Do sacraments save?

[Jamdoc]

You don't just wake up one morning having 'confessed with your mouth..' either. Confessing Christ is also an act.
Faith requires action. It's not just something you think. Salvation is by Grace through faith..
Works in and of themselves are useless. However a faith without works is dead.

Correct but confessing with his mouth is something the "thief" did, but he did not get baptized or take communion.
and was still justified by faith alone.

again what James is saying is not that the works save you, but rather if you really have faith, you'll act on it, which is a different connotation than working for salvation.
Biblically, you get saved by faith and then act on that faith, getting baptized, taking communion, and doing good works. Getting saved furnishes you for good works, not doing good works getting you saved.

It's an order of operations thing but an important one because of what you're placing your faith in. If it's in the finished work of Christ and you work for Him as a result of being saved, that's biblical. But if you put your faith in your works in Jesus' name, Jesus is going to say "depart from me, I never knew you"

 

[RileyG]

Correct but confessing with his mouth is something the "thief" did, but he did not get baptized or take communion.
and was still justified by faith alone.

again what James is saying is not that the works save you, but rather if you really have faith, you'll act on it, which is a different connotation than working for salvation.
Biblically, you get saved by faith and then act on that faith, getting baptized, taking communion, and doing good works. Getting saved furnishes you for good works, not doing good works getting you saved.

It's an order of operations thing but an important one because of what you're placing your faith in. If it's in the finished work of Christ and you work for Him as a result of being saved, that's biblical. But if you put your faith in your works in Jesus' name, Jesus is going to say "depart from me, I never knew you"

God is not bound by the Sacraments. He is outside of time and can save anyone he chooses.

 

[Valletta]

yes. there was deuterocanonical books. Luther made them apocrypha, then the council of Trent made them canon in the Catholic bible.
They were not canon and then Luther removed them, they were kinda "quasi canon" and Luther I guess made both sides stop straddling the fence on them and make a decision one way or the other.

Either way, the Old Testament was not as settled as the New Testament was. New Testament was settled early on and stayed consistent. Old Testament there have been changes as what's recognized and what's not.

The 73 books were set as canon, COMPLETELY, in the late 300s by the Catholic Church, as I said, that included OT and NT books in the exact same order we have today. Before the final decision there were various books accepted, the last NT book to be accepted was Revelation. The Catholic Church NEVER changed the books since that time, that is a fabrication. No books have been added, EVER, since that time by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not "fluctuate" the books of the OT either. Your story that the Catholic Church added books after the reformation is hooey. The same list from the councils in the late 300s was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. Please don't spread misinformation about the Catholic Church.

 

[RileyG]

The 73 books were set as canon, COMPLETELY, in the late 300s by the Catholic Church, as I said, that included OT and NT books in the exact same order we have today. The Catholic Church NEVER changed the books since that time, that is a fabrication. No books have been added, EVER, by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not "fluctuate" the books of the OT either. Your story that the Catholic Church added books after the reformation is hooey. The same list from the councils in the late 300s was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

This is correct. Luther rejected Catholic teaching, which is why he opted for the Hebrew Canon instead despite the fact Jesus and his followers, and the early Christians, accepted the Septuagint.

 

[RileyG]

I was talking about the Catholics, not about the Eastern Orthodox. To be fair, I do not know as much about them and their bible. I don't know about the Coptic church's bible either, I know the Ethiopian Orthodox Church kept the Book of Enoch as canon.

The Orthodox accepts all the books of the Catholic bible (and more).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Did I do something to offend you? What is with your tone towards me?

I am sorry if I have offended. I react pragmatically when persons speak definitively about a subject that they clearly have only a limited understanding of. CF is a great place to discuss, but not the best resource for learning.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Not quoting, but the rationale matches, and that doctrine or rationale comes NOWHERE in the 39 canon old testament books. So as far as the reason for their error being "not knowing the scriptures" Jesus was referring to a scripture that we do not have in our canon. Whether it's Enoch, or some other book could be debated. But we do not have that doctrine or rationale anywhere in the Old Testament, so it's possible we're missing something, and I'd blame it on Jewish authorities excising texts that point to Jesus as the Messiah.

Instead we have Isaiah 65:23 having the "seed of the blessed of the Lord" having offspring on the New Earth. It's a rather difficult idea. Children born on the New Earth by redeemed people, but no marriage.

Don't you think it's strange that fallen angels would go to a human being instead of to God directly and ask him to go ask God for permission to keep on sinning with human women and that God would actually entertain their question and give them a reasoned answer through the human instead of telling them directly? I think it's strange, creepy, and impossible to believe it could ever be a part of the Bible. And I find it extremely unlikely that Jesus would think highly enough of the work to reference it's contents.

 

[JSRG]

The Old Testament in the Church from the time of the Apostles forward was the LXX (Septuagint) up until NT translations were made in other languages. It's the LXX that is quoted in NT passages. The Latin Vulgate is a translation of the LXX.

The Latin Vulgate wasn't translated from the LXX... or rather, most of it wasn't. There were Latin translations of the LXX available (now called "Old Latin"), but Jerome thought they should have Latin translations from the Hebrew instead. So he spent years learning Hebrew and then performed his own translation into Latin from the Hebrew, which became the Latin Vulgate... except for the Psalms. Although he did produce a version of the Psalms from Hebrew, it was ultimately a Greek to Latin translation that ended up being the version officially in the Vulgate. But most of it was translated into Latin from the Hebrew, not the LXX.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The Orthodox accepts all the books of the Catholic bible (and more).

Of course, because we ARE Catholic. It is not only the Roman Catholic bible. The RCC accepts all the books of the Orthodox bible...we were ALL one Church at the time of the canon.

 

[FenderTL5]

Correct but confessing with his mouth is something the "thief" did, but he did not get baptized or take communion.

if there ever was an individual who, to use the language of baptism, was "buried with Christ" it was that thief.

 

[RileyG]

Of course, because we ARE Catholic. It is not only the Roman Catholic bible. The RCC accepts all the books of the Orthodox bible...we were ALL one Church at the time of the canon.

We RCC do not accept 3+4 Maccabees, ..I'm terribly ignorant about which books the EO accepts so please enlighten me.

 

[FenderTL5]

The Latin Vulgate wasn't translated from the LXX... or rather, most of it wasn't. There were Latin translations of the LXX available (now called "Old Latin"), but Jerome thought they should have Latin translations from the Hebrew instead. So he spent years learning Hebrew and then performed his own translation into Latin from the Hebrew, which became the Latin Vulgate... except for the Psalms. Although he did produce a version of the Psalms from Hebrew, it was ultimately a Greek to Latin translation that ended up being the version officially in the Vulgate. But most of it was translated into Latin from the Hebrew, not the LXX.

Well I stand corrected on that.. otoh I can recognize/read passages of the LXX. I've never studied Latin nor have I ever opened a Vulgate (to my recollection).

 

[Jamdoc]

The 73 books were set as canon, COMPLETELY, in the late 300s by the Catholic Church, as I said, that included OT and NT books in the exact same order we have today. Before the final decision there were various books accepted, the last NT book to be accepted was Revelation. The Catholic Church NEVER changed the books since that time, that is a fabrication. No books have been added, EVER, since that time by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not "fluctuate" the books of the OT either. Your story that the Catholic Church added books after the reformation is hooey. The same list from the councils in the late 300s was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. Please don't spread misinformation about the Catholic Church.

I just quoted from the letter you referenced
I'll do it again since you stubbornly refuse to read the edit

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

That is 35 old testament books reckoned as 22 books. There are 39 old testament books that both Protestants and Catholics regard as canon.
From this letter there are 4 missing OT books that the Protestants have as canon and 10 missing books that the Catholics regard as canon.

It's missing 1 and 2 Samuel, Nehemiah, and Esther.
and for the Catholics it's also missing Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Macabees, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon

 

[Jamdoc]

Don't you think it's strange that fallen angels would go to a human being instead of to God directly and ask him to go ask God for permission to keep on sinning with human women and that God would actually entertain their question and give them a reasoned answer through the human instead of telling them directly? I think it's strange, creepy, and impossible to believe it could ever be a part of the Bible. And I find it extremely unlikely that Jesus would think highly enough of the work to reference it's contents.

Well do you have other scripture that would contain the doctrine and rationale that Jesus used in that answer? Because I've searched and there's nothing. Enoch was the first thing that made sense of that answer as being "you don't know the scriptures"
Either way, we are missing something that Jesus was referencing, because Jesus treated it as if their question was silly and already answered in scripture. Had it been totally novel information without a scripture basis, He would not have given the reason "you don't know the scriptures". In His answer regarding paying taxes to Caesar He didn't give any such scripture rationale, He just explained the famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

as to Enoch interceding for angels. Enoch was favored by God enough to be translated to heaven without dying, only 1 other man ever had that honor thus far, the prophet Elijah. If the angels sinned they might look to work through an intermediary that had God's favor, rather than approach the throne as sinners being surely condemned for their sin. So THAT isn't the part that I find in error in what can be found in modern transcripts of Enoch. What stands out as error is the size of the giants seems dramatically exaggerated, and the cosmology is wrong, and it refers to geographical locations that did not exist in Enoch's time like Dan.
Obviously error found it's way into the book and by no means do I consider the existing transcripts of I Enoch to be scripture.
What I think is possible though is that in the first century, a book of Enoch may have been Inspired scripture, just lost and filled in by error over time because it was not preserved as scripture. Jude directly quoted it, so something in it was Inspired.

 

[Valletta]

I just quoted from the letter you referenced
I'll do it again since you stubbornly refuse to read the edit



That is 35 old testament books reckoned as 22 books. There are 39 old testament books that both Protestants and Catholics regard as canon.
From this letter there are 4 missing OT books that the Protestants have as canon and 10 missing books that the Catholics regard as canon.

It's missing 1 and 2 Samuel, Nehemiah, and Esther.
and for the Catholics it's also missing Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Macabees, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon

Before the late 300s when the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible forever there were various versions. As I said, there were 73 books from that time until today. It is a fabrication that the Catholic Church added books after the Reformation, as you claimed. As per the link I provided, "The Deuterocanonical books are also, not surprisingly, contained within the pages of this Bible." That is because the Apostles taught from those books. It was the two councils in the late 300s that fixed the canon at 73 books, the same 73 books in the same order as then that the Catholic Church uses today. There were discussions as to what books of the OT and NT should be included, but the canon was fixed then and forever. Again, before that time, such as at the time of Constantine, the canon was not set and differed. Any stories that the OT "fluctuated" after the canon was set in the late 300s or your tale that the Catholic Church added books after the reformation are fabrications--it didn't happen. Understand the timeline, the process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

We RCC do not accept 3+4 Maccabees, ..I'm terribly ignorant about which books the EO accepts so please enlighten me.

Maybe we are more Jewish The NT books are all the same, 27 books. OT differs. RCC has 46 OT books while EO have 52. The Ethiopian Orthodox have 54 OT books. The EO OT also includes 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151, in addition to 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

 

[Jamdoc]

Before the late 300s when the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible forever there were various versions. As I said, there were 73 books from that time until today. It is a fabrication that the Catholic Church added books after the Reformation, as you claimed. As per the link I provided, "The Deuterocanonical books are also, not surprisingly, contained within the pages of this Bible." That is because the Apostles taught from those books. It was the two councils in the late 300s that fixed the canon at 73 books, the same 73 books in the same order as then that the Catholic Church uses today. There were discussions as to what books of the OT and NT should be included, but the canon was fixed then and forever. Again, before that time, such as at the time of Constantine, the canon was not set and differed. Any stories that the OT "fluctuated" after the canon was set in the late 300s or your tale that the Catholic Church added books after the reformation are fabrications--it didn't happen. Understand the timeline, the process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries.

the thing I quoted, was from the letter you claimed established the 73 books and never changed.
It had 22 books, which by our reckoning contain 35 of the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament and 36 of the 46 books of the Catholic Old Testament.

Your claim: that letter established the 73 books, and no books were added after.
my claim: there were books added later, some referred to as deuterocanonical that were then made canon in the Council of Trent.

my evidence is that the list you referred to is missing Esther, Nehemiah, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, and we have those now. Therefore, books were added at a later date.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Well do you have other scripture that would contain the doctrine and rationale that Jesus used in that answer? Because I've searched and there's nothing. Enoch was the first thing that made sense of that answer as being "you don't know the scriptures"
Either way, we are missing something that Jesus was referencing, because Jesus treated it as if their question was silly and already answered in scripture. Had it been totally novel information without a scripture basis, He would not have given the reason "you don't know the scriptures". In His answer regarding paying taxes to Caesar He didn't give any such scripture rationale, He just explained the famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

as to Enoch interceding for angels. Enoch was favored by God enough to be translated to heaven without dying, only 1 other man ever had that honor thus far, the prophet Elijah. If the angels sinned they might look to work through an intermediary that had God's favor, rather than approach the throne as sinners being surely condemned for their sin. So THAT isn't the part that I find in error in what can be found in modern transcripts of Enoch. What stands out as error is the size of the giants seems dramatically exaggerated, and the cosmology is wrong, and it refers to geographical locations that did not exist in Enoch's time like Dan.
Obviously error found it's way into the book and by no means do I consider the existing transcripts of I Enoch to be scripture.
What I think is possible though is that in the first century, a book of Enoch may have been Inspired scripture, just lost and filled in by error over time because it was not preserved as scripture. Jude directly quoted it, so something in it was Inspired.

Jesus had better lines of communication with God the Father than anyone in history, past, present or future. By His own admission, He neither did nor said anything that He didn't first see or hear from the Father. He even knew what people were thinking. When He said Abraham saw His day and was glad, He wasn't referencing a document, He was relating His personal experience with Abraham. He is the Creator. He is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person. In Him all the fullness of the Godhead exists. He has within Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He is God. So, Jesus has enough graviatas on His own, with no outside help, to answer their question directly from His own knowledge of the truth.

Besides, Jesus confronted their "not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Mt 22:29) when He said, "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mt 22:31–32)

 

[Valletta]

the thing I quoted, was from the letter you claimed established the 73 books and never changed.
It had 22 books, which by our reckoning contain 35 of the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament and 36 of the 46 books of the Catholic Old Testament.

Your claim: that letter established the 73 books, and no books were added after.
my claim: there were books added later, some referred to as deuterocanonical that were then made canon in the Council of Trent.

my evidence is that the list you referred to is missing Esther, Nehemiah, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, and we have those now. Therefore, books were added at a later date.

I claimed the Bible was established in the late 300s, historically it is well recognized that the two councils in the late 300s settled the canon. "The canon was settled by the Catholic Church in the late 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list." Catholic Bibles since that time contain all 73 books in the same order as today. There were various lists before that time, getting closer and closer to the final list. There were no books added or subtracted after the reformation by the Catholic Church, those 73 books remained the same, even in the same order, before, during, and after the reformation as they had for over a thousand years at that time. As i have previously stated, the list was re-affirmed at various councils.
Many Protestants do not know the history of the Bible, and so it should be no surprise that they think books must have been added. Perhaps you can better understand the words of someone else, I found a nice summary:
"The label “unscriptural” was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory), and the “reformers” therefore needed some excuse to eliminate them from the canon."

Did Catholic Church Add Books to the Bible?

The Catholic Church did not add books to the Bible. The seven books in question are properly called the deuterocanonical books. Learn more about them here.

www.catholic.com

 

[Jamdoc]

I claimed the Bible was established in the late 300s, historically it is well recognized that the two councils in the late 300s settled the canon. "The canon was settled by the Catholic Church in the late 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list." Catholic Bibles since that time contain all 73 books in the same order as today. There were various lists before that time, getting closer and closer to the final list. There were no books added or subtracted after the reformation by the Catholic Church, those 73 books remained the same, even in the same order, before, during, and after the reformation as they had for over a thousand years at that time. As i have previously stated, the list was re-affirmed at various councils.

you keep saying that, but I literally quoted the 39th Festal Letter of 367 A.D. and showed that not all the currently recognized OT was in it?

like are you just not reading and just recycling the same statement over and over like a mantra?