Bible-only Christians: Why do you use the Bible?

[Harpazo]

This is a sincere question. I’m trying to see the logic behind the reasoning of certain Protestants. If the Catholic Church compiled and preserved the Bible, why do you accept it? If the Church was in such “error,” why would you accept something from them, such as a Holy Book? Why not compile a Holy Book of your own? After all, the Church “erred” in its ways, so why wouldn’t it have erred with the Bible too?

I’m looking for charitable and honest discussion from both parties.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Well, from what I understand the church that compiled the bible as we know it today was not the same church back then. Plus the church back then did not write the bible. The bible was written by 40 different people inspired by God. The church merely discovered(im not sure that is the right word)through God of course which ones were inspired. The church had a very specific way of deciding which books were inspired and which were not.

Also, the letters were in circulation during the apostles lifetime(obviously since they wrote them )and people did already consider them authoritative.

Of course the OT was already approved of by Christ Himself so that is good enough for me.

Im sure someone more scholarly then I will give you a more specific answer.

 

[Johndigger]

Well, from what I understand the church that compiled the bible as we know it today was not the same church back then. Plus the church back then did not write the bible. The bible was written by 40 different people inspired by God. The church merely discovered(im not sure that is the right word)through God of course which ones were inspired. The church had a very specific way of deciding which books were inspired and which were not.

Also, the letters were in circulation during the apostles lifetime(obviously since they wrote them )and people did already consider them authoritative.

Of course the OT was already approved of by Christ Himself so that is good enough for me.

Im sure someone more scholarly then I will give you a more specific answer.

So you acknowledge the the 4th century Church, regardless of whether it was Orthodox or Protestant or Catholic had the Authority to put the bible together.

If the 4th century Church was an Authorative Church, where is that authority in modern day Christianity?

I think we agree that most Protestants would say “The bible”
but I would say there are two potential problems with this:

1. They all point to the bible believe very different doctrines. Under the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” everyone has a right to interpret the bible for themselves. There is no authority.
2. If the Authority of the Church that compiled this bible was passed onto the bible - what Church documents, if any, show this?

JD

 

[ALLFORHIM]

So you acknowledge the the 4th century Church, regardless of whether it was Orthodox or Protestant or Catholic had the Authority to put the bible together.

If the 4th century Church was an Authorative Church, where is that authority in modern day Christianity?

I think we agree that most Protestants would say “The bible”
but I would say there are two potential problems with this:

1. They all point to the bible believe very different doctrines. Under the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” everyone has a right to interpret the bible for themselves. There is no authority.
2. If the Authority of the Church that compiled this bible was passed onto the bible - what Church documents, if any, show this?

JD

Hi,
I have to give a short answer because my kids are waiting for me.

I do not believe that the church had the authoirty, so to speak ,but that God used them to get His message across to us . That was who God chose. Just like I believe Luther was chosen to right the wrongs(or at least speak out about them) in the CC. God, obviously uses people to do His work.

Unfortunately, the book I have that spells all of this out, I lent to a friend who will have it until Sept.

 

[Allweather]

I do not believe that the church had the authoirty, so to speak ,but that God used them to get His message across to us . That was who God chose. Just like I believe Luther was chosen to right the wrongs(or at least speak out about them) in the CC. God, obviously uses people to do His work.

Didn’t Jesus give His authority unto the Apostles? When he gave them the Great Commission, weren’t they empowered by Jesus’ authority?

Are you saying that the authority disappeared somewhere along the line?

If so, this seems similar to the Great Apostasy theory that the Mormons and some other sects have devised.

 

[Johndigger]

Hi,
I do not believe that the church had the authoirty, so to speak

Hello there!

So, you’re saying that although you acknowledge that “the Church compiled the bible” you’re saying that they “didn’t have authority”

So, if I’m getting you’re point, you’re saying that an authorative book was both compiled and given to you - non-authoratively by a non-authorative source.

I don’t get it. If the Church didn’t have Authority of God, then why do you accept what came from it in the 4th century?

JD

 

[ElliottWright]

Most of the non-conformists Christains think there so high and mighty shotuing and preaching Sola Scriptura and ridiculing Church tradition. Yet in their ignorance most of them hold services on Sundays and by doing this they bow down to the tradition of Rome ( as the only Sabbath in the Bible is a Saturday)

 

[Johndigger]

Most of the non-conformists Christains think there so high and mighty shotuing and preaching Sola Scriptura and ridiculing Church tradition. Yet in their ignorance most of them hold services on Sundays and by doing this they bow down to the tradition of Rome ( as the only Sabbath in the Bible is a Saturday)

That’s a bit ad hominem, isn’t it? I’ve met some Catholics that think they are high and mighty.

I do agree with you, though, that to some extent in that even Protestants have traditions. But it’s the fact that “Tradition is the Word of God and in equal Authority to the bible” that gets most Protestants, not just the fact that we have traditions.

JD

 

[Harpazo]

If I were a dissenter, I would have nothing to do with the old ways. Why didn’t the reformers or the evangelicals create their own Holy Book using writings of Luther or Calvin or Zwingli, et al.?

So, technically, if a “bible-only” Protestant using the Holy Bible, aren’t they subscribing to the Holy Catholic Church’s authority?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[ElliottWright]

Church tradtion is equal to the Bible as Church tradition created the Bible 393 council of Hippo.

 

[Johndigger]

Well, “created” the bible is a bit of a misnomer as the components were in place before. Although the Church, in a sense did “create” the bible as we know it in the 4th century.

The Church decided which books were the word of God and which books weren’t.

There were many gospels out there and there was the apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas and many more besides.

Another question, perhaps, to ponder is that how do you know that the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabus aren’t the word of God?

The bible didn’t come with a contents page. People didn’t know what books were the word of God and what ones weren’t. So, how do you know?

JD

 

[ElliottWright]

Divine inspiration, the holy spirits influence.

 

[mozart-250]

This is a sincere question. I’m trying to see the logic behind the reasoning of certain Protestants. If the Catholic Church compiled and preserved the Bible, why do you accept it? If the Church was in such “error,” why would you accept something from them, such as a Holy Book? Why not compile a Holy Book of your own? After all, the Church “erred” in its ways, so why wouldn’t it have erred with the Bible too?

I’m looking for charitable and honest discussion from both parties.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Why wouldn’t we accept the Bible?

We (should) believe that God can use humans to accomplish His divine purposes. Isn’t that really all that is necessary to believe in accepting the Bible as it was originally compiled?

 

[SyCarl]

With respect to the Bible, the Church did not write or give us the Bible. The Bible was written by the authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The books themselves would have existed whether there had been a Church or not.

What the Church did was discern the canon. ie They identified what books were inspired. The question then becomes what is the Church. Of course Protestants and Catholics disagree on what the Church is. Protestants recognize a visible church and the true, invisible Church. It is the invisible Church against which Hades will not prevail against and that is the pillar and support of the truth. Now initially there was only one visible church, which also contained the invisible Church. As time went by error entered the visible church but not the invisible Church. The extent of the error in the visible church increased over time as additional doctrine was “infallibly defined.” Also over the course of time, the visible church has fractured into a number of visible churches. Each of these visible churches contains part of the true invisible church.

The contents of the New Testament had been established by Christians at large well prior to any church council. All the councils did was accept what was already generally accepted. At that time the entire invisible Church was in the visible church. When the entire visible church ratified the canon, the inivisible Church was included in that ratification. This also took place before the rise of papal power allowed greater error to enter the visible church by concentrating authority in one fallible man. (Of course Catholics disagree on the fallibility of both the visible church and the papacy.

Now even while error was entering the visible church, there was no dissension with the New Testament canon. ie No faction, even as the church split, differed on the contents of the New Testament. This is true even after the Reformation. All the factions, including the Catholic, Orthodox and the Protestants accepted the New Testament. Since the visible churches collectively still contain the true invisible Church, the true Church has always and continues to recognize the New Testament canon.

This is not the case with the Old Testament. Even after the Old Testament canon was supposedly determined, there was dispute within the visible church as to its contents. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that for the Catholic Church, the Old Testament was not conclusively determined until the Council of Trent. By that time, however, the visible Catholic Church no longer contained the entire true Church. The universally recognized New Testament tells us that the Old Testament was entrusted to the Jews. The Protestants recognized the Hebrew Canon while the Catholics recognized some of the Apocraphya. Since the true church no longer resided exclusively in the Catholic Church and the part in the Protestant churches did not agree the Catholic canon was not accepted by the entire true Church, particulairly as the authority in the Catholic church was hierarchical and did not necessarily speak for the true Church contained in it. The books in the Protestant Old Testament were recognized as being validly included by all the visible parts, even those who did not fell it was complete. Thus the entire invisible Church contained in the individual churches has recognized these books.

Now when the Mormons came along, they asserted a new Scripture. However this was not accepted by the existing churches, and consequently the invisible Church contained in them and have no claim to inspiration.

 

[Johndigger]

The contents of the New Testament had been established by Christians at large well prior to any church council. All the councils did was accept what was already generally accepted. At that time the entire invisible Church was in the visible church. When the entire visible church ratified the canon, the inivisible Church was included in that ratification

You brought up a few things in that last post, but let’s stick with one thing.

So, the Church has no Authority and the book of the bible were decided basically by “Public opinion”

That doesn’t really give me much confidence in the bible, unfortunately.

Don’t you think it’s quite scary that the books that went into our bible were decided soley by common consensus?

And what about the people that did have extra books/less books? On what Authority did people tell them their “bibles” were wrong and thus getting them to use the same bible as everyone else?

JD

 

[allischalmers]

Didn’t Jesus give His authority unto the Apostles? When he gave them the Great Commission, weren’t they empowered by Jesus’ authority?

Are you saying that the authority disappeared somewhere along the line?

If so, this seems similar to the Great Apostasy theory that the Mormons and some other sects have devised.

Jesus give authority to the Apostles but when the Apostles died so did that authority.

 

[allischalmers]

Didn’t Jesus give His authority unto the Apostles? When he gave them the Great Commission, weren’t they empowered by Jesus’ authority?

Are you saying that the authority disappeared somewhere along the line?

If so, this seems similar to the Great Apostasy theory that the Mormons and some other sects have devised.

Jesus give authority to the Apostles but when the Apostles died so did that authority.

 

[Johndigger]

Firstly - where in the bible does it say that?

Secondly, the bible seems to suggest otherwise.

"My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.

He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.

He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. 7

This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.

For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: **‘May another take his office.’ **
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,

beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.

Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen

to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."

Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, **and he was counted with the eleven apostles. **

Here we see that Judas has left his office and his ministry - Matthias replaces him and it counted amoung the other 11.

Also, note it’s Peter that stands up and says that this needs to be done.

JD

 

[SyCarl]

Firstly - where in the bible does it say that?

Secondly, the bible seems to suggest otherwise.

Here we see that Judas has left his office and his ministry - Matthias replaces him and it counted amoung the other 11.

Also, note it’s Peter that stands up and says that this needs to be done.

JD

So, who, after John died at the end of the first century, was there that met the qualifications set out to be an Apostle? These were being with Jesus from his baptism to resurrection.

 

[SyCarl]

You brought up a few things in that last post, but let’s stick with one thing.

So, the Church has no Authority and the book of the bible were decided basically by “Public opinion”

That doesn’t really give me much confidence in the bible, unfortunately.

Don’t you think it’s quite scary that the books that went into our bible were decided soley by common consensus?

And what about the people that did have extra books/less books? On what Authority did people tell them their “bibles” were wrong and thus getting them to use the same bible as everyone else?

JD

How does the Catholic Church establish its authority? It can be from the Bible because, under your reasoning, we can’t have a Bible until we know the Church has the authority to determine it. Tradition gets you no place because again, even if Tradition is valid, you can’t know what Tradition is before the authority of the Church is established. What it essentially comes down to is that we must believe that the Church has authority because it says it does. On that basis we should accept Islam because Mohammed said he was spoken to by God and given the Qu’ran. He has told us God spoke to him so how can we deny it.

As for any additional books, such as the Gospel of Thomas, there is no indication that they were ever accepted by all believers as the canonical books were and are.