Doesn't seem like a mess to me

Do you really think that a book can't be scripture if you consider it to contradict whatever?

How do you deal with that apparent contradiction?

I think Enoch is absurd, yeah. It contradicts scripture. Jasher gives us a better explanation, and is cited as historical throughout the bible.

The label of Scripture marks something as divinely inspired, with a grasp of something divine

That is, divine intervention in some way, I would say

Now if you want to study the canon

Study the councils where they were declared canonical!

Well, I'll have to see what the more educated dudes have to say about that passage in Luke. GG

It doesn't apply only to Enoch, but to many books where some say "this is part of the canon" or "this is not". I follow the catholic canon.

Now anyone can dismiss the luke parable with a quick excuse

But it is up to you to determine if the excuses are consistent

And sound

It helps when you read the earliest christians and they all agree on something

Thought you guys might like this:

St Maximus the Confessor

RE: gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia

*RE: psychosis

fixed

@-EE- BaltBerg Its called the energy essence distinction

@Mozalbete ⳩ Also, he's a saintt in the Catholic church as well. Would watch your mouth, blasphamiing papist.

Dude, I just mentioned how "gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia" are just psychosis

In relation to St. Maximus the Confessor by the looks of it

??

He said "RE: gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia"

And I simplified it

@Deleted User Dude, the Book of Enoch is non-canonical. It's never been in the Bible, Catholic or otherwise. It's no more infallible than the Gospel of Mary.

Yes it has actually

The Ethiopian miaphysites use it in their Bible

The BoE isn't Canonical, but everyone should read it as it's interesting.

Also @Byzas enoch

>Ethiopians

I was just pointing out that a church claiming to be Christian somewhere has the book in the canon

The book was historically used by orthodox Christians at some point too but it got thrown out because people like St Augustine didn't like it

@Deleted User gotta be honest the stuff you're saying isn't even correct for Calvinism

"everybody is given grace"

What then is limited atonement? How about double-predestination?

And if grace is irresistible and everyone is given grace, then you'd have to be a universalist (IE *everyone* in the world is saved)

This presents obvious issues

I suggest you read up on the Synod of Dort, Calvin's institutes, and the writings of Beza.

That being said, Calvinism is dumb. Go read the Second Council of Orange. The closest thing you'll find to Calvinist soteriology is Augustine, but that falls apart too when you realize that Augustine believes in resistable grace (different from prevenient grace) and believes in Perseverance of the Elect (different from perseverance of the saints)

Augustine has something much closer to Lutheran soteriology with the added Double Predestination, which was then condemned at Orange II.