J
joe370
Guest
This was meant for you----People seem to respond to you. I would love to hear what Mr. Prot. 101 has to say about this very unbiased article!
wasthepoperight.blogspot.com/…and-bible.html
- Status
wasthepoperight.blogspot.com/…and-bible.html
J
JRKH
Guest
The link didn’t work - Sorry
H
Hisalone
Guest
Could you not have sound biblical teaching and quote from lets say Shakespear?
Would this then make Shakespeare cannonical?
Would this then make Shakespeare cannonical?
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes, if it met the other criteria used at the councils that set the canon. However we know it could not meet those criteria.
The same thing could be said about the writings of some of the ECF’s There is much good teaching in them, but they were not considered for inclusion in the Canon.
The OT that was used by the Church for 1000 years was the Septuigent. This included the Deuterocanonicals. Jesus referenced teachings contained in them as I referenced earlier. They were good enough for Jesus, Early Church, and the Magesterium, and so they are good enough for me.
Peace
James
J
joe370
Guest
I’ll send again; it opened for my sister the other day. At any rate, here it is again; excellent blog!!!
Luther and the Bible
by Robert J. Siscoe
wasthepoperight.blogspot.com/2007/07/martin-luther-and-bible.html
J
JRKH
Guest
Thanks. It opened this time.
I haven’t read the entire article, but I can pretty well guarentee that even if P101 were to read it, he would blow it off as simply more “Catholic History”.
Peace
James
P
Protestant101
Guest
What Are Protestants To Think?
Roman Catholics have told me over and over again how that the Church is their ultimate authority. When we have discussed this a bit, they have told me how Christ has said: “Thou art Peter” and “I give you the keys;” etc.
After thinking about this for sometime; and studying the many repetitive threads here on the topic; I have decided that the Protestant thing to do would be to categorically reject this Roman Catholic assertion.
Now you ask why; of course. So I have a question. How do you, as Roman Catholics know that Christ has said these things to you; and that they are about your church? You all have to go to the Bible for your answer to this question of church authority, for no person can prove that Christ said these things, unless you go to the Bible and quote those verses.
Since you claim that the Bible makes mistakes, or is “incomplete;” how can you prove this text “Thou art Peter,” without using the Bible to find the answer?
Catholics obviously are obligated to face the fact that they must, at one point or another, end up going to the Bible for their foundation. “Thou art Peter” is only found once in Scripture, and if the Catholic claims re “Thou are Peter;” are to be seen as without mistake; then they must concede how that the Bible alone is the foundation of their church authority. To establish their Church, Roman catholics must go to the sufficiency of scripture, thus showing the world that the Bible is above the Church in authority; for the Bible only provides the foundation for the Christian Church.
And the only Foundation that the Bible shows, is Christ.
Protestants believe that just as we go to Scripture to find the doctrines of God, humanity, sin, eschatology, etc., so it is appropriate, yes, essential, that we should go to Scripture itself to discover the doctrine of Scripture, and in particular, to learn the Scriptural teaching on hermeneutics as a basis for constructing a theology that is hermeneutically faithful to Scripture. Of course we come to Scripture acknowledging our own biases, our own re-understandings, but we come willing, and claiming the divine promise, that the Spirit will bring our presuppositions ever more in harmony with the biblical presuppositions (see John 16:13; 14:16, 17, 26, etc.). As Luther once said it: “The Bible is it’s own Light.”
With the Bible being it’s own Light; then how can we say that the church wrote the Bible? How can the Bible be called “Catholic?” Protestants,understand that the Bible is clear, on it’s own. The biblical testimony itself encourages readers to study the Bible for themselves in order to understand Gods message to them (e.g., Deut 30:11-14; Luke l:3,4; John 20:30- 31; Acts 17:11; Rom 10:17; Rev 1:3).
The implication is that the meaning of Scripture is clear and straight-forward, able to be grasped by the diligent student, without other aids or materials. Jesus illustrates this in his dealing with the lawyer. He asked him, what is written in the law? How do you read? (Luke 10:26). In other words, He expected that the Bible could be understood by these people, and the Catholic Church was not then in existence. When the lawyer cited Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18,Jesus commended him for having correctly answered (Luke 10:27). Numerous times in the gospel accounts Jesus makes the same point: Have you never read in the Scriptures . . . ? (Matt 21:42); Have you not read . . . ? (Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16; 22:31; Mark 2:25;12:10, 26; Luke 6:3); Let the reader understand (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14).
All of these texts Jesus referred to BY JESUS were around well before Roman Catholics came into the scene.
What is the full extent of the Biblical canon, and what forces/sources “authorized” the various biblical writings to be canonical? Adventists gladly join other Protestants in affirming that the canonization of both OT and NT is not a product of human agencies but of the Holy Spirit,and that the canonical books contain internal self-authentifying and self-validating qualities that were recognized as such by the community of faith.
Regarding the OT, Protestants, accept only the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible, and not the so-called deutero-canonical books of the Apocrypha. The latter books, while containing some helpful historical information, were not written by inspired prophets, but came after the close of the OT prophetic period (ca. 400 BC.).
Protestants place the canonization of the OT in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (ca. 400 B.C.), both of whom as prophets played a role in popularizing and affirming the canonized books among the Jewish people (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:2-8). Jesus Himself recognized the three-part Hebrew canon (Luke 24:44), which was later reaffirmed at many different Councils, in varying degrees.
Regarding the NT, we can note the apostolic witness inherent in all of these writings–all of them written by an inspired apostle or an apostle’s direct disciple who was an inspired eyewitness–and thus the canon of the NT was closed by the end of the first century when the last inspired apostolic document had been written. Such inspired postolicity/canonicity was eventually recognized by the NT covenant community. The Church came to recognize, accept,and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church.
In sum, the Church did not determine the Canon, but discovered it, did not regulate the canon,but recognized it; the Church is not the mother of the canon, but the child of the Canon, not its magistrate,but its minister, not its judge, but its witness, not its master, but its servant.
I have started two other threads in response to some of the other points brought to me above: Purgatory and Covenants
J
joe370
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
Protestant101,
Thank you for this well written post. There is quite a bit of good info here, from what I can tell. I would like to address some of the points quickly. Forgive me if I miss some things.
We know these things because this is what the Apostles taught, and by taught I mean orally taught. This oral teaching was then recorded into what we call today “The Gospels”. So in this particular “Chicken-Egg” debate, it is obvious that the spoken word, also called oral tradition, was given to the faithful by the Apostles BEFORE the written word.
Then we come to the point of How do we know Jesus was refering to the “Catholic Church”. This is actauly quite simple - Apostolic succession. The apostles taught and appointed Bishops, who taught and appointed other Bishops etc. Some of these men wrote documents shich have survived to our time. Plus, by the time honored tradition of the “begat’s” or geneology or whatever one wishes to equate it to, we are able to trace bishops back to the earliest days to the Church. Also it should be obvious to anyone that Jesus was speaking to the Catholic Church since, 1) Catholic is from the Greek and means universal, and 2) Jesus Prayed that we should be unified and one in Him as He is one in the Father.
It is interesting though, that in the quote above, you first refer to the Bible as the Foundation and then conclude with Jesus being the Foundation.
There is a fundemental difference in the thinking between Catholics and Protestants that this passage of your post points to. Protestants see the “Authority for the Church” (any Church) as coming from the Bible. Catholics see the Authority of the Bible coming through the Church. The simple reason for this is that God first Gave us Jesus, who IS the Word. Jesus then gave us Oral Teaching and the Church founded upon Apostles. The Apostles, their disciples and successors then gave us the written text that later was assembled into the NT of the Bible.
How can the Bible be its own light on the one hand and then need “The Spirit” to bring your "presuppositions ever more in harmony with the biblical presuppositions. On the one hand you are saying it is perfectly clear and on the other your saying it is not.
The Bible, and here I refering to the NT, was written by men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who were members of the True Christian Church which was called catholic because it was “Universal” and Apostolic.
I think that this is the biggest issue for you to try to get past. You reject the authority of Rome. So be it. However there are those who reject the Pimacy of Rome without rejecting the Catholic Church and without rejecting the true history of the Church and how the Bible came to be.
Peace
James
Thank you for this well written post. There is quite a bit of good info here, from what I can tell. I would like to address some of the points quickly. Forgive me if I miss some things.
As to your initial question of “How do you, as Roman Catholics know that Christ has said these things to you; and that they are about your church?”
We know these things because this is what the Apostles taught, and by taught I mean orally taught. This oral teaching was then recorded into what we call today “The Gospels”. So in this particular “Chicken-Egg” debate, it is obvious that the spoken word, also called oral tradition, was given to the faithful by the Apostles BEFORE the written word.
Then we come to the point of How do we know Jesus was refering to the “Catholic Church”. This is actauly quite simple - Apostolic succession. The apostles taught and appointed Bishops, who taught and appointed other Bishops etc. Some of these men wrote documents shich have survived to our time. Plus, by the time honored tradition of the “begat’s” or geneology or whatever one wishes to equate it to, we are able to trace bishops back to the earliest days to the Church. Also it should be obvious to anyone that Jesus was speaking to the Catholic Church since, 1) Catholic is from the Greek and means universal, and 2) Jesus Prayed that we should be unified and one in Him as He is one in the Father.
You are correct in saying that Catholics must go to the Bible for their foundation. After all that is what the Bible is for. That is why the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Assembled these particular books into the Bible NT that you hold today.
It is interesting though, that in the quote above, you first refer to the Bible as the Foundation and then conclude with Jesus being the Foundation.
There is a fundemental difference in the thinking between Catholics and Protestants that this passage of your post points to. Protestants see the “Authority for the Church” (any Church) as coming from the Bible. Catholics see the Authority of the Bible coming through the Church. The simple reason for this is that God first Gave us Jesus, who IS the Word. Jesus then gave us Oral Teaching and the Church founded upon Apostles. The Apostles, their disciples and successors then gave us the written text that later was assembled into the NT of the Bible.
Yes, Luther said “The Bible is it’s own Light”, but because the Bible has been removed from it’s organic origions and understandings, each person is shining that light through his own prism as it were, and shattering that light into thousands of different colors of light.
How can the Bible be its own light on the one hand and then need “The Spirit” to bring your "presuppositions ever more in harmony with the biblical presuppositions. On the one hand you are saying it is perfectly clear and on the other your saying it is not.
If the presupposition is Bible First, then Church, your statement makes sense, but since this presupposition is wrong, your question becomes moot.
The Bible, and here I refering to the NT, was written by men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who were members of the True Christian Church which was called catholic because it was “Universal” and Apostolic.
I think that this is the biggest issue for you to try to get past. You reject the authority of Rome. So be it. However there are those who reject the Pimacy of Rome without rejecting the Catholic Church and without rejecting the true history of the Church and how the Bible came to be.
Jesus also told the people to do what their Church leaders told them to do since they “Sit on the Seat of Moses” (sorry I don’t have chapter and verse). So apparently while Jesus does believe that we should be able to study scripture ourselves, He also told us that we are to be subject to earthly religious authority. He gave that Authority over His Church to Peter and the Apostles and then through them down to us via apostolic succession.
I will grant you that the inclusion or exclusion of the deuterocanon is a somewhat minor point except as it applies to the authority of the Bible itself. If I want to believe and accept this book as the “True and Inerrant Word of God”, then I must resolve this issue. In order to do that I have to determine how the Bible came to be in its various forms. How did we get these two different numbers of books. Until I can know that, I cannot know which version of the Bible IS the True and inerrant Word of God.
What a lovely and interesting pseudonym: the NT covenant community. I like that. Now, would you please explain to me what this “NT covenant commnity” is apart and seperate from “The Church”?
Again, this is born out of the idea that, somehow the Catholic Church as we know it today is not the Church Jesus founded. Yet most scholarship both religious and secular agree that the Catholic Church has that legitimate claim. We may argue about the Hierarchy of the various Catholic Rites, The Primacy of Rome, etc, but the origional Church was - is - and remains Catholic.
Peace
James
J
joe370
Guest
Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post
None; except to say that you really have me chuckling now. Do you think I didn’t know you would quickly cut and paste these from somewhere? LOL, I went through that excercise to prove a much bigger point - that it is impossible to come up with the actual denominational names of such inflated numbers being listed here for how many denominations there actually are in Protestantism.
Since you don’t seem to mind doing what I tell you to do; lets see now if you can come up with 250 denominational names!! And that’s still not even close to the wildly quoted numbers being posted on this board.
Well; now that I have gotten that out, it’s time for what you will likely call a “flippant comment,” but as far as I can see, many of what you call “Protestant Denominations” are in effect, Catholic Denominations; for they bow to Rome’s authority just about as much as you do. And, this is not to mention all the different ‘flavors’ of ‘official’ Catholic Denominations. The only reason for all the Catholic denominations is because of the ways that they dilute the Bible’s authority, and sufficiency. True Protestants are working towards the opposite goals. (IMHO) WOW WOW WOW!!!
Denominational break down. Do you agree with it?
blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=1522
None; except to say that you really have me chuckling now. Do you think I didn’t know you would quickly cut and paste these from somewhere? LOL, I went through that excercise to prove a much bigger point - that it is impossible to come up with the actual denominational names of such inflated numbers being listed here for how many denominations there actually are in Protestantism.
Since you don’t seem to mind doing what I tell you to do; lets see now if you can come up with 250 denominational names!! And that’s still not even close to the wildly quoted numbers being posted on this board.
Well; now that I have gotten that out, it’s time for what you will likely call a “flippant comment,” but as far as I can see, many of what you call “Protestant Denominations” are in effect, Catholic Denominations; for they bow to Rome’s authority just about as much as you do. And, this is not to mention all the different ‘flavors’ of ‘official’ Catholic Denominations. The only reason for all the Catholic denominations is because of the ways that they dilute the Bible’s authority, and sufficiency. True Protestants are working towards the opposite goals. (IMHO) WOW WOW WOW!!!
Denominational break down. Do you agree with it?
blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=1522
A
anthony022071
Guest
J
joe370
Guest
***Absolutely, the C.C. codified the bible and closed the canon. ***joe370;3721027:
Actually,the Catholic Church was born on the Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection. So the Church predates the earliest New Testament writings.I said, It was the teachings of the apostles, so of course the writings of the apostles preceded the catholic church. **What I meant to say was, oral tradition of the apostles handed down to them by Jesus, preceded the writings of the C.C.**
The Church did determine the canon. See this link.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#tradition-III
I totally agree with you with you anthony.
P
Protestant101
Guest
It is clear, (in the Bible) how that God does not share such a concern, as we see in the various gospel accounts, slightly differing details of the same truth. God understands and accepts all those different “thousand colors” according to a number of factors not even related to “church authority.”
Show me in what way the Bible is NOT it’s own light. Can you give one example?
J
JRKH
Guest
You won’t accept this, but I can give you several hundreds/thousands of ways the Bible is it’s own light. They are called, denominations.
Jesus prayed for us to be united.
He told us, when we had disputes to “Take it to the Church”
We are not united by the Bible, we are divided.
We cannot take it to “The Church” because we cannot agree on what the Church is.
Therefore The Bible cannot be it’s own light but must be viewed within the context of the Church which canonized it.
Peace
James
P
Protestant101
Guest
Now thats a nice philosophy to “support” Catholic doctrine, however, it must be noted that we are not “divided” by the Bible; it is people that do the dividing. “The scriptures cannot be broken” says Jesus, and that is not dependent upon how many denominations there are.
You won’t accept this; but the Bible does say why there is so much “division.” Dare I mention prov.13:10, and a host of other very clear texts?
If the Bible is not light, then it is darkness. There is no middle ground allowed.
Jesus said it best: "
Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.
J
JRKH
Guest
Absolutely correct. People, pride, ignorance, just plain stubborness all divide us from the True Church.
Interesting,
You ignore Jesus Plea for us to be united and His instruction to "Take it to THE CHURCH.
Instead you pull out another verse to somehow support division. Of course yourealize that Proverbs says the “Stupid man sows discord by his insolance…”(NAB)
So why do you ignore Jesus own words in prayer and instruction for other words speaking of “Stupid man”.
Yes, and without the solid underpinnings of The church through which God’s power flows, darkness prevails.
First of all your quote of Luke is taken completely out of context
Second you will note that Jesus says “the light which is in thee” and no the light which is in the Bible.
The fact that so many people are able to toss so many Bible verses around and thus “prove or disprove” virtually any sort of doctrine only supports the idea that The Bible by itself is not “a light unto itself”.
Peace
James
A
adstrinity
Guest
Where does Jesus say this?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
now explain to me when did catholics came into existence?
when did protestants came into existence?
if protestants took the Bible from the CC, and the CC was only one which had the Bible, what possess you to believe that you religion can interpret the Bible correctly and the CC could not?
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Actually Shakespeare was from a Catholic family the 'Dewsbury’s [or Dukesbury’s] who were to perform magnificently during penal times. Shakespeare adopted this name to mask his Catholic roots against which he would not have succeeded as the prolific writer he was.
Never-the-less, the Church in her infinite Christ-given authority to align heaven to her teachings Mt 16:19, in her wisdom obviously did not consider Shakespeare to be part of her canon.
It just amazes me that Sacred Scripture thought important by Christ Himself, has been judged insignificant and rejected [among other sound Scripture teachings] by some Protestant groups.
Blessings and peace
L
Lilyflower
Guest
now explain to me when did catholics came into existence?
when did protestants came into existence?
if protestants took the Bible from the CC, and the CC was only one which had the Bible, what possess you to believe that you religion can interpret the Bible correctly and the CC could not?
It amazes me the allegation that Mt 16:19 was intended for everyone and not just the CC. Now if that is correct then every New Age Movement including Secular quaisi -believers could equally claim succession of Christ’s authority on earth.
- Status