Going through my files I found a theological thesis that I had written for a ministry license leading to ordination with the Evangelical Free Church.  I finished with the rough draft, but never finished the process since I ended up resigning my position at the E-Free Church I was at.  I then entered the world of parachurch ministry and it was something that I tabled.

Now that I’m an interim pastor at a church in Indianola, and have the desire, once again, to be credentialed within my denomination.  I thought I’d take this thesis, dust it off and blog on each section in the doctrinal beliefs of this paper which include the EFCA Statement of Faith and some contemporary issues.  This thesis is based on the 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith.  Just a couple of weeks ago, the EFCA General Conference approved a new statement of faith.

The first statement concerns the Bible:

We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life, (Article I, 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith).

I believe that all sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God.  The apostle Paul affirms this when he says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).

I believe that every word, of every page of Scriptures is inspired by God.  The apostle Paul in his first letter to the Church at Corinth proclaimed that the wisdom that he was imparting was not of human origin, but rather wisdom that was “taught by the Spirit,” (1 Corinthians 2:13).  I believe that God inspired men by the Holy Spirit to write the scriptures for in 2 Peter we see:

…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, (2 Peter 1:20-21, ESV).

The origin of Scripture is God.  It was never from man.  God did allow their personalities and writing styles to be used, but the words came from Him as these men were carried along by the Spirit.

I believe both the Old Testament is inerrant in the original Hebrew manuscripts and the New Testament in the original Greek.  The Psalmist writes that God’s words are pure like silver in a furnace purified seven times, (Psalm 12:6).  Every word of God is proven true, (Proverbs 30:5).  God cannot lie for He is the Truth (John 14:6) so His word is perfect, sure, right, pure and true, (Psalm 19:7-9).  If we could not trust God’s written word our theology would be on shaky ground, since every tenet of orthodox Christian faith is rooted in scripture.  The Bible is reliable so it can be trusted in matters of doctrine.

God speaks through His creation.  The heavens declare God’s glory, and the sky “proclaims his handiwork,” (Psalm 19:1).  Even day and night reveals His knowledge, (Psalm 19:2).  This is His general revelation of Himself to mankind.  The apostle Paul proclaimed that what can be known to God is plain to us, because God has shown it to us, (Romans 1:19).  Because of that is without excuse as we stand before God in our sinful state, (Romans 3:23).  We see that:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse, (Romans 1:20, ESV).

General knowledge is not enough to save.  In Scripture God completely reveals His specific will and way for our salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ that whoever believes in Him will not die, but will have eternal life, (John 3:16).  Whoever receives Jesus and believes in His name, God gives the right to become children of God, (John 1:13).  Our sin earns us death, but God’s gracious gift to us in Jesus Christ brings eternal life, (Romans 6:23) and abundant life in this life, (John 10:10).  If we repent of our sin, and confess that Jesus is our Lord and believe in His death and resurrection, the Bible says, we’ll be saved, (Romans 10:9).

I believe that Scripture is the inspired word of God.  It is the inerrant in the original languages.  His word infallible rule of Christian faith and practice.  Because of this I can confidently say that the Bible is the final authority for what I believe, in how I live, and the way I serve, (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

59 comments
  1. Protestants don’t include Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books in their Canon, Catholics do. Also, I am pretty sure that 1 & 2 Chronicles are combined (maybe 1 & 2 Kings as well?) in the Catholic Old Testament.

    Reasons why the Deuterocanonical books are not included in the Protestant Canon:

    1. The Jewish Canon doesn’t include them.
    2. Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek so couldn’t be included in the Hebrew scriptures (see point 1).
    3. No direct quotes from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
    4. Also the Catholic Church did not canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) before then their inspiration was debated, so this was well after the New Testament was written, and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.

    Not an exhaustive list, but there you go.

  2. Protestants don’t include Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books in their Canon, Catholics do. Also, I am pretty sure that 1 & 2 Chronicles are combined (maybe 1 & 2 Kings as well?) in the Catholic Old Testament.

    Reasons why the Deuterocanonical books are not included in the Protestant Canon:

    1. The Jewish Canon doesn’t include them.
    2. Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek so couldn’t be included in the Hebrew scriptures (see point 1).
    3. No direct quotes from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
    4. Also the Catholic Church did not canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) before then their inspiration was debated, so this was well after the New Testament was written, and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.

    Not an exhaustive list, but there you go.

  3. Protestants don’t include Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books in their Canon, Catholics do. Also, I am pretty sure that 1 & 2 Chronicles are combined (maybe 1 & 2 Kings as well?) in the Catholic Old Testament.

    Reasons why the Deuterocanonical books are not included in the Protestant Canon:

    1. The Jewish Canon doesn’t include them.
    2. Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek so couldn’t be included in the Hebrew scriptures (see point 1).
    3. No direct quotes from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
    4. Also the Catholic Church did not canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) before then their inspiration was debated, so this was well after the New Testament was written, and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.

    Not an exhaustive list, but there you go.

  4. Protestants don’t include Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books in their Canon, Catholics do. Also, I am pretty sure that 1 & 2 Chronicles are combined (maybe 1 & 2 Kings as well?) in the Catholic Old Testament.

    Reasons why the Deuterocanonical books are not included in the Protestant Canon:

    1. The Jewish Canon doesn’t include them.
    2. Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek so couldn’t be included in the Hebrew scriptures (see point 1).
    3. No direct quotes from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
    4. Also the Catholic Church did not canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) before then their inspiration was debated, so this was well after the New Testament was written, and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.

    Not an exhaustive list, but there you go.

  5. 1) The new Jewish Cannon doesn’t– details here, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp but basically it was rewritten by a Roman-approved group in 90AD because the Christians were using the other one.
    St. Jerome, when translating the Vulgate, even pointed this out.
    The standard Protestant version removed 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther.

    2)Can you explain why The Septuagint is invalid, just because it was translated to Greek BEFORE Jesus was born?

    3) Leaving aside the idea that Scripture has to repeat itself to be real–seems as silly as those “bible scholars” who claim that anytime someone in the New Testament quoted the old, it didn’t really happen– are you going to remove the OTHER books that aren’t quoted? Also, the deuterocanonical books are alluded to.
    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

    4) Oh, COME ON! Not that old chestnut? The council of Rome in 382 was the first time that all the books in the Protestant Bible were agreed on– they *also* agreed on all the books in the Catholic Bible.
    Offering Trent as evidence that the Catholics changed the Bible is kind of like saying that, since the cop didn’t try to give you a ticket until after you were stopped, he was making up the idea that you were speeding.

    To also make it shorter:
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals
    (In keeping with my luck, I found this while looking for more information on the council of Rome in 382. -.- )

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  6. 1) The new Jewish Cannon doesn’t– details here, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp but basically it was rewritten by a Roman-approved group in 90AD because the Christians were using the other one.
    St. Jerome, when translating the Vulgate, even pointed this out.
    The standard Protestant version removed 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther.

    2)Can you explain why The Septuagint is invalid, just because it was translated to Greek BEFORE Jesus was born?

    3) Leaving aside the idea that Scripture has to repeat itself to be real–seems as silly as those “bible scholars” who claim that anytime someone in the New Testament quoted the old, it didn’t really happen– are you going to remove the OTHER books that aren’t quoted? Also, the deuterocanonical books are alluded to.
    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

    4) Oh, COME ON! Not that old chestnut? The council of Rome in 382 was the first time that all the books in the Protestant Bible were agreed on– they *also* agreed on all the books in the Catholic Bible.
    Offering Trent as evidence that the Catholics changed the Bible is kind of like saying that, since the cop didn’t try to give you a ticket until after you were stopped, he was making up the idea that you were speeding.

    To also make it shorter:
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals
    (In keeping with my luck, I found this while looking for more information on the council of Rome in 382. -.- )

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  7. 1) The new Jewish Cannon doesn’t– details here, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp but basically it was rewritten by a Roman-approved group in 90AD because the Christians were using the other one.
    St. Jerome, when translating the Vulgate, even pointed this out.
    The standard Protestant version removed 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther.

    2)Can you explain why The Septuagint is invalid, just because it was translated to Greek BEFORE Jesus was born?

    3) Leaving aside the idea that Scripture has to repeat itself to be real–seems as silly as those “bible scholars” who claim that anytime someone in the New Testament quoted the old, it didn’t really happen– are you going to remove the OTHER books that aren’t quoted? Also, the deuterocanonical books are alluded to.
    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

    4) Oh, COME ON! Not that old chestnut? The council of Rome in 382 was the first time that all the books in the Protestant Bible were agreed on– they *also* agreed on all the books in the Catholic Bible.
    Offering Trent as evidence that the Catholics changed the Bible is kind of like saying that, since the cop didn’t try to give you a ticket until after you were stopped, he was making up the idea that you were speeding.

    To also make it shorter:
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals
    (In keeping with my luck, I found this while looking for more information on the council of Rome in 382. -.- )

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  8. 1) The new Jewish Cannon doesn’t– details here, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp but basically it was rewritten by a Roman-approved group in 90AD because the Christians were using the other one.
    St. Jerome, when translating the Vulgate, even pointed this out.
    The standard Protestant version removed 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther.

    2)Can you explain why The Septuagint is invalid, just because it was translated to Greek BEFORE Jesus was born?

    3) Leaving aside the idea that Scripture has to repeat itself to be real–seems as silly as those “bible scholars” who claim that anytime someone in the New Testament quoted the old, it didn’t really happen– are you going to remove the OTHER books that aren’t quoted? Also, the deuterocanonical books are alluded to.
    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

    4) Oh, COME ON! Not that old chestnut? The council of Rome in 382 was the first time that all the books in the Protestant Bible were agreed on– they *also* agreed on all the books in the Catholic Bible.
    Offering Trent as evidence that the Catholics changed the Bible is kind of like saying that, since the cop didn’t try to give you a ticket until after you were stopped, he was making up the idea that you were speeding.

    To also make it shorter:
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals
    (In keeping with my luck, I found this while looking for more information on the council of Rome in 382. -.- )

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  9. Hmmm… well first off, I can’t say that I’m an authority on this by any means. I haven’t even read them, which I guess I should say shame on me. I don’t want to say that the Deuterocanonical books don’t contain wisdom and truth. I’m just not comfortable calling them inspired scripture on par with the NT and Hebrew OT.

    Regarding point #1 – from the article you referenced – they were inclueded in “the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text”

    Why weren’t they included? That also predates LXX, and I would say is more reliable reflection of what the Jewish community considered to be scripture. Though you have different sects in the Jewish community, and one in particular (the Sadducees) didn’t consider anything but the Pentatuech to be scripture though.

    2. I wouldn’t consider LXX to be invalid. But you have to remember that it is a translation, not an original manuscript. I would liken it to comparing the New International Version of the New Testament or the New American Bible translation of the New Testament with original Greek manuscripts.

    3. I didn’t get into the whole argument with number 3, the argument also would mention that every section of the OT – Law, History, Poetry/Wisdom, & Prophets is quoted in the NT, but the Deuterocanonical books are missing. I will concede that they are alluded to.

    4. I’ll have to check on that. I’m not so sure the Council of Rome is as authoritative as the article would make it seem. I’m also not saying that they changed it, just that the Canon was still being debated.

    I guess the main thing I’d like to focus on is that we have 66 books that Protestants and Catholics can agree on.

  10. Hmmm… well first off, I can’t say that I’m an authority on this by any means. I haven’t even read them, which I guess I should say shame on me. I don’t want to say that the Deuterocanonical books don’t contain wisdom and truth. I’m just not comfortable calling them inspired scripture on par with the NT and Hebrew OT.

    Regarding point #1 – from the article you referenced – they were inclueded in “the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text”

    Why weren’t they included? That also predates LXX, and I would say is more reliable reflection of what the Jewish community considered to be scripture. Though you have different sects in the Jewish community, and one in particular (the Sadducees) didn’t consider anything but the Pentatuech to be scripture though.

    2. I wouldn’t consider LXX to be invalid. But you have to remember that it is a translation, not an original manuscript. I would liken it to comparing the New International Version of the New Testament or the New American Bible translation of the New Testament with original Greek manuscripts.

    3. I didn’t get into the whole argument with number 3, the argument also would mention that every section of the OT – Law, History, Poetry/Wisdom, & Prophets is quoted in the NT, but the Deuterocanonical books are missing. I will concede that they are alluded to.

    4. I’ll have to check on that. I’m not so sure the Council of Rome is as authoritative as the article would make it seem. I’m also not saying that they changed it, just that the Canon was still being debated.

    I guess the main thing I’d like to focus on is that we have 66 books that Protestants and Catholics can agree on.

  11. Hmmm… well first off, I can’t say that I’m an authority on this by any means. I haven’t even read them, which I guess I should say shame on me. I don’t want to say that the Deuterocanonical books don’t contain wisdom and truth. I’m just not comfortable calling them inspired scripture on par with the NT and Hebrew OT.

    Regarding point #1 – from the article you referenced – they were inclueded in “the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text”

    Why weren’t they included? That also predates LXX, and I would say is more reliable reflection of what the Jewish community considered to be scripture. Though you have different sects in the Jewish community, and one in particular (the Sadducees) didn’t consider anything but the Pentatuech to be scripture though.

    2. I wouldn’t consider LXX to be invalid. But you have to remember that it is a translation, not an original manuscript. I would liken it to comparing the New International Version of the New Testament or the New American Bible translation of the New Testament with original Greek manuscripts.

    3. I didn’t get into the whole argument with number 3, the argument also would mention that every section of the OT – Law, History, Poetry/Wisdom, & Prophets is quoted in the NT, but the Deuterocanonical books are missing. I will concede that they are alluded to.

    4. I’ll have to check on that. I’m not so sure the Council of Rome is as authoritative as the article would make it seem. I’m also not saying that they changed it, just that the Canon was still being debated.

    I guess the main thing I’d like to focus on is that we have 66 books that Protestants and Catholics can agree on.

  12. Hmmm… well first off, I can’t say that I’m an authority on this by any means. I haven’t even read them, which I guess I should say shame on me. I don’t want to say that the Deuterocanonical books don’t contain wisdom and truth. I’m just not comfortable calling them inspired scripture on par with the NT and Hebrew OT.

    Regarding point #1 – from the article you referenced – they were inclueded in “the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text”

    Why weren’t they included? That also predates LXX, and I would say is more reliable reflection of what the Jewish community considered to be scripture. Though you have different sects in the Jewish community, and one in particular (the Sadducees) didn’t consider anything but the Pentatuech to be scripture though.

    2. I wouldn’t consider LXX to be invalid. But you have to remember that it is a translation, not an original manuscript. I would liken it to comparing the New International Version of the New Testament or the New American Bible translation of the New Testament with original Greek manuscripts.

    3. I didn’t get into the whole argument with number 3, the argument also would mention that every section of the OT – Law, History, Poetry/Wisdom, & Prophets is quoted in the NT, but the Deuterocanonical books are missing. I will concede that they are alluded to.

    4. I’ll have to check on that. I’m not so sure the Council of Rome is as authoritative as the article would make it seem. I’m also not saying that they changed it, just that the Canon was still being debated.

    I guess the main thing I’d like to focus on is that we have 66 books that Protestants and Catholics can agree on.

  13. I’m not an expert, either–although part of what I love about the Catholic faith is that just about every topic has been written and chewed on and thought on, sometimes in binding ways, sometimes just thinking.
    Speaking of which, I will now use my head and look at some sites I know are pretty good for finding such things out….
    1) Ah, but some groups of Jews *do* use the same old testament as Catholics; i.e., Ethiopian ones.
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

    The Masoretic Text wasn’t even *started* on until about the 6th or 7th century:
    The Masoretic Text (MT) is the main Hebrew edition of the Old Testament. It was prepared between the seventh and tenth centuries A.D. based on earlier Hebrew manuscripts. It does not include the deuterocanonical books.
    http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/septuagint_or_m.html
    And
    A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
    (dates are funky because it’s so long ago, the Massoretes were a BIG group, and it doesn’t help that the Jews use a different dating system! Also, our earliest bits are from 11th century, just to be more annoying.)

    Also, from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp , as to why:
    When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.

    2) See prior. *grin* The Septuagint is an older text than the Massorah, and it was created so that Jews who didn’t speak Hebrew could understand scripture; it may have even been used to compile the version we currently know, since it was consulted for vowel placement in the Hebrew version before Christ came.

    3) Even giving that they are alluded to, what of the texts you accept that are not? Song of Songs, for example?

    4) A warning, there have been a LOT of councils of Rome.
    That said– St. Jerome translated the Bible into the “common” language of Latin, i.e. the Vulgate Bible, about 400AD.
    It was “debated” just about every time someone tried to edit the Bible–that’s why:
    At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    Another thing I love about the Catholic Church– we are more than willing to hear an argument again. And again. And again. ;^)
    If I remember correctly, the 382 Council was in part to figure out what books to defend with your life.

    PS– I don’t expect to change your mind, but I really do enjoy looking things up, and maybe, someday, something I find will tilt you JUST enough to eventually add to changing your mind!

    PPS– it’s also nice in the age of google for folks to find a debate like this, instead of the countless, unsourced AOL pages that I dug through.

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  14. I’m not an expert, either–although part of what I love about the Catholic faith is that just about every topic has been written and chewed on and thought on, sometimes in binding ways, sometimes just thinking.
    Speaking of which, I will now use my head and look at some sites I know are pretty good for finding such things out….
    1) Ah, but some groups of Jews *do* use the same old testament as Catholics; i.e., Ethiopian ones.
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

    The Masoretic Text wasn’t even *started* on until about the 6th or 7th century:
    The Masoretic Text (MT) is the main Hebrew edition of the Old Testament. It was prepared between the seventh and tenth centuries A.D. based on earlier Hebrew manuscripts. It does not include the deuterocanonical books.
    http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/septuagint_or_m.html
    And
    A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
    (dates are funky because it’s so long ago, the Massoretes were a BIG group, and it doesn’t help that the Jews use a different dating system! Also, our earliest bits are from 11th century, just to be more annoying.)

    Also, from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp , as to why:
    When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.

    2) See prior. *grin* The Septuagint is an older text than the Massorah, and it was created so that Jews who didn’t speak Hebrew could understand scripture; it may have even been used to compile the version we currently know, since it was consulted for vowel placement in the Hebrew version before Christ came.

    3) Even giving that they are alluded to, what of the texts you accept that are not? Song of Songs, for example?

    4) A warning, there have been a LOT of councils of Rome.
    That said– St. Jerome translated the Bible into the “common” language of Latin, i.e. the Vulgate Bible, about 400AD.
    It was “debated” just about every time someone tried to edit the Bible–that’s why:
    At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    Another thing I love about the Catholic Church– we are more than willing to hear an argument again. And again. And again. ;^)
    If I remember correctly, the 382 Council was in part to figure out what books to defend with your life.

    PS– I don’t expect to change your mind, but I really do enjoy looking things up, and maybe, someday, something I find will tilt you JUST enough to eventually add to changing your mind!

    PPS– it’s also nice in the age of google for folks to find a debate like this, instead of the countless, unsourced AOL pages that I dug through.

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  15. I’m not an expert, either–although part of what I love about the Catholic faith is that just about every topic has been written and chewed on and thought on, sometimes in binding ways, sometimes just thinking.
    Speaking of which, I will now use my head and look at some sites I know are pretty good for finding such things out….
    1) Ah, but some groups of Jews *do* use the same old testament as Catholics; i.e., Ethiopian ones.
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

    The Masoretic Text wasn’t even *started* on until about the 6th or 7th century:
    The Masoretic Text (MT) is the main Hebrew edition of the Old Testament. It was prepared between the seventh and tenth centuries A.D. based on earlier Hebrew manuscripts. It does not include the deuterocanonical books.
    http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/septuagint_or_m.html
    And
    A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
    (dates are funky because it’s so long ago, the Massoretes were a BIG group, and it doesn’t help that the Jews use a different dating system! Also, our earliest bits are from 11th century, just to be more annoying.)

    Also, from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp , as to why:
    When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.

    2) See prior. *grin* The Septuagint is an older text than the Massorah, and it was created so that Jews who didn’t speak Hebrew could understand scripture; it may have even been used to compile the version we currently know, since it was consulted for vowel placement in the Hebrew version before Christ came.

    3) Even giving that they are alluded to, what of the texts you accept that are not? Song of Songs, for example?

    4) A warning, there have been a LOT of councils of Rome.
    That said– St. Jerome translated the Bible into the “common” language of Latin, i.e. the Vulgate Bible, about 400AD.
    It was “debated” just about every time someone tried to edit the Bible–that’s why:
    At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    Another thing I love about the Catholic Church– we are more than willing to hear an argument again. And again. And again. ;^)
    If I remember correctly, the 382 Council was in part to figure out what books to defend with your life.

    PS– I don’t expect to change your mind, but I really do enjoy looking things up, and maybe, someday, something I find will tilt you JUST enough to eventually add to changing your mind!

    PPS– it’s also nice in the age of google for folks to find a debate like this, instead of the countless, unsourced AOL pages that I dug through.

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  16. I’m not an expert, either–although part of what I love about the Catholic faith is that just about every topic has been written and chewed on and thought on, sometimes in binding ways, sometimes just thinking.
    Speaking of which, I will now use my head and look at some sites I know are pretty good for finding such things out….
    1) Ah, but some groups of Jews *do* use the same old testament as Catholics; i.e., Ethiopian ones.
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

    The Masoretic Text wasn’t even *started* on until about the 6th or 7th century:
    The Masoretic Text (MT) is the main Hebrew edition of the Old Testament. It was prepared between the seventh and tenth centuries A.D. based on earlier Hebrew manuscripts. It does not include the deuterocanonical books.
    http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/septuagint_or_m.html
    And
    A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
    (dates are funky because it’s so long ago, the Massoretes were a BIG group, and it doesn’t help that the Jews use a different dating system! Also, our earliest bits are from 11th century, just to be more annoying.)

    Also, from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp , as to why:
    When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.

    2) See prior. *grin* The Septuagint is an older text than the Massorah, and it was created so that Jews who didn’t speak Hebrew could understand scripture; it may have even been used to compile the version we currently know, since it was consulted for vowel placement in the Hebrew version before Christ came.

    3) Even giving that they are alluded to, what of the texts you accept that are not? Song of Songs, for example?

    4) A warning, there have been a LOT of councils of Rome.
    That said– St. Jerome translated the Bible into the “common” language of Latin, i.e. the Vulgate Bible, about 400AD.
    It was “debated” just about every time someone tried to edit the Bible–that’s why:
    At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
    Another thing I love about the Catholic Church– we are more than willing to hear an argument again. And again. And again. ;^)
    If I remember correctly, the 382 Council was in part to figure out what books to defend with your life.

    PS– I don’t expect to change your mind, but I really do enjoy looking things up, and maybe, someday, something I find will tilt you JUST enough to eventually add to changing your mind!

    PPS– it’s also nice in the age of google for folks to find a debate like this, instead of the countless, unsourced AOL pages that I dug through.

    Foxfiers last blog post..Soros Funded Group Staged "Librarian" Protester

  17. You can preach to me any day Shane!
    I too believe The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and that no man can add or take away from the intent of the scriptures.

    Jesus said it best, that he is the Truth, The Light and The Word made flesh.
    As a testament to it’s sanctity The Bible continues to shine it’s Light into th darkest corners of our lives and the world.

    The Word is just as relevant today as it was when Paul preached.

    Jesus also stated that none can go to the Father except by him, that is they know, believe and practice, the Truth.

    writeonbros last blog post..3 Key Things Christian Businessmen Need to Know About Doing Business Online.

  18. You can preach to me any day Shane!
    I too believe The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and that no man can add or take away from the intent of the scriptures.

    Jesus said it best, that he is the Truth, The Light and The Word made flesh.
    As a testament to it’s sanctity The Bible continues to shine it’s Light into th darkest corners of our lives and the world.

    The Word is just as relevant today as it was when Paul preached.

    Jesus also stated that none can go to the Father except by him, that is they know, believe and practice, the Truth.

    writeonbros last blog post..3 Key Things Christian Businessmen Need to Know About Doing Business Online.

  19. You can preach to me any day Shane!
    I too believe The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and that no man can add or take away from the intent of the scriptures.

    Jesus said it best, that he is the Truth, The Light and The Word made flesh.
    As a testament to it’s sanctity The Bible continues to shine it’s Light into th darkest corners of our lives and the world.

    The Word is just as relevant today as it was when Paul preached.

    Jesus also stated that none can go to the Father except by him, that is they know, believe and practice, the Truth.

    writeonbros last blog post..3 Key Things Christian Businessmen Need to Know About Doing Business Online.

  20. You can preach to me any day Shane!
    I too believe The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and that no man can add or take away from the intent of the scriptures.

    Jesus said it best, that he is the Truth, The Light and The Word made flesh.
    As a testament to it’s sanctity The Bible continues to shine it’s Light into th darkest corners of our lives and the world.

    The Word is just as relevant today as it was when Paul preached.

    Jesus also stated that none can go to the Father except by him, that is they know, believe and practice, the Truth.

    writeonbros last blog post..3 Key Things Christian Businessmen Need to Know About Doing Business Online.

  21. Not to hijack the thread, but as a fellow E-Free person I was in the room during many heated discussions regarding the SOF changes. I, for one, am happy it’s approved!

    My pastor is prophetic… with all the fuss about premillennial, he said two years ago “I think they will be happy if they just remove ‘imminent’.”

    Stephanies last blog post..Infliction

  22. Not to hijack the thread, but as a fellow E-Free person I was in the room during many heated discussions regarding the SOF changes. I, for one, am happy it’s approved!

    My pastor is prophetic… with all the fuss about premillennial, he said two years ago “I think they will be happy if they just remove ‘imminent’.”

    Stephanies last blog post..Infliction

  23. Not to hijack the thread, but as a fellow E-Free person I was in the room during many heated discussions regarding the SOF changes. I, for one, am happy it’s approved!

    My pastor is prophetic… with all the fuss about premillennial, he said two years ago “I think they will be happy if they just remove ‘imminent’.”

    Stephanies last blog post..Infliction

  24. Not to hijack the thread, but as a fellow E-Free person I was in the room during many heated discussions regarding the SOF changes. I, for one, am happy it’s approved!

    My pastor is prophetic… with all the fuss about premillennial, he said two years ago “I think they will be happy if they just remove ‘imminent’.”

    Stephanies last blog post..Infliction

  25. Write on Bro – Thanks for your comment.

    Stephanie – I’m with you, and I agree with your pastor. Though I am premillenial I don’t see eschatology something that we need to be too dogmatic about other than Jesus is returning physically.

    I am glad they removed imminent since I’m a post-tribber (which I’ll talk about later on). Though I often say I hope that the pre-trib people are right ;).

  26. Write on Bro – Thanks for your comment.

    Stephanie – I’m with you, and I agree with your pastor. Though I am premillenial I don’t see eschatology something that we need to be too dogmatic about other than Jesus is returning physically.

    I am glad they removed imminent since I’m a post-tribber (which I’ll talk about later on). Though I often say I hope that the pre-trib people are right ;).

  27. Write on Bro – Thanks for your comment.

    Stephanie – I’m with you, and I agree with your pastor. Though I am premillenial I don’t see eschatology something that we need to be too dogmatic about other than Jesus is returning physically.

    I am glad they removed imminent since I’m a post-tribber (which I’ll talk about later on). Though I often say I hope that the pre-trib people are right ;).

  28. “We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life, (Article I, 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith).”

    I would dispute this claim – its toooooooo dogmatic.

    I have no problems with accepting the scriptures as including the NT – but I would clarify that with – none of the NT writers assume their writings are scripture since they do not quote themselves as authority – but the Tanakh. I think these people wrote as inspired by God – but I also am aware the gospels read like scripture and the letters are letters on theology.

    As for the not error part, that is just an outright falsity. That’s a guesstimate and not provable – and problematically – I think the opposite can be proven (errors exist).

    The original writings idea is just ludacris to me…if we can find an error in english does that mean the original Greek or Hebrew will change that? I cannot speak for the Hebrew per se (maybe that is errorless) but I know the Greek is just greek – errors and all. I don’t think those errors truly effect the message and intent of the message in each book or letter – so it’s rather a moot point anyways. If you want an example I can provide a doozy.

    “If we could not trust God’s written word our theology would be on shaky ground, since every tenet of orthodox Christian faith is rooted in scripture” (Shane)

    I agree the scriptures are trustworthy – I disagree with the orthodox position of course – but I can roll with that. To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.

    SocietyVss last blog post..The Analogies About the Power of Sin

  29. “We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life, (Article I, 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith).”

    I would dispute this claim – its toooooooo dogmatic.

    I have no problems with accepting the scriptures as including the NT – but I would clarify that with – none of the NT writers assume their writings are scripture since they do not quote themselves as authority – but the Tanakh. I think these people wrote as inspired by God – but I also am aware the gospels read like scripture and the letters are letters on theology.

    As for the not error part, that is just an outright falsity. That’s a guesstimate and not provable – and problematically – I think the opposite can be proven (errors exist).

    The original writings idea is just ludacris to me…if we can find an error in english does that mean the original Greek or Hebrew will change that? I cannot speak for the Hebrew per se (maybe that is errorless) but I know the Greek is just greek – errors and all. I don’t think those errors truly effect the message and intent of the message in each book or letter – so it’s rather a moot point anyways. If you want an example I can provide a doozy.

    “If we could not trust God’s written word our theology would be on shaky ground, since every tenet of orthodox Christian faith is rooted in scripture” (Shane)

    I agree the scriptures are trustworthy – I disagree with the orthodox position of course – but I can roll with that. To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.

    SocietyVss last blog post..The Analogies About the Power of Sin

  30. “We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life, (Article I, 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith).”

    I would dispute this claim – its toooooooo dogmatic.

    I have no problems with accepting the scriptures as including the NT – but I would clarify that with – none of the NT writers assume their writings are scripture since they do not quote themselves as authority – but the Tanakh. I think these people wrote as inspired by God – but I also am aware the gospels read like scripture and the letters are letters on theology.

    As for the not error part, that is just an outright falsity. That’s a guesstimate and not provable – and problematically – I think the opposite can be proven (errors exist).

    The original writings idea is just ludacris to me…if we can find an error in english does that mean the original Greek or Hebrew will change that? I cannot speak for the Hebrew per se (maybe that is errorless) but I know the Greek is just greek – errors and all. I don’t think those errors truly effect the message and intent of the message in each book or letter – so it’s rather a moot point anyways. If you want an example I can provide a doozy.

    “If we could not trust God’s written word our theology would be on shaky ground, since every tenet of orthodox Christian faith is rooted in scripture” (Shane)

    I agree the scriptures are trustworthy – I disagree with the orthodox position of course – but I can roll with that. To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.

    SocietyVss last blog post..The Analogies About the Power of Sin

  31. “We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life, (Article I, 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith).”

    I would dispute this claim – its toooooooo dogmatic.

    I have no problems with accepting the scriptures as including the NT – but I would clarify that with – none of the NT writers assume their writings are scripture since they do not quote themselves as authority – but the Tanakh. I think these people wrote as inspired by God – but I also am aware the gospels read like scripture and the letters are letters on theology.

    As for the not error part, that is just an outright falsity. That’s a guesstimate and not provable – and problematically – I think the opposite can be proven (errors exist).

    The original writings idea is just ludacris to me…if we can find an error in english does that mean the original Greek or Hebrew will change that? I cannot speak for the Hebrew per se (maybe that is errorless) but I know the Greek is just greek – errors and all. I don’t think those errors truly effect the message and intent of the message in each book or letter – so it’s rather a moot point anyways. If you want an example I can provide a doozy.

    “If we could not trust God’s written word our theology would be on shaky ground, since every tenet of orthodox Christian faith is rooted in scripture” (Shane)

    I agree the scriptures are trustworthy – I disagree with the orthodox position of course – but I can roll with that. To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.

    SocietyVss last blog post..The Analogies About the Power of Sin

  32. Jerome, recognized as a Father of the Church by the Catholic Church, did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. Here are his words:

    “The Book of Jesus, son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Esther, Tobias and Maccabees are read for edification, but do not enjoy canonical authority.” [note 1]

    In the year 400 or 401 St. Jerome wrote a letter to a lady named Laeta who was instructing a young woman named Paula in the Christian faith. Jerome gives Laeta this advice concerning Paula: “Let her steer clear of the apocrypha.” [Note 2]

    Jerome gives a list of the books which are Scripture, and goes on to say this about the books of the Apocrypha: “They are not in the canon.” His meaning is clear: the Apocryphal books are not inspired Scripture. [Note 3]

    Jerome said Christians are allowed to read the Apocrypha, but “for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical doctrines.” [Note 4]

    Note 1: St. Jerome, Preface to Proverbs, cited in Patrology: Volume 4: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Angelo Di Berardino, ed, Augustinian Patristic Institute, Rome, trans. by P. Solari (Allen TX: Christian Classics, 1986), 226. The phrase “canonical authority” means “the authority of the inspired Scriptures.”

    Note 2: Letter 107.12, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 161.

    Note 3: The word “canon” means the list of books accepted as inspired Scripture. Jerome’s comment is found in his Preface to Samuel and Kings, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 160. Jerome’s original words (in Latin) can be found in Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1844-1864), 28.555-557.

    Note 4: Jerome, Preface to Solomon’s Books, cited in Kelly, Jerome, 161; original found at PL 28.1242 ff.

  33. Jerome, recognized as a Father of the Church by the Catholic Church, did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. Here are his words:

    “The Book of Jesus, son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Esther, Tobias and Maccabees are read for edification, but do not enjoy canonical authority.” [note 1]

    In the year 400 or 401 St. Jerome wrote a letter to a lady named Laeta who was instructing a young woman named Paula in the Christian faith. Jerome gives Laeta this advice concerning Paula: “Let her steer clear of the apocrypha.” [Note 2]

    Jerome gives a list of the books which are Scripture, and goes on to say this about the books of the Apocrypha: “They are not in the canon.” His meaning is clear: the Apocryphal books are not inspired Scripture. [Note 3]

    Jerome said Christians are allowed to read the Apocrypha, but “for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical doctrines.” [Note 4]

    Note 1: St. Jerome, Preface to Proverbs, cited in Patrology: Volume 4: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Angelo Di Berardino, ed, Augustinian Patristic Institute, Rome, trans. by P. Solari (Allen TX: Christian Classics, 1986), 226. The phrase “canonical authority” means “the authority of the inspired Scriptures.”

    Note 2: Letter 107.12, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 161.

    Note 3: The word “canon” means the list of books accepted as inspired Scripture. Jerome’s comment is found in his Preface to Samuel and Kings, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 160. Jerome’s original words (in Latin) can be found in Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1844-1864), 28.555-557.

    Note 4: Jerome, Preface to Solomon’s Books, cited in Kelly, Jerome, 161; original found at PL 28.1242 ff.

  34. Jerome, recognized as a Father of the Church by the Catholic Church, did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. Here are his words:

    “The Book of Jesus, son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Esther, Tobias and Maccabees are read for edification, but do not enjoy canonical authority.” [note 1]

    In the year 400 or 401 St. Jerome wrote a letter to a lady named Laeta who was instructing a young woman named Paula in the Christian faith. Jerome gives Laeta this advice concerning Paula: “Let her steer clear of the apocrypha.” [Note 2]

    Jerome gives a list of the books which are Scripture, and goes on to say this about the books of the Apocrypha: “They are not in the canon.” His meaning is clear: the Apocryphal books are not inspired Scripture. [Note 3]

    Jerome said Christians are allowed to read the Apocrypha, but “for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical doctrines.” [Note 4]

    Note 1: St. Jerome, Preface to Proverbs, cited in Patrology: Volume 4: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Angelo Di Berardino, ed, Augustinian Patristic Institute, Rome, trans. by P. Solari (Allen TX: Christian Classics, 1986), 226. The phrase “canonical authority” means “the authority of the inspired Scriptures.”

    Note 2: Letter 107.12, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 161.

    Note 3: The word “canon” means the list of books accepted as inspired Scripture. Jerome’s comment is found in his Preface to Samuel and Kings, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 160. Jerome’s original words (in Latin) can be found in Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1844-1864), 28.555-557.

    Note 4: Jerome, Preface to Solomon’s Books, cited in Kelly, Jerome, 161; original found at PL 28.1242 ff.

  35. Jerome, recognized as a Father of the Church by the Catholic Church, did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. Here are his words:

    “The Book of Jesus, son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Esther, Tobias and Maccabees are read for edification, but do not enjoy canonical authority.” [note 1]

    In the year 400 or 401 St. Jerome wrote a letter to a lady named Laeta who was instructing a young woman named Paula in the Christian faith. Jerome gives Laeta this advice concerning Paula: “Let her steer clear of the apocrypha.” [Note 2]

    Jerome gives a list of the books which are Scripture, and goes on to say this about the books of the Apocrypha: “They are not in the canon.” His meaning is clear: the Apocryphal books are not inspired Scripture. [Note 3]

    Jerome said Christians are allowed to read the Apocrypha, but “for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical doctrines.” [Note 4]

    Note 1: St. Jerome, Preface to Proverbs, cited in Patrology: Volume 4: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon, Angelo Di Berardino, ed, Augustinian Patristic Institute, Rome, trans. by P. Solari (Allen TX: Christian Classics, 1986), 226. The phrase “canonical authority” means “the authority of the inspired Scriptures.”

    Note 2: Letter 107.12, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 161.

    Note 3: The word “canon” means the list of books accepted as inspired Scripture. Jerome’s comment is found in his Preface to Samuel and Kings, cited in J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 160. Jerome’s original words (in Latin) can be found in Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1844-1864), 28.555-557.

    Note 4: Jerome, Preface to Solomon’s Books, cited in Kelly, Jerome, 161; original found at PL 28.1242 ff.

  36. Ernest,

    Thanks for your comment. You are right that Jerome didn’t support Dueterocanonical books as part of the canon.

    There were numerous church leaders before the Council of Trent in the 16th century who didn’t support them. There was not 100% concensus at all, compared to what you saw with the Protocanonical books (with the exception of a very small minority who didn’t want Esther in).

  37. Ernest,

    Thanks for your comment. You are right that Jerome didn’t support Dueterocanonical books as part of the canon.

    There were numerous church leaders before the Council of Trent in the 16th century who didn’t support them. There was not 100% concensus at all, compared to what you saw with the Protocanonical books (with the exception of a very small minority who didn’t want Esther in).

  38. Ernest,

    Thanks for your comment. You are right that Jerome didn’t support Dueterocanonical books as part of the canon.

    There were numerous church leaders before the Council of Trent in the 16th century who didn’t support them. There was not 100% concensus at all, compared to what you saw with the Protocanonical books (with the exception of a very small minority who didn’t want Esther in).

  39. Ernest,

    Thanks for your comment. You are right that Jerome didn’t support Dueterocanonical books as part of the canon.

    There were numerous church leaders before the Council of Trent in the 16th century who didn’t support them. There was not 100% concensus at all, compared to what you saw with the Protocanonical books (with the exception of a very small minority who didn’t want Esther in).

  40. Society,

    Didn’t want you to feel like you were being ignored.

    You were right that the NT writers for the most part didn’t know what they were writing was going to be considered scripture. There was concensus in the Christian community as their books or letters were being circulated. Councils later on rubber stamped what was already believed. The body of Christ recognized it as scripture and God was speaking.

    When I say without error or inerrant in the original languages… I’m not saying there is anything special about those particular languages. I’m saying that they are inspired and presented in the way God intended. There are no mistakes that contradict His purposes and plan. They are trustworthy for us to read and apply to our lives. I also mean early manuscripts as well.

    I don’t say that with English translations (or any translation for that matter because of sentence structure issues, translation problems when say the Greek or Hebrew word is difficult to translater into English. That is why I say infallible rather than inerrant for English translations.

    God’s purposes and plans are accurately displayed, but there could be some translation problems. But the Bible in the English is still trustworthy.

    Regarding your last statement in your comment:

    “To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.”

    This is backwards. Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness. If I don’t live them then that is a problem with my living in sin and being disobedient. It doesn’t mean that the Scripture related to what I’m not applying to my life isn’t true.

  41. Society,

    Didn’t want you to feel like you were being ignored.

    You were right that the NT writers for the most part didn’t know what they were writing was going to be considered scripture. There was concensus in the Christian community as their books or letters were being circulated. Councils later on rubber stamped what was already believed. The body of Christ recognized it as scripture and God was speaking.

    When I say without error or inerrant in the original languages… I’m not saying there is anything special about those particular languages. I’m saying that they are inspired and presented in the way God intended. There are no mistakes that contradict His purposes and plan. They are trustworthy for us to read and apply to our lives. I also mean early manuscripts as well.

    I don’t say that with English translations (or any translation for that matter because of sentence structure issues, translation problems when say the Greek or Hebrew word is difficult to translater into English. That is why I say infallible rather than inerrant for English translations.

    God’s purposes and plans are accurately displayed, but there could be some translation problems. But the Bible in the English is still trustworthy.

    Regarding your last statement in your comment:

    “To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.”

    This is backwards. Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness. If I don’t live them then that is a problem with my living in sin and being disobedient. It doesn’t mean that the Scripture related to what I’m not applying to my life isn’t true.

  42. Society,

    Didn’t want you to feel like you were being ignored.

    You were right that the NT writers for the most part didn’t know what they were writing was going to be considered scripture. There was concensus in the Christian community as their books or letters were being circulated. Councils later on rubber stamped what was already believed. The body of Christ recognized it as scripture and God was speaking.

    When I say without error or inerrant in the original languages… I’m not saying there is anything special about those particular languages. I’m saying that they are inspired and presented in the way God intended. There are no mistakes that contradict His purposes and plan. They are trustworthy for us to read and apply to our lives. I also mean early manuscripts as well.

    I don’t say that with English translations (or any translation for that matter because of sentence structure issues, translation problems when say the Greek or Hebrew word is difficult to translater into English. That is why I say infallible rather than inerrant for English translations.

    God’s purposes and plans are accurately displayed, but there could be some translation problems. But the Bible in the English is still trustworthy.

    Regarding your last statement in your comment:

    “To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.”

    This is backwards. Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness. If I don’t live them then that is a problem with my living in sin and being disobedient. It doesn’t mean that the Scripture related to what I’m not applying to my life isn’t true.

  43. Society,

    Didn’t want you to feel like you were being ignored.

    You were right that the NT writers for the most part didn’t know what they were writing was going to be considered scripture. There was concensus in the Christian community as their books or letters were being circulated. Councils later on rubber stamped what was already believed. The body of Christ recognized it as scripture and God was speaking.

    When I say without error or inerrant in the original languages… I’m not saying there is anything special about those particular languages. I’m saying that they are inspired and presented in the way God intended. There are no mistakes that contradict His purposes and plan. They are trustworthy for us to read and apply to our lives. I also mean early manuscripts as well.

    I don’t say that with English translations (or any translation for that matter because of sentence structure issues, translation problems when say the Greek or Hebrew word is difficult to translater into English. That is why I say infallible rather than inerrant for English translations.

    God’s purposes and plans are accurately displayed, but there could be some translation problems. But the Bible in the English is still trustworthy.

    Regarding your last statement in your comment:

    “To be honest, the scriptures are proven trustworthy by their living of them and not by their amount of manuscripts contained to prove this. If you think about it, the test for the reliability and usefulness of these teachings is their actual use – and they change lives I found.”

    This is backwards. Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness. If I don’t live them then that is a problem with my living in sin and being disobedient. It doesn’t mean that the Scripture related to what I’m not applying to my life isn’t true.

  44. “Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness” (Shane)

    God is trustworthy – and the scriptures are guides to the teachings of/from/about God in concern for ourselves and others around us. The scriptures only become reliable if God is. I think God is.

    Althought the scriptures talk to us about God’s character and help shape our theologies – they do not really mean anything unless they are enacted in one’s life.

    I like the teaching on adultery and murder that Jesus breaks down in Matthew…but liking doesn’t say a hell of a lot about it’s actual validity. You cannot prove Jesus’ teachings are legit unless you try them out to see if they are. The strength of those teachings are in what they allow us to become.

    You may be right – I have to trust the scriptures are giving me the best information about God – reliable. I think your perspective is accurate in the sense ‘these teachings came from God’ so they are something we will trust.

    I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.

    SocietyVss last blog post..Messianism – This Got Weird Didn’t It?

  45. “Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness” (Shane)

    God is trustworthy – and the scriptures are guides to the teachings of/from/about God in concern for ourselves and others around us. The scriptures only become reliable if God is. I think God is.

    Althought the scriptures talk to us about God’s character and help shape our theologies – they do not really mean anything unless they are enacted in one’s life.

    I like the teaching on adultery and murder that Jesus breaks down in Matthew…but liking doesn’t say a hell of a lot about it’s actual validity. You cannot prove Jesus’ teachings are legit unless you try them out to see if they are. The strength of those teachings are in what they allow us to become.

    You may be right – I have to trust the scriptures are giving me the best information about God – reliable. I think your perspective is accurate in the sense ‘these teachings came from God’ so they are something we will trust.

    I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.

    SocietyVss last blog post..Messianism – This Got Weird Didn’t It?

  46. “Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness” (Shane)

    God is trustworthy – and the scriptures are guides to the teachings of/from/about God in concern for ourselves and others around us. The scriptures only become reliable if God is. I think God is.

    Althought the scriptures talk to us about God’s character and help shape our theologies – they do not really mean anything unless they are enacted in one’s life.

    I like the teaching on adultery and murder that Jesus breaks down in Matthew…but liking doesn’t say a hell of a lot about it’s actual validity. You cannot prove Jesus’ teachings are legit unless you try them out to see if they are. The strength of those teachings are in what they allow us to become.

    You may be right – I have to trust the scriptures are giving me the best information about God – reliable. I think your perspective is accurate in the sense ‘these teachings came from God’ so they are something we will trust.

    I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.

    SocietyVss last blog post..Messianism – This Got Weird Didn’t It?

  47. “Scripture is trustworthy, therefore I live them. My living them doesn’t add or subtract from their trustworthiness” (Shane)

    God is trustworthy – and the scriptures are guides to the teachings of/from/about God in concern for ourselves and others around us. The scriptures only become reliable if God is. I think God is.

    Althought the scriptures talk to us about God’s character and help shape our theologies – they do not really mean anything unless they are enacted in one’s life.

    I like the teaching on adultery and murder that Jesus breaks down in Matthew…but liking doesn’t say a hell of a lot about it’s actual validity. You cannot prove Jesus’ teachings are legit unless you try them out to see if they are. The strength of those teachings are in what they allow us to become.

    You may be right – I have to trust the scriptures are giving me the best information about God – reliable. I think your perspective is accurate in the sense ‘these teachings came from God’ so they are something we will trust.

    I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.

    SocietyVss last blog post..Messianism – This Got Weird Didn’t It?

  48. Society – “I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.”

    I agree with you 100% there and actually made that point last Sunday when I was preaching on Matthew 6:19-34.

    Christians will often “believe in Jesus”, but not “believe Him.”

  49. Society – “I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.”

    I agree with you 100% there and actually made that point last Sunday when I was preaching on Matthew 6:19-34.

    Christians will often “believe in Jesus”, but not “believe Him.”

  50. Society – “I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.”

    I agree with you 100% there and actually made that point last Sunday when I was preaching on Matthew 6:19-34.

    Christians will often “believe in Jesus”, but not “believe Him.”

  51. Society – “I think my point is more – our trust in those scriptures will reveal itself in our character and not alone in our ability to read them.”

    I agree with you 100% there and actually made that point last Sunday when I was preaching on Matthew 6:19-34.

    Christians will often “believe in Jesus”, but not “believe Him.”

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Persecuted? The Enemy Has Not Even Drawn Blood, Yet

The church in America is largely weak and feeble. It whines and complains at the faintest slights of the world. We think we are persecuted when we are not.

Life in the Spirit (Romans 8:1-11)

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in…

Jesus Wants the Rose

Christ came to save sinners.  Of which I, we count in that…

My Stroke is Heavier Than My Groaning

Job 23:1-3  Then Job answered and said, Even to day [is] my…