Canonical Books of the Bible

[Lotar]

I thought this would be interesting to see. :)

[Philip]

Yes, it will.

[Protoevangel]

Homologoumena - The undisputed books of what is now the New Testament.
Antilegomena - The once disputed books of what is now the New Testament.
Hebrew OT - Same books as the Protestant New Testament.

I don't understand how options 1 & 2 are different; Or 3 & 4 or 5 & 6.
Hierarchy of canonicizm?

[Lotar]

I don't understand how options 1 & 2 are different; Or 3 & 4 or 5 & 6.
Hierarchy of canonicizm?
Yes, order of authority. So 1, 3, and 5 mean all of equal authority, and 2, 4, and 6 have orders of authoritativeness. "Canon of a second order"

[JVAC]

I never put that much thought into this before, I keep putting off my reading of the Apocrapha. I think I remember reading in the confessions or from Luther a mention of an apocraphal book, when talking about Angels and not eating, I think it was a Macabee, I need to start writing these things down.

-James

[Lotar]

The Confessions quote 2 Macabees and Tobit.

[clayrichard]

Luther highly questioned Hebrews and James. thought they both tought works and corectly saw Hebrews as non-pauline. I believe it is Macabise (probably spelled wrong) That teaches prayer for the dead, which would require the existance of purgatory and go against salvation by faith alone.

Could someone help me understand how Luther believed faith alone for salvation, yet believed you had to "Stop sinning". I believe that is a fruit OF salvation.

Your non-Luthean brother
Clay

[clayrichard]

The Confessions quote 2 Macabees and Tobit.Does it quote them as scripture, or as helpful material to help in understanding scripture.

Your non-Lutheran brother
Clay

[Philip]

I think I remember reading in the confessions or from Luther a mention of an apocraphal book, when talking about Angels and not eating,


Sound like Tobit. Raphael speaks of eating a heavenly meal. Many take this to be a type of the Eucharist.

[Philip]

Luther highly questioned Hebrews and James. thought they both tought works and corectly saw Hebrews as non-pauline.

Was Luther's objection to what the books taught or to whether or not they were accepted by the Early Church?

[Lotar]

Does it quote them as scripture, or as helpful material to help in understanding scripture.

Your non-Lutheran brother
Clay
It quotes them as scripture.


Was Luther's objection to what the books taught or to whether or not they were accepted by the Early Church?

Luther thought it was important to keep the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena. Since Catholics and other Protestants do not understand this distinction (all scripture is scripture), they take Luther seperation to mean that he either questioned or rejected their canonical status.

[Philip]

It quotes them as scripture.


Can you tell me where?

[Lotar]

Can you tell me where?
I know they're there, I just can't find them. :D

I know Phillip Melanchthon refers to the dream in 2 Maccabees 15:14 as the only scripture at speaks of prayer of the dead. That's in the Apology of the Augsburg Confessions, under the section for Invocation of Saints.

[ByzantineDixie]

Well, I am ready for a little education....

I really don't know how to vote. All 66 books are canonical books but Lutheran doctrine can not be based solely on antilegomena text. The antilegomena books can be used to support doctrine that has been otherwised established by the homologoumena books. That's fairly straight forward...but I guess I didn't realize the OT books were in third place? I thought they were relatively undisputed in Luther's eyes.

Can you help me understand the order related to the OT books? Thanks-----R

[Lotar]

Most of the Hebrew OT was undisputed, but the Gospel holds the primacy of honor and authority. After all, do you inturpret Leviticus in light of Acts or Acts in Light of Leviticus? Mess this up and you end up as a Messianic Jew ;)

I haven't put down my choice yet, as I have yet to read anything beyond the Apocrypha. Most probably I would go with 4 and rank the duetrocanonical books at the level of the writings of the Church fathers.

[ByzantineDixie]

One of the twenty principles of biblical hermeneutics I was taught was the NT and the OT have a theological unity. Another one was Interpretation must correctly reflect the main point of Scripture (res—Justification by Grace). And lastly Sedes Doctrinae—every article of faith is based on unambiguous passages of Scripture. Literal understanding of the passages, homologoumena.

In light of these principles I do not necessarily see the OT coming in third place...but I do see the antilogoumena still coming in second.

Another principle that is interesting, especially in light of tradition is, Sola Scriptura (scripture interprets scripture. Human reason, personal experience, church and tradition, Lutheran confessions, do not.)

I would vote for Homologoumena and OT, then antilogoumena. For me, the rest would make a "good read" only.

Thanks!-----R

[Lotar]

Lotar doesn't really believe in sola scriptura...

[ByzantineDixie]

Lotar doesn't really believe in sola scriptura...

For a week now I have been beating myself up for being apostate. I have relinquished my Lutheran icon and I have moped around because I didn't think I could be Lutheran any more on the basis of you and the rest of your gang telling me as much and now this little tidbit of information surfaces!!!!! :o

You know what...I'll still let you be Lutheran and won't say you shouldn't be one because you don't agree with the Lutheran fundamental of sola scriptura.

I admire your honesty on the subject.

'night

Rose

[Lotar]

For a week now I have been beating myself up for being apostate. I have relinquished my Lutheran icon and I have moped around because I didn't think I could be Lutheran any more on the basis of you and the rest of your gang telling me as much and now this little tidbit of information surfaces!!!!! :o

You know what...I'll still let you be Lutheran and won't say you shouldn't be one because you don't agree with the Lutheran fundamental of sola scriptura.

I admire your honesty on the subject.

'night

Rose
Well, now I hope you don't feel so bad :D Bring back the icon!!! :P

[JVAC]

Ok, I actually figured out some working deffinitions to those really big words, and I think I have it. Now keep in mind I have yet to read the deuterocanonical books, (I think I have all of them) but since some of them are used in the confessions and by quite a few other christians I have no problem with giving them authority after the 66 books.

-James

[Protoevangel]

I finally voted as well. It was not an easy decision, even though I chose the "standard protestant" answer.

In Latin and Greek the word "canon" means a rule or a standard, and I judge all doctrine by the 66 books of the Bible. If the doctrine finds support there, I accept it, or at least consider it for further study. Scripture must be viewed with the Gospel as the lens, so because of that, "First the homologoumena, then the antilegomena, and then the Hebrew OT (66 books)" might have been a better choice for me. But, I recognize much of the Hebrew OT as independently authoratative (w/o the Gospel, the law is still the law), so I think I made the correct choice for my current understanding.

I could not choose any of options including the Apocryphal nor dueterocanonical OT books, because I have not yet read them. I was going to do that this year, but many things got in the way, and I finally decided to read more Reformation and early church Literature this year and tackle the Apocryphal OT books next year. Maybe by then, I would have a different answer, but I don't think so.

[JVAC]

I finally voted as well. It was not an easy decision, even though I chose the "standard protestant" answer.

In Latin and Greek the word "canon" means a rule or a standard, and I judge all doctrine by the 66 books of the Bible. If the doctrine finds support there, I accept it, or at least consider it for further study. Scripture must be viewed with the Gospel as the lens, so because of that, "First the homologoumena, then the antilegomena, and then the Hebrew OT (66 books)" might have been a better choice for me. But, I recognize much of the Hebrew OT as independently authoratative (w/o the Gospel, the law is still the law), so I think I made the correct choice for my current understanding.

I could not choose any of options including the Apocryphal nor dueterocanonical OT books, because I have not yet read them. I was going to do that this year, but many things got in the way, and I finally decided to read more Reformation and early church Literature this year and tackle the Apocryphal OT books next year. Maybe by then, I would have a different answer, but I don't think so.
Can't rep you for that post, but I can say "Nice Post"! :D

-James