Protestant bible History

[cfrancis]

Sure.
I was an atheist and an avid objectivist. Completely unmoved by emotion. I was saved and everything about me completely and utterly changed. When people talk about a new life in Christ, being modest, that is completely me.
Based upon my conversion experience, I accepted the Bible. Not the other way around.
Having said that, I dug deep into my experience shortly afterwards and for the first time examined the history, went to seminary etc. That is why you will see that I am a Fideist and a proponent of presuppositonal arguments or to a degree reformed epistomology. Classical apologetics, how do you know what is inspired etc, is not what converted me and I think we should avoid using carnal reasoning.
I mean I can talk about the history of it cfrancis as well as anyone but thats not what does it. We can branch off into the complete Sovereignty of God but that will get us further away.

I understand presuppositional apologetics in the realm of proving the existence of God. No problem there, for me.

But you appear to have moved your starting point further from the source (God). You appear to presuppose the canonicity and inspiration of the Bible.

To me, there is a contradiction between your search into history and your presuppositions.

As for carnal reasoning…faith and reason dwell together; they are, as Pope John Paul II said, two wings of the same dove. We cannot escape using our reason; You used your carnal reasoning when you studied history; you have used your carnal reasoning to presuppose the canonicity of Scripture.

In short, your position appears to be “I believe in the canonicity of Scripture because of the soverignty of God.”

Fine - as long as you recognize the validity of “I believe in the canonicity of Scripture because the Church has declared it so; and I believe the Church because of the sovereignty of God.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, you haven’t answered my question, but now I’m even more confused.

If a conversion experience is what one should base his acceptance of the Bible canon upon, doesn’t that mean that those who convert from atheism to Catholicism should accept the 73 book canon? But those who convert from atheism to Protestantism should accept the 66 book canon, that is, seven fewer books?

And what of those who convert from atheism to Mormonism? Should they accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God based upon their conversion experience?

So how does this tell us which canon is correct? Shouldn’t a Christian (who, after all, should desire only the truth about God) want the correct canon? Doesn’t God want His children to know with certainty which writings are scripture and which are not?

Forgive me, but I don’t see how a conversion experience, as terrific and wonderful as that is, gives someone the correct canon of scripture. And I especially don’t see how this could be God’s plan, since it results in different canons for different people. Could you please explain it to me?

There ARE different canons for different people. That is our reality. There are different canons for differing groups that existed PRIOR to 1054. You talk about “knowing”. Try that. Take your classical apologetics and try to talk about “knowing” and reasoning with atheists into believing your canon. In the close to one hundred people I have led to the Lord since my own conversion, the canon just does not come up. So when YOU are leading people to the Lord, and it does for you, break out whatever you think. Try it. Reason away. I reasoned myself into a foot away from the gates of hell my friend. You understand I am not impressed with it! Personally.
And we use all 73, the KJV 1611 HAS all 73, it is just in a different section of course. I have tried to explain my view. If I have effectively failed to do so, I apologize.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I understand presuppositional apologetics in the realm of proving the existence of God. No problem there, for me.

But you appear to have moved your starting point further from the source (God). You appear to presuppose the canonicity and inspiration of the Bible.

To me, there is a contradiction between your search into history and your presuppositions.

As for carnal reasoning…faith and reason dwell together; they are, as Pope John Paul II said, two wings of the same dove. We cannot escape using our reason; You used your carnal reasoning when you studied history; you have used your carnal reasoning to presuppose the canonicity of Scripture.

In short, your position appears to be “I believe in the canonicity of Scripture because of the soverignty of God.”

Fine - as long as you recognize the validity of “I believe in the canonicity of Scripture because the Church has declared it so; and I believe the Church because of the sovereignty of God.”

Perhaps you can reason me away from a faith in my canon…how does that benefit you? I do not believe in the canonicity because of the church and you know that. It is completely the other way around. I have searched history. Heck, check me out. See where that gets you.

 

[Teflon93]

Perhaps you can reason me away from a faith in my canon…how does that benefit you? I do not believe in the canonicity because of the church and you know that. It is completely the other way around. I have searched history. Heck, check me out. See where that gets you.

The question is how it benefits you.

You see, the trouble with Protestantism is that you are sustaining your faith on the small portion of the Truth which the Reformers retained some five centuries ago after they left the Church Christ founded.

You have the Bible which the Catholic Church provided you—except for that which you have subtracted and decanonized, whether through outright excision or through placement and labeling certain inconvenient books as “apocrypha”.

You have the Creed, which is not in Scripture, but which was given you by the Catholic Church. It remains the only thing that all Protestants agree upon, excepting only disobedience to the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

You have sacraments, but only a subset of the seven Christ instituted within the Church, and these reduced to a shadow of their true glory.

The end result of this Theology By Subtraction you’ve practiced for 500 years is an incoherent chaos, with Protestants flitting between communities, constantly “seeking”. And yet what you seek is not to be found within Protestantism; it can only be found in the Catholic Church.

What you are seeking is the fullness of Truth, and the doorway to salvation which it opens.

When you say you’ve “reasoned your way to the Gates of Hell”, I don’t think any Catholic would disagree with you. You have. You are.

You are also emoting yourself to the Gates of Hell.

There is only one Church which addresses the emotional, the rational, and the spiritual—the Catholic Church, founded 33 A.D. Accept no imitations.

 

[Kay_Cee]

There ARE different canons for different people. That is our reality. There are different canons for differing groups that existed PRIOR to 1054. You talk about “knowing”. Try that. Take your classical apologetics and try to talk about “knowing” and reasoning with atheists into believing your canon. In the close to one hundred people I have led to the Lord since my own conversion, the canon just does not come up. So when YOU are leading people to the Lord, and it does for you, break out whatever you think. Try it. Reason away. I reasoned myself into a foot away from the gates of hell my friend. You understand I am not impressed with it! Personally.
And we use all 73, the KJV 1611 HAS all 73, it is just in a different section of course. I have tried to explain my view. If I have effectively failed to do so, I apologize.

You seem upset that we’re even discussing this. But isn’t knowledge of the canon what the thread is about?

Shouldn’t a Christian strive for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I’m not talking about converting atheists; I’m talking about Christains!!! After a person converts to Christianity, shouldn’t he always be seeking the truth about God?

How can there be different canons, and therefore different truths, for different people? Isn’t there only one true canon, and shouldn’t Christians strive to find it?

These people you’ve converted to Christianity: What happens if someone from the Jesus Seminar tries to convince one of them that he should accept the gospel of Thomas as scripture? Upon what basis would you convince him that he shouldn’t accept it?

 

[peary]

**Somebody please explain!

If one is a “lapsed” Catholic Christian who ‘gets’ a conversion experience, are you saying that they automatically embrace the protestant canon of scriptures?

If one is an atheist who ‘gets’ a conversion experience, are you saying that he or she automatically embraces the protestant canon of scriptures?

I do not understand how a conversion experience automatically brings one to the point of embracing the protestant canon of scriptures.

If the conversion experience was authentic, it would lead one to Christ’s Church, not to a protestant denomination. **

 

[CentralFLJames]

**Somebody please explain!

If one is a “lapsed” Catholic Christian who ‘gets’ a conversion experience, are you saying that they automatically embrace the protestant canon of scriptures?

If one is an atheist who ‘gets’ a conversion experience, are you saying that he or she automatically embraces the protestant canon of scriptures?

I do not understand how a conversion experience automatically brings one to the point of embracing the protestant canon of scriptures.

If the conversion experience was authentic, it would lead one to Christ’s Church, not to a protestant denomination. **

I am confused too Perry - I don’t think any Catholic here is saying that. I am a cradle catholic and there were definate times in my life where I took things for granted. As is typical, it took a major and traumatic life changing event (death of my wife) to wake me up to the transient nature of life and how precious and short life is. That pushed me so deep into my Catholic faith and spirituality that I am essentially a different person than I was prior - certainly much more educated, informed, active and aware. So speaking from my perspective I would call my experience a reawakening of the faith I already had at baptism. So while not perhaps a “conversion experience” it was certainly a “wake up” experience that compelled me to remember who I was as a Christian and to immerse myself into the vast spiritual resources and sacramental graces of The Catholic Church.

I don’ t know if that helps or not but its a genuine reply.

James

 

[cfrancis]

Perhaps you can reason me away from a faith in my canon…how does that benefit you? I do not believe in the canonicity because of the church and you know that. It is completely the other way around. I have searched history. Heck, check me out. See where that gets you.

This isn’t about me or any benefit to me, any more than you posting your views is of benenfit to you.

If I understand you correctly, you believe in the church because of the canonicity of Scripture. Is that right?

Again, I understand presuppositional apologetics in the realm of dealing with atheists/agnostics.

Where I see the disconnect is when you move your starting point further from the existence of God.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You seem upset that we’re even discussing this. But isn’t knowledge of the canon what the thread is about?

Shouldn’t a Christian strive for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I’m not talking about converting atheists; I’m talking about Christains!!! After a person converts to Christianity, shouldn’t he always be seeking the truth about God?

How can there be different canons, and therefore different truths, for different people? Isn’t there only one true canon, and shouldn’t Christians strive to find it?

These people you’ve converted to Christianity: What happens if someone from the Jesus Seminar tries to convince one of them that he should accept the gospel of Thomas as scripture? Upon what basis would you convince him that he shouldn’t accept it?

I do not suggest there are different truths. Instead I am pointing out to the existing reality by pointing out the differing responses to what is perceived as truth.
In other words, if the Catholic Church set the canon, which Vatician One does not directly state as we have well established, one is essentially in the same situation I am in. Not that it is such a bad place to be.
From your perspective, I believe, the Catholic Church sets the canon.
How does one know that the Catholic Church has the right to do that?
Well based upon my understanding of history and the Bible…I
STOP
Your what?
History and the Bible…
You see, to accept the Catholic Churches claim that they are the true church you have to accept Scripture. I have witnessed people attempt to describe this reasoning as anything but circular. In fact classical apologists have been confronted with this for years and it is one of the weaknesses of the argument.
You ask about the Gospel of Thomas which precisely proves my point. Classical apologetics cannot sufficiently address this I contend.

 

[Rightlydivide]

**
I do not understand how a conversion experience automatically brings one to the point of embracing the protestant canon of scriptures.

If the conversion experience was authentic, it would lead one to Christ’s Church, not to a protestant denomination. **

Questioning the authenticity of conversion? Indeed…so be it.

 

[peary]

I if the Catholic Church set the canon, which Vatician One does not directly state as we have well established, one is essentially in the same situation I am in. Not that it is such a bad place to be.

Wow…never heard of THAT one! The Council of Trent formally clarified and defined for perpetuity what constituted the official Canon of scripture for the Church, which was only a restatement as to what was always held.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This isn’t about me or any benefit to me, any more than you posting your views is of benenfit to you.

If I understand you correctly, you believe in the church because of the canonicity of Scripture. Is that right?

Again, I understand presuppositional apologetics in the realm of dealing with atheists/agnostics.

Where I see the disconnect is when you move your starting point further from the existence of God.

I do not believe in the church the same way you do. I accept my understanding of the church from scripture yes. The scripture which has a canon…so maybe I do almost completely agree with your assessment of my view.
Disconnect in what way? Efficacy? Truth?
The efficacy is beyond question. The truth I understand we disagree on.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The question is how it benefits you.

You see, the trouble with Protestantism is that you are sustaining your faith on the small portion of the Truth which the Reformers retained some five centuries ago after they left the Church Christ founded.

You have the Bible which the Catholic Church provided you—except for that which you have subtracted and decanonized, whether through outright excision or through placement and labeling certain inconvenient books as “apocrypha”.

You have the Creed, which is not in Scripture, but which was given you by the Catholic Church. It remains the only thing that all Protestants agree upon, excepting only disobedience to the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

You have sacraments, but only a subset of the seven Christ instituted within the Church, and these reduced to a shadow of their true glory.

The end result of this Theology By Subtraction you’ve practiced for 500 years is an incoherent chaos, with Protestants flitting between communities, constantly “seeking”. And yet what you seek is not to be found within Protestantism; it can only be found in the Catholic Church.

What you are seeking is the fullness of Truth, and the doorway to salvation which it opens.

When you say you’ve “reasoned your way to the Gates of Hell”, I don’t think any Catholic would disagree with you. You have. You are.

You are also emoting yourself to the Gates of Hell.

There is only one Church which addresses the emotional, the rational, and the spiritual—the Catholic Church, founded 33 A.D. Accept no imitations.

Straight from the person who thought the canon was settled in 325…
As far as me going to hell, thanks for sharing your view.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Wow…never heard of THAT one! The Council of Trent formally clarified and defined for perpetuity what constituted the official Canon of scripture for the Church, which was only a restatement as to what was always held.

Vatican One elaborates it seems to me. It has differences from Trent, which I am sure you are aware. In the ever changing world of doctrine in Catholicism, developmentally speaking of course, I go with the more recent one.

 

[Rightlydivide]

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical
not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
nor simply because they contain revelation without error,
but because,
being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
they have God as their Author,
and were as such committed to the Church.
Vatican One

 

[cfrancis]

I do not believe in the church the same way you do. I accept my understanding of the church from scripture yes. The scripture which has a canon…so maybe I do almost completely agree with your assessment of my view.
Disconnect in what way? Efficacy? Truth?
The efficacy is beyond question. The truth I understand we disagree on.

Efficacy is beyond question? That would be an assertion I cannot grant, not without substance from you.

How does one know that the Catholic Church has the right to do that?
Well based upon my understanding of history and the Bible…I
STOP
Your what?
History and the Bible…
You see, to accept the Catholic Churches claim that they are the true church you have to accept Scripture. I have witnessed people attempt to describe this reasoning as anything but circular. In fact classical apologists have been confronted with this for years and it is one of the weaknesses of the argument.
You ask about the Gospel of Thomas which precisely proves my point. Classical apologetics cannot sufficiently address this I contend.

You have conveniently constructed a straw man, but I’m certain you’re aware of this.
Based upon my understanding of history and the Church, I accept the canon we possess. Can I support my belief with Scripture? Of course I can, but my argument is solely dependent upon that.

So, about the Gospel of Thomas…
What prevents the Gospel of Thomas from being part of the canon?
God’s sovereignty?
Of course - just as the next letter I type comes only from God’s sovereignty.
He is the ultimate cause, but such does not deny a proximate cause.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Efficacy is beyond question? That would be an assertion I cannot grant, not without substance from you.

You have conveniently constructed a straw man, but I’m certain you’re aware of this.
Based upon my understanding of history and the Church, I accept the canon we possess. Can I support my belief with Scripture? Of course I can, but my argument is solely dependent upon that.

So, about the Gospel of Thomas…
What prevents the Gospel of Thomas from being part of the canon?
God’s sovereignty?
Of course - just as the next letter I type comes only from God’s sovereignty.
He is the ultimate cause, but such does not deny a proximate cause.

I understand your perspective. I wish you well.

 

[Teflon93]

Straight from the person who thought the canon was settled in 325…
As far as me going to hell, thanks for sharing your view.

What Scripture was in use at Nicea?

You do realize, of course, that canon must be established before those scribes sit down and copy out and assemble the big ol’ bound books which are referenced?

Or do you think that there was simply no notion whatsoever as to what Scripture was and wasn’t until Trent “got it wrong”?

 

[Rightlydivide]

What Scripture was in use at Nicea?

You do realize, of course, that canon must be established before those scribes sit down and copy out and assemble the big ol’ bound books which are referenced?

Or do you think that there was simply no notion whatsoever as to what Scripture was and wasn’t until Trent “got it wrong”?

Teflon earlier YOU stated:

In any case, the canon of the Bible was settled via an ecumenical council of the Church at Nicea in 325 and reaffirmed at Trent 1,200 years later in response to Protestants modifying the canon without authority.

You really cannot wiggle out of that one. Better to just admit you are wrong.

 

[cfrancis]

I understand your perspective. I wish you well.

OK, but we’re still left with:
So, about the Gospel of Thomas…
What prevents the Gospel of Thomas from being part of the canon?