Time to depart that church and denomination!I am a member of the United Methodist Church in a small North Western town in the United States. I am one of the last conservative/traditionalist holdouts in my congregation. Over the years I've had many disagreements with the liberal path that the church is on, however I am resolved to stay with the church until the impending split of the Methodist church happens and I see where my local congregation lands (though I am fairly certain it will go the liberal route).
About six months ago we got a new pastor and after seeing that he had graduated from a very liberal seminary I was pretty certain about what his stance on many topics would be. He has thus far voiced his support homosexual marriage and a variety of other "progressive" issues.
So, to get to the point, this evening I decided to look at the pastors preaching schedule to see what Scripture next weeks sermon would be about. I was surprised (although maybe I shouldn't have been at this point) to see that he plans on preaching from the apocryphal Book of Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon. He had mentioned in a conversation several months ago that he had preached from the apocrypha in the past and was encouraged because he got positive feedback from the other congregations he had served. I told him at the time that I was very uncomfortable with anything other than Scripture being preached from the pulpit. Tonight I emailed him (I haven't heard back yet) to reiterate my stance that while the apocrypha may have some value in the context of historical research, it has no place being preached from the pulpit.
I'm just looking for some feedback/discussion on this issue.
Preaching from the apocrypha
- Thread starter Kinghippo76
- Start date
- Status
Time to depart that church and denomination!
1Thess521
Well-known member
Yes: ethnically the first Christians were all Jews.
Yes. ethnically Paul was a Jews
He became a Christian (religiously ) on the Road to Damascus
FALSE There are books in the LXX that no one considers canonical
You are very loose and sloppy with your "facts"
FALSE
the modern Hebrew canon comes the collection of Holy Scrolls kept in God's Holy Temple.
1Thess521
Well-known member
The LXX contained translations of the Hebrew Scripture
AND other un-inspired books that were considered important, but no one considered Theopneustos.
The LXX was a collection of scrolls: they were not bound in a single volume.
Different areas at different time had a different collection scrolls included in the LXX.
The collection of Holy Scrolls kept in God's Holy Temple did not include the LXX apocrypha.
1Thess521
Well-known member
after decades of being involved in UMC leadership; I left
Good choice, where have you landed?
1Thess521
Well-known member
a non-denom "baptistic -reformed " plurality of elders lead, sending Church
1689 Confession?
Theophilos
Well-known member
The Council of Carthage was the first to recognize the current New Testament canon, and it also recognized the Old Testament canon derived from the LXX. The Old Testament books listed here are found in every Catholic and Orthodox bible.
Councils of Carthage - Wikipedia
Religiously as well. They all attended synagogue and were religiously observant Jews.
He claims he was of the tribe of Benjamin. His Jewish designation was a geographic reference due to living in Judea.
False. This term was used by pagans. It was a term of derision which no one in the early church adopted. The church referred to themselves as "the way". They adopted a reference which Christ used for himself.
1Thess521
Well-known member
is this true or false?The Council of Carthage was the first to recognize the current New Testament canon, and it also recognized the Old Testament canon derived from the LXX. The Old Testament books listed here are found in every Catholic and Orthodox bible.
Councils of Carthage - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There are books in the LXX that no one considers canonical
Straight to the point :
Does it matter to you that your Deuterocanonical Books were not included among the collection Holy Scrolls in God's Holy Temple while the Holy One stood in its courtyard?
Last edited:
Theophilos
Well-known member
Yes, there are LXX books not included in the canon. On the other hand, the list includes the books that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child. These are the scriptures that Paul specifically praised.
There is also early Christian literature that is not in the New Testament. Consider the Didache and 1 Clement. Both were included in some early bible manuscripts. 1 Clement was written by a bishop of Rome who was ordained by Peter, but neither book appears on the canon of the New Testament today.
First Epistle of Clement - Wikipedia
The same process that consensus in the Church that established the New Testament canon was also responsible for the Old Testament canon.
Last edited:
1Thess521
Well-known member
i am on to your word gamesYes, there are LXX books not included in the canon. On the other hand, the list includes the books that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child. These are the scriptures that Paul specifically praised.
There is also early Christian literature that is not in the New Testament. Consider the Didache and 1 Clement. Both were included in some early bible manuscripts. 1 Clement was written by a bishop of Rome who was ordained by Peter, but neither book appears on the canon of the New Testament today.
First Epistle of Clement - Wikipedia
The same process that consensus in the Church that established the New Testament canon was also responsible for the Old Testament canon.
early Christian literature does not equal Theopneustos
everyone agrees the LXX contained Greek translations of actual Hebrews Scripture.
Does it matter to you that your Deuterocanonical Books were not included among the collection Holy Scrolls in God's Holy Temple while the Holy One stood in its courtyard?
rakovsky
Well-known member
Good examples and explanations by you.Yes, there are LXX books not included in the canon. On the other hand, the list includes the books that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child. These are the scriptures that Paul specifically praised.
There is also early Christian literature that is not in the New Testament. Consider the Didache and 1 Clement. Both were included in some early bible manuscripts. 1 Clement was written by a bishop of Rome who was ordained by Peter, but neither book appears on the canon of the New Testament today.
First Epistle of Clement - Wikipedia
The same process that consensus in the Church that established the New Testament canon was also responsible for the Old Testament canon.
rakovsky
Well-known member
From a traditional Protestant (Lutheran/Anglican/Methodist) stance, it does not appear that preaching from the Apocrypha is necessarily bad or deviant. Luther is the main Protestant promulgator of Sola Scriptura. Luther wrote a commentary on Tobit, and included the Apocrypha in one of his German editions of the Bible, along with his own Prefaces. He encouraged reading the Apocrypha, and the Apocrypha is among old traditional Lutheran Devotional readings. This came up in a lecture series that I've been listening to by St John's Lutheran in Alexandria, Virginia.
The same can be said about the Apocrypha for Anglicans and Methodists- in fact the more so, because unlike Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists don't hold to "Sola Scriptura", but rather to "Prima Scriptura". Methodists hold to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of 4 sources of authority, one being Tradition. Since the Apocrypha is not in the Protestant "canon", it's instead in Protestant "Tradition".
So from a Protestant POV, preaching from the Apocrypha is not necessarily wrong, but rather the danger from a Protestant POV would only be if the wrong things are preached about the Apocrypha. Luther would say that only the scriptural canon can establish "articles of faith", but preaching from the Apocrypha (like his commentary on Tobit) would not cause a conflict for his Sola Scriptura idea as long as it's not treated as the basis for making establishing "articles of faith." This conflict is even less important for the Methodists and Anglicans, as they don't hold to Sola Scriptura. One of Luther's complaints about Henry VIII's church rules was that they were supposedly not based on Scripture. I don't know if that issue would still apply to the Anglican Church after it left the RC Church, but my guess is that the issue would still apply.
rakovsky
Well-known member
I think that you are bringing up an important issue. Good job, Thess.
Some of the Deuterocanonical texts may have been among those Temple scrolls at some point, it seems to me. I am open minded on that topic. Here are some factors to consider.
First, one of the main theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they are from the archives of the Temple priests of Onias' dynasty who represent the rightful priestly line that fled into exile when the Maccabean line took over. The DSS Great Psalter has Psalm 151 on the end of it, and Psalm 151 is in the LXX. One or more of the canon list sources approved by the Council of Trullo, and hence the 7th Ecumenical Council, includes Psalm 151 as canonical. However, the rabbis do not include Psalm 151 as canon.
Second, how do we know exactly which books were among those in the Temple? Josephus gives a cumulative number like 22, but the 22 books include other books among their number. That is, those 22 books include more than what you and I would normally number as 22 literal books. I have seen canonical lists by the Eastern Fathers like in Laodicea that tend to exclude the Deuterocanon but still include one or two Deuterocanonical books as canon.
Third, could more of those Deuterocanonical books, like the Maccabean series, been in the Temple in the Maccabean period, but then removed from the Temple when the Maccabean line became downcast? As I recall, the Maccabees were seen as heroes in Jewish tradition, but their status is somewhat ambivalent in the eyes of the rabbis, and the rabbis didn't preserve the Maccabean books, even among their noncanonical records like the Mishnahs.
Further, whether some Scrolls were in the Temple is not really the decisive issue for the Christian canon. Rather, the Christian canon is what the Christian Assembly considers to be its official list of Scripture. To give an analogy, the rabbis considered that the line of prophets and prophetic books ended with Malachi. Jesus in the NT noted that the rabbis didn't consider John the Baptist among the ancient prophets. However, in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus counts John the Baptist as among the ancient line of the prophets. Thus, whether Christianity numbers someone or their book as prophetic does not rest decisively on specifically the rabbinnical decisionmaking of the pre-Christian period. Rather, their status in Christianity is addressed by the Christian Church.
Personally, I am open minded on the topic of the Deuterocanon's status. The earliest apparently official Christian canon list of which I am aware is the Muratorian fragment, apparently from the mid to late 2nd century AD. Its OT section is missing, but it does include the Wisdom of Solomon among the canon. The most official answer for the worldwide Christian community seems to be in the 7th Ecumenical Council, which I personally take as treating the Deuterocanon's canonicity as optional, rather than as mandatory (Catholic view) or as denied (Protestant view). Similarly, worldwide, there are Christians who consider the Deuterocanon to be canon, and others who deny its canonicity. Both views can be found among Christians (including modern EOs), and it seems correct to say that both views can be legitimately argued either way.
Peace.
Last edited:
Where do they ever accept them?
ziapueblo
Active member
I asked first
Most of those who believe the apocrypha are part of Scripture, also believe they can conjure up the dead (which is sin) by praying to them. So their understanding of Scripture is highly suspect. But that is a whole other thread.
ziapueblo
Active member
The Septuagint, as I'm sure you know, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which Greek speaking Jews in diaspora used. The Septuagint Scriptures were those used by the early Christians. It is also the text that is quoted most often in the New Testament. Authors Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno in their book Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, both Protestants by the way, list 340 places where the New Testament authors cite the Septuagint and only 33 where the New Testament authors cite the Masoretic text. Obviously the text had authority with the Apostles and with Christ.
ziapueblo
Active member
- Status