Quote:

---

That's what I've always thought. The EO raises the writings of the early church fathers and other church writings to be equivalent to the Scriptures themselves. That's why you guys study their writings as intensely or maybe even more so than the Scriptures themselves.

How do you judge valid writings from invalid? Do the authors have had to know Christ personally? The apostles personally? Why do you give them the same weight as Scripture?

---

What you've always thought is wrong, and that isn't what I've said here. The writings of the fathers are not equivalent to the scriptures, are not considered infallible, and are not studied like the scriptures, are not read in church. This is fractally wrong.

Quote:

---

What is the support for your contention that Orthodox Church's services, prayer books, hymnody are apostolic teachings? Which apostle? How do we know that? Why should someone accept them as equal in authority to, say, the books of Matthew, Romans, or 1 Peter?

---

Why should you accept the book of Matthew, or Romans, or 1 Peter? Isn't that the subject at hand? I accept those books because those are the books we received from our fathers as scriptures, and are those which are read openly in the Church as such. Why do you read them?

Quote:

---

What's your basis for that assertion? If I'm understanding you correctly (which is hard to do on religious matters, interestingly, although you are a clear and concise writer on many other topics), what is the distinction between saying that the Word of Yahweh became man and what I said? Why do you limit John's statement to the OT when he did not, although other NT books were most likely in wide use at the time he wrote his book?

---

My basis for this assertion is the unbroken teaching of the church for millennia in understanding this passage, as well as other scriptures.

The Word of God is not a phrase St John invented. It is in the old testament scriptures. The Word who came to the prophets is who St John is talking about, exactly the same as St Paul opens the book of Hebrews. The Word of the Lord who appeared to Jeremiah touched his mouth, and that Word is Yahweh. This isn't a new idea, what St John is saying is the Word you know from the scriptures, the Wisdom of God from Proverbs Who was with Him from the beginning abd by Whom all things were made, Who is the beginning and the end, Who is the image after which mankind was made, Who was with Yahweh and is Yahweh, that Word became flesh and tabernacled among us.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

Yes but they are not agreeing with him that the Church didn't believe it before a certain point. When something in the Church was already a mainstay of belief, they didn't have to formalize it until a large enough group called it into question. This was true about a number of things. If you use this argument, then you could throw doubt on the belief in the Trinity. He's using a bad argument here. We could say the exact same about any protest denominations and there statements of faith that didn't 'formally' exist until much much later.

---

This is not a convincing argument.

None of the mariology was a "mainstay belief" until centuries later. Even the earliest potential writings such as Epiphanius are so dicey that not even the RCC group that was debating Gavin was in agreement on what it meant.

This is why Lofton (and Redstone) essentially have to default to saying that the lack of support or evidence in the early church is nice, but actually irrelevant because "the church" can supercede any claims and create doctrine.

Quote:

---

You and I also differ on one critical point. You refer to the scriptures as merely an "icon" of Christ. I and probably most devout Protestants view the Scriptures as a manifestation of Christ. They are one and the same.
...
And Christ is the Scriptures as plainly stated in the first chapter of John. He is not limited to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are Christ in some profound mystery that we cannot understand.

---

I remember someone arguing this point before. I found the post. Are you the same person as jjmt? That poster deleted all his history.

He wrote:

Quote:

---

the Bible itself is, in some supernatural way that we cannot understand, a manifestation of Christ himself.

---

Redstone said:

---

Let's ask again.

- Enoch is quoted in Jude. The Apostles read from it in worship. It was common to do so in Temple before Titus smashed it in 70.
- Revelation was controversial. As a preterist, I'm sympathetic to the many arguments for its exclusion, given the IMO lamentable impact of dispensationalism and Hagee-flavored nonsense.

Now:
Who decided?
When?
How?
Let's be specific.

---

I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

Is it your claim that if something is referenced in the Scriptures then an infallible church had to deem it included or excluded?

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Let's ask again.

- Enoch is quoted in Jude. The Apostles read from it in worship. It was common to do so in Temple before Titus smashed it in 70.
- Revelation was controversial. As a preterist, I'm sympathetic to the many arguments for its exclusion, given the IMO lamentable impact of dispensationalism and Hagee-flavored nonsense.

Now:
Who decided?
When?
How?
Let's be specific.

---

I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

Is it your claim that if something is referenced in the Scriptures then an infallible church had to deem it included or excluded?

---

The understanding comes at the end; just an answer is good for right now.

I have provided two answers:
a). The Apostolic Church decided, over 3 centuries
b). Details in the councils and synods listed above, as detailed in the exhaustive OT and NT deliberations listed above (newadvent.org urls)

What is your opinion on these two questions?

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Let's ask again.

- Enoch is quoted in Jude. The Apostles read from it in worship. It was common to do so in Temple before Titus smashed it in 70.
- Revelation was controversial. As a preterist, I'm sympathetic to the many arguments for its exclusion, given the IMO lamentable impact of dispensationalism and Hagee-flavored nonsense.

Now:
Who decided?
When?
How?
Let's be specific.

---

I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

Is it your claim that if something is referenced in the Scriptures then an infallible church had to deem it included or excluded?

---

The understanding comes at the end; just an answer is good for right now.

---

Then I'll defer to Dr. Heiser



Edit: He starts talking about the NT at about 2:10 into the video.

"even its defenders said stuff like 'hey I'm the only one alive who thinks this book should be in, but it looks like the Holy Spirit has moved away from it. They just assumed the Spirit would show them what to recognize them as canonical.'"

Heiser, so good on elohim scholarship, is good here also - and we even know the dates and details of the meetings - - organized from Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch.

Redstone said:

---

I have provided two answers:
a). The Apostolic Church decided, over 3 centuries
b). Details in the councils and synods listed above, as detailed in the exhaustive OT and NT deliberations listed above (newadvent.org urls)

What is your opinion on these two questions?

---

I'm honestly getting more confused?

Are you asking about Enoch or now about these 2 questions?

I'm not trying avoid any question, I just legitimately am unclear on what you are asking me to answer?

Redstone said:

---

Heiser, so good on elohim scholarship, is good here also - and we even know the dates and details of the meetings - - organized from Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch.

---

You know how I know you didn't watch the video?

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Let's ask again.

- Enoch is quoted in Jude. The Apostles read from it in worship. It was common to do so in Temple before Titus smashed it in 70.
- Revelation was controversial. As a preterist, I'm sympathetic to the many arguments for its exclusion, given the IMO lamentable impact of dispensationalism and Hagee-flavored nonsense.

Now:
Who decided?
When?
How?
Let's be specific.

---

I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

Is it your claim that if something is referenced in the Scriptures then an infallible church had to deem it included or excluded?

---

The understanding comes at the end; just an answer is good for right now.

---

Then I'll defer to Dr. Heiser



Edit: He starts talking about the NT at about 2:10 into the video.

"even its defenders said stuff like 'hey I'm the only one alive who thinks this book should be in, but it looks like the Holy Spirit has moved away from it. They just assumed the Spirit would show them what to recognize them as canonical.'"

---

Why defer? Why not answer the question? Posting videos and tomes of information is extremely low energy and juvenile. It turns discussion into a link-off. YOU answer the question

Been reading and watching Heiser for years, and recommend him frequently, such as here:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3382956

He was an evangelical friendly to the Apostolic views articulated here, especially in The Unseen Realm. And, interestingly, his calculations - such as Sept. 11, 3 BC - are in confirmity to Catholic mystics, especially Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich.

Edit:
Check out The Unseen Realm, Angels, Demons - they are great

Redstone said:

---

Been reading and watching Heiser for years, and recommend him frequently, such as here:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3382956

He was an evangelical friendly to the Apostolic views articulated here, especially in The Unseen Realm. And, interestingly, his calculations - such as Sept. 11, 3 BC - are in confirmity to Catholic mystics, especially Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich.

Edit:
Check out The Unseen Realm, Angels, Demons - they are great

---

And you accuse me of avoiding questions!

Heiser says the following:

"They (early church) just assumed that the Spirit would show them what to recognize as canonical.

Today we have a very similar view of the canon. It's about recognition. We assume that the Spirit would help people get it right, and they did too."

What Heiser does not do in this is appeal to the "apostolic church" or councils. He makes the point that the Holy Spirit moved the mass away from Enoch and so those who held that position, either died off or gave up trying.

That is the Protestant position, that you apparently agree with Heiser on.

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Let's ask again.

- Enoch is quoted in Jude. The Apostles read from it in worship. It was common to do so in Temple before Titus smashed it in 70.
- Revelation was controversial. As a preterist, I'm sympathetic to the many arguments for its exclusion, given the IMO lamentable impact of dispensationalism and Hagee-flavored nonsense.

Now:
Who decided?
When?
How?
Let's be specific.

---

I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

Is it your claim that if something is referenced in the Scriptures then an infallible church had to deem it included or excluded?

---

The understanding comes at the end; just an answer is good for right now.

---

Then I'll defer to Dr. Heiser



Edit: He starts talking about the NT at about 2:10 into the video.

"even its defenders said stuff like 'hey I'm the only one alive who thinks this book should be in, but it looks like the Holy Spirit has moved away from it. They just assumed the Spirit would show them what to recognize them as canonical.'"

---

Why defer? Why not answer the question? Posting videos and tomes of information is extremely low energy and juvenile. It turns discussion into a link-off. YOU answer the question

---

First, I've not posted "tomes of information." Everything I've posted has been to try and thoroughly and relevantly answer the question asked.

Second, I've never looked into closely into the Book of Enoch. I've not spent much time looking into any pseudepigraphal works.

Third, I'm not interested in "gotcha" games as you tried to play. So I let Heiser speak.

But I was really curious to see the direction Redstone wanted to go, which being completely honest, i still have no idea what he meant with his questions.

Obviously he didn't appeal to the councils as a Protestant. But those quotes, which I have no problem with, don't contradict the ACTUAL HISTORY:

Bishops called meetings to discuss, pray, argue, codify. Which took 300 years.

And that's the point:
Enoch is out by that process.
Revelation is in by that process.

The Bible is not the Koran, from God direct to us. It emerged indirectly, FROM AN ORGANIZATION.

Redstone said:

---

Obviously he didn't appeal to the councils as a Protestant. But those quotes, which I have no problem with, don't contradict the ACTUAL HISTORY:

Bishops called meetings to discuss, pray, argue, codify. Which took 300 years.

---

So you were in absolute agreement with Heiser right up until you realized what he actually said....

Redstone said:

---

And that's the point:
Enoch is out by that process.
Revelation is in by that process.

The Bible is not the Koran, from God direct to us. It emerged indirectly, FROM AN ORGANIZATION.

---

This is nonsense and frankly causes you all kinds of issues.

The Scriptures, and specifically the OT, reference all kinds of non-canonical books:

The OT is full of references to other books that are not canonical...are

In no particular order:

1 King 11:41: "41 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?"

1 King 14:19: "19 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
1 King 14:29: "29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?"

2 Chronicles 16:11 "11 The acts of Asa, from first to last, are written in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel."

2 Chronicles 27:7 "7 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all his wars and his ways, behold, they are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah."

2 Chronicles 32:32 "32 Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel."

and so on and so forth. I assume you aren't going to claim an "infallible church" existed at that time to decide which Scriptures are in and out.

It's entirely not interesting that non-canonical books are referenced in Scripture. It happened for 1000's of years and nobody made a big deal about it.

What it does do is showcase how you've invented a justification for the NT that is entirely not applicable for the OT.

Heiser summarizes:
"They (early church) just assumed that the Spirit would show them what to recognize as canonical."

You don't see how Catholic and Orthodox have no problem agreeing? This took 300 years and dozens of councils. The Holy Spirit used these sinful men to gift us the Bible, just as the sinner St. Peter repented after denying Our Lord and settled disputes as the undisputed leader before dying in Rome.

That's the point, isn't it.
"The Scriptures, and specifically the OT, reference all kinds of non-canonical books"…. This, controversial situations, and so the Church, breathed life by the Holy Spirit immediately after Our Lord's ascension, began the long process of codification.

Our faith is historical - it makes astounding supernatural claims of miracles amid human life and many more mundane bureaucratic ones. Of this codification process of scripture, we know the places and dates.

(There is a lot I would like to respond to, but I think I will save that for later and just try to focus on one area for now.)

AgLiving06, please correct me if I am wrong on this, but we both agree that Scripture is the Word of God. We agree that the men who physically wrote Scripture were protected by the Holy Spirit in that specific work, and that what they wrote is the infallible Word of God and is without error. We have agreement up to this point, correct?

-------------------------------------------------------
There are more steps involved than what you are acknowledging. So let's look at where we go now:

Point/Question #1: St. Paul (for example) wrote many, many letters during his time evangelizing on earth. We do not have everything Paul wrote today for various reasons. Did the Holy Spirit only guide and protect St. Paul when he was writing the letters that we still have today and are in the NT? Was only some of what St. Paul wrote infallible or was everything written by St. Paul infallible? Same question can be applied to Luke, or James, or Peter, or any of the NT writers.

IF everything St. Paul ever wrote in his time evangelizing for Christ was infallible and therefore Scripture then, unfortunately, we are missing part of God's Word today. If only part or some of what St. Paul wrote was truly God Breathed Infallible Scripture - and that is what we have in the NT today - then the question is how can we know which part was God-Breathed Scripture and which part was just the words of St. Paul, the man? What is your answer to this, today?


Point/Question #2: Several times you have talked about the Holy Spirit being "active" in the transmitting or writing of the Scriptures, and the church playing a "passive" role in receiving Scripture. This is where you lose me completely.

1. The men writing the NT Scriptures were not placed into a trance by the Holy Spirit with God moving their pens for them. The men were fallible sinners throughout the entire process, but God protected them from error with the Holy Spirit working through them guiding them.

2. You seem to divorce the Holy Spirit from the Church, which I find odd and borderline offensive. When it comes to the writing part of Scripture you say the Holy Spirit played an "active" role in the process, but when it comes to the reception of Scripture you say the Church only plays a "passive" role, and you don't mention what kind of role the Holy Spirit plays, if any. The Holy Spirit was "active" guiding the reception and recognition of Scripture in the same way He was "active" in guiding the writing of Scripture. There was nothing passive about it. God has always chosen to work through fallible humans, which is the only way we can really know that what we hold as Scripture is Scripture. Without the Church you could not begin to know what is Scripture and what is not. Now we can argue about what we mean by "the Church", and clearly we have differing views on that, but the Scriptures have come to us through the Church.

3. You have repeatedly said that the Church is subjugating God somehow, which is ridiculous. Making this statement demonstrates how you completely misunderstand the Catholic and the Orthodox view of the entire topic at hand. The Holy Spirit was sent to guide the CHURCH into all truth and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the CHURCH until the end of the ages. It is impossible to separate the Holy Spirit from the Church which is why it is impossible for the Church, founded by Jesus with Jesus as our head - and guided by the Holy Spirit, to somehow subjugate God. It is literally not possible. It is all of the same essence.




You have been asked hundreds of times to answer the following questions and to date you have never provided a direct answer:

You hold that there are only 66 books of Scripture:

WHO decided the Deuterocanonical books are NOT Scripture?

WHEN was this decided?

HOW was this decided?

By WHAT AUTHORITY was this decision made?

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

Yes but they are not agreeing with him that the Church didn't believe it before a certain point. When something in the Church was already a mainstay of belief, they didn't have to formalize it until a large enough group called it into question. This was true about a number of things. If you use this argument, then you could throw doubt on the belief in the Trinity. He's using a bad argument here. We could say the exact same about any protest denominations and there statements of faith that didn't 'formally' exist until much much later.

---

This is not a convincing argument.

None of the mariology was a "mainstay belief" until centuries later. Even the earliest potential writings such as Epiphanius are so dicey that not even the RCC group that was debating Gavin was in agreement on what it meant.

This is why Lofton (and Redstone) essentially have to default to saying that the lack of support or evidence in the early church is nice, but actually irrelevant because "the church" can supercede any claims and create doctrine.

---

The Church cannot contradict scripture though. If we use the subjective 'dicey' idea for early support, it can be a very slippery slope for other articles of faith for many denominations. I'll trust the Church Christ started....but I'll also verify with scripture.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

Yes but they are not agreeing with him that the Church didn't believe it before a certain point. When something in the Church was already a mainstay of belief, they didn't have to formalize it until a large enough group called it into question. This was true about a number of things. If you use this argument, then you could throw doubt on the belief in the Trinity. He's using a bad argument here. We could say the exact same about any protest denominations and there statements of faith that didn't 'formally' exist until much much later.

---

This is not a convincing argument.

None of the mariology was a "mainstay belief" until centuries later. Even the earliest potential writings such as Epiphanius are so dicey that not even the RCC group that was debating Gavin was in agreement on what it meant.

This is why Lofton (and Redstone) essentially have to default to saying that the lack of support or evidence in the early church is nice, but actually irrelevant because "the church" can supercede any claims and create doctrine.

---

The Church cannot contradict scripture though. If we use the subjective 'dicey' idea for early support, it can be a very slippery slope for other articles of faith for many denominations. I'll trust the Church Christ started....but I'll also verify with scripture.

---

Addressing this more fully would probably take this on a tangent that isn't worth going on.

I'll just reiterate a couple points made by the RCC apologists.

1. There isn't "mainstay belief" in the marian claims early in the church. It doesn't pop up for centuries. The "dicey" language I used applies to Epiphanius, who not even that group seemed to be in agreement over.

2. Even the group in the video admitted at best these are typological arguments, which I've always contended are the weakest arguments because you are having to read a secondary meaning into the Scripture.

3. In the end, Rome always has the fallback of historical or even real scriptural language isn't necessary because the magisterium can just dictate what it deems correct. It's why its somewhat convenient to pick 2 claims that are just vague enough that there's no direct defeater in Scripture because it's not addressed either way.

So in the end, the real problem I have with it all is the demand that you must believe it. That your salvation depends on something that even Lofton claims is low on the "hierarchy of truth"

one MEEN Ag said:

---

At the end of the day, the protestant lines have turned a molehill into a mountain over the books in the bible - because that is all they have. (Or in the case of luther, he saw himself as having the sole authority to decide.) Its plainly obvious throughout the history of ancient jewish sects up through the united orthodox/catholic church that you see books having a hierarchy of authority. If a book was kept (and not discarded) it was clearly authoritative. But some were more authoritative than others. Different sects would argue about the authority of a few books compared to the next sect, but the overall corpus were telling the same story of God and man. The sect that the dead sea scrolls came from was basically a printing press for Enoch and Genesis. If you were to ask them about the authority of Enoch they would say you are mistaken to not consider that book as authoritative. Samaritans were basically the first protestants, they cut the authoritative scriptures down to just the Pentateuch.

That holy spirit, the apostolic succession, and the traditions of the church shape what is authoritative scripturally. Not the other way around. Preservation and reading of the scripture is the crown jewel of the church.

In orthodoxy, you see three basic delineations. Books to be read in church, books to be read at home, and books not to be read. Even within church, the epistles can be read by anyone and the congregation can sit. The gospels are read by the bishop/priest/deacons and the congregation stands. Clearly a hierarchy of honor.

Arguing about what is out versus in becomes a trivial pursuit, especially in modern times. You either read the books designated 'at home' at home, or you don't. Pious rules are for the pious. You still participate fully in the life of the church throughout the year with liturgy, prayer, fasting, almsgiving as well as the sacraments and attending more than just liturgy, especially during Pascha.

---

Man, this is really being unfair to Protestants and simply ignores most of this thread.

Protestants have not made a "mountain out of a molehill." We are not the ones making the claim that an infallible apostolic church has defined the canon and there is no deviation. That claim is solely Romes (or at least Redstone).

No honest Protestant is going to claim that the Holy Spirit simply denoted all the canon and it was clearly known from day 1. Everybody recognizes that some books were included interspersed within what would become the canon that were not considered canonical. Even Luther, who included the apocrypha in his Bible, while not calling it canon, called them books good and useful or even worth of reverence.

So all the delineations you try to apply to, at least the EO, are similar for many Protestants.

The key difference is all of this is that the claim being made here is that Rome (or "apostolic church") produced the Scripture. That's is the sole claim we are not willing to accept.

Faithful Ag said:

---

You have been asked hundreds of times to answer the following questions and to date you have never provided a direct answer:

You hold that there are only 66 books of Scripture:

WHO decided the Deuterocanonical books are NOT Scripture?

WHEN was this decided?

HOW was this decided?

By WHAT AUTHORITY was this decision made?

---

Man...those are your questions to research. You've asked them, and I thought you got answers to them somewhere?

What is important to me, is the Reformers, especially Luther, did not do any of the things you accuse him of.

Redstone said:

---

Heiser summarizes:
"They (early church) just assumed that the Spirit would show them what to recognize as canonical."

You don't see how Catholic and Orthodox have no problem agreeing? This took 300 years and dozens of councils. The Holy Spirit used these sinful men to gift us the Bible, just as the sinner St. Peter repented after denying Our Lord and settled disputes as the undisputed leader before dying in Rome.

---

Then you agree the church was passive in its acceptance and did not produce the New Testament?

In doing so, you're acknowledging the only active party in this was the Holy Spirit.

No Catholic would ever argue being a formal member is required for salvation. "No salvation outside the Church" is a mystical appeal to what the Church is: supernatural and deeply flawed human, at the same time, in the same space.

It has a Sacramental fullness, and the argument is that Christ instituted it the best means of theosis (process of becoming) to Logos, which is the telos, or purpose, of life.

So, Christ is the new Adam, Mary the new Eve,
Eucharist is manna, and so on. The good thief was baptized by blood, and we have the Sacrament of baptism.

It's not proper to judge another's heart, but the Sacraments are a gifted means of salvation given directly by Christ, with St. Peter and St. John leaders of first group of priests, ordained by God Himself.

"Active" "Passive" is wholly nonsensical.

All actions related to our faith require movement, submission, cooperation, prayer …. or faith in action so to speak.

Redstone said:

---

"Active" "Passive" is wholly nonsensical.

All actions related to our faith require movement, submission, cooperation, prayer …. or faith in action so to speak.

---

Lol...no. Those are basic philosophical terms that Rome would agree with...

Oh? Want to detail it?

Redstone said:

---

Oh? Want to detail it?

---

Seriously?

One example would be how Aquinas distinguishes between the passive and active will and also he talks of the passive and active intellect.

https://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP025.html

It's a basic Aristotelian language.

What? Yes seriously.

In the context of our conversation

How is Aquinas writing about the omnipresent metaphysics of God related to the historical developments of canon codification?