Evangelicals Will Be Extinct Within Ten Years

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneTrueCathApos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” :

"Old Testament Apocrypha. In its final quasi-technical meaning of ‘noncanonical,’ in common use since the Reformation, the term specifically refers to the fourteen books written after the OT canon was closed and which, being the least remote from the canonical books, laid strongest claim to canonicity. The OT apocryphal books…have been rejected as inspired for the following reasons:

"1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
"2. They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices…at variance with inspired Scripture.
"3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
"4. They lack the distinctive elements that give genuine Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.

“New Testament Apocrypha. The apocryphal books of the NT, unlike those of the OT, have never claimed the faith of the Christian church, except in a few isolated instances. There are more than one hundred of them, and it is doubtful whether one of them appeared before the second century of our era. Most of them portray a much later date. They are valuable as an indication of the growth of thought and the rise of heresy in the age just subsequent to that of the apostles. None of them ever received the sanction of any ecclesiastical council” (1988, “Apocrypha”).

Jesus said “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), which means that genuine Scripture consistently agrees with itself throughout. Since these books are filled with inaccuracies and disagree with the plain teachings of the Bible, they could not be a part of God’s Word.

Jesus also affirmed the three sections of the Hebrew Scriptures preserved and accepted by the Jews. He said, “All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44). The apostle Paul explained that God committed to the Jews “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). The Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, and so neither did the Church.

I’ll have to check y’all tomorrow. Good night, All!
 
Personally, I’m glad I have no sacraments to comply to. Just living in the Spirit is hard enough without a bunch of laws added in.]/quote]

Such a statement reveals an ignorance and inexperience with grace. The sacraments are a means by which we live by the Spirit!

I wonder, when Jesus applied mud to the blind man’s eyes, were His instructions to go wash in the pool “a bunch of laws added in”? Would the man have been healed had He disobeyed?
always_gr8ful;5119186:
Just food for thought - if the sacraments weren’t necessary for your salvation, would you still do them as righteously?
This is one of the main differences between receiving the Teaching of the Apostles and gleaning from the scriptures. We do not attempt to reduce salvation to a readers digest version. What I see consistently in your posts is what can be cut away from salvation. The Apostles did not do this minimizing thing.

Matt 28:18-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

The disciples trained by the Apostles accepted “all that (He) commanded”.

Acts 2:41-42
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The converts did not consider themselves as having “arrived” at salvation after they were baptized. They devoted themselves the the Teaching. What the Apostles taught them was the Catholic way of life.
 
I don’t know why you came to this forum, Saved. Maybe you are just here to help gr8ful. However, if you wish to remain here, I strongly suggest that you read the forum rules and abide by them. As I posted above, you can disagree with the Catholic faith if you want, but you must respect our faith. This is a Catholic site. If you wish to make comments of this kide, then you will have to put up your own anti-Catholic website, as they are not welcome here. :dts:
I can only respect the faith which is in Christ Jesus, not a protestant or catholic religion, it is not that i have anything against catholics it’s just the religious system they are caught up in that they need saved from.

Nothing i post is catholic in nature, if it was i would worship mary or the pope or peter or trust in man made ordinances.
 
Any, I dunno, Evidence for that?
Now that was just freaky!
From the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”

Now, you gotta admit that was some coincidence!
Now I’m really going to bed. Nite all!
 
Well, maybe not as freaky as I thought - He’s quoting from “Unger’s Bible Dictionary” for the top half of that. Still, that was pretty wild.
 
The Lord Jesus does not accept the Apocrypha either because it goes against his true Word and his teaching’s. satan would like people not to depend on the Lord Jesus Christ and his cross work alone and he uses false scriptures which go completely against the true Word of God like the Apocrypha to blind/darken those who dont compare scripture with scripture and do not listen to the Holy Spirit who need to realise the Apocrypha is false scripture.
You should start a new thread on this, Saved. Or better, search canon of scripture and pick a thread already in progress. We get this misinformation a lot around here. 😉

The books the Reformers removed from the Bible are called Deuterocanonicals. They were never Apocrypha. We know that Jesus and the Apostles used them by looking at the quotes in the NT. The best testimony to the authenticity is the presence of Jesus at the temple during the festival of lights. If this were not from God, He would not have participated. You can read about it in the books of Maccabees.

I do agree, though, these books shed important light on the gospel message. If they are to be received as scripture, they are significant in debunking many of the heresies of the Reformation. I am sure that is why Luther wanted to take them out.
From the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” :

"Old Testament Apocrypha. In its final quasi-technical meaning of ‘noncanonical,’ in common use since the Reformation, the term specifically refers to the fourteen books written after the OT canon was closed and which, being the least remote from the canonical books, laid strongest claim to canonicity. The OT apocryphal books…have been rejected as inspired for the following reasons:

"1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
"2. They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices…at variance with inspired Scripture.
"3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
"4. They lack the distinctive elements that give genuine Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.

“New Testament Apocrypha. The apocryphal books of the NT, unlike those of the OT, have never claimed the faith of the Christian church, except in a few isolated instances. There are more than one hundred of them, and it is doubtful whether one of them appeared before the second century of our era. Most of them portray a much later date. They are valuable as an indication of the growth of thought and the rise of heresy in the age just subsequent to that of the apostles. None of them ever received the sanction of any ecclesiastical council” (1988, “Apocrypha”).

Jesus said “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), which means that genuine Scripture consistently agrees with itself throughout. Since these books are filled with inaccuracies and disagree with the plain teachings of the Bible, they could not be a part of God’s Word.

Jesus also affirmed the three sections of the Hebrew Scriptures preserved and accepted by the Jews. He said, “All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44). The apostle Paul explained that God committed to the Jews “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). The Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, and so neither did the Church.
The information you have posted here is full of inaccuracies and bias. However, I think it begs for a new thread. As it relates to the OP, however, it is this kind of inventive drivel that is referenced by the OP that will bring the demise of the denominations. Teaching errors such as this can only result in death.

I think if you are really interested in learning the history of the Christian Church, you will be quite enriched. the Church did not start during the Reformation, as this excerpt seems to imply.
 
I can only respect the faith which is in Christ Jesus, not a protestant or catholic religion, it is not that i have anything against catholics it’s just the religious system they are caught up in that they need saved from.

Nothing i post is catholic in nature, if it was i would worship mary or the pope or peter or trust in man made ordinances.
We worship noe of those things. You have revealed your abject ignorance of the True Church.
 
Christus, based on the two posts of Saved43 I saw, this is a very bigoted statement. You have apologized once, but when you continue personal attacks and intolerance toward other’s beliefs, your sincerity is in question and you are not reflecting well your Church. Please count to 3 before posting, and better yet, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you.
We worship noe of those things. You have revealed your abject ignorance of the True Church.
I find it funny that he was given the forum rules and then openly has refused to follow them.
 
Humm… Peter. “The Rock”. The rock would be the foundation, right? And Jesus is JUST (forgive me Lord) the Cornerstone? Seems kind of backward to me. Unless, of course, this text has been given WAY more authority than it deserves.

Is that what it comes down to then? Jesus said he would build His church though Peter? But Peter was Jewish. :confused:
Holy Smokes. She said something that we can all I believe agree with. Peter WAS Jewish. So it looks like Peter became a Christian huh, because in those days they had a temple, that of course Jesus tore down and built up in 3 days. It became the Church.
 
By the way always you must not know what the cornerstone means do you? Or you would never even make such a comment!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top