Assurance of Salvation

[MariaG]

Okay, great! Then I tell you the Catholic Church in fact has no man-made traditions and the only Traditions we have are Sacred Traditions which are the oral teachings of the Apostles.

For example Purgatory is completely Biblical. But as you say, it is another thread.

And I did understand what you were saying as well as understand and have read the Scripture you were refering to. You say you were not specifically including the Catholic Church in you condemnation of traditions of men in the church, but you say in your own post that some churches today do this. Is it any wonder I felt you were including the Catholic Church in that? Is it any wonder that I still feel you may believe the Catholic Church has some?

They would be fodder for a different thread, but I state here that there is absolutely no Sacred Tradition of the Church that contradicts the Bible.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Katholikos]

Part 1

I invite you to read the thread entitled “Which Bible? Which Canon?” on the apologetics thread. It presents many facts about the Bible.

Tiffany:

God did leave us the Bible and he says to study it! 2Timothy 2:15 “Study to show theyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

The RSV, same verse: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” The KJV contains many errors. It is best to read several translations. Those of us who don’t read Koine Greek (and I’m one of them) have to rely on translators; some are better than others.

We are reading a translation of a translation of a translation (the underlying Aramaic to Greek to English). Unless we know the ancient languages, history, geography, culture, and general milieu of biblical times, we’ll fall short of understanding it correctly. Private interpretation is dangerous to your spiritual health.

In this verse Paul is not talking to just Priests or Preachers but rather to all Christians…he is telling us to Study the Bible and beware of teachers of the Bible that don’t have their story straight or that do not teach from the Bible at all.

As noted, this verse is not about studying the Bible. The “Word of God” in the NT is Jesus (the Logos); the oral teaching of Jesus and the Apostles; and the Jewish Scriptures – the Greek Septuagint. The New Testament did not exist, and would not for nearly 400 years.

…the Bible states " For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." Romans 3:23 This verse didn’t say that all except pastors or all except priest…it said all haved sinned.

“All” doesn’t mean everyone. For example, it doesn’t include Jesus, very young children before the age of reason, or the mentally ill who have no personal responsibility for their actions. [It also doesn’t include the Mother of Jesus, who was preserved without sin – but that’s another discussion. ]

That’s why it is so important to study the Bible for yourselves and find what it is actually saying. If you have a Bible preaching priest or pastor that studies the Word and backs his comments and beliefs up with scripture with out minipulating it, than you have an easier job. However, they still make mistakes and it is most important to study it for yourselves from all aspects of the Word with out a bias and truly letting God speak to you as to what he means. God reveals himself to everyone through his Word.

God’s revelation of Himself and His plan of salvation for mankind was given through Christ to His Apostles, the leaders of His Church. Christianity did not begin as a religion based upon Scripture. Nowhere in early Christianity was the idea that the new religion would be based on a series of books. Christ founded His Church for the salvation of the world; the NT came out of the Church, not the other way around.

Continued

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

When Jesus was on earth they didn’t have the Bible because Jesus was their form of Bible, so yes he taught it and than used the apostles and other men throughout the generations to spread the good news. Not unlike today, he teaches us and speaks to us through his word because we don’t have Jesus here to teach us.

He speaks to us through His Church, which he left us as our teacher. The Church produced the NT and the Bible.

So we read and more importantly study his Word that we might grow in him, worship him and spread the good news all to the glory of his name.

Only an estimated 10% of the people of the first century could read and write. Books had to be copied by hand – first on fragile papyrus, later on animal skins – a very slow, laborious, and costly process. Few could afford to have a book of their own. Many, many writings *circulated *among the local Churches during the first four centures, including those which became the NT, and were read aloud during the liturgy by the few that could read. The Scriptures are still read aloud to the congregation today. Illiteracy remain the norm until after the printing press was invented and books slowly became more available and less costly. Illiteracy lasted well into the 18th and even the 19th centuries. My own grandfather couldn’t read or write. 50% of the world’s population today still cannot read or write. 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate – they cannot read the Bible.

It seemed to me as a Protestant that Christians had the cruelest kind of God. He [allegedly] put the instructions for salvation in a book, knowing that most people couldn’t read, and said: “Here --figure it out for yourselves. If you don’t get it right, you’re going to hell.”

The Bible also warns about traditions of the church. Traditions in of themselves are not bad it is only when those traditions have the followers breaking the commandment of God or going against the Bible. Jesus makes this very clear in the beginning of chapter 7 in the book of Mark.“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do” Mark 7:7,8. “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered:and many such like things do ye.” Mark 7:13

Jesus condemned the practice of substituting the “traditions of men” of men for true religion. The teaching of the Apostles was given orally. Some of it got written down. The Church eventually selected and canonized certain apostolic writings, which became the New Testament. Other apostolic teachings were preserved in other ways and are known as Sacred Apostolic Tradition. This is the Tradition referred to by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ***So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, *either by word of mouth or by letter.

Continued

 

[Katholikos]

Part 3

The thing is Christ has already answered many questions and he left it for us in his Word. The only way to know for ourselves what those answers are…are to study his Word, The Bible. It’s foolish to leave your faith up to other humans and blindly follow other sinners as ourselves who make mistakes and can very easily mislead you. “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” Psalms 119:11 If we don’t study it and memorize it we cannot hide it in our heart. .

We should read the Scriptures to apply them to our own lives. We should not read the Scriptures to “discover” and “interpret” doctrine. The doctrines were revealed to the Church “once for all” (Jude 3). We don’t have to look further than the teaching of the Church for God’s Truth.

There are a tone more verses that tell us to read and study the Bible…but I think you get my point.

There was no Bible until the end of the fourth century.

One more thing, the Church didn’t write the New Testement, God did and used men to physically write it as he did the old: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2Tim 3:14

I’ll answer this separately.

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2Peter 1:21

The holy men of God spoke – very few of the Apostles wrote anything.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" ~ John Henry Newman, Anglican clergyman and Catholic convert.

Peace be with you, Jay

 

[Philthy]

Tiffany:

Hi,
I’m new to this site. I thought I would share a little bit about my self first. I’m a 22yr. old college student working on a major in Marketing and a minor in Management. I love the Lord and want to learn and serve him to the best of my ability (with God’s help of course). I grew up in a Baptist church and now I go to a non denominational church b/c of Legalism issues with some of the preachers at my old church.

More than anything else, what you should take from this experience is that people who genuinely seek the truth through reading the bible and interpreting it by themselves do not come to unity in their beliefs. They never have.

Growing up in the Baptist church I never heard anyone disagree full heartedly with things that I felt the Bible said. But once at the non denominational church and after meeting others that used to go to Catholic churches I am experiencing a whole new way that people see the Bible and what it says. One of the issues is assurance of salvation. I read the article on this site and found it very interesting. I was wondering if you all had any verses that back up losing your salvation other than the ones in the article. One of my passions is to study the Bible and really find what it says and really means.

Be careful. Everyone has different gifts. We are a body with different parts and functions. You may like to think that you are qualified to “find what it…really means” but that is a phenomenal undertaking. It involves a knowledge of so many things including history, sociology, several languages and a mind for theology. Don’t get me wrong - reading and understanding what the bible says is wonderful. It’s just that you seem to think that you will understand it by simply reading it - this is simply not the case.

I would love to hear what you all have to think on the topic. And maybe when I’m done with my study I can share with you all what I have found. I want to refine my beliefs and make them as true to the Bible as humanly possible. I know with translations, sometimes it is hard to get a true understanding of what God was saying but** I find that if I go back to the Greek and Hebrew I am able to see what God means.** My mission is to seek out the truth and find God’s will for my life and I know studing his word is all part of that.

This is all excellent. With respect to the bolded text however, how, exactly, do you reach the conclusion that you “are able to see what God means”? Is this a purely intellectual accomplishment?
What would you do if you reached a belief and then later found that no one in the history of Christianity has ever held it? Would you still consider that you “see what God means” and that everyone else has been mistaken? If you answer yes to this question, know right now that you will soon become disenchanted with the church you are in over something else and will spend your life joining and leaving churches in search of a church that believes what you believe - which , of course, doesn’t exist. What you need to do is find THE CHURCH of Jesus Christ and listen to and learn from her. Her teachings will be the reference point for your understanding of the bible.

Again any comments and verses that you have, I would love to hear.
Tiffany : )

For you, I’d have to pick Matthew 16:18. What church has an undisputed succession from Peter? That’s the Church you should consider first. I’ll give you a hint: Peter was martyred in Rome.

It’s never the Bible that is contradicting itself…it’s always us not understanding what it says and means.

 

[Katholikos]

Tiffany wrote:

One more thing, the Church didn’t write the New Testement, God did and used men to physically write it as he did the old: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2Tim 3:14

The Church is the People of God, united in one Faith, under St. Peter and his successors. The authors of the New Testament were leaders and members of the “People of God” – the Church.

The Church selected 27 of her many writings and canonized them and named them the New Testament, beginning at the Council of Rome (A.D. 382). She named the same list at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). Carthage sent the council’s decrees to Pope Innocent I, who approved them as can be seen in his letter to Exuperius in 405.

The Church was the ***Agent ***of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT and producing the Bible. The Spirit has no hands. So the primary cause for the Christian Scriptures was the Holy Spirit; the secondary and necessary cause was the Church.

2 Tm 3:14-17 refers only to the Greek Septuagint – the only Scriptures Timothy could have known since childhood. And all Protestants reject the Septuagint. Go figure.

Peace be with you, Jay

 

[Philthy]

pendoko:

I think that the Catholic Church and all churches around the world which did not teach the assurance of salvation ARE ALL mistaken and should not be trusted. Why?

What is the point of believing and following an Almighty God IF GOD ALONE can’t secure His believer into their salvation?

He can secure it - who says He can’t? All we said was you can not judge yourself into the future. You must persevere, you must remain “in Him”. You’re confusing God’s ability to make it happen with your ability to know that it will happen for you. It makes the rest of what you wrote pointless.

What is the point of believing Him, God & Jesus, if He can’t even secure the MOST important part of His believer- the eternal security of salvation of that believer? What is the point of believing God if citizenship in Heaven is not yet secured by God to man?

Well if citizenship in Heaven were already secured what difference would it make if you believed it or not? There are CONDITIONS OF CITIZENSHIP which involve a life long commitment. Unless you claim to have knowledge that you will not forsake God and thereby lose your citizenship, then you don’t have the absolute assurance you claim. If you do claim to have knowledge of the future we’ll all simply ignore you!

Also, what is the point of going, listening, joining and attending those CHURCHES that they never teaches assurance of salvation if THEY THEMSEVES are not secured of their furure destiny? How could they lead those lost to security if they themselves are not secured?

Simple. By leading them to the one who can - christ - and teaching them how to remain in His Grace.
Another good reason would be that if following them was what God commanded and that it was the best chance you had. You simply want more than you deserve. Why do you deserve eternal security anyway?

Is God foolish enough to secure the fate and destiny of His children, while God called them “children” and yet they will be thrown to Hell? John 1:12

I don’t understand your question, but the verse you cited simply says that " to those who did accept him He gave POWER TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD" No mention of knowledge or completion of eternal salvation. Children can reject their parents you know.

Once a person is saved, is eternally saved since it is God who made that salvation, not by man’s works but God’s mercy. The only one condition is: John 1:12…becoming God’s child.

Do you realize how short the Bible needs to be for your message? But it isn’t. It goes on and on with examples of how to live the Christian life with admonitions against continuing to sin. Why? Why are there verses like this: “Beloved I urge you as aliens and sojourners to keep away from worldly desires which wage war against the soul?” What does wage war against the soul mean? What do you think happens if you lose that war?

See nest post…

 

[Philthy]

Is it not enough that God saved us from hopeless damnation by sending His son and that we can know that if we remain in Him we will be saved? It seems like quite a deal to me…
Let me share with you an analogy that some have liked. It originally dealt with the issue of faith and works:
You have a pot, a watering can, a water supply and some dirt and you want to grow a flower.

You are hopeless without a seed. Nothing you do works. Your works do nothing!

God comes along and freely gives us a seed which begins to grow.Thank you God!

He also tells us - I’ll provide the Son, but you need to water the plant or it will die!

You water the plant at first but then stop and after a while it dies.

Explanation:

The pot, can, water and dirt - everything we are - is us in our sinful state.
The desire for a flower is the desire for eternal life
The attempt to grow the flower without a seed is works without faith
The seed is God’s gift of Grace and without it there will be no “flower”
Jesus is the Sun - the metaphor was to good to pass up - also necessary
The statement by God is His Word - it tells us what we need to do.

"Failing to water the plant is “faith without works”
Watering the plant is the “works” part of eternal life, continuing in the faith - ignore them, and the plant dies. It grew for a while, but you let it die.

Phil

 

[Matt16_18]

PastorVW:

This is one issue where, once the language barrier is scaled, their is really no essential difference between Catholic theology and that of many Protestants. As a Free Methodist, I hold basically the same view of the assurance of Salvation. Present assurance is both possible and healthy – but as a previous writer has said here, one must “Keep the faith”.

I expect to continue to walk with the Lord, so I can have peace about my future – but I certainly don’t think that I can “Live like the devil” and still see heaven.

The Southern Baptists that I know would completely disagree with you. When they say that there is NO sin that a “saved” man could possibly commit that would lead to his damnation, that is exactly what they mean, end of discussion. “No sin” includes unrepentant sin and the sin of apostacy.

Southern Baptists have told me that they believe that a boy that gets “saved” when he is eight years old is assured place in heaven - even if he ends up dying as a totally depraved adult unrepentant of his Satan worshipping, child molesting and serial murder.

 

[Matt16_18]

pendoko:

… to stop serving God means stop serving your Father. That is impossible for the real child of God.

Why is that impossible? Does “irresistible grace” destroy the free will of the Christian?

 

[uniChristian]

Katholikos:

Tiffany wrote:
Tiffany, do you know where we got the Bible? Do you know what it is, why it was written, and when? Do you realize that the Bible consists of 73 separate writings, written by different people at dfferent times, for different audiences and purposes? That the Bible was formed by the Catholic Church? That Martin Luther removed some of the books of the Bible, and that’s why the Protestant Bible contains only 66 books?

In order to understand the New Testament, it must be read it in the context of the beliefs of the living, organic, teaching Catholic Church who wrote it under the inspiration of the Spirit. The Church wrote her teachings into the NT, either implicitly or explicitly. The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible, as all Protestant churches do; the Bible came out of the Church. The Catholic Church is nearly 400 years older than the New Testament and the Bible.

Start at the beginning – with how the Bible came to be. You must know what it is and how we got it before you can begin to understand what it means. Catholic Answers offers a great little book – Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham. I’ll send you the link.

The doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved (Assurance of Salvation) is no more than 487 years old. It was invented by Martin Luther and perpetuated by John Calvin in the 16th century. Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach it.

Original Christianity was the sum total of the teachings of the Catholic Church; it was not based on the Bible. The Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) was also invented by Luther in the 16th century.

I’d be glad to help. Katholikos1@aol.com

God be with you on your journey,

JMJ Jay
Ex-Soutern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

I am not a fan of Martin Luther but lets get the facts straight. The term “apocrypha” was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible. Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal–including Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10), the Book of Daniel (3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh. The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh), but refer to them as “deuterocanonical” books, synonymous with the term “apocrypha”. This generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the “pseudoepigrapha.” It is often easy to blame the Protestants for omitting the books and to blame the Catholic for adding them, however the truth is that the Jewish scholars did not include them in their canon done in 90 C.E.

 

[Katholikos]

uniChristian:

I am not a fan of Martin Luther but lets get the facts straight. The term “apocrypha” was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible. Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal–including Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10), the Book of Daniel (3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh. The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh), but refer to them as “deuterocanonical” books, synonymous with the term “apocrypha”. This generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the “pseudoepigrapha.”

I’ve seen other things you’ve written on this forum, and this is not your style. What is your source? And what is your point?

JMJ Jay

 

[Philthy]

Tiffany:

Wow is all I can say… You guys have loaded me down with verses to study! I love it! I haven’t had a chance yet to look over them but I have a question regaurding salvation and a few verses. We all know the Bible doesn’t contradict it self. Other wise it would not be the perfect word of God. So what do you do with these verses:

Ephesians 2:8,9
“For by grace are ye saved through faith;and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Romans 10:9
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised from the dead, through shalt be saved”

The thief on the cross, Luke 23:42,43
“And he said unto Jesus, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom And Jesus said unto him Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt though be with me in paradise.”

The thief was just that, a thief if he were to be judged on whether he was to go to heaven or hell based on works, he would be in hell. But all he did was believe that Christ could save him and Jesus said that today he would be in paradise with him.

Jesus talking to the sinfull women that wipped her hair and tears on his feet, Luke 7:50
“And he said to the woman, thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”

Romans 3:27, 28
“Where is boasting than? It is excluded. By what law of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Romans 4:5 (to get whole context 4:1-8)
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness."

Romans 9:10
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Romans 10:13
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”

What are your takes on these verses?
Do these verses not state that it is by grace that we’re saved through faith and not works?

I’d love to hear what you think.

Tiff

Tiffany -

All great verses. I don’t have time to go through them all, but there is a concept which you must consider: Is salvation an instantaneous, complete and permanent event at the time you become a christian, or is it possible that it is an ongoing event completely of God’s initiative, which is only truly finished when we complete our life in faith and we are with God in Heaven? I believe it is the latter. Let’s examine Ephesians 2:8-9 in this light and see what makes sense.

“For by Grace you have been saved through Faith”

Does this mean completely and permanently saved or simply saved from certain spiritual death which was our condition prior to faith? Can I just kill myself now and go to Heaven? Why not?

“And this is not from you , it is the gift of God”

Easy enough!

" it is not from works, so no one may boast"

This applies to works of the law (as well as any other works) and simply affirms that by the gift of Grace we are saved. Works independent of Grace would not save us. This does not in any way say that we should not do good deeds. So much of Scripture points to the need to do good works and that good works are, in fact, the evidence of our faith - NOT our “belief” in our faith. The parable of the Sheep and Goats further evidences this.

Phil

 

[uniChristian]

Katholikos:

I’ve seen other things you’ve written on this forum, and this is not your style. What is your source? And what is your point?

JMJ Jay

Not my style??? I like to hear and read the truth.

If the Protestants chose to exclude someting from the bible I would

re-search that, but the facts were not stated correctly in your post.

The Protestants had nothing to do with excluding the books from the

bible, they are simply not canonized by the Jews.

 

[Sherlock]

Pendoko,

You wrote: “Anybody can be religious but not spiritual.”

But I never said that my friend’s ex-husband was “religious” and not “spiritual”. I merely gave you some examples of his commitment to his faith. He himself, at the time, would have said the same exact thing that you just did. He was a very spiritual, “born-again”, Christian.

You’re missing or avoiding my point, however. Let me try to explain the dilemma, as I see it, once again: my friend’s ex-husband believed, like you, in “once saved, always saved”. He believed that one could have absolute assurance of salvation (meaning, beyond the “moral assurance” that Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants believe in), and that he had it. He was saved, for sure. However, it is clear that he has since walked away from his faith (no one took him from it, he left it by his own choice). So, was he not wrong when he believed that he was a child of God (as per your definition)? Obviously, then, a person might think that they are, but be mistaken. How do you account for that?

You wrote: “A real child of God is always in the center of Lucifer’s most dangerous attacks, but since this child is God’s own property, no power could ever destroyed that child.”

It is true that no power can take us out of God’s hand. We can, however, walk away from God by our own choice, which is what this guy did. My question is, since he once believed that he was saved, is he still saved even if he no longer lives or believes as a Christian? Since he was once very firm in his belief, as you are, how do you know that you yourself might not be mistaken?

 

[Philthy]

uniChristian:

Not my style??? I like to hear and read the truth.

If the Protestants chose to exclude someting from the bible I would

re-search that, but the facts were not stated correctly in your post.

The Protestants had nothing to do with excluding the books from the

bible, they are simply not canonized by the Jews.

Interesting. What is the earliest Bible we have record of that

contained the deuterocanonicals? And what’s the earliest Bible

we know of that didn’t contain them? Wasn’t the canon alledgedly

set around 400 AD? Are there any bibles between 400 AD and

say, 1500 AD that didn’t include the deuterocanonical books?

Phil

 

[uniChristian]

Philthy:

Interesting. What is the earliest Bible we have record of that

contained the deuterocanonicals? And what’s the earliest Bible

we know of that didn’t contain them? Wasn’t the canon alledgedly

set around 400 AD? Are there any bibles between 400 AD and

say, 1500 AD that didn’t include the deuterocanonical books?

Phil

I don’t know, I will have to do some research on that one. My Duay version has the apocrypha but no dates. The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism. They were canonized in 1564. Prior to 393 would be that date of 90 which was when the Jews formally canonized their scripture. I don’t know what prompted the Jews to exclude them from their canon, maybe the propagation of Christianity. I do know that with the exception of the Tora the Jews still consider their canon open. I also know that Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha. By the way I am not partial toward the Protestant view that the Roman Catholic Church added them, I thought it would be prudent to note that the Jews may have excluded them for reasons unknown to me. I also thought it prudent to note that the Protestants did not exclude them either as King James bibles included them.

 

[Katholikos]

uniChristian:

Not my style??? I like to hear and read the truth.

If the Protestants chose to exclude someting from the bible I would

re-search that, but the facts were not stated correctly in your post.

The Protestants had nothing to do with excluding the books from the

bible, they are simply not canonized by the Jews.

UniChristian, I meant that that was not your writing style. If you quote someone else’s words, it is customary (actually, it’s required) to credit your source.

Sharpen your pencil and get busy with your research. Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, excluded the so-called Apocrypha from the Bible.

A little dose of history does a body a world of good.

“The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church…The Septuagint had been regarded as the inspired Word of God…The church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its
missionary activities…Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the church was the longer canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, New York, 1999, page 1048-49.

“Because the Septuagint had become the canonical form of the Old Testament for the Christian community, those fourteen writings [which Protestants call Apocrypha] were also regarded as canonical…The supporters of the Reformation came to the conclusion that the Apocrypha (those fourteen books from the Septuagint not contained in the Hebrew scriptures) were of inferior quality to the remaining thirty-nine books in the Old Testament, and in the course of time eliminated them from their canon. Protestant Bibles in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were printed without the Apocrypha. Eventually a series of confessions (written statements of the basic Christian creed) confirmed this reduced canon from the Protestant side. The statements by the** Roman Catholic community** at the Council of Trent, however, continued to maintain the longer canon, which included the Apocrypha. That division of oponion has continued to the present day.” Understanding the New Testament, Fourth Edition, Howard Clark Kee, Prentice-Hall, 1983, page 384.

Both of the books cited are Protestant publications.

***“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” ***~ John Henry Newman, Anglican clergyman and Catholic convert.

(emphasis mine)

JMJ Jay

 

[Dan_Blake]

Matt16_18:

Southern Baptists have told me that they believe that a boy that gets “saved” when he is eight years old is assured place in heaven - even if he ends up dying as a totally depraved adult unrepentant of his Satan worshipping, child molesting and serial murder.

Yes, and I know Catholics who grant JP2 no special authority, support abortion, and believe any communion service (Catholic or Protestant) to be equally valid. Citing anecdotal accounts from encounters with individual members of a church is no way to establish what that chuch teaches. That every church has heretical members should be an accepted fact.

 

[Des]

Katholikos:

Catholics don’t study the scriptures the way Protestants do. We know that the Church received the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The Church is guardian of the Deposit of Faith entrusted to her by the Apostles. She learned her doctrines from the lips of the Apostles, not from reading and interpreting a book – not even one as sacred as the Bible. Catholics study the scriptures to know the Church’s doctrines more deeply and to apply them to our own lives, but we don’t study them to “discover” doctrine.

Do you ever wonder why Protestants have to search the scriptures for answers, when Christianity is 2,000 years old? Christianity is a revealed religion – God revealed Himself and His plan for salvation through Christ to the Apostles, the leaders of the Catholic Church. Yet every Protestant feels compelled to determine from scripture once again issues like infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and the like. I was always told to “search the scriptures” when I inquired, as if Christ had not already answered the question.

Christ Jesus didn’t leave us a book; He left us a Church, and the Church wrote the New Testament.

There are thousands of denominations, all based on the same Bible, and no two of them agree. To me, that was an insurmountable problem.

Peace be with you, Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Well said.