Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[SteveVH]

Steve, I mean this with all respect, since I can tell from having read a few of your posts on various subjects around here that you are a learned individual…but how many times does it have to be said that Luther didn’t toss them out, but translated and included them in Die Bibel before anyone acknowledges the fact of the matter? They are still in that translation!

Yes, I am aware that Luther included the Septuagint in his first translation, but are you really trying to tell me that Luther did not later reject the “seven books” and then omit them later? I may be way off here, but please then explain to me just who tossed the books and why they no longer appear in the majority of Protestant Bibles?

Thanks.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, I am aware that Luther included the Septuagint in his first translation, but are you really trying to tell me that Luther did not later reject the “seven books” and then omit them later? I may be way off here, but please then explain to me just who tossed the books and why they no longer appear in the majority of Protestant Bibles?

Thanks.

Because they go against his teaching’s

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Yes, I am aware that Luther included the Septuagint in his first translation, but are you really trying to tell me that Luther did not later reject the “seven books” and then omit them later? I may be way off here, but please then explain to me just who tossed the books and why they no longer appear in the majority of Protestant Bibles?

Thanks.

Luther did not omit any of the seven books. Luther himself did one translation of the Greek Septuagint into the German language; Die Bibel. That translation is still the translation used by Lutherans in German speaking countries. Ergo, it still contains the deuterocanonicals. Luther disputed them, yes, like many theologians before him. However, as a matter of doctrine, Luther’s opinion on the disputed books holds no dogmatic weight within the Lutheran church. There are many Lutherans, myself included, who view the DC books as inspired Scripture, but due to their disputed status, do not draw on them for doctrine directly.

As for being removed altogether, this was a result of English translations eventually removing them, starting with the KJV.

 

[JonNC]

I wasn’t talking about the deutrocanon. We were talking about how he didn’t agree that Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were canonical, so he placed them at the end. He would’ve removed entirely them if not for pressure from his followers.

Based on Eusebius and many others, these too were disputed. There’s a difference between wanting them removed from the canon, and questioning them.

Jon

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Because they go against his teaching’s

This also is a myth. I assume you’re referring to the interpretation of 2 Maccabees as teaching purgatory (even though the description of the events with Judas and the slain soldiers in 2 Macc bears no resemblance to what the Church teaches about purgatory…but that’s neither here nor there…).

The historical fact, however, is that when Luther first publicaly disputed 2 Macc as not being a part of the canon of Scripture, he still ardently believed in purgatory. It’s best to go by his actual reasons for disputing 2 Macc, which are quite available on the internet.

 

[JonNC]

Luther did not omit any of the seven books. Luther himself did one translation of the Greek Septuagint into the German language; Die Bibel. That translation is still the translation used by Lutherans in German speaking countries. Ergo, it still contains the deuterocanonicals. Luther disputed them, yes, like many theologians before him. However, as a matter of doctrine, Luther’s opinion on the disputed books holds no dogmatic weight within the Lutheran church. There are many Lutherans, myself included, who view the DC books as inspired Scripture, but due to their disputed status, do not draw on them for doctrine directly.

As for being removed altogether, this was a result of English translations eventually removing them, starting with the KJV.

And not even the first KJV, but later.

Iggy, I have been talking about this here for a long time, but the misconception continues. I, like you, consider the DC’s and the of course the Antilagomena as scripture, and canon.
Andyou express well the Lutheran approach to both. No where in the confessions are either denied as canon.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This also is a myth. I assume you’re referring to the interpretation of 2 Maccabees as teaching purgatory (even though the description of the events with Judas and the slain soldiers in 2 Macc bears no resemblance to what the Church teaches about purgatory…but that’s neither here nor there…).

The historical fact, however, is that when Luther first publicaly disputed 2 Macc as not being a part of the canon of Scripture, he still ardently believed in purgatory. It’s best to go by his actual reasons for disputing 2 Macc, which are quite available on the internet.

And there’s nothing in the Antilegomena - Hebrews, Jude, etc, that contradicts Lutheran belief and teaching. Even with James the biggest complaint by Luther is authorship.

Jon

 

[IggyAntiochus]

And not even the first KJV, but later.

Iggy, I have been talking about this here for a long time, but the misconception continues. I, like you, consider the DC’s and the of course the Antilagomena as scripture, and canon.
Andyou express well the Lutheran approach to both. No where in the confessions are either denied as canon.

Jon

I feel your frustration

Of course, we are to blame for this too, since American Lutherans followed the rest of the sacramentarian pack of Protestantism in no longer incorporating them in liturgy, prayer, and study…October, my good man…we get the DC’s back.

 

[JonNC]

Trent confirmed, officially, what had always been used, since Carthage, as a direct result of the so-called reformer’s removal of the DC’s. But you didn’t answer my question. Who removed them and by what authority? By the way, I’m not trying to be snippy here. I think authority is all important. Regardless of whether or not Carthage and Hippo were general councils, they were where the canon was established. If you are saying that Luther and company would not have tossed the DC’s had they been officially proclaimed by a general council then why did they not include them immediately following Trent?

I think authority is important too. Carthage, Hippo, etc. were not general councils of the Church. If, in fact, they were, then the EO would have the same canon as the western Church.
The Lutheran Church never removed them. What we recognize about them is that they have a history of dispute regarding them, all the up to Trent, including the notable Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan.
The problem with Trent is that it, too, is not a general council of the Church. Again, if it were, the EO would have the same canon.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Luther did not omit any of the seven books. Luther himself did one translation of the Greek Septuagint into the German language; Die Bibel. That translation is still the translation used by Lutherans in German speaking countries. Ergo, it still contains the deuterocanonicals. Luther disputed them, yes, like many theologians before him. However, as a matter of doctrine, Luther’s opinion on the disputed books holds no dogmatic weight within the Lutheran church. There are many Lutherans, myself included, who view the DC books as inspired Scripture, but due to their disputed status, do not draw on them for doctrine directly.

As for being removed altogether, this was a result of English translations eventually removing them, starting with the KJV.

Thank you for your answer. As to the books being removed as a result of English translations, however, translations don’t remove anything. It takes a person to make the decision on what is to be included and what is not. If Luther had no part in this then this is a huge misconception on the part of a lot of people.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Thank you for your answer. As to the books being removed as a result of English translations, however, translations don’t remove anything. It takes a person to make the decision on what is to be included and what is not. If Luther had no part in this then this is a huge misconception on the part of a lot of people.

Which is why I don’t pay attention to professional apologists, Protestant or Catholic, because it is largely how this type of misinformation is spread.

Be that as it may, I did find, through browsing, that the DC’s were first removed from the KJV in America by American printers. What they found is, since the Protestant churches didn’t use the DC books much, they could remove them and sell them for the same price as a KJV with them in there and save money on printing costs.

 

[pablope]

This also is a myth. I assume you’re referring to the interpretation of 2 Maccabees as teaching purgatory (even though the description of the events with Judas and the slain soldiers in 2 Macc bears no resemblance to what the Church teaches about purgatory…but that’s neither here nor there…).

The historical fact, however, is that when Luther first publicaly disputed 2 Macc as not being a part of the canon of Scripture, he still ardently believed in purgatory. It’s best to go by his actual reasons for disputing 2 Macc, which are quite available on the internet.

So…Lutherans, I mean all synods, do believe in Purgatory (if not in line what the CC teaches, at least some form of purgatory)?

So, when did this denial or disbelief in purgatory start to take hold within Lutherans (some?) and protestants in general?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

So…Lutherans, I mean all synods, do believe in Purgatory (if not in line what the CC teaches, at least some form of purgatory)?

So, when did this denial or disbelief in purgatory start to take hold within Lutherans (some?) and protestants in general?

No, we don’t. Luther held to purgatory probably until the mid to late 1520’s. I’m no Luther scholar, so perhaps someone may be able to get more information to you on that one.

 

[pablope]

I think authority is important too. Carthage, Hippo, etc. were not general councils of the Church. If, in fact, they were, then the EO would have the same canon as the western Church.
The Lutheran Church never removed them. What we recognize about them is that they have a history of dispute regarding them, all the up to Trent, including the notable Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan.
The problem with Trent is that it, too, is not a general council of the Church. Again, if it were, the EO would have the same canon.

Jon

Jon…I think it is because of what the Bible was originally intended to be…a set of standard writings to be read during the Mass, not a source of where doctrine was going to be derived at.

The Orthodox kept more books in the OT because of their Tradition of what books were read during their liturgies.

 

[Nicea325]

Which is why I don’t pay attention to professional apologists, Protestant or Catholic, because it is largely how this type of misinformation is spread.

Be that as it may, I did find, through browsing, that the DC’s were first removed from the KJV in America by American printers. What they found is, since the Protestant churches didn’t use the DC books much, they could remove them and sell them for the same price as a KJV with them in there and save money on printing costs.

I am sorry,but there is no such thing as Protestant apologist. How can one be a Protestant apologist when there exist no such thing as “the” Protestant church;moreover, there exist hundreds upon hundreds of different denominations? Which church does the Protestant apologist speak for in particular?

 

[pablope]

Which is why I don’t pay attention to professional apologists, Protestant or Catholic, because it is largely how this type of misinformation is spread.

Be that as it may, I did find, through browsing, that the DC’s were first removed from the KJV in America by American printers. What they found is, since the Protestant churches didn’t use the DC books much, they could remove them and sell them for the same price as a KJV with them in there and save money on printing costs.

I think this first started in Europe, with the British Bible society, not printing the DC to save on printing costs…sometime in 1826 or so.

 

[JonNC]

I am sorry,but there is no such thing as Protestant apologist. How can one be a Protestant apologist when there exist no such thing as “the” Protestant church;moreover, there exist hundreds upon hundreds of different denominations? Which church does the Protestant apologist speak for in particular?

Blessings my friend,
I think what Iggy was saying is that he doesn’t listen to apologists, regardless of communion. Certainly, and I’ve argued this frequently here, there is no Protestant Church, never has been.

Hope your Easter season is a blessing,
Jon

 

[Phineas]

**The Ten Commandments Still in Effect **
We know that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 1:3-4. So there has to be a law before there is sin, and this is made clear in Rom 4:15 which states “for where no law is, there is no transgression”

From these inspired bible truths we then know that God’s Commandments must have been known as far back as the time of Adam. This is evidenced by what God said to Cain after his sacrifice was rejected by God. " If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. (Gen 4:7) Of course Cain was later punished for murder, so he must have known the commandment against murder.

Joseph revealed that he was aware of the binding claims of the commandments, for he said to Potiphar’s wife, “how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). He knew adultery was sin.

We know that Jacob was guilty for stealing his brother’s birthright, and Ham was guilty of not honoring his father by seeing his nakedness.

In Ex 16:28 we read" And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day…(Note: this was approx 3 months before Commandments given at Sinai given at Sinai)

We also know that the Sabbath was one of the two institutions established by God at creation and both were given to mankind and not the Israelites. In fact Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27) and the Greek word for man here means “mankind”

God commended Abraham’s obedience by saying, “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”(Gen 26:5) So I think we can all safely say that the commandments of God were not first given to the Israelites but were given to mankind at Eden.

The Israelites spent generations in pagan Egypt and all but lost their knowledge and respect for the commandments of God, so the Lord reintroduced his commandments by writing them on two tables of stone and having Moses put them in an ark in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary. The ten commandments were known as the moral law, James referred to the ten commandments as the “royal law” and the “law of liberty”, and he said we would be judged by it. (James 2:8 and 2:12)

The ceremonial law was given to the Israelites alone and it consisted of civil statutes and judgments, dietary laws and rules and regulations governing the sacrificial system and priestly duties. These were designed to prefigure or shadow Jesus as the real lamb of God and the true and eternal high priest who was to become our mediator in the Heavenly sanctuary of which the earthly sanctuary was only a prefigure. ( see Heb 8:2)

When the sanctuary curtain was rent from top to bottom at Christ’s death, it signified the end of the ceremonial law , and in effect" nailed the handwriting of ordinances to the cross. ( note; ceremonial law was handwritten by Moses at God’s instruction)

We know that the 10 commandments were not done away with at the cross because the Bible says they are still in effect. If there were no commandments, there would be no sin and no need of forgiveness and of course no need for Jesus presently acting as our high priest and mediator in the Heavenly sanctuary, Yes the Ten Commandments written on stone by the finger of God are still in effect for Jesus said so.(Matt 5:17-19 & John 14:15. John said so (1John 2:3-50) Paul said so. (Rom 7-8; 7:12; 13:9) James said so.( James 2:8, 2:12)

Psm 111:7 The works of his hands [are] verity and judgment; **all his commandments [are] sure. 111:8 They stand fast for ever and ever, [and are] **done in truth and uprightness.

This is the use of sola scriptura. When anyone says the commandments were nailed to the cross you patiently show from scripture why this is not so. The Bible is its own best expositor

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15.

 

[James_Least]

Entrusting Truth to depraved Man-- why would God do that?

The first man, Adam, disobeyed God. Adam’s progeny is still paying the price–they too having disobeyed God. Adam’s son, Cain, showed his depravity–he killed his brother, Abel.

Noah found grace in the eyes of The Lord. Noah preached about 120 years warning of destruction coming. No one paid much attention. Every person was destroyed save eight. Apparently God meant what He said. Seed for plants and animals were also spared–to be fruitful and replenish the earth which had been turned inside out, upside down and completely inundated.

Surely Man would be able to get it right by now. Wrong. Follow Abraham and his progeny, do not forget Sodom and Gomorrah. Man is still showing his penchance for depravity. Sin is the second most powerful force in the universe. Man cannot deal with it of himself. If it is a moral issue, Man just changes the definition: i.e. homosexuality=abomination is now: homosexuality=alternate lifestyle.

If it feels good---------do it.

When Jesus(God in the flesh) walked the earth, His own received Him not–in fact they had Him crucified and had His blood on them and their children–at the request of their religious leaders. They still reject the Messiah.

Now what? Man seems to enjoy living in sin. The last two millenia show Man to be headed toward more depravity. Meaning: completely incapable of making the right choice due to the enslavement of the will to the nature of the flesh.

Enter: sola scriptura. God’s Word is the only infallible source of information of a spiritual nature. Actually this doctrine was taught long before M. Luther and the so-called Protestant Reformation of the Holy See, which cost him his frock and heaven–is he still excommunicated?

What is the point? God said what He meant; He meant what He said. He gave His Word and His Holy Spirit to lead, guide and direct-- in the “pillar and ground of the Truth”–just who/what that might be is still a matter of religious debate–The Lord knows them that are His.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,
James Least

 

[onemangang]

Take your time ofthesons, I can wait