Q. What Is the Greatest of All Protestant “Heresies”? A. Assurance

[itsjustdave1988]

What do you mean, reject it?

Protestant Bibles have 66 books and a shorter version of Daniel and Esther. So, what I mean is they don’t consider these portions of the Book of Daniel to be part of the Book of Daniel.

Of course, when they received the Bible, it was part of the Book of Daniel. In other words, they truncated the Bible. Then they have the audacity to say they go by the “Bible Alone.” Well, if you can cut portions of the Bible out whenever you feel like it, then how is “Bible Alone” of any importance whatsoever?

THAT is what I consider the greatest of Protestant heresies.

Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly states:

“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the [ancient Christian] Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament].” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

According to Protestant scholar Philip Schaff,

“The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures…This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.” (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the Drsd Sea Scrolls, do they have Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna in them? I honestly don’t know

Yes, portions of the larger recension of the Book of Daniel were discovered among these Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls [cf. Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), pg. 482-501].

 

[JonNC]

You still didn’t answer my question. Both Luther’s and the original KJV was complete.
That the canon remained “undisturbed” ignores the different views of many individuals, including people like John of Damascus. Luther’s opinions of the canon are no more/ no less opinions than theirs
What other communions do is up to them. My own position is I like the 73 book canon and the Prayer of Manasseh

 

[JonNC]

What portions? Not that it particularly matters. It seems to me having it in an appendix or having it in the text is simply a matter of location

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There should not be “other communions.” The factional divisions among Christians is a sin.

“A man that is a heretic, after a first and second admonition, avoid.” --St. Paul, the Apostle, Titus 3:10

The Revelation of God delivered unto the saints is not determined by one’s own personal opinion. Imagine if the US Constitution were approached in that manner. “I personally disagree with including that received portion of the document in the Constitution, so it is therefore non-authoritative to me.” We’d call such a person mad.

It was madness when Luther created his own personal canon of the Bible, and even greater madness when Protestantism followed his lead regarding the Old Testament. Their (bogus) claim being they merely followed the opinion of Jerome and Origen, was untrue. Instead they chose to truncate the Bible based upon bad info and lack of obedience to the Church.

Hebrews 13:17

Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Oh, that’s right, I forgot…Hebrews was one of those non-authoritative books that Luther didn’t consider part of his “personal” canon of Scripture. So much for the importance of obedience. :rollseyes:

 

[JonNC]

The should not be “other communions.” The factional divisions anong Christians is a sin.

“After a first and second admonition, a heretic avoid.” --St. Paul, the Apostle

No disagreement.

The Revelation of God is not determined by one’s own personal opinion. Imagine if the US Constitution were approached in that manner. “I personally disagree with including that received portion of the document in the Constitution, so it is therefore non-authoritative to me.” We’d call such a person mad.

I hear all the time what things should and shouldn’t be in the constitution. Now, in Canada, they have a different view about things. So it is with the Catholic Church and other communions.
But under the constitution people have a right to opinions. That was the case prior to Trent.

It was madness when Luther created his own personal canon of the Bible, and even greater madness when Protestantism followed his lead regarding the Old Testament. Their (bogus) claim being they merely followed the opinion of Jerome and Origen, was untrue. Instead they chose to truncate the Bible based upon bad info and lack of obedience to the Church.

You seem to be angry as if it effects you. Does Luther’s opinions affect you, or should you take the advice of Paul from above?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot…Hebrews was one of those non-authoritative books that Luther didn’t consider part of his “personal” canon of Scripture. So much for the importance of obedience. :rollseyes:

actually, it was called antilagomena long before Luther, but don’t let that cloud the history

 

[fhansen]

“Imputed righteousness” is one of the worst heresies because it inevitably separates authentic righteousness, the real thing, from some pretend righteousness that covers or hides our filthiness and wretchedness, as if God suddenly decided to no longer care about real justice being restored to His wayward creation. This distorted view makes a mockery of Christianity and the New Covenant, as it maintains that sinners really do enter heaven, in opposition to Scripture, that the impure of heart shall see God too. It allows fallen man to remain comfortable as he is: fallen, sinful, the way he prefers to be anyway. And this is based on a companion heresy: “faith alone”, the notion that as long as man remains resolute in faith then he’s saved, as long as he believes he’s saved, he’s saved, as long as he believes he believes in Christ, he’s saved. All foolishness.

Another ugly doctrine, issuing from Calvinist circles, perhaps the ugliest of all, is the idea that man is so totally depraved that his will plays no role whatsoever in his salvation; he’s either elected to heaven, or to hell, from the beginning. He can’t even resist grace, no role whatsoever, no moral accountability; fallen man is nothing more than an amoral beast, a “sin machine” with any righteous acts being “filthy rags”. This doctrine leads inexorably to the implication that God is directly responsible for all sin/evil and that a person’s faith (self-assessed) itself demonstrates that he is a member of the “elect”, and that since there’s nothing he can do to help himself be saved, there’s nothing that he will do to strive towards that end; Christ has done it all; there’s nothing to be expected from us worthless wretched worms, no true justice to be gained or increased, no striving towards attaining eternal life as even St Paul admitted he must do. Or struggling towards perfection since this is considered impossible for man anyway. This all tends towards sloppy, irresponsible “Christianity”.

 

[steve-b]

See the article with this title hosted by Dr. R.C. Sproul and Ligonier Ministries: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-greatest-all-protestant-heresies/.

The answer to the question in the article is: Assurance

The greatest of all tragedies would be to be falsely assured of pardon and heaven during an earthly lifetime and then to find oneself separated from God and heaven for eternity. Jesus taught that “many” would be in this condition. See the passages on the Narrow Gate, False Prophets, the True Disciple and the Two Foundations in Matthew 7.

While the Scriptures do indicate that assurance is possible, we certainly do not fully know the mind of God. It is the Lord who knows them who will belong to God eternally (2 Timothy 2:19). It is not for us to know. Our duties are to become saints in heaven by living like saints on earth. We are called to depart from sin and iniquity on earth and to pursue holiness before seeing God.

Catholics do not believe in OSAS (Once saved, always saved) but that all of us remain capable of mortal sin and of losing graces earlier obtained.

For more on the topic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_(theology). There are entire Protestant books on assurance. For examples, see books by Thomas Brooks, William Guthrie, J.C. Ryle and more cited in the Wikipedia article on Assurance_(theology). Guaranteed assurance of eternal life is not so easily obtained.

Hypocrites are often falsely assured.

The greatest of all Protestant heresies is Protestantism itself.

The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers Tract

 

[nodelink]

Insightful. Well-articulated. Sad but accurate.

 

[nodelink]

Assuring people of a certainty of heaven and salvation from the “wrath of God” when the outcome is not certain is a great heresy.

 

[ReformedProtestant]

From my understanding and education… The doctrine of Total Depravity does not originate from Calvinism or even Protestantism. The greatest Patristic theologian, Augustine of Hippo, was a leading theologian on the doctrine of human depravity. We know this from Augustine’s arguments over Pelagius. I’m not saying that Augustine was a Calvinist, but simply that many of the teachings of Calvinism stem from Augustine’s argument and understanding of Scripture. Jansenism was also a major Catholic theological movement in France that had similar Augustinian views of original sin, human depravity, and election.

Of course, as a Reformed Protestant, I find one of the greatest doctrines of the gospel, to be the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” (Romans 3:21–22) (2 Corinthians 5:21) (Galatians 2:20) So it is interesting, and I suppose understandable that you would find it to be one of the greatest heresies.

I apologize if I am coming across as a “troll” being the Reformed Protestant in a Catholic forum. I came across this on a Google search. I don’t expect to get agreement here, but I usually find it helpful when the time allows for me to engage in thoughtful and respectful discussion with those I disagree with…

God bless

 

[nodelink]

Reformed Protestant, you are not a troll. Thank you for visiting (and adding value).

 

[MT1926]

I apologize if I am coming across as a “troll” being the Reformed Protestant in a Catholic forum.

Welcome to the conversation.

Of course, as a Reformed Protestant, I find one of the greatest doctrines of the gospel, to be the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” (Romans 3:21–22) (2 Corinthians 5:21) (Galatians 2:20) So it is interesting, and I suppose understandable that you would find it to be one of the greatest heresies.

Could you expand on this. How do you form a doctrine of imputed righteousness from these verses? Also, I guess it might be helpful if you could also define imputed righteousness? Sometimes I find we can use the same words but define them differently.

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[ReformedProtestant]

You asked me to expand on this…

I will try to present the view of the Reformers in as concise a way as I can… These doctrinal issues are getting to the doctrine of justification which I believe is at the very heart of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17)… And I would view as at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, which is why many on here might see this as one of the great heresies, and I would see it as one of the greatest doctrines of the gospel.

From my understanding, the doctrine of justification of the Roman Catholic Church is a doctrine of “infused righteousness;” [See The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (1563), “Decree on Justification”. Ch. XVI] whereas the doctrine of justification of Reformed Protestantism is a doctrine of “imputed righteousness.”

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question #33:
Q. 33. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, (Romans 3:24) wherein he pardoneth all our sins,(Romans 4:6-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) and accepteth us as righteous in His sight,(2 Corinthians 5:21) only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us,(Romans 4:6, 11; Romans 5:19) and received by faith alone. (Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9)

The Westminster Confession states the following:

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;(Romans 8:30; Romans 3:24) not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,(Romans 4:5-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19, 21; Romans 3:22-28; Titus 3:5-7; Ephesians 1:7; Jeremiah 23:6; 1 Corinthians 1:30-31; Romans 5:17-19) they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.(Acts 10:44; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9; Acts 13:38-39; Ephesians 2:7-8)

The Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof wrote as follows…

“Justification may be defined as that legal act of God by which He declares the sinner righteous on the basis of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification, and does not affect the condition but the state of the sinner.” (Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine (1933, reprinted 2002). 256-257.)

The French Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, wrote the following…

“On the contrary, justified by faith is he who, excluded from the righteousness of works, grasps the righteousness of Christ through faith, and clothed in it, appears in God’s sight not as a sinner but as a righteous man. Therefore, we explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” (Calvin, John. Institutes, Book III. Ch. XI. ii.)

 

[ReformedProtestant]

So what do we mean by “imputed” or “imputation?”

That is, where our sin and guilt was imputed or credited to Jesus Christ, thus bearing the punishment of those sins on the cross, in turn His perfect righteousness is imputed or credited to us. It is substitutionary, such as we find in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ, on that cross, did not have our sins infused into Him, in which case He would have become sinful and corrupt in nature; rather, our sins were credited to His account, He taking our place and punishment. Likewise, we in turn do not have the righteousness of God infused within us, but credited to our account. This legal concept of justification is seen, for instance, in Romans 8:31-34.

I hope this conveys the Protestant understanding of “imputed righteousness.”

 

[steve-b]

From my understanding and education… The doctrine of Total Depravity does not originate from Calvinism or even Protestantism. The greatest Patristic theologian, Augustine of Hippo, was a leading theologian on the doctrine of human depravity. We know this from Augustine’s arguments over Pelagius. I’m not saying that Augustine was a Calvinist, but simply that many of the teachings of Calvinism stem from Augustine’s argument and understanding of Scripture. Jansenism was also a major Catholic theological movement in France that had similar Augustinian views of original sin, human depravity, and election.

Of course, as a Reformed Protestant, I find one of the greatest doctrines of the gospel, to be the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” (Romans 3:21–22) (2 Corinthians 5:21) (Galatians 2:20) So it is interesting, and I suppose understandable that you would find it to be one of the greatest heresies.

I apologize if I am coming across as a “troll” being the Reformed Protestant in a Catholic forum. I came across this on a Google search. I don’t expect to get agreement here, but I usually find it helpful when the time allows for me to engage in thoughtful and respectful discussion with those I disagree with…

God bless

Augustine Had It Right; Calvin Did Not | Catholic Answers

"With Calvin, there is no sense of grace aiding and empowering our wills as St. Augustine taught and the Catholic Church teaches. For Calvin, being “dependent upon God” means our free cooperation or free wills have no part to play. God does not merely empower our wills; he operates them.

In the end, this may well be the most disturbing idea stemming from Calvin’s notion of total depravity. Man is essentially a puppet of God’s, which led to Calvin attributing both the good and the evil actions of man to God."

From: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/depravity-yes-total-depravity-no

 

[ReformedProtestant]

Thanks for clarifying the Roman Catholic perspective or argument against the Reformed Doctrines of Grace.

I won’t debate the issue in this forum, I just wanted to present my view.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

[steve-b]

So what do we mean by “imputed” or “imputation?”

That is, where our sin and guilt was imputed or credited to Jesus Christ, thus bearing the punishment of those sins on the cross, in turn His perfect righteousness is imputed or credited to us. It is substitutionary, such as we find in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ, on that cross, did not have our sins infused into Him, in which case He would have become sinful and corrupt in nature; rather, our sins were credited to His account, He taking our place and punishment. Likewise, we in turn do not have the righteousness of God infused within us, but credited to our account. This legal concept of justification is seen, for instance, in Romans 8:31-34.

I hope this conveys the Protestant understanding of “imputed righteousness.”

The Catholic understanding on this is often misrepresented

Righteousness Done Right | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[steve-b]

Thanks for clarifying the Roman Catholic perspective or argument against the Reformed Doctrines of Grace.

I won’t debate the issue in this forum, I just wanted to present my view.

Soli Deo Gloria

you’re welcome.

Please read the 2nd article on depravity. Not for debate as you suggest, just for understanding.

 

[ReformedProtestant]

Thanks again for providing the information. This leads me to the question (not sure if I should make this another thread…), what is Rome’s understanding or doctrine of the Sovereignty of God? How does it agree or disagree with the view of the Protestant Reformers? You can provide another link, if that’s easier… Thanks!