Protestants and the Bible?

[benhur]

Hi benhur
I know this is off topic, could you explain what you mean by “born again”?

wait a minute. Are you Nicodemus reincarnated ?

 

[rcwitness]

Yes. I believe the Blessed Mother is with her Son, though how this happened is not explained. So, either explanation is reasonable.

Yes, I believe in the PV.

Now, answer my question, please.

Well guess I won’t answer yours since you didn’t answer mine.

It appears to me that Jon answered yes to believing in the Assumption of Mary and her Perpetual Virginity.

… and like Catholics are free to not take a position whether she died first or was taken living (yet at the end of her life on earth), so Jon also seems to not take a position.

 

[MaryT777]

It appears to me that Jon answered yes to believing in the Assumption of Mary and her Perpetual Virginity.

… and like Catholics are free to not take a position whether she died first or was taken living (yet at the end of her life on earth), so Jon also seems to not take a position.

That was my understanding as well.

Mary.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It appears to me that Jon answered yes to believing in the Assumption of Mary and her Perpetual Virginity.

… and like Catholics are free to not take a position whether she died first or was taken living (yet at the end of her life on earth), so Jon also seems to not take a position.

He said yes to her being in heaven and basically responded with a “I don’t know how.” So no he didn’t answer my question.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Read my next post.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[steido01]

Ah yes. Those two guys actually stayed and submitted to the authority of the Church. Luther did not. The fact remains. However, you can talk about the apparent “double standard” Catholics hold Luther and the other reformers to and answer the question I just posed to him.

You might have missed this, but Luther was dead long before Trent proclaimed the canon closed.

Care to try again?

 

[steido01]

It appears to me that Jon answered yes to believing in the Assumption of Mary and her Perpetual Virginity.

… and like Catholics are free to not take a position whether she died first or was taken living (yet at the end of her life on earth), so Jon also seems to not take a position.

Yep.

 

[Michael68]

wait a minute. Are you Nicodemus reincarnated ?

No sir. I just want to know your view of “born again” since you are not Catholic, yet told a poster they must be “born again”, Again, I ask, what does this mean to you? If you don’t want answer I understand. The reason I ask is because it is assumed by many protestants that Catholics are not “born again”.

 

[Duane1966]

It doesn’t matter to you how these books were viewed before Trent because you live after Trent. But what of those who lived before your communion determined that the exact table of contents is a matter of doctrine?

You try to sidestep the main question. Did Catholics, no matter their personal opinion on the Canon, know before Trent, what books the Church held to be scriptural? They may not have known all the books, as the Canon had not been closed yet, but did they know from Florence that the 73 books the Catholic Church holds today as canonical were considered inspired scripture from the Church? Unequivocally yes!!

You can’t pull that card with this topic. Plenty of learned, ordained Catholics – even Cardinals and some theologians commissioned personally by Popes to research this and other topics – agreed with Luther on the canon.

Had the Magesterium already spoken on this topic at Florence, at a council that was binding on the whole Catholic Church?

You’re comparing apples to doorknobs. Abortion has always, clearly been an abomination. The Church never had to rationalize a change of beliefs (or, in this case, a narrowing of acceptable Christian freedom) via a “development of doctrine” by a vote of fallible bishops in northern Italy.

Nice try, with your little digs. There was no development of doctrine when the Church was just upholding a canon that had already been set. All Trent did was close the canon. Trent exercised the authority that Jesus gave the Church. You Lutherans have done the same thing. I don’t see any of you in a hurry to include the writings of the Gnostics. So in a sense, you have narrowed Christian freedom. Acceptable Christian freedom is just code words for what you find acceptable. I have heard acceptable Christian freedom used by pro-choice ministers.

Since the Church is filled with fallible bishops, and the Apostles were fallible people, why should anyone believe that what they wrote was inspired? And why should anyone believe the bible is inerrant? At some point, you have to believe the Church got it right. But if you believe the Church got it right at the beginning, and was protected by the Holy Spirit, why believe She got it wrong later? Why would the Holy Spirit protect Her in infancy, but not later?

Local councils hardly speak for the entirety of Christendom. Yet even Florence, which went so far as to list the books they agreed should be counted as Scripture, did not speak against a hermeneutic that gave deference to the Gospels. In fact, it could be read in favor of the ‘hierarchy’ that Lutheranism adheres to. Read carefully from the Council:

Ok, so far so good. Everyone agrees that Scripture is Scripture and that includes: the law and the prophets because Jesus quoted them as Scripture, and the Gospels because they are about Jesus. Note how the Council did not specifically name the epistles in this “big picture” paragraph, when it easily could have…
Also note that Florence did not anathematize those who held to a different canon - an odd thing, considering what it did with the other points of doctrine it defined.

Florence was** not** a local council. It is, and was from its conception, viewed as an ecumenical council. Its fits the criteria that the Church has held for a council to be considered ecumenical. Even though the Orthodox later rejected the council, it was, and is, still binding on all the Western Church.

The paragraph before is not the “big picture” paragraph. The “big picture” paragraph is where the council lists the canon. Nice try to deflect with your “big picture” subjectivity.

The paragraph you quote says something interesting, though you highlight something else.

It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Notice, Florence says all of those books listed were under the inspiration of the Spirit. For dogma, any inspired book can be used.

As for Cajetan, he merely is agreeing with Jerome. But they do not decide doctrine.

As far as we are concerned in the modern Church ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). We do not make any distinction between levels of authority in the Bible and we can potentially glean ‘matters of faith’ from any biblical book.-Art Sippo

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You might have missed this, but Luther was dead long before Trent proclaimed the canon closed.

Care to try again?

The canon was already a done deal. We were just sealing uo disputes.

Care to try again?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You try to sidestep the main question. Did Catholics, no matter their personal opinion on the Canon, know before Trent, what books the Church held to be scriptural? They may not have known all the books, as the Canon had not been closed yet, but did they know from Florence that the 73 books the Catholic Church holds today as canonical were considered inspired scripture from the Church? Unequivocally yes!!

Had the Magesterium already spoken on this topic at Florence, at a council that was binding on the whole Catholic Church?

Nice try, with your little digs. There was no development of doctrine when the Church was just upholding a canon that had already been set. All Trent did was close the canon. Trent exercised the authority that Jesus gave the Church. You Lutherans have done the same thing. I don’t see any of you in a hurry to include the writings of the Gnostics. So in a sense, you have narrowed Christian freedom. Acceptable Christian freedom is just code words for what you find acceptable. I have heard acceptable Christian freedom used by pro-choice ministers.

Since the Church is filled with fallible bishops, and the Apostles were fallible people, why should anyone believe that what they wrote was inspired? And why should anyone believe the bible is inerrant? At some point, you have to believe the Church got it right. But if you believe the Church got it right at the beginning, and was protected by the Holy Spirit, why believe She got it wrong later? Why would the Holy Spirit protect Her in infancy, but not later?

Florence was** not** a local council. It is, and was from its conception, viewed as an ecumenical council. Its fits the criteria that the Church has held for a council to be considered ecumenical. Even though the Orthodox later rejected the council, it was, and is, still binding on all the Western Church.

The paragraph before is not the “big picture” paragraph. The “big picture” paragraph is where the council lists the canon. Nice try to deflect with your “big picture” subjectivity.

The paragraph you quote says something interesting, though you highlight something else. Notice, Florence says all of those books listed were under the inspiration of the Spirit. For dogma, any inspired book can be used.

As for Cajetan, he merely is agreeing with Jerome. But they do not decide doctrine.

Apparently our friend doesn’t get it.

 

[Tomdstone]

Notice, Florence says all of those books listed were under the inspiration of the Spirit. For dogma, any inspired book can be used.

What exactly does it mean to be under the inspiration of the Spirit ? Is Genesis under the inspiration of the Spirit? Also, there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible. Why did Spirit allow so many contradictions?
For example:
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

What exactly does it mean to be under the inspiration of the Spirit ? Is Genesis under the inspiration of the Spirit? Also, there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible. Why did Spirit allow so many contradictions?
For example:
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

That is a topic for a different thread.

 

[Tomdstone]

That is a topic for a different thread.

It was brought up by someone else on this thread, that the Bible is under the inspiration of the Spirit but I did not see any explanation of what she meant.

 

[MaryT777]

It was brought up by someone else on this thread, that the Bible is under the inspiration of the Spirit but I did not see any explanation of what she meant.

From the CCC of the Catholic Church ( free online)

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Hope this help to understand the Catholic thoughts on inspiration.

Mary.

 

[Tomdstone]

From the CCC of the Catholic Church ( free online)

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Hope this help to understand the Catholic thoughts on inspiration.

Mary.

Does paragraph 107 imply that there is no error in the Bible?

 

[MaryT777]

Does paragraph 107 imply that there is no error in the Bible?

This link should help if you want to delve a bit deeper.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true

“we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” The phrase “for the sake of our salvation” is the key reference used to argue that only those things needed for our salvation (i.e., faith and morals) and not history and science, are free from error.

It’s an excellent article.

Mary.

The next step of course would be the Catholic teaching on interpretation. ))

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It was brought up by someone else on this thread, that the Bible is under the inspiration of the Spirit but I did not see any explanation of what she meant.

Make another thread for supposed contradictions.

 

[steve_b]

You might have missed this, but Luther was dead long before Trent proclaimed the canon closed.

Care to try again?

There was no change in the canon from 382 (Decree of Pope Damasus I). All councils after that, local and ecumenical, validated that canon. #9 , #11 , #14

Luther knew that

 

[rcwitness]

There was no change in the canon from 382 (Decree of Pope Damasus I). All councils after that, local and ecumenical, validated that canon. #9 , #11 , #14

Luther knew that

Besides, Luther was not being admonished/excommunicated for his canon opinion, right?