/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

What thing is sure about Luther, it's that he was a failed monk… Unable to fight his passions and riddled with intrusive thoughts.

Rather than admitting he was perhaps too weak to live an ascetic life he declared that man alone is unable to ever EVER fight his sinful nature without God… Which is true, but he takes it up to eleven and declare any attempt as futile… Sola fide, yada yada.

>>785795

Fpbp as always

>>785800

Well he still took away several books from the Bible, so the curse would still be in effect

>>785803

Wow I didn't know Martin Luther was such a powerful influence he even got Catholics to start calling it deutrocanon (or "second canon") all because of him.

>>785810

If it makes you feel better I’m honestly in between Catholicism and Protestantism; this way this thread goes may tip me one way or the other

>>785808

Jerome?

>>785800

Yes.

>>785814

Luther called justification by faith alone the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. That's where your investigation needs to be.

Listen to RC Sproul for the Protestant presentation on this.

>>785791

That only applies to the book of Revelation, just because it's at the end of the Bible doesn't mean it applies to the whole. Theoretically we could mess around with the order of books in the Bible, but we don't because it makes more sense as we have it.

>>785821

This mainly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvXbotd9Lw

>>785795

>What thing is sure about Luther, it's that he was a failed monk… Unable to fight his passions and riddled with intrusive thoughts.

>

>Rather than admitting he was perhaps too weak to live an ascetic life he declared that man alone is unable to ever EVER fight his sinful nature without God… Which is true, but he takes it up to eleven and declare any attempt as futile… Sola fide, yada yada.

Indeed.. and he had such a great cloud of witnesses to spur him on, even in his own generation. Let alone the church as a whole. St. Jeanne, St. Teresa, St. Ignatius, etc., etc..

On a sidenote, this should also be a lesson to the scrupulous (apparently Luther was the same, and troubled his confessors with nonsense). Don't become so troubled in doubt and self-torment that you end up falling apart like Luther. Rejoice in Christ instead. "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

Jesus didn't say there was no burden at all (sola fide), but that was it was light. In following him, you find true freedom. Not by either tormenting yourself or ignoring your call. Learn from the saints. They found the right balance, took joy in following Christ, and have become lights to the world.

>>785791

The Bible had not yet been compiled when John wrote Revelation. That passage refers to the book of Revelation itself.

>>785845

This. And the word there is best translated scroll, not book (another KJV fail).

>>785791

Are the Orthodox cursed? Every branch of the Orthodox Church has added books that the Catholic Church does not consider canon. Or are the Catholics cursed because they don't include the books like 4 Ezra and 3 Maccabees? And if the Orthodox Church is correct, which branch as the correct canon? Obviously only one of the various Orthodox canons can be correct and the others are guilty of adding or taking away from Scripture.

>>785814

St. Jerome didn't want to include the deuterocanon in his translation of the Bible. He and St. Augustine got into a fight about it until he finally agreed to put them in.

>>785873

There's a difference between a Biblical canon being the way it is because the local Church has preserved it this way traditionally, and a Biblical canon being the way it is because the canon was reformed at some point because people didn't like it.

>>785940

I don't think Luther gave a shit about what Spaniards did to Moors and Jews

>>785944

>There's a difference between a Biblical canon being the way it is because the local Church has preserved it this way traditionally, and a Biblical canon being the way it is because the canon was reformed at some point because people didn't like it.

Not really. The only reason those local churches have traditionally preserved those canons in the first place is because someone, at some point, did or did not like certain books. Why is 4 Esdras not apart of the Greek Orthodox canon? Because someone didn't like it. Why is 4 Maccabees not apart of the Russian Orthodox canon? Because someone didn't like it. And so on. You get the point. Just because some churches have traditionally accepted or rejected certain books doesn't change the fact that only a certain number of books are God-breathed. 3 Maccabees doesn't become God-breathed when go to Greece and then cease to be God-breathed once go to Rome. The Book of Enoch has traditionally been in the Ethiopian Orthodox canon longer than the Russian Orthodox Church has existed. Does this mean that the Book of Enoch is God-breathed?

>>785791

No, no evidence.

But it does prove something amazing:

<youre an illiterate

>Lutherbibel 1912, Röm. 3:28

>So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

<So maintain we now therefore, that the Man rightful becomes without the Law's work, alone through the Faith

>Textbibel 1899, Röm. 3:28

>Denn wir schließen, daß der Mensch durch Glauben gerechtfertigt werde ohne Gesetzeswerke.

<For we maintain, that the Man is justified through faith, without law-works

What's the big difference between these two versions?

The latter is closer to the original text, but what difference does it make if you take away the "alone"?

>>785791

Dude, Luther didn't remove the apocrypha books. They were in his bible and in the original King James bible. The placement of them is just in a different order, nothing is added or removed.

Also, all English translations added words obviously as there isn't a direct word to word translation.

Also, you're quoting from the most heretical translation of the bible in English

>>786085

There's also the fact that the RCC itself didn't unanimously regard the deuterocanonical books as equal to the other books until the Council of Trent, which didn't end until fifteen years after Luther's death.

>>785844

Uhhh dude Luther quoted the church fathers all the time, he had more in common with Augustine and Ambrose than the "fraternity of Peter" that was telling people they could buy their dead relatives out of purgatory with money.

Lutheranism (true, conservative, LCMS Lutheranism) is a better conservation of the early Catholic church than the modern Catholic church is.

>>786091

That's not the "church fathers". That's one church father out of hundreds. And then a later scholastic (Ambrose). All reformers seem to do that. Maybe it was due to lack of printing, but they barely quote anyone else (to be fair, some Catholics seem to boil down church fathers to St. Augustine as well).

>>786093

Luther had particular affinity for Augustine because he was an Augustinian friar, but saying he didn't argue from a wide range of early Christian writings is simply ahistorical

>>786037

Thx bro you totally helped.

>>785808

But Jerome quoted the Deuterocanon in his letters and called them Scripture.

>>786166

He may have called them scripture in that they were sacred writings, but he did not consider them to be canonical scripture.

>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. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

>>786097

>Luther had particular affinity for Augustine because he was an Augustinian friar, but saying he didn't argue from a wide range of early Christian writings is simply ahistorical

It's not ahistorical. It's why the East had difficulty interacting with Catholics too (at least until the Uniates). St. Augustine (and for Catholics, Sts. Gregory and Jerome) made up the bulk of patristic quoting in the West (with Sts. Aquinas and Ambrose the popular scholastic thinkers.. but neither is a "church father"). Protestants are inheritors of all of this.

In any case, Councils are what matter at the end of the day. That's the worst thing about Luther out of all. He whined about Popes, but then just made himself the actual tyrant that no Pope can truly be accused of by setting himself above all ecumenical councils.. then rewrite theology from some pointless mining of Augustine. I have no clue why Evangelicals are impressed by this, or think that matters to anyone else.

>>786234

Do you believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity?

One last thing, when I say "all ecumenical" councils, I mean even in his approval of some, he's still arrogant and tyrannical. None of it is his right.. To say "Yay" or "Nay", "I approve", or "I disapprove". You simply bow to the wisdom of the universal church.. rather than say you alone have the final veto and a greater allocation of the Holy Spirit all on your own, that even an ecumenical council can't attain.

>>786235

Sigh. I edited a typo and just reposted whatever you quoted. Why do you even ask me that? I just defended the Ecumenical Councils over the authority of one man, and you care to ask if I believe in the Trinity? Do I sound like some Oneness Pentecostal to you?

>>786231

>It's why the East had difficulty interacting with Catholics too (at least until the Uniates). St. Augustine (and for Catholics, Sts. Gregory and Jerome) made up the bulk of patristic quoting in the West (with Sts. Aquinas and Ambrose the popular scholastic thinkers.. but neither is a "church father")

That has nothing to do with what >>786097 said about Luther citing a wide range of Fathers in his arguments, which he most of the other reformers did, from both the East and the West. Read the Book of Concord for yourself if you don't believe me http://www.bookofconcord.org/

>>786221

Jerome's personal misgivings do not really factor in to the faith, every Church Father would have assented to what the Holy Spirit had declared through the Church.

Even Origen's obvious errors weren't objectively heretical at the time, nobody had proclaimed anything about it.

>>786298

>Even Origen's obvious errors weren't objectively heretical at the time, nobody had proclaimed anything about it.

So was the Church wrong to anathemize him and anyone that wouldn't anathemize him at the Second Council of Constantinople?

>>785791

>takes away Deuteronomical books

Do you have a single fact to show that it wasn't gentile converts that added them after mistook them for Scripture?

>>789700

Besides the part where they get quoted in the NT and were found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea scrolls?

>>789705

There are no quotes from them in the NT. If you are referring to the fact they came from the LXX I would agree, and also agree that the LXX is generally superior to the MT. That doesn't change what is canonical, however.

Just because a book was included in the same collection as Scripture doesn't make it Scripture. Are the maps in the back of your Bible inspired by God? If I put a quran next to one of my Bibles does that make it canonical? God forbid.

>>789700

>it can't be divinely inspired unless jews like it

Welp, guess we'd better ban the gospels.

>>789708

There was no canon until the Church fixed it, and it included the deuterocanonical books. The Jewish canon other than the 5 of the Torah wasn't fixed until after the destruction of the second temple.

Luther and his cronies were the ones who changed the canon - you're working ass backwards.

>>789713

This isn't about what the jew thinks. This is about the Truth. And the Truth is that the apocrypha wasn't canonical at the time of Christ and isn't now.

>>789715

That is a lie. Jesus refers to the Scriptures as though they are fixed. The apocrypha was not included in any canons until after His time on earth.

>>789717

They didn't have a book. They had a bundle of scrolls. Every synagogue had Genesis through Deuteronomy, but other than that which scrolls they had varied, some had less, some had more. Jews fixed their canon after His time, and Christians fixed a different canon.

>>789715

>Luther and his cronies were the ones who changed the canon

How could Luther change the canon when the Roman Catholic Church didn't formally recognize the deuterocanon as equal to scripture until after his death?

>>789715

>>789725

Nope, sorry anon.

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. - Matthew 11:13

>They didn't have a book. They had a bundle of scrolls.

Why are you even drawing a distinction as if it being hardback or not matters.

>>785843

>Sola fide means no burden

You are in serious need of help. None of your filthy rags will buy a ticket to heaven sinner. True faith and God's grace are the foundations of a true Christian life. No amount of charity work can replace it, thus it is the only thing that truly matters.

>>785795

Wow I didn't know monks were completely without sin; no wonder you worship them so much then! Luther freed my people from a church of hypocrites and fools. Selling indulgences for debt that was paid long ago, oppressing other nations with a tithe that made bishops in a far away land live like Kings, and killed in the name of God if anyone dared translate the Bible into vernacular or expose them.

>>789717

>Jesus refers to the Scriptures as though they are fixed.

great, so I guess we have to throw out the New Testament, which was all fixed scripture when Christ said that

>>789716

>And the Truth is that the apocrypha wasn't canonical at the time of Christ and isn't now.

Except, Christ condemned the Jews for not knowing what was scripture

28At the resurrection therefore, whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her.

29And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Reconcile the idea of a "fixed canon" with the Jews when Christ Himself rebuked them -for not knowing it!-. By the way, do you know what scripture the Jews were quoting? Tobit!

>>789858

That's a lie, St. Augustine covered the authenticity of the deuterocanon.

>>790163

>Luther freed my people from a church of hypocrites and fools.

If the Dead Sea Scrolls are any indication, he led many people to eternal ruin, seeing that the hebraic deuterocanon was found. He had thrown them out on the basis that no Hebrew version of them existed!

>>790348

Just because Luther didn't put St Augustine's work into the Bible doesn't mean they he thinks he was wrong on everything. Luther wanted to remove books from the Bible because he believed that they weren't of the same weight as the other books and contained contradictions. This doesn't mean that he didn't think people should read them or that they should be burned, but he wanted a Bible that he could guarantee to someone that everything that is in it is divinely inspired and true with no hesitation in his mind. You should really read his books before you slander the man like this.

>>790472

Luther's opinion on the Church Fathers is besides the point, the Hebrew Deuterocanon existed, and one wonders if he would have proceeded with removing the scriptures had he known.

>Luther wanted to remove books from the Bible because he believed that they weren't of the same weight as the other books and contained contradictions.

in other words, they contradicted his theological innovations.

>but he wanted a Bible that he could guarantee to someone that everything that is in it is divinely inspired and true with no hesitation in his mind

and he was wrong. dead wrong.

>>790348

>That's a lie, St. Augustine covered the authenticity of the deuterocanon.

But there was no official decree from the RCC stating that the deuterocanon is on the same level as Scripture until the Council of Trent. Augustine may have thought they were equal to Scripture, nobody's perfect after all, but there were many Christians afterwards, even some Doctors of the Church, who did not.

>>790585

>But there was no official decree from the RCC stating that the deuterocanon is on the same level as Scripture until the Council of Trent

Neither was there any decree towards the doctrine of a Christian marriage, doesn't mean it hasn't stayed intact without an official declaration. If you haven't noticed, the Councils tend to be reactive instead of proactive.

>there were many Christians afterwards, even some Doctors of the Church, who did not.

well, nobody's perfect, and they were wrong.

>>790585

and once again I will ask: would have Luther thrown out the Deuterocanon if he had the Hebraic copies?

I strongly doubt it, and it's nothing but a boon to the Catholic Church that it turns out the hebrew copies are very closed preserved by what She did have.

>>790585

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_fidei_proxima

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_certa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_communis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sententia_probabilis

>>790482

>the Hebrew Deuterocanon existed

I'm new to this discussion, but are you saying that everything written in Hebrew, even if found in the 20th century or later, is inspired? Is this for real right now?

>>790619

>I'm new to this discussion

OK, so the topic here is why Luther threw out the Deuterocanon. One of the reasons why he threw them out, was because nobody had any copies of the Hebraic Deuterocanon in the 16th century, so he argued the veracity of the deuterocanon could not be maintained.

In the mid-20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls appeared, as did some hebraic deuterocanon scripture. So not only did they actually exist, they existed in Christ's time, and the Hebraic copies follow very closely to the copies the Church had in Luther's time.

Now you follow? This has nothing to do with inspiration, which is another topic entirely.

>>790623

>So not only did they actually exist, they existed in Christ's time,

Gnostic writings existed then too. Surely you don't think everything written in Hebrew is inspired simply for that fact. I'm sure you don't think that. Yet your method of reasoning seems to presuppose it.

>In the mid-20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls appeared, as did some hebraic deuterocanon scripture

Couple things here. So you base your faith on these discoveries? You place a lot of faith in what someone found in the 1940's and concurrently not so much in God for preserving his word and the sources needed available for all generations.

But ok, lets get past that for a second. Let's assume everything you said is true. Are you basically admitting that God didn't allow the primary source to remain around until the creation of the Israeli state in 1947? Were we to rely on them for verification all along?

One other thing, what is the relevance of Luther at all to this topic? That part I really don't get.

I read the background of the thread, I just didn't want you confusing me with someone else.

>>790630

>Surely you don't think everything written in Hebrew is inspired simply for that fact.

Re-read >>790623.

Particularly, "This has nothing to do with inspiration, which is another topic entirely".

It isn't about inspiration, it's about Luther's metrics for throwing out the Deuterocanon. The reveal of the DSS destroys one of his main arguments.

>So you base your faith on these discoveries?

I'm not sure why you're really deviating the topic this hard (Catholic Derangement Syndrome?), but I base my faith on the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Turns out, the Deuterocanon indeed existed in Christ's time.

> You place a lot of faith in what someone found in the 1940's and concurrently not so much in God for preserving his word and the sources needed available for all generations.

Friend, Sirach and Tobit and Letter of Jeremiah were preserved! In the bosom of the Catholic Church!

>One other thing, what is the relevance of Luther at all to this topic? That part I really don't get.

I already spoke plainly, Catholic Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

>>790610

>>790614

>>790615

You're missing my point. >>789715 said that Luther is the one responsible for removing the deuterocanon. I pointed out here that >>789858 that the Church did not formally hold the deuterocanon as equal to scripture until after Luther's death. Then >>790348 said that I was lying and seemed to imply that everyone agreed on the status of the deuterocanon in the period between St. Augustine and Luther, which is not the case.

>>790632

>Particularly, "This has nothing to do with inspiration, which is another topic entirely".

Actually no its not. It is directly related to this topic.

1 Peter 1:23 states that the word of God is incorruptible and never passes away. So we know that anything not inspired by God is corruptible and will be lost over time, while God's word always remains by providence to us. This is central to the topic because the things God allowed to pass away by definition cannot be God's word. This includes whatever innovations you're taking from the DSS.

>it's about Luther's metrics for throwing out the Deuterocanon. The reveal of the DSS destroys one of his main arguments.

Let's assume all this is true. My question, again, is why do you think anything written in Hebrew is therefore inspired?

Let's assume for a second that we found incontrovertibly what you're describing. You're basically saying that because Hebrew manuscripts (that were later lost until 1940's) existed, this serves as some kind of establishment of legitimacy. Yet this ignores the fact that many gnostic writings were corrupted and lost over that same time due to them not being God's incorruptible word. And we don't even need to get into the arguments over what is actually contained in DSS because the whole underlying point is defeated.

So again, are you basically admitting that God didn't allow the primary source to remain around until the creation of the Israeli state in 1947? Were we to rely on them for verification all along according to you? It seems like your silence speaks a lot regarding this question.

So yeah I plainly disagree that inspiration and preservation are not intimately linked. It is not another topic entirely, that's the whole point.

>>790633

>said that Luther is the one responsible for removing the deuterocanon.

He was, in large part, being chief of the Reformers.

>that the Church did not formally hold the deuterocanon as equal to scripture until after Luther's death

It had over a 1,000 years worth of precedent beginning in the 4th century.

>>790633

> said that I was lying and seemed to imply that everyone agreed on the status of the deuterocanon in the period between St. Augustine and Luther, which is not the case.

then, substantiate your claim and provide Catholic sources after St. Augustine (whom the argument all hinges, not St. Jerome) that repudiate Sirach or Tobit or any other deuterocanonical source.

Your problem, of course, is that you do not respect the Church of Christ, so whatever it proclaims means nothing to you.

>>790635

>Actually no its not. It is directly related to this topic.

No, it's not. The Catholic approved deuterocanon was not the only books discovered, other works that the Orthodox and the other Church acknowledge were also discovered.

I am not basing any claim at all that its existence presupposes inspiration, which is given up entirely to the authority of Catholic Church.

>So we know that anything not inspired by God is corruptible and will be lost over time, while God's word always remains by providence to us

look, the deuterocanon was taken seriously by the 2,000 year old apostolic church, and you cannot even look to the Orthodox or the other one for support because they support even more works.

that you have mind-warped yourself is not my problem, neither that you have been seduced by Luther's errors.

>This includes whatever innovations you're taking from the DSS.

???

>>790633

>Church did not formally hold the deuterocanon as equal to scripture until after Luther's death

You obviously didn't click the wikipedia links. The Church holds certain things true even though it didn't formally proclaim it. Certain things within the sacrament of holy orders, for example, weren't even formally defined and clarified until Pius XII in mid 20th century.

>>790635

>Yet this ignores the fact that many gnostic writings were corrupted and lost over that same time due to them not being God's incorruptible word.

You're basing your whole premise on Deuterocanon is Gnostic tier paper that is used for starting up your grill. I mean, how can you even compare something that was included in the Scriptures by all Apostolic Churches to Gnostic texts?

>>790638

>No, it's not. The Catholic approved deuterocanon was not the only books discovered, other works that the Orthodox and the other Church acknowledge were also discovered.

It is directly related because whatever new stuff you're gleaning from the DSS is not inspired for the simple fact that it was lost and corrupted. Regarding anything you bring up from there, where was it before 1940's? And what would you have said before the 1940's? How can we know there isn't more bizarre stuff that might be found to bring more gnosticism into the world that would use the same arguments you just used?

1 Peter 1:23-25

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

>I am not basing any claim at all that its existence presupposes inspiration

Then why even bring up the DSS at all. That's the part I don't get. You act like somehow this makes some kind of difference when clearly it doesn't. There is no "layers" of legitimacy… either something is inspired or it is not. That's why I never understood people that used it as a basis to make arguments.

>???

You bring up the DSS as if it proves some additional points. I'm demonstrating why this is not so.

>I mean, how can you even compare something that was included in the Scriptures by all Apostolic Churches to Gnostic texts?

Sure, I can get into this question, why not.

The word of God is the final authority while the church is responsible for safeguarding that scripture. You wouldn't have God's church lose control over it in any time. Fortunately our Lord has preserved his word to us given by him in its original words and it has never been lost. I don't need to rely on what man said to hear God's word nor to be given understanding, which is all God's domain. According to John 14:16-17 and John 16:13-14 the Holy Spirit will guide the saved individual into all truth bringing to rememberance all that the Lord has spoken.

According to John 8:47, he that is of God hears God's words. This is backed up also in John 10:1-14. For this reason there has never been any question or controversy regarding what God's word consists of among saved people in the church. There was no need for a Tridentine declaration of canonicity. Anything not included in the preserved, inspired word of God is nothing more than corruptible manmade traditions, and no state institution or denomination can come to overturn what God set up. 1 John 5:9 says that if we believe the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. And he that believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself.

>>790648

>You wouldn't have God's church lose control over it in any time.

Who said the Church lost control over the DSS? What are you talking about? It's always had control over it, it's just that older sources were found. The epistle St. Clement of Rome, the oldest known extra Biblical text, references the Deuterocanonical books.

>For this reason there has never been any question or controversy regarding what God's word consists of among saved people in the church.

Exactly, as St. Athanasius said in one of his Easter epistles naming the 22 books "…appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.''

>>790636

>then, substantiate your claim and provide Catholic sources after St. Augustine (whom the argument all hinges, not St. Jerome) that repudiate Sirach or Tobit or any other deuterocanonical source.

Is St. John of Damascus Catholic enough for you? http://www.bible-researcher.com/johnofdamascus.html

>>790641

>The Church holds certain things true even though it didn't formally proclaim it

Obviously the status of the deuterocanon as equal to scripture wasn't one of those things since there were Catholics at time of Luther who believed that those books could not be used to confirm matters of faith like the other 66 books could. Like Thomas Cajetan.

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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

>>790656

Forget it man. If they won't hear the Scriptures then neither will they believe though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31.

Also Romans 10:17. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

>>790656

>is this Catholic enough for you?

>Syriac Greek Father

lol, this barb should be more directed towards the Greek Orthodox. If you were arguing in good faith, you would also have to accept the epistles of St. Clement as part of the divine revelation of the New Testament, as St. John of Damascus tells you in your link.

>Obviously the status of the deuterocanon as equal to scripture wasn't one of those things since there were Catholics at time of Luther who believed that those books could not be used to confirm matters of faith like the other 66 books could.

Luther, was a Catholic monk, attempting to separate what was canon and what was not by his own mind, which he had absolutely no right to.

If you say that the Church cannot say what is canon, then you reduce the canon to mere subjectivity, and even worse, relativity. Cajetan is quite clearly they are canonical by right of the authority of the Church, not because of history.

Again, Luther assumed there was no hebraic deuterocanon extant, that being so, it could not be considered divine scripture, and he was wrong.

>>790750

You quote the scripture in vain if you will not hear the Church.

>>790648

>It is directly related because whatever new stuff you're gleaning from the DSS

There is no "new stuff" I am gleaning from the DSS, and since you keep repeating this stupid straw-man argument, I'd like you to point out what exactly this "new stuff" I am "gleaning".

> Regarding anything you bring up from there, where was it before 1940's? And what would you have said before the 1940's? How can we know there isn't more bizarre stuff that might be found to bring more gnosticism into the world that would use the same arguments you just used?

In disregarding the Church, you have no choice but to automatically accept whatever is old because of your sad and tortured misreading of 1 Peter 1:23. Just because something is old, does not make it the Word of God, what makes it the Word of God is the authority of the Church.

>Then why even bring up the DSS at all. That's the part I don't get

I have no clue on earth, I keep telling you this has to do with Luther and his argument for throwing out the deuterocanon and you keep rambling about something to do with 1 Peter.

>There is no "layers" of legitimacy… either something is inspired or it is not. T

The only legitimacy is the proclamation of the Church, your idea of legitimacy is whatever the KJV has in it, which the rest of Christianity cannot take seriously, even Luther would have cocked his head at these strange Americans proclaiming the KJV is the authentic Word of God.

Actually the Italian Bible during and some time before Luther had alone in the book of romans. While the original language doesn't have "alone" in the text, it based on the conclusion of the language, which wasn't really controversial until Christian's pointed it out to Catholics.

Luther didn't remove anything, in fact, most reformed Bibles contained the same numbers of books as modern Catholic books, until the 1800's, and without much explanation, the uninspired books disappeared from the biblical literature. I suspect the publishing companies wanted to make bibles cheaper, so they cut literal corners to do so.

Of course, there are retards who don't understand Bible history think Luther decanonized the apocryphal books when actually his views wasn't that unusual, since the most popular Biblical commentary for late medieval theologians claimed that """""""deuteronomical"""""""" books weren't part of the Canon. Heck, even Luther opponents don't view those books as canon.

>>791085

They were canonized when the issue was forced. If it turns out they were inspired despite your claims, it is something you will have to bear before the Judgement.

>>791111

CHECKED

>>785831

>God is okay with you messing with the rest of the Bible, just not this one book