Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Protestantism is a product of western Europe, and western Europe was evangelized by the Roman Church. Therefore, Protestants inherited their belief in God and Scripture from the Roman Church. That the Bible came from God, that is, God inspired men to write the Bible, is simply a teaching of the Roman Church. Protestants retained that teaching, while rejecting others.

It is simplistic to say that “God gave us the Bible,” because it ignores the basis for the belief that “God gave us the Bible.”

I suppose the Gnostics who wrote the gnostic scriptures found at Nag Hammadi figured God gave them their scriptures too.

The question of the canon, what writings are to be considered inspired, was re-opened at the Reformation. Indeed, why should Christians today be constrained by what was decided back in the 3rd and 4th centuries? In fact, the modern liberal theologians question much of what is in the Bible, questioning many verses as being authentic.
 
mackbrislawn said:
The question of the canon, what writings are to be considered inspired, was re-opened at the Reformation. Indeed, why should Christians today be constrained by what was decided back in the 3rd and 4th centuries? In fact, the modern liberal theologians question much of what is in the Bible, questioning many verses as being authentic.
Click to expand...
The Deuterocanonical books were removed from the KJV second edition by the Puritan printers. They had no authority to do so. I have heard that the Calvinist Dutch Reform church is debating whether to include them again.
 
JonNC said:
An Anglican, and therefore not a Protestant

Jon
Click to expand...
Hi Jon.

Is the Anglican Province of America a rite of the Catholic Church? I know we have a Anglican rite now but i don’t know who it is.

Thanks.
 
dawid said:
The Deuterocanonical books were removed from the KJV second edition by the Puritan printers. They had no authority to do so. I have heard that the Calvinist Dutch Reform church is debating whether to include them again.
Click to expand...
It seems the trajectory since the Reformation has been a continuing removal or reduction, until now with the modern liberals, even the belief in Scripture has been removed!
 
JonNC said:
An Anglican, and therefore not a Protestant

Jon
Click to expand...
This is part of an article by Robin G.Jordan. It can be found at Anglicans Ablaze.

In June 1995 J. I. Packer expressed a view that make some Anglicans quite nervous. He told a conference of Reform UK **that the basic stance of Anglicanism is Protestant. **In doing so, he was simply reiterating what Anglicans had believed until the Oxford movement created confusion about Anglican identity in the nineteenth century, and what Classical Anglican Evangelicalism holds to this day.

**From English Reformation to the early nineteenth century members of the Church of England saw themselves as “Churchmen” and “Protestants.” **They were Churchmen because they belonged to the Church of England and the Church of England was the established Church. **They were “Protestants” because the Church of England was a Protestant Church. The English Reformers had joined the continental Reformers in protesting the errors of the Church of Rome. **They had denied the universal authority of the Pope. They had rejected the Roman doctrines of apostolic succession and the sacerdotal character of the Christian ministry. The Thirty-Nine Articles affirmed such Protestant doctrines as the ultimate authority of the Bible in matters of faith and practice, justification by grace alone by faith alone in Jesus alone, and good works as the necessary fruits of faith and the evidence of justification. The Glorious Revolution had put a Protestant monarch on the English throne and Parliament had enacted a law requiring that all English monarchs as the supreme governor of the Church of England must be Protestant.

In the nineteenth century the Scottish Episcopal Church experimented with the use of the term “Reformed Catholic”** but abandoned it for “Protestant Episcopal.”** “Reformed Catholic was too closely associated in the minds of the Scots with “Roman Catholic.” In our time the late Peter Toon championed the use of the term “Reformed Catholic” instead of Protestant in an attempt to accommodate Anglo-Catholics. However, a number of Anglo-Catholics have begun to use the term for Catholic doctrine and practice that is by no means reformed. They redefine “Reformed Catholic” in accordance with John Newman’s fanciful reinterpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles in which he claimed that the Articles only reject certain Roman abuses and excesses. While Anglo-Catholics might not like the term “Protestant,” it accurately describes classical Anglicanism. Unlike “Reformed Catholic,” it cannot be redefined to apply to unreformed Catholicism.
 
JonNC said:
An Anglican, and therefore not a Protestant

Jon
Click to expand...
When I was growing up, a nearby orphanage called itself, The Protestant Home for Children. Many organizations and associations proudly accepted that label.

The problem is that “Protestant” can mean almost anything, and almost nothing, today. Better to avoid it, as almost all “Protestants” do now.

I understand those who would limit it only to those whose movements directly came out of the Reformation period - or more narrowly, to those who are directly linked to the Luther and Calvin beginnings. But many other groups, such as Methodists, Low Church Anglicans, as well as many groups begun in the US in the 1800s, adopted or evolved into positions somewhat similar to those of the “classic” reformers, especially Calvin. So if you call Calvin Protestant, that 1500s label sort of applies to many more recent offshoots.

Most Protestants have no problem with calling the Disciples of Christ Protestant, but big problem with when anyone calls certain other groups Protestant, though starting in the same country, same time period, all using the same KJV.

Better not to use that term at all.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Hi Randy Carson,

This is also a good link: The Emergence of the New Testament Canon

There was an interesting Bible translation development in the 20th Century. 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.
Code: 
**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 as 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:
Code: 
“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. I found this to be quite surprising, given all the resources of the Catholic Church. However, it does show how things have changed in a positive way.

Peace and Blessings,
Anna
Click to expand...
Reuben_J said:
It is hardly surprising at all considering that the Bible is a Catholic book. 😉

If it contains the Deutero-canonicals and the Church considers the translation appropriate, then why not? They may have their purpose especially if the language deemed suitable for certain audience and usage.

It is those Bibles which are translated purposely to fit their doctrines that are unacceptable.

Peace.
Click to expand...
“They” do have a purpose for Catholics, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Catholic Bibles, such as ***The Ignatius Bible.

The RSV-CE is a recommended translation for Catholics: Bible Translations Guide**
 
Anna_Scott said:
“They” do have a purpose for Catholics, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Catholic Bibles, such as ***The Ignatius Bible.

The RSV-CE is a recommended translation for Catholics: Bible Translations Guide***
Click to expand...
The phrase “translated to fit doctrine” could start an interesting discussion. Don’t know if it will happen here, but it may.
 
commenter said:
Is there a visible human authority, identifiable in the 1800s or now, that can rule out the Mormon books as not being inspired Scripture?

If you respond, “consensus” that means the Mormon books are non scriptural only because they were outvoted (for the moment) by the majority of scholars, or believers, who claimed to be Christian; remember the Mormons claim to be Christian too. Thus not scripture.

But what if someday the majority of persons claiming to be Christian agrees the Book of Mormon should be added to the Bible. Would consensus rule in 2050? add Mormon books? And maybe some of Paul’s epistles get voted off the island? I could see **that **happening long before 2050, long before the Book of Mormon getting voted in.

Or is there some other agent, besides nose counting?
Click to expand...
Have ya heard of the Holy Spirit:cool:
 
susanlo said:
The Old Testament was written by Jewish Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was accepted as Scripture before Jesus was born and confirmed by Jesus during his time on earth.

The New Testament was written by the Apostles and those who worked closely with them. They were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They were recognized as inspired right away and were even cited and referred to as Scripture within the NT Scripture. Over the early centuries there were a few debates about certain books, but on a whole the Scriptures were widely accepted by those within the church. Eusebius (ca. 260-340) compiled a list of the 27 books mentioning 5 that were disputed: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html Later Athanasius (296-373) writes a complete list:newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

I think it is clear from all of the Scripture references in the writings in the early centuries summarized in charts such as this (ntcanon.org/table.shtml) that Scripture was recognized as Scripture long before there was a council. If the Christians in the centuries before any of the councils could use Scripture and know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why must someone today who believes the same thing about these writings have to accept the authority of the council? I don’t agree with that claim that the author of your link is making. If my church would have a council and decree that the book of Matthew is canonical, and you think it is canonical, does that mean that you have to believe everything that my church believes as well?

This is a good summary I found recently about the development of the NT Canon: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/gtj-nt/kent-hownt-gtj-67.pdf
Click to expand...
The last attachment from Grace Theological admits that Athanasius was a bishop and references Clement of Rome - the 3rd pope. There were no proto-Protestants extant at the councils which canonized the Scriptures. Really, there is no way around the historicity of the Catholic Church (of which the Eastern Churches were adherents until formal schism in 1054).

catholic-convert.com/blog/2016/07/28/ancient-baptists-and-other-myths/
 
JRRTFAN said:
The last attachment from Grace Theological admits that Athanasius was a bishop and references Clement of Rome - the 3rd pope. There were no proto-Protestants extant at the councils which canonized the Scriptures. Really, there is no way around the historicity of the Catholic Church (of which the Eastern Churches were adherents until formal schism in 1054).
Click to expand...
And the Orthodox can say that we were members until 1054. But the thing is, reiterating our respective claims does nothing to heal the schism between them and us.
 
Originally Posted by commenter View Post
Is there a visible human authority, identifiable in the 1800s or now, that can rule out the Mormon books as not being inspired Scripture? …
Starwarsfan2 said:
Have ya heard of the Holy Spirit:cool:
Click to expand...
The reason I wrote “visible human authority, identifiable” is because every Christian religious movement says it is responding to the Holy Spirit, even though they often reach conclusions totally contradictory to other groups supposedly responding to the HS, and even contradicting what the HS taught their own church 10 years ago. Who is right? It doesn’t help to say “the Holy Spirit leads to consistency with Scripture” because these groups all claim to be following Scripture, too. For that matter, how do you know which books are in Scripture anyway?

Only a universal Magisterium can rule books out of Scripture. That’s why the NT has 27 books, rather than 270. God does not need the Magisterium - He does not need the Bible, either - but He chose to use them.
 
commenter said:
Originally Posted by commenter View Post
Is there a visible human authority, identifiable in the 1800s or now, that can rule out the Mormon books as not being inspired Scripture? …

The reason I wrote “visible human authority, identifiable” is because every Christian religious movement says it is responding to the Holy Spirit, even though they often reach conclusions totally contradictory to other groups supposedly responding to the HS, and even contradicting what the HS taught their own church 10 years ago. Who is right?
Click to expand...
Catholics.
 
Peter_J said:
I’m thinking a better comparison would be “To be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic.”
Click to expand...
It’s funny, but Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone deep into scripture, and they have ceased to be Christian! (At least, no one else thinks they are.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top