What Do Protestants Think About This Scripture?

[MrS]

Augustine is pre-reformation, or 1,200 or so years before the Protestant Reformation. Personally, I believe Augustine would be one of the giants of the Protestant Reformation along-side of Luther and Calvin.

…

 

[MrS]

I think we’re getting side tracked…

The question is what do we think this says?

Well, I think “many” means many. Nothing unclear about that.
I think that “things” means things. What’s unclear about that?
I think that “Jesus” means Jesus - that individual. What’s unclear about that?
I think that “did” means did - certain actions. Nothin’ unclear about that.
I think that “written” means written. Like in a book.
I think that “the entire world” is probably hyperbole.

So, if we look at the whole thing, John is saying that Jesus DID things, not all of which he has recorded in the Book of John. {We know this is true because, for example, there are miracles of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics that he doesn’t record).

That’s what it says. So that’s what I think it says.

Not too much controversy, if we just read the words - and accept what is there.

Of course, if we delete the words there and substitute other words, then it says something different. For example, delete “did” and replace it with “dogmas taught” would change it. Change out “Jesus” for “Joseph Smith” and that would change it. Delete “this book” and replace it with “Bible” and that changes it. Anytime you delete words in Scripture and replace them with an entirely different one - you raise the distinct possibility of changing it. This would be no exception.

.

like “alone” for instance?

.

 

[MrS]

The conclusion simply is this: We do not go by just what the bible says, and this Scripture is proof of this. There are people (Protestants), who go by JUST the bible and the bible alone.

Well, sort of. They go by what they either “think” the Bible is saying, or by what they “want” the Bible to say to them. Hence the great and growing number of faith communities who are not part of the Church founded by Christ.

And yes the adjective “early” describes the Church… the early Church … Fathers
not
describes Church Fathers.

The ECF were those who held and taught what Jesus gave us. Much of what they taught eventually became part of the Book of the Church… the Bible.

Today we have tens of thousands of denominations who want to be a “church” or faith community of the Bible.

Nice.

Use our Book to justify their inovations:shrug:

.

 

[MrS]

I think you need to study history. MOST of the Bible came before even The Catholic Church itself claims to have begun; it is absurd to argue that The Catholic Church existed before 1400 BC when the oldest part of the Bile came into existence. Now, it IS older than my tome (which was published just last year) but it is not older than Scripture. As if that had any significance for anything.

Yes, that is true of the Old Testament. But the Catholic Church “began” no later than the Catholic Feast of Pentacost. Some ECF look at the birth of Christ as the beginning. Some even at the beginning of creation.

Regardless, all non-Catholic traditions began long after the Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world. That is simple logic because those traditions use the Bible as the basis for their beliefs… not what the Catholic Church has been holding as the fullness of the faith for over 2000 years.

So, you - as a Catholic - deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are actually recording the words and deeds of Jesus - it’s all fake?

Not hardly. But I do deny that they were all apostles. Luke writes more of the NT than any other NT human author. But the Catholic Church chose to include his writings in the Canon of Scripture. Thankfully, none of the reformers rejected them… they only continue to misinterpret them and they continue to lack the other traditions that help us understand.

By the way… Tradition (singular) is that body of Truth given to the Apostles. Much of it eventually was written down in our Book - the Bible.

I’d love to see that “evidence” but I’m just at a loss to see how any of your comments has a thing to do with the words of the verse we are discussing. You should note that the words are discussing don’t mention Christ or Tradition or The Catholic Church or Christian history. It says that Jesus DID things that John did not record in his Gospel book - which we know is true since there are several actions of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics that John didn’t record. That’s what it says, so therefore - that’s what it says. Nothin’ more. Nothin’ less.

.

 

[MrS]

Christ did not always and everywhere speak word of mouth for He said to the Devil and other devils “it is written,it is written,it is written”[Lk.4:4-8] - twinc - re Jn.21:25 see Jn.20:31 - twinc

Good point… and St Paul, The Catholic Apostle to the Gentiles used a similar device by repeating parts of the OT which the HEARER would recognize.

That is often where non-Catholic interpretations suffer… they don’t realize what St Paul is really saying.

And, interesting point, St Paul only quotes Jesus one time… in Cor when he teaches on the importance of John 6, the Eucharist, and the reality of the Real Presence… something else most protestants either [1] deny [2] avoid, or [3] claim they too have even with out valid ordination.

.

 

[MrS]

That is why there are lots of Early Church Fathers who have said the same things about Christ and His Catholic church. Have you read any of the ECF? Funny how they all say the same thing. Why do you insist in following Luther?

cuz being “Catholic -Lite”, as a Lutheran daughter-in-law has said, is his choice. Again … HIS choice.

Being Catholic is one of the most difficult things to be… the rewards, however, are unmatched.

.

 

[mmmcounts]

"“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

This is where The Catholics believe in Tradition. Word of mouth from the Early Church Fathers and others who had witnessed things about Christ before the bible ever came into the hands of the people. After all, didn’t Christ speak word of mouth?

Here’s what I think.

These “word of mouth” stories don’t exist.

And if they did- which they don’t, in any way shape or form- they wouldn’t have been protected from infallible transmission.

We can put this to the test if you like. Tell me one of those stories, and make sure you accompany it with evidence demonstrating that the story you’re telling me was once told by a contemporary of Jesus.

If your response fails to contain an attempt at a presentation of one of these stories, I’m definitely not going to care.

 

[JonNC]

like “alone” for instance?
.

New International Version (©1984)
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
New Living Translation (©2007)
So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works prescribed by the law.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
We conclude that a person has God’s approval by faith, not by his own efforts.

King James Bible
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

American King James Version
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

American Standard Version
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Bible in Basic English
For this reason, then, a man may get righteousness by faith without the works of the law.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

Darby Bible Translation
for we reckon that a man is justified by faith, without works of law.

English Revised Version
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Webster’s Bible Translation
Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Weymouth New Testament
For we maintain that it is as the result of faith that a man is held to be righteous, apart from actions done in obedience to Law.

World English Bible
We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Young’s Literal Translation
therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

Alone isn’t in any English Bible, because it is not necessary. But English is not German, and German is not Greek, and sometimes translations require thinking. There were many others who used the word "alone in reference to Romans 3:28 prior to Luther, all of them Catholic.

Jon

bible.cc/romans/3-28.htm

 

[MrS]

Alone isn’t in any English Bible, because it is not necessary. But English is not German, and German is not Greek, and sometimes translations require thinking. There were many others who used the word "alone in reference to Romans 3:28 prior to Luther, all of them Catholic.

Jon

bible.cc/romans/3-28.htm

No Catholic teaching has every employed the word alone as Luther intended…

St Paul uses the word alone dozens of times in Romans, and the word faith nearly 100 times. And his first and last use of the word faith in Romans 1-8 is combined with the the word obedience (an act, a work, if you will)

Yet nowhere does he use the two words together … except for once in James… and that is preceeded by NOT BY.

The Catholic position has always been that we are saved by Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone working in love(charity). “… and the greatest of these (faith,hope,charity) is charity…”

Additionally, there is a vast difference, as St Paul taught, between the Law, and Works of the Law.

.

 

[JonNC]

No Catholic teaching has every employed the word alone as Luther intended…

St Paul uses the word alone dozens of times in Romans, and the word faith nearly 100 times. And his first and last use of the word faith in Romans 1-8 is combined with the the word obedience (an act, a work, if you will)

Yet nowhere does he use the two words together … except for once in James… and that is preceeded by NOT BY.

The Catholic position has always been that we are saved by Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone working in love(charity). “… and the greatest of these (faith,hope,charity) is charity…”

Additionally, there is a vast difference, as St Paul taught, between the Law, and Works of the Law.

.

Aquinas: “Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law).”

There are more, but my point is that Luther’s use of “allein” in the German was necessary in the German. It is not needed in English, and therefore is not used in any English translation.

Jon

 

[Lutheranteach]

That is why there are lots of Early Church Fathers who have said the same things about Christ and His Catholic church. Have you read any of the ECF? Funny how they all say the same thing. Why do you insist in following Luther?

I don’t. I follow the church he started. And I would be a dreadful Catholic as there are some things that simply MUST be followed by Catholics that I simply cannot do.

 

[monica24]

The biggest difference is Development of Doctrine and Papal Supremacy, although that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, feel free to ask any questions you might have in another thread.

Creedal or not doesn’t really matter. The fact is your point of argument was that we toss out tradition because it has been made up by others.

While Sola Scriptura says everything must go back to the scriptures, this verse clearly states that not everything is in the scriptures.

Now I do agree that Holy Tradition should not contradict the scriptures, but that is something else entirely.

Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in the prayers (see Acts 8:42), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.
But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.
This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
Monica24

 

[RomanCath379]

I don’t. I follow the church he started. And I would be a dreadful Catholic as there are some things that simply MUST be followed by Catholics that I simply cannot do.

But you do not follow the church Jesus started since Jesus and His teachings do not apply to your church. How dreadful is the Eucharist? The gift of the Mass or the Holy Sacraments? Praying to His Blessed Mother, etc…you follow a man-made church, not the church Christ established, but one of Luther in which HE established.

 

[RomanCath379]

I realize there is a claim of lineage. The claim of lineage is not unique to the Catholic church.

And you are assuming that the lineage of lineage (which is not unique) is the exclusive metric that should be used to identify the one church today.

The church in which Christ has founded has divided in an ecclesiastical sense. That is a fact of history.

If one of these unique organizations that claims to be at least a part of the church of Jesus Christ want to claim for themselves that they are uniquely the church of Jesus Christ (meaning that from God’s perspective there is some type of superior->inferior relationship between their organization and all other organizations out there) they are welcome to it. However, the burden of proof rests upon those who want to make these claims for themselves.

Huh? I would be very impressed if I were you with an unbroken link that nonone else can claim for 2,000 years. The fact of history here is Luther, whom divided the church. Nothing more. A heretic.

 

[MrS]

Aquinas: “Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law).”

There are more, but my point is that Luther’s use of “allein” in the German was necessary in the German. It is not needed in English, and therefore is not used in any English translation.

Jon

That is fine, you are just misunderstanding it.

The “hope” of justification is found in (through) faith. It is not guaranteed in the sense that once justified (saved), always saved. We continue to have free will and the choice to reject God after accepting him (re: David).

The works of the law (OT ceremonial law like blood sacrifice, circumcision etc) are no longer what God expects. There is a New Covenant that will replace (fulfill) the old.

The word alone can be an adjective or an adverb. Luther’s adverb was unwarranted in any language.

When it came to the use of the adverb (in James), it is preceded (in every language) with two words… NOT BY.

We are saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, working in love. Sola Gratia.

Scripture supports that… in lots of verses,
Scripture denies faith alone… in even more verses.
.

 

[Lutheranteach]

But you do not follow the church Jesus started since Jesus and His teachings do not apply to your church. How dreadful is the Eucharist? The gift of the Mass or the Holy Sacraments? Praying to His Blessed Mother, etc…you follow a man-made church, not the church Christ established, but one of Luther in which HE established.

Maybe I should be more clear…I, and I think most Lutherans and other protestants fully believe I am following the church Jesus started.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

…

Not nice adding significantly to my quote, adding all sorts of things I never said.

The the modifications you make to what I said in no way support the point I responded to: the post (and often Catholic claim) that “The Catholic Church wrote the Bible” or “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.”

And I have no clue what any of that has to do with what this verse we are discussing says. As a Protestant I think it says that Jesus did things that St. John did not record in his book. That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says (not so complicated). I’m not so sure why that is so difficult for so many Catholics. Read the words. Words mean things. Each one of the words in this verse means exactly what the words mean. Not so difficult… There’s nothing in the verse about Jesus teaching a plethora of dogmas that the Holy Spirit choose to not disclose in His Scriptures to us but somehow The Catholic Church found out and centuries later choose to tell Christians. It’s just not there. Read the words of the verse. Not the words not there, but the words that are there. That rubric, if embraced, would be very, very revealing to some Catholics, I conclude.

Again, the verse says that Jesus DID things not recorded in the the 21 chapters of his book. That’s what it says, so I think that’s what it says. BTW, we know its true because Matthew, Mark and Luke all record things Jesus DID that John doesn’t. That’s what it says. So that’s what it says.

.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Maybe I should be more clear…I, and I think most Lutherans and other protestants fully believe I am following the church Jesus started.

I think that all Christians - past and present - are His church.
And it was, is and ever will be: one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints.
Of course, none of that has a thing to do with any denomination (including The Catholic Church) OR a thing to do with this thread or the verse we are discussing.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[RomanCath379]

Maybe I should be more clear…I, and I think most Lutherans and other protestants fully believe I am following the church Jesus started.

Well, of course they would!! They to follow Luther!

 

[AmateurPianist]

Huh? I would be very impressed if I were you with an unbroken link that nonone else can claim for 2,000 years. The fact of history here is Luther, whom divided the church. Nothing more. A heretic.

That is your claim. But this is off topic.

The scripture that you are citing claims:
(1) There were many other things that Jesus did
(2) So many that maybe the world could not contain the books that were written (maybe a slight hyperbole but we get the point).

Good grief, this Scripture seems so simple that even a 5th grader could understand this.

There is absolutely nothing in this Scripture that indicates that God wanted, planned, or intended that all of these other things that Jesus did should be known to us 2000 years later. Now if that was actually the intent of God, you have to go elsewhere to support this claim.

Good grief, if I were a fifth grader and claimed that this somehow was in this passage we are reading, I would be marked wrong on 5th grade reading comprehension. Some of you apparantly need to go back to elementary school and bone up on the basics of reading comprehension.