B
But_for_Grace
Guest
Dear Protestant Brothers, why do you accept the Bible when you reject everything else that the Catholic Church has given and taught us about Christ?
- Status
A
arieh0310
Guest
I would really be interested in the Protestant argument as to why the Bible should be considered inspired. I am a Protestant who is seriously considering conversion to Catholicism and one of the big reasons is that Catholics seem to have a better argument as to why the Bible is inspired. Protestant R.C. Sproul calls the Bible a fallible collection of infallible books but fails to fully explain why the books should be considered infallible (really inerrant not infallible, only a person can be infallible).
O
On_my_way
Guest
I think they don’t accept the Bible as a whole, but only parts that they wish to follow. It’s just my opinion.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
On my way:
It would appear that way…but just think, how could anyone believe what they were reading was true if they picked out which parts were true and false. So if that is the case, then one would have to believe that they don’t do it intentionally.
S
Sgt_Sweaters
Guest
Maybe those who ultimately decided on the canon were early Protestants in disguise. 
S
sandusky
Guest
But for Grace:
I accept the Bible because it is the Word of God. I don’t reject everything the RCC teaches about Christ.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
HOW do you know that it is the Word of God?
B
BeluvdLily
Guest
As a Protestant who is considering and studying Catholicism, I am curious why you say Protestants only pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe. This may be true of some but I’m just wondering where you get that impression. I’ve not noticed that myself.
Also, for me, I’m just not sure that everything the Catholic church believes is from the Bible (to me and I do not claim to know everything at all, still learning so much, this is just my limited and humble opinion) and so I’m just not sure about the whole thing.
For instance, and I’ve read the posts regarding it and still do not feel convinced, that Mary was always a virgin after Jesus was born. This is one Catholic belief I really have a lot of trouble with. I have read the arguments for it but in my heart I still don’t believe it. Nothing against anyone who does but I’m coming from a Protestant background and always believed that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus. To me it makes more sense that God would have wanted to bless Mary and Joseph with an intimate life and more children when they’d done His will.
This is not the only thing I feel unsure of but it is one. On the other hand, I do love the Catholic devotion to Mary and feel that she does deserve it. I love the Rosary. I find it to be very powerful to me. I love the Marian apparitions. I love the connection you all have to the Saints and I love the idea of their intercession and using them as examples of how to live.
Anyway, in answer to the original question, I’d say most Protestants do believe everything in the Bible but wonder that perhaps the Catholic church has added things that are not necessarily biblically based.
I don’t mean any offense by this at all. It is just something I’m dealing with and still learning. I have the highest respect for everyone here and how much I’ve learned on this site. I think you’re all a great bunch of people but some things I just feel a bit unsure of with regard as to whether they are from the Bible.
Amie
Also, for me, I’m just not sure that everything the Catholic church believes is from the Bible (to me and I do not claim to know everything at all, still learning so much, this is just my limited and humble opinion) and so I’m just not sure about the whole thing.
For instance, and I’ve read the posts regarding it and still do not feel convinced, that Mary was always a virgin after Jesus was born. This is one Catholic belief I really have a lot of trouble with. I have read the arguments for it but in my heart I still don’t believe it. Nothing against anyone who does but I’m coming from a Protestant background and always believed that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus. To me it makes more sense that God would have wanted to bless Mary and Joseph with an intimate life and more children when they’d done His will.
This is not the only thing I feel unsure of but it is one. On the other hand, I do love the Catholic devotion to Mary and feel that she does deserve it. I love the Rosary. I find it to be very powerful to me. I love the Marian apparitions. I love the connection you all have to the Saints and I love the idea of their intercession and using them as examples of how to live.
Anyway, in answer to the original question, I’d say most Protestants do believe everything in the Bible but wonder that perhaps the Catholic church has added things that are not necessarily biblically based.
I don’t mean any offense by this at all. It is just something I’m dealing with and still learning. I have the highest respect for everyone here and how much I’ve learned on this site. I think you’re all a great bunch of people but some things I just feel a bit unsure of with regard as to whether they are from the Bible.
Amie
S
sandusky
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
It makes the claim itself. How do you know that it is not?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
First off, good post.
Secondly, I am curious as to why you are considering studying Catholicism? (This will answer other questions that I have.) If you are doing so because you are starting to see WHO the Church is, then in due time you will no longer have problems with such things as you do now. If you are converting for another reason, I’d like to know. (Better refute it, interested in history, ect…)
The Church is in 100% compliance with the Bible I assure you. The fact that protestants are protestants show that they have either a severe misunderstanding of Scripture, or that they do not believe in everything the Bible teaches (I say it’s most likely the former.) Yet they will hold onto such unbiblical and unhistorical doctrines as ‘sola scriptura’ and ‘sola fide’ etc.
I don’t know if you have ever looked into the faith of the early Christians or not, but if not, you may be surprised. I will give you an example of a few that lived long before the Bible was codified (Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John, and Irenaeus a disciple of them.)
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 A. D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (*The Martyrdom of Polycarp *8 A.D. 110]).
**Irenaeus
**
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).
A
arieh0310
Guest
I am a Protestant investigating Catholicism as well and the perpetual virginity of Mary was one of the easiest Marian Dogmas to accept. The fact that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for cousin, that fact that the Old Testament refers to close relatives at “bretheren” at times, the fact that John was told to care for Mary even though His “bretheren” were at the cross too, the fact that Joseph is not mentioned after Jesus starts his minitry (indicating he was much older than Mary), the fact that nowhere in the Bible to you see any reference to Mary’s other children, and the unanamous beliefs of the early church is more than convicing.
As to your question regarding the “pick and choose” theology of Protestantism I think what the earlier poster means is that Protestantism tends to overlook passages that are troublesome to their beliefs. For example, my current church (evangelical church) ignores John 6 because they believe the Eucharist is a symbol, they ignore passages relating to the regenerative effects of baptism because they think that is symbolic as well, they ignore passages in James (and others) because they hold to a once saved always saved theory on salvation.
A
arieh0310
Guest
Using that argument then we all need to join the Mormon Church.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Two things:
First - you can’t assume a book is inspired because it says so, to do so is folly. Many books claim the same thing, so why the Bible?
I’ll tell you why you believe, the same reason all Christians have come to believe that the Bible is the (name removed by moderator)ired Word of God, because the Church says so. She is the Body of Christ and has the Holy Spirit for her soul. **890 **The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
Secondly - I never said it wasn’t!
S
sandusky
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
E.E.N.S:
E.E.N.S.:
So what do I care if Mark Twain says his Tom Sawyer was written by himself? I am talking about the Word of God. We both agree that it is the word of God, don’t we? The same can be said about religious system’s claims to be inspired. Is that also folly?
Are you charismatic? Or, just a run of the mill mind reader. I told you why I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Why won’t you believe my answer? Again, the Bible makes the claim itself.
E.E.N.S.:
Is that Jn 8:90? I don’t find it, nor do I find anything about a magisterium in the Bible; where is it? I thought the H.S. was sent by God for the purpose of keeping true believers in the truth, isn’t that so?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
What then about the Quran? Or the Book of Mormon?
This needs no response…
No, it’s paragraph 890 from the Catechism. And yes, the Holy Spirit is safegarding the Truth, through the Church.
A
arieh0310
Guest
But your reason for believing the Word of God is purly subjective. The Catholic argument is: the Bible can be proven to be historically accurate<>in the Bible Jesus sets up an infallible Church<>the Church defines the canon of Scripture. Make more sense to me than “the Bible says it is inspired”
The only place in Scripture that states that Scripture is inspired is in 2 Tim. 3:14-16 but there is no Table of Contents (how do we know which books are inspired and which aren’t)
C
Contarini
Guest
But for Grace:
Edwin
We don’t reject everything else. Therefore, your question makes no sense. We regard the Bible as the supreme authority precisely because this is how the Church has historically regarded it. Insofar as late medieval and early modern Catholics departed from this Tradition, they were wrong. Insofar as the early Protestants thought they could construct Christian doctrine without regard to the historic Tradition of the Church, they were wrong. Whether either group did either of these things is a matter of some debate (I’d say that on each side many did, but that neither side is committed to those errors).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
This is not the Catholic argument. It’s a remarkably silly argument made by a Catholic Answers tract. It makes no more sense than the Protestant argument you are rightly rejecting.
The Bible cannot be proven to be historically accurate. Most of the major historical claims of the Bible cannot be either proven or refuted by historical argument.
Edwin
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
The Catholic Church has never departed from Scripture as being inspired…where did you come up with this idea? (Or am I misunderstanding you?)
A
arieh0310
Guest
So, the extra-Biblical references to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection cannot be proven or refuted? The extra-Biblical proof of the martrydom of 11 of the 12 disiples cannot be proven or refuted?
- Status