Why do most protestants reject the deuterocanonical books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bad argumentation. The words of Luke, Mark, and Matthew can’t be negated just because John doesn’t mention repent to be forgiven just as much as they do. False argumentation. All Scripture must be considered and trying to divide scripture in this way doesn’t work. And John was written much later than the Synoptic Gospels. Christians would have known and understood the synoptic Gospels before John’s gospel came out.
 
Last edited:
that’s a wrong view. God punishes in Purgatory for unrepented and unconfessed sins. Not for all sins. Again Protestants seem to be confusing Temporal Punishment, such as King Davids child dying for Davids sin even though the Prophet Nathan said he was forgiven, and eternal punishment i.e. going to hell. and punishment isn’t he best way to describe it. forgive me for that. Purification is better. God purifies us of all unrepented sins in purgatory is the proper way to describe it.
 
Last edited:
I think you are the first on this site to ask me this. I have answered this in the past but it goes unnoticed. There is a huge difference. One, like the thief on the cross, who became an object of Christ love and mercy, yet lived the life of a thief, will stand at that 1st. Cor. 3 judgment seat. A failing Christian will not be there to determine “who he is” or “where he will go.” That is not the purpose of the judgment.

The fact that a “believer” stands at this judgment, only shows he is a family member already. It is an exclusive judgment only for the family of God. All outsiders will be judged at the Great while throne judgment, one-thousand years after this one.

He will probably be likened to the analogy of “straw.” He lived only for self. He buried his talent,… he refused to learn of Christ… he refused to go through the narrow gate leading to life… He will be judged, NOT according to sin!.. but according to what he did or failed to do in regards to the kingdom of God as a believer. Yet, because of God’s love and mercy which is everlasting, he will pass through this judgment to enjoy his free gift in the house of God. Will he inherit anything? NO… nothing.

But the man who left houses and lands, and brother and sister and even denied his own life, will also stand at the same judgment to give an account. This is a man who sanctified himself by dying to self and living to Christ. His reward will be great. He will rule over nations.
 
That is ridiculous. It is important to know WHY the writer was writing and to whom he was writing. What I said is true, there is multiple gospel narratives in John offering specific information about eternal life the other gospels don’t even touch. John wrote for a very specific reason that Matthew, for instance did not write. But if you want to pass on that. Okay.
 
Last edited:
Hmm… an interesting way to interpret it. One I haven’t really heard of. So, in my own words, there are different levels of rewards in heaven, such as becoming a king/queen, or just getting nothing. So saints get rulership and those who as you said “He lived only for self. He buried his talent,… he refused to learn of Christ… he refused to go through the narrow gate leading to life” will get salvation i.e. living forever, but not anything else. Interesting. While I think there may be different levels of reward in heaven, I wont say as to what those are since I don’t believe Scripture or Tradition have revealed those at least to my best knowledge, but I will say that I think the interpretation has a flaw. You said that the man refused to go through the narrow gate. That means he went through the wide gate which leads to destruction. Therefore he wouldn’t be saved. So I think your wrong there. And using that way of reading this, one may understand that the thief on the cross may have actually been on the narrow way before his crucifixion, but he sinned and was condemned to the cross and Jesus considered the suffering on the cross as the thief’s temporal punishment so then the thief may have not needed to go to purgatory. I am not sure on that but its just an idea. But the idea is interested that you posted. While I don’t think its correct, a good thought experiment.
 
Didn’t pass. You said that John was the evangelical gospel and he said nothing about repenting for forgiveness. I was just saying it seems that you are dividing the Scripture, forgetting what the Synoptic Gospels have said about repentance. That would be bad exegesis. it would seem that you are denying what the Synoptic Gospels are saying in the desire to only see what John is saying which isn’t right.
 
SeekerOfTruth7 said:
That means he went through the wide gate which leads to destruction. Therefore he wouldn’t be saved. So I think your wrong there
Click to expand...
Of course you think I’m wrong here. You read scripture like many of my post-protestant friends do. Let me ask you a question about the narrow and wide gate: Where is it in the context of the passage do you latch on to words that indicate Jesus was talking about eternal matters?

If the holy Spirit wanted to He could have said,

"Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to ETERNAL destruction, and there are many who go in by it…
14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to (ETERNAL) life, and there are few who find it.

If only the Holy Spirit would have said it that way… we wouldn’t be debating these things. But that is not what the passage says. Life and death are temporal until/unless you find those qualifying words like Eternal, or Everlasting etc.

Jesus made a clear distinction between LIFE and abundant LIFE. A Believer can enter life, but it’s not that abundant because he’s isn’t following his leader. He got into the race by receiving Jesus Christ as savior. but when the gun went off, he went left, while Christ went right.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying when Jesus says: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it" that the destruction and life that he is speaking of isn’t eternal? What kind of destruction and life is it then?
 
tgGodsway said:
He got into the race by receiving Jesus Christ as savior. but when the gun went off, he went left, while Christ went right.
Click to expand...
And another question would be that, do we have to follow Jesus to be saved? Seems like from this statement you’re saying we don’t have to follow Jesus…
 
Some of the most miserable people I know are “believers” who do not go to Church or pick up a bible to read how rich and full their lives can be. They get spiritual amnesia. They forget that Christ lives in them. They return to satan’s ways much like the Israelites who wanted to go back to Egypt, so they complained to Moses to go back… they were living disconnected and ruined lives.
 
When you say, “to be saved…” Do you mean saved eternally?.. Do you mean Christ needs to send His Spirit to come live in your heart? Do you mean to be delivered from eternal separation?
Or do you mean saved in a temporal sense, like the saving of the soul, as we read in James 1
 
Last edited:
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.= lives

Receiving God’s word saves=delivers are lives from one place in God to another.
 
I am meaning the Biblical meaning of saved: Saved from our sins and the eternal punishment deserved. I don’t think you know what good exegesis is. If you don’t think that Matthew 7 and James 1 are speaking eternal salvation just because they don’t say eternal, then you need to go back to the fundamentals of biblical reading. its pretty obvious that is means salvation of our eternal souls. Or are you just going to spout some new interpretation of these words like all the other Protestants? Thank the Lord for preserving the Apostolic Faith through His Church so we don’t fall into eisegetical errors like this.
 
Which is eternal…so you just contradicted your own statements? Have fun with that
 
Hey, I am not the one who is adding imaginary words into the verse. If you want to impose that specific idea when Matthew didn’t impose it, you go right ahead. I refuse to force the passage to speak to something it doesn’t actually say. The Holy Spirit was very specific and intentional when He wrote what He wrote. The word Saved from the Greek text is not rocket science. The word means to be delivered. NO more and no less… So in what way can we be delivered?.. We can be delivered eternally based on the context of a passage, or, we can be delivered temporally, based on the context of a passage. For instance we can say when Israel went through the Red Sea, God delivered them temporally, from one place to another. But we wouldn’t read “into” the passage that God delivered them eternally. By the way my exegesis is just fine.

It’s late, it was nice chatting with you. May God’s rich love and grace be yours eternally.
 
Last edited:
It was nice chatting on my end too. God bless and have a good night!

-Seeker
 
Last edited:
SeekerOfTruth7 said:
anything Catholic turned me away because of an anti-Catholicism attitude instilled in me as I was young.
Click to expand...
Haha yeah that’s pretty much how I grew up. Learning about then “evil empire” RCC. As I got older though I found out that the Catholic Church isn’t too evil 😛
SeekerOfTruth7 said:
But once one looks into the DC and why its in the Catholic Bible, they can see the good reasons and some will even either agree they are inspired, or they will at least view them as good for instruction and history between the end of Malachi and Incarnation of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I can definitely agree that they’re good for instruction! I know some churches that could definitely use Sirach 38. As far as inspired? I’m not sure, i can’t really decide if they are or not that’s above my paygrade lol.
SeekerOfTruth7 said:
after my study of the DC, came to view them as inspired and was one of the reasons why I began my conversion into Catholicism.
Click to expand...
That definitely seems to be a reoccurring theme from people who read the DCs
SeekerOfTruth7 said:
All the arguments that Protestants make, like Jesus didn’t quote them, or the Jews have a different canon, are fallacious arguments to me and most Catholics.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i agree. So far it seems that nobody has any solid reason for rejecting them.
 
When I was a Protestant I was always led to believe they were (added) books of the Bible. They were never talked about and therefore I never learned the history about the Bible until becoming catholic.
 
tgGodsway said:
He didn’t state it… He acted on it. You can always tell what someone believes by what they do, more than what they say.
Click to expand...
So, when the Holy Spirit acted to have the inspired authors quote extensively from the LXX, this was confirming that God believes the LXX to be an inspired Canon (by your logic).
Got it. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top