Denial about Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Malachi4U
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Malachi4U

Guest
Why are so many protestants in denial about the Catholic Church writting Scripture (from divine inspiration), declaring it inspired, deciding on the canon and then preserving it for us today?

It seems like they can’t admit this when the evidence is overwhelming and easy to find. Would it cause their sects to fall abart if the admitted the truth? What harm is it to admit the truth? If they admit that the Bible was just a tool of the Catholics would this destroy their sects? Destroy their faith?
 
I don’t know. I wish that they would take a look at the 34,000 different denomations each with their own take on the bible and realize that the bible is not a matter for individual interpretation.

May God bless you for your faith.
Deacon Tony SFO
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
Why are so many protestants in denial about the Catholic Church writting Scripture (from divine inspiration), declaring it inspired, deciding on the canon and then preserving it for us today?

It seems like they can’t admit this when the evidence is overwhelming and easy to find. Would it cause their sects to fall abart if the admitted the truth? What harm is it to admit the truth? If they admit that the Bible was just a tool of the Catholics would this destroy their sects? Destroy their faith?
Click to expand...
They need not admit or deny it. The fact that they are splintering further is testimony enough, and speaks more eloquently than words.

Gerry 🙂
 
You mean God didn’t drop a compiled Bible from the sky directly into the hands of Reformers in the 16th century? 😃

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
You mean God didn’t drop a compiled Bible from the sky directly into the hands of Reformers in the 16th century? 😃

Scott
Click to expand...
And they would likewise have to agree among themselves and tell us to which Reformer did the Lord decide to drop a compiled Bible.

Gerry 🙂
 
Always found it interesting myself that people can claim that the Bible is all we need and that it is perfect and inerrant, and yet they don’t know where/when it came from. Heard a guy on Catholic radio say one day that in order to accept the Bible, you HAVE to accept the Catholic church in some way because the Catholic church decided what books would be in the Bible. Without the Catholic church, there would be NO Bible.
 
Actually the protestant Bible is inerrant so they claim. Now are they talking about the New World Translation (JW’s), or the Joseph Smith Translation (Mormons), or the AKJV or the KJV or the NKJV or the NIV or the…?:whacky:

I guess your right, it just depends on which "de"former God gave the Golden Plates!:whistle:
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
Why are so many protestants in denial about the Catholic Church writting Scripture (from divine inspiration), declaring it inspired, deciding on the canon and then preserving it for us today?

It seems like they can’t admit this when the evidence is overwhelming and easy to find. Would it cause their sects to fall abart if the admitted the truth? What harm is it to admit the truth? If they admit that the Bible was just a tool of the Catholics would this destroy their sects? Destroy their faith?
Click to expand...

Simple - there are other ways of interpreting the facts Catholics refer to, than putting a Catholic interpretation upon those facts. One does not have to be ignorant or dishonest to do so.​

The history of the canonisation of the NT is an excellent example of this.

In fact, it looks as those who are best-informed in such matters, are those who do not, usually, change religion. They are able to see that the facts are too complex for it to be obvious, that any one group is the sole original Church which canonised the NT, in such a way that no other Church now existing is not that Church.

Maybe that’s why the staff of the CUA are not apologists - they know too much 🙂

And why are there are Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox, and other editors of the Fathers, no less than Catholics. ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## Simple - there are other ways of interpreting the facts Catholics refer to, than putting a Catholic interpretation upon those facts. One does not have to be ignorant or dishonest to do so.

The history of the canonisation of the NT is an excellent example of this.

In fact, it looks as those who are best-informed in such matters, are those who do not, usually, change religion. They are able to see that the facts are too complex for it to be obvious, that any one group is the sole original Church which canonised the NT, in such a way that no other Church now existing is not that Church.

Maybe that’s why the staff of the CUA are not apologists - they know too much 🙂

And why are there are Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox, and other editors of the Fathers, no less than Catholics. ##
Click to expand...

I am not sure I got what you were trying to say in your post. I read it to say that history is not that clear and the Church who held the councils that defined scripture no longer exsists today. I hope I read this wrong. History is obvious and clear. The Catholic Church, the same Church talked about in the New Testament, is the Catholic Church that canonized the New Testament. All one has to do is read the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. By the way, Trent happened to agree with them.

If I misread your comments, please forgive me.
 
Thoughtful and knowledgeable Protestants, like R. C. Sproul, and even crankier types, such as Hank Hannegraf, grudgingly concede that since there was only one Church, that THE Church wrote and compiled the New Testament. Some will admit that the Church of the New Testament is historically in line with today’s Catholic Church, and some will not. But they all argue that once those books were agreed upon, the authority of the Church was no longer needed because the Scriptures became the self-interpreting rule of faith.

Shibboleth, where are you? Please clarify or correct me if I am wrong.
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
Why are so many protestants in denial about the Catholic Church writting Scripture (from divine inspiration), declaring it inspired, deciding on the canon and then preserving it for us today?

It seems like they can’t admit this when the evidence is overwhelming and easy to find. Would it cause their sects to fall abart if the admitted the truth? What harm is it to admit the truth? If they admit that the Bible was just a tool of the Catholics would this destroy their sects? Destroy their faith?
Click to expand...
To be honest and blunt your question is a bit simplistic. For example Lutherans and Anglicans would not deny this. But they say that they have remained faithful to the scriptures while Catholics have not. One example that Catholics should look at is right here at CA forums. You can find any number of threads where Catholics are arguing against a real Adam and Eve or whether the flood account is true or if Genesis is simply allegorical. When someone who already has confidence in scriptures and has spent a lifetime of following it and loving and trusting it and then they come across Catholics who cannot seem to agree on which scriptures to take literally, who wrote them etc. They see liberalism and it translates into a perceived lack of trust in God.

I can tell you personally that I get very discouraged by the conflict among catholics about the Bible, the comparatively terrible translations by modern catholics and the seeming dismissal of scripture by some. If you cannot agree on what the magesterium teaches in even a semi-uniform way why should a protestant who may be in a wonderful church, have a wonderful christian family who loves God and is already strengthened by scriptures want to leave for a church God may have used at certain times and places to transmit the scriptures, but has been otherwise negligent in this regard in recent generations? It has been the conservative Protestants who have been getting together to make sure people have accurate Bibles in their language in recent decades more than any one. Now I am only speaking from a standpoint of what I think the perception of other is.

You can say “why can’t they see this?” all you want. But until they see the current Catholic church living up to the ideals they are already committed to why should the care what the modern catholic church has to say when they are already living for God in a church that gives them genuine community, fellowship and christian love and seems to be committed to the teachings of scripture and to passing it on to the next generation?

Also Mercygate is essentially right. I think RC Sproul would say God used the fallible church to compile the infallible (or innerant) Scriptures. Just like he used fallible men, the Apostles to spead the infallible faith. In other words God uses means but that does not mean we should conclude the these means are infallible, only the God who uses them is.

Mel
 
Scott Waddell:
You mean God didn’t drop a compiled Bible from the sky directly into the hands of Reformers in the 16th century? 😃
Scott
Click to expand...
Actually, Jesus handed out copies of the KJV just prior to his ascension. Sheesh, don’t you guys read?
 
40.png
Apologia100:
Actually, Jesus handed out copies of the KJV just prior to his ascension. Sheesh, don’t you guys read?
Click to expand...
:bigyikes: I must have picked the wrong religion! Here I always thought the Catholic Church compiled the Bible.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
Actually, Jesus handed out copies of the KJV just prior to his ascension. Sheesh, don’t you guys read?
Click to expand...
And all the Jesus movies just help perpetuate the KJV-only nonsense by only allowing British actors to play ancient Jews.

“You see that Martha! They did speak in Kang Jayems American back thin”. 😉

Mel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top