At first, but correctly changed his mind later....

so ecclesiastical coercion?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

so ecclesiastical coercion?

---

Just like obeying God is just because of divine coercion, right?

in a way...

I know of no credible source that Jerome didn't submit to Papal authority and approve all 73 books of the bible. Can you provide some, and explain why the 7 books were included in the original canon of scripture in 382 AD?

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

hiLuther never should have de-canonized the Wisdom of Solomon...

---

Didn't Jerome believe it should not be canonized along with other books in the Apocrypha?

---

Jerome is a great example of saintly submission. We know he was initially against these books. Some people say he changed his mind later, some say he didn't, but the one thing we can't doubt is that he submitted himself to the authority of the Church on the matter and translated them regardless of his personal opinion.

---

This is inaccurate. It's not a matter of 50/50 or 60/40. The overwhelming majority of history supports the view that Jerome did not change his mind.

The scholarly consensus is clear that Jerome never changed his mind about the Apocryphal books. There is no debate in those circles as to Jerome's position.

However, some strains of Roman Catholic apologists make this claim. Not in any sort of scholarly or tested way, but more to try and appeal to an audience who isn't aware.

---

The claims that he shifted his stance are based on the way he quotes from several of the books while treating on theological issues later in his career. The very thing he said the books shouldn't be used for when asked to translate the vulgate. So it looks like a subtle shift at least.

But lets say you're 100% right. Did he still submit to the request of the Church and did he recognize that in many, many areas the texts were used canonically? Catholics are allowed to privately struggle with a teaching. That is nothing new

Thaddeus73 said:

---

I know of no credible source that Jerome didn't submit to Papal authority and approve all 73 books of the bible. Can you provide some, and explain why the 7 books were included in the original canon of scripture in 382 AD?

---

You're completely backwards.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, claims that Jerome held the apocrypha to be part of the proper canon. We know this because he quite literally says it:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour."

So to claim he submitted to papal authority is to prove a negative.

That he included it in the canon does not mean he accepted it. He was explicitly clear in his preface to those books what he thought of them. He also had no problems including them to be read because he saw value in them to be read. Guess what? Luther held the exact same position. Many in Rome did so at that time as well.

He also spent his entire career saying that the Hebrews had the correct history. He spent his entire career distinguishing between the accepted canon and the apocryphal books

So the onus is on you to prove he ever submitted. And like I made clear, the scholarship is absolutely clear that Jerome never changed his mind. He always held to what he wrote above.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

hiLuther never should have de-canonized the Wisdom of Solomon...

---

Didn't Jerome believe it should not be canonized along with other books in the Apocrypha?

---

Jerome is a great example of saintly submission. We know he was initially against these books. Some people say he changed his mind later, some say he didn't, but the one thing we can't doubt is that he submitted himself to the authority of the Church on the matter and translated them regardless of his personal opinion.

---

This is inaccurate. It's not a matter of 50/50 or 60/40. The overwhelming majority of history supports the view that Jerome did not change his mind.

The scholarly consensus is clear that Jerome never changed his mind about the Apocryphal books. There is no debate in those circles as to Jerome's position.

However, some strains of Roman Catholic apologists make this claim. Not in any sort of scholarly or tested way, but more to try and appeal to an audience who isn't aware.

---

The claims that he shifted his stance are based on the way he quotes from several of the books while treating on theological issues later in his career. The very thing he said the books shouldn't be used for when asked to translate the vulgate. So it looks like a subtle shift at least.

But lets say you're 100% right. Did he still submit to the request of the Church and did he recognize that in many, many areas the texts were used canonically? Catholics are allowed to privately struggle with a teaching. That is nothing new

---

This is the problem Rome has because of Trent. You are left with absolutes when the history of the church is against that.

So did Jerome quote the apocryphal books? Absolutely. Guess who also did? Luther.
Jerome included the apocryphal books in the Vulgate, even though he did not hold them as the true canon.
Guess what? So did Luther.

In both cases, they understood that the word canon can have multiple meanings.

In the narrow sense, the biblical canon represented those that were above reproach and made up the biblical canon.

In the broader sense, books such as the apocryphal were valued and should be read. There was just a clear understanding that doctrine should not be derived primarily from them.

It's Rome, in their quest to exile the Reformers, that destroy this two tier approach and try to force acceptance of a position that was not historically held.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

hiLuther never should have de-canonized the Wisdom of Solomon...

---

Didn't Jerome believe it should not be canonized along with other books in the Apocrypha?

---

Jerome is a great example of saintly submission. We know he was initially against these books. Some people say he changed his mind later, some say he didn't, but the one thing we can't doubt is that he submitted himself to the authority of the Church on the matter and translated them regardless of his personal opinion.

---

This is inaccurate. It's not a matter of 50/50 or 60/40. The overwhelming majority of history supports the view that Jerome did not change his mind.

The scholarly consensus is clear that Jerome never changed his mind about the Apocryphal books. There is no debate in those circles as to Jerome's position.

However, some strains of Roman Catholic apologists make this claim. Not in any sort of scholarly or tested way, but more to try and appeal to an audience who isn't aware.

---

The claims that he shifted his stance are based on the way he quotes from several of the books while treating on theological issues later in his career. The very thing he said the books shouldn't be used for when asked to translate the vulgate. So it looks like a subtle shift at least.

But lets say you're 100% right. Did he still submit to the request of the Church and did he recognize that in many, many areas the texts were used canonically? Catholics are allowed to privately struggle with a teaching. That is nothing new

---

This is the problem Rome has because of Trent. You are left with absolutes when the history of the church is against that.

So did Jerome quote the apocryphal books? Absolutely. Guess who also did? Luther.
Jerome included the apocryphal books in the Vulgate, even though he did not hold them as the true canon.
Guess what? So did Luther.

In both cases, they understood that the word canon can have multiple meanings.

In the narrow sense, the biblical canon represented those that were above reproach and made up the biblical canon.

In the broader sense, books such as the apocryphal were valued and should be read. There was just a clear understanding that doctrine should not be derived primarily from them.

It's Rome, in their quest to exile the Reformers, that destroy this two tier approach and try to force acceptance of a position that was not historically held.

---

Was Augustine trying to exile Reformers, 1200 years before their existence, when he used a single tier approach to said books in contrast to Jerome, with whom he discoursed? And he did so as a bishop, citing the authority of the Church and what it used liturgically at the time?

For every decent point you make, you seem compelled to turn around and make "Rome" this boogeyman. A mythical figure malevolently hellbent on destroying "real" Christianity.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

hiLuther never should have de-canonized the Wisdom of Solomon...

---

Didn't Jerome believe it should not be canonized along with other books in the Apocrypha?

---

Jerome is a great example of saintly submission. We know he was initially against these books. Some people say he changed his mind later, some say he didn't, but the one thing we can't doubt is that he submitted himself to the authority of the Church on the matter and translated them regardless of his personal opinion.

---

This is inaccurate. It's not a matter of 50/50 or 60/40. The overwhelming majority of history supports the view that Jerome did not change his mind.

The scholarly consensus is clear that Jerome never changed his mind about the Apocryphal books. There is no debate in those circles as to Jerome's position.

However, some strains of Roman Catholic apologists make this claim. Not in any sort of scholarly or tested way, but more to try and appeal to an audience who isn't aware.

---

The claims that he shifted his stance are based on the way he quotes from several of the books while treating on theological issues later in his career. The very thing he said the books shouldn't be used for when asked to translate the vulgate. So it looks like a subtle shift at least.

But lets say you're 100% right. Did he still submit to the request of the Church and did he recognize that in many, many areas the texts were used canonically? Catholics are allowed to privately struggle with a teaching. That is nothing new

---

This is the problem Rome has because of Trent. You are left with absolutes when the history of the church is against that.

So did Jerome quote the apocryphal books? Absolutely. Guess who also did? Luther.
Jerome included the apocryphal books in the Vulgate, even though he did not hold them as the true canon.
Guess what? So did Luther.

In both cases, they understood that the word canon can have multiple meanings.

In the narrow sense, the biblical canon represented those that were above reproach and made up the biblical canon.

In the broader sense, books such as the apocryphal were valued and should be read. There was just a clear understanding that doctrine should not be derived primarily from them.

It's Rome, in their quest to exile the Reformers, that destroy this two tier approach and try to force acceptance of a position that was not historically held.

---

Was Augustine trying to exile Reformers, 1200 years before their existence, when he used a single tier approach to said books in contrast to Jerome, with whom he discoursed? And he did so as a bishop, citing the authority of the Church and what it used liturgically at the time?

For every decent point you make, you seem compelled to turn around and make "Rome" this boogeyman. A mythical figure malevolently hellbent on destroying "real" Christianity.

---

Is this you conceding Jerome never changed his mind and so now you're shifting to Augustine?

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

hiLuther never should have de-canonized the Wisdom of Solomon...

---

Didn't Jerome believe it should not be canonized along with other books in the Apocrypha?

---

Jerome is a great example of saintly submission. We know he was initially against these books. Some people say he changed his mind later, some say he didn't, but the one thing we can't doubt is that he submitted himself to the authority of the Church on the matter and translated them regardless of his personal opinion.

---

This is inaccurate. It's not a matter of 50/50 or 60/40. The overwhelming majority of history supports the view that Jerome did not change his mind.

The scholarly consensus is clear that Jerome never changed his mind about the Apocryphal books. There is no debate in those circles as to Jerome's position.

However, some strains of Roman Catholic apologists make this claim. Not in any sort of scholarly or tested way, but more to try and appeal to an audience who isn't aware.

---

The claims that he shifted his stance are based on the way he quotes from several of the books while treating on theological issues later in his career. The very thing he said the books shouldn't be used for when asked to translate the vulgate. So it looks like a subtle shift at least.

But lets say you're 100% right. Did he still submit to the request of the Church and did he recognize that in many, many areas the texts were used canonically? Catholics are allowed to privately struggle with a teaching. That is nothing new

---

This is the problem Rome has because of Trent. You are left with absolutes when the history of the church is against that.

So did Jerome quote the apocryphal books? Absolutely. Guess who also did? Luther.
Jerome included the apocryphal books in the Vulgate, even though he did not hold them as the true canon.
Guess what? So did Luther.

In both cases, they understood that the word canon can have multiple meanings.

In the narrow sense, the biblical canon represented those that were above reproach and made up the biblical canon.

In the broader sense, books such as the apocryphal were valued and should be read. There was just a clear understanding that doctrine should not be derived primarily from them.

It's Rome, in their quest to exile the Reformers, that destroy this two tier approach and try to force acceptance of a position that was not historically held.

---

Was Augustine trying to exile Reformers, 1200 years before their existence, when he used a single tier approach to said books in contrast to Jerome, with whom he discoursed? And he did so as a bishop, citing the authority of the Church and what it used liturgically at the time?

For every decent point you make, you seem compelled to turn around and make "Rome" this boogeyman. A mythical figure malevolently hellbent on destroying "real" Christianity.

---

Is this you conceding Jerome never changed his mind and so now you're shifting to Augustine?

---

My main point all along was Jerome submitted to the Church on the matter. I already said that even if you're 100% right, it doesn't change the fact that Jerome didn't put his particular views above the authority of the Church. That matter is settled. Unless you think Jerome, who stayed in communion with bishops in his own area that disagreed with him and was later canonized a saint was actually in defiance of the Church's authority on the matter all along.

The only reason to bring Augustine into the picture is because your wild attempt to say that the only reason this clear and obvious two tiered approach that is the only historical position to hold was abandoned was done to own the reformers. Augustine didn't have a two tiered approach. He lived at the same time as Jerome. He wrote back and forth with Jerome. The bishops in Jerome's area disagreed with Jerome. How in the world can you say that the position was not historically held and only made up at the council of Trent? It's a terrible take. All in an attempt to own the Romanists/Papists/and all the other terms used against us.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

hiLuther never should have de-canonized the Wisdom of Solomon...

---

Didn't Jerome believe it should not be canonized along with other books in the Apocrypha?

---

Jerome is a great example of saintly submission. We know he was initially against these books. Some people say he changed his mind later, some say he didn't, but the one thing we can't doubt is that he submitted himself to the authority of the Church on the matter and translated them regardless of his personal opinion.

---

This is inaccurate. It's not a matter of 50/50 or 60/40. The overwhelming majority of history supports the view that Jerome did not change his mind.

The scholarly consensus is clear that Jerome never changed his mind about the Apocryphal books. There is no debate in those circles as to Jerome's position.

However, some strains of Roman Catholic apologists make this claim. Not in any sort of scholarly or tested way, but more to try and appeal to an audience who isn't aware.

---

The claims that he shifted his stance are based on the way he quotes from several of the books while treating on theological issues later in his career. The very thing he said the books shouldn't be used for when asked to translate the vulgate. So it looks like a subtle shift at least.

But lets say you're 100% right. Did he still submit to the request of the Church and did he recognize that in many, many areas the texts were used canonically? Catholics are allowed to privately struggle with a teaching. That is nothing new

---

This is the problem Rome has because of Trent. You are left with absolutes when the history of the church is against that.

So did Jerome quote the apocryphal books? Absolutely. Guess who also did? Luther.
Jerome included the apocryphal books in the Vulgate, even though he did not hold them as the true canon.
Guess what? So did Luther.

In both cases, they understood that the word canon can have multiple meanings.

In the narrow sense, the biblical canon represented those that were above reproach and made up the biblical canon.

In the broader sense, books such as the apocryphal were valued and should be read. There was just a clear understanding that doctrine should not be derived primarily from them.

It's Rome, in their quest to exile the Reformers, that destroy this two tier approach and try to force acceptance of a position that was not historically held.

---

Was Augustine trying to exile Reformers, 1200 years before their existence, when he used a single tier approach to said books in contrast to Jerome, with whom he discoursed? And he did so as a bishop, citing the authority of the Church and what it used liturgically at the time?

For every decent point you make, you seem compelled to turn around and make "Rome" this boogeyman. A mythical figure malevolently hellbent on destroying "real" Christianity.

---

Is this you conceding Jerome never changed his mind and so now you're shifting to Augustine?

---

My main point all along was Jerome submitted to the Church on the matter. I already said that even if you're 100% right, it doesn't change the fact that Jerome didn't put his particular views above the authority of the Church. That matter is settled. Unless you think Jerome, who stayed in communion with bishops in his own area that disagreed with him and was later canonized a saint was actually in defiance of the Church's authority on the matter all along.

The only reason to bring Augustine into the picture is because your wild attempt to say that the only reason this clear and obvious two tiered approach that is the only historical position to hold was abandoned was done to own the reformers. Augustine didn't have a two tiered approach. He lived at the same time as Jerome. He wrote back and forth with Jerome. The bishops in Jerome's area disagreed with Jerome. How in the world can you say that the position was not historically held and only made up at the council of Trent? It's a terrible take. All in an attempt to own the Romanists/Papists/and all the other terms used against us.

---

You keep using this phrase "submitted to the church" without defining it for what meant for Jerome.

Clearly Jerome did not hold to a view of the apocrypha as part of the narrower canon. We can see throughout his writings that this is clear. So "submitting the church" cannot mean a requirement accepting the wider canon. He never accepted that.

To your last sentence about Jerome, you're making an incorrect assumption. That it was necessary to hold to the wider canon to be "in communion with the bishops." That is not a claim that withstands any scrutiny. Namely that Jerome never changed his opinion, yet was in communion. So the most logical answer is that the Church did either did not have a strict canonical list and Jerome was free to hold to the narrower view without issue.

And to be clear, this wasn't a controversial position.

Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

It was only made controversial at Trent. Not because Trent is the boogeyman, but because that's just simply where Rome made the change.

-----------
I do want to make it clear that Jerome is not the only one. He came up and so I responded to it. There are other Church Fathers who hold to similar positions. It really shouldn't be a controversial position, except if you have a closed canon, which is why Rome apologists (not scholars) fight so hard here.

Submission to the Church: Not obstinately disagreeing with a defined doctrine of the Church

It seems like you've backed off of the two tiered canon being the historical approach and agree it was an historical approach. Different beliefs were allowed to be held until the division caused such issue that it required the Church to take an official stance. I've given my reasons for why I think there is evidence Jerome softened on his position, but even if he did not, he translated the 7 books in his vulgate as a part of the bible. What he did not do is what Luther did. Luther moved the 7 books into a totally separate section. He definitely took it a step further

Cajetan is another example of someone who held the same approach as Jerome prior to Trent. He also wrote extensively on how the Church has the authority to determine common doctrine, not the private individual. Everything he wrote would indicate that, had he lived until Trent, he would have submitted on the canon. And, unlike Luther, he would not agree with putting them in their own section because that is not how the Church handed it down.

The Banned said:

---

Submission to the Church: Not obstinately disagreeing with a defined doctrine of the Church

It seems like you've backed off of the two tiered canon being the historical approach and agree it was an historical approach. Different beliefs were allowed to be held until the division caused such issue that it required the Church to take an official stance. I've given my reasons for why I think there is evidence Jerome softened on his position, but even if he did not, he translated the 7 books in his vulgate as a part of the bible. What he did not do is what Luther did. Luther moved the 7 books into a totally separate section. He definitely took it a step further

Cajetan is another example of someone who held the same approach as Jerome prior to Trent. He also wrote extensively on how the Church has the authority to determine common doctrine, not the private individual. Everything he wrote would indicate that, had he lived until Trent, he would have submitted on the canon. And, unlike Luther, he would not agree with putting them in their own section because that is not how the Church handed it down.

---

Huh?

Nowhere did I back off the two-tier approach. If anything I double/tripled down on it.

Double: Jerome wasn't alone his in view. Others held similar views (if not more extreme) and were part of the church.

Triple: Even Rome itself during the Reformation acknowledged Jerome's view of two tiers.

-------------------------

But what your "submission to the Church" claim leads to two options:

1. Jerome would be excluded from the modern Roman Catholic Church.

2. You've created a definition that was not historically held by the Church.

I'll go with option 2.

---------------------------

Even your claims about Cajetan show the weakness of Rome's claims. It's an acknowledgement that the canon debate was not settled at any point prior to Trent. It was only at Trent, that Rome became the first group to close its canon and demand others follow it.

That's the key conclusion we can draw from this so far.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Submission to the Church: Not obstinately disagreeing with a defined doctrine of the Church

It seems like you've backed off of the two tiered canon being the historical approach and agree it was an historical approach. Different beliefs were allowed to be held until the division caused such issue that it required the Church to take an official stance. I've given my reasons for why I think there is evidence Jerome softened on his position, but even if he did not, he translated the 7 books in his vulgate as a part of the bible. What he did not do is what Luther did. Luther moved the 7 books into a totally separate section. He definitely took it a step further

Cajetan is another example of someone who held the same approach as Jerome prior to Trent. He also wrote extensively on how the Church has the authority to determine common doctrine, not the private individual. Everything he wrote would indicate that, had he lived until Trent, he would have submitted on the canon. And, unlike Luther, he would not agree with putting them in their own section because that is not how the Church handed it down.

---

Huh?

Nowhere did I back off the two-tier approach. If anything I double/tripled down on it.

Double: Jerome wasn't alone his in view. Others held similar views (if not more extreme) and were part of the church.

Triple: Even Rome itself during the Reformation acknowledged Jerome's view of two tiers.

-------------------------

But what your "submission to the Church" claim leads to two options:

1. Jerome would be excluded from the modern Roman Catholic Church.

2. You've created a definition that was not historically held by the Church.

I'll go with option 2.

---------------------------

Even your claims about Cajetan show the weakness of Rome's claims. It's an acknowledgement that the canon debate was not settled at any point prior to Trent. It was only at Trent, that Rome became the first group to close its canon and demand others follow it.

That's the key conclusion we can draw from this so far.

---

So you don't acknowledge it was a view and not the view? Augustine was way outside the bounds of orthodoxy with his canon? I thought you agreed with that two tiered approach was just one of the views, but maybe not.

Jerome would not be excluded from the modern Church. He translated the canon he was asked to translate, despite him having a different view. That is submission. What is not submission is saying my view is right, the Church's view is wrong, and I'm going to pull the 7 books out of the canon entirely like Luther did. You say Luther had a two tiered view (canonical, but in a different sense), but I don't think that holds up. He completely separated them in his bible. He created a distinction that Jerome did not.

The canon debate wasn't "settled" in as much as there was a detractor or two. There was no need to "settle" anything because the vast majority of the Church was in agreement and no one was publicly saying the Church was wrong. Once Luther publicly and vehemently opposed the Church, it needed to be "settled". No different than the trinity, hypostatic union, icons or any other conciliar issue didn't need to be "settled" until the became public issues that needed to be settled for unity. You're not going to say the Church "changed" the teaching on Jesus when it defined those issues, so it would be inconsistent of you to claim it "changed" anything at Trent

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Submission to the Church: Not obstinately disagreeing with a defined doctrine of the Church

It seems like you've backed off of the two tiered canon being the historical approach and agree it was an historical approach. Different beliefs were allowed to be held until the division caused such issue that it required the Church to take an official stance. I've given my reasons for why I think there is evidence Jerome softened on his position, but even if he did not, he translated the 7 books in his vulgate as a part of the bible. What he did not do is what Luther did. Luther moved the 7 books into a totally separate section. He definitely took it a step further

Cajetan is another example of someone who held the same approach as Jerome prior to Trent. He also wrote extensively on how the Church has the authority to determine common doctrine, not the private individual. Everything he wrote would indicate that, had he lived until Trent, he would have submitted on the canon. And, unlike Luther, he would not agree with putting them in their own section because that is not how the Church handed it down.

---

Huh?

Nowhere did I back off the two-tier approach. If anything I double/tripled down on it.

Double: Jerome wasn't alone his in view. Others held similar views (if not more extreme) and were part of the church.

Triple: Even Rome itself during the Reformation acknowledged Jerome's view of two tiers.

-------------------------

But what your "submission to the Church" claim leads to two options:

1. Jerome would be excluded from the modern Roman Catholic Church.

2. You've created a definition that was not historically held by the Church.

I'll go with option 2.

---------------------------

Even your claims about Cajetan show the weakness of Rome's claims. It's an acknowledgement that the canon debate was not settled at any point prior to Trent. It was only at Trent, that Rome became the first group to close its canon and demand others follow it.

That's the key conclusion we can draw from this so far.

---

So you don't acknowledge it was a view and not the view? Augustine was way outside the bounds of orthodoxy with his canon? I thought you agreed with that two tiered approach was just one of the views, but maybe not.

Jerome would not be excluded from the modern Church. He translated the canon he was asked to translate, despite him having a different view. That is submission. What is not submission is saying my view is right, the Church's view is wrong, and I'm going to pull the 7 books out of the canon entirely like Luther did. You say Luther had a two tiered view (canonical, but in a different sense), but I don't think that holds up. He completely separated them in his bible. He created a distinction that Jerome did not.

The canon debate wasn't "settled" in as much as there was a detractor or two. There was no need to "settle" anything because the vast majority of the Church was in agreement and no one was publicly saying the Church was wrong. Once Luther publicly and vehemently opposed the Church, it needed to be "settled". No different than the trinity, hypostatic union, icons or any other conciliar issue didn't need to be "settled" until the became public issues that needed to be settled for unity. You're not going to say the Church "changed" the teaching on Jesus when it defined those issues, so it would be inconsistent of you to claim it "changed" anything at Trent

---

Of course, there were multiple views. Between this thread and the other, that's been the one consistent theme I've made. What was acceptable to the Christian Church then would get someone kicked out of the Roman Catholic church today. Or said differently, the very writer of the Vulgate would not be allowed to hold to the views he held.

Your second paragraph is nonsensical. Luther didn't remove a single book. In fact, he translated the same books Jerome did. He is arguably a better example of the two-tier than even Jerome BECAUSE he clearly delineated it. If Luther didn't believe there was value in those books, he certainly could have removed them. The justification was there. However, he didn't. He directly creates the two-tier by grouping them together. To argue against that is kind of a weird argument.

Your last paragraph is just an attempt to justify the actions of Rome. No, there was no need to "settle" anything. Luther did not oppose any historical standard as it relates to the canon. Rome itself acknowledged this through people like Cajetan, that it was acceptable. But you kind of show the hand. Rome didn't want debate. Rome wanted power. And so they conveniently decided to take the opposite stand of the Reformers on every item. Kind of interesting really.

Quote:

---

What was acceptable to the Christian Church then would get someone kicked out of the Roman Catholic church today. Or said differently, the very writer of the Vulgate would not be allowed to hold to the views he held.

---

Acts 15. Some Christians thought Gentiles needed to circumcised. Some Christians didn't. Both were still Christians, right? After the decree at the council of Jerusalem, the Christians who held to the pro-circumcision side had to change their beliefs in order to stay in union with Christian doctrine. Just like your Jerome issue, they were no longer able to hold views they held before in order to be a Christian. This has happened since the very beginning in council after council. This isn't something new.

Quote:

---

He directly creates the two-tier by grouping them together.

---

This I agree with. We're just speaking past each other with our terminology. Luther went further than Jerome did by moving them to their own section.

Quote:

---

No, there was no need to "settle" anything.

---

Yes there was. His changes caused confusion amongst the faithful in the region. People were confused. Would it have been better for the Church to just let the faithful be unsure of the status of said books?

And the proof is in the pudding. What Luther moved to another section started dropping out of printed bibles by the 1700s and are now so poorly thought of that your average protestant thinks these crazy books were added by the Church way later and early Christians had nothing to do with them. Lutherans and Anglicans may know better. Maybe some other mainlines. But the vast majority of evangelicals and low church have no idea. That's what happens when you don't settle debates. Splintering and disunity.

St. Jerome had as much authority to determine the canon of the bible as Luther did, which is 0%.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

St. Jerome had as much authority to determine the canon of the bible as Luther did, which is 0%.

---

Jerome never claimed he had authority.

He was quite clear he received what was handed to the Christian Church via the Jews and as acknowledged through Jesus.

The same holds for Luther. He never claimed authority.

In fact, seemingly the only one who constantly claims they have some sort of authority (over God) is Rome.

Well, The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, so that's good enough for me, and all Bible Christians...

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

What was acceptable to the Christian Church then would get someone kicked out of the Roman Catholic church today. Or said differently, the very writer of the Vulgate would not be allowed to hold to the views he held.

---

Acts 15. Some Christians thought Gentiles needed to circumcised. Some Christians didn't. Both were still Christians, right? After the decree at the council of Jerusalem, the Christians who held to the pro-circumcision side had to change their beliefs in order to stay in union with Christian doctrine. Just like your Jerome issue, they were no longer able to hold views they held before in order to be a Christian. This has happened since the very beginning in council after council. This isn't something new.

Quote:

---

He directly creates the two-tier by grouping them together.

---

This I agree with. We're just speaking past each other with our terminology. Luther went further than Jerome did by moving them to their own section.

Quote:

---

No, there was no need to "settle" anything.

---

Yes there was. His changes caused confusion amongst the faithful in the region. People were confused. Would it have been better for the Church to just let the faithful be unsure of the status of said books?

And the proof is in the pudding. What Luther moved to another section started dropping out of printed bibles by the 1700s and are now so poorly thought of that your average protestant thinks these crazy books were added by the Church way later and early Christians had nothing to do with them. Lutherans and Anglicans may know better. Maybe some other mainlines. But the vast majority of evangelicals and low church have no idea. That's what happens when you don't settle debates. Splintering and disunity.

---

Let's stop for a second to fully comprehend what we've discovered in this conversation.

First, we've firmly established that there was no single canon list within the Christian Church through the 4th/5th Century. The historical church allowed, for at least a two-tier canon approach that prominent church fathers held to. (I haven't mentioned the other Church Fathers yet).

Second, Luther's position is a historically held position.

Third, Rome itself had at least Cardinals who agreed with this position as well.

These three points are important because we've established that the historical church did not demand a singular canon subscription as Rome (rather uniquely) does today.

Given the above, you've made a new set of claims.

1. Implicitly you are stating that sometime after the 4th/5th century, the church fathers were unified around a singular canon list.

2. This was clearly decided because Luther "confused" everyone by, not removing them (as Thaddeus loves to claim), but by keeping them, but rearranging them.
-----------------------

Your last paragraph is just the standard fare of blaming Luther for everything. I can just as easily point the finger at Rome for making inaccurate historical claims and threatening anathemas on anybody who dared to disagree. This became part of the rejection of Rome far more than any approval of Luther.
-----------------------
But further,

Lutheran Bibles printed in English, largely saw the Apocrypha removed in the 19th century. Not because of our choosing, but because "biblical societies" did it to cut costs. If you spoke German, it was offered up until 1970.

Lutherans then took up the task of creating a study bible that has been available in English since 2012.

In fact, Lutherans are quite transparent. This is from the Preface to the book:

Quote:

---

The Apocrypha have had a mixed reception across the centuries because of differing answers to one, fundamental question: are these writings part of the Bible or not? Are they sacred, inspired Scripture like the Old and New Testament and therefore to be numbered among the books of the canon or not? The Apocrypha were included in the Septuagint, the very first translation of the Hebrew Bible into another language, Greek. Yet they were not included in the final canon of the Hebrew Bible, which was debated by rabbis at Jamnia (near Jerusalem) in AD 93. Thus they were also not included among the very 39 books that comprise the Old Testament in Christian Bibles today.

The books of the Apocrypha, however, were widely used by the early Christians, and for good reason: their Scripture was primarily the Greek Septuagint with the Apocrypha included. Many of the Early Church Fathers quote from the Septuagint in a manner exactly parallel to their citations from canonical Scripture. For example, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Augustine were among those who did so, and the earliest listing of New Testament booksthe Muratorian Canon (c. AD 200) lists the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon as one of the New Testament books! Several early synods in the West even declared the Apocrypha canonical. Churches within the Eastern Orthodox Communion have also done so in recent centuries.

Early on, however, other churchmen such as Origen of Alexandria noted a difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Scriptures. Cyril of Jerusalem and Jerome also drew a line of separation between the two, using the term Apocrypha for the first time in reference to these writings. To be sure, Jerome included them in his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, but advised that the Apocrypha should be read for edification, not for supporting church dogma.

Clearly, then, the Early Church was of two minds on this issue: inclusionaryas witnessed in the fact that the Apocrypha were included in Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest and most authoritative Scriptures in book formyet exclusionary as well. In the Medieval Church and beyond, however, the inclusionaries won the day. The Council of Trent, Roman Catholicism's answer to the Reformation, actually anathematized those who did not credit the books of the Apocrypha as canonical. As this decision was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870, the Apocrypha remain canonical Scripture in Catholicism to the present day (never mind that the very man who gave the Roman Catholic church its official Latin Bible in the Vulgate, Jerome, did not regard the Apocrypha as canonical!).

---

There's a key lesson here. We shouldn't be afraid of the early Church or the views it held. We should cherish them and understand and accept them for what they are. A view of a historic Church that unfortunately is long gone. Instead to often, there's an attempt to hide or dismiss it and it takes conversations like these to bring that history back to the forefront.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Well, The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, so that's good enough for me, and all Bible Christians...

---

Yes...The Church...Which never has, nor never will be, just Roman Catholics.

If Rome wants to force its followers to hold to restrictions that are not historically accurate or to beliefs that are extra-biblical, that's their perogative.

But to claim authority over the rest of the Church is rightly scoffed at.

Quote:

---

First, we've firmly established that there was no single canon list within the Christian Church through the 4th/5th Century. The historical church allowed, for at least a two-tier canon approach that prominent church fathers held to

---

To me this reads as contradictory. Is it a single canon list with a two-tiered or one-tier approach, or is it two separate canon lists?

Quote:

---

Second, Luther's position is a historically held position.

---

Luther separating the 7 books into their own, non-canonical section is not historically held. That's my claim. Do you agree?

Quote:

---

Third, Rome itself had at least Cardinals who agreed with this position as well.

---

Here I agree, if you mean that cardinal held to a single canon with two tiers

Quote:

---

1. Implicitly you are stating that sometime after the 4th/5th century, the church fathers were unified around a singular canon list.

---

Again, clarity is needed. One, two-tiered or single tiered canon, or two different canons?

Quote:

---

2. This was clearly decided because Luther "confused" everyone by, not removing them (as Thaddeus loves to claim), but by keeping them, but rearranging them.

---

What you call "rearranging" can easily be seen as downgrading. The very preface you cite says that the apocrypha remains canonical in "Roman" Catholicism today. Does this not show that they are not canonical in Lutheranism? Again, is it one, two-tiered canon, or two different canons? Did Luther change the canon, or are the apocrypha still canonical in some sort of sense that your preface, and Luther, does not acknowledge?

And in John 10:22:
22 It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem;

The bible specifically references the book of 1 Maccabees 4 and 2 Maccabees 10, the celebration of Hannukah.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

And in John 10:22:
22 It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem;

The bible specifically references the book of 1 Maccabees 4 and 2 Maccabees 10, the celebration of Hannukah.

---

First, let's state the obvious. The mention of a historical event does not require acceptance of a specific book that also mentions it.

Second, the Bible mentions a bunch of other books far more directly, without expecting them to be considered canonical or inspired.

So no, this one verse doesn't help.

Quote:

---

To me this reads as contradictory. Is it a single canon list with a two-tiered or one-tier approach, or is it two separate canon lists?

---

No. It's certainly not contradictory.

Lets see why:

Narrow Canon: Doctrinal Canon. Hebrew Canon. Set number of books. Jerome was explicit about this point.

Wider Canon: Edification Canon. The exact number is less defined. Different Fathers included different books in this canon.

Some held to the narrow canon. Some held to the narrow canon but understood the edification benefits of the wider canon. Some held to the wider canon without distinction.

However you slice it, what we don't:

1. Land on a singular list
2. Land of a list that demands the equal weight Rome demanded at Trent.

Quote:

---

Luther separating the 7 books into their own, non-canonical section is not historically held. That's my claim. Do you agree?

---

The irony here is that your claim demands an infallible table of contents to give us the "Godly order." Which, as Rome points out, doesn't exist. So what are we left with?

We know the Jews did not always put things in the exact order for the OT, and of course, they excluded these books altogether. So under that reasoning, the logical place would be exactly where Luther put them.

But then again, I'm not going to quibble about the placement of the books. Nobody is claiming an infallible book order.

Quote:

---

Here I agree, if you mean that cardinal held to a single canon with two tiers

---

He wouldn't be the only Cardinal, just the easiest example. Two tiers still go against Rome's current position and support Luther.

Quote:

---

Again, clarity is needed. One, two-tiered or single tiered canon, or two different canons?

---

You're avoiding the question again. There were multiple views of the canon in the 4th/5th century. You like to point out Jerome vs Augustine (which I still haven't touched on yet). Their view is not uniform. You're claim is that at some point there was unified view that Luther challenged.

Quote:

---

What you call "rearranging" can easily be seen as downgrading. The very preface you cite says that the apocrypha remains canonical in "Roman" Catholicism today. Does this not show that they are not canonical in Lutheranism? Again, is it one, two-tiered canon, or two different canons? Did Luther change the canon, or are the apocrypha still canonical in some sort of sense that your preface, and Luther, does not acknowledge?

---

You're still trying to introduce conflicts where none exist.

You're also making the same mistake of trying to force your understanding of the word canon onto the historical church.

Are these books canon as it relates to doctrinal matters? No.
Are these books canon as it relates to edifying matters? Yes

Just as Jerome held 1200 years earlier.

Luther's Bible literally says this: "These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading."
-------------
Either way, we continue to establish that Rome took a position that removed the very writer of the Vulgate from their Church.

Not sure why the protestants did away with 7 books of scripture, after they had been in the canon since 382 AD. But they are still scripture, no matter what...

Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 2 Timothy 2:23

We know that this can't be a blanket admonition against teaching or correcting, because St Paul continues "the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

The more interesting thing, to me, is whether this is directed toward any average Joe or to someone who has the authority to teach (ie a bishop or someone with a blessing to do so). St Timothy was a bishop, so, it implies the latter.