Protestants & the Bible

[Baseball-Guy]

I am engaged with a Protestant regarding their refusal to accept Sacred Tradition and the role of the Magisterium. Here is what I see as a Protestant dilemma. They believe in sola scriptura. But the Bible was compiled near the end of the 4th century by the Magisterium of the Church taking account Sacred Tradition that the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus the three legged stool is completed, without all three legs the stool falls. So if a Protestant accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God he must also accept Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium, correct? Denying Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium by Protestants means interpreting scripture is by fallible human means, which is heresy. Am I correct in this assertion?

 

[Dan_Defender]

Yes you are correct. There were many writings circulating at the time which are not part of the Bible. Like the Protoevangelium of James, the apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and more. In a way, Protestants accept the authority of the Church to decide which books belong and which not without knowing it. Of course Luther did throw away some books out of the Catholic Bible.

 

[Dlee]

You will never get a protestant sola scriptura person to believe otherwise until they are open and willing to understand through the leading of the Holy Spirit. I was one. It takes realizing that the Word of God was meant to be heard, taught, passed down; you realize this opens the door to writings of the early church fathers, etc. I also realized that what we know as the Catholic Bible was “the Bible” until 500 years ago when Luther threw out some of the books.

 

[thebible]

The faith of Protestants is founded on the 66 books of the Bible.

 

[MT1926]

Just my opinion but I think you are trying to go to deep to fast.

I would concentrate more on authority. Basically, start with the simple question…

If we look to the words of Jesus what did He tell us is His intention for passing on the Faith?

If we look at Jesus He never wrote anything down and we do not find a single verse of Scripture that He told the Apostles to write anything down. He commanded them to teach everything that He taught them.

To me anyone who thinks everything Jesus taught and commanded is within the pages of the Bible hasn’t thought to hard about their opinion.

My goodness I have books on cabinet making that are bigger than the Bible and don’t even come close to teaching all the knowledge out their on Cabinet making.

Jesus was with His Apostles 24/7 for 3 years do we honestly believe everything he taught is contained within the pages of a book that we could read in our spare time in less than a year?

In the end it all comes back to authority. If you don’t believe Jesus left us a visible authority to guide us in our interpretation then to try to claim you are right and someone else is wrong is absolutely absurd.

God Bless

 

[Bon_Croix]

To me it is simple. How can you not have succession and still keep one Truth?

They never reformed anything b/c they had no authority to do so. It’s like you re-writing your parents’ will after they pass and dropping it off on the desk of the probate judge. The righteous judge throw’s the document out and reinstitutes the original. The Catholic Church is the judge; and through councils, has declared the reformed will a falsified will.

 

[steve-b]

I am engaged with a Protestant regarding their refusal to accept Sacred Tradition and the role of the Magisterium. Here is what I see as a Protestant dilemma. They believe in sola scriptura. But the Bible was compiled near the end of the 4th century by the Magisterium of the Church taking account Sacred Tradition that the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus the three legged stool is completed, without all three legs the stool falls. So if a Protestant accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God he must also accept Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium, correct?

True

Even if they won’t admit it directly, they implicitly agree by their actions. When there was no closed official canon of books, there was no bible. No bible, no sola scriptura for 382 years. The canon was a work in progress. AFTER 382, there is still no “sola scriptura” because there in no place in scripture that teaches it.

Baseball-Guy:

Denying Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium by Protestants means interpreting scripture is by fallible human means, which is heresy. Am I correct in this assertion?

Denying an article of faith by one who is baptized is heresy.

Paul taught that we are to hold fast to the traditions taught by them (the apostles) both oral and written. 2 Thes 2:15

NOT an either/or proposition but both are to be revered.

 

[steve-b]

The faith of Protestants is founded on the 66 books of the Bible.

Historically,

Luther gave you 66 books. He removed 7 OT books on his own. Those books he removed

1&2. 1st & 2nd Maccabees
3. Tobit
4 Sirach
5. Wisdom
6. Baruch
7. Judith

AND

he tried to remove 4 NT books as well.

1. James (he called it an epistle of straw) because James disagreed with Luther on faith “alone”
2. Revelation, (Luther said John couldn’t have written it)
3. Jude
4. Hebrews

But ran into major push back so he left them in

Either way, Luther is the Father of Protestantism NOT those 66 books

 

[William_Scott]

The books Luther rejected from the Old Testament had already been identified by St. Jerome and the majority of the Church Fathers as not being part of the Old Testament Canon** (including St. Athanasius in his famous Easter Festal Letter which laid out the 27 books of the New Testament). With a few notable exceptions like St. Augustine (whose beliefs almost certainly heavily influenced the Council of Carthage) the Church Fathers were on the same page as Luther as to the Books of the Old Testament Canon (with a couple of outlier exceptions–e.g. Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah which were considered by some of these Church Fathers to be part of the accepted Canonical Book of Jeremiah).

Further, many leading Roman Catholic scholars up through the time of the Reformation shared the beliefs of St. Jerome and other Church Fathers on limiting the Canon of the Old Testament to the recognized Hebrew Canon. Even the leading representative of Roman Catholicism contra Luther, Cardinal Cajetan, agreed with Jerome and Luther on the Old Testament Canon.

On the other hand, Cardinal Cajetan also shared with Luther (and Erasmus and other Roman Catholic scholars of the day) the unfortunate “liberal” questioning of the Scriptural status of James, Jude and several other Catholic Epistles. Thankfully, Protestants and Roman Catholics alike eschewed this questioning of certain books of the infallible, inerrant New Testament Canon.

**Some people are confused by use of the term “Canon” as applied to the Old Testament. Cardinal Cajetan, for instance, defines the term “canon” in a broad sense that easily encompasses the view of St. Jerome and Luther regarding the place of the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[William_Scott]

As to the origin of the New Testament canon–it is not as shadowy and mystical as it is often made out to be.

First, the Scriptures have a large measure of self-authentication (I can attest from my own experience that they stand head and shoulder above any other religious writings we find from the early Church).

Secondly, the historic testimony of canonization of the NT by the Church is far earlier and far less ambiguous than many realize. A quick review of what is quoted and listed as the authoritative Holy Writ of the New Testament from the earliest records of Christianity shows that the New Testament Canon was (with limited/temporary exceptions) well-established from the Apostolic Age itself. Internal evidence (such as Peter citing to Paul’s Epistles as Scripture) likewise testifies to the very early recognition of a Canon of Authoritative writings.

p.s. I’ll likely be away from this thread for the foreseeable future. Have a great weekend.

 

[MT1926]

With a few notable exceptions like St. Augustine (whose beliefs almost certainly heavily influenced the Council of Carthage) the Church Fathers were on the same page as Luther as to the Books of the Old Testament Canon (with a couple of outlier exceptions–e.g. Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah which were considered by some of these Church Fathers to be part of the accepted Canonical Book of Jeremiah).

I would like to point out that although we can find evidence to this, it still doesn’t matter. WHY? Because the major difference between Luther and the Church Fathers was…When push came to shove the Church Fathers knew they were not given the authority from the Apostles to make that binding decision. They acknowledged that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

The only thing any of this proves is that it is blatantly obvious that no individual can provide us with an infallible list of inspired books. If we deny the infallible authority of the Catholic Church then we have no way of claiming we have an infallible list of books.

It all comes down to authority. Only one Apostle was still alive when the final book of the Bible was penned and he never mentioned the other books in his writings. Either the Apostles passed on their authority to others who would make the final decision on this matter or they never intended us to compile the Bible into a single volume.

God Bless

 

[ziapueblo]

Stear your conversation to Sola Scriptura. Ask where in the Bible, and using the Bible alone, does the Bible teach the Bible alone. Your Protestant friend will take you to 2 Timothy 3:16. If he doesn’t, you take him there. If you read the chapter in context, starting at verse 10, it shows that St. Paul is writing to Timothy to hold fast to what he has learned, Tradition! Not only from him (St. Paul) but also St. Timothy’s mother. What did St. Timothy learn from his mother? She was a Jew (who became a Christian) so she taught him the Old Testament Scriptures. Sola Old Testament maybe ? Point out that when St. Paul writes “all scripture is . . .” that at the time the Jews had two major groups; Pharisees like St. Paul who had a larger “canon” and the Sadducees who only used only the Torah. St. Paul’s use of “all scriptures” refers to the larger Old Testament text because as a Pharisee that is what he learned.

It all comes down to Tradition, what is handed down. Hope that helps.

ZP

 

[StephenBales]

I’ve tried to engage my father, a Baptist, on this before. When I pointed out the lack of a canon in the early Church, he said that they had a general idea of the books in the Bible, and this general idea was held more or less by everyone, without fail. That anything that was read at the time but is not part of the canon today was just interesting side stuff, and didn’t believe me when I said that some took the apocrypha as scripture as well.

I don’t think he’s lying, but I do think he’s teaching a lie, which was taught to him at a Protestant seminary.

 

[PJH_74]

What “Protestant” are we talking about? There are so many different types. Either way, why are we spending time arguing amongst ourselves? There are non-christian and agnostic people to evangelize.

 

[steve-b]

The books Luther rejected from the Old Testament had already been identified by St. Jerome and the majority of the Church Fathers as not being part of the Old Testament Canon** (including St. Athanasius in his famous Easter Festal Letter which laid out the 27 books of the New Testament). With a few notable exceptions like St. Augustine (whose beliefs almost certainly heavily influenced the Council of Carthage) the Church Fathers were on the same page as Luther as to the Books of the Old Testament Canon (with a couple of outlier exceptions–e.g. Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah which were considered by some of these Church Fathers to be part of the accepted Canonical Book of Jeremiah).

Further, many leading Roman Catholic scholars up through the time of the Reformation shared the beliefs of St. Jerome and other Church Fathers on limiting the Canon of the Old Testament to the recognized Hebrew Canon. Even the leading representative of Roman Catholicism contra Luther, Cardinal Cajetan, agreed with Jerome and Luther on the Old Testament Canon.

On the other hand, Cardinal Cajetan also shared with Luther (and Erasmus and other Roman Catholic scholars of the day) the unfortunate “liberal” questioning of the Scriptural status of James, Jude and several other Catholic Epistles. Thankfully, Protestants and Roman Catholics alike eschewed this questioning of certain books of the infallible, inerrant New Testament Canon.

**Some people are confused by use of the term “Canon” as applied to the Old Testament. Cardinal Cajetan, for instance, defines the term “canon” in a broad sense that easily encompasses the view of St. Jerome and Luther regarding the place of the Deuterocanonical books.

All that is answered here

 

[steve-b]

As to the origin of the New Testament canon–it is not as shadowy and mystical as it is often made out to be.

First, the Scriptures have a large measure of self-authentication (I can attest from my own experience that they stand head and shoulder above any other religious writings we find from the early Church).

You can attest to it from your own experience?

may I suggest reading the following Calvin on ‘Self-Authentication’ | Called to Communion

William_Scott:

Secondly, the historic testimony of canonization of the NT by the Church is far earlier and far less ambiguous than many realize. A quick review of what is quoted and listed as the authoritative Holy Writ of the New Testament from the earliest records of Christianity shows that the New Testament Canon was (with limited/temporary exceptions) well-established from the Apostolic Age itself. Internal evidence (such as Peter citing to Paul’s Epistles as Scripture) likewise testifies to the very early recognition of a Canon of Authoritative writings.

p.s. I’ll likely be away from this thread for the foreseeable future. Have a great weekend.

The 73 books ( 27 NT, 46 OT books) were NOT listed as canonical, as in completed, till a.d.382. The canon went through development before that date. After that date, it stayed the same. No matter what Luther the heretic did with his bible, the canon of scripture remained the same, 73 books.

 

[steve-b]

I’ve tried to engage my father, a Baptist, on this before. When I pointed out the lack of a canon in the early Church, he said that they had a general idea of the books in the Bible, and this general idea was held more or less by everyone, without fail. That anything that was read at the time but is not part of the canon today was just interesting side stuff, and didn’t believe me when I said that some took the apocrypha as scripture as well.

I don’t think he’s lying, but I do think he’s teaching a lie, which was taught to him at a Protestant seminary.

Point being, John Smyth invented the baptist religion in the 17th century. An action by itself, that is clearly condemned in the very scriptures Protestants claim is their sole source of truth.

 

[William_Scott]

I’m familiar with James Akins arguments from the Fathers–they are flawed. Jerome and the other fathers all cite to the Deuterocanonical books as “scripture”, etc. (in fact, even some of the early reformers do so as well), but they clearly define in their discussions on canon that they are not read as the part of the authoritative canon of Scripture but as the lesser “scripture” read for edification.

 

[ZMystiCat]

So if a Protestant accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God he must also accept Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium, correct?

Yes, you are correct, but I do want to point out a couple of the Protestant positions that are rather common.

The first, and in my opinion more respectable one, is that the Holy Spirit worked to make sure that the Scriptures were correctly compiled. There are still some problems with this, such as:

1. The original compilation contained many books that Protestants rejected.
2. The Holy Spirit clearly worked through Sacred Tradition and the Church to bring about the canon, leading to the question of why He doesn’t continue to do so.
3. Clearly the Holy Spirit worked infallibly through a means other than Scripture, which would appear to invalidate Sola Scriptura.

Now the first one can sort of be gotten around via the Jewish canon, but that wasn’t compiled until after Christ, and Protestants have traditionally held a view of Israel and Church closer to Catholicism, that God’s people went from being Israel to the Church, which would seem to invalidate that point. Granted, Dispensationalism has made things more difficult, but that’s a whole other discussion itself.

Anyways, the second position is that the Bible, that is the canon, is not infallible but is merely a fallible collection of infallible books, meaning that it is entirely possible, from this understanding, that infallible books were left out or fallible books included. Now, this does give a reason why one can just discard the Deuterocanon at will, and it gets around an infallible working through means other than Scripture. It also doesn’t mean that the canon is wrong, just not infallible. But it obviously has the incredibly serious flaw that Protestants are basing their beliefs off allegedly infallible books that they only think are infallible because of a fallible source that may have incorrectly labelled them infallible. So if 2 Timothy were actually fallible, then we may not even have this debate, but Protestants only claim it is infallible because a fallible source said it is infallible. Basically, this is a prime example of building one’s house on sand.

 

[steve-b]

I’m familiar with James Akins arguments from the Fathers–they are flawed. Jerome and the other fathers all cite to the Deuterocanonical books as “scripture”, etc. (in fact, even some of the early reformers do so as well), but they clearly define in their discussions on canon that they are not read as the part of the authoritative canon of Scripture but as the lesser “scripture” read for edification.

And I’m familiar with the Protestant view of Catholic history.