Q. What Is the Greatest of All Protestant “Heresies”? A. Assurance


In Matthew 25, the parable of the ten virgins shows that some who have the hope of inclusion may yet be excluded.

In the parable of the ten virgins, ten are waiting for the bridegroom with their lamps lit. Five brought flasks of extra lamp oil and five did not. Five who are ready are brought into the wedding feast. The other five say “Lord, Lord, open the door for us.” but are left outside.


There is only one correct viewpoint. Truth is absolute.


I have mixed with a lot of Protestants. I’d say almost all the evangelical, charismatic and ‘born again’ types believe in OSAS. I believe this lie has damned hundreds of millions of souls.

Also Protestant slogans like ‘Sola Scriptura’; Faith alone etc. obscure the simple truth that Calvinists in particular do not follow Sola Scriptura but Calvin and often contradict the bible- as in verses already quoted above regarding holiness and perseverance.


No, because the Orthodox texts were non-standard from the start. That is, some texts included in Orthodox Bibles were never accepted universally, never “kata holos,” (catholic) or throughout the whole.

The churches that LATER became Protestant rejected the larger canon they did in fact RECEIVE from Sacred Tradition. They had plenty of evidence from early Church Fathers from East and West to know which book were UNIVERSALLY held as Sacred Scripture, yet they truncated their Bible despite the evidence.

For example, why did they truncate the Book of Daniel they received? Origen and Jerome accepted it. Every ancient Christian Manuscript of Sacred Scripture of other than fragmentary condition includes the larger Book of Daniel. All of them. Yet, can anyone explain why Protestants do not?

See here for more:
How Big Is Your Book Of Daniel?


That could be said of some of the DC’s, Dave, never throughout the whole. That’s why my post asked the second question.
But you make a good point, that looking back on the history of the Church Catholic is critical in determining books that are accepted, disputed, rejected.


Which of the Deuterocanonicals were rejected by the Church universal, because it is ‘catholic’ in the followng sense…
Rule of ‘catholicity’…by St. Vincent de Lerins


I think you are probably aware of Cajetan’s view, and probably of the fact that their canonicity was debated at Trent. Correct?


Yes, but what Bible did Cajetan use? I’m pretty sure he used the 73-book version, the one canonized by the Catholoc Church.


So did Luther. His translation later happened to have 74 books, but I’m not sure of the point you’re making. Cajetan held a view of the DCs very similar to that of Luther’s.


Luther placed books into an appendix, describing them as not part of his canon. Cajetan, despite his opinions, was not so brazenly rebellious to make his own canon. Cajetan used the Catholic Canon in Liturgy, as he had no authority to do otherwise, his opinions notwithstanding.

Whenever one thinks they can remove portions of the canon, making up a canon of their own quite contrary to the one received , they lost all foundation for their so-called “Bible Alone” Christianity.

Can you explain why he and all of Protestantism truncated the Book of Daniel, contrary to the unanimous consent of ALL Christian Churches?


Still waiting for you to answer this as well.


The question is which of them was universally accepted.


Again it comes down to which canon. Why did the western Church remove Mannasseh, and 3 and 4 Macc?
No one canon has ever been universally accepted by the entire Church Militant. Some canons in the early Church were smaller.

I think the Prayer of Manasseh is a incredible book. The EO considers it canonical. Why not we in the west?
So it isn’t a matter of “adding” or “removing” books. Trent is a council for the Church in communion with Rome only.

Chapter 14 of Daniel is in Luther’s translation. Here is his commentary:
Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther). And yet, to keep them from perishing, we have put them here in a kind of special little spice garden or flower bed since much that is good, especially the hymn of praise, Benedicite, is to be found in them. But the texts of Susanna, and of Bel, Habakkuk, and the Dragon, seem like beautiful religious fictions, such as Judith and Tobit, for their names indicate as much. For example, Susanna means a rose, that is, a nice pious land and folk, or a group of poor people among the thorns; Daniel means a judge, and so on. Be the story as it may, it can all be easily interpreted in terms of the state, the home, or the devout company of the faithful.

Luther’s view that, while he is very fond of these, they were not in the Hebrew.
I really don’t know what other communions did with them. You’ll have to ask them.

Of this, Jerome says:
The statement of Scripture in this passage, “He cried out with a great voice,” may seem, because of its reference to an idolator ignorant of God, to refute the observation put forth a little previously, that the expression “great voice” is found only in connection with saints. _This objection is easily solved by asserting that this particular story is not contained in the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel. If, however, anyone should be able to prove that it belongs in the canon, then we should be obliged to seek out some answer to this objection._


What rule, what canon, did Luther break by placing them in the appendix between the OT and NT. Placing them there describes his position well, they “are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” Essentially the same as Cajetan.


The larger version of Daniel is was accepted by all the churches of Christ, until Protestantism.
See here for details…
How Big is Your Book of Daniel?


Yes, then at Qumran, they found portions of the larger Daniel in Hebrew. So, there was an ancient Hebrew version of these texts before 2 cent. AD, they were in Jerome’s Bible, they were in Origen’s Bible, the were in every ancient Christian Manuscript in other than fragmentary form, they were acceptef by EVERY church of Christ, and yet Protestants still reject it. WHY?


Yes, and elswhere he criticized those who take his quotes out of context, DEFENDING the larger Book of Daniel as being accepted by the churches of Christ…


I am well aware. You asked for Luther’s reason. I gave it


I’d say “Sola Scriptura” mixed with self-interpretation
Pretty much every other heresies emerge from a combination of both.

In the end, even though they seek to understand Catholic faith and doctrines, they always turn back to the Bible. If they cannot find it there black on white, they cannot believe it. With this sort of shut/constrained theology, they could even deny Christ’s actions/miracles in our modern times, and they wouldn’t even realize it.


What do you mean, reject it?
Which Protestants?
I’m perfectly fine with them.
Luther included them in a way he thought consistent with the Hebrew text. I’m not defending it.

As for the Drsd Sea Scrolls, do they have Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna in them? I honestly don’t know

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.