Do sacraments save?

[concretecamper]

Because Christians who actually believed that Jesus is the Christ made the selections.

So men can be infallible? Under what conditions do you say they are?

 

[rturner76]

How so? The Catholic church believes that the church has equal authority as scripture because the Magisterium and Pope are infallible in their judgments.

Trent Horn affirms exactly this in this debate on Sola Scriptura.

Have you heard/read about the councils of Hippo and Carthage? During these two Synods, The Catholic Church decided and reaffirmed what materials would be included in the New Testament. Was Trent Horn at the council of Hippo in AD 393? I don't think so but at these two meetings of Bishops from all over the world met. Do you think the Catholic Church made some mistakes at these meetings? So, in that regard, yes, the Catholic Church had authority on what was to be considered divine revelation.

 

[Jamdoc]

So, for example, when Jesus was handed the scroll of Isaiah, opened it to a prophesy about Himself, read it, and declared that it was fulfilled in the presence of those in attendance, that’s not enough for you to accept Isaiah is really Scripture?

No that's not at all what I'm saying.
The books they chose are all Inspired.
but I believe there may have been some Inspired texts that were omitted.

Matthew 22

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Okay? So Jesus is about to give an answer and the reason why they were in error was because they did not know the scriptures
Then He proceeds to say this:

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Luke 20 goes further into this explanation
Luke 20

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

NOWHERE in the 39 books of our Canon Old Testament give this doctrine, or this rationale, or say anything about the angels getting married (outside of Genesis 6 if you take the "sons of God" as being angelic beings who married and then had the Nephilim, which connects to I Enoch which explicitly states that that was the case). In fact, with only the 39 canon books of the old testament, marriage was created before the Fall, before death, Having eternal life would not seem to be a barrier to marriage by those 39 books alone, because before death, God made them male and female, they were husband and wife, and God said to be fruitful and multiply.
But in I Enoch it's part of the Narrative, the Angels sinned by getting married. The angels ask Enoch to intercede for them before God on their behalf, God gives the justification that men were given wives because they die, to replenish them with children, but angels do not die, and so they are not given wives (same rationale Jesus uses).
Jesus referred to nowhere in canon scripture to give His answer. Most people seem to be comfortable with Jesus coming up with new doctrine without a scripture basis... and so think He got His answer from direct revelation. But would the Sadducees accept that?
Jesus gave His answer based on them not knowing the scriptures.
and His answer could only be derived from a book that the Sadducees did not consider scripture but the Pharisees may have (the Sadducees only accepted the 5 books of Moses as scripture)
So that is a place where I believe Jesus was referring to a book that is not in our canon as scripture. A book that at this point, not being preserved properly as scripture, is probably lost from its original text.

 

[Jamdoc]

Incorrect. The Catholic Church did not add books to the Bible after the reformation. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. 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. The list 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. You will find those same 73 books in all western Bibles for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped some during reformation times. Note that although the rejected books were moved within the KJV and not considered Holy Scripture by Protestants, physically all 73 books of the bible remained in editions of the King James Bible up through the 1800s. Protestants, as part of their tradition, still use the same order decided upon by the Catholic Church. You can see in the below link just how long ago all 73 books of the Bible have been part of the Bible:

"The Bible is written in Greek and was transcribed by four scribes according to AP writer, Nardine Saad. It contains the entire New Testament but is missing parts of the Old Testament. The Deuterocanonical books are also, not surprisingly, contained within the pages of this Bible."

The world’s oldest Bible now available online

As of today, the earliest copy of the Bible is now online.

www.catholiceducation.org

it's the same 27 new testament books but in that list are only 22 old testament books, with some differences. I'm not debating the New Testament ones at all. Those have remained the same and are consistent within both the Catholic bible and Protestant bible.
It's the old testament where things were added and removed, namely the 7 books that were considered "deuterocanonical" were considered apocrypha by Luther and as a response the Council of Trent made them canon.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

No that's not at all what I'm saying.
The books they chose are all Inspired.
but I believe there may have been some Inspired texts that were omitted.

Ok, that point of view sounds a lot better.

Matthew 22

Okay? So Jesus is about to give an answer and the reason why they were in error was because they did not know the scriptures
Then He proceeds to say this:

Luke 20 goes further into this explanation
Luke 20

NOWHERE in the 39 books of our Canon Old Testament give this doctrine, or this rationale, or say anything about the angels getting married (outside of Genesis 6 if you take the "sons of God" as being angelic beings who married and then had the Nephilim, which connects to I Enoch which explicitly states that that was the case). In fact, with only the 39 canon books of the old testament, marriage was created before the Fall, before death, Having eternal life would not seem to be a barrier to marriage by those 39 books alone, because before death, God made them male and female, they were husband and wife, and God said to be fruitful and multiply.
But in I Enoch it's part of the Narrative, the Angels sinned by getting married. The angels ask Enoch to intercede for them before God on their behalf, God gives the justification that men were given wives because they die, to replenish them with children, but angels do not die, and so they are not given wives (same rationale Jesus uses).
Jesus referred to nowhere in canon scripture to give His answer. Most people seem to be comfortable with Jesus coming up with new doctrine without a scripture basis... and so think He got His answer from direct revelation. But would the Sadducees accept that?
Jesus gave His answer based on them not knowing the scriptures.
and His answer could only be derived from a book that the Sadducees did not consider scripture but the Pharisees may have (the Sadducees only accepted the 5 books of Moses as scripture)
So that is a place where I believe Jesus was referring to a book that is not in our canon as scripture. A book that at this point, not being preserved properly as scripture, is probably lost from its original text.

It's pretty clear that Jesus was not directly quoting 1 Enoch. What little I've read of 1 Enoch gives me the creeps. I wouldn't have included it in the Bible if I had been on the team.

 

[Valletta]

it's the same 27 new testament books but in that list are only 22 old testament books, with some differences. I'm not debating the New Testament ones at all. Those have remained the same and are consistent within both the Catholic bible and Protestant bible.
It's the old testament where things were added and removed, namely the 7 books that were considered "deuterocanonical" were considered apocrypha by Luther and as a response the Council of Trent made them canon.

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church did not add books to the Bible after the reformation as you falsely stated. 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. The list 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. You will find those same 73 books in all western Bibles for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped some during reformation times. You will find those same 73 books in all western Bibles for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped some during reformation times. I gave you a link, check out the Latin Vulgate of which Jerome translated many books for yourself, that Bible contains 73 books and was more than a thousand years before the Protestant revolt.

 

[Jamdoc]

Ok, that point of view sounds a lot better.

It's pretty clear that Jesus was not directly quoting 1 Enoch. What little I've read of 1 Enoch gives me the creeps. I wouldn't have included it in the Bible if I had been on the team.

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.

 

[Jamdoc]

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church did not add books to the Bible after the reformation as you falsely stated. 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. The list 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. You will find those same 73 books in all western Bibles for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped some during reformation times. You will find those same 73 books in all western Bibles for over a thousand years until Protestants dropped some during reformation times. I gave you a link, check out the Latin Vulgate of which Jerome translated many books for yourself, that Bible contains 73 books and was more than a thousand years before the Protestant revolt.

I just read the list and it only has 22 old testament books recognized as canon, and the 27 new testament books. The New Testament 27 is always the same.
The Old Testament things fluctuated, some considered canon, some considered deuterocanonical, and some relegated to apocrypha

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.

Mind you some of the difference is just how they're reckoned, the 12 minor prophets are in 1 book, so add 11 from the 22 and you get 33, Ruth is reckoned as part of Judges rather than a separate book, so 34, and first and second Chronicles are combined into 1 book so 35. Still missing 4 of the 39 currently recognized Old Testament books from the Protestant canon, and 11 from the Catholic canon.
But they're missing the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel, Esther, and Nehemiah. Though if the first and second books of Kings are actually the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel well that'd take care of those (counting what we have as 1 and 2 Kings as actually being 3 and 4 Kings), and if they're considering 2nd Ezra to actually be what we call Nehemiah then it'd just be Esther missing from the Protestant canon but I'm not sure if that's what's going on. From the list given, 4 books everyone recognizes as canon are missing and 11 books the Catholics recognize as canon are missing.

So no matter how you look at it, the Old Testament canon has been adjusted over time.

 

[Valletta]

I just read the list and it only has 22 old testament books recognized as canon, and the 27 new testament books. The New Testament 27 is always the same.
The Old Testament things fluctuated, some considered canon, some considered deuterocanonical, and some relegated to apocrypha

As I said, since the 73 books of the Bible were established by the Catholic Church in the late 300s that list, in the very same order, has remained the same. You were as wrong as can be, the Catholic Church did not add any books after the reformation as you claimed, those 73 books are in the same order as they were when finalized in the late 300s. The OT did not "fluctuate" in the Bible. Who told you that? It was the same in the west as it had been, Catholics have used the same canon now for over 1600 years!

 

[FenderTL5]

I just read the list and it only has 22 old testament books recognized as canon, and the 27 new testament books. The New Testament 27 is always the same.
The Old Testament things fluctuated, some considered canon, some considered deuterocanonical, and some relegated to apocrypha

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 LXX predates the birth of Christ by hundreds of years. It's contents are well known. I know of very little controversy on this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Okay but the criminal on the cross next to Jesus didn't do any holy sacraments

Neither do we. We receive them. God's grace is received, not done.

I don't really understand the use of the thief on the cross as an objection to what the Bible says about baptism.

1) Jesus didn't institute baptism until after His resurrection.
2) Nobody claims that the only way a person can be saved is if they are baptized, as though God can't save whomever He wants however He wants.
3) The same Jesus who said to the thief, "You will be with Me in Paradise" is the same Jesus who washes us with His word in baptism.

He had no good works, he was a condemned criminal hanging on a cross to die, and Jesus promised him he'd go to paradise with Jesus.

The Sacraments aren't good works if by "good works" you mean human works. That's like saying that hearing the Gospel is a "good work".

All the man did was repent and ask Jesus to remember him.
That's as free grace as it gets, a death bed conversion if you will.

The same free grace which is right there in the Sacraments. God does the work, we simply receive it. It is by grace alone that we are saved, through faith, not of ourselves, but the gift of God, not by any work we do.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's almost correct. The Reformation had an opportunity to correct the Latin Church. Instead of correcting within, they seperated and established their own entities.

From the Lutheran POV we never separated from anything, nor did we start a church. We simply continued being the Church even when our theological adversaries in Rome made many accusations.

The idea that Lutheran left the Catholic Church is something Rome claims, and which later Protestants claim; but has never been something Lutheran claim. As far as we're concerned we've simply continued being the Church in the West.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jamdoc]

As I said, since the 73 books of the Bible were established by the Catholic Church in the late 300s that list, in the very same order, has remained the same. You were as wrong as can be, the Catholic Church did not add any books after the reformation as you claimed, those 73 books are in the same order as they were when finalized in the late 300s. The OT did not "fluctuate" in the Bible. Who told you that? It was the same in the west as it had been, Catholics have used the same canon now for over 1600 years!

reread the post I edited citing the letter you were talking about showing only 22 books of the Old Testament and with reckoning changes still only being 35 books out of the 39 that everyone recognizes.

 

[Jamdoc]

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 LXX predates the birth of Christ by hundreds of years. It's contents are well known. I know of very little controversy on this.

I just showed the supposed list of 22 canon old testament books recognized back in the 4th century Catholic Church.
We now have 39 including Esther that is not on the list or even possibly referred to.

 

[Jamdoc]

Neither do we. We receive them. God's grace is received, not done.

I don't really understand the use of the thief on the cross as an objection to what the Bible says about baptism.

1) Jesus didn't institute baptism until after His resurrection.
2) Nobody claims that the only way a person can be saved is if they are baptized, as though God can't save whomever He wants however He wants.
3) The same Jesus who said to the thief, "You will be with Me in Paradise" is the same Jesus who washes us with His word in baptism.



The Sacraments aren't good works if by "good works" you mean human works. That's like saying that hearing the Gospel is a "good work".



The same free grace which is right there in the Sacraments. God does the work, we simply receive it. It is by grace alone that we are saved, through faith, not of ourselves, but the gift of God, not by any work we do.

-CryptoLutheran

Okay, but a person still has to make effort to go out and be baptized or take communion, it's still an act they are doing. They can't just wake up one day being baptized while they didn't lift a finger to get baptized (and no, infants don't count. Acts 8) and just accept it.

 

[FenderTL5]

I just showed the supposed list of 22 canon old testament books recognized back in the 4th century Catholic Church.
We now have 39 including Esther that is not on the list or even possibly referred to.

Yes but you are trying to justify your claim that books were added after the Reformation. That is patently false. The truth is, the Deuterocanon was removed, primarily by publishers marketing to protestant groups that didn't recognize them anyway. This is a post printing press event.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes but you are trying to justify your claim that books were added after the Reformation. That is patently false. The truth is, the Deuterocanon was removed, primarily by publishers marketing to protestant groups that didn't recognize them anyway. This is a post printing press event.

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.

 

[FenderTL5]

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 LXX has always been canon in the eastern Church. The Council of Trent is a Latin Synod that has no bearing on the eastern Church.

 

[FenderTL5]

Okay, but a person still has to make effort to go out and be baptized or take communion, it's still an act they are doing. They can't just wake up one day being baptized while they didn't lift a finger to get baptized (and no, infants don't count. Acts 8).

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.

 

[Jamdoc]

The LXX has always been canon in the eastern Church. The Council of Trent is a Latin Synod that has no bearing on the eastern Church.

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.