Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

[Hboggs]

In all the years I spent as a ‘Bible-believing’ Southern Baptist, I was never taught where we got the Bible – not in Sunday School, nor was it ever mentioned in any sermon. I guess I just thought the Bible fell out of heaven in the red letter edition. It never occurred to me to ask. “It came from God,” was all I knew.

Am I the exception? Are Protestants usually taught where we got the Bible? If not, why not? Or is the answer too obvious?

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Jim Dandy

I too grew up SB and NEVER was the source of the Bible taught other than phrases such as “inspired writers”, etc. I honestly believe that if a well informed Catholic had presented fairly all the “facts of the case”, it would have made no difference and my particular SBC would never have given the Catholic Church the credit due.

 

[manualman]

The Orthodox Church and every ecclesial community taught that contraception was a serious sin until the Anglican/Episcopalian vote to approve it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Now they have all caved in to the social pressure. The Catholic Church stands alone in teaching the Truth.

Such claims ought to be tempered with a humility check. The Holy Spirit has, indeed, protected the integrity of the authoritative teaching of the Church on the matter. The average catholic on the street, however, contracepts at about the same rate as anybody else. Sad, but apparently true. Sounds like chest thumping and a smidge prideful without that disclosure. Fact is that we’ve got little to be humanly proud of. The Holy Spirit does all the heavy lifting and miraculous intervention. As a people, we screw up as bad as anybody else.

When you put it like that, this is actually even stronger evidence of the protection of the Holy Spirit on the Magisterium. Even the EO, with all the sacraments and their emphasis on revelation over philosophy find ways to rationalize contraception (at least in certain circumstance). The fact that only the Catholic Church refuses to compromise the teaching suggests that either we’re the most pig headed buggers on the planet or that it really is the Holy Spirit restraining human frailty from breaking from the cultural pressure.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi Jim,

On sola fide, see the JDDJ. We seem to growing to convergence on justification over the last half century.

There has been progress, but we’re not there yet. And Protestantism as a whole still teaches the same old Sola Fide, ‘Faith Alone,’ of the 16th century…

On SS, I would never say that SS is necessary to salvation, and I don’t think the Lutheran Church does. SS is a practice of the Church to determine doctrine, not something someone must ascribe to, de fide, in order for salvation. Millions of Catholics and Orthodox are saved without their Church practicing SS.

Jon

The (incomplete) Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith, but it is not necessary for salvation?

Jim Dandy

 

[Newsy]

Right on.

The Orthodox Church and every ecclesial community taught that contraception was a serious sin until the Anglican/Episcopalian vote to approve it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Now they have all caved in to the social pressure. The Catholic Church stands alone in teaching the Truth.

The Episcopalians have led the way downhill on other moral issues – including homosexuality. They financially support homosexual lovers in their rectories. Others are following. A split of Presbyterians were the latest to make the news.

There is this strange belief among Protestants that the Holy Spirit will lead every individual “to all truth” in the interpretation of Scripture. They claim this in spite of the thousands of conflicting and competing denominations that illustrate the folly of this belief.

I left the presbyterian church before the “homosexuals in the pulpit” passed. It is sad to see the society influence the church instead of the church influencing society. It was a part of what drew me to the Catholic Church, their timeless teachings on morals and theology. Truth doesn’t change, men try to change Truth. I once heard that “the truth doesn’t need to be justified” and that seems to ring true in my life.

 

[valentino]

The problem with the Reformation was that it was intented to just correct 2 wrongs.It was addressing the error of the way indulgences were given(sold in effect)and the wealth of the clergy.That’s it.Period.But in essense since the Church would not change Her opinion (the Pope was very busy at the time there was a war to deal with)Luther took it upon himself to say that the Pope was irrelavant.So you see out of 2 simple problems which could have been solved perhaps in a better time huge problems were created.All people are sinners including Popes.

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;8106905]There has been progress, but we’re not there yet. And Protestantism as a whole still teaches the same old Sola Fide, ‘Faith Alone,’ of the 16th century…

I could get an argument from some, but I think, in many ways, the JDDJ is closer to Luther’s Galatian’s 5:6 commentary on what is saving faith than what many other protestants teach today. I certainly think the Lutheran view is, as compared to Calvinist or American evangelical, the 16th century sola fide.

The (incomplete) Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith, but it is not necessary for salvation?

No. Again, Jim, you misunderstand the intention of sola scriptura. I don’t have to believe in sola scriptura in order to be saved. Sola scriptura is merely a practice of the Church for the purpose of determining doctrine, and holding teachers and teachings accountable. John 3:16, for instnaces, doesn’t say, “…for whosoever believes in Him and is amember of a communion that practices sola scriptura…”. It is the doctrines that are articles of faith.

The first seven councils did not teach Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. These were Luther’s novel doctrines which he claimed were necessary for salvation…

Jim, I was thinking, the first seven councils do not teach Purgatory, indulgences, the metaphysics of Transubstantiation, or papal supremacy, either. The claim that these, too, are novel innovations could also be made.

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Such claims ought to be tempered with a humility check. The Holy Spirit has, indeed, protected the integrity of the authoritative teaching of the Church on the matter. The average catholic on the street, however, contracepts at about the same rate as anybody else. Sad, but apparently true. Sounds like chest thumping and a smidge prideful without that disclosure. Fact is that we’ve got little to be humanly proud of. The Holy Spirit does all the heavy lifting and miraculous intervention. As a people, we screw up as bad as anybody else.

The Truth remains true even if nobody believes it; error is error even if everyone believes it.

When you put it like that, this is actually even stronger evidence of the protection of the Holy Spirit on the Magisterium. Even the EO, with all the sacraments and their emphasis on revelation over philosophy find ways to rationalize contraception (at least in certain circumstance). The fact that only the Catholic Church refuses to compromise the teaching suggests that either we’re the most pig headed buggers on the planet or that it really is the Holy Spirit restraining human frailty from breaking from the cultural pressure.

Amen!

 

[Tony888]

The problem with the Reformation was that it was intented to just correct 2 wrongs.It was addressing the error of the way indulgences were given(sold in effect)and the wealth of the clergy.That’s it.Period.But in essense since the Church would not change Her opinion (the Pope was very busy at the time there was a war to deal with)Luther took it upon himself to say that the Pope was irrelavant.So you see out of 2 simple problems which could have been solved perhaps in a better time huge problems were created.All people are sinners including Popes.

I think you trivialize the systemic problems in the Church at the time. The two items you mentioned were the visible tips of the icebergs, with much more underneath the water.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I could get an argument from some, but I think, in many ways, the JDDJ is closer to Luther’s Galatian’s 5:6 commentary on what is saving faith than what many other protestants teach today. I certainly think the Lutheran view is, as compared to Calvinist or American evangelical, the 16th century sola fide.

Jon, you can’t deny that Luther is the source of Sola Fide, no matter how subsequent denominatioins interpret it or apply it.

And, of course, Galatians 5:6 is the Catholic teaching. It was written by a member of the Church known as Catholic into a letter that later was accepted into the collection of writings that the Church named the New Testament.

No. Again, Jim, you misunderstand the intention of sola scriptura. I don’t have to believe in sola scriptura in order to be saved. Sola scriptura is merely a practice of the Church for the purpose of determining doctrine, and holding teachers and teachings accountable. John 3:16, for instnaces, doesn’t say, “…for whosoever believes in Him and is amember of a communion that practices sola scriptura…”. It is the doctrines that are articles of faith.

No, I am not misunderstanding. I see that I was not clear. I am not referring to the specific doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but to what it teaches – that the Bible is the sole source of faith and morals. Interpretations of SS vary among Protestants, but it means Bible Alone or Bible Only.

This is very unlike the historic Catholic belief. As I have said many times, the Church did not come out of the Bible**;** the Bible came out of the Church.

Jim, I was thinking, the first seven councils do not teach Purgatory, indulgences, the metaphysics of Transubstantiation, or papal supremacy, either. The claim that these, too, are novel innovations could also be made

These are all teachings of the nascent Catholic Church. The Church has no authority to add doctrines to the Deposit of Faith she received from the Apostles. She has no teachings of her own. Her understanding of those received teachings has developed over the centuries, but the Church teaches what she was taught. Anglican clergyman and convert John Henry Newman’s book Essays in the Development of Christian Doctrine is recommended.

Transubstantiation is a word coined to explain the change that takes place in the Eucharist. It was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, but the faith behind the term was believed while the Apostles walked the earth. The name “Purgatory” was later given to describe the process of purification of the soul, believed by the Jews and consequently by Jesus and the Apostles and taught to the first Christians. “Indulgences” were granted by the Church from the earliest times as mitigation of canonical penances. These penances have been discontinued, but the granting of Indulgences for the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin has not. The efficacy of the Indulgence depends on the supernatural charity with which the indulgenced task is done and the perfection of the task itself.

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . . "

Jim Dandy

 

[Nicea325]

Jim, I was thinking, the first seven councils do not teach Purgatory, indulgences, the metaphysics of Transubstantiation, or papal supremacy, either. The claim that these, too, are novel innovations could also be made.

Jon

Blessings Jon!

Jon,but those 7 councils were not called in regards to purgatory,papal primacy,etc,but other doctrines which were being challenged. Purgatory was a pratice among Jews,yet they did not call it purgatory. So one cannot really state primacy or purgatory are novel innovations. I have asked many people who are argue purgatory is false to show me when,where, and who created this ‘novel’ Christian doctrine?

Peace brother.

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon!

Jon,but those 7 councils were not called in regards to purgatory,papal primacy,etc,but other doctrines which were being challenged. Purgatory was a pratice among Jews,yet they did not call it purgatory. So one cannot really state primacy or purgatory are novel innovations. I have asked many people who are argue purgatory is false to show me when,where, and who created this ‘novel’ Christian doctrine?

Peace brother.

Exactly,
Our friend Jim was saying that they didn’t teach sola fide and SS. I agree, and I was simply responding in kind, but not to be contrary. We are sometimes accused of rejecting the first 1500 years of the Church, which we don’t. In fact, it seems to me that many of our disagreements come from doctrine est after the Schism.

BTW, hope you are well.
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Exactly,
Our friend Jim was saying that they didn’t teach sola fide and SS. I agree, and I was simply responding in kind, but not to be contrary. We are sometimes accused of rejecting the first 1500 years of the Church, which we don’t. In fact, it seems to me that many of our disagreements come from doctrine est after the Schism.

BTW, hope you are well.
Jon

Unfortunately many Catholics can clump all our separated brethen into the same basket. I know not all Lutherans reject 1500 years of the Church. Jon, you know I have said this many times in the past,it is truly sad how divided Christianity has become… All I can offer are my prayers for unity. I am doing well,thanks for asking my friend.

God Bless you and your family.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Exactly,
Our friend Jim was saying that they didn’t teach sola fide and SS. I agree, and I was simply responding in kind, but not to be contrary. We are sometimes accused of rejecting the first 1500 years of the Church, which we don’t. In fact, it seems to me that many of our disagreements come from doctrine est after the Schism.

Jon

Jon, my friend, it seems you don’t yet understand. Please allow me to try again.

The Catholic Church established no new doctrines after the Apostles lived upon the earth. The formal definition of a doctrine, or expressing it in the current idiom of the era as did Vatican II, or even giving it a new name that more clearly portrays its purpose, is not establishing new doctrine. The beliefs of Catholics all originated, either expressed or implied, from the teaching of the Apostles in the first century.

Do you remember this from my post #104? "These [transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences] are all teachings of the nascent Catholic Church. The Church has no authority to add doctrines to the Deposit of Faith she received from the Apostles. She has no teachings of her own. Her understanding of those received teachings has developed over the centuries, but the Church teaches what she was taught. Anglican clergyman and convert John Henry Newman’s book Essays in the Development of Christian Doctrine is recommended."

(Now Blessed) John Henry Newman withdrew to the English countryside to study history and write about the Catholic Church having added doctrines, arguments he used against the Church. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine resulted from his studies. When it was finished he put down his pen, called a priest, and asked to be received into the Church.

“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism.” An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman, Image Books, A Division of Doubleday, 1960, p. 34.

Jim Dandy

 

[JonNC]

Jon, my friend, it seems you don’t yet understand. Please allow me to try again.

The Catholic Church established no new doctrines after the Apostles lived upon the earth. The formal definition of a doctrine, or expressing it in the current idiom of the era as did Vatican II, or even giving it a new name that more clearly portrays its purpose, is not establishing new doctrine. The beliefs of Catholics all originated, either expressed or implied, from the teaching of the Apostles in the first century.

Do you remember this from my post #104? "These [transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences] are all teachings of the nascent Catholic Church. The Church has no authority to add doctrines to the Deposit of Faith she received from the Apostles. She has no teachings of her own. Her understanding of those received teachings has developed over the centuries, but the Church teaches what she was taught. Anglican clergyman and convert John Henry Newman’s book Essays in the Development of Christian Doctrine is recommended."

(Now Blessed) John Henry Newman withdrew to the English countryside to study history and write about the Catholic Church having added doctrines, arguments he used against the Church. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine resulted from his studies. When it was finished he put down his pen, called a priest, and asked to be received into the Church.

“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism.” An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman, Image Books, A Division of Doubleday, 1960, p. 34.

Jim Dandy

And yet, Jim, there are doctrines in the Catholic Church not shared by the Orthodox, even those claimed to be nacent to the early Church. I understand it.

Back to the original thread, and through all the posts, did I make it clear that Lutherans do understand the history of the Bible, levels of catechesis notwithstanding?

And finally, please know that I always enjoy our conversations.

Jon

 

[NiteClerk]

I was a Southern Baptist when I married a Catholic from a family that had been Catholics for about 400 years. While working on converting my wife away from Catholicism I researched where the Bible came from. Very long story short, I converted myself to Catholicism. Other than bull headed stubbornness my biggest obstacle was the authority of the Pope. But I pride myself on being a logical person. So once I was convinced logically the Catholic Church was the one true Church, I had to accept it. There are still some things that I logically disagree with, but I accept the Church’s teachings and authority.

 

[Christalone]

In all the years I spent as a ‘Bible-believing’ Southern Baptist, I was never taught where we got the Bible – not in Sunday School, nor was it ever mentioned in any sermon. I guess I just thought the Bible fell out of heaven in the red letter edition. It never occurred to me to ask. “It came from God,” was all I knew.

Am I the exception? Are Protestants usually taught where we got the Bible? If not, why not? Or is the answer too obvious?

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Jim Dandy

Talk about condescending and holier than thou! Obviously holier than God too, since it is evident that the bible coming from God is not good enough!!

 

[estesbob]

Talk about condescending and holier than thou! Obviously holier than God too, since it is evident that the bible coming from God is not good enough!!

He gave it to his Church who gave it to you.

 

[Christalone]

No, He gave it to all, not just one group of people

 

[Anna_Scott]

That inspired me to look up the history of the SBC. Hmm, interesting. Thanks!

Sidebar:

Izdaari,

The SBC actually issued two interesting “Resolutions” about their origins, and their connections to an infamous organization. You might find them interesting.

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=894

These statements were a long time coming.

Peace,
Anna

 

[PJM]

=Jim Dandy;8080545]In all the years I spent as a ‘Bible-believing’ Southern Baptist, I was never taught where we got the Bible – not in Sunday School, nor was it ever mentioned in any sermon. I guess I just thought the Bible fell out of heaven in the red letter edition. “It came from God,” was all I knew.

Am I the exception? Are Protestants usually taught where we got the Bible? If not, why not? Or is the answer too obvious?

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Jim Dandy

***I SUSPECT yours is the normal condition. WHY?

Because the Bible came through the Catholic Church.

The OT was collected by men known today to ahve been Catholics and the Entire NT was actually authored by Catholics,

Further in is the CC that collected ALL of the Books and set the original Canon of the Bible MANY hundreds of years before there were ANY OTHER Christian faiths and churches.

From the 1st. Word to the Final WORD in the Bible; God always and everywhere insisted on ONLY One God; One set of Faith beliefs and One Church. It is Historical FACT that that Church is todays Catholic Church and a list of consecutive Popes is readly available as evidence of such: starting with Peter all the way to benedict XVI. Todays Pope.***

**Eph. 4: 1-7 **“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH and todays CC because there were NO OTHERS when this was written] ] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift".

**Eph. 2: 18-22 **“ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

**John.10: 16 **“And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

**John 17:18-24 **"As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,

So why different understandings?

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure [Jn. 14:16-17, Jn. 17:15-19].*** You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts***. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
**Matt.13:9-12 **“He who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven,[As well as the KEYS to Heaven Mt. 16:19] but to them it has not been given.” For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. “

**Eph.3: 9 to 12 ** “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. “

** 2nd. Tim. 3:16 **All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work

2 Peter 3: 14 –17 "Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures

God Bless you; let me know if you have other questions
Pat