Posted on 10/06/2019 9:00:00 AM PDT by NRx
Interesting article.
Thanks, I’ll give this a careful read this afternoon. I appreciate this type of post.
An example:
They Teach A Person Is Saved By Works
In the Apocrypha proof texts can be found to support the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by human works and not faith alone. The Apocrypha contains the following verses.
For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life (Tobit 12:9).
In another place in Tobit it says.
So now, my children see what almsgiving accomplishes, and what injustice does it brings death! (Tobit 14:11).
In the Book of First Maccabees it says.
Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (First Maccabees 2:52).
The Bible, on the other hand, says that a person is saved by grace through faith. It is not based upon our good works.
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8,9).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm
The question is: Who had the authority to reject anything as canon after they had been part of the Christian canon for 1000 years before Luther?
They never were part of the canon for the 1000 years you claim.
Actually, eagleone, they were. I invite to read "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger" by Gary Michuta (referenced in the article above), or "Where We Got the Bible" by the Rev. Henry Graham, a convert from Protestantism , the full text which is available free online:
Ah, yes they were. Try reading the OP sometime.
Why would you expect an Old Testament book to teach salvation by grace through faith?
I would suggest that you take another at the history of the Bible. The Deuterocanonical (Protestant Apocryphal) Books, while disputed in the early years, have been accepted as canonical since the 4th century. It was only in the 16th century that Martin Luther and the Protestants after him removed them. History does not support your position.
Strange isnt it? 1000 yrs later some mentally ill Priest claims books in the Bible are not. Again, by what authority? He had none.
Ah, yes they were. Try reading the OP sometime.
No they weren't and yes I did read the OP.
Jesus Himself defined the OT Scriptures.
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Luke 24:44 NASB
The apocrypha were not included in these.
Any appeal to the ECFs will further erode your position as there is no unanimous consent among them on this issue nor any of the other extra biblical issues Rome has defined.
Why would you expect an Old Testament book to teach salvation by grace through faith?
2Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3And Abram said, “Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.” 4Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” 5And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” 6Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Gen 15:15:2-6 NASB
Starts pretty early.
Well, whatever I bring it will be far more than whatever you have ever brought to the discussion.
bumpmark
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Luke 24:44 NASB
The apocrypha were not included in these.
Notice that nowhere in this passage is Jesus saying that he is defining which books go into the OT canon. In context, it was part of an argument with the Pharisees about them persecuting him as their ancestors persecuted the prophets.
And my original question remains unanswered: Who has the authority to determine the canon?
By appealing to these, and only these, He was defining the accepted canon being used by the Jews.
And my original question remains unanswered: Who has the authority to determine the canon?
God moved the early ekklesia to recognize the authoritative books we have in the Bible today.
Dude...run over to the caucus threads. No one will challenge you there. That is, unless you agree that the current pope is not a legit pope.
shhhhh.... You are ruining their narrative. It was the eeeeeevil Martin Luther that dissed the apocrypha. At least in Roman fanstasy world.
Historical fact, not fantasy. The early Christians accepted the books of the Old Testament that were found in the Septuagint, which include the Deuterocanonical books. The canon of the Bible was definitively established in the 4th century. It was reaffirmed by the Council of Florence in 1442. If memory serves me right, this Martin Luther. All the Council of Trent did was, like Florence, reaffirm what had already been accepted as the canon of the Bible by Catholics for over 1000 years. Remember, also, the Luther attempted to modify the canon of the New Testament as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.