Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

[Tony888]

estesbob:
So doctrine is determined by a vote? Well that is comforting-NOT

Don’t fool yourself bob.
Was not discussion held and votes taken at all the great Catholic councils?
In effect wasn’t the Trinity put to a vote and accepted by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea?

 

[estesbob]

Don’t fool yourself bob.
Was not discussion held and votes taken at all the great Catholic councils?
In effect wasn’t the Trinity put to a vote and accepted by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea?

They affirmed Doctrines that had always been accepted from day 1 they did not come up with new improved doctrines 1500 to 2000 years after the fact

 

[Tony888]

They affirmed Doctrines that had always been accepted from day 1 they did not come up with new improved doctrines 1500 to 2000 years after the fact

I disagree with you, since it only became official doctrine after the council

Also, in the Baptist example I provided, they were only ‘affirming’ existing doctrine

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SteveVH,

You are certainly correct about the impact of poor catechesis that poster aiambutasmallvo apparently received. My concern is that such posters will wind up poorly catechesized in their protestant faith - never questioning anying, never doing their how research to find the answers - but, quite willing to believe the bias that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Looking around at the straight forward question of “…where we got the Bible…” we find an aboundance of fantasy, myth and simple wishful thinking. If the Catholic Church is ‘wrong’ about everything else, how could it have given us the bible? How could God allow such error to contiue for 1500 years? Unless of course, the error started in the 1500s!

I really do not think this requires a leap of faith - just a serious study of history to see that prior to 400AD we really did not have a completed and identified Bible. We certainly did not have a Table of Contents with all of the Books identified. Researching for the answers on how these things cam to be - the Gospel of Matthew was accepted - but the Gospel of Thomas was rejected! The Gospel of Luke (not one of the 12) was accepted while the Gospel of Mary Magadeline (not one of the 12) was rejected.

Those who would discredit and destroy the Catholic Church were not stupid, silly or illeterate - they were learned and sophisticated… something like today’s computer hackers who seek to destroy the contents of your computer even thought you have never done anything to hurt them!

In the last analysis, it is not up to ‘feelings’ of having found Jesus - it is up to actually believing Him and then acting in the manner He commanded to show that belief ("If you love me you will keep my commandments [John 14:15, John 15:10]) in actions. One action is to believe what He said to Peter in Matt 16:18 when He gave Peter complete authority over the Chruch Christ had just founded on Peter. In the last analysis, we will all be judged on how we acted on the graces God has given to us - and that also includes finding His Chruch (and that would be the one He founded.)

God bless

By your statement you have at least implied that the Catholic understanding is that the Bible is a product of “solely the human wisdom of the writers in the Bible”. If that is waht you were taught as a Catholic I don’t blame you for leaving. However, I seriously doubt that is what you were taught by the Catholic Church, but rather you new found home.

That God is the author of Sacred Scripture has never been a question. The problem that the Catholic bishops faced when determining the canon of scripture was not whether God had inspired the writings chosen, but rather, of all the writings circulating during that time, which writings were authored by God (inspired) and which were not. That was accomplished by a group of Catholic men (bishops), guided by the Holy Spirit. It appears that those teaching you in your new church seem to be ignorant of history as well.

By the way, I am happy that you found God wherever you have found Him. One of my pet peeves is poor catechesis in our local parishes and it appears that you have been a victim of this. I am sorry that you were not taught better, but your choice to leave was based upon ignorance, not knowledge. We have many Catholics in this situation and it is truly sad. At the same time, we all have a personal responsibility to inform ourselves of the truth. Our Church provides many opportunities for this, but it did not always do so.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi, Jim Dandy,

I have enjoyed reading your posts… I have joined a bit late and have been trying to catch up. If this has been peviously explained, please point me in the right direction… I recall reading where Luther removed books he did not agree with - and in the process, called the Letter of St. James ‘…a gospel of straw…’ It basically did a lot of violence to his idea of Faith without Works. And, as I recall, Luther was quite insistant about keeping James’ epistle from recognition as having been inspired by God.

My question is: how did the Letter of James get back into the recognized New Testament books?

God bless

Hi Tom

Thanks for the kind words!

Here’s the short story on Luther:

In his German translation of the Bible (1534), Luther removed seven writings and parts of Esther and Daniel from their rightful place in the canon of the OT and placed them in an appendix between the OT and the NT. He left the pages unnumbered so readers would know they were not included with the writings he considered Scripture, and he wrote prefaces explaning why he considered them inferior. .

He gave Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation the same treatment: He removed them from their rightful place in the canon of the NT and placed them in an appendix at the end of the NT. He left the pages unnumbered, indicating that he did not consider them to be Scripture. He wrote prefaces explaining why he considered them inferior.

So even though he removed these writings from the canon, he left them in his Bible. Later, Luther’s followers restored the NT writings, but they allowed his cuts to the OT canon to stand.

The translators of the KJV in 1611 followed Luther’s example. The rejected OT writings were put in an appendix between the OT and the NT. No change in the NT. I’ll spare you the details, but in 1827 the OT books that Protestants call “the Apocrypha,” were removed from Protestant Bibles altogether.

Here’s a sample of what Luther wrote about the four NT books, You can read all of his prefaces for his German Bible here:

godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

QUOTE:

Hebrews
Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.

James
I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle.

Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.

(Luther attacked James and made that straw comment other places. Here’s another:Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

Jude
Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith.

Revelation
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely. END QUOTE

There were two OTs in circulation among the Jews at the time of Christ. One was the Hebrew and one was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, called the Septuagint. Both were regarded as Scripture by the Jews, even in Palestine. The Church adopted the Septuagint as her Scriptures, which she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles. 86% of the quotations from the OT that are in the NT are from the Septuagint. But the Palestinian rabbis rejected it because it became the Scriptures of the Church. Centuries later, Luther also rejected it. That’s why he removed those OT books from the canon – they were in Greek, although at the time the translation was made, all but two of them were originally in Hebrew. They didn’t fit Luther’s new doctrines. Actually, his target was 2 Maccabees, but it was easier to jettison all of the writings that had been rejected by the rabbis. He used that as his justification. Anyway, it’s a fascinating story. I’ve only given you the nut-shell version.

Recommended reading: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta. Google his name; he has a website.

Thanks again for your kind comments,

Jim Dandy

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jim,

Thank you.

God bless

Hi Tom

Thanks for the kind words!

Here’s the short story on Luther:

In his German translation of the Bible (1534), Luther removed seven writings and parts of Esther and Daniel from their rightful place in the canon of the OT and placed them in an appendix between the OT and the NT. He left the pages unnumbered so readers would know they were not included with the writings he considered Scripture, and he wrote prefaces explaning why he considered them inferior. .

He gave Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation the same treatment: He removed them from their rightful place in the canon of the NT and placed them in an appendix at the end of the NT. He left the pages unnumbered, indicating that he did not consider them to be Scripture. He wrote prefaces explaining why he considered them inferior.

So even though he removed these writings from the canon, he left them in his Bible. Later, Luther’s followers restored the NT writings, but they allowed his cuts to the OT canon to stand.

The translators of the KJV in 1611 followed Luther’s example. The rejected OT writings were put in an appendix between the OT and the NT. No change in the NT. I’ll spare you the details, but in 1827 the OT books that Protestants call “the Apocrypha,” were removed from Protestant Bibles altogether.

Here’s a sample of what Luther wrote about the four NT books, You can read all of his prefaces for his German Bible here:

godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

QUOTE:

Hebrews
Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.

James
I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle.

Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.

(Luther attacked James and made that straw comment other places. Here’s another:Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

Jude
Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith.

Revelation
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely. END QUOTE

There were two OTs in circulation among the Jews at the time of Christ. One was the Hebrew and one was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, called the Septuagint. Both were regarded as Scripture by the Jews, even in Palestine. The Church adopted the Septuagint as her Scriptures, which she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles. 86% of the quotations from the OT that are in the NT are from the Septuagint. But the Palestinian rabbis rejected it because it became the Scriptures of the Church. Centuries later, Luther also rejected it. That’s why he removed those OT books from the canon – they were in Greek, although at the time the translation was made, all but two of them were originally in Hebrew. They didn’t fit Luther’s new doctrines. Actually, his target was 2 Maccabees, but it was easier to jettison all of the writings that had been rejected by the rabbis. He used that as his justification. Anyway, it’s a fascinating story. I’ve only given you the nut-shell version.

Recommended reading: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta. Google his name; he has a website.

Thanks again for your kind comments,

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Don’t fool yourself bob.
Was not discussion held and votes taken at all the great Catholic councils?
In effect wasn’t the Trinity put to a vote and accepted by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea?

The bishops voted on the language to be used to define the Trinity, not on the Trinity itself.

Catholics are not Protestants:

Everyone in favor of abortion, raise your hand!
Everyone in favor of believing hell exists, raise your hand!

Jim Dandy

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jim Dandy,

I have enjoyed reading your posts… I have joined a bit late and have been trying to catch up. If this has been peviously explained, please point me in the right direction… I recall reading where Luther removed books he did not agree with - and in the process, called the Letter of St. James ‘…a gospel of straw…’ It basically did a lot of violence to his idea of Faith without Works. And, as I recall, Luther was quite insistant about keeping James’ epistle from recognition as having been inspired by God.

My question is: how did the Letter of James get back into the recognized New Testament books?

God bless

Tom,
Instead of responding to the Luther canon debate - I’ve done this numerous times - I’ll just link to James Swan’s essay regarding it, which seems a very good review, at least from my perspective. Obviously, our good friend Jim Dandy and other good Catholics will disagree with his perspective, and that’s fine. At least you can read the other POV.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;8162243]Hi, JonNC,

I have been trying to follow your presentation here … and am having trouble here.

The idea that the first seven councils of the Catholic Church are inspired by God, presented accurate teaching and lead the faithful to a closer following of Christ - and then something happened … And, the eighth council (Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) was not inspired because the Eastern Church did not agree with it?

Photius should NOT have been declared a heretic? newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm and

Filioque (the dogma that states the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son) is not believed by the Lutherans? newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
Hi Tom,
Inspired by God would be the way Lutherans would put it, but moving on.
The fact that the 8th council is NOT agreed by the universal Church (at the time) calls it into question. Am I correct that it is not, was not agreed to?

As for the Filioque, Lutherans generally use it (let’s face it - we are part of the western Church). Is it necessary, as far we’re concerned? Probably not.

I fail to see just where the problem is so that if the Eastern Church returns to being under the authority of the Pope - the Luthers (or, at least you) would also re-join the Catholic Church. Honestly, JonNC - there are far more differences existing than the 8th Council.

And yet, full unity between east and west would for me be one of the things that would convinced to “swim the Tiber”.

But, if you would, please tell me - Luther was no friend of the Letter of St James and went so far as to call it “…a gospel of straw…”. In your opinion, how is it that St James’ letter came to be recognized as an inspired book of the New Testament?

Remember, the book of straw was, first and foremost, a comparison to the other Epistles. Luther’s problem with James and the other disputed books (antilegomena) has to do with authorship, and the historic disputes.

Jon

God bless

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, SteveVH,

You are certainly correct about the impact of poor catechesis that poster aiambutasmallvo apparently received. My concern is that such posters will wind up poorly catechesized in their protestant faith - never questioning anying, never doing their how research to find the answers - but, quite willing to believe the bias that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Looking around at the straight forward question of “…where we got the Bible…” we find an aboundance of fantasy, myth and simple wishful thinking. If the Catholic Church is ‘wrong’ about everything else, how could it have given us the bible? How could God allow such error to contiue for 1500 years? Unless of course, the error started in the 1500s!

I really do not think this requires a leap of faith - just a serious study of history to see that prior to 400AD we really did not have a completed and identified Bible. We certainly did not have a Table of Contents with all of the Books identified. Researching for the answers on how these things cam to be - the Gospel of Matthew was accepted - but the Gospel of Thomas was rejected! The Gospel of Luke (not one of the 12) was accepted while the Gospel of Mary Magadeline (not one of the 12) was rejected.

Those who would discredit and destroy the Catholic Church were not stupid, silly or illeterate - they were learned and sophisticated… something like today’s computer hackers who seek to destroy the contents of your computer even thought you have never done anything to hurt them!

In the last analysis, it is not up to ‘feelings’ of having found Jesus - it is up to actually believing Him and then acting in the manner He commanded to show that belief ("If you love me you will keep my commandments [John 14:15, John 15:10]) in actions. One action is to believe what He said to Peter in Matt 16:18 when He gave Peter complete authority over the Chruch Christ had just founded on Peter. In the last analysis, we will all be judged on how we acted on the graces God has given to us - and that also includes finding His Chruch (and that would be the one He founded.)

God bless

I appreciate your comments. About a year ago the Catholic men’s group in our parish, of which I am a member, went through the Bible Timeline (The Great Adventure) which was an extraordinary experience. We had one member who truly didn’t know the difference between the Old Testament and the New. He was in his late 60’s. It is no wonder that Catholics are so easily swayed by those outside of the Church. I thank God that this has changed in the last 25 years or so. I find great hope in our young people who are being properly catechized and I am simply blown away by our young priests just coming out of seminary. Unfortunately, there were many left in the dust before these changes were made.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Thank you. Did you intend to put the link to James Swan’s essay in your post?

God bless

Tom,
Instead of responding to the Luther canon debate - I’ve done this numerous times - I’ll just link to James Swan’s essay regarding it, which seems a very good review, at least from my perspective. Obviously, our good friend Jim Dandy and other good Catholics will disagree with his perspective, and that’s fine. At least you can read the other POV.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

You have posted an interesting insight and one that I think we can use the Bible to address quite well.

Here is the progression:

1.) Christ presents credible and eye-witness testimony that He is the Son of God (John 14:6-11 “If you don’t believe what I say, believe because of the works you have seen me do” )

2.) Christ founds His Church on Peter and gives him authority to bind and lose - and gives Peter the keys as a sign of this authority. (Matt 16:18 “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” )

3.) Christ preomises He will not leave us orphans and He will send us the Holy Spirit so that no error will mislead His Chruch (John 14:18 “I wil not leave you orphans…” )

**4.) Christ instructs His Apostles to go out and spread the Good News of salvation and to baptize everyone. (Matt 28:19 “Go and make all nations my disciples, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”) **

5.) The first major administrative crisis of Christianity is brought about by the realization that the Apostles needed to bring their ranks up to 12 since the departue of Judas - notice that they met and prayed and decided how the Successor would be chosen (Matt 10:10 “If you don’t believe what I say, believe because of the signs” )

6.) The second major administrative crisis of Christianity is brought about by the Apostles needing more workers to carry on the Mission of Christ - notice that they met and prayed and then decided the qualifications for the newly created position of Deacon. (Acts 1:26 “The lot fell to Matthias.” )

7.) The first major doctrinal crisis of Christianity is brought about by the Judiazers who wanted the new converts to Christ to follow the Mosaic law. The First Council of Jerusalem was called and there was a discussion - (given their previous history, I am confident that they prayed to God for guidance) and notice - it is Peter who decided the issue (James provided a rather lengthy agreement to Peter’s decision).Acts 15:7 “After much discussion, Peter got up and spoke…”)

In these seven accounts we see a pattern of growth and develop of the Early Catholic Church. What is important is that either we believe Christ or we don’t - we either believe:
1- that He is the Son of God and has All Power and Glory
2- that He founded His Chruch on error-prone and sinful men
3- that He will keep His promise and not leave us with the guidance of the Holy Spirit
4- that He guides the Pope and his fellow bishops in communion with him to teach the Truth
5- and… that NONE of these principles have changed since 33AD.

… or we don’t believe it. Of course, not believing what is clearly written in the Bible puts one in the difficult position of claiming to believe the Bible, but only when it can be interpreted to suit one’s man-made traditions. Now, that is a problem that will ultimately be resolved for each individual when they meet the King before the White Throne.

God bless

Don’t fool yourself bob.
Was not discussion held and votes taken at all the great Catholic councils?
In effect wasn’t the Trinity put to a vote and accepted by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

This is really quite interesting…so let me see if I have this straight…

The fact that the 8th council is NOT agreed by the universal Church (at the time) calls it into question. Am I correct that it is not, was not agreed to?

Now, JonNC, this sounds like a, <e. too!" argument…only about 650 years after the fact. The Eastern Chruch did not agree with the 8th Council - you ar correct with that. And, Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII did not agree with Trent. Everyone can scream that “2 + 2 = 5” but that does not make it so, does it. And, simply because the Eastern Chruch did not agree with the decison made by the Council and ratified by the Pope does not void the decision made by the Vicar of Christ on earth. There is only one man with the Keys - the Successor of Peter - and he is the one who decided the outcome.

To claim that the Protestants were justified in their revolt because the Easter Chruch had already revolted makes no sense… at least not to me. Luther, to the best of my knowledge, was not championing Photius’ cause.

As for the Filioque, Lutherans generally use it (let’s face it - we are part of the western Church). Is it necessary, as far we’re concerned? Probably not.

And, this is really where it gets confusing - at least for me. How can we side the Easter Chruch for the schism, yet honor and believe the dogma of Filioque - something they refused to believe? Honest, to dismiss this as East vs West, or some type of cultural area misses the point of genuine Christian doctrine - a doctrine held by most Protestants.

I submit you can not ‘cherry-pick’ the 8th Council for what looks good and decry what you do not like. Think about it - the previous seven councils - where genuine dogmas were proclaimed are acceptable - but, we get a schismatic group in the Eastern Church and you (Protestants) jump ship? This makes no sense. I fail to see what action the Eastern Church’s schism had to do with Luther’s revolt… except, maybe, “They did it - so can I! But, let’s keep that Filoque item because I like it.” Forgive my putting words into Luther’s mouth…

Ultimately, none of can have things both ways. Catholics accept the fact that Christ has not left us orphans - and also accept the fact that we have fallen away brothers and sisters in Christ. Jumping out of the ship (Barque of Peter) and starting to swim for it by looking at which way the ship is going isn’t gong to last for long. Storms come up that would cause the bravest swimmer to be fearful. There have been waves that have rocked the barque - but, never sunk it. (Forgive the extended nautical analogy…)

God bless

 

[christosdavid]

just read the last couple of pages since I last posted.

I can assure you that the Protestants Ive met and studied with do in fact study church history, pre-ref tends to be the early church rather than medieval though.

The early church and Jewish studies mostly had Anglican and Orthodox lecturers and the Baptists also taught early church history as a necessary part of the Bachelor of Theology course, though they taught early church history (skipped medieval history) and Reformation history from a radical reformation perspective.

I’m disappointed in statements like, the Bible existed about 400 years after the church.

This doesnt reflect the interrelationship between them at all. The Old Latin which was the translation Augustine had for most of his life, certainly at his conversion was the Bible which he said the Catholic church approved of, it is largely under himself that there was the canon drawn up, the councils of Hippo, Cathage and the western church largely being influenced by him and his own canonical listing.

Yet, the “Bible” existed before these canonical listings. After Augustine heard the child’s voice “Tolle lege” pick up and read - he picked up the book of Romans which was nearby, this was before these councils and the canon was settled, yet by faith Augustine knew that the author of this book was not merely Paul but the Holy Spirit (God Himself).

After all, these books (codex form) had been largely confiscated and destroyed such as in the persecution of Diocletian, particularly in North Africa, giving rise to the Donatist schism and Cyprian affirming the continuing Catholic presence in N.A.

As far back as Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp we have New Testament Scripture being quoted, the Didache giving Matthews version of the Lord’s Prayer and Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen … the list goes on. The NT began to exist as soon as the espitles, Gospels and Apocalypse were copied for others to read and lectionaries contained their words for use in divine worship.

 

[SteveVH]

just read the last couple of pages since I last posted.

I can assure you that the Protestants Ive met and studied with do in fact study church history, pre-ref tends to be the early church rather than medieval though.

The early church and Jewish studies mostly had Anglican and Orthodox lecturers and the Baptists also taught early church history as a necessary part of the Bachelor of Theology course, though they taught early church history (skipped medieval history) and Reformation history from a radical reformation perspective.

I’m disappointed in statements like, the Bible existed about 400 years after the church.

This doesnt reflect the interrelationship between them at all. The Old Latin which was the translation Augustine had for most of his life, certainly at his conversion was the Bible which he said the Catholic church approved of, it is largely under himself that there was the canon drawn up, the councils of Hippo, Cathage and the western church largely being influenced by him and his own canonical listing.

Yet, the “Bible” existed before these canonical listings. After Augustine heard the child’s voice “Tolle lege” pick up and read - he picked up the book of Romans which was nearby, this was before these councils and the canon was settled, yet by faith Augustine knew that the author of this book was not merely Paul but the Holy Spirit (God Himself).

After all, these books (codex form) had been largely confiscated and destroyed such as in the persecution of Diocletian, particularly in North Africa, giving rise to the Donatist schism and Cyprian affirming the continuing Catholic presence in N.A.

As far back as Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp we have New Testament Scripture being quoted, the Didache giving Matthews version of the Lord’s Prayer and Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen … the list goes on. The NT began to exist as soon as the espitles, Gospels and Apocalypse were copied for others to read and lectionaries contained their words for use in divine worship.

I don’t think anyone would argue that the writings existed long before their canonization and were used by the Church in the early Masses. But there were other writings circulating as well such as the Didache, as you mentioned and Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. Each of these are beautiful and contain no doctrinal or moral errors that I know of, but they were not chosen as Scripture. There were other writings that, no doubt, contained many errors. I would agree that those books included in the canon were, for the most part, believed to be inspired long before the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, but not all the writings were present in every Church at every location at the same time. The epistles would have found their first home in the specific Church to which they were addressed. My point is that I think it is a complete guess as to when the entire volume of writings were common in every Church, if ever, and if they would have all been agreed upon without the official proclamation of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

Thank you. Did you intend to put the link to James Swan’s essay in your post?

God bless

Oops.

tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

 

[christosdavid]

I don’t think anyone would argue that the writings existed long before their canonization and were used by the Church in the early Masses. But there were other writings circulating as well such as the Didache, as you mentioned and Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. Each of these are beautiful and contain no doctrinal or moral errors that I know of, but they were not chosen as Scripture. There were other writings that, no doubt, contained many errors. I would agree that those books included in the canon were, for the most part, believed to be inspired long before the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, but not all the writings were present in every Church at every location at the same time. The epistles would have found their first home in the specific Church to which they were addressed. My point is that I think it is a complete guess as to when the entire volume of writings were common in every Church, if ever, and if they would have all been agreed upon without the official proclamation of the Church.

They should, but when people argue “shorthand” statements like, the Bible didnt exist untill 400 years after the church was founded is unfortunate.

Irenaeus quotes most of the NT, Origen at the same time period.

perhaps the process of canonization wasnt finished but clearly there were Scriptures and they were believed to have been inspired.

How else could Constantine have commissioned 50 new Bibles, if there were not, in fact, a Bible.

I feel that the process of apologetics against Protestants has not helped the Catholic case for a better understanding of Biblical history.

The fact was that these NT books were already being used and the church responded to their existence.

 

[christosdavid]

The letters of the new testament were written by Catholics to Catholics. The word of these letters were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but penned by men. The Catholic Church recognizes these word as being God breathed. When these books of the NT are read with the teaching of the Church, they are God’s message for us. The problem always starts when you separate the Bible and the Church.** The historical fact remains that the Church pre-dates the Bible by a few hundred years./**QUOTE]

This is an example of what Im refering to, but its by no means the first time Ive seen it.

The church did pre-exist the NT writings. by about 20 years to the earliest letters and perhaps the first written Gospel. The entire canon was completed by 60 years of the church’s institution at Pentecost.

Fragments of John’s Gospel found in Egypt (Bodmer Papyrii) date from 125 AD (on the other side of the known world to where it was written, in Ephesus most likely).

The final NT letters to be recived into the canon 2 & 3 John, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation are important, these are God’s words, they are all important, yet the bulk of the NT had been copied as Scripture for 250-300 years before they were canonized.

 

[Tony888]

The bishops voted on the language to be used to define the Trinity, not on the Trinity itself.

Catholics are not Protestants:

Everyone in favor of abortion, raise your hand!
Everyone in favor of believing hell exists, raise your hand!

Jim Dandy

That is a silly response,
Crafting the language has a significant impoact on the meaning.
Thus, when they crafted and then voted on the text, they were clearly defining doctrine that was in contention prior to that point

Introducing Abortion into this discussion is a red herring since the bible is clear that murder is a sin, and Catholics have long stated the soul enters (life begins) at conception. There is nothing to debate in that case.

Another faith that does not agree life begins at conception might come to a different conclusion (not my argument)

 

[SteveVH]

They should, but when people argue “shorthand” statements like, the Bible didnt exist untill 400 years after the church was founded is unfortunate.

Irenaeus quotes most of the NT, Origen at the same time period.

perhaps the process of canonization wasnt finished but clearly there were Scriptures and they were believed to have been inspired.

How else could Constantine have commissioned 50 new Bibles, if there were not, in fact, a Bible.

I feel that the process of apologetics against Protestants has not helped the Catholic case for a better understanding of Biblical history.

The fact was that these NT books were already being used and the church responded to their existence.

Yes, but this does not detract at all from the fact that it was the Catholic Church that was using the inspired writings and that the reason they knew they were inspired was because of the Church’s Tradition, prior to their canonization. The New Testament was that part of Sacred Tradition written down. But the world from 397 A.D. on would know the entire gathering of the writings and be assured that they were inspired, not just because this Church here or that Church there claimed they were. This has nothing to say against Protestants. Now, if anyone claims that no one had any idea concerning the inspired status of the books making up the canon until the councils met, then I would agree that they don’t know their history. On the other hand, when some claim that the Church was a vague mishmash of individual “Christian” churches therefore the Catholic Church has no claim to giving the world the Bible in its current form they would be equally wrong. There really was no other Church in existence at the time.