The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[MarkBsnr]

You expect "Matt" or "Steve" to convince me when all you have done is repeat the same old, same old? Why are you ignoring my questions? Can you not answer them of your own free will? Continuing to post reams of what other people say is not acceptable. Until you do, I will ignore the canned Roman Catholic propaganda.

I think our friend has done an admirable job here. He not only quotes Scripture, but the Church Fathers as well.

He does not look in the mirror and determine his response based upon the immediate and current state of his digestive system.

[boatbums]

I can play dueling websites as long as you want. Here's a great response to yours :

Baptism

Under the heading of salvation, it is important at this point to touch on baptism. Although it may seem inconsistent to digress into what may be considered an "ordinance" or "sacrament" of the church after indulging in the metaphysical realities of being "in Christ" and being revealed as a son of God, it is necessary since so many of the early church fathers equated our regeneration with the act of immersion. The actual issue of baptismal regeneration, however, we will only touch on at the end. Instead, we will first investigate the apostolic practice, including what was considered valid and the development of baptismal theology in the early church.

Baptism is perhaps the most universal of all Christian ordinances. It is considered the "portal" into the Christian church by many branches of Christianity. The early church fathers put a tremendous amount of emphasis on baptism, which sparked a significant amount of debate. Other than the controversies regarding the deity of Christ, the debates and controversies that raged over baptism and rebaptism stand out as the most intense theological debates of the third and fourth centuries. Some of the questions that are still asked today are:

a) Did the early church baptize infants?

b) Does baptism wash away "original sin"?

c) Is an individual regenerated (ie. "born-again") at baptism?

In the beginning of all of the gospels, we find how baptism was the central facet of John the Baptist’s ministry. In Judaism, ritual washing was already a practice, particularly with the Essenes and many ascetic groups, but John’s baptism is distinguished as a "baptism unto repentance" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 19:4). In this respect John represents the personification of all of the prophets thus far. The highest moral teaching of Judaism can be seen in the prophets in their emphasis of the heart attitude that God seeks, rather than ritual observances (See Amos 5:21-23). Yet even during John’s ministry, there was already a foreshadowing that the pattern of water baptism served as a type for the spiritual baptism that would be introduced by the Messiah. John says in Matthew’s gospel that he baptized with water, but he that comes after me shall "baptize you with fire and the Holy Spirit". For this reason, we should always keep before us the truth that the water has no "magical" properties about it, nor can it be considered an end itself.

Infant Baptism

It is a common practice among orthodox, Roman Catholic, as well as several Protestant bodies (ie. Lutheran, Covenant, etc.) to baptize individuals when they are infants. The practice is frequently justified on the grounds that, under the Mosaic economy of salvation, God's covenant was extended to even infants through circumcision, which was to be performed on the eighth day after birth. The covenant of circumcision is said to be a type or foreshadowing of baptism, which serves a similar function under the New Covenant. This reasoning appears in the church documents Apostolic Constitutions (ca. 4th Century)

"Do not delay to turn to the Lord, for thou knowest not what the day will bring forth." Do you also baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. For He says "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." (VII:457)

as well as Cyprian (V:353)

-For this reason we think that no one should be hindered from obtaining the grace under the law that was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not be hindered... and nobody is hindered from baptism and grace- how much more should we not hinder an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in being born after the flesh in the nature of Adam.

Furthermore, the waters of baptism were thought by many to have a "medicinal" property, and that the water itself was effectual in affecting a rebirth of the spirit of an individual, and they would be regenerated in the act of baptism itself.

Are we then to expect that this was the apostolic practice, observed by the apostles and their successors in the apostolic churches? Although the previously mentioned texts demonstrate a belief in an objective and effectual power resident in the waters of baptism, there is even more evidence that would denote the contrary. It can be sufficiently shown that the earliest apostolic teaching on baptism did not make provisions for infants. The primary reason is because faith is an integral element of salvation. Whether one believes in baptismal regeneration or not, it is undeniable that personal faith is the active agent in applying the benefits of Calvary to our lives. Baptism is an ordinance that is entered into only when an individual has made the decision to fully believe in Jesus Christ. We see in the Bible when the apostle Philip was to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch whom he had converted, the eunuch asked

"What is to prevent me from being baptized?" Philip answered

"If you believe with your whole heart, it is permissible." (Acts 8:36,37)

It is interesting that the critical part of verse 37, which clearly implies that one must fully believe in Jesus before being baptized, is missing from many contemporary translations, even though it is found in the majority of original Greek manuscripts. The best evidence for the authenticity of the verse lies in the fact that it is quoted by Scripture by Irenaeus ( Against Heresies XI, 8), and Cyprian (Treatise IX, 2, 43), many, many years before the oldest manuscripts which do not include it were ever written. This fact establishes without question the principle that, according to scripture and church tradition, personal faith is a prerequisite to baptism.

Looking through the rest of the New Testament, there are no clear examples of infants being baptized. The inference is that they were not, since such stress in put on repentance, faith and confession of the Lordship of Christ as being intrinsic to the New Birth. Most baptismal texts found in the Patristic church likewise infer that those being baptized are at least old enough to enter into baptism of their own volition. Consider some of the texts from the early church regarding baptism.

Didache (ca. 100 A.D.):

But before the baptism, let the baptizer fast, and also the baptized, and what ever others can; but thou shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Justin Martyr (First Apology; ca 155 A.D.)

As many are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to live accordingly, are instructed to entreat God with fasting...then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were...For Christ also said :"'Unless you be born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God".

Tertullian (On Baptism)

They who are about to enter baptism ought to pray with repeated prayer, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night through, and with the confession of all bygone sins, that they may express the meaning of the baptism of John.

Virtually every text from the first two hundred years of Christianity that deal with baptism mention the obligation on the part of those being baptized to be spiritually prepared, usually by repentance and faith, and extended periods of prayer and fasting. This would preclude any possibility of baptism being applicable to infants. Any reference to infants being baptized is conspicuously missing. The whole matter is decisively answered by one text from Tertullian.

Tertullian:(On Baptism-III:678)

"Unless a man be reborn of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" has tied to faith the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized...and so according to the disposition, circumstances and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable, principally, in the case of little children....For the Lord does indeed say "Forbid them not to come to me". Let them come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning; while they learn whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period in life hasten to the "remission of sins"? ..Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that it may seem to have given "to him that asketh".

If this is indeed the unanimous consent of the church, how did it happen that infant baptism became the norm? Although the answer may be somewhat speculative, we need to look to one of the baptismal texts from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, who held to the orthodox position regarding when one should be baptized, wrote a text which supported the common perception that we are born-again when we are baptized. He said in Against Heresies in 180 A.D.

We are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and invocation of the Lord, from our old transgression; being spiritually regenerate as new born babes, even as the Lord has declared "except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Years later, we see some Christian writings taking Irenaeus' words and interpreting "spiritually regenerate, as newborn babes" as meaning that we are baptized as new-born babes! In the proper historical and textual context however, this is inconceivable. Thus, sometime in the mid 3rd century and in contradiction to the norm, the practice of baptizing infants started, built largely on a misinterpretation of Irenaeus.

Baptism and Original Sin

One of the most common arguments in favor of the necessity of infant baptism involves the question of original sin. The Roman church today, for example, views baptism as the means that an individual is cleansed from guilt incurred in the original sin of Adam and Eve. It is thought that the effectiveness of the baptism is in no way dependent upon the recipient of the sacrament. Therefore, it was considered expedient to baptize someone as soon as possible, namely, right after their birth.

This is quite different from the biblical teaching, which is that baptism is the symbolic ordinance that typifies our identification with the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a death to our old life, and the beginning of our new life in Christ. Rather than baptizing immediately after birth, it was actually more common to wait late until the twilight of one's years to be baptized. The rationale for this was that baptism was thought by many to be a one shot deal at forgiveness and pardon, so a late baptism would minimize the opportunity for an individual to accrue any damning sins. Even in the Fourth century this mindset was prevalent, witnessed by the fact that Constantine himself would not be baptized until he was on his deathbed. The earliest archeological evidence we have that a child was baptized comes from an epitaph on a young boys tomb in the Lateran. The quote is from the fourth century and it reads:

Florentius set up this inscription for his well deserving son Appronianus, who lived one year, nine months and five days. Since he was truly beloved by his grandmother, and she saw that he was destined for death, she asked of the church that he might depart a believer.

Many who have pointed to this as evidence for infant baptism have missed the point of the epitaph altogether. It does not support the idea that infants were baptized. On the contrary. The boy was almost two, not yet baptized, and when it was apparent that he was not going to survive to a mature age, the grandmother made a special request (presumably to baptize him) before his death. This epitaph actually supports the view that infants were not baptized as a normal procedure at that point in church history, and that putting off the practice until later in life was still the most common opinion.

If it is true that infants were not baptized, then what about the understanding of original sin? What did happen to a child or an infant that was not baptized? Were they damned because of Adam’s guilt? Again, looking closer at the earliest documents, we find that the early church had a vastly different perception of Adam's sin and it's effects.

Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 150 A.D)

They are as infant children in whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what wickedness is, but always remain as children. Such accordingly without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God, because they defiled in nothing the commandments of God. ...all infants are honorable before God, and are first in persons with Him.

The Shepherd of Hermas, previously noted, was considered canonical by several fathers of the church. According to him, there is no evil in the heart of an infant, and they dwell in the kingdom of God. Below we have a statement by Justin scolding the Roman dignitaries for allowing their pagan priests to sacrifice children from the womb for the purpose of divination.

Justin Martyr, First Apology XVIII, 155 A.D)

For you let even necromancy, and the divinations, whom you practice on immaculate children, and the invoking of departed human souls.

Notice that he calls the children "immaculate". Tertullian apparently held the same regard for infant children.

Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 204 AD

those abodes; if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent?

In the previously noted text from Tertullian’s On Baptism, he likewise referred to unbaptized infants as "innocent". In addition to these, we have a frequently cited text from the Apocalypse of Peter from the 2nd century, that is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Theodotus and others, that states emphatically that aborted children are immediately ushered by a guardian angel into paradise, and share in a "better fate". It is understood by these fathers that Adam’s guilt did not extend to one who had not sinned. If it did, then we would all need to concede that every aborted child, miscarriage, stillborn child, or otherwise unbaptized infant that died was in hell. Such an idea would be abhorrent to the early church.

The issue is understood biblically in Romans 5:12 which states that "sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men for all have sinned". Notice that the actual agent of death to each individual is that individual’s personal sin. Likewise the next verse states that sin is not imputed where there is no law, that is, no understanding of right and wrong, which surely would be the case with an infant. It must be noted, however, that it would be equally wrong to propose that the descendants of Adam were unaffected by his actions. Man was qualitatively changed, now having the potential to know good and evil. Apparently his will was crippled and frustrated from being able to "do as he ought". (Romans 7:12-24) God, by his own sovereignty, has decreed that all man are bound over to disobedience (Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22). The operation of sin in our lives, likened to a conception and gestational period in the book of James, "brings forth death ( James 1:14-15). To summarize the issue, then, we could fairly say that the early church taught that infants are guilt free, yet, the due to the fall we know that no natural mortal, upon being able to distinguish right from wrong, can stay guilt free, but instead is prone to sin.

When Cyprian of Carthage started promoting infant baptism as a cure from Adam’s sin. He immediately had to defend it against the charge of novelty. As shown, it was not the church’s understanding that infants were in need of cleansing from sin. At the time, however, no major theological counter-thesis was offered. It was not until Pelegius started preaching in the early 5th century that the orthodox church was forced to define the doctrine of "Original Sin". Pelegius, who up to this point had been an orthodox bishop and writer, propounded that Adam’s sin had absolutely no effect on his offspring, and that every individual had the potential to live a perfect and holy life. Pelegius asserted that man was by nature good, and could, by his own will and accord, live pleasingly before God. This extreme position, threatened the very necessity for the sacrifice and atonement of Christ. If justification was by the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). St. Augustine, through a number of polemical writings and Councils, refuted and condemned the teaching of Pelegius. Unfortunately, as is with many conflicts of ideas and words throughout history, the rhetoric and polemic overstated the orthodox position. In order to counter the inherent goodness of all, as taught by Pelegius, Augustine championed the inherent depravity of all, including infants. As a result, he held to the position that all infants are in a state of damnation before God, not because of their sin, but Adam’s. According to Augustine, unbaptized infants go to suffer in hell. Some Roman Catholic theologians have attempted to soften this somewhat, hypothesizing a place called "limbo" which is more humane then hell, so as to deflect the obvious charge of injustice that would come with consigning newborn babies to eternal torment. This has never been officially defined by the Roman church, however. The Augustinian concept of Original Sin, then, must be rejected as a departure from the apostolic rule of faith.

Another viewpoint of infant baptism is one which equates the baptismal act with the sign and seal of the New Covenant, akin to circumcision of the Old Covenant. Some of the later texts which support infant baptism suggest that the baptism should be done on the eighth day, as was the circumcision of the Old Covenant. It must be kept in mind, however, that the New Testament frequently mentions circumcision, but never as a type for baptism. Instead, it says "neither circumcision nor uncircumscision means anything, but what counts is a new creation" (Galatians 6:15) which subordinates any "sign or seal" of a covenant to the spiritual reality of being born-again by trust in Christ. Likewise, Paul also points out that even Abraham was justified by believing God, before and independently of the sign of circumcision. (Romans 4:9-11). Consequently, since the New Testament minimizes the alleged typology of circumcision, it is not likely that we would find any apostolic teaching that would equate baptism with the same function of sealing an individual into God’s New Covenant. Instead, we find that both circumcision and baptism both serve as types for the spiritual reality of putting off our flesh and being washed of the impurities of the old nature. The spiritual reality, of course, is most applicable to an adult.

Baptismal Regeneration

The belief in baptismal regeneration was apparently held by the majority of the early church fathers. Although one could debate writer by writer through the first few centuries as to whether this was indeed an apostolic teaching, in brief, the larger question would be as to whether an individual is saved (regenerated) by faith alone or by faith and baptism. The answer to that question is simply found by examining the scriptures to see whether salvation is imputed to those who believe and are baptized, or to those who merely believe. If the baptismal waters are indeed necessary for salvation, as even some writers proposed, then we should not find any cases in scripture where individuals are "saved" apart from baptism. There are, of course several glaring examples. The thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43), as well as those in the household of Cornelius who believed and were filled with the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water (Acts 10:43-48) are two clear examples. There are also numerous examples of Paul’s missionary endeavors, where he preaches and many believe, yet there is no reference to water baptism. With this being the case, we must conclude that water baptism cannot be equally an agent to salvation, since there are cases of individuals being saved by faith apart from the waters of baptism. Neither can the act of baptism carry salvific power in and of it’s self, since there are scriptural examples of individuals receiving baptism at the hand of the apostles, yet that individual still declared to be perishing because there heart was not right with God (cf. The Story of Simon Magus, Acts 8:9-24). Why then did so many early church fathers attribute regeneration at the point of water baptism? We could speculate that the hostile anti-Christian culture may have had a role to play. In the early church, baptism was the public profession before all that the individual was joining themselves to the Christian community. They were declaring that they were dead to their old life of idolatry and paganism. For many, it was the act that destined them to a martyr’s fate. Culturally, there was also the de-emphasis of such rites with many of the Gnostics. Those Gnostics that did have a baptismal ritual (Sethians and Valentians) had it so "super-spiritualized" that it would be construed by many to be a polemic against the normal, orthodox baptismal practice. We would consequently expect an increased emphasis on the act of baptism itself, certainly far more than our culture would remit. It could also be that the significance of water baptism is not derived so much from the agency of the water, but from the agency of faith and public profession of the Lordship of Christ. "If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my heavenly Father" (Matthew 10:32). In any respect, I would deduce that the emphasis on the ritual of baptism with respect to regeneration by the fathers was more a product of these cultural forces than actual apostolic teaching.

In summary of the issue, we can see that the post-apostolic church may have had a deeper awareness of the mechanics of salvation, without the burdens of some of today's debates. This is not to say that everyone in the first three centuries understood the magnitude and glorious liberty of salvation in Christ. On the contrary; salvation by faith was one of, if not, the first foundational tenet to fall prey to the apostasy. Very early in the third century, because of the necessity of bearing up under persecution, we can see references to good works (ie. public profession) being necessary for salvation. By the middle of the third century, the regeneration of the believer was ascribed most commonly to happen at baptism. Ultimately, as the Roman Empire broke apart in the fifth century, and the church assumed the role of maintaining order in that civilization, eternal salvation was joined to the reception of the sacraments. Later in western history, this would give the papacy exceptional control over the princes, barons and kings throughout Europe. If a certain ruler would not side with the demands of the Pope, the Pope could vow to withhold the sacraments from that ruler and his subjects. Although that might not have struck fear into the ruler, the prospect of eternal damnation for an entire duchy or kingdom would create a panic and terror among the masses, and the ruler's hand would be forced to reconcile with the Pope.

Today there is need to renew the original apostolic understanding of salvation. The gospel message, as typified by the Pauline revelation of grace, righteousness and adoption, is forever coupled to the truths borne by the act of baptism, that of self-abandonment and death to the old life, so as to fully serve God in the newness of life. So many have tried to reinterpret the gospels as merely a means to the end of raising one’s self-esteem, or instilling dignity and human worth. For others, it is a "feel good" message, brimming with warm snugglies of how much God loves us. All though there is truth in both views, we cheat ourselves of the fullness of our common salvation when we see it as less than a total redemption, of the total man, to be fully adopted into Gods’ family as a true child of God. Likewise, we cheat God when we respond with anything less than laying down every aspect of our old life and being, in complete service to God, for His glory alone. (http://www.earlychurch.net/Baptism.htm)

This boils down, obviously, to what each of us chooses to believe about what the Bible says concerning the major tenets of the Christian faith. Since your religion teaches that the physical act of water baptism is necessary to be saved, but then contradicts that by stating that no Catholic can know that they are saved until they meet their judgment and they have merited it, they show that even baptism doesn't really save you. So, in truth, you really cannot say that "baptism" is salvific, at least not the way you state it. I, on the other hand, believe what Scripture actually DOES say - that we are saved by grace through faith and not by our works - would include an act of being water baptized. Do I think water baptism is a good thing? Yes, but it is the faith behind that act that saves us - not the act. Until a person comes to the understanding that their works, efforts, good deeds, acts, righteousness and merit CANNOT save them and that it is ONLY by faith in Jesus Christ, receiving Him as Savior and believing in Him, that we can be saved, they will NEVER get the other doctrines correct either (i.e.; eucharist). But, like I said, you must choose, I can only present what I believe is the truth.

[Iscool]

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.”

So when were you born of water the first time???

Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ — it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He that said, “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,”

made an exception for them in that other statement in which He says no less generally, “Whoever confesses Me before men, I too will confess him before My Father, who is in heaven” [Matt 10:32].

What a story...Everyone must be born again of water (sprinkled with water), except those who don't...

You want to tell us why your Catholic NAB doesn't agree with what you claim???

5Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

No one in your Catholic bible must be born again with water...

And if it's not in your bible, why are you making it up???

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“This is quite different from the biblical teaching, which is that baptism is the symbolic ordinance that typifies our identification with the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ”

we hear the above statement from our Baptist friends all the time, but where does the Bible support this?

where does the Bible say baptism is “symbolic”?

i will offer two verses that deny baptism is “symbolic” at all and teach us what baptism really is for:

Romans 6:3 - do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

ANY TALK OF “SYMBOLIC” HERE?

Galatians 3:27 - for as many of you were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

AGAIN, ANY TALK OF “SYMBOLIC” HERE?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“This is quite different from the biblical teaching, which is that baptism is the symbolic ordinance that typifies our identification with the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ”

we hear the above statement from our Baptist friends all the time, but where does the Bible support this?

where does the Bible say baptism is “symbolic”?

i will offer two verses that deny baptism is “symbolic” at all and teach us what baptism really is for:

Romans 6:3 - do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

ANY TALK OF “SYMBOLIC” HERE?

Galatians 3:27 - for as many of you were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

AGAIN, ANY TALK OF “SYMBOLIC” HERE?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“On the contrary; salvation by faith was one of, if not, the first foundational tenet to fall prey to the apostasy.”

there you have it, the belief that the Church went apostate that has led to millions and millions being led to accept all sorts of false gospels Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. etc.
but what does the Bible say, is it possible for the Church to go apostate? Jesus says the gates of hell can not prevail against the Church. later in Matthew 24:24, Jesus tells us the elect can’t be led astray.
Paul tells us in Ephesians 3:21 “to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus TO ALL GENERATIONS, for ever and ever Amen”

the Scriptures are clear, the Church CAN NOT GO APOSTATE.

of course, if yo are the devil, what better way to attack the Church than using Scripture to attack the Church and attack baptismal regeneration? what better way than to accuse the brethern?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“On the contrary; salvation by faith was one of, if not, the first foundational tenet to fall prey to the apostasy.”

there you have it, the belief that the Church went apostate that has led to millions and millions being led to accept all sorts of false gospels Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. etc.
but what does the Bible say, is it possible for the Church to go apostate? Jesus says the gates of hell can not prevail against the Church. later in Matthew 24:24, Jesus tells us the elect can’t be led astray.
Paul tells us in Ephesians 3:21 “to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus TO ALL GENERATIONS, for ever and ever Amen”

the Scriptures are clear, the Church CAN NOT GO APOSTATE.

of course, if yo are the devil, what better way to attack the Church than using Scripture to attack the Church and attack baptismal regeneration? what better way than to accuse the brethern?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

The early church fathers put a tremendous amount of emphasis on baptism, which sparked a significant amount of debate. Other than the controversies regarding the deity of Christ, the debates and controversies that raged over baptism and rebaptism stand out as the most intense theological debates of the third and fourth centuries. Some of the questions that are still asked today are:

“debates and controversies raged.....”

this is true, but WE DON’T FIND ANY DEBATE OR CONTROVERSY OVER INFANT BAPTISM IN CHURCH HISTORY until the 16th century. this is the certain way we KNOW the Apostles baptized infants. if they did not, there would have been debate when someone starts baptizing infants.

Again, imagine today a Baptist minister baptizing an infant, HE WOULD BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY. why would it be any different in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century? Irenaeus practiced infant baptism, he was taught by Polycarp , who was taught by St John. did Polycarp not understand or see if John baptized infants? did Irenaeus not see what Polycarp did and who he baptized?

now, i must comment on baptism as a “work” ACTUALLY, NO IT’S NOT. a work is something you do, BAPTISM IS DONE TO YOU. for example, the eunuch could not baptize himself, if Philip didn’t baptize him, that would have been the end of it. expressing faith is a work, baptism is not a work.

Titus 3:5 tells us this clearly - he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteouness, but in virtue of his own mercty, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION AND RENEWAL IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

according to the Bible, baptism is not a work.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“making it up?”

like we are making up the Trinity?

[daniel1212]

My position is that the 66 book bible corresponds to the Hebrew Palestinian canon and the ancient 27 book canon.

Which is entirely your opinion, and contrary to what is contained within the Septuagint, and what Jerome used to compose the Vulgate.

Rather, as mostly said and shown, Jerome and others distinguished between Scripture proper and the apocryphal books, while there is no known 1^st century LXX manuscripts with the apocrypha, and what we do have varies much and evidences to be of Christian compilation. And the Vulgate is understood to be a compound text that is not entirely the work of Jerome, (Grammar of the Vulgate, W.E. Plater and H.J. White, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1926) including as what was to be included.

Against Jerome’s advice the apocryphal parts of Daniel and Esther were accepted as integral parts of those books, the Song of the Three Children being inserted at Daniel 3:23, the Story of Susanna forming chapter 13, and Bel and the Dragon being chapter 14. The additions to Esther are linked on to the end of Esther. In conclusion, the present Vulgate, as Westcott remarks, is a composite of elements belonging to every period and form of the Latin version, including (1) the unrevised Old Latin (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Baruch); (2) the Old Latin corrected from the Septuagint (Psalter); (3) Jerome’s free translation from the original (Job and Judith); (4) Jerome’s translation from the original (the Old Testament except the Psalter); (5) the Old Latin revised from Greek manuscripts (the Gospels); and (6) the Old Latin cursorily revised (the rest of the New Testament). — http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html

Jerome as well as Rufinus

. . . were crystal clear on the matter [of not considering the apocryph canonical] but their reaction to the pressure exerted on them indicates that many leaders thought the additional books ought to be recognized as inspired. . . Jerome yielded to the popular request in furnishing a translation to the church at large but never permitted his scholarly convictions to yield to the point of recognizing these books as canonical. — http://bible.org/article/content-and-extent-old-testament-canon

Also, besides the prologues were the “Glossa ordinaria,” an assembly of glosses (brief notations of the meaning of a word or wording in a text) in the margins of the Vulgate Bible states in the Preface that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It prefixes an introduction to them all saying, 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees...” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html)

Trent did not even settle the question as to which version of the varying Vulgate editions it affirmed, thus requiring a thorough revision, as there was no single authoritative edition at that time, and resulting in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate, while the Vulgate Codex Amiatinus contains the pesky "Prologus Galeatus" of Jerome to the Books of the Kings and other prefaces which reminds us of the distinction between Scripture and the apocryphal books. — http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

More will be said below, and i will posit that none of the arguments on either side are conclusive as concerns arguments for or against the inclusion of the apocrypha, and which is why debate continued, but you come in here dismissive of the abundance of substantiated scholarship which took hours to provide, that affirms that the Protestants have ancient support in dissenting from the apocrypha and for their Bible, in addition to ecclesiastical consensus by which Old Testament texts had come to be established (as is evidenced) as Scripture by the time of Christ, due to their Divine qualities and attestation, and that there was no infallible, indisputable canon that the Prots removed books from, and thus dissent continued right into Trent.

And which fact remains indisputable no how many affirmed those books. You cannot have ongoing debate about an official canon among principal scholars, and notes rejecting the apocrypha as Scripture right in the Vulgate, unless you are willing to sanction this today on that level. Nothing more really needs to be said on this, but as some Catholics refuse to see it, and suppose the case is about Catholic support for the apocrypha and that our canon depends upon the Roman sanction, i shall once again work to reiterate and expand more in response to the assertion of another, by God's grace.

You argue for ancient support for the apocrypha, with unsubstantiated assertions about a uniform Vulgate, and dismiss all debate and the Prologues of Saint Jerome and other sources which distinguish the apocrypha from Scripture proper, yet again, the issue is not whether Rome had support for her canon, but that the Prots did for theirs. And which you say is “entirely my opinion,” when in reality that is the opinion of far weightier sources than you. And if you disagree with the Catholic ones them then it testifies to the confusion within Rome, and how RCs must engage in their own interpretation and can reject other Catholic sources.

In addition, as most of the Biblical writings were established as Scripture before there was a church in Rome, as seen by well over 200 direct quotes (and the manner in which authorship and or authority is often clearly ascribed) from all but 6 books (but which were part of the “writings” which is referenced) — and which establishment SS materially provides for as previously explained — then there is no problem even if there was an infallible canon prior to the Reformation, as it is not what Rome decrees that establishes the canon, but evidences in text and in power that warrant excluding the apocrypha books as lacking plenary Divine inspiration, versus the other Old Testament books being what the Lord referred to as Scripture in establishing his claims, “the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms," (Luke 24:44) And which does not reflect the apocrypha, most of whom were written after Malachi, but the tripartite Hebrew canon.

Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture, even though they were aware of these writings and alluded to them at times (e.g., Heb. 11:35 may allude to 2 Maccabees 7, 12, though this may be a reference to the canonical book of Kings; see I Kings 17:22). Yet hundreds of quotations in the New Testament cite the Old Testament canon. The authority with which they are cited indicates that the New Testament writers believed them to be part of the "Law and Prophets" [i.e., whole Old Testament] which was believed to be the inspired and infallible Word of God (Matt. 5:17-18; cf. John 10:35). Jesus quoted from throughout the Old Testament "Law and Prophets," which he called "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). — Dr. Norman Geisler, The Apocrypha - Part Three http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD3W0602.pdf

Remembering that the Jews were both the instruments and the stewards of Divine revelation, “because that unto them were committed the oracles of God oracles of God,” (Rm. 3:2) and who thus should know where the oracles were, and that Lord never faulted the Jews on what they referred to as Scripture, nor did they fault Him on the same, but who never quoted from the apocrypha, we see evidence that what was held authoritative as Scripture by Him and those who sat in the seat of Moses (to whom general obedience was enjoined, Mt. 23:2, but not as above Scripture, which Rome's presumes for herself), did not recognize the apocrypha as Scripture.

1st century Josephus, using the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, held 22 book as Scripture, which (due to combining books, which later varied) supports the 39 book Protestant canon over the 73 book Roman Catholic one.

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.. — Against Apion 1.8.

Josephus divided the books into three sections: the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called 'hymns to God and precepts for human life,' also referred to as the Writings or the Hagiographa.

He states that the twenty-two books were written in the specific span of time from Moses to Artaxerxes and no books written after this time were considered inspired. He mentions other books written after the prophets, which were not considered by the Jews to carry the same authority, that is, they were not inspired and were, therefore, not canonical.

[Herbert Edward] Ryle, states,

Josephus probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division of the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. — F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 33-34.

Jesus can be seen affirming the 22 book Hebrew canon in Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35. “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.”

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers." — Greg Bahnsen,

The Concept and Importance of Canonicity, http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/bible/bahnsen_canon.html

Webster adds,

It is significant that Philo [who died about 50 A.D] coming from Alexandria, where the Septuagint originated, never quoted from the Apocrypha. Herbert Edward Ryle makes these observations on Philo and his relationship to the Apocrypha:

To him, as to other Alexandrine Jews, the Law alone was in the highest sense the Canon of Scripture, and alone partook of divine inspiration in the most absolute degree. Philo's writings, however, show that he was well acquainted with many other books of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch. He quotes from Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Ezra. According to some scholars he is said to show acquaintance with books of the Apocrypha. But this is very doubtful; and, even if it be granted, he certainly never appeals to them in support of his teaching in the way that he does to books included in the Hebrew Canon, and never applies to them the formulae of citation which he employs, when referring to the acknowledged books of the Jewish Scriptures. By comparison with his quotations from the Pentateuch, his quotations from the other sacred writings are very scanty; but it is observable that even in these few extracts he ascribes an inspired origin to Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Zechariah.

Also (briefly),

Origen, who had contact with Jews wrote that the number of canonical books handed down by them was twenty-two. Other fathers who listed the number of books as twenty-two were Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, who was a native of Palestine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus, while Jerome gave numberings of both twenty-two and twenty-four. The pseudepigraphal work, Jubilees, found among the Essene community at Qumran, also numbered the Old Testament books at twenty-two and was likely the earliest witness to the number of books that comprised the Hebrew canon, predating Josephus. More

Also, Cyril of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century, gave a complete catalogue of the canonical Old Testament books received by the Church of his day in his Catechetical Lectures. As pointed out previously, he mentioned the Jewish numeration of twenty-two books and gave a list of the specific books which comprise the canon.64 There are a number of important facts to note in Cyril's comments. First of all, he states that this listing is the authoritative canon which was handed down by the Church. Secondly, he states that the canon he gave came from the Septuagint, but it excluded most of the books of the Apocrypha. The only Apocryphal books he listed were those of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah which he mistakenly thought to have been part of the original canonical Jeremiah. More

And Jerome, in his prologue to book of Kings, lists the books in the Hebrew canon and states,

And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law, which the Apoclypse of John introduces under the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: “Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be.”

This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is to be set apart among the apocrypha. — http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?page_id=2183

Apocryphal Writings at Qumran. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd

However, you absolutely refuse to allow the Protestants any basis of antiquity for their canon, and even dismiss the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement that “The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants,“ by saying the use of the conventional word protocanonical is a “conventional dating no earlier than the 19th century,” as if that invalidates it. I am sure you do not feel the same way about the “Transubstantiation” or similar doctrinal terms used by Rome, while the fact remains that proto means first, and protocanonical accurately refers to books that were first accepted, and which also applies to New Testament books. Your rejection requires that all enjoyed the same status from the beginning, which they did not, and the Protestant canon reflects the ancient Hebrew canon.

Another Catholic source, which argues for the apocrypha, concurs, “Protocanonical books are the twenty-four books of the Jewish scripture, re-arranged into thirty-nine books by separating Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles into two books and the Twelve Minor Prophets into twelve books.” — http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/CanonOfTheOldTestament.aspx

There are bibles (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), from the 3rd century which have the books of the apocrypha in them. If the ‘ancient canon’ was precisely what you say it was, then why are the only bibles extant from that time testifying just the opposite?

Here you suppose that establishing support for the apocrypha from two 4th century manuscripts negates support from the Hebrew canon, but the reason why they contain the apocrypha is because they are of the later Septuagint which contain books which no early manuscripts of the Septuagint are known to have, and Josephus (with his 22 book tripartite canon] and others evidence they did not. The first occurrence of some apocryphal books is first seen in 4^th century manuscripts, but not all apocryphal books are contained, nor are the manuscripts all uniform or the same as that of Trent, and contain books she rejects.

As Jerome in the 4^th century stated (in his prologue to Ezra), “the variety of the texts of which shows them torn and perverted.” And again, other Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/prologi.shtml

“manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.” (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church)

And while you invoke Vaticanus dated palaeographically to the 4th century, and Sinaiticus for support of Trent, neither is identical to Trent's canon, as the former excludes 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), and Sinaiticus (found by a Protestant purportedly in a rubbish basket) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome). Thus the three earliest MSS or the LXX show uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.

Thus if these support Rome they also support other canons, but which does not seem to be much of an issue as long as they are Catholic, while earlier testimony indicates an exclusion of the apocrypha.

There WAS no official canon prior to Jerome, and the official canon set down by Jerome included all the books of the apocrypha. Full stop.

The “full stop” is one that you need to do by stop parroting aged inhouse Roman Catholic polemics, which have long ago been refuted. Jerome did not set down an official canon with the apocrypha as Scripture, and instead he was one of many who rejected the apocrypha, though the Vulgate contained it, but often with his prologues noting distinction, besides the Glossa ordinaria and other testimonies to an unsettled status of the apocrypha as Scripture.

And again, we can see that it was not simply language that was behind Jerome's exclusion: the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase...(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

And as for an official canon, the point was that there was no official, uniform dogmatic canon that required assent till Trent, and even to this day the canon differs among Catholics, reflective of early differences and the local nature of early councils. And neither do these establish which writings are Scripture, and evidentially most of which writings were recognized as such before there ever was a church in Rome, and without an assuredly infallible magisterium. And as all Catholic churches also teach extraBiblical doctrines such as praying to the departed, we look at the evidence for what the Lord regarded as Scripture, and will allow Catholics to fight between themselves concerning which canon to follow. Yet i have never seen them do it or make it an issue, nor condemn Catholic dissenters on the apocrypha before Trent, and instead nonconformity with the RC canon only seems to made a real issue against Protestants, as the only reason it was an issue in the 16^th century and that it is one now is because it serves as polemic against their real competition, those who rightly hold Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority, which Scripture abundantly evidences it is.

For what it is worth, early local Councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa did affirm the apocrypha, chiefly due to following Augustine (354-430) who favored them, perhaps believing the legend of how the Septuagint was written, over others who opposed them. However, their lists were obviously not conclusive in the light of the continued debate by scholarly Catholics (not the Hans Kung types).

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Roman Catholic historian and expert on Trent (four volumes) Hubert Jedin explained. “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was

► “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)

Cardinal Cajetan himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church..." Metzger, Canon of the New Testament

Theologian Cardinal Cajetan also stated,

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” — Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)

Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

And just prior to Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon received papal sanction. B.F. Westcott [1825 – 1901) was a British bishop, Biblical scholar and theologian, comments:

At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation (B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 478).

“Luther produced his own Bible in 1534 but following ancient precedent”

He tore out the books that he did not like, and upended 1100 years of biblical manuscripts to produce his own bible.

So goes the Catholic canard, but as is clearly substantiated, he certainly has Catholic precedent and company right into Trent, as well as scholarly reasons for his rejection.

Besides what has already been put forth is this additional testimony form Jerome in his prologue to the Books of Chronicles:

Certainly, whatever is witnessed by the Savior to be written, is written. Where is it written? The Seventy do not have it; the Church ignores the apocrypha; thus is the turning back to the Hebrew books, from which the Lord spoke and the disciples took forth texts. http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?page_id=2183

“But that there was no indisputable canon before Trent is the main issue.”

Which is why Trent corresponds (besides Baruch) with Amitianis, the most ancient Vulgate that we do possess? ;)

An infallible canon cannot differ from another indisputable infallible canon, and which besides Baruch (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=521306&page=3), also includes the contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras, of Trent omitting the Septuagint I Esdras. While (again) the most ancient Vulgate still “contains St. Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm) and prefaces, in which, after listing the books of the Hebrew canon, Jerome states, “This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings.” — http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII6-17.TXT

Seems to me the evidence is solidly against you that there wasn’t an ‘official canon’. If there was not an official canon after Jerome and the publication, we would expect to see variations in the books included in the ancient Vulgates. Nor would we expect that the most ancient of them to correspond so closely with Trent.

Unfortunately for you, the Vulgates all have the same books in them, dating back to the 8th century that we do have, and evidence abounds demonstrating that the Vulgates from before them all include the ‘apocryphal’ books. At least since Pope Damasus. We have things like the Book of Kells that attest to the canon.

Rather, it seems to me the evidence is solidly against you that there was an ‘official canon,' as you dismiss fact that substantial debate existed right into Trent, without penalty, regardless of the Vulgates, and which differed from the canon of Trent, while the problem remains that the best copy retains Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus” which reckons non-Hebrew books as not being Scripture proper. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? " (1 Corinthians 14:8)

“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation”

Then why does every published Vulgate from the period include them? Clearly they were considered to be Sacred Scripture and were included along with the rest. If there was hesitation, it was insufficient to remove them from the canon. You’ve overstated your case.

Rather, it was clear they were included but that the old division was held by many. It is you is overstating your case by minimizing debate, as if that could continue right into Trent if the canon was officially settled, and maximizing the Vulgate which contains the apocrypha but also the Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus,” which along with others, distinguished between the apocryphal book and Scripture proper. A historical practice, seen even in early KJV Bibles, and Luther's as well, was to contain the apocryphal books, but which were not held as Scripture. Such were considered edifying - not because they were inerrant. — Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm

According to you then, Catholics are quite free to dissent from official doctrine.

“St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus.”

When all the sources discussing their hesitation all quote Jerome, that doesn’t reinforce your argument that their doubts were based on anything other than Jerome’s opinion. Jerome’s opinion, if you go on to read it is because he lacked Hebrew originals for these books.

So now the judgment on what is Scripture according to the preeminent esteemed Bible scholar Jerome on must be disparaged. Even so, all the sources excluding apocryphal books do not reference Jerome, while it is quite unlikely “Hebrew originals” existed for many books at that time, and almost all the apocrypha was written in Greek, while the LXX that contained is understood to be of Christian origin. Nor was the Hebrew the only reason, but as stated,

the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase...(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Some of these books, didn’t even HAVE hebrew originals, because they were originall written in Greek. Just because they were written in the Greek doesn’t make them less reliable. Jerome didn’t know what we know today, that the Greek was the original, and there was no cause to oppose the manuscript evidence available.

Well if Greek was what Moses and David etc. spoke, then that certainly is advanced scholarship! But it would be news that any of the Hebrew canon was originally written in Greek, in contrast to most of the apocrypha, except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a portion of Judith and Tobit.

If we are to accept Jerome’s opinion, why then do you dismiss Damasus? He was the one who decided on what the Vulgate canon would be in the first place, and he chose to keep the books. If you are arguing for the hesitation, why did the church decide to include them? They didn’t include the Shepherd.

Or better yet, if these books were unreliable, why do they appear in the LXX?

As for Damasus, i have no reason to esteem a pope over a Bible scholar, and Jerome made his exclusion of the apocrypha clear to that pope, and received no censure from him. Nor was the of Damascus identical to Trent, and the claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and the former depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa. More

As for the LXX, , as said, there is no manuscript evidence that early copies contained the apocryphal books, and the earliest "complete" manuscripts of the LXX and which abound in corruption are from the 4th century AD, and indicate a Christian origin, and which also lacked books Trent affirms or contained books which Rome rejects. Thus if the LXX reflects all that is reliable, then it is to be followed, and Rome is wrong.

“the dissent by Roman Catholic scholars”

But what does the Church teach? You can find dissent on anything - doesn’t represent what the Catholic church believes.

Again, what you are avoiding is that this debate was not akin to some schismatics rejecting Vatican Two, or minor bishops debating if women priests are allowed, but debate by substantial scholars call to settle a question and reflecting an ongoing centuries-old unsettled issue, and which was not a problem until one who held Scripture as supreme forced Rome to dogmatically settle the issue. And as that was the official canon, then debate ceased.

Finally, if non-conformity with Rome on the canon is such a major issue, then they should be at war with other Catholics whose canon is different, it matters little whether by one book or several. At least the SS type Prots are the most devoted readers of Holy Writ, and more conservative, as compared to their Catholic counterparts.

Sorry for the length, but this is not a simple issue, and while more could be said, this must suffice.

[daniel1212]

Jesus Himself commanded baptism as an act of faith (Mk. 16:16) identifying one with the Triune God, (Mt. 28:19).

And Peter requires it as the first outward step of repentance and faith for the remission of sins and regeneration, (Acts 2:28) as the faith behind baptism appropriates this, for “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” (Acts 10:43) and thus some souls realized this before baptism, all of which you must reject in order to prevent indigestion.

And 1Pt. 3:21 still refers to it as a like figure of salvation, salvific as it requires and expresses faith, rather than depending on whether the one doing the baptizing intends to do what Rome does, of which no one may be sure, and its efficacy is not dependent on whether the person being saved personally has faith (though they must not set up an obstacle). Because if the faith required, Westminster Standards can state , sacraments are “effectual means of salvation.” See more: http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/sacr/exopere.htm

But such questions and more have already been addressed, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=965#965 and elsewhere, but as it is your modus operandi to blithely ignore such and asked the sames questions again, i need not waste more time responding and refuting the premise behind them .

But unlike me, you refuse to answer questions asked of you. Thus we would still like to know:

In contradiction of your previous statements, do you reject baptism of desire, and that one could be regenerated before they are baptized?

Do you believe the CCC is in error concerning this?

Do you hold Vatican 2 as binding, and that Protestants can be saved if they do not believe the pope to be the successor to Peter and Catholic apostolic succession? Explain.

[daniel1212]

If you get

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Then hit F5

[JCBreckenridge]

I’m cutting all the rest of your post to highlight this point.

“In addition, as most of the Biblical writings were established as Scripture before there was a church in Rome”

When was this?

When did the Roman Catholic church begin?

[daniel1212]

“In addition, as most of the Biblical writings were established as Scripture before there was a church in Rome” When was this? When did the Roman Catholic church begin?

Happy to clarify. I am referring to the abundance of references to "Scriptures" or the authoritative Word of God (versus quotes or allusions from other sources, which sometimes occur), referenced by the Lord and the N.T. writers, which are part of the approx. 260 quotes from all but 6 books of the Hebrew Bible, besides hundreds more allusions.

If Scripture is so abundantly and referenced as the Word of God/Scripture from so many books then it presupposes that these had come to be established as such, and which all happened before there was any church in Rome or anywhere else. And without an assuredly infallible magisterium.

This does not mean we can prove they had a a completely settled canon, but as can be seen by the abundance of references, Scripture was treated as the supreme transcendent standard for obedience truth claims and for testing truth claims, by conformity and complementarity to it, in text and in power, by which further writings were established, like as true men of God are.

When the Roman Catholic church began depends upon how it is defined.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

i am a very simple man, when someone tells me they believe in sola scriptura and then denies baptismal regeneration, it gets my attention. when someone has my attention, i listen to what is said and then i ask for the evidence.
soooo......, when i hear someone say baptism is “symbolic”, i ask WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT?
when i hear someone say baptism is a “first act of obedience”, i ask WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT?
when i hear someone say baptism is an outward sign of something that has happenened already, i ask WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT?
the answer to all three questions is NOWHERE.
my BIBLE says baptism IS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT. my Bible says baptism PUTS US INTO CHRIST. my BIBLE says BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU.

now also being a simple man, when someone says Cornelius and his family was regenerated before being baptized in Acts 10, it gets my attention. DOES IT REALLY SAY THAT?

well, let’s see - v44 while Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
now, read that again carefully, it says the Holy Spirit fell on ALL WHO HEARD THE WORD. this means it fell on Cornelius, his family and the believers who accompanied Peter. these believers were regenerated already, since they are referred to as “brethern”. so we know the gift the Holy Spirit gave everyone could not have been regeneration. well, what was the gift? v46 tells us it was tongues, just as happened to the Apostles in Acts 2. NO WHERE IN ACTS 10 NOR 11 DOES IT SAY THESE GENTILES WERE REGENERATED OR HASD THEIR SINS FORGIVEN WITHOUT BAPTISM. do not forget, anyone reading Acts 10 would have already read Acts 2:38 and will read Acts 22:16, where the Holy Spirit thru Luke, makes it clear that baptism is for the remission of sins.
people can hold to their 16th century tradition of men all they like, but the Scriptures teach baptism is for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit and being placed into Christ.
and for those who claim Paul taught you are regenerated by faith alone, without baptism, i wish to point out what Ananias said to Paul himself in Acts 22:16 - AND NOW WHY DO YOU WAIT? RISE AND BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, CALLING ON HIS NAME.
Paul received baptism for the remission of his sins, Paul taught baptism for the remission of sins.

as for the baptism of desire, the Church teaches it and i accept it. if someone hears the Gospel and believes in Jesus Christ and ACCEPTS THEIR NEED TO BE BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS and God calls them home before they are able to do so, we can believe they were saved. THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN REJECTING BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND BELIEVING BAPTISM IS SOME USELESS SYMBOLIC CEREMONY.
as far as Protestants being saved, i answered that already. you may have missed it so i will repeat myself. if a Protestant holds the Catholic Faith, i believe salvation is possible. the Nicene Creed sums up the Catholic Faith and it in part says “we acknowledge ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS” as far as i know, Lutherans and Anglicans accept the Nicene Creed.

but if someone truly is a child of God, a new creature in Christ, they will OBEY the Lord and not sin willfully.
Jesus commanded UNITY of His followers, Paul commanded UNITY and Christians to speak with ONE voice.
IT IS SINFUL TO SAY YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS AND REJECT HIS CHURCH. IT IS SINFUL TO ATTACK THE CHURCH AS TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE AND LEADING MEN ASTRAY.
but, as i say, i am a very simple man.

[boatbums]

I repeat, answer my questions or I will not discuss this issue with you any further. You have taken way too much time of ours already and, apparently, you fail to read what is written to you in response anyway. Here are my questions:

Here's a test for you:

When you say the word "baptism", what specifically are you talking about?

Do you mean the ordinance of baptism performed by the "church" that includes the use of water?

If you are speaking of the specific act of a water baptism performed by the "church", then is it THAT act, that ordinance, that you claim "saves"?

Consequentially, if a person is baptized in water by the "church", is that person "saved"?

What place does personal faith have in this act?

Finally, is it the act itself of baptism or the faith of the person being baptized that saves that person?

And, lastly, in anticipation of your answer to the last question, if both faith AND the act of baptism are necessary to "save" a person, then what happens if that person dies after his profession of faith and before his participation in the act of baptism? Is he STILL saved?

And I add, what happens to babies who die without baptism?

[boatbums]

Yet i have never seen them do it or make it an issue, nor condemn Catholic dissenters on the apocrypha before Trent, and instead nonconformity with the RC canon only seems to made a real issue against Protestants, as the only reason it was an issue in the 16th century and that it is one now is because it serves as polemic against their real competition, those who rightly hold Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority, which Scripture abundantly evidences it is.

Finally, if non-conformity with Rome on the canon is such a major issue, then they should be at war with other Catholics whose canon is different, it matters little whether by one book or several. At least the SS type Prots are the most devoted readers of Holy Writ, and more conservative, as compared to their Catholic counterparts.

I think you have summed up beautifully what the TRUE dispute is here. Some Roman Catholics are absolutely convinced, beyond ANY possible evidence to the contrary, that whatever they are told by Rome is THE truth and any and all attempts to pry them away from the breast of the "Mother Church" will be seen as tantamount to Satanic activity. Yet, here we are - those who once DID suckle at that breast - weaned and matured enough to recognize the truth of God's word supersedes what men can devise no matter how pure and holy they may try to appear.

As you brought out, the issue of an "Official" canon did not become important enough to the Papal powers until others challenged their professed antiquity of doctrine and forced them to take a stand about an area they had not deemed essential enough before. That the Roman Catholic Church taught the existence of "Purgatory" without ANY Scriptural proof, was only one of many such dogmas that were contradicted by Holy Scripture. Yet some obscure passage in a non-canonical book was offered as such proof and that made the inclusion of that book mandatory into the Divinely-inspired collection of Holy Scripture.

Praying to the dead was another such dogma that a fishing expedition in the Apocrypha turned up a "sorta", "maybe", "could mean" type of reference. All other universally undisputed Scriptures that condemned contacting the dead were ignored in favor of a passage that pretended to pass muster. I wonder why, if Rome considered herself infallible, her hierarchy even thought they NEEDED to prove their doctrines by Scripture. Hadn't they already placed themselves ABOVE the Scriptures anyway?

I don't know about you, but this whole Apocrypha vs. Canon argument smells like three-week old pizza forgotten and left out in the sun. It is just another example of how the enemy of our souls likes nothing better than subterfuge and distraction. Anything to get us away from talking about the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. The "simplicity that is in Christ" is obscured by all the needless and silly disagreements that place more importance on the myriad possible things that can be argued about than the one thing that is and should stay inarguable - that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.

Thank you for your patient and scholarly input. It has reinforced what I know God's word really is - infallible and Divine. The saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.", seems apt here. We can only hope a few "horses" are thirsty enough, but all we can do is lead them to the water. Once the water of truth is tasted, it is only right that the more we drink the more we will want to remain at that spring of eternal life.

[daniel1212]

“i am a very simple man,”

And that is your problem, you cannot deal with systematic theology and the various texts on receiving the Holy Spirit, and your response is simply another example one of your myopic eisegetical attempts which avoid what Act 10 along with the other pertinent verses in #10 of post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=965#965 and explained there teach.

Which is that Cornelius and company to whom the gospel was preached realized just what Peter’s preaching promised by believing, that of the remission of sins, God purifying their heart by faith, (Acts 15:9, and thus having already received the Holy Ghost, they were baptized. Their speaking in tongues was how the others knew God had granted them repentance. (Acts 11:15-18)

And your stubborn refusal to accept that obvious teaching sets you at odd with Catholic commentary, including the conservative (stamped) Haydock, which states

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham)

-— Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter’s preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. - http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id125.html

And Augustine:

Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists , 4:21[28]).

I fact would be surprised to find any commentary that agreed with you in rejecting that Cornelius and co were regenerated before baptism (which is not the same as dying in the faith). But you are just another example of how RCs can disagree, while promoting an elitist church.

But at least you finally answered my question as to allowing regeneration before baptism, even if you disallow that for pious Cornelius.

[daniel1212]

Good analysis, and then there are the varying positions on just what is specifically an “official” teaching. And yes, RC doctrine does not depend upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, nor can that be allowed to provide real assurance.

[Iscool]

but what does the Bible say, is it possible for the Church to go apostate? Jesus says the gates of hell can not prevail against the Church.

Your religion doesn't even know what that means, let alone have a clue what Abraham's bosom is...

later in Matthew 24:24, Jesus tells us the elect can’t be led astray.

So once saved, always saved, eh??? You guys are all over the map when it comes to scripture...

You ought to just stick to your man made tradition because you guys make a real mess out of scripture...