Q. What Is the Greatest of All Protestant “Heresies”? A. Assurance
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
where do you get that? I never said that.steve-b:
So, you DRB reflects Luther’s power to demote books?
C’mon Jon. We’re talking about the canon not just books.
putting scriptural books into an apocrypha, is in Luther’s definition, making them not equal to scripture.
S
steve-b
Guest
As in there are huge consequences to one’s soul.steve-b:
Oh I see.
…
Last edited:
He says point blank they are in the apocrypha
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus
He places them among the apocrypha.
You said he demoted them. If he had the power to demote them, they are demoted. If not, they are merely his opinion
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Comparing the OT across religions
I still claim the missing books for Catholics or Protestants are not essential to salvation.
- Hebrew bible has 24 books
- Protestant bible has 39 books
- Catholic bible has 46 books
- Eastern Orthodox 50 books
I still claim the missing books for Catholics or Protestants are not essential to salvation.
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
I still think you don’t get the full appreciation of Eph 6:10-17 unless you also review Wis 5:15-23. Spiritual warfare may very well be essential to salvation.
Blessings,
Stephie
Blessings,
Stephie
Last edited:
Luther speaks similarly about the importance of 1 Macc in understanding Daniel chapter 11:
“This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. For the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy in that chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described—namely, Antiochus Epiphanes—and in much the same way that Daniel [11:29–35] speaks of it: a little help and great persecution by the Gentiles and by false Jews, which is what took place at the time of the Maccabees. This is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know.”
T
Theo520
Guest
I think you are correct.
Just down the page is a good comparison between the religions mentioned
R
rcwitness
Guest
I dont think its the greatest heresy. I think establishing a separate Eucharist is.
But this Scripture contradicts OSAS:
Romans 11
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off
But this Scripture contradicts OSAS:
Romans 11
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off
W
Wannano
Guest
Rc my friend, eliminate the word “Protestant” from the OP question and I think you really have something.
Peace.
Again, Cajetan on this issue.
Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. 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.”
R
rcwitness
Guest
I think that most all of the writings in Scripture could be classified into differnt levels of “signiicance”, right?
The Gospels being at the top… and maybe the books of Moses, in the Old.
But they are all Scripture, and share a common place within the Canon.
The Gospels being at the top… and maybe the books of Moses, in the Old.
But they are all Scripture, and share a common place within the Canon.
N
nodelink
Guest
Right. Correct. Absolutely. All Scripture is profitable. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are rightly esteemed by the Catholic Church as most significant.
S
steve-b
Guest
Had a few people to see before thanksgivingsteve-b:
Some might argue that every Bishop of Rome has since 1054. Some might, I won’t. What I will say is Leo and the corruption in the Church created the atmosphere for the Reformation. Luther never happens except for the Church making possible.
Schism and division happens at least as much before of what is happening within the Church as what happens outside it.
Anyway, back in the saddle.
Jon,
Are you making light, even discounting, schism and division?
S
steve-b
Guest
Jon,steve-b:
He says point blank they are in the apocrypha
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus
He places them among the apocrypha.
You have a habit of not opening links I provide. Please open this link and look at myth #5 and Jerome, 5 Myths about 7 Books
Jerome corrected himself. Your argument isn’t valid
S
steve-b
Guest
Did Cajetan’s opinion change anything the Church teaches on the Deuterocanon? Nope!steve-b:
Again, Cajetan on this issue.
Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. 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.”
Last edited:
M
Muzhik
Guest
In my opinion, the greatest heresy accepted by Protestants is “Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.” NO WHERE in Scripture is that phrase used or found. Yet we have entire denominations preaching that as the primary means of salvation without ONCE mentioning the need to be baptized by water in the Trinitarian form of “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as specified in the Great Commission.
Not to mention the dozens upon hundreds of denominations who do not use the Trinitarian form of baptism. They may baptize only in the Name of the Father; or maybe in the Name of Jesus the Christ. Or even worse, they baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of John the Baptist. (Many of these teach that baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs later when the person commits to accepting baptism in the Holy Spirit. Still, that’s not what Jesus says in Scripture.)
Not to mention the dozens upon hundreds of denominations who do not use the Trinitarian form of baptism. They may baptize only in the Name of the Father; or maybe in the Name of Jesus the Christ. Or even worse, they baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of John the Baptist. (Many of these teach that baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs later when the person commits to accepting baptism in the Holy Spirit. Still, that’s not what Jesus says in Scripture.)
No. Of course not. Just recognizing that there was blame enough to go around, but the atmosphere that incubated the Reformation was, at least in part, the Church’s corruption.JonNC:
Had a few people to see before thanksgivingsteve-b:
Some might argue that every Bishop of Rome has since 1054. Some might, I won’t. What I will say is Leo and the corruption in the Church created the atmosphere for the Reformation. Luther never happens except for the Church making possible.
Schism and division happens at least as much before of what is happening within the Church as what happens outside it.
Anyway, back in the saddle.
Jon,
Are you making light, even discounting, schism and division?
- Status