The key to showing the error of Protestantism

[dreath]

I doubt very much that any Protestant converted to Catholicism because they suddenly realized they had an incomplete Bible!

The problem isn’t the canon of the Bible, it’s that it has been violently separated from the Church of Christ. It was never meant to be stolen and used as a substitute for the Church of Christ. THAT is the real problem. THAT is what is ANTI-BIBLICAL! THAT is what makes Protestantism false and dangerous to salvation.

Were is any proof for any of this!

 

[dreath]

Were is any proof for any of this!

Actually the Catholic church Separated God’s people from his book!

 

[Potato1237]

Actually the Catholic church Separated God’s people from his book!

I don’t know where you get this from, as it is not relevant but you clearly are unaware that you state a complete fallacy. The Catholic Church indeed wrote and compiled the Bible. Where you get the idea that the Catholic Church “separated Gods people from his book”, I don’t have the slightest idea.

 

[Potato1237]

Were is any proof for any of this!

Read the Bible.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know where you get this from,

I don’t either.

Though tbh I was tempted to respond to it with "Well, naturally I would believe that if I were Protestant … " just to illustrate my preceding point (and possibly to get some interesting comments from Protestant posters).

 

[PRmerger]

Thank God when I go to sleep at night I know I am saved unlike Catholics! [SIGN][/SIGN]

No one is saved until he is dead.

For what is salvation but being in the Divine Presence, standing before the Eternal Throne of Heaven, enjoying the Beatific Vision?

So, since you are very much alive, you aren’t saved.

 

[Porknpie]

Thank God when I go to sleep at night I know I am saved unlike Catholics! [SIGN][/SIGN]

Interesting that you seem to have infallible certitude.

This belief can’t be found in the bible anywhere, and conflicts St. Paul’s words (the Written Word of God).

“4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.” (1 Cor 4)

"22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.’ (Rom 11:22)
St. Paul uses the word “provided”. Salvation is conditional in our cooperating with God’s grace, running the race until the end. He warns the Roman believers, that they too can fall away through unrepentant sin and must persevere to the end.

St. Paul never has this belief of “once saved, always saved”.

This is a man-made doctrine, not of God, and is a fruit of sola scriptura.

 

[Potato1237]

Interesting that you seem to have infallible certitude.

This belief can’t be found in the bible anywhere, and conflicts St. Paul’s words (the Written Word of God).

“4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.” (1 Cor 4)

"22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.’ (Rom 11:22)
St. Paul uses the word “provided”. Salvation is conditional in our cooperating with God’s grace, running the race until the end. He warns the Roman believers, that they too can fall away through unrepentant sin and must persevere to the end.

St. Paul never has this belief of “once saved, always saved”.

This is a man-made doctrine, not of God, and is a fruit of sola scriptura.

Great point. This is why, as an above poster similarly mentioned, why this American branch of evangelicalism is so dangerous, giving people I false sense of security that they are saved because they have “accepted Jesus as their personal lord and savior.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Great point. This is why, as an above poster similarly mentioned, why this American branch of evangelicalism is so dangerous, giving people I false sense of security that they are saved because they have “accepted Jesus as their personal lord and savior.”

I assure you it is not just “this American branch” of evangelicalism. It is global.

It appeals for the same reason that Islam does. It is black and white, and very simple.

 

[Potato1237]

I assure you it is not just “this American branch” of evangelicalism. It is global.

It appeals for the same reason that Islam does. It is black and white, and very simple.

Oh, I was not aware. I have been told by non Americans that have come here that they have never seen “Christianity” like this in their respective (european) countries. I see what you mean about it appealing like Islam.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. A church (like the Lutheran) which is guided by Sola Scriptura. A church guided by individuals rather than an infallible Apostolic Magisterium.

***In Catholicism there is NO holding of doctrine accountable to Scripture, not because it is not consonant with Scripture, because it always is, but because it is antecedent to Sacred Scripture. *** IOW, the Deposit of Faith, which has been entrusted to the Church has VERIFIED Sacred Scripture! That is HOW the canon was determined. The writings were held accountable to the Church’s doctrines! Writings that were not consonant with Church teaching were discarded from the canon, when the canon was being determined.

That is where the Christian Bible come from.

And, following this example, the Protestant ecclesial communities of the 16th c. discarded Scriptures that were not consonant with their own doctrines. That is WHY the Protestant bible has fewer books.

It’s an interesting claim. So, please be specific, because I read the D.C. books, and I’d like to know what you think the doctrines are that caused protestants to “discard” each of them.
For example; what is the doctrine in Judith that Protestants reject?
In Tobit?
In Wisdom?
In Ecclesiasticus?
In Baruch?
In 1 Marc?
In 2 Macc?

Jon

 

[boomerang]

It’s an interesting claim. So, please be specific, because I read the D.C. books, and I’d like to know what you think the doctrines are that caused protestants to “discard” each of them.
For example; what is the doctrine in Judith that Protestants reject?
In Tobit?
In Wisdom?
In Ecclesiasticus?
In Baruch?
In 1 Marc?
In 2 Macc?

Jon

If I may say, in Tobit we have angelic intercession plus alms-giving (works) can forgive sins, in 2 Maccabees we have saintly intercession and purgatory. I don’t know about the other books.

 

[Duane1966]

It’s an interesting claim. So, please be specific, because I read the D.C. books, and I’d like to know what you think the doctrines are that caused protestants to “discard” each of them.
For example; what is the doctrine in Judith that Protestants reject?
In Tobit?
In Wisdom?
In Ecclesiasticus?
In Baruch?
In 1 Marc?
In 2 Macc?

Jon

Hi Jon, there was in essence only book in the main that the Reformers wanted to reject, 2 Maccabees, because of the doctrine of Purgatory. As Calvin put it:

Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?

but in wishing to reject second Maccabees, the Reformers had to come up with an objective reason, and that reason caught in it’s net, the rest of the deuterocanon.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, there was in essence only book in the main that the Reformers wanted to reject, 2 Maccabees, because of the doctrine of Purgatory. As Calvin put it: but in wishing to reject second Maccabees, the Reformers had to come up with an objective reason, and that reason caught in it’s net, the rest of the deuterocanon.

Two points:

1. the precedent of dissecting these books was already set by the exclusion of 3 & 4 Macc. No excuse was needed.
2. from Luther’s perspective, the accusation is backwards. His point was you couldn’t use them to define doctrine because they were not canon. Not the other way around
   One simply needs to read his commentaries on them.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Two points:

1. the precedent of dissecting these books was already set by the exclusion of 3 & 4 Macc. No excuse was needed.
2. from Luther’s perspective, the accusation is backwards. His point was you couldn’t use them to define doctrine because they were not canon. Not the other way around
   One simply needs to read his commentaries on them.

It is well established in history that Luther had “problems” with certain books of the Bible, even in the NT, because of its conflict with his doctrines. That is not debatable.

BECAUSE Luther revised the canon to agree with the Masoretic canon, despite the Christian canon having already been established by the undivided Christian Church definitively 1000 years earlier.

NOW, with his “new Jewish” canon, those troublesome places were no longer an issue.

From the standpoint of HISTORY, the accusation stands firm.

And MORE importantly, the Christian Church NEVER used Scripture to justify Doctrines, because Church Doctrines (in the Deposit of Faith) were antecedent to Scripture. With the OT, Church doctrines were all consonant with the entire deuterocanonical books as well, and were included in the Christian canon 1000 yrs prior to Luther. Why wouldn’t they be? The very Author of the Sacred Scripture, the Living God made man, the HEAD of the Church, taught the Apostles and passed on HIS doctrine to them in the Deposit of Faith. All of the canon of Sacred Scripture (including the deuterocanonical books) are completely consonant with all Catholic Doctrines.

 

[Duane1966]

Two points:

1. the precedent of dissecting these books was already set by the exclusion of 3 & 4 Macc.

Was the criteria for excluding 3 & 4 Maccabees the same that the Reformers gave for excluding 1 & 2? Criteria was given for their exclusion after all, by the Catholic Church.

No excuse was needed.

Under this logic, no excuse would ever be needed for any decision.

1. from Luther’s perspective, the accusation is backwards. His point was you couldn’t use them to define doctrine because they were not canon. Not the other way around
   One simply needs to read his commentaries on…

The Reformers whole argument rests on saying they were not part of the canon. Were those books accepted as part of the canon by councils that preceded the Reformation? Undoubtedly yes.

Appeals to Jerome on the part of the Reformers fail, because after the council of Carthage, you will be hard pressed to find him calling the deuterocanon into question, whilst he quotes from them as Scripture copiously, after that council.

And Augustine disagrees with Luther further still, as he says the Church can make a doctrine, even if said doctrine is not in Scripture.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Duane1966:

And Augustine disagrees with Luther further still, as he says the Church can make a doctrine, even if said doctrine is not in Scripture.

If we can credit Luther and the Reformation for anything, it would have to be the renaissance of the Fathers of the Church. The Reformation caused Catholic polemicists to hearken back to the Church Fathers, since the Reformers considered the Tridentine Catholic church to be corrupt or worse, yet they tended to consider the first 5-6 hundred years to be somewhat ok.

Being steeped in history (and the Fathers of the Church) is THE antidote to Protestantism (according to Newman.)

 

[joemccarron]

Reverend Lovejoy: “We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform Presby-Lutheranism.”

So this is another issue that ties in to which books are in the bible and sola scriptura. That is Did Christ build a church (agaisnt which the Gates of Hell will not prevail) and if he did don’t we want to be in that Church?

But one thing we seem to know about that Church is that it could not have been sola scriptura. This is because we know Paul refers to the church already existing before the new testament was even written - let alone established as canon. And the Church had some authority.

So if you accept the above and find yourself in a sola scriptura church then you should believe one of 2 things:

1. I am not in the church Christ built
   or
2. The Church Christ started changed from being not a sola scriptura church into being one.

If the second is your view then I think a good question to ask is when and why did this extra biblical authority go away? I think trying to find satisfactory answers to these questions here may trigger some re-evaluation.

Again this only applies to sola scriptura protestants.

 

[JimmyDFG]

If we can credit Luther and the Reformation for anything, it would have to be the renaissance of the Fathers of the Church. The Reformation caused Catholic polemicists to hearken back to the Church Fathers, since the Reformers considered the Tridentine Catholic church to be corrupt or worse, yet they tended to consider the first 5-6 hundred years to be somewhat ok.

Being steeped in history (and the Fathers of the Church) is THE antidote to Protestantism (according to Newman.)

Early church father Origen of Alexandria commented “ubi division ibi peccatum” ( where there is division, there is sin)

You can see division within Protestantism, even when discussing its most important doctrines

 

[pablope]

It’s an interesting claim. So, please be specific, because I read the D.C. books, and I’d like to know what you think the doctrines are that caused protestants to “discard” each of them.
For example; what is the doctrine in Judith that Protestants reject?
In Tobit?
In Wisdom?
In Ecclesiasticus?
In Baruch?
In 1 Marc?
In 2 Macc?

Jon

Since the CC has its roots from the jews…it would everything that protestants reject…