Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[Wannano]

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)

You have rightly pointed out that the quote was not from a Church father. That was an error on my part. By not acknowledging that I asked a question about the quote am I to ascertain that I being a “protestant” am not worthy of any consideration?

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Hey, maybe you’ll just get a yellow card.

Saying that “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” was said by a Church Father is flattering to Catholics (albeit untrue) so I doubt it will make you too many enemies around here. (Well, maybe among Protestant posters. )

 

[LethalMouse]

Because I am new to this I will probably not always grasp what is being said. As a vulnerable person, weak in faith and searching for truth, love, peace, kindness, I just want to say God bless all those who show God’s love in their conversation. Once or twice I have noticed sarcasm, rivalry, against non-Catholics and I would ask those who are tempted to speak in that to please consider that flippant remarks may not seem much, but they can cause a brother or sister to stumble. If we cant be gracious to non-catholics, how will we ever be gracious to our enemies.? I am walking a very thin tightrope in my spiritual journey. How blessed when I hear gentle encouragement, and how destructive when I hear hard and haughty remarks. I hope this os understood as a genuine plea for support, for that’s all it is.

To be fair outside playful rivalry, many people today do not know history.

In some cases protestants arent even really “protestant” anymore. First the term designates protesting the catholic church and many do not even know there was such a break. They think they have just been what they are since Jesus.

Second many today don’t know their religion isn’t even protesting the catholic church but was born of people protesting a church that protested a church that protested the catholic church.

They literally do not know that when they hold up the KJV of the bible as I have met many as the one true original bible… they lirterslly and completely are unaware of how it came to be.

I have met many a prots when I mention not using the KJV say “huh? So you are not using the bible? You have another book?”

Then I have to explain who King Henry was and the eventual lead up to KJV… they often have NO idea.

And it does get a bit wary to have people who literally know no practicing catholic, never learned hostory etc to say “You catholics arent christians because you don’t use the original bible, you guys edited it later.”

What?? Even secular and scholarly prot history says the reverse.

So it is a bit head banging.

On a personal standpoint some thing “make sense” and others hurt my head… and when things hurt my head I am not always super placating to the lack of logic.

Catholic/Orthodox - claim Jesus

Islam - Muhammad met God

Mormons - Smith met God and magic tablets

Jews - Moses and the whole of isreal met God and they feel Jesus was false

Buddha - found Nirvana

These in some way without going into further detail make sense to me.

Most prots - some guy said so…

What?

Now to be fair some prots arent technically prots but born of later gens and a few claim some saintly miracle workers so I half get those.

But sort of like mormons born of prots… they KJV and BoM.

So their claim is despite historical fact that the KJV was edited with intent, God in later revelation made it seem like it was either the best or God doesn’t care about editing… idk. all seems confusing to my brains.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I’m thinking a better comparison would be “To be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic.”

 

[Wannano]

Hey, maybe you’ll just get a yellow card.

Saying that “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” was said by a Church Father is flattering to Catholics (albeit untrue) so I doubt it will make you too many enemies around here. (Well, maybe among Protestant posters. )

Peter, thanks for that. In all seriousness, is it not true that to go back deep into church history to the very beginning that neither was the definition of Christianity found to be Catholicism either? I read in the Bible that the first definitive Christian practice was referred to as “the way” (A cts 24:14 ) is one example. Unless I am wrong it appears that original Christianity was not referred to as Catholic for nearly 100 years?

 

[rcwitness]

I’m thinking a better comparison would be “To be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic.”

 

[rcwitness]

Peter, thanks for that. In all seriousness, is it not true that to go back deep into church history to the very beginning that neither was the definition of Christianity found to be Catholicism either? I read in the Bible that the first definitive Christian practice was referred to as “the way” (A cts 24:14 ) is one example. Unless I am wrong it appears that original Christianity was not referred to as Catholic for nearly 100 years?

Yes, for Scripture alone believers… but then, Scripture alone is not Biblical… so it’s the old dilemma.

 

[Kliska]

I’m thinking a better comparison would be “To be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic.”

As a protestant I’m incredibly happy to have discovered that sentiment isn’t true. lol

 

[Wannano]

I’m thinking a better comparison would be “To be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic.”

I will let any explanation of that come from you.

 

[Wannano]

As a protestant I’m incredibly happy to have discovered that sentiment isn’t true. lol

I agree Kliska and neither do I agree that to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant anymore than it is to cease to be Catholic.

 

[rcwitness]

Guess my comments aren’t that “stimulating”.

… maybe I’m not being controversial enough…

 

[LutheranScholar]

I will let any explanation of that come from you.

You know the first thought I had when I read that interesting little variance on an oft- quoted saying was " the things you see when you haven’t got your gun."* I’m looking forward to an extrapolation and explanation of that one, too.

• Compliments to Mrs. Slocombe of " Are You Being Served?"

 

[rcwitness]

I agree Kliska and neither do I agree that to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant anymore than it is to cease to be Catholic.

It all depends… I know there are some Protestants who believe the Nicolatians of Revelations refer to the birth of Catholicism and it’s separation of classes (laity and heirarchy).

 

[rcwitness]

You know the first thought I had when I read that interesting little variance on an oft- quoted saying was " the things you see when you haven’t got your gun."* I’m looking forward to an extrapolation and explanation of that one, too.

• Compliments to Mrs. Slocombe of " Are You Being Served?"

I’m assuming Peter was giving that as the concept offered by some Protestants. I have heard it before.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree Kliska and neither do I agree that to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant anymore than it is to cease to be Catholic.

I was juuuuust about to post “I’ll bet there are a fair number of Protestants who say ‘To be deep in history is to cease to be Catholic’.” (Now I have.)

 

[Peter_J]

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.

But quite a lot of Protestants think it is.

 

[rcwitness]

Really, the difference in the Catholic/Protestant Canon is quite minimal, and even understandable. It obviously becomes a matter of who has the authority to make a binding judgement to determine and set the canon. Catholics can acknowledge a process which relies on several Councils and Bishops of Rome to verify her Tradition.

Ya know, even the Orthodox Church did not venerate Revelations as Scripture many centuries after the West declared it as Scripture!

 

[Wannano]

Yes, for Scripture alone believers… but then, Scripture alone is not Biblical… so it’s the old dilemma.

Going to be brave and come back to this.

Tell me if I am wrong…I am hearing you say that the early Church did call themselves Catholic right from the start but somehow the writers of the NT neither thought or were not convicted of the Holy Spirit to mention it?

 

[rcwitness]

Going to be brave and come back to this.

Tell me if I am wrong…I am hearing you say that the early Church did call themselves Catholic right from the start but somehow the writers of the NT neither thought or were not convicted of the Holy Spirit to mention it?

Yes. The New Testament does mention it as an adjective in Acts 9:32 (if I remember correctly). And I believe Ignatius also first used it as an adjective. Eventually, it became a noun after the persecution lifted.

Scripture was never intended to explicitly convey decree all things. Neither was it to be the lone measure for the Christian. It is, nevertheless, a foundational witness to the Revelation of Jesus and His New Covenant. God equipped both the Church and it’s members with a Written Tradition of public Revelation and Sacred Tradition handed down through mouth and practice. Neither can contradict the other but both give support of one another.

Peter was given Keys of authority. This is a fact. If Scripture was superior to Peter’s Judgement, then Jesus would not have given Peter Keys, but the keys would be Scripture itself. As it is, we believe Peter’s keys were used to preach, Teach, and ultimately Confirm a Canon of Scripture. They also bind certain interpretations on all Christians.

 

[Kliska]

I agree Kliska and neither do I agree that to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant anymore than it is to cease to be Catholic.

Well, yeah, but I was referring to the fact that I happily found out there are many Catholics both Catholic and deep in scripture… it has help me to see that there are many untruths taught about the Catholic Church that I was formerly unaware of.

But quite a lot of Protestants think it is.

Hahaha, good point.