Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Dandy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rag Hanger,
Actually, it was study of both Holy Scripture and the history of Christianity that led me to leave the Baptist Church.

Peace,
Anna
It’s having the same effect on me.
I can’t help but wonder if a Catholic would ever admit that they experienced anything good in a Protestant church.
I come from a very much Protestant background, in the Baptist church, and I would be among the first to say that those years I spent in that church were some of the best I’ve so far experienced. I met some truly wonderful people and learnt a great deal, and I would never disparage or mock my previous church regardless of my religious affiliation now. And I won’t be the only one on CAF to do so.
If you guys don’t want to believe that we study church history, then fine. But the bottom line is that we’re too busy doing it to argue about not doing it.
Many people HAVE experienced Protestant lack of historical knowledge first-hand, and this (according to what I’ve seen on CAF anyway) isn’t isolated to a few people or churches, it seems much more widespread than that.

And you can’t pretend that this isn’t a problem, because it is.
 
40.png
Kouyate42:
Many people HAVE experienced Protestant lack of historical knowledge first-hand, and this (according to what I’ve seen on CAF anyway) isn’t isolated to a few people or churches, it seems much more widespread than that.
So you claim.
 
So you claim.
Rag Hanger - I have no doubt that you are relating your experience accurately, but please do not be so quick to discount what the rest of us are saying. I was a Protestant for many, many years. I have a lot of experience in United Methodist, Wesleyan, Nazarene, and Baptist churches. My long-time best friend is a devout Southern Baptist who is working toward a degree in theology (he is in his last year) at a well-known Baptist university.

And I hope you will take my word for it that, out of hundreds of Protestants of many flavors with whom I have discussed Church history and where Holy Scripture came from, only a very small percentage have any serious knowledge of it. Many, of course, have simply never sought the knowledge (and the same can be said of many Catholics as well)…this is a serious problem on both sides of the Tiber.

But I have been very troubled by my close friend’s theological training. He is preparing to be either a youth pastor or military chaplain, and has been taught very little about early church history. His impression – taught to him by his teachers – is that Scripture poofed into existence, is the word of God, and must be obeyed. The truth – that the texts are indeed inspired and must be obeyed, but came to us via Bishops of the Catholic Church, and were compiled by St. Jerome under the authority of the Pope – would not align with the general anti-Catholic attitude of the Baptist denomination, so it is simply not taught. This kind of selective teaching is very frustrating (and I was a victim of it myself, though not as severely in my UMC background).

I have no doubt whatsoever that most Protestants, my good friend included, honestly seek the truth. Unfortunately, many of those who set the curricula for their learning have not been so honest. One who knows Church history would be unable to condemn Marian devotion, intercessory prayer, the Real Presence, the Priesthood, the hierarchy of Bishops, the authority of Church Tradition in addition to Scripture, etc. because all these things have been part of Christianity from the Church’s very earliest days.

Rather than teaching history honestly, very many of our Protestant brethren receive a heavily redacted version of Church history that aligns with their particular denomination’s particular take on the faith. That is why so many of us have ended up here, as Catholics…once I discovered that my UMC understanding of Church history was missing a lot of important pieces, I began studying independently, and the unredacted truth of our faith history led me home – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – to the Church founded by Christ that holds the whole deposit of the faith.

God bless you.
 
Hi there! 🙂

I am a recent active member in a Protestant Church but i’m Catholic by religion. It is in the Protestant Church that God found me and I found Him.

Anyway, we were taught where the Bible came from. We have praise nights during Fridays and we were told that the GOD IS THE AUTHOR of the Bible. This means it was His idea by the Holy Spirit and not solely the human wisdom of the writers in the Bible. Those who have written it literally are GOD’S WRITERS. They write but it is GOD who is moving their hearts, minds, all of them to relay such a beautiful message to all of us, His children. 🙂
 
Hi there! 🙂

I am a recent active member in a Protestant Church but i’m Catholic by religion. It is in the Protestant Church that God found me and I found Him.

Anyway, we were taught where the Bible came from. We have praise nights during Fridays and we were told that the GOD IS THE AUTHOR of the Bible. This means it was His idea by the Holy Spirit and not solely the human wisdom of the writers in the Bible. Those who have written it literally are GOD’S WRITERS. They write but it is GOD who is moving their hearts, minds, all of them to relay such a beautiful message to all of us, His children. 🙂
If you were truly taught were the Bible came from you would know it’s the product of the Catholic Church! The Bible is a good teaching tool but it is NOT a teacher! This is where the Catholic Church comes in. This is where you will find the only true interpretation of the Bible. 👍

Matthew
 
Hi there! 🙂

I am a recent active member in a Protestant Church but i’m Catholic by religion. It is in the Protestant Church that God found me and I found Him.

Anyway, we were taught where the Bible came from. We have praise nights during Fridays and we were told that the GOD IS THE AUTHOR of the Bible. This means it was His idea by the Holy Spirit and not solely the human wisdom of the writers in the Bible. Those who have written it literally are GOD’S WRITERS. They write but it is GOD who is moving their hearts, minds, all of them to relay such a beautiful message to all of us, His children. 🙂
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.
 
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.
I think you nailed it. Protestants have removed the Bible from the Church that produced it.
Now they are a close knit group of thousands of denominations. 🤷

Matthew
 
Protestants not only removed the Bible from the Church that produced it, they removed books from the Bible – seven of them, plus parts of Esther and Daniel.

:yup:Yup. There are thousands of man-made denominations with conflicting and competing beliefs, all based on yet another interpretation of the same incomplete Bible cut by Martin Luther. And each of these thousands of denominations claims that THEIRS is the TRUE interpretation.:nope::nope:

Only the Catholic Church is God-made, founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem. All man-made Protestant denominations were founded in or after the 16th century – and many of them in the 19th and 20th centuries right here in the good ole U.S.A…

The New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings. The NT is based on the living, teaching Church – not the other way around.

The Church didn’t come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church! The Church is about 364 years older than the Bible.

Jim Dandy
 
Hi there! 🙂

I am a recent active member in a Protestant Church but i’m Catholic by religion. It is in the Protestant Church that God found me and I found Him.

Anyway, we were taught where the Bible came from. We have praise nights during Fridays and we were told that the GOD IS THE AUTHOR of the Bible. This means it was His idea by the Holy Spirit and not solely the human wisdom of the writers in the Bible. Those who have written it literally are GOD’S WRITERS. They write but it is GOD who is moving their hearts, minds, all of them to relay such a beautiful message to all of us, His children. 🙂
How do you know that God is the primary author of the Bible? That those who wrote is are literally God’s writers? How do you know God moved their hearts and minds?

Did someone tell you this? How does that person know?

Serious questions.

Thank you, Jim Dandy
 
Protestants not only removed the Bible from the Church that produced it, they removed books from the Bible – seven of them, plus parts of Esther and Daniel.
Likewise,many kicked Tradition & Church authority to the curb and have have a one-legged foundation: The Bible-Only. They made the Bible the final authority,not Jesus or the Apostles,hence a man-made principle/doctrine.
Yup. There are thousands of man-made denominations with conflicting and competing beliefs, all based on yet another interpretation of the same incomplete Bible cut by Martin Luther. And each of these thousands of denominations claims that THEIRS is the TRUE interpretation.
Yet many denominations will say they have more in common than differences? My question to them is really easy: Then why go and start an entire new denomination,if all have a lot in common?
Only the Catholic Church is God-made, founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem. All man-made Protestant denominations were founded in or after the 16th century – and many of them in the 19th and 20th centuries right here in the good ole U.S.A…
Here is where many cease to accept historical facts and turn the blind eye for their novel beliefs.
The New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings. The NT is based on the living, teaching Church – not the other way around.
Another stumbling block for Bible-Only folks. Ask them to point out in scripture where Jesus came to give us a canonized Bible or His Church?
The Church didn’t come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church! The Church is about 364 years older than the Bible.
Another fact they deny even if one spends a lifetime showing them historical facts.
 
Likewise,many kicked Tradition & Church authority to the curb and have have a one-legged foundation: The Bible-Only. They made the Bible the final authority,not Jesus or the Apostles,hence a man-made principle/doctrine.

.
Actually they made their personal interpretation of Scripture, the final authority
 
Actually they made their personal interpretation of Scripture, the final authority
Which begs the question: Who has the correct interpretation and WHO gave the person the authority for personal interpretation?
 
Likewise,many kicked Tradition & Church authority to the curb and have have a one-legged foundation: The Bible-Only. They made the Bible the final authority,not Jesus or the Apostles,hence a man-made principle/doctrine.

Not true in practice. Most protestant denoms have their own official interpretation of scripture. The Southern Baptists recently voted to affirm the teaching of hell. If you disagreed with their doctrine, you would probably leave and start another denom. Net, these different denoms do recognince authority of interpretation, just not the RCC authority, or any other other denominations interpretation as final.

Yet many denominations will say they have more in common than differences? My question to them is really easy: Then why go and start an entire new denomination,if all have a lot in common?

Naturally it is because they feel the differences are to big to be ignored. However, I don’t feel they believe significant points are lost in creating a new denom. I don’t see their fundamental sacraments being altered with most of these splits.
 
Tony888;8161611**Not true in practice. Most protestant denoms have their own official interpretation of scripture. The Southern Baptists recently voted to affirm the teaching of hell. If you disagreed with their doctrine said:
So doctrine is determined by a vote? Well that is comforting-NOT
 
Naturally it is because they feel the differences are to big to be ignored. However, I don’t feel they believe significant points are lost in creating a new denom. I don’t see their fundamental sacraments being altered with most of these splits.
Would the fact that 99% of Protestant denominations don’t even know what a sacrament is have any bearing on this? They have no sacraments to be altered. The only thing that is altered is doctrine based upon personal understanding of a group of books believed to be the word of God for some unkown reason.
 
Hi there! 🙂

I am a recent active member in a Protestant Church but i’m Catholic by religion. It is in the Protestant Church that God found me and I found Him.

Anyway, we were taught where the Bible came from. We have praise nights during Fridays and we were told that the GOD IS THE AUTHOR of the Bible. This means it was His idea by the Holy Spirit and not solely the human wisdom of the writers in the Bible. Those who have written it literally are GOD’S WRITERS. They write but it is GOD who is moving their hearts, minds, all of them to relay such a beautiful message to all of us, His children. 🙂
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.
 
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
Let’s see. God “divinely protected the Church’s teachings” except “the part Luther later tossed out”? Did God appoint Luther to “correct” the canon in the 16th century?

Jerome disagreed with the writings that were then preversed only in the Greek, but he was a loyal son of the Church. Following the Council of Rome, he was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to translate into Latin what became the Vulgate, which contained the 73-book canon first defined by the Council of Rome. Jerome put his personal opinion aside and followed the Church’s decision.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) was translated from the Hebrew (or Aramaic) around 250 B.C. Only two of the LXX writings are from original Greek. The LXX was considered Scripture even in Palestine. Some of the Hebrew writings later disintegrated, or for whatever reason, disappeared. They were then preserved only in the Greek. The Palestinian Rabbis rejected the Septuagint because it was used by the Church to evangelize Jews (and Gentiles) in the entire Mediterranean world.

Luther found it convenient to also reject the Greek writings from his German translation of the Bible. He put them in an appendix between the OT and the NT and left the pages unnumbered so readers would know he didn’t regard them as “Scripture.” 2 Macabees – which supports belief in purgatory and prayer for the dead and didn’t fit with Luther’s novel doctrines – was among them.

Luther also removed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the canon of his German translation of the Bible, again leaving the pages unnumbered, and put them in an appendix at the end of the NT with prefaces explaining why he did not consider them “Scripture.”

The Church canonized Macabees along with Matthew, and Baruch along with Isaiah centuries before Luther lived.

Please explain how you know God approved of Luther’s cuts to the OT canon? Should we accept his cuts to the NT also?

Jim Dandy
 
Likewise,many kicked Tradition & Church authority to the curb and have have a one-legged foundation: The Bible-Only. They made the Bible the final authority,not Jesus or the Apostles,hence a man-made principle/doctrine.
Not true in practice. Most protestant denoms have their own official interpretation of scripture. The Southern Baptists recently voted to affirm the teaching of hell. If you disagreed with their doctrine, you would probably leave and start another denom. Net, these different denoms do recognince authority of interpretation, just not the RCC authority, or any other other denominations interpretation as final.
 
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 … :eek: 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

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.

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?

God bless
Perhaps the problems are in the later teachings. If you wish to go back to the first seven councils, then yes, there would be no Schism or Reformation.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top