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

[steve-b]

The Old Testament is not essential to salvation.

While Catholics may have a complete set, so few have read let alone understood the significance of OT books.

Why then do we read from them at every mass daily and on Sunday?

 

[Theo520]

Why then do we read from them at every mass daily and on Sunday?

Perhaps you can respond to what I said.
To be explicit, I inferred we are bound by the new covenant and revere the old covenant.

 

[nearlycatholic]

Assurance? Really? or Presumption (false assurance). I doubt that the apostles could have endured all the hardships and eventual martyrdom apart from an assurance, deeply abiding assurance based on their experience with the Savior. Many today, I’ve encountered it, are “feeling saved” because they walked an aisle and prayed a prayer after hearing some great oratorical address. I like a good sermon, but Jesus preached pretty simply “repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand” otherwise He was teaching in parables describing the Kingdom of God. I’m learning this “Christian” life is simply a life of daily moment by moment devotion and communion with our Creator. And sharing it one on one as we go.

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps you can respond to what I said.

To be explicit, I inferred we are bound by the new covenant and revere the old covenant.

I think it is far more than revere the OT. Salvation is by grace, it that is all the more reason to abide by the law

 

[JonNC]

And Luther’s is not an opinion novel to him. It is an opinion held by Catholics throughout history.
It isn’t a matter of Luther being right - I don’t think he was entirely- but that Luther had the liberty to hold those opinions.

 

[Theo520]

, it that is all the more reason to abide by the law

Christians were never bound by Old Testament Law, just Jews

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law | Catholic Answers Magazine

When I mentioned revere, I think I was inline with teachings

Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

 

[nodelink]

Jesus affirmed and extended Old Testament law from Leviticus. Jesus extended “love your neighbor” to teach that we should even love our enemy
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Ultimately, we obey Lord who gives law. Law derives its authority from the Lord who issues it.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Why then do we read from them at every mass daily and on Sunday?

Perhaps you can respond to what I said.
To be explicit, I inferred we are bound by the new covenant and

Why then do we read from them at every mass daily and on Sunday?

Perhaps you can respond to what I said.
To be explicit, I inferred we are bound by the new covenant and revere the old covenant.

What you said, and what I responded to was

(emphasis mine)

Theo520:

"The Old Testament is not essential to salvation. While Catholics may have a complete set, so few have read let alone understood the significance of OT books."

I’ll just say, The REAL problem IMV is, according to a Georgetown Univ survey, http://cara.georgetown.edu/frequentl...ch-statistics/ 78% of Catholics don’t go to mass. Or if at all are C&E (Christmas & Easter) Catholics. Meaning most Catholics walking around, are objectively in mortal sin. In extension objectively speaking, most Catholics if they died immediately in this state, would go to hell.

That means only 22% of Catholics even expose themselves to Catholic teaching and practice regardless of Testament, New or Old, and of course that would cover all the other precepts of the Church as well.

What about ignorance? (emphasis mine)

1791 ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

some OT teaching that is timeless. As in. NO EXPIRATION to this.

Ez 3:
17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life. 20 Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.”

 

[steve-b]

And Luther’s is not an opinion novel to him. It is an opinion held by Catholics throughout history.
It isn’t a matter of Luther being right - I don’t think he was entirely- but that Luther had the liberty to hold those opinions.

His opinion led HIM to revolt. And that revolt led and still leads huge numbers of others to revolt as well.

Liberty ≠ License

The consequences on one’s soul for getting that point screwed up, is HUGE

 

[JonNC]

His opinion led HIM to revolt. And that revolt led and still leads huge numbers of others to revolt as well.

Check your timeline, Steve, and don’t forget that Luther’s view of the canon was shared by other Catholics. Your cause and effect is faulty, and Luther’s "revolt " is Luther’s. As for the huge number of others, they made their own decisions, and the corruption of the Catholic Church played a huge role in their decisions.

Liberty ≠ License

The consequences on one’s soul for getting that point screwed up, is HUGE

The consequences for one’s soul is not for you to decide. But on this point, you have to equally condemn every Christian who has held a view of the canon different than Rome’s

 

[nodelink]

Hence, the folly of saying protestants believe/do/say/practice something.

@JonNC, Agreed. It is nearly impossible to say what protestants believe/do/say/practice because they have multiple identities and no historical magisterium of authoritative teaching to speak for them. Also, “private interpretation” of Scripture makes each believer essentially an authority unto themselves. Plus, with no fixed standard, doctrines easily drift according to the fickle winds of fads and fashions and change over time. Israel was built upon Twelve Tribes. The church of Jesus Christ was built upon Twelve Apostles. Today’s Catholic and Orthodox bishops have a line of succession going back to those Twelve Apostles.

See Twelve Tribes, Twelve Gates, Twelve Apostles, 12 Stone foundations in Revelation 21:12,14. These gates and foundations appear permanent and unmovable.

 

[JonNC]

Plus, with no fixed standard, doctrines easily drift according to the fickle winds of fads and fashions and change over time.

Not exactly. While secularism is infecting many communions, the long standing communions generally grouped as Protestant have fixed standards, confessional and doctrinal statements and documents

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

His opinion led HIM to revolt. And that revolt led and still leads huge numbers of others to revolt as well.

Check your timeline, Steve, and don’t forget that Luther’s view of the canon was shared by other Catholics. Your cause and effect is faulty, and Luther’s "revolt " is Luther’s. As for the huge number of others, they made their own decisions, and the corruption of the Catholic Church played a huge role in their decisions.

Jon, the canon was solidified at the council of Rome in 382 by pope Damasus I. Decree of Pope Saint Damasus from the Acts of the Roman Synod (382 AD Ensuing councils local and ecumenical, didn’t change that canon of 73 books. In fact 1000 + years after the council of Rome, at the Council of Florence, before Luther was even a thought, confirmed AGAIN, the 73 books of the canon as did Trent, after Luther died.

Session 11 1442, Florence
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5 lists all the books in the canon as fact

Liberty ≠ License

The consequences on one’s soul for getting that point screwed up, is HUGE

JonNC:

The consequences for one’s soul is not for you to decide. But on this point, you have to equally condemn every Christian who has held a view of the canon different than Rome’s

steve-b:

Jon, old friend.

Re: the sin of division

[ διχοστασίαι ] = http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm = division, schism, dissension, sedition, standing apart. Forming pointless (groundless) factions and sects.

Where does that word get used in scripture?

Rom 16: Paul To the Church of Rome,
7 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions [ διχοστασίαι ] and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, … I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

And the consequences of that sin on one’s soul?

Gal 5:
19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, …, dissension [ διχοστασίαι ], … and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, thatthose who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

the sin of [ διχοστασίαι ] i.e. division/dissension sends one to hell.

I’m just passing on information Jon.

You can also see where this teaching Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846 comes from.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, the canon was solidified at the council of Rome in 382 by pope Damasus I. Decree of Pope Saint Damasus from the Acts of the Roman Synod (382 AD Ensuing councils local and ecumenical, didn’t change that canon of 73 books. In fact 1000 + years after the council of Rome, at the Council of Florence, before Luther was even a thought, confirmed AGAIN, the 73 books of the canon as did Trent, after Luther died.

Gottcha. And Luther included each and every one, plus one, in his translation. And just like Cajetan used the term canon to talk about the books he considered not to the same level, Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.
That’s exactly what Luther said about them.

Therefore, to be consistent, you must condemn in equal terms as you do Luther anyone after 397 who varies from the 73 book canon. You must claim they are heretics.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jon, the canon was solidified at the council of Rome in 382 by pope Damasus I. Decree of Pope Saint Damasus from the Acts of the Roman Synod (382 AD Ensuing councils local and ecumenical, didn’t change that canon of 73 books. In fact 1000 + years after the council of Rome, at the Council of Florence, before Luther was even a thought, confirmed AGAIN, the 73 books of the canon as did Trent, after Luther died.

Gottcha. And Luther included each and every one, plus one, in his translation.

Luther demoted those specific scripture books, to non scripture status. In effect removing those books from scripture.

JonNC:

And just like Cajetan used the term canon to talk about the books he considered not to the same level, Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.
That’s exactly what Luther said about them.

Luther on apocrypha from a Protestant source
APOCRYPHA KJV note Luther’s explanation of what apocrypha means to him "Martin Luther said, “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures,”

JonNC:

Therefore, to be consistent, you must condemn in equal terms as you do Luther anyone after 397 who varies from the 73 book canon. You must claim they are heretics.

Well technically speaking

The Church identifies heresy as (emphasis mine)
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

And we know Luther was condemned by the Church as a heretic

 

[JonNC]

Luther demoted those specific scripture books, to non scripture status. In effect removing those books from scripture.

False. Luther stated an opinion about them, like many others did

And we know Luther was condemned by the Church as a heretic

This a different statement than you made. You said Luther the heretic. Someone dead is no longer a heretic

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Luther demoted those specific scripture books, to non scripture status. In effect removing those books from scripture.

False. Luther stated an opinion about them, like many others did

Jon,

I’ve given this link previously. You didn’t open it,
Re: Luther and apocrypha, he says apocrypha is NOT equal to scripture. Enough said.
Here is his bible http://lutherbibel.net/biblia2/index.htm written ~1534

Luther demoted scriptural books to non scripture status.

And we know Luther was condemned by the Church as a heretic

JonNC:

This a different statement than you made. You said Luther the heretic. Someone dead is no longer a heretic

Luther was condemned as a heretic in 1521. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm
Luther didn’t die till 1546

 

[JonNC]

Luther was condemned as a heretic in 1521.

But he isn’t defined as one now. Correct?

 

[ReformedProtestant]

On a final note how could God punish Jesus on the cross. Wouldn’t that put enmity between 2 persons of the Godhead? The reason I ask this is because I thought our punishment for sin was eternal separation from God?

Much of this disagreement hinges on our views of the atonement. Although I understand that Roman Catholicism rejects Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), as it was fully developed by the Protestant Reformers, but PSA stems from Anselm and Augustine. And one can hold to PSA without rejecting the earlier views.

From one of the main Confessions of the English Reformation, The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 8 Christ the Mediator:

II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

You’ll notice Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrines throughout those paragraphs.

God bless…

 

[ReformedProtestant]

If Luther were a reformer only, then we might have a “Lutheran order” within the Catholic Church like we have Benedictines, Dominicans and Franciscans. Reforms were needed then and true reformers do provide a service to the organizations that they influence. The schism that Luther launched came about by accident and was aided by Luther breaking his vows, leaving the ordained, celibate priesthood and getting married. Luther’s rebellion spawned a peasant war during his lifetime in which over 100,000 were killed. Luther’s hostility towards the Jews encouraged additional hostility. You will know the true prophets by their fruit and the fruit is not all good. Seven sacraments were reduced to two. The communion of the Eucharist was reduced from the real Presence of God (as in the Old Testament Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and Temple) to a mere symbol. The Old Testament Books of Daniel and Esther were reduced to eliminate some of their most excellent passages. The Book of James was nearly eliminated out of the New Testament. The writings of the Apostle Paul became over-emphasized while the writings of the other New Testament writers were de-emphasized. Love and good works became discouraged rather than encouraged. The unity of Christ’s Church was reduced to countless splinters. The fruit is not all good.

Obviously, as a Protestant in the Reformed tradition, my view disagrees with the the view a Roman Catholic. However, do I believe Luther was a sinner? Absolutely. As he wrote, he was Simul Justus et Peccator.

It is sad to me when the gospel of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ is truncated down to being only about legal justification and personal salvation from “wrath to come.”. Paul prayed for the full community of his hearers via the epistle to the Ephesians when he prayed that they would be “filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:19). We need the full gospel about the Kingdom of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, coming in its fullness The euangelion gospel of the Romans proclaimed the kingdoms of the Caesars which have now passed away. The euangelion gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims his kingdom rule which has not yet fully come but which will be an everlasting kingdom of peace, love, justice, goodness and more with mercies for the heirs of mercy that endure forever and with an excellent and powerful King, whose kingdom will never end. The gospel proclaims a kingdom yet to come whose excellencies go beyond what human heart and mind have so far imagined.

I don’t believe I ever argued that the gospel was “only” about legal justification and personal salvation. I believe it is that and much more. So, I do not disagree with any part of your last paragraph.

Thanks again for the discussion. This helps.

Soli Deo Gloria

God bless…