Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[MichaelP3]

No problem. Research done already. I will address the Augustine one first. Stone:
So now we know from two leading Protestant scholars that the word figure in the early Church is not how we use figurative today, but more nearly to actual and distinctive nature. This now puts St. Augustine’s passage in a new light.

And this is easy to see that St. Augustine believes in the concept of transubstantiation, when he commands adoration of the Eucharist. Adoration is a form of worship. Unless St. Augustine believes the Eucharist has fully changed and become God, **HE WOULD BE COMMANDING IDOLATRY. **

Quite honestly, I have no idea who these people are. And I didn’t actually ask for them in my request as I prefer not to work with opinionated writings.

What I got from it all is that symbol means apparently the opposite today as then. I would say this is inconclusive. Then again Augustine was pretty clear on Predestination but then he meant something else again.

 

[MichaelP3]

250 A.D. - St. Cyprian - “[A]ccording to your diligence…designate those by name to whom you desire that peace should be granted. For I hear that certificates [of indulgence] are [too freely] given.” (Letter 10 or 15 Paragraph 4)

And (250 A.D.): “[W]hen some of the lapsed…[demanded] the peace that had been promised to them by the martyrs and confessors…I wrote twice to the clergy…[that] if any who had received a certificate [of indulgence] from the martyrs were departing from this life, having made confession, and received the imposition of hands on them for repentance, they should be remitted to the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs.” (Letter 14 or 20 Paragraph 3)

251 A.D. - St. Cyprian - “…Certainly we believe that the merits of the martyrs and the works of the just will be of great avail with the Judge…” (The Lapsed, 17)

314 A.D. - Council of Ancyra - “[T]he bishops have the right, after considering the character of [a sinner’s] conversion, either to deal with them more leniently, or to extend the time [of penance]. But, first of all, let their life before and since be thoroughly examined, and let the indulgence be determined accordingly.” (Canon 5)

314 A.D. - Council of Arles - “Concerning those who carry letters from the confessors, be it resolved that, when they have handed over those letters, they receive other letters of reference.” (Canon 10 or 9)

325 A.D. - The First Ecumenical Council - “[Some sinners], after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, [must] be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds…when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them.” (Canon 12)

Okay I read them, but it led me to a question.

Explain to me an indulgence? And not copy and paste the Catechism, in normal layman terms?

 

[Peter_J]

You make it sound like I want to convince you or something.

That’s generally what people will think if you address an argument to them. (Admittedly I haven’t read what you’re responding to, so I apologize if I’m taking you out of context.)

 

[MichaelP3]

That’s generally what people will think if you address an argument to them. (Admittedly I haven’t read what you’re responding to, so I apologize if I’m taking you out of context.)

True.

I am really just here because there is a difference that led to a problem. Not to point it out and start the problem. Honestly I don’t care if he believes the points raised or not. I am not from the viewpoint it will do anything to ones salvation. I am not here to convince but rather to state why I am not convinced.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have a question and was going to start a new thread but realized this one is still going so decided to post it here.

I was with some anti-Catholic protestant family members this weekend and of course they start attacking the church. But then i brought up the subject of the origin of the bible. And to my surprise, this educated and respected protestant blurted out that the King James bible was the first bible

Do any protestants here actually believe that? Is this a common belief held amongst protestants? Or did you maybe once believe this and then did your own research to clear things up? I was really at a loss for words to hear a educated and informed person make such a statement.

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Duane1966]

Quite honestly, I have no idea who these people are. And I didn’t actually ask for them in my request as I prefer not to work with opinionated writings.

What I got from it all is that symbol means apparently the opposite today as then. I would say this is inconclusive. Then again Augustine was pretty clear on Predestination but then he meant something else again.

Not one Protestant I have ever met, and I have asked many, has ever answered this about St. Augustine.

Since adoration is worship, when he commands adoration of the Eucharist, if he does not believe the Eucharist is fully Christ, how is he not commanding idolatry?

 

[Kliska]

I have a question and was going to start a new thread but realized this one is still going so decided to post it here.

I was with some anti-Catholic protestant family members this weekend and of course they start attacking the church. But then i brought up the subject of the origin of the bible. And to my surprise, this educated and respected protestant blurted out that the King James bible was the first bible

Do any protestants here actually believe that? Is this a common belief held amongst protestants? Or did you maybe once believe this and then did your own research to clear things up? I was really at a loss for words to hear a educated and informed person make such a statement.

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

No, I never did, but my old pastor used to joke that many protestants believe that “God handed the KJV to Moses on Mt. Sinai.” It’s a joke of course, but it holds some weight. Many KJV-onlyists believe that it is the only proper, and correct, translation of the Bible. When it says it is “authorized” they have a tendency to think that means God authorized it…

 

[MichaelP3]

Not one Protestant I have ever met, and I have asked many, has ever answered this about St. Augustine.

Since adoration is worship, when he commands adoration of the Eucharist, if he does not believe the Eucharist is fully Christ, how is he not commanding idolatry?

Why not? Mostly all of Calvin’s ideas on Predestination are based on Augustine. Augustine being the person discussing the Peter rock verse more than any other early Father and not mentioning the doctrine or idea of the Papacy. But now we are choosing what to make valid and what not. And those we do choose we go and say but this means this and therefore this and viola.

And you are assuming all Protestants are the same. Please don’t, trust me, I know many Protestants who wouldn’t even know who Augustine is. Would not make there opinion worth much just because they are Protestant.

And even if… One person writing about it hardly proves it was done everywhere! In a 1000 years amoris laetitia will be analysed and I would love to see what the people would say was the case. Even today people wonder what was actually meant.

If something so extremely important and dogmatic was the case, why do we need to search for it somewhere?

 

[Peter_J]

No, I never did, but my old pastor used to joke that many protestants believe that “God handed the KJV to Moses on Mt. Sinai.” It’s a joke of course, but it holds some weight. Many KJV-onlyists believe that it is the only proper, and correct, translation of the Bible. When it says it is “authorized” they have a tendency to think that means God authorized it…

And, maybe I’m showing my bias here, but the fact that it’s coming from Protestants makes it all the worse. Not that I would be in any way happy if Catholics decided that the Douay-Rheims is the only proper and correct translation of the Bible … but at least that would make sense, whereas the aforementioned just doesn’t.

P.S. I’ve never heard a protestant say that the King James bible was the first bible either, but someone in my family once said that the Tridentine mass was the original mass. (Yes, seriously.)

 

[MichaelP3]

I have a question and was going to start a new thread but realized this one is still going so decided to post it here.

I was with some anti-Catholic protestant family members this weekend and of course they start attacking the church. But then i brought up the subject of the origin of the bible. And to my surprise, this educated and respected protestant blurted out that the King James bible was the first bible

Do any protestants here actually believe that? Is this a common belief held amongst protestants? Or did you maybe once believe this and then did your own research to clear things up? I was really at a loss for words to hear a educated and informed person make such a statement.

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

Well I would say I grew up with a Bible in a different language so I wasn’t really taught anything like that or had the opportunity. But I would agree the KJV would not be the first and I have not met anyone who believes that.

Made me think about Steven Anderson and King James only. Check the guy out, this is one of the reasons I would not like to be thrown into the same box as all Protestants.

 

[Padres1969]

I got it from my mom after my first communion… where’d you get yours?

Sorry I couldn’t resist any more.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

No, I never did, but my old pastor used to joke that many protestants believe that “God handed the KJV to Moses on Mt. Sinai.” It’s a joke of course, but it holds some weight. Many KJV-onlyists believe that it is the only proper, and correct, translation of the Bible. When it says it is “authorized” they have a tendency to think that means God authorized it…

That’s fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

Well I would say I grew up with a Bible in a different language so I wasn’t really taught anything like that or had the opportunity. But I would agree the KJV would not be the first and I have not met anyone who believes that.

Made me think about Steven Anderson and King James only. Check the guy out, this is one of the reasons I would not like to be thrown into the same box as all Protestants.

I’m going to look him up on youtube.

I really wish the protestants i encounter were as knowledgeable as those on this site such as yourself. I’m astonished when someone says the KJV is the first bible or that John the Baptist started the Baptist church. They are good and well intended Christians and I don’t want to hurt their feelings.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I got it from my mom after my first communion… where’d you get yours?

Sorry I couldn’t resist any more.

I knew someone was going to say that. Or they got it at Barnes and Nobles

 

[Padres1969]

I knew someone was going to say that. Or they got it at Barnes and Nobles

I was saying it in my head every time I saw this thread title for weeks. It was taking everything I had to resist. I could resist no longer…

 

[LutheranScholar]

Lutheran Study Bible, ESV, Concordia Publishing House, purchased through Amazon.com. From that service provider I also got Concordia, the Book of Lutheran Confessions and Law and Gospel, by CFW Walther. All of those books are good reading, highly recommended, but I suggest you save your pennies because all three of those books cost money.

 

[commenter]

. I meant that the Catholic church and the universal church in the early centuries are not the same. Your phrase saying accepted Catholic doctrine is therefore not true as all mainstream Protestants accept all that was accepted in the first centuries. That’s where I mean Catholics can’t claim it. Thus we not only respect the early church fathers, we regard them in exactly the same way you would regarding their “development”.

And I wouldn’t call it a Magisterium. Or if we do we can’t call the current one that. As they do not resemble each other in any way.

But Protestants don’t accept all that was accepted in the first centuries. They accept a small fraction of the scholars, the Christian communities, the Councils, the scriptures and doctrinal developments of that era - they reject most early Christian scriptures, Christian scholars, Christian Councils, Christian communities of that time.

On what grounds did they reject? It does not help to say “They only rejected teaching that was obviously false” because the falsity is “obvious” only in hindsight, and only** if** you take for granted the Magisterium’s template of “orthodoxy”. Which Catholics and Protestants do, at least for the first several hundred years. The template requires a humanly visible template-maker.

A fair case might be made that today’s Magisterium is separate and different from the ancient authoritative Magisterium. I don’t see any plausible case for claiming there was no authoritative ancient Magisterium.

 

[Duane1966]

Why not? Mostly all of Calvin’s ideas on Predestination are based on Augustine. Augustine being the person discussing the Peter rock verse more than any other early Father and not mentioning the doctrine or idea of the Papacy. But now we are choosing what to make valid and what not. And those we do choose we go and say but this means this and therefore this and viola.

And you are assuming all Protestants are the same. Please don’t, trust me, I know many Protestants who wouldn’t even know who Augustine is. Would not make there opinion worth much just because they are Protestant.

And even if… One person writing about it hardly proves it was done everywhere! In a 1000 years amoris laetitia will be analysed and I would love to see what the people would say was the case. Even today people wonder what was actually meant.

If something so extremely important and dogmatic was the case, why do we need to search for it somewhere?

You did not answer the question.

When St. Augustine commands adoration of the Eucharist, how is that not idolatry, if he does not believe the Eucharist has fully become Christ?

 

[Duane1966]

Okay I read them, but it led me to a question.

Explain to me an indulgence? And not copy and paste the Catechism, in normal layman terms?

I know you did not want a cut and paste, but I feel this explanation from Dr. David Anders explains the doctrine much better than I could ever do it justice.

The roots of indulgences can be found in the biblical teaching on penance. Jesus instructed the disciples to exclude the impenitent from the fellowship of the Church, but to forgive those who seek forgiveness. (Matthew 18:15ff) St. Paul likewise told the Corinthians to expel the immoral brother, but to readmit him after due penance. (1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11) Many other passages of Scripture command the Church to correct, admonish, and punish the immoral, the disobedient, and the factious. (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Tit. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:20; Galatians 6:1-2)

The ancient Church kept up this practice. Penance and absolution were a public affair, sometimes lasting for years. Disputes raged, however, over how long penance should last and under what circumstances it should be reduced. Would a quick “I’m sorry” do for a murderer, apostate, or adulterer? “Hard liners” (like Tertullian and Novatian) argued that some sins were so severe they should never be forgiven. (They appealed to Hebrews 6:4-8 in defense of their views.) Others, like Pope Calixtus (d. 222) were more lenient, and extended absolution to everyone.

Under St. Cyprian (210-258), the North African Church offered another perspective. Christians had long valued the intercession of the saints and martyrs. Through Christ, their merits and prayers were of extraordinary value. (James 5:16; Revelation 5:8; Revelation 7:14-15) What if those saints, martyrs, and confessors (those in prison for their faith or on their way to martyrdom), offered their sufferings on behalf of the penitent?

It’s very important to grasp what was being suggested. No one thought that Christ’s sufferings were insufficient. No one thought that the penitent or the martyrs could buy their way into heaven. They were concerned simply with the temporal punishments due to sin, not the eternal consequences of unremitted guilt. It was a matter of the disciplinary action of the Church, excluding and admitting from communion, and the conditions for that readmission. The question was whether the merits of the saints could be applied towards remitting only the temporal punishments.

This is where things get complicated for non-Catholic Christians. They are not accustomed to distinguishing between the guilt of sin and its temporal consequences. Nor are they used to thinking in terms of vicarious merit. And yet, both ideas are deeply biblical. 2 Samuel 12 and 2 Samuel 24 both teach that God demands satisfaction for sin even when the guilt has been previously remitted. Likewise, we find vicarious merit and suffering throughout Scripture. (Genesis 18:32; Colossians 1:24).

In Cyprian’s day, some of the confessors began handing out indulgences in their own names, or on their own authority. Sometimes, they gave them out as “blank checks” on which penitents could write their own names. St. Cyprian’s response was truly astonishing. He did not deny that these libellus (as they were called) had value. Rather, he demanded that the granting of indulgences should be subject to the authority of the bishop.

In Cyprian’s day, the Church recognized that sin has a temporal consequence, to which the Church’s authority and intercessions apply. The Church fathers also believed deeply in the communion of saints, and that the weaker members can share in the merits and gifts of the stronger. They applied this biblical logic to the problem of penances. It was a small step to apply it as well to the sufferings of those in purgatory.

The details of purgatory are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that the Church, following the Jewish practice, has always offered prayers for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12: 38-46) From this, and from what we know about penance, purity, and some suggestive scriptures (Matthew 5:25-26; 1 Cor. 3:11-15), the fathers inferred the doctrine of purgatory. The important thing to remember is that purgatory is a temporal punishment. As such, it is subject to the merits and intercessory prayers of the Church. These can be directed through the practice of indulgences.

Indulgences are not a “get out of hell free card.” They are not a license to sin. Rather, they are how the Church can direct the prayers and merits of the faithful to the spiritual benefit of poor souls. They are grounded in the biblical teaching on Church discipline and the communion of saints. They emerged in the earliest years of the Church with the approbation of her holiest doctors and saints. Rightly understood, they are a beautiful testament to the solidarity of all Christians, to our union in Christ.

 

[johnnyc176]

Obviously protestants got their Bible from the Catholic Church but their pride led to an aberration of God’s Word…same as with JWs and Mormons.

 

[MichaelP3]

Obviously protestants got their Bible from the Catholic Church but their pride led to an aberration of God’s Word…same as with JWs and Mormons.

Bold words! Not very intellectual answer by throwing us in the same box as them. Why not point out the Protestant side of the people praying to the spaghetti monster while you are at it?