Reformation 500: Evangelical Alliance Warns Against Compromise With Catholicism

like the rosary and fatima just to name one.

Oh like God did in the garden until the Law of Moses, approx 2500 years, Romans 5:14.

Or like God has done to the Jews for two thousand years and maybe more we’ll see.

Your argument is proven futile with just those two statements.

Sounds a lot like islam either capitulate or die.

Not that long ago that's exactly what happened! Thank God they don't have the temporal powers to do so anymore. Believe it or not, there are a few who actually LONG for that to come back. I don't believe for a second our God would accept the kind of faith extracted under threat of the sword of men.

“few who actually LONG for that to come back”

They will get their wish in the tribulation, but we will be gone by the grace of God.

The Bible (Protestant) is what was originally agreed to be the inspired and inerrant word of God accepted and used within the Church for over a 1500 years.

It seems to me you agree that the one holy catholic apostolic church determined the contents of the Bible, rather than the consciences of individual Protestants.

What makes Joseph Smith any more different?

He was a Protestant

Amen!

It seems to me you agree that the one holy catholic apostolic church determined the contents of the Bible, rather than the consciences of individual Protestants.

I agree the early "holy catholic apostolic church" accepted the Old Testament from our Jewish forefathers and agreed on what constituted the New Testament. This IS the scriptures used by the Protestants who came along 1000 years after the fact. You're mixing apples and oranges. What you are trying so desperately not to admit is the Catholic Church has rejected the conscience and consensus of the early holy catholic apostolic church and added text to scripture at the Council of Trent. It is the Catholic Church who rejected the teachings of the early church.

As for Joseph Smith, Protestants don't see visions or angels but Catholics do like, say, Joan of Arc??? Catholics should apply for a patent.

Uh.... you named two.

He was a Protestant

Oh???

Mormonism

claims itself to uniquely be "the Church"
claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers
adds to the Holy Bible (with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price)
accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God
undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins
sings praise songs about Joseph Smith, Jr.
has strange doctrines regarding marriage (polygamy accepted in early days)
believes in God the mother (who has conceived multitudes of spirit children)
claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times
redefines "saint" to mean a living, breathing Mormon, instead of a bible-defined child of God
accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9)- good works, water baptism and church membership
professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection
doctrines are sending millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture

Catholicism

claims itself to uniquely be "the Church"
claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers
adds to the Holy Bible (with sacred tradition)
accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God
undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins
sings praise songs about Mary
has strange doctrines regarding marriage (celibacy still practiced among its clergy)
believes in the mother of God (who is the sinless Queen of Heaven)
claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times
redefines "saint" to mean a physically dead Catholic who was afterwards "canonized," instead of a bible-defined child of God
accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9) - good works, the sacraments, Mary and church membership
professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection
doctrines are sending hundreds of millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture
teaches and practices bowing before and kissing statues
WORSHIPS the consecrated communion wafer as God
claims Mary is their life, sweetness, hope and most gracious advocate (as revealed in the Rosary)
claims Mary was raised bodily into Heaven
claims they get to Jesus by first going to Mary

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/catholicmormon.htm

It tweren’t no Angel of Light; it was MARY!!!!

This IS the scriptures used by the Protestants who came along 1000 years after the fact.

The original King James Bible 1611 contained the deutercanonical books. They have since been removed.

As for Joseph Smith,

Smith grew to maturity during the Second Great Awakening, a period of religious excitement in the United States. New York west of the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains became known as the "Burned-over district" because it was "repeatedly singed by the fires of revival that swept through the region in the early years of the nineteenth century."[21] Major multi-denominational religious revivals occurred in the Palmyra area in both 1816-17 (when the Smiths were in the process of migrating from Vermont) and in 1824-25.[22] Small denominational revivals and camp meetings occurred during the intervals.[23][24][25]

...

Smith said he had become concerned about religion "at about the age of twelve years," although later he seems to have wondered whether "a Supreme being did exist."[38] Smith apparently attended the Presbyterian Sunday school as a child,[39] and later as an adolescent, he displayed interest in Methodism.[40] One of Smith's acquaintances said that Smith had caught "a spark of Methodism" at camp meetings "away down in the woods, on the Vienna road."[41] He even reportedly spoke during some of these meetings, and the acquaintance described Smith as a "very passable exhorter."[42]

Fatima is a continuing revelation of the rosary, so it’s still one in my mind, sorry didn’t mean to confuse.

They have since been removed.

By that DAMNED Luther fella??

I hear that a LOT on FR!!!

...the acquaintance described Smith as a "very passable exhorter."[42]

Considering what he left behind; I'd have to agree!

I wuz jest teasin’ ya... ;^)

I agree the early "holy catholic apostolic church" accepted the Old Testament from our Jewish forefathers and agreed on what constituted the New Testament. This IS the scriptures used by the Protestants who came along 1000 years after the fact.

The original King James Bible 1611 contained the deutercanonical books. They have since been removed.

I think you should know better than that. Consistent with Luther's translation and an ancient practice, they were in separate section, and as shown in your link, the original King James Bible 1611 clearly labelled the as apocrypha. Thus Hardly was correct in that only the 66 books were used by the Protestants as Scripture.

As for the inclusion of the disputed "second canon" (deuterocanonicals) by Rome, most did historically hold them as Scripture, but as substantiated by the grace of God, did not have to, and scholars disagreed on their inclusion as Scripture proper early on and right in the council of Trent itself, which issued the first "infallible" definition of the entire RC canon on April 8th, 1546, after the death of Luther (February 8,1546).

Who, as with others, could express his own opinions doubting these books, which he did, expressly as non-binding, nor did Protestantism completely concur with it The EO canon also does not conform to that of Rome due to slightly more books being added,

As for Joseph Smith,

Like popes, he arrogated to himself the premise of ensured veracity and the supreme authority, and made his own visionary "traditions" equal to and supreme over the word of God.

Calling him "Protestant" which he denounced en toto, and was fundamentally contrary to, simply because he is outside Rome and tags himself "Christian," is no more valid than calling Santeria "Catholic."

nineteenth century."[21] Major multi-denominational religious revivals occurred in the Palmyra area in both 1816-17

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 John 2:19)

"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30)

Calling him "Protestant" which he denounced en toto, and was fundamentally contrary to, simply because he is outside Rome and tags himself "Christian," is no more valid than calling Santeria "Catholic."

Smith was (apparently) a Protestant (Presbyterian/Methodist) who then nailed his theses to the door in the form of the Book of Mormon and founded a new religion out of Protestantism, Mormonism. I don't find a similar person named Santeria. Notwithstanding, the paradigm is leaving the original and forming a replacement.

How can the children be legitimate if the parents were not ?

Yet those books were in the original 1611 KJV and they were not removed until 1885.

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church."

Is there a table of contents anywhere in the scriptures that contains a listing of all the books that should be in the Bible ?
Is there a scripture commanding that all the scriptures be gathered together in the Bible ?
Is there a scripture commanding that the scriptures be translated into other languages other than the original languages in which they were written ?
Do the scriptures have the same level of inspiration and inerrancy in languages other than the original languages in which they were written (yes I'm aware of Jesus Christ, King of the Jews written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in the Gospel of John so I am sympathetic to those three languages) ?

IN BRIEF

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8:PL 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9:PL 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.

140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4).

Yet those books were in the original 1611 KJV and they were not removed until 1885. Why are you doing this? You were supposed to be refuting the claim that "This [66 book canon] IS the scriptures used by the Protestants who came along 1000 years after the fact." Yet the extra books were plainly categorized as apocrypha, thus they were not considered Scripture.

Doubling down with your erroneous argument makes the last error worse than the first.

Is there a table of contents anywhere in the scriptures that contains a listing of all the books that should be in the Bible ?

Why would that be needed when Scripture teaches that common people can discern both men and writings of God, and establish a body of Scriptures that are held as authoritative? Forming a list of inspired books is thus Scriptural, and does not contradict SS, unless you hold it to mean that only what it formally and explicitly teaches, versus what it is established in principle based on actual evidence, can be allowed.

Is there a scripture commanding that all the scriptures be gathered together in the Bible ?

Why does we necessarily need a command (which infers explicitness)? The issue is whether this is supported as being God's will. And the answer is not any more than gathering all the believers together, and in both cases the answer is that is God's will, as just as the multitudes of men and women of God are to be gathered together, if only yet seen in a limited degree, so also writings, as was seen to a limited degree in the OT. And which is according the Biblical doctrine of separation, including gathering the wheat separately from the chaff.

God commanded all the Torah be in a book, (Dt. 17:18; 31:24) and told others to write a book, (Jer. 36;2) - writing being God's manifest means of preservation, thus resulting in national repentance at the discovery and reading of it, (2Kg. 22) since oral tradition did not do the job. And this being the practice, thus Daniel understood prophecy "by books." (Dan. 9:2)

The Lord affirmed this Scriptural practice by often quoting from what "it written," reproving the devil, leaders, and substantiating His claims thereby. And by His Spirit commanding John to write, and inspiring the rest of the NT. Thus both writing of Scripture and the gathering together of both men and writings of God is Scriptural.

Is there a scripture commanding that the scriptures be translated into other languages other than the original languages in which they were written ?

Again, a command is not necessary, but as to whether we can seen this as God's will, the answer is not any more than believers are to preach in their language, but since it does in principle by the command to preach the gospel to all nations, and the Lord Himself sometimes quoted from a translation and inspired writers to do so, then yes, we can easily see that this is God's will, and consistent with Scriptural practical means.

Do the scriptures have the same level of inspiration and inerrancy in languages other than the original languages in which they were written (yes I'm aware of Jesus Christ, King of the Jews written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in the Gospel of John so I am sympathetic to those three languages) ?

No inspired writer authored that title, but Pilate commanded this truth to be written (if mean to be derisive), thus in principle it only support communicating in the common tongue of the audience.

Otherwise you have asked a sometimes contentious question, which may be extended by asking, do all copies of the original language texts carry the same degree of inspiration? If we define inspiration as including the physical writing of the text, versus only what one is inspired in mind to write, then the answer is no, as otherwise there would be no copyist errors.

But since the Lord and His Spirit selectively affirmed texts from a translation, then the answer must be the inspiration of the original can be preserved in a translation. I think that like as men and writings of God were progressively established by non-constrained people as being so, essentially due to their enduring Divine qualities and attestation, sometimes even contrary to authority, then so will a translation. Needles to say, your NAB is not one of them .

As far as Latin, Trent affirmed the Vulgate, but there were many versions at the time, with problems, resulting in the Sistine Vulgate fiasco.

Smith was (apparently) a Protestant (Presbyterian/Methodist) who then nailed his theses to the door in the form of the Book of Mormon and founded a new religion out of Protestantism, Mormonism.

At which point he was not a Protestant by any criteria by which you would likewise define a Catholic. Otherwise, since Luther was a Catholic then he was still a Catholic after he came out of Catholicism.