How to Solve the Protestant Problem?

[Thanatos]

The books of the Apocrypha, as well as several New Testament books, most notably Apocalypse/Revelations, but his followers restored the NT books, just not the OT.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You'll have to source that since I can find no reference to such a thing. The books of the Apocrypha are non-canonical in the first place. That's what apocrypha means.

[Thanatos]

You'll have to source that since I can find no reference to such a thing. The books of the Apocrypha are non-canonical in the first place. That's what apocrypha means.

All you had to do was search in Google. Did you not even look?

This is from one source, http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/a...a/apoccont.htm

However, I wasn't able to find an online source detailing Luther's throwing out of books, however, only his dealing with the Apocrypha. Then again, everything I learned about Luther was in my Lutheran school. What more of a source do you want?

The great debate – whether the Apocrypha should be viewed as authoritative or not by Christians, has raged for 2,000 years. In the early years of the Church, it was natural for Christians to use the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible, as this was the language most familiar to them. As such, many of the Early Church fathers quoted from the Apocrypha in the same way that they quoted from the New and Old Testaments. However, there was some discord, even as early as the 4th century.

In 382 A.D., St. Jerome was asked by Pope Damasus to translate the Bible into Latin (the “Vulgate”). Jerome felt that only Hebrew texts were authoritative. He therefore rejected the Greek additions to the Septuagint, but, under pressure, still included them in the Vulgate, calling them “apocryphal”.

On the other end of the spectrum, Jerome’s contemporary, St. Augustine, strongly believed in the canonicity of the Greek additions to the Septuagint, as he considered the Septuagint translation to be divinely inspired. St. Athanasius (c. 296-373 A.D.), whose list of books of the New Testament would become the standard of the Christian world, took a middle view, stating in his 367 A.D. Paschal letter:

"...that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd..." (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, emphasis added)

Augustine’s view would prevail, though, and the Roman Catholic Church would include the Apocryphal books in the Catholic Bible, assigning them the official status of “deuterocanonical”, or being of a second tier of the canon. This view was made official at the Council of Trent in 1546, which condemned:

“[Anyone that] does not accept these entire books, with all their parts, as they have customarily been read in the Catholic Church and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical.”

The Orthodox Church, which generally uses the Septuagint as its primary translation, also accepts the Apocrypha as canonical, and adds other books not included in the Vulgate (such as 1 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151).

The most heated debates regarding the authoritative-ness of the Apocrypha began in the Reformation. In 1534, Martin Luther placed the books of the Apocrypha in a separate section between the Old and New testaments, and commented:

“Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read.”

This position, of course, is only mildly different than the Roman Catholic “deuterocanonical” view. The real difference of opinion occurred with 17th century Calvinists (Puritans) who successfully lobbied to have the following section added to the 1646 Westminster Confession:

1-3. “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”

The Calvinist argument against the canonicity of the Apocrypha traditionally includes these points:

The books of the Apocrypha are not part of the Jewish canon
While 90% of the New Testament references to the Old Testament are from the Septuagint, there are no New Testament references to the Apocrypha
Jerome rejected the Apocryphal books
There are geographical and historical errors in some of the Apocryphal books (Judith, for example)
None of the authors of the Apocrypha claimed divine inspiration
Lying and assassination are accepted as tools for good in one book (Judith)

[removeduser_487563287433]

Sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I definately want a better source than a second hand account of what your 'educational' institution 'taught' you.

[Thanatos]

Here, then.

http://equusnomveritas.blogspot.com/...upholding.html

The next major change occurred during the Reformation, when Luther rejected certain books from the Bible as being Apocryphal. In his original Bible, Luther actually included these books in an appendix, which was eventually removed entirely (as late as 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society). However, he also did not stop at just the seven Deutercanoniclas: the New Testament Canon was also scrutinized by Luther. Hebrews, James (the "epistle of straw"), Jude, and Revelation were all looked down upon by Luther (they were also initially placed in an appendix, but other Protestants placed them back in the Bible). The other Protestant reformers all followed Luther's lead in rejecting the Deuterocanonicals, but the Catholic Church re-affirmed them as a part of the canon during the Council of Trent.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Stu...estament-3.htm

Martin Luther also had questions about which books should be in the Bible. He expressed serious doubts about the Apocrypha, which were ultimately excluded from the Bible. He also had doubts about such Old Testament books as Ecclesiastes and Esther, the latter because it never mentions God. He seriously questioned the value of 2 Peter, 2-3 John, and Revelation. He also disliked the epistle of James, which he called "an epistle of straw." The reason for this is that Luther had come to believe that one is saved by faith in Christ and grace alone, with no necessity to keep God's commandments, while James was clear that "faith without works is dead." As it turned out, Luther didn't kept all of the books he questioned in his Bible translation.

And I'm done for now.

[removeduser_487563287433]

So basically he only removed books that were already considered non-canonical?

[Thanatos]

Only by St. Jerome, and that wasn't for a real reason either.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Poor show, Thanatos. Poor show.

[Thanatos]

Poor show, Thanatos. Poor show.

Well, if you would take some time just to go to the websites I provided you, then you'd get the whole picture.

St. Jerome questioned their validity based on a technicality, not on a real theological basis.

The websites have nice descriptions, and they explain the history better than I can.

[basics]

Romans 3 v 20-26, state,
“ Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law, rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ. God presented Him as an atonement, through faith in His blood.”

Every word written above is all that is required for the saving of man. But that is not all.

“ He did this to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus.”

and Romans 4 v 2-6, state,

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about – but not before God. What does the scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”
and,

“ David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.”
quoting,

“ Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

Now which among you can deny that this is God’s word? And if it is God’s word why bring in the words of others that have no bearing in what God has laid down that men might be saved? The message is simple just as it was from the beginning that a Saviour would come to pay the price for sin by dying so that His blood would erase forever the sin that separates man from God. What arrogance it is to add traditions to the simplicity that blood saves, His blood and none other, no, not even water.

The church does not save. It doesn’t matter what church. It is the message that brings on the sequence as mentioned above and anyone regardless of who they are and what they are have that ability. There are Arabs being saved where no Orthodox exist just as there are others being saved where no Protestants exist. Salvation being a work of God will never be baulked by the cause of denominationalism of any sort. When will you guys learn this?

It is written in the book of Mathew from the words of Jesus Christ Himself that there are two roads or paths, one wide that many go down, and one narrow that few will ever get the calling to go down so when you champion your denominations remember these things. I say that thinking of all the criminals and crooks that attend churches in the Orthodox lands, Roman Catholic countries, even Protestant ones. From some of the stuff, and that is all it is, coming up on these threads, I doubt that any but a few understand the Scriptures as revealed by the Holy Ghost.

There is no good in any platitudes for opposing denominations if that faction does not adhere to the Scriptures that are the only written words from God for that is the measure for all who claim to believe. Not my words, not the words of “ Fathers ” of whom you and I have no knowledge as to their own position before God unless of course naivety is your middle name. The book of life will confirm or deny these guys. Those that claim Christianity should test that claim not by the writings of those outside God’s word for that word is the only test to what you and they really are.

Zenith Darksea, I have said before that we speak with different Spirits and I see no reason to change that. You should know that the Spirit of truth cannot deliver different and opposing versions of that truth so therefore neither Orthodox nor Catholic have any affinity. They believe, as Paul writes, different gospels just as we Protestants believe a different gospel from you both. For goodness sake man read Revelation and see that the church and it’s apostasy is the first to be judged. Why, because the church is in such a state that it needs to be judged if the words of God as written above mean anything.

The only reason I am posting this is because it is soul destroying reading the rubbish I’ve seen that is written in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. When you and others insist on saying that God’s word, the Scriptures, are not enough for the saving of man, I say to you and others that they are the only source for salvation and nothing else is required. Now is that the same Spirit of truth as described by the Scriptures? Please don’t use the “ Fathers ” thing just because that was how the Bible came about. If memory serves me correct, God used Pharaoh and other kings to achieve His purposes for Israel, and even if they, the so-called “ Fathers ” had not gathered the Scriptures, others would have for nothing can stifle the will of God.

While my memory is still working I believe that Jesus Christ also said in Mathew not to call any man father but the Father in heaven. Now, how about that? Another contradiction of Scripture.

Finally, the problem of Protestants was something Rome tried to solve many years ago and failed. Ask yourself why?

[-Eclipse-]

To a non-Christian, one explanation would no doubt be that the Bible had no internal coherence and so could be used to produce so many different interpretations. But I am a Christian, and besides, the argument that the Bible is incoherent is basically flawed and untenable. The men who wrote and later established the Biblical canon did actually realise what they were doing and did have a specific purpose.

Simply not true, the bible itself has many clashes, particularily between old and new testaments. Personally I believe Christians would do well to ditch the vengeful and genocidal god of the old testament and stick to their own meek lamb. But, unwilling to do this, they load the cannons of cynics themselves.

In fact, when you consider that debates over the meaning of Holy Scripture didn't really surface until the 1500s or thereabout (and also the fact that it was entirely focused around North-Western Europe), it becomes clear that this is a cultural issue, based on an intellectual paradigm. In other words, Protestants began to think about the Bible in a different way - this was the rise of sola scriptura and the needless stigmatism of the past.

Actually it is intellectual. You must remember that before the 1500s people who split off (then more harshly deemed heretics) were burned, tortured etc. Until the last half-millenia there hasn't been a possibility of questioning of the bible post-gnostics (essentially post-nonpapal power, with the Cathars used as a precedant)

Christ has only one body, there is only one truth, and at first, there was only one collective of bishops. Clearly the Church cannot uphold the truth if it is composed of bickering splinter groups - this is the Protestant Problem.

Not so, before protestants there was the factitious church pre-constantine. In this it wasn't even agreed that the trinity was one body, that the bible was one text, that jesus was divine. It is this original split which leads to the inconstancies and present situation.

In fact, it was thanks to this Apostolic Tradition that the Biblical canon was arranged as it is today (after all, the Bible wasn't just faxed in from Heaven), and the Church is guardian of this tradition (see 1 Timothy 6:20-21).

How so? As far as I know the old church days were very fragmented, and eventualy were settled by the roman emperors, who simply exiled or killed any who did not agree with their, very politically formed, bible cannon. How is this to do with the Apostles?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

True, it should have been in your native language (Orthodox do at least use native languages).

Well so do the Catholics. If Boofhead's description of the Mass he went to is accurate then he must have got there via a time machine that took him back to sometime before 1965. Masses in Latin are very rare these days - I grew up in a devoutly Catholic family and never went to a single Mass that was not in English.

Methinks he's not being entirely truthful.

As far as I know the old church days were very fragmented, and eventualy were settled by the roman emperors, who simply exiled or killed any who did not agree with their, very politically formed, bible cannon.

Roman emperors who had cannons!!?? That was rather technologically advanced of them! Oh, you mean "canon".

Sorry, but the canon of the Bible was not set by any Roman emperors, despite what certain crappy third-rate thriller writers would have you believe.

[MasterAdnin]

I was unaware that Protestantism was a problem within Christianity. Perhaps you could enlighten us on why exactly it is a problem having people disagree with your religious beliefs?

Salaam bros,
Adnan

[boofhead]

Well so do the Catholics. If Boofhead's description of the Mass he went to is accurate then he must have got there via a time machine that took him back to sometime before 1965. Masses in Latin are very rare these days - I grew up in a devoutly Catholic family and never went to a single Mass that was not in English. Methinks he's not being entirely truthful.

Please don't call me a liar dude. A friend and his dad took me to the big Cathedral (St.Mary's?) in Sydney in the mid-80's, I am sure it was an Easter thing - we may have been a little late, I am unsure - but that is my recollection, and I tell you I heard no English whatsoever. I remember thinking "how strange" at the time, and have thought so ever since.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Please don't call me a liar dude. A friend and his dad took me to the big Cathedral (St.Mary's?) in Sydney in the mid-80's, I am sure it was an Easter thing - we may have been a little late, I am unsure - but that is my recollection, and I tell you I heard no English whatsoever. I remember thinking "how strange" at the time, and have thought so ever since.

Well, I'm thinking "how strange" right now, because the idea of you stumbling across a Tridentine Mass (ie in Latin) at St Mary's in the mid-80s is a bit surreal. There is a small group called the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter that still hold 1962 rite Masses in Sydney, but that's in some little chapel in Lewisham not the cathedral.

St Mary's (which I could see from my apartment window until I moved house a couple of weeks ago) often has Masses for the Italian and Philippino communities, so it'd be quite possible to go to a Mass at St Mary's that wasn't in English but also wasn't Latin.

[boofhead]

St Mary's (which I could see from my apartment window until I moved house a couple of weeks ago) often has Masses for the Italian and Philippino communities, so it'd be quite possible to go to a Mass at St Mary's that wasn't in English but also wasn't Latin.

Could be. My friends were Polish (surnamed "Nowacki"). Maybe we missed the sermon? Anyway, not to worry.

[kev-o]

Catholics and Orthodox have the same Bible, at least it should still be that way.

The Great Schism didn't have heretics like Luther throwing out books left and right.

I'm Lutheran and Luther wasn't a Heretic. The Catholic Church was corrupt at the time, people bought the Papacy and people paid for indulgences. Don't tell me about simoney. Luther did what anyone that wasn't rich and educated would have done, he rose up and had enough of the CC and took the foundemental beliefs of Christianity and started Lutheranism. Believing that God the father begot his one and only son, Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, died and resurrected to saved us, is the fundamental belief in Lutheranism. There is no need to see a priest for confession, when you can talk to Jesus. Praying to Saints is losing sight in who you really ought to be praying to, God.

Now Anglicanism, that could be along the lines of heresy, as it puts the Country before God. The only reason it was established was Henry VIII disliked the church's ruling. So he started his own religion, where you pledge your king first then God.

Now for the other Protestant religions, like Baptist, Methodists, Calvinism, and others... they interpreted the scripture differently. Who doesn't? Same goes with the Orthodox. They had a disagreement at the Council of Nicea and split.

A church doesn't need to follow the successors of St. Peter to get into Heaven. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in me, shall not perish, will have eternal life." That is what Lutherans believe.

[Oldgamer]

Please don't call me a liar dude. A friend and his dad took me to the big Cathedral (St.Mary's?) in Sydney in the mid-80's, I am sure it was an Easter thing - we may have been a little late, I am unsure - but that is my recollection, and I tell you I heard no English whatsoever. I remember thinking "how strange" at the time, and have thought so ever since.

Boofhead, you might also recall that Pope Benedict recently opened the door for the Latin Mass, once again, saying that it was never abrogated. I've attended Latin Masses in the 1990's, and of course, sang the various versions of the Ave Maria in Latin.

Indeed, I met one of the Monsignors of the Catholic Diocese in which I live, the other day, and he said that the Diocese is starting to prepare the various churches for the re-introduction of the Tridentine Mass. He said that there will be a lot of resistance, at first. Then, he laughed and said that people will do what they have to do to avoid Purgatory, or shorten their time therein.

[STReetSamurai]

Then, he laughed and said that people will do what they have to do to avoid Purgatory, or shorten their time therein.

Then everyone converts to Islam and he loses his followers.

One thing to say

[Thanatos]

Boofhead, you might also recall that Pope Benedict recently opened the door for the Latin Mass, once again, saying that it was never abrogated. I've attended Latin Masses in the 1990's, and of course, sang the various versions of the Ave Maria in Latin.

Indeed, I met one of the Monsignors of the Catholic Diocese in which I live, the other day, and he said that the Diocese is starting to prepare the various churches for the re-introduction of the Tridentine Mass. He said that there will be a lot of resistance, at first. Then, he laughed and said that people will do what they have to do to avoid Purgatory, or shorten their time therein.

Nobody ever said that attending the Tridentine mass will get you out of Purgatory.