So The Roman Church Gave us the Bible?

Below is an email I recently received from a person who had been reading my web site. I have changed their name for the sake of privacy but the email remains the same. I made a reply giving an overview of how we arrived at the canonicity of out New Testament. Once more it will be seen that Rome continues her revisionist history and dupes both herself and her followers by doing the same.

I'm just curious, after reading some articles on your web site, if you and other "Bible believing" Christians, realize that it was the Catholic Church that originally put the Bible together?

It seems strange that anyone would think that an organization that put the books of the Bible together wouldn't believe in it, don't you think? I'm also curious as to why this fact is never mentioned by "Bible believing" Christians when they argue against the Catholic Church. I have found that most of them are unaware of this fact, and even quite surprised by it.

I'm just trying to see the logic in the accusations. I can never find anyone to answer this question, and I was hoping you could, since you have so much information on the subject.

Thank you so much for taking time to write to me. Your email raises some good questions which I am more than happy to answer.

First, when you say that “it was the Catholic Church that originally put the Bible together” alarms go off leading me to suggest that we need to establish some ground rules of reference. When you say the ‘Catholic Church’ I take it you are referring to the Roman Church. But this is unacceptable. The definition of being ‘The Catholic Church’ was hijacked by the Bishop of Rome in his pursuit of power as he went about establishing himself as the chief and head over all the catholic (universal) Church. I am a member of the catholic (universal) Church as is every other Bible Believer who trusts Christ alone as their right standing before the all Holy God. We, however, refuse the supposed authority of the Bishop of Rome and thus are not ‘Roman Catholic’. As an aside, I might suggest to you that the term ‘Roman Catholic’ is a contradiction in terms. Either they are Roman or Catholic, they can’t be both.

Next, I take it that when you say, “it was the Catholic Church that originally put the Bible together” you are not suggesting the Roman Church put together the Old Testament. The Jews accepted the law and the prophets long before there was ever a Pope on the Earth. Furthermore, we read “---- beginning with Moses and all the prophets he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (LK 24:27). The ‘he’ referred to was none other than our Master, the Lord Jesus. Jesus knew what were and were not the scriptures which constituted the Old Testament. He certainly didn’t wait for the arrival of a Pope to clarify and dictate what was or was not inspired.

What, therefore, I assume you mean is that it was the Roman Church which gave us the New Testament. But is this true? Did Rome actually, as it claims, give us, or put together, the NT Scriptures? In this matter, as in many others, history is not on her side.

Here is a brief historical overview of how we got our canon. If you wish to study this matter from a more detailed and authoritative perspective I would suggest, you obtain a copy of “The Canon of Scripture” by Professor F.F. Bruce. However for purposes of this reply I will attempt to furnish you with enough information to start you in the pursuit of the truth of this great matter.

From the early days after the ascension of Christ there was a gradual and independent definition by various church leaders as to which New Testament writings were inspired. (What you possibly have missed is that the early churches were not under the control of the Bishop of Rome, he was rather only one of many leaders within the Catholic Church and it took many, many years before a number of the churches bowed to him.**** see the P.S.) However, back to what I was saying! In AD 367 an influential bishop named Athanasius, in his 39th festal letter, published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, he was not the Pope and never became one. His list included precisely those books we have in our Bibles (with this exception — he admitted Baruch and omitted Esther in the Old Testament). Athanasius said of the scriptures,

“These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.”

It should be noted that 15 years later, Damasus , Bishop of Rome, published the same list that Athanasius had earlier published ——-thus history shows us that the Roman Church was merely a follower, not the leader, in this business of establishing the identity of the scriptures. Furthermore, Athanasius was not even the first to publish a list of accepted writings for use in worship. Other Church leaders promoted various lists, Melito (c. 170), Origen (c. 240), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 324), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 360), The Cheltenham List (c. 360), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 380), Amphilocius of Iconium (c. 380) -----to mention but a few. In theses lists there was wide spread agreement as to what was and was not scripture and it should be noted that no one church took the lead in this matter or made an authoritative decree to which all the other churches bowed. The Lord by His Spirit was able to guide His people and preserve his word.

According to FF Bruce,

“At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known originally as 'The Gospel' in the singular, not 'The Gospels' in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four records, distinguished as 'according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' and so on. About AD 115 Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, refers to 'The Gospel' as an authoritative writing, and as he knew more than one of the four 'Gospels' it may well be that by 'The Gospel' he means the fourfold collection which went by that name.”

“The corpus Paulinum, or collection of Paul's writings, was brought together about the same time as the collecting of the fourfold Gospel. As the Gospel collection was designated by the Greek word Euangelion, so the Pauline collection was designated by the one word Apostolos, each letter being distinguished as 'To the Romans,' 'First to the Corinthians,' and so on. Before long, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was bound up with the Pauline writings. Acts, as a matter of convenience, came to be bound up with the 'General Epistles' (those of Peter, James, John and Jude).”

To summarize then, we got our New Testament as leaders of each of the early congregations of Christians approved certain writings and rejected others as they became available, and it turned out, by the preserving hand of God that most of the churches were by AD 170 in agreement, having approved the same books independently.

Around that time, leading men within the churches became overseers or Bishops of groups of churches and they simply ratified the already existing lists. The approved books were then called the "canon" of Scripture, ("canon" being a Greek word meaning "rod" or "ruler.") These books constituted the standard rule of faith for all the churches. The truth is, this canon was not imposed by the Bishop of Rome . The canon came about by the independent, Spirit guided, decisions of elders of the churches who were in no way subject to Rome.

The early rule for deciding what was and was not scripture was simply this. The church elders received only apostolic writings as authoritative. In order to be accepted as scripture the writings had to have apostolic authority, i.e. be written by one of the apostles (Paul, John, Matthew, Peter) or by their closest apostolic companions (Luke, Mark, Jude, James). These early writings were trusted by the early churches as these writings were hand delivered by trusted sources who were sent by the Apostles. The churches did not receive from strangers. Writings that contradicted the apostolic message were refused. Such Gnostic writings as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip were roundly rejected. They had no apostolic origin but rather promoted the heresies of the Gnostics.

Although there were some minor disagreements among some of the churches about certain writings such as Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John the majority of churches received and used these books without questioning them.

Without wishing to offend you Jane, history bears out that the idea of Rome giving us the scriptures is a sheer nonsense. This is why speaking of Bible Believers you, “have found that most of them are unaware of this fact, (that Rome gave us the scriptures) and even quite surprised by it.” And indeed why would they not be surprised by this revisionist history? It is not, as you suggest a “fact” rather, it is just another one of the many myths invented by the Roman Church in its pursuit of power over all of us.

The facts are, the first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397. These councils were not ‘general councils’ ordered by the Bishop of Rome but rather regional councils of African bishops. Therefore again, Rome misrepresents the facts when she claims to have given us the Scriptures. However, even if Rome had come up with the idea of these particular councils it should be strenuously noted that neither of these councils imposed anything new upon the Christian communities. They merely codified what was already generally accepted by the Christian Churches.

I hope this was helpful.

May you also have a wonderful Christmas!

In closing, I will say that one day we will die and stand before the Judgment Throne of God. The great question then will not be where we got our Bible but rather where do we get enough righteousness to enter into heaven. The Bible tells us that the only righteousness which is sufficient to deliver us from the wrath of God is the very righteousness of Christ Himself and the only way to get this righteousness is by faith alone.

What are you trusting Jane? Are you hoping to go to heaven because you are a good Roman Catholic or a good person? What are you placing your trust and confidence in? Can you go to Christ Jesus alone and believe that He alone saves, that His blood alone cleanses your sins, that He alone accomplished your redemption in his once for all and never to be repeated sacrifice at Calvary?

****PS. Just to give further clarity on the supposed authority and primacy of the Pope it should be noted that not all members of the catholic Church accept this idea. Of course no Protestant believes this invention but apart from that, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Old Catholic Church and the Independent Catholic Churches, reject this doctrine.

In the early centuries of the Church there was never a sense of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome over all the other bishops in the Church. He was never seen as having a universal jurisdiction, and he did not pretend to. If needs be, I will prepare a brief outline of the rise of the papacy and show you that the Roman See clawed and schemed her way to the top in a most ungodly manner and has continued to assert and perpetrate her revisionist history on us all.