Are Protestants preaching false doctrine/Blasphemy?

[RaiseMeUp]

A debate I keep finding myself in with my protestant acquaintances is what they call the “Apocrypha”. In my opinion, if all 73 books are Divinely inspired, then they are without error. What gives anyone ANY authority to remove even one word from the scripture, let alone add a word to alter the scripture??? Isn’t the unpardonable sin Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t referring to Divinely Inspired scripture as irrelevant or erroneous be going against the Holy Spirit, therefore blasphemy? And what I don’t understand is Sola Scripture as the center of belief yet, excluding the work of the 7 books removed from the Bible. That seems to contradict itself… going by scripture alone yet, the scripture they are so steadily rooted in is incomplete. . . . . . . .

 

[Church_Militant]

A debate I keep finding myself in with my protestant acquaintances is what they call the “Apocrypha”. In my opinion, if all 73 books are Divinely inspired, then they are without error. What gives anyone ANY authority to remove even one word from the scripture, let alone add a word to alter the scripture??? Isn’t the unpardonable sin Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, but that’s not what they are doing here. You need to look at the passage about that sin in its context.

Wouldn’t referring to Divinely Inspired scripture as irrelevant or erroneous be going against the Holy Spirit, therefore blasphemy?

No, not even close. Error yes, blasphemy, no.

And what I don’t understand is Sola Scripture as the center of belief yet, excluding the work of the 7 books removed from the Bible. That seems to contradict itself… going by scripture alone yet, the scripture they are so steadily rooted in is incomplete.

Sola Scriptura is an unscriptural doctrine in and of itself since it cannot be supported from the very scriptures it decrees to be its sole and ultimate authority. In order for it to be scriptural in its own context the Bible would have to lay claim to the authority it ascribes to it…and there is no such scripture, not even in all 73 books that we have in the complete canon. That’s the right way to approach it.

You might take a look at the following threads here on CAF.

It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)
“If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”

Aggression is never the right way to go. If you cannot remain calm, civil, and serene, then don’t let yourself get drawn into such discussions and debates because ultimately it does more harm than good.

As for the Deuterocanonicals (never refer to them as the apocrypha because that’s a completely different set of non-canonical writings.) I have an article on my blog that may help somewhat. The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible

For SS, see Refuting the fundamental modern error of Sola Scriptura.

 

[RaiseMeUp]

I never get argumentative, however I do try respectfully to see where they are coming from. I don’t want to stereotype Protestants, but where I am I find people coming to me questioning me about my faith and before long we are engaged in a debate - and not always negatively - I have had some that we simply agreed to disagree. But as I stated in a another post, I was discussing the excluded 7 books from the Protestant bible that are in my Bible, and I was accused of Blasphemy. His argument was that somewhere in Malachi it states that there wont be anymore prophetic scripture ( I may be wrong because i don’t remember to clearly ) until after the coming of Christ and those books fall in between that time period… it was something like that… But then… one will try to tell me about the “Pre-Adamites” in a book written by a Protestant Author… So I see a lot of… chaotic theology, theory. I dont seek out debate, but there is still more that I need to learn…

 

[Jon_S_1]

I never get argumentative, however I do try respectfully to see where they are coming from. I don’t want to stereotype Protestants, but where I am I find people coming to me questioning me about my faith and before long we are engaged in a debate - and not always negatively - I have had some that we simply agreed to disagree. But as I stated in a another post, I was discussing the excluded 7 books from the Protestant bible that are in my Bible, and I was accused of Blasphemy. His argument was that somewhere in Malachi it states that there wont be anymore prophetic scripture ( I may be wrong because i don’t remember to clearly ) until after the coming of Christ and those books fall in between that time period… it was something like that… But then… one will try to tell me about the “Pre-Adamites” in a book written by a Protestant Author… So I see a lot of… chaotic theology, theory. I dont seek out debate, but there is still more that I need to learn…

Ultimately, Protestants will twist and manipulate scripture in a desperate attempt to justify their man made tradition of sola scripture, as well as their small canon. It is sad because it comes primarily from ignorance, and an inability to see history for what it is. The best we can do is kindly educate them and hope the spirit moves in them.

It is heresy, but not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Further, the culpability of 90% of Protestants is very low.

 

[dronald]

Ultimately, Protestants will twist and manipulate scripture in a desperate attempt to justify their man made tradition of sola scripture, as well as their small canon. It is sad because it comes primarily from ignorance, and an inability to see history for what it is.

Is that so?

Further, the culpability of 90% of Protestants is very low.

What?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Is that so?

Yes!

What?

In relation to the OP wondering if Protestants were committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit or some other sin in accepting a small canon or sola scripture. 90% or more of protestants are not aware of where these ideas truly came from and the true history of the doctrinal developments and cannot be held culpable of it as sinful. The creators of these doctrines at the reformation however, may be a different story.

 

[Southern]

Yes!

In relation to the OP wondering if Protestants were committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit or some other sin in accepting a small canon or sola scripture. 90% or more of protestants are not aware of where these ideas truly came from and the true history of the doctrinal developments and cannot be held culpable of it as sinful. The creators of these doctrines at the reformation however, may be a different story.

 

[po18guy]

Point of fact: the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have, since day 1, used and accepted the books which are generally no longer in protestant bibles. Since each of those books was written in the pre-Christian era, and were preserved for centuries, there must have been a reason for that preservation, correct? The alternate title of Sirach, for example, is Ecclesiasticus, or “church book.” If it was not read in the assembly (and tradition says it was), why would it have been given that name?

Point 2: Luther did not remove the books. He simply did not like them, declared by his own authority that they were not inspired by God, and segregated them from the others in the bible that bears his name.

The Deuterocanonical books were in most all King James Version bibles until about 1879, when the British Bible Society, if I remember correctly, removed them entirely. As a practical matter, let us take the subject matter of the just the books of the Maccabees: They speak of the banning of the practice of Judaism, or the worship of the God of Israel, in the centuries leading up to the birth of Christ. They speak of the Maccabean revolt, which restored the Mosaic law to Israel in time for Christ to be born under that law in order to fulfill that law. They speak of the re-dedication of the temple in Jerusalem - documenting the Jewish Holy Day of Hanukkah (the Jews do not have this in their canon!). Maccabees mention the resurrection and eternal life - less than two centuries before Christ preached the exact same message.

If God did not inspire all of that to be written before the fact (as prophecy), then just who did?

Here is an informational article about the Deuterocanonical books: 5 Myths about 7 Books.

 

[Michael1966]

Hi RaiseMeUp

The Orthodox Church consider all the Septuagint as scripture so they may accuse you of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit for removing some of the LXX. I think that would be a tad harsh, as your treatment of those who restrict themselves to the Hebrew Tanakh would seem a tad harsh.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi RaiseMeUp

The Orthodox Church consider all the Septuagint as scripture so they may accuse you of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit for removing some of the LXX. I think that would be a tad harsh, as your treatment of those who restrict themselves to the Hebrew Tanakh would seem a tad harsh.

I agree.

Please try to be respectful of the reasons Protestants do not consider the Deuterocanonical books to be on the same level of canonicity as the books in the Hebrew Tanakh. You don’t have to agree, of course, with us, but please have enough humility to hope that we have decent reasons—not ignorance— for that belief.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Ultimately, Protestants will twist and manipulate scripture in a desperate attempt to justify their man made tradition of sola scripture, as well as their small canon. It is sad because it comes primarily from ignorance, and an inability to see history for what it is. The best we can do is kindly educate them and hope the spirit moves in them.

It is heresy, but not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Further, the culpability of 90% of Protestants is very low.

Jon, please—“twist and manipulate”…“desperate attempt to justify”? Sigh. Catholic chest-thumping 101, give yourself an A+.

 

[pablope]

I never get argumentative, however I do try respectfully to see where they are coming from. I don’t want to stereotype Protestants, but where I am I find people coming to me questioning me about my faith and before long we are engaged in a debate - and not always negatively - I have had some that we simply agreed to disagree. But as I stated in a another post, I was discussing the excluded 7 books from the Protestant bible that are in my Bible, and I was accused of Blasphemy. His argument was that somewhere in Malachi it states that there wont be anymore prophetic scripture ( I may be wrong because i don’t remember to clearly ) until after the coming of Christ and those books fall in between that time period… it was something like that… But then… one will try to tell me about the “Pre-Adamites” in a book written by a Protestant Author… So I see a lot of… chaotic theology, theory. I dont seek out debate, but there is still more that I need to learn…

Well…have you asked your protestant friend how those 7 books were removed from the Bible? Does he know?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon, please—“twist and manipulate”…“desperate attempt to justify”? Sigh. Catholic chest-thumping 101, give yourself an A+.

Thanks!

Seriously though, I believe there is a level of ignorance. Not because one is stupid but because they just don’t know.

After a Protestant understands history, I will never understand how they cannot at least concur that the deuterocanonicals are beneficial reading if not scripture. I will never understand how they can take their New Testament canon from the list of books declared at the council if Carthage while rejecting books infallibly declared in the very same list. So on that regard I see it as a manipulation if both history and scripture. The classic St Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonicals argument is a classic example of this.

Please don’t take offense to me using the word ignorant. I too was once ignorant of the history of the Bible.

 

[dronald]

Thanks!

Seriously though, I believe there is a level of ignorance. Not because one is stupid but because they just don’t know.

After a Protestant understands history, I will never understand how they cannot at least concur that the deuterocanonicals are beneficial reading if not scripture. I will never understand how they can take their New Testament canon from the list of books declared at the council if Carthage while rejecting books infallibly declared in the very same list. So on that regard I see it as a manipulation if both history and scripture. The classic St Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonicals argument is a classic example of this.

Please don’t take offense to me using the word ignorant. I too was once ignorant of the history of the Bible.

Can you contextualize this quote by Cardinal Cajetan for me please?

“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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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.”

Keeping in mind he interrogated Luther, who ended up keeping those books in the Bible.

Or perhaps you can contextualize Pope Gregory the Great for me:

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books,** though not Canonical**, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46)

Would you say these men were ignorant? Misinformed?

 

[pablope]

Can you contextualize this quote by Cardinal Cajetan for me please?

“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.”

 

[dronald]

He is citing prior opinions. He was expressing his personal opinion on the said books. But did he say the Church should agree with his opinion?

Or did he continue with his opinion after the Church spoke? Did he obey or continue to disobey after the Church made a declaration?

And did this cause him to be excommunicated? Did he separate himself and create his own religion? His own Bible?

But that’s what’s so strange is that Catholic’s like to claim that the Bible as we know it today had been established for 1200 years. It’s quotes like this from a Cardinal that refute the idea.

This discussion started with a comment of the “Ignorance of history with Protestants.” Tell me why this Cardinal was so ignorant of Church history if that’s the case?

Look at the last part…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."

Yes, but one must look at him when he says “are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for** confirming matters of faith**.” Would you say this is the Catholic position now?

Was it the Catholic position back then? It was for this particular Cardinal. Why?

He defers to the authority above him to decide on the books inclusion in the canon.

Why was he so unsure though? Shouldn’t he have known already, what with being a Cardinal?

What year was this? And context to get to what the pope is uttering.

Let me ask you…in the language used at the time…what does “canonical” mean when Pope Gregory uses the word “canonical”?

Was the pope expressing an opinion here or is he speaking for the whole church, making a papal pronouncement?

Does he mean the same as when you see and use the word “canonical” today?

I’m the one asking for context my friend. Some given would be wonderful.

 

[Jon_S_1]

He is citing prior opinions. He was expressing his personal opinion on the said books. But did he say the Church should agree with his opinion?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thanks!

Seriously though, I believe there is a level of ignorance. Not because one is stupid but because they just don’t know.

After a Protestant understands history, I will never understand how they cannot at least concur that the deuterocanonicals are beneficial reading if not scripture.

Please don’t take offense to me using the word ignorant. I too was once ignorant of the history of the Bible.

Protestants certainly can concur that the Deuterocanonicals are beneficial reading. Speaking just for myself, however, I remember reading “Bel and the Dragon” in high school, and being very thankful I didn’t have to try to convince myself it was anything other than a legendary tale with a good lesson in it.

“I too was once ignorant of the history of the Bible.” Jon, is it possible that you’re projecting your own former ignorance onto other people? Can you give that possibility some thought? Certainly many Protestants are uninterested in history in general, including the history of the Bible. Likewise, many Catholics don’t know much history, either. But, come on…surely you know many Protestants are much better versed in history than you. There are a multitude of Protestant historians, including those that specialize in the history of the Bible. Do you really think they are ignorant, and you somehow know more than they do? Could it be that you yourself are ignorant of how many very knowledgeable, integrity-filled, honest Protestants there are who know more about history than you do?

 

[pablope]

But that’s what’s so strange is that Catholic’s like to claim that the Bible as we know it today had been established for 1200 years. It’s quotes like this from a Cardinal that refute the idea.

This discussion started with a comment of the “Ignorance of history with Protestants.” Tell me why this Cardinal was so ignorant of Church history if that’s the case?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Protestants certainly can concur that the Deuterocanonicals are beneficial reading. Speaking just for myself, however, I remember reading “Bel and the Dragon” in high school, and being very thankful I didn’t have to try to convince myself it was anything other than a legendary tale with a good lesson in it.

In my 30 years as a Protestant I never heard the Apochrypha mentioned once in church. Never an acknowledgement of its existence. I am glad to hear you find it beneficial reading because the pastors of the churches I grew up in would probably disagree. There is nothing wrong with having a “legendary tale with a good lesson in it” in the Bible…Jesus used quite a few of them.

“I too was once ignorant of the history of the Bible.” Jon, is it possible that you’re projecting your own former ignorance onto other people? Can you give that possibility some thought? Certainly many Protestants are uninterested in history in general, including the history of the Bible. Likewise, many Catholics don’t know much history, either. But, come on…surely you know many Protestants are much better versed in history than you. There are a multitude of Protestant historians, including those that specialize in the history of the Bible. Do you really think they are ignorant, and you somehow know more than they do? Could it be that you yourself are ignorant of how many very knowledgeable, integrity-filled, honest Protestants there are who know more about history than you do?

This is something I have thought and studied quite a bit. I am not a historian nor do I pretend to be. I don’t believe I project myself on others, but I perhaps project my corner of protestantism on protestantism as a whole…I am sure you can understand that. I know protestantism is vast. To be honest one of my initial thoughts regarding my conversion was, if this is so clear and so well supported then why haven’t all of my Protestant pastors and scholars converted? I knew I am not smart enough to say I am the only one who has figured this out. A big red flag was up, and had to be reconciled. I will tell you several meetings with several pastors cleared it up. They really did not know. They knew the Bible came from the Council of Carthage. I asked them how we can be sure it is complete and they said the Holy Spirit worked throughout the council to ensure the Bible was given to us. I presented the list from the Council and asked why we did not have all those books to which, beside the dumbfounded looks, the only response was “well the jews don’t use those.” Asking about the Early Church Father’s and the Eucharist, they did not know. They acknowledged their seminary training on church history was very limited. They could not answer me how Ignatius of Antioch or Irenaeus, or Justin Martyr, or Clement, or even Augustine, could affirm the real presence but we do not.

Of course I then went on after a couple more discussions along these lines, research online where I could find no compelling argument for the protestant position, and then of course learning there was thousands of protestant pastors who had converted because of this reason. It all added up.

So if someone can show me how they get there 27 books of the NT without the Catholic Church and/or without them being listed side by side with the deuterocanonicals, I would love to see such evidence.