A
awantz
Guest
You are both wrong. Both Revelation and James sit quite well with Protestants. I don’t know any Protestant who would want to get rid of either one of these books.
- Status
C
CatholicGal1977
Guest
That’s too bad that they have to hate us that much just as it is that their websites expound that about us. I think they seem to forget at times that without us there would be no Protestants. After all, we gave birth to them.
C
CatholicGal1977
Guest
Martin Luther did and I’m willing to bet Calvin wanted to as well.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
That true.
Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[3] He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years.
C
CatholicGal1977
Guest
I don’t care if Martin Luther’s views on certain books changed later. In the beginnng, he had a lot of issues with certain books like revelation and James because it talks about faith AND works being necessary and how the book of life is opened in the end and how we’re judged by what we did or didn’t do according to our deeds as what was written in the scrolls. He was very adament that Revelation and James be left out in the beginning. Yes, he didn’t remove them but only because other Protestants fought him on leaving them in and won.
The fact still stands that Martin Luther wanted those book removed from the Bible altogether.
Funny, the man still believed in venerating the Blessed Mother Mary the way he did YET he wanted to cut certain books out of the Bible for talking about the necessity of faith AND works.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
They are like caferia catholics who reject most of the teachings of the Catholic Church but wish to remain Catholic,
Sometimes, I called Caferia Catholics, pseudo-Protestants…
C
colliric
Guest
Yes that was my point. This so called “revolutionary” wanted to craft his own Canon and even cut out books from the NT too, and his version of “the Old Testament” remains the one used by protestants today.
We can’t accept his teaching on the Old Testament, that it should be the “closed hebrew canon” as opposed to the “open Greek canon”(with the exception of the books which were written after Christ, or fictional) and it’s simply because the Apostles quote from the Greek version, and allude to the deutrocanon books in several passages.
A
awantz
Guest
That doesn’t mean that all Protestants feel that way today. Not all Protestants believe the same thing as Martin Luther. Who says we even like him?
A
awantz
Guest
Well, you are the first Catholic to say I am not Protestant and I have had many Catholics who call me Protestant, that is why I have been calling myself Protestant. There are a couple of reasons why I call myself non-denominational.
C
colliric
Guest
He started the movement of protestantism, he was the father you could say. Many of his ideas are still adopted and in use in many protestant churches not the least of which includes his OT bible canon.
You might not like him, but he founded your movement.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
I’m just kinda passing through here on this Saturday afternoon and your post caught my eye. You state that you are non-deneominational and that you have been called a Protestant. Fair enough.
Just from history alone - not scripture…there was one Church until about 1054 AD…one holy catholic and apostolic church…“unam, sanctam,catholicam et apostolicam iglesiam” as was written. In 1054 there was the Great Schism which separated the Eastern and Western churches into the two lungs of the Church as John Paul II stated.
In 1517 Martin Luther started a whole chain of events which has had repercussions down through the ages.
You state that you do not consider yourself a Protestant, OK. From a purely historical point of view, no theology, could you tell me when and how non-denominational Christianity was established and give me its history through the last 2,000 years? Strictly from history…I need to understand how non-denominational Christians have existed outside of the realm of history for the last 2,000 years.
Thanks.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
You would be on very shaky ground to associate Methodists, Anglicans/Episcopalians with Martin Luther and John Calvin. Totally different lineages. Methodists and Anglicans have a sacramental theology that runs counter to Calvinist and Zwinglian ideas about the sacraments, especially when it comes to Real Presence.
CatholicGal1977 said:
If memory serves, I believe that John Chrysostom and other fourth c. bishops also argued against including John’s Revelation in the NT canon because of the difficulties involved in interpreting the apocolyptic literary devices it employed and thus had the potential to be abused. They didn’t win their argument, but the fact remains that they wanted the book removed from the Bible altogether. Does that mean that St. Chrystostom was a protester? Hardly.
You would lose that bet. Calvin cited in several places in his writings the authenticity of Revelation. It is true that he didn’t write a commentary on it or the pastoral epistles… but that doesn’t prove he didn’t think the books were canonical.
See above about Chrystostom. I think this borders on bigotry.
These inaccurate historical facts just add to the chasm between Protestants and Catholics that both sides manage to erect. I suspect Christ grieves over such.
O+
- Status