Didn’t the Catholic Church add to the Bible?

Full Question

The Catholic Church claims to be the guardian of the Bible, but it demonstrated its hostility towards God’s Word when it added unscriptural books to the Old Testament, namely the Apocrypha.


A few things need to be said here. First of all, the seven books in question–Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch–are properly called the deuterocanonical books.

Second, the label “unscriptural” was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory), and the “reformers” therefore needed some excuse to eliminate them from the canon. However, these books are “unscriptural” only if misinterpreted. It should also be noted that the first-century Christians–including Jesus and the apostles–effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament.

Third, the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)–and thus considering them inspired–for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

One of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation (sola scripturaor “the Bible alone”) in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.



  1. Adam Reply

    These have no credibility as authoritive scripture as inspired by God. If so please tell me how. These books were written after the close of the OT cannon and after prophetic activity stopped. Please show me how im wrong if so. Thank you. God bless.

    1. Eltrion Reply

      After the emerge and spread of Christianity, the Jews canonize their scripture. And they decided that those should be written in Hebrew language, and so the Greek language scripture were excluded.
      How can I prove to you that those scriptires are autoritative?
      Just read at the story of Macabe. The Story of Judas Macabe recorded the origin of the Hanukkah feast, which is the rededication of the Holy Temple.

      The Jews still commemorating the event and held the festive as holiday.

      The only reason the Jews excluded Books of Maccabe is because they were written only in Greek.

      Why they rejected non Hebrew books? Because all books of NT were written in Greek also.
      But before the Jews canonized their scriptures, they have the Septuagint, which has been translated into Koine Greek at 3 BCE.
      And that include the now deuterocanonica books. Here, read by yourself: wiki/Septuagint.

      Christian authority to canonize her scriptures doesn’t come from Jewish authority, but from Christ and Holy Spirit of God.

      This from the link I gave you above:
      After the Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts, which came to be called “Apocrypha” (originally meaning “hidden” but became synonymous with “of questionable authenticity”), with some arguing against them being classed as Scripture.[32][33][34][full citation needed] The Apocrypha are included under a separate heading in the King James Version of the Bible, the basis for the Revised Standard Version.[35]

      If the book of Macabees are not authoritative, why the Jews commemorating the Macabean revolt as a holiday?

      What’s the difference from the feast of Purim which was written in book of Ester?

      1. Blake Winn Reply

        Jews still celebrate Hannukah until this day. We still reject the books of maccabees as scripture. Not becuase they were in Greek, but because they came after the time of the prophets

  2. Kieran Maloy Reply

    The Council of Nicea also purged many of the gospels, leaving the early church (and later, the Protestants), with the 4 gospels known today. There were at least a dozen gospels purged then. They (& other sacred texts–including excerpts from the Dead Sea Scrolls–can be found in “The Other Bible”, William Barnstone, ed. ISBN # 978-0-7394-8434-0. Printed in the USA by Harper San Francisco, a division of Harper-Collins Publishers.

  3. E. P. Reply

    The Protestant Church rejected those books to suit their needs.

    1. John Williamson Reply

      I remember reading, years ago, that the primary reason for the inclusion/exclusion was based on Jewish canon.

      The Hebrew Jewish Canon did not include the extra 7 books,
      The Greek Jewish Canon did include the deuterocanonical books.

      I used to own a copy of the Jewish Bible, and these 7 books were not included. It is also interesting that the books in the Jewish Bible are counted differently than in the Catholic Bible.


      1. David Blyth Reply

        The Septuagint included the Deuterocanonical books.
        In 90 AD the Jews changed their canon from the Septuagint.
        That is why the Jewish Bible does not contain the Deuterocanonical books.

    2. David Blyth Reply

      The protestants used the full Christian canon in the first edition of the KJV.
      The Puritans influenced the printing of the second edition of the KJV.

    3. Consuelo Reply

      None of this is backed up by the scriptures none of it from Genesis all the way to Revelations everything that you say show me a scripture from the beginning to the end because it’s the Bible we are supposed to follow and nothing else I know of a religion that goes by strictly the Bible and nothing else and they are the biggest religion on Earth today there are over five thousand people that are getting baptized daily if you really want to know what the bible really teaches you need to go to jw.org and it will help you see the truth about your questions any question you might have you are directed straight to your Bible whether it’s Catholic, Protestant , Baptist, Mormons everyone else needs to go directly to the Bible nowhere else the religion that I’m talking about doesn’t have a leader but Jesus Christ and they don’t call anybody father but Jehovah God and he has a son Jesus Christ as their King yes they do have books but they are in Topix like for example there’s a book called what does the bible really teach and it takes you into topics like for example why has God allow so much suffering chapter 11 it takes you into a bunch of scriptures to tell you why they don’t give you their own opinion there’s another topic by the name of what is the true religion that takes you into your Bible and explains to you how the True Religion should work according to scriptures and they give you dozens and dozens and dozens of scriptures there’s another one that’s called how to have a happy family life again it takes you to a bunch of scriptures it’s all about scripture scripture scripture nothing else no one else’s opinion nothing but scripture please check it out they’re not there to teach you to change your religion there is there to teach you the truth and whatever you do with the information it’s totally up to you it’s all free they don’t sell their Bibles they don’t sell their books they are not selling magazines nothing is sold please try it don’t ask questions to someone that doesn’t teach you from the Bible it’s only hearsay you need to go to your manual Bible everything that is made has a manual so it can work right we have the Bible as our manual so we can do things the right way what does 2nd Timothy 3: 16,,17 say all scripture is inspired for reproving for setting things straight thank you so much and have a wonderful day I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and very proud of it thank you again

      1. Bob Reply

        You say the Bible is all we are supposed to follow and nothing else. Well…that’s not in the Bible. If you are following the Bible alone, then you are following a tradition of men. And before you even go there, 2 Tim 3:16 says “all scripture” not “only scripture”.

      2. Alan Reply

        Hi Consuelo. I respect your passion for your religion but there are many aspects of J W which are based on erroneous doctrines. Your version of the Bible for example, even denies the Divinity of Christ, which is essential for a true understanding of the redemptive work of the cross. You also have no understanding of the Trinity and thereby the Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
        In essence the J W hope of salvation is works based and has no concept of grace and faith, which is intrinsic in Christian salvation.
        The J W Bible is not faithful to ancient manuscripts but has been doctored to accomodate the tenets of your founder.
        There is a warning about altering scripture at the end of Revelation (in the original) which J. W.’s would be well advised to heed.
        There are many/most Christians who adhere to a literal interpretation of scripture and we are known as Fundamentalists. This view is embraced by Evangelicals and Charasmatics worldwide, regardless of denomination.
        Best wishes

      3. Diane Hovinga Reply

        Funny, the word Jehova doesn’t appear anywhere in the original Scriptures; it was made up from a combination of names the Jews called God! One was a high holy name that was never spoken and the other one meant Lord!

  4. Imtiaz. Reply

    Very intense research. I strongly support last paragraph.
    “One of the two “pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scripturaor “the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

    1. Erik Reply

      I would like to add that there is five pilars of which the reformed believe stands on.
      Which are as follows:
      Sola fide. Which means roughly translated: only through faith
      Sola gratia: only through grace
      Sola scriptura: only the scripture
      Solus Christus: only through christ
      Soli Deo Gloria: all glory to God.

  5. Bob Reply

    The Catholic Church did add books to the Bible. Around the 4th century the Church added 27 books to the Bible…it’s known as the New Testament.

  6. Ann Pierre-mitchell Reply

    I am not a theologian but from my knowledge, the KJV was complied to institute the freedom to divorce and remarry by King Henry 8- what do you call that in the adding and taking away from the original compilation of the Bible 400 A.D.

    1. alansjones1@gmail.com Reply

      King James (KJV) arrived on the scene many years after King Henry VIII had departed. King Henry only had the authorised Catholic edition.
      Henry’s claim for annulment, in the first instance, was on the grounds that Catherine of Aragon had been his brothers’ wife and that the union was not blessed as she was not able to give him a male heir. The Pope agreed to the annulment.
      The papacy at this time was not entirely spiritual. The Borgias themselves were not long off the scene.

      1. Bob Reply

        The pope most certainly did not agree to the annulment. Quite the opposite. The pope refused annulment so Henry had Thomas Crammer, Archbishop of Canterbury pronounce it annulled and this led to the break from the Roman Catholic Church and the creation of the Church of England.

    2. Mary Reply

      King Henry died in the middle of the 16th Century but the KJV was not created until the 17th Century.

    3. Bob Reply

      King Henry VII divorced (more properly had his marriage annulled) Catherine on May 23, 1533. Henry died in 1547. The KJV was written from 1604 – 1611, a full 78 years after his annulment and 64 years after his death. There is no connection between the two.

  7. Michael Reply

    Ann Pierre-Mitchell. The King James Bible was made after the death of Henry VIII so that everyone could understand it, not just those educated in Latin. It was not translated to allow divorce. Whoever told you that is just repeating disinformation . The Church of England did not change theology, it just denied the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Kept the same sacraments and the Nicene Creed and you cannot get divorced in the Anglican church, but you may get an annulment and then remarry.

    1. David Blyth Reply

      Michael the first English Bible was the Douay-Rheims Bible. Erasmus, a Catholic was one those who were responsible for the KJV.
      The Church of England did succumb to the protestant reformation and changed theology. However they seem to have a group that has attempted to return to Catholic liturgy.
      The newly established Ordinariates will retain much of the good of the English tradition and restore valid sacraments and holy orders.

  8. godfrey aiyadurai Reply

    Only after the 15th century the Protestant churches came into being. The Roman catholic church came into being by the 11th century. It was all orthodox church before that.

    1. Bob Reply

      Then why is it that the Church that Jesus founded is referred to, in writing, as the “Catholic Church” as early as 110 AD? Likely referred to as Catholic well before that, this is just the earliest in writing. No instances of an “orthodox” church for millennia.

      1. godfrey aiyadurai Reply

        Catholic means universal. Roman catholic is different.

        1. Bob Reply

          Catholic is Catholic. Period. There is no church existing today that existed in the days of Jesus and is still in communion with the chair of Peter other than the Catholic Church. Jesus said that His Church would last forever. The Church St. Ignatius referred to in 110AD as the Catholic Church is the same church you call the Roman Catholic Church. Founded by Jesus, Peter appointed as leader followed by Linus, Cletus, Clement, etc. An unbroken line of popes from 33AD to today. History, like facts, is a stubborn thing.

          1. godfrey aiyadurai

            The Nicene Creed which is followed in the ROMAN CATHOLIC church is professed by others. Catholic means universal.Catholic is Catholic. There is no question about it. And Jesus Christ is Jesus christ. It is good to learn about the orthodox church. Being chauvenistic blinds the faith. Bob get to Christ, and let us take christ to the millions who do not know about Christ. God Bless.

          2. alansjones1@gmail.com

            Bob, I’m sure you mean well but based on fact, not R.C. misinformation Peter was not a pope (as in R.C. tradition). He was a family man (with a wife etc.). There are definitely references in the N’T’ to his mother-in-law. (Please do the research impartially).
            The Catholic church did maintain the Christian tradition (to some degree) over the centuries but because of the corruption and ambition of many of its’ leaders (Popes) what it developed into lost the purity of scripture and became a political structure, ruling over kings and nations through fear and fallacy.
            Martin Luther was a Catholic theologian of repute but he could not deny the plain teaching of scripture in the face of R.C. lies. Hence the Reformation and the birth of Protestantism in the 16th century.
            The Crusades, the sale of Indulgences, the corruption of the Borgias and many other things, signed the death knell of the R.C. Church in the minds and lives of true Christians.
            Why hang onto the carcass of this corrupt institution? Move with the Holy Spirit as He breathes fresh life into those who will walk with Him and who rely on His Word as the final arbiter between man and God.

          3. Bob

            Why can’t Peter be married and be pope? Your argument makes no sense. Today there are Roman Catholic priests that are married. If you don’t know this, you are the one who needs to do some research. At any point the Church could change it’s stand on priests and marriage but has good reasons not to. I don’t base my comments on Catholic misinformation. I base it on the bible. To research and know history is to cease to be protestant. That’s exactly what I used to be and on my own, through bible study saw what was in plain sight. I became Catholic three years ago last Easter. Have there been bad popes? You betcha, some really horrible ones. The Church is full of sinners. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Luther should have truly tried to reform the Church but he didn’t. he split away and started his own false church and edited the bible to suit his needs. Just like the 30,000 – 40,000 protestants that followed Luther’s example and started their own churches. There is only one Church, according to the bible. The gates of hell shall never prevail against it (as Luther thought it had), according to the bible. The keys to heaven were given to Peter, according to the bible. Jesus built His Church on Peter, according to the bible. Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power to forgive sins, according to the bible. I studied the bible, the early Church, the Doctors of the Church and I stand by my comments.

          4. alansjones1@gmail.com

            Bob I have known and worked with many beautiful Catholic people over the years and have a heart for them. However, I believe the R.C. Church itself to be in error on many fronts. (Not saying that all Protestant churches are without their faults either)
            Regarding Luther ‘breaking away’ from the R.C. Church: that was not his intention. He challenged the church to debate his 95 thesis but instead they sought to kill him as was their habit for any who disagreed with them. Had it not been for the German princes who protected him, Luther would have been murdered at the stake like his predecessors.
            It is not good enough to say that the church is led by sinners and not saints. The Pope claims infallibility and that he is the successor of Peter. He is in fact ‘worshiped’ as such by Catholics around the world. Do you think Christians would admire Peter if he had been a whore monger or serial fornicator as were some of your past leaders? Do you think we would admire and follow his teaching had he had people murdered who disagreed with him? The answer is obvious. If you haven’t done so, please read ‘Foxes Book of Martyrs’.
            Bob, the Catholic church is immersed in the blood of innocent people. It is riddled with the mistresses and bastards of its’ popes and cardinals. Please don’t tell me that it is the shining light of truth and integrity it purports to be. Even in recent decades its’ treatment of innocent children at the hands of pedophile priests and brothers has shocked and dismayed the world. It is because of this behaviour that people in their millions have turned their backs, not only against the R.C. church but sadly against the tenets of true Christianity. The sins of this church have given birth inadvertently to the rise of liberalism and everything vile. People mock and deride because of the failure of the Catholic church my friend.

          5. Bob

            Well I see the problem now. Foxes book of martyrs is a dishonest bunch of anti-catholic propaganda that has been completely discredited. Foxe was criticized in his own day for it and is not taken seriously by any real ecclesiastical historian today, only anti-catholic propagandists. It’s ONLY value is today is the same as it was centuries ago, to dishonestly discredit the Catholic Church so as to justify splitting from Jesus’ Church. How else are you going to get people to willingly walk away from Christ? Now, did the church need reforming, oh yes. And it has come a long way since the days Luther. Dividing the Church was not the answer. And you would see that if you seriously took an honest look at what the Church is today and where it is heading. The Catholic Church is the biggest charitable organization in the world. There is no company, individual or government that provides more shelter, food, healthcare and education to those in need than the Catholic Church.

            The Church tried to kill Luther? I thought it was the other way around! The Church never tried to kill Luther. You’ve watched the Da Vinci Code a few too many times. It was an Imperial edict, not the Church. The Emperor was Catholic, but Luther was persecuted as an enemy of the State. The Edict of Worms, under the Emperor, proclaimed him to be a criminal and that killing him would not incur penalty. Basically Luther was being prosecuted as a heretic and an enemy of the state. It’s a hard cold fact but it was a rougher time back then and people were prosecuted and sometimes executed for stuff we find pretty mundane today. This was not isolated to the Church, but every government and kingdom and church back then was like that. You can’t judge the Church, protestant or Catholic, for what happened back then using standards of today. Today a death row inmate gets appeal after appeal while sitting in an air conditioned cell with cable TV. Back then, not so much. You sat in a dark dank cell chained to the wall and once judgment was swiftly passed, you were killed the next day if not immediately. It was the times and the times they were a’ changing.

            I also don’t think you understand papal infallibility. It does not mean the pope cannot make mistakes or cannot sin. It only means that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, as the bible says, in questions of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra from the chair of Peter. If any Catholics are worshipping the pope, then they are in direct violation of the teaching of the Church. The Church is VERY clear that God and God alone is to be worshipped. Not the pope, not Mary, not statues, nothing.

            No protestant should be attacking the Catholic Church for anything from executions centuries ago to pedophilia lest they be judged themselves. The protestant churches have just as big a problem with both. The early protestant church’s hands are dripping in the blood of Catholic martyrs. It happened in both Catholic and protestant churches and to argue otherwise is to be willfully ignorant or just plain dishonest.

            The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for and is doing a fair job of trying to do that. It has come a long way and is heading in the right direction. I am a member of the Catholic Church of today and tomorrow, not the middle ages. The past is past and as long as the Church is moving in a positive direction that is, well, positive.

          6. Alan

            Bob it is interesting how you justify your position by dismissing corroborated evidence from Foxes Book of Martyrs as mere anti Catholic propaganda.
            How do you justify the Spanish Inquisition?
            It is true that there was some payback from Protestants but at the time the R.C. had cruelty perfected to an art form.
            Out of interest how in the Catholic tradition/teaching does one become a Christian? Do you.believe in transubstantiation? (People who didn’t were murdered because of it.)
            Why hasn’t Pope Francis been stridently denouncing the current killing of Christians in Muslim countries?
            This Pope believes in unifying world religions. What is your stance on that?
            Best wishes, Alan

          7. David Blyth

            alansjones1@gmail.com a lot of the claims (such as the Crusades, inquistion, etc) you make against the Catholic Church have been based on popular myth which has since been discredited,
            However Church members are not impeccable – from Abram, through Jacob, the apostles we have abundant evidence of human failings and sinfulness. It is these people that God uses to His own purposes. The message of the Catholic Church, the Gospel is the light.
            Luther was an eminent theologian, but even those err. The protestant rebellion and subsequent reformation was not about the truth, but about national independence of an objective authority. That there are over 40,000 protestant denominations each with their own “truth” interpretation, is evidence of the protestant failings.
            I would recommend that you do some research. The BBC (no friend of the Church) produced a TV programme debunking some of the myths. You may also read more eg http://www.amazon.com/The-Unintended-Reformation-Revolution-Secularized/dp/0674045637

          8. Bob

            Lots of questions Alan. Let’s start with the inquisitions. Completely blown out of proportion by anti-Catholic protestants. The Spanish inquisition was just that Spanish. It was a secular inquisition. Protestants that jump to the inquisition should relies they are living in glass houses and should be careful with those stones. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for “heresy” (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant.
            I do believe in transubstantiation. It’s biblical. Read John 6 and tell me where we are not to eat his body and drink His blood. This is not symbolism. If it were, and almost all of His followers left Him, why would He not clarify? Why would He let all those people leave Him and go off to certain damnation? If you can’t believe that Jesus is capable of making the bread and wine become His body and blood then how are you doing with that whole died on the cross and rose in three days thing?
            You need to watch the news. Everyday there are stories of the pope speaking out against Christians being persecuted.
            The pope and every pope before him has had the same stance on unifying all religions. Every religion that has left the true Church and those that never were a part should come back home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded.

          9. alansjones1@gmail.com

            Hi Bob. Most of your answers are at variance with my understanding and reading. I agree that there were many contradictions in Luther’s stance on various issues but his revelation on faith and grace cut right across the Catholic dogma of ‘works’. This was the spark of the Reformation. Although an evangelical on many levels, I think that Calvin’s teachings contained some error as well.

            Claims made by Catholicism re. Papal descent from Peter, the Virgin Mary being the Queen of Heaven, the inerrantcy of the Pope on doctrinal matters, the elevation of people to their definition of sainthood, transubstantiation, confession to a man and many other matters, I find are without basis in Scripture. As a matter of fact, the priestly office is an anacronym, dating back to Old Testament times as the priesthood spoken of in the N.T. is that of all believers. The ministry in Ephesians 4 is that of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher.

            The fact that they also elevate the teachings of the church fathers to be of equal value to, or even superior to the Word of God are in my view, diabolical. They have reduced the Bible to a book of parables rather than the literal Word of God.
            Having taught in the Catholic secondary system for more than twenty years, I have noted that they turn out a large percentage of atheists and at best agnostics, by the time students have graduated.

            Bob, you did not answer my question: ‘How does a person become a Christian in the Catholic context?’


      2. Galtyboy. Reply

        Word ‘ Catholic ‘ not in the Bible.

        1. Bob Reply

          Neither is the word Bible. What’s your point?

    2. David Blyth Reply

      Incorrect – the term Ekklesia Katilikos (Catholic Church) was first used by the bishop of Antioch in 107AD.
      The schism occurred around the 10th century due to the nationalistism of some of the eastern churches. The Greek, Maronite, Syriac rites remain part of the Catholic Church

    3. dirga Reply

      hahahhaha the term catholic was there before orthodox. roman catholic never been said until 17th century. the roman catholic was given by anglican people who distinguish their catholic to catholic of the pope in rome. anglican identified themselves as catholics too.

    4. dirga Reply

      catholic existed before orthodox. the term roman catholic was given by anglican people, identified catholics who under papacy in rome. anglican church claim their church as catholics too.

    5. Joe Rico Dirga Reply

      catholic word was given before the term of orthodox church recognized. roman catholic was the term given by anglicans who identified themselves as catholics too, distinguish them with the catholics under the papacy in rome.

  9. larry munger Reply

    If a person reads the bible and knows what it says you could not want to be a catholic

    1. nmgene Reply

      Larry you are completely right. They have twisted many things in the bible !!!!!

    2. Bob Reply

      What a horrible thing to say about the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. To know the Bible and to know history is to cease to be protestant.

  10. Johnny Burdell Reply

    Ephesians 2:7-9 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
    Catholics don’t believe in this. They believe you have to work your way to heaven. The Bible says your works are as filthy rags.
    Galatians 3:5-7 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.…

    1. Bob Reply

      You are absolutely wrong. Catholics DO NOT believe you can work your way into heaven. Whoever told you this was lying or ignorant of the facts. Catholics believe good works and faith go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other. The verse you quoted from Ephesians is talking about works of the law, Mosaic law, not good works. While you’re throwing out scripture, take a look at the only place in the entire Bible that the phrase “faith alone” appears, James 2:24 “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Catholics believe you MUST have faith and that through this faith good works flow.

    2. Jeffrey Anderson Reply

      John, you can’t possibly understand Cathlic theology at all. The statement you atribute to us is more closely attributed to no completed Old Testament Jewdism .., Through Jesus all the law is fulfilled. By Faith through Grace we are saved!

      1. Tom Howard Reply

        Nay Jeff, Just the opposite. By grace through faith we are saved! Ephesians 2:8.

      2. Tom Howard Reply

        Not so Jeffrey, as it is just the opposite; By Grace through Faith we are saved. Ephesians 2:8

  11. D J Reply

    Also the 29th Chapter of Acts should be there. It also provides for Amen that is obviously missing in 28th Chapter. Paul always concluded with Amen!

    1. alansjones1@gmail.com Reply

      D.J.the Book of Acts was written by Dr. Luke and not Paul. Check the first chapter.

  12. Sandy McCorkel Reply

    I was raised in a southern baptist. When I married I agreed to the Catholic religion. We have raised our children in the Catholic religion. Been married over 40 yrs. I have NEVER heard in the Catholic Church that you get to heaven by your good works,but only by the grace of God and our belief in Jesus Christ . I only see few minor difference in the Protestant and Catholic religions.

    1. David Blyth Reply

      Sandy McCorkel thank you for your insight

      1. Sheila McCarty Reply

        Yes, from another Roman Catholic convert, in 1968 when I was 23! This is such an interesting discourse.

  13. g waltluv Reply

    That’s right, all you need is someone to “interpret” the scripture correctly for you. No thinking neccessary.

  14. godfrey aiyadurai Reply

    I am a protestant christian. It is a sad history that some of the old testament books have been hidden in the Bible. Some of our pastors they do encourage us to read the Aphocipa. I like the Books. Recently when they found the dead sea scrolls they found some evidence that books were also in Aramic.Since the major controversy of these books being written in greek ( Like many other Books) is now changed. It will be good to undo the changes and add the books back. It is good to refer to the Papal actions of 3 or the 4th centuries, But the later years after 1100 AD definitely are not in the good taste. (However there was a reformation with in the Roman Catholic church after Martin Luther’s reformation.) It was Pope Innocent who declared that Candles are not objects of worship and can be used only for illuminating. However we find that in the Roman catholic churches ( In India) Candles are an object and part of worship. The christianity is referred to as candle community. There are many other things like statues, and other rituals which make the roman catholic church a Idol worship community. I have lots of Roman catholic friends. This is the first place I am finding some roman catholics speak so much about religion. I like this. We are only(All Christian denomintions put together) 2% of population in India. It is sad that such differences are there and that is definitely a very big stumbling block for Evangelization.

    1. David Blyth Reply

      godfrey aiyadurai the Catholic Church in India consists of two rites – the Syro Malabar and Syro Malankar – they are not Latin (or Roman) rite.
      It seems that you are confused about the use of candles and their worship. I would recommend that you read up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you really want to know and not speculate.

  15. godfrey aiyadurai Reply

    David please read about what the very early pope Innocent says about Candles. and many others thereafter. The syro malabar and the malankar are the ones from kerala. There is a very big congrgation in goa and other parts of India. ( all within the single digit % of population of India.) To all of you lovely people I would like to ask one thing When I die will God ask me whether I am a Catholic or Roman catholic, or a protestant,syro malankar or methodist or baptist? All I know is that the Bible tells only one thing that there is no trial,to argue these details only Judgement saying “well done my faithful and good servant when i was Hungry you fed me—-.etc.Now enter in to the heaven. All these what we are discussing here are man made. including the catechism, or confirmation or any other ritual.

  16. Cariokem Reply

    I find it interesting that as I read this all I can think is about how the enemy has tried and succeeded for all these years and continues to pull Christians apart, dividing them by doctrine. No wonder we have a hard time bringing in the harvest in North America. All they can see is that we argue amongst ourselves what’s right and what’s wrong, why what you believe is unscriptutal etc etc. Come on!! Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father but thru Him. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. So believing in what Christ did on the cross, dying and 3 days layer rose feom the dead is essentialy the goapel. Period. Everything else is a distraction and a tool the enemy has learned works quite well in bringing division. Who CARES about all this other stuff, thete is only one way to heaven and don’t you dare tell me your bible says something different! If you are more concerned with being right then your hearts need to be checked with the spirit of God. He cares about the harvest not our squabbles about which well of doctrine you choose to drink from. We can not bring ppl to the saving knowledge of Christ if we are so busy fighting with one another to prove who has it right.

    1. alansjones1@gmail.com Reply

      Cariokem you have expressed an opinion (your view) and you are convinced you are right. Why are you more right than anyone else? What you fail to see (maybe through lack of education on this issue) is that if we are not taught Biblically then we won’t understand salvation or anything else. The Catholic church, historically, did not teach that man is saved through grace and faith in Jesus. It taught a sacramental salvation, that is, as we participate in the actual body and blood of Jesus, via communion, that we are in the process of being saved. Their doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of communion are the literal body and blood of Christ. Also, to receive this sacrament one had to be a Catholic. So, therefore, in their view, only Catholics could be saved. Do you believe this is correct?
      Men such as Wycliffe, Huss and Luther, had revelation of the true way to salvation based on Biblical teaching and were persecuted and even murdered for it.
      You can glibly say, ‘Hey, what’s all the fuss about?’ and not realise the facts and events and the innocent blood spilt because some men over time spoke out against error in the R.C. Church.
      God speaks to us clearly in scripture about being accurate teachers and warns us with the threat of damnation, about the perils of leading others astray.
      It is not beneficial to argue and divide over doctrine. But unless we all uphold the Word of God over our doctrines and traditions, then unfortunately, things will never change until Jesus comes again.

    2. godfrey aiyadurai Reply

      Well said Caiokem and also Alansjones. It is not beneficial to argue and divide over doctrine. Let us up hold the word of God. God bless all and revealing is His work.

      1. Gallibus Reply

        This is double speak and illogical! How can you uphold the word of God if you can’t even recognize it?

      2. Gallibus Reply

        That is double speak and illogical! How can you uphold God’s Word if you can’t even recognize it? Which version, twisted or otherwise, are you going to buy into?

  17. Erik Reply

    Isn’t this the wrong title? After reading this it occured to me that you spent more time, trying to prove the protestants wrong. Instead of proving why the catholic church didn’t add anything to the Bible. Also there are parts about the catholic church that are not in this text but clearly aren’t taken from the 66 books the protestants use. Can anybody explain this to me?

    1. Bob Reply

      Asking one to prove that the Catholic Church didn’t do something, i.e. did not add books, is asking to prove a negative. What this article did was to demonstrate that the books that the Catholics and all of Chritiandom used as canonical, including Jesus and the apostles, right up until the reformation, are the same 73 books that the Catholic Church uses today and always has. If someone is to answer the question, then the burden falls on proving that the protestants did something, namely removed books. That, or the burden falls on protestants to prove another positive, that the Catholic Church did add books. This article was a defense to the latter. The author posited a typical protestant accusation, hence the title of this article, and then gave the defense. Either approach will give the same result, that the books were always there and the protestants removed them. I think the article showed this quite well.

  18. Alan Reply

    Religion – always has and will be the cause of the world’s conflicts. Man should not need the crutch of religion to delude himself about some eternal existance. Life is short and final…….make the most of it.

  19. Richie Rice