Protestant "Sola Fide" is a mistake

[Mannyfit75]

Cite please.

Sure.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

 

[Steadfast]

Luther tried to delete James and Revelation, but his view did not prevail.

No, Joe, he didn’t. You’ve been given bad information. He didn’t have a very high opinion of James but he never tried to “delete” it.

 

[Metaron]

(Long silence from Sola Fide…)

 

[Metaron]

No, Joe, he didn’t. You’ve been given bad information. He didn’t have a very high opinion of James but he never tried to “delete” it.

Luther confessed that he was tempted “…to throw Jimmy into the stove.” Jimmy being The Epistle of St.James. He also called it the “Epistle of Straw”. In his NT commentary, he pointed out that in revelation, “Christ is neither taught or known.”

 

[Metaron]

No, Joe, he didn’t. You’ve been given bad information. He didn’t have a very high opinion of James but he never tried to “delete” it.

Luther confessed that he was tempted “…to throw Jimmy into the stove.” Jimmy being The Epistle of St.James. He also called it the “Epistle of Straw”. In his NT commentary, he pointed out that in Revelation, “Christ is neither taught or known.”

 

[Steadfast]

Luther confessed that he was tempted “…to throw Jimmy into the stove.” Jimmy being The Epistle of St.James. He also called it the “Epistle of Straw”. In his NT commentary, he pointed out that in revelation, “Christ is neither taught or known.”

Again, he had a low opinion of it, but he never tried to delete it from the Bible and to say that he did is to repeat a scurrilous lie, it would be similar to someone saying that Pius XII actively colluded in the rise of the Nazi’s and therefore the deaths of six millions Jews; i.e. it’s pretty easily disproven but for those who prefer to believe it, no amount of argumentation will suffice.

 

[Metaron]

Again, he had a low opinion of it, but he never tried to delete it from the Bible and to say that he did is to repeat a scurrilous lie, it would be similar to someone saying that Pius XII actively colluded in the rise of the Nazi’s and therefore the deaths of six millions Jews; i.e. it’s pretty easily disproven but for those who prefer to believe it, no amount of argumentation will suffice.

All I’m saying is, if he had a low regard for it, he certainly didn’t consider it Scripture, did he? If he didn’t regard it as Scripture, wouldn’t he want it removed from the Bible? I’m not trying to be dense; just logical here.

 

[cascherman]

Cite please.

Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome, year 382, with one of the earliest canons of the Old Testament, notice no differentiation between the deuteros and the rest (as in, this one is secondary to this one)

At the bottom it even gives you a neat list of the books rejected by the Council of Rome.

The Decree of Damasus

Also, holding to the OT canon of the current or even post-Christ Jews doesn’t mean much to us Christians does it?

#1- The Jews themselves before and after Christ did not agree unanimously on what was included in their own canon and what was not. Many did include the deuteros before and after Christ, and even up until now some Jews accept the deuteros as canon.

#2- 72 Jews translated the septuagint in Alexandria about a century before Christ. Proof positive the deuteros were used as scripture by at least some.

#3- The Jews did and still do reject Jesus as our Messiah. This may not mean much on the outset, but just ponder on that.

 

[w_stewart]

Luther tried to delete James and Revelation, but his view did not prevail.

This is interesting. Any reference?

 

[hopelessrom_grl]

cool…reading this whole thread just makes me believe that I’m right in choosing to be a Catholic in the first place

thanks for assuring me of my faith

God Bless

 

[Arnobius]

Cite please.

Right here:

The Canons of the CCXVII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled at Carthage.
Commonly Called the Code of Canons of the African Church.
a.d. 419

Canon XXIV.
(Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. (453). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

 

[Arnobius]

No, Joe, he didn’t. You’ve been given bad information. He didn’t have a very high opinion of James but he never tried to “delete” it.

The “Luther Bible” placed these books at the end as doubtful: Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelations, and it is believed that it was due to opposition of others that he did not remove them.

At any rate, he denied their canonicity

 

[Arnobius]

James is still there because it’s God’s word. The Apocrypha never was accepted as “God’s inspired word” by the Jews.

Both Philo and Josephus (1st century AD Jews who were not Christians) accepted the Deuterocanonical works as Scripture

James is talking about those who give “lip service” to their faith but never live it out. It’s not talking about doing works to earn salvation.

James brings up Abraham, the father of those justified by faith alone. But if Abraham had been asked to sacrifice Isaac and told God “no” and didn’t do it…then his so-called faith would’ve been just wind and bluster.

Jas 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jas 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe–and tremble!
Jas 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

Pauls sums it all up in one statement in Acts

Act 26:19 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

You say you’re saved? Show it! Walk your talk, practice what you preach! That’s the message of James…not a works based salvation.

Catholics don’t believe they are owed salvation because of what they do (another example of misrepresenting what Catholics believe perhaps?) but the Gospels are full of examples of whether or not one will be saved is based on what they have done Look at Matthew 25 for example.

The words of Paul on faith and works do not exclude James’ words, but the two of them together do exclude the Lutheran “Sola Fide” idea, the Calvinistic “Predestination” and the modern “Once saved, always saved.”

 

[Exodus15]

non-Catholic: Saved when I found Jesus
Catholic: Saved when Jesus finds me

Blessings.

 

[Steadfast]

The “Luther Bible” placed these books at the end as doubtful: Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelations, and it is believed that it was due to opposition of others that he did not remove them.

At any rate, he denied their canonicity

I think you’re mistaken.

He did appendicize the OT Deuterocanonicals but he included these NT texts in their usual location and he never denied their canonicity though he did often express doubts.

It is interesting also that his opinion (especially on James) changed over time so that by later on in life he was very positive about it.

 

[BrianH]

non-Catholic: Saved when I found Jesus
Catholic: Saved when Jesus finds me

Blessings.

I have to completely disagree with that.

The choice is always ours and Christ is available to all, WE have to take that step.

 

[Steadfast]

I have to completely disagree with that.

The choice is always ours and Christ is available to all, WE have to take that step.

The choice is never ours.

Left to ourselves we would never choose Christ for our hearts are darkened and we are dead in trespasses and sins.

Without God in Christ “bespeaking us righteous” we have and are nothing.

 

[Arnobius]

I think you’re mistaken.

He did appendicize the OT Deuterocanonicals but he included these NT texts in their usual location and he never denied their canonicity though he did often express doubts.

It is interesting also that his opinion (especially on James) changed over time so that by later on in life he was very positive about it.

The Luther Bible is not the same format as the traditional Protestant Bible. He did deny their canonicity and he did place these books at the end of his version of the Bible as not canonical.

Of course, if you could cite where Luther said they were Canonical, we could evaluate what he said.

 

[Steadfast]

The Luther Bible is not the same format as the traditional Protestant Bible. He did deny their canonicity and he did place these books at the end of his version of the Bible as not canonical.

Of course, if you could cite where Luther said they were Canonical, we could evaluate what he said.

Well, Arnobius, since the table of contents of Luther’s Bibel is available for anyone to look at and since you were the first to say that Luther moved James, the Ioannine epistles and other NT books to an appendix I think the burden of proof is on you to do better than a mere assertion.

 

[BrianH]

Well, Arnobius, since the table of contents of Luther’s Bibel is available for anyone to look at and since you were the first to say that Luther moved James, the Ioannine epistles and other NT books to an appendix I think the burden of proof is on you to do better than a mere assertion.

I agree, this is the first I have heard this. Prove your statement, I think I would have heard about this if it was the case.