I really quite disagree. The parable was told in response to a question of how to achieve eternal life - which ended with Christ agreeing that the two greatest commandments are how. Love your neighbor as yourself was followed up by asking of who is my neighbor. So this is an important question. Who followed the Law in the story? Not the priest or Levite. This is the point. The Law says for a priest to not touch a dead body, and they said - then I can't risk violating the Law to show mercy. In keeping this, they broke the greatest commandment. Like Christ tells them - you measure out a tithe of all your herbs, but pass by justice and the love of God. Appropriately the "pass by" word used is the same in both passages.

This isn't what the Law was for, any more than it was to prevent a man being healed on the Sabbath.

I'd rather not have arguments with you about Luther or Lutheranism. We've had plenty of those and it's less than productive. Yet you seem to want to continue to bring him up, either within or without context. In this case, you bring him up in back to back sentences with Marcion. It was unnecessary to do and necessitated a response against it.

But as you said, "noted that he made the argument to remove James and Hebrews from the canon." Did he? It's disputed in historical settings. He certainly had issues with James because in his younger years, he felt it contradicted with Paul's writings. I don't recall any such argument against Hebrews other than the author is disputed/unknown. So did he want them removed? Answers unclear. Did he want them noted for readers that they were not readily accepted? Absolutely. This was at a time he was bringing transparency to the sins Rome hid.

Quote:

---

You didn't actually show that what I said is not true. You said you disagree and then said it was a projection. Can you provide some kind of reasoning or rationalization for your disagreement?

---

Your primary argument, as is Romes, is that without "The Church" there can be no Scriptures. Since Rome and the Orthodox define "the church" differently, and as I pointed out there are already differences in how they view the Scriptures.

Second, in a lot of sense, this argument removes or lessens God and the Old Testament from the equation. Sure you'll claim God guided "the church," but what you really seem to say is that without "the church" there's would be no New Testament. It's almost as if you're saying that God is just passively involved in His creation and leaving it to hope or chance that fallen creatures would get it right.

In his response to the Council of Trent, Martin Chemnitz argued that not even Rome disputed that this was not what happened in the OT. The OT is rather clear that the written Scriptures were always to be near the rulers to guide them.

Deuteronomy 17: 18-19
Deuteronomy 31: 10-13
Deuteronomy 31: 24-27
1 Samuel 10:25
Isaiah 30:8
Habakkuk 2:2
Isaiah 8:20
2 Chronicles 17:7-9

The argument was that Sola Scriptura, in i's truest sense, always existed. That God always made sure His words were available and written down to the shared, not because a Church decreed it (as Rome did at Trent), but because God delivered it.

It's also interesting that Sola Scriptura wasn't really an issue during the Reformation. What was at issue was whether Rome unilaterally spoke for the Ancient Fathers, and to that the Reformers said no.

Zobel said:

---

Been there since before you.

Anyway it is relevant. You can't say someone's canon is different if they don't have one to begin with.

---

Lets take an example.

It's illegal to spit on the ground in Singapore. A quick google search says it's up to a $1,000 fine.

If you went to Singapore and got caught spitting on the ground, I don't think a good legal defense would be "well it's not a law in the United States."


Rome says you "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."

So saying you don't have a canon is not really an argument against an affirmative law/statement.You must affirm their canon or else.

That's why I said it's not really relevant. Whether you affirm no canon or the 76 that are in the Orthodox Study Bible, or any other number, it's all in anathema with Rome.

If you don't want to argue about Luther why did you interrupt a conversation being had with someone else to argue about Luther then continue to argue over and over with a point I never made?

I never made that argument, let alone make it a primary argument. It's almost as if I'm not needed in this conversation. Are you sure you're replying to me and not someone else?

My argument is scripture can't be the sole and final authority without an external truth criterion defining what is scripture.

I don't want to argue about Luther, but I'm also not going to let a statement stand uncontested that was a half truth at best and wrong at worst.

And my counter was that throughout the OT, God was the one who insured His people knew His truth.

That also happened naturally with the NT. It's only Rome and the Orthodox that later inserted themselves in as the self defined church that both unilaterally (ironically) created the NT. And I get it, your Holy Tradition requires this model in order to justify the church being on par or even superior to the Scriptures.

But just because you believe what you believe does not invalidate Sola Scriptura as defined by the Reformers.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Facts in Evidence...

The Catholics have the 73 books. The orthodox have the 73 books. Martin Luther begrudgingly kept the 73 books. The original KJV had the 73 books. The modern KJV removed these books about 100 years ago and is now down to 66. Who? Why? What? How? and When?

1. Who decided to remove them?
2. Why did they want them removed?
3. What was their authority to make this decision?
4. How did they get this authority and what was their process to making this decision (ie. a council?)?
5. When did they meet and make these decisions?


This is not a thought exercise. This is history. This In fact happened. I just want to know if ANYONE knows who did this and can answer some or all of these questions.

It is truly perplexing to me that nobody knows and Bible alone believers can just shrug their shoulders about it.

---

Facts in Evidence?

Have you counted how many books are in the Orthodox bible?

Here's a link: Orthodox Study Bible

You'll find that the Orthodox Bible does not have 73 books....My count shows 76.

By the rules of Trent, that puts the Orthodox in anathema right?

---

So your response is to go with "What about the Orthodox"??

My question is directed to Christians - specifically Protestants - who hold to a Sola Scriptura or Bible supreme doctrine to answer the questions above, which does not include the Orthodox. The Orthodox do not rely only on the Bible for their Christian authority and practice. The Orthodox are Apostolic in nature going all the way back to the beginning and they have been a witness to, and testified to what is Scripture throughout Christian history. I have no concerns or issue with the Orthodox who are on a very solid foundation.

Apparently modern day Protestants cannot even explain, much less defend, the changes that were actually made to their current Bibles less than 150 years ago. These changes were made decades after the Civil War ended for perspective. Protestants are not even interested in the subject which completely baffles me.

As far as the Orthodox 76 books you cite vs. the 73 in the Catholic Canon...there are some differences in how the books are structured and counted, but the content is largely the same with very minor, if any differences. There is no issue between the Orthodox and the Catholics on what is Scripture. This is actually a very telling point because of the agreement in our Scriptures...chapters and verses were not even added to the Bibles until after the Schism between the East and West.

So back to the Facts in Evidence that you completely ignored in lieu of what about the Orthodox...what about the 66 books? Can you provide some support for not having the 73?

Again, nothing you've said here addresses anything I've written.

Scripture can't be the final standard of truth without a definition of scripture. Because the scripture doesn't contain a canon or rules to determine one this is an external criterion.

Whatever means or methods you want to introduce to determine what is scripture is secondary. But you can't get to step 2 until you get through step 1.

Zobel said:

---

Again, nothing you've said here addresses anything I've written.

Scripture can't be the final standard of truth without a definition of scripture. Because the scripture doesn't contain a canon or rules to determine one this is an external criterion.

Whatever means or methods you want to introduce to determine what is scripture is secondary. But you can't get to step 2 until you get through step 1.

---

Here's the irony of what you just wrote.

You've just done exactly what you accuse Sola Scriptura groups of doing.

Under your view and definition, a group/external criterion needs to determine what is scripture. This definition actually causes a ton of problems. Why? Because the group/criterion is currently undefined. Sure you'll probably point to 1 Tim 3:15, to say it's the church, but this requires you to make a claim that the Orthodox Church is equal to the church described in that passage. That's not a claim supported by "Facts in Evidence" as Faithful Ag said.

So what you end up being left with is saying that a group can determine scripture which in turn would appear to allow basically any group who claims to be christians to pick their own scriptures.

This is simply heading down the path you put us on.

Which is why I don't think it's correct, nor do I think it is an accurate representation of Sola Scriptura at all.

Quote:

---

So your response is to go with "What about the Orthodox"??

---

No...You made three statements you called "Facts in Evidence."

Two of those three statements either are missing facts or evidence (since claiming Luther "begrudgingly kept 73" is not based in any evidence you provided).

You could simply admit you were wrong. That would be a good start to the discussion...

Quote:

---

My question is directed to Christians - specifically Protestants - who hold to a Sola Scriptura or Bible supreme doctrine to answer the questions above, which does not include the Orthodox.

---

While you may try to spin to this now, you specifically included the Orthodox in your "Facts in Evidence." This is the EXACT SAME issue that I pointed out with Zobel. If you're trying to prove something, prove it without making spurious arguments. But further, your statement is false. Under the Council of Trent, the Orthodox are 100% anathema for not holding exactly to the books called out in Trent. That's an inconvenient fact with evidence that you seem to want to avoid.

But let's talk through why your "real question" and why it's framed incorrectly.

Sola Scriptura, as used by the Reformers, did not just give them the ability to remove books. Martin Luther, in his German translation kept these books.

So your fight is not with Protestantism as a whole. It's not with the Reformers who used Sola Scriptura. They are in fact on your side in the matter.

So you'll need to pick a fight with another group.

You have yet to respond to what I say, and you spend all your time arguing about things I haven't said, or things you think I've said or am going to say. I haven't accused anyone of anything, or "done" anything.

The point of this discussion going back to page 1 is not Luther, it's not "what is the Church?" or whatever other fight you're trying to pick.

It's "is the Christian religion based solely on the inspired word" and "is the bible the supreme authority?"

The answer to both of these is No.

Scripture can't be the final standard of truth without a definition of scripture. Because the scripture doesn't contain a canon or rules to determine one, the definition of scripture is an external criterion.

This invalidates that the Christian religion is based solely on the inspired word, and it also invalidates the the bible is the supreme authority. By simple evidence, the "Christian religion" predates the bible, so unless people have time machines, it can't be based on something that came after it.

I keep expecting you to say "yeah, that's exactly the difference between sola and solo" or perhaps "right, because the only supreme authority or sole base of the Christian faith is Christ and the Holy Spirit" but you don't. Weird.

The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox use the same books of scripture. There's plenty of anathemas to go around, but the topic of the canon isn't one of them. The table of contents of the Orthodox study bible is not evidence to prove your point.

The only person "picking fights" in this discussion is you. It's nothing but whataboutism and derailing.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Zobel said:
Again, nothing you've said here addresses anything I've written.

Scripture can't be the final standard of truth without a definition of scripture. Because the scripture doesn't contain a canon or rules to determine one this is an external criterion.

Whatever means or methods you want to introduce to determine what is scripture is secondary. But you can't get to step 2 until you get through step 1.

---

AgLiving06 said:
Here's the irony of what you just wrote.

You've just done exactly what you accuse Sola Scriptura groups of doing.

Under your view and definition, a group/external criterion needs to determine what is scripture. This definition actually causes a ton of problems. Why? Because the group/criterion is currently undefined. Sure you'll probably point to 1 Tim 3:15, to say it's the church, but this requires you to make a claim that the Orthodox Church is equal to the church described in that passage. That's not a claim supported by "Facts in Evidence" as Faithful Ag said.

So what you end up being left with is saying that a group can determine scripture which in turn would appear to allow basically any group who claims to be christians to pick their own scriptures.

This is simply heading down the path you put us on.

Which is why I don't think it's correct, nor do I think it is an accurate representation of Sola Scriptura at all.

---

Your dancing. You are all over the place, and you are not following any coherent train of thought.

Firstly, as I stated very clearly in my post - the Orthodox are absolutely the Church that goes all the way back to the Apostles themselves, as are the Catholics. The Catholics & Orthodox are the Apostolic Church of the first 1,000 years of Christianity and with a direct succession back to Christ Himself. This is historical fact.

This is the apostolic foundation that Protestant believers walked away from when the reformers introduced a Sola Scriptura doctrine. Ultimately changes to the Scriptures followed and the Protestant Bible has in fact been changed the past 100-500 years.

This is also why Zobel can rightly go on to say what he said about the process of recognizing scripture. It was through the Apostolic Church that step 1 was accomplished. The Church testified to the Scriptures and their veracity.

So no, we are not talking about just any group who claim to be Christians get to pick their Scriptures. However, the irony here is this is what Protestants have essentially done and accepted. This is precisely why I have repeatedly asked for someone to tell me:

Who? Why? What? How? and When?

1. Who decided to remove them?
2. Why did they want them removed?
3. What was their authority to make this decision?
4. How did they get this authority and what was their process to making this decision?
5. When did they meet and make these decisions?

Quote:

---

While you may try to spin to this now, you specifically included the Orthodox in your "Facts in Evidence." This is the EXACT SAME issue that I pointed out with Zobel. If you're trying to prove something, prove it without making spurious arguments. But further, your statement is false. Under the Council of Trent, the Orthodox are 100% anathema for not holding exactly to the books called out in Trent. That's an inconvenient fact with evidence that you seem to want to avoid.

---

sorry to burst your bubble but the Orthodox and Catholics are not in disagreement about what is Scripture. You are the one mistaken here.

Quote:

---

But let's talk through why your "real question" and why it's framed incorrectly.

Sola Scriptura, as used by the Reformers, did not just give them the ability to remove books.

---

Great...then please answer the following, very simple and direct questions:

The Reformed Protestant Bibles currently have only 66 books recognized as Holy Scripture, which is different that Protestant Bibles originally contained. This is also different from the Orthodox and Catholic Scriptures.

Who? Why? What? How? and When?

1. Who decided to make these changes?
2. Why did they make the changes?
3. What was their authority to make this decision?
4. How did they get this authority and what was their process to making this decision?
5. When did they meet and make these decisions?

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

While you may try to spin to this now, you specifically included the Orthodox in your "Facts in Evidence." This is the EXACT SAME issue that I pointed out with Zobel. If you're trying to prove something, prove it without making spurious arguments. But further, your statement is false. Under the Council of Trent, the Orthodox are 100% anathema for not holding exactly to the books called out in Trent. That's an inconvenient fact with evidence that you seem to want to avoid.

---

sorry to burst your bubble but the Orthodox and Catholics are not in disagreement about what is Scripture. You are the one mistaken here.

Quote:

---

But let's talk through why your "real question" and why it's framed incorrectly.

Sola Scriptura, as used by the Reformers, did not just give them the ability to remove books.

---

Great...then please answer the following, very simple and direct questions:

The Reformed Protestant Bibles currently have only 66 books recognized as Holy Scripture, which is different that Protestant Bibles originally contained. This is also different from the Orthodox and Catholic Scriptures.

Who? Why? What? How? and When?

1. Who decided to make these changes?
2. Why did they make the changes?
3. What was their authority to make this decision?
4. How did they get this authority and what was their process to making this decision?
5. When did they meet and make these decisions?

---

Again. Why must you lie? We could have a productive conversation if you didn't.

Here's a link to the wikipedia article on the Luther Bible: LInk

Here's the text:

Quote:

---

The Luther Bible (German: Lutherbibel) is a German language Bible translation from Hebrew and ancient Greek by Martin Luther. The New Testament was first published in 1522 and the complete Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha, in 1534. It was the first full translation of the Bible into German based mainly on the original Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate translation.

---

So your statement about the "Reformed Protestant Bible" is incorrect. The Bible translated into German by Martin Luther contained all of the books. not 66. You know this, yet you continue to lie. Why?

The correct question you could ask would be why some publishers chose to exclude the apocrypha from their bibles. For that, here's a link: Link to the Zondervan website, who's I think is a pretty big publisher. Why don't you ask them? It's not my job to figure out why they've chosen to do what they've done. So just ask them and let us know?

I have responded to everything you've said. Have you ever thought that if people aren't responding the way you expect that maybe it has to do with what you wrote?

Quote:

---

The point of this discussion going back to page 1 is not Luther, it's not "what is the Church?" or whatever other fight you're trying to pick.

---

Correct. Luther didn't need to be brought up. Yet you chose to bring him up in a manner that was less than correct and it needed to be challenged. This whole conversation gets avoided if you hadn't done that.

Quote:

---

It's "is the Christian religion based solely on the inspired word" and "is the bible the supreme authority?"

The answer to both of these is No.

---

Agree on the first point, disagree on the second.

Quote:

---

I keep expecting you to say "yeah, that's exactly the difference between sola and solo" or perhaps "right, because the only supreme authority or sole base of the Christian faith is Christ and the Holy Spirit" but you don't. Weird.

---

Condescending much? Again, if you aren't getting the responses you seek, maybe it has to do with what you wrote?

However, this was the actual distinction I was trying to draw out of your responses, so close enough.

Wow. So now you are going to call me a liar? Really??

You are hypersensitive to anyone who even alludes to Luther so FORGET LUTHER for the moment. You are trying to pick fights that we are not trying to pick and tie everything to him. Luther is not relevant or needed in order to answer the questions I have repeatedly asked, and yet you continue to avoid them, redirect, and create new arguments that nobody is making to try and change the subject.

Protestant Bibles today are printed with 66 books.

Protestant Bibles used to be printed with 73 books.

Catholic & Orthodox include the 73 books.

Now...
1. Who authorized this?
2. Why? What was wrong with the original?
3. Where did these people get their authority?
4. What process did they use to decide this?
5. When was this decision made?

Quote:

---

Agree on the first point, disagree on the second.

---

You disagree that the bible is not the supreme authority? You'd place the authority of scripture over that of the Holy Spirit, for example?

If it is the supreme authority please explain to me what is scripture without subordinating scripture to another authority.

Zobel said:

---

The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox use the same books of scripture. There's plenty of anathemas to go around, but the topic of the canon isn't one of them. The table of contents of the Orthodox study bible is not evidence to prove your point.

The only person "picking fights" in this discussion is you. It's nothing but whataboutism and derailing.

---

I'm sorry, but the Catholics don't agree with you.

Catholic Answers: Link

Quote:

---

Question:
Do Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have the same canon of Scripture?
Answer:
No, the Eastern Orthodox have a slightly different canon of Scripture. Everything in the Catholic canon is included in the Eastern Orthodox canon, but they have some additional parts:

3 & 4 Maccabees

Psalm 151

The Prayer of Manasseh in Chronicles

1 Esdras

---

Edit. typo.

When someone repeats something that they know is wrong...what would you call it?

Quote:

---

You are hypersensitive to anyone who even alludes to Luther so FORGET LUTHER for the moment. You are trying to pick fights that we are not trying to pick and tie everything to him. Luther is not relevant or needed in order to answer the questions I have repeatedly asked, and yet you continue to avoid them, redirect, and create new arguments that nobody is making to try and change the subject.

---

THANK YOU!!!! You finally get it.

Luther, the Reformers, Sola Scriptura have nothing to do with your argument. I'm glad you were finally able to get there.

Quote:

---

Some Protestant Bibles today are printed with 66 books.

Protestant Bibles used to be printed with 73 books.

Catholic include 73 books

Orthodox include 76 books

---

Had to fix this for you since you once again misspoke (unintentionally I assume). You can see my other post where Catholic Answers also disagrees with you.

Quote:

---

Now...
1. Who authorized this?
2. Why? What was wrong with the original?
3. Where did these people get their authority?
4. What process did they use to decide this?
5. When was this decision made?

---

Wonderful questions. I linked you to the Zondervan website previously. They are a publisher who has made that decision. Why don't you ask them these questions? As you pointed out above, Lutherans are not in disagreement with you on this issue, so it's not an area I've particularly focused on.

Since we should be all square at this point, wouldn't a better question what could or should be done to introduce this part of Church History to the common person who probably doesn't know the history? Seems like a better discussion point.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Agree on the first point, disagree on the second.

---

You disagree that the bible is not the supreme authority? You'd place the authority of scripture over that of the Holy Spirit, for example?

If it is the supreme authority please explain to me what is scripture without subordinating scripture to another authority.

---

No. You misread. To be fair, I had to double check what I wrote as well and initially thought I misspoke.

You posed two statements and then said "the answer to both of these is no."

I agreed with your assessment of the first statement and disagreed with your assessment on Scripture.

So apparently Zondervan is who ratifies scripture for Protestants.

Quote:

---

AgLiving06 said:
When someone repeats something that they know is wrong...what would you call it?

---

I would love nothing more than to let this go but calling me a liar repeatedly- is something I will absolutely defend, especially given that this is a Christian forum. I personally find this comment in very poor taste.

EVERY SINGLE WORD in the Catholic Canon is accepted as Scripture in the Orthodox tradition.
EVERY SINGLE WORD. The Orthodox have a few additional writings that they consider as scripture but the Orthodox do not approach the Canon in the same way as Catholics from a definitional standpoint. Therefore, my stating that the 73 books are included by the Orthodox is not a lie, and this does not present Catholics or Orthodox with any issue between us. Additionally, engaging in whataboutism is not making your point or defending your position as someone who holds to Sola Scriptura.

I also stated that Luther kept the 73 books in his Bible. I added the adjective and opinion that he begrudgingly kept the books in his translation. You can get mad at how I characterized Luther's treatment of the books, but my characterization does not make me a liar.

I'm not sure what Lutheran sources you would accept as sources (I'm not a Lutheran and don't pretend to be an expert on the different synods) but this is from the Evangelical Lutheran Synod:

Quote:

---

https://els.org/resources/answers/apocrypha/

"Martin Luther's German translation did include these books in between the Old Testament and the New Testament, with this important note: "Apocrypha: These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading." Due to a movement in England in the nineteenth century, these "informative but not verbally inspired" books were excluded from English versions, although the RSV had included it in certain editions. It was felt that I there would be too much confusion between these writings (whose authorship was unknown and/or spurious) and the 66 books of Scripture itself."

---

and this is from the Lutheran Missouri Synod:

Quote:

---

https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2011/01/13/the-apocrypha-early-church-councils-and-martin-luther/

"By putting all the Apocrypha together instead of interspersing them as before, Luther helped set up a churchly culture that could later more-easily remove the Apocrypha altogether from the Bible. And this largely took place in the Bibles Protestant's used in the 1800's (1900s for German Lutherans who were transitioning to English).

Luther's most-famous quotation about the Apocrypha comes from his preface to the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible: These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.]"

---

Now you might disagree with me but I am not without sources or history and none of this would make me a liar.

Quote:

---

THANK YOU!!!! You finally get it.

Luther, the Reformers, Sola Scriptura have nothing to do with your argument. I'm glad you were finally able to get there.

---

Sola Scriptura has EVERYTHING to do with my argument. Literally everything.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag Quote:
Some Protestant Bibles today are printed with 66 books.

Protestant Bibles used to be printed with 73 books.

Catholic include 73 books

Orthodox include 76 books

---

Had to fix this for you since you once again misspoke (unintentionally I assume). You can see my other post where Catholic Answers also disagrees with you.

---

Again, thank you for your concern about Catholics and the Orthodox, but trying to pit us against each other in this discussion does not serve your position in any way. I sincerely wish you would actually defend your position instead of worrying about everyone else's. I am seeking to learn why from 1522 until the late 1800's Protestant Bibles contained the Apocrypha, but then somewhere along the way they stopped containing these books. That's all I am trying to understand. 5 seemingly simple questions.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag Quote:
Now...
1. Who authorized this?
2. Why? What was wrong with the original?
3. Where did these people get their authority?
4. What process did they use to decide this?
5. When was this decision made?

---

Wonderful questions. I linked you to the Zondervan website previously. They are a publisher who has made that decision. Why don't you ask them these questions? As you pointed out above, Lutherans are not in disagreement with you on this issue, so it's not an area I've particularly focused on.

Since we should be all square at this point, wouldn't a better question what could or should be done to introduce this part of Church History to the common person who probably doesn't know the history? Seems like a better discussion point.

---

Are you saying Zondervan is the authority on what is Scripture? Is that your position?

Again, you are avoiding having a real discussion. You just got your feathers ruffled because someone dared make a passing reference to Luther and you felt you had to defend his honor so here you are.

The reality is the Protestant Bible has been changed and this happened only very recently in our history. These same Protestant's hold to a Sola Scriptura doctrine. Logic would indicate this is a very problematic position since the very Scriptures they now hold today as their Authority were in fact changed as recently as 150 years ago.

The NT takes a lot of quotes/ideas from the 7 missing books of the Protestant bible, as well as fulfilling their prophecies, so I don't know why, if the NT considers them valid, protestants today don't.

Quote:

---

I linked you to the Zondervan website previously. They are a publisher who has made that decision. Why don't you ask them these questions?

---

Good luck! I'm still waiting to hear back from Random House on whether purgatory is a definitive state, or merely the journey towards God.

Zobel said:

---

So apparently Zondervan is who ratifies scripture for Protestants.

---

It's sad to see you slump to these levels of discussion....

Right, because pointing someone to the Zondervan website and saying "why don't you ask them these questions" is such elevated discourse.

Quote:

---

I would love nothing more than to let this go but calling me a liar repeatedly- is something I will absolutely defend, especially given that this is a Christian forum. I personally find this comment in very poor taste.

---

You've sat there attacking me the entire time on this thread. Saying I need to answer for all of Protestantism, regardless reality. You've yet to approach this conversation with anything short of "I'm right and you're wrong" which has led you to ask tell everyone a bunch of "facts in evidence" that turn out to be false.

As I've said, I'd love to have a real conversation, but you've had no interest for months. You've thrown your questions out that aren't relevant. That has been my answer to you for months, and you still think these are some sort of gotcha questions. They are irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Now you might disagree with me but I am not without sources or history and none of this would make me a liar.

---

Ah, now it's to move the goal posts! At least it's a better discussion topic than over the number of books.

Is your revised question why would an LCMS take the view that the Apocryphal books are not canon, but viewed as useful?

Quote:

---

Sola Scriptura has EVERYTHING to do with my argument. Literally everything.

---

Man..the way you talk of Sola Scriptura, I wonder if it could cure cancer?

So now Sola Scriptura had everything to do with the Scriptures not being changed, but also being changed later by other groups?

Quote:

---

Again, thank you for your concern about Catholics and the Orthodox, but trying to pit us against each other in this discussion does not serve your position in any way. I sincerely wish you would actually defend your position instead of worrying about everyone else's. I am seeking to learn why from 1522 until the late 1800's Protestant Bibles contained the Apocrypha, but then somewhere along the way they stopped containing these books. That's all I am trying to understand. 5 seemingly simple questions.

---

I'm not trying to pit you against you. I'm highlighting the myth that both the Catholic and Orthodox try to hold to (though independently from each other). Church history is a mess. The Fathers rarely agreed on anything and the councils tended to contradict themselves.

It's worth pointing out that Rome and the Orthodox disagree on a multitude of things...And that's accepted as ok, but how dare the Reformers do less than that. In some ways I wonder if it would have simply been better to split the Church again during Luthers time vs the reformation he attempted. Maybe we'd be on better terms then.

Quote:

---

Are you saying Zondervan is the authority on what is Scripture? Is that your position?

---

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I cannot control the decisions of people who publish Bibles. Zondervan apparently made a business decision to produce bibles with and without the apocrypha. That was their choice. So if you want to understand why they made that decision, you should ask them.

Quote:

---

Again, you are avoiding having a real discussion. You just got your feathers ruffled because someone dared make a passing reference to Luther and you felt you had to defend his honor so here you are.

---

I've not avoided any real discussion. I've tried to answer every question posed, except for the questions you asked that, as I've said, I've never researched since they aren't relevant to me.

But further, it's an issue of respect or a rather lack of it.

This started because Zobel felt (and presumably still sees) no issue lumping Luther and Marcion in the same thought without consideration for his words. This also isn't the first time he's done it.

Lets say we have a conversation about good works. Is it productive casually grouping the Orthodox in with Pelagius in the same thought? Should I be surprised if Zobel pushes back against the idea?

As I said, it comes down to respect.

Zobel said:

---

Right, because pointing someone to the Zondervan website and saying "why don't you ask them these questions" is such elevated discourse.

---

He wants to know why Bibles are published without the Apocrypha in it.

Doesn't it make the most sense to ask the publisher of that version of the Bible?

Edit to add a couple words

FalconAg06 said:

---

Quote:

---

I linked you to the Zondervan website previously. They are a publisher who has made that decision. Why don't you ask them these questions?

---

Good luck! I'm still waiting to hear back from Random House on whether purgatory is a definitive state, or merely the journey towards God.

---

Seems odd to ask a publisher a theological question.

Seems reasonable to ask a publisher why they published what they did...

I don't understand why one of our Protestant brothers/sisters haven't quickly answered these questions. From a Sola Scriptura perspective, the responses to these questions should be readily available and tested. If the Bible is THE supreme authority for deciding all matters of faith, then these questions are foundational. Otherwise, there's some serious bibliodolatry going on ...

Quote:

---

Protestant Bibles today are printed with 66 books.

Protestant Bibles used to be printed with 73 books.

Catholic & Orthodox include the 73 books.

Now...
1. Who authorized this?
2. Why? What was wrong with the original?
3. Where did these people get their authority?
4. What process did they use to decide this?
5. When was this decision made?

---

From the Catholic perspective, there was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which revealed which books were inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

In a conversation about the authority of scripture and the determination of canon, Luther is absolutely a relevant topic for the exact same reasons as Marcion. This doesn't mean that they did the same thing, or that one or both were heretics. It means both of them did not view the matter of scripture as closed, exempt from examination, as something with intrinsic formal authority, or accept the authority of (insert whichever group you like) over it.

It should be noted that Luther as a Reformer stands more or less alone in his views or approach to the canon, which are not followed by nearly any protestants today including folks like Melanchthon, Karlstadt, Walther, and Chemnitz.

The only difference between Luther's and Marcion's view of the canon is one of degree, not of kind. That is to say, Marcion's views led him to reject portions of the bible outright as falsehoods. Luther's views led him to reject portions of the bible as inferior, in error, unapostolic, not useful, contradictory, or not produced by the Holy Spirit.

The views themselves, or the arguments supporting them, may be more or less offensive or orthodox. You're getting upset about the comparison I'm not making (Marcion is a heretic therefore mentioning him in proximity to Luther implies Luther is a heretic) seemingly to ignore the comparison I am (Both Marcion and Luther allowed their opinions to guide their views on canonicty).

Luther's opinions on the book of James
"I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle"
"It is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works"
"This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle"
"[The author] wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He does violence to the Scriptures and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture."
"Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases"

Luther's opinions on the book of Revelation
"I consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic."
"I an in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."
"they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep."

You fall back and say, well Luther didn't remove them from the canon. But what good is a view of canon which includes unreliable, uninspired, contradictory, and erroneous scripture? Or in which some are "true and chief" scriptures and others aren't? How can we understand a sola scriptura approach which has fallible scripture?

Regardless of whether he refrained from excluding them (putting them in the back instead) his stated views alone demonstrate his understanding of the authority of scripture and how to derive the canon.

Which is more than enough about Luther on this thread, seeing as he in himself isn't the foundation of Lutheranism anyway and his views of scripture don't really reflect the understanding of Lutherans. I hope we can get past this derail.

Quote:

---

You've sat there attacking me the entire time on this thread. Saying I need to answer for all of Protestantism, regardless reality. You've yet to approach this conversation with anything short of "I'm right and you're wrong" which has led you to ask tell everyone a bunch of "facts in evidence" that turn out to be false.

---

I have not attacked you personally nor made any derogatory comments toward you, such as calling you a liar.
I don't expect you or anyone else to answer for all of Protestantism, but rather I am asking for you, (or any other Protestant willing) to answer a few very basic questions that deal directly with a foundational issue in Christianity. I'm perfectly happy to just have you tell me what your personal opinion is....

Do you believe that (A) the Apocryphal books are Holy Scripture, or (B) do you believe the Apocryphal books are not equal to Scripture?

Quote:

---

As I've said, I'd love to have a real conversation, but you've had no interest for months. You've thrown your questions out that aren't relevant. That has been my answer to you for months, and you still think these are some sort of gotcha questions. They are irrelevant.

---

I truly don't understand how you can keep dismissing these questions as irrelevant, but you provide no support for why they are irrelevant. If the Bible is your sole or supreme authority - then having the complete and correct Bible is imperative.

Quote:

---

Is your revised question why would an LCMS take the view that the Apocryphal books are not canon, but viewed as useful?

---

Sure, I am happy to hear your views on this as I asked above. Sounds like the Apocryphal books are not inspired Scripture in your view.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sola Scriptura has EVERYTHING to do with my argument. Literally everything.

---

Man..the way you talk of Sola Scriptura, I wonder if it could cure cancer?

---

Cure or Cause?

Quote:

---

So now Sola Scriptura had everything to do with the Scriptures not being changed, but also being changed later by other groups?

---

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to pit you against you. I'm highlighting the myth that both the Catholic and Orthodox try to hold to (though independently from each other). Church history is a mess. The Fathers rarely agreed on anything and the councils tended to contradict themselves.

---

The interesting thing with this is that even with the Church Fathers debating and working through the theological issues and heretical teachings - the faith was protected as they were working within the Church. No church father was perfect, and all of them could have been and were wrong on certain things. The Holy Spirit protects the apostolic Church and it was the church that had the authority to make decisions, not individual church fathers.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Are you saying Zondervan is the authority on what is Scripture? Is that your position?

---

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I cannot control the decisions of people who publish Bibles. Zondervan apparently made a business decision to produce bibles with and without the apocrypha. That was their choice. So if you want to understand why they made that decision, you should ask them.

---

You know that this is not what I have been asking. This is disingenuous on your part.

So let me ask it this way...does YOUR Bible, the Bible you chose to purchase and hold to as your supreme authority and rule for faith and practice include the Apocryphal books as inspired scripture? Are they printed in your Bible?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again, you are avoiding having a real discussion. You just got your feathers ruffled because someone dared make a passing reference to Luther and you felt you had to defend his honor so here you are.

---

I've not avoided any real discussion. I've tried to answer every question posed, except for the questions you asked that, as I've said, I've never researched since they aren't relevant to me.

---

Not sure what to say here. You kinda just proved my point. At least you finally acknowledged it.

Quote:

---

But further, it's an issue of respect or a rather lack of it.

---

Honestly, I think you are being overly sensitive to any discussion of Luther unless it is to praise him effusively. I mean at least Zobel didn't call you a liar, right?

Zobel's mention of Luther, and then Marcion, was in direct response to someone else looking for proof of a slippery slope of anyone removing books from the Bible, as if that could never happen in today's world. Zobel's point was that Luther did make statements advocating the removal of some books and the subordination of others. In his German translation he felt the need to add a disclaimer that the apocryphal books were not equal to scripture. He relegated the NT "disputed books" to the back. Luther did not remove these books, but he laid the foundation for them to actually be removed by others at a later date - which brings us back to my 5 questions. Who, Why, What, How, and When?

And really this is what I am really trying to understand...WHY DOES NOBODY CARE THAT BOOKS WERE REMOVED FROM THE BIBLE??

It seems that again the discussion above is whizzing past the most fundamental question of all: why should we trust Luther or Zwingli or Calvin or anyone or any entity to be the authority to tell us what is and isn't authentic Christian faith or what is or isn't inspired Scripture?

That must be answered before any of this other stuff is broached.

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?!?!?! Make the argument for the authority of Luther! Make the argument for the authority of whoever or whatever is the touchstone for deciding what is or isn't Christian faith?

As a side note, if you ever need a spiritual kick-in-the-pants James is the very succinct delivery vehicle.

Frankly...it's kind of interesting to see you make this kind of argument.

Lets quote a few other people as well.

Eusebius (bk 3, ch 25): The writings which are not considered to be undoubted but which are spoken against , although they were known to many, are these: The Epistle of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John; the Apocalypse of John some reject, while others number it with the certain and undoubted writings."

Jerome in his catalog of the Scriptures states: "The Epistle of James, it is asserted, was published by some other person under his name."

Eusebius (Bk 2, ch 23) writes: "The epistle which is put down as the first among the general epistles is said to be by that James who was called the Just and Oblias. But we must know that it was not judged to be genuine and legitimate but spurious and counterfeit. Therefore not many of the ancients make mention of it, as also of that of Jude; it is rejected by most because it contains a testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is an apocryphal book."

Eusebius (Bk 3, ch24): "Concerning the Apocalypse, there is still a difference of opinion with many, some approving it, but others rejecting it."

So what do we find in your grand accusations against Luther? That he was more or less repeating the comments of those who came before him, in some cases almost word for word.

Now none of that changes that Luther was not a fan of James. It's clear he came to appreciate it more later in his life, but the younger Luther did not like it.

But since Lutheranism doesn't depend on the sole beliefs of Luther, it still doesn't change anything.