As a generalization: I don’t generally encourage people to stay ignorant so they don’t get confused by facts.
And I don’t encourage people to put their faith in a perfect book that is, in its entirety, the “Word of God.” That works for a while and then fails.
So you would recommend that a normal first grader start with advanced calculus or number theory, or at least be given the choice.
is not the same as
Actually Luther back in 1534 was the first to move the apocrypha to it’s own section with the title “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read”. So push that 1800’s date back several hundred years. And given he had his doubts I wonder how far back you would have to go to find the books that were originally considered canonical. McDonald indicates the OT canon was originally 24 books.
Lots of fun stuff to read on the development of the canon.
Indeed. Luther muddies it up a bit. If you are a strict Biblical inerrantist, it begs the question of “Which Bible?”
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding some of that, along with a link to the full article:
During the Reformation, Luther brought up the issue of the antilegomena among the Church Fathers, and none of the New Testament books of the Canon of Trent was rejected from Luther’s canon. The terminology remains in use today.[a] Since he questioned the legitimacy of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, these books are sometimes termed “Luther’s Antilegomena”.[6] Current Lutheran usage expands this questioning to also include 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.[7]
Often the canon of Scripture is part of a church’s confession of faith. It’s not like a salad bar where you build your own canon, or even cross out parts you don’t like, the way Jefferson did. People are always free to explore extra-biblical writings.
He took a blade to it. (So much for this being a Christian nation as ‘Christian nationalists’ would have us believe.)
Didn’t Luther say that he wanted to stoke his fire with the book of James?
No, Bill, as others have mentioned, Luther did not list the Protestant 66-book canon as “his” canon
So the 1800s date remains.
Feel free to document Luther’s opinion if you disagree.
I agree. That is why I chose to accept an ancient canon accepted by an established church
Oh, that is terrible!
People must agree with the canon accepted by the writers of the confession to be part of the church — presenting the teachings of man as the precepts of God, and excluding those who disagree.
I did. What part of “These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures” makes you think he included them in his version of canon?
Lee McDonald in The Biblical Canon says
Actually I am agreeing with you. The canon has been very fluid and ever changing, up to a point. Everyone has to decide what that point will be.
(I would except first graders in the faith.)
I asked you to support your assertion that the 66-book canon was listed anywhere before the 1800s. You did not do that.
You brought up the fact that Luther questioned the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the canon. That is not the same thing.
As others and I have mentioned, Luther objected to numerous books in the 66-book canon.
So, I ask you again: do you have any evidence that Luther accepted the 66-book canon commonly accepted by the Protestant subset of Christendom as “his” canon? Did anyone list the 66-book canon as “his” or “her” canon before the 1800s? Questioning the deuterocanonical books is insufficient if the same source questions other books.
If not, my earlier statement continues to be not disproven: the 66-book canon of the Bible dates to the 1800s.
So, if you have an example of the 66-book canon being used anywhere before the 1800s, I would love to see it.
No, this ignores the Council of Carthage in 397 and the Vulgate from the fourth century. For much of the church for hundreds of years, the Vulgate was the Bible.
But are you claiming the canon was not set until the Council of Trent? Is that your position, that there was no set canon until the Council of Trent? To write that the Roman Catholic Church did not decide which writings the Bible contained until the 1500s is a rather strange claim.
I was taught from early on the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books, and I think for Protestants that has been the historical position.
I think the infallibility claim is more recent.
Then it should be easy for you to point towards a church father who treated it as fallible.
Infalliblity is the bold claim. It is the position that requires defense.
There is no valid assumption that the work of people, that the writings of people, are infallible.
But I could mention Paul, who records in 1 Corinthians 1 that what he wrote is uncertain that what he wrote is correct:
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
No, that is not terrible! Our churches have taken a stand–“This is what we accept.” You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and it’s not working.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
