Well put, thank you. Also, lets stay on topic. The reason I reposted this thread is that I am genuinely interested in the strongest argument for Biblical inspiration that Protestantism has to offer.My brothers and sisters in Christ, last time this thread was shut down due to a general uncharitable debate (of which I am included), let’s always remember that we are Christians and were are called (as the first letter of Peter says) to give reasons for our belief but in love.
Now, proceed with the debate!
I’m Catholic so I can’t give you any arguments as a Protestant, but two I have heard are (1) the NT is written directly by apostles, and (2) the entire Church has always accepted the Bible as the word of God.
I have heard the basic argument that the New Testament books were universally (funny, that word in Greek where we get Catholic) accepted. However, that isn’t nessesarily true, there was quite a bit of debate about which books belonged in the New Testament. I read an article by Norman Geisler where he said, “the Church doesn’t denfine canon, the Holy Spirit does” but he never really explains how we know the Holy Spirit is guiding the formation of the canon.
“who says?” is a GOOD point. We don’t have the signatures of who wrote them. And secondly, the names THAT HAVE BEEN HANDED DOWN TO US are NOT all Apostles. St. Mark, whose name is accorded to the “Gospel according to Mark” was a diciple of St. Peter. And St. Luke was not one of the 12.
John666 said:
Maybe that was the intention, to require more trust in the Church to compile the Scriptures by not having the originals available.
I think it’s just God’s way of saying that we shouldn’t worship the bible and we shouldn’t be so darn nit-picking about every word.
I think it has more to do with the way the ancient world handled manuscripts. Works back then were written on perishable materials so the work was immediately copied and distributed over and over again. We don’t have the original manuscripts of most works of antiquity, most manuscripts are 5-10 centuries newer that the originals.
What makes the apostles word true though? Without the testament of the Church, the apostles words are no different than those of any other ancient Roman.
If you lack faith in Protestantism but have faith in Catholicism, then let nothing hinder you from becoming a Catholic.
Quite right. The (unbiblical) assumption is that if the apostles wrote it, it’s inerrant. It’s just an ad hoc way of arriving at the NT canon without the authority of the Church.
arieh0310,
I for one don’t think we have a different answer, it’s just a somewhat different take. Of course the Church discerned which books were inspired. But many of us Protestants believe that we are also heirs of that Church. We regret the current divisions of the Church, but we aren’t the ones choosing to perpetuate those divisions (we are happy to have full communion with the Catholic Church any time the Catholic Church decides to allow it without requiring us to accept things that would violate our consciences). So we don’t see the Church’s role in recognizing canonical Scripture as knock-down argument for the claims of the Roman Communion.
So, it was Rome’s fault that they didn’t allow Henry VIII to get a divorce or become head of the church in England? Is it also Rome’s fault that they do not accept female priests, practicing gay clergy, divorce and remarriage, and contraception? Was it Rome that separated from the German Reformers and the Anglicans? Was it also Rome that seperated from the Gnostics, Montanists, Arians, Nestorians, etc? Do you think it insensitive of Rome to reject the idea of symbolic communion and baptism promulgated by Evangelicals? Should the Catholic Church throw our all truth for the sake of unity?
Contarini,