Anyone read "The Bible is a Catholic Book"?

[childinthefaith]

I just ordered a copy of “The Bible is a Catholic Book,” and did a search on these forums but it seems nobody has discussed it.

Anyone here actually read it?

Comments or reviews?

I’ll tell you straight up, the reason I bought it is to aid me in discussions with my Sola Scriptura evangelical fanatic family members who refuse to believe it was the CC whom put it together and kept it together. Very irritating these family members who not only won’t read books such as this, but no other book other than, you guessed it, the Bible. And they all think they can infallibly interpret it “by the Spirit” as well they say. Maddening. Thank God I married into a family with a Catholic history, albeit Protestants. They at least don’t try to debate religion (or money or politics) every chance they get…seriously, I come from hillbilly stock. Strong, hard working, loving people, just not any academic types before my generation, then very few of us.

So if you were ever a Protestant and you’ve read this book, I’d love to hear wat u thought…

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Haven’t read it, but I am aware of it. BTW, the formation of the canon of Scripture has nothing to do with sola scriptura. They are completely unrelated issues within Protestantism. The one is not dependent on the other. Also, most of the Bible (particularly the OT) was written by Jews, not Christians. The OT was inspired the moment it was penned, which was before the time of Christ. So, the OT is as much of a Jewish book, as it is a Christian book. The issue becomes which books belong in the OT, and which ones are God-breathed, since not all groups under Christendom agree on the exact same books.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Not all Jews agree on the same canon either. Not all Jews are from Palestine or Europe. You are arguing against a position someone did not say they hold.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Never been a Protestant, but I read a little bit of it. I am currently reading “Where we got The Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church”, by Henry Graham. Jimmy Akin said himself that his book was written as kind of an “update” of it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Not all Jews agree on the same canon either. Not all Jews are from Palestine or Europe. You are arguing against a position someone did not say they hold.

Jimmy Akin said himself that his book was written as kind of an “update” of it.

Jimmy Akin also stated that the Pharisees shared the same OT books that Protestants do today. And the books in the Pharisaic canon are the same books Jews embrace today. There is a book out written by a former Catholic who discusses this indepth (“Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller.”)

 

[Maximian]

formation of the canon of Scripture has nothing to do with sola scriptura. They are completely unrelated issues within Protestantism.

Of course they are related issues. The issue of the authority over the canon is at the root of the whole discussion.

You cannot argue “sola scriptura” without first defining “scriptura” to do which you must say who has the authority to make such definition.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You cannot argue “sola scriptura” without first defining “scriptura” to do which you must say who has the authority to make such definition.

I think you are missing the point. Sola scriptura has to do with the authority of Scripture, as opposed to the authority of the Church, to define doctrine. The formation of the canon has to do with what books are God-breathed, not on the authority of who “decides” they are God-breathed. The common misunderstanding is that if sola scriptura is true, then “Scripture alone” would tell us what the Biblical canon is. That is not what sola scriptura is about, nor teaches.

 

[ImJustPro]

Anything by Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin is a gem!

 

[Maximian]

No YOU are missing the point. Before you can even begin a discussion about the authority of a set of documents you have to say why those documents matter more than ( say) the works of Shakespeare or the Koran.

It’s not only a question of which books count as scripture but also which readings of those books and who decides what in the event of more than one possible interpretation, because only in rare cases does scripture comment upon itself.

 

[childinthefaith]

BTW, the formation of the canon of Scripture has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

Understood. I was not specific enough.
I was attempting to say that my sola scriptura relatives think that the scriptura in which they believe, was not put together by the Catholic Church. Some even claim there was no canon until the printing press.

I am also quite clear on the OT history etc you mention. The formation of our canon,along with the deformation of it during the Reformation, I’m personally quite clear on. I bought the book to perhaps pick out some facts to assist in debates with family who honestly dint know anything except what they’ve been told by slobber sling pulpit pounding Pentecostal preachers…

Oh, I’m also very clear that the canon and doctrine of sola scriptura are unrelated. It is with the morons I must argue, in my own family, where those collide. As in sola scriptura believing family who dont understand where their scriptura was put together when, or by whom.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I was attempting to say that my sola scriptura relatives think that the scriptura in which they believe, was not put together by the Catholic Church. Some even claim there was no canon until the printing press.

Well, most of it wasn’t. It was “put together” - or more specifically, written - by OT Jews, while the NT was written in the first century by NT Jews (and Luke, who most likely was a Gentile). We can discern from the NT that Jesus & the NT writers believed the OT was God-breathed, as well as much of the NT by the mid-first century. When people say “it was put together by the Catholic Church,” they are usually referring to the fourth century church councils. However, they are not all identical, and at least one book - 1 Esdras, which includes 2 1/2 chapters not found in Catholic OTs today - was considered to be just as God-breathed by the Councils of Hippo & Carthage, as the Protocanon & Deuterocanon.

The formation of our canon,along with the deformation of it during the Reformation, I’m personally quite clear on.

Actually, Luther & the Reformers learned that the Jews from antiquity did not embrace the Deuterocanon, even before the time of Christ. And none of the Deuteros were included in the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases), but virutally all of the Protocanonical books were. These, as well as other reasons, are why the Reformers rejected them.

I bought the book to perhaps pick out some facts to assist in debates with family who honestly dint know anything except what they’ve been told by slobber sling pulpit pounding Pentecostal preachers

It’s always good to do research. Might I suggest, “Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller,” which addresses this topic in-depth. It came out last year.

As in sola scriptura believing family who dont understand where their scriptura was put together when, or by whom.

Yes, even Protestants need to be challenged when they misunderstand something.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

No YOU are missing the point. Before you can even begin a discussion about the authority of a set of documents you have to say why those documents matter more than ( say) the works of Shakespeare or the Koran.

The point I was making is when non-Protestants say that Protestants are violating sola scriptura since Scripture does not include a Table of Contents of what books belong in the Bible. Those who claim this misrepresent what sola scriptura actually is.

And what makes the Biblical canon of Scripture different than Shakespeare or the Qur’an, is because ONLY Scripture is God-breathed, which can be demonstrated by internally & externally through godly criteria.

It’s not only a question of which books count as scripture but also which readings of those books and who decides what in the event of more than one possible interpretation

The problem is that human beings, including church councils, can contradict each other. For example, none of the fourth century church councils included the exact same books. Hippo & Carthage included a work that included 2 1/2 extra chapters not found in Catholic OTs today. Even the Ecumenical Council of Trent failed to comment if these 2 councils were correct by including them in the OT. So, as recent as 2020, the COMPLETE OT boundaries are still not known for certain.

 

[childinthefaith]

Yes, even Protestants need to be challenged when they misunderstand something.

k, thanks for all that information. I have, however, a very specific audience whom I desire to challenge with accurate information - hillbilly family members.

All the rest of Protestants have zero interest in anything I have to say I think, unless perhaps they hear me speak by accident.

I appreciate the book recommend. However, I’m not getting much response about the book I asked about here…of course I need to look at the rest of the replies since I was last here.

Thanks again. Blessings,

 

[childinthefaith]

In general, it is my understanding that the canon was defined around 342 at a council, later confirmed at Trent, by the One, True, Holy & Apostolic is my point with my relatives, who would claim myriad other ways their current 66 book Bible came about.

Point with them in arguing is, were it not for the Catholic Church they detest so much, there wouldn’t have been monks making copies all this time, or Apostolic successors giving authentic interpretation of what it says. Period, that is all I care about proving with the morons in my family with whom I am dealing, at least in regards to the Bible being a Catholic Book.
I do not believe I was clear in the OP, but I am dealing with folks who aren’t the brightest bulbs in the pack regarding any topic, especially one has ancient as the Bible’s canonization. Most of them probably think every last bit of it was put together around the same time of Trent, when the “real Christians” who had “gone underground” since the persecutions in Rome, came out and put it all together, correctly. They are types who would be easily taken into cults and drink the kool-aid is the thing…gotta go, pizza just arrived!

 

[childinthefaith]

The point I was making is when non-Protestants say that Protestants are violating sola scriptura since Scripture does not include a Table of Contents of what books belong in the Bible. Those who claim this misrepresent what sola scriptura actually is.

Sorry, I believe the most popular way to protest Sola Scriptura is to where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only rule of Faith…

Then of course we can get into WHO can validly define a given Scripture’s meaning, or, can each individual do so…which is precisely how I’ve seen 1 of my 1st cousins go on his own and start a small church full of only people hes convinced to believe his (very incorrect) interpretations …

I personally wish more of us could simply agree. But since we dont, and I’m under a perpetual assault by Protestant kin for being Catholic, books like these can hopefully be helpful.

 

[childinthefaith]

The Bible is a Catholic Book

I should have probably read this information before posting. It tells me a good deal about what the book is about

That said, I have a correction to my last post in this thread:

Sorry, I believe the most popular way to protest Sola Scriptura is to where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only rule of Faith

That should say “…the most popular way to protest Sola Scriptura is to ASK where in the Bible does the Bible say it is the only rule of Faith?”

Thank you all. Good day.