T
- Status
A
Anniejoe
Guest
This is sort of off-thread a little, but since this is a point of interest to you, wondrousgnat, here is a link to the information you’re seeking. I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy:
pregnantpause.org/people/wherchur.htm
A
Anniejoe
Guest
The Apocrypha was taken out by some because the Jews did not even hold it to as high a standard as Scripture. Although the Apocrypha was revered by the Jews, it was not considered Scripture. With the new doctrine of Sola Scriptura, a select few considered the Apocrypha not part of the Bible.
And yet, Jesus quoted the Septaugint, including citations to books you call “apocrypha”. My philosophy is, if it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!
And yet, Jesus quoted the Septaugint, including citations to books you call “apocrypha”. My philosophy is, if it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!
T
The_Door
Guest
Baptist is a very general term. After the Third Great Awakeing, more Protestant Denominations were formed (a mistake if you ask me). The “Baptist” branch was identified by Baptism at an older age. Because of the term back then, many people who consider themselves to be of the “Baptist” branch differ in opinion. At the 1980 Baptist Convention, many different “inter-denominations of the denomination” were present. Some were more radical than others, and some were more accepting than others. To keep everyone happy, they had to compromise.
It is true as well that many people from other faiths protest abotion. It all comes with a belief that life is special and everyone should have a chance at living it.
A
Anniejoe
Guest
After the Third Great Awakeing, more Protestant Denominations were formed (a mistake if you ask me).
TheDoor:
What’s to prevent a continual stream of new groups from being formed given the protestant principles of individual interpretation of Scripture and sola scriptura? If you feel creating new sects is a mistake, there is a remedy!
TheDoor:
What’s to prevent a continual stream of new groups from being formed given the protestant principles of individual interpretation of Scripture and sola scriptura? If you feel creating new sects is a mistake, there is a remedy!
W
wondrousgnat
Guest
Anniejoe Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.
A
Andromedus
Guest
Well, they were wrong from the beginning 
But to be more serious, it depends on the denomination. But I would say that it began to go bad in the late 18th century and the 19th century. Of course, I mostly base that opinion upon things happening in the state-church of my own country. One of the bad things happening during this time was that some people, even bishops, began to think of Luther as someone who created a new form of Christianity while Martin Luther himself had thought he returned to a more ancient and original form of Christianity. One quite influential person in Sweden thought that the Bible didn’t express a belief in the Trinity which of course is bad for any Sola Scriptura denomination with a belief in the Trinity. Viktor Rydberg, the person I mentioned, then thought that the belief in the ‘‘paper-pope’’ of Lutheranism was wrong, at least in the Sola Scriptura and literal reading of the bible version. So what should they do, become Catholic? No, they should continue the reformation! In the new way of understanding it of course. The new things added by Luther wasn’t enough.
But it also should be said that there was more serious sects and people within and outside the state-church during the 19th century and people like Rydberg were few, normal people definitely did not think like him.
Sry if my English is bad.
But to be more serious, it depends on the denomination. But I would say that it began to go bad in the late 18th century and the 19th century. Of course, I mostly base that opinion upon things happening in the state-church of my own country. One of the bad things happening during this time was that some people, even bishops, began to think of Luther as someone who created a new form of Christianity while Martin Luther himself had thought he returned to a more ancient and original form of Christianity. One quite influential person in Sweden thought that the Bible didn’t express a belief in the Trinity which of course is bad for any Sola Scriptura denomination with a belief in the Trinity. Viktor Rydberg, the person I mentioned, then thought that the belief in the ‘‘paper-pope’’ of Lutheranism was wrong, at least in the Sola Scriptura and literal reading of the bible version. So what should they do, become Catholic? No, they should continue the reformation! In the new way of understanding it of course. The new things added by Luther wasn’t enough.
But it also should be said that there was more serious sects and people within and outside the state-church during the 19th century and people like Rydberg were few, normal people definitely did not think like him.
Sry if my English is bad.
K
kch86
Guest
Very interesting post. And if you hadn’t apologised for your English, I would have just kept on thinking you were a native English speaker who happened to be living in Sweden.
K
kch86
Guest
Yes, but the Jews shouldn’t decide what goes into a Christian Bible. If they had decided that Isaiah was not canonical, should it have been removed as well?
R
Radical
Guest
It isn’t that the “protestant religion” went bad, but rather that it stayed “bad” by:
- not eliminating enough/all Catholic error;
- adding its own error; and
- dealing with dissent and opposition by use of violence
none taken
at its base is the idea that all/core beliefs are open to questioning…Is the Bible to be viewed as the Word of God? Is the Bible free from error?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe Luther wound up compromising more than he intended. However I don’t view the end result of today as all bad either.
For example I spoke to woman recently who was raised Catholic. Fell away from the church and had a very difficult go of it with life. She’s in a non denominal congregation now and doing very well. Had another option not been there, she probly would have remained on the street a bit longer.
Sometimes I suppose you have to view the glass as half full.
Which isn’t to say some bizaar theology doesn’t exist and very easily can and does harm children.
I’m still confident its in Gods hands though.
N
Nicea325
Guest
When was it ever a good thing to break Christ Church apart?
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
Did this happen with the Reformation, or 500 years prior?When was it ever a good thing to break Christ Church apart?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I think perhaps that most non-Catholic WESTERN Christian groups (recall there are also a wide variety of Christians outside of the Western/Latinate tradition) would probably agree, more or less, on the text of the Nicaean and Apostles’ Creeds, if pushed to opine on them. (Some Protestant groups take pride in being non-creedal, even if they don’t actually disagree with the Creeds).
As for sola scriptura, most certainly the answer would be “no” as the understanding of sola scriptura among most Evangelicals (just as an example) is quite far removed from what Luther and most Lutherans understand to be the meaning behind the slogan. Same for sola fide in terms of differences (again, as an example) in the theology and essential or non-essential nature of Baptism. As for scriptural interpretation, I think your answer is probably true of most Evangelicals, but certainly not of all Protestants. I think one thing all of them might agree on in terms of scriptural interpretation would be the inherent limitations of the Catholic hierarchy to teach authoritatively on such matters.
N
Nicea325
Guest
500 years prior pales in comparison to the mess of the Deformation.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The above represents the kind of generalizing about Protestantism that shows up often here at CAF and that I think really muddies the water just in terms of understanding what Protestants think and the diversity present in their views. This has always struck me as somewhat ironic since Catholics are commonly pointing out misconceptions promulgated by non-Catholics about about what Catholics think/teach (and rightly so!!) while turning around and doing much same thing in a sense, by conflating “Protestantism” into one perhaps easy to understand but also very inaccurate summary.
For example, the sola scriptura (what you refer to above as “Bible alone”) espoused by most Evangelicals and fundamentalists is a far cry from what Luther and most Lutherans would understand to be the theological and practical meaning of the slogan. Seems like Lutherans should have first dibs on the term since they came up with it, but that’s just me
And most certainly, Luther was no wholesale rejector of Sacred Tradition, although he did draw the boundaries of Sacred Tradition differently than did the Catholic Church of his day, or the way the Catholic Church does today for that matter.Because many prominent (in terms of air play) Catholic apologists are from Calvinist, Evangelical and/or fundamentalist backgrounds, they also tend to think of their own religious groups of origin as somehow being the authentic inheritors of the Reformation tradition and thus, that what they learned growing up or at seminary were essentially the same views that Martin Luther espoused and generally what all Protestant espouse. This causes a great deal of confusion and results in the spread of a lot of disinformation. What is often billed as a “Catholic v. Protestant” religious debate or comparison by apologists is usually in reality more of a “Catholic v. Evangelical” comparison. To compound matters even more, the average Evangelical or Mainline Protestant knows very little about the history of the Reformation or how the various branches of Reformation theology developed and what factors shaped the particular line of thinking and interpretation that any one particular group accepts today. So in their minds they represent the entirety of “Protestant” theology when in fact, their way of thinking in actuality only represents one particular (usually minority) strand of Protestant theology.
Perhaps one could accurately assert that simply by the raw numbers (in the US only) that what you’ve laid out is what “most” Protestants believe (as in the plurality of non-Catholic Western Christians in the U.S.). But I don’t think you could even say that the “vast majority” of Protestants necessarily buy into what is essentially an Evangelical/Fundamentalist stereotype.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Actually, Luther simply moved them to the end of the Old Testament. Also, the first KJV Bibles included them but they were dropped later on.Luther added it in his German version but its not in the Anglican KJV. Also the deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha were placed in the middle of the Bible between the testaments.
Interstingly, Jerome didnt want to include them either but was instructed to…
N
Nicea325
Guest
You are correct. However, I have begun to see non-Catholic printed Bibles with the 7 books.
P
pablope
Guest
So…why would you follow what the Jews did? That is if they even held a council…catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html
The “Council” is just a hypothesis put forward in 1871 by Heinrich Graetz, to explain how the Jews ended up with a single canon…Christians weren’t a part of the Jamnia school, so this school included only those Jews who rejected Christ or were somehow unaware of Him…we can point to a major contribution of the school. It produced an ugly prayer called the Birkat haMinim, which cursed the Christians as sectarians, and prayed to God that for these “sectarians,” “let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners.”
By purging Judaism of the Deuterocanon, you could slow the mass movement of Jews into Christianity. This, by the way, is why many scholars who support the idea of some sort of Jamnia canon think that the canon was formed: to purge the Hellenists and the Christians.
Of course, the irony here is staggering. Despite all the talk about Galatians, it’s Protestants here who are playing the Judaizers, attempting to force Christians to follow the dictates of an insular group of vehemently anti-Christian Jewish rabbis from the first century. To put it another way, if a Christian in the first century raised the argument that we should reject the Old Testament used by Christians in favor of the one being advanced in the Jamnia school, the followers of St. Paul would denounce them for their legalism. It’s just fundamentally not a Christian answer to the question of the canon of Scripture.
P
pablope
Guest
Luther added it in his German version but its not in the Anglican KJV. Also the deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha were placed in the middle of the Bible between the testaments.
**Interstingly, Jerome didnt want to include them either but was instructed to…
And Jerome dutifully followed the instructions of the Pope…and did not go out to establish his own religion…or his own Bible.
- Status