Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[Duane1966]

I’d take that bet. I mean Protestantism has existed since the 1500’s and in all that time and other than the removal of the Deuterocanonical books by some denominations,

Do a google search for Christians who reject Paul, and you will see non-denominational churches that reject his epistles. And they’re growing. There is a church within a mile of my house whose pastor totally rejects Paul, and her congregation is growing. I do not remember wanting to wager on what I said, but I would in a heartbeat.

which were not a part of the original Hebrew scriptures,

I thought this has been in dispute now for some 1900 years.

no major changes have been made to the bible in over 400 years (beyond the obvious differences in translations, but that’s not even a Protestant only issue).

The rate of translation differences is growing, which many people would say is a major change.

And if you want to get down to it the Catholic Church has removed a book or two over the years itself that the other “true church” in the East still includes (as do some Protestants). 1 Esdras being a prime example of that.

1 Esdras is Ezra, so the Catholic Church has not removed that book. Now if you are talking about 3 Esdras, which the Orthodox Churches view as 1 Esdras, suffice it to say that some Orthodox Churches do accept it, and some Orthodox Churches do not.

No the Mormons aren’t Christian not because they created an entirely new Scriptural canon. They’re not Christian because they don’t believe in the base belief’s of Christianity, namely the Triune God. They don’t believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Christians do.

They respond with a variation of the answer you gave here:

It’s irrelevant to Anglicans generally that the RCC doesn’t see our orders as valid. We’ve got plenty of evidence for why they are and we believe they are. And for most of us that’s all there is to it.

They don’t care that you don’t view them as Christian. They feel they have plenty of evidence as to why they believe they are. Many non-trinitarians view trinitarians as non-Christian.

 

[commenter]

One of the “proofs” that “this 27-book NT canon is exactly right” that is often given is that it has been in use for over 1000 years. But this does not hold water. The Koran has been in use over 1000 years too, by many millions of people. Do we now feel more confident it is the inspired Word of God?

I believe some of the Hindu scriptures have been in use a long time, by millions of people. Does their long usage, by many people, mean they are now more reliable as inspired?

I would argue the 27 book NT canon was sanctioned by a visible authority - a hierarchy, not consensus - in the early Church, and the Church used it because they accepted the authority of the canon-maker. It was publicly deemed authoritative. Long usage did not make it more authoritative. The same canon-maker is still around, and rejects the Mormon scriptures. So they are not Scripture.

 

[LutheranScholar]

And determined it through His Holy Catholic Church.

That actually goes without saying. :compcoff: I find it funny how people would assume that we would have a problem with that when it’s simply history.

 

[commenter]

regarding the canon:

And determined it through His Holy Catholic Church.

Well, true, but nowadays I would word it more specifically. IMHO the canon was created by God, but publicly identified by the Magisterium, in particular. Suppose the majority of Catholics in 400 A.D., or in 2100 A.D., were to believe the Gospel of Mary to be part of the NT, and that certain epistles that are allegedly sexist or homophobic should be dropped; and that abortion is ok; that would not make it so.

CNN may declare that “the Catholic Church now is X”, basing their conclusion on surveying Catholics who are glued to CNN, and its doctrinal teaching. This has nothing to do with the Magisterium, which chooses (and **still **defends) these 27 books; and defends prolife.

 

[Kliska]

There are no scriptural criteria for deciding scripture, they are all man-made. Many books meet one criterion but not others. Some in the Bible don’t meet certain criteria, some outside the Bible meet some criteria, but did not get accepted. We have no idea if these are even the “right” criteria, at all. Scholars disagreed in ancient times, and today, whether a certain book meets or lacks certain criteria. **There are no “criteria” to justify adding a NT to the Bible at all. ** All this points towards some agency besides, or above, the criteria. It’s not a question of skill, it’s a question of an authoritative agency for communicating God’s choice. The Christian gnostic canon-makers had “skill” too. So what?

If scholars today start out with a template, this specific 27 book NT canon that you and I use, and were given the direction “there must be a New Testament”, they can then design criteria that may produce, voila!, this same 27 book canon. (If they started with a gnostic template, they could backward-engineer criteria that would justify that gnostic canon, and those beliefs). The tables you cite in your post presuppose a template, based on the religion of the familiar 27 books previously chosen (by whom?) for the NT. Gnostics, with equal “skill” would cite different tables of course, based on a different template.

But nothing in the criteria tell you which template to follow, which canon to reproduce, or justify writing a New Testament, at all. All that came from God, through the Magisterium. No Magisterium, then no written NT, and not this specific NT canon.

That is still begging the question, and it ignores that fact that there isn’t one canon. If modern people wish to, they can apply the same logical criteria to manuscripts as they did in the past. What I’m saying is that it is indeed God that guides mankind to truth, it is from Him that we get the Bible. We recognize it, He provided it. It seems as though some think that all “protestants” reject all Christian guidance or teaching prior to the Reformation, that’s not true.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There isn’t one agreed upon canon. There’s the Catholic canon, the Orthodox canon(s), and Protestant canon. Further, we see that it is possible for people to examine the evidence of a manuscript and see if it meets a set of criteria; meaning, that is not a skill that was lost mysteriously after the 200’s/300’s.

Also, I don’t see how the answer for all of us isn’t “God gave us the scriptures.” We do owe our thanks to all the Jewish prophets, scholars, and scribes for what we label the OT, and we do owe our thanks to all the Christian apostles, scholars, and scribes for the NT, as well as the congregations that kept them alive and well (and circulating). In short, I understand why some want to use the collected scriptures as some kind of apologetic for Catholicism, but IMO, there are much more accurate and stronger arguments for the Catholic Church being The Universal Church… I just don’t agree with those arguments either… yet.

Kliska-

You’ve been around the forum long enough to have absorbed a fair bit of knowledge about Early Church history, but for newer members, it can be something of a shock to learn that their “Bible” church cannot actually traces its origins all the way back to the apostles or that the Bible that they (rightly) hold so dear is actually the product of the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus upon Peter, the rock.

This kind of jolt can bring a series of questions to mind and initiate a period of searching for the true origin of our faith. And, “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

 

[rcwitness]

1. Not true, the church I grew up in and was confirmed in required a massive amount of hours spent studying scripture, catechism (pretty much memorizing the whole thing), history, theology, as well as where the bible came from.

That’s very good!

1. Please answer this question. My 17 year old daughter was just confirmed catholic.
   Already this summer I have had to inform her
   1. that she is unable to take communion outside of a catholic church/service.
   2. She may not use artificial Birth control. (after marriage of course and for contraceptive purposes).
   3. Missing Mass is a sin.

Your point is taken. But why is it strange to you that you, as a parent, should also be instructing and instilling these things to your child? She should already know #1 and #2, and #3 should be talked about when you have talks about sex and marriage. I don’t consider birth control Teachings to be fundamental to a minor.

Now please say again why we have a lack of unity? Answer: POOR EDUCATION.

 P.S    I got a bill from the church for this education.   There will be a letter from me along with my "payment" seriously questioning the quality of education she received.

What “bill” did you get? For what education? For CCD?

 

[Peter_J]

That actually goes without saying. :compcoff: I find it funny how people would assume that we would have a problem with that when it’s simply history.

See my comment to Hatikvah, vis a vis Protestants needing to get their stories straight about what the word “Catholic” means – in particular, about whether it means ICWR.

 

[Peter_J]

That is still begging the question, and it ignores that fact that there isn’t one canon.

Perhaps a more effective thread title would be: “Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your New Testament?” since there is one canon for the NT.

If modern people wish to, they can apply the same logical criteria to manuscripts as they did in the past. What I’m saying is that it is indeed God that guides mankind to truth, it is from Him that we get the Bible. We recognize it, He provided it. It seems as though some think that all “protestants” reject all Christian guidance or teaching prior to the Reformation, that’s not true.

You’re right, some people have that misconception. (Which once again demonstrates my basic conviction that “An anonymous person said such-and-such on the internet” is not, by itself, worth very much.)

 

[Kliska]

Perhaps a more effective thread title would be: “Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your New Testament?” since there is one canon for the NT.

Truth. But most would still say “God,” though Randy is right, at least it may make some think about the development of the canon.

You’re right, some people have that misconception. (Which once again demonstrates my basic conviction that “An anonymous person said such-and-such on the internet” is not, by itself, worth very much.)

 

[rcwitness]

Truth. But most would still say “God,” though Randy is right, at least it may make some think about the development of the canon.

Yes, I would be one of those saying, “God”.

The question is: Did God use the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence, Trent, etc to Confirm/affirm/establish and bind what we are now privileged to call our Bible? Did He use these leaders and their offices to accomplish delivering (or handing down) Scripture to all generations?

Was the authority of the Church crucial for Christians to settle on a Canon? Is it sufficient for us to come together with one judgement over what is Scripture and what is not?

It is definitely sufficient for me!

 

[Peter_J]

But most would still say “God,”

Very thoughtful of him to give you the same bible he gave me (excepting translational differences).

 

[Wannano]

Kliska-

You’ve been around the forum long enough to have absorbed a fair bit of knowledge about Early Church history, but for newer members, it can be something of a shock to learn that their “Bible” church cannot actually traces its origins all the way back to the apostles or that the Bible that they (rightly) hold so dear is actually the product of the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus upon Peter, the rock.

This kind of jolt can bring a series of questions to mind and initiate a period of searching for the true origin of our faith. And, “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

Randy, I understand that the quote in your last sentence comes from a Church father nevertheless I find that quote as being rather offensive and probably coming from an era in which the Catholic Church presently does not affirm the attitudes of.

I have no problem understanding the intent of your last paragraph without the last sentence. Adding the quote to your point takes away from effectiveness of your post in my opinion. Aside from the fact that even on this forum it has been effectively pointed out that the word Protestant is a misnomer, the intent of the quote communicates to me the concept that non -catholic Christians only exist because they are ignorant of history which I feel is derogatory and unfair. How is this different than quoting a non-Catholic author who would claim that "to be deep in a relationship with Christ is to cease to be Catholic? My feeling is that both of these quotes should be deemed as uncharitable on this forum.

 

[Kliska]

Very thoughtful of him to give you the same bible he gave me (excepting translational differences).

Well, He did give the NT to the Church through the writings of Paul, Peter, etc…, gave the ability to both write and recognize to the Church and her members, and of course I’d see both of us as members of the Church, though some would disagree with me on both memberships.

 

[Peter_J]

Randy, I understand that the quote in your last sentence comes from a Church father

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” was said by John Henry Newman in 1845. (I don’t know of any Church Fathers who knew what “Protestant” means. )

 

[Peter_J]

Well, He did give the NT to the Church through the writings of Paul, Peter, etc…, gave the ability to both write and recognize to the Church and her members, and of course I’d see both of us as members of the Church, though some would disagree with me on both memberships.

Apologies of course if my joke was a bit irreverent.

Anyhow, I think that saying “I got my bible from God” is a bit like this conversation:

A: We know X is true because the Pope said it infallibly.
B: I agree that the Pope said X, but not that he said it infallibly.
A: Alright, I understand. You don’t believe in God.

 

[Kliska]

Apologies of course if my joke was a bit irreverent.

You, irreverent??

Anyhow, I think that saying “I got my bible from God” is a bit like this conversation:

A: We know X is true because the Pope said it infallibly.
B: I agree that the Pope said X, but not that he said it infallibly.
A: Alright, I understand. You don’t believe in God.

I think it is more about labels and their implications. There’s a “Magisterium” that is separate (in a way), or apart from other believers, or there is a group of believers who sifted through manuscripts to see if they could tell which were inspired. Catholics will say, the Magisterium gave us the Bible by God’s grace, hence protestants should be Catholic because they have a similar canon (they use the same NT scriptures the Magisterium gold starred, therefore all Catholic claims to authority are upheld). Many Protestants will say; a group of Christians gave us the Bible by God’s grace, through a relatively organic process, and it is from God to all Christians.

 

[Wannano]

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” was said by John Henry Newman in 1845. (I don’t know of any Church Fathers who knew what “Protestant” means. )

Yes you are right I made a mistake and should have researched who said it before posting. It doesn’t change what I see there but it will probably get dismissed on that technicality.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I understand that the quote in your last sentence comes from a Church father nevertheless I find that quote as being rather offensive and probably coming from an era in which the Catholic Church presently does not affirm the attitudes of.

I have no problem understanding the intent of your last paragraph without the last sentence. Adding the quote to your point takes away from effectiveness of your post in my opinion. Aside from the fact that even on this forum it has been effectively pointed out that the word Protestant is a misnomer, the intent of the quote communicates to me the concept that non -catholic Christians only exist because they are ignorant of history which I feel is derogatory and unfair. How is this different than quoting a non-Catholic author who would claim that "to be deep in a relationship with Christ is to cease to be Catholic? My feeling is that both of these quotes should be deemed as uncharitable on this forum.

Actually, the quote is from John Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), a brilliant scholar and member of the Anglican Church until…wait for it…he converted to the Catholic Church. Here is the fuller context of the quote:

John Henry Newman on History’s Judgment of Protestantism

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. **And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.**” (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

 

[rcwitness]

You, irreverent??

I think it is more about labels and their implications. There’s a “Magisterium” that is separate (in a way), or apart from other believers, or there is a group of believers who sifted through manuscripts to see if they could tell which were inspired. Catholics will say, the Magisterium gave us the Bible by God’s grace, hence protestants should be Catholic because they have a similar canon (they use the same NT scriptures the Magisterium gold starred, therefore all Catholic claims to authority are upheld). Many Protestants will say; a group of Christians gave us the Bible by God’s grace, through a relatively organic process, and it is from God to all Christians.

Isn’t the point that members and believers often disagree and divide over many many issues? The Church is NOT saying that individual members CANNOT know and discern Truths handed down through the Church. But that when She officially declares a Truth, it is binding. This happened with the Canon as early as the late 4th century.