As I read a Protestant Bible it occurs to me...

[JonNC]

a friend from another thread makes the typology of the 5 fishes and 2 loaves miracle.
Jesus gave his disciples 7 sacraments to feed his children spiritually, 7 sacraments that the catholic church uses 5+2 while others just avail of 2 of these.

As a Lutheran, I can avail myself of all seven. In fact, I have availed myself of 5 - Baptism, Confirmation, Confession/Absolution, Marriage, Eucharist. That we don’t call them all sacraments doesn’t mean I can’t avail myself of them.

Jon

 

[studychristian]

The more I read it, it keeps making me feel that Protestantism is false more and more

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

sigh Luther removed no books, anymore than trent added books. Luther’s translation included 74 books, as his translation also included the Prayer of Manassah. Luther’s view of the canonicity of the D-C’s, however, was not simply based on the Jews of his day, or even the Jews in ahistorical sense. The fact is the D-C’s had been disputed by (some) Catholic scholars throughout the history of the Church, all the way to and included the time of the Council of Trent.Jon

I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Even the Trinity and the Nature of Christ were disputed, and it was the authority of the Catholic Church that we have the Dogmas of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of the Natures of Christ, etc. That point is that only the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) has the authority to decide these things; not individual men like Martin Luther, who invented his own brand of Christianity known as Lutheranism. Thus if you are a Protestant, you are unwittingly putting your faith in men such as Martin Luther, Calvin, etc.

Again, what authority did Luther have to designate some books inspired and others not? What’s more, Luther denigrated the Book of James and mulled over the idea of removing the Book of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation from the Bible.

But this brings us to another point. How do you know what books belong in the Bible in the first place? Jesus did not hand out Bibles nor did it fall out of the sky. God gave us the Bible through the authority invested in His Church.

You will, however, find them in Luther’s Bible, even today.

You will find the books in Luther’s Bible as appendices, not as part of Sacred Scripture. But most Protestants Bibles today simply removed the books. O count the number of books in your Protestant Bible. All you have is 66.

Here are some quotes of Luther’s disdain:

Luther teaches: *“To my mind it (the book of the Revelation) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”[61]
*

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.

“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.”
I mean, who did this man think he was? He was nothing more than a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter who took it upon himself to begin teaching his own doctrines. Scripture describes these men as false teachers.

 

[sdegutis]

I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Even the Trinity and the Nature of Christ were disputed, and it was the authority of the Catholic Church that we have the Dogmas of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of the Natures of Christ, etc. That point is that only the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) has the authority to decide these things; not individual men like Martin Luther, who invented his own brand of Christianity known as Lutheranism. Thus if you are a Protestant, you are unwittingly putting your faith in men such as Martin Luther, Calvin, etc.

Again, what authority did Luther have to designate some books inspired and others not? What’s more, Luther denigrated the Book of James and mulled over the idea of removing the Book of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation from the Bible.

But this brings us to another point. How do you know what books belong in the Bible in the first place? Jesus did not hand out Bibles nor did it fall out of the sky. God gave us the Bible through the authority invested in His Church.

You will find the books in Luther’s Bible as appendices, not as part of Sacred Scripture. But most Protestants Bibles today simply removed the books. O count the number of books in your Protestant Bible. All you have is 66.

Here are some quotes of Luther’s disdain:

Luther teaches: *“To my mind it (the book of the Revelation) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”[61]
*

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.

“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.”
I mean, who did this man think he was? He was nothing more than a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter who took it upon himself to begin teaching his own doctrines. Scripture describes these men as false teachers.

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel Serafin;9483509]I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Even the Trinity and the Nature of Christ were disputed, and it was the authority of the Catholic Church that we have the Dogmas of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of the Natures of Christ, etc. That point is that only the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) has the authority to decide these things;

All agreed. when the Church was not in schism…

not individual men like Martin Luther, who invented his own brand of Christianity known as Lutheranism. Thus if you are a Protestant, you are unwittingly putting your faith in men such as Martin Luther, Calvin, etc.

No, in Christ. Just like it would be wrong for a protestant to say you put your faith in the pope above Christ.

Again, what authority did Luther have to designate some books inspired and others not? What’s more, Luther denigrated the Book of James and mulled over the idea of removing the Book of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation from the Bible.

The same authority that every Catholic had prior to Trent - the question the books, based
on the historic disputes about them.

But this brings us to another point. How do you know what books belong in the Bible in the first place? Jesus did not hand out Bibles nor did it fall out of the sky. God gave us the Bible through the authority invested in His Church.

Sorry. The polemic doesn’t work with lutherans. We know where the bible comes from. We know the role of the Church. Luther knew that role.

You will find the books in Luther’s Bible as appendices, not as part of Sacred Scripture. But most Protestants Bibles today simply removed the books. O count the number of books in your Protestant Bible. All you have is 66.

Perhaps you might read what Luther says in totality, intead of out-of-context half quotes.

Here are some quotes of Luther’s disdain:

Luther teaches: *“To my mind it (the book of the Revelation) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”[61]
*

And yet - there it is - in his Die Bibel. Exercising the exact same Catholic liberty as was exercised throughout the history of the Curch, from Eusebius and Jerome, to Luther and Erasmus and Cajetan.

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”

Partial quote, taken out of context, from a letter, not a doctrinal statement. I would encourage you to read the letter in context.

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.

Ditto

“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.”

Not only our of context, but chopped.
“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.

I mean, who did this man think he was? He was nothing more than a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter who took it upon himself to begin teaching his own doctrines. Scripture describes these men as false teachers.

You have to then, to be consistent, and ascribe the same charge against Cardinal Cajetan:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

I’m not even convinced Luther was right, but he certainly deserves a fair and honest evaluation, not half quotes without context.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The problem with protestantism is that protestants in effect have put their faith in an ex-Catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther, who not only began teaching his own doctrines over a thousand years after the Church was established, but took it upon himself to remove books from the Bible and appoint himself a freelance interpreter of the Bible. Thus it is that your Protestant Bible only has 66 books, and not the normal 73.

Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament books based upon what the European Jews of his day considered part of their canon of Scripture. Luther did not realize that the European Jews of his day were using a canon assembled in the year 90 AD—long after the resurrection and the establishment of the Church—when Christianity was spreading like wildfire, the unconverted Jews who rejected Jesus Christ dismissed the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament).

We shall not bear false witness…

 

[po18guy]

Whilst you don’t specifically mention the Church of England, we do actually use the Deutercanonical books. Our Lectionaries have made use of them since the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549. This month we have readings from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and 1 Maccabees.

In the The Book of Common Prayer we sing the canticle Benedicite Omnia Opera at Mattins (Morning Prayer). This is sourced from the Deuterocanon.

And, the eminent Anglican theologian Henry Chadwick (1920-2008) also firmly believed that our Lord quoted from the Deuterocanon. I would say that he was following a path similar to that of Newman, as he sought dialog with the Catholic Church and was rather keen on achieving full communion.

 

[JonNC]

The more I read it, it keeps making me feel that Protestantism is false more and more

Ignoring the incredibly broad statement, I would then strongly encourage you to enroll in RCIA, or the Orthodox equivalent. Allow His Spirit to lead you, and I pray you will be blest wherever it is you end up.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

We shall not bear false witness…

Jose,
I’m not willing to venture quite that far. Just like there is a load of misinformation out there about Catholicism - Jack Chick is the tip of the iceberg - so there is about Luther - Father O’Hare in the same way.

When someone makes these kinds of out-of-context half quotes, I assume they were relying on a source that probably has a bias.

Jon

 

[studychristian]

Also from what I see, Protestantism talks little about Saints and the early Christian Church, I know Jesus is suppose to be the most important talk but you should talk more about the saints…After Jesus and his disciples, the saints helped shape Christianity

 

[Symphorian]

Also from what I see, Protestantism talks little about Saints and the early Christian Church, I know Jesus is suppose to be the most important talk but you should talk more about the saints…After Jesus and his disciples, the saints helped shape Christianity

I agree. During July the following saints will be celebrated or commemorated in the Church of England:

The Blessed Virgin Mary
Thomas the Apostle
Martin of Tours
Thomas More and John Fisher
Benedict of Nursia
Swithun
Osmund of Salisbury
Gregory and his sister Macrina
Margaret of Antioch
Mary Magdalene
Bridget of Sweden
James the Apostle
Anne and Joachim (Parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary)
Ignatius of Loyola

 

[Anna_Scott]

This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.

I’m guessing you are unaware that the RSV and NRSV are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, The Catholic Bible Association had to obtain permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV.

Quote from the CCC:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
“Scripture quotations contained herein are adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.”

So, the Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point).

This is a quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal."

There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. While commentaries reflect Catholic theology, the translation remains essentially unchanged.

Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered ecumenical translations, the Catholic Bible Association found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”

The Catholic Bible Association chose to adopt the RSV and NRSV, rather than using a translation purely from Catholic sources.

Peace,
Anna

 

[studychristian]

I’m guessing you are unaware that the RSV and NRSV are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, The Catholic Bible Association had to obtain permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV.

Quote from the CCC:

So, the Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point).

This is a quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. While commentaries reflect Catholic theology, the translation remains essentially unchanged.

Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered ecumenical translations, the Catholic Bible Association found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

The Catholic Bible Association chose to adopt the RSV and NRSV, rather than using a translation purely from Catholic sources.

Peace,
Anna

I am using the New International Version, NIV.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I agree. During July the following saints will be celebrated or commemorated in the Church of England:

The Blessed Virgin Mary
Thomas the Apostle
Martin of Tours
Thomas More and John Fisher
Benedict of Nursia
Swithun
Osmund of Salisbury
Gregory and his sister Macrina
Margaret of Antioch
Mary Magdalene
Bridget of Sweden
James the Apostle
Anne and Joachim (Parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary)
Ignatius of Loyola

July 2012 in The Episcopal Church:

Benedict of Nursia, Abbot
William White, Bishop
Macrina
Stanton, Bloomer, Truth, Tubman
Mary Magdalene
St James, Apostle
The Parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary
William Reed Huntington, Priest
William Wilberforce
Ignatius of Loyola

August 2012 in the Episcopal Church:

Joseph of Arimathea
The Transfiguration
John Mason Neale, Priest
Dominic, Priest and Friar
Laurence, Deacon and Martyr
Clare, Abbess
Jeremy Taylor, Bishop
Jonathan Myrick Daniels
St Mary, the Virgin
William Porcher Dubose, Priest
Bernard, Abbot
St Bartholomew, Apostle
Louis, King of France
Thomas Gallaudet and Henry Winter Syle
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo
Aidan, Bishop of Lindisfarne

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am using the New International Version, NIV.

Basing your views of Protestantism through the use of the NIV doesn’t really tell you much. The NIV is not a very accurate translation; and it is certainly not used by all Protestants.

You still have to come to terms with the Catholic adoption of the RSV and NRSV for use in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There is no one Bible translation that is accepted by all Protestants.

The NRSV with Aporcypha is used in our Episcopal Parish. If you forget to bring your Bible to a class (and of course we are free to choose a translations); the NRSV with Apocrypha is what is on the shelves in our Parish.

 

[Anna_Scott]

My take of Protestantism now:

So far I think they build there entire faith on John 3:16, at least for the most part, that verse does not directly end, meaning that it can be interpreted as that’s the main thing in general for salvation BUT not the only thing.

studychristian,
This is another sweeping statement about Protestantism, which misrepresents the beliefs of many.

Keep in mind, that as an Anglo Catholic in the Anglican Communion, I do not believe that John 3:16 reveals all that is necessary for salvation.

I believe in the Seven Sacraments, through which God imparts certain Graces.

Salvation is a lifelong journey with many elements, such as loving God with heart mind and soul, loving your neighbor as yourself, service, perseverance, obeying the Commandments of Christ, etc.

We live in the Hope of the Resurrection.
.
Peace,
Anna

 

[po18guy]

I am using the New International Version, NIV.

I have an NIV. I find it to be rather dumbed-down in its language, and with a detectable bias against Catholic doctrines. If you only had a protestant bible, I believe that you would be better off with a King James Version - but one with all 73 books.

Catholic-wise, a Douay-Rheims or an Ignatius bible are both fine, IMO. I do not have a Jerusalem Bible, but do have the New Jerusalem Bible, which uses the modified, gender-inclusive language. The New American Bible is just OK, and its notes can be toxic. Same apparently with the NABRE, which uses the same NT notes, as I understand it.

One bible that I have come to like is the Confraternity (CCD) bible, produced from 1941-1969. It uses the Douay Old Testament translation, with a somewhat more modern New Testament. You can get them in great condition for about $10 on eBay.

 

[khuldar]

studychristian,
This is another sweeping statement about Protestantism, which misrepresents the beliefs of many.

Keep in mind, that as an Anglo Catholic in the Anglican Communion, I do not believe that John 3:16 reveals all that is necessary for salvation.

I believe in the Seven Sacraments, through which God imparts certain Graces.

Salvation is a lifelong journey with many elements, such as loving God with heart mind and soul, loving your neighbor as yourself, service, perseverance, obeying the Commandments of Christ, etc.

We live in the Hope of the Resurrection.
.
Peace,
Anna

Anna,

Please forgive the ignorance but what is the difference between a Catholic and an Anglo Catholic in the Anglican Communion? I am genuinely interested to know.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Please forgive the ignorance but what is the difference between a Catholic and an Anglo Catholic in the Anglican Communion? I am genuinely interested to know.

Sidbar to thread topic:

khuldar,
Some Anglicans consider themselves to be Protestant.

An Anglo Catholic is an Anglican whose beliefs swing heavily towards Catholicism. I believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (no objection to Transubstantiation, though the term may not be used), Seven Sacraments and salvic Graces, Communion of the Saints, Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary-her Assumption-and intercession, prayer for the dead, rejection of the Reformation Solas. Also, the 39 Articles of Religion, which reflect many Protestant influences, is viewed as an unbinding historical document.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[khuldar]

Sidbar to thread topic:

khuldar,
Some Anglicans consider themselves to be Protestant.

An Anglo Catholic is an Anglican whose beliefs swing heavily towards Catholicism. I believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (no objection to Transubstantiation, though the term may not be used), Seven Sacraments and salvic Graces, Communion of the Saints, Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary-her Assumption-and intercession, prayer for the dead, rejection of the Reformation Solas. Also, the 39 Articles of Religion, which reflect many Protestant influences, is viewed as an unbinding historical document.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

Thanks for the insight Anna.

As for bibles my main 2 are the Jerusalem bible & the NRSV, I use the NRSV as it is the bible alot of my protestant friends use & when we have discussions about scripture we are looking at verses that are worded the same.