Where do Protestants think the Bible came from?

[Atreyu]

Brian,

Are you sure that Jesus if God? If so, how many wills does He have, one or two? How many natures does He have? Is the Holy Spirit God? Is contraception ok or is it a grave offence against God? What about abortion: is it murder?

How can you answer any of these questions in your current position? I can only assume that your answer to this is that you can’t answer these questions. Don’t you think this is a problem?

 

[Ahimsa]

exoflare:

Are these arguments that you really have heard from Protestants in the past, or are you just trying to think of possible responses they might give in theory?

I know at least one Protestant who suggested these ideas to me. (I’m not Christian, by the way.)

 

[exoflare]

Ahimsa:

I know at least one Protestant who suggested these ideas to me. (I’m not Christian, by the way.)

Okay. It’s just that they kind of resemble the vague answers I’ve been given in the past. For instance, what good reason would they have to assume that “the Christian community” was infallible when choosing the canon? Much less defining what exactly this alleged infallibility consisted of and where it came from. I know you yourself aren’t arguing these points, I’m just saying it sounds like same old same old to me.

 

[exoflare]

Ahimsa:

How is the Protestant position different from papal infallibility, which states that the Pope-as-Pope is infallible, but the person who is Pope is not?

I don’t think you stated it correctly. Saying that the “Pope-as-Pope” is infallible is too vague and doesn’t explain anything. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals when explicitly teaching doctrine to the whole church as Pope. There’s a huge difference. The exact definition was expounded more at Vatican II as well I think.

 

[Ahimsa]

exoflare:

I don’t think you stated it correctly. Saying that the “Pope-as-Pope” is infallible is too vague and doesn’t explain anything. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals when explicitly teaching doctrine to the whole church as Pope. There’s a huge difference. The exact definition was expounded more at Vatican II as well I think.

By “Pope-as-Pope”, I meant when speaking on faith and morals, ex cathedra. (Whereas “Pope-as-person,” would be all other situations.)

 

[BeluvdLily]

As a former Protestant (currently in RCIA), I am sure that I never gave it a thought beyond knowing who wrote which book. Never thought about how it all came to be put together or anything else and sure never knew that the Catholic Church had anything to do with it. I’ve only become aware also of the fact that some of the books were taken away after the fact when people broke off from the Catholic Church.

My former churches (United Church of Christ and a non-denom - Unity) were not at all anti-Catholic that I ever heard but the origins of the Bible just never came up.

That’s part of what I love about the Catholic Church. You all know where it came from and why and I’m learning so much.

Amie

 

[imroc]

This is what my little babdist mind pictured:

http://www.mattijsart.com/images/me/bible.jpg

Now it’s more like:

http://www.wordgallery.net/monk1.gif

 

[VociMike]

Ahimsa:

Here’s what a Protestant might say:

1. The Christian community, when it decided on the canon, acted without error.
2. There is no reason to assume that a particular portion of that Christian community (especially after 1054) necessarily still maintains the possibility of acting without error, at least because the Eastern Churches did not take part in the post-1500 A.D. councils.

And a Catholic might say, This is where things get interesting. Are we to believe that the charism of the Church to act without error has disappeared after being in place for 1000 years? Is Christ’s Church going in the direction of more error, rather than less error? Was there a 1000-year golden era, and now things are going downhill?

As to the 1054 split, one side is presumably not in error, right? Why wouldn’t the side not in error continue to be able to teach without error? That is, why should the erroneous actions of one part of the Church cost the rest of the Church its charism to teach without error?

Oh, and then there’s the question of how Protestantism explains the fact that it is neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy. Whatever the Church looked like that acted without error in recognizing the canon, it did not look like Protestantism.

 

[VociMike]

There’s another point that I think is worth adding here. If the entire Christian community was guided into correctly discerning which writings were scripture, then why did numerous Church councils bother to list the canon? The only reason for them to list the canon would be if there were some confusion or argument over the canon. The very fact that councils listed the canon is evidence that the “Christian community” did not receive unanimous guidance from the Holy Spirit on the canon.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I recall a discussion I had with a dear friend from my childhood (we seldom see each other anymore but do call each other on our birthdays and exchange emails (mostly jokes or articles on golf). He is in the process of leaving his secular job and will be going full-time as a pastor of a new non-denom congregation w/ strong Baptist roots. Until a few years ago, he ended our semi-annual conversation w/o saying “I pray for your soul”. He believes that so long as I cling to the Catholic faith, I will be damned. I usually dismissed it as misguided but sincere concern and responded with “I pray for you too.” He thanked me and we moved on.

But one call several years ago, I asked him what it meant to “pray for my soul” (I knew the answer) and he gave me the standard anti-Catholic monologue regarding Mary, the Pope, a church dominated by ritual and not a personal relationship w/ Christ, it all being against the Bible and unless I changed I was going to Hell. While tempted to explode or hang up, I said, “Hmmm. You get this all from the Bible?” and he said yes.

“The Bible that is the collected inspired writings of our Jewish forefathers and the Apostles and Disciples of Christ?” and he said yes.

“Who determined which writings are inspired and which are not?” and he said the Holy Spirit.

“Did the Holy Spirit come down and make the selection or did he use some humans” and he said he used humans.

“Who were these humans?” and he said he didn’t know but it wasn’t important.

“It is important” and I proceeded to tell him that it was the Pope and a Synod of Catholic Bishops who met in the 4th century who compiled and gave you the Bible you use to condemn their successors and the faithful who remain true the same institutition. The Mass and the Papal Magisterium preceded the Bible by centuries. I concluded that his rejection of the Mass and the Papal Magisterium is a rejection of the fruits of their inspiration (the Bible) and thus it is me who is praying for his soul. And if his prayer is that I desert the Bride of Christ, his prayer is the work of Satan. When the call ended, I thought I’d never hear from him again. Fortunately, our calls continued as if it had never happened but he no longer ends the conversation w/ “I pray for your soul” but “God Bless you.” Now that is a prayer I can accept.

 

[Della]

BrianH:

I found out that most of the Catholic beliefs, in my view, come from tradition. Well that explains it I thought. Nothing wrong with that. More power to them. Studied how we got the Bible. Studied biblical criticism. Read all of Funk, read all of Crossan, read all of Spong, read conservative responses. Saw God working through people, imperfect people, imperfect Councils, imperfect churches. Studied early church history…did not and do not believe in any way, shape, or form the Catholic church(aka in these parts The Church) official position. Just my view…and the other 900 million(or thereabouts) Christians in the world.

And you think the “traditions” of the Church came after the Bible and are merely the ideas of men? You have the wrong end of the stick here. Sacred Tradition preceded the NT, of which the NT is but a part. That is an historical fact. Sacred Tradition is a living, ongoing thing not a dead thing the Church ought to have left behind centuries ago. It is part of the promise of Christ to Peter and the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church into “all truth.”

Now that is irritating I am sure. I suppose over time I will weigh in on Peter, Mary, the whole nine yards. Specifically the Bible though. God provided what we needed for salvation. Did God work through a Council? Sure looks that way. Did the Bible teach that the Bishop of Rome(wasn’t he in Antioch first…I know the answer) is the universal successor for all of christendom? I did not get that from my studies. Would we have the same 27 books without the Catholic Church? I doubt it. Would Jesus still be the Son of God and the savior of humankind? I sure think so.
Are some of the Orthodox churches wrong for having different books? No way. I could care less. If…and I do not…if I thought that there was a one true church that carried on official Christianity, I am much more historically inclined to think the Orthodox church has a better grasp on things. I am not though. 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.

Why-ever should we be irritated that you have come to some very wrong conclusions? How does that effect what is true and what isn’t?

The Bible is not and never was meant to be the whole of the Christian faith. It is a very big part of it, but it is not the whole, and never was intended to be that. Forgive me for repeating myself but what is simply true is often overlooked, if not repeated.

We don’t get all we know about the early Church from the Bible nor the Early Church Fathers but from historical records and even the writings not included in the Bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which are useful for their historical elements, as well as the Didache, which is much more reliable than the Gospel of Thomas and other such works.

I’m afraid you haven’t done enough of the right sort of reading because you are merely passing on misconceptions and misinformation as if it were true.

It is convenient for you to think of the Bible as everything we need for salvation because the idea allows you to style yourself an independent Christian. But, Jesus had no such model in mind for believers. He established his Church, gave its leadership authority to decide matters of faith and morals (see Acts 15) and promised that it would last until he returned because the Church is his very Body which cannot be destroyed or unholy, or untrue to its head, Jesus Christ.

 

[_199]

I agree it is an example of how the Protestant religions have played (pick and choose} with the Catholic Church. Keeping what they wish and rejecting what they wish. Then they say Purgatory is not biblical!

 

[exoflare]

“Did the Holy Spirit come down and make the selection or did he use some humans” and he said he used humans.

“Who were these humans?” and he said he didn’t know but it wasn’t important.

LOL that one really made my day, thanks!

 

[exoflare]

Ahimsa:

How is the Protestant position different from papal infallibility, which states that the Pope-as-Pope is infallible, but the person who is Pope is not?

Okay, I did misunderstand your “Pope-as-Pope” meaning, but back to what you said. The Catholic position is different because Peter was the “rock” that Christ himself built his church upon (this, according to the Bible itself) and not the whole “community” of those who call themselves Christian. Also stated in the Bible is that the church is the pillar of all truth. Nowhere does the Bible even reference itself as one complete book, much less declare itself the single pillar of truth for all Christians. This stuff would have to be mentioned somewhere in order for the Protestant position to be even remotely consistent with itself.

 

[Ahimsa]

VociMike:

As to the 1054 split, one side is presumably not in error, right?

I don’t know. Maybe so; maybe not.

 

[Ignatius]

BrianH:

Now let me also add that not all Christians use the same 27 books for the NT and I have no qualms about calling them Christian.

I believe that all Christians do, in fact use the same set of New Testament books. Who is it that you believe doesn’t?

 

[Della]

Originally Posted by VociMike

As to the 1054 split, one side is presumably not in error, right?

Ahimsa
I don’t know. Maybe so; maybe not.

Well, if we were talking about a tie in a game of baseball or who is the prettiest or which is better, Coke or Pepsi, it wouldn’t matter. But, we are talking about which one still retains the charism of infallibility, and that matters very much indeed. :yup:

 

[BrianH]

Della:

And you think the “traditions” of the Church came after the Bible and are merely the ideas of men? You have the wrong end of the stick here. Sacred Tradition preceded the NT, of which the NT is but a part. That is an historical fact.
We don’t get all we know about the early Church from the Bible nor the Early Church Fathers but from historical records and even the writings not included in the Bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which are useful for their historical elements,

I’m afraid you haven’t done enough of the right sort of reading because you are merely passing on misconceptions and misinformation as if it were true.

It is convenient for you to think of the Bible as everything we need for salvation because the idea allows you to style yourself an independent Christian. But, Jesus had no such model in mind for believers. He established his Church, gave its leadership authority to decide matters of faith and morals (see Acts 15)

Della,
I really do not think you are qualified to impugn my motives and what I do or do not need to style myself as. You know hardly anything about me as a person. Suit yourself however. I clearly stated they were my opinions. I am not sure how to be clearer.

Lets start with these three questions based upon your statements:

1.I agree that Acts 15 is powerful. Please tell me how the Catholic Church specifically, since you alluded to it, deals with 15:22?

*Act 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas–Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, *

1 (b). Is this a good example of Peter’s role as stated by the Catholic church?

1. What did we specifically get from The Gospel of Thomas that we did not have before from other sources?
2. Finally, what Sacred Tradition “preceded the NT” that is a historical fact? I agree that tradition influenced the gospels but you are contending more than that. I think for productive purposes that would need to be cited prior to any of the NT books or you might want to rephrase your contention.

 

[BrianH]

Ignatius:

I believe that all Christians do, in fact use the same set of New Testament books. Who is it that you believe doesn’t?

"Many Christians have accepted and continue to accept the same 27-book NT, except for the Syriac Orthodox Church who continue to use the Peshitta and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (which lists four books of Sinodos (church practices), two Books of Covenant, “Ethiopic Clement”, and “Ethiopic Didascalia” within a broader New Testament canon, although their narrow canon is the same as that of other churches; "

"The Peshitta version of the New Testament shows a continuation of the tradition of the Diatessaron and Old Syriac versions, displaying some lively ‘Western’ renderings (particularly clear in the Acts of the Apostles). It combines with this some of the more complex ‘Byzantine’ readings of the fifth century. One peculiar feature of the Peshitta is the absence of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. "

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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…)

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. ##

• “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)

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.​

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.

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. ##