If Protestantism Is True

[CopticChristian]

Oddly enough, when I was a know-it-all-agnostic, the Book of Revelation played a large part in my intellectual conversion. It’s so disjointed, yet so harmonious. So grievous, yet hopeful. So specific, yet timeless.

…

In the Catholic’s favor - I would always to expect any single individual to founder in determining what is authentic, and how to interoperate books like Revelation.

In the Protestant’s favor - I would point out that various eastern churches have differing books in their bible, and that even with thousands of people, even God’s Catholic church seems to error: Pope John XXII comes to mind. I think also there was something weird going on in the 1500’s about an angry monk not wanting to pay for something, but it escapes me.

Here’s where I think it will get better - I don’t think that any potential abuse of** our bible** will survive long in this age of mass communication. Not that it’s a democracy or anything, but I sincerely hope that correct interpretations about the Bible and Christ are obvious, fulfilling, and believable. **Silly ideas **like paying for the “Treasury of Merit” and that communion is only a remembrance cannot stand if we help each other and talk to each other.

If Catholics think that Protestants are in error - I would sincerely hope that they would **approach us as fellow believers **in Christ and help us. If Catholics are in error, I hope we Protestants will talk first before nailing bits of paper on your nice cathedral door

Ben,

Then I ask you to do the same. In response to a question and discussion all you did was trash the OHCAC. I ask you to go back and read my post and see where you saw me trashing anything.

Concerning angry monks. Sarcasm you should know is a form of anger. I suggest you reflect on this.

If you want something then do it and model it. You want what you do not give. Shall I ask you to respond to my post again and explain what I asked without imposing derogatories?

 

[Taestron]

I have been through many Protestant Bible studies and attempts at conversion. I muse at some of the attempts. I recall and I am sure most will admit that when confronted with the Book of Revelation there is awe. I set out to read and understand the Book of Revelation and even now I am not sure I can understand it.

So, let me ask you, any Joe Blow that picks up the Book of Revelation…how is this guy going to absolutely without fail, know that this writing is inspired, word of God and is Scripture.

Take me through the process…I am reading it and I tell you…you have to be kidding…you believe that God penned this…how do I absolutely know that and how can you provide me any assurance of that…so lets go with that one…help me…

Well, we could ask you the same thing. How would you convince any Joe Blow that The Book of Wisdom was Scripture? But if your asking what sort of arguments a Protestant would use to determine the canonicity of any particular book, well I can take a whack at it. Fair warning, NT canon issues and OT are two different beasts, and the disagreements about particular books are in the Old Testament.

First I would present the external evidences, and these are the most satisfying. We know that there was large scale agreement about the NT Canon by the 4th century (cf. Muratorian Fragment, Athanasius’ Easter Letter, Jerome’s and Augustine’s views, Pope Innocent I). The Orthodox Church was rather late in their acceptance of Revelation, but it eventually won a position in their church as well (probably by the 5th century at the latest). It is important to note that while the canon of the NT was settled for a millennium there is no extant acceptance by a council until the 16th and 17th centuries (all of which accepted the same 27 books). This brief history is meant to show that the criterion with which we use to judge the canoncity of a NT book finds agreement with history.

These criteria include: 1) Consistency with the other NT books and 2) Connection to an Apostle (there is a third criterion, but it slips my mind at the moment). The second criterion is mainly used to rule out other good choices like the Didache or The Epistle of Clement. The first one is the major player. For example, The Book of Revelation is not merely a book of end times prophecy (even if it were, it would still have consistency); there are several major themes which link this particular book to the other Johannine literature (i.e. staying loyal to Christ and His Church, the supremacy of Christ of those who would usurp His position). It is the external along with the internal which allows Protestant to reasonably say that this book is Scripture.

Even though the criteria might be different the result of NT Canon issues is the same in Protestantism and Catholicism. However, the OT Canon is where the differences will come to the surface. But I am not familiar with OT Canon issues, so I cannot really discuss it knowledgeably.

 

[submariner2]

Sub,

Take a loot at the canon of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox. There was Church wide usage and a declaration. The Church wide usage of the DC was declared at Trent in response to the so called reformers.

You have to add to your understanding that the DC were included in the 1611 King James found here…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

and were part of every English translation of the Bible. The reality is that printing companies removed the DC, no church authoritative body. This is fact.

coptic,

I do not dispute that. Martin Luther included the Ds. Many protestant bibles still have them. To me it is a tempest in a teapot. My objection is the claim that the Reformers took them out when that is not correct. I really dont consider them important enough to argue about except the history context which is interesting.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

I thought, from a protestant perspective, we were supposed to be able to just read the bible and decide on our own what it all means… we don’t need the church, we have the bible!

stew,

Protestants do not ague that way. We realize we need a church to preach the gospel message of the scriptures. We have bible classes run by our churches. (probably more than Catholics) We recognize the need for the church to teach the bible and provide advice.

We just dont see the church as being able to direct what to believe. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Your issue is really not a problem. Scholars both Catholic and protestant agree generally on bible verses and what they meant to the apostle that wrote them. Good bible classes take the scholars opinion to heart.

Rob

 

[PJM]

=Abrigham;9392455]Has anyone else read this book? (“If Protestantism Is True” by Devin Rose) I’m currently reading it and it has raised some very convincing points for me to really want to join the Catholic church. Granted, I started reading it because I was already interested and was looking for more information on the subject. Any suggestions of other books I should read while continuing my current plans of joining an RCIA class in September? I would also like to lead my husband this direction through use of good logic. He’s a math guy and less inclined to follow his heart and feelings over logical points. Any book suggestions that you think would be good for him would also be appreciated.

CONSIDER THIS:

God WOULD have had to wait some ONE-THOUDAND-FIVE-HUNDRED-YEARS for Luthers Revolt “if protestantism” is true.

NO WHERE IN ANY BIBLE: has God taught or permitted more than ONLY ONE

God

Set of Faith beliefs

or more than only one “church” [of which there are more than 100 references to in the NT]

Further the term “Church” was first used by Christ to PETER when He handed him-Peter the KEYS to the Kingdom of heaven; which GOES THROUGH todays CC as it did when Christ appointed Peter.

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” ***

Eph. 2:19-20 “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; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Eph. 3: 9-10 “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] 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,

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 [ONLY] one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] 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".

 

[JonNC]

=submariner2;9415645]stew,

Protestants do not ague that way. We realize we need a church to preach the gospel message of the scriptures. We have bible classes run by our churches. (probably more than Catholics) We recognize the need for the church to teach the bible and provide advice.

Stew and I have discussed this in the past, with reference to the Lutheran confessions. Obviously, I didn’t do a very good job.

We just dont see the church as being able to direct what to believe. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Outside of doctrine, ok, but not regarding doctrine. As Martin Chemnitz said,
*“This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages…” *

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

We just dont see the church as being able to direct what to believe.

Except, it seems, that you did defer to the church in the discernment of the canon of Scripture.

Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Really? You would allow a person in your church to preach that Mary is a goddess? Or that Jesus was just a really neat guy who never wanted to start a church? Or that the Resurrection really just occurred in the hearts and minds of the disciples?

 

[benjohnson]

Ben,

Then I ask you to do the same. In response to a question and discussion all you did was trash the OHCAC. I ask you to go back and read my post and see where you saw me trashing anything.

Concerning angry monks. Sarcasm you should know is a form of anger. I suggest you reflect on this.

If you want something then do it and model it. You want what you do not give. Shall I ask you to respond to my post again and explain what I asked without imposing derogatories?

I apologize. In my meagre defense, I will say I was attempting to be funny. I will sincerely reflect on this.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, we could ask you the same thing. How would you convince any Joe Blow that The Book of Wisdom was Scripture? But if your asking what sort of arguments a Protestant would use to determine the canonicity of any particular book, well I can take a whack at it. Fair warning, NT canon issues and OT are two different beasts, and the disagreements about particular books are in the Old Testament.

First I would present the external evidences, and these are the most satisfying. We know that there was large scale agreement about the NT Canon by the 4th century (cf. Muratorian Fragment, Athanasius’ Easter Letter, Jerome’s and Augustine’s views, Pope Innocent I). The Orthodox Church was rather late in their acceptance of Revelation, but it eventually won a position in their church as well (probably by the 5th century at the latest). It is important to note that while the canon of the NT was settled for a millennium there is no extant acceptance by a council until the 16th and 17th centuries (all of which accepted the same 27 books). This brief history is meant to show that the criterion with which we use to judge the canoncity of a NT book finds agreement with history.

These criteria include: 1) Consistency with the other NT books and 2) Connection to an Apostle (there is a third criterion, but it slips my mind at the moment). The second criterion is mainly used to rule out other good choices like the Didache or The Epistle of Clement. The first one is the major player. For example, The Book of Revelation is not merely a book of end times prophecy (even if it were, it would still have consistency); there are several major themes which link this particular book to the other Johannine literature (i.e. staying loyal to Christ and His Church, the supremacy of Christ of those who would usurp His position). It is the external along with the internal which allows Protestant to reasonably say that this book is Scripture.

Even though the criteria might be different the result of NT Canon issues is the same in Protestantism and Catholicism. However, the OT Canon is where the differences will come to the surface. But I am not familiar with OT Canon issues, so I cannot really discuss it knowledgeably.

Taestron,

I do not claim to believe in the Bible alone. I believe that the Church birthed the Bible and is the product of the Church. The Church says it is Scripture. That is the end of my discussion.

I ask you to discuss one book and you cannot. You generalize. This is typical when someone has no real way of discussing one thing. I understand that. Generalizations, deletions and distortions are the mainstay of stubborn thinking. It can be overcome.

Where is the Oldest copy of the Bible?

Who possessed these fragments of the Bible?

Why did unathorized English versions of the Bible get translated from Latin Catholic Bibles that had the DC.

You can review my post on the Canon of the Bible and see if you can refute any of it. I doubt it. I don’t think it would be worth copying and pasting the refutation of the Protestant canon.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262

Tell me what you think after you review the reasons you cannot prove the Protestant canon. Take your time.

 

[CopticChristian]

coptic,

I do not dispute that. Martin Luther included the Ds. Many protestant bibles still have them. To me it is a tempest in a teapot. My objection is the claim that the Reformers took them out when that is not correct. I really dont consider them important enough to argue about except the history context which is interesting.

Rob

Sub,

Tell me your understanding of why the DC are not part of every Bible.

 

[CopticChristian]

stew,

Protestants do not ague that way. We realize we need a church to preach the gospel message of the scriptures. We have bible classes run by our churches. (probably more than Catholics) We recognize the need for the church to teach the bible and provide advice.

We just dont see the church as being able to direct what to believe. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Your issue is really not a problem. Scholars both Catholic and protestant agree generally on bible verses and what they meant to the apostle that wrote them. Good bible classes take the scholars opinion to heart.

Rob

Rob,

if you go to a Church, that Church has a statement of Faith. If you agree you stay. If you disagree you believe. Why do you have to have a statement of Faith at the Church you go to?

 

[CopticChristian]

I apologize. In my meagre defense, I will say I was attempting to be funny. I will sincerely reflect on this.

Ben,

I have sinned. I was uncharitable. I asked forgiveness and my sin was forgiven. Apologies are for rookies. If you are trying to be funny, let us know in advance. I do not read minds.

 

[benjohnson]

Sub,

Tell me your understanding of why the DC are not part of every Bible.

I’ve been doing a bit of research on with most English Protestant Bibles omit the DC - from what I can gather, during the British civil war, the Westminster Confession excluded them. The reason that I’ve been able to find that they were considered too “Catholic.”

“The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ - Chapter 1 and Paragraph 3

Then when the British Bible Society started printing bibles in massive quantities, they followed the lead of their national Church and omitted them. Apparently, the Bible Society was the largest printer of English bibles, so you could defiantly see why they would be influential - especially in the age when printing was expensive.

 

[lifeandhope]

Ben,

I have sinned. I was uncharitable. I asked forgiveness and my sin was forgiven. Apologies are for rookies. If you are trying to be funny, let us know in advance. I do not read minds.

Wow. Rude much? He apologized, which shows character and humility, not an act for ‘rookies’. Keep in mind most people don’t mean to offend, but there is certainly a loss of nonverbal communication via written communication.

 

[Taestron]

Taestron,

I do not claim to believe in the Bible alone. I believe that the Church birthed the Bible and is the product of the Church. The Church says it is Scripture. That is the end of my discussion.

Well that is very well and good, but this will not convince the average Joe if he doesn’t already believe in the infallible authority of the Church. But let us say that this was a convincing argument. Why do two churches (RC and EO) which claim infallible authority have different canons? I understand well that you think your church has a legitimate claim to this authority; however, when trying to convince people who don’t hold to this same belief you should really provide some reasons for why the Magisterium should be trusted in this particular issue. In others words, why did the Church accept this or that particular book as Scripture? Personally, I am convinced by the Septuagint arguments and think that the Protestant canon should contain those books, but I am not in the position to decide this.

I ask you to discuss one book and you cannot. You generalize. This is typical when someone has no real way of discussing one thing. I understand that. Generalizations, deletions and distortions are the mainstay of stubborn thinking. It can be overcome.

Actually I provided general guidelines that Protestants trust and demonstrated how Revelation fitted those guidelines (I left out that Revelation has heavy connection with the Apostle John). That is no more a generalization than “The Church declares Revelation to be Scripture, and so I believe it to be such.” You are correct in saying that stubborn thinking can be overcome, but this only applies to me if I am the one being stubborn and not you. I say this in jest. I am thoroughly aware that your view may be correct; the question is, are you?

Where is the Oldest copy of the Bible?

Who possessed these fragments of the Bible?

Why did unathorized English versions of the Bible get translated from Latin Catholic Bibles that had the DC.

Do you mean the oldest complete copies of the Bible? The OT? The NT? Manuscript fragments of particular writings? If my memory serves Codex Vaticanus is the oldest extant copy of the NT, which is in the possession of the Vatican. The oldest extant copy of the OT written in Hebrew I believe is the Leningrad Codex (unless Vaticanus also contains the OT but I am not sure about this) which is possessed by I do not know whom. This is a Masoretic manuscript who only copied Hebrew writings. If you are talking of the oldest extant Septuagint, I do not know. But the Masoretic tradition proves that a very influential group of Jewish Scribes did not include the Deuterocanonical books, and I believe this tradition is how most scholarly protestants defend their views of the 39 books of the OT. Now I do not claim to know why the Masoretes didn’t copy the DC books. I think the most likely reasons are either they did not view them as Scripture or they simply weren’t interested in non-Hebrew writings. But like I said before, I am not familiar enough with OT canon issues to discuss this.

 

[CopticChristian]

Wow. Rude much? He apologized, which shows character and humility, not an act for ‘rookies’. Keep in mind most people don’t mean to offend, but there is certainly a loss of nonverbal communication via written communication.

I do not understand what it is you are writing about. Your purple ink is hard to read.

Wow is a declaration. What are you declaring?

Rude Much? This is a question. Where are you directing it and what is it you want answered. I ask you to address this before I address the rest of what you wrote.

Thank you

 

[CopticChristian]

Well that is very well and good, but this will not convince the average Joe if he doesn’t already believe in the infallible authority of the Church. But let us say that this was a convincing argument. Why do two churches (RC and EO) which claim infallible authority have different canons? I understand well that you think your church has a legitimate claim to this authority; however, when trying to convince people who don’t hold to this same belief you should really provide some reasons for why the Magisterium should be trusted in this particular issue. In others words, why did the Church accept this or that particular book as Scripture? Personally, I am convinced by the Septuagint arguments and think that the Protestant canon should contain those books, but I am not in the position to decide this.
Actually I provided general guidelines that Protestants trust and demonstrated how Revelation fitted those guidelines (I left out that Revelation has heavy connection with the Apostle John). That is no more a generalization than “The Church declares Revelation to be Scripture, and so I believe it to be such.” You are correct in saying that stubborn thinking can be overcome, but this only applies to me if I am the one being stubborn and not you. I say this in jest. I am thoroughly aware that your view may be correct; the question is, are you?

Do you mean the oldest complete copies of the Bible? The OT? The NT? Manuscript fragments of particular writings? If my memory serves Codex Vaticanus is the oldest extant copy of the NT, which is in the possession of the Vatican. The oldest extant copy of the OT written in Hebrew I believe is the Leningrad Codex (unless Vaticanus also contains the OT but I am not sure about this) which is possessed by I do not know whom. This is a Masoretic manuscript who only copied Hebrew writings. If you are talking of the oldest extant Septuagint, I do not know. But the Masoretic tradition proves that a very influential group of Jewish Scribes did not include the Deuterocanonical books, and I believe this tradition is how most scholarly protestants defend their views of the 39 books of the OT. Now I do not claim to know why the Masoretes didn’t copy the DC books. I think the most likely reasons are either they did not view them as Scripture or they simply weren’t interested in non-Hebrew writings. But like I said before, I am not familiar enough with OT canon issues to discuss this.

Tae,

This is the Catholic Answer forum where answers to questions about Catholisicm are sought by earnest people. I see some of your question as other than I want to understand what Catholics think. Challenges can be met and answered. Not a problem.

Hi. I am a 23 year old Protestant pursuing a masters degree in Biblical interpretation. I have been interested in the Catholic tradition for a while now. I began to seriously question my beliefs about the Church when I was studying the Reformation and realized I agreed more with Cajetan than Luther. I look forward to learning more about Catholicism and getting some questions answered.

Blessings.

This was your first post. You have chosen to jump in on Chafers question. I don’t go around trying to convert people by trying first to convince them that the Bible is the Word of God. Since this is the modus operanda for Protestant evangelization the answer to the question I asked has to come from you.

Your first selling point in evangelization as is the first point for the non-denominational is that the Bible is the Word of God. So get back to Revelation. How do you know it is Scripture?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Tae,

This is the Catholic Answer forum where answers to questions about Catholisicm are sought by earnest people. I see some of your question as other than I want to understand what Catholics think. Challenges can be met and answered. Not a problem.

This was your first post. You have chosen to jump in on Chafers question. I don’t go around trying to convert people by trying first to convince them that the Bible is the Word of God. Since this is the modus operanda for Protestant evangelization the answer to the question I asked has to come from you.

Your first selling point in evangelization as is the first point for the non-denominational is that the Bible is the Word of God. So get back to Revelation. How do you know it is Scripture?

Since the book of Revelation is included in the Roman Catholic New Testament Canon , why is it that you are asking someone who agrees with you if they can prove that Revelation is Scripture ? I thought that Roman Catholics and Protestants had the same New Testament Canon and both hold that all Scripture is inspired ?

 

[CopticChristian]

Since the book of Revelation is included in the Roman Catholic New Testament Canon , why is it that you are asking someone who agrees with you if they can prove that Revelation is Scripture ? I thought that Roman Catholics and Protestants had the same New Testament Canon and both hold that all Scripture is inspired ?

Chafer,

This thread is “If Protestanism is True”

Are you saying that you accept that the Book of Revelation is Scripture based on the Authority of the OHCAC? If so welcome home.

If not then agreement yes, however why is it you accept this book of Revelation as Scripture?

The oldest existing Bible can be found here…Codex Sinaticus

codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Content is as as follows

Content
As it survives today, Codex Sinaiticus comprises just over 400 large leaves of prepared animal skin, each of which measures 380mm high by 345mm wide. On these parchment leaves is written around half of the Old Testament and Apocrypha (the Septuagint), the whole of the New Testament, and two early Christian texts not found in modern Bibles. Most of the first part of the manuscript (containing most of the so-called historical books, from Genesis to 1 Chronicles) is now missing and presumed to be lost.

The Septuagint includes books which many Protestant Christian denominations place in the Apocrypha. Those present in the surviving part of the Septuagint in Codex Sinaiticus are 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.

The number of the books in the New Testament in Codex Sinaiticus is the same as that in modern Bibles in the West, but the order is different. The Letter to the Hebrews is placed after Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians, and the Acts of the Apostles between the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles.

The two other early Christian texts are an Epistle by an unknown writer claiming to be the Apostle Barnabas, and ‘The Shepherd’, written by the early second-century Roman writer, Hermas.

The place it was found is here…does not look like any Church that suggests Protestant thought.
sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=8

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Chafer,

This thread is “If Protestanism is True”

Are you saying that you accept that the Book of Revelation is Scripture based on the Authority of the OHCAC? If so welcome home.

If not then agreement yes, however why is it you accept this book of Revelation as Scripture?

The oldest existing Bible can be found here…Codex Sinaticus

codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Content is as as follows

The place it was found is here…does not look like any Church that suggests Protestant thought.
sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=8

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants have the same exact New Testament Canon. Why is it that you as a Roman Catholic are asking a Protestant to prove the book of Revelation is inspired Scripture since Roman Catholicism already agrees to this ?