Protestant canon

[Thekla]

But I don't think anyone one thinks that "works save"; and even to say that our faith "saves" locates salvation in the "self". Only God saves.

 

[Rick Otto]

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Rev 20:13

What we believe is what we do ...

Right. Works get rewarded or burned, not punishment. The embarrassment in heaven will be punishment enough. good works ordained by God that we do will be rewarded, but not with entrance to heaven because salvation is not pay for performance. It is mercy toward an enemy.

 

[Rick Otto]

But I don't think anyone one thinks that "works save"; and even to say that our faith "saves" locates salvation in the "self". Only God saves.

I don't think anyone will admit any cognitive disconnect. It's a disconnect. I wore myself out trying to do enough & it never was.
When I discovered Reform Theology in 2000, it set me free into Christ's liberty & put me in permanent Sabbath. Have temple, will travel. I have a license to tell the truth. I don't redefine & couch salvation for performance behind what I consider glory sharing "co-operation" or miss the mercy context where glory assignment is taking place.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

It'd be mighty wide of ya to at least give us the address of the scripture you refer to instead of leaving us to to do a word search to guess which one you are referring to.

I did so in post 265. (Ibid)

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Rdr Iakovos;Who has accused you- and of what?

You're lil' cartoon buddy says I said I don't care about 'the canon' & some other nonsense he dreamed up while he was supposed to be payin' attention to what he was readin'. Thank you for caring. You can be a very gracious person.

Do we accuse by citing the scripture- the very words we agree upon?
Is it or is it not written that we shall be judged by our works?
As a faithful servant of God, you do the works He commanded.

No not by citing, but oversimplification, assigning quotes that are never found, and without apology admitted to being "what it seemed' i meant.
I get smart mouth PMs and denials of having answered questions that have been answered multiple times.
Pardon my exasperation, I don't mean to rant.
Brother-in-law finaly died last night. At home, with everybody there, even his grandchildren. It was beautiful, but exahausting. We bury him today at 2.

Alone is an addition. What was written is sufficient. We are saved by the Faith OF Christ. Faith or works?
Neither.
and both.

Neither in the sense that we are saved by God's mercy, & both in the sense that even faith is not of our hell bent selves, it is a gift of God.

 

[VolRaider]

I find it funny how everybody fusses over faith and works. It's really simple:
1) Faith in Christ saves us.
2) Works without faith are in vain.
3) Any Christian who supposedly has faith and is unwilling to do works is a phoney.

I mean, really - HOW HARD IS THIS?

 

[Rick Otto]

As a fathful servant, I presume that you clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit the imprisoned (Matt 25) so that your faith is not dead (James(.

A faithful servant works, don't they.

OK, that is post #265.
The word "faith' doesn't appear in chapter 25 of Matthew in the KJV.
So how do you get "The scripture says we are saved by the faith of Christ" out of Matthew 25?
Is this a mystery of tradition?

 

[Thekla]

I don't think anyone will admit any cognitive disconnect. It's a disconnect. I wore myself out trying to do enough & it never was.
When I discovered Reform Theology in 2000, it set me free into Christ's liberty & put me in permanent Sabbath. Have temple, will travel. I have a license to tell the truth. I don't redefine & couch salvation for performance behind what I consider glory sharing "co-operation" or miss the mercy context where glory assignment is taking place.

Sorry to be a dunce !
Can you restate ?

 

[narnia59]

I find it funny how everybody fusses over faith and works. It's really simple:
1) Faith in Christ saves us.
2) Works without faith are in vain.
3) Any Christian who supposedly has faith and is unwilling to do works is a phoney.

I mean, really - HOW HARD IS THIS?

My opinion is it's hard because people do not really agree on what it means to be saved.

Fundamental protestantism generally sees salvation as being saved from the wrath of God, the punishment we were due was transferred to Christ, and we accept that transfer on our behalf in a legal sense. Sanctification becomes something that God does in us because we accepted the legal transfer of our debt, so works start to be produced in us, not of our own doing at all. It's a result of salvation, but not connected to salvation.

Catholics generally sees salvation as being saved from the bondage of sin, the yoke of Satan. Christ's sacrificial offering to the Father on our behalf was not a substitutionary punishment, but rather substitution of his loving obedience for the disobedience of mankind, from which grace flows. The application of that grace to us provides the means for "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me". They are indeed our works ("I can do all things"), but they are only possible because of Christ strengthening us. Therefore, sanctification is tied to salvation, just as the flesh is tied to the Word in the Incarnation. Works done under the law of Christ are merely the Word becoming flesh in our own lives, faith being expressed in the flesh as love. I can quite simply say that I am not yet saved because I am not yet free from all inclination or desire to sin. But I can see the results of Christ working in me, and I'm confident that He will complete His work as long as I continue to remain in Him.

I would say the Orthodox aligns pretty closely with the Catholic view but not sure they would use the term 'substitute' for Christ at all.

But in my view the reason we can't agree on what saves us is because we don't agree on what we're being saved from. Simple as that.

 

[Dorothea]

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Rev 20:13

What we believe is what we do ...

 

[Dorothea]

Who has accused you- and of what?

Do we accuse by citing the scripture- the very words we agree upon?
Is it or is it not written that we shall be judged by our works?
As a faithful servant of God, you do the works He commanded.

Alone is an addition. What was written is sufficient. We are saved by the Faith OF Christ. Faith or works?

Neither.
and both.

Yes, and it's important that we aren't to add or subject from the Scriptures. I remember reading that This faith alone or faith vs. works, or faith and works never came up in the history of the Church until the Reformation came around. Just like Holy Tradition wasn't questioned until around that time.

 

[Dorothea]

I thought the faith of Christ was the blood. He had faith enough for the cross.

Yes, Christians must have both faith and works. This doesn't mean faith alone suffers.

I don't understand what you're saying here about Christ.

 

[Dorothea]

I find it funny how everybody fusses over faith and works. It's really simple:
1) Faith in Christ saves us.
2) Works without faith are in vain.
3) Any Christian who supposedly has faith and is unwilling to do works is a phoney.

I mean, really - HOW HARD IS THIS?

Not hard to me.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Jerome definintely had his own opinions, but he submitted himself to the authority of the councils, and to my knowledge did not put any books approved by them into a section of apocrypha. And the items you mentioned that were not 'brought forward', to my knowledge were not approved by the councils.

And if the order of books in the NT is an incorrect invention of Jerome in the west, how come my Orthodox study Bible has the same order?

Because the OSB is lacking in a lot of ways. For one thing, their O.T. (the SAAS) is not a fresh translation of the LXX. It is a LXX-influenced revision of the KJV.

And all interesting thoughts, but my question was, "Do you have a reference where the western church ever accepted any books that are not currently in the Catholic Bible?" If not, what is the basis for the claim of the west 'removing' books? Removed books from what standard?

I cite evidence which you deny.

By the way, I am a Protestant. Not only that, I'm not a Lutheran. I do not think I could care any less than I do about the determinations of councils, synods or their decrees.

The fact remains, the Church universal has a larger O.T. canon than any Western denomination of Protestantism or Catholicsm. That amounts to a de facto removal at a miniumum, (though I am of the opinion it was more intentional than that).

It seems that as the Bible migrated further and further West, more and more books went missing.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The NT was in Greek because it was for all people, not just Jews.

Edit- God does not think in Greek or Hebrew. He uses language to communicate with His people. Using Greek (the common language at the time) shows that God was reaching out to everyone.

Let me see if I understand your logic...

1. When Jews used Greek to bring forward the message of the New Testament for a Greek-speaking audience, God was reaching out to everyone.

2. When Jews used Greek to bring forward the message of the Old Testament for a Greek-speaking audience, God was not reaching out to everyone.

3. When Jews used the Greek Old Testament when quoting it when writing the New Testament that indicates nothing more than that those quoted verses were acceptable.

Is that right?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Because the OSB is lacking in a lot of ways. For one thing, their O.T. (the SAAS) is not a fresh translation of the LXX. It is a LXX-influenced revision of the KJV.

Yes, this is unfortunately true. You know your bibles!

 

[OpenDoor]

1. When Jews used Greek to bring forward the message of the New Testament, God was reaching out to everyone.

Yes (however its possible that Luke was a gentile)

2. When Jews used Greek to bring forward the message of the Old Testament, God had nothing to do with it.

As in a Greek translation of the OT? Like an English or Spanish translation of the OT?

3. When Jews used the Greek O.T. when quoting it when writing the N.T. that indicates nothing more than that those quoted verses were acceptable.

There is nothing wrong with quoting translation. I have quoted the OT and NT multiple times in English on this site.

 

[Standing Up]

Realize that this book was written before the NT.

Tobit? Yes, it was, but as we've discussed there was an acknowledged difference between scripture and historical books, even though they may have been found together.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm thinking they weren't totally dependent on Tobit for such thoughts.

Luke 11:41 KJV
But rather give alms of such things as ye have ; and, behold , all things are clean unto you

Thanks for that. If we seek the truth, it might be found. Polycarp, as he does elsewhere, appears to cite Luke. So, rather than Tobit (who has doctrines not Christian), Polycarp was citing Luke.

Except, as mentioned, the chapter referenced didn't survive in the Greek, but only the Latin. It may have been tweaked (like the "Ignatian" letters). We can't be 100% sure, but again, thanks for the scripture reference, rather than the deterous.

Polycarp's associate Melito went to Palestine to determine the OT scripture and returned with the same Protestant OT (less Esther). No Tobit, no Maccs, no any deuteros.

Interesting.

 

[Montalban]

Hard to reallly lump all Protestants together. Heck, I don't really even consider myself a hard-core Protestant - agree more with your denomination than the Baptists! My pastor does not even consider us Protestants - more like a branch of Anglicanism.

Some Protestants outright reject the Apocrypha. However, others -while not formally recognizing it - still use it from time to time. We have a large Bible outside the doors of one of our sanctuaries that contains the Apocrypha. So it's kinda hard to say what a "Protestant" canon is.

Some Protestants also adhere to the King James Version only. The UMC and Anglican Communion are not like this.

Who authorised the canon you accept?

And, if you rejecte the Apocrypha, why? (or why not?)