Need some advice about a protestant bible study I'm attending

[JimR-OCDS]

In my experience in the past attending such Bible Studies, Protestants were open to share the things we have in common, but demanded that I reject what they reject and of course that was many parts of Catholicism.

So, if you go, just beware that if you bring up Catholic teaching, they will most likely reject it, even after your explanation.

Jim

 

[ajcstr]

If you have to attend the Bible study, then why not simply focus on those things that Catholics and Protestants can agree on, and build upon them in ways that will be fruitful for everyone there.

People have said that Catholics and Protestants don’t have a lot in common. Okay, well, I quite disagree. For starters, we can all talk about Jesus, and we can all talk about how much we love Him. We don’t have the same theology, but we don’t have to all sit around and solve every theological nuance together. We can keep it simple.

And if they talk about something the Church disagrees with, fine. Take infant Baptism as an example.

Ask them simple questions. “So, why DO you think some denominations, like Presbyterians or Lutherans, Baptize infants? Do you think it’s just because they’re more Catholic, or what exactly is their rationale?”

I agree - Protestants and Catholics have much in common. Couple things I would add is that no matter how much they would argue, there their entire theology, if that’s the right word, is also based on a tradition. Saying a church is “bible based” or “we only follow what the Bible says” sounds intimidating at first to a Catholic but think about it with respect to ONE thing like baptism. Forget what the Catholics and Orthodox believe - just look at Protestant. Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and so on would all answer the question “What is baptism and who should receive it?” differently yet they all get their belief straight from the Bible. This is a point well worth making as Baptism is no small detail that does not matter. Take yourself out of the equation and bring up a Protestant denomination which, while taking their belief from the same Bible, comes up with something different.

Asking questions might reveal much more to them than they ever imagined. You don’t have to answer everything. Again, we don’t have to instantly prove every little position. Just pose the question. It may will stick in their minds until it drives them insane and they just have to find the answer. Also, encouraging people to charitably and fairly analyze another person’s position will go a long way in helping people to be more loving.

On this note I would over 50% of the participants have never read the Church fathers or have any idea how Catholic theology developed. To may of them, the Catholic Church is summarized with Marian doctrine, praying to saints, Constantine or some other impression they have that can easily be dispelled.

That being said, when I attended a protestant Bible study, I never challenged unless I was challenged. I did bring a Catholic Bible and everyone knew I was Catholic. I did have to bite my tongue on several occasions but again only with the lectures, if anyone addressed a comment at me, I responded. From my point of view, I would rather hear what a Protestant believes from a Protestant and not from a Catholic telling me what a Protestant believes which is why I did the Bible study.

 

[ajcstr]

So, if you go, just beware that if you bring up Catholic teaching, they will most likely reject it, even after your explanation.

Jim

And yes this is also true but maybe you will be telling someone something they never heard before and if not for you would probably never hear it.

 

[aicirt]

Here’s some interesting facts:

1. Have you ever wondered who or what formed the New Testament? The Old Testament was from the Jews. What about the New?
2. Why do Catholics have seven additional books in the Old Testament and Protestants have seven less?
3. When was the New Testament and the Old combined to form the Bible?
4. The seven books that the Protestants removed are not considered divinely inspired. They are accessible and are called the what?
5. Did the Old Testament used in the time of Jesus have those seven books?
6. If Protestants believe in literal interpretation, what about John 6: 47-57?

My Protestant friend said that most in her church believe Catholics don’t know the Bible. I asked her the above. See what your Protestant friends say.

 

[Memaw]

Beryllos said,

“Catholics and Protestants have a lot in common. For the most part, we have the same Bible. The Catholic Bible has a few more books and there may be small differences between the translations, but I don’t think you can go wrong by reading and discussing a Protestant Bible.”

I disagree with that. Over the years I have had so many discussions with lots of different protestant folks, and they do not agree with us on many very important things. Their understanding of much of the Bible is faulty and up for self interpretation. They don’t even agree with each other on many things. Also they have left out many important parts to their Bible. Catholic Bible is complete. (A FEW more books and “small” differences, as you put it.) Big difference. They accuse us of many false beliefs and are not at all interested in our side of it. I have had some accuse me of trying to lie to them when I try to explain our beliefs. So we are supposed to "go along " with them and their incomplete Bible, while they would not even allow us to discuss what we believe, I don’t think so. It’s time we stand up for the TRUTH. Kindly but firmly!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[JimR-OCDS]

aicirt;

1. The seven books that the Protestants removed are not considered divinely inspired. They are accessible and are called the what?

This is not the case.

Protestants did not remove seven books from the Old Testament and neither did the Catholic Church add them, which Protestants often accuse the Church of doing.

The Church canon of the Old Testament, used the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was for Greek speaking Jews. The Septuagint, included the seven books we have. The Church continued to use this version and still does today.

After the Reformation, protestants began using the Hebrew Version of the Old Testament which did not include the 7 books that the Septuagint had.

So, it wasn’t that they removed books, but rather, they used a different Old Testament translation.

One reason they did this is because Jews had rejected the Septuagint as an acceptable version of the OT, way back after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. The Rabbinical School at Jamnia, wanted to distance Jews from Christianity, so rejected the Septuagint and claimed that it was never an official translation. This fell apart after the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and the Septuagint was in that discovery as well as the Hebrew translation. There were also other writings, supporting the fact that the Septuagint was an accepted translation by Jews during Jesus time.

Lastly, 80% of the OT references in the NT are found in the Septuagint.

Jim

 

[Memaw]

aicirt;

This is not the case.

Protestants did not remove seven books from the Old Testament and neither did the Catholic Church add them, which Protestants often accuse the Church of doing.

The Church canon of the Old Testament, used the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was for Greek speaking Jews. The Septuagint, included the seven books we have. The Church continued to use this version and still does today.

After the Reformation, protestants began using the Hebrew Version of the Old Testament which did not include the 7 books that the Septuagint had.

So, it wasn’t that they removed books, but rather, they used a different Old Testament translation.

One reason they did this is because Jews had rejected the Septuagint as an acceptable version of the OT, way back after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. The Rabbinical School at Jamnia, wanted to distance Jews from Christianity, so rejected the Septuagint and claimed that it was never an official translation. This fell apart after the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and the Septuagint was in that discovery as well as the Hebrew translation. There were also other writings, supporting the fact that the Septuagint was an accepted translation by Jews during Jesus time.

Lastly, 80% of the OT references in the NT are found in the Septuagint.

Jim

The Church knows that, we know that but do you think they will believe it??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

After the Reformation, protestants began using the Hebrew Version of the Old Testament which did not include the 7 books that the Septuagint had.

So, it wasn’t that they removed books, but rather, they used a different Old Testament translation.

This is an overly simplistic position, if I may say so respectfully.

Luther, for example, severely called into question the canonical status of the Old Testament book of Esther; he had a higher view of books like 1 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus, even calling them Scripture in certain places; he despised 2 Maccabees; he had a shaky relationship with the New Testament deuterocanon, too.

Zwingli, for his part, outright rejected the book of Revelation.

The Anabaptists rejected the book of Job.

To say that private judgment wasn’t employed, and that theological opinion was used by Protestant leaders to determine canonicity, is certainly not a factual approach.

Furthermore, while it’s true that the LXX contained the so-called deuterocanonical books, it also contained apocryphal books. The very fact that a book was amongst the LXX does not imply that it is canonical, or that the Church used only this as a standard. It is part of the judgment of the Church, it is not its entirety.

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

They accuse us of many false beliefs and are not at all interested in our side of it.

Forgive me, but you’re generalizing here. It is absolutely unfair to accuse all Protestants of this sort of perspective. Furthermore, charity demands that we should assume the best in others, and that we shouldn’t assign motivations to them that they haven’t revealed themselves.

Many Protestants are anti-Catholic, many Catholics are anti-Protestant.

Thank God, the days where we each sit in our corners condemning the other to hell are over, and we can have wonderful dialogue with a great deal of our Protestant brethren.

 

[ajcstr]

I disagree with that. Over the years I have had so many discussions with lots of different protestant folks, and they do not agree with us on many very important things.

Well, would you agree the biggest differences are “Bible Alone” and “Faith Alone”?

Bible Alone - that has caused many differences within Protestantism itself so I would say that’s a recipe for division. But you COULD probably argue the majority of Catholic beliefs directly from the Bible so then it comes down to your interpretation vs mine. And its a misnomer that Sacred Tradition is above the Bible, they are both from the same source and therefore equal.

Faith Alone - to me this is the core of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Half of the battle is shedding the idea that Catholics think we can work our way to heaven, but lets say we get by that. Now we are back to “your interpretation vs mine” as I think a very strong case can be made against Sola Fide using the Bible alone. But what is a greater difference, Catholicism vs Anglicanism or Lutheranism vs Calvinism? Calvinism, if I understand it correctly, has an entirely different view of the relationship between God and man vs non-Calvinist based Protestantism. And on the other hand you can walk into some Anglican churches and be hard pressed to realize you are not in a Catholic church.

 

[ajcstr]

Thank God, the days where we each sit in our corners condemning the other to hell are over, and we can have wonderful dialogue with a great deal of our Protestant brethren.

Yep but those other 10% sure are loud !

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is an overly simplistic position, if I may say so respectfully.

Luther, for example, severely called into question the canonical status of the Old Testament book of Esther; he had a higher view of books like 1 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus, even calling them Scripture in certain places; he despised 2 Maccabees; he had a shaky relationship with the New Testament deuterocanon, too.

Zwingli, for his part, outright rejected the book of Revelation.

The Anabaptists rejected the book of Job.

To say that private judgment wasn’t employed, and that theological opinion was used by Protestant leaders to determine canonicity, is certainly not a factual approach.

Furthermore, while it’s true that the LXX contained the so-called deuterocanonical books, it also contained apocryphal books. The very fact that a book was amongst the LXX does not imply that it is canonical, or that the Church used only this as a standard. It is part of the judgment of the Church, it is not its entirety.

It was complex, but the fact is, the Protestant Bibles ended up using the Hebrew version of the Old Testament which has 7 less books than the Septuagint. Also, I’m not sure why you mention the book of Revelation which isn’t in the Old Testament. However, even the Catholic Church hesitated including it in the New Testament Canon, for they feared it would be misunderstood. They were right, its been misunderstood in every century since.

FYI, my source is from Philip St Roman, in his book, “Catholic Answers ro Fundamentalists Questions.”

God Bless
Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Church knows that, we know that but do you think they will believe it??? God Bless, Memaw

Nope, they distrust the Catholic Church.

Jim

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

Also, I’m not sure why you mention the book of Revelation which isn’t in the Old Testament.

Just for clarification: I mentioned it to show that the Protestant reformers were rejecting certain books of the Bible on theological grounds… In the case of Zwingli and Revelation, this is most clear since, as you say, the book is not in the Old Testament, and therefore cannot be linked to the Jewish canon. Zwingli clearly was using some other standard: his own theological opinions which he apparently believed could lead him to reject Revelation as containing inspired truth.