Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

[Tony888]

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…”)

God bless

HI TQ, I’m not familiar with all that you posted but I would hazard this reply - Protestants will agree to all your points except #2 and the RCC interpetation.

I believe the Holy Spirit is present in all Bible based churches (Christ has not left us orphans)

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy

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

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.

The council was convened, as most were, to define a long held belief in response to one heresy or another. As the questions became more specific, so did the answers from the Church. The Church is bound to protect the faith handed down to it and if that means very clearly defining its beliefs and doctrines then that is exactly what it does and what it did. Jim Dandy’s comments are correct. Defining a belief held from the beginning is not an invention of some sort.

Now you must admit that you appraoch this subject with a fair amount of bias due to the Mormon rejection of all the creeds as they conflict with Mormon doctrine and theology. But the truth is the truth. As time goes on the Church arrives at deeper understandings of these foundational, revealed truths and is obligated to share that deeper understanding with the world, especially when challenged by heretical notions.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The council was convened, as most were, to define a long held belief in response to one heresy or another. As the questions became more specific, so did the answers from the Church. The Church is bound to protect the faith handed down to it and if that means very clearly defining its beliefs and doctrines then that is exactly what it does and what it did. Jim Dandy’s comments are correct. Defining a belief held from the beginning is not an invention of some sort.

Now you must admit that you appraoch this subject with a fair amount of bias due to the Mormon rejection of all the creeds as they conflict with Mormon doctrine and theology. But the truth is the truth. As time goes on the Church arrives at deeper understandings of these foundational, revealed truths and is obligated to share that deeper understanding with the world, especially when challenged by heretical notions.

SteveVH,

Our Rector gave classes entitled “Credo.” He took the Creeds and traced the beliefs stated in those Creeds all the way back to Apostolic times.

The Creeds have done much, down through history, to guard against heresy; and still do.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Tomcmaj]

HI TQ, I’m not familiar with all that you posted but I would hazard this reply - Protestants will agree to all your points except #2 and the RCC interpetation.

Yup. Given that Matthew 16:18 uses a pun to begin with, it would be tricky to come up with a definitive interpretation.

Fortunately, one can find a church or congregation dedicated to EVERY interpretation of this verse!

:yup:

I believe the Holy Spirit is present in all Bible based churches (Christ has not left us orphans)

"In my father’s house are many rooms" John 14:2 (NIV)

 

[Tony888]

The council was convened, as most were, to define a long held belief in response to one heresy or another. As the questions became more specific, so did the answers from the Church. The Church is bound to protect the faith handed down to it and if that means very clearly defining its beliefs and doctrines then that is exactly what it does and what it did. Jim Dandy’s comments are correct. Defining a belief held from the beginning is not an invention of some sort.

Now you must admit that you appraoch this subject with a fair amount of bias due to the Mormon rejection of all the creeds as they conflict with Mormon doctrine and theology. But the truth is the truth. As time goes on the Church arrives at deeper understandings of these foundational, revealed truths and is obligated to share that deeper understanding with the world, especially when challenged by heretical notions.

Your first point is the standard claim of those who write history. Also, we don’t know how much disagreement there was on the subject, and it really wasn’t heresy until it was defined

No, I work very hard to remove my bias before posting. Just because the LDS don’t use the Creeds, doesn’t mean we don’t agree with them. Take the Apostles Creed, it fits fine with LDS theology if one defines the catholic church in the broader ‘univeral’ sense There are no issues on any of the other articles.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

 

[christosdavid]

Your first point is the standard claim of those who write history. Also, we don’t know how much disagreement there was on the subject, and it really wasn’t heresy until it was defined

No, I work very hard to remove my bias before posting. Just because the LDS don’t use the Creeds, doesn’t mean we don’t agree with them. Take the Apostles Creed, it fits fine with LDS theology if one defines the catholic church in the broader ‘univeral’ sense There are no issues on any of the other articles.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

But the nicene creed wont fit in with LDS doctrine the same way. very God of very God. THis is not simply the one God and Father of this world as opposed to others but the whole universe in every sphere, and Jesus has the same substance as his Father and the Holy Spirit.

You might be able to re-interpret the Apostles creed to fit your heresies but the other creeds give you way less room as they are not so primitave. The Athanasian Creed buries any LDS formulae which could give room to spiritual mothers or localised presence of the Father or Holy Spirit.

 

[christosdavid]

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.

I agree that there was no other church, except for the great church that Jesus established.

Origen, Irenaeus, Ignatius and Cyprian all acknowledge the Scriptures. This was before canonization of the scriptures formally, but Irenaeus already said that there were only 4 gospels and as such no other gnostic gospel was permitted to be read as Scripture.

Paul’s letters likewise, even Revelation although Irenaeus sugfferd from a form of Chiliasm which he inherited from his asian understanding of the 1000 years (cf. Papias).

The Scriptures were already known, copied, published, preached, doctrines derived from, and copied in lectionaries and used in latreia for divine worship from the second century.

The necessity for their codification doesnt set the beginning of when they are understood as “the Bible” and the 20-60 years the church pre-existed it shouldn’t be spoken of in apologetic shorthand as “the Church predates the Bible by hundreds of years” as this is actually false.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Thank you.

God bless

Oops.

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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Christosdavid,

The Bible is composed of the Old and New Testaments - and these two sections are made up of the books that the Catholic Church has determined were inspired by God. There was no Canon prior to about 400AD. The inspired books existed, of course - but, so did all of those other NON-inspired books. The Catholic Church decided what was inspired and would go into the Canon and what would be left out. Others had tried to do this (e.g.,the Marcian Bible in about 200AD godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message520710/pg1 ) and had not only failed (this is not an academic exercise…) but had lead others away from the Faith.

The actions of the poliical and truly secular leader Constantine can not be viewed as creating religious doctrine. He honestly could have had 50 copies of Caesar’s Galic Wars commissioned - but, this too would have had no bearing on Roman history or our understanding of the actions of Caesar in his wars.

You certainly are entitled to your feelings (you still seem disappointed) but Bible history in the Catholic Church (recall, this is the Church that brought the Bible to the world) long predates Protestant efforts in this area.

So, just to be clear: all of the books that would be eventually included in the Canon were in existance by 100AD. All of the books that were considered not inspired by God existed prior to 400AD. There is a real overlap between these two groups of books.

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Christosdavid,

I am going to have to ask you to be more specific here.

You lament the statement, “The letters of the new testament were written by Catholics to Catholics…” yet state, “The church did pre-exist the NT writings”.

What church are you talking about that can accommodate both of these statements? And, please give a reference.

God bless

Newsy;8157868:

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

I guess it just seems ‘silly’ to you.

Reality is independent of our understanding and our words to describe it. Science is still trying to describe both astronomical realities like black holes and biological realities like prions. Neither fit neatly into our experiences - but, that is really our problem.

The Trinity existed prior to our efforts to describe it. The issue is, we can not completely describe the Trinity but apparently it can be inaccurately described by many different organizations throughout time. For example, ‘gods’ existed before the Eternal Father or the Heavenly Father did not exist for all eternity (4mormon.org/mormon-org.php). Others have denied the existence of the Trinity as taught by the Catholic Church, like the Gnostics and the SDA.

If there is no language to avoid the error in teaching what is totally beyond our comprehension - multiple errors will immediately spring forth. Here we have language that avoids error - and look at all of the novel thoughts about the Trinity exist today.

I really do think that a ‘red herring’ was introduced here. The Catholic Church’s teachings about the Trinity is probably about as old as their condemnation of abortion.

By the way, in keeping with the topic thread, what is your view of where did we get the Bible?

God bless

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)

 

[Newsy]

When I stated that the Church pre-dates the Bible by a few hundred years, I was referring to the canonized Bible. It would make no sense to say that those books considered scripture didn’t exist until they were canonized.
There were many texts and letters being passed between churches in the early centuries. The Catholic Church closed the canon of the NT via Ecumenical Council. This council took place about 350 years or so after the Church was founded. Until this Council, there was no defined canon, therefore no Bible, just many books including some that weren’t inspired.

To clarify my point, we all agree that these books, later called the New Testament, were written after the Church was founded. The Catholic Church was alive and well before they decided which books were inspired. If my post was rather unclear, I apologize.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

May I recommend that you take a look at the references I provided - they ar ALL in your Bible.

I have provided a logical progression - omitting the second step is not like removing a block from a Jenga game (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga) and the structure still stands. The reality is that Christ did not found a club or assembly or gang or fellowship or anything else - He founded a church - and, you know, he said just what he was doing and did it.

God is in the hearts of all believers. “And, wherever two or more of you are gathered…” (Matt 18:19-20). The problem is that God demands that IF we do believe in Him then we must DO the things He has commanded (ah, that would be works! ) Christ gave us a comprehensive package of what we are to do - and not a one liner about Faith Alone.

Merely saying that the group does not believe what Christ said because it has been interpreted away is not sufficient. One poster claimed Christ used a pun (on Peter’s name) so effectively it is not to be taken seriously. Did you notice there was no pun for the Keys that Christ gave to Peter as a symbol of the authority Christ had just given to him? It really is worth looking at the entire chapters of items that people enjoy getting one liners from in an effort to make a point.

God bless

HI TQ, I’m not familiar with all that you posted but I would hazard this reply - Protestants will agree to all your points except #2 and the RCC interpetation.

I believe the Holy Spirit is present in all Bible based churches (Christ has not left us orphans)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

I found your post crystal clear.

God bless

When I stated that the Church pre-dates the Bible by a few hundred years, I was referring to the canonized Bible. It would make no sense to say that those books considered scripture didn’t exist until they were canonized.
There were many texts and letters being passed between churches in the early centuries. The Catholic Church closed the canon of the NT via Ecumenical Council. This council took place about 350 years or so after the Church was founded. Until this Council, there was no defined canon, therefore no Bible, just many books including some that weren’t inspired.

To clarify my point, we all agree that these books, later called the New Testament, were written after the Church was founded. The Catholic Church was alive and well before they decided which books were inspired. If my post was rather unclear, I apologize.

 

[Newsy]

Hi, Newsy,

I found your post crystal clear.

God bless

Thanks!

 

[Nicea325]

I agree that there was no other church, except for the great church that Jesus established.

Which is…?

Origen, Irenaeus, Ignatius and Cyprian all acknowledge the Scriptures. This was before canonization of the scriptures formally, but Irenaeus already said that there were only 4 gospels and as such no other gnostic gospel was permitted to be read as Scripture.

Okay and that proves what? The Bible-Only belief?

Paul’s letters likewise, even Revelation although Irenaeus sugfferd from a form of Chiliasm which he inherited from his asian understanding of the 1000 years (cf. Papias).

The Scriptures were already known, copied, published, preached, doctrines derived from, and copied in lectionaries and used in latreia for divine worship from the second century.

Actually this statement is lacking facts. There also existed many other writings which were considered “scripture” and others floating around used by different communities. The fact scriptures were in hand does not prove scripture-alone is the only authority.

The necessity for their codification doesnt set the beginning of when they are understood as “the Bible” and the 20-60 years the church pre-existed it shouldn’t be spoken of in apologetic shorthand as “the Church predates the Bible by hundreds of years” as this is actually false.

Wrong! Jesus founded His Church long before any NT writing existed. Did Jesus instruct them to write at Pentecost? So your argument is false because you assume because writings existed it predates the church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Your first point is the standard claim of those who write history. Also, we don’t know how much disagreement there was on the subject, and it really wasn’t heresy until it was defined

No, I work very hard to remove my bias before posting. Just because the LDS don’t use the Creeds, doesn’t mean we don’t agree with them. Take the Apostles Creed, it fits fine with LDS theology if one defines the catholic church in the broader ‘univeral’ sense There are no issues on any of the other articles.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

False assumption.

You could say that Anglicans see the Church in a broader universal sense, but that does not mean the LDS beliefs are the same as ours. We believe in the Holy Trinity; and we do not believe that Jesus is an exalted man—just the tip of the iceberg of greater disagreements with LDS.

Peace,
Anna

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

Just a reminder … I would appreciate a response to my posts, numbers 260 & 262…
I couldn’t hold my breath any longer!

God bless

HI TQ, I’m not familiar with all that you posted but I would hazard this reply - Protestants will agree to all your points except #2 and the RCC interpetation.

I believe the Holy Spirit is present in all Bible based churches (Christ has not left us orphans)

 

[SteveVH]

Your first point is the standard claim of those who write history. Also, we don’t know how much disagreement there was on the subject, and it really wasn’t heresy until it was defined

Well, if you dont’ believe the fact that councils were convened to refute heresies, as you are implying, then please give the reason you believe they were convened. The fact is that they were convened to do just that which can be demonstrated from both a historical standpoint and a logical standpoint. And as far as the heresy that was the subject matter of any particular council, yes it was already known as heresy or the council would not have been convened to begin with. It was know as heresy because it did not comport with Sacred Tradition, not to mention the sacred writings.

Just because the LDS don’t use the Creeds, doesn’t mean we don’t agree with them.

If you agree with them then why would you not use them? The truth is that they are rejected by the LDS Church instead of just not being used.

"One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints is its rejection of all of these postboblical creeds" (Elder Dallin H. Oaks - “Apostasy and Restoration”, Ensign, May 1995, 84).)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SteveVH,

Do you think Tony is still with us? It bothers me when you see someone floundering for answers and then suddenly stop posting. While I can understand his difficulties with actually responding to posts - the reason many people are on CAF is to learn more about the Catholic Faith (I know that CAF has been a real God-send to me!!! )

When confronted with something you do not know, the idea is to some research and found out the answer - or if you can not present an answer to say so. But abandonig one’s position is not helpful to anyone.

God bless

E=SteveVH;8174220]Well, if you dont’ believe the fact that councils were convened to refute heresies, as you are implying, then please give the reason you believe they were convened. The fact is that they were convened to do just that which can be demonstrated from both a historical standpoint and a logical standpoint. And as far as the heresy that was the subject matter of any particular council, yes it was already known as heresy or the council would not have been convened to begin with. It was know as heresy because it did not comport with Sacred Tradition, not to mention the sacred writings.

If you agree with them then why would you not use them? The truth is that they are rejected by the LDS Church instead of just not being used.

"One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints is its rejection of all of these postboblical creeds" (Elder Dallin H. Oaks - “Apostasy and Restoration”, Ensign, May 1995, 84).)