Protestant bible History

[CentralFLJames]

No, I got a tape series on ebay when I searched on Scott Hahn.
It made me a little sad because two of the three Protestant scholars were ex-Catholics.

Also, I have always wanted to go into a non-denom bookstore and ask if they give discounts on bibles that don’t have all the books. I haven’t done this yet but maybe sometime. I can’t wait to see what the answers would be. Can anyone guess???

mdcpensive1

Sad is not the word - its even more sad when one recollects that virtually ALL of the original Protestants were ex-Catholics. It is possible that nearly ALL of these could have lost their salvation by utterly rejecting The Church and becoming active heretics set against The Church and Christ’s representatives (bishops, clergy and pope) under a declaration of anathema. By separating themselves from The Church they may have all had to face God’s fearful and exacting Justice without benefit of His Mercy and without benefit of sacramental confession.

As for asking for a discount on Protestant “bible-lites” you should demand at least a 10% discount for the publishers pushing an abridged product that is a over full tithe light (7 books short of the full 73).

James

 

[HannahLisa]

The link below states that the Apocrypha was originally taken out of the Bible by printers who realized that they could save money by taking them out…because no one used those books all that much! If you scroll up there will be more info, including that Martin Luther had the Apocrypha in his translation of the Bible - he just put it in a separate section.
kencollins.com/bible-p1.htm#out

Also, considering that Luther and other Protestant reformers were around when the Church was filled with corrupt officials, is it any wonder they became ex-Catholic?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Also, considering that Luther and other Protestant reformers were around when the Church was filled with corrupt officials, is it any wonder they became ex-Catholic?

If the personal sins of church officials were a legitimate reason for rejecting that church, it would be a wonder there are any Christians in any church at all.

There can be a difference between what a church officially teaches and the way some of its members act upon those teachings. But to reject the church because some members don’t follow its teachings is, quite frankly, allowing someone else’s evil to have power over one’s own sanctity. It’s allowing evil to dictate how one acts.

Now, can we get back to the subject at hand? *How *does someone who rejects the authority of the Catholic Church know what the canon should be? *How *does such a person get the correct information about what books belong in the Bible?

 

[packermann]

Although I am now Catholic, I was once Protestant. I went to a Protestant seminary, and was a minister.

I think this issue is the reason that traditionally the Protestants had this idea of “blind of leap of faith”. Protestant theologian John Gerstner said that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. This now seems to me very contradictory, but as a Protestant, something that seems to be contradictory was still believed to be true.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Quote by HannahLisa

Also, considering that Luther and other Protestant reformers were around when the Church was filled with corrupt officials, is it any wonder they became ex-Catholic?

This is an argument used by many who do not want to be convinced of the ligitimacy of the Catholic Church. In refuting this I tell them to look at the Chosen people after Solomon had died. Two of his sons took over caused a split between the northern and southern kingdoms. They were really bad. If we can use this form of argument as an example, we can say that since they were so bad, the Israelites must not be the Chosen People because they had bad leaders at this time. I would have to believe that this might have upset the plan of salvation that God had determined.

Christ did solve this problem when He said in the Gospel of John that “salvation is from the Jews” meaning the place where the Temple was. (southern kingdom).

mdcpensive1
There was no need to go off and form other sects.

 

[Teflon93]

Quote by HannahLisa

This is an argument used by many who do not want to be convinced of the ligitimacy of the Catholic Church. In refuting this I tell them to look at the Chosen people after Solomon had died. Two of his sons took over caused a split between the northern and southern kingdoms. They were really bad. If we can use this form of argument as an example, we can say that since they were so bad, the Israelites must not be the Chosen People because they had bad leaders at this time. I would have to believe that this might have upset the plan of salvation that God had determined.

Christ did solve this problem when He said in the Gospel of John that “salvation is from the Jews” meaning the place where the Temple was. (southern kingdom).

mdcpensive1
There was no need to go off and form other sects.

And following the logic of the schismatic, we ought to cease to be Christians because no man since Christ had measured up to him.

This is the logic of The Atomic Church of Me, reductio ad ecclesia.

 

[Filius99993]

And following the logic of the schismatic, we ought to cease to be Christians because no man since Christ had measured up to him.

This is the logic of The Atomic Church of Me, reductio ad ecclesia.

It seems like almost all “Christian” churches are like that now. This is how it works for them:

1. I like calling myself a Christian because it has a sensationalistic appeal, i.e. Jesus Saves.
2. The Bible is to be personally interpreted by me because I haven’t a clue what it’s trying to say to me. I might as well not read it.
3. Therefore, I can do anything I want and get away with it 'cuz I’m gonna be saved anyway.

 

[rwoehmke]

It seems like almost all “Christian” churches are like that now. This is how it works for them:

1. I like calling myself a Christian because it has a sensationalistic appeal, i.e. Jesus Saves.
2. The Bible is to be personally interpreted by me because I haven’t a clue what it’s trying to say to me. I might as well not read it.
3. Therefore, I can do anything I want and get away with it 'cuz I’m gonna be saved anyway.

I do not mean to pick on you personally Filius, but your three points seem to me to summarize reasonably the attitude that some on these forums have towards people who belong to other churches. Misled, mistaken absolutely, but insincere, acting in bad faith and dishonest? Most members of other faith’s I have met are nice, faithful to Jesus Christ, and really believe in what their particular minister is teaching them. Horror of horrors, some of them are better behaved and lead lives more moral than some Catholics I know including myself. I thank God often that he has reserved judgement to himself, or most of us would be condemned by one or the other of our fellows.

 

[Teflon93]

I do not mean to pick on you personally Filius, but your three points seem to me to summarize reasonably the attitude that some on these forums have towards people who belong to other churches. Misled, mistaken absolutely, but insincere, acting in bad faith and dishonest? Most members of other faith’s I have met are nice, faithful to Jesus Christ, and really believe in what their particular minister is teaching them. Horror of horrors, some of them are better behaved and lead lives more moral than some Catholics I know including myself. I thank God often that he has reserved judgement to himself, or most of us would be condemned by one or the other of our fellows.

In fairness, however, this attitude is anything but rare within some communities I’ve been part of. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, for example, had no shortage of folks who adopted the practical manifesto Filius describes. It is quite possible that “seekers” typify it more, since church-shopping is often a quest for finding personal comfort rather than doing God’s will. Indeed, it may be a rational reaction to disunity—as a result of theological battle, some equate firm doctrine with inevitable conflict.

There are some of my fellow Catholics who manifest it as well, and I’m sure the phrase “PACE Christian” will not shock anyone in any community.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Okay, folks, we’ve discussed church hopping a bit, which is not the subject of this thread. Once again, we’ve managed to allow someone to take us off on a tangent (and yes, I plead guilty to that too).

So, to get back to the original topic, how does one determine the canon of scripture without the authority of the Church? I have yet to see a good answer to that. Actually, I have yet to see any kind of answer to that.

Anyone?

 

[mdcpensive1]

Okay, folks, we’ve discussed church hopping a bit, which is not the subject of this thread. Once again, we’ve managed to allow someone to take us off on a tangent (and yes, I plead guilty to that too).

So, to get back to the original topic, how does one determine the canon of scripture without the authority of the Church? I have yet to see a good answer to that. Actually, I have yet to see any kind of answer to that.

Anyone?

Very good question. It seems like anyone who would try to put scripture together is making an authority for themselves. The question is where do they get the authority???

Jimmy Akin last year on his blog wrote a column about what if all the bibles in the world were destroyed and a lot of time passed (maybe a hundred years or so) and then people wanted to put a bible together. He said only the Church would be able to have the authority to do that. Others may try but the Church is authoritative.

mdcpensive1

 

[HannahLisa]

This is an argument used by many who do not want to be convinced of the ligitimacy of the Catholic Church. In refuting this I tell them to look at the Chosen people after Solomon had died. Two of his sons took over caused a split between the northern and southern kingdoms. They were really bad. If we can use this form of argument as an example, we can say that since they were so bad, the Israelites must not be the Chosen People because they had bad leaders at this time. I would have to believe that this might have upset the plan of salvation that God had determined.

Christ did solve this problem when He said in the Gospel of John that “salvation is from the Jews” meaning the place where the Temple was. (southern kingdom).

mdcpensive1
There was no need to go off and form other sects.

If I remember correctly, Luther first tried to reform the Church from the inside but was excommunicated…

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is an honsot question. I am not trying to berate or anything, jsut merely asking for curiosity sake…

I know many Protestants reject the history of the bible as espoused by th CC. My question is simple. If you beleive the CC did NOT ‘give us the bible’ (or atleast declare what was suppose to be in it.) How did the bible come about.

Again, an honsot question as I just want to understand your perspective.

Thanks to all those that respond.

In Christ

The OT and NT canons were developed by God’s providence. There was never any more chance of the wrong books being in the eventual canon than Christ not being crucified. It speaks to his sovereignty. Most of the books of the eventual NT are accepted as scripture in the first 200 years, no council needed. The councils, local in nature, cannot be proven to have had any impact on what was practically considered scripture. In other words, no one says; “well we didnt use 2nd Peter but since those folks in Carthage, we accept it”. No the councils confirmed the practice of the early church. Not the other way around. Specifically the Pauline corpus and the four gospels. When reading Eusebius, one can quickly get a feel for what they were doing.
God used the same method for what was considered scripture to the Jews.
Before anyone gets riled up too much about Deuterocanonicals; they will have to prove the LXX of the time of Jesus contained the books that they say they do.
There are no existing copies or lists from that period to indicate what the LXX had. The earliest surviving copies, 3 centuries later contain different books! Of course my Bible has these anyway, just in a different part.
God used his church. A church that historically cannot be proven to have accepted the Marian dogmas, a Papacy, and in many quarters was rapidly opposed to the use of images (as the wonderful example in Eusebius indicates and Justyn Martyrs work) for the first few centuries.
His church that eventually developed unapostolic doctrines prior to God using a reformation to restore the New Testament purity of many of his churches.
Since you asked…

 

[Teflon93]

If I remember correctly, Luther first tried to reform the Church from the inside but was excommunicated…

You do not remember correctly, for you have forgotten the many horrible and scatalogical writings of Luther toward the Pope and the Church which ultimately resulted in the great schism of the Reformation.

The reform from the inside was known as the Counter-Reformation, and largely involved correcting wayward Germans as to Church teaching and practices.

You ought to be able to get hold of Hilaire Belloc’s “How the Reformation Happened” at your school; it would be worth a read.

 

[mdcpensive1]

The OT and NT canons were developed by God’s providence. There was never any more chance of the wrong books being in the eventual canon than Christ not being crucified. It speaks to his sovereignty. Most of the books of the eventual NT are accepted as scripture in the first 200 years, no council needed. The councils, local in nature, cannot be proven to have had any impact on what was practically considered scripture. In other words, no one says; “well we didnt use 2nd Peter but since those folks in Carthage, we accept it”. No the councils confirmed the practice of the early church. Not the other way around. Specifically the Pauline corpus and the four gospels. When reading Eusebius, one can quickly get a feel for what they were doing.

God used the same method for what was considered scripture to the Jews.
Before anyone gets riled up too much about Deuterocanonicals; they will have to prove the LXX of the time of Jesus contained the books that they say they do.
There are no existing copies or lists from that period to indicate what the LXX had. The earliest surviving copies, 3 centuries later contain different books! Of course my Bible has these anyway, just in a different part.
God used his church. A church that historically cannot be proven to have accepted the Marian dogmas, a Papacy, and in many quarters was rapidly opposed to the use of images (as the wonderful example in Eusebius indicates and Justyn Martyrs work) for the first few centuries.
His church that eventually developed unapostolic doctrines prior to God using a reformation to restore the New Testament purity of many of his churches.
Since you asked…

Two books that had much talk of being part of scripture after the time of Christ and before the time the Church made the cannon is the Sheperd of Hermas and the Didache. They had quite a bit of support from among the faithful.

From your post, could you tell us all why these were not chosen and why they did not have the support that I stated. Please if you can show some writings on the debate and not just your opinion.

Also, since you say that scripture could never be different, why has the number of books changed from 16th or 17th century.

mdcpensive1

 

[Rightlydivide]

Two books that had much talk of being part of scripture after the time of Christ and before the time the Church made the cannon is the Sheperd of Hermas and the Didache. They had quite a bit of support from among the faithful.

From your post, could you tell us all why these were not chosen and why they did not have the support that I stated. Please if you can show some writings on the debate and not just your opinion.

Also, since you say that scripture could never be different, why has the number of books changed from 16th or 17th century.

mdcpensive1

Your question belabors a fundamental misunderstanding of my view from what I can tell. It is not to suggest that there was not contentious debate; there was.
It boils down to the sovereignty of God to have the book he desires for his people to have.

On a practical level, the very simple answer is they did not have as much support as the ones that did. The Didache has an uncertain authorship, the same thing that hung up Hebrews and
2nd Peter, for awhile. Hermas, I suspect, is just bizarre. But that is not germane to my point though.

On the level of fully supporting the sovereignty of God; it could not have been any other way.

God’s sovereingty did not stop in 400 AD in Northern Africa. It continues today. It continued 400 years ago. On a side note, we have the same number of books, its the importance we place on the 7.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The OT and NT canons were developed by God’s providence. There was never any more chance of the wrong books being in the eventual canon than Christ not being crucified. It speaks to his sovereignty. Most of the books of the eventual NT are accepted as scripture in the first 200 years, no council needed. The councils, local in nature, cannot be proven to have had any impact on what was practically considered scripture. In other words, no one says; “well we didnt use 2nd Peter but since those folks in Carthage, we accept it”. No the councils confirmed the practice of the early church. Not the other way around. Specifically the Pauline corpus and the four gospels. When reading Eusebius, one can quickly get a feel for what they were doing.
God used the same method for what was considered scripture to the Jews.
Before anyone gets riled up too much about Deuterocanonicals; they will have to prove the LXX of the time of Jesus contained the books that they say they do.
There are no existing copies or lists from that period to indicate what the LXX had. The earliest surviving copies, 3 centuries later contain different books! Of course my Bible has these anyway, just in a different part.
God used his church. A church that historically cannot be proven to have accepted the Marian dogmas, a Papacy, and in many quarters was rapidly opposed to the use of images (as the wonderful example in Eusebius indicates and Justyn Martyrs work) for the first few centuries.
His church that eventually developed unapostolic doctrines prior to God using a reformation to restore the New Testament purity of many of his churches.
Since you asked…

Do you also believe that old grain left in a closet will over time produce rats and vermin?

Hogwash. You offer no evidence and only unqualified opinion. By your line of reasoning anyone could also say that the heretical doctrines of Gnosticism, Arianism, Manichaeism, Donatism, Pelagianism… etc. through Protestantism were “developed” by divine providence too. But that is Utter nonsense - God is not the author of confusion. Do not confuse God’s permitting heresies by Divine Providence with “developing” competing truths. God only permitted these heresies so that The Church could manifest a greater good by putting them down. In case no one told you yet - your on the losing side and its time to become Catholic.

So, summarizing some thoughts, the bible did not spontaneously emerge through such medieval magic as ‘spontaneous creation’. It is the product of 2500 years of old testament and new testament living tradition and the lives of God’s people working through His vicars and leaders and priestly people. Thus the bible is a fruit of the Holy Spirit working through Catholic Church teaching tradition, continuity of apostolic succession and the blood, sweat and tears and defense of the faith by the early Catholic Church with her Saints, Martyrs, early church fathers and laiety. The bible can not be hijacked and removed from the Catholic Church anymore so than Cain could steal Abel’s blessings and offer a sacrifice that is pleasing to God.

The only thing that is true about what you say about Divine Providence that relates at all here is how God uses the errors and sins of heretics to compel His Church to call councils and take corrective action and “develop” its cannon and dogma.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

The OT and NT canons were developed by God’s providence. There was never any more chance of the wrong books being in the eventual canon than Christ not being crucified. It speaks to his sovereignty. Most of the books of the eventual NT are accepted as scripture in the first 200 years, no council needed. The councils, local in nature, cannot be proven to have had any impact on what was practically considered scripture. In other words, no one says; “well we didnt use 2nd Peter but since those folks in Carthage, we accept it”. No the councils confirmed the practice of the early church. Not the other way around. Specifically the Pauline corpus and the four gospels. When reading Eusebius, one can quickly get a feel for what they were doing.
God used the same method for what was considered scripture to the Jews.
Before anyone gets riled up too much about Deuterocanonicals; they will have to prove the LXX of the time of Jesus contained the books that they say they do.
There are no existing copies or lists from that period to indicate what the LXX had. The earliest surviving copies, 3 centuries later contain different books! Of course my Bible has these anyway, just in a different part.
God used his church. A church that historically cannot be proven to have accepted the Marian dogmas, a Papacy, and in many quarters was rapidly opposed to the use of images (as the wonderful example in Eusebius indicates and Justyn Martyrs work) for the first few centuries.
His church that eventually developed unapostolic doctrines prior to God using a reformation to restore the New Testament purity of many of his churches.
Since you asked…

Can we conclude that your wrong opinion was developed by divine providence as well? God is not the author of confusion nor division.

What utter hogwash - present your data and facts not your conjecture nor anti-Catholic fantasies and wishful thinking.

James

 

[Rightlydivide]

Can we conclude that your wrong opinion was developed by divine providence as well? God is not the author of confusion nor division.

What utter hogwash - present your data and facts not your conjecture nor anti-Catholic fantasies and wishful thinking.

James

God’s sovereignty? I do not think that is what you are asking for.
What precisely do you consider utter hogwash…specifically please.

 

[mercygate]

Your question belabors a fundamental misunderstanding of my view from what I can tell. It is not to suggest that there was not contentious debate; there was.
It boils down to the sovereignty of God to have the book he desires for his people to have.

On a practical level, the very simple answer is they did not have as much support as the ones that did. The Didache has an uncertain authorship, the same thing that hung up Hebrews and
2nd Peter, for awhile. Hermas, I suspect, is just bizarre. But that is not germane to my point though.

On the level of fully supporting the sovereignty of God; it could not have been any other way.

God’s sovereingty did not stop in 400 AD in Northern Africa. It continues today. It continued 400 years ago. On a side note, we have the same number of books, its the importance we place on the 7.

We also agree that God’s sovereignty did not stop in 400 AD in North Africa. That is why it is perfectly consistent to accept the Marian Dogmas, the appropriate use of images, and the definition of papal authority as defined by the authority God’s sovereignty breathed into His Church and promised would be “with you all days.”