Challenge to Protestants - Why the Bible?

[BeluvdLily]

EENS:

In answer to your question, I’m looking into the Catholic church because my husband and I love the Bible and God and want to find a church to attend that we both agree is the true church. My husband is formerly Church of England (now living in the US) and I was raised in the United Church of Christ.

Part of what drew me to the Catholic Church was one day we stopped at the local Catholic church when they were having a sale of religious items and we just wanted to have a look around. Every person was just so nice and so welcoming and spoke to us and it really made a positive impression on us so we thought perhaps we should look into it further. We have attended Mass a couple of times and found it to be a positive experience if a little intimidating in the fact that we didn’t know exactly what to do at each moment and a little awkward due to not being able to receive the Eucharist although we knew that and just stayed in our seats. We are considering RCIA in the fall though.

Part of what we also like is that the Catholic church seems to really have a dedication to family values. We like that a lot as well as the things I mentioned in my previous post.

Thank you for the info you included in your post. I am planning to read it and take my time with it later on this evening. I do agree that perhaps people thinking that some things with the Catholic church are not from the Bible is due to misunderstanding of scripture. I know that I have seen things interpreted here in a way that seems logical but that I have never seen explained that way so it’s new to me.

Amie

 

[sandusky]

Arieh0310:

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”

It makes more sense to you because you do not understand the difference between subjective and objective. My reasoning is objective. God says it is so, not me; I believe what God says.

Arieh0310:

The only place in Scripture that states that Scripture is inspired is in 2 Tim. 3:14-16

It seems to me that you are memorizing arguments that you do not understand. 2 Tim 3:14-16 is not “the only place in Scripture that states that Scripture is inspired.” And, even if it was, that would be enough for me.

1 Peter 1:10-11
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
11 seeking to know what person or time **the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ ** and the glories to follow.

Notice that it was the Spirit of Christ within them predicting the sufferings He would suffer.

2 Peter 1:16-22
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”—
18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Galatians 1:11-12
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me…**I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 **For this reason we…thank God that…you received the word of God… you accepted it…for what it really is, the word of God…. **

The O.T. prophets always prefaced their remarks to Israel with thus says the Lord, or, the Word of the Lord came to me, or something similar. Christ verifies the O.T. from Able to Zechariah (Mt. 23:35; Lk 11:51). God promises to protect His word (Is 40:8; Mt 5:18; 1 Pet 1:25). Peter called Paul’s writings Scripture, etc., etc., etc.

Now, if God is so powerful that He can direct men to write down what He wanted to have written down, do you think that He is also capable of directing men to assemble the books of the Canon that He desired to have assembled?

Arieh0310:

but there is no Table of Contents (how do we know which books are inspired and which aren’t)

God gave us not only the Scripture, but the Canon as well.

 

[sandusky]

E.E.N.S.:

What then about the Quran? Or the Book of Mormon?

Don’t be conflicted over their claims. They both deny the deity of Christ, so they cannot be true.
E.E.N.S.:

No, it’s paragraph 890 from the Catechism. And yes, the Holy Spirit is safeguarding[sic] the Truth, through the Church.

So, you are upset that people are able to come to a knowledge of the truth outside of the RCC? I understand your upset.

 

[Contarini]

E.E.N.S.:

The Catholic Church has never departed from Scripture as being inspired…where did you come up with this idea? (Or am I misunderstanding you?)

Yes, you are misunderstanding me completely. So completely that I’m not even sure what you are misunderstanding!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

So, the extra-Biblical references to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection cannot be proven or refuted?

There are no extra-Biblical, independent (i.e., not obviously derivative of Christian accounts) references to Jesus’ resurrection that historians generally accept as authentic. I add that clause because the one exception is the pasage in Josephus. However, even so conservative a scholar as F. F. Bruce agrees that this was almost certainly a Christian interpolation (or rather was interpolated by Christians–he thinks that Josephus did say something about Jesus but did not write the passage as it stands).

I think this could actually be said of references to Jesus generally (given that the Josephus passage has a big question mark over it). Such references, with the possible exception of Josephus, cannot be proven to be more than references to what Christians believed. So I’m not sure I’d even say that Jesus’ life and crucifixion can be proven. Proof is an extremely strong word. However, the only people who doubt that Jesus lived, taught, and was crucified are people with a very strong ideological reason to do so–and they are a tiny minority. That of course is a very long way from proving the historical accuracy of the NT as a whole, which is what I thought we were talking about.

arieh0310:

The extra-Biblical proof of the martrydom of 11 of the 12 disiples cannot be proven or refuted?

This has nothing to do with the reliability of the NT, so I’m not sure why you bring it up. However, these stories are early Christian traditions, and while some of them (such as the claim that Peter was martyred in Rome) have a high degree of plausibility, they are hardly proven. Indeed, probably most of the stories to which you refer would be dismissed by the vast majority of historians.

Edwin

 

[VociMike]

sandusky:

It makes the claim itself. How do you know that it is not?

“The Bible” certainly does not claim for itself that all 73 books (66 in the Protestant trimmed-down version) are the word of God. Where do you claim that it does?

Even if it did, anybody could write a book that says “this is the word of God”. Writing so does not make it true.

 

[arieh0310]

Contarini:

There are no extra-Biblical, independent (i.e., not obviously derivative of Christian accounts) references to Jesus’ resurrection that historians generally accept as authentic. I add that clause because the one exception is the pasage in Josephus. However, even so conservative a scholar as F. F. Bruce agrees that this was almost certainly a Christian interpolation (or rather was interpolated by Christians–he thinks that Josephus did say something about Jesus but did not write the passage as it stands).

I think this could actually be said of references to Jesus generally (given that the Josephus passage has a big question mark over it). Such references, with the possible exception of Josephus, cannot be proven to be more than references to what Christians believed. So I’m not sure I’d even say that Jesus’ life and crucifixion can be proven. Proof is an extremely strong word. However, the only people who doubt that Jesus lived, taught, and was crucified are people with a very strong ideological reason to do so–and they are a tiny minority. That of course is a very long way from proving the historical accuracy of the NT as a whole, which is what I thought we were talking about.

This has nothing to do with the reliability of the NT, so I’m not sure why you bring it up. However, these stories are early Christian traditions, and while some of them (such as the claim that Peter was martyred in Rome) have a high degree of plausibility, they are hardly proven. Indeed, probably most of the stories to which you refer would be dismissed by the vast majority of historians.

Edwin

The Christian interpolations in Josephus are limited to three overtly Christian statements. Few, if any, scholars disagree that Josephus confirms that Jesus was a real person, with disciples, was martyred, was called Christ, and his followers claimed he raised from the dead.

I think the martyrdom of Christ’s disciples has a lot to do with the verasity of Scripture (why would someone die for what they, because they were eyewitnesses, knew was a lie). There is evidence that 11 disciples did die a martyr’s death (the manner of death may be tradition). I think these eyewitness martyrs do add evidence that they passed down a faithful recounting of events.

 

[Little_Mary]

The bible came out of the Catholic church. It was compiled by Catholics and ratified by a Pope. On behalf of the Catholic Church, you’re welcome.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Amie! :yup:

Can I help clear up some confusion?

BeluvdLily:

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.

2 levels of response:
Level 1:
7 books of the OT which were always included in bible have been discarded since the reformation (~1600). Even the original King James Version of the bible contained them - now all Protestant bibles omit them entirely.
Level 2:
There are many examples of statements in the bible which seem directly contrary to Protestant doctrine, yet these verses are - from a Catholic perspective - largely ignored by our Protestant brothers and sisters. I could give many examples, but here are two:

Protestant claim: “Works do not contribute to justification, it is
an act of God through faith alone "
James 2:24 :” See how a person is justified by works and not
by faith alone."

Protestant claim:“The bible alone is the source of Christian truth”
1Tim3:15 : “…you should know how to behave in the
household of God, which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and foundation of truth”
2 Thess 2:15 :"Therefore brothers, stand firm and hold fast to
the traditions that you were taught, either by an
oral statement or by a letter of ours

con’d

Phil

 

[Philthy]

BeluvdLily:
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.

Believe it or not, the Church came before the bible - the bible didn’t exist as we know it for almost 400 years after the Resurrection. Still, there is nothing the Church teaches which contradicts Scripture.

BeluvdLily:

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.

I submit that you are missing much of the picture surrounding Mary and the time she lived because you have limited your knowledge to what the Bible records. I did the same for a long time. Check out this link:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

BeluvdLily:

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 highly recommend you read some of the early church fathers and see what they said - whether it squares with Catholic teaching or Protestant teaching. And remember, many of them were put to death for their faith - not lightweights. Check out St Ignatious of Antioch - he hang with St John for about 30 years before he was martyred- you think he might have a pretty good idea what John meant from John 6:Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you"?
Here you go:
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

BeluvdLily:

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

Your post is filled with humility and you have offeded no one. All of your questions are legitimate and deserve an answer.

Blessings,

Phil

PS check out the PM I sent you!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BeluvdLily:

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.

Amie

Hi Amie:
Here’s one to think about. If Christ had literal brothers (and maybe sisters) while He was on Earth, why did He leave His mother to John if he had literal brothers here on Earth? Also, Protestants are Sola Scriptura. There is no mention anywhere of sons of Joseph & Mary other than Jesus in Scripture. Based on the Sola Scriptura belief, it is purely Scriptural.

John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

I don’t think any man in their right mind would leave their mother in someone’s care to a friend if a close relative like a brother were alive, do you?

Anyway, just something to think about.
God bless,

 

[Mystophilus]

But for Grace:

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?

The original Protestants were a reactionary movement, hence the name. They wanted to separate themselves from all of the abuses which they saw within the Church. Because they understood those abuses to result from errant doctrines, they sought to reject all Catholic doctrine and start again.

They did not reject the Bible because it did not come from the Catholic Church, and because they needed a new source of authority: the text rather than the hierarchy. They accepted the same New Testament canon, but not without debate - Martin Luther had doubts about Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. They rejected the Catholic Old Testament canon, opting for the older Hebrew Tanakh.

In other words, it is not that they rejected “everything else” from the Catholics, but that they rejected everything from the Catholics. What persists now is a tradition of strong scepticism towards any doctrine to come out of the Vatican.

 

[O.S.Luke]

But for Grace:

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?

Dear Catholic Brother (and Sisters who might be reading, too):

We don’t reject “everything else.” So this question doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

O+

 

[Atreyu]

sandusky:

Don’t be conflicted over their claims. They both deny the deity of Christ, so they cannot be true…

What you are doing is called begging the question. The only way you can prove that the Bible is the word of God is by assuming that it is the word of God in the first place, then using that word of God to prove your assumption. There is no way for you to be able to recognise which books are inspired and which are not. In other words, there is no way for you to know what the canon of the Bible is. The canon that you use comes from tradition; the tradition of Protestant religions to have a 66 book Bible.

 

[E.E.N.S]

BeluvdLily:

EENS:

In answer to your question, I’m looking into the Catholic church because my husband and I love the Bible and God and want to find a church to attend that we both agree is the true church. My husband is formerly Church of England (now living in the US) and I was raised in the United Church of Christ.

Part of what drew me to the Catholic Church was one day we stopped at the local Catholic church when they were having a sale of religious items and we just wanted to have a look around. Every person was just so nice and so welcoming and spoke to us and it really made a positive impression on us so we thought perhaps we should look into it further. We have attended Mass a couple of times and found it to be a positive experience if a little intimidating in the fact that we didn’t know exactly what to do at each moment and a little awkward due to not being able to receive the Eucharist although we knew that and just stayed in our seats. We are considering RCIA in the fall though.

Part of what we also like is that the Catholic church seems to really have a dedication to family values. We like that a lot as well as the things I mentioned in my previous post.

Thank you for the info you included in your post. I am planning to read it and take my time with it later on this evening. I do agree that perhaps people thinking that some things with the Catholic church are not from the Bible is due to misunderstanding of scripture. I know that I have seen things interpreted here in a way that seems logical but that I have never seen explained that way so it’s new to me.

Amie

Good to hear Amie! I pray for the best for you and your husband, and if you ever have any questions please feel free to ask me and I will do my best to answer! (Though there are far more qualified people here to do so than myself…but I love the Church and will give you an honest answer to the best of my ability and with God’s help!)

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

Don’t be conflicted over their claims. They both deny the deity of Christ, so they cannot be true.

How would you know? If you knew nothing about Christ in the first place, and these three books were in front of you - how would you know? Your reasoning has more holes than a strainer…

sandusky:

So, you are upset that people are able to come to a knowledge of the truth outside of the RCC? I understand your upset.

Not in the least bit upset…I didn’t start out in the Church, I only converted back in 2001. There is some truth to be found outside of the Church for sure, considering it all came from her in the first place…it’s just not the fulness of truth.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Contarini:

Yes, you are misunderstanding me completely. So completely that I’m not even sure what you are misunderstanding!

Edwin

Then what exactly did you mean by this…?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini
*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. *

 

[E.E.N.S]

Mystophilus:

They did not reject the Bible because it did not come from the Catholic Church,

The Bible did come from the Church…in fact, even Luther himself acknowledged this. Where do you propose it came from then?

 

[sandusky]

“The Bible” certainly does not claim for itself that all 73 books (66 in the Protestant trimmed-down version) are the word of God. Where do you claim that it does?

Even if it did, anybody could write a book that says “this is the word of God”. Writing so does not make it true.

All right, then. You do not believe that Bible is the inspired Word of God; got it!

By your reasoning, anyone can claim to be God’s Vicar on earth, and His true church. Saying so does not make it true.

Thank you, you have proven to me the claims that many make about your religion, and that you deny.

 

[sandusky]

Atreyu:

What you are doing is called begging the question. The only way you can prove that the Bible is the word of God is by assuming that it is the word of God in the first place, then using that word of God to prove your assumption. There is no way for you to be able to recognise which books are inspired and which are not. In other words, there is no way for you to know what the canon of the Bible is. The canon that you use comes from tradition; the tradition of Protestant religions to have a 66 book Bible.

An example of begging the question:

We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and
God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order
to believe that God wrote the Bible.)

What you are doing is called arguing against God, and rejecting His statements of truth. You are the one Paul describes in Rom 1:22. I cannot help but say that you have no faith, and I see that you would rather engage in some sanctimonious and silly argument about how those you believe in have given us the Bible, while denying the power of God to not only give us the individual books, and every word contained therein, but the whole of the canon also. How is it that you call yourself a believer, and argue over trivial things?

Is the Bible the inspired Word of God, or not? VociMike says it makes no such claim, what do you say, and how do you know?