Skip to comments.The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 with Scripture Proofs [2 of 34]
Posted on 11/07/2013 1:02:35 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Paragraph 1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.2 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself, and to declare (that) His will unto His church;3 and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now completed.4
1 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Isa. 8:20; Luke 16:29,31; Eph. 2:20
2 Rom. 1:19-21, 2:14,15; Psalm 19:1-3
3 Heb. 1:1
4 Prov. 22:19-21; Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 1:19,20
Paragraph 2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
The Song of
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.5
5 2 Tim. 3:16
Paragraph 3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.6
6 Luke 24:27,44; Rom. 3:2
Paragraph 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.7
7 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 5:9
Paragraph 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.8
8 John 16:13,14; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20,27
Paragraph 6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word,10 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.11
9 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Gal. 1:8,9
10 John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:9-12
11 1 Cor. 11:13,14; 1 Cor. 14:26,40
Paragraph 7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;12 yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.13
12 2 Pet. 3:16
13 Ps. 19:7; Psalm 119:130
Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19
14 Rom. 3:2
15 Isa. 8:20
16 Acts 15:15
17 John 5:39
18 1 Cor. 14:6,9,11,12,24,28
19 Col. 3:16
Paragraph 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which are not many, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.20
20 2 Pet. 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16
Paragraph 10. The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.21
21 Matt. 22:29, 31, 32; Eph. 2:20; Acts 28:23
1. Of the Holy Scriptures
2. Of God and the Holy Trinity
3. Of God's Decree
4. Of Creation
5. Of Divine Providence
6. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
7. Of God's Covenant
8. Of Christ the Mediator
9. Of Free Will
10. Of Effectual Calling
11. Of Justification
12. Of Adoption
13. Of Sanctification
14. Of Saving Faith
15. Of Repentance unto Life and Salvation
16. Of Good Works
17. Of the Perseverance of the Saints
18. Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation
19. Of the Law of God
20. Of the Gospel and the Extent of Grace thereof
21. Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience
22. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
23. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
24. Of the Civil Magistrate
25. Of Marriage
26. Of the Church
27. Of the Communion of Saints
28. Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper
29. Of Baptism
30. Of the Lord's Supper
31. Of the State of Man after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
32. Of the Last Judgment
Ending Statement and Signatories
Baptist Confession PING
i got all excited when i saw there would be “Scripture Proofs” provided......so i read section 2 which states which books are in the OT and NT, except one very important item is not provided at the end of the section. anyone care to guess on what is not provided after listing the canonical books accepted by the Baptists in 1689....if you said Scripture Proofs, you should win a prize! in fact, not only are there not Scripture Proofs provided on how we know the canon is comprised of those books, no other proofs are provided either. The Confession contains an assertion about the canon, but the reader is left hanging as to why those books are Scripture. very interesting omission IMO.
Ive got the answer! It was God! Do I get a prize?
are you saying that God revealed truth outside of the written Scriptures?
if yes, you deserve a prize! How did God do this?
if no, please provide the Scriptural Proofs listing the books of the OT and NT that the Baptists forgot to include in 1689.
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. [John 6: 49-71]
You do realize that God used Judas, Balaams donkey, Harod and will use the anti Christ for His own purposes also right?
i realize out of stones, God can raise up children for Abraham.
but that doesn’t answer my question does it?
if God revealed the canon of the OT and NT as you said He did, how and when did He do this? He didn’t use Judas, Balaam’s donkey, Herod or the anti-Christ to do this, did He?
Who is this?
Why don't you be the first poster of your denominational stripe in the history of FR to give an example of late doctrinal innovation, explaining just how you know it to be truly and correctly inspired. To actually make the point that your people try to approach through suggestion alone (the insufficiency of the first generation church), you would have to defend a doctrine invented well after the Resurrection and Ascension. Official rubber stamping will not be recognized.
If you didnt catch that, it doesnt matter who or what God used its still God who gets the credit and the glory not who or what He used.
i think you have an incorrect assumption about my “denominational stripe”
i absolutely REJECT the 16th century doctrinal innovations that were introduced, 1500 years after the Resurrection and Ascension. examples of such 16TH century tradition of men which must be rejected would include sola scriptura, sola fide, baptism as a meaningless ceremony, the 66 book Bible and rejection of Apostolic Succession.
i also would reject anyone who would claim the first generation Church was “insufficient”, just as i reject anyone who would claim the Church was insufficient in the 2nd century, 5th century, 11th century, 16th century or 20th century.
as the Holy Spirit tells us thru Paul in Ephesians 3:21 “to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus TO ALL GENERATIONS, for ever and ever Amen.”
this passage tells us the true Church will be here in all generations, which would mean those that teach there was an apostasy and the church needed to be “restored” ( i.e. Joseph Smith )must be rejected.
are in channeling your inner Hillary Clinton “ what does it matter”?
i would say it matters a lot.
Oh, no. I nailed it.
i absolutely REJECT the 16th century doctrinal innovations that were introduced, 1500 years after the Resurrection and Ascension.
Do you reject all innovations after the foundation? If not, then under what criteria do you accept them? Do you think them essential and necessary? Do you deny the Christianity of those you reject late innovation?
examples of such 16TH century tradition of men which must be rejected would include sola scriptura...
Ah, the very innovative notion of, uh, non-innovation. very innovative, that non-innovation.
I have more hope for those faithful who are also powerless.
...baptism as a meaningless ceremony...
Meaning is found in intention. "To mean" is "to intend", which is why someone will say they "meant" do that which they intended to do. Infants intend nothing. An understanding adherent demonstrates his intentions and can explain what the "meaning" is.
...the 66 book Bible...
Because, apparently, the composition of scripture is important when denying its authority.
...and rejection of Apostolic Succession...
Most denominations do not deny Apostolic Succession.
i also would reject anyone who would claim the first generation Church was insufficient, just as i reject anyone who would claim the Church was insufficient in the 2nd century, 5th century, 11th century, 16th century or 20th century.
Well, if the first generation church was sufficient, then I could safely lose the updates. That which is more than sufficient is superfluous while also remaining sufficient. I don't deny the Christianity of those who believe in a continuing revelation, even when they deny mine.
Just imagine, though, the terror of a time-lost Christian of the first century, being deeply committed to the beliefs indoctrinated by the Apostles themselves, lying on his deathbed and awaiting ascension, who finds himself suddenly transported to a later century to find that there is a new sufficient doctrine which he must embrace before his imminent demise.
as the Holy Spirit tells us thru Paul in Ephesians 3:21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus TO ALL GENERATIONS, for ever and ever Amen.
I think that, if pressed, you would display a slidey usage of "church".
this passage tells us the true Church will be here in all generations, which would mean those that teach there was an apostasy and the church needed to be restored ( i.e. Joseph Smith )must be rejected.
Can we agree that all these violent and promiscuous "prophets" are committing the sin of adding to the scriptures?
imagine being a first century Christian, someone like Ignatius of Antioch, who actually sat at the feet of an Apostle and then being transported to the year 2013 and learning:
books in your OT, the Greek Septuagint were thrown out of some Bibles
babies are not to be baptized
baptism is not for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit and placing one “in Christ”
the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ, but rather ordinary bread
there is not one Apostolic Church, but rather thousands of so called “denominations”
the Church is not visible, but invisible
one is justified by faith alone
once you are “saved”, you can not lose your salvation
yes, that time traveler would experience terror, the terror of knowing that indeed false teachers did arise as Jesus said they would and indeed did fool many. that many rejected sound doctrine, but instead accumulated teachers in accordance with their own desires.
but then hopefully the 1st century Christian would learn God was faithful and the gates of hell could not and did not prevail against the Church, that the Apostolic Faith is still held today, and hopefully our traveler would give God all the glory and praise for it!
“imagine being a first century Christian, someone like Ignatius of Antioch,”
Indeed, he’d probably be freaked out to discover what modern Papists teach about the books of the Bible!
Cardinal Cajetan on the Apocrypha:
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage. (Cardinal Cajetan, Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, cited by William Whitaker in A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
Official prefaces to Latin translations of the scripture making the same distinction:
At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation. ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)
And still more ancient sources:
John of Damascus -
Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven...And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the frirst and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series Two, Volume IX, John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVII).
Pope Gregory the Great - With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)
Alcuin (9th Century) Writing against Elipantus, Bishop of Toledo, who made reference to Ecclesiasticus in defending a doctrine he rebuked him saying:
That the prophets of God failed him, whereof he had never a one to bring for the defense of his error; and then, that the book of the Son of Sirach, which he had produced, was, both by Jeromes and Isidores undoubted testimonies, since it was apocryphal, and therefore a dubious scripture, having not been written in the time of the Prophets, but in the time of the priests only, under Simon and Ptolmey.
Athanasius on the apocrypha:
But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read. (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
Rufinus on the Apocrypha:
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles Creed 36, p. 557-558.).
Jerome on the Apocrypha
These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jeromes Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).
What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).
By the way, don’t you Papists get tired of spamming perfectly good threads about a topic you’ve lost one billion times before? How many threads on FR have there been on this very topic in the month of OCTOBER alone?
If they repeat a lie often enough?
let me understand, you think the Papist Jerome was a Christian?
can you produce one 66 book Bible before the 16th century?
ST. JEROME (c. A.D. 415)
This much you must know, that Baptism forgives past sins, but it does not safeguard future justice, which is preserved by labor and industry and diligence, and depends always and above all on the mercy of God. (Dialogue Against the Pelagians 3:1)
is this the Jerome you refer to on the “apocrypha”?
St Jerome -
“After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.”
-”Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew” [4,26,26] 398 A.D.
is this the Jerome you refer to on the “apocrypha”?
“is this the Jerome you refer to on the apocrypha?”
Dude, troll someone else. You don’t know who you’re dealing with here. I have BILLIONS of FR threads from the LAST BILLION times we’ve gone through this, and all I need to do is copy and paste my own posts in response to the same tired chest thumping from you guys.
Here, eat this:
Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
How about these?
Augustine on irresistible grace, final perseverance, limited atonement, and whatever else I missed which he touches on here:
But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. John 2:19. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints)
I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: What shall we say then? he says: Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in Gods doing this, and says: For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of Gods Free Grace.)
But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, If ye were of the world, the world would love its own, He immediately added, But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, he adds, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 15:17-19)
John Chrysostom on Sola Fide
By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the law of faith? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows Gods power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. (Homily 7 on Romans III)
For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God. (John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Second Corinthians, 2 Cor 5:21)
Theodoret, Bishop of Syria, on the same:
The salvation of man depends upon the divine philanthropy alone. For we do not gather it as the wages of our righteousness, but it is the gift of the divine goodness. (On the 3rd chap, of Zephaniah.)
Clemens Romanus, on the same:
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Romans 9:5 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter to the Corinthians)
Ignatius on predestination and final perseverence:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 0)
Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch. 5)
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans. Ch. 0)
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 4)
Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. 11)
Are these the the Doctors of the Church you believe in?
LOL! “troll someone else”?
i love these guys that attack the historical Christian faith and then when confronted, whine like 5 year olds.
my friend, you posted to me, who is trolling who?
i merely pointed out that the “baptist confession” promised Scriptural Proofs, and when it came to paragraph 2, the canon, no such proof was provided. it merely asserts what they believe the OT and NT to be, but no Scripture is provided. doesn’t that bother everyone who claims to believe in “sola scriptura”??
i always wonder why posters such as yourself need to cite the Catholic Church Fathers such as Jerome, as if you accept him as a Christian, when you denounce baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, doctrines believed in by all the CF’s?
why aren’t 2nd, 3rd or 4th century Baptists ever quoted? or Reformed? we all know why, THEY DID NOT EXIST!!
and yes, all those men you quoted held the Catholic Faith, so i appreciate your posting quotes from them.
maybe you can provide the Scriptural Proof the 1689 Baptists did not for the canon? after all, if sola scriptura is really true, you should have no problem in doing so. i am afraid all we will get is more huffing and puffing, which is all we usually get. suprise me.
The seven Deuterocanonical books included in the OT in the true (Catholic) bible are considered spurious and aprocryphal by protestants.
The Alexandrian canon of the OT in use at Jesus’ time containing the Septuagint (the books thrown out by Protesants) was the bible used by the Apostles themselves.
The Jews did not settle their canon to NOT include those boks until 90 AD, after the Apostles had been using the Septuagint.
There is no basis to omit the 7 books and call them uninspired because the Apostles themselves used those books as inspired at the time.
There actually is a reason the Self and Self Alone folks aren't aware of or choose to ignore.
All heresies have some obvious denial of their own assertions within them and everything thats grown out of the "Reformation" heresies has such a denial right up front. Its there so that those who are earnestly seeking Christ and actually study "Reformation" derived doctrines and leaders rather than blindly accepting them can clearly see how wrong all such doctrines are.
All doctrines derived from the "Reformation" heresies begin by stating as a fact that the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect The Word of God from the inclusion of error.
The same doctrines that all begin with that blatant denial of the power of the Holy Spirit then go on to claim that the very same Holy Spirit they loudly proclaim is powerless and incapable of protecting Scripture from the inclusion of error guides each of them individually. A meaningless claim if ever there was one given the fact that they are claiming to be empowered and giuded by what they vehemently insist is powerless.
That's how such folks swallow astonishing complete reversals of doctrine like dropping over four hundred years of teaching that contraception is a sin to teach instead that murdering infants in the womb is just a matter of "Christian Liberty" as long as it's done chemically rather than by invasive means. That's no different than saying Nazis shooting hordes of Jews was wrong but murdering them with Zyclon B was a question of "Christian Liberty" left to individual judgment and not by definition intrinsically a sin.
Those who have accepted the lie that the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Word from the inclusion of error have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit would ignore error being preached for centuries then lead them to a consensus doctrine of "Christian Liberty that sacrifices the lives of millions of infants to relieve individuals of the "burden" of self control a few days a month.
Someone earnestly, prayerfully, seeking Christ who honestly believes Scripture is the inspired Word of God will sooner or later realize the absolute denial of the power of the Holy Spirit intrinsic in throwing Scripture in the garbage. Once they recognize that denial of the power of the Holy Spirit they'll start seeing the mass of anti-Biblical teaching that has grown out of the "Reformation".
People who can't or won't recognize that obvious, fundamental, contradiction in all "Reformation" derived teaching are under a powerful delusion, not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they deny the power of. A powerful delusion that grants them freedom from the cross Christ tells us to take up, cheap Grace, no need for repentance, and a denial of the words of Christ Himself which tell us that we can indeed be cut off after we have been grafted into the vine.
It's a mass of comforting white noise to mask the still small voice that calls us to taking up our cross and following Christ rather floating along the broad highway of Self and Self Alone doctrines built on, literally, the oldest lie in the book; the lie of being our own highest authority in all things. That's why those who absorb "Reformation" derived doctrines have no problem ignoring the Scriptural warning about the heresy of Core, refusing to believe Christ Himself saying, "This is my body", and denying the same Scripture they claim to rely on when it flatly states, "not by faith alone".
Whether it's Mo-Ham-Ed meeting a spirit in a cave, Joseph Smith meeting an angel, or Martin Luther throwing feces and ink wells at the devil dancing in his room, powerful delusions all start with one individual seeing a spirit and being "led by the spirit" to deny that Scripture as accepted and preached by Christ and the Apostles is the true and complete Word of God.
Many thanks for the very insightful analysis. I refer to the reformation as the “deformation” because that’s what it is - the destruction of scripture.