If Protestants, Mormons, JW's etc; claim an apostasy occurred, why do they use our New Testament?

[jas84173]

This is something that has perplexed me for sometime, after being visited by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming this happened after the last Apostle died, and knowing that Protestants also believe an Apostasy occurred to some extant, why do they acknowledge the New Testament which wasn’t established formally until nearly300 years following that? I mean if an apostasy occurred, they should just establish their own New Testament, no? I mean if they claim the Church was no longer in authority, why would they trust its decision on the Canon of the New Testament? They have so many apocryphal writings they could have just as well accepted. Is this a contradiction like no other or what?

 

[Horton]

This is an interesting question.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Speaking as a former protestant, you sort of believe the full apostasy took place much later and that the reformation actually saved the Church from falling off a cliff. Yes, SS divided us but at least we aren’t relying on pagan traditions for doctrine, we are getting back to the Word of God.

That is, of course, until you start digging into history…then the dilemma occurs. The uh-oh moments.

 

[mackbrislawn]

This is something that has perplexed me for sometime, after being visited by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming this happened after the last Apostle died, and knowing that Protestants also believe an Apostasy occurred to some extant, why do they acknowledge the New Testament which wasn’t established formally until nearly300 years following that? I mean if an apostasy occurred, they should just establish their own New Testament, no? I mean if they claim the Church was no longer in authority, why would they trust its decision on the Canon of the New Testament? They have so many apocryphal writings they could have just as well accepted. Is this a contradiction like no other or what?

I asked the Mormon missionaries the same question and they said they would get back to me on it.

But they didn’t.

 

[GEddie]

Because the NT precedes the alleged apostasy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Marie5890]

The Mormon explanation, or part of it, can be found at the link below. It has to do with their belief that the Bible is in err for multiple reasons, which for them, points to another example of apostasy.

Some of their former leadership, including Joseph Smith, taught that the BoM was the most correct book on the planet, holding it higher than the Bible. They believe that Bible has been corrupted to some degree because of the apostasy

lds.org/scriptures/bd/canon?lang=eng

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Yes, Mormons/LDS believe in an early apostasy but also believe that the Bible we have today has errors, that had to be corrected by the Book of Mormon.

 

[steido01]

Firstly, I’d politely ask that you not include “Protestants” with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The latter two are not Christians; “Protestants” are.

Secondly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not use the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter. They have their own “translation” that is put out by their Watchtower. It has many verses intentionally changed to reflect their un-Christian beliefs.

Thirdly, most classical “Protestants” (I’m not speaking of the American sort of Bapticostals) do not believe any “Great Apostasy” ever took place. They acknowledge Roman Catholics to be Christians who are merely misguided. They believe that the fullness of the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic church can be found in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is corrupted with potentially-misleading additions there. This is an important distinction to make.

Finally, Scripture was already essentially settled very early on. It didn’t need to be “established formally.” In fact, it wasn’t “established formally” in the entire Romans Catholic Church until the Council of Trent, which took place after the Reformation. So Lutherans, at least, existed prior to the canon being finalized.

 

[Vonsalza]

Firstly, I’d politely ask that you not include “Protestants” with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The latter two are not Christians; “Protestants” are.

Secondly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not use the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter. They have their own “translation” that is put out by their Watchtower. It has many verses intentionally changed to reflect their un-Christian beliefs.

Thirdly, most classical “Protestants” (I’m not speaking of the American sort of Bapticostals) do not believe any “Great Apostasy” ever took place. They acknowledge Roman Catholics to be Christians who are merely misguided. They believe that the fullness of the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic church can be found in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is corrupted with potentially-misleading additions there. This is an important distinction to make.

Finally, Scripture was already essentially settled very early on. It didn’t need to be “established formally.” In fact, it wasn’t “established formally” in the entire Romans Catholic Church until the Council of Trent, which took place after the Reformation. So Lutherans, at least, existed prior to the canon being finalized.

I would respectfully suggest that most evangelicals do hold to some sort of cessation of the linear continuity of the primitive Christian church, even if they are not formally educated enough to use a word like “Great Apostasy”. As someone who was raised in that brood, with many friends who went to Protestant seminaries, I’ve seen that view quite a bit. The view that “maybe Catholics aren’t ‘saved’” is also commonly encountered.
So I guess it’s at least a matter of opinion.

Next, scripture being “essentially settled” is quite a loaded phrase, isn’t it? St. Jude makes a reference to an event found in The Assumption of Moses, but that work doesn’t survive in our scriptures. There are New Testament references to St. Paul’s letter to Laodicea (sp?) but that work doesn’t survive either. Some Christians hold Maccabees 1 and 2 as scriptural. Some also hold 3 and 4. And the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas… One is held by a few as “legit” and the other is held by almost no one as “legit”.
It seems some council is required to settle these valid issues, as a few of these books make ENORMOUS theological additions to scripture

To be sure, the canon of Carthage was submitted to the Papal office for approval. We read this from the council notes. This, by the way, pre-dates Trent by a millennium plus.

Trent’s endorsement of the 4th century Vulgate as the official translation should be viewed in the same light as South Carolina ratifying the amendment to end slavery in the United States - abolition was already a historical fact at that point. South Carolina was simply providing an official stamp of approval for something already extant. All apologies for any non-Americans with which this example does not resonate.

 

[pacloc]

JWs believe in a concept that “new light” is revealed by God slowly through time. They treat the New Testament era kind of like how Christians viewed the Old Testament era. They think that there have been honest, good men who may have understood certain doctrines wrong, but were influential to getting the right understanding in one matter or another. So they see heretics as heroes and as God’s way of getting the “new light” to culminate in the present JW religion. They see that since these heretics have existed from the beginning of Christianity, that their heretical beliefs were once believed by “true” Christians and were suppressed by “pagan” influence. The problem is that there has never been a group that combined all the heresies that JWs believe, but they are convinced that Sts. Peter, Paul, and the Gospel writers were in fact JWs.

As for the Bible Canon, they claim to have verified all the books themselves. They coincidentally kept the same canon. They see this as God preserving His Sacred word even in the hands of the wicked. In their own little world, they have made sense of almost everything, even if it is ridiculous from an outsider’s view.

 

[steido01]

I would respectfully suggest that most evangelicals do hold to some sort of cessation of the linear continuity of the primitive Christian church, even if they are not formally educated enough to use a word like “Great Apostasy”. As someone who was raised in that brood, with many friends who went to Protestant seminaries, I’ve seen that view quite a bit. The view that “maybe Catholics aren’t ‘saved’” is also commonly encountered.
So I guess it’s at least a matter of opinion.

You will note that I was specifically *not *speaking about that sort of American “Protestant,” but of the classical “Protestants,” namely the Lutherans, Anglicans and some of the less-radical Reformed. They still consider Roman Catholics to be Christians, even if they consider them misguided. Their confessional documents recognize as much.

I already agreed with you about the uniquely American sort of Non-Denominational-Bapticostal-“Protestant” bodies. Many (though I would certainly not say “most”) do not think Roman Catholics are Christian. Frankly, they’d even question the “Christian-ness” of a Lutheran like me. We should be careful not to paint with so wide a brush that we paint our theological siblings as indistinguishable from unrelated neighbors.

Next, scripture being “essentially settled” is quite a loaded phrase, isn’t it? St. Jude makes a reference to an event found in The Assumption of Moses, but that work doesn’t survive in our scriptures. There are New Testament references to St. Paul’s letter to Laodicea (sp?) but that work doesn’t survive either. Some Christians hold Maccabees 1 and 2 as scriptural. Some also hold 3 and 4. And the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas… One is held by a few as “legit” and the other is held by almost no one as “legit”.
It seems some council is required to settle these valid issues, as a few of these books make ENORMOUS theological additions to scripture

To be sure, the canon of Carthage was submitted to the Papal office for approval. We read this from the council notes. This, by the way, pre-dates Trent by a millennium plus.

Trent’s endorsement of the 4th century Vulgate as the official translation should be viewed in the same light as South Carolina ratifying the amendment to end slavery in the United States - abolition was already a historical fact at that point. South Carolina was simply providing an official stamp of approval for something already extant. All apologies for any non-Americans with which this example does not resonate.

A loaded phrase? No. An overly-simplistic one to gloss over a tangential point in order to make a bigger one? Yes. Of course there were many factors in deciding the canon, and of course it took hundreds of years for the church, in general, to determine which books belonged. There were the homologoumena that all greed upon, the antilogoumena that were objected by some, others that were widely agreed not to be Scripture but still considered useful, and still others that were clearly spurious and even antithetical to the true Gospel.

This discussion within the church continued through local councils all the way until Trent, which ‘ret-conned’ the decisions of some of the local councils to be not only correct, but applicable to the entire Western Church. So Roman Catholics today say that those local councils held essentially the same ‘power’ as an Ecumenical Council more-or-less because the Pope approved them. That’s fine if you’re Catholic, but surely you understand that this is flimsy evidence for other Christians. It would probably be more widely-accepted outside the Roman Catholic Church had Trent not also added an anathema for anyone who held a formerly-acceptable view of the canon. Like, say, Cardinal Cajetan, Erasmus and Martin Luther.

But the big point in relation to the OP remains: please don’t include “Protestants” with obviously non-Christian religions. You may find many “Protestants” will actually agree with you more than you think.

 

[jas84173]

Finally, Scripture was already essentially settled very early on. It didn’t need to be “established formally.” In fact, it wasn’t “established formally” in the entire Romans Catholic Church until the Council of Trent, which took place after the Reformation. So Lutherans, at least, existed prior to the canon being finalized.

That is not entirely true. In Eusebius Church History, he cites books which were disputed right up until he was alive in the late third through early fourth century. The Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles were always viewed as Inspired but not the rest. The antilegomena or “disputed writings” were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term “disputed” should therefore not be misunderstood to mean “false” or “heretical.” There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.

 

[adf417]

But the big point in relation to the OP remains: please don’t include “Protestants” with obviously non-Christian religions. You may find many “Protestants” will actually agree with you more than you think.

Don I do not see where the OP suggeted all these groups are of equal value or have equal beliefs. Putting all these in one group as using the same canon is a fact. One might say the JWs don’t use the NT as perscribed by the Christian community but they once did and would do so today if pressed to without changing their beliefs.

Its not the OPs fault that these communions/religions actually use the same canon.

Peace!!!

 

[steido01]

That is not entirely true. In Eusebius Church History, he cites books which were disputed right up until he was alive in the late third through early fourth century. The Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles were always viewed as Inspired but not the rest. The antilegomena or “disputed writings” were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term “disputed” should therefore not be misunderstood to mean “false” or “heretical.” There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.

This does not disagree with anything that I have posted. Thank you for expanding on what I pointed out in my second post.

God bless you,

 

[steido01]

Don I do not see where the OP suggeted all these groups are of equal value or have equal beliefs. Putting all these in one group as using the same canon is a fact. One might say the JWs don’t use the NT as perscribed by the Christian community but they once did and would do so today if pressed to without changing their beliefs.

Its not the OPs fault that these communions/religions actually use the same canon.

Peace!!!

The OP make several incorrect assumptions. The first being that these three very different religions would have the same reason for accepting their canons.

The OP also incorrectly assumes that these groups have the same cannon. This is demonstrably false. Jehovah’s Witnesses, as it has been explained, have their very own Bible that is not at all comparable to any Christian translation. And since “protestant” is a made up category that has no real meaning, there are a plethora of views there to be explored. Lutherans, for example, unlike many Protestant denominations, do not even have a set canon. Some use the typical 66-book canon unique to American Protestantism, while many use the 73-book canon of today’s Roman Catholic Church, while still others use the 74-book canon that Martin Luther translated. It’s really a regional difference, as the Lutheran confessions do not mandate any set canon.

 

[adf417]

The OP also incorrectly assumes that these groups have the same cannon. This is demonstrably false. Jehovah’s Witnesses, as it has been explained, have their very own Bible that is not at all comparable to any Christian translation.

This statment is true but only for the past few years. They are glad to use your bible to perpetuate their false religion and did so using the KJV for many years prior to their current botched version.

Peace!!!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You will note that I was specifically *not *speaking about that sort of American “Protestant,” but of the classical “Protestants,” namely the Lutherans, Anglicans and some of the less-radical Reformed. They still consider Roman Catholics to be Christians, even if they consider them misguided. Their confessional documents recognize as much.

I already agreed with you about the uniquely American sort of Non-Denominational-Bapticostal-“Protestant” bodies. Many (though I would certainly not say “most”) do not think Roman Catholics are Christian. Frankly, they’d even question the “Christian-ness” of a Lutheran like me. We should be careful not to paint with so wide a brush that we paint our theological siblings as indistinguishable from unrelated neighbors.

A loaded phrase? No. An overly-simplistic one to gloss over a tangential point in order to make a bigger one? Yes. Of course there were many factors in deciding the canon, and of course it took hundreds of years for the church, in general, to determine which books belonged. There were the homologoumena that all greed upon, the antilogoumena that were objected by some, others that were widely agreed not to be Scripture but still considered useful, and still others that were clearly spurious and even antithetical to the true Gospel.

This discussion within the church continued through local councils all the way until Trent, which ‘ret-conned’ the decisions of some of the local councils to be not only correct, but applicable to the entire Western Church. So Roman Catholics today say that those local councils held essentially the same ‘power’ as an Ecumenical Council more-or-less because the Pope approved them. That’s fine if you’re Catholic, but surely you understand that this is flimsy evidence for other Christians. It would probably be more widely-accepted outside the Roman Catholic Church had Trent not also added an anathema for anyone who held a formerly-acceptable view of the canon. Like, say, Cardinal Cajetan, Erasmus and Martin Luther.

But the big point in relation to the OP remains: please don’t include “Protestants” with obviously non-Christian religions. You may find many “Protestants” will actually agree with you more than you think.

We have had the same 73 books in our bible for 1,600 years.

Wouldn’t call that flimsy evidence.

But point taken about lumping in cultists with protestants. Seems inappropriate.

 

[Augustine3]

This is something that has perplexed me for sometime, after being visited by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming this happened after the last Apostle died, and knowing that Protestants also believe an Apostasy occurred to some extant, why do they acknowledge the New Testament which wasn’t established formally until nearly300 years following that? I mean if an apostasy occurred, they should just establish their own New Testament, no? I mean if they claim the Church was no longer in authority, why would they trust its decision on the Canon of the New Testament? They have so many apocryphal writings they could have just as well accepted. Is this a contradiction like no other or what?

A Protestant once claimed “the NT is a fallible collection of infallible books”.

Not very assuring…

I think non-Catholics should be more open and honest to admit they trust the councils that took place in deciding the bible canon. We can build bridges from there :hug3:

 

[jas84173]

There were actually 76 books in our Bibles until the Council Of Trent. 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannesseh were ultimately decided against being scripture and are now in the appendix of the Latin Vulgate. However in the Vulgate they are 3 and 4 Esdras as 1 and 2 Esdras in the Vulgate are Ezra and Nehemiah. NRSV Bibles with apocrypha still include these texts and very early KJV Bibles included them in the apocrypha section as well.