What is MAD? (Mid Acts Dispensationalism)

Discussion in 'Mid-Acts Dispensationalism' started by Joe, Dec 6, 2016.

  1. Illuminator is a Verified MemberIlluminator Moderator
    Illuminator

    Moderator

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Catholic
    I answered most of your first rant of 7 topics, and you reply with 14 more, and demand a detailed response that would take 5 pages. I don't play that game. You don't want to discuss any one thing in a civilized manner. You just want to bash Catholicism. Keep it up and you go on my ignore list. This is a discussion forum, not a soap box for the same garden variety anti-Catholic gibberish.
     
  2. I made the same demand as you made to me having met your demand - so of course then lengthened my post - so let's examine what your actaully saying:

    Response 1 - support your claims

    Response 2 - you support to your claims is too long therefore I won't answer it

    I wonder who is being reasonable here?

    I'm not playing game, butr as highlighted above it appears that you are!

    I haven't accused you of being 'anti-' anything or of spouting 'gibberish.' To discuss something in a civilized manner includes the raising and discussing of points of disagreement - it doesn't mean agreeing with everything you say.

    Not at all!

    I simply want to speak the truth in regards to your claims - and let us be very clear on this point everything I have said is in response to claims you have made on an open forum!

    How 'millenial'?

    The truth is if you could answer my points you would and you wouldn't have to resort to the poor internet apologists trick of, 'your mean so I don't have to listen to you.' However if you wish to bury your head in the sand and ignore what people say to you our of genuine care and concern for your soul then I can't stop you - much as it saddens me.

    By the same token it isn't a soapbox for pro catholic gibberish - rather it is a place to discuss differences of opinion and maybe perhaps discern the truth - however if you feel all the points I have raised is more then I can expect you to fairly handle why don't we just look at one of them - I will let you pick the topic to discuss and to put your defense in place before I respond :D
     
  3. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    By "Apocrypha" I assume you mean the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and parts of Esther & Daniel)

    Trent listed the books and then stated: "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition...."

    The "old Latin vulgate edition" is the one produced by Jerome at the end of the 4th century.


    The Eastern Orthodox Churches which broke away from the Catholic Church in 1054 also include these books in the their canon, as do the Oriental Orthodox Churches who broke away after the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

    So it is clear that these books were considered canonical from very early times.
     
  4. Yes!

    Ok, that is what it says :D



    Again, agreed. However Trent does not fairly represent Jerome's reasons for including certain apocryphal books, nor the general attitude to those books - quoting from a catholic source:

    St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

    "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 Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus 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." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

    secondary citations, source:
    http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm



    Here I must disagree, the eastern orthodox church does not have any dogmatic statement of a canon that is universally accepted - some traditions with the orthodox church include 3 & 4 Maccabees as canonical.

    Also, being pedantic the eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox are one in the same church - i think you meant Greek orthodox or just orthodox :D

    Anything but I am afraid, it is clear that these books were considered "good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture." which is a similar view to that of the translators of the authorized version who retained these books and translated them. It was not until Trent made the statements you cite above that these books became officially 'canonical' even though many believed them to be so before then.
     
  5. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    You seriously expect me to take anything from a source such as justforcatholics?. It's a mine of distortions and lies. Sorry! You will have to do better than that.

    The list of books in the Bible (OT & NT) were agreed at the Council, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. Whatever opinions Jerome held about the deuterocanonicals he included them at the instruction of Pope Damasus I, recognising the authority of the Pope.


    Find me an Orthodox Church that does not include the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible (whatever the status of 3&4 Maccabees)


    Wrong again. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and not the same. The Eastern Orthodox are sometimes called Greek Orthodox but some at least of their adherents prefer just Orthodox as many live in the West and are neither eastern not Greek. The Oriental Orthodox are a distinct group of Churches that broke away after the Council of Chalcedon which they did not accept.

    You are hanging a lot on claims by justforcatholics and St. Jerome. Augustine considered them canonical as did Pope Damasus and the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent site (http://www.newadvent.org/), in it's section on the status of the canon in the Church in the first 3 centuries states this:
    "St. Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank, on account of his broad acquaintance with ecclesiastical tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremias, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel.."
    and

    "Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon"
    and
    "St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees. For the West African Church the larger canon has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith, and the addition to Esther, are Biblically used in the works of these Fathers."
     
  6. #38 Reformed Baptist, Oct 3, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2017
    You can check the sources the site provides for yourself!

    I quoted from a Catholic site because I knew you would reject anything else :D

    However how can a catholic believe a catholic site is a 'mine of distortions and lies' I though part of the appeal of Rome was that everyone under the banner agreed? I don't understand!

    Yet he stated that whilst they were useful for reading, they were not Canonical as stated by the new catholic encyclopedia - your rejecting what you own church says my freind :D

    I don't have to - it is enough to show that there is no agreement among the orthodox to demonstrate that your argument carries no weight :D

    However, for the sake of kindness, here is a list:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table

    Ok, my mistake! I don't know if I misread you or just had a mental block - I apologize for the mistake!

    not at all - I am using them to refer to source material, further more to Decretum Gelasianum to which you refer is a sixth century document - the 'council' of hippo was a local synod that approved 'the canon' only if it's list was approved by it's own prelacy - you seem to be arguing against a straw man! I'm saying, 'no one accepted these books as canonical before Trent' I am saying 'Trent defined the Canon for the Catholic Church in a dogmatic way that it had not been defined previously by not allowing a distinction between scriptural texts and ecclesiastical texts'

    Going away from that cite then - did you know that Pope Gregory quotes 1 Maccabees and said it wasn't scripture - morals on the book of job, vol 11, parts III & IV, book XIX, 34

    You will not the source material I cited referred by with quotations to the words of the people quoted :D

    So, we have Catholics and catholic documents that are opposed to each other - what, I wonder are the implications of that for all the a priori assumptions that underlay these discussions?
     
  7. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    #39 Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo, Oct 3, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
    justforcatholics is NOT a catholic site. Its a site dedicated to attacking the Catholic Church. Read the home page: "This evangelical ministry is dedicated to Roman Catholics who desire to know how to be saved."
    Which just shows how little research you do!

    Actually you do because we are discussing the deuterocaconbical books (as per you agreed in post #36), not any additional books they might have added.

    Thank you for that kindness.:)

    However what your list shows is that all Orthodox churches accept all the deuteros except the Orthodox Tewahedo which do not accept 1&2 Maccabees. That is strange sinbce until recently (according to Wikipedia) they were part of the Coptic Orthodox which do accept 1&2 Maccabees. It would seem that their not accepting them is very recent. So it does not help your case in any way.

    Whilst the decree itself is 6th century it refers to the list of the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local councils but they listed the books of the canon because there was an ongoing dispute over some of the NT books. There was no argument over the OT books.

    If you mean the Council of Trent defined the canon with the anathema sit formula that hadn't been previously done then that is true. But so what. That does not mean they were not canonical or fully accepted before that.


    No I didn't. Do you have a reliable source for that or did you just cull it from "justforcatholics"?


    Could you translate that into English.
    Thanks



    No we don't

    Added: I've just found this regarding the Decretum Gelasianum and the Council of Rome.
    I think it's worth reading
    http://www.catholicvoyager.com/2012/09/the-canon-of-scripture-damasus-and.html
     
  8. In my haste I have made two big mistakes in my posts - the first involved a total brain dump on my part and the second one was out good motives - I was trying to show respect for you by citing a catholic source - I should have looked deeper - rather then just linking to the first site that contained the quotes I wanted - for both of things failures I apologize profusely!

    In future I will focus where my strengths lie - instead of linking to webpages I will refer you to books :D

    However in regards to research I note that the point remains the same - the site might not be catholic but the sources quoted are!

    Actually I don't - I don't have to submit to your arbitrary standard of evidence to make my case! You spoke of agreement across all these groups throughout history, I have demonstrated disagreement - these groups do not share an agreed canon - indeed the various sources of lists you have cited are not in agreement (as I will go on to demonstrate in a few moments time)

    You have spoken of local synods and raised them to standard of ecumenical councils - both Hippo and Carthage represent the views of one man - they were never considered binding upon the church in the same way Trent is.

    Now back to that evidence of disagreements between these lists - Let's examine Carthage in a little more detail, the list provided by Carthage are based on the LXX which contained 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras - 2 Esdras being the books of Ezra and Nehemiah combined. Trent however used Jerome's Vulgate in which he had rejected the LXXs 1 Esdars and split Ezra and Nehemiah into into 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras respectively - hence Trent's Canon is different to that of Carthage (source: New Catholic Enclypodea, McGarw-hill, 1967, re. ed 2003 II:396-97).

    Well let's see, oh yes, I cited the original source! However if you want a modern Catholic source you could try the New Catholic Enclydlopedia, II:390

    also note Leo X approved Cardinal Ximenes' Greek NT including his introduction in which he also presented the same opinion in regards to the apocrypha. If you would take the time to read William Websters A Disputation on the Holy Scriptures (Cambridge, UP, 1849) you will find all his research in regards to the views of different ecclesiastical writers throughout history and it will clearly demonstrate that a wide variety of views of opinions were allowed in regards to the apocrypha - and it was only in Trent that it became a demand that these books had to be considered canonical - before that it was accepted to think they were simply useful - in fact in Websters book he points that the stance taken by Trent was not shared by many of the best read scholars with the communion (see 2:359-434 for the full discussion).

    Trent cemented a canonical view that was enforced in a way that until that point the communion had never practiced - that my friend is a straightforward fact of history that no attempt to revise can change :D
     
  9. Illuminator is a Verified MemberIlluminator Moderator
    Illuminator

    Moderator

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Catholic
    Mungo is correct. Justforcatholics is an ANTI-CATHOLIC site, full of lies, distortions and misrepresentations. gotquestions is the same. There are millions, perhaps billions, of sites that LIE about the CC. Anti-Catholics feed off them because it meets some sick need.
    There are plenty of good sites for honest inquirers.

    https://www.catholic.com/ put any topic in the search
     
  10. Interestingly what I linked to was all quotes from Catholic Sources - it is so easy to accuse someone of lying - but not quite so easy to substantiate - it also easier to slander someone then engage with them
     
  11. Besides, if your ignoring me please do the polite thing and ignore both sides of the conversation - at least Mungo (to his credit) actually presents decent arguments and is able to make a case without resorting to, 'well if you take this bit of that word and link to that word' you can find 'catholic' in the Bible: http://theologyforums.com/index.php...was-paul-a-“lone-ranger”.985/page-5#post-3780
     
  12. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    And you expect me to trust a quote from justforcatholics - whatever source it claimed?
    Sorry, no!

    I'm not asking you to submit to any arbitrary standard of evidence.
    The issue is what the evidence is evidence of.
    I'm not discussing accretions to the canons of the Orthodox etc. but whether they accept the deuterocanonicals - which they do. That is part of my evidence that these deuteros were accepted well before Trent.


    No, I have not raised them to the level of Ecumenical Councils. I pointed out that the councils of Hippo and Carthage were just confirming what was defined at the Council of Rome in 382.


    The books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esdras are far more complicated than you suggest here. The link you gave me in post #38 states that the book we know as 1Ezra and 2Ezra is Nehemiah.
    The Catholic Encyclopedia (I gave you the link) states this under the heading of the books of esdras:
    Not a little confusion arises from the titles of these books. Esdras A of the Septuagint is III Esdras of St. Jerome, whereas the Greek Esdras B corresponds to I and II Esdras of the Vulgate, which were originally united into one book. Protestant writers, after the Geneva Bible, call I and II Esdras of the Vulgate respectively Ezra and Nehemiah, and III and IV Esdras of the Vulgate respectively I and II Esdras.


    The New Catholic Encyclopedia
    would appear to be a 15 volume work. I doubt if you have it so it available on-line or are you just quoting from other sources? If it is on-line can you give me the link

    As I have shown the full canon, including the deuterocanonicals, were part of the Catholic Bible from the early centuries. They were not simply "ecclesiastical wring.

    Did you follow the link I gave you?. It;s not a long read.
     
  13. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    Yes, it's a useful site.

    I put in Deuterocanonical and found (among other points) this:

    Full Question

    I read in a Protestant book recently that the Council of Trent was inconsistent because it accepted some “apocryphal” books—such as 1 and 2 Maccabees—as canonical but did not accept others, such as 1 and 2 Esdras. How do you respond?

    Answer
    Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.

    At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven deuterocanonical books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.
     
  14. I have nothing more to add, the facts are simple, before Trent there was freedom within the Catholic Communion to view the Apocrypha as less then canonical - as is evidently testified by all credible sources (including catholic material) - after Trent that was not the case.

    In the history of the churches there are many statements that seek to define to extent of the Canon - none of them where treated by Rome as Trent has been treated, and these lists are not always the same, nor is there consensus across Catholic and orthodox bodies as has been claimed. It is an indisputable fact that many believed the Apocryphal books to be canonical (even though they didn't always agree on which ones) but is also an indisputable fact that this wasn't universal opinion.

    Any suggestions in regards to what materials I might or might not have access to is nothing but smoke and mirrors designed to obfuscate the discussion - I have properly cited the sources to back up my words. Furthermore, attempts to discredit those who disagree with you through Ad-hom attacks and unsubstantiated claims do not help your case.

    It's now up to the reader to judge between us -I'm content to rest my case
     
  15. Mungo is a Verified MemberMungo Well-Known Member
    Mungo

    Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Theology:
    Catholic
    I will make one final post on this.

    From the Ecumenical Council of Florence 1438-1445 Session 11:
    It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

    Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon [Chronicles], Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John
    .
     

Share This Page