Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[Randy_Carson]

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?

The claim would be meaningless as anyone familiar with the history of Christianity or the lives of the saints would understand. To be deep in a relationship with Christ is to love Him and His body in all its fullness. Just as the Church has but one head, so Jesus has but one body, and the two cannot be separated (cf. Acts 9:4, Romans 8:38-39) Thus, you imply a dichotomy where none exists.

In contrast, there are many non-Catholic Christians today who are ignorant or misinformed about the history of Christianity, the Catholic Church, or even the origins of their own particular faith community. Consequently, learning more history would move one in the direction of the one Church founded by Jesus (cf. Mt. 16:18-19).

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?

It is my hope that you will ascertain that John Cardinal Newman, one of the most important Protestants of the 19th century, understood from his study of history that he was on the wrong side of the Tiber, and that like Newman (and me), you will correct that deficiency in your walk with Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Better in terms of Protestant thought - but still fatally flawed.

Catholics did write the NT, after all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

No, as I pointed out in post #22.

First, Jesus was crucified about AD 30. Second, Ignatius of Antioch mentioned the term “Catholic Church” in AD 107. Thus, only 77 years (not 100) had passed.

But more importantly, Ignatius is not coining a new term, but obviously using one that was already in use. Therefore, within the lifetime of some apostles or their disciples, the Church was already referring to itself as the “Catholic Church”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

As a Protestant, you can only go so deep into history before reaching the period in which Protestantism had not even come into existence.

IOW, there’s 1500 years of Christianity which is essentially, entirely Catholic.

And when you examine the doctrines of THAT Church, you will find that they are Catholic and not Protestant by any stretch of the imagination.

So, if you want to belong to the Church founded by Jesus which continues to teach the same doctrines held by the apostles, the martyrs, the saints, the Fathers, the Doctors…and the ordinary people from the earliest days to the present, you want to be Catholic.

 

[susanlo]

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!

I have learned from being on this forum that Catholics understand that we know what the New Testament books are because it was decreed by a council (or 2 councils if that is possible to decree the same thing twice). I have always understood that the NT Scripture was Scripture because it met the qualifications of being written by an Apostle or by a close contact of an Apostle, and it was claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and used by Christians throughout from the earliest times.

This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit would not be working in those creating a canon list in the late 4th century. But the same Holy Spirit that inspired the 4th century Christians was at work in the 1st century inspiring the texts and guiding the Christians to recognize and use Scripture.

1 Timothy 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”***
a.1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
b.1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And later (90AD?) Clement of Rome (or the church in Rome) wrote to the Corinthians a letter citing NT Books and referring to Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians as inspired by the Holy Spirit: “Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? **Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you **concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” - Chapter 47 newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

This same Holy Spirit guided the Christians of the first few centuries to recognize and use the teachings of the Scriptures. This chart shows a summary of the number of times Scripture was cited by certain early theologians: truefreethinker.com/sites/default/files/images/Bible,%20manuscript,%20apologetics,%20early%20church%20fathers,%20New%20Testament,%20Old%20Testament.jpg

Of course the Holy Spirit could also guide the 4th century Christians who gathered at a council to discern and use Scripture. And again, at the time of the reformation, Luther (and others) were critical of certain NT books. After careful study (and of course guidance by the Holy Spirit), the same 27 books of the NT are used by all churches that came out of the Protestant Reformation. I wouldn’t say that the councils had no importance in determining the New Testament, but the Holy Spirit also helped Christians to determine Scripture before the councils and much later guided the churches that do not recognize the councils as authoritative as well.*

 

[susanlo]

As a Protestant, you can only go so deep into history before reaching the period in which Protestantism had not even come into existence.

IOW, there’s 1500 years of Christianity which is essentially, entirely Catholic.

And when you examine the doctrines of THAT Church, you will find that they are Catholic and not Protestant by any stretch of the imagination.

So, if you want to belong to the Church founded by Jesus which continues to teach the same doctrines held by the apostles, the martyrs, the saints, the Fathers, the Doctors…and the ordinary people from the earliest days to the present, you want to be Catholic.

This is probably a completely different topic, but while I would agree that “Protestantism” did not exist before the 16th century, I wouldn’t agree that the current Catholic Church teaching is exactly “the same doctrines held by the apostles, the martyrs, the saints, the Fathers, the Doctors…” It isn’t that I would say that 2nd century Christians called themselves Lutheran or Baptist and never identified themselves as Catholic, but that catholic in the 3rd century doesn’t = Roman Catholic of later times. I have been studying the writings from the early centuries and trying to understand what was believed at that time and it has been very interesting and educational.

 

[Padres1969]

Better in terms of Protestant thought - but still fatally flawed.

Catholics did write the NT, after all.

Actually it’s more accurate to say that Early Christians verbally passed what became the NT down from person to person until it was finally transcribed by later Christians 50-200 years later (from both what later became the Eastern and Western Churches).

 

[rcwitness]

I have learned from being on this forum that Catholics understand that we know what the New Testament books are because it was decreed by a council (or 2 councils if that is possible to decree the same thing twice). I have always understood that the NT Scripture was Scripture because it met the qualifications of being written by an Apostle or by a close contact of an Apostle, and it was claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and used by Christians throughout from the earliest times.

This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit would not be working in those creating a canon list in the late 4th century. But the same Holy Spirit that inspired the 4th century Christians was at work in the 1st century inspiring the texts and guiding the Christians to recognize and use Scripture.

1 Timothy 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”****
a.1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
b.1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And later (90AD?) Clement of Rome (or the church in Rome) wrote to the Corinthians a letter citing NT Books and referring to Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians as inspired by the Holy Spirit: “Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? **Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you **concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” - Chapter 47 newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

This same Holy Spirit guided the Christians of the first few centuries to recognize and use the teachings of the Scriptures. This chart shows a summary of the number of times Scripture was cited by certain early theologians: truefreethinker.com/sites/default/files/images/Bible,%20manuscript,%20apologetics,%20early%20church%20fathers,%20New%20Testament,%20Old%20Testament.jpg

Of course the Holy Spirit could also guide the 4th century Christians who gathered at a council to discern and use Scripture. And again, at the time of the reformation, Luther (and others) were critical of certain NT books. After careful study (and of course guidance by the Holy Spirit), the same 27 books of the NT are used by all churches that came out of the Protestant Reformation. I wouldn’t say that the councils had no importance in determining the New Testament, but the Holy Spirit also helped Christians to determine Scripture before the councils and much later guided the churches that do not recognize the councils as authoritative as well.
So IOWs, the Catholic Church got it right, but it wasn’t necessarily binding? Is there any such thing as binding?

 

[Peter_J]

Actually it’s more accurate to say that Early Christians verbally passed what became the NT down from person to person until it was finally transcribed by later Christians 50-200 years later (from both what later became the Eastern and Western Churches).

Not trying to be a pain – or should that be “more of a pain”? --but this is another illustration of my point that y’all need to get your story straight about whether “Catholic” means ICWR.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is probably a completely different topic, but while I would agree that “Protestantism” did not exist before the 16th century, I wouldn’t agree that the current Catholic Church teaching is exactly “the same doctrines held by the apostles, the martyrs, the saints, the Fathers, the Doctors…” It isn’t that I would say that 2nd century Christians called themselves Lutheran or Baptist and never identified themselves as Catholic, but that catholic in the 3rd century doesn’t = Roman Catholic of later times. I have been studying the writings from the early centuries and trying to understand what was believed at that time and it has been very interesting and educational.

And this was why I made reference to John Cardinal Newman.

In his book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Newman outlined his examination of numerous Catholic doctrines which he conducted while an Anglican.

The result? Newman converted to the Catholic Church precisely because his in-depth study convinced him that modern Catholic doctrines taught today are very much the same as those which date back to the apostles.

That’s the whole point!

In the same way that you are the same person whose baby pictures are hanging on the wall at your grandmother’s house, Catholicism today = Apostolic-era Christianity…with a few extra cathedrals added along the way.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually it’s more accurate to say that Early Christians verbally passed what became the NT down from person to person until it was finally transcribed by later Christians 50-200 years later (from both what later became the Eastern and Western Churches).

And how did Ignatius of Antioch suggest that these Christians called their church by name?

The Catholic Church.

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

 

[Padres1969]

Not trying to be a pain – or should that be “more of a pain”? --but this is another illustration of my point that y’all need to get your story straight about whether “Catholic” means ICWR.

ICWR?

 

[Wannano]

The claim would be meaningless as anyone familiar with the history of Christianity or the lives of the saints would understand. To be deep in a relationship with Christ is to love Him and His body in all its fullness. Just as the Church has but one head, so Jesus has but one body, and the two cannot be separated (cf. Acts 9:4, Romans 8:38-39) Thus, you imply a dichotomy where none exists.

In contrast, there are many non-Catholic Christians today who are ignorant or misinformed about the history of Christianity, the Catholic Church, or even the origins of their own particular faith community. Consequently, learning more history would move one in the direction of the one Church founded by Jesus (cf. Mt. 16:18-19).

It is my hope that you will ascertain that John Cardinal Newman, one of the most important Protestants of the 19th century, understood from his study of history that he was on the wrong side of the Tiber, and that like Newman (and me), you will correct that deficiency in your walk with Christ.

You are taking me way to philisophical Randy. I wasn’t comparing
p
the value of the content I rather was suggesting that for a Protestant to make my statement would be as rude and unloving as Newman’s statement strikes me. That is all.

I am choosing to forgive you for suggesting I have a deficiency in my walk with Christ because I am not a Catholic. Sorry, that is arrogant judgmentalism that I want no part of.

 

[commenter]

Actually it’s more accurate to say that Early Christians verbally passed what became the NT down from person to person until it was finally transcribed by later Christians 50-200 years later (from both what later became the Eastern and Western Churches).

I would say that there were hundreds of different holy books “passed” down, verbally and in writing. All of them potential scripture. But there were 2 steps that were outside the “passing” and “transcribing” process:

1. Some agency made an incredibly bold decision to create a “New Testament”.
2. Some agency made a decision to rule out some - in fact the great majority of books plausible for this new testament.

Neither of those 2 steps involve a natural, person to person, neighbor to neighbor, passing on by word of mouth through the faith community, organic development, committee consensus, etc. Both of steps 1 and 2 have the look of a single authority, not consensus.

You might say it was a God-guided authority, as Catholics do. You might say it was a dictatorial decision of a power structure, creating a canon and ruling out the great majority of equally valid Christian books in order to justify its power plan and hurt its enemies, as I think Bart Ehrman would say. Those are the only 2 logical choices.

 

[susanlo]

So IOWs, the Catholic Church got it right, but it wasn’t necessarily binding? Is there any such thing as binding?

I am not exactly sure what is meant by binding in the biblical sense. It seems like that term has many definitions. I am confused about what it means.

 

[susanlo]

I would say that there were hundreds of different holy books “passed” down, verbally and in writing. All of them potential scripture. But there were 2 steps that were outside the “passing” and “transcribing” process:

1. Some agency made an incredibly bold decision to create a “New Testament”.
2. Some agency made a decision to rule out some - in fact the great majority of books plausible for this new testament.

Neither of those 2 steps involve a natural, person to person, neighbor to neighbor, passing on by word of mouth through the faith community, organic development, committee consensus, etc. Both of steps 1 and 2 have the look of a single authority, not consensus.

You might say it was a God-guided authority, as Catholics do. You might say it was a dictatorial decision of a power structure, creating a canon and ruling out the great majority of equally valid Christian books in order to justify its power plan and hurt its enemies, as I think Bart Ehrman would say. Those are the only 2 logical choices.

What are the hundreds of books that were known and used by Bishops in the church that were not canonized?

I know the Muratorian Canon (circa 200AD) mentions the Apocalypse of Peter (though it can’t be read in church) and the Shepherd of Hermas (but it shouldn’t be made public). It also lists 22 of 27 books leaving out Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and 3 John (may be 2nd John instead of 3rd John). Then Eusebius (circa 260-340) made a complete list, but noted that James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2&3 John are questioned by some churches. Then Athanasius (293-373) made a list in his 39th Festal Letter that lists the complete NT canon.

Are there other lists that mention other books?

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[rcwitness]

What are the hundreds of books that were known and used by Bishops in the church that were not canonized?

I know the Muratorian Canon (circa 157-170) mentions the Apocalypse of Peter (though it can’t be read in church) and the Shepherd of Hermas (but it shouldn’t be made public). It also lists 22 of 27 books leaving out Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and 3 John (may be 2nd John instead of 3rd John). Then Eusebius (circa 260-340) made a complete list, but noted that James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2&3 John are questioned by some churches. Then Athanasius (293-373) made a list in his 39th Festal Letter that lists the complete NT canon.

Are there other lists that mention other books?

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

I agree. I don’t think there were nearly that many. Mainly there were the ones which were listed as non-canical in the Damasene List.

 

[campeador]

What are the hundreds of books that were known and used by Bishops in the church that were not canonized?

Maybe commenter is talking about these?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

 

[Peter_J]

ICWR?

In communion with Rome.

Some would say “Roman Catholic”, but I don’t call myself that because it is also used as a shorthand for “Roman-Rite Catholic” (excluding Greek and Oriental Catholics).

 

[susanlo]

Maybe commenter is talking about these?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

But did Bishops and leaders in the churches think that these were actually written by Apostles? I am pretty certain that they didn’t. They wrote much against the Gnostics trying to combat their heresy. I think that some uneducated Christians were getting fooled by some of these gospels, but I don’t think that the educated church leaders were confused.