How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[estesbob]

The Bible consists of Old Testament = 39 books. They were canonized more than 600 years before the Catholic Church existed (with all due respect); Jesus’ It is written’ quotes were from the Greek LXX, but never from any apocryphal writings. The New Testament consists of 27 books which were canonized by the early Christians around 200 AD. • See writings by Eusebius (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus, XVII.30) on Origen’s description of the canon. He himself in book iii.25, Loeb ed., vol I, pp. 257, 259) gives us a clear canon with Recognized Books’ (27 in current NT), Disputed Books’, and altogether wicked and impious books’.
• See the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367) that the canon consisted of 27 books.

The formation of the NT canon was thus not done by any church or specific council, but rather by general consent as the early church leaders sifted’ the wheat from the chaff under guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was later formalized at the council of Rome towards the end of the 4th century AD under pope Damasus. So yes, the Catholic Church had maybe 10% part to play in 382 AD when the established canon was formalized’ by a council in Rome. That hardly qualifies them to claim to have given us the bible.

What do you mean? Correct what? The bible?

What teaching are you referring to? Searching the scriptures?

So why did it take 1,500 years for God to reveal the Bible had been canonized incorrectly

 

[ragsbinwashed]

So why did it take 1,500 years for God to reveal the Bible had been canonized incorrectly

I don’t understand? Do you think that the bible was canonized incorrectly?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t understand? Do you think that the bible was canonized incorrectly?

Protestants removed 5 books from the Old Testament. These books had been part of the Canon since the Church established the Canon. Again we are looking at changes AFTER the gap.

 

[guanophore]

The Bible consists of Old Testament = 39 books.

Apparently you received a canon with some of the books missing.

The Apostles used the Septuagint, so the Church receives that through the paradosis.

They were canonized more than 600 years before the Catholic Church existed (with all due respect); Jesus’ `It is written’ quotes were from the Greek LXX, but never from any apocryphal writings.

The Church of the NT is the Catholic Church. Perhasp you have been misinformed about history?

Perhaps you need to look at what is in the LXX? I agree, no apocryphal writings.

 The New Testament consists of 27 books which were canonized by the early Christians around 200 AD.

• See writings by Eusebius (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus, XVII.30) on Origen’s description of the canon. He himself in book iii.25, Loeb ed., vol I, pp. 257, 259) gives us a clear canon with Recognized Books’ (27 in current NT), Disputed Books’, and `altogether wicked and impious books’.

Yes, all Catholics. listed by Catholhic councils.

  • See the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367) that the canon consisted of 27 books.

Yes, of course. Athanasius was Catholic.

  The formation of the NT canon was thus not done by any church or specific council, but rather by general consent as the early church leaders `sifted’ the wheat from the chaff under guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There was only One Church. The “general consent” occurred through the authorized appointed successors of the Apostles (bishops) and through Councils - Catholic councils.

This was later formalized at the council of Rome towards the end of the 4th century AD under pope Damasus. So yes, the Catholic Church had maybe 10% part to play in 382 AD when the established canon was `formalized’ by a council in Rome. That hardly qualifies them to claim to have given us the bible.

Apparently you have much to learn about the history of your faith.

What do you mean? Correct what? The bible?

The effects of the heresy of sola scriptura.

What teaching are you referring to? Searching the scriptures?

The Teaching of the Apostles. The paradosis (Sacred Tradition). This is how we learn how to interpret the Scriptures the way Jesus taught.

Mark 4:34
privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Luke 24:44-45
." 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

You’re saying that the CC is God? Do you worship your church god?

She is His Bride, and He is not separated from her. That is why, when Saul was persecuting the Church, Jesus said “why are you persecutng ME”.

Acts 8:2-3
3 But Saul was ra
vaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Acts 9:3-5
4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

He is One with her, He is her Head.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

She is sanctified (holy) betrothed in splendor, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

Protestants removed 5 books from the Old Testament These books had been part of the Canon since the Church established the Canon…

I don’t think they ever were chosen of God to be in the cannon.

Again we are looking at changes AFTER the gap.

Who says so? And what gap are you talking about?

rags

 

[ragsbinwashed]

Christ and his Church are one in the same.

So you do worship your church?

rags

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I don’t think they ever were chosen of God to be in the cannon.

How would you know? Who speaks for God?

Who says so? And what gap are you talking about?

rags

Read my post 384

 

[guanophore]

So you do worship your church?

rags

We worship the Divine elements of the Church, Christ, who is her Head, and the Holy Spirit, by whom she is ensouled. And we obey the Church, who has been given authority to speak for God.

Matt 18:17-19
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Jesus gave His Church authority to rule the flock.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

How would you know? Who speaks for God?

Don’t pretend to speak for God. It’s my opinion.
Here’s what you wrote

I think the point is this:

If there was no gap, then the Church with whom the first protestants split was in fact the Church begun by Christ and endowed by Him with Authority to decide doctrine.

Therefore, giving them the benefit of the doubt, they must believe in a gap of some duration, else they are advocating outright rebellion against Christ-given authority, and therefore advocating sin.

This is a complete non-sequitur. It just doesn’t follow that if there is no so called “gap” Then the Protestants had to admit that they “are advocating outright rebellion against Christ-given authority, and therefore advocating sin.” Wow how did you come up with that one? And this certainly doesn’t explain what that gap is. What is it?

rags

 

[clintonm]

That gap being a time when the Catholic Church either was not around or was no longer the Church that Christ founded. If neither of those conditions had been met by the time of hte reformation then the protestants directly opposed the authority of Jesus by opposing his church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This is a complete non-sequitur.

How so?

1. Jesus established a Church (Matt 16:18-19)
2. He gave it authority (Matt 18:17-18, 1Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16, etc.)
3. He promised that He would be with the Church forever (Matt 28:20, John 14:16, etc.)

So, this Church had to exist at the time of the Apostles, and forever thereafter (with no gap).
That means that this Church existed just before the “reformation”, and the “reformers” rebelled against that God-given Authority.

It just doesn’t follow that if there is no so called “gap” Then the Protestants had to admit that they “are advocating outright rebellion against Christ-given authority, and therefore advocating sin.” Wow how did you come up with that one?

By believing what Jesus said.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That gap being a time when the Catholic Church either was not around or was no longer the Church that Christ founded. If neither of those conditions had been met by the time of hte reformation then the protestants directly opposed the authority of Jesus by opposing his church.

To quote the Fonz: exactamundo.

 

[estesbob]

Don’t pretend to speak for God. It’s my opinion.
Here’s what you wrote

This is a complete non-sequitur. It just doesn’t follow that if there is no so called “gap” Then the Protestants had to admit that they “are advocating outright rebellion against Christ-given authority, and therefore advocating sin.” Wow how did you come up with that one? And this certainly doesn’t explain what that gap is. What is it?

rags

The “reformers” rejected the Church and therefore rejected Jesus. They would have us believe that God was so incompetent he allowed his Church to be in grievous error for 1,500 years.

 

[ptisme]

No, you will find that, in most things Catholic, it is not “this…and not that”. Rather, Catholicism is more often both/and. The faith that Jesus communicated to His Aposltes was not given in writing (except upon their hearts). He did not write, nor did he instruct them to write. The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, as it has been treated since the Reformation.

We believe that Jesus was the fullness of God’s public revelation to humanity. He build One Church, comprised of One Faith:

Jude 3
contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

And this faith was “once for all delivered to the saints”. We call this the Divine Deposit. We are not at liberty to add or subtract from it, which is what separates us from our Protestant sibings, who have done so, and continue to do so, interpreting the scriptures outside of that Divine Deposit.

This One Faith entrusted to the Church is also called Sacred Tradition - the Word of God that was not initially committed to writing. It is the faith that the Apostles believed and taught, the faith into which converts were baptized, and the faith which has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

Sacred Tradtition is the other half of the revelation of God that was lost during the Reformation.

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Those faiths referred to as Apostolic Faiths are those who have followed this Apostolic commandment to hold to the traditions that were taught. Sacred Tradition is found in rituals, prayers, creeds, dogmas and conciliar pronouncements. There is not any of it now that has not been written somewhere, but in that time, none of the NT yet existed, so it was all transmitted through the paradosis (handing down) from an authorized teacher to the disciples.

This is distinguished from the traditions with a small “t” which are of men, things such as clothing and practices that are not Divine in origin.

Indeed our separated brethren have a great love for the Scriptues, and the Holy Spirit works through them to draw all to Himself. But, unlike the Bereans, who read the Scirptures through the lens of the Apostolic teaching, they are separated from it, so read it through the lens of their own experience and education (or lack of it) resulting in a myriad of contradicting understandings.

This is just outstanding:thumbsup:

 

[ragsbinwashed]

That gap being a time when the Catholic Church either was not around or was no longer the Church that Christ founded.

Ok, let me get this straight. You are saying that the ones protesting against the CC are saying that the church they are protesting against “was not around” or “was no longer the Church that Christ founded.” How can a church no longer be a church that Christ founded. Either it was or it wasn’t.

If neither of those conditions had been met by the time of hte reformation then the protestants directly opposed the authority of Jesus by opposing his church.

You mean The CC which they are protesting, not being around or was no longer the church that Christ founded? And how does neither one of these very obscure conditions translate into rebellion against Christ’s Church?

rags

 

[clintonm]

You are the protestor, you tell me. When was there a time that the Catholic Church was not around? At what point in its existence did it lose the authority of Jesus?

 

[estesbob]

No, you will find that, in most things Catholic, it is not “this…and not that”. Rather, Catholicism is more often both/and. The faith that Jesus communicated to His Aposltes was not given in writing (except upon their hearts). He did not write, nor did he instruct them to write. .

As expressed in Jeremiah 31:33

“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

 

[ptisme]

I don’t think they ever were chosen of God to be in the cannon.

Who says so? And what gap are you talking about?

rags

The seven “deuterocanonical books”—Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and Esther that were in use during Jesus’ time were eliminated by the Hebrew Sanhedrin around 90 AD. These were the latest books of the OT. We chose not to eliminate them because in doing so, they eliminated a portion of salvation history. We continue to include those books in the Catholic bible rather than follow the Sanhedrin who crucified our Lord and persecuted his disciples. This Canon held for 1500 years until a man decided the “Apocrypha” were not inspired.
Bottom line: We are to believe that God allowed the Holy Church (which is the bride of Christ) to error in its ways and regard uninspired books to be inspired. Thank goodness the Holy spirit inspired Martin Luther (the man who called the holy book of James an “epistle of straw”) to finally get things squared away so we can have gaggles of protestant off-shoots all claiming their interpretation is truly the inspired word of God…

 

[pablope]

I don’t think they ever were chosen of God to be in the cannon.

rags

Actually, Rags…if you looked at Bibles in the from the 4th Century to about the 1500s, you will find these 7 books in the Christian Bibles.

After the REformation, various protestants, on their own authority, started removing these 7 books.

Finally, the separation of Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles became entwined when the British Bible society mandated to not pay for the printing costs of Bibles that had the 7 books in them…so the removal of those books was by protestants acting on their own.

British and Foreign Bible Society House,
London, February 10, 1826.

We beg leave to inform you that important reasons have induced the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible society to adopt the subjoined Resolution:—
“That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books, and parts of books, which are usually termed Apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the Society; and whether such copies consist of the whole or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound; no other books whatever being bound with them: and further, that all money grants to societies or individuals be made only in conformity with the principle of this regulation.”
While the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society have adopted this Regulation for their own guidance, nothing is further from their intention than to interfere, in the smallest degree, with the religious views and opinions, or with the rites and usages, of foreign churches; —they respect that liberty of conscience in others which they themselves so happily enjoy.
The Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society embrace this opportunity of assuring all their continental brethren of their most unfeigned Christian regard, and of their anxious desire to contribute as liberally as possible to the Foreign Societies consistently with their present Resolution; and they shall deem it their privilege and happiness invariably to maintain that pleasing bond of harmony and union which has so long and so beneficially subsisted between the British and Foreign Bible Society and the kindred Institutions of the Continent.

We remain, respectfully,
Your obedient humble Servants,
(Signed) A. BRANDRAM,
Jos. HUGHES,
C.F.A. STEINKOPFF [Secretaries]

 

[KjetilK]

Those who claim there is no gap need to explain the thousands of variations of Christianity since the so called reformers lived.

Why? Why do I have to answer for what someone else thinks? And why don’t you have to answer for every heresy proposed by some Catholic theologian?

BUMP.