different Protestant...

[LutheranStudent]

Thank you, Diana, for your Christian encouragement and forgiveness. I am still working on those books.
Here’s the site for that reference I promised, too. As it turns out the original info was from the site that Des pointed out:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

~Nathan

“Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.” Thessalonians 5:11

 

[TNT]

LutheranStudent:

Thank you, Diana, for your Christian encouragement and forgiveness. I am still working on those books.
Here’s the site for that reference I promised, too. As it turns out the original info was from the site that Des pointed out:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

~Nathan

There was a question that came up on another thread. No one could agree. It was:
Do Lutherans stand for receiving communion?

I did a search, and it appears that the places I found indicate, YES.

Is that true? Or does it vary by synod??

 

[Katholikos]

Part 1 - Answer to LutheranStudent

LutheranStudent:

Blessings Katholikos~
It seems to me that you have a very strong presence in this forum, and a very informative and intellectual one as well. I was glad to see that you joined our discussion.

Thank you. And thank you for your kind personal words.

As far as Luther’s removal of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, I had never heard of it before and after an admittedly brief search found nothing. I know that Luther had an especially bad taste for the book of James because of it’s easy “mis-constrewability” in favor of works righteousness. He did not consider his distaste for it, however, grounds for leaving it out of the cannon.

I punched up an old thread - “The Real Luther” - and refer you to Posts #128, 129, and #130 concerning Luther’s prefaces to Hebrews, James, and Jude, and #160 for his preface to Revelation.

James flatly contradicts Luther’s doctrine of Sola Fide: James 2:24: See how man is justified by works and not by faith alone. No wonder Luther ditched it.

Fact of history: Luther removed eleven books and parts of Esther and Daniel from their historical placement in the Old and New Testaments and put them in an “appendix” at the back of his German translation of the Bible to separate them from the rest of the books that he regarded as Scripture and to emphasize his rejection of them. His point was that the books were “not scripture.” He did three things to emphasize this: (1) He separated them, (2) He left the pages of the appendix unnumbered to ensure that readers would not make the mistake of thinking that the contents were part of the Sacred Scriptures; (3) He wrote prefaces explaining his rejection.

Luther’s own words from the NT prefaces of his German translation of the Bible:
“Up to this point we have had [to do with] the true and certain chief books **[23 in number] **of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.” Luther proceeded to state his reasons why Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation do not qualify as “true and certain chief books of the NT.”

If that’s not rejection of the writings from the canon, pray tell, what is it? True and certain chief books are all that’s in the canon. There are no “second class” Scriptures.

What else could Luther have meant by his actions? Oh, I know. He thought Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and the OT books were such exemplary Scriptures that he wanted to call attention to them – to highlight them so Christians would admire them all the more (not!).

As far as the 11 books of the Apocrypha, Luther did not ‘remove them’ as much as you would like to think he did. Rather, he took the exact same stance as many of the early church fathers. He thought that they were useful to read, but not to be held at the same authority of Scripture. That is why he placed them at the back.

Whoa, Nellie. Luther removed a total of 11 books – four from the NT and 7 plus parts of Esther and Daniel from the OT. He put all of them in an appendix at the back of his German translation.

Continued

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2 of 5 - Answer to LutheranStudent

LutheranStudent wrote: Jerome, translator of the Vulgate (your official Bible for thousands of years), took this same view.

Before the Church decided the question, Jerome and anyone else was free to state their opinion. Once the decision was made, Jerome and others accepted it. Roma locuta est, causa finita est (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.)

OT Jews and early NT Jews took the same view. (Many complete Hebrew copies of the OT do not include the Apocrypha.)

The so-called “Apocrypha” (erroneous Protestant terminololgy) were part of the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint, which the Church inherited from Jesus and the Apostles. The Jews, who cursed Jesus and the writings about Him, have no authority to determine Christian Scriptures.

Pope Gregory the Great held the same view as Luther. As did Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s greatest opponent in the Reformation. Yes, even Augustine, after vehemently supporting the Apocrypha as cannonical, changed his view.

Cite your source(s), please. I want to read their own words, not what someone else said they said.

Continued

 

[Katholikos]

Part 3 - Answer to LutheranStudent

Here’s the way it went down:

The Council of Rome was the first to canonize the OT and NT in A.D. 382, under the direction of Pope Damasus I. Pope Damasus immediately thereafter asked Jerome to make a new Latin translation (an “Old Latin” translation. as well as translations into Syriac and Coptic, had already been made in the second century). Jerome’s work, published in 405, is known as the Vulgate (meaning common language). It remains the official Bible of the Catholic Church to this very day. The Vulgate contains the writings canonized at the Council of Rome, over which Pope Damasus, Jerome’s boss, presided.

QUOTE

**"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

"The order of the Old Testament begins here**: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave [Joshua] one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books *, Paralipomenon two books *, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book [Song of Songs], likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book [aka Sirach].

Likewise the order of the Prophets**. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book [Hosea], Micheas [Micah] one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book [Obadiah], Jonas one book [Jonah], Nahum one book, Habacue one book [Habakkuk], Sophonias one book [Zephaniah], Aggeus one book [Haggai], Zacharias one book [Zechariah], Malachias one book [Malachi].

[Baruch isn’t mentioned because it was originally included in Jeremiah.]

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book [Tobit], Esdras two books [Ezra, Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books [Maccabees].

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book.

Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle, two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.

The canon of the New Testament ends here.
** END QUOTE**

Quoted from the Enchiridion Symbolorum – The Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Henry Denzinger, Thirtieth Edition, translated by Roy J. Deferrari, Marian House, Powers Lake, ND, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis and London, 1957

[Hebrew names in brackets were added by Jay Damien.]

The Council of Rome (382) was followed by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), which all named the same canon of Scripture. Carthage sent its decrees to Rome for confirmation. Pope Innocent I named the same list of Scriptures in A.D. 405 (the same year the Vulgate was published).

---

Continued

---

---

 

[Katholikos]

Part 4 - Answer to LutheranStudent

LutheranStudent wrote: I maintain that there was a faithful remnant of the Catholic church that lived by the principle of Sola Fide throughout her history.

During the winter months of 1512 to 1513, when he was reading the Epistle to the Romans, the great enlightenment of Sola Fide came to Luther. It was a completely novel doctrine, new to him and new to the world. The Apostles did not teach it; consequently, the Catholic Church has never taught it. I maintain that little green men live on the moon.

I do not doubt that when I get to heaven, I will be standing among many Catholics. But more importantly, I will be standing among all (c)atholics, myself being one of them

Protestants seem to suffer from Catholic envy. They’re always claiming to be “catholic” when the only universal institution on earth is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no unity, no universality of belief or belonging among them.

P.S.- All that being said, I think it is my turn to issue the challenge. I think that it is high time that you used my church fathers to prove that the apostolic succesion is a concept of the true Christian faith. Maybe you’ve heard of my church fathers: (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, etc.)

Yes, Apostolic Succession is a concept of the true Christian Faith. It is Catholic Doctrine. To whom are you going to prove this to – other Protestants?

“It is by grace you have been saved, through faith. This is not of yourselves - it is a gift of God.” Apostle Paul

Yes, we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by Faith Alone. Sola Fide is unscriptural and untrue.

Nice to chat with you. JMJ Jay (Katholikos)

(Part 2 says 2 of 5. Sorry. There are only 4 parts. The system would not allow me to edit.)

(Also, one of your quotes in that post wasn’t properly marked – I forgot the /quote. Hope you can read it.)

 

[Traditional_Ang]

LutheranStudent:

Dear John Ennis ~
Thank you for your reply!
This is now my fourth posting and I have developed a wonderful affection for this forum. It encourages me to dig into the Scriptures for both our benefits, and for God’s glory!

Let me also apologize for the mis-reference I had in an earlier reply:
I refered to 2 Tim 3:18, but I meant 2 Tim 3:16. I will edit that mis-reference out if I am able.

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

You commented that, “Paul was writing (since the NT cannon hadn;t been totally written, much less assembled) about the Old Testament to Timothy.”

I disagree. Yes, Paul was indeed referring to the OT, but not only to the OT. Just as Isaiah lived thousands of years before Christ and said, “Surely he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities,” so also Paul says, “All Scripture is God-breathed,” many years before Scripture had taken it’s definite form. How is he able to do this? Simply because he was writing through inspiration. Rather, he was the tool through which God wrote 2 Timothy.

As far as your 2nd point, I maintain that there were indeed Roman Catholics in the early church who interpreted the gospel much this way. The earlier the Catholic church would go back into it’s history, the more you would find it’s doctrines and interpretations in agreement with the Confessional Lutherans of today. St. Augustine, for instance, was one of Luther’s heroes.

As to your question of how we know what true Scripture is, here is what I believe:

The New Testament books are surely true and inspired because they were all written by people who had been given a direct call from Jesus Christ. Christ, the second person of the Trinity, from all eternity, fulfilled all the prophecies of the OT, therefore proving (and preaching) himself to be the Messiah, the “Anointed One”, the promised one of ages who paid for the sins of the world.

God had maintained throughout the OT that the OT was true. Now he gave us 27 more books through his servants who, with the exception of Paul, were disciples of Christ while he was in body on earth. (Paul recieved his call from Christ after the Acension and at his conversion.)

These books we know are true because, (altough being written at different times and by different people,) they are in complete agreement with themselves and with the OT. They are also sufficient for our interpretation and application today…

They also hold stern warnings for anyone who would add or subtract from what they say: Revelation 22:18, Galations 3:15,

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! " Galations 1:18

God’s Blessings!
~Lutheran Student

Lutheran, the plain meaning of the passage you cited in II Tim. is “All Scripture”, and is NOT “ONLY Scripture”.

Anyway, the church that Timothy led were CONVERTED Diaspora Jews and would have been recipients of the ALEXANDRIAN CANON of the O.T., which would have had books in it that you do not accept, but that Catholics and Orthodox do accept.

Are you saying that they were using the wrong set of books, or are you?

Regarding the different Gospel - The Universal Church had the responsibility to ascertain what was scriptural and what wasn’t, and did so some 300 years after the passage in question WAS WRITTEN.

What were they to do in the interum since you’re claiming that everything functions by “Solo Scriptura”?

And, with that doctrine in mind, how do you derive the doctirnes such as Christ’s Consubstantiality to the Father or the Trinity without Recourse to the Creeds created by that same Universal Church in Council?

The Universal Church, which was responsible for maintaining the Gospel, the Creeds, and all of the other part of our Faith managed to stay whole and entire with the exception of one rather nasty schism for 1400 years. That was under Scripture + Tradition under the Teaching Authority of the Church given and GUARANTEED by the Holy Spirit.

Since then, under “SOLO SCRIPTURA”, you’ve managed to form some 400 PROTESTANT denominations of various types and flavors, and that’s not including those who deny the Divinity and Resurection of Jesus Christ:

dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Christianity/Denominations_and_Sects/

How is that preserving the Gospel given to you in unity and love?

In Christ, Michael

 

[LutheranStudent]

For the sake of organization, I will post my responses in a quote (colored) and answer format, without adressing the individual people who posted.

Do Lutherans stand for receiving communion?

---

This is something that differs from congregation to congregation, as it is best percieved by the members of that congregation. Christ did not command that we stand or kneel when recieving Holy Communion, only human custom and history have made this distinction. All Christ asks when we take Communion is that we do it in a worthy manner, that is with respect and believing hearts. (1 Corinthians 11:27,28)

At my little congregation of Zum Kripplein Christi, we recieve Communion standing up. When I am here at school, however, the members of St. John’s have decided that they prefer to kneel. Both congregations are members of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Either way is a fine way of showing reverence to God.

James flatly contradicts Luther’s doctrine of Sola Fide: James 2:24: See how man is justified by works and not by faith alone. No wonder Luther ditched it.

Katholikos quoted me as saying:
“It is by grace you have been saved, through faith. This is not of yourselves - it is a gift of God.” Apostle Paul

For the sake of a promise to Diana, Katholikos, I shall try not to employ sarcasm. A friend of mine likes to point out that by quoting Scripture out of context, Psalm 14:1 says, “there is no God.”
How tricky of you to remove half of what the Apostle Paul said:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8,9

Also, I think you find that if you read the entirety of James 2, you find that what James was really trying to point out was that faith without works is dead. Certainly it is a prevalent theme throughout Scripture, that men who place their faith in God will bear much fruit.
The question is, though, whether or not that God looks at that fruit for our salvation. The answer of course is, NO. I will be posting part of a response I wrote in another forum explaining the principles of grace, faith and works that are laid down in Scripture. I would strongly advise you to look up the passages!

It’s one in the morning, I’m going to sleep. I’ll be back tomorrow.

~Nathan

 

[LutheranStudent]

I originally wrote this for a different forum:

Secondly, I think that if you do your studying you will find that Luther was absolutely correct in his assessment of Grace and Faith and Works. Indeed, they aren’t HIS ideas - they come from the Bible. I don’t know what circle you come from, so I will try to cover all the bases:
Firstly, Lutherans accept The Bible as the ONLY inerrant authority: 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed…”
Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”
If you believe in the writings of Popes and Councils as being inerrant, I am sorry, because you are going to run into alot of contradictions. In fact, even Lutherans do not believe Luther to be inerrant. He was simply a man who taught from the Bible, able as any of us to make mistakes.
Secondly, and most importantly, Lutherans hold that good works are NOT NECESSARY to get to heaven. ONLY FAITH is NECESSARY. How people can still miss this is beyond me, since it is one of the most prevalent themes in the whole Bible. For a FEW glances, check these out:
Galatians 3:1-14
Romans 4:13-25
Acts 15:7-10
Romans 5:16-21
EPHESIANS 2:8
You see, heaven is not something that is WON. Indeed, it cannot be won, because who can keep the whole law perfectly? Nobody! For, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)
When Lutherans refer to GRACE, they are referring to the “unconditional love” that God showed us. God’s GRACE is the fact that he sent his Son, Jesus Christ, live a perfect life for us, die the perfect death and rise again on the third day. He did all this ONLY because HE LOVES US, and wants us all to go to heaven. The Lord “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” I Tim 2:4 You see, Christ served as our substitute by doing for us what we could never do: fulfilling the law. The payment is made! The victory is already won! The Law is fulfilled! THAT is God’s grace.
FAITH, on the other hand, is our acceptance of that truth; our acceptance of God’s grace. If we believe that Christ covered all our sins, then HIS victory is OURS! “Thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 15:57
Now, WORKS are what come as a result of faith. As the listed verses above make clear, WORKS DO NOT CREATE FAITH. Faith, rather, leads into works. That can be proven by reading James 2, and also read Romans 5:21 through Romans 6.
So why would Christians do good works? To EARN HEAVEN? NO! NO! NO! Simply out of THANKFULNESS that HEAVEN HAS BEEN EARNED! Satan would have you try to heaven, because he knows you cannot do it. God has given freely, because he LOVES YOU, and wants to have a personal relationship with you. The strongest argument, I think, that goes against “works righteousness” is the account of the thief on the cross next to Jesus.
The man realized that Jesus had done nothing to deserve the suffering He was going through (because He was suffering for our wrongdoings). He also recognized his own sins and guilt. He repented of them. He was sorry for them. (Another VITAL part of faith.) As a result, Jesus promised him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” What good works did the man ever do? What good works earned him Heaven? Presumably NONE, because we know he was not a man of great personal sanctification.
Please, do not continue to pervert the Lord’s Gospel by making it a human act. Sinners need trust only in God, because, if we trust ourselves failure is inevitable. Left alone, we will fall short.
“Thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord, Jesus Christ” “Go now, and leave your life of sin.” John 8:11

 

[LutheranStudent]

Sorry, I would simpy like to quickly make something clear that, upon reading, I may have excluded from the last post. It should not be a major point of debate, because I believe it is also a Catholic doctrine. That is, we do not bring ourselves to faith. It is soley the work of the Holy Spirit, by no will of our own. I believe this to be a non-issue, if it is otherwise let me know, I will cite Scripture.
~Nathan

 

[Contarini]

Katholikos:

If that’s not rejection of the writings from the canon, pray tell, what is it? True and certain chief books are all that’s in the canon. There are no “second class” Scriptures.

Perhaps not in your view, perhaps not in the view of the Catholic Church (since Trent). But in Luther’s view there were, and as Lutheran Student points out there were plenty of people in the previous tradition to support him on this one.

I would, however, like to see Student’s evidence that Augustine changed his view. I’m pretty sure that he didn’t.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[DianJo]

LutheranStudent:

Secondly, and most importantly, Lutherans hold that good works are NOT NECESSARY to get to heaven. ONLY FAITH is NECESSARY. How people can still miss this is beyond me, since it is one of the most prevalent themes in the whole Bible. For a FEW glances, check these out:
Galatians 3:1-14
Romans 4:13-25
Acts 15:7-10
Romans 5:16-21
EPHESIANS 2:8
You see, heaven is not something that is WON. Indeed, it cannot be won, because who can keep the whole law perfectly? Nobody! For, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)
The best explanation I’ve seen on this is from ***
[www.scripturecatholic.com](http://www.scripturecatholic.com/). Here is some of it: ***

---

The phrase"faith alone" only occurs once in the Bible. “Man is justified by works and NOT faith alone.” No where in Scripture does it say that man is justified or saved by “faith alone.” To the contrary, man is not justified by faith alone. In Catholic theology, a man is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God’s divine grace. Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification (Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9). Also the work “justified” (dikaiow) is the same word Paul uses for justification in Rom. 4:3 in regard to Abraham - so Protestants cannot argue James is not referring to “justification” in James 2:24 unless they argue Paul wasn’t in Rom. 4:3 either.

---

You cite Eph. 2:8. I’ll cite Eph. 2: 8 and 9. Paul teaches that faith in the root of justification and that faith excludes “works of the law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This must be true because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not grace. But faith alone does not justify.

---

Heb. 11:6 - Faith is indeed the minimum requirement without which we cannot please God. This is just the beginning of the process leading toward justification.Faith alone does not justify a person. This gratuitous gift of faith from God also indicates the grace of hope and love the moment the person is justified.

---

Gal. 5:6 - The faith that justifies us is “faith working through love,” not faith alone. Faith and love (manifested by works) are always connected. Faith (a process of thought) and love (an action) are never separated in the Scriptures - see Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 3:6, 12-13, 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:4-5, 19. All faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action which is necessary to perfect our faith.

---

James 1:22-25 - It’s the doers who are justified, not the hearers. Justification is based on what we do, which menas “works.” Notice that there is nothing about “false faith.” The hearers may have faith but they need to accompany their faith by works or they will not be justified. See Rom. 2-13.

---

James 2:17, 26 - James clearly teaches that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Works are a couse, not just an effect of our justiication because good works achieve and increase our justification before God. Scripture says nothing about “saving faith.” Protestants cannot show us from Scripture that “works” qualify the “faith” into “saving faith.” Instead, Scriptures teach that justification is achieved only when “faith and works” acts together. Scripture puts no qualifier on faith. Scripture also nevers says that faith “leads to works.” Faith is faith and works are works (James 2:18). They are distinct (mind and action) and yet must act together in order to receive God’s unmerited gift of justification.

---

Continued

---

---

 

[DianJo]

Continued from previous post:

James 2:20 - Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?

James 2:22 - Faith is active with works and is completed by works. It does not stand alone. Faith needs works to affect our justification.

James 4:17 - James writes that the failure to do works is a sin! So works are absolutely necessary.

James 2:15-17 - Examples of the “works” are the corporal works of mercy (giving food and shelter to those in need).

James 1:27 - Another example of “works” is visiting orphans and widows in their afflication. Otherwise, if they do not perform these good works, their religion is in vain.

James 2:8 - to avoid the truth of the Catholic position that we are justified by both faith and works, Protestants argue the justification that James is referring to in James 2 is “before men” and not “before God.” Scripture proves otherwise.

James 2:14 - James asks, “Can faith save him?” Salvation comes from God. This proves the justification James is referring to is before God, not men.

James 2:19 - James reminds us that even demons believe and tremble. This refers to our relationship with God, not with men. Thus, our justification that requires works and not faith alone relates to our status before God, not men.

James 2:21 - James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham’s justification refers to his position before God, not men.

Acts 10:35 - Peter teaches that anyone who fears the Lord AND does what is right is acceptable to Him. It is both fear and works, not fear alone.

Romans 2:13 - For it is the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Paul is referring to the “law of Christ” in Gal. 6:2, not “works of the law” in Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; and Eph. 2:8-9. The “law of Christ” is faith in Christ and works based on grace (God owes us nothing) and “works of the law” mean no faith in Christ and legal works based on debt (God owes us something).
"Works of the law" refer to the law of Moses or any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul’s mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the “works of the law.” James is referring to “good works” (i.e., clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to gives us payment.

Rom. 4:5-6 - To him who does not work but believes, his faith is accounted to him as righteousness, like David, who was righteous apart from works. Here Paul is emphasizing that works must be done in faith not outside of faith. If they are done outside of faith, we are in a system of debt (God owes us). If they are done in faith (as James requires), we are in a system of grace (God rewards us). Paul accepts the works performed under God’s forebearance (grace) in Rom. 2:7, 10, 13 (see Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-17; and 2 Cor. 5:10) which lead to justification and eternal life. These verses have nothing to do with “faith alone”.

Rom. 6:16 - Obedience leads to righteousness. Obedience is a good “work” and an act of the will which leads to righteousness before God.

I could go on - but this is really more than enough, don’t you think?

 

[LutheranStudent]

Sorry I’m late~! I decided I needed a vacation today to catch up on some homework and the like that I had been losing grip on since I joined this great discussion. When this weekend rolls around I plan on going back and answering some of the questions I’ve left unanswered. As for now the only one I have time for is Edwin:

Perhaps not in your view, perhaps not in the view of the Catholic Church (since Trent). But in Luther’s view there were, and as Lutheran Student points out there were plenty of people in the previous tradition to support him on this one.

Thank you, Edwin. It’s comforting to know that people are researching and studying along with me!

I would, however, like to see Student’s evidence that Augustine changed his view. I’m pretty sure that he didn’t.

As far as this one goes, I kindof made a judgement it myself. I ran into a number of different Catholic sources that said he was rooting for the Apocrypha. I ran into several others that said he originally rooted for the Apocrypha, but changed his mind. Here is a quote from Augustine I found on
wls.wels.net/Publications/Theologia/vol2no2/WrightELCA/WrightELCA.htm

“The whole canon of Scriptures on which we say that this consideration of the steps of knowledge should depend is contained in the following books: the five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua, one of Judges…Ruth… the four books of Kings and two of Paralipomenon [1&2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles]…Job, …Esther, … the Psalms of David, and the three books of Solomon: Proverbs, the Canticles of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes… twelve single books of Prophets… Osea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Zephanias, Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias. Then there are four books of four major Prophets: Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel… The New Testament contains the four evangelical books, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James; a book of the Acts of the Apostles, and a book of the Apocalypse of John.”[8]
[8] Saint Augustine, “On Christian Doctrine” (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1958) 41-42.

 

[random_element]

Lutheran Student, it’s interesting watching you respond to everyone on this post. Your initial explaination on your first post is really all we needed to hear. Your joyful exclaimation of Sola Scriptura as the truth says it is all.

I find it hard to belief that you could sit there and call Mormons and the JW's not Christian - after all they follow Sola Scriptura too!! Since You Believe that Scripture is self interpreting (one of the "pillars" to believing on Sola Scripture.) How can you contest their claim (or anyone else's) to be Christian. After all it is their Interpretation. The beauty of protestantism is that truth can be shaded in so many colors that you can believe in as you see fit.
I have trouble believing you actually are debating because you have thrown in snide remarks (always unsubstatiated until someone brings it up to you and then you reply with half quotes of Church Fathers, or quotes from Scripture.) in almost every reply. 
 Since you believe in Sola Scriptura I can ignore every one of your Scripture Quotes because they are meaningless in a debate because of the "Magic" of Sola Scriptura -I can believe as I see fit and you can believe that you interpretation is correct  "I am right and you are right" - You can't question the Holy Spirit, after all I pray and and ask for guidance reading Scripture, and I get a "burning In my bosom" when I read.

The beauty of Sola Scriptura and the combination of Sola Fide is that I could be kill a thousand people, commit a thousand Adulteries, and because I am Saved (I declared it) and believe that Scripture says I am saved because of my interpretation (with the Holy Spirit Guiding me.)

 

[Des]

I often wonder why protestants, who say they have the spirit and it is He who teaches them, go to Bible Study class. Why do they need to learn from others what the Bible teaches if in fact it is so easily understood?

 

[Little_Mary]

Des:

I often wonder why protestants, who say they have the spirit and it is He who teaches them, go to Bible Study class. Why do they need to learn from others what the Bible teaches if in fact it is so easily understood?

I’ll take that a bit further…Why do they have seminaries? Why do they have preachers at all? Why not just open the bible and have an hour of silence? Can the preachers and seminaries teach them something that the Holy Spirit can’t???

If you want, go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and order two tapes: Sola Scriptura and One Church. They touch on this question.

 

[Katholikos]

To LutheranStudent:

Saint Augustine’s “On Christian Doctrine” that you presented as “proof” that he had “changed his mind” about supporting the original canon of Scriptures conveniently omits several books. Are the omissions yours or your sources? Here’s what the saint really wrote.

QUOTE 13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:–Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles – these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther,and Judith, and the** two books of Maccabees,** and the two of Ezra,(1) which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach.(2) Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:–Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament(3) is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:–Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul–one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John. END QUOTE (On Christian Doctrine, Saint Augustine)

---

***Baruch *was originally part of Jeremiah and is not listed separately here. **

This translation is from the University of Pennsylvania:

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/ddc2.html

 

[Katholikos]

To: LutheranStudent

QUOTE

---

**ST. AUGUSTINE (390 A.D.) **
St. Augustine’s New Testament was the same as ours today. Now we begin to see conformity [in the canon]. The influence of St. Augustine in establishing the Bible was greater probably than any other Father or than any council. People now attribute to God what was really the work of one man. While councils decided upon the canon, and their decision became embodied sentiment of the entire church, the expression was really that of but one man, the leader in the council, and when doubts arose as to the authority of a book, scholarship was not involved to decide it, for the members possessed almost none. They simply asked: “What did the Early Fathers say of it?” Prof. Davidson says:

"In relation to the New Testament, the synods which drew up lists of the sacred books show the opinion of some leading Father like Augustine, along with what custom had sanctioned. In this department no member of the synod exercised his critical faculty; a number together would decide such questions summarily. Bishops proceeded in the track of tradition or authority" (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 172).

In 393 A.D. a council met in Hippo, in Africa, discussed the canon, and adopted St. Augustine’s list. St. Augustine himself was present, and was the ruling spirit.

[Note: Hippo adopted the same list canonized by the Council of Rome in 382, Pope Damusus I presiding.]

---

In 397 A.D. was held the third council of Carthage. St. Augustine was again present. It adopted a decree as follows:

"It was also determined that besides the canonical scriptures, nothing be read in the church under the title of Divine Scriptures. The Canonical scriptures are these:"
Then follow the names of the books of the Bible as we have them now, except some variations in the order. END QUOTE

geocities.com/faithofyeshua/4th_century.htmQ

**[Note: Carthage, like Hippo, where St. Augustine was bishop, affirmed the canon adopted at the Council of Rome in 382 and sent its decrees to Rome for **confirmation. A letter of Pope Innocent I in 405 listed the same canon of Scriptures as contained in the decrees of the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and as contained in the Vulgate edition of the Bible, based on the Council of Rome, which was also published in 405.]

JMJ Jay**

 

[Little_Mary]

You go, Kat!!