The Bible / Scripture

Question

Comments

Do You Believe That the Bible is the Sole Rule of Faith?

Click Here For 'Do You Believe That the Bible is the Sole Rule of Faith?'

Do You Believe That the Bible is the Pillar & Foundation of Truth?

Consider:

* If the Bible is the pillar & foundation of truth, why does Scripture say the Church is the pillar & foundation of truth and not the Bible (see 1 Tm. 3:15)? 

* If the Bible is the pillar & foundation of truth, what did the earliest Christians do who had no bible, before a word of the New Testament was ever written? 

Do You Believe in Private Interpretation of the Bible? 

Click Here For 'Do You Believe in Private Interpretation of the Bible?'

Do You Believe Faith Comes From the Bible?

Consider:

* If faith comes from the Bible, why does Scripture say that faith comes from hearing (see Rom. 10:17)?

* If faith comes from the Bible, what did the earliest Christians do who had no bible, before a word of the New Testament was ever written? 

* If faith comes from the Bible, why was the faith around before the Bible?

Closing Quotations...

"Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church [who codified the bible] did not influence me to do so." (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, c. 397 A.D.)

"When finally the Gospels were written, they did not prove what Christians believed, nor did they initiate that belief; they merely recorded in a systematic manner what they already knew. Men did not believe in the Crucifixion because the Gospels said there was a Crucifixion; they wrote down the [account] of the Crucifixion, because they already believed in it." (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)

Do You Believe Christianity Depends Upon the Bible?

Consider:

* If Christianity depends upon the Bible, why didn't Christ leave a completed bible?

* If Christianity depends upon the Bible, why didn't the Apostles create and distribute completed bibles?

* If Christianity depends upon the Bible, why was Christianity around before a word of the New Testament was ever written? "The Church was spread throughout the entire Roman Empire before a single book of the New Testament was written. There were already many martyrs in the Church before there were either Gospels or Epistles. An authoritative and recognized ministry was carrying on the Lord's work at His command, speaking in His name as witnesses of what they had seen, before anyone decided to write a single line of the New Testament." (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)

* If Christianity depended upon the Bible, how did Christians (that is, Catholics) already exist to put together the Bible? Isn't it much more accurate to say that the Bible depended upon Christianity than to say that Christianity depends upon the Bible?

Some Catholic Quotations...

"When finally the Gospels were written, they recorded a tradition, they did not create it. It was already there. After a while men had decided to put in writing this living tradition and voice, which explains the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: 'That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.' The Gospels did not start the Church; the Church started the Gospels. The Church did not come out of the Gospels; the Gospels came out of the Church. The Church preceded the New Testament, not the New Testament the Church. First there was not a Constitution of the United States, and then Americans, who in the light of that Constitution decided to form a government and a nation. The Founding Fathers preceded the Foundation; so the Mystical Body of Christ preceded the reports written later by inspired secretaries. And incidentally, how do we know the Bible is inspired? It does not say is! Matthew does not conclude his Gospel saying: 'Be sure to read Mark; he is inspired, too.' Furthermore, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of seventy-three books in all. It is worth opening a Bible to see if we have them all and have not been cheated. These widely scattered books cannot bear witness to their own inspiration. It is only by something outside the Bible that we know it is inspired." (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)

"The New Testament writings, however, are not the foundation of the Church, or even, in a manner of speaking, its operating manual. The Church precedes them. The New Testament consists of teaching tools about Jesus (the Gospels), a history (The Acts of the Apostles), letters of correction and instruction (such as Paul's epistles), and what some consider a symbolic condemnation of the Roman emperor Nero (Revelation), under whose persecution St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred. The New Testament was assembled to serve a Church already functioning and growing. Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in the early second century, records that 'Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.' The original gospel tradition was oral, though it is probable that some believers owned small chapbooks. At the earliest, the first written gospels date two decades after the death of Jesus. They had the dual challenge of capturing an oral tradition and accurately translating it from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, which is the language of the earliest gospels we have. There was also the difficulty of establishing the canon. The Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were not the only sayings of Jesus circulating among believers. There were numerous apocryphal books - some merely fictionalized devotional literature, some outright forgeries, others representing contesting views." (Crocker)

Do You Believe That the Earliest Christians Read the Bible?

Consider:

* How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when the first word of the New Testament wasn't written until years after Christ's death?

* How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when the actual canon of the Bible (list of inspired books) wasn't settled for many years?

* How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when most of them were illiterate?

* How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when converts were produced at a much faster rate than hand-written copies of the Bible could ever have been produced (remember that there were no computers, copiers, printers, etc. at that time)?

* How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when Scripture itself is clear that Christians existed before any single book of the New Testament could ever have been penned? 

* How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when they were being persecuted and logistics would have made the collecting of all books difficult or impossible?

How Do You Know Which Books Comprise Scripture?

Consider:

* Considering that Scripture does not indicate which books are inspired, how do you know which books actually belong in the Bible? 

* Considering that the beginnings of Christianity saw numerous spurious writings that some considered as Scripture (cf. 2 Thes. 2:2), how do you know that the books actually appearing in your version of the bible actually contain all applicable books? Remember that since no original copies of these spurious books still exist, you would never be able to review them.

* Even the earliest Christians did not know with infallible certainty which specific books comprised the Bible, so how do you - so many years later - know with infallible certainty which books should comprise the bible?

* If a book appears in your version of the Bible how do you, personally, know (not believe or feel, but know) that the book should be included as part of the bible?

* Who told you that the books in the New Testament were Scripture? Would you be surprised to know it was the Catholic Church? If you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, why are you depending upon this same Church to determine the canon of Scripture? If you place your faith in the Catholic Church to determine the books of Scripture, why do you withhold your submission to this Church which gave the world the New Testament? Remember that the only way you can know a book of the New Testament is inspired is because the Catholic Church has said that it is!

* Are you aware that Protestant leaders initially rejected even more books of Scripture than the deuterocanonical books - for example, they rejected certain books of Scripture that couldn't be squared with their new theologies? If you don't condemn them for such actions, how do you purport that they had the authority to do this? If you do condemn them for such actions, why do you follow in their footsteps by rejecting the deuterocanonical books? 

Do You Reject the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament? (e.g. Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees, 2 Machabees)

Consider:

* If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, why did the Apostles use the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament - a translation which included the deuterocanonical books? Do you claim to know more than they did? [Note: The Septuagint refers to the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is named for the number of translators traditionally involved (seventy). Most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are taken from it.]

* If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, why did Christ use the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament - a translation which included the deuterocanonical books? Do you believe you know better than Christ?

* If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, why did the early Christian writers - ones who had learned from the Apostles - accept them?

* If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, are so many quotations in the New Testament taken from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament - a translation which included the deuterocanonical books?

* Are you under the impression that the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonical books to the Bible at a much later date? This is a common misconception among Protestants. Unbiased research should prove beyond doubt that the Catholic Church accepted these books from the beginning (when she first listed the books which comprise Scripture). In fact, she is known to have enumerated all of the books of the bible - including the deuterocanonical books - as early as 382 A.D. [see the "Decree of (Pope St.) Damasus" from the acts of the Roman Synod, 382 A.D.] and has done so consistently since then.

* How can you feel comfortable rejecting the deuterocanonical books in light of the above merely because some Jews - many years after the death of Christ - rejected them! Why do you depend upon Jewish authority after the death of Christ? Why especially do you depend on Jewish authority which contradicts the practice of Jesus and the Apostles who accepted these books?

* Do you realize that if the deuterocanonical books are Scripture (which they are!) and you reject them, you are rejecting the word of God? 

In Closing...

"St. Luke was a proselyte to the Christian religion, but whether from paganism or rather from Judaism is uncertain; for many Jews were settled at Antioch, but chiefly such as were called Hellenists, who read the Bible in the Greek translation of the Septuagint. St. Jerome observes from his writings, that he was more skilled in Greek than in Hebrew, and that therefore he not only always makes use of the Septuagint translation, as the other authors of the New Testament who wrote in Greek do, but he refrains sometimes from translating words when the propriety of the Greek tongue would not bear it." (Butler)

Does Your Bible Omit the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament? (e.g. Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees, 2 Machabees)

Consider:

* Why does your translation of the bible omit the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament? Does it not bother you to use a bible translation that rejects books used by Jesus and the Apostles (see above)? How can you trust a bible translation which rejects such books?

* You, who claim to love the bible - even to take it as your sole rule of faith - does it not bother you that your bible translation is missing books? That you are "being cheated out of Scripture"?

* For those who tend to see various numbers as signs, does it not bother you to use a bible translation with only 66 books, especially since the first 'protest-ants' may be seen leaving Jesus in Jn. 6:66?

Do You Believe it is Always Praiseworthy to Quote Scripture?

Consider:

* Even the devil quotes scripture.

* Scripture is easily taken out of context.

* Quotations from scripture in vernacular languages are based on someone's translation (and vary greatly in accuracy).

* Many people are simply taught to memorize a few "proof texts" without really understanding their meaning or considering their context.

* Scripture can be difficult to understand and can be distorted to one's destruction (see 2 Pt. 3:15-16).

Do You Reject the Concept That the Catholic Church Has the Sole Authority to Interpret the Bible?

Consider:

* Do you believe in private interpretation of the Bible? Click here

* How can you concede that the Catholic Church has the authority to determine which books belong to the Bible, but deny the Catholic Church the authority to interpret these books? Note: Remember, it was the Catholic Church - and the Catholic Church alone - who determined which books comprise the New Testament.

* How can you rely on the judgment of the Catholic Church in the weighty matter of determining the entire New Testament but reject its judgment even on a 'small' matter of interpretation of a single passage?

* Considering that you would not even have a New Testament had it not been for the painstaking effort of the Catholic Church to hand-copy and preserve the Bible, how is it that you can accept the Bible, as it were, "from her hands", yet refuse her the right to interpret the books she has codified, protected, and preserved?

* How is it you can refuse the Catholic Church the authority to interpret the bible when you have no access to original source documents - and she has had access to all of them?

* How can you believe that Christ would leave an important, yet complex writing - one that can be difficult to understand and can be distorted to one's destruction (see 2 Pt. 3:15-16) - without giving anyone supreme authority to interpret it? A mere businessman would know better than that, much less the omniscient God!

* If two passages of Scripture appear to contradict each other, how can you not consider that this alone necessitates an authority to determine the correct interpretation of the passages?

* How is it you can refuse the Catholic Church the authority to interpret the bible when you and your non-Catholic religion were not around since the time of the Apostles, and she was?

* Why is it you reject the Catholic Church's well founded claim - backed up by history, logic, and evidence - to have the sole right to interpret the bible, in favor of your own personal 'right' to interpret the bible? When did you get this right? Who gave it to you? Since when did you become infallible? If you disagree with another's interpretation, what makes you right and them wrong? What if you disagree with translators who are much wiser and more knowledgeable than you are? How can you ever settle the matter without an authoritative body to decide among competing interpretations? If you are not skilled in ancient languages, how can you ever be sure you have translated and interpreted correctly? Note: Click here for more on personal interpretation.

* If you rely on the Bible for your salvation, does it not bother you that you have been unable to fully understand and interpret all of Scripture infallibly (and that there is no authoritative source to go to if you reject the Catholic Church's role as the sole interpreter of the bible)?

* How can you refuse the Catholic Church's authority in interpreting the Bible in favor of your own ability to interpret it, considering the great amount of effort and resources that would be needed for such an undertaking? For example, consider that a proper understanding of a single passage may require an investigation into ancient ways of speech, rules of grammar, archeology, etc. As a recent pope has indicated, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East." (Pope Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu")

* If you are reading an English language version of the Bible, you are already relying on someone else's interpretation of the original text of Scripture. How can you allow this (self-appointed?) interpreter a right that you deny the Catholic Church? How can anyone possibly have a better claim to the right to interpret the books of Scripture than the Catholic Church who has codified Scripture and preserved and protected it for 2,000 years?

From An Early Christian Writing...

"These things being so, in order that we may be judged to have the truth - we who walk in the rule which the Churches have handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God - admit that the reasonableness of our position is clear, defining as it does that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without using Scripture, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians, because it is not from Christ that they have gotten what they pursue of their own choosing, and from which they incur the name heretic. Not being Christians, they have acquired no right to Christian literature; and it might be justly said to them, 'Who are you? When and from where did you come? Since you are not of mine, what are you doing with what is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you chop in my forest? By whose permission, Valentine, do you do you divert my streams? By what authority, Apelles, do you move my boundary markers? And the rest of you, why do you sow and graze here at your own pleasure? This is my property, which I have long possessed, which I possessed before you came, and for which I have a sure title from the very authors whose property it was. I am the heir of the Apostles. As they carefully prepared their will, as they committed it to a trust, and as they sealed it with an oath, so do I hold the inheritance. You certainly, they always held as disinherited, and they rejected you as strangers and enemies." [Tertullian ("an excellent early Christian writer" - although he would ultimately fall into heresy), c. 200 A.D.]

Do You Believe That the Catholic Church Keeps or Has Kept the Bible From People? 

Consider:

* Click here for 'Didn't the Catholic Church Burn Bibles?'

* If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why did she codify it and make its existence so public?

* If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why could she have not let it just "fall by the wayside" considering the great persecution of the early Christians and considering that the original material it was written on was so perishable?

* If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why did her monks painstakingly hand-copy it so that it would survive - long before copiers and printing presses were invented?

* If the Church kept the Bible from people, how did the Protestant 'Reformers' know of its existence? If she really had wanted to destroy the Bible, why was it still around at the time of the 'Reformation'? Surely, had she desired to do so, she could have destroyed it nearly 15 centuries before the various Protestant sects ever came into existence.

* If the Church kept the Bible from people, how is it that there were hundreds of Catholic editions of the Bible in existence before Luther's translation was penned?

* If the Catholic Church kept the Bible from people, how did you get it? Remember that you wouldn't even know about the New Testament if it wasn't for the Catholic Church - the Church that codified, protected and preserved the Bible. No Protestant would even know what a New Testament was without the Catholic Church!

* If you argue that the Church kept the Bible from being read by the people since it was written in Latin, you should know that Latin was commonly taught to those who learned to read. In other words, "if one could read, he could read Latin." 

* "If the Church kept the bible from people, why were entire copies of the bible in various vernacular languages even before the printing press was invented?" 

* If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why does she grant indulgences for reading it?

* "If Catholic Church has been keeping the Bible from people, why are so many Catholic Bibles sold annually?"

* If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why does she read from it at every Mass? Why does she take prayers, songs, etc. from it?

* If the Church has wanted to keep the Bible from people, why did she go through so much effort to assist and progress Biblical science, and to protect translations from error?

* If the Church has kept the Bible from people, how can you explain why there are "more ancient copies of Scripture than all other ancient writings combined"? 

* If the Church has kept the Bible from people, why was the first Bible ever printed after the invention of the printing press a Catholic Bible (printed by Johann Gutenberg)?

* If at times the Church has forbidden bible reading by lay persons, are you unaware that she had just cause to do so? In fact, the very salvation of some persons' souls may have depended upon it. For example, consider that, "Before the Albigensians, the Church had happily translated the Bible into every vernacular tongue. But now the Church saw the authority of the Bible abused by cult leaders who preyed on the ignorance, or the latent extremism, of the people. In 1129, at the Council of Narbonne, in direct response to the abuses of the Albigensians and related heresies, the Bible was forbidden to all save priests, bishops, and others in religious vocations. The people would hear the Bible in church. But mad-eyed fanatics would not be allowed to wave the Bible above their heads and claim some new revelation, some special reading - to common people who were mostly illiterate - that denied the Trinity or endorsed fornication, abortion, and suicide as positive deeds." (Crocker)

* If the Church has at times indicated that Bible reading may not be expedient for all, are you unaware that she has had good reason to do so? Do you not realize that the Bible is a difficult book that is easily subject to misinterpretation? Do you not realize that certain uninstructed persons might misunderstand or misapply certain passages with very detrimental effects (e.g. tearing out one's eye, cutting off one's arm, promoting & justifying violence, etc.)? Would you want an uneducated person or your young child to read the Bible without proper assistance?

* If you complain that the Catholic Church has kept bibles "chained up", do you also complain that a bank keeps their pens chained up? While pens are "a dime a dozen", ancient bibles were laboriously hand-copied at a high cost. If your bank had only a few pens and didn't chain them up, how long do you think it would be before there were no more pens for you to use? Does the bank's keeping the pens chained up keep you from using them or doesn't it really keep them there so that when you want to use them, they will be there? The same may be said of keeping ancient bibles "chained up" - this kept them available, not unavailable!

* If the Church has at times condemned certain uses of Scripture, are you unaware that she was acting prudently and for the good of souls? Are you unaware that various false teachers have seriously misled groups of people with erroneous scripture errors, even leading them away from Christ? For example, consider this quotation from Pope Gregory XVI: "Especially dangerous is the fact that holy Scriptures that have been tainted with the errors of this author are disseminated to the unwary. Acting as if he were sent and inspired by God, he speaks in the name of the Trinity and then uses Scripture as a pretext for releasing the people from the law of obedience. He twists the words of holy Scripture in a bold and cunning manner in order to firmly establish his depraved ravings. He does this in order that, as St. Bernard used to say, 'He might spread clouds for light or give poison for honey, or rather in the honey, creating a new Gospel for the people and laying a different foundation from the one which is already laid.'" (Pope Gregory XVI, "Singulari Nos", 1834)

* If the Church has been cautious about translations into the vernacular, it should be considered that her worries were not to conceal scripture from people, but to protect scripture from corruption. It should be noted that it is a monumental task to accurately translate scripture into the vernacular, especially before modern technology was available. The following quotations are illustrative of the Church's desire to protect scripture from faulty translations into the vernacular. In fairness to the Catholic Church, consider how the popes praised scripture and sought to protect scripture & persons - not harm them - by restricting vernacular translations: (Note: Emphasis may be added below)

"For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage. Furthermore, the Roman Church, accepting only the Vulgate edition according to the well-known prescription of the Council of Trent, disapproves the versions in other tongues and permits only those which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great a treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be 'of one tongue and of the same speech' [Gen. 11:1]." (Pope Pius VII, 1816 A.D.)

"We were overcome with great and bitter sorrow when We learned that a pernicious plan, by no means the first, had been undertaken, whereby the most sacred books of the Bible are being spread everywhere in every vernacular tongue, with new interpretations which are contrary to the wholesome rules of the Church, and are skillfully turned into a distorted sense. For, from one of the versions of this sort already presented to Us we notice that such a danger exists against the sanctity of purer doctrine, so that the faithful might easily drink a deadly poison from those fountains from which they should drain 'waters of saving wisdom' [Ecclus. 15:3]..." (Pope Pius VII, 1816 A.D.)

"Indeed, you are aware that from the first ages called Christian, it has been the peculiar artifice of heretics that, repudiating the traditional Word of God, and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, they either falsify the Scriptures at hand, or alter the explanation of the meaning. In short, you are not ignorant of how much diligence and wisdom is needed to translate faithfully into another tongue the words of the Lord; so that, surely, nothing could happen more easily than that in the versions of these Scriptures, multiplied by the Biblical societies, very grave errors creep in from the imprudence or deceit of so many translators; further, the very multitude and variety of those versions conceal these errors for a long time to the destruction of many." (Pope Gregory XVI, "Inter praecipuas"', 1844 A.D.)

"Since in vernacular speech we notice very frequent interchanges, varieties, and changes, surely by an unrestrained license of Biblical versions that changelessness which is proper to the divine testimony would be utterly destroyed, and faith itself would waver, when, especially, from the meaning of one syllable sometimes an understanding about the truth of a dogma is formed. For this purpose, then, the heretics have been accustomed to make their low and base machinations, in order that by the publication of their vernacular Bibles, (of whose strange variety and discrepancy they, nevertheless, accuse one another and wrangle) they may, each one, treacherously insert their own errors wrapped in the more holy apparatus of divine speech. 'For heresies are not born,' St. Augustine used to say, 'except when the true Scriptures are not well understood and when what is not well understood in them is rashly and boldly asserted.' But, if we grieve that men renowned for piety and wisdom have, by no means rarely, failed in interpreting the Scriptures, what should we not fear if the Scriptures, translated into every vulgar tongue whatsoever, are freely handed on to be read by an inexperienced people who, for the most part, judge not with any skill but with a kind of rashness? ..." (Pope Pius VII, 1816 A.D.)

Finally, note that perhaps the Church's concern regarding the purity of Scripture may seem foreign to those who take any translation of the Bible for the sole rule of faith and believe that they can personally interpret Scripture any way they choose. Perhaps, however, the Church's behavior can be better understood by realizing that the Church itself does not depend upon Scripture (as is indicated elsewhere herein) and that she knows she is charged with protecting and preserving Scripture, and not merely disseminating it in any haphazard fashion. In testimony to this truth, one can see that ancient - hand-written - copies of Scripture made by her over many years match one another very closely, whereas more recent Protestant translations often vary greatly.

In Closing...

"The calm and fair consideration of what has been said will clearly show that the Church has never failed in taking due measures to bring the Scriptures within reach of her children, and that she has ever held fast and exercised profitably that guardianship conferred upon her by Almighty God for the protection and glory of His Holy Word; so that she has never required, nor does she now require, any stimulation from without." (Pope Leo XIII, "Providentissimus Deus", 1893 A.D.)

Do You Believe That the Catholic Church Does Not Highly Regard the Bible? 

Consider:

* If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why has she taken so much painstaking care to codify, protect and preserve it?

* If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why is it read from at every Mass? Why does it adorn her liturgy, songs, papal writings, etc.?

* If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why does she grant indulgences for the reading of Scripture?

* If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why does she require her members to stand - in respect - for the reading of the Gospel at Mass?

* If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why has she been so careful to protect it whereas Protestants have been the ones to purposely corrupt sacred Scripture (e.g. Martin Luther's adding "alone" to Rom.3:28 and rejecting various books of Scripture in order to support his theories)? 

* In contrast to the Catholic treatment and regard for Scripture, consider the fruits of Protestantism: "Just as damaging to Christianity was the primitivist Protestant desire to wrench Christianity from history - or what was seen as centuries of encrusted superstition. Salvation was now to be found in a single book, the Bible, and in the distant practice of an imagined unstained and primitive church. Almost immediately, but certainly by the eighteenth century, and rapidly increasing in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mainline Protestant scholars took a similarly critical attitude to the Bible, scraping at it until it appeared as full of errors and superstition as [they believed] the Roman Catholic Church [did]. Protestantism thus became one of the main solvents for the scrubbing away of any faith that went beyond a general social gospel of good intentions." (Crocker)