Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[rcwitness]

HI rc,

quickly , of course there is more in authority discussions. I only addressed "no bible’ point. Of course the apostles had authority > Of course there was/is oral word. of course Paul was/is authoritative…I like what you said about bereans…only add that it was fundamental, and priority of message…simple, not complicated…which is what some folks did later with some revelations, then claiming fullness…not sure you can be “fuller” in message than seeing /meeting Christ as Messiah /Saviour etc…(how we go from simplicity of Nicene Creed , to Trent declarations/creed).

Blessings

Simply put, my point was that it wasn’t all 12 Apostles sitting down and hashing out every article of faith, while confronting every possible heretical diversion, with the Bereans!

The Bereans where confronted with the foundation of the Gospel. That comes first, and is never uprooted. But using that to apply to today’s very in depth knowledge of God is not always as simple as some might think. It’s not always a matter of regressing back to a more primitive, or youthful age of the Church. We have grown. But not without growing pains and costly mistakes.

You know Catholic Teaching has strong grounds to the Scriptures. You may believe it has diverged from Scripture as a founding in places. But even in most of these few exceptions, a Catholic can remain simple within the Catholic faith. For example, a Catholic does not have to have personal devotions and prayers to the Saints. It’s absolutely acceptable to never pray for intercession to a Saint for Salvation, or knowing God and doing His will. Is it His will that we call on the Saints for intercession? That is a profound question I can’t answer.

 

[rcwitness]

HI rc,

quickly , of course there is more in authority discussions. I only addressed "no bible’ point. Of course the apostles had authority > Of course there was/is oral word. of course Paul was/is authoritative…I like what you said about bereans…only add that it was fundamental, and priority of message…simple, not complicated…which is what some folks did later with some revelations, then claiming fullness…not sure you can be “fuller” in message than seeing /meeting Christ as Messiah /Saviour etc…(how we go from simplicity of Nicene Creed , to Trent declarations/creed).

Blessings

Ben, I should say, for sake of supporting your perspective, that the Bible did exist before the canonical Bible. I say
that in the context of what I meant when I jumped into this discussion. And that is… the contents of the Canon existed the moment they were written and delivered.

But unfortunately, it’s not such a simple world. We have the enemy to contend with. And so doubts about the contents of the Canon exist. And writings that purport to be Sacred are not, and some reject writings that really are Sacred. So the Canon is very significant.

 

[steve_b]

I personally don’t care for this argument. We had Scripture from very early. Before we had all Scripture, we had living Apostles. There was no canon before around 400, but the was the contents of the canon.

You may not care for the argument but you made my point. No canon no bible.

 

[rcwitness]

You may not care for the argument but you made my point. No canon no bible.

the Canon is a particular grouping of Scriptures that already existed long before 400.

 

[Peter_J]

RCW and benhur, good posts (I won’t quote them all … #256-260).

I’ll just comment on

You know Catholic Teaching has strong grounds to the Scriptures. You may believe it has diverged from Scripture as a founding in places. But even in most of these few exceptions, a Catholic can remain simple within the Catholic faith. For example, a Catholic does not have to have personal devotions and prayers to the Saints.

I’m not sure if that gets you very far, in terms of Catholicism/Protestantism, since they reject the dogmas of Papal Infallibility, Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption, to name only a few.

 

[steve_b]

Hi rc and steve,

At first I felt no big deal to our discussion , until I remembered that it is plain wrong assumption that they had no bible. But how else could Paul tell Timothy that their is salvation in Writ, and praised the Bereans for searching writ to see if the gospel is indeed perfectly fitting to OT writ?

benhur,

Acts 17:11 [Full Chapter]
Now these Jews (Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

What scriptures were they examining? There was no completion of the NT scripture(s) yet when that episode took place. Books were still being written

As far as the OT scriptures, the Jews who rejected Jesus had 39 books (in scroll form) they read from. Jews who accepted Jesus had 46 books they read from. And THOSE Jews who didn’t convert, by definition, didn’t accept the NT writings anyway.
bh:

In reality Jesus and the apostles had the “full bible’ of their time. The foundation of our beginnings had " full” bible , just not “closed” canon. The OT also helped mold our Christology for the next three centuries, not just the NT.

Blessings

There was no “bible” at the time, neither OT nor NT. .

 

[steve_b]

Ben, I should say, for sake of supporting your perspective, that the Bible did exist before the canonical Bible. I say
that in the context of what I meant when I jumped into this discussion. And that is… the contents of the Canon existed the moment they were written and delivered.

Please show the evidence for that, properly referenced.

 

[rcwitness]

Please show the evidence for that, properly referenced.

Really? The Scripture predate the Canon, you know? Do you want evidence when each of the 27 NT books were written? The earliest Bible, we have today, is believed to be from around 325 ad.

 

[goout]

Really? The Scripture predate the Canon, you know? Do you want evidence when each of the 27 NT books were written? The earliest Bible, we have today, is believed to be from around 325 ad.

This little back and forth serves to illustrate that Scripture and Tradition are not either/ors, they are an inseparable both/and.
So it’s rather pointless to debate the chicken/egg in this regard.

They simply have no meaning, one separated from the other.
(and that’s because Christ is the Incarnate son of God, etc…)

 

[benhur]

There was no “bible” at the time, neither OT nor NT. .

Hi steve,

got me thinking, technically. Not sure where the word "bible “comes from. I suppose we mean"scriptures” or “sacred scriptures” or Torah , the prophets etc…you know… , the names that otherwise today depict “bible” or inspired God breathed writings,beginning with Genesis. And of course no such thing as OT or NT at apostles/Jesus time. Canonization meant nothing at that time also.

Suffice it to say what I meant to say is that Bereans had Torah,the Prophets and the other sacred books totaling 39/46 AND whatever had been written byapostles ,even distributed, up to the time. But I would say Paul mainly meant what we call OT stuff.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Ben, I should say, for sake of supporting your perspective, that the Bible did exist before the canonical Bible. I say
that in the context of what I meant when I jumped into this discussion. And that is… the contents of the Canon existed the moment they were written and delivered.

But unfortunately, it’s not such a simple world. We have the enemy to contend with. And so doubts about the contents of the Canon exist. And writings that purport to be Sacred are not, and some reject writings that really are Sacred. So the Canon is very significant.

Hi rc,

Like the part of existence of Writ the moment it is written. Also understand the “reception” part. Kind of like “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”…yet of course the writer is there, and of course the audience is presupposed, and the “sound” is most definitely heard, and returns not void…

Jesus never quoted a canonized writing.

Blessings

 

[goout]

Hi rc,

Like the part of existence of Writ the moment it is written. Also understand the “reception” part. Kind of like “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”…yet of course the writer is there, and of course the audience is presupposed, and the “sound” is most definitely heard, and returns not void…

Jesus never quoted a canonized writing.

Blessings

Moot point.
Jesus is the Incarnate word of God. He is the word.
When he healed the blind man, the fullness of the Truth of scripture is, right then. Christ embodies and personifies Scripture.

So the actual writing of scripture is the recording of something that already is the living word of God. That is living Tradition.
The two are inseparable.

Scripture is not “canon” merely because the Church says so (it does that), the Church says so because it is revealed to be by the Holy Spirit. There was never a time when uninspired works were the authentic word of God, and there was never a time when the authentic Word of God was not inspired.
The Church expresses what is revealed to be by the Holy Spirit.

 

[MichaelP3]

Simply put, my point was that it wasn’t all 12 Apostles sitting down and hashing out every article of faith, while confronting every possible heretical diversion, with the Bereans!

The Bereans where confronted with the foundation of the Gospel. That comes first, and is never uprooted. But using that to apply to today’s very in depth knowledge of God is not always as simple as some might think. It’s not always a matter of regressing back to a more primitive, or youthful age of the Church. We have grown. But not without growing pains and costly mistakes.

You know Catholic Teaching has strong grounds to the Scriptures. You may believe it has diverged from Scripture as a founding in places. But even in most of these few exceptions, a Catholic can remain simple within the Catholic faith. For example, a Catholic does not have to have personal devotions and prayers to the Saints. It’s absolutely acceptable to never pray for intercession to a Saint for Salvation, or knowing God and doing His will. Is it His will that we call on the Saints for intercession? That is a profound question I can’t answer.

I feel I do get your point.

2 things I would like to ask to this would be:

Things like Saintly Intercession is maybe not doctrine or “needed”, but it is taught to be in some way so powerful as to help with your salvation? Or not? But it would put a very Pious Catholic in some difficult positions. Then it just sounds like “Be afraid of hell, you don’t need to pray for intercession, but maybe you should”?

Secondly and more importantly. This would be one of my major stumbling blocks. Let us say the Scriptures do not contain everything, and more can be said in other ways. Okay. But for something to be on the Level of “Dogma”, why would Paul or Peter or whoever with all their divine revelations not deem it important to state anywhere? It would have been even 1 sentence, somewhere? The level of Dogma is so “needed” to be known by all they wish to bring into Christs Communion? Why would they miss it?

Just some thoughts that would be a personal hindrance to me at the moment related to this thread.

Regards

 

[Peter_J]

But for something to be on the Level of “Dogma”, why would Paul or Peter or whoever with all their divine revelations not deem it important to state anywhere?

Well, I don’t think we can say why for certain, but one possibility is that they didn’t think it would be right to dogmatize it.

 

[steve_b]

Really? The Scripture predate the Canon, you know? Do you want evidence when each of the 27 NT books were written?

The earliest Bible, we have today, is believed to be from around 325 ad.

so how can someone for the 1st 300 years follow the “bible” when it hasn’t been written and compiled yet?

And how does someone know for sure one text is inspired while another text is NOT.?

 

[steve_b]

the Canon is a particular grouping of Scriptures that already existed long before 400.

And who determines a particular grouping of writings are scripture?

 

[steve_b]

Hi rc and steve,

At first I felt no big deal to our discussion , until I remembered that it is plain wrong assumption that they had no bible. But how else could Paul tell Timothy that their is salvation in Writ, and praised the Bereans for searching writ to see if the gospel is indeed perfectly fitting to OT writ?

Blessings

benhur,

Re: the Bereans

To followup on a previous post, may I suggest adding this short article to the discussion

Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

 

[rcwitness]

And who determines a particular grouping of writings are scripture?

Before the Canon confirmed all True Scripture, first the immediate recipients of the Scriptures received them as such.

You know I am not opposed to necessary Tradition, in order to maintain orthodoxy, but I also don’t try to suggest the Scriptures did not exist until the Church fixed the canon, or imply that it was as though the Scriptures were not read, placed in a box and sealed until the Councils sought to Confirm the Canon.

 

[benhur]

Moot point.
Jesus is the Incarnate word of God. He is the word.
When he healed the blind man, the fullness of the Truth of scripture is, right then. Christ embodies and personifies Scripture.

So the actual writing of scripture is the recording of something that already is the living word of God. That is living Tradition.
The two are inseparable.

Scripture is not “canon” merely because the Church says so (it does that), the Church says so because it is revealed to be by the Holy Spirit. There was never a time when uninspired works were the authentic word of God, and there was never a time when the authentic Word of God was not inspired.
The Church expresses what is revealed to be by the Holy Spirit.

Hi G,

Some good points thank you. Of course God is living as is His Word. But “Tradition” is problematic as evidenced by the underlined, that not always have men and tradition been right on what is "inspired’’ and just what the Holy Spirit wants to reveal. For example, Barnabus says, “Who ever is knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”…yet you take that to mean that what the church then “writes” is the Lord’s precepts, as illumined by the Holy Spirit, such as IC or the Assumption. You may call that a "living "process’’ , I call it problematic…and that is ok, for there is no silver bullet for determining “what hath God really said (or meant)” …yet Writ is not moot , nor is divine illumination, on just what is writ, and what He sayeth thru it

Blessings.

 

[benhur]

benhur,

Re: the Bereans

To followup on a previous post, may I suggest adding this short article to the discussion

Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Hi steve,

will take a look but quickly if i may. It is not either/ or scripture vs authority/offices/councils. Another words, in OT you had prophets and their message …the message proved/legitimized the office, but the thrust was the message, what God was actually saying. Whom God said thru was important but I would think secondary. The importance of the messenger is outdone by the importance of the message. Paul was a big deal , but primarily so that his message, the Lord’s message, was caught ! The church is important , but the message that rests and comes out from her is to be proven.

Blessings

Blessings