How did God inform us of the canon of Scripture?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

I never really received an answer to a question I asked earlier, so let me rephrase it in a mathematical form.

Assumptions:

1. In 2004 David has a Bible that he considers the inspired word of God. 2. In 65 there was no Bible similar to what David has today. There were some manuscripts floating around though.

The problem:

At some time X, we went from a bunch of manuscripts to the Bible that David holds today.

Please tell me when X was. Also, please tell me how God informed us which writings were inspired and which weren't?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004

Answers

Just my opinion, but I think the acceptance of the scriptures and gospels sort of "evolved" over time, from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. What was "in" or "out" was guided by early Church fathers like Iraneus, Jerome, Tertullian and especially Athanasius. How they decided would have been affected by careful study and the influence of the Holy Spirit. What are your thoughts?

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 21, 2004.

X= T

X= E

X=ET

X=F

T= today, E=Early Church, F=Future

X=The Word--Jesus Christ.

I don't believe that the Scriptures are stagnant. I believe that the Scriptures are universal and that every generation will find those teachings relative to their lives in relation to God's will for them. I'm not saying that the truth will change; man will change and require a need for God's continual/universal will. This might sound like "Sola Scriptura", but it is not. The main factor is man. It is man's relationship with God, not with the Bible. It is with Christ the Incarnate Word.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 21, 2004.


It seems to me that either one of two things happened:

1. An authoritative body of the church had the task to discern which books where canonical and which weren't. Therefore, today we accept the authority of the church.

2. We accept our bibles today as the inspired word of God, because that is what our churches have traditionally done.

Neither one of these looks good for the idea of Sola Scriptura.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


The people of God instinctively knew the Word of God as it was being written. In Old Testament times--the jewish people were able to recognize God's inspired Word.., and knew their Scriptures long before some council after Christ sat down to determine their Scriptures for them. LOL!!

The same thing is true with the New Testament Scriptures. People recognized what was inspired and the canon had been understood before any council ever stamped its approval on those books.

Clearly it is the work of God's Divine providence.

I suspect the Bible exists because God wants it to., and it exists in spite of fallible men!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 22, 2004.


but-protestants-took-out-7-books! ::in a sarcastic tone::

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


Again, I say, it (sola scriptura, canon) is a brick wall with Romanists. They will not listen to anyone unless they get past this brick wall.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

excuse me, Romanists? I'm sorry, I meant the ones whom jesus never knew and will surely cast them into the fire of hell

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

The people of God instinctively knew the Word of God as it was being written.

How do you know this to be true? Instinct?

In Old Testament times--the jewish people were able to recognize God's inspired Word.., and knew their Scriptures long before some council after Christ sat down to determine their Scriptures for them.

Much like their recognitions of the true Messiah, I guess. "LOL!!" They couldn't even recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

The same thing is true with the New Testament Scriptures.

Is that why St. Stephen was martyred? Is that when St. Paul was also killed? Are you talking about that period in time why a multitude of varying doctrines were practiced? Was this when the Gentiles were also offered Salvation along with God's Chosen?

People recognized what was inspired and the canon had been understood before any council ever stamped its approval on those books.

Do you mean like today, the way Protestantism is splintered because of their own interpretations and understandings?

Clearly it is the work of God's Divine providence.

What? That we have such a splintering of doctrine or that we have God's Scriptures?

I suspect the Bible exists because God wants it to., and it exists in spite of fallible men!

That comment is truly inspiring! The word "suspect" really nails it for me. Well, I believe that the Bible is inspired, but The Word is Jesus Christ who we worship, not the Bible. I also believe that many books were not included in the Bible because religious men had the task to filter them in or out. That is why we have the Bible in its present form today. I also know that some of St. Paul's letters were lost. What was in those letters? So, the Bible is not complete. Also, if today, some archeologists were to discover more books , it wouldn't bend me out of shape or destroy my faith. So, those fallible men had to do the job of compiling the Bible. I don't know of any infallible men who could have done the job, do you? Funny, God did not provide infallible men to do His work except for one--Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't do much writing, except for some scribbling in the dirt that one day.

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


"They couldn't even recognize Jesus as the Messiah."

Some did, there has always been a faithful remanent of Jews, even 2 out of 600,000 Jews have been faithfull to God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


"Do you mean like today, the way Protestantism is splintered because of their own interpretations and understandings?"

We already told you, there is not that many denominations. It is an inflated number, and if you use the source you distort those numbers from, then you also have to admit there are Roman denominations. And divisions do not come from "sola scriptura", it comes because people pick and choose what to believe. Just like the Church of Rome does with the church fathers.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.



You are using straw man arguements rod..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

Forget the numbers, just look at the varying theologies and doctrines in this forum. That's enough for me.

"They couldn't even recognize Jesus as the Messiah."

Some did, there has always been a faithful remanent of Jews, even 2 out of 600,000 Jews have been faithfull to God.

David, those who did believe did so not because of "Sola Scriptura". Those who did not believe stuck with "Sola Scriptura" and failed to witness Christ the Messiah right before their very own eyes and touch. Also, when Christ died on the cross did they see the light; the rest are still reading blindly as they are stuck in "Sola Scriptura".

........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


I cannot forget the numbers because you are distorting someone's work! That is dishonest, and you can't even prove there are that many denominations. List the fundamental beliefs of 'protestants', and see exactly how many divisions there are. And then post it here. Remember, only views toward salvation count. Believing in non-essential doctrines such as the "Caught up" or "thousand years" etc, doesn't send someone to hell.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

rod, why don't you believe that Jesus was 50 years old as Ireanus did? Why don't you believe in the Satan Ransom theory as origeon did? These are church fathers the-ones-whom-jesus-never-knew-and- will-surely-cast-them-into-the-fire-of-hell quote quite often!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

David, you really should stop defending those splinter groups. If you keep defending that numbers game, you are actually entering into the idea of supporting their false doctrines and theologies. St. Stephen was martyred because of the New Testament going against the Old Testament interpretations. What an arguement for "Sola Scriptura". The SS guys weren't gonna budge so they killed the NT guy.

.....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.



Hey, Rod, I am amazed sometimes at some of the words you say. You words carry such wisdom that I have not seen even in older more learned men.

People recognized what was inspired and the canon had been understood before any council ever stamped its approval on those books

That is absolutely true. Not every church had all the letters of Paul in the beginning , for example. When they began to share books from Paul, they realize what Paul's true message was.

I also know that some of St. Paul's letters were lost. What was in those letters? So, the Bible is not complete

Also absolutely true. Not only some letters of Paul like 3 Corinthians lost, but what about the Gospel of the Hebrews, the gospel of the Ebionites used by Jesus followers which still maintained the Jewishness.

What about the book of the wars of Yahweh, the Book of Jashar, and so on which were used as references for today's Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,Deuteronomy?

What we have is revised versions, not the originals from many of our books.

So, those fallible men had to do the job of compiling the Bible

The most absolute true ever said, Rod.

Fallible men who were revised by fallible men with their own agendas like Matthew, like John, like Luke.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


Thanks, Elpidio, but this one quotation is Faith's:

" People recognized what was inspired and the canon had been understood before any council ever stamped its approval on those books "

I would agree with her statement, but I think I understand the motive behind the writing. She is trying to tell me that we don't need an earthly spiritual leader of sorts to decipher the Scriptures. Well, if that is true, why have preachermen?

.........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


And now that you've brought up an interesting point.....

St. Paul really scares me at times. He had his own comments to make and put them right there in the Bible. The man had some guts, didn't he? I've read some quirky books stating that St. Paul was also a secular writer/ historian also known(or pennamed) Josephus--Saul. So, this new religion/New Testament was Saul's-Paul's-Josephus' work. My angle is to find every possible way of disproving such a thing. It would be like trying to figure out if some of these tele-evangelists are for real.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


My angle is to view/believe that God used Paul/Josephus to do His work, even if Paul/Josephus was fallible. Who else could have such an impact in society if not a historian--Josephus, a.k.a. Paul?

.......................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


No.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

NO?

What? Paul wasn't fallible or wasn't Josephus or wasn't doing God's will?

...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


Oh ye of little faith....to think that any supposed lost books were something we should have had or even needed to have. Just think of all that missing revelation....how do we know anything I ask??

Boy did God screw up or what, huh?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 22, 2004.


Obviously, you are having difficulties reading my posts.

Oh ye of little faith....to think that any supposed lost books were something we should have had or even needed to have.

Are you saying that we don't need those inspired Scriptures? Are you saying that they are just fine being lost? You would prefer to have God's Scriptures lost or burried somewhere?

Just think of all that missing revelation....how do we know anything I ask??

Are you mocking God's Scriptures with the previous comment, Faith? If they are missing, I want them in the Bible. Oh, but I forget; it is easy for some to delete books from the Bible without regrets, so they really wouldn't care about any missing books.

Boy did God screw up or what, huh?

God does not "screw up", Faith. Everything has a purpose. Perhaps those lost books will be discovered when God determines the time; He has power over nature. I wouldn't be trivializing God's Scriptures . I'm surprise at you considering your "Sola Scriptura" faith system.

I guess anything goes for that anti-Catholic slam, even if it contradicts your own faith system.

..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


Rod, interesting point you are making about Paul and Josephus.

Josephus' main editor was epaphoditus, the same one Paul But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly. It is believed he was killed by Domitian (The beast of Revelation) in AD 95. Notice Rod Paul never wrote his letters. He dictated. Epaphroditus wrote the letter to the Phillipians from Rome. Phl 4:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen. [[[To [the] Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.]]]

Phl 2:25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants

Also, Rod, hard for you to believe this, since you are not too well acquainted with the works of Josephus.

Josephus

Acts 1-15 is found in Josephus War of the Jews. Not only you find Simon(Peter?) trying to scold King Agrippa, you find Stephen, Judas the Galilean, James the brother of Jesus, John the Baptist, and many more. Read those books. You will be surprised.

Also, another shocker, Acts 16 starts with WE, that is, there is a change in authors.

Who is this author, Titus, Luke or Timothy. Timothy means fearer (lover) of God.

Act 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father [was] a Greek: Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also. Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: Col 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. 2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Thre are many name changes: Simon is Peter and Cephas. Sivanus is also Silas. John is also known as Mark. He is the one who was at the last supper with Jesus, the one Jesus loved.

Remeber that Jesus left his mother with John? Well, when peter leaves prison he goes to the house of John. His "mother" is Mary. Acts 12:12 And when he had considered [the thing], he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

Now, to you question, whether Paul is Josephus. No. Paul is from Benjamin. Josephus from the Maccabees, a priestly levite family.

Paul and Josephus just happened to share the same companion, Epaphroditus.

I am still confused with Luke and Lucius. Names are very close in Greek. Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had

Rom 16:21 Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.

If Luke is Lucius, then he is a relative of Paul.

Your brother in Christ The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


"...all that missing revelation..."

I think about one verse that has such a profound impact on all mankind:

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now, I think about one verse that would have such a profound impact on all mankind sitting in some vessel burried under a floor of earth just waiting for the right time to be discovered. That would be a "Sola Scriptura" find! But, it is so ironic that such an event is not of interest to SS men. That day could indeed happen, unless those missing/lost books are already destroyed.

....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


I don't think its a tremendous leap to think that Josephus had at least a some effect on how the New Testament evolved. Josephus was one of the only sources from which the historicity (if that is an issue)of our scriptures can be measured. The New Testament authors may very well have been aware of him, using his chronologies to keep things in order. (I don't believe historicity is necessary for Faith)

I wonder if Josephus may have been "Q." Rod, I've also read about the possible connection between Paul and Josephus. Paul was not a favorite of the Jerusalem Church. They eventually seemed to have worked things out. The fact that both Paul and Josephus were both Roman citizens "and" Jews, as far as I know, was somewhat unusual. Neither as far as I know ever spoke of the other.

I hope this discussion is not offensive. It wouldn't play out well on the Catholic board and can certainly understand if others feel its not appropriate here. If so my apologies, I'll stop.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 22, 2004.


Faith says:

"The people of God instinctively knew the Word of God as it was being written."

My question is, how do we know that they knew that. What is your evidence for this hypothesis?

David says:

"Again, I say, it (sola scriptura, canon) is a brick wall with Romanists. They will not listen to anyone unless they get past this brick wall."

David, I thought you were better than this. You can't tell me when and how we got the Bible so you attack the "Romanists" for their stubborness. Your begging the question, if I were an athiest, what would you tell me if I asked you how God informed us of the canon of Scripture?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


The truth will always prevail. If Josephus is or is not the same person as Paul, it will eventually be revealed. There are those who firmly believe or lead others to believe that Josephus was indeed Paul. My hopes is to have the truth revealed. Josephus was a Jewish Historian who sold a lot of books. I think that truth is set in stone.

BTW, if Jesus was 5o years old, I think that one would have to calculate God's age and add it to Jesus' age for a somewhat accurate figure.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


James,

What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


David,

So you are admitting that Sola Scriptura is an assumption. It assumes that you have a Bible, which you cannot explain where it came from.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


I admit no such thing, answer the question.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

David. Here's my view on that question:

"Sola Scriptura" is a clever attempt/doctrine at changing a faith system that revolts against the Church. It started with Henry VII in the execution of editing the Bible. If I'm wrong with my history, then tell me why Henry would make editions and proclaim himself as authority over Christianity.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


rod, answer the question.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

Make that "Henry VIII".

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17.

""This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Second Series: Volume V, Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", p. 439.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts (Ibid., Lecture 5.12).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

This last one is from Cyril of Jerusalem.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

rod,

You claim that Sola Scriptura is a "clever" doctrine...when then tell me, why did the church fathers cite scritpures in their writings?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


I have faith in God. I have faith that He inspires men to do things in His will. I believe that God does not fool us and that everything is logical, beautiful, sensible, and obvious. Yet, there are mysteries to our faith that no man can reveal their answers. God has told us this. Some doctrines look ok on paper, but fail miserably in life. Some are illogical and fail at the test. Men give God a human nature and build upon that distortion as seen in the fruits of their theology and doctrine. I do not hate religion, theologies, doctrines, rites, practices, ordinances, obediences, commandments, sacraments, or you name it. I do not hate those things, but I'll try to suppress hatred where I sense it or distance myself from it. There are doctrines that are fueled with hatred. God is Love.

I listen to what's out there and I think about it. I read what the Scriptures have to teach. I listen to men's interpretations. I believe what I consider the truth, just as you do. Much of the Catholic Church catechism makes sense. I see Protestantism having some of the same doctrine and theology, not all denominations though. I see some of the same disguised under different names or routines. Sometimes the structures are the same, but the styles differ.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


oh, the catechism makes sense?

"Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." Pg. 252, #969 "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Pg. 125, #494

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved... " John 10:9

"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11 "Yet I am the LORD thy God... there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4

"The God of my rock he is... my saviour..." 2 Samuel 22:3

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


Ambrose "How can we use those things, which we find not in the Scriptures!" [St. Ambrose c. 339-397, Offic. Lib. 1, c. 22]

Athanasius "For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth." [Athanasius, Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen) Part I, 1]

Athanasius "In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth." [St. Athanasius, adv. Gentes init.]

Athanasius “But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word” [Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Chapter I, 4]

Athanasius “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” [Athanasius, De Synodis Part I (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia Part I), 6]

Athanasius “'The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words.” [Athanasius, Vita S. Antoni (Life of Antony), 16]

Athanasius “It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which are the Lord's, at once to believe” [Athanasius, Discourse III Against the Arian (Chapter XXIII), 1]

Athanasius "These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the doctrine of salvation is contained. Let no man add to, or take from them." [Athanasius, Letter XXXIX, 6]

Athanasius “Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. 2. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God.” [Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation of the Word), 56, 1-2]

Athanasius “It behoved, as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also, to state from the Scriptures what is there written of Him, and not to introduce non-scriptural expressions.' Yes, it behoved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources” (Athanasius, De Decretis (Defense of the Nicene Definition), Chapter VII, 32]

Athanasius "If you desire a new quotation, if you pretend to affirm anything besides what is written, why do you dispute with us, who are resolved to hear nothing, and to say nothing, besides what is written?" [St. Athanasius, De Incarn. Chr.]

Athanasius "It is a mockery to ask questions, or to make discourses, on that which is not written." [Athanasius, Epist. Ad. Serap.]

Athanasius "What the Scriptures have not declared, you will never find."

Augustine "What more shall I teach than what we read in the Apostles, for holy Scripture fixes the rule for your doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought...Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound you the words of the teacher." [Augustine, De bono viduitatis (On the Good of Widowhood), 2]

Augustine "In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals." [Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana A.D. 427, Lib. II, c. 9]

Augustine "Let us not hear, 'This I say, this you say' but 'Thus says the Lord.' Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and on which we both believe. Therefore, let us seek the church. There let us discuss our case in the Scriptures." [Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3]

Augustine "I must not press the authority of Nicaea against you, nor you that of Arminum against me. I do not acknowledge the one as you do not the other. But let us come to ground that is common to both, the testimony of the Scripture." [Augustine, Cont. Maximin. Arian. ii. 14, vol. VIII:704]

Augustine "Let us not hear, 'This I say, this you say' but 'Thus says the Lord.' Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and on which we both believe. Therefore, let us seek the church. There let us discuss our case in the Scriptures." [Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3]

Augustine "Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other, not from divine, canonical books but from elsewhere. Some may perhaps ask, 'Why do you want to remove these thins from our midst?' Because I do not want the Holy Church proved by human documents but by divine oracles." [Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3]

Augustine "Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us shearch for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures." [Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3]

Augustine "Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." [Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 10]

Augustine "You ought to know this and particularly store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when he offered himself to them to touch, this did not suffice him unless he also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures. For he foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read." [Augustine, In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2]

Augustine "Let us attend to the real matter in debate, and let our arguments appeal to reason and to the authoritative teaching of the Divine Scriptures..." [Augustine, Letter XXIII, 7]

Basil "The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with Scriptures but reject that which is foreign."

Basil - “Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God- inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” [Basil, Letter CLXXXIX, 2]

Basil "What is written, believe; what is not written, seek not to discover." [Basil, Homil. De Trin.]

Chrysostom "If anything is said without Scripture the thinking of the hearers limps. But the where the testimony proceeds with divinely given Scripture it confirms both the speech of the preacher and the soul of the hearer." Elsewhere he says, "Whatever is required for salvation is already completely fulfilled in the Scriptures."

Chrysostom "When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures." [St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.]

Cyril of Jerusalem "Do not believe me simply, unless you receive the proof of what I say from Holy Scripture." [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. A.D. 348]

Cyril of Jerusalem "In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning but from the Holy Scriptures."

Cyril of Jerusalem "This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: [NPNF, Series II, Vol. 7, Catechetical Lecture IV]

Gregory of Nyssa "The generality of men still fluctuate in their options about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Hippolytus "There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will exercise piety towards God, can learn it no where but from the Holy Scriptures." [St. Hippolytus c. 170-c.235, adv. Noetum, c. IX]

Irenaeus "We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God's will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. [St. Irenaeus, Lib. III. c. 1]

John of Damascus "All things that are delivered to us by the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, we receive, acknowledge, and reverence, seeking for nothing beyond these." [John of Damascus c. 675-c. 749, Lib. I. De Orthodox. Fide, c. 1]

Origen "In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must "commit to the fire" what remains, that is, reserve it unto God." [Origen c. 185-c.254, Hom. in Lev.]

Tertullian "Let the shop of Hermogenes prove that what it advances is written; or if it be not written, let it fear the malediction uttered against those who dare to add or to retrench." [Tertullian c. 160-240, adv. Hermog.]

Tetullian "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, that from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Theodoret of Cyrus "Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone." [Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.]

Theodoret of Cyrus "You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it." [NPNF, Series II, Vol. 3, Dialogue I.-The Immutable]

Vincent of Lérins "The canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and in itself suffices to the full, and more, for all demands." [St. Vincent of Lérins, Adversus profanes omnium novitates haereticorum commonitorium A.D.434]

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.


The example I mentioned dealt with "Sola Scriptura" (the coined phrase) in context with Henry VIII during the time of his revolt against the Church. The Catholic Church does not recognize "Sola Scriptura" as their doctrine. It also does not reject the Scriptures. We are not in an all or nothing situation. It would be crazy to deny the Scriptures as it would be the same as denying Traditions, which became the Scriptures--The Holy Bible.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


Some of your entries are refering to

scriptures that are being considered as being fakes or forgeries,

oral Traditions,

or, debates restricted to Scriptures.

I would like to see the complete context from which the excerpts were pulled. You must consider that Origen was working with what was determine as genuine text for the compilation. He was working within a framework of deciphering fact from fiction in the textual media.

........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


how'd the bold get in there??

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


OFF, you forgot to close the tags.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

oh wait, you typed in a "b" in one tag instead of a "p"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

Jim Furst,

Rod and I are more open to discuss topics which most others don't.

There are many discrepancies in scripture, lost books, and so for, which people are not willing to discuss, instead they wash it off as all scripture is inspired by God or the Bible is inerrant, or tradition says this.

I for my part would like to see a more ioen discussion in these topics.

David O. is open to certain things.

His mind is only close so far when it comes to what saves a person.

5 years from now, David Ortiz will spouse beliefs he doesn't have now. He will reject those he held dear.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


Elpidio,

Maybe, but I will always believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ. And my view about God will not change. The only thing that might change is my beliefs in end-time prophecies, etc.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.


Hi.

I don't fear asking those blistering questions because I know that the answers will eventually reveal themselves. God provides answers through events, people, and understanding. If we hide from those tough questions, I feel that we are not trusting in God for the answers. Was Jesus 50 years old? If Jesus were 60 years old, would this change His Sacrifice and Salvation for all souls? Who says that He was 30 years old? Did Jesus tell us how old He was or did man? And, besides, I do believe that the calendars have been messed with in history. Was Jesus married? Let's say that He was? Does this change things? I don't know. Did Jesus say that He was married or does man claim this?

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


Elpidio,

thanks for that Josephus link, wonderful! I should have bought that Josephus book back when I first saw it, but I didn't think that I needed it. Well, I have a developing bruise as I'm still kicking myself over that one that got away. The link will do for now.

.............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


David O,

In your effort to make a case for Sola Scripture you cited all CATHOLICS. Among them you cited St. Augustine. You left out something he said;

"I would not believe the Gospels unless moved there-to by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

You cited St. Basil. But Basil also said;

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

You cited Iranaeus;

"With this church (Rome), because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:1–2 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

John Chrysostom

"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

Athanasius

"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able" (Festal Letters 29 [A.D. 330]).

Vincent of Lerins

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

C’mon David; you need to do better than that.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 23, 2004.


David? Do all of your nickles and dimes have only one side to them, or do they actually have a flip side? An interesting thing about research is found in revealing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


Scripture has always been extolled within the Catholic Church and still is. They are hand-in-glove with the teachings of the Church.

The really big problem for David, though, is that he assumes that these fellows were sola scriptura enthusiasts, just like him. So how would David or Bill Webster explain the fact that all of these men can be quoted on Catholic doctrines such as purgatory, veneration of saints, Mary, etc. etc.

In other words, if they believed, as David does, about sola scriptura, then why would they hold to "Catholic" doctrines? That doesn't make sense. Augustine was Catholic through-and-through. Athanasius, Iraneus, Ignatius, Jerome can be quoted extensively on Catholic doctrine.

The answer, of course, is that they did not hold to the "sola scriptura" doctrine as we understand it today. That is quite apparent from the quotes posted by John M. And there are many many many more quotes that could be posted here refuting, and in fact anniliating, the sola scriptura quotes David used.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2004.


And how do you Gail, explain the fact that these men also taught heresies. Why don't you quote those too? And some even believe in premillenialism, why don't you believe that too? Do you believe in the Satan Ransom theory as Origen did? Or that Jesus was 50 years old as Ireaneus did? Or do you believe in Replacement theology? Or could you please explain those church fathers that rejected the apocrypha? Why do you pick and choose what to believe from the church fathers? It is very interesting that the-ones-whom-Jesus- never-knew-and-will-surely-cast-into-the-fire-of-hell pick and choose what to believe in the church fathers.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.

I believe that YOU posted some quotes, David, from the Church fathers to support YOUR idea of sola scriptura, and it seems that YOU pick and choose what YOU want.

Then David says "It is very interesting that the-ones-whom-Jesus- never-knew-and-will-surely-cast-into-the-fire-of-hell pick and choose what to believe in the church fathers." YIKES! Very interesting INDEED! Careful how you judge, lest you heap burning coals upon your own head!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2004.


We all do, Gail, not just David.

Not all church fathers were considered saints.

Eusebius, Origen, and Tertullian were considered heretics. Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria were considered suspect.

Josephus is not even considered a Christian.

Yet, they are our best source for the history of those days.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 24, 2004.


The Church Fathers were simply theologians. Just like theologians of today, they proposed some ideas that the Church accepted, and other ideas that the Church did not accept. There is no reason to accept everything that a particular theologian proposes, even the greatest theologians. What matters is what God's Church teaches as binding doctrine, for that is the only teaching that is divinely guaranteed to be bound in heaven. No theologian, not even the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, holds the keys to the kingdom, only the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ's own Church. What the Fathers or other theologians have proposed has been considered by the Church, sifted and discerned, truth separated from untruth. Church Fathers have made many valuable contrubutions to our understanding of genuine Christian doctrine - and have also proposed many ideas that were just plain wrong, and were therefore rejected by the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, God's Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 24, 2004.

So why did Pope Gregary the Great reject the Apocrypha?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

David said: So why did Pope Gregary the Great reject the Apocrypha?

Please cite your source - I'm interested in seeing where you got this from?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 01, 2004.


Many people suppose that the decisions about what books would be in the Bible--were made by a church council behind closed doors, where they debated the issues, and then accepted some books, and rejected others.

Questions we might then ask would be, "Why should I believe that the church has the *right* list of inspired books?" or "Why does the Roman Catholic Church have additional books not found in the Protestant Bibles?" or "Why do the Protestants believe the Bible is the sole basis of authority for faith and practice?"

Not only does the Catholic Church have more books in their Bible, but they also view the Bible differently.

Did the New Testament give birth to the Church--or did the Church give birth to the New Testament? How you answer that question will determine what you believe about how the Bible came together..

The argument will go like this--The Bible alone cannot be our authority because the Bible itself cannot tell us which books should be in it. The Catholic Church, therefore claims that since popes and councils determined the New Testament--they therefore have authority over the Bible and we must accept them as infallible.

To put it differently, if the church were fallable, she might have been in error regarding the books she selected.

To be honest--those who do not recognize *some* authority able to close the canon must then respect *any* canon.

The Catholic relies on its infallable Church-- and the biblical Christian or Protestant relies on something else entirely--God's providence.

The Bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books, united by a common theme, and like a tapestry it weaves together the story of God's redemption of the human race. That these books should be collected, and accepted as the Word of God is itself a miracle of God's providence.

When God authorized the writing of a manuscript, and the people of God recognized it as such--it was preserved. For example, Moses wrote "All the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4; Joshua 8:30-35), and these writings were carefully laid in the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:26); so were the writings of Joshua (Joshua 24:26) and Samuel, whose words were put "In the book and placed...before the Lord" (1 Sam. 10:25). The same can be said for Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2) and Daniel.

Obviously the number of books increased and subsequent generations honored them as the Word of the Lord. For example, Ezra possessed a copy of the Law of Moses and the Prophets (Nehemiah 9:14, 26-30). This Law was read and revered as the Word of God.

Of course not all Jewish religious literature was considered a part of the inspired list of books. For example the book of Jashar existed (Joshua 10:13) as well as the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) and others (1 Kings 11:41). These books have not survived the centuries, so we don't know their contents.

As the canon grew in size, it was often refered to with the phrase "Moses and the Prophets," and later it was refered to as "the Law, Prophets, and writings" (or "the Psalms"). Jesus himself alluded to this three-fold division when He spoke of "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44).

If you were to look at the table of contents of a Hebrew Old Testament--you would notice two differences from our English Old Testament. First it has only twenty-two books, not thirty-nine. Yet, it is important to note that the content is the same. It is just that the Hebrew Bible combines certain books.

The second thing is that the order is different. The last book in the Hebrew Bible is Chronicles--not Malachi. But that is the interesting proof that Jesus' Bible was the same as the Hebrew Old Testament.

The first murder in the Old Testament was, of course, when Cain killed Abel. The last murder according to the Hebrew Old Testament was when the Prophet Zechariah, was stoned to death in the temple (2 Chron. 24:20-21).

Here now we can understand the words of Jesus:

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35)

These two murders are *bookends* for the whole of the Hebrew canon, and (though arranged differently) as our own Old Testament. Interestingly, eighteen out of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon are quoted in the New Testament (All except Judges, Chronicles, Esther, and Song of Solomon). But by clear implication these books were regarded as holy Scripture since Christ frequently refered to the whole Old Testament as a unit.

The Jews agreed that the Old Testament canon closed in about 400 B.C. with the prophecy of Malachi. The period between the Old Testament and the New Testament is often refered to as "The Four Hundred Silent Years"

Wherein do we see the providence of God? Remember that these books were selected by the people of God without the benefit of a council that debated the merits of each book. The people of God themselves distinguished writings, sometimes discussing and disagreeing--but these decisions were never in the hands of a select committee.

Yet there was a council that met in Jamnia in A.D. 95 and the canon of the Old Testament was on its agenda. Yet the council only ratified books that the Jews had already accepted five centuries earlier. The authentic books already proved their worth; the wheat had already been separated from the Chaff.

The same holds true for the way in which the New testament came together...



-- a repost deserving of a repost!! (faith01@myway.com), June 01, 2004.


Faith,

Is that your post or was someone kind enough to post it for you?

Emily,

I am finishing a reply to Kevin on the baptism thread. I'll give you a source, though I think I got the wrong Pope. I'll get back at you.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 01, 2004.


Woah, that is a long post.

Emily,

Jerome, Athanasius, Melito, Gregory the Great, and many others rejected the Apocrypha. Perhaps you can look some info on that yourself. I'll get to you ASAP.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 01, 2004.


Hi David.., No, I reposted an older post of mine that I thought answered this repost of James from January. Oh but--maybe this post of mine was never posted on this board, but perhaps another board--I'm not sure. I took it out of my saved folder.

I just thought it applied : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), June 02, 2004.


Emily,

I highly suggest you by the three-volume set by William Webster and Pastor King. It's called, “Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith". Mr. Webster also had a wonderful website at www.christiantruth.com

Pastor King hangs around the AOMIN chat channel, so if anyone (like Gail) has any questions about the book (i.e. you think he made an error), you can ask him yourself in the channel. Just don't get banned. Hint: If you act the way Catholics (Chavez, Gecik) on Greenspun act, then you won't last 5 minutes. They'll be happy to debate with you, but if you keep repeating the same old same old rhetoric, they just get tired and kick you.

Emily, Here is an excerpt from the book:

Gregory the Great

Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604. In his commentary on the book of Job, he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smot and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46.).727

This is significant, coming as it does from a bishop of Rome, who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. But he taught that the book was useful for the purpose of edification, the same sentiment expressed by Jerome. This is in direct contradiction to what the earlier Roman Church decreed under Innocent I, who confirmed the books sanctioned as canonical by Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. Gregory's comments on 1 Maccabees are from his Morals on Job. There are some who suggest that this was simply Gregory's opinion as a private theologian and that he did not write his commentary while bishop of Rome. The truth is, however, that he wrote part of his commentary prior to his position as Roman bishop while he was in Constantinople and part while he was the pope of Rome. Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens, gives the following background on Gregory's commentary:

When Gregory, while Apocrisarius in Constantinople, met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578, Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job. Gregory's response was his Moralia or Moralium libri or Expositio in librum Iob, at which he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.A. The Moral Teaching is devoted mostly to discussions of questions in moral theology and of practical applications of Gregory's solutions. In a sense it may be regarded as the first manual of moral and ascetic theology.728

Note that Jurgens affirms that Gregory did write his commentary while he was pope. Additionally, in asserting that I Maccabees was not canonical, Gregory was not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but stating the position of the Church of his day. Gregory would never have purposefully taught a view contrary to what he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan above. The term had both a broad and a narrow meaning. Broadly, in included all the books that were acceptable for reading in the Churches, which included the Apocrypha. But, in its narrower meaning, only the books of the Hebrew Canon were sanctioned as truly canonical for the purposes of establishing doctrine.

Furthermore, the assertion that Gregory's Morals on Job was not an official Church document is erroneous. In the later Middle Ages, his Morals was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church on Job. That this commentary was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document. Moreover, Gregory never retracted what he wrote about the Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late sixth and early seventh centuries regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha."

- By William Webster

[Updated June 8th, 2004 for grammer]

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 02, 2004.


Hi David,

Sorry for the delay in response. Thanks so much for finding out this information for me. If you own this book, I was wondering if you could do something for me. He cited two quotes, and I would like to check those sources. They are footnotes 727 and 728. Can you find out in the book to what books those refer? Thanks!

Some things to remember about this:

1. Not everything a pope says is binding on the Catholic Church. This only applies when he is speaking "ex cathedra."

2. I have read parts and examined another book by William Webster (sorry, it was borrowed from a friend and I do not know the title), and I noticed that he seemed to misrepresent Catholic teaching. I'm not sure if this was intentional on his part or not, but I think it's always important to check the sources of people's quotes.

I recently borrowed a book from a Protestant friend called Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Overall, it seemed to actually fairly represent Catholic teaching. The authors are two evangelicals who examined actual Catholic teaching and attempted to refute it from Scripture. If you want a book that fairly represents Catholic teaching rather than distorting it, this book seemed to do so in the chapters that I read. Catholic Answers' Jimmy Akin even recommended it for how it fairly represents Catholic teaching. I think the problem today is that many books misrepresent Catholic teaching, then attempt to refute it, but the Catholic Church does not profess their distortion, so obviously whatever they were saying was wrong. While I disagree with Geisler and MacKenzie, I respect them for their fair treatment of Catholics.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.


Emily,

I meant to give you the footnote, but I had to leave out of town. I'll post them ASAP.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 06, 2004.


David,

Nevermind about those footnotes. I found the sources elsewhere on the internet. Thanks.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 09, 2004.


Here are the footnotes in case anyone else was wondering:

727 Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.

De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad aedificationem Ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus. Eleazar namque in praelio elephantem feriens stravit, sed sub ipso quem exstinxit occubuit (I Mach. VI, 46) (PL 76.119).

728 William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume III, p. 313.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ