Posted on 10/27/2013 5:25:55 AM PDT by NYer
There are 38 questions + a few bonus questions. I have split them into two separate posts of 20 and 18 + bonus questions. In case you missed it, here is the link to Part 1. Are you ready?
21. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
22. Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?
23. Why do Protestants follow postapostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
24. How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?
25. If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
26. How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?
27. If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?
28. If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
29. If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
30. If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
31. The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?
32. If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
33. Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?
34. If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?
35. Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church's leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?
36. The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?
37. How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?
38. What is one to believe when one Protestant says infants should be baptized (e.g., Luther and Calvin) and another says it is wrong and unbiblical (e.g., Baptists and Evangelicals)?
Where does the Bible . . .
. . . say God created the world/universe out of nothing?
. . . say salvation is attainable through faith alone?
. . . tell us how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle?
. . . provide a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?
. . . provide a list of the canonical books of the New Testament?
. . . explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”?
. . . tell us the name of the “beloved disciple”?
. . . inform us of the names of the authors of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
. . . who wrote the Book of Acts?
. . . tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity?
. . . .tell us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception (e.g. how do we know His Divinity wasn't infused later in His life?) and/or tells us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures, human and Divine and not some other combination of the two natures (i.e., one or both being less than complete)?
. . . that the church should, or someday would be divided into competing and disagreeing denominations?
. . . that Protestants can have an invisible unity when Jesus expected a visible unity to be seen by the world (see John 17)?
. . . tell us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father?
Now back to the question "Why was the state established church at the time so intent on keeping the Bible inaccessible to the masses that they actually burned people at the stake for actually having it translated and printed into the vernacular language?"
I know I haven't.
And I have no intention to.
Please note that part of your response “the state established church at the time” is rather ambiguous as for exact time frame. Before the invention of the printing press, there was no inexpensive way to print Bibles, in any language, all Bibles and Books had to be hand copied.
Please provide an examples of you statement: “they actually burned people at the stake for actually having it translated and printed into the vernacular language.” And, who were “they?
I have not studied who was “burned at the stake” for what offense, thus you will be educating me. And I am not being sarcastic, but want to know.
Let’s see some citations that the Church burned people at the stake for having the Bible translated and accessible. You may have one example with Tyndale. If it’s not widespread, they burned a lot of people in England back then. Even then, that may be the Government, King who would have authority to do that and not the Church.
Believe me, if we had 100s of churches in the day, we might all be bowing to Mecca nowadays.
It amazes me that Catholics go to such lengths to discredit the fullness of scripture to justify following the RCC. Rather telling if you ask me.
What’s rather telling is that you did not answer any of the questions but offer a broadbrushed criticism. That tells us a lot.
“Where does the Bible provide a list of Canonical Books of the Old Testament”
Shouldn’t be difficult to answer buddy. Tells us a lot about the Protestant religion.
So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.
Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of Scripture existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but encouraged. All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4749
It wasn’t even illegal to translate the Bible into English so it’s revisionist history.
Who is Christ in you?
What? Which church leaders? Following Biblical teaching leads to establishment of a body of believers who consistently practice what it teaches. Those who have obtained the scripture and seek to follow it do NOT establish religious organizations like the catholic church, anglican church or mormonism, etc.
It has been demonstrably proven that those acquiring the scripture in lieu of someone's biased teaching leads to establishment of New Testament-style churches with elders, deacons and an organization that does not lead to a superior hierarchy in the church like many organized religions have. Also, each congregation is autonomous and understands that concept (no central authority).
What arrogance on the part of the author! Pure and unadulterated misinformation.
Believe me, if we had 100s of churches in the day, we might all be bowing to Mecca nowadays.
This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Shouldn’t be difficult to answer buddy. Tells us a lot about the Protestant religion.
Should we not then be able to apply that same logic to the Catholic Church?
Where is your information from? Reformation.com? No citations, no backup.
Oh please. Not everything is a “protestant”/”anti-Catholic” conspiracy.
Ping for later
Yes, John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned to death because among some of his faults he opposed infant baptism. It’s ironic that so many Baptist have embraced John Calvin.
Calvin had a very cruel heart.
When will men stop elevating religion above Christ??
Maybe you are unfamiliar with a piece of history known as the Inquisition.
All the questions in both parts have clear answers
Anyone that ignorant of the facts of basic Church history shouldn’t be roping as an expert on the history of the Bible. You could start by reading Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.
Instead of deflecting inspection by pointing fingers at others, deal with the questions at hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.