Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[dawid]

Also have heard that if something is referenced in Writ it does not all of a sudden make the source of that very reference “inspired”. I mean "traditions’ are often referenced, and many times negatively. Paul at Mars Hill references Greek belief in his preaching but not as authoritative. The book of Revelations and the seven letters reference some "current history’’ that would be familiar to that particular church(s), yet the source of that "news’ was not authoritative/inspired (like our internet, or the NY Times, or Time magazine of those days). So even if an extra book is referenced does not automatically make that book inspired.

Dear benhur

I believe that not all inspired works are included in the canon of Scripture. The purpose of Scripture is guidance. For that reason books were excluded from the canon for among other reasons that they were not relevant for guidance or not considered inspired.
In the same way you may be divinely inspired in some matter, but that would not be considered to be public revelation.

Concerning authority of Tradition, Moses was inspired to receive divine revelation, record it and include it in the canon of Scripture. In that respect Moses was infallible and his Tradition authoritative.

Regards
dawid

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Again was careful with my words and did not deny authority or governance (in OT) but rather referred to a type , a "model’’ of governance, as faced by reformers.

Well, I think in this regard I need to be careful too. The model must be applied lawfully. Just like the trial of the Lord was proceeded completely against Judaic Law, their can (and has been) abuse by the clergy.

As far normative, I think writ was more normative, with less "equals’’, in OT. It was to be normative for all-prophets, judges, kings, high priests etc…

Again, I think you are correct to a certain degree. I mean, Scripture is not held under anything else. And, as the (written) Word of God, it has no equal. But there are other aspects of God’s authority, AND Scripture itself informs us that some Traditions may not be committed to writing (2 Thess. 2:15). The Magisterium of the Church of God is not “an equal” to God’s Word, but an authoritative aspect which the Church is able to exercise. A prime example we have tried to express is the Canon of Scripture. That declaration of a Canon is an expression of Church Magisterium.

SS adherents , to my knowledge , usually only excludes supreme pope. That is the only non-pick. Yet , not sure , but Luther would not mind pope, so long as he (pope) also was subject and not equal to, Writ.

But we say that’s where SS looses it’s strength, since the interpretation of Scripture becomes an open gate, with no rule of a Church (universal) position. Unity is not preserved in the Church of God.

This is why St Paul expresses the reality that “the Church is a buttress and pillar of the Truth.” Because to simply assert SS as the “superlative norm” is not what God intended. And we appeal to Scripture itself, when we ask that you demonstrate where Scripture establishes itself as the superlative.

So while Scripture has no equal being the Word of God, it’s conclusions and applications in the Church of God require a Magisterium to rule.

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur

Accepting Jesus as the Messiah is a common acknowledgement by Jews.
That was not the point.

The Jews recognise the commonality in liturgy and other features such as recording tradition in the Talmud and Mishna. An example is a rabbi asked a Catholic theologian to present a lecture to his Jewish students. The theologian asked why he didn’t ask the many eminently qualified protestant theologians. The response was that they do things differently to Jews and Catholics (and Orthodox).

Hi d,

OK thanks. What is your comparable book to Talmud/Mishna? I think most denominations have a catechism, which I think is different.

Blessings.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I am referencing the reforms after the “great apostasy”.

Did Christ wait “only” 1500 years to reveal the real truth to Luther and Calvin? If so, that still contradicts Matthew 16 and 28- Jesus said he gave all His authority to the church, that the gates of hell would not prevail, and that he would be with the church until the end. Protestantism creates an undefined time period where Jesus’s words would have to be untrue which is impossible.

Strawman , you know we don’t teach that

 

[dawid]

Hi d,
OK thanks. What is your comparable book to Talmud/Mishna? I think most denominations have a catechism, which I think is different.
Blessings.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to Scripture, Council records (eg Jerusalem, Nicea, etc), Canon law, Encyclicals, etc. Those would be the equivalent of the Talmud/Mishna,

The Talmud/Mishna have some interesting records.
In Roy Schoeman’s “Salvation is from the Jews”, he refers to one of the two where it relates the Jews’ experience of the annual day of Atonement. Prior to the sacrifice by the high priests, they hang a crimson thread outside the sanctuary. When they return, the crimson thread would be white as a sign that their sacrifice was accepted and transgressions forgiven.

The record states their concern that for the forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple, the thread remained crimson. The last time that the thread turned white was prior to the crucifixion of our Lord.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Strawman , you know we don’t teach that

You may not teach it, but you most, a least sort of believe it in order to be a informed protestant.

 

[MichaelP3]

You may not teach it, but you most, a least sort of believe it in order to be a informed protestant.

Why do you say that? I have never even heard of the great apostasy through my numerous years in a Protestant Church. Some may believe it and that is their right I guess. If I believe it I would be no better then the Catholics on forums like these telling me I am so wrong.

 

[benhur]

Protestantism creates an undefined time period where Jesus’s words would have to be untrue which is impossible.

HI m,

Yes but that is strictly from a CC point of view/paradigm, and not a P point of view/paradigm. That we each have a particular interpretation of what "prevailing’’ is and is not.

Blessings

 

[dawid]

Why do you say that? I have never even heard of the great apostasy through my numerous years in a Protestant Church. Some may believe it and that is their right I guess. If I believe it I would be no better then the Catholics on forums like these telling me I am so wrong.

Hi MichaelP3

“The Great Apostasy” is the concept promoted by the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Mormons.
That would not be a protestant belief although some believe that the Church that Christ established disappeared at the time of the emperor Constantine.

I trust this puts it into perspective.

Regards
d

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Why do you say that? I have never even heard of the great apostasy through my numerous years in a Protestant Church. Some may believe it and that is their right I guess. If I believe it I would be no better then the Catholics on forums like these telling me I am so wrong.

Well, for starters, just look at topic here in this particular thread…the canon. Catholicism has been remarkably consistent on this issue with the same canon for 1600 years. From the beginning of the 5th century until Luthers break in 1517 there were 73 books considered inspired. So if a person is a informed protestant, then he/she must believe that Jesus allowed his Church to basically fall off a cliff for over a thousand years.

I’ve always asked the question to those who say no, that isn’t true, to explain to me when the church fell of into apostasy then? How can it be that the same Lord who said he would be with the Church always allowed them to compile a erroneous canon and practice with that canon for over a thousand years? It’s no wonder why protestant seminaries cover to the year 100AD then take lunch and come back at 1pm talking about Martin Luther. Seems to be the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, for starters, just look at topic here in this particular thread…the canon. Catholicism has been remarkably consistent on this issue with the same canon for 1600 years. From the beginning of the 5th century until Luthers break in 1517 there were 73 books considered inspired. So if a person is a informed protestant, then he/she must believe that Jesus allowed his Church to basically fall off a cliff for over a thousand years.

Not necessarily. You must remember that “Protestantism” is all over the board on issues. The canon is one of them. Some accept the Deuteros and some do not. And some who do not, do not consider those who do as falling off a cliff. You see, it’s not that drastic of a position to some, since there is legitimate reasons for accepting them. But the ones who do not accept them are the ultra conservative types who choose to err on the side of “minimalism”. IOW, if it leads to controversy and debate, drop it.

I’ve always asked the question to those who say no, that isn’t true, to explain to me when the church fell of into apostasy then? How can it be that the same Lord who said he would be with the Church always allowed them to compile a erroneous canon and practice with that canon for over a thousand years? It’s no wonder why protestant seminaries cover to the year 100AD then take lunch and come back at 1pm talking about Martin Luther. Seems to be the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address.

I think you are barking up a wrong tree with this apostasy claim. Protestants in general do not claim this of the Catholic Church, just as we do not claim it of Protestant communities. There is too much common (and foundational) faith for that to be the case.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Not necessarily. You must remember that “Protestantism” is all over the board on issues. The canon is one of them. Some accept the Deuteros and some do not. And some who do not, do not consider those who do as falling off a cliff. You see, it’s not that drastic of a position to some, since there is legitimate reasons for accepting them. But the ones who do not accept them are the ultra conservative types who choose to err on the side of “minimalism”. IOW, if it leads to controversy and debate, drop it.

I think you are barking up a wrong tree with this apostasy claim. Protestants in general do not claim this of the Catholic Church, just as we do not claim it of Protestant communities. There is too much common (and foundational) faith for that to be the case.

The protestants in this forum tend to be much more informed and catholic friendly. The ones i have encountered in person absolutely think we are apostate.

And never met a protestant who accepts the deuteros for anything other than historical purposes.

Remove 2 Macc that changes quite a bit…purgatory, prayer for dead, indulgences etc.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

some believe that the Church that Christ established disappeared at the time of the emperor Constantine.

Regards
d

I’ve heard that theory many, many times. And this from protestants not Mormons. The belief that the Catholic Church caved in to Roman paganism in order to co-exist peacefully with them.

 

[MichaelP3]

Well, for starters, just look at topic here in this particular thread…the canon. Catholicism has been remarkably consistent on this issue with the same canon for 1600 years. From the beginning of the 5th century until Luthers break in 1517 there were 73 books considered inspired. So if a person is a informed protestant, then he/she must believe that Jesus allowed his Church to basically fall off a cliff for over a thousand years.

I’ve always asked the question to those who say no, that isn’t true, to explain to me when the church fell of into apostasy then? How can it be that the same Lord who said he would be with the Church always allowed them to compile a erroneous canon and practice with that canon for over a thousand years? It’s no wonder why protestant seminaries cover to the year 100AD then take lunch and come back at 1pm talking about Martin Luther. Seems to be the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address.

I hear you and I can understand why one would say that. Although I don’t see it that way. People can come and try and argue it has always been that way but Jerome himself added those as an appendix after being forced by the pope of the time. Cardinal Cajetan, the Chief prosecutor against Luther and according to some writings a candidate for the Papacy wrote about them as not being equal to scripture.

But I have an idea OP didn’t refer to the Apocrypha. Rather more hinting to the fact that the Bible is an apparent Catholc book and trying to guide us to talk about Sola Scriptura rather.

 

[MichaelP3]

The protestants in this forum tend to be much more informed and catholic friendly. The ones i have encountered in person absolutely think we are apostate.

And never met a protestant who accepts the deuteros for anything other than historical purposes.

Remove 2 Macc that changes quite a bit…purgatory, prayer for dead, indulgences etc.

I think Protestants who actually come to a Catholic forum like this would and should be more friendly. They would need to actually study Catholicism not to sound like total idiots and just be ignored or banned. I rather get the idea the protestants are more anti-anti-Protestant on here than anything near anti-Catholic.

I would rather say I have seen many more anti-Protestants posts than anti-Catholic ones on this forum.

 

[benhur]

Well, for starters, just look at topic here in this particular thread…the canon. Catholicism has been remarkably consistent on this issue with the same canon for 1600 years. From the beginning of the 5th century until Luthers break in 1517 there were 73 books considered inspired. So if a person is a informed protestant, then he/she must believe that Jesus allowed his Church to basically fall off a cliff for over a thousand years.

I’ve always asked the question to those who say no, that isn’t true, to explain to me when the church fell of into apostasy then? How can it be that the same Lord who said he would be with the Church always allowed them to compile a erroneous canon and practice with that canon for over a thousand years? It’s no wonder why protestant seminaries cover to the year 100AD then take lunch and come back at 1pm talking about Martin Luther. Seems to be the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address.

Hi La,

Sometimes folks like to talk of elephant in room so as to obfuscate the mouse/mice in the room.

Are things so black and white ? Seminaries totally skip 1400 years of HIStory ? There were zero objections/qualifications to canon until what, Luther, who included the apocrypha, with qualifications/prologue ? If you do not have 73 books in the canon you are “off the cliff” ? There is an exact moment believing one thing then another(apostate) ? If there be one error then all is error (apostate) ?..Again, possible defense mechanisms, avoiding little truths.

What is remarkable is the *consistent agreement amongst all faiths on canon, except for the apocrypha !
*
Blessings

 

[benhur]

I’ve heard that theory many, many times. And this from protestants not Mormons. The belief that the Catholic Church caved in to Roman paganism in order to co-exist peacefully with them.

Hi La,

Again, zero caving in? No elephants, no mice ? Why only two, I think, of seven early churches (the poor and battered ones) did not cave in to some error/fault , as per Revelations.

Blessings

PS-Reminds me of spousal advice , and not to say "always’’ or "never’’, with broad blanket, black/ white statements while discussing a disagreement, otherwise known as an argument. I do take the garbage out once in awhile. Lol.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I hear you and I can understand why one would say that. Although I don’t see it that way. People can come and try and argue it has always been that way but Jerome himself added those as an appendix after being forced by the pope of the time. Cardinal Cajetan, the Chief prosecutor against Luther and according to some writings a candidate for the Papacy wrote about them as not being equal to scripture.

But I have an idea OP didn’t refer to the Apocrypha. Rather more hinting to the fact that the Bible is an apparent Catholc book and trying to guide us to talk about Sola Scriptura rather.

Hi Michael.

Jeromes opinion changed over time. And after the vulgate the major disputes came to a end until the reformation.

And you’re right the purpose of this thread is likely to steer us into SS. And that’s another hot topic that i have seen steered towards the apostasy discussion from some non catholics. That placing tradition equal to scripture opens the door for a truckload of heresy, thus, exactly why the CC is so off base to this day- in their own minds of course( as one being their own authority)

Being the only Catholic in a family of hardliner protestants, i think I’ve heard it all. The apostasy claim is widespread, unfortunately.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Again, zero caving in? No elephants, no mice ? Why only two, I think, of seven early churches (the poor and battered ones) did not cave in to some error/fault , as per Revelations.

Blessings

PS-Reminds me of spousal advice , and not to say "always’’ or "never’’, with broad blanket, black/ white statements while discussing a disagreement, otherwise known as an argument. I do take the garbage out once in awhile. Lol.

Hi

The claim is that this happened post Nicea. That Isis goddess was just replaced hy Mary, etc, etc.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think Protestants who actually come to a Catholic forum like this would and should be more friendly. They would need to actually study Catholicism not to sound like total idiots and just be ignored or banned. I rather get the idea the protestants are more anti-anti-Protestant on here than anything near anti-Catholic.

I would rather say I have seen many more anti-Protestants posts than anti-Catholic ones on this forum.

Right on all accounts.

However, CAF is moderated extremely well in comparison to the many polemic forums out there. I really don’t see many unruly posts tbh. If poster signs up and is ugly with people they are dealt with swiftly.

I think we all actually enjoy talking with each other no matter what branch of Christendom we fall under. Would be great if the rest of the world could behave more like members of this forum.