BOTH are called by early Church Fathers as Sacred Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.
BOTH are allowed to be read out loud in church as Holy Scripture.
However ONLY the books deemed Canonical are to be used to establish doctrine BECAUSE they are they which hold higher rank over OTHER Holy Scripture.
Andrew....
1. As has been conveyed to you and Nathan many, many times over the past year... and as you both agree with but also passionately disagree with... there is little connection between what is READ (even officially in the Lectionary) and what is regarded as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. To this day, both the Anglican and Lutheran communities often INCLUDE readings in the Sunday Lectionary that are NOT regarded as such (or even "Scripture") and this has always been the case. And to this day, it is very common for Christian writers and pastors to quote from books, song lyrics, movies, news stories, human interest stories, etc. in books and sermons (often as much as Scripture) but this has no connection to thus having been declared to be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.
2. As has been conveyed to you two repeatedly, there was (until perhaps 400-500 years ago) a differentation made EVEN WITH (what is specifically called ) "SCRIPTURE." When Luther and the Anglican Church EMBRACE some books as DEUTEROcanonical (a term used for these for centuries.... a term that means "secondarily-canonical") they were simply embracing the common view that these books (about which no one had ever agreed) were NOT the equal of others: Good to read (including in the Lectionary).... fine to use as a sermon text..... possible to use to SUPPORT something taught elsewhere (supportive role) but NOT equal to the others (Calvin's 66). Luther included one MORE of these in his German translation than the modern RCC does, the Anglican Church included SEVERAL more than the modern RCC does... Luther simply conveying his personal opinion that they are "DEUTERO" and the Anglican Church making that official for the Anglican Church in its 39 Articles. But even among the 27 NT books, there were those "spoken for"(4 Gospels/Acts, Paul's letters, 1 Peter, 1 John for example) and "spoken against" (James, Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation for example). Luther and Calvin both spoke in the historic manner when they suggested that what's in the "spoken for" trump or superced what's in the "spoken against" and should take priority in the Lectionary and also in Christian education (Luther once suggesting the "spoken against" and DEUTERO not be in schools for children simply as a matter of stewardship).
All ante-Nicene Christians accepted the so called "Apocrypha" as GOD BREATHED HOLY INSPIRED SACRED SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD OF GOD and that's why they preached it's parables and wisdom to the congregations for lessons on Godly living and the many examples of God distributing righteous Faith into the meek and timid to go forth in His Will!
1. I continue to note how both you and Nathan call these books you think should be legally required to appear in all Bibles as "
APOCRYPHA." That's a term much more negative than "DEUTEROcanonical". And a much more modern one. And here you seem to reject them even more than than the Anglican Church or Luther. Yet you rebuke Luther and the Anglican Church's position. And I continue to note the very, very great care you and Nathan take to not identify these "Apocrypha" books.... and the reason is understood by everyone, there is no agreement as to what is and is not this corpus, there are not two denominations on the planet that agree as to which should be embraced (even in the very weak way you suggest, less than Luther or the Anglicans).
2. Your "
ALL" is a baseless claim. And obviously you know it. So does Nathan. Your whole apologetic rests on this
extreme hyperbole. We don't even know who ALL the anti-nicene Christians were, much less that 100% of them (or ANY percent of them) accepted anything as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Yes, you can quote two or three or four Christian individuals expressing THEIR view or observations, but 2-4 individuals is not "ALL." These incredible, baseless hyprebole seems the basis of the entire apologetic and is an obvious reason to reject it. Now, IF your point was "we have some limited evidence as to what may have been embraced as canonical" - then we'd agree, but that's not "ALL", it's not the basis of the apologetic, and it's not Christianity (or Judaism).
Friend,
There is no law anywhere that mandates that publishing houses INCLUDE or EXCLUDE anything from tomes they market with "BIBLE" written on the cover. Nathan's persistent claim is just.... well....silly and obviously baseless, completely baseless.
And the claim that JUDAISM did something in this regard... or that CHRISTIANITY did something in this regard are both absolutely baseless, which is why he keeps dodging the request to tell us WHEN and WHERE and to explain why there was no agreement on this .... and still isn't; never has Christianity agreed on what is or is not DEUTEROcanonical (or to use your much more negative term, your rejection of ANY status at all, of "Apocrypha"). His claim is just historically BASELESS. And again, his "ALL" and your "ALL" are even more baseless.
What is true is that for the great majority of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran) there have been books beyond the 66 that have played a role;.... that have been INCLUDED in biblical tomes and the Sunday Lectionary... but not embraced as EQUAL to the 66. John Calvin however clearly rejected anything beyond the 66. He was certainly NOT the first to do so but Calvinism impacted a lot of Protestantism (especially in the US) and the modern "Evangelical" movement also bought into this. BUT any "anger" about this should be leveled at Calvinism and "Evangelicalism" not Protestantism...and perhaps is just a reason to come back and leave those communities. And Nathan's claim that publishing houses are not permitted to print them.... that no one will read them unless they are included in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover.... that he was not allowed to read them.... that Protestants hold they cant be read or used.... are all just silly, baseless, absurd and obviously WRONG. But it is his passion to perpetuate these pure myths, over and over and over, for more than a year now. I think you would be wise to distance yourself from his myths and claims.
There is a common (and frankly understandable) myth in much of modern Protestantism that God sent out this mass email in 33 AD listing all the books of the Bible... and every Christian and church obeyed that until the RCC after Luther added 7 books to support their false doctrines. It's a myth. It may disturb some Protestants, but the historic reality is that there SEEMS to have been a growing CONSENSUS around 27 NT books and we can see this rather firmly by 400 AD but this is ONLY a significant consensus - what is called TRADITION - not a matter of Christianity doing something in this regard (which has NEVER happened). The consensus also embrace the OT (in part because some heretics rejected it) but it seems as LESS so than the NT (again, that RANKING that was common until a few centuries ago). And it seems the Jewish idea of RANKING continues (Jews accepted the Books of Moses above the History and Prophets and those above the Wisdon Literature - many still do) and while Jews largely abandoned some books, Christians still embraced some (NEVER agreeing on WHICH) - but as with the Jews, not equally canonically. We don't KNOW why the 27 Books of the NT became such (theories abound).... we don't KNOW why 39 OT books (by our count) got accepted in Christianity. But it does appear that the DEUTERO books were considered DEUTERO.... a point that Luther and Anglicanism embrace (Luther personally, Anglicanism officially) but these books seem largely moot. Not quoted much, not used much... and thus just not much of an issue. Until Trent.
Blessings
Josiah
.
