The claim is often made that Luther removed books from the Canon, with respect to the Deutero-Canonicals. For example, Scott Windsor says:
You have only that what you have received FROM US (minus a few books which Luther chose not to include).Then he goes on to defend the decree of the Council of Trent as the infallible decision of the Roman Catholic Church on its Canon of Scripture. I'm sort of wondering about this.
First, it's not as if Luther is our only source or influence for the Canon of Scripture.
And he wasn't anything like a Protestant Pope. Why do Roman Catholic apologists constantly make this mistake? Does their pride keep them from accepting correction? This kind of question pops up all the time - "Luther and Calvin lied to you"; "Calvin wasn't a credobaptist; why are you?" Please, you're only making yourself look really stupid.
Second, how can we tell the Roman claim apart from the Eastern Orthodox claim of the same?
Third, the Council of Trent didn't really finish the job.
See: Here
Finally, Luther was dead by 1546. Didn't the relevant vote (which got 44% approval of all present, the rest being nay or abstentions) take place in April 8, 1546? How could Luther remove books from the "infallible Roman Canon of Scripture" post-mortem?
Posts
85 comments:
Against my better judgement I'm going to respond to this, for the readers sake.
Alan:
Luther removed books from the canon.
Scott:
Luther chose not to include
Alan:
How could Luther remove books from the "infallible Roman Canon of Scripture" post-mortem?
Me:
Where did Scott make the claim you say he made?
You do see the difference don't you?
I grant that some have made the claim, but Scott was a little more careful with his words.
Richard,
What, in your mind, is the functional difference between the two statements?
"what you have received FROM US (minus a few books which Luther chose not to include)"
This statement is asinine.
As to the Old Testament canon, the canon is just what we received from the Jews. If the Romans accepted that and added to it, that doesn't mean we got it from them, any more than from the Greeks who added more than the Romans, or the Ethiopians, who added yet more.
And that "If" is mistaken, as Rhology has noted. There was no single "official" Roman position on the canon at the start of the Reformation, nor even during the lifetime of Luther. So, one could reasonably say that Luther's OT canon agreed with the canon of at least some of his contemporary Roman opponents.
To say that Luther "choose not to include" something he "received FROM US" (screaming caps not mine) is anachronistic at best, and more likely simply deceptive.
-TurretinFan
"So, one could reasonably say that Luther's OT canon agreed with the canon of at least some of his contemporary Roman opponents."
Name them along with what they espoused as their official list of inspired books, or canon.
Matthew,
Scott's not arguing that Luther removed books from the "Catholic Canon" as Alan implies.
Well, first off - thanks Richard (ribbet!) for the support.
Secondly, Alan takes a passing comment I made out of the context it was made in and creates a whole story behind it which was not the point of the post he's responding to. I'm not one who is afraid to give credit where credit is due, and James White said this: "Meaning is carried in words. Words are spoken in a context. Without that context, words become empty containers into which we pour our own meanings...(t)his is classic eisegesis, reading into the text a meaning it never had."
Richard has it right, I didn't say Luther removed books from the canon, I said he chose not to include some. Since the canon had not been dogmatically defined yet he did not "remove" from that canon. That IS a functional difference (sorry Matthew).
Turretinfan doesn't seem to realize that the canon used by the Catholic Church came from the Jews too. I happened to blog on that last month. I would also add that Turretinfan's comment that the Greek canon is anachronistic is flatly untrue and the implication of deceit lies more appropriately with his own statement. And I do not use caps to "scream" - but for EMPHASIS. If Turretinfan wishes to take it that way, he's free to do so.
White's link is more precisely here.
Turretin Fan says, "As to the Old Testament canon, the canon is just what we received from the Jews."
Which Jews, and when?
I was reading some of the RC responses here. I've noticed that the one major assumption they've made is that the LXX includes most of the Apocryphal books and that Alexandrian Jews accepted the Apocrypha as canonical.
This assumption, however, remains an assumption that is questionable. The argument forwarded by some scholars is that the LXX contains the Apocrypha since Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus contains some of the books. However, these are 4th and 5th documents which are influenced by Christian scribes. In fact, there is no attestation of Alexandrian or Diaspora Jew that supports the belief that they held to the Apocryphal books as canonical. There are, however, Alexandrian Christian Fathers who attests to a Jewish or Hebrew canon such as Origen and Athanasius.
The point is, the LXX (or something similar to it) that existed in the pre-christian era is consistent with the Jewish canon as the evidence would suggest. The Apocrypha was later on added by Christian scribes rather than the Alexandrian Jews.
"Which Jews, and when?"
Moses, c.1400 BC
Isaiah, c.700 BC
Jeremiah, C.600,
etc.
etc.
Alex wrote: "Name them along with what they espoused as their official list of inspired books, or canon."
This is the sort of comment that I've come to expect from Alex. I'll leave him to do his own research on that subject.
Scott wrote: "Turretinfan doesn't seem to realize that the canon used by the Catholic Church came from the Jews too."
No, it didn't.
Scott wrote: "I happened to blog on that last month."
The best the blog post has going for it is the historical claim that the Old Testament was translated into Greek before the time of Christ, not that there was an Hellenistic Jewish canon that was different from the Palestinian Jewish canon.
"I would also add that Turretinfan's comment that the Greek canon is anachronistic is flatly untrue and the implication of deceit lies more appropriately with his own statement."
a) I was actually saying that Scott's claim was anachronistic.
b) Talking about "the Greek canon" as though it were something that existed before Christ would be anachronistic.
Scott wrote: "And I do not use caps to "scream" - but for EMPHASIS. If Turretinfan wishes to take it that way, he's free to do so."
This reminds me of those folks who say, "I'm not shouting, I'm just raising my voice FOR EMPHASIS!!!!!" Internet convention (which Scott should know by now) is that all caps = shouting.
-TurretinFan
Oh, and I almost left out Matthew Bellisario, who asked: "Which Jews, and when?"
Mr. Bellisario should remember that I already provided evidence of this to him in our debate, in my rebuttal essay (link to rebuttal essay).
By the way, one can find an index of my interactions with Mr. Bellisario at this link, which has recently been updated to include a rather thorough demolition of Mr. Bellisario's attempt to deny the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scriptures.
The best Scott's article does is convince someone that the LXX should be used by the Christian community.
It makes sense though that what was originally an anti Christian canon would become an anti Catholic canon. It seems that the same reasons the Jews rejected the LXX are similar to those of Protestants.
Continuing with the distraction instead of the main point, Turretinfan says:
>> Scott wrote: "Turretinfan
>> doesn't seem to realize that
>> the canon used by the Catholic
>> Church came from the Jews too."
>
> TF: No, it didn't.
sw: You cannot answer for what something SEEMS to be to someone else. You could have answered, "No, I didn't," and but then we could say "then it seems you've engaged in disingeunousness and deceit." To say "no, it didn't" is to deny the perseption of another - and unless (wait for it) Turretinfan is into "mind reading" he cannot say to someone else that this someone else didn't perceive things exactly as they stated they perceived them.
>> Scott wrote: "I happened to
>> blog on that last month."
>
> TF: The best the blog post has
> going for it is the historical
> claim that the Old Testament was
> translated into Greek before the
> time of Christ, not that there
> was an Hellenistic Jewish canon
> that was different from the
> Palestinian Jewish canon.
sw: Well, certainly TF is entitled to his opinion, but it seems he's turned a blind eye to the facts cited within that blog. There are numerous other sources too, which that blog did not touch upon, which demonstrate implicit and explicit references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical Scriptures.
>> sw: "I would also add that
>> Turretinfan's comment that the
>> Greek canon is anachronistic is
>> flatly untrue and the
>> implication of deceit lies more
>> appropriately with his own
>> statement."
>
> TF: a) I was actually saying
> that Scott's claim was
> anachronistic.
>
> b) Talking about "the Greek
> canon" as though it were
> something that existed before
> Christ would be anachronistic.
sw: It (again) seems that TF has not fully read all the resources available to him and/or turns a blind eye to any evidence which might possibly upset the paradigm he's accepted.
>> Scott wrote: "And I do not use
>> caps to "scream" - but for
>> EMPHASIS. If Turretinfan wishes
>> to take it that way, he's free
>> to do so."
>
> JT: This reminds me of those
> folks who say, "I'm not
> shouting, I'm just raising my
> voice FOR EMPHASIS!!!!!"
> Internet convention (which Scott
> should know by now) is that all
> caps = shouting.
sw: Again, TF is entitled to his opinion here, I granted him that from the git-go. Let me just say that use of caps CAN mean shouting or screaming - I have never denied that, but caps are commonly used for emphasis too, especially when using text only. Now in this forum, some HTML is available, but one has to specially type in the HTML tags before and after that which they want bolded, and I avail myself to that at times too - but sometimes it's just quicker and accomplishes the same end to use CAPS. I repeat, if TF (or anyone else) wishes to take my use of caps as shouting, even after I've clarified I don't mean it that way, sobeit.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum
implicit and explicit references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical Scriptures.
And also to pagan philosophers, poets, events, citations from unbelievers.
Even if what you say is true, it matters not at all.
Turretin Fan writes, "By the way, one can find an index of my interactions with Mr. Bellisario at this link, which has recently been updated to include a rather thorough demolition of Mr. Bellisario's attempt to deny the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scriptures."
TF, I am glad you are a legend in your own mind, because your posts clearly demonstrate quite the opposite to the rest of us. I do however hope that you keep posting, because you are helping people find their way into the Catholic Church with each absurd statement that you make. Good day to you.
Turretinfan: "This is the sort of comment that I've come to expect from Alex. I'll leave him to do his own research on that subject."
So I have to substantiate your own argument for you?
Scott wrote: "Again, TF is entitled to his opinion here, I granted him that from the git-go. Let me just say that use of caps CAN mean shouting or screaming - I have never denied that, but caps are commonly used for emphasis too, especially when using text only. Now in this forum, some HTML is available, but one has to specially type in the HTML tags before and after that which they want bolded, and I avail myself to that at times too - but sometimes it's just quicker and accomplishes the same end to use CAPS. I repeat, if TF (or anyone else) wishes to take my use of caps as shouting, even after I've clarified I don't mean it that way, sobeit."
If Turretinfan said you were screaming, then you were screaming.
Matthew Bellisario said...
"TF, I am glad you are a legend in your own mind, because your posts clearly demonstrate quite the opposite to the rest of us."
Well, since I'm not TF, the "rest of us" would have to include people like me, and TF's posts do not demonstrates quite the opposite to me.
Alex wrote: "So I have to substantiate your own argument for you?"
No, you don't have to do anything. You can continue acting like a troll, or you can go do your research, or whatever you like.
-TurretinFan
"I am glad you are a legend in your own mind"
Bellisario: As far as I can see, only you think that defeating you makes someone a legend.
-TurretinFan
Scott wrote: "Turretinfan doesn't seem to realize that the canon used by the Catholic Church came from the Jews too."
I had responded: "No, it didn't."
Scott now responds: "You cannot answer for what something SEEMS to be to someone else. You could have answered, "No, I didn't," and but then we could say "then it seems you've engaged in disingeunousness and deceit." To say "no, it didn't" is to deny the perseption of another - and unless (wait for it) Turretinfan is into "mind reading" he cannot say to someone else that this someone else didn't perceive things exactly as they stated they perceived them."
I respond: Uh, no, Scott. "No, it didn't," is a response to your claim that "the canon used by the [Roman] Catholic Church came from the Jews too." That's something you ought to have picked up from the succeeding comment I made, which observed: "The best the blog post has going for it is the historical claim that the Old Testament was translated into Greek before the time of Christ, not that there was an Hellenistic Jewish canon that was different from the Palestinian Jewish canon."
To which Scott has now responded: "Well, certainly TF is entitled to his opinion, but it seems he's turned a blind eye to the facts cited within that blog."
I answer: They would have to be there, for me to turn a blind eye to them. Actually, I've already identified the best "facts" that the article could come up with in support of its contention, but the facts are not on your side, Scott.
Scott wrote: "There are numerous other sources too, which that blog did not touch upon, which demonstrate implicit and explicit references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical Scriptures."
a) That's pratically irrelevant to the issue of a separate Hellenistic canon.
b) I seem to recall someone at the Triablogue (Jason Engwar perhaps?) shredding one such attempt to find deuterocanonical references in the NT.
Scott also wrote: "It (again) seems that TF has not fully read all the resources available to him and/or turns a blind eye to any evidence which might possibly upset the paradigm he's accepted."
I answer: Let's see if I can craft an answer as devoid of substantive argument as Scott's response: "Scott's perceptions appear to be the result of his wishing the facts were more supportive of his thesis. Scott seems to imagine that there are facts that I could be ignoring or that my paradigm is not the result of careful study into the historical reality." Ah yes, there we go. That about does it.
Scott also continued to note that he was using caps for emphasis. He's welcome to use them to indicate a Chinese accent, for all I care.
Scott also continued to note that he was using caps for emphasis.
The really funny thing is that he's recently taken me to task for using boldface for emphasis. The man is an expert in double standards.
Turretifan: “No, you don't have to do anything. You can continue acting like a troll, or you can go do your research, or whatever you like.”
Turretinfan made the comment that, "one could reasonably say that Luther's OT canon agreed with the canon of at least some of his contemporary Roman opponents."
I asked him to name those Roman opponents and where they listed their respective canons. If one could reasonably say something, then they should also be able to reasonably demonstrate the same.
Turretinfan then said, “This is the sort of comment that I've come to expect from Alex. I'll leave him to do his own research on that subject.”
Why should it be up to me to demonstrate Turretinfan’s argument? He is the one arguing that Luther’s contemporary Roman opponents held to the same canon as Luther did, I’m just asking him to demonstrate his assertion. Where did these Roman opponents detail their own canon? Where did they say, “The Old Testament books are X, Y, Z”? Furthermore, who are these people Turretinfan is referring to?
Therefore, I asked Turretinfan, “So I have to substantiate your own argument for you?”
He responded, “No, you don't have to do anything. You can continue acting like a troll, or you can go do your research, or whatever you like.”
In other words, in Turretinfan’s mind he can make whatever baseless assertion he likes and it is up to us to provide the substance to his assertions, or otherwise we are trolls. My life would have been much easier had I been able to do this in college, especially in my Political Science research methods where I had to develop my own hypothesis and variables, conduct my own measurements, research design, lit. review, sampling, empirical observation, and statistics.
Turretinfnan said: "Scott also continued to note that he was using caps for emphasis. He's welcome to use them to indicate a Chinese accent, for all I care."
Even thought this misses the point, it was funny.
YOU GUYS ARE ARGUING OVER THE USE OF ALL CAPS!!!! THAT'S REALLY DUMB!!!
Luther removed ALL CAPS from Romans 8
Richard, that's funny. As Monk would say: "I'm L-O-Ling outloud."
Alex wrote: "I asked him to name those Roman opponents and where they listed their respective canons. If one could reasonably say something, then they should also be able to reasonably demonstrate the same."
And I declined to play that game with you. If you want to know who they were, you're going to have to do your own research.
Alex wrote: "Why should it be up to me to demonstrate Turretinfan’s argument? He is the one arguing that Luther’s contemporary Roman opponents held to the same canon as Luther did, I’m just asking him to demonstrate his assertion. Where did these Roman opponents detail their own canon? Where did they say, “The Old Testament books are X, Y, Z”? Furthermore, who are these people Turretinfan is referring to?"
It's not required that you substantiate my arguments. Don't you read carefully Alex? You can do whatever you like.
Alex wrote: "In other words, in Turretinfan’s mind he can make whatever baseless assertion he likes and it is up to us to provide the substance to his assertions, or otherwise we are trolls. My life would have been much easier had I been able to do this in college, especially in my Political Science research methods where I had to develop my own hypothesis and variables, conduct my own measurements, research design, lit. review, sampling, empirical observation, and statistics."
That's a complete fair comparison, because comments on this blog are political science research papers, and you're the teacher.
Oh wait.
Actually, that ridiculous comparison is simply one example of an overall pattern of behavior that leads me to think that trying to help you out with your research is a waste of my time.
"Which Jews, and when?"
The ones who wrote and spoke in Hebrew, practiced Judaism, and lived in Palestine.
Not the ones who lived in Egypt, wrote in Attic Greek, and mixed Judaism with Greek philosophy.
Turretinfan,
If you are unable to demonstrate the point you were trying to make it is because you are making it up plain and simple. There were no Roman contemporaries who promulgated any other canon than that of the Church. You are a very dishonest individual, and that has be proven here.
Alex wrote: "If you are unable to demonstrate the point you were trying to make it is because you are making it up plain and simple."
Unwilling does not equal unable, Alex.
Alex wrote: "There were no Roman contemporaries who promulgated any other canon than that of the Church."
a) "The Church" didn't promulgate an official canon during Luther's day. That came afterward. So, it is anachronistic to make this kind of claim.
b) There were Cardinals who were contemporaries of Luther who did agree with the 66 book canon.
Alex wrote: "You are a very dishonest individual, and that has be proven here."
I'd be concerned about that, if actual proof had been offered, instead of the whining of a troll.
"Unwilling does not equal unable, Alex."
Unfortunately for you, due to the fact that you haven't provided any substance to your assertion, we are only left with believing that you are unable.
"a) "The Church" didn't promulgate an official canon during Luther's day. That came afterward. So, it is anachronistic to make this kind of claim."
The Church absolutely did. The Church had promulgated the canon in several Councils prior to Trent (even Jerome alludes to the canon at Nicea). Only someone bent on ignoring facts would make the claim you do here.
“b) There were Cardinals who were contemporaries of Luther who did agree with the 66 book canon.”
Who are they? Did they publish their own canon? Do we find them promulgating their own canon, or did they submit to the final authority of the Church as Jerome did?
“I'd be concerned about that, if actual proof had been offered, instead of the whining of a troll.”
Proof has been given and has yet to be countered. By all means continue to call me a troll; I’m sure name calling is easier than backing up your baseless claims.
"Unfortunately for you, due to the fact that you haven't provided any substance to your assertion, we are only left with believing that you are unable."
You believe all sorts of unjustified things, such as the idea that your church speaks for Christ. It's hardly surprising to me that you'd arrive at the erroneous conclusion that I don't play your games because I can't.
"The Church absolutely did. The Church had promulgated the canon in several Councils prior to Trent (even Jerome alludes to the canon at Nicea). Only someone bent on ignoring facts would make the claim you do here."
a) No, "the Church" didn't.
b) Regional councils (Hippo and Carthage, for example) don't speak for "the Church" in the normal sense of the term.
c) Even if Jerome mistakenly thought so (which seems unlikely - his comments are more easily seen as sarcasm), Nicaea did not promulgate a canon. Nicaea provided a creed, 20 canons, and a letter, which you can find here (link)
"Who are they? Did they publish their own canon? Do we find them promulgating their own canon, or did they submit to the final authority of the Church as Jerome did?"
Do a little research yourself. Stop wasting my time.
"Proof has been given and has yet to be countered. By all means continue to call me a troll; I’m sure name calling is easier than backing up your baseless claims."
"Troll" is just a label for a person who acts the way you are acting here. Wasting others times with inflammatory nonsense and requests for information that you can easily obtain for yourself.
-TurretinFan
Alex,
Research Cardinal Cajetan(debated Luther), Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes Complutensian Polyglot).
Just some other famous Catholics who made the distinction of a secondary canon, (not for doctrine).
Cardinal Cajetan never came up with his own Canon did he? No, and as far as I know, he went with the Church's decision in the end, not his own opinion. If I am wrong in this statement then please show me where the Cardinal decided to form his own canon, and then continued on with his own Canon after the Church made its infallible statement on the matter at Trent. Did Cajetan reject Trent's decision?
Cardinal Cajetan never came up with his own Canon did he? No, and as far as I know, he went with the Church's decision in the end, not his own opinion. If I am wrong in this statement then please show me where the Cardinal decided to form his own canon, and then continued on with his own Canon after the Church made its infallible statement on the matter at Trent. Did Cajetan reject Trent's decision?
Exactly when did Cajetan die and when was Trent held? Ah, what do I know, I'm asking a silly question.
I assume while Cajetan was in purgatory, he was informed of Trent's Canon and finally accepted it. :)
I wonder if anyone would like to discuss what I think the elephant in the room is:
The books in question were included in Luther's translation.
In what sense can they be said to have been "removed"?
The books in question were included in Luther's translation.
In what sense can they be said to have been "removed"?
I've noticed a shift in on-line Roman Catholic treatments of this subject. A few years ago, I would read "Luther took books out of the Bible."
But since I and a few others have highlighted how ignorant this claim is, the argument has shifted to "Luther took books out of the canon."
It now comes down to showing this argument is fraught with bias, as the dogmatic pronouncement on the canon for Roman Catholics wasn't till Trent. Even at Trent, there were those arguing for excluding the apocrypha (Seripando). See: Who Were Some of The Best Scholars At Trent?
I assume while Cajetan was in purgatory, he was informed of Trent's Canon and finally accepted it. :)
You're only hearing that sound of crickets in the background because Matthew is trying to figure out a way to get around his own question.
James, do you have a spy camera on Matt to know his every move and where he has been today? Or do you just presume to be an all-knowing sage? Is it possible Matt hasn't been online? Just a thought.
“You believe all sorts of unjustified things, such as the idea that your church speaks for Christ. It's hardly surprising to me that you'd arrive at the erroneous conclusion that I don't play your games because I can't.”
Yeh, I understand.
“a) No, "the Church" didn't.
b) Regional councils (Hippo and Carthage, for example) don't speak for "the Church" in the normal sense of the term.
c) Even if Jerome mistakenly thought so (which seems unlikely - his comments are more easily seen as sarcasm), Nicaea did not promulgate a canon. Nicaea provided a creed, 20 canons, and a letter, which you can find here (link)”
Can you provide on regional council which did not hold to a longer canon? Exactly.
So this is your position, that Jerome was using sarcasm? More assertions without documentation I see.
Is it your position that you have obtained every document produced by Nicaea? So any other recorded history, say Jerome’s comments for instance, is not sufficient to say that Nicaea discussed the canon?
“Do a little research yourself. Stop wasting my time.”
You refuse to provide documentation to your claims. It is our time you are wasting.
“’Troll’ is just a label for a person who acts the way you are acting here. Wasting others times with inflammatory nonsense and requests for information that you can easily obtain for yourself.”
Your behavior here is indicative of your lack of a reasonable response.
James, do you have a spy camera on Matt to know his every move and where he has been today? Or do you just presume to be an all-knowing sage? Is it possible Matt hasn't been online? Just a thought.
Matthew's probably seen the question. He has left comments here since I posted it. Perhaps he can write Mr. Sungenis again, like last time.
James, you might be right, he did leave another comment on another post since your question that I didn't see. Then again that also kinda illustrates my point. I didn't know that he made the other comment.
"Can you provide on regional council which did not hold to a longer canon? Exactly."
And you think that matters because?
"So this is your position, that Jerome was using sarcasm? More assertions without documentation I see."
The documentation is what Jerome said, and the context in which he said it. Those interested may find the documentation here (link).
As for the remainder, regarding Nicaea for example, you may begin with § 120. The Council of Nicaea, 325. at this link (link).
From Turretinfan's blog:
Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.
- Jerome, Prologue to Judith (It's not clear to me whether Jerome was being confused or sarcastic. Nicaea did not decide the canon, and had they done so, one would hardly expect the later councils of Hippo and Carthage to omit reference to this fact.)
And we are to believe that Jerome was being sacastic because you say he was??? Nothing here indicates to me that he was being sarcastic, and your argument to prove it is extremely weak.
"And you think that matters because?"
Well for starters, the Roman contemporaries of Luther knew who had the authority for deciding the canon, and it wasn't of their own personal decision. You seem to hold the erroneous position that people like Cajetan (even though you conveniently didn’t actually name him) had their own canon like Luther did, but you ignore the fact that the canon serves the Church, and the Church as such has the authority to determine what that canon is. Cajetan submitted his beliefs to the authority of the Church, hence his dedicatory letter to Clement VII regarding his biblical commentaries. So yes, the lack of a shorter canon being promulgated by the various councils is certainly problematic to your position.
Best wishes,
Troll
the Roman contemporaries of Luther knew who had the authority for deciding the canon
Prove it.
Rhology,
There is this thing that people like to call reading. Try it some time.
"Cajetan submitted his beliefs to the authority of the Church, hence his dedicatory letter to Clement VII regarding his biblical commentaries."
Name the other Roman contemporaries who held to Luther's canon and we can proceed from there.
Best wishes,
Troll
"As for the remainder, regarding Nicaea for example, you may begin with § 120. The Council of Nicaea, 325. at this link (link)."
Let's see, regarding Nicaea we have Philip Schaff, Reformed Protestant January 1, 1819 – October 20, 1893 versus St. Jerome 347 – 420...
Best wishes,
Troll
Back to the original point of Alan's original post in this thread... As Richard accurately pointed out, Alan misrepresented my words in changing what I said. I didn't say Luther removed books from the Catholic Canon, I said he chose not to include some. This is fact. The Catholic Canon existed from the late 4th century and is found in the old Latin Vulgate - which in English is the Douay-Rheims Bible. Luther's canon did not include several books from the previously established Catholic Canon which was infallibly declared shortly after Luther's death but had existed for more than a millennium prior to Luther. These are undeniable facts - though I'm sure we'll see some sort of rationalizations trying to get around these facts.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Luther's canon did not include several books from the previously established Catholic Canon which was infallibly declared shortly after Luther's death but had existed for more than a millennium prior to Luther.
But since it hadn't been declared in any church-wide sense until after Luther died, the point has no teeth. Besides, aren't Romanists always the ones screaming about how anathemas don't work retroactively?
Rhology the canon didn't have to be infallibly defined for the fact to remain that the Church (as seen in various councils and as given by various popes) officially used the longer canon and not an equivalent to Luther's. Period. I realize that these facts are nasty little inconveniences which you would prefer to overlook, but they are what they are.
Sincerely,
Troll
Not interested in "official" b/c Romanists tell me all the time that what's INFALLIBLY PRONOUNCED is what counts. Thanks for trying to divert the topic, tho.
Rhology,
I could care less what you say that some unnamed Catholic apologists have said, where does the Catholic Church say that only infallible teachings count regarding the canon?
Sincerely,
Troll
ISTM it should mean sthg when it goes to all that trouble to use all that fancy schmancy ex cathedra language.
Regarding the absence of regional councils with short canons, I had asked: "And you think that matters because?"
Alex responded: "Well for starters, the Roman contemporaries of Luther knew who had the authority for deciding the canon, and it wasn't of their own personal decision."
I feel bad, because Alex seems to be unaware of the option where the Roman contemporaries of Luther recognize that the canon is an historical fact of inspiration, not an authoritative subsequent decision.
That said, at least one such contemporary recognized an apparent split between Jerome and the regional councils mentioned above. This contemporary resolved the split by explaining that there are two types of canonicity.
Alex continued: "You seem to hold the erroneous position that people like Cajetan (even though you conveniently didn’t actually name him) had their own canon like Luther did, but you ignore the fact that the canon serves the Church, and the Church as such has the authority to determine what that canon is."
Ah, this could either be:
1) a true expression of diehard Romanism: the historical facts serve the church, and consequently she gets to decide what they will be; or
2) a comment on the secondary sense of canonicity (churches deciding what books will be read in church).
Alex continued: "Cajetan submitted his beliefs to the authority of the Church, hence his dedicatory letter to Clement VII regarding his biblical commentaries."
Whether he submitted his beliefs to the authority of the Church is hardly the question posed here. Cajetan (like Luther) passed away before Trent got around to dogmatically defining the canon.
"So yes, the lack of a shorter canon being promulgated by the various councils is certainly problematic to your position."
Cajetan didn't seem to think so, and nothing you've stated above actually connects the absence of regional councils with 66 books canons to any particular problem for my position (unless the link is supposed to be submission to authority). In point of fact, a regional council wouldn't have been binding on Cajetan, and while Jerome wasn't binding on him either, Cajetan quite intentionally followed Jerome in adopting the shorter canon of Scripture, both as to books and as to parts of books.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, says.
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent
Rhology the canon didn't have to be infallibly defined for the fact to remain that the Church (as seen in various councils and as given by various popes) officially used the longer canon and not an equivalent to Luther's.
If this was so, then why were there a group of respected Roman Catholic scholars at Trent who argued against including the apocrypha?
Also this may be of interest:
http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html
http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html
If this was so, then why were there a group of respected Roman Catholic scholars at Trent who argued against including the apocrypha?
Also this may be of interest:
http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html
Currently, I don't have the time or interest to read through this businessman’s essay. I do know that there are multiple Catholic rebuttals to it. I’m assuming that you have read through it, so by all means if Webster has demonstrated a Church council that has promulgated a shorter canon equivalent to Luther’s then by all means please point that out. The dispute isn’t the existence of various longer canons, or that the Catholic Church dogmatically defined the canon prior to Trent, the dispute is that it is not true that Church councils officially used the shorter canon of Luther’s liking. Luther promulgated his own short canon to his pseudo-church. The difference between his actions and the actions of his Catholic contemporaries is one very loosely similar to a presidential cabinet disputing amongst themselves in determining policy which ultimately the president would decide. The relevant elements that I am attempting to point out are that:
a) Luther, in acting as a theologian prior to the definitive declaration of the Church, was within his legitimate role as theologian to discuss the makeup of the canon.
b) However, he is faulted in developing his canon because the canon is not his to define nor does he have the authority to do so.
c) The Magisterium has been given the authority to recognize and define the canon.
I am sure that there will be some knuckleheaded responses which will confuse what I have said with them thinking I am saying that the Magisterium makes something canonical. I am not saying that. Only God makes something canonical. But because we are not all endowed with God’s knowledge so as to know what is canonical from what isn’t, God has endowed the Magisterium with the ability and on behalf of His authority to know with certainty what is canonical. As such theologians vigorously defend their study, but ultimately show deference to the proper authority. Luther failed to do this, and instead he presumed on the basis of his own authority to determine the canon.
Lastly, there has been a logical mistake made by Turretinfan and others in erroneously believing that the standing of an official position and a dogma teaching are synonymous. This is not true. All dogmas are official, but not all that is official is dogma.
Sincerely,
Troll
God has endowed the Magisterium with the ability and on behalf of His authority to know with certainty what is canonical.
...and how are you certain of this?
Calling a minister a "businessman" and claiming that the article has been "refuted" when you've never bothered to read it are just two points of evidence that indeed our resident "troll" is correctly labeling himself.
It also demonstrates to us that his previous griping over the cost of paying for Webster/King's work was a bunch of nonsense: he wouldn't read it if it were free.
-TurretinFan
I haven't read any of DavidWaltz's or CathApol's blog writings, but I know their ideas are full of hot garbage. I have faith.
Since I'm new around here, much of this is new to me. Please let me know if I'm on the right track inderstanding all this stuff.
1) Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit
2) These Hebrew Prophets wrote the very words of God as God gave it to them and passed these words down to us
3) The Jewish "Church" assembled these inspired writtings into a Cannon which was passed to the Christian Church
4) Other questionable Greek writtings were not included by teh Jews b/c of their dubious origin (Egyptian, written in Greek, contradictory materials,etc)
5) Some early leaders in the Christian church accepted these writting and some did not
6) When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German (giving the Word of God to the people of God) from the original languages, he included these works, but labeled them as apocryphal
6a) Luther has been accused of removing these writtings from the Bible, but he did not
7) A human being, after Luther's death, who presumes to speak for God, who tried to suppress the Words of God, but was hindered, made a Biblical Cannon other than the one the Jewish "Church" decided on by adding these spurious writtings
7a) Luther has been accused of not following the official cannon (which was decided after his death) when he agreed with the Jewish "Church" and many Church Fathers over against a council that met years after his death, when he translated the Bible against their wishes.
This all reminds me of an experience I had witnessing to a Jehovah's Witness a few years ago. I was showing a JW lady, from Scripture, that salvation is by the grace of God through Faith in Christ alone. She couldn't defend her belief over against what the Bible stated, so she started questioning me about the translation I was using. The conversation turned into a big argument about who has aurthority to translate the Bible (she thought only her church did). The elderly gentleman I was with abruptly ended the conversation and explained to me later that Satan was putting up a smokescreen b/c he cannot bear with the Word of God (I Tim 2:23).
Andrew says:
1) Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit
2) These Hebrew Prophets wrote the very words of God as God gave it to them and passed these words down to us
Agreed
3) The Jewish "Church" assembled these inspired writtings into a Cannon which was passed to the Christian Church
Wrong. There was no "canon" as we know it today, at least for the first few centuries after the death of Christ.
4) Other questionable Greek writtings were not included by teh Jews b/c of their dubious origin (Egyptian, written in Greek, contradictory materials,etc)
All the material, whether the LXX or the MT, was questionable at some point in time.
5) Some early leaders in the Christian church accepted these writting and some did not
Agreed
6) When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German (giving the Word of God to the people of God) from the original languages, he included these works, but labeled them as apocryphal
True.
6a) Luther has been accused of removing these writtings from the Bible, but he did not
False. At least as far as this post goes. Scott Windsor was accused of saying this, but he did not. Still no retraction.
7) A human being, after Luther's death, who presumes to speak for God, who tried to suppress the Words of God, but was hindered, made a Biblical Cannon other than the one the Jewish "Church" decided on by adding these spurious writtings
Aside from the false accusation about suppression of the Word of god, Luther himself presumed to speak for God.
Also, I wonder what you mean by the Jewish Church. Second, Trent did no such thing. These books were not added, they were accepted by the Church and attested to by at least three councils, Carthage, Hippo and Florence; as well as various Church Fathers.
7a) Luther has been accused of not following the official cannon (which was decided after his death) when he agreed with the Jewish "Church" and many Church Fathers over against a council that met years after his death, when he translated the Bible against their wishes.
Again, false accusation. There's no doubt that Luther decided on his own canon, for whatever reason.
This all reminds me of an experience I had witnessing to a Jehovah's Witness a few years ago. I was showing a JW lady, from Scripture, that salvation is by the grace of God through Faith in Christ alone. She couldn't defend her belief over against what the Bible stated, so she started questioning me about the translation I was using. The conversation turned into a big argument about who has aurthority to translate the Bible (she thought only her church did). The elderly gentleman I was with abruptly ended the conversation and explained to me later that Satan was putting up a smokescreen b/c he cannot bear with the Word of God (I Tim 2:23).
I'll leave you to your judgments but the comparison to a sect is noted and not appreciated.
I typed "refuted" above where Alex actually wrote: "I do know that there are multiple Catholic rebuttals to it."
Evidently I wrongly assumed that Alex meant to suggest that those rebuttals had refuted the article. Apparently he meant something else by bringing up the multiple Roman Catholic responses and characterizing them as "rebuttals."
What that is, I have no idea - perhaps Alex' policy is not to read things that multiple members of his religion think are worth responding to. One would think that Alex meant what I assumed, but I've received information that leads me to believe that my assumption was mistaken, and I want to set the record straight.
-TurretinFan
Rhology said...
>> sw: Luther's canon did not
>>include several books from
>> the previously established
>>Catholic Canon which was
>> infallibly declared shortly
>> after Luther's death but had
>> existed for more than a
>> millennium prior to Luther.
>
> AR: But since it hadn't been
> declared in any church-wide
> sense until after Luther died,
> the point has no teeth.
sw: The point wasn't the "teeth" here - just the fact that the Catholic Canon had existed since the 4th century and every approved Catholic Bible from that time forward used that canon.
> AR: Besides, aren't Romanists
> always the ones screaming
> about how anathemas don't work
> retroactively?
sw: Who is talking anathemas here? I wasn't! Straw man.
> AR: I haven't read any of
> DavidWaltz's or CathApol's blog
> writings, but I know their ideas
> are full of hot garbage. I
> have faith.
sw: Well, I have absolute certainty that what you just wrote is a lie. You've responded to things I've written on my blog both here AND on my blog! While we're on the subject of my blog, I'd be curious as to your
comments on the RC Sproul and sola scriptura article.
> Turretinfan said... Calling a
> minister a "businessman"
> and claiming that the article
> has been "refuted" when
> you've never bothered to read it
> are just two points of
> evidence that indeed our
> resident "troll" is correctly
> labeling himself. It also
> demonstrates to us that his
> previous griping over the cost
> of paying for Webster/King's
> work was a bunch of nonsense: he
> wouldn't read it if it were free.
sw: Just to be clear here (since this may not always be read in context) Alex called Webster a "businessman." FWIW, I personally do not see a problem with folks
asking for donations and/or selling books to help cover costs or even to eek out an income to live on. I know what it costs to run a website, I run a few myself. I've personally invested over $2000 into my "ministry" and
though I do not actively solicit for donations, would I accept them? Sure. I believe there was one time many years ago when I was going through some hard times and I asked - and some contributed.
> James Swan said...
>> "God has endowed the
>> Magisterium with the ability
>> and on behalf of His authority
>> to know with certainty what is
>> canonical."
>
> ...and how are you certain of
> this?
sw: Matthew 18:18. Authority to infallibly bind or loose was given to the First Magisterium. Once something is so bound we can know with certainty.
sw: I thank you again for another opportunity to share God's Truth with you.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
RC Sproul on sola scriptura
sw: Matthew 18:18. Authority to infallibly bind or loose was given to the First Magisterium. Once something is so bound we can know with certainty.
The Apostles were magistrates? I thought the meaning of the word apostle is messenger or ambassador. If there are theocratic magistrates in the Bible it was the theocratic kings of Israel, many of whom were corrupt idol worshipers, all of whom were fallible.
The context of Matt 18:18 is -
"15(W) "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them,tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church,let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
It would seem the entirety of the passage is about forgiveness and the last couple verses there seem to overthrow the notion of men lording over men. If we want to know what Christ thinks about men being lords over other men's souls, we can find a relevant passage in Matt 23:
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mr Windsor,
What does "approved Catholic Bible" mean? And why did Cardinal Cajetan disagree? And Pope Gregory the Great? And Athanasius?
The anathemas are Trent's anathemas. Hardly a strawman.
Rhology: I haven't read any of DavidWaltz's or CathApol's blog writings, but I know their ideas are full of hot garbage. I have faith.
sw: Well, I have absolute certainty that what you just wrote is a lie
You are so quick, apparently, to make emotional judgmental statements against me that you didn't take the time to see that I was satirising Alex's statement of willful ignorance. Sarcasm. Joke.
Matthew 18:18. Authority to infallibly bind or loose was given to the First Magisterium.
And thanks to Andrew Suttles, who demonstrates that the context, which is always a good thing to check, shows that the binding and loosing refer to church discipline. Something Rome could use a refresher course in, these days. Both context and church discipline.
Peace,
Rhology
(shaking my head)
Come on Andrew and Alan! What Andrew posted from context PROVES MY POINT! The authority to bind or loose IS a magisterial authority! Are you really not seeing that? Are you seriously arguing that because that name was not used it does not apply? I suppose next we decide that "Trinity" should not be used because the Apostles, nor Christ, used that word - even if it accurately applies to the nature of God.
Do you guys think this stuff through before you click on "Publish your comment?"
The authority to bind or loose IS a magisterial authority!
Oh, I missed where Matthew 18 contains the Greek word for "magisterium". I see "church" in there...
... even if you want to say the authority to bind and loose applies only to the forgiveness of sins (which I don't) - it is still something one "decides" to do, or "magistrates" over another. In John 20 the authority to forgive or retain sins (a decision to be made) is given to the Apostles.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Alan,
The context (that which just precedes verse 18) is all about deciding what to do if a brother (one in the Church) is in sin. First confront him, then bring some others - if that doesn't work - bring him to the Church for a decision and whatsoever they bind is bound in Heaven as well as Earth, or whatsoever they loose, is loosed in Heaven as well as on Earth.
You're simply wrong again on this Alan, and the sooner you admit to it, the less embarrassing this will be for you.
Scott<<<
My local church does that, actually.
(And Rome doesn't, really.)
Where is the Magisterium, again?
Alan/Rhology said:
> AR: My local church does that, actually.
sw: So you're confirming (again) that your local church is acting like a "little magisterium" again.
Thanks!
> AR: (And Rome doesn't, really.)
sw: So, in YOUR concept of "church" it happens at YOUR church, but not in other churches, like MY church. I see. How consistent is that?
> AR: Where is the Magisterium, again?
sw: The authority was clearly given to the Apostles in Matthew 18, and that authority lies with their successors.
sw: I thank you again for the opportunity to share God's Truth with you.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Well, I'd agree that in this case it was a little magisterium, except my church actually practices biblical excommunication. When was the last time yours did?
And of course, I'm not claiming Rome is totally wrong in EVERYthing, so in this case my church and yours coincide. Doesn't make my church a little magisterium.
So, in YOUR concept of "church" it happens at YOUR church, but not in other churches, like MY church. I see. How consistent is that?
This makes no sense. It happens in mine. It happens rarely if ever in yours. How is that a question of consistency on my part?
The authority was clearly given to the Apostles in Matthew 18, and that authority lies with their successors.
Where does Matt 18 say that about their successors?
The bottom line here, to get back to the REAL subject of this thread, is that I made a statement that "Luther chose not to include" some books which had previously been part of the canon of Scripture for over a millennia, Alan changed my words and saying I said "Luther removed books from the canon."
THE canon was not decided by any one man. It was a process which culminated in the late 4th century. Later, men tried to move some of those books to a less than "scriptural" status (a "canon" being a list, and at least at first the books were still included in "the list" so they'd still be considered "canonical" from that viewpoint). Individuals, even St. Jerome, made personal observations about the canon - but every Bible authorized by the Church included all the books the old Latin Vulgate included - and still do to this day. Even the first KJV included them, without distinction from the rest of Scripture at first - but in later editions moved the Deuterocanonicals to an appendix and later still, left them out altogether. Every other Protestant Bible has followed suite since then.
I'm not sure what more can be said here.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
CathApol
Alan, your last comment (along with some of my previous ones) is really not on-topic for this thread. I will prepare a post on "Authority" and post it to my blog. I invite you to respond to that posting.
THIS thread was about your accusation of me stating Luther "removed" books - and the subtle difference, yet still a functional difference, that I really said he chose not to include some books. If you agree that's what I really said, then I'm pretty much done with this thread. All the side-topics should be thread of their own.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Come on Andrew and Alan! What Andrew posted from context PROVES MY POINT! The authority to bind or loose IS a magisterial authority! [snip...]I suppose next we decide that "Trinity" should not be used because the Apostles, nor Christ, used that word [SNIP...]Do you guys think this stuff through before you click on "Publish your comment?"
CA -
I do admit that I am hasty to publish sometimes. If I come off harsh or "off the cuff" I don't intend to.
Regarding the Trinity, I do believe that it is Biblical. The word Trinity is a theological word to describe the Bible's clear and authoratative teaching on the nature of God. The word magistrate is also a theological word, but it is being used to describe a concept of authority contrary to the Scriptures. I do not disagree with the word, I disagree with the your concept of it.
In the context of Matthew 18, it is not exclusively the 12 Apostles who are in view. The word used is disciples, which is more generic. There were numerous followers present. At the end of chapter 17, Peter is actually sent off on an errand and Chap 18 begins with 'disciples' asking Jesus a question 'at the same time' that he had sent Peter away.
[However, Peter does come to Jesus and ask him a question in verse 21, so perhaps he was present or perhaps verse 21 begins a new episode which happens at a later time. The other synoptics are not helpful here.]
Regardless, in verse 18 Jesus says that "whatever 'you all' (or ye in KJV) bind...". Note that you is plural - he is speaking to the whole group - not only to the head of the Apostles. If Jesus is establishing a single person to function as a magistrate OVER the churches, it would be strange to follow up his statement on binding with this, "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
It seems pretty clear that Christ is teaching that no higher appeal needs to take place than the local church. If one will not be reconciled to his brother in his local church, he should be disfellowshiped. No higher appeal is necessary because where 2 or 3 consent together in Jesus' name, He consents along with them.
The "Complutensian Bible", sacntioned by Pope Leo X, states, "The books, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation "
Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, was responsible for producing, as Metzger also mentions, an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia in the early sixteenth century. In producing this work he collaborated with the leading theologians of his day. In the Preface of this work there is an admonition given regarding the Apocrypha. It states that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, were not canonical Scripture. The Preface goes on to say that the Church did not receive the Apocryphal books for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. This Bible and its Preface was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated. The New Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following history of this Bible and affirms the sanctioning of this work by the pope:
The first Bible which may be considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcala (in Latin Complutum, hence the name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 150217, under the supervision and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, 'to revive the languishing study of the Dacred Scriptures'; and to achieve this object he undertook to furnish students with accurate printed texts of the Old tetament in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin. His Bible contains also the Chaldaic Targum of the Pentateuch and an interlinear Latin translation of the Greek Old Testament. The work is in six large volumes, the last of which is made up of a Hebrew and Chaldaic dictionary, a Hebrew grammar, and Greek dictionary. It is said that only six hundred copies were issued; but they found their way into the principal libraries of Europe and had considerable influence on subsequent editions of the Bible (The New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), The Polyglot Bibles).
"Even the first KJV included them, without distinction from the rest of Scripture at first - but in later editions moved the Deuterocanonicals to an appendix and later still, left them out altogether."
CA -
I'm glad you steered the discussion back to the topic at hand. I'm sorry for my part in helping to steer the discussion down a rabit trail.
As to your statement above, I don't think it is correct. I have a facsimile copy of a 1611 KJV (Gothic Script and all) and the Apocrapha is in a distinct section between the testaments. I also think the list is slightly different than the one found in Roman Catholic Bibles.
If Luther had had half a brain he would have removed Romans 9 from the canon. The Catholics added that wicked and fake chapter back when they were even stupider than they are now.
As promised, my post on authority can be found here:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/11/authority-of-church.html
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Post a Comment