How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

The Liturgist · Friday at 9:57 AM

David Lamb said:
I think the so-called "Five Solas" of the Reformation have it right, that salvation is:

sola scriptura (by Scripture alone), solus Christus (in Christ alone), sola fide (through faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (to the glory of God alone).

The problem is of course twofold: the five Solas are innovative, lacking any Patristic backing, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or of the Church of the East (sometimes erroneously called the Nestorians; while it is true they venerate Nestorius and were controlled by Nestorian bishops for a time, during the Catholicosate of Mar Babai the Great they embraced a Christology that was Chalcedonian-compatibile), and of those, the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East ceased to be in regular relations with the Roman church in the fifth century, due to Nestorius and the machinations of crypto-Nestorians such as Ibas against Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria, so one cannot declare them to be under Roman influence in rejecting these Solas (an argument I would not expect to see from a pious, learned and gentlemanly Baptist cleric such as yourself, but which I have encountered from Adventists).

Secondly, they have semantic problems in terms of reconciliation with certain portions of Scripture, such as the Epistle of St. James, and admittedly, solutions do exist for this, for example, the Calvinist idea that those who do not do good works are reprobates who lack a living faith.

However it seems to me that a Patristic model, which need not be non-monergistic* would be preferrable, and one could avoid all of the problems caused by the use of the word “Sola” by the use of the word “Prima.”

But there is also a difference between the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, which permits the use of sacred tradition, for example, and the Solo Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura approach we see embraced by some Protestants (and ostensibly by some Adventists, although I would argue their absolutist interpretation of Sola Scriptura is compromised by their belief that the prophecies of Ellen G. White are divinely inspired and represent the only obvious interpretation of the New Testament).

*for there was monergism in parts of the early church even after it was rejected by the Fifth Ecumenical Council among Chalcedonian churches in the fifth century (for example, the Church of the East for several centuries believed in Apokatastasis; this view, as expressed by St. Isaac the Syrian and Mar Solomon of Basra in the Book of the Bee, which echoes the views of Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, which it has since moved beyond, was a more definitive theological distinctive for the Church of the East during that era than Nestorianism, and also perhaps explains why the Church of the East was suddenly able to get along so well with the Syriac Orthodox Church, which had been diametrically opposed to it from a Christological perspective, and one might indeed argue - still is.

David Lamb · Saturday at 1:55 AM

boughtwithaprice said:
If you read scripture you will find your error

I do read the Scripture. That is where I discovered the doctrines, long before I had heard of Luther, Calvin, the Reformation or the 5 Solas.

boughtwithaprice said:
The only ones correct are Grace alone, Christ alone, and God’s glory alone

Scripture alone is a fallacy as it has multiple interpretations and is subject to the winds of doctrine. It requires ecclesial authority to interpret and scripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not itself.

But it isn't a fallacy. The Bereans were praised for searching the Scriptures to see whether the things preached by Paul were true. They didn't go to any ecclesiastical authority to check.

boughtwithaprice said:
Faith alone is another fallacy. Faith must be accompanied by hope and charity or it is nothing and meaningless

Yes, in the sense that Ephesians 2:10 tells us that God has prepared good works for those of faith to walk in.

boughtwithaprice said:
The rallying cry of Martin Luther of faith alone is a deception that cause souls to abandon the spiritual battle by telling them it is over.
It tells them peace peace when there is no peace
The battle is real and ongoing, we must put on the full armor of God to fight it, else be over run

I agree we need the full armour of God as Ephesians 6 says.

boughtwithaprice said:
If you had seen the film I believe saving private Ryan or one of those World War II movies, there is a scene where a German and Ally are locked in mortal hand to hand combat. The German is trying to stab the ally with a knife and the ally is resisting with all his might. The German whispers shh shh in an effort to calm the ally. It distracts him enough that the ally lowers his resistance and is killed by the German.
That is what Satan wants to do to Christians, and he loves to mock our good works

I'm sure that's true (I haven't seen the film.) Good works are vital, not to get salvation, but as a result of being saved:

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:10 NKJV)

boughtwithaprice said:
Scripture says to strive to enter by the straight gate. The implication is not to be distracted to try the easy way

I agree with that.

boughtwithaprice · Saturday at 9:49 AM

David Lamb said:
I do read the Scripture. That is where I discovered the doctrines, long before I had heard of Luther, Calvin, the Reformation or the 5 Solas.

But it isn't a fallacy. The Bereans were praised for searching the Scriptures to see whether the things preached by Paul were true. They didn't go to any ecclesiastical authority to check.

Yes, in the sense that Ephesians 2:10 tells us that God has prepared good works for those of faith to walk in.

I agree we need the full armour of God as Ephesians 6 says.

I'm sure that's true (I haven't seen the film.) Good works are vital, not to get salvation, but as a result of being saved:

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:10 NKJV)

I agree with that.

I am very happy that you see the truth of scripture and not accept the words of men.

The Bereans were praised for searching scripture, but not in their own. This is the verse most often used to promote sola scriptura, but it does not do that. The Bereans searched the scriptures day and night to see if what Paul was saying was true. They compared his teaching with scripture.
This is what everyone should do. Test the spirits, question what you hear. Read scripture. People think the Catholic Church purports itself to be a substitution for scripture. It is not. The Church is complementary and a demonstration of scripture.
The implication is that once the Bereans had seen that what Paul was saying was true, they bowed to his authority as an Apostle. They did not abandon his teaching and start a seperate Berean Christian church.
Today we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Go ahead and search the scriptures day and night to see if what it says is true. You may be surprised at what you find. That is what I did, and then I bowed to her Apostolic authority, and God has given me grace beyond measure.
In my studies, what I found was that the Catholic Church does not contradict scripture, only what I believed my own interpretation to be.
The thought came to me. Who am I to disagree with God’s anointed apostles? What is the basis of my belief?
Yes they are men, but Christ gave the promise of the Holy Spirit to His Church. The men could be corrupted as the parable of the wheat and the tares tells us, but the Catechism remains strong and true to scripture. Read it like a Berean and see for yourself.
Yes there are those that call themselves Catholic and do not read or think they do not have to read scripture, but that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. At every Sunday Mass, we have two readings and a Psalm. Then there is a Gospel reading. If a person went to daily Mass, they would hear the whole Bible every three years. The Catholic Church cannot exist without scripture, She lives by the scriptures

Peace be with you and may God bless you as you study scripture

David Lamb · Monday at 1:44 AM

boughtwithaprice said:
I am very happy that you see the truth of scripture and not accept the words of men.

Thank you for your courteous reply.

boughtwithaprice said:
The Bereans were praised for searching scripture, but not in their own. This is the verse most often used to promote sola scriptura, but it does not do that. The Bereans searched the scriptures day and night to see if what Paul was saying was true. They compared his teaching with scripture.
This is what everyone should do. Test the spirits, question what you hear. Read scripture. People think the Catholic Church purports itself to be a substitution for scripture. It is not. The Church is complementary and a demonstration of scripture.
The implication is that once the Bereans had seen that what Paul was saying was true, they bowed to his authority as an Apostle. They did not abandon his teaching and start a seperate Berean Christian church.

That was the very point I was making. The Bereans did not go to some ecclesiastical authority to check the truth of the preaching; they read the bible. As for starting a local church, we are not told that they did so, but once they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, they would have wanted to join a local company of Christians. If there wasn't already such a church in Berea, they would have met together to worship God, and formed a local church there.

boughtwithaprice said:
Today we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Go ahead and search the scriptures day and night to see if what it says is true. You may be surprised at what you find. That is what I did, and then I bowed to her Apostolic authority, and God has given me grace beyond measure.

I have not ever been a Roman Catholic, but I was brought up in what became a very "high" Anglican church, and believed at that time in things like confession to a "priest", praying for the dead, praying to Christians who had died, bowing my head every time I mentioned the name "Jesus," and so on. When I began to understand that such things are not taught in the bible, I joined a church which taught bible truths.

boughtwithaprice said:
In my studies, what I found was that the Catholic Church does not contradict scripture, only what I believed my own interpretation to be.
The thought came to me. Who am I to disagree with God’s anointed apostles? What is the basis of my belief?
Yes they are men, but Christ gave the promise of the Holy Spirit to His Church. The men could be corrupted as the parable of the wheat and the tares tells us, but the Catechism remains strong and true to scripture. Read it like a Berean and see for yourself.
Yes there are those that call themselves Catholic and do not read or think they do not have to read scripture, but that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. At every Sunday Mass, we have two readings and a Psalm. Then there is a Gospel reading. If a person went to daily Mass, they would hear the whole Bible every three years. The Catholic Church cannot exist without scripture, She lives by the scriptures

Peace be with you and may God bless you as you study scripture

Thanks again for your considerate post. It is good that we can discuss, and sometimes disagree, without becoming unpleasant or rude to one another.

boughtwithaprice · Monday at 4:55 AM

David Lamb said:
Thank you for your courteous reply.

That was the very point I was making. The Bereans did not go to some ecclesiastical authority to check the truth of the preaching; they read the bible. As for starting a local church, we are not told that they did so, but once they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, they would have wanted to join a local company of Christians. If there wasn't already such a church in Berea, they would have met together to worship God, and formed a local church there.

I have not ever been a Roman Catholic, but I was brought up in what became a very "high" Anglican church, and believed at that time in things like confession to a "priest", praying for the dead, praying to Christians who had died, bowing my head every time I mentioned the name "Jesus," and so on. When I began to understand that such things are not taught in the bible, I joined a church which taught bible truths.

Thanks again for your considerate post. It is good that we can discuss, and sometimes disagree, without becoming unpleasant or rude to one another.

I also appreciate your sincerity in studying scripture. Confession to a priest is taught in scripture. We read in the gospel that after the resurrection and before His ascension, Christ breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive and retain sins. Also, every Christian is not given apostolic authority as the word of God says, He gave some Apostles…

So if an Apostle has the authority to forgive sins, and I know that I am not an apostle, I go to one that has Apostolic authority

Prayers for the dead are not taught in the Bible that you read because Martin Luther removed the books that speak of it. We also have evidence of early Christian practice of praying for the dead

What or who gave Luther the authority to do what he did? If we rely on Luther’s authority, then do we really have and submit to the scriptures?

All authority must come from legitimate sources, it cannot be claimed for oneself. The Anglicans lost their apostolic authority when they followed Henry VIII in rebellion against the Church and allowed Henry to proclaim himself head of the church. I can understand a distaste for that. Those that remain outside apostolic authority have none. We do have an Anglican rite in the Catholic Church whose priests have submitted to the Pope and have regained their apostolic authority.

God loves all of His children and people of all nations tribes and tongues come to worship Him

David Lamb · Monday at 5:01 AM

boughtwithaprice said:
I also appreciate your sincerity in studying scripture. Confession to a priest is taught in scripture. We read in the gospel that after the resurrection and before His ascension, Christ breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive and retain sins. Also, every Christian is not given apostolic authority as the word of God says, He gave some Apostles…

So if an Apostle has the authority to forgive sins, and I know that I am not an apostle, I go to one that has Apostolic authority

But nowhere do read that the apostles were priests, or that each local church should have a priest.

boughtwithaprice said:
Prayers for the dead are not taught in the Bible that you read because Martin Luther removed the books that speak of it. We also have evidence of early Christian practice of praying for the dead

But the Old Testament that the Jews used did not include the apocryphal books like Wisdom, 1 & 2 Esdras, etc. Most of the 39 books of the OT are quoted or referred to in the New Testament, but not the pocryphal books.

boughtwithaprice said:
What or who gave Luther the authority to do what he did? If we rely on Luther’s authority, then do we really have and submit to the scriptures?

All authority must come from legitimate sources, it cannot be claimed for oneself. The Anglicans lost their apostolic authority when they followed Henry VIII in rebellion against the Church and allowed Henry to proclaim himself head of the church. I can understand a distaste for that. Those that remain outside apostolic authority have none. We do have an Anglican rite in the Catholic Church whose priests have submitted to the Pope and have regained their apostolic authority.

God loves all of His children and people of all nations tribes and tongues come to worship Him

Thanks again for a thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

boughtwithaprice · Monday at 3:27 PM

David Lamb said:
But nowhere do read that the apostles were priests, or that each local church should have a priest.

But the Old Testament that the Jews used did not include the apocryphal books like Wisdom, 1 & 2 Esdras, etc. Most of the 39 books of the OT are quoted or referred to in the New Testament, but not the pocryphal books.

Thanks again for a thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

If you think about it. All the reasons given for not including the deuterocanonical books are excuses of human reason. In Jesus day, the scriptures were the Septuagint which included the deuterocanonical books.
The Jews removed them because they would be hard pressed to deny Jesus if they were included. It is not fitting for a believing Christian to allow a non believing Jew what is and what is not scripture.

Consider a first century Jew reading the second chapter of Wisdom right after they had condemned Jesus to death by the Romans. You can see why they had it removed

The Church included the deuterocanonical books for over 1000 years before Luther. By whose authority did he remove them? It was not a revelation or command from God, but Luther’s own thoughts on his theology. He needed to break from the Church, so he broke scripture to do it. The issue needs more investigation

Here is Wisdom 2

For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:*

“Brief and troubled is our lifetime;a

there is no remedy for our dying,

nor is anyone known to have come back from Hades.

2For by mere chance were we born,

and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been;

Because the breath in our nostrils is smoke,

and reason a spark from the beating of our hearts,

3And when this is quenched, our body will be ashes

and our spirit will be poured abroad like empty air.b

4Even our name will be forgotten in time,

and no one will recall our deeds.

So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,

and will be dispersed like a mist

Pursued by the sun’s rays

and overpowered by its heat.

5For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow;

and our dying cannot be deferred

because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns.c

6Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are here,

and make use of creation with youthful zest.d

7Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes,

and let no springtime blossom pass us by;

8let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.

9Let no meadow be free from our wantonness;

everywhere let us leave tokens of our merriment,

for this is our portion, and this our lot.e

10Let us oppress the righteous poor;

let us neither spare the widow

nor revere the aged for hair grown white with time.f

11But let our strength be our norm of righteousness;

for weakness proves itself useless.

12* Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us;

he opposes our actions,

Reproaches us for transgressions of the law*

and charges us with violations of our training.g

13He professes to have knowledge of God

and styles himself a child of the LORD.h

14To us he is the censure of our thoughts;

merely to see him is a hardship for us,i

15Because his life is not like that of others,

and different are his ways.

16He judges us debased;

he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.

He calls blest the destiny of the righteous

and boasts that God is his Father.j

17Let us see whether his words be true;

let us find out what will happen to him in the end.k

18For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him

and deliver him from the hand of his foes.l

19With violence and torture let us put him to the test

that we may have proof of his gentleness

and try his patience.

20Let us condemn him to a shameful death;

for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”m

21These were their thoughts, but they erred;

for their wickedness blinded them,n

22* And they did not know the hidden counsels of God;

neither did they count on a recompense for holiness

nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.o

23For God formed us to be imperishable;

the image of his own nature he made us.p

24But by the envy* of the devil, death entered the world,

and they who are allied with him experience it.q

Then read the account of Our Lord’s passion in the Gospels. See what the people the scribes and Pharisees and elders said about Jesus.
“So you are the one that was going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself why don’t you.” “He saved others, but he cannot save himself.” “If you are the Son of God, come down from that cross, and we will believe you.”

Doesn’t seem like a Jew would be able to tolerate the Book of Wisdom

David Lamb · Tuesday at 1:52 AM

boughtwithaprice said:
If you think about it. All the reasons given for not including the deuterocanonical books are excuses of human reason. In Jesus day, the scriptures were the Septuagint which included the deuterocanonical books.

Yet Jesus and the New Testament (human) writers quoted most if not all the 39 books of the Old Testament, not the Apocryphal books. The Septuagint was a translation, not the original Old Testament, and it cannot have originally have included the Apocrypha because it was translated between 250-132 BC, but the Apocrypha dates from 180 to 100 BC. Why some later edition of the Septuagint included apocryphal books, I don't know. The original Hebrew Old Testament didn't have them.

boughtwithaprice said:
The Jews removed them because they would be hard pressed to deny Jesus if they were included. It is not fitting for a believing Christian to allow a non believing Jew what is and what is not scripture.

Yet there is plenty in the 39 Old Testament books that teaches about the Lord Jesus Christ. They tell where He would be born, that He would be exiled to Egypt, grow up in Nazareth, be crucified with robbers, be buried in a rich man's tomb, bear the sins of His people, and much more. Jesus said to Nicodemus:

“Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” (Joh 3:10 NKJV)

boughtwithaprice said:
Consider a first century Jew reading the second chapter of Wisdom right after they had condemned Jesus to death by the Romans. You can see why they had it removed

The Church included the deuterocanonical books for over 1000 years before Luther. By whose authority did he remove them? It was not a revelation or command from God, but Luther’s own thoughts on his theology. He needed to break from the Church, so he broke scripture to do it. The issue needs more investigation

Here is Wisdom 2

For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:*

“Brief and troubled is our lifetime;a

there is no remedy for our dying,

nor is anyone known to have come back from Hades.

2For by mere chance were we born,

and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been;

Because the breath in our nostrils is smoke,

and reason a spark from the beating of our hearts,

3And when this is quenched, our body will be ashes

and our spirit will be poured abroad like empty air.b

4Even our name will be forgotten in time,

and no one will recall our deeds.

So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,

and will be dispersed like a mist

Pursued by the sun’s rays

and overpowered by its heat.

5For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow;

and our dying cannot be deferred

because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns.c

6Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are here,

and make use of creation with youthful zest.d

7Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes,

and let no springtime blossom pass us by;

8let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.

9Let no meadow be free from our wantonness;

everywhere let us leave tokens of our merriment,

for this is our portion, and this our lot.e

10Let us oppress the righteous poor;

let us neither spare the widow

nor revere the aged for hair grown white with time.f

11But let our strength be our norm of righteousness;

for weakness proves itself useless.

12* Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us;

he opposes our actions,

Reproaches us for transgressions of the law*

and charges us with violations of our training.g

13He professes to have knowledge of God

and styles himself a child of the LORD.h

14To us he is the censure of our thoughts;

merely to see him is a hardship for us,i

15Because his life is not like that of others,

and different are his ways.

16He judges us debased;

he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.

He calls blest the destiny of the righteous

and boasts that God is his Father.j

17Let us see whether his words be true;

let us find out what will happen to him in the end.k

18For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him

and deliver him from the hand of his foes.l

19With violence and torture let us put him to the test

that we may have proof of his gentleness

and try his patience.

20Let us condemn him to a shameful death;

for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”m

21These were their thoughts, but they erred;

for their wickedness blinded them,n

22* And they did not know the hidden counsels of God;

neither did they count on a recompense for holiness

nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.o

23For God formed us to be imperishable;

the image of his own nature he made us.p

24But by the envy* of the devil, death entered the world,

and they who are allied with him experience it.q

Then read the account of Our Lord’s passion in the Gospels. See what the people the scribes and Pharisees and elders said about Jesus.
“So you are the one that was going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself why don’t you.” “He saved others, but he cannot save himself.” “If you are the Son of God, come down from that cross, and we will believe you.”

Doesn’t seem like a Jew would be able to tolerate the Book of Wisdom

I have never said that the Apocrypha is entirely evil. There is much in it which is good, but that doesn't make it God's inspired word. An example is Wisdom 3.1-3:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace.

boughtwithaprice · Tuesday at 5:19 AM

David Lamb said:
Yet Jesus and the New Testament (human) writers quoted most if not all the 39 books of the Old Testament, not the Apocryphal books. The Septuagint was a translation, not the original Old Testament, and it cannot have originally have included the Apocrypha because it was translated between 250-132 BC, but the Apocrypha dates from 180 to 100 BC. Why some later edition of the Septuagint included apocryphal books, I don't know. The original Hebrew Old Testament didn't have them.

Yet there is plenty in the 39 Old Testament books that teaches about the Lord Jesus Christ. They tell where He would be born, that He would be exiled to Egypt, grow up in Nazareth, be crucified with robbers, be buried in a rich man's tomb, bear the sins of His people, and much more. Jesus said to Nicodemus:

“Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” (Joh 3:10 NKJV)

I have never said that the Apocrypha is entirely evil. There is much in it which is good, but that doesn't make it God's inspired word. An example is Wisdom 3.1-3:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace.

I did not understand your point of your last sentence. Is your quote of wisdom 3:1 supposed to be an example of something good or something which proves to you that it is not inspired ?

David Lamb · Tuesday at 5:23 AM

boughtwithaprice said:
I did not understand your point of your last sentence. Is your quote of wisdom 3:1 supposed to be an example of something good or something which proves to you that it is not inspired ?

No. Sorry I was not clear. The quote was an example of what I wrote about the Apocrypha, although not part of the inspired Word of God, including much that is good. I hope that is clearer.

boughtwithaprice · 2025-07-16T05:46:07-0500

David Lamb said:
No. Sorry I was not clear. The quote was an example of what I wrote about the Apocrypha, although not part of the inspired Word of God, including much that is good. I hope that is clearer.

Thank you for clarification

I need to point out that you say it is not the inspired word of God, but what is the basis of that? It was not a controversy until it was made so by Martin Luther. Do we then elevate Luther to the inspired word of God? If so, on what basis? Our thoughts? If so, does that make God subject to human thought?
Can we then tell God what He has said and what we are willing to believe ?

Appealing to the Jews as arbiters of the Old Testament is putting the word of God into the hands of unbelievers. Do we then subject our faith to those that do not believe?

Thoughtful answers to these questions will show us if we follow God or man

David Lamb · 2025-07-16T05:56:01-0500

boughtwithaprice said:
Thank you for clarification

I need to point out that you say it is not the inspired word of God, but what is the basis of that? It was not a controversy until it was made so by Martin Luther. Do we then elevate Luther to the inspired word of God? If so, on what basis? Our thoughts? If so, does that make God subject to human thought?
Can we then tell God what He has said and what we are willing to believe ?

I certainly don't elevate Luther. The apocryphal books were not included in the original (Hebrew) Old Testament. They weren't quoted in the New Testament, as most, if not all, the 39 Old Testament books are.

boughtwithaprice said:
Appealing to the Jews as arbiters of the Old Testament is putting the word of God into the hands of unbelievers. Do we then subject our faith to those that do not believe?

I am not appealing to the Jews, except insofar as Jesus was a Jew, and so where the apostles, and they didn't quote the Apocrypha.

boughtwithaprice said:
Thoughtful answers to these questions will show us if we follow God or man

boughtwithaprice · 2025-07-17T11:35:20-0500

David Lamb said:
I certainly don't elevate Luther. The apocryphal books were not included in the original (Hebrew) Old Testament. They weren't quoted in the New Testament, as most, if not all, the 39 Old Testament books are.

I am not appealing to the Jews, except insofar as Jesus was a Jew, and so where the apostles, and they didn't quote the Apocrypha.

But the Church included them for over a thousand years before Luther decided to remove them. I don’t doubt what you say is true regarding them, but it was Luther’s decision to remove them. It did not come from God, nor His Church.
We don’t know that Jesus never quoted them. We only know that we cannot find a quote of them from what is written in the New Testament.
The New Testament speaks of itself as a limited view of the Faith, for it says of all the works of Jesus had been written, there would not be enough books on Earth to contain them (paraphrase). This makes the fact that we do not find a quote from them in the New Testament a relatively weak argument. The New Testament itself says that there is more to the story than merely what is written in its pages.
I am glad that you do not use the argument that the Jews do not include them, so they must be discarded, but that is one of the arguments that modern sola scripturists use against them.

Scripture say to always be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks you to give for the reason of the hope that you have. You may be feeling that I want to force you to accept the deuterocanon, but that is not my point. What I would like is for you to contemplate, and perhaps tell me, what is your reason for discarding them, when the Church has included them?

The arguments that you say you have do not appear to be sufficient. Is there something else that sways your judgement? If you could ask yourself that, I believe it would help you.

Peace be with you as you endeavor to follow Our Lord Jesus Christ

How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Similar threads