Confused??!!

[GTNJNightingale]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did he have???

 

[vz71]

If the bible were not legitimate to begin with, then one need no special authority to cut into it.

 

[Jeffe]

If the bible were not legitimate to begin with, then one need no special authority to cut into it.

Generally, I think he just answered your question GTNJNightingale.

I was raised protestant (Presbyterian) and unless you did research of your own you wouldn’t even know the Martin Luther story, Sola Scriptura, Peter’s authority, etc…

Catholics are given a plethora of doctrine and historical information to help clarify the churches teachings, because it’s all one church! There are so many different Protestant denominations each teaching something different from the others…

It’s interesting, Presbyterians say the Lord’s Prayers which acknowledges one catholic church (Meaning universal of course, not the Catholic church)…Too bad the further we go from the Reformation and Martin Luther the more divided the Protestant movement becomes.

 

[GTNJNightingale]

If the bible were not legitimate to begin with, then one need no special authority to cut into it.

but it inst a Question of “IF” the Bible is legitimate or not. because we know it is …so how can one think it is OK to take away from it?

 

[AnthonyPadua001]

It’s a great questionand one worth asking Protestants if you ever get into a discussion on Scripture. Basically Luther looked at the deuterocanonical books and saw that they proclaimed certain doctrine and practices he didn’t agree with (such as purgatory and praying to the dead). Therefore, he decided they must not belong in the Bible because he thought such teachings are irreconcilable with “authentic Scripture.”

But as one article puts it, “This objection [that is, Luther’s claim mentioned above], of course, begs the question. If the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture, then those doctrines and practices are not opposed to Scripture but part of Scripture.”

Basically, Luther removed what he did not agree with and even went so far as to add to Scripture. Which calls to mind the words of St. John in Revelation 22:18-19.

What authority did Luther have to do such a thing? Absolutely none. You are correct in being confused, I would be more concerned if Luther’s reasoning made sense to you!

 

[Jeffe]

It’s a great questionand one worth asking Protestants if you ever get into a discussion on Scripture. Basically Luther looked at the deuterocanonical books and saw that they proclaimed certain doctrine and practices he didn’t agree with (such as purgatory and praying to the dead). Therefore, he decided they must not belong in the Bible because he thought such teachings are irreconcilable with “authentic Scripture.”

But as one article puts it, “This objection [that is, Luther’s claim mentioned above], of course, begs the question. If the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture, then those doctrines and practices are not opposed to Scripture but part of Scripture.”

Basically, Luther removed what he did not agree with and even went so far as to add to Scripture. Which calls to mind the words of St. John in Revelation 22:18-19.

What authority did Luther have to do such a thing? Absolutely none. You are correct in being confused, I would be more concerned if Luther’s reasoning made sense to you!

Agreed!

 

[GTNJNightingale]

Agreed!

mee to!

 

[vz71]

but it inst a Question of “IF” the Bible is legitimate or not. because we know it is …so how can one think it is OK to take away from it?

As Catholics, we know this.

Protestants however have no assurance of the legitimacy of the books.

The very fact of Protestant eliminates the authority behind the book.