Protestant historian Phillip Schaff acknowledges that the biblical canon was officially fixed by the Catholic Church in councils in the 4th century, which had to be ratified and approved by the Bishop and the Church of Rome, being the same canon that Trent ratified in the 16th century. «The Council of Hippo in 393 and the third Council of Carthage (according to another calculation, the sixth) in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the Catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, except the Acts of the Martyrs on their commemorative days. These two African councils, with Augustine, established forty-four books as the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following order: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (the two of Samuel and the two of Kings), two books of the Paralipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms, five books of Solomon, the twelve Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. The canon of the New Testament is the same as ours. However, this decision of the transmarine Church was subject to ratification; and the approval of the Roman see was received when Innocent I and Gelasius I (in the year 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained unchanged until the 16th century and was ratified by the Council of Trent at its fourth session.» (History of the Christian Church. A.D. 1-311. Nicene and post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. Vol. 2. pp. 609-610) - Philip Schaff was a Swiss theologian and historian born in Chur on January 1, 1819 and died in New York on October 20, 1893.
This is old scholarship, the gelasian decree is a forgery and there was no fixed canon. Before this Council the Church of Alexandria had a canon similar to prots.
Your citation of antiquated academic work aside (though Schaff is no slouch), the earliest 2nd century canon lists, the Byrennios list and Melito of Sardis's list do not include the deuterocanon at all. Various fathers granted credence to apocryphal books in the later years, especially Augustine in De Doctrina Christiana, which was influential on the councils at Hippo and Carthage in the 4th century. And yet, even contemporaries of his time differed greatly- Jerome famously rejected the deuterocanon as being canonical scripture- but saw them as merely useful for edification sake, a common stance among the fathers. Athanasius also did not include the deuterocanon in his canon list either, and neither did the 4th century council of Laodicea. The distinction between canonical scripture and the deuterocanon was so well understood, that later figures such as Erasmus understood that the apocrypha necessarily differ in authority with the scriptures. Cardinal Francisco Jiminez, a grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition, funded and set together the complutensian polyglot bible, and citing Jerome, said that only books with a Hebrew column were canonical scriptures for establishing doctrine. Opponent of Luther, cardinal Cajetan, also did not view the apocrypha as canonical, but merely useful for edification. So, The council of Trent's novelties concerning the deuterocanon are twofold: 1. Eliminating distinction between the scripture and the useful but non canonical deuterocanon 2. Anathematizing those who disagree on the issue of the deuterocanon The first of the two, is fairly novel, and is contrary to virtually all early church observations on the apocryphal books in the Septuagint. The second, is entirely novel, and even Augustine and Jerome did not breathe out anathemas on their disagreement. Neither Did Origen and Julius Africanus, since the latter denied that Suzanna was scripture- being an apocryphal addition to Daniel, whereas Origen saw practical use for it.
@@MissouriBaptistApologetics You are answering to a post that does not refer only to the OT canon, but also to the NT and your silence is very telling and your arguments against the Deuterocanonical books of the OT backfires at you because some books of the NT were also rejected or ignored in the II century and as late as the IV century they were called antilegomena, disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation). It was the Catholic Church the instrument that God used to give us the 27 Books canon of the NT in the IV century.
@@MissouriBaptistApologetics Regarding the Canon of the OT you wrote "our citation of antiquated academic work aside" it is you who offer an antiquated academic view. We know now that the OT canon was not closed at the time of Jesus. Take a look at the Dictionary of the NT background published by IVP or the New Interpreter´s Dictionary of the BIble or the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Lee Martin McDonald is a baptist NT scholar and an expert on the canon of the BIble, I have his book "The Biblical Canon" and it was funny to read how he refuted protestant arguments used to defend a 39 books canon of the OT.
@anonimo-um2ng the arguments that some early Christians began raising against New testament works such as the epistle to the Hebrews, revelation and others, were predicated on silly, ignorant arguments that could not be substantiated, such as the rejection of Hebrews when some found it to not be of Pauline authorship- this is not a real argument. The reality is that the Holy Spirit preserved the canon, and the church did it'd job testing the spirits and works, seeing if they were from God. Also, given the incredible myriad of geographical, theological and historical errors in the deuterocanon, its no surprise these texts were always held at arms length, and placed in what Eusebius calls the 2nd category of text- useful for moral edification, but not canonical.
Protestant Syllogism Sola Scriptura 1st Premise: The Biblical Canon is a truth of Faith. 2nd Premise: Only Scripture has truths of Faith. Therefore, the Biblical Canon must be demonstrated by Scripture. If it cannot be demonstrated by Scripture, then it is NOT A TRUTH OF FAITH.
Nice try, but this sad attempt at a syllogism is invalid. Sola scriptura asserts that scripture is the highest authority on matters of doctrine and instruction, not that "only scripture has truths of faith". You made your first premise intentionally vague as well, and its obvious why- the scripture itself describes itself as the rule of faith, and that God's word is the final authority on all matters. The canon is the rule by which all other truths of faith are judged: "What more shall I teach you then what we read in the apostle? for holy scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher" (Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis). He says elsewhere concerning a disagreement with St. Cyprian, "I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine scriptures..but what does not agree I reject with his permission" (Against Cresconium). Writing on the distinction between the authority of church writings and the bible, he continues- "Do not gather fallacies from the writings of bishops against the divine testimonies, first, because this kind of writings must be distinguished from the authority of the canon..if perhaps they had a different understanding than the truth demands" (Ad Vincentium Donatistam, letter 48). You are quite ignorant, both of how scripture describes itself (God breathed, infallible, sufficient), and of how the fathers spoke of authority, which isn't surprising, given Catholicism's claim of authority is a circular argument
Before I listen to a defense of sola scriptura, can you please give the infallible definition of it and what are all the bounds of it? How is it used, how can it be misused? Is the goal truth for all Christians or freedom to decide what an individual believes it to say? Also where does the Bible allow for denominations based on disagreeing on sola scriptura with your pastor.
Please give an infallible requirement for an infallible definition. The only item the bible tells us is the Word of God that we still have today are the scriptures.
@@jack-l5e8o I am simply asking for a definition of sola scriptura - a complete, well thought out and biblically based doctrine of what sola scriptura is, what it means for the Bible to an Authority, how that Authority is used by individuals or by the church, what are its bounds, how do you know if you are using it correctly or incorrectly. Why am I asking for an infallible definition? So that all Protestants would know that they are using it correctly. I am asking for it for the benefit of all Protestants. Secondly I am asking for it so that we can see the actual doctrine so that we can argue about an actual thing an not some nebulous idea that will end up being straw-manned to death. I am simply asking to steel man sola scriptura - give us your best definition and doctrine for it, so that we can have a steel manned argument against it to see if it is true. Is this reasonable?
@@angeldinev1124 really? Both of them believed in child baptism, and baptism as a necesity. Luther believed Mary had no more children, and purgatory. Even calls unbelievers of purgatory anathema. Calvin believed not enough evidence in scripture to think Mary had other children. He second Jerome- ( Jerome vs Helvidius).
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm Sure, but that doesn't mean they would deny them access to preaching or whatever else you meant. In fact, I believe protestants would love to have a great theologian like Luther or Calvin today, because due to their tradition not claiming infallibility, they are quite open to change. If Calvin truly defended his case on infant baptism, then the baptists who agree with him would be obligated to change their tradition. That's the thing - no matter how hard anyone points out the mistakes and wrongdoings of the Catholic church, they just deny it instead of working out a way to fix them. I don't want to cause any harm or scandals, I'm just pointing out my perspective.
Man I hate it when I am proven wrong. But I have read into both of them I disagree with some of their teachings, but they did have some great statements. You definitely proved me wrong, 😑 . I see your point and I agree with you.
This is likely the most historically inaccurate understanding of the canon I have ever seen. About what I'd expect from pop - Catholicism NPC's though. Its funny you mention the canon, since the earliest canon lists from the 2nd century, the Byrennios list and the list of Melito of Sardis exclude the deuterocanonical books. The 4th century council at Laodicea does as well, and the Apostolic canons authored around the year 400 claim explicitly that Ecclesiasticus is excluded from the canon. Augustine was very influential in convincing the churches to accept the apocrypha, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage were heavily reliant on Augustine in their conclusions. Jerome famously also excluded the Deuterocanon from the scripture, as explicitly described them as a category of texts useful for instruction and teaching purposes, but not canonical scripture. Athanasius did not include these apocryphal works either. Catholic humanist theologian Desiderius Erasmus understood that the existence of a distinction like this entails a distinction in authority. A Grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition, cardinal Francisco Jiminez, funded and put together the Complutensian Polyglot bible, and cited Jerome- asserting that only books written with a Hebrew Column are to be canonical and for establishing doctrine Cardinal Cajetan also did not include the apocrypha in the canon, but only saw them as useful for edification of the faithful only. The Trentine canon is neither representative of the ancient most church canon lists, and its anathema against those who distinguish the deuterocanon from the scripture is also ahistorical, never being grounds for anathema in the ancient church, even among those who concurrently and openly disagreed- such as with Jerome and Augustine.
@MissouriBaptistApologetics You listed too many erroneous points to refute, so I'll just point out that Jerome was a translator. As he admitted, his opinion on the canon was irrelevant. It was also wrong. He rejected several books for being only in Greek. Dead Sea scrolls were discovered to have the Hebrew originals. It turned out the Holy Spirit was right all along!
@@fantasia55 The Deuterocanonical texts being found among the dead sea scrolls is a retarded attempt at a rebuttal. The Essenes in community around Qumran held numerous false, and heretical views, and thus were an outcast minority among the Hebrews The Dead sea scrolls of the Essenes included besides the true OT and the apocrypha, also the blasphemous and heretical book of Enoch, alongside the Essenic sectarian writings- are we to think this is scripture as well? Your criteria is so low, the bar is on the floor.
Who decides what is Holy Scripture? What did Christians do before the Gospels were written and the New Testament compiled? How can we rely solely upon Scripture when there are written examples of Jesus explaining things to the Apostles? These can't be the only instances of Him teaching them and explaining things? St John himself writes that there are many more instances of things that Jesus said and did but which he did not write down, and it would be the same for the other Gospel writers too. So it is reasonable to assume that the Apostles passed down teachings and understanding to their pupils and followers through a lens of what they had been taught by Jesus and what they had understood: Tradition.
There is a huge difference between Sola Scriptura, Prima Scriptura and Nuda Scriptura - you've just got them wrong. The vast majority of protestants don't deny church tradition at all, but give the Bible a higher authority than it. That is because a lot of times fallible humans have actually changed church tradition, be that for the better or for the worst, so the only unchangeable and infallible sources left are the Old and New Testament.😊
Yep, these cultists can't agree whose version is the right one and not one of these frauds can do what their supposed messiah promised to every true follower. they are quite the frauds in a circular firing squad.
We all agree on his identity and what his message was, but we practically only disagree on how it would be best to run our churches. Still, Christ is King and I wish you find peace in him❤️
@@angeldinev1124 Nice false claims, angel. This is what christiains disagree on: who is saved how someone is saved how to interpret the bible what morals their god wants what heaven and hell are what baptism does and how to do it who speaks for this god etc etc I was a christian and know quite a bit about the different versions of christianity. You lie when you claim you don't disagree except for how to run your churches. You need to wish harder. I've had literally hundreds of christians who prayed for me to agree with them, and despite the promises in the bible, they've all failed miserably. Why is that, angel? Is it because your god loves me as I am? Your god doesn't think any of you are true christians? Or is it because your god is imaginary?
@@MissouriBaptistApologetics Why thanks, dears. Unsurprisingly, you can't show I'm wrong. You are all quite the failures when it comes to these promises from your supposed messiah: “22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours.” - Mark 11 “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news[d] to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands,[e] and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” Mark 16 “7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7 “1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.” John 14 “ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15 “13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” James 5
Great refutation, loved all the scriptural citations you provided, LOL. Also, I hope by saints, you don't mean the ancient fathers, as they were not Roman Catholic at all. This observation is so menial, its amusing it has to be said at all. Instead of huffing copium, you should try asserting a valid argument. Although, being a papist charlatan, I'm sure that's beyond you.
this is good, high energy and well articulated protestant apologetics. amusing thumbnail as well. thank you.
thank you Mr. Luther 👍
Protestant historian Phillip Schaff acknowledges that the biblical canon was officially fixed by the Catholic Church in councils in the 4th century, which had to be ratified and approved by the Bishop and the Church of Rome, being the same canon that Trent ratified in the 16th century.
«The Council of Hippo in 393 and the third Council of Carthage (according to another calculation, the sixth) in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the Catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, except the Acts of the Martyrs on their commemorative days. These two African councils, with Augustine, established forty-four books as the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following order: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (the two of Samuel and the two of Kings), two books of the Paralipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms, five books of Solomon, the twelve Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. The canon of the New Testament is the same as ours.
However, this decision of the transmarine Church was subject to ratification; and the approval of the Roman see was received when Innocent I and Gelasius I (in the year 414) repeated the same index of biblical books.
This canon remained unchanged until the 16th century and was ratified by the Council of Trent at its fourth session.»
(History of the Christian Church.
A.D. 1-311. Nicene and post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. Vol. 2. pp. 609-610)
- Philip Schaff was a Swiss theologian and historian born in Chur on January 1, 1819 and died in New York on October 20, 1893.
This is old scholarship, the gelasian decree is a forgery and there was no fixed canon.
Before this Council the Church of Alexandria had a canon similar to prots.
Your citation of antiquated academic work aside (though Schaff is no slouch), the earliest 2nd century canon lists, the Byrennios list and Melito of Sardis's list do not include the deuterocanon at all. Various fathers granted credence to apocryphal books in the later years, especially Augustine in De Doctrina Christiana, which was influential on the councils at Hippo and Carthage in the 4th century. And yet, even contemporaries of his time differed greatly- Jerome famously rejected the deuterocanon as being canonical scripture- but saw them as merely useful for edification sake, a common stance among the fathers. Athanasius also did not include the deuterocanon in his canon list either, and neither did the 4th century council of Laodicea.
The distinction between canonical scripture and the deuterocanon was so well understood, that later figures such as Erasmus understood that the apocrypha necessarily differ in authority with the scriptures. Cardinal Francisco Jiminez, a grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition, funded and set together the complutensian polyglot bible, and citing Jerome, said that only books with a Hebrew column were canonical scriptures for establishing doctrine. Opponent of Luther, cardinal Cajetan, also did not view the apocrypha as canonical, but merely useful for edification.
So, The council of Trent's novelties concerning the deuterocanon are twofold:
1. Eliminating distinction between the scripture and the useful but non canonical deuterocanon
2. Anathematizing those who disagree on the issue of the deuterocanon
The first of the two, is fairly novel, and is contrary to virtually all early church observations on the apocryphal books in the Septuagint. The second, is entirely novel, and even Augustine and Jerome did not breathe out anathemas on their disagreement. Neither Did Origen and Julius Africanus, since the latter denied that Suzanna was scripture- being an apocryphal addition to Daniel, whereas Origen saw practical use for it.
@@MissouriBaptistApologetics You are answering to a post that does not refer only to the OT canon, but also to the NT and your silence is very telling and your arguments against the Deuterocanonical books of the OT backfires at you because some books of the NT were also rejected or ignored in the II century and as late as the IV century they were called antilegomena, disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation). It was the Catholic Church the instrument that God used to give us the 27 Books canon of the NT in the IV century.
@@MissouriBaptistApologetics Regarding the Canon of the OT you wrote "our citation of antiquated academic work aside" it is you who offer an antiquated academic view. We know now that the OT canon was not closed at the time of Jesus. Take a look at the Dictionary of the NT background published by IVP or the New Interpreter´s Dictionary of the BIble or the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Lee Martin McDonald is a baptist NT scholar and an expert on the canon of the BIble, I have his book "The Biblical Canon" and it was funny to read how he refuted protestant arguments used to defend a 39 books canon of the OT.
@anonimo-um2ng the arguments that some early Christians began raising against New testament works such as the epistle to the Hebrews, revelation and others, were predicated on silly, ignorant arguments that could not be substantiated, such as the rejection of Hebrews when some found it to not be of Pauline authorship- this is not a real argument.
The reality is that the Holy Spirit preserved the canon, and the church did it'd job testing the spirits and works, seeing if they were from God. Also, given the incredible myriad of geographical, theological and historical errors in the deuterocanon, its no surprise these texts were always held at arms length, and placed in what Eusebius calls the 2nd category of text- useful for moral edification, but not canonical.
Holding Papists to scripture is like holding Satanists to scripture. Neither one give 2 $hits about it.
Protestant Syllogism
Sola Scriptura
1st Premise: The Biblical Canon is a truth of Faith.
2nd Premise: Only Scripture has truths of Faith.
Therefore, the Biblical Canon must be demonstrated by Scripture. If it cannot be demonstrated by Scripture, then it is NOT A TRUTH OF FAITH.
which it doesn't lmfao
Also sola scriptura isn't in the bible itself.
Nice try, but this sad attempt at a syllogism is invalid. Sola scriptura asserts that scripture is the highest authority on matters of doctrine and instruction, not that "only scripture has truths of faith". You made your first premise intentionally vague as well, and its obvious why- the scripture itself describes itself as the rule of faith, and that God's word is the final authority on all matters. The canon is the rule by which all other truths of faith are judged:
"What more shall I teach you then what we read in the apostle? for holy scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher" (Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis). He says elsewhere concerning a disagreement with St. Cyprian, "I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine scriptures..but what does not agree I reject with his permission" (Against Cresconium). Writing on the distinction between the authority of church writings and the bible, he continues- "Do not gather fallacies from the writings of bishops against the divine testimonies, first, because this kind of writings must be distinguished from the authority of the canon..if perhaps they had a different understanding than the truth demands" (Ad Vincentium Donatistam, letter 48).
You are quite ignorant, both of how scripture describes itself (God breathed, infallible, sufficient), and of how the fathers spoke of authority, which isn't surprising, given Catholicism's claim of authority is a circular argument
The 2 guys in the klick bait picture with the light sabers. The one with the beard looks like Sean Connery
😅😂
LOL
Before I listen to a defense of sola scriptura, can you please give the infallible definition of it and what are all the bounds of it? How is it used, how can it be misused? Is the goal truth for all Christians or freedom to decide what an individual believes it to say?
Also where does the Bible allow for denominations based on disagreeing on sola scriptura with your pastor.
Please give an infallible requirement for an infallible definition. The only item the bible tells us is the Word of God that we still have today are the scriptures.
@@jack-l5e8o I am simply asking for a definition of sola scriptura - a complete, well thought out and biblically based doctrine of what sola scriptura is, what it means for the Bible to an Authority, how that Authority is used by individuals or by the church, what are its bounds, how do you know if you are using it correctly or incorrectly.
Why am I asking for an infallible definition? So that all Protestants would know that they are using it correctly. I am asking for it for the benefit of all Protestants.
Secondly I am asking for it so that we can see the actual doctrine so that we can argue about an actual thing an not some nebulous idea that will end up being straw-manned to death.
I am simply asking to steel man sola scriptura - give us your best definition and doctrine for it, so that we can have a steel manned argument against it to see if it is true.
Is this reasonable?
How many Protestants churches today would allow Luther, Calvin to teach
^ I am unable to confront the argument.
Probably all??
@@angeldinev1124 really? Both of them believed in child baptism, and baptism as a necesity. Luther believed Mary had no more children, and purgatory. Even calls unbelievers of purgatory anathema.
Calvin believed not enough evidence in scripture to think Mary had other children. He second Jerome- ( Jerome vs Helvidius).
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm Sure, but that doesn't mean they would deny them access to preaching or whatever else you meant. In fact, I believe protestants would love to have a great theologian like Luther or Calvin today, because due to their tradition not claiming infallibility, they are quite open to change. If Calvin truly defended his case on infant baptism, then the baptists who agree with him would be obligated to change their tradition. That's the thing - no matter how hard anyone points out the mistakes and wrongdoings of the Catholic church, they just deny it instead of working out a way to fix them. I don't want to cause any harm or scandals, I'm just pointing out my perspective.
Man I hate it when I am proven wrong. But
I have read into both of them I disagree with some of their teachings, but they did have some great statements.
You definitely proved me wrong, 😑 . I see your point and I agree with you.
Praying you come to orthodoxy
I’ll pray our churches be reunited. God bless our orthodox brothers! ✝️☦️
Sola Scriptura was impossible before the Catholic Church created the Bible in AD 382.
Assembled.
@@mystdragon8530 Gospels of Peter, Mary, Thomas; Hermas, Enoch, Jubilees - among hundreds of early Christian texts rejected by the Council of Rome
This is likely the most historically inaccurate understanding of the canon I have ever seen. About what I'd expect from pop - Catholicism NPC's though.
Its funny you mention the canon, since the earliest canon lists from the 2nd century, the Byrennios list and the list of Melito of Sardis exclude the deuterocanonical books. The 4th century council at Laodicea does as well, and the Apostolic canons authored around the year 400 claim explicitly that Ecclesiasticus is excluded from the canon. Augustine was very influential in convincing the churches to accept the apocrypha, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage were heavily reliant on Augustine in their conclusions.
Jerome famously also excluded the Deuterocanon from the scripture, as explicitly described them as a category of texts useful for instruction and teaching purposes, but not canonical scripture. Athanasius did not include these apocryphal works either.
Catholic humanist theologian Desiderius Erasmus understood that the existence of a distinction like this entails a distinction in authority. A Grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition, cardinal Francisco Jiminez, funded and put together the Complutensian Polyglot bible, and cited Jerome- asserting that only books written with a Hebrew Column are to be canonical and for establishing doctrine
Cardinal Cajetan also did not include the apocrypha in the canon, but only saw them as useful for edification of the faithful only.
The Trentine canon is neither representative of the ancient most church canon lists, and its anathema against those who distinguish the deuterocanon from the scripture is also ahistorical, never being grounds for anathema in the ancient church, even among those who concurrently and openly disagreed- such as with Jerome and Augustine.
@MissouriBaptistApologetics You listed too many erroneous points to refute, so I'll just point out that Jerome was a translator. As he admitted, his opinion on the canon was irrelevant. It was also wrong. He rejected several books for being only in Greek. Dead Sea scrolls were discovered to have the Hebrew originals. It turned out the Holy Spirit was right all along!
@@fantasia55 The Deuterocanonical texts being found among the dead sea scrolls is a retarded attempt at a rebuttal. The Essenes in community around Qumran held numerous false, and heretical views, and thus were an outcast minority among the Hebrews
The Dead sea scrolls of the Essenes included besides the true OT and the apocrypha, also the blasphemous and heretical book of Enoch, alongside the Essenic sectarian writings- are we to think this is scripture as well? Your criteria is so low, the bar is on the floor.
Who decides what is Holy Scripture? What did Christians do before the Gospels were written and the New Testament compiled? How can we rely solely upon Scripture when there are written examples of Jesus explaining things to the Apostles? These can't be the only instances of Him teaching them and explaining things? St John himself writes that there are many more instances of things that Jesus said and did but which he did not write down, and it would be the same for the other Gospel writers too. So it is reasonable to assume that the Apostles passed down teachings and understanding to their pupils and followers through a lens of what they had been taught by Jesus and what they had understood: Tradition.
There is a huge difference between Sola Scriptura, Prima Scriptura and Nuda Scriptura - you've just got them wrong. The vast majority of protestants don't deny church tradition at all, but give the Bible a higher authority than it. That is because a lot of times fallible humans have actually changed church tradition, be that for the better or for the worst, so the only unchangeable and infallible sources left are the Old and New Testament.😊
Yep, these cultists can't agree whose version is the right one and not one of these frauds can do what their supposed messiah promised to every true follower.
they are quite the frauds in a circular firing squad.
We all agree on his identity and what his message was, but we practically only disagree on how it would be best to run our churches. Still, Christ is King and I wish you find peace in him❤️
Most intelligent atheist, LOL
@@angeldinev1124 Nice false claims, angel. This is what christiains disagree on:
who is saved
how someone is saved
how to interpret the bible
what morals their god wants
what heaven and hell are
what baptism does and how to do it
who speaks for this god
etc etc
I was a christian and know quite a bit about the different versions of christianity. You lie when you claim you don't disagree except for how to run your churches.
You need to wish harder. I've had literally hundreds of christians who prayed for me to agree with them, and despite the promises in the bible, they've all failed miserably. Why is that, angel? Is it because your god loves me as I am? Your god doesn't think any of you are true christians? Or is it because your god is imaginary?
@@MissouriBaptistApologetics Why thanks, dears. Unsurprisingly, you can't show I'm wrong. You are all quite the failures when it comes to these promises from your supposed messiah:
“22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours.” - Mark 11
“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news[d] to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands,[e] and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” Mark 16
“7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7
“1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.” John 14
“ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15
“13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” James 5
Pathetical apologetics. Indeed, the saints were correct about protestantism.
Great refutation, loved all the scriptural citations you provided, LOL. Also, I hope by saints, you don't mean the ancient fathers, as they were not Roman Catholic at all. This observation is so menial, its amusing it has to be said at all. Instead of huffing copium, you should try asserting a valid argument. Although, being a papist charlatan, I'm sure that's beyond you.