Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Ephesians 4:3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Ephesians 4:3 Make every effort to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the bond of peace [each individual working together to make the whole successful]. |
Subject: catholic and protestant salvation view |
Bible Note: So what is the difference between "canon-law anathema" and "biblical anathema." The link you posted just stated that the two were different. Is there any historical support for such a view. It also alludes to the Nicene anathema as an example of a "traditional wording." But here is the Nicene anathema: "But those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that He had no existence before He was begotten, or that He was formed of things non-existent, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or is created, mutable, or variable, these men the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God holds accursed." Can someone believe what is anathematized above and still be a Christian? I hope that we would both agree that he cannot. Likewise, I would assume that since there is no salvation outside the Church, any type of anathema (biblical or canon-law or whatever), being a form of excommunication, would be considered a "cutting off" of the anathematized (including Protestants before 1983, apparently) from the means of grace unto salvation, barring recanting and repenting on the part of the "heretic." In the Bible itself, it means nothing else but "accursed" (such as the Judaizers preaching a false gospel in Galatians 1:8-9 and Paul's desire that he be accursed for the sake of his fellow Jews in Romans 9:3). Nowhere do we see any license for it to be interpreted as a disciplinary measure by the church, but rather a direct and final judgment from God. I would need a lot more historical support for such a two-tiered "anathematizing" before I would buy into such a notion. Seems like attempts at retroactive harmonizing on the part of canon lawyers. How did the Church of Rome understand Trent in the 17th century? Was it different than the 1994 Catechism depicts the relationship between Protestants and Catholics? And why, if the church is infallible, would they abolish the anathema after so long (at least as far back as Nicea, according to the answer given in the link you provided)? --Joe! |