Posted on 02/26/2015 1:41:17 PM PST by RnMomof7
Fast forward another decade, I am now a born again Christian out from under the Catholic church and going to Protestant/Evangelical services. When I would visit my Mom, we would go to Catholic Mass but I increasingly felt out-of-place there, that something was wrong and missing the genuine worship I had come to appreciate. I still drive my Mom to her weekly Mass, but I do not go in with her. It just doesn't "work" for me. This, by the way , was NOT something I consciously decided or felt I had to make a choice. It was an inward sense of the Holy Spirit steering me away from a false worship and into a genuine relationship with the living Savior.
Do not hide your face from me when I am in distress. (Psalm 102:2)
I was raised as an Army Brat, and attended Protestant services around the world. They had slight variations depending on the celebrant. Since the Episcopal Church was the de facto church of the U.S. Army, many Protestant services were very similar to Morning Prayer, circa 1926 Book of Common Prayer. My experience led me to convert to the Episcopal Church from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) a Presbyterian offshoot.
Fast forward to my experience as an Infantry Battalion Executive Officer in Germany. Our battalion chaplain was a Roman Catholic and native of Chile who spoke only broken English. My battalion commander was engaged in an ongoing dispute with our Commander, then Brigadier General Norman Schwartzkopf who expected all of his commanders to attend Protestant Chapel (we were both Episcopalian and I was a Vestryman of the Anglican parish across the Rhine in Wiesbaden). We decided to attend the Spanish Mass offered by our Chaplain early on Sunday mornings so that I could get to Morning Prayer in Wiesbaden and my battalion commander could thumb his nose at Schwartzkopf.
I found Mass to be a grand experience, even in Spanish. I am very attuned to Catholic liturgy, though not so much Catholic governance. I have since left the Episcopal Church because of their abandonment of belief in God, but I cannot embrace Catholicism. Our religious institutions have become barriers to our Christian beliefs and adherence to Scripture.
First of all, NO ONE threw in the garbage those extra-canonical books - not even Luther, who also translated them in his German bible.
Second, there were FIFTEEN extra-canonical books in the Septuagint - more than the seven Trent decided were "officially" canonical. So, obviously, a book's presence in the Septuagint is NOT proof they were all from the Holy Spirit's inspiration.
Finally, there are numerous ERRORS in those extra seven books, NONE of them claim to be the word of the Lord, a few confirm that there WERE no prophets of the Lord in their time and one even states he is speaking his OWN thoughts and asks forgiveness for any mistakes he makes (the prologue of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)). These were NOT the kinds of things true prophets of the Lord said. In fact, to attribute these books as from the Holy Spirit is the true blasphemy because it concludes He did not, or could not, protect the holy word of God.
From http://www.justforcatholics.org/a48.htm:
The apocrypha consists of 15 pieces of Jewish literature written around 200 years B.C. They are included with the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint. Seven of these books (First and Second Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus, also known as Sirach) and additions to Esther and Daniel, are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants do not accept them as part of the Holy Scriptures.
R. K. Harrison explains: "Use of the term apocrypha to mean noncanonical goes back to the fifth century AD, when Jerome urged that the books found in the Septuagint and in the Latin Bibles that did not occur in the canon of the Hebrew Old Testament writings should be treated as apocryphal. They were not to be disregarded entirely, since they were part of the great contemporary outpouring of Jewish national literature. At the same time they should not be used as sources for Christian doctrine, but at best for supplementary reading of an uplifting and inspirational nature" [1]
These books do not make any claim to inspiration. On the contrary, the prologue of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) asks pardon from the readers for all inexactitudes: "I entreat you... pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words." The author of Maccabees concludes by saying, "I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me" (2 Maccabees 15:28, 39). That is not the language of divine inspiration!
First Maccabees notes that there were no prophets in Israel at that time (1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Since the New Testament frequently refers to the Scriptures as "the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21), how could a writing that specifically states that there were no prophets at the time when it was written be called Scripture?
What is more serious, the apocrypha teach doctrines that contradicts Scripture (see, for instance, Sirach 3:3,30, in contrast with Galatians 2:16,21; 3:10-14; Tobit 12:9 contradicts 1 John 1:7 and Hebrews 9:22; Wisdom 8:19,20 contradicts Romans 3:10). They encourage practices that do not conform to Scripture (Sirach 12:4-7 disagrees with Luke 6:27-38 and Matthew 5:43-48).
Recently, someone asked me, "I was on a Catholic website that claimed the book of Judith is a parable. So when it says Nebuchadnezzar is the leader of the Assyrians it's not to be taken literally. What do you think about this?" Well, I think the reason why we are advised that the Book of Judith should not be taken literally is quite simple. The introductory verse of the books states:
But King Nebuchadnezzar was NOT the king of Assyria; he was the king of Babylon! (See, for example, 2 Kings 24:11 - "And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it") So, if we take Judith as a historical book, the evident historical blunder immediately undermines its supposed canonicity and inspiration.
The Catholic solution? Judith is not history - it is a parable! Even so, why should someone include evident historical stupidities in a parable? Imagine beginning a story like this: "When Sir Winston Churchill was President of the United States…" That does not give much credibility to your story, does it?
In the New Testament there are about 260 direct quotations from, and about 370 allusions to the books of the Old Testament. When Jesus and His apostles quote or allude to the Old Testament books, it is clear that they considered them authoritative and canonical. For example in John 10:34,35 the Lord Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, and immediately comments that the scriptures cannot be broken. For the apostle Paul, "It is written" (in the Old Testament books) was the sure ground for his doctrinal teaching. Thus the New Testament testifies to divine authority of the Old Testament. Significantly there are no such quotations to the apocrypha that imply divine inspiration of these books. (See Are the Apocrypha Quoted in the New Testament?)
It must be stressed that these books were not considered canonical by the Jews. These books are written in Greek and are not part of the Massoretic Text, which are copies of the inspired Hebrew text of the Scriptures. The Jewish historian, Josephus, states as a matter of fact that the Jews considered only 22 books of divine origin (equivalent to 39 books in the Protestant Old Testament, since some of them - such as the minor prophets - were counted as one book). To this day, the Jews hold to the same canon held by Evangelicals. The rejection by the Jews of the apocrypha is very significant, because they were the people entrusted with the words of God.
"What advantage then hath the Jew?...Much every way: chiefly, because unto them were committed the oracles (words) of God" (Romans 3:1,2)
The church inherited the canonical books from God's Old Covenant people, the Jews. (God also gave the church additional books, the New Testament, which completes the Holy Bible). It does not make sense to make additions to the books of the Old Testament many centuries after the covenant with the Jewish people had given way to the new. The Church in the New Testament has no business adding to the canon of the Old Covenant Scriptures received by the Jews.
Indeed, many Christian leaders throughout church history taught that the Hebrew Bible consisted of 22 books. These correspond to the 39 books of the Old Testament of the Protestant Bible. (The numbers differ because some books, such as Samuel and Kings, are divided into two books, First and Second Samuel, etc, in the Protestant Bible). [2]
How then did the apocryphal writings find their way in the Catholic Bible? Early in the second century, the first Latin translations of the Bible were done from the Septuagint (which included the apocrypha). There was a conflict between the great Fathers, Augustine and Jerome, regarding the value of the apocrypha. Augustine accepted them because he used the Septuagint which contained these books and which was popular in North Africa. Jerome was one of the few Fathers who knew both Greek and Hebrew, and he rejected the apocrypha because he knew that those books were not accepted by the Jews and were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Greatly influenced by Augustine, the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century included the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. However, we must add that contrary to the impression given by Catholic apologists, the apocrypha were not officially recognized by the Catholic church as canonical at Hippo and Carthage. The apocrypha were finally added to the Old Testament by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Moreover the canon approved by Carthage is different from that approved by Trent. The Council of Trent omits the Septuagint First Esdras which had been included by Carthage; while Second Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah combined in a single book in the Septuagint) were distinguished as two separate books (First Esdras and Second Esdras, also known as Nehemiah).
Up to the time of the Reformation, they were not generally regarded as canonical books on the same level as the Old Testament Scripture. "St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture" (The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, The Canon).
Pope Gregory the Great says this about the apocrypha: "…we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony" (Moral Teachings Drawn from Job; 19, 34).
After listing the canonical books of the Scriptures, St Athanasius wrote: "There are other books besides the aforementioned, which, however, are not canonical. Yet, they have been designated by the Fathers to be read by those who join us and who wish to be instructed in the word of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon; and the Wisdom of Sirach; and Esther; and Judith; and Tobias..." (Thirty-ninth festal letter, 367).
Cardinal Cajetan, a leading Roman Catholic scholar at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, clearly states that the apocryphal books are not canonical and cannot be used to confirm matters of faith. (See St Jerome and the Apocrypha). "Even on the eve of the council [of Trent] the Catholic view was not absolutely unified...Catholic editions of the Bible published in Germany and in France in 1527 and 1530 contained only the protocanonical books" [3] i.e. the list of Old Testament books of these Catholic Bibles was identical to the Hebrew and Protestant Bibles.
Following the Lord Jesus, His apostles and the writers of the New Testament, we often refer and quote from the books of the Old Testament to establish our faith, and like them we never use the apocrypha for that purpose.
....”This, by the way , was NOT something I consciously decided or felt I had to make a choice. It was an inward sense of the Holy Spirit steering me away from a false worship and into a genuine relationship with the living Savior”....
Remarkable that as young as you were you opted to navigate yourself to church...also interesting that even so young God was showing you the way to go.
Good story Boatbums.....That inward sense is often denied by catholics and others when the Holy Spirit is operating within.. or pushed back...you paid attention to that discomfort.
....”I understood long ago that it was I who would stand alone before that throne and not in some group that I had signed allegiance to. It’s Chris alone who I look to, no some organization run by fallible man”....
I can relate to that as well...It was because I pulled away from two opposing churches... and got with the Lord and His Word alone that He began to teach me in remarkable ways. I wanted to know not who was being truthful...but what did God himself want me to know.
I remember so well sitting down that first day and saying to God that He said He would teach me and I was there at the moment to be taught by Him. .....it took more than one setting but each time I did so I found myself not wanting to stop as HE opened His Word more and more...and I knew HE was indeed teaching me.....and HE does so still to this very day! Amen!!!
I’ve been to many churches in my life as I’ve moved often....But with that I also knew each church I attended was to worship Him and listen to what He might have to say. Many were worldly....others dead...but those that were ‘centered’ on Jesus Christ and His Word were wonderful to attend, and I would always learn more about Jesus and love Him all the more for having been there among them.
Jesus said we were not to forske the gathering of ourselves together..as some do...and there is something remarkable when we are among the body of believers...His church....no matter what denomination they might be.
Bump
Such a strong self-delusion in no way mitigates their blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
Apparently part and parcel of the currently espoused delusion is that the New Testament is wrong to praise the Greek Bereans who studied the entire Old Testament rather than praising the anti-Christ Pharisees who the "Scripture Alone" crowd accept as their highest authority in all things Scriptural.
Accepted by WHOM at this time?
What was 'accepted' by JEWS that ROME tossed out?
It's no WONDER that Mormons are confused over this!!
Trinity: found in the Book of MORMON ----------- rejected in the Doctrines and Covenants
Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No. (Alma 11:28-29) ...and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44) ...doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21) ...praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7) ...power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, (Mosiah 15:3-5) ...of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. (Ether 2:8) According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest. (Section 121:32) And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them--Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths--then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (Section 132:18-20) Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. (Section 132:37)
"Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name." (3 Nephi 9:15)
"And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you. Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them--Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one...And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one." (3 Nephi 11:22-27, 36)
OOOoops!
. . .
Well done! Thank you for posting that.
Anyone who falls for and repeats the lie (in any of the many various forms it takes) that the anti-Christ Pharisees and/or Martin Luther are perfect but the imperfect Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error is just proving they're under the strong delusion that will lead them to their own destruction.
Such a strong self-delusion in no way mitigates their blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
This isn’t it?
Well done, but I fear it will be lost on those who are determined to undermine the authority and integrity of Scripture.
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.