I don't even understand Sola Scriptura

[kbwall]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hello Kball,

I am a convert to Catholicism. I was raised as a Protestant.

The argument of ‘sola scriptura’ is non-Biblical. Most Protestants will use every verse they can find that states ‘word’ of God to support scriptural authority, even if it appears to be speaking of the spoken ‘word’. Scripture does tell us that scriptures are God breathed/inspired and ‘profitable’ to teach. Profitable is short of all that is needed. Scriptures also tell us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. Christ established a Church. He never wrote anything, or ordered anything scribed. He commanded the Apostles to go out and ‘preach’ the Gospel.

As for the removal of books, that’s not exactly true in the sense they didn’t remove books. The Protestant reformers chose the Hebrew Palestinian canon. Their Old Testament canon is the same as the Jews. Catholics use the Greek Septuagint translation of the Alexandrian canon.

The Canon of the Bible

 

[FightingFat]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

Couldn’t agree more! It seems to me the biggest problem is that they reinvent themselves with not realistic tenure on history!

 

[JonNC]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

Your OP doesn’t seem to match the title of the thread. Perhaps you might want to get an answer to the thread title first.

That said, I have a couple of questions;

“…it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place.”

What do you mean when you say this?

If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible?

Would you agree that the compilation of the Bible took place in the undivided Church?

Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

Since the Bible was compiled by the undivided Church, is it safe to say that the current Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, have removed books from the canon, since Orthodoxy has variously more books?

Jon

 

[Scoobyshme]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

You might enjoy the short video series on “Origin of the Bible” here:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

It explains where the Bible came from, etc., including the books they threw out.

 

[wmscott]

Your OP doesn’t seem to match the title of the thread. Perhaps you might want to get an answer to the thread title first.

That said, I have a couple of questions;

What do you mean when you say this?

Would you agree that the compilation of the Bible took place in the undivided Church?

Since the Bible was compiled by the undivided Church, is it safe to say that the current Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, have removed books from the canon, since Orthodoxy has variously more books?

Jon

Or that Orthodoxy added to the Canon

 

[JonNC]

Or that Orthodoxy added to the Canon

Yes, exactly, Wm. The question of the canon is not so cut-n-dried as, “Catholics (or Orthodox) added books to the Bible”, or “Protestants removed books from the Bible”. The questions and disputes from Eusebius and Jerome onward regarding the canon should lead us to conversation much deeper than the 2 polemics in quotes.

Jon

 

[jwright82]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

Well it means that all of our teaching must be based on and in conformity to the Scriptures. We cannot teach something that is contrary to Scripture. Now Luther knew that this principle could be abused and the many Evangelical and Fundementalists out there who abuse this only prove him right. In the Reformed faith as well as the Lutheran faith we have a tradition and a historical understanding of things. For us we have our confessions of faith that are based on Scripture and are binding doctrinaly to us.

I would say that Catholicism would be in agreement here. The difference is in the part that tradition plays. In reality it seems that in practice there is not much difference between how we view tradition but it may be in theory that there is a difference. Catholics have areas of theology that are unresolved and open to different opinions, just like we do. So I think that in this area there is more agreement than either side thinks. The odd ones out are the Evangelicals and Fundementalist. In fact I have been called a Catholic many times by them just for invoking the notion of a theologicaly historical understanding of things. If some Christian out there comes up with a completly different understanding of things than has historically been thought, they are probably wrong. That is why the Reformers relied so much on history. St. Augustine was someone they appealed to a lot.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Would you agree that the compilation of the Bible took place in the undivided Church?

Since the Bible was compiled by the undivided Church, is it safe to say that the current Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, have removed books from the canon, since Orthodoxy has variously more books?

Jon

Hello Jon,

Long time!

The Bible was compiled in an undivided Church and the canon of the New Testament was defined by an undivided Church.

I can’t see the point of bringing up the differences in the Catholic and Orthodox canons, since you evidently accept the canon chosen by the Protestant reformers? As you can see in my other post, I tried to correct the idea that the Protestant reformers ‘removed’ books from the Bible. Your questions seem to be an intention to confuse the issue further??

 

[Wesley7]

Historically, I believe the canon of the Bible came from the ancient Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Historically, I believe the canon of the Bible came from the ancient Church.

Historically, I believe the ancient Church and Catholic Church are one and the same.

 

[JonNC]

Hello Jon,
Long time!

It is good to cross paths with you again. Blessings.

The Bible was compiled in an undivided Church and the canon of the New Testament was defined by an undivided Church.

Yes. And we are all agreed on the NT canon. We also agree that even there, there are books disputed throughout Church history.

I can’t see the point of bringing up the differences in the Catholic and Orthodox canons, since you evidently accept the canon chosen by the Protestant reformers? As you can see in my other post, I tried to correct the idea that the Protestant reformers ‘removed’ books from the Bible.

Yes, and I appreciate that. In my response to Wmscott, I have pointed out that saying Catholics “added” books is also innaccurate.

Your questions seem to be an intention to confuse the issue further?

Certainly not my intent. Sorry if that was the effect. Perhaps I stated my intent better in the latter post.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t know about which “belief’s” you are referencing that don’t come directly from the bible? But “all” Catholic doctrinal belief’s derive from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition these never contradict each other.

The apostolic Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth stemming from the true presence of Jesus Christ built upon sacred scripture and apostolic Tradition, which comes from Jesus and his Apostles through both written letters and oral teachings handed down to the Catholic Church these past 2000 years.

The Catholic church canonized the bible books for her liturgy, she did not canonize the bible as a prescription to build a Christian Church from. You need the apostolic living Tradition and sacred scripture together which makes up the apostolic Catholic Church, what makes her the pillar and foundation of Truth is because the True presence of Jesus Christ body, blood soul and divinity are Truly present.

kbwall;7445103]Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible.

The reformers technically did not remove them (as they argue) the reformers re-labled 7 of the canonized books as “not inspired of God” (apocrypha). I don’t know which is the greater sin removing God’s word? or making the claim that God’s Word is not inspired from their apocrypha books? It is argued that some great Catholic saints also protested these 7 books, yet these great Catholic saints never could relable them officially as apocrypha or could never remove them from the canon list as did the reformers.

The new testament books are the memoirs of the apostles being lived out in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Catholic Church. All Catholic doctrine belief’s stem from these (sacred scripture, sacred Tradition), because the Word of God is living in Him through Him and with Him in the unity of the Holy Spirit made visible these past 2000 years in the Catholic Church. History from biblical times to the present confirms the Catholic doctrinal belief’s are biblical practiced in the Apostolic Sacred Traditions.

There is a double edge sword at play here from the reformers when it introduces it’s new reformed theologies.

1. Rejection of the 2000 year old biblical Apostolic Church authority.
2. Interpretation of the scriptures from the reformers which does not reach back to the biblical apostolic faith, because it’s biblical interpretations are new and never taught from the apostles or the scriptures. The protestant interpretations of scripture have removed themselves from the Apostolic “didache” document and Church council decisions which are supported by the scriptures and the Apostles oral Traditional teachings.

The poison of abused “Freedom” gave the reformers their authority to relable 7 books from the caononized bible as “apocrypha” (not inspired of God). Man did this 1200± years later after the Catholic Church canonized the bible.

But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;7445611]

The reformers technically did not remove them (as they argue) the reformers re-labled 7 of the canonized books as “not inspired of God” (apocrypha). I don’t know which is the greater sin removing God’s word? or making the claim that God’s Word is not inspired from their apocrypha books? It is argued that some great Catholic saints also protested these 7 books, yet these great Catholic saints never could relable them officially as apocrypha or could never remove them from the canon list as did the reformers.

Hello my good friend Gabriel,
What is your take on this quote by Cardinal Cajetan, where he places the D-C’s in with the apocrypha?

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.

Jon

 

[kbwall]

What do you mean when you say this?

Wasn’t the Bible compiled and published by the Catholic church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Would you agree that the compilation of the Bible took place in the undivided Church?

Yes.

The reformers technically did not remove them (as they argue) the reformers re-labled 7 of the canonized books as “not inspired of God” (apocrypha).

Yes, but what gives them the authority to state that those books are not inspired? The Catholic church has the lineage of the Pope and the bishops dating back all the way to the apostles and are guided by the Holy Spirit. But what gives the reformers, who don’t claim such lineage the authority to state which books are canon, and which are not?

 

[JonNC]

=kbwall;7445707]Wasn’t the Bible compiled and published by the Catholic church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Yes. The undivided Church Catholic.

Yes, but what gives them the authority to state that those books are not inspired? The Catholic church has the lineage of the Pope and the bishops dating back all the way to the apostles and are guided by the Holy Spirit. But what gives the reformers, who don’t claim such lineage the authority to state which books are canon, and which are not?

Until Trent, every Catholic had, and theologians often practiced, the right to question the canonicity of some books of scripture. In fact, the questioning of the deuterocanon lasted into the Council of Trent.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Your OP doesn’t seem to match the title of the thread. Perhaps you might want to get an answer to the thread title first.

That said, I have a couple of questions;

What do you mean when you say this?

Would you agree that the compilation of the Bible took place in the undivided Church?

Since the Bible was compiled by the undivided Church, is it safe to say that the current Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, have removed books from the canon, since Orthodoxy has variously more books?

Jon

Blessings Jon. Jon,don’t you think it is also fair to say Orthodoxy may have ADDED more books?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:Jon
The reformers technically did not remove them (as they argue) the reformers re-labled 7 of the canonized books as “not inspired of God” (apocrypha).

Yes, but what gives them the authority to state that those books are not inspired? The Catholic church has the lineage of the Pope and the bishops dating back all the way to the apostles and are guided by the Holy Spirit. But what gives the reformers, who don’t claim such lineage the authority to state which books are canon, and which are not?

And that is whole issue:AUTHORITY. Authority is always a stumbling block for many,hence rebellion may kick-in and wanting a change. Ask Satan about disobeying authority? The reformers,if I am correct,where merely making references to past disputes and questioning of certain books. Early Protestant Bibles did contain the complete Catholic OT,but if my mind serves me right,Protestants during the 18 & 19 centuries grew increasingly anti-Catholic and flat out rejected the ‘disputed’ books.

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon. Jon,don’t you think it is also fair to say Orthodoxy ADDED more books?

And blessings to you, my friend.
No. I don’t believe it is necessarily accurate to say “Catholics (or Orthodox) added books”, or “Protestants removed books”. All of these books are part of the history of the Church Catholic. The vast majority are accepted without dispute. The disputes we have today about the DC’s and others is much older and deeper than Trent, or the Reformation.

Jon

 

[Augsburg1530]

Yes, but what gives them the authority to state that those books are not inspired? The Catholic church has the lineage of the Pope and the bishops dating back all the way to the apostles and are guided by the Holy Spirit. But what gives the reformers, who don’t claim such lineage the authority to state which books are canon, and which are not?

What happens when it’s a Pope that rejects the canonicity of the DC books?