Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[benhur]

It’s difficult to accept the book and yet reject the vehicle that brought you the book, sacred tradition/councils

. Hi La,

Kind of agree. If you love the book, you love how we got it, and thru whom we got it. Gotta love the foundation.

Must love not just the “vehicle” but the process. The process was used from the beginning , culminating in 4th and 16th C. We have the same data and guidance that was available in those councils. The same privilege .We do not follow blindly.

I also do not believe in ORAR (once right always right). Does anyone agree that the "vehicle’ of OT rejected that which they wrote about ? It goes both ways.

Blessings

 

[dawid]

.I also do not believe in ORAR (once right always right). Does anyone agree that the "vehicle’ of OT rejected that which they wrote about ? It goes both ways.

If the holy Spirit guided the Church in matters of faith, then it would be final and not for debate.
When the pope speaks from “The Chair of Peter” it is with that guidance eg canon of Scripture. This is Tradition and seldom invoked. Discipline is another matter and may be changed.

I hope this distinction helps.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

. Hi La,

Kind of agree. If you love the book, you love how we got it, and thru whom we got it. Gotta love the foundation.

Must love not just the “vehicle” but the process. The process was used from the beginning , culminating in 4th and 16th C. We have the same data and guidance that was available in those councils. The same privilege .We do not follow blindly.

I also do not believe in ORAR (once right always right). Does anyone agree that the "vehicle’ of OT rejected that which they wrote about ? It goes both ways.

Blessings

Hi Ben. How have you been lately? Haven’t seen you around for a while.

Personally, i believe in OPAP(once promise always a promise) Matthew 16:16-19

Moses didn’t get fired, he died and the chair just went to another Jew in Peter. And so i cant see Peter’s office getting a pink slip, even though there have been some bad Popes throughout the ages. God is faithful.

Pax

 

[commenter]

Yet I wonder Peter, for all kinds of folks still debate canon, just as before Trent or the fourth c council. Well not exactly as before but still debated, between 66 or 72 or 73 or others claiming a few other gospels/writings etc.

Actually, the NT canon was** not **discussed much after the late 1500s, when Catholics and Protestants pretty much relied on the same NT canon. In the 1800s, the Mormons were criticized for adding books to the NT, or rather, alongside the NT. The reason for Protestants criticizing the Mormons is that the NT canon was assumed to be “closed”, though that was taken for granted, not really explained. (Like, who closed it?)

I have read some Protestant apologetics books written decades ago. I found they may argue about the OT canon, but make no effort to defend the NT canon. It was a “given”. In recent years, as the media and academics have been “adding” gospels, etc, Protestant writers do make serious efforts to defend the NT canon.

It’s a difficult task, because they want to maintain “sola scriptura” as opposed to any structured “magisterium”, but at the same time they also have to defend the canon structure against both the old cults that “added” extra books, as well as modern academics who like the Gospel of Mary, etc, and want an “inclusive” canon. Protestants explain the choice of books by suggesting possible criteria that might have led, sort of inevitably, to those 27 books. The bigger problem is explaining the actions of opening the canon, and closing the canon, without bringing in a unique Magisterium.

For Catholics, it is simpler. The Magisterium opened the canon, chose the books (using councils, scholars, worship communities, etc), closed the canon, and today defends the canon.

 

[Peter_J]

Yet I wonder Peter, for all kinds of folks still debate canon, just as before Trent or the fourth c council. Well not exactly as before but still debated, between 66 or 72 or 73 or others claiming a few other gospels/writings etc.

I’m not sure protestants do debate it, very much. Most regard it as settled, I believe.

 

[Peter_J]

. Hi La,

Kind of agree. If you love the book, you love how we got it, and thru whom we got it. Gotta love the foundation.

Must love not just the “vehicle” but the process. The process was used from the beginning , culminating in 4th and 16th C. We have the same data and guidance that was available in those councils. The same privilege .We do not follow blindly.

I also do not believe in ORAR (once right always right). Does anyone agree that the "vehicle’ of OT rejected that which they wrote about ? It goes both ways.

Blessings

Then I have something in common with you.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, James and Jude.

They clearly didn’t think a council was necessary or they would have had one.

They did have one, the Jerusalem Council.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do not say who wrote them. And, of course after the evangelists were all dead, the only way to know who wrote their books was by memory, remembering who wrote them, aka Tradition. The apostles die, then the decades, centuries, and generations wear on; during which time additional writings, possibly by non-universal/catholic gnostics or docetists, or even spurious forgeries get mixed in with the genuine manuscripts. How to know the genuine? By the Church councils, guided by Tradition, the rule of faith of the Church, along with the Holy Spirit.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The authority has always been with God. The Holy Spirit reveals necessary truths to believers through God’s word.

It seems by the multiplicity of Christian sects that the Holy Spirit reveals different truths to different bible believers. Sometimes contradictory truths. I suppose that’s okay if you believe truth is relative.

Another thought…if it is necessary for the Holy Spirit to reveal truths when reading God’s word, that means scripture is hard to understand. Just like what Peter says about Paul, some of his writings are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, just like the rest of the scriptures.

Furthermore, if it is the Holy Spirit revealing truths, why bother with scripture at all? Just ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate you directly.

Another thing yet. The revealing of truths ceased with the deaths of the evangelists.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Yes. I don’t think it was necessary.
Do you think without a decree of a council that the Scriptires that had been preserved and taught from for over 300 years would have ceased to exist at some point in time?

Possibly. If for instance the controversial Revelation and Hebrews had not been included in the canon, they likely would not have been copied and preserved by the Church, and hence would have mouldered and ceased to exist. Not too many manuscripts of the New Testament from the first three centuries are extant anymore.

If by happenstance copies of Hebrews, and Revelation especially, were dug up or discovered in the 16th century, they would have been looked upon as oddities by Christians then. Is it likely the Reformers would have included them in their canon?

Should the Nag Hammadi documents be included in the canon? The gospel of Peter? The gospel of Thomas?

 

[susanlo]

Possibly. If for instance the controversial Revelation and Hebrews had not been included in the canon, they likely would not have been copied and preserved by the Church, and hence would have mouldered and ceased to exist. Not too many manuscripts of the New Testament from the first three centuries are extant anymore.

If by happenstance copies of Hebrews, and Revelation especially, were dug up or discovered in the 16th century, they would have been looked upon as oddities by Christians then. Is it likely the Reformers would have included them in their canon?

Should the Nag Hammadi documents be included in the canon? The gospel of Peter? The gospel of Thomas?

Of course we need to be very grateful to those monks (and others) who preserved the Scripture texts over the centuries.

Martin Luther did question Hebrews and Revelation. If God had allowed the texts to cease to exist, they would not be included. I don’t know what the reformers would have done and if they would have added them in if they weren’t considered NT Scripture before then. I can’t speculate.

Were the Nag Hammadi, gospel of Peter, or gospel of Thomas ever considered Scripture by a Christian? I don’t think there is a strong case for them being considered Scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

Of course we need to be very grateful to those monks (and others) who preserved the Scripture texts over the centuries.

Martin Luther did question Hebrews and Revelation. If God had allowed the texts to cease to exist, they would not be included. I don’t know what the reformers would have done and if they would have added them in if they weren’t considered NT Scripture before then. I can’t speculate.

Were the Nag Hammadi, gospel of Peter, or gospel of Thomas ever considered Scripture by a Christian? I don’t think there is a strong case for them being considered Scripture.

Yes, and the Church of Rome even “questioned” the book of Hebrews, on account of its unknown authorship. But questioning is not a verdict.

What about Peter II, Jude, James? Eusebius seemed to be uncertain because it was questioned by some. Mere questioning or doubting by some cannot be the basis for canonization. It isn’t about unanimously being accepted. But rather, when it is questioned, it means it has to be further discerned and studied.

Eusebius
Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

Nevertheless, a final verdict must be made. Who do you give authority to make the final verdict? It has to be someone.

 

[benhur]

If the holy Spirit guided the Church in matters of faith, then it would be final and not for debate

Hi d,

That is a broad stroke going beyond just discussing canon. Not sure that 4th century council was claiming such infallibility .Not even sure if was a full ecumenical council.

When the pope speaks from “The Chair of Peter” it is with that guidance eg canon of Scripture. This is Tradition and seldom invoked. Discipline is another matter and may be changed.

I hope this distinction helps

Yes. Understand the distinction.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben. How have you been lately? Haven’t seen you around for a while.

Personally, i believe in OPAP(once promise always a promise) Matthew 16:16-19

Moses didn’t get fired, he died and the chair just went to another Jew in Peter. And so i cant see Peter’s office getting a pink slip, even though there have been some bad Popes throughout the ages. God is faithful.

Pax

Hi La,

Been ok thank you.

The question is how does he keep His promises ? I mean the orthodox and reformers thought He kept guidance promise to/thru them also. That He guides infallibly is a given. Following 100% is another issue.

Again, He perfectly guided the followers, the vehicle, of the OT in the one true faith also.

For sure the Holy Spirit is unleashed even more today (NT) for our benefit but it is still conditional (upon “following”)

A promise is a promise is also what fuels OSAS (once saved always saved),

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Actually, the NT canon was** not **discussed much after the late 1500s, when Catholics and Protestants pretty much relied on the same NT canon. In the 1800s, the Mormons were criticized for adding books to the NT, or rather, alongside the NT. The reason for Protestants criticizing the Mormons is that the NT canon was assumed to be “closed”, though that was taken for granted, not really explained. (Like, who closed it?)

I have read some Protestant apologetics books written decades ago. I found they may argue about the OT canon, but make no effort to defend the NT canon. It was a “given”. In recent years, as the media and academics have been “adding” gospels, etc, Protestant writers do make serious efforts to defend the NT canon.

It’s a difficult task, because they want to maintain “sola scriptura” as opposed to any structured “magisterium”, but at the same time they also have to defend the canon structure against both the old cults that “added” extra books, as well as modern academics who like the Gospel of Mary, etc, and want an “inclusive” canon. Protestants explain the choice of books by suggesting possible criteria that might have led, sort of inevitably, to those 27 books. The bigger problem is explaining the actions of opening the canon, and closing the canon, without bringing in a unique Magisterium.

For Catholics, it is simpler. The Magisterium opened the canon, chose the books (using councils, scholars, worship communities, etc), closed the canon, and today defends the canon.

Hi c,

Thanks for post . Agree a structured magisterium makes it easier , as opposed to not so structured. That is why I also admonished respecting/loving the "process’’, the guidance in discerning all evidences (which a magisterium all the way to an individual can do).

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi c,

Thanks for post . Agree a structured magisterium makes it easier , as opposed to not so structured. That is why I also admonished respecting/loving the "process’’, the guidance in discerning all evidences (which a magisterium all the way to an individual can do).

Blessings

The question, is what about when the Magisterium and an individual are in direct opposition? And who is the Magisterium?

Obviously, individuals have a free will to disagree or agree, support or oppose. But who has authority to teach others? And who has the authority to distribute the Blessed Bread and Cup?

 

[benhur]

I’m not sure protestants do debate it, very much. Most regard it as settled, I believe.

Hi P,

Agree, just as Catholics . But look at us Catholic/P’s, not too mention others, still discussing. Maybe a bit like the old days where Corinthians and say those from Jerusalem "discussed "letters " they each personally received.

Of course more settled today. I think it should be like OT, where consensus is reached yet left to discernment (they had no council).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The question, is what about when the Magisterium and an individual are in direct opposition? And who is the Magisterium?

Obviously, individuals have a free will to disagree or agree, support or oppose. But who has authority to teach others? And who has the authority to distribute the Blessed Bread and Cup?

Hi rc,

Well what did they do in OT regarding canon, even teaching? Did they allow variances in teaching ?

The priestly duties is another thing in OT and seems to differ in NT, hence the term priest (heirus) rarely used.(presbyterus is not the same as heirus)

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Well what did they do in OT regarding canon, even teaching? Did they allow variances in teaching ?

I don’t know. I don’t think it was disputed by the people. What was read, was Scripture.

The priestly duties is another thing in OT and seems to differ in NT (hence the term priest (heirus) rarely used.(presbyterus is not heirus)

Yes, I understand it like this: The Bread of the Presence was eaten by the Priests only. Now the Lord’s Body and Blood is distributed to the people through the service of the ministerial priests.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Muratorian Fragment is thought to be from 170 AD and lists 22 out of 27 books

Eusebius wrote a Church History in the early 4th century. He lived from approx. 260-340. He lists all of the current NT books as accepted, but mentions that a few dispute the books of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John despite being accepted by many.

Athanasius lived from 296-373 and he wrote a letter containing the books that were accepted within the church. There is slight variance with the Old Testament, but the New Testament books match the current Bible.
newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

What you list here, are not officially canonized books by the whole Catholic Church.

These local canons, are being practiced with in their local Liturgies. The Christian Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You mention “other Christians”. Yes there were Gnostics claiming to be Christian (but denied Jesus revelations ) and other Gnostics who were pagan, which the apostles and Early Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Origen defeated.

During this early post apostolic age. There exist only the Catholic church practicing a common Apostolic Liturgy, using their local canons which differed in the number and sometimes names of the books, from other Catholic Church’s.

The other self proclaimed Christians existing along side with the Catholic Church, are excommunicated heretics and Gnostic sects. There are no protestant independent Christian Church’s existing during this age before the Nicea Council.

Remember the different local canons in practice, are being used for their Liturgy. Practicing Sacred Apostolic Tradition using their local canons, which an apostle gave them. Later we find some of these local Catholic Church’s added books to their local apostolic canon, that did not meet the Catholic Church’s canon = (measuring standard as inspired of God). Still others were found to have adopted some Gnostic Letters which were quickly removed.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Catholic Church existing pre-Nicea Council… There are other apostolic see’s who are practicing their same Liturgy, (albeit with a different language and culture), with their local canons.

Here is an interesting subject that may appease your case in point. We find that in some of the Catholic Church’s in the East who accepted the Council’s canon, but continue to use their local apostolic canon in their local Church liturgy. Yet these local canons are not considered heretical by the Church. They include some books, listed in their local canons that you have mentioned. Yet, this subject does not support a protestant view of today as to removing seven canonized books of the bible or adhering to one’s own independent canon of scripture.

Thus it remains uncontested that the Protestant’s get their bible from the Catholic Church. But, the Protestants have removed seven of the Church’s canonical books from the bible, and relabeled them as apocryphal or uninspired.

In summary; The local canons you listed are from practicing Catholic Church members (Saints). Yes they are in a sense autocephalous Church’s during the persecution, but they remain One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, when all other’s are known heretics and Gnostic sects who adapted Christian terminology and a liturgy, but do not practice or believe in the practices and teachings of the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

Hi P,

Agree, just as Catholics . But look at us Catholic/P’s, not too mention others, still discussing.

Do you mean on CAF?