Why do most protestants reject the deuterocanonical books?

[ahs]

Okay… well, firstly the 1st. Samuel 12 passage is taken out of it’s context.

Um, no, I didn’t take anything out of context. I said exactly what those passages say, exactly, and stated that these are exactly what the Church happens to teach about something called “Purgatory “.
You may choose to apply your personal and fallible interpretation into those texts, and to continue to ignore what the Church actually teaches about Purgatory, but I am just reading what the Scriptures actually say, and comparing that to what the Church actually says. And they match.

 

[tgGodsway]

I know. And the ones with the more trendy version became Christians; while the ones who rejected Christ held to the smaller version.

This point proves nothing. The very ones who became Christian and held onto their trendy Greek version, never quoted out of the added books, or used those books to formula doctrine. Why doesn’t this point matter to you? It’s okay. I know you must defend this, otherwise like a stack of cards, it all comes crashing down.

 

[ahs]

Why doesn’t this point matter to you?

Because I trust God, and I know from His Sacred Word that he gave His Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth, full authority to determine which Canon is the correct one. Also because that Greek Canon shows God active you through the birth of Christ instead of taking a 400 year vacation, so it makes far more sense, logically, historically, and in faith, to accept the Greek Jew’s Canon. To limit the Canon to that which was acceptable only to those who rejected Christ and which cuts out 400 years of God’s history with His people simply seems foolish.

 

[Phill]

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

Hmmm, that actually makes a lot of sense. I must ask though, how did you draw that conclusion?

 

[Minh_Nguyen]

Well how do we know which books is inspired? Paul said in Roman 3:2 that the Jews are entrusted with the “oracles of God” and hence, only the Jews know the exact number of books should be included in the Old Testament Canon.

Protestants reject the Apocrypha as uninspired for some good reasons:

1. There was no unanimous consent prior Trent concerning the subject. Some Church Fathers disagreed with including it in the Scripture. Even Cardinal Cajetan who interviewed Luther also reject the deuterocanonical books as uninspired.
2. The chief purpose of defining these books as uninspired is theological to counter the Protestant Reformation. There are some teaching in the Apocrypha that warrant Roman Catholic doctrine, such as prayers to the dead. “When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” Isaiah 8:19

It’s important to note that Protestant don’t reject the usefulness of the Apocrypha in spiritual discernment and history.

 

[Minh_Nguyen]

Because I trust God, and I know from His Sacred Word that he gave His Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth, full authority to determine which Canon is the correct one.

The church, as a body of believers, support the truth. God does not depend on man to establish His words. Rather, believers recognize the Words of God because of the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27)

Q. 4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are of the Word of God?

A. The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty7 and purity;8 by the consent of all the parts,9 and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God;10 by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation:11 but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very word of God.12

 

[neophyte]

Why do most protestants reject the deuterocanonical (apocraphal) books?

Because they were told to from a very young age.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I heard it from a scholar on Catholic Answers but I can’t remember for the life of me who it was haha. But I think it makes a lot of sense. We really don’t know a lot about the thief but with good study of the scripture we can see that Jesus said one must follow him on the narrow way to have life. And it would make sense the thief was possibly a follower of Christ before this especially since he had this seemingly real faith in Jesus and knew who He was. There seems to be a story to this. But yeah sorry I can’t remember who the scholar was that said this but I think you can find it on YouTube.

Hope that helps, God Bless

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Also real quick, the Church has always taught that one can suffer enough Temporal Punishment for unrepentant sins here on earth so that they don’t need to go to Purgatory because in Gods eyes they are cleanses through this suffering.

 

[tgGodsway]

Because I trust God, and I know from His Sacred Word that he gave His Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth, full authority to determine which Canon is the correct one

The problem is that you and others begin with the false premise that the CC is infallible and can never make a doctrinal mistake. But when you understand how Jesus rebuked His Churches in the book of Revelation chapter 1-3 for instance, one can only conclude by those narratives how the Church is called to not only proclaim truth, but must remain in the truth on every level.

The possibility that the seven Churches of Asia could drop the ball concerning truth was not only possible, but was a reality. Even the Apostles in their day had the potential to drop the ball about maintaining and declaring the truth. This is why Paul included himself when he said, “but even if WE or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:8.

While eager to rebuke any Christian who does not follow the Catholic C, you have insolated yourself from scrutiny by believing the CC is immune to any doctrinal falsehood. You get angry if anyone questions it.

To limit the Canon to that which was acceptable only to those who rejected Christ and which cuts out 400 years of God’s history with His people simply seems foolish.

First of all the O.T. Cannon was a finished volume not an on-going revelation with historical doors wide open to continue with anything that came up. The bible does not record all history just history that God wanted preserved in each generation. The Holy Spirit stopped speaking with Malachi approx. 400 years before Christ. It was not His intention to record all history as “inspired scripture.”

Again, Jesus and the Apostles never pointed the Jews to any book outside of the Hebrew volume of His day. The idea that only those who crucified him accepted the Hebrew bible is crazy. The Apostles, who were also Jewish, never quoted from the added books of the Septuagint. That’s a fact.
The last words of Malachi (before 400 years of silence by God’s prophets) was all about the coming Messiah. He said, "I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. " (4:5) That Elijah was an allegory, and spoke of Christ’ first coming.

Your point is not persuasive in my view. But that’s okay…

 

[tgGodsway]

I heard it from a scholar on Catholic Answers but I can’t remember for the life of me who it was haha. But I think it makes a lot of sense. We really don’t know a lot about the thief but with good study of the scripture we can see that Jesus said one must follow him on the narrow way to have life. And it would make sense the thief was possibly a follower of Christ before this especially since he had this seemingly real faith in Jesus and knew who He was.

SeekerOfTruth7. … I like that name.

The idea that the thief on the cross was a follower of Christ has no historical or biblical proof. It is conjecture. Also the idea that the narrow road spoken of in the Gospel of Matthew is a narrow road to eternity, is another conjecture unsupported by the biblical text. You are reading into the passage an idea that is not actually in the passage. Therefore you are forcing it to mean what your bias says it is suppose to mean. Don’t buy- in to sloppy interpretation is my unsolicited advice.

blessings.

 

[Minks]

@tgGodsway

Well, for instance, the whole teaching on purgatory. The N.T. Apostles never taught it. They taught the exact opposite.

@tgGodsway

Please show us those teachings.

And, is it not true that the Jewish people prayed for their dead?

 

[Minks]

Well, for instance, the whole teaching on purgatory. The N.T. Apostles never taught it. They taught the exact opposite.

@tgGodsway

Please show us where the apostles taught us not to pray for our dead.

 

[Phill]

the idea that the narrow road spoken of in the Gospel of Matthew is a narrow road to eternity, is another conjecture unsupported by the biblical text.

Then what is it referring to?

 

[Minks]

SeekerOfTruth7:

I heard it from a scholar on Catholic Answers but I can’t remember for the life of me who it was haha. But I think it makes a lot of sense. We really don’t know a lot about the thief but with good study of the scripture we can see that Jesus said one must follow him on the narrow way to have life. And it would make sense the thief was possibly a follower of Christ before this especially since he had this seemingly real faith in Jesus and knew who He was.

SeekerOfTruth7. … I like that name.

The idea that the thief on the cross was a follower of Christ has no historical or biblical proof. It is conjecture. Also the idea that the narrow road spoken of in the Gospel of Matthew is a narrow road to eternity, is another conjecture unsupported by the biblical text. You are reading into the passage an idea that is not actually in the passage. Therefore you are forcing it to mean what your bias says it is suppose to mean. Don’t buy- in to sloppy interpretation is my unsolicited advice.

blessings.

@tgGodsway

So you’re trying to make us believe that OUR apostles, who walked with Christ, passed down to us sloppy interpretation? And that your interpretation, spawned by mortals who were born 1500+ years later really know more about what Christ REALLY meant?

Lol! What else can you think of?

 

[tgGodsway]

Sure Minks. What did the Apostles teach concerning the believer after they leave this earth? This is the question. Catholic teaching tells us most of them go to a place called Purgatory.

There isn’t even an elusion to such an idea among the inner circle of Apostles and Christ. When it came to eternal life, Jesus said it this way: "He who hears my word and believes him who sent ME, has eternal life and does not come into (a sinner’s) judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24.

Hence eternal life is already possessed when you believe in Jesus. The same can be said of the thief on the cross, and also the words of the Apostle Paul who did not anticipate any such idea of purgatory when He said, “Yes we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” 2 Cor. 5:8.

In answer to the question: What must I do to be saved, Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts. 16:31. Notice what he didn’t say: He didn’t say, believe and confess your sins to a priest, do penance, or said anything about purgatory.

Peter the alleged founder of the CC declared, "Christ also suffered for sins ONCE, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God. (1st. Pet. 3:18.) Hence we cannot be made to suffer for that sin a second time. His suffering was sufficient and therefore supreme. Nor can God remember our sins, see Hebrews 10:17.

There are many more passages all pointing away for this idea of purgatory by the first-hand witnesses to the resurrection.

 

[tgGodsway]

So you’re trying to make us believe that OUR apostles, who walked with Christ, passed down to us sloppy interpretation?

No, not there interpretation, … just yours, … with all respect!

 

[Minks]

Sure Minks. What did the Apostles teach concerning the believer after they leave this earth? This is the question. Catholic teaching tells us most of them go to a place called Purgatory.

There isn’t even an elusion to such an idea among the inner circle of Apostles and Christ. When it came to eternal life, Jesus said it this way: "He who hears my word and believes him who sent ME, has eternal life and does not come into (a sinner’s) judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24.

Hence eternal life is already possessed when you believe in Jesus. The same can be said of the thief on the cross, and also the words of the Apostle Paul who did not anticipate any such idea of purgatory when He said, “Yes we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” 2 Cor. 5:8.

In answer to the question: What must I do to be saved, Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts. 16:31. Notice what he didn’t say: He didn’t say, believe and confess your sins to a priest, do penance, or said anything about purgatory.

Peter the alleged founder of the CC declared, "Christ also suffered for sins ONCE, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God. (1st. Pet. 3:18.) Hence we cannot be made to suffer for that sin a second time. His suffering was sufficient and therefore supreme. Nor can God remember our sins, see Hebrews 10:17.

There are many more passages all pointing away for this idea of purgatory by the first-hand witnesses to the resurrection.

@tgGodsway
No, no, no! Catholics do not claim Peter is the founder of our Church! We KNOW that Christ founded our Church! Please find out out what the Catholic Church really teaches.

 

[tgGodsway]

The contrast is between LIFE and DEATH. The narrow and difficult road leading to life is not eternal life but temporal. Why? Because Jesus wasn’t instructing his students about how one becomes eternally saved from this passage. If you want that,… go to the book of John.

But Matthew says, “only few find this life.” Why?.. because it requires total commitment such as leaving houses and lands, … denying brothers and sisters etc… The broad road leading to death and destruction where many go in, is, again, not about eternal destruction but temporal based on the context.

There are plenty of passages that warn about eternal death, this is not one of them.
The call here is not to be a “believer in Christ,” but a disciple or student of Christ.

The mistake by both Catholic and many on the Evangelical side is to force Matthew’s gospel to preach on eternal matters to which he was not. They read the word “eternal” into the narrow road narrative when the Holy Spirit didn’t put it there. We must read each word at face value and not insert words based on our own bias of what we think is should mean.

 

[tgGodsway]

No, no, no! Catholics do not claim Peter is the founder of our Church! We KNOW that Christ founded our Church! Please find out out what the Catholic Church really teaches.

Well lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. I agree to what you said, now please address all the other things I said.