The New Testament and protestants

[matthewadam]

I was doing some reading earlier today and got to thinking…

Protestants claim they stand on the Bible alone and deny the authority of sacred tradition. Now, aside from the obvious irony that it was the Catholic Church which put the New Testament they stand upon together, what about the fact that there had to have been some passing down of oral tradition before these books were written?

Even with the gospels, there is no way around the fact that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to much of what they record.

If protestants acknowledge the Catholic Church protected and passed down the scriptures in Christianity’s early days, how can they then reason that everything else is bunk?

Was the church protected from error as it says in scripture or not?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You raise a fair point. They will probably argue that since Apostles were alive at the time all the books of the New Testament were completed, that the information therein was verifiable. The argument will not account for the Apostles exhorting the bishops they installed (like Titus or Timothy or Clement) to pass on the faith, and how they too hold the guarantee of the Spirit. (2 Tim 1:13-14, Acts 20:17, 28). It will also not account for how the Books of the Bible were identified by those successors as well. No apostle left us with a list of what books were to be in the Bible.

 

[Timmy_Z]

Protestants claim they stand on the Bible alone and deny the authority of sacred tradition.

Sola Scriptura properly understood is not “if it is not in the Bible I will not believe it” but rather Scripture above tradition.

Luther determined to follow the practice of Augustine in these matters, who in a letter to Jerome wrote, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writes has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be truth unless they prove it to me by Holy Scripture or clear reason.”
quodlibet.net/luther.shtml

 

[wisdomseeker]

I was doing some reading earlier today and got to thinking…

Protestants claim they stand on the Bible alone and deny the authority of sacred tradition. Now, aside from the obvious irony that it was the Catholic Church which put the New Testament they stand upon together, what about the fact that there had to have been some passing down of oral tradition before these books were written?

Even with the gospels, there is no way around the fact that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to much of what they record.

If protestants acknowledge the Catholic Church protected and passed down the scriptures in Christianity’s early days, how can they then reason that everything else is bunk?

Was the church protected from error as it says in scripture or not?

i guess it all depends who you ask. some say the CC never existed. some say that the CC went apostate. some say that all ended with the Apostles. and some say they are the true church. some that the Church is invisible. some say the church is the body of all believers in Christ. no matter what they teach.

hard to argue with people who think that the Bible is what makes them Christians.

"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached
by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded;
and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian."
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sola Scriptura properly understood is not “if it is not in the Bible I will not believe it” but rather Scripture above tradition.

Luther determined to follow the practice of Augustine in these matters, who in a letter to Jerome wrote, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writes has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be truth unless they prove it to me by Holy Scripture or clear reason.”
quodlibet.net/luther.shtml

It depends again on the Protestant for how they view Scripture and Tradition. There are indeed many who reject any doctrine from Tradition if it’s not explicit in the Bible. (although all Protestants I’ve met hold to doctrines not explicit in Scripture)

Just for reference, Augustine did not practice Sola Scriptura by that statement, or others of his:*I desire you therefore, in the first place, to hold fast this as the fundamental principle in the present discussion, that our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed to us a light yoke and an easy burden, as He declares in the Gospel: Matthew 11:30 in accordance with which He has bound His people under the new dispensation together in fellowship by sacraments, which are in number very few, in observance most easy, and in significance most excellent, as baptism solemnized in the name of the Trinity, the communion of His body and blood, and such other things as are prescribed in the canonical Scriptures, with the exception of those enactments which were a yoke of bondage to God’s ancient people, suited to their state of heart and to the times of the prophets, and which are found in the five books of Moses. As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established. (Letter to Januarius 54.1)

For this question of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she healed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole. And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors),— this most wholesome custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus. (On Baptism, 2.7.12)*

 

[JustaServant]

what about the fact that there had to have been some passing down of oral tradition before these books were written?

Because oral communication ruled the day over written. Protestants think in terms of post-Enlightentment. Reading and writing were not commonplace in those days, and there were very few books (scrolls). When things were written down, they were done for public consumption (hearers). So Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our anscestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many African nations have no written history, all they have is oral. So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and in due time, the Apostles wrote it down.

 

[ChadS]

If protestants acknowledge the Catholic Church protected and passed down the scriptures in Christianity’s early days, how can they then reason that everything else is bunk?

Was the church protected from error as it says in scripture or not?

To be honest I’m not sure Protestants will admit any such thing regarding the Catholic Church. Many Protestants honestly view the early church as having more in common with the loosely organized, non-hierarchiacal ecclesial communities they belong to than a visible, unified Church. They will say the scriptures were written by Christians and not Catholics and that the scriptures gave birth to the church and protected it from error. Yes, Protestants would say the church was protected from teaching error but not in any way resembling what a Catholic would say.

ChadS

 

[Spooksam]

I, for one, have to commend the believers of the first 300-400 years of the early church who were faithful in preserving the Word of God for us.

But, for me, that is a separate issue with regards to whether that automatically makes Catholics right and Protestants wrong. It has been 1,700+ years.

Politically speaking, I am conservative and, I guess, technically still a Republican. But the Republican party has left/is abandoning the values I define as conservative. It is possible that truly conservative values can be preserved by a group splintering off the Republican party.

I have seen it come up many times before in this forum regarding Protestants having the notion that Catholics are not encouraged to read their Bibles. I think this forum shows where that comes from. When someone asks a question about doctrine or practice, they are pointed to the Cathecism or another Catholic book, rather than being pointed to the Bible. So, based on that, can Catholics see why maybe people are left feeling like they shouldn’t read the Bible?

 

[1edyson]

quick question, I never thought to consider, who coined the term, sola scriptura?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I, for one, have to commend the believers of the first 300-400 years of the early church who were faithful in preserving the Word of God for us.

But, for me, that is a separate issue with regards to whether that automatically makes Catholics right and Protestants wrong. It has been 1,700+ years.

Politically speaking, I am conservative and, I guess, technically still a Republican. But the Republican party has left/is abandoning the values I define as conservative. It is possible that truly conservative values can be preserved by a group splintering off the Republican party.

I have seen it come up many times before in this forum regarding Protestants having the notion that Catholics are not encouraged to read their Bibles. I think this forum shows where that comes from. When someone asks a question about doctrine or practice, they are pointed to the Cathecism or another Catholic book, rather than being pointed to the Bible. So, based on that, can Catholics see why maybe people are left feeling like they shouldn’t read the Bible?

can you explain to us why it is so important to protestants that we all must read the Bible without guidance? could say to the people of the old before 1500s to read their Bibles?

do you think they did not know anything about Jesus because they did not have the Bible in their hands. can you give us Scriptures that points out the importance of us to read the Bible? show me in the Bible where the Bible is more important than the Church Jesus built. another thing is what do you suggest is should be done to those who cannot read? where in the Bible says we are all to know how to read? is there a command from God that we all must know how to read?