re: Charles Spurgeon

quote:

---

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The fact is that the Septuagint version of Holy Scripture was a very commonly accepted version of the Bible when Jesus walked the Earth. The Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint extensively, and there's good evidence that so did Jesus and his Apostles.

The Septuagint included the Books of the Old Testament that the Protestants removed in their version of the Bible. The fact is that the Christian Church accepted the Septuagint, all of it, as Holy Scripture for about Fifteen Centuries, before the Protestant writers removed them.

Wiki provides information that proves you wrong.

LINK

And of course, as always, Catholic Answers proves that the Protestant writers of the 1500s were wrong about whether the Early Church accepted the Septuagint as Holy Scripture.

Plot Twist: Jesus Christ Himself quotes from the Septuagint!

LINK

---

Of all the arguments to use, I don't know why Catholics use this one. It's a terrible argument.

Your argument is something like this:

P1: Jesus and the Apostles quoted and referenced Scripture
P2: The Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from and referenced most often come from the Septuagint
P3: The RCC's canon of Scripture includes all books from the Septuagint
P4: The Protestant canon of Scripture excludes some books from the Septuagint
---------
C1: Since Jesus and the Apostles quoted from and referenced the Septuagint primarily (P1 and P2) they must have believed the entire Septuagint was the inspired word of God.
C2: Since Jesus and the Apostles believed the entire Septuagint was the inspired word of God (C1), therefore the entire Septuagint is the word of God and belongs in the full canon of Scriptures.
C3: Since the entire Septuagint belongs in the full canon of Scriptures (C2), and because the RCC includes the entire Septuagint in its Scriptures (P3), the RCC has the full canon of Scripture.
C4: Since the entire Septuagint belongs in the full canon of Scriptures (C2), and since Protestants exclude some books from the Septuagint in its Scriptures (P4), Protestants do not have the full canon of Scripture.

If what I've stated is correct, then your conclusions are wrong. Here's why:

C1 doesn't follow P1 and P2. Just because Jesus and the Apostles quoted or referenced something doesn't necessarily mean what they referenced should be identified as inspired Scripture. Paul quoted secular poets and playwrights in Acts 17:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Jude quoted Enoch as just a few examples, yet we don't believe those books/references to be inspired Scripture. It also doesn't follow that because some of the Septuagint is quoted and that some of the Septuagint includes the Scripture, that all of the Septuagint must be considered inspired Scripture.

C2 is false because C1 is false, or at least it is not necessarily true and cannot be used as a support, and C2 relies on C1 to be valid. Because C1 is not necessarily true, C2 is not necessarily true and therefore cannot be concluded to be true.

C3 is false because C2 cannot be concluded, and P3 is false according to the RCC, herself. The Septuagint includes books that the RCC doesn't include in its list of canonized scripture, namely 1st and 2nd Esdras (though some form of these appear as Ezra and Nehemiah), 3rd and 4th Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh. Therefore, premise 3 is false, since the RCC's canon of Scripture doesn't include all books from the Septuagint and therefore doesn't believe that all the Septuagint books are the inspired word of God.

C4, therefore, is also false, or at least cannot be concluded, because Rome also excludes books of the Septuagint from its canon. If the Protestants don't have the full canon because some books from the Septuagint are excluded (P4), then neither can Rome claim to have the full canon (C3), because she also excludes some books from the Septuagint. Where we disagree is on which books from the Septuagint to include vs. exclude, but neither of us recognizes all books of the Septuagint as inspired.


If you reject any or all of the books listed above as inspired scripture (canon), you cannot claim that all books of the Septuagint are inspired, and therefore you cannot say that because Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint form of the Scriptures, that all of the Septuagint is inspired; Rome doesn't even believe that all those books are inspired. Therefore, since even Rome doesn't include all the Septuagint as canon, then Protestants cannot be said to not have the full canon because we reject some of those books.

You need to find a different argument, because the Septuagint one doesn't work.

quote:

---

Here'smyreply

---

Thats not a reply to what I said. That’s a reply to someone else. It hardly even mentions the Septuagint, and it certainly didn’t defend why some deuterocanonical books that are included in the Septuagint are excluded by Rome. Please try again.

quote:

---

Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly said, for the great majority of the early Church Fathers, “the deuterocanonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense” (Early Christian Doctrines, 55).
This

---

For many, that’s true, and yet it wasn’t universal. Also, that doesn’t address my post about the logic behind the argument you and other Catholics use regarding the Septuagint.