Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[YADA]

Yes thank you Yada, They went to many cities, even prominent cities (all hostile). The church did spread , but why did church headquarter there, and why did a world wide church usually have a leader that came from such a small geographic area (Rome/Italy), according to CC history ?

Blessings

Rome was the center of the Roman Empire - which was thought to be pretty much the known world during the time of the apostles - in fact at that time Rome was the most powerful City in the known world - Jesus is the most High - King of Kings … establishing His worldwide “Catholic” * Church centered in the most powerful City makes sense

Dr. Scott Hahn also gives a talk on how Rome fulfills the prophecy laid out in Daniel - its been probably 15 years since I heard him speak on that topic - I don’t remember all the particulars but Rome represents the 4th Kingdom where the everlasting Kingdom will be built. Not sure if you can find it - I think he talks about this in a talk called “The Splendor of the Church” which you can probably find audio of video of …*

 

[get2bill]

Hatikvah, many Protestants have come here to start fights. You have always been kind, charitable, reasonable, and sincere, and I much appreciate that.

And many Catholics do as well. It has been my experience that many Catholics, the same as many Protestants, let their passion for their faith cause them to be either overly aggressive or sarcastic in their delivery and dialogue. That is a shame across the board and a barrier to true harmony and understanding.
What concerns me the most is that while we Christians focus on our “in fighting”, much of the rest of the world (non-Christian) is trying to destroy us all…

 

[adf417]

And many Catholics do as well. It has been my experience that many Catholics, the same as many Protestants, let their passion for their faith cause them to be either overly aggressive or sarcastic in their delivery and dialogue. That is a shame across the board and a barrier to true harmony and understanding.
What concerns me the most is that while we Christians focus on our “in fighting”, much of the rest of the world (non-Christian) is trying to destroy us all…

Agreed!

I am in an ecumenical prayer group where we come from many different Christian traditions but with a common belief that we are all brothers in Christ in a very small town. Within this small town there are all the usual denominations going about their own worship the best they can.

So one day I ask my fellow prayer worriers, why is it that you brothers can consider me and my Catholic community to be Christian but some of your fellow brothers you worship with do not [examples given]? They all agreed and see the problem and even sadly added they see it among the protestant denominations also.

get2bill, any suggestions on how to solve this dilemma within the non-Catholic Christianity? My hope some day is to see this issue resolved so we can begin to resolve the next issue, that being the hurdle of non-Catholics and Catholics considering each other as Christians.

P.S. welcome to CAF. Glade to have you!

Peace brother!!!

 

[Peter_J]

And many Catholics do as well. It has been my experience that many Catholics, the same as many Protestants, let their passion for their faith cause them to be either overly aggressive or sarcastic in their delivery and dialogue.

Yeah. I haven’t spent much time on Protestant forums, but I can easily imagine things there being the mirror image of CAF.

 

[Kliska]

Yeah. I haven’t spent much time on Protestant forums, but I can easily imagine things there being the mirror image of CAF.

They are. I used to moderate a large one… it was one of the reasons I resigned.

 

[Peter_J]

They are. I used to moderate a large one… it was one of the reasons I resigned.

Fair enough. (I’ve never been a CAF moderator so I can’t relate too much to that.)

 

[rcwitness]

They are. I used to moderate a large one… it was one of the reasons I resigned.

Interesting! And “aggressive” is a word I’ve used in the past, so I agree with get2bill that some have that tendancy.

So here you are, though! Does that say something about this forum, or do you participate in others as well? For me personally, without denying that we can all allow poor attitudes to influence some of our posts, I have an impression that CAF does well, overall. I haven’t participated in any other Christian forum to rightly compare.

 

[Kliska]

Fair enough. (I’ve never been a CAF moderator so I can’t relate too much to that.)

Interesting! And “aggressive” is a word I’ve used in the past, so I agree with get2bill that some have that tendancy.

So here you are, though! Does that say something about this forum, or do you participate in others as well? For me personally, without denying that we can all allow poor attitudes to influence some of our posts, I have an impression that CAF does well, overall. I haven’t participated in any other Christian forum to rightly compare.

Well, to be fair, I was one of those young aggressive know it all’s with too much pride… which is one reason I was chosen as a moderator. I changed after being schooled by the Lord, the board didn’t change, hence I thought it unfair to continue with something I disagreed with.

This forum is as close to a “fair” forum that is a “private forum” that I’ve been on. It is a really hard thing to choose between a free for all forum and a forum for a specific community if you are the board admin/mods. You have to pick a place on the continuum and stick with it. I’ve seen (and been a part of) issues here, but it’s less than elsewhere, and it is what I trade since I do not want to be a part of a free for all forum (can’t take the blasphemy). I came for information and conversation and I’ve got that in abundance.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, to be fair, I was one of those young aggressive know it all’s with too much pride… which is one reason I was chosen as a moderator. I changed after being schooled by the Lord, the board didn’t change, hence I thought it unfair to continue with something I disagreed with.

This forum is as close to a “fair” forum that is a “private forum” that I’ve been on. It is a really hard thing to choose between a free for all forum and a forum for a specific community if you are the board admin/mods. You have to pick a place on the continuum and stick with it. I’ve seen (and been a part of) issues here, but it’s less than elsewhere, and it is what I trade since I do not want to be a part of a free for all forum (can’t take the blasphemy). I came for information and conversation and I’ve got that in abundance.

You have been very appreciated here, speaking for myself!

 

[Kliska]

You have been very appreciated here, speaking for myself!

Well, thanks!

 

[MichaelP3]

Fair enough. (I’ve never been a CAF moderator so I can’t relate too much to that.)

In all honesty! I would say you would do pretty well.

I do think you would have a hard time “not to bud in and say something” either to cool down the tone or just to bring in some new thought! You are pretty great at that! And that we “all” like!

 

[Peebo]

I did come across a Baptist forum a long time ago…sorry I can’t be more specific as I don’t remember what website it was…and to be fair they did say it was for Baptists only…but boy oh boy…were they getting stuck into Catholics…and especially Mary…and of course they just perpetuate their own false belief about the Catholic church because you’re not allowed to respond…I’m sure there are other Protestant forums that do allow debate so I’m not being critical of our fellow Christian brothers and sisters.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Great article by Steve Ray: catholicconvert.com/

The quick answer:

The Catholic Church officially determined and set the canon of of the New Testament approximately 400 years after Christianity began. The canon was declared by the body of Catholic bishops at the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) and confirmed by Pope Boniface (419 A.D.).

We get our bible today from our fore fathers of the faith, which include the Old Covenant Church. I don’t know why Catholics think this is some big point for validating Catholicism. Our Scriptures go back much farther than the New Covenant, and we depended on the witness of the Old Covenant church just like we depend on the witness of the early New Covenant Church.

History shows the Church at Carthage did not settle the canon issue as it was a provincial council. Discussion and debate continued on throughout the years, and there was no dogmatic canon for Roman Catholics until Trent.

 

[rcwitness]

We get our bible today from our fore fathers of the faith, which include the Old Covenant Church. I don’t know why Catholics think this is some big point for validating Catholicism. Our Scriptures go back much farther than the New Covenant, and we depended on the witness of the Old Covenant church just like we depend on the witness of the early New Covenant Church.

The early Church disputed the cononicity of the 4 Gospels. Different groups chose one over the others. St Irenaeus was one of the earliest (if not the first) to contest this.

History shows the Church at Carthage did not settle the canon issue as it was a provincial council. Discussion and debate continued on throughout the years, and there was no dogmatic canon for Roman Catholics until Trent.

Right. Do you accept Trent and Carthage? If not who do you believe has the highest authority to decree a different canon?

If God did not physically and audibly tell all Christians what is Scripture, then how do you know that what you have is His Word?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

We get our bible today from our fore fathers of the faith, which include the Old Covenant Church. I don’t know why Catholics think this is some big point for validating Catholicism. Our Scriptures go back much farther than the New Covenant, and we depended on the witness of the Old Covenant church just like we depend on the witness of the early New Covenant Church.

History shows the Church at Carthage did not settle the canon issue as it was a provincial council. Discussion and debate continued on throughout the years, and there was no dogmatic canon for Roman Catholics until Trent.

I don’t think anyone disputes this though Catholics and Orthodox would point out there were different canons by Jews in that period and the one adopted by Protestants today reflects a developed Pharasaic canon.

As far as the New Testament goes one is forced to admit that God used the Church, based on the writings of the Church fathers we have, to form the almost universal 27 New Testament canon we have today. What does this say about the Church? Was that church which God used merely a tool to preserve his word or something more integral to the canonisation of scripture itself?

 

[SolaScriptura]

The early Church disputed the cononicity of the 4 Gospels. Different groups chose one over the others. St Irenaeus was one of the earliest (if not the first) to contest this.

Right. Do you accept Trent and Carthage? If not who do you believe has the highest authority to decree a different canon?

No, I do not agree with Trent and Carthage in reference to the Old Testament Canon. I trust the believers to who the canon was given, the Old Covenant believers.

If God did not physically and audibly tell all Christians what is Scripture, then how do you know that what you have is His Word?

Well, the same way believers before the Trent knew what Scriptures were. Do you mean that no one had any surety of what was Scripture before Trent? I guess when Jesus told the Jews that they erred not understanding the Scriptures that was a nonsensical statement because they didn’t even know what was Scripture? Or even the Apostle Paul applauding the Bereans for searching the Scripture to confirm their teaching was nonsensical because no one knew what was Scripture?

 

[rcwitness]

No, I do not agree with Trent and Carthage in reference to the Old Testament Canon. I trust the believers to who the canon was given, the Old Covenant believers.

Can you show where the Jewish Nation (or as you refer as “Old Covenant Believers”) decreed this one united Canon?

Well, the same way believers before the Trent knew what Scriptures were.

But haven’t you argued that there was not a universal concensus?

Do you mean that no one had any surety of what was Scripture before Trent?

Not exactly. But surety varied over a canon. Otherwise there would have been an undisputed canon.

I guess when Jesus told the Jews that they erred not understanding the Scriptures that was a nonsensical statement because they didn’t even know what was Scripture? Or even the Apostle Paul applauding the Bereans for searching the Scripture to confirm their teaching was nonsensical because no one knew what was Scripture?

The question is what group of Scriptures were they referring to?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Can you show where the Jewish Nation (or as you refer as “Old Covenant Believers”) decreed this one united Canon?

They didn’t necessarily do it or have to do it, it was a defacto standard which was clearly recognized by Jesus and the Apostles because they held each other accountable to the Scriptures. If there was no concept of a Canon before Trent how could that be? Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken. How could he assume they knew what Scriptures he was talking about? Paul wrote to Timothy that he knew the Scriptures from childhood which he learned about salvation. There are just too many times in the New Testament before Trent believers were held accountable to the Scriptures if there was no concept of a Canon.

But haven’t you argued that there was not a universal concensus?

There was no universal concensus in reference to the deuterocanonicals in the New Covenant Church.

Not exactly. But surety varied over a canon. Otherwise there would have been an undisputed canon.

There was always a few books where there was disagreement, but this never put the church in a position of being in mass confusion without this. This is clearly evident that Jesus and the Apostles felt no need to call a council to determine what the canon was.

The question is what group of Scriptures were they referring to?

Well if you ask Jerome it was the version in the Protestant bibles. However, I think the more important issue is that the Catholic claim that the Canon was not defined until Trent suffers from 1 of 2 problems. 1. There was no canon, but yet Jesus and the Apostles held the people accountable to the Scriptures without one, which would mean there was no need for an official council. 2. There was a canon which means Trent defining of one was not the determining of the canon, because it was already defined. Of course I’m speaking of the old testament.

 

[Duane1966]

We get our bible today from our fore fathers of the faith, which include the Old Covenant Church. I don’t know why Catholics think this is some big point for validating Catholicism. Our Scriptures go back much farther than the New Covenant, and we depended on the witness of the Old Covenant church just like we depend on the witness of the early New Covenant Church.

History shows the Church at Carthage did not settle the canon issue as it was a provincial council. Discussion and debate continued on throughout the years, and there was no dogmatic canon for Roman Catholics until Trent.

Actually, Trent closed the canon, which allowed no more books to be added. The 73 books for the Roman Catholics was settled at the Council of Rome.

I find a hilarious point of these conversations to be eople who admit that Carthage was binding on the African Church, but cannot admit that the Council of Rome was binding on the Latin Church.

 

[dawid]

We get our bible today from our fore fathers of the faith, which include the Old Covenant Church. I don’t know why Catholics think this is some big point for validating Catholicism. Our Scriptures go back much farther than the New Covenant, and we depended on the witness of the Old Covenant church just like we depend on the witness of the early New Covenant Church.

History shows the Church at Carthage did not settle the canon issue as it was a provincial council. Discussion and debate continued on throughout the years, and there was no dogmatic canon for Roman Catholics until Trent.

SolaScriptura your statement about the historicity of sacred Scripture are valid.

However the point that you miss is that each time books were added to the canon of the Bible, there had to be some infallible authority to determine whether the book was inspired and whether it should be included.

In the case of Genesis, Exodus, etc it was Moses’ authority and that of his successors.

In the same way the books of the New Testament were added to the canon of the Bible.

The NT canon was a messy process finally being settled at Cartage. This and the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures were accepted as the norm. When there was further debate on the matter, the council of Trent simply confirmed the position by making it dogma.

As Judaism and the Catholic Church were instituted by God, they need no validation by their role in the declaration of the canon of Scripture.