828584260noreply@blogger.com