Where do Protestants think the Bible came from?

[jesusfootprints]

## It’s a fact, even so - it’s a far better answer than the usual self-congratulatory garbage that burbles on about the Church, and not about the Spirit of God. The Church would be nothing, but for God - the Spirit of God is not an optional accessory .

If the usual smug answer were correct, that praises what men do, and utterly ignores Almighty God, the Church would simply be some wretched human organisation - ignore God, and the Church is nothing but a freakish monstrosity. So God has to be named as the True Source of the canon - otherwise we end up with quite worthless attempts at apologetics about the canon, which glorify the Church and steal from God by not glorifying Him. Which is completely perverse.

Not every one has a taste for theology - it’s not as though we knew all the ins & outs of how the books were canonised; most of the process is entirely beyond discovery. #### It’s a very good answer - if people* insist* on misrepresenting it, then of course it looks stupid. Again, the decisive part played by the ministry of the Holy Spirit has been ignored.

The question never bothered this ex-Protestant - it only seems as though it should do so, if one ignores alternatives to the answers given by Catholics.​

The point is really one of logic - the questions one asks oneself, depend on what prompts the questions: IOW, if you don’t doubt that the Bible can be accounted for by ideas about it found within your own form of Christian discipleship, you don’t agonise about how other Christians might answer the questions you don’t ask That’s why a lot of people don’t worry about where the Bible came from - they may not know, but their fellow Anglicans, Lutherans, Mennonites, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, [insert name] - or such of them who know about these things, and study such questions in detail - will know. So one’s own ignorance is not a fatal weakness; any more than the ignorance of a Catholic about this or that will undermine his discipleship fatally. Someone, somewhere, will know - so one’s own limitations aren’t a problem.

Besides, Christianity is about following Christ - not about possessing inexhaustible knowledge of Church history or the Bible. It is Christ Who matters - not one’s own limitations. Faith in Christ saves - not knowledge of the origins of the Bible. ##

Could you psot more related to this post.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

exoflare:

The more I think about it, the more it puzzles me. Just what is the Protestant explanation of how the Bible first got put together? I’ve heard a few generic answers, but most of them don’t really explain anything at all…

**Hi exoflare, **
Ok, with my very limited knowledge, I will attempt a reply. Please know I intend no offence or malice.
Necessity is the mother of all invention, and the Bible came about the same way.
It is thought Irenaeus first contemplated the need of a set of Canonical Scripture which Christians could live by; brought about by a need to stop unscriptual teachings of Gnostics and the like, infiltrating the true teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Irenaeus decided that the canon would have to comprise only those scriptures which were common among the ‘Churches’ of the Apostles.
Fast forward to St. Jerome, who appendixed the Deuterocanonicals. According to Cardinal Cajetan (Contemporary of Martin Luther), St. Jerome made a distinction between the canonical books and the ecclesiastical books. St. Jerome, and the Church as a whole at the time, viewed the ecclesiastical books (Deuterocanonicals) as ‘good spiritual reading’ but were not recognized as authoritive scripture. It was not until the Council of Trent that the Church solidified her position on the deutero’s. (Rendering Martin Luther’s decision to appendix the Deutero’s as understandable from a Protestants standpoint…and really shouldn’t bother Catholics too much, as their bible had also been appendixed. Martin Luther whilst critical of some books, called them useful, even though he doubted their authority) From a personal standpoint, I love the Deutero’s and have a Catholic bible…Tobit is one of my fav’s… I digress…
Insofar as the Catholic Church giving ‘Us’ the Bible…no offense, but this seems a tad arrogant when used in the context I have ‘heard’ many use it…I will concede only so far.
**If we are to use context with regards to the very early Church, Catholic(Universal) = Christianity = The Church started by Our Lord Jesus Christ. When St. Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate there were Christians and the rest…Christians were called Catholics, so in fact as a Christian today, I am able to call myself catholic, and do. **
The teaching of Jesus and the Apostles were handed down to their disciples. They were given a very large task…Keepers of the Word. These Keepers in time had an obligation to impart their knowledge to all Christians. It wasn’t soley for the Latin Rite Church as we know it now. In answer to the comments / questions which will no doubt errupt of oral traditions…I concede there is much we can’t / don’t know, but we can rest assured that anything worth knowing about rightful life in Christ, will be found in the pages of the Bible, however seemingly incomplete it may be to the Latin Rite Church.
Who then should we be thanking? The answer is simple. God.
Thank God for His creation (the earth); thank God for His son (our Redeemer) and thank God for the Holy Spirit who guides us all to Truth, if we will only listen.
Mary received the Holy Spirit, and we received the gift of her Son.
The Apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and were rewarded with the gift of inspiration.
We received that gift of inspiration(Bible), from the Early Church and the Holy Spirit, and if we follow it, we will receive the gift of eternal life through the Son.
All things are by the grace of God…
Thank God for my Bible.

In much love and peace.

 

[BrianH]

Well said Nun.
BH

 

[asteroid]

Martin Luther isn’t exactly the best source to use when discussing the validity of the disputed books of the Old Testament.

He didn’t exactly treat the New Testament well either and removed books from that.

As for what the church as a whole believed in the early centuries as they worked out, prayerfully, what should and shouldn’t be in the canon, I typed quite a bit about a couple of statements of the canon last night in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=92429

Basically the gist of what I wrote is that when the church finally decided on the canon of the New Testament, the synods also spoke about what is in the Old Testament and included the “deutero-canon”.

Of course, what I wrote is in no way meant to be a history of the canon - I wouldn’t be expert enough to write such a thing.

 

[Della]

Ok, with my very limited knowledge, I will attempt a reply. Please know I intend no offence or malice.

Limited knowledge isn’t the problem with your historical analysis, Nun, but your ignoring authority is, which is hardly surprising since mentioning the fact that the Church had long been established in Rome and that it was a pope who commissioned the gathering together of biblical texts doesn’t help your arguments.

No matter how much Protestants want to side-step the papacy, you really can’t. It was established by Christ himself and was in full operation since the day of Pentecost. Councils are called by popes and decisions are made by councils under his authority.

The fact that there are churches not in union with Rome that are not Protestant can’t excuse Protestant rebellion against the apostolic tradition which all ancient Christians fully acknowledged and which the Catholic Church acknowledges they still have. Such churches are in schism with the Roman Church, not in rebellion, an entirely different set of circumstances.

The finalization of the canon of the Deuterocanonical books took centuries to be declared not because the Church didn’t accept them as scripture, but because there was no credible challenge against them as scripture up until the Reformation. So, that rather takes the wind out of the idea that the Church hadn’t made up its mind, which wasn’t at all the case.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I as a convert had to deal with an incident on the past Christmas Eve morning. I went to my Dad’s house and confronted on the statement made by my brother the Pentecostal Preacher: “I hope the Pope got saved before he died”. Back then I was not on the track to becoming an Apoligetic. After that statement I set in motion an effort to discover the truth once and for all. God knew I was having trouble discovering the truth, so HE sent a non-catholic to ask our Priest at our next RCIA class(this is my third time to go thru it) about converts and he pointed to several copies of Surprised by Truth 1, 2, 3. I grab one as well on that Wednesday night after All Souls Day. After reading the first story I was hooked. But to make a long story short. I confronted by Dad and his immediate family about the feeling I had that they did not believe Catholics were Christians. In fact my family’s fundamental mindset is that the Catholic Church is Satan’s imitation. So I got home and confronted my family with the my dad’s belief and we voted to “Detach with Love” from that side of the family due to Irreconcilable Religious Differences.
During the course of pleading my case I brought up the Issue of the Bible and it’s origins. Basically they said the they don’t care about it’s origin or history, all that matters now is that they have the “Word Of God”!

This is one of those cases where “Ignorance is Bliss”!

I a 44 year old man had several bouts of crying on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day over my families own rejection of me, my wife and my 2 children’s salvation. The thought that they had us over for Christmas Eve for the last 13 years and never once stated their belief that we as Catholics were never Christians in the first place.

A lot of Fundamentalists just don’t care or want to know where the Bible came from, all they care is that they have it now… So sad!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Protestants that are not ignorant, cite that the Jews denounced the Apocrypha. But they fell to tell the whole truth of the matter of the Council of Jamina(hope that is spelled right). They denounced the Apocrypha and in the same breath, denounced the New Testament writings as well and furhtermore Issued a curse concerning the The New Testament books. Protestants don’t realize that they are sinning by omitting the whole truth. Just another modern example of the Korah Rebellion.

<><

 

[Robert_in_SD]

**Hi exoflare, **
Ok, with my very limited knowledge, I will attempt a reply. Please know I intend no offence or malice.
… Necessity is the mother of all invention, and the Bible came about the same way.****…The teaching of Jesus and the Apostles were handed down to their disciples. They were given a very large task…Keepers of the Word. These Keepers in time had an obligation to impart their knowledge to all Christians. It wasn’t soley for the Latin Rite Church as we know it now. In answer to the comments / questions which will no doubt errupt of oral traditions…I concede there is much we can’t / don’t know, but we can rest assured that anything worth knowing about rightful life in Christ, will be found in the pages of the Bible, however seemingly incomplete it may be to the Latin Rite Church.
Who then should we be thanking? The answer is simple. God.…

Hello “Nun”;

Your post is a nice sentiment, but it really does not address the issue raised on this thread. Nobody disputes that God is ultimately the one responsible for the Bible. But the question relevant to the discussion is just *how * did he accomplish the task. Or, stated another way, how did God communicate to His people the list of books that He inspired. The answer supported by history is that God used the Catholic Church to establish the writings that all Protestants recognize as the complete and inspired word of God.

It is a matter of history (not opinion) that the Bible is a Catholic book. The New Tesament was written, copied, and collected by Catholic Christians. The official canon of the books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church. (Whether you accept the authority as divine or not, that’s what happened.) Thus, it is from the Catholic Church that Protestants have a Bible at all. Don’t take my word for it, Martin Luther concedes the point:

We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.

Commentary on St. John, ch. 16.

and St. Augustine also acknowledged the authority:

I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church directed me to do so.

Against the Letter of Mani, 5, 6.

A Protestant response that fails to concede the point contradicts history and is simply not persuasive. At the very least, the Protestant position must concede that the Holy Spirit moved the Catholic Church - through its leaders and its great thinkers of the fourth century - to close the canon that we as Christians recognize as the complete and inspired word of God. Whether Protestants acknowledge *ongoing * authority in the Catholic Church is a different issue entirely that is in no way weakened by conceding the historical points regarding the canon of Scripture.

 

[Atreyu]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

If we are to use context with regards to the very early Church, Catholic(Universal) = Christianity = The Church started by Our Lord Jesus Christ. When St. Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate there were Christians and the rest…Christians were called Catholics, so in fact as a Christian today, I am able to call myself catholic, and do.

The name “Catholic” properly belongs to the Church alone. So said Augustine:
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
It is a fact that a Catholic council decided the canon of the Bible. Insisting that the Holy Spirit did the same is only strengthening the Catholic position, as this is insisting that the Holy Spirit worked through Catholics to produce the Bible!

I can easily prove that Sacred Tradition preceded the Bible. Let’s look at Acts 15 again. This describes probably the earliest church council. The book, Acts was necessarily written after the council. Therefore there existed for a time an oral Sacred Tradition that gentiles need not be circumsised, and this necessarily preceded the NT. To further this point, the book Acts would have been written, and we can only know for sure that all of the churches would have had access to this book after the canon was decided, in the late 4th century (but feel free to correct me here if there is evidence to the contrary). Therefore it is possible that for over three centuries, the teaching that gentiles need not be circumised in some churches existed as an oral Tradition only!

Yes I know this is an over-simplified version of events, but I hope it goes to show how ridiculous the claim is that the NT preceded Sacred Tradition.

Joey I’m really sorry about your family. This is a case of the dividing nature of Protestantism which is at the core of its very nature. I really hope that you can talk them around - not to Catholicism - but to accepting you as Christians. Maybe you could show them John 17 and ask them how well they are following Jesus’ prayer. Good luck and God bless!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello again Nun;

I’d like to respond to some of the finer points you touched upon in your post:

Nun_ofthe_Above:

[1] **It was not until the Council of Trent that the Church solidified her position on the deutero’s. (Rendering Martin Luther’s decision to appendix the Deutero’s as understandable from a Protestants standpoint…and really shouldn’t bother Catholics too much, as their bible had also been appendixed. **

It has always been my understanding that Trent was the Church’s official response to the Reformation, and included a response to the express rejection canonical texts. The Reformers’ decision to specifically reject the deuterocanonicals as inspired led to the teaching of the Church that, yes, in fact they are inspired. In short, the teaching of Trent cleared up any doubt concerning the long-standing tradition that the deuterocanonical texts were inspired. If you disagree, can you point to any version of the Bible that both predates the Reformation and expressly rejects the deuterocanonicals?

Nun_ofthe_Above:

[2] Insofar as the Catholic Church giving ‘Us’ the Bible…no offense, but this seems a tad arrogant when used in the context I have ‘heard’ many use it…I will concede only so far.

I do not mean to offend by any of what I am saying. Although it may be hard for the Protestant ear to hear, there is truth to the assertion that it was the Catholic Church that acted to first preserve the texts and ultimately to establish the canon of scripture. It is not arrogance to make this assertion. It does, however, seem like a “sour grapes” argument for one to simply dismiss, out of hand, the role the Catholic Church played in God’s plan of establishing the canon simply because one holds to Reformed Christian doctrine.

[3]
**The teaching of Jesus and the Apostles were handed down to their disciples. They were given a very large task…Keepers of the Word. These Keepers in time had an obligation to impart their knowledge to all Christians. It wasn’t soley for the Latin Rite Church as we know it now. **

First, I am presuming that by using the term “Latin Rite Church” you are referring to the Catholic Church (which includes the Latin Rite in addition to 23 other rites) that acknowledges the authority of the See of Peter, and not just the Roman Rite. Second, I don’t think any Catholic can make the argument that the Bible is for the Catholic Church alone to read. Instead, the point of this thread was to question how Protestants could discount the role the Catholic Church undisputedly played in bringing about the existence of the Bible.

[4]
… we can rest assured that anything worth knowing about rightful life in Christ, will be found in the pages of the Bible, however seemingly incomplete it may be to the Latin Rite Church.

Although your comment here is a response to “thread drift” I feel compelled to respond:

Despite your misconception, the Catholic Church neither holds nor teaches that the Bible is incomplete. While the Catholic Church does reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura invented by the Reformers, one cannot conclude from this rejection that the Church teaches that the Bible is somehow lacking. To the contrary, the Church understands that it is materially sufficient. The belief that God also provided a Church with authority for doctrinal interpretation of Scripture does not imply a belief that the Bible is incomplete. Instead, the belief acknowledges the fact that Scripture must be properly understood, and that if it is not properly understood doctrinal error can arise.

-Peace

 

[theguidedheart]

Superstar905:

I always get told that I am reading revisionist history when describing the story of how the bible came to be, lol.

Thats a scary thought, if this was the case, and the Catholic Church did NOT form the bible in its current state, then God help us all, because we are ALL lost. If the Catholic Church is not legitimate, then no Church is, and God has simply abandoned us on the earth with only some teachings that somehow fell out of the sky and assembled themselves at some point in time - and we are seeing just how good man is at consistantly interpreting Sacred Scripture, afterall we have 25,000 denominations each attesting to their own beliefs in some way.

I wish that Christians could see what is more at stake here than just their own personal peace of mind, its really time that Christians take their faith and their role in life SERIOUSLY… its not the test that we skim the pages for on the night before… its not the test that we copy from others on, its the test that takes a life long commitment, it takes an open heart, and devoted study, to find and understand the TRUTH, no matter where it takes you… and to many Protestants utter disbelief, it would take them right to the doorstep of the Catholic Church. But whats the loss? Pride? What a reasonable price to pay for truth, and ultimately a fruitful and full relationship with Christ.

The Bible is the richest book in human history, and yet so many people sell it off for the likes of ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ book.

A very intersting topic here!

 

[theguidedheart]

JoeyWarren:

Protestants that are not ignorant, cite that the Jews denounced the Apocrypha. But they fell to tell the whole truth of the matter of the Council of Jamina(hope that is spelled right). They denounced the Apocrypha and in the same breath, denounced the New Testament writings as well and furhtermore Issued a curse concerning the The New Testament books. Protestants don’t realize that they are sinning by omitting the whole truth. Just another modern example of the Korah Rebellion. <><

It is also ironic that many Protestants take out of context and then cling to Revelations 22:18 - 19 as proof of the Cathlic church being in error, and yet swear by a version of the Bible that has indeed been altered.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

BrianH:

I am an independent Christian…and I cannot imagine anyone would still be reading my tripe.
BrianH
The above is just an opinion and solely the view of me.
Thanks for reading if you did.

The forum is here for you to post your opinion. Thanks for doing so.

P.S. - Independent Christian is an oxymoron. Every Christian (Catholic or other) is *dependent * upon Christ.

 

[Atreyu]

Robert in SD:

The forum is here for you to post your opinion. Thanks for doing so.

P.S. - Independent Christian is an oxymoron. Every Christian (Catholic or other) is *dependent * upon Christ.

Dependent on Christ… and on other Christians? Isn’t community (AKA church) essential to Christians?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Atreyu:

Dependent on Christ… and on other Christians? Isn’t community (AKA church) essential to Christians?

As a Catholic I would agree. My non-denominational brothers and sisters in Christ would say no - sadly. They would insist that faith alone is all that is required.

 

[BrianH]

Atreyu:

I can easily prove that Sacred Tradition preceded the Bible. Let’s look at Acts 15 again. This describes probably the earliest church council. The book, Acts was necessarily written after the council. Therefore there existed for a time an oral Sacred Tradition that gentiles need not be circumsised, and this necessarily preceded the NT. To further this point, the book Acts would have been written, and we can only know for sure that all of the churches would have had access to this book after the canon was decided, in the late 4th century (but feel free to correct me here if there is evidence to the contrary). Therefore it is possible that for over three centuries, the teaching that gentiles need not be circumised in some churches existed as an oral Tradition only!

Yes I know this is an over-simplified version of events, but I hope it goes to show how ridiculous the claim is that the NT preceded Sacred Tradition.
!

OTE]

If that was for me, I understand that and let me try to ask the question again. I think possibly semantics is what is causing people to not answer the question I posed. I am summising that because your well-thought out response is not really what I am asking at all.
Try again

Is there tradition NOT IN THE BIBLE (NT) …that is a historical fact …prior to the Bible being written. To beat the dead horse. Is there something that is historically provable, that is part of Sacred Tradition(and don’t bog me down if I use your term incorrectly PLEASE) that can be proved to exist before the book of Acts was written.

I am in no way shape or form suggesting that tradition did not shape the NT. I am asking if you guys, Catholics , have proof of anything that is ancient enough and verifiable that could be added to my belief system outside of the NT?

I hope this gets to the point.
BrianH

 

[Elzee]

The few evangelicals I’ve talked to about this in the past have never even thought about this questionm which totally surprised me. They just say something like ‘the Holy Spirit’, but have never sat down, researched, and thought it through. It’s just as if the book magically appeared one day, all bound and put together by the Holy Spirit in one fell swoop.

 

[asteroid]

exoflare:

The more I think about it, the more it puzzles me. Just what is the Protestant explanation of how the Bible first got put together? I’ve heard a few generic answers, but most of them don’t really explain anything at all. Examples:

• “The Catholic Church did not make the Bible, it was the Holy Spirit.”
  (This is just a bad answer on so many levels it should be obvious… no explanation of just how the “Holy Spirit” carries this out…)
• “The apostles wrote down everything they wanted people to know.”
  (Not all of the books of the NT were even written by the apostles, for one thing)
• “When you read the Bible, it’s obvious that it’s inspired by God.”
  (subjective/emotional reasoning, no specific way given to differentiate inspired from “non-inspired” books)

If anyone here used to be (or is?) a Protestant, I’d be curious to know how this is all generally explained from that point of view in a consistent way. Thanks.

I’ve thought a little more about this again. I used to be a Protestant (received into the Catholic Church last year). At one point I was a deacon/preacher/study leader in a Baptist Church and even led some studies on the formation of the New Testament canon.

The answer is that most Protestants have not really thought about the question and so don’t have a good answer, or may have a glib answer based on God’s providence.

Even I, who had done these things, hadn’t really thought about it or studied it, or studied the parallels in the development of the NT and OT canons - I’d mentioned Synods and dates like 397ad when leading studies but really didn’t ask the right questions until more recently.

Your example answers are all ones I’ve heard. The most worrying to me in many ways is the one that says “when you read the Bible, it’s obvious it is inspired by God.” This worries me as many people have read the Bible and it wasn’t obvious. It also worries me as it is exactly the same thing I heard about the Book of Mormon from two LDS missionaries about a week ago. Yes, the reason you give for the answer being wrong is sound and solid. It was an emotional, subjective response from the LDS missionaries too.

 

[Atreyu]

Brian,

I think the answer to your question is that all of Sacred Tradition (in terms of doctrine) is implicitly touched within the Bible somewhere, and so no there isn’t any Tradition that precedes the writing of the NT that isn’t dealt with in the Bible. If someone thinks I’ve messed this up, then please let me know, as it is definitely possible. The best thing I can come up with is contraception. There only seems to be one reference to contraception in the Bible, in Genesis 38 I think it is. Now this isn’t touched on at all in the NT (as far as I’m aware), but you could take it as historical fact that the early church fathers all believed that contraception is evil. Then again, this would be after the writing of Acts 15 and so I don’t think it fits your criteria. Anyone else?

 

[oat_soda]

i find this to be a really interesting topic which gets to the heart of the errors of protestanism. from what i have read or listened to, protestants believe that there are various tests of canonicity which basically self testifies to a book’s inspiration, ultimately leaving the individual accountable to deciding for himself what is inspired. but these tests of canonicity all differ depending on who you ask. some protestants believe that the bible is a fallible collection of infallible books, which if they are being honest, is what they must conclude.

the organization of the church into synods, ecumenical councils, and the papacy, all have their origins in responding to heresies throughout the history of the church. even the three fold division of bishop priest and deacon didn’t fully develop until the late 2nd century. the canon and apostolic succession of bishops are used and developed to combat gnosticism.

the point is that the church, as well as the bible, as we see it today didn’t come out pre-packaged ready to go. the church through time has to look to its apostolic traditions to deal with ever changing challenges as it grew from a mustard seed to the tree it is today.

so the protestant basically rejects this process and its product, the bible. doing so they essentially loose their foundation. the only way around this is to believe that God is capricious which leads to nominalism.