Posted on 04/27/2021 5:25:46 AM PDT by Old Yeller
No one can keep the commandments for their salvation. Once we are saved Christ and the Holy Spirit change our hearts and we want to follow Him and please Him. But we still sin and no one can keep the commandments flawlessly to earn their salvation. That is the difference. We want to keep His commands as a response to our salvation not in hopes of earning it
Rather, why do you not read more of what I wrote rather than spewing out weak attempts of intellectualism by spewing out ignorant opinions about what I wrote? As with your lying charge about the absence of an infallible canon until after Luther’s death and his inclusion of apocryphal books in his translation of the Bible, you are have a tendency to engage in railing accusations that lack any substantiation, in contrast to what I provided.
Now you need provide where I taught error on Catholic doctrine is on baptism and other theological matters and did not reference true Catholic sources on this issue. And even where you think I have so that I can show you.
"You obviously did not learn about Catholic doctrine if you are unaware that baptism cleanses us from original sin and confirmation is our born again moment.."
And where did I deny that Catholic doctrine teaches that baptism cleanses us from original sin and confirmation is our born again moment? I actually stated that in Catholicism justification is on the basis of actual righteousness, which is first attained via the act itself [ex opere operato] of baptism (and which for infants means without even having to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus with all their heart, which is contrary to Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; 10:43–47- 15:7–9) effecting "infused” righteousness [inasmuch as the infusion of sanctifying grace makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity], for in RC theology one is formally justified by their own righteousness. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace)
Of course that is an unscriptural delusion which is abundantly evidenced by the vast multitudes of infant-baptized Catholic children, especially in colleges.
"Heck, Protestants don’t actually believe in an active heaven where spirits interact with earthly spirits...it’s lunacy."
Actually you are the one showing ignorance here of what evangelicals believe, who actually pray to God to send His angels to help, but if you mean praying to created beings in Heaven, then you reprove the Holy Spirit for nowhere testifying to any believers doing this while inspiring over 200 prayers in Scripture. How dare you infer He was negligent or would not include some if this was a practice of the faithful of God!
Put up or shut up.
Even murders and suicides are forgiven? I know most consider suicide, murder of self. I have a good friend who did that, was a believer but I don’t know his heart as I had not seen him in years.
That is the hardest, to not be settled on this point with him, or frankly for those who kill themselves with drugs.
You are such a master of tilting at strawmen.
Wow, so many blatant falsehoods about Christian beliefs that I don’t even know where to start.
But we’ll start with ‘citation needed’ on every sentence of your posts this thread.
Oh I do agree to some subjectivity in terms of my faith that the Holy Spirit can take the lead in showing his church truths that he wants us to concentrate on. I was positing a a starting place as to whether the apocryphal books should be canon or not based on their usage as guided or not guided by the Holy Spirit. I do understand that my metric may very well be an example of...”I don’t understand why he lost the election...no one I knew voted for him...” A more careful survey would need to be done to see if there be any validity to my proposed “metric”.
So applying some subjectivity on the question, I may well be rightfully accused.
it should read...”nobody I knew voted for the other guy”.
Sorry!
Of course I was speaking of all denominations when I questioned the frequency of their use of the apocryphal books. Many protestant evangelical pastors work thru all the books over 2 or 3 years if you count morning, evening and midweek services as well as small group or member Bible studies.
Catholics and Protestants can’t be friends?
Huh?!? I'm not sure what you're saying. Just to clarify, are you saying that our Lord Jesus stated that forgiveness of sins was only for present sins. Or are you saying that all sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven? If forgiveness of sin is only for those past and presently committed, then one has to serve some time in a purgatory. If ALL sins are forgiven, then purgatory is a false teaching.
So what is it?
BTW-I'm not sure how this speaks out against the Holy Ghost.
SCHOLARS often refer to the Gelasian Decretal and they sometimes quote it. But it may be questioned whether many have ever read it as a whole. They are content to know (I quote from Westcott On the Canon, 5th ed., p. 453) that 'Credner has examined at great length the triple recension of the famous decretal On Ecclesiastical Books. His conclusion briefly is that (1) In its original form it was drawn up in the time of Gelasius, c. 500 A.D. (2) It was then enlarged in Spain, c. 500-700 A. D. (3) Next published as a decretal of Hormisdas (Pope 514-523 A.D.) in Spain, with additions. (4) And lastly variously altered at later times '. |470
The Decretum Gelasianum consists of five chapters :
I. About Christ and the Spirit.
II. List of Canonical Books.
III. About the three chief Sees : Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.
IV. List of Books to be received.
V. List of Apocryphal Books.
In 1794 F. Arevalo, the editor of Sedulius, started the theory that the first three of these five chapters were really the decrees of a Roman Council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382 A.D. Certain MSS seemed to give this earlier document separately, and Arevalo's conclusions have been widely accepted, notably by Maassen and Zahn. Readers of this JOURNAL will remember that in vol. i pp. 554-560, Mr C. H. Turner edited from four MSS of the eighth and ninth centuries the text of these first three chapters with the title of 'The Roman Council under Damasus'. On this theory the 'Damasine' List is the earliest Conciliar Western List of the Canonical Books, a List, in fact, two years earlier than the publication of the first instalment of the Latin Vulgate. It had been Professor v. Dobschütz's intention to publish the Damasine and Gelasian forms side by side (i. e. I, II, III and III, IV, V, c. III being common to both), but in the course of his investigation he came to very different conclusions. According to v. Dobschütz all five chapters belong to the same original work, which is no genuine decree or letter either of Damasus or Gelasius, but a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century (between 519 and 553).
There can, I think, be little doubt that v. Dobschütz has made out his case. The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.
The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling. In the first place v. Dobschütz makes it clear (p. 213) that the shorter form I-III implies the longer form,2 and therefore is derived from it. Further, the short form III-V, which was supposed to contain the genuine decree of Gelasius, turns out to be a recension of the whole work, in which the phrases which refer back to I and II have been carefully suppressed or altered (p. 214). This recension appears to |471 have been made in Gaul in the seventh century (p. 399) : that known as Hormisdas, containing II-V, is a Spanish recension, but the Spaniard Isidor used chap. I, in fact he is the earliest witness to the work. Had it been an official decree of Gelasius it would have been known and used by Dionysius Exiguus and Cassiodorus.
Thus these famous Lists represent no Papal ordinance, but are the production of an anonymous scholar of the sixth century. He must have been a fairly well-read man for that time and shews a good acquaintance with the writings of St Jerome, but v. Dobschütz does not believe that he had read, or even seen, most of. the 'Apocryphal' books which he condemns (pp. 333-334). For various reasons the work can hardly have been compiled in Africa or Spain, and Gaul is on the whole unlikely : 'es bleibt für den Ursprung des Dokuments nur Italien übrig' (p. 350). Certainly the description of the last book in the N. T. as Iudae Zelotis apostoli epistula una makes for N. Italy or Gaul, the only evidence for the apostle Judas Zelotes coming from those regions. In Matt. x 3, in the place of Thaddaeus, Judas Zelotes is found in a b g h q gatcorr mm, and the Mosaics of the great Baptistery at Ravenna (fifth century).3 So far as I know there is no evidence for this name from Africa, Spain, or the British Isles.
A word should be said in conclusion upon the amazing mass of detail collected by Prof. v. Dobschütz and the clearness with which he has presented it. He has used eighty-six manuscripts, besides six (class D') which contain the text in a second recension. To make this vast quantity of material intelligible he has first printed the full original text with only the real variants of the 'Gelasian' recension at the foot of the page. This leaves room for a clear indication of Biblical references and for the incipits and explicits of the several recensions. After this he repeats the text line for line with full apparatus, excluding only the spelling of the Proper Names, which are given separately in alphabetical order. Praise is often bestowed on our German fellow-workers for industry and fault found with their style, but very few Frenchmen or Englishmen would have marshalled the vast and unwieldy army of authorities so skilfully as is done in this book. It is a work that should be studied by all editors of much-copied texts.
F. C. BURKITT.
[Footnotes have been renumbered and placed at the end]
1. 1 The passage is printed J. T. S. 1 556 f, ll. 23-27 : v. Dobschütz, p. 245 f.
2. 2 Chap. II, title, post haec quid uitare debeat implies a list of rejected Books, such as chap. V.
3. 1 A relic of this confusion no doubt survives in the coupling together of St Simon and St Jude for purposes of commemoration. (Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) pp. 469-471 THE DECRETUM GELASIANUM. )
Geoffrey Mark Hahneman · 1992
If the Damasine Decree were genuine, then it would represent the earliest known official catalog of canonical books in the Western church. Yet the work is not mentioned in any independent document before the year 840, nor was it named by any of the ecclesiastical historians such as ...The earliest collection of Latin conciliar canons and decretals, namely that of Dionysius Exiguus, began with those of Siricius, the successor of Damasus. The fact that Dionysius began at that particular date with the decretals of an obscure pope implies that Siricius was the first pope who issued decretals. If so, this fact could explain the false attribution to Damasus, in that there would be no means later of verifying it and no appeal to an earlier genuine work on decretals and canons.
There are also difficulties in identifying the Decretum Gelasianum with a suppositious [yes, a real word] Roman synod in 494.59 Dionysius Exiguus, for instance, did not mention the Decree among those of Gelasius in his collection. Consequently it appears that both the decrees were written after the time of Gelasius, and only later attributed to these early bishops of Rome.
Those who sustained the authenticity of the Decree argued that the enlarged Decretals were really later editions of a primitive Damasine text. The treatment of the second and Dobschütz, however, carefully analysed both the Freising and Vatican manuscripts presented by Turner, and clearly included them in the Gelasian family, thus confirming a date for them of no earlier than the sixth century.67 If the Damasine Decree and Decretum Gelasianum are seen as inauthentic, then this Roman catalogue cannot reliably be dated around 400, but is apparently related to much later documents.
Turner, 'Unpublished Stichometrical List', 246—7, 252—3. E. von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelananum (Leipzig, 2), 147, cf. 338—57. Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, 535—6.
(Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, "The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon," pp. 160, 162 . 1992. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press,
Book texts rendered via https://ocr.space
E. Earle Ellis states
Decretum Gelasianum,82 which is usually attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome from A. D. 492—496, but in some manuscripts is credited to the Roman bishop Damasus (t 384). Its second section contains an Old Testament catalogue including apocryphal books that, in the opinion of some scholars, represents a canon promulgated by Damasus at the coun- cil of Rome in A.D. 382. However, Epiphanius, who participated in the council, had only a few years before endorsed a canon limited to the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible, and he would not likely have joined in commending as divine Scripture 'which the universal catholic church receives'83 books that he had earlier set apart as apocrypha, More significantly, the Decretum is extant only in a later compilation of mixed vintage, and it is impossible to say what the list may have looked like in an original fourth-century document if, in fact, such a document ever existed. The list cannot, therefore, be regarded as a reliable witness to the canon received in the West in the fourth century"" (The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and ... - Page 26 E. Earle Ellis · 2003)
Matthew C. Baldwin:
An Anonymous List of Apocryphal Works Although Gelasius I, pope of Rome, was active in the late fifth century, the Decretum Gelasianum...has been identified as pseudepigraphical and dated to the sixth century...the author adds an incredibly comprehensive catalog of more than sixty works, which, in spite of the author's claim, seems very unlikely to have been generated from memory alone. (Whose Acts of Peter?: Text and Historical Context of the ... - Page 107,110 Matthew C. Baldwin · 2005)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.