You will note many of the parchments date well prior to the church council which you say gives them authenticity. In fact, they were being used as scripture almost immediately. No one waited for a church pronouncement to make them scripture - the church waited until there was consensus among the congregations before it ratified what was already being done.
We generally trust the Greek manuscripts...at least, among Protestants. Not translations, but the Greek.
One thing that gets me angry is when Catholics feel a need to denigrate the word of God to build up their tradition. As I understand it, the Catholic teaching is that scripture IS the word of God and reliable, BUT that it needs the ‘lens’ of tradition to ensure it is understood clearly and correctly.
Obviously, I’m a Baptist because I reject the need to read scripture thru tradition - but it is at least a possible position. I reject it because A) scripture is pretty easy to read and understand, and B) the Catholic Church of 1400 hardly showed signs of being more spiritual and Godly than scripture.
But there is no need for a Catholic to pretend that we don’t know what was written, or that we rely on the Catholic Church councils of the late 300s to ‘make’ scripture scripture. It didn’t ‘make’ the Old Testament, nor did it ‘make’ the New. The churches - congregations - decided what they accepted as God’s word, and the council merely ratified current practice.
The Catholic Church did not wake up one day and suddenly find itself astray. It was a gradual process, and I don’t know many evangelicals who believe it was totally bad by 500 AD, or many who believe it was totally bad in 1400...but by 1400, internal reform was a fantasy. The Catholic Church of 2010 is much truer than it was in 1400, but it did so in response to pressure from the Protestant Churches.
Regardless of whether you accept the Baptist interpretation of history or the Catholic one, there is no requirement to pretend scripture isn’t trustworthy. A great deal of work has been done over the last couple hundred years, and yet all that research shows the manuscripts used by the KJV were pretty good - there is no significant doctrine (or any minor ones that I know of) that can’t be supported by both the KJV and the ESV (or NASB, or NAB even).
Both Catholics and Protestants ought to be gladly proclaiming the truth and trustworthiness of God’s Word, rather than attacking it or pretending it took a Church Council to approve of God’s Word. In reading the Church Fathers, I haven’t seen passages attacking scripture, but rather they used scripture to support their ideas. They did so because they understood, as did Jesus, that the word of God is true and comes from God, not man.
Great point.
...the manuscripts used by the KJV were pretty good - there is no significant doctrine (or any minor ones that I know of) that can’t be supported by both the KJV and the ESV (or NASB, or NAB even).
AMEN! Although I do prefer the King James Bible because I think it is the most faithful translation. Here's a nice recap of some of the more important reasons for this choice...
Even still, we trust God to protect His word, just as He promised. The presupposition we need to believe is not that the word of God is malleable and uncertain, but that God has provided ways and means to ensure His word is consistent and reliable.
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." -- Psalm 19:7-8" The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
As you said, the Gospel is not that difficult to understand. In fact, a child can grasp it, if God so wills. And interestingly, to a one, the reason given by ex-Roman Catholics on this forum is that when they finally got around to reading the Bible they left Rome behind for a better testament, the surety of Jesus and the promises of Scripture.
Both Catholics and Protestants ought to be gladly proclaiming the truth and trustworthiness of God’s Word, rather than attacking it or pretending it took a Church Council to approve of God’s Word. In reading the Church Fathers, I haven’t seen passages attacking scripture, but rather they used scripture to support their ideas. They did so because they understood, as did Jesus, that the word of God is true and comes from God, not man.
Amen!
I don't think it was quite that smooth a process; but kosta knows far more about the development of the canon than I, so . . .
kosta -- I respectfully request that you come in here!
MR””You will note many of the parchments date well prior to the church council which you say gives them authenticity.””
I am aware of this but as you well know(I think) the oldest surviving NT is traced back to around 125 (we think) and you don’t have much in a larger pieces until dated around 200-250. So, it’s not until the 4th century that we see some volume of what’s in the Vatican Library and some other places.
I’m sure you have seen the following link before ,I don’t think it’s even a Catholic site, but It pretty much matches the work done by Robert Kraft from UPENN and others
N.T. Ancient Manuscripts
http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
The Catholic Church is STILL THE WITNESS that says these are authentic since the Gospel does not come with signed autographs and the Church has been the deciding factor over what is Gnostic or not in the many,many writings from the time of Christ through the ages.
“”One thing that gets me angry is when Catholics feel a need to denigrate the word of God to build up their tradition. As I understand it, the Catholic teaching is that scripture IS the word of God and reliable, BUT that it needs the ‘lens’ of tradition to ensure it is understood clearly and correctly.””
I believe Scripture is the word of God because the Church says it is and I trust the Church as witness to authenticate them. We are both in agreement that Scripture is the Word of God,we differ in the interpretations .
I believe all the Sacraments are completely Scriptural and I can trace them back through consistent teaching through the ages. Those who disagree with this can only use a modern approach,not consistency from the 1st century on
“”The Catholic Church did not wake up one day and suddenly find itself astray. It was a gradual process, and I don’t know many evangelicals who believe it was totally bad by 500 AD””
Look ,dear brother. If you believed the Church went bad in 500 AD this means you must think the Church was correct from the 1st century to than.This would ALSO mean you also mean you would agree with those saints within the uncorrupted Church like Saint Ignatius ,Irenaues,Polycarp,Clement etc...
who taught the Sacramental system-infant Baptism,Eucharist,Confession etc..
Once you realize this you ought to realize that Sacraments have not changed and therefore the Church is still NOT corrupt.
MR””and yet all that research shows the manuscripts used by the KJV were pretty good”’
The problem is the KJV used wrong translations many times and is corrupted.
Let me point you to Kosta 50’s tagline as just one example .....God is tired of repenting — Jeremiah 15:6, KJV.
What does God need to repent from! utterly ridiculous!