Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 3:15 But if any person's work is burned up [by the test], he will suffer the loss [of his reward]; yet he himself will be saved, but only as [one who has barely escaped] through fire. [Job 23:10] |
Subject: Why do they prey for the deads salvation |
Bible Note: Dear Colin, I didn't say that "the Apocrypha had always been considered canonical by everyone." (At least, I can't find where I did... and if I did, it was a typo.) Quite the contrary. (There is ample evidence for this and I'll dig it up if you insist.) Regarding your statement that "removing them (the Apocrypha) was a sin:" I would say that if they were never even added no sin was committed. Considering their source, adding them, however, WAS and is a sin (Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 15:7-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Revelation 22:18). Let's see... you want a bibliography... The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the purposes and history of the Council of Trent (with its own spin, of course). You can go see the public records of the Council of Trent itself. (Are you going to make me dig around in them again for specifics? Its been a while. But all the silly high sounding, self important, pomp and circumstance are not fun to wade through.) You can narrow it down to the fourth session, I believe, if you want the Apocrypha stuff. The invention of the printing press and the practice of of how Protestants used their bibles can be founnd in history books just about anywhere. The Protestant attitude toward the Apocrypha and Pseudopygraphal is also well documented in their various confessions. For example the confession of the Baptists (1689) states, "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. (Luke 24:27, 44, Romans 3:2)" Which was adopted from the Westminster Confession (1646). The same sentiments are affirmed in the Heidelberg Confession (1618). The Belgic Confession puts it this way, "The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books." And the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571) states, " And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene [sic]." You'll have to be specific about other things with which you take issue. (Sorry, I've still got a fever and I'm supposed to be studying for a midterm on Monday.) History is full of impossible sounding things, Colin. God is a God of truth. It should not amaze us when He takes specific steps to insure the preservation of His revealed Word. In Him, Doc |