What do you think about this incredibly accurate and truthful video?

[NathanH83]

 

[Josiah]

Without even watching the video, I know he's an idiot. There is no such thing as the Protestant Bible.

 

[Andrew]

Without even watching the video, I know he's an idiot. There is no such thing as the Protestant Bible.

So is this protestant author an idiot?

 

[NathanH83]

So is this protestant author an idiot?

I bought his book.
I also chatted with him on YouTube.
He told me sharks aren’t fish.
I’ll let you do the math on that.

 

[Josiah]

So is this protestant author an idiot?

On one point, just as much as the absurd Catholic apologist that Nathan directed us to.... for the same reason.... he claims there is a PROTESTANT BIBLE and some PROTESTANT Old Testament Canon. Although Steve Christie was a pretty good football player, played with the San Diego Chargers for a couple of seasons way back.

It could be that neither of these men remember their 7th grade world history class. Neither seems to know that Luther was a Protestant, I guess they've either never heard of him or perhaps confuse him with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Of course, Luther's bible is BIGGER than the modern, post-trent Catholic one. And perhaps neither has ever heard of the Anglican Church or realize it's generally considered Protestant. Their Bible is much bigger than the post-trent modern Catholic one. And it seems they just don't know that there is no PROTESTANT ruling body.... some Protestant Pope or Protestant Supreme Court or Protestant Parliament that decides things for all Protestants - not even the modern American "Evangelicals" like Nathan. True - the Westminister Confession of CALVINISM acknowledges 39 OT books as fully canonical but does NOT discourage or prohibit the reading, use or quotations of ANY deuterocanonical books or the enclusion of ANY in tomes with the word "BIBLE on the cover. And the Anglican Church's Bible (the one Nathan holds must be used by all Christians) has a LOT more books in it but not all acknowledged as canonical, some as deuterocanonical (I'd bet good money that Catholic video Nathan posted even says some are DEUTERcanonical). But neither Martin Luther or the Westminster Confession or the 39 Articles or the President of the Assemblies of God is Protestantism. Nor can any proclaim that is and is not something for Protestantism.

So yes, it seems he's an idiot on this.... but he was a pretty good football player.




.

 

[Andrew]

On one point, just as much as the absurd Catholic apologist that Nathan directed us to.... for the same reason.... he claims there is a PROTESTANT BIBLE and some PROTESTANT Old Testament Canon. Although Steve Christie was a pretty good football player, played with the San Diego Chargers for a couple of seasons way back.

It could be that neither of these men remember their 7th grade world history class. Neither seems to know that Luther was a Protestant, I guess they've either never heard of him or perhaps confuse him with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Of course, Luther's bible is BIGGER than the modern, post-trent Catholic one. And perhaps neither has ever heard of the Anglican Church or realize it's generally considered Protestant. Their Bible is much bigger than the post-trent modern Catholic one. And it seems they just don't know that there is no PROTESTANT ruling body.... some Protestant Pope or Protestant Supreme Court or Protestant Parliament that decides things for all Protestants - not even the modern American "Evangelicals" like Nathan. True - the Westminister Confession of CALVINISM acknowledges 39 OT books as fully canonical but does NOT discourage or prohibit the reading, use or quotations of ANY deuterocanonical books or the enclusion of ANY in tomes with the word "BIBLE on the cover. And the Anglican Church's Bible (the one Nathan holds must be used by all Christians) has a LOT more books in it but not all acknowledged as canonical, some as deuterocanonical (I'd bet good money that Catholic video Nathan posted even says some are DEUTERcanonical). But neither Martin Luther or the Westminster Confession or the 39 Articles or the President of the Assemblies of God is Protestantism. Nor can any proclaim that is and is not something for Protestantism.

So yes, it seems he's an idiot on this.... but he was a pretty good football player.




.

I thought Luther was a Catholic.

Anyway I believe Jerome was an idiot because he was

 

[Lamb]

I thought Luther was a Catholic.

Anyway I believe Jerome was an idiot because he was

Luther was a Catholic who protested against their straying from scripture. So he's the original Protestant.

 

[Andrew]

Luther was a Catholic who protested against their straying from scripture. So he's the original Protestant.

I understand that but tell me what is the big difference between his church and the Catholic church other than the books he deemed as non canonical thus rendering specific dogmas void?

My parents went to a neighbors Lutheran church for a funeral sevice and they were shocked at the similarities between their Catholic church and the Lutheran services.

 

[NathanH83]

Luther was a Catholic who protested against their straying from scripture. So he's the original Protestant.

I’d actually prefer not to even be called a Protestant. I’d prefer just “Christian.”

When your identity is wrapped up in who you’re protesting against, then your identity is not in Christ who you claim to serve.

We shouldn’t be motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry. We should be motivated by love for Christ and Christ alone.

And if the truth of Christ just so happens to agree with something Catholics also believe, then so be it. I’m not going to let hatred for Catholics get in the way of the truth of Christ, and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

And if the truth of Christ just so happens to agree with something Catholics also believe, then so be it. I’m not going to let hatred for Catholics get in the way of the truth of Christ, and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I’m a Catholic myself, so I’m curious.

Who is the baby, and what is the bath water?

 

[NathanH83]

I’m a Catholic myself, so I’m curious.

Who is the baby, and what is the bath water?

The baby is the “apocryphal” books.

The bath water is the Catholic church’s false interpretation of the “apocryphal” books.

 

[Andrew]

I’d actually prefer not to even be called a Protestant. I’d prefer just “Christian.”

When your identity is wrapped up in who you’re protesting against, then your identity is not in Christ who you claim to serve.

We shouldn’t be motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry. We should be motivated by love for Christ and Christ alone.

And if the truth of Christ just so happens to agree with something Catholics also believe, then so be it. I’m not going to let hatred for Catholics get in the way of the truth of Christ, and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

.

 

[Lamb]

I understand that but tell me what is the big difference between his church and the Catholic church other than the books he deemed as non canonical thus rendering specific dogmas void?

My parents went to a neighbors Lutheran church for a funeral sevice and they were shocked at the similarities between their Catholic church and the Lutheran services.

Luther had no intention of starting a new church. He wanted to REFORM the Catholic church because it had strayed away from the truth about salvation. That's the huge difference. As for the church service, the liturgies are very similar but not exact. Those who are comfortable with a liturgical service will notice the similar flow but those who understand the liturgy will see the differences. The Eastern Orthodox churches also have a liturgical church service, btw.

I’d actually prefer not to even be called a Protestant. I’d prefer just “Christian.”

When your identity is wrapped up in who you’re protesting against, then your identity is not in Christ who you claim to serve.

We shouldn’t be motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry. We should be motivated by love for Christ and Christ alone.

And if the truth of Christ just so happens to agree with something Catholics also believe, then so be it. I’m not going to let hatred for Catholics get in the way of the truth of Christ, and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Luther didn't ask to be called a Protestant. He didn't even want to start a new church. All he wanted to do was Reform the Catholic one. He didn't hate the Catholics. He hated false doctrine.

 

[NathanH83]

Luther didn't ask to be called a Protestant. He didn't even want to start a new church. All he wanted to do was Reform the Catholic one. He didn't hate the Catholics. He hated false doctrine.

He also hated some true doctrine, like the doctrine found in the book of James.

I’d rather focus on Christ and his teachings instead of getting wrapped up in what Luther did. Luther was a fallible human being. He did lots of good, but also made mistakes. I would never want to be known as a “Lutheran.” I’d want to be known as a “Christian” and nothing more.

 

[Lamb]

He also hated some true doctrine, like the doctrine found in the book of James.

I’d rather focus on Christ and his teachings instead of getting wrapped up in what Luther did. Luther was a fallible human being. He did lots of good, but also made mistakes. I would never want to be known as a “Lutheran.” I’d want to be known as a “Christian” and nothing more.

Luther didn't hate true doctrine...he misunderstood at first what the book of James was saying. He thought it was teaching works for salvation, but then he delved deeper and discovered that it didn't say that at all. Once he understood the book, he embraced what it was saying.

 

[Josiah]

I understand that but tell me what is the big difference between his church and the Catholic church other than the books he deemed as non canonical thus rendering specific dogmas void?

Andrew



I wonder why this diversion, this attempt to change the subject? I'd suggest you start a new thread if you are truly interested.

But trying to not derail, I'll address this. If you actually want to read this, if you actually care.


Luther's personal opinion on this was the common Catholic one of the day: There is a TRADITION of Sacred Scripture (the term only means religious writings) and canonicity. By custom, some books were so embraced ... by the Fifth Century, this meant 27 or 28 NT books (Catholic tomes often included the epistle to the Leodiceans - the book a few Catholics are still whining about him "removing") and 39 (by our count) in the OT. These were considered canonical (the word means rule, norm) - BUT NOT EQUALLY, the OT was considered under the NT... and the 27 or 28 NT books were on two levels, some more canonical than others. But the 66 were all accepted, by custom/tradition. This set of books was quite firmly embraced (by custom) - important since they together serve as the canon (rule, norm).

Then there were the Deuterocanonical (as some Catholics STILL call them), not canonical but DEUTEROcanonical. "Deutero" mean secondary, under, submissive to. Canonical mean serving as a rule or norm ("norma normans" is the term in epistemology), then some additional books that were NOT canonical but still informative, helpful, useful.... IF something here SUPPORTS something in the canonical books, they may be used, but a dogma cannot be supported primarily by a secondary canon. If a book is Deuterocanonical it is (by definition) NOT canonical. WHAT material is Deuterocanonical has NEVER been agreed upon. There are many different "sets". Today, every denomination that accepts some books as Deuterocanonical don't agree with ANY other on exactly WHAT books are deuterocanonical - but this was never an issue (until Catholics made it one 500 years ago) because since they are Deuterocanonical (as Catholics till call them) it probably doesn't matter much. In all the "wars" between East and West (resulting in mutual excommunications) the issue that they embraced different sets of Deuterocanoncial books never came up, never was an issue, never a debate. Why? These were only helpful... and not necessarily inerrant or inspired and not canonical.... so exactly what books are such probably doens;t matter much. No Ecumenical Council discussed it... no debates happened over the various different sets. The RCC and Russian Orthodox Church (the largest of the EOC's) STILL don't embrace the same set - neither cares, it doesn't matter.

Luther accepted the 66 books that the RCC accepted (he did NOT included the Epistle to the Leodiceans because he held history did not support this book and no Eastern Orthodox Church used it). AND he accepted the exact set of DEUTEROcanonical books that were accepted in his native Germany. In Germany, Catholics included far fewer than they did in England, but still several. They included: Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Ecclesiaticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Children, the Prayer of Manasseh - as well as 3 additions to canonical books: Old Greek Esther, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. By custom/tradiiton, these were used in Catholic churches in Germany, included in the lectionary and in Catholic Bibles in Germany. So he just continued the Catholic custom/tradition. He added nothing, and the only book he did not include was that Epistle to the Laodiceans in the NT since it clearly was not universal/catholic. He didn't denounce it, he just didn't include it - he said nothing at all about it. So, Luther's Bible perfectly mirrored the Catholic Bibles in Germany. The only difference is he collected all the books held as DEUTEROcanonical (many Catholics STILL do) together (the ORDER of books in the Bible has NEVER been - and still is not - set). The Anglicans did much the same thing in 1563 except that Catholics often used more books regarded as DEUTEROcanonical in England than in Germany.

A bit after Luther's death, the RCC had a meeting of it itself alone in Trent, Italty. There it authoritatively declared the "Sacred Writings" that it itself alone now officially embraced. It's a UNIQUE set (no other denomination on the planet agrees with it). The list of books is not surprising (although Lutherans noted the absence of the Epistle to the Leodiceans!), it had one less book than Luther's (no Prayer of Manasseh). But the significant thing is that it avoided any mention of canonicity, it just listed books without stating if they were embraced as canon (and if so, on what levels) or as Deuterocanonical it just listed books. In any case, it's a UNIQUE collection, slightly smaller than Luther's and quite a bit shorter than that of the Church of England. And to this day, many Catholics call several of those Trent books as deuterocanonical (which means they are not canonical).

Luther was asked to stat the books Lutheranism accepted as canonical and deuterocanonical. He would not. He shared his PERSONAL OPINION (which again, just echoed the custom of Catholicism in Germany at the time) but he refused to state anything definitive, stating its not up to a person or denomination to declare this, this must be an act of the whole church (and noted the need to a true Ecumenical Council). The Lutheran Confessions are purposely SILENT on this isssue.... it's not up to a man or a denomination. And again, what is DEUTEROcanonical probably isn't a major issue - actually LOTS and LOTS of writings can be helpful, informational, inspirational and used to help us understand something taught in canonical Scripture.

I don't know if you actually read this.... or care about the question you raised... but that's totally okay.




Andrew, if you actually want to know the difference between RCC doctrine and Lutheran doctrine, that requires a different thread (and probably forum). I'd recommend you start by reading the Catholic Catechism and the Lutheran one. A couple of us Lutherans here are former Catholics and can probably help you.



Thanks.


- Josiah




.;

 

[Tigger]

Luther was a Catholic who protested against their straying from scripture. So he's the original Protestant.

And original Catholic.

 

[Josiah]

To the thread....


Trent Horn is a CATHOLIC apologist (and IMO, a particularly BAD one). I've watched some of his videos and heard him on Catholic Radio.... he LOVES to invent things he claims "PROTESTANTS" believe (never with a bit of substantiation that Protestants do.... or worse, something no Protestant known to me actually does believe). Then shoots it down (never with any substantiation). He represents the worse side of Catholic Answers which often was nothing more than Protestant Hate.

Without even needing to undergo the pain of watching him do his horrible stuff, I can tell by the title that he's up to his old tricks. He wants to address "The Protestant Bible." Of course, as he knows (but desires to lie about), there is no such thing. NEVER has Protestantism declared what is and is not "BIBLE" or even Scripture or even canon. A few DENOMINATIONS have done this (there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations) but never has Protestantism done this. There's no way Protestantism COULD do this because there is no ruling body in Protestantism, we don't have an infallible Pope of Protestantism or any Ruling Body for Protestantism. And obviously, he desires to not mention the two largest Protestant communities - Anglicanism and Lutheranism, which together are nearly half of the world's Protestant, both of which have Bibles LARGER, BIGGER than the post-Trent Catholic one (albeit not official in Lutheranism).

Yes, IF he had said, "many Protestants today largely ignore the books that hisotrically were embraced as deuterocanonal" he'd be right. But then I'd point out that's true of many Catholics, too. In my years in the Catholic Church, I never heard one sermon on anything in any deuterocanonical book - LOTS of saint stories from books NOT in their Bible but nothing from their new unique set of deutero books. No sermons. No Bible studies. Not a single mention in First Communion or Confirmation classes. I doubt that any of my many Catholic relatives could name any these books and I'd bet good money NONE of them have read a word in any of them. The only study I've done of some deuterocanonical books was at my LUTHERAN church... in the Pastor's Sunday Class, in a study prepared by the LCMS publishing house, CPH.




.

 

[NathanH83]

Luther didn't hate true doctrine...he misunderstood at first what the book of James was saying. He thought it was teaching works for salvation, but then he delved deeper and discovered that it didn't say that at all. Once he understood the book, he embraced what it was saying.

Well that’s good to hear. I love the book of James, and I definitely think Luther misunderstood at first. Glad to know he correctly understood it later.

It kind of makes me think of how words need to be understood in context.

Like, when Paul said “works”…what did he mean?

Imagine if you asked me if I had a “drink” while I was driving. And I say, “No, I don’t drink at all. I definitely don’t drink and drive.”

But I WAS drinking a bottle of Fiji water while I was driving.

“Drink” has a different definition depending on how it’s being used in context.

I think the word “works” has a different meaning when used in context too.

When Paul said that salvation is by faith and not by works, I think that when you study the context within all of Paul’s letters, he’s talking about the “works” of the law (following dietary laws, celebrating New Moons, special Sabbaths, circumcision, etc). He rebuked the Galatians for this.

I think Paul wanted to make it clear that salvation is NOT obtained through the practices of all the Old Testament WORKS of the Jewish law. Salvation is only through faith in Christ.

But when James said that faith without works is dead, his use of the word “works” is used in a different context. He means it in the sense of works of righteousness, such as helping the poor, remaining unstained from the world and from sin. He’s not using the word “works” in the sense that insinuates the dietary laws or celebrating New Moons and circumcision.

The context of the Book of James is helping people who are destitute, in need of clothing, shelter, and daily food. How can we, having the goods of this world, seeing our brother in need of clothing and food, say to him, “Be warm and well fed,” but do nothing to help him out?

James says, “You say, ‘I have faith, you have works.’ But I say, ‘I’ll show you my faith BY my works!’ “

But clearly the use of “works” here is being used in a different context then when Paul said, “Salvation is through faith alone, and not by works.”

 

[Lamb]

Well that’s good to hear. I love the book of James, and I definitely think Luther misunderstood at first. Glad to know he correctly understood it later.

It kind of makes me think of how words need to be understood in context.

Like, when Paul said “works”…what did he mean?

Imagine if you asked me if I had a “drink” while I was driving. And I say, “No, I don’t drink at all. I definitely don’t drink and drive.”

But I WAS drinking a bottle of Fiji water while I was driving.

“Drink” has a different definition depending on how it’s being used in context.

I think the word “works” has a different meaning when used in context too.

When Paul said that salvation is by faith and not by works, I think that when you study the context within all of Paul’s letters, he’s talking about the “works” of the law (following dietary laws, celebrating New Moons, special Sabbaths, circumcision, etc). He rebuked the Galatians for this.

I think Paul wanted to make it clear that salvation is NOT obtained through the practices of all the Old Testament WORKS of the Jewish law. Salvation is only through faith in Christ.

But when James said that faith without works is dead, his use of the word “works” is used in a different context. He means it in the sense of works of righteousness, such as helping the poor, remaining unstained from the world and from sin. He’s not using the word “works” in the sense that insinuates the dietary laws or celebrating New Moons and circumcision.

The context of the Book of James is helping people who are destitute, in need of clothing, shelter, and daily food. How can we, having the goods of this world, seeing our brother in need of clothing and food, say to him, “Be warm and well fed,” but do nothing to help him out?

James says, “You say, ‘I have faith, you have works.’ But I say, ‘I’ll show you my faith BY my works!’ “

But clearly the use of “works” here is being used in a different context then when Paul said, “Salvation is through faith alone, and not by works.”

When James spoke of works, it was meant to reflect the faith that a person already had and not to do works in order to acquire salvation. So James and Paul are not in conflict. Salvation is "by grace through faith" and the scriptures agree on that.