Bible origin - Evangelical perspective

[Randy_Carson]

No. They just continue calling themselves ‘Catholic’ while disagreeing with many core teachings. Do I have to bring up the homosexual marriage chart again?

How would your “evangelical” church handle that situation?

Would you simply dis-fellowship an active homosexual in your congregation?

Or would you, like the Catholic Church, continue to try to love that person and guide them in their spiritual journey?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I haven’t read this book, but from the blurb and reviews on Amazon, it seems to focus on why the Catholic and protestant Old Testaments are not the same.

And the reason for this is really quite simple. When the early Christians compiled the Canon of Scripture, they simply adopted whatever OT Canon was in use by the Synagogue down the street. There was (and still is) no “official” Jewish Canon, and there were regional differences even in Apostolic times, which is why the Catholic OT differs slightly from some Eastern OTs - everybody used whatever was in use by the Synagogue down the street. While many protestants initially accepted the same OT as the Catholic Church, they gradually took the same approach that the Catholic Church took fifteen centuries earlier, accepting whatever was in use by Synagogue down the street. But, by the Sixteenth Century, the OT books which were originally written in Greek had been gradually excluded from most Jewish texts (such as the very influential (and almost “official”) Masoretic Text (compiled between the Seventh and Tenth Century).

Of course, Catholics had no problem with the OT Canon used in the time of Jesus, including the portions written in Greek. After all, almost all of the New Testament was written in Greek (Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, but none of this oritinal text survives).

Dr. Bruce’s book focuses on the canon of the New Testament, practically ignoring the Old testament, so I believe the books are VERY different.

That was my take not having read the one you recommended. It sounds like it my be a great addition to my library.

 

[Shaolen]

No. They just continue calling themselves ‘Catholic’ while disagreeing with many core teachings. Do I have to bring up the homosexual marriage chart again?

Hah! That’s so great.

They change words in order to fit doctrines that they like.

There’s a reason none of us count them as Christians; likewise Mormons.

They disagree however they still acknowledge the church’s authority and stay Catholic. It reminds me of John chapter six when St Peter says “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” They didn’t understand or agree with what Jesus was talking about but they didn’t go off and start their own thing.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You guys are starting to wander off topic.
Get back on it “Bible origin - Evangelical perspective” and stay there or this thread will be closed.

 

[garysibio]

yeah…not quite the same way though…If we disagree on what salvation is we do not just go start new churches each reflecting our own viewpoint.

True, but how we handle our disagreements does not change the fact that we have them. In a way, the fact that for Catholics, who believe that the truth comes from Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, disagreements are even more embarrassing than they are for Bible-only Christians. Since our claim to the truth is even more secure than there’s, it’s worse when we disagree.

 

[simspt]

I don’t know if it would be technically correct to say “the church” compiled the bible.
Choosing which books were important enough and authentic enough to be included in the canon began centuries before that council and there was much debate.

And those involved in the choosing wouldn’t all be considered “Catholic”.
In fact, a few were considered “Heretics” in their day and later on. And yet, they were very instrumental in which books ended up being in the official canon.

For example…Marcion (85-160) was an important leader in early Christianity and had a pivotal role in developing what would be the New Testament. I think he was the first to put together the first NT on record and many of the books he chose are in the canon today.
And yet, he was excommunicated in his lifetime.

The influence many early Christians, including Marcion, who did not have what we would consider “orthodox” beliefs about Christianity today is palpable and undeniable.

It seems that the creation/choosing of the NT is a combined effort over centuries of many different Christians who had many different beliefs…until all was made somewhat official around the 3-400 year mark.

.

It was not marcion or any of the Gnostics who canonized the NT. The Church decided against Marcions rejection of the OT and never accepted his narrow acceptance of the NT writings. The canonization process was long and messy but ultimately the decisions of the CC. That the heretics played a role in forcing the CC to set apart the NT as well as define doctine from it shows it was the CC PLAYING THE PIVOTAL Role in the canon. Sure the heretics played a negative role insofar as forcing the CC to ultimately define the canon at Trent.

 

[StMikhael]

I can point you in the opposite direction. The well respected protestant Evangelical author, Dr. F.F. Bruce, wrote The Canon of Scripture. It is absolutely the best book on the subject that I have ever read. I have cited it to many protestants, who are unable to argue with such an unimpeachable protestant theologian as Dr. Bruce.

I’m astonished that he could remain protestant after writing this book. I mean, this guy is no dummy! He’s brilliant.

I guess the whole “Church gave us the Canon” argument just isn’t as convincing to others as it is to us.

Thanks for this, I will look into it. I am a bit confused as to your last sentence, perhaps you can help me out.

you said, " I guess the whole “Church gave us the Canon” argument just isn’t as convincing to others as it is to us."

Yet your post seems to imply Dr. Bruce agrees that the Church gave us the canon when you say, “I’m astonished that he could remain protestant after writing this book.”.

Does his book fundamentally agree that the infallibility of Church Authority is how we can be assured we have the canon correct?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Thanks for this, I will look into it. I am a bit confused as to your last sentence, perhaps you can help me out.

you said, " I guess the whole “Church gave us the Canon” argument just isn’t as convincing to others as it is to us."

Yet your post seems to imply Dr. Bruce agrees that the Church gave us the canon when you say, “I’m astonished that he could remain protestant after writing this book.”.

Does his book fundamentally agree that the infallibility of Church Authority is how we can be assured we have the canon correct?

Dr. Bruce’s book states the historical facts. It is a fact that there was only one authentic Christian Church, as it existed at the time, which possessed the authority to establish the Canon of the New Testament. He acknowledges that, at the time, there was one authentic Christian Church which had the authority to define the Canon of the New Testament.

In this book, he does not address the question of whether this same Christian Church survives today in its original (and authoritative) form. Since he is a faithful Evangelical protestant, we can infer that he does not. The repressions of the “demise” of this original and authoritative Christian Church are beyond the scope of this book.

He is a prolific author, and he may have addressed this question (from a protestant Evangelical perspective) in other works with which I am not familiar.

 

[StMikhael]

Dr. Bruce’s book states the historical facts. It is a fact that there was only one authentic Christian Church, as it existed at the time, which possessed the authority to establish the Canon of the New Testament. He acknowledges that, at the time, there was one authentic Christian Church which had the authority to define the Canon of the New Testament.

In this book, he does not address the question of whether this same Christian Church survives today in its original (and authoritative) form. Since he is a faithful Evangelical protestant, we can infer that he does not. The repressions of the “demise” of this original and authoritative Christian Church are beyond the scope of this book.

He is a prolific author, and he may have addressed this question (from a protestant Evangelical perspective) in other works with which I am not familiar.

Thanks for the clarification.

In this book, he does not address the question of whether this same Christian Church survives today in its original (and authoritative) form.

It would be interesting to know how he addresses this. If, no, it begs the question, “Did hell prevail against the church”? If, yes, it begs the question, “How do we define this Church”?