Yup. He drank Vinegar Wine. It is still wine. So the Passover was complete with the 4th final cup.

Now, in order to finish the sacrifice, you must eat the lamb. The Lamb of God is the Sacrifice.

Here's the irony:

Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological hermeneutics are....TRADITIONS.

"This form of theological hermeneutics in the mainstream Protestant tradition considers Christian biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If the canon of Scripture is considered as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics and within traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. Such formulae are generally not mutually exclusive, and interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches at once."

"Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics, which involves the study of principles of interpretation, both theory and methodology, for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal."

If we are to keep with the Bible being the sole and final authority on Christian doctrine, I would have to ask you where Christ or the Apostles ever stated within the Bible that we must use these methods to identify and understand God's True Word.

I would also have to ask whether one should find it troubling that the belief that man should not see tradition as an authority, certainly not the final authority, is itself...a TRADITION.

I would also have to ask how one cannot find it problematic, regardless of whether or not one uses or does not use hermeneutics, that the results are the same; adherents to both are unable to find a consensus of interpretation within their respective groups. Thus, even though it's supposed to be the correct way, the way God wants us to approach His Word, it doesn't allow for a method to distinguish between doctrine and opinion.

Finally, biblical and theological hermeneutics alone, are not sufficient in themselves to create an undisputed canon. Remember that all who profess that SS and hermeneutics must be used in conjunction with the Holy Spirit to arrive at a true interpretation, also rely on the belief that hermeneutics and the Holy Spirit are what must have been used in order to guide the compilation of the Canon.

Yet, there is no undisputed consensus among SS adherents on interpretation, so why would one believe its use for the creation of the Canon would be different? In other words, if this was the method the we were meant to use for our church, but it has created so much division, how could we believe it would be sufficient to create an undisputed Canon?

So what's the missing ingredient? The answer is in the Bible; a Church founded by God and one bestowed with final authority. When this is added to the combination of hermeneutics and the Holy Spirit, then a definitive method for distinguish doctrine from opinion is created.

No Catholic Church= No Bible

And certainly not a Bible with a canon that can claim absolute legitimacy.

The presence of God is what every writer of scripture depended on along with the written word. From Moses to David to John.

"I want to feel God on my inner man. Not just in theory. I want to know him intimately because to eternal life is this: that you might know God by experience, and Jesus Christ his only son."

2 Peter 1:3-4His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the [experiential, not intellectual] knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers [or experiencers] of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

No one here, so far, has disputed that.

The question is twofold:
With more than 200 books floating around the world of the Early Church, many of which were being used within churches and seen as God's Word, how was the Catholic Church able to create a canon compiling those books that were divinely inspired? And aside from the 7 OT books that Protestants removed, the NT is the same one that Protestants still use now.

1) How can Protestant justify the removal of 7 books while holding the Bible to be divinely inspired?
2) How would the belief that the Bible is God's Word do anything to validate SS? You may be able to arrive at books written by divinely inspired writers, but SS doesn't ensure the existence of divinely inspired readers.

@ValleyGunner

The problem with your assertion is that it leads to the conclusion that scripture isn't reliable at all. If the traditions of men assembled it (versus guidance by the Holy Spirit), then logically one could say that the writings were made up to begin with.

And maybe we need to clarify here.  I'm saying "tradition" is a manmade artifice.  If that is not what you're saying, then please clarify.

I am saying the leading of the Holy Spirit is what caused the Bible to be canonized, NOT the traditions of men.

And we already covered that I think Luther was not being Spirit-led when he started tearing books out.

Tradition is a filthy ritualistic manmade creation; guidance by the Holy Spirit is necessary and preferred.

I had avoided going here, but msybe it's time:

From our perspective, the early church was pure and godly around the time of Jesus, and perhaps some time after.  But through the centuries it has become bloated and overburdened with the traditions and precepts of men, and now barely resembles the true church of the first century.

I'm no fan of Luther, but some type of reformation had to occur.  It just so happens he was as bad as the corrupt church he was trying to reform.

And I use terms like "corrupt church" based on how a lot of  Protestant churches still view the Catholic church.

That is: a church that was once Christian but now is more of a cult.

Why would this mean that Scripture isn't reliable? That is not a logical conclusion. God Himself promised the Apostles and the future Church that the Holy Spirit would guide them.

Sacred Tradition is not pointy hats or knowing when to bow. It's inseparable from the manner in which Christ taught and the Apostles evangelized.

"Christians believe that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were preserved in the scriptures as well as by word of mouth and were handed on. This perpetual handing on of the tradition is called the "Living Tradition"; it is believed to be the faithful and constant transmission of the teachings of the Apostles from one generation to the next. That "includes everything which contributes towards the sanctity of life and increase in faith of the People of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship [the Creeds, the Sacraments, the Magisterium, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes."[1] The Deposit of Faith (Latin: fidei depositum) refers to the entirety of divine revelation. According to Roman Catholic theology, two sources of revelation constitute a single "Deposit of Faith", meaning that the entirety of divine revelation and the Deposit of Faith is transmitted to successive generations in scripture and sacred tradition (through the teaching authority and interpretation of the Church's Magisterium (which consists of the Church's bishops, in union with the Pope, typically proceeding synods and ecumenical councils).

"It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit" (Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 7). (Etym. Latin tradition, a giving over, delivery, surrender; a handing down: from tradere, to give up.)

You didn't quote the most relevant part of that post.

As soon as  protestants read "according to Roman Catholic theology" in your reply, I almost guarantee a lot of them will stop right there.

Do you not see that?

Well, quite frankly that's their issue not mine. Just as I cannot force someone to accept Christ, I cannot force someone to learn something that may help their understanding.

I have never shied away from seeking out non-Catholic theology, resources, arguments etc. I have no fear, and thus no problem, facing contrary ideas. I do, much to my own detriment, have a short fuse when it comes to willful ignorance, refusal to apply critical thinking, and a lack of historical knowledge. I am working on that.

And I have tried to be objective as well, but it all comes back down to whether scripture is supreme or subordinate.

And that's why this will never be settled because neither side will convince the other.

My ancestors in Ireland still haven't come to a consensus--just somewhat of a coexistence.

But any reasonable side ultimately must conclude, based on scripture itself that it is neither Supreme nor subordinate. Scripture is indeed authoritative but it is not Supreme, and it is also not subordinate.

Also the idea mentioned above that the tradition is purely the tradition of man as it developed in the church which led up to the Canon does not square with how it developed. Clearly Christ taught his apostles face to face and then breathed the Holy Spirit into them. Those apostles then went forth fulfilling the great commission, baptizing and teaching disciples to obey all that Christ had commanded them.  The Holy Spirit then continued to actively guide the church. We do not have writings from most of the apostles yet they too went on missionary journey's establishing churches and eventually being martyred for the sake of the gospel. I think it's safe to categorize the faith they taught, the Christian practices of worship within the church, as more than mere traditions of men since they literally received them from Christ.

I am curious at what point in your view the early church became corrupted to the point where it was no longer mostly pure, led by the spirit and holding to the faith taught by Christ?  I ask because unless you think the church went completely off the rails very early on (like ad 100 early) there is a great deal of preserved writings detailing how the early church passed on the teachings of the apostles, and indeed how it used New Testament scripture.

For those that think the church went off the rails very early the development of the Canon becomes extremely problematic as they must hold that the church through the ad 300 or 400 got nearly everything wrong, and was basically not being led by the Holy Spirit, except for just this one key area where they were able to discern which writings were truly scripture.

One of the most fascinating episodes to me is the fact that the Apostle Thomas made it all the way to India, and founded the Malabar church before he was martyed, and throughout history the west completely lost all contact with this church, but when the Portuguese finally sailed around to India, ready to bring the gospel and the Catholic faith they found an existing catholic church in India that had persevered from the time of the apostles, which had basically catholic or Orthodox theology.  Truly fascinating and to me points to the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the catholic church through the millenia.

@powderhound

What I reluctantly and finally pointed out in my last two or three posts is that the protestant heirarchy just flat out doesn't trust anything touched by the catholic church. Sola scriptura is one way to say, "We really don't know where exactly things went sideways, so we're just not going to accept "traditions." It's an oversimplification, I know.

Not that protestants actually think about it that deeply (LOL), but if pressed they would probably say things started to get corrupted around the time that Constantine made Christianity legal.  (That's just a guess.  I could be totally wrong).

Personally, I appreciate the back and forth or I wouldn't have started rhis thread, but I'm seeing a lot of repetition creeping in and that's why I think this may have reached its limit.

That would be before the last of the Ecumenical Councils finalized the Bible's Canon....

And 99.99% of protestants wouldn't know what you're talking about.

If I understand things correctly, protestants believe the Old Testament is what the Jews were using, and the New Testament books were being passed around as copies of scrolls and letters. Putting them in a binding and calling it "The Bible" was kind of a formality if I understand history correctly. They think at some point the catholic church corrupted the true church with rituals and traditions, but the Bible was "miraculously saved" by Luther.  (Note quotes)

I prefer the Septuagint for my Old Testament because 85% of New Testament quotes agree more precisely with it.

The King James is full of translational quirks and it's given me some face palm moments. So my version of sola scriptura doesn't even agree with most Evangelicals who use the Masoretic text. IIRC both catholic and Orthodox use the septuagint and frankly that's what got me interested in them in the first place.

I'm gonna have to quit typing. We're travelling and I'm trying to do this from my dang phone.

To ask why the apocrypha is not considered canon we should ask why Jesus didn’t cite or affirm anything from the apocrypha? If He didn’t consider it canon, as didn’t the first century Jews, why should we? If His apostles, who were taught by Him and walked with Him didn’t cite any of the books of the apocrypha why should we consider it canon? Canon was determined by Jesus, not the RCC.

Isn’t 2Maccabees alluded to in Hebrews 11:35? Hebrews refers to 1Kings 17:22 and 2Kings 4:35.

How many early church fathers didn’t accept the apocrypha as canon? These people considered them helpful but not authoritative. The man who translated the Vulgate, Jerome, considered them neither authoritative nor canonical. The Vulgate was the Bible of the RCC during the Middle Ages.

Examples of Jesus citing/affirming the OT:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matthew? ?5:17-18? ?NASB1995??

“Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.”Matthew? ?10:15?

“And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Matthew? ?19:4-5?

Example of Jesus pre-authenticating the NT:
”These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John? ?14:25-26?

”I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.” John? ?16:12-15

A large help in canonizing the apocrypha was Augustine who presided over both councils of Hippo and Carthage and already declared the canon closed. Both councils were under his authority and he declared canon was already closed. Okay, well an argument can be made here that to attack Augustine’s ability to canonize the Apocrypha would then attack his credibility in canonizing the rest of the Bible. That would be true if it wasn’t Jesus who determines canon. To argue that Augustine determines canon would require an explanation as to his error, as determined by the RCC during Trent, in canonizing 3 Esdras. Men are fallible, God is not.

The best Hebrew scholars of the church were Origen and Jerome, both rejected the apocrypha as canon. The Apocryphal books that were added to the Vulgate by Jerome were included due to pressure, the other Apocryphal books were included after his death.

The Council of Trent in 1545, in which the Apocrypha was officially sanctioned by the RCC, was in response to the Protestant Reformation mainly, and was basically a train wreck. In the late 1400s to early 1500s the power of the RCC was engrossing. Burning people at the stake, rich families paying for high church positions, the selling of “holy relics,” and paying for the pardoning of sins were some of the godly attributes of the RCC of the time.

Sola scriptura, then as it is now, was a major element and belief of the reformation. The RCC, in an effort to combat this and hold onto power needed to alter what was considered scripture, hence the addition of a series of 12 books called the apocrypha and the resolution that "...if anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church...let him be anathema (accursed!)." This was their response back then, as it is the response here on these forums.

Why does the RCC care so much about the Apocrypha? With their new book they could lay claim to the “true canon of scripture,” which retains their power from the reformers and also purgatory and salvation by almsgiving, or works. Yes, sola fide was targeted as well. Your works grant you salvation, not faith alone according to the RCC. “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians? ?2:8-9?

Your faith is dead without works, in anticipation of an argument citing James, only because by faith would any work ever be done. So by the fruit may we judge the tree.

To their credit, the Council called for reforming the practice of indulgences but damned anyone who would “say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” The doctrine of purgatory was also affirmed at Trent and damned anyone that claimed “that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid.” How weak should we see the power of God or the incomplete atonement of our Lord Jesus? The RCC has never rescinded Trent and is currently teaching false doctrine.

Anyway, in the Apocrypha is the justification of suicide (II Maccabees 14:43-46) and slavery and cruelty (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-28).

Everything in the NT was written by the Holy Spirit through an apostolic ministry, and everything in the OT was affirmed by Christ (God). Sola scriptura was a wise decision OP.

https://www.evidenceunseen.com/world-religions/roman-catholicism/the-apocrypha/why-did-augustine-accept-the-apocrypha/

https://blog.tms.edu/why-these-66-books

https://watch.pairsite.com/apocrypha.html

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/the-counter-reformation/the-roman-catholic-church-in-1500/

Your understanding of Jerome and the history of the Hebrew and Christian canon is wrong.

Doc,

I think you're correct protestants do close their minds when they hear catholic. My point being they are wrong to do so the catholicity (universality)  of the early church was different though it has resemblances of the modern RCC. We can embrace tradition (the early counsels, the Creeds, the writings of the father's) even if we take issue with what needed to be reformed during the reformation.  

You're right though any conversation on Sola Scriptura starts to rehash the same material. I'm headed up to the mountains for the long weekend. Have a great Independence Day.

At the risk of repeating what was said above, I think a lot of Protestants employ this de facto article of faith that whatever is Catholic must not be true.  If the Catholic Church teaches something "unbiblical," then faith requires us to dismiss it as somehow un-Christian.  I think in most cases a Catholic response with Biblical references will fall on deaf ears, suggesting the existence of two separate interpretive traditions.

Luther's 16th century dialogue with the Greek Patriarch Jeremias is pretty informative in this regard.  To clarify, at the time the EO had more or less been in schism with the RCC for 500 years at that time.  If Luther's major beef was actually with the RC abuses outlined in his theses, then the natural course of action would have been to establish the German Orthodox Church (along with the tridentine mass as the standard liturgy, as can actually be found in some western-rite Orthodox parishes in the US today.)  It seems the Lutherans at the time may also have thought that they would establish communion with the EO at the time.

But this is ultimately not what happened.  In addition to the changes to the Biblical canon previously discussed (Protestant theology is incompatible with 2 Maccabees), the Lutherans insisted on establishing a new tradition that also rejected monasticism, the liturgical calendar, and also eliminated the sacrament of reconciliation.  For Lutherans (and by extension most protestants in my view) to see this as legitimate, then you have to go beyond the idea that Luther was merely reacting to contemporary RC abuses, and must argue that the entire church along with the ecumenical councils were illegitimate from very early on.  To me, if you start down this road then the logical conclusion is "KJV-onlyism" or reliance on some other new prophetic revelation and they would also have to reject all of the other church traditions they chose to keep (e.g., Nicene Creed, albeit with filioque ).

To be fair, I think it is also argued that the RCC responded with the counter-reformation (particularly with Trent), entrenching entirely new traditions and theological ideas in opposition to the Protestants.  The Biblical canon is frequently cited, and Catholics are actually accused of ADDING 7 books.  A simple look across the Adriatic sea (where the EO canon is identical, and the EO never cared about Trent) proves that to be false.  It may make sense for Protestants suspicious of the RCC to check with the EO first before dismissing something as heresy.

Similarly the rosary itself, while not a new thing at the time (and also extant in some EO circles, even then), became emphasized more relative to the daily hours during the 16th century.  Maybe it was partly a reaction to Protestantism in some way but it also didn't oppose or change established Catholic teaching in any way.

I think for Protestants, a study of church history should be informative.  As a simple example, the filioque (something the RC and EO continually argue about) was initially established as a reaction to a resurgence of the old Arian heresy (I think in Spain IIRC).  In short, the EO do not disagree on the theology, but just deny that the Pope had the authority to unilaterally add something to the Nicene Creed without an ecumenical council.  But as a result of such controversies, neither the RC nor the EO will be Arian.  Yet, Arians exist today within protestantism.  Both the LDS church and Jehovah's Witnesses officially teach Arian theology.   IME a fair amount of mainstream protestants who seem to have a decent amount of Bible knowledge will still "say Arian things" at times when asked about the relationship between the Father and the Son.  Point being, Protestantism requires living within a narrow set of theological boundaries and accepting certain assumptions, same as Catholicism does.  It may be the case that the RCC is a bit more clear and explicit about these boundaries/assumptions than the average protestant denomination, but they still exist everywhere.

Admittedly, most of my personal experience is with relatively less educated (theologically speaking) Protestants and relatively more educated RC/EO, so this is probably biased, but for what it's worth I know quite a few EO/RC converts who converted after earning theology degrees from highly reputable protestant colleges, thereby rejecting one established church tradition and choosing to become part of another.

@ImTheQuietOne

Great post.

Wish we'd had you on page one.

@SlowpokeRodriguez.

Arianism is another filthy can of worms.

The EO Bible has a few more books than the RCC Bible, IIRC.

The Ethiopian Bible has the most.

Most protestants consider Mormon and Jehovah's Witness to be cults.

A really good resource is Kingdom of the Cults by Dr. Walter Martin.

Another book that protestants love and catholics hate is A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt.

@ImTheQuietOne
Where are you getting this from? This is problematic at so many levels. First of which is that it is incorrect that Jesus and/or the Apostles never quoted from them. I don't know how you arrived at this, but even a cursory search reveals this is far from the case.  

Secondly, there was no Jewish consensus on Canon prior to, during, or until much after Jesus's time on Earth. Again, you can look that up as well.
The consensus that DID exist is that for Jews at that time, in the location of the NT and for the Apostles, it was the Septuagint Canon that they used, one which included these 7 books.

Finally, if your measure for if a book is canonical is whether Christ or the Apostles referenced it, then I have two questions: First, Who told you that was the authoritative criteria, the true manner in which to understand this? Because that's not a criteria Christ, the Apostles, or even Jews used.
Secondly, what are you going to do with the other books of the OT that Jesus or the Apostles never referenced, drop them also? Because there are quite a few.

These are SOME of the instances in which Jesus and the Gospel writers referenced the Deuterocanonical:

Matthew 6:12, 14-15—"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions."
Sirach 28:2—“Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.”

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)—"He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord."
Sirach 48:10—“You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob.”

Luke 1:28, 1:42—"And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!’…Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Judith 13:18—"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52—"He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly."
Sirach 10:14—“The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead.”

Luke 12:19-20—"I shall say to myself, ‘Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’"
Sirach 11:19—“When he says: ‘I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,’ he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others.”

Luke 18:22—"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.’"
Sirach 29:11—“Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.”

John 3:12—"If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"
Wisdom 9:16—“Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?”

John 5:18—"For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God."
Wisdom 2:16—“He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.”

John 10:29—"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand."
Wisdom 3:1—“But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.”

Paul and James allude to them as well:
Romans 2:11—"There is no partiality with God."
Sirach 35:12—“For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites.”

Romans 9:21—"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another of an ignoble one?"
Wisdom 15:7—“For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: both the vessels that serve for clean purposes, and their opposites, all alike; as to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class, the worker in clay is the judge.”

Romans 11:24—"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?"
Wisdom 9:13—“For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?”

1 Thessalonians 2:16—"(The enemies of Christ persecute us), trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them."
2 Maccabees 6:14—“Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Lord patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before he punishes them; but with us he has decided to deal differently”

James 1:13—"No one experiencing temptation should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one."
Sirach 15:11-12—“Say not: ‘It was God’s doing that I fell away’; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: ‘It was he who set me astray’; for he has no need of wicked man.”

James 5:2-3—"Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver hav corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire.“
Judith 16:17—'The Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgement he will punish them: he will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever.”

Now, of course, you may say that these don’t sound like exact quotes, and you’d be right; but there are thousands of allusions in the New Testament from the Old, both Deuterocanon and not, which are not exact quotes. (not mine):

"Romans 11:34, for example, also has an allusion to Job 15:8, but ironically the allusion to Wisdom 9:13 is closer in actual wording to it than Job is. And, of course, if you want to get into loose allusions, we could expand the above list to ten times the size it is. Then there are also the cases of outright error in some New Testament quotes, such as Matthew 27:9, in which Matthew quotes “the prophet Jeremiah”, when the allusion is actually found nowhere in Jeremiah but rather in Zecheriah 11:12-13."

There is also the case of some Old Testament books not being quoted by Jesus in the New Testament: He didn’t quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon. And yet they are still considered to be canonical Scripture even though He did not reference them.

Great post as always.

I just add this here from the other thread for those following this one.

Now as you know bible believing protestants (as opposed to those sects which at this late date take the Lord's name in vain as they distance themselves from the clear teachings found there in favor of the forms of the World rather than Heaven) will generally disagree with and not follow with many teachings of the RCC, particularly where those teachings are founded more firmly in tradition and latter revelation that they regard as incongruous with the gospel as revealed in the scripture.  Rather than feeling ire from the first, try to remember that for many such disagreements come from a jealous desire to hold fast to the truth and guard their steps against error or doctrines of men which the Lord admonishes us to beware of.  Where one forgets to walk in charity, regardless of their particular convictions, an appeal to walk in charity and mutual deference to our master and conforming to his image should always be our impulse.

Indeed, it is that impulse that I would argue allowed those who fled religious persecution even at the hands of "fellow protestants" to establish a new land in America where people could live and work together in peace while also being allowed to live according to their conscience without molestation to a greater degree than had been achieved previously in the old world.  

On this day of celebrating the independence of that nation, perhaps it is good for all of us also to reflect on our interdependence in Christ.

Thank you for this post.

Amen, crux.  Even as a so-called "protestant", even though I'm not protesting anything, I absolutely believe catholics that are true believers are saved.

I know a lot of so-called protestants believe catholicism is a cult and its members don't have a true relationship with Jesus.

Well, I talked to a lady recently who's about as RCC as  you can be, and she expressed verbally her faith in Jesus as her Savior.  In my sola scriptura world, that's it.  She's saved already.  If she later becomes depraved and renounces her faith, that's a whole different can of worms, but she is saved as of right this minute.

So we need to be sure when we talk about the different ways of "churching" that we're not losing sight of the basics which seem to be  that if you believe in the Lord Jesus as the Son of God who came in the flesh, was crucified, and resurrected--and you confess this before men, you are saved.  Baptism is really good to have, as is the supernatural Eucharist, Chrismation, Confirmation, Lord's Supper in remembrance, whatever trappings you want to add, but the basics of salvation are still the same.

Agree or disagree, this is what I believe.  I always go back to the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him he would be in paradise that day.  What did he have time to do except believe in Jesus and confess his belief before men?

YMMV.

This is the problem. The either/or mandate of protestant fundamentalism.

Actually, the problem is the absolutism.  "Our way or you aren't truly Christian."

I would ask you to consider a few things on the sacraments as they relate to the thief on the cross:

1. It seems to me that the thief on the cross is the exception not the norm.  As we know, exception makes bad law.  There are people who burned in while skydiving and survived the fall.  Those are extreme exceptions.  I don't think any sane person would say that a parachute is not necessary to skydive.

2. We have really beaten this topic to death in this subforum over the years, but it seems that it needs repeating.  The thief on the cross:
    a. Confessed his guilt and accepted responsibility for his actions.  In return, Christ, absolved him.  This is exactly what happens in the Sacrament of Penance.  Should we all be so blessed as to have the opportunity for this sacrament immediately before death.
    b. Defended Christ and rebuked his tormentors.  He made an explicit act of faith and a spiritual work of mercy.
    c. Most importantly, he sincerely desired union with Christ; thus, it seems like a clear case of baptism of desire.  From the Baltimore Catechism:
         "Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
          A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood."

So far, so good.  You don't disagree with me to the extent I expected.  The thief on the cross never had a chance to have water baptism or bread-and-wine-communion.

As far as him being the "exception."  This is probably a matter of personal belief, but I don't believe in "exception," lest a person granted grace and salvation without all the so-called "requirements" should cause those of whom additional requirements were made to say, "Hey, how come he got into Heaven no more than he had to do and we had to go to great pains to be saved?"

Evangelicals tend to hang their entire theology, rightly or wrongly, on John 3:16:   “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

No water baptism, but baptism nonetheless.  Since God would not demand the impossible of us, baptism of desire seems perfectly sufficient in that case.  

With regard to the "bread-and-wine communion," a few days ago, I posted the following in another thread of yours.



Since we agree that it is not necessary, it's probably best that you leave it out of the discussion for the sake of precision.

My point with the "exception" comment was that St. Dismas, which is what we call the former thief on the cross, was in circumstances of the type that the vast majority of those who are Christian or who have at least heard the Gospel would not find themselves in.  Yet, despite the exceptional circumstances, St. Dismas' case is well within sacramental doctrine.  Also, you'll never hear me say that I have it harder than St. Dismas.

Point taken.  I do remember seeing a YouTube interview with an Eastern Orthodox priest where it sounded to me like he very definitely implied that taking communion was necessary to receive Christ's grace.  I'll try to find that video but it's been a while since I watched it so I may have forgotten exactly what he said.

Seems like a semantic contradiction, but I think I know what you mean.

This has been a great thread by the way.  Thank you for starting it and for your candor.

Oh, don't thank me.  Everybody has given good input, and with remarkable civility.

I think I stated earlier:  I just wanted to have as many sides presented as possible so readers can decide for themselves where there faith lands.

I found a video I was looking for. I don't agree with everything Dr. Walter Martin said in his lifetime, but I do agree with him most of the time.,

IME it's not so much a disagreement with the RCC explanation that sacraments (eucharist/baptism/etc) do impart grace, but more of a reluctance or inability to dogmatize a widely if not universally-held belief.  This comes up again with doctrines about the Theotokos/Mary as well.  I see no real difference between an EO parish and a trad RC parish in this regard.

I suspect I'm about to be asked a legitimate question about this.  But in response, just ask yourself what % or parishioners at a Novus Ordo RC parish actually believe sacraments impart grace (or even believe in transsubstantiation).  It probably sounds snarky but I don't mean it that way.  I'm just saying the EO isn't dogmatizing things we do, and the RCC dogmatizes things they don't do.  In the end it's probably a wash.

I don't think that's a fair statement; most obviously in the context of your example.  It sounds as if the Church is dogmatizing innovations as opposed to long held beliefs.

Fair point.  I didn't mean that in these specific examples Rome was developing doctrine.  I meant that current praxis (specifically in N.O. parishes) seems more likely to conflict with long held beliefs (that were also dogmatized by the RCC at some point).  Current EO (and RC trad) praxis doesn't conflict with long held beliefs as much, but the EO just hasn't dogmatized much since the schism.  IOW, I think the SSPX has more in common with the EO than with a typical NO parish.  

The whole "development of doctrine" thing is another conversation.