Fortunately for Protestants, he was talked out of this by his comrade, Melancthon. But there is plenty of evidence that he wanted it, along with Jude, Revelation, and some of John's epistles removed. And he got his way with the OT Deuterocannonicals.
As for the marignal note, it is the correct one since works have nothing to do with salvation, they show it (James).
Marginal note? That was no gloss. That was an outright change in meaning of the Scriptures. We aren't saved by faith alone, other Scriptures explicitly say it!
That is the Gospel that was taught since the beginning of Christiantiy
Hardly. What seems strange is that there is no indication of a "faith alone" theology among the Church Fathers the first 1000 years. Don't you find that curious? Maybe Protestants aren't infallible?
Now, now, even Jerome did not consider those Apocrypha books as 'scripture'
You have stated the EXCEPTION! Such matters are open to debate, but once the Church rules on such things, the case is closed. St. Jerome truly followed Christ by accepting those whom had been given authority to bind and loosen. Unlike Luther, St. Jerome submitted to God's instrument on earth. That is the difference between a saint and a Luther. Submitting one's will to God's will.
They are never quoted in the New Testament as Scripture by Christ or any apostle
Christ never quotes from MANY books in the Old Testament, such as Nehemiah or Chronicles. So should the "inspired Protestant" remove them because the "spirit" is guiding him? One wonders what "spirit" guided Luther to desire to remove books from Sacred Scriptures.
In fact, Paul quotes a pagan Greek author but he never quotes from the Apocrypha.
Sure he does. Who are the magicians that Moses fought against in the Pharoah's court? Where does the OT mention them? Yet, Paul knows their names - from the Apocrypha. And much of Paul's thought is from the book of Wisdom. James takes much from Sirach. And Jesus Himself celebrates a feast named only in the Maccabees corpus...
That is a vote that will cost you dearly in eternity, since you are placing your confidence in a man-made Church and not the words of God.
LOL!!! I have long ago fulfilled the Protestant requirement for salvation. I believe in Christ as my Savior and Lord... According to your standards, I got my bus ticket - as others have called this sort of salvation.
"...that was the light that sparked the great revival.(Ps.119:130)
LOL! Psalm 119 is refering to Luther? That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard... You are quite brainwashed on Luther's contribution.
No the Lord Jesus Christ is [the pillar and foundation of truth], (not some Pope) as Peter acknowledges (1Pe.2:6-8) as does Paul (1Cor.3:11)
The Church is the Body of Christ. I am not making a false dichotomy of Church vs. Christ. The Scripture NEVER makes such a claim. Just Protestants. Which shows how much they know the Scriptures.
Regards
He got his way with the Apocrypha books because he knew they were not Canonical.
The fact is that the other books are part of Luther's translation-period.
As for the marignal note, it is the correct one since works have nothing to do with salvation, they show it (James). Marginal note? That was no gloss. That was an outright change in meaning of the Scriptures. We aren't saved by faith alone, other Scriptures explicitly say it!
No, actually, we are only saved by faith and not by works.
Those other scripures that explicity say it are not speaking of being saved, but showing one is saved and dealing with rewards etc.
That is the Gospel that was taught since the beginning of Christiantiy Hardly. What seems strange is that there is no indication of a "faith alone" theology among the Church Fathers the first 1000 years. Don't you find that curious? Maybe Protestants aren't infallible?
Protestants aren't infalliable, but the Bible is and that is what it teaches.
The 'father's dealt mostly with theological controversies and justification by faith was not developed by them.
However, Schaff states that Clement appears to have discussed it in the Pauline sense.
Now, now, even Jerome did not consider those Apocrypha books as 'scripture' You have stated the EXCEPTION! Such matters are open to debate, but once the Church rules on such things, the case is closed. St. Jerome truly followed Christ by accepting those whom had been given authority to bind and loosen. Unlike Luther, St. Jerome submitted to God's instrument on earth. That is the difference between a saint and a Luther. Submitting one's will to God's will.
No, Jerome was not the exception, many others followed him.
The 'church' did not make those books canonical until Trent, in reaction to the Protestent rejection of them.
They are never quoted in the New Testament as Scripture by Christ or any apostle Christ never quotes from MANY books in the Old Testament, such as Nehemiah or Chronicles. So should the "inspired Protestant" remove them because the "spirit" is guiding him? One wonders what "spirit" guided Luther to desire to remove books from Sacred Scriptures.
Actually, all the books of the OT are covered by his quote in Matt.23:35 when he stated that generation would be guilty of all the blood shed from Abel to that of Zacharias'.
That encompasses the books of Genesis thru 2Chron.
In the Jewish OT, the last book in their Bible is 2Chron.
That excludes the Apocrypha books which were never part of any Jewish Bible.
In fact, Paul quotes a pagan Greek author but he never quotes from the Apocrypha. Sure he does. Who are the magicians that Moses fought against in the Pharoah's court? Where does the OT mention them? Yet, Paul knows their names - from the Apocrypha. And much of Paul's thought is from the book of Wisdom. James takes much from Sirach. And Jesus Himself celebrates a feast named only in the Maccabees corpus...
Paul knows their names because God revealed it to him.
The same God revealed how He created the world to Moses, or do you think that Moses learned that somewhere else?
Paul's thought is from God, James thought is from God and Jesus never mentioned anything from any Greek Apocrypha book.
That is a vote that will cost you dearly in eternity, since you are placing your confidence in a man-made Church and not the words of God. LOL!!! I have long ago fulfilled the Protestant requirement for salvation. I believe in Christ as my Savior and Lord... According to your standards, I got my bus ticket - as others have called this sort of salvation.
Well, if you did then you are going to be surprised that you have wasted your life in not following him.
"...that was the light that sparked the great revival.(Ps.119:130) LOL! Psalm 119 is refering to Luther? That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard... You are quite brainwashed on Luther's contribution.
I cited a verse that stated that God's words spark revival, which Luther gave to the German people with his translation of the Erasmus Greek text.
No the Lord Jesus Christ is [the pillar and foundation of truth], (not some Pope) as Peter acknowledges (1Pe.2:6-8) as does Paul (1Cor.3:11) The Church is the Body of Christ. I am not making a false dichotomy of Church vs. Christ. The Scripture NEVER makes such a claim. Just Protestants. Which shows how much they know the Scriptures.
Well, they know the scriptures enough to know that Rome is the great harlot of Rom.17.
Interesting in the latest edition of 'Battlecry', the question is raised 'Are some Catholics Saved' and the author (a former monk and priest) comes to the conclusion,
Those who insist that there are saved Roman Catholics either do not know the Bible or do not know Roman Catholicism
But if you are saved, you will be in heaven because of the faith that you expressed and not because of any works you are now doing to be saved.