Why Consider the Bible to be the Word of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bultaco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bultaco

Guest
I’m curious as to why non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians would even consider the Bible to be the word of God from the outset? Notice I said “consider” and not “believe.”

What causes non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians to even stop and consider the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God? The Bible itself cannot be that reason as nothing (not even the Bible) is self-authenticating and besides it would have taken something for them to even pick-up the Bible to begin with.

Further, what causes non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians to believe they have the authority to reject the deuterocanonical books from the Bible?
 
All Christians believe the Bible is the word of God because other Christians they consider credible say it is. Of course, that is what Catholics call Tradition and Church authority. 🙂
 
Why should the Catholics and the Orthodox consider it to be the Word of God?

Today’s Protestant Christians probably do not reject the Apocrypha for themselves, but rather are never exposed to it or if they are trust whoever took it out in the first place to have done the right thing (Martin Luther). I’m not sure the Orthodox reject the deuterocanonical books.
 
HannahLisa said:
Why should the Catholics and the Orthodox consider it to be the Word of God?

Today’s Protestant Christians probably do not reject the Apocrypha for themselves, but rather are never exposed to it or if they are trust whoever took it out in the first place to have done the right thing (Martin Luther). I’m not sure the Orthodox reject the deuterocanonical books.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox actually have a larger Old Testament than we do. This is nitpicking, though.

I think what the original poster is driving at is, we have this set of books (meaning the canon of the New Testament) which is given to us by the infallible decree of the Bishop of Rome in about 405 AD.

Non-catholic Christians reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and say that he cannot be infallible - yet, they accept this set of books from him, without asking any of their usual questions - “what gives him the right to say,” “how do you really know he is right,” and so on.

Why on this one issue and no other is the Pope unquestioningly believed?

I, too, am puzzled. It would be interesting to know the answer.
 
HannahLisa said:
Why should the Catholics and the Orthodox consider it to be the Word of God?

Today’s Protestant Christians probably do not reject the Apocrypha for themselves, but rather are never exposed to it or if they are trust whoever took it out in the first place to have done the right thing (Martin Luther). I’m not sure the Orthodox reject the deuterocanonical books.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther didn’t remove the Deuterocanon. It was included in ALL Protestant Bibles until the 1820’s.
 
jmcrae said:
I think what the original poster is driving at is, we have this set of books (meaning the canon of the New Testament) which is given to us by the infallible decree of the Bishop of Rome in about 405 AD.

Non-catholic Christians reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and say that he cannot be infallible - yet, they accept this set of books from him, without asking any of their usual questions - “what gives him the right to say,” “how do you really know he is right,” and so on.

Why on this one issue and no other is the Pope unquestioningly believed?

I, too, am puzzled. It would be interesting to know the answer.
Click to expand...
Probably, today’s Christians consider the Bible to be the inspired Word of God because no one who was a Christian has ever said otherwise. A lot probably don’t know the history.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t infallibility of the Pope as it is understood today not defined until the 1800s? Either way, I think the Pope was just defining what had already been accepted by nearly everyone. Because of this, it would not be an issue. I’m not sure if this is the actual answer, but it’s a possibility.
 
HannahLisa said:
Probably, today’s Christians consider the Bible to be the inspired Word of God because no one who was a Christian has ever said otherwise. A lot probably don’t know the history.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t infallibility of the Pope as it is understood today not defined until the 1800s? Either way, I think the Pope was just defining what had already been accepted by nearly everyone. Because of this, it would not be an issue. I’m not sure if this is the actual answer, but it’s a possibility.
Click to expand...
The Church does not define things until there is a conflict over them. There was no reason to discuss the infallibility of the pope until people questioned if he could be relied on when teaching faith and morals.
 
sterryfamily said:
Martin Luther didn’t remove the Deuterocanon. It was included in ALL Protestant Bibles until the 1820’s.
Click to expand...
I know he wanted to remove it. Was it included as the Apocrypha in these Bibles, or incorporated with the rest of the books?
 
HannahLisa said:
Probably, today’s Christians consider the Bible to be the inspired Word of God because no one who was a Christian has ever said otherwise. A lot probably don’t know the history.
Click to expand...
If they don’t know the history, then they are accepting a tradition. (Isn’t that supposed to be against their religion? 🤷 )
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t infallibility of the Pope as it is understood today not defined until the 1800s?
Click to expand...
It was defined at that time, but of course it always existed - there was never a time when the Pope was not infallible under certain circumstances - the promulgation of the canon of the New Testament fits the definition. Keep in mind, the Pope never infallibly defines and proclaims anything that is “new” - he just makes clearly known what has always been true.
 
jmcrae said:
The Orthodox actually have a larger Old Testament than we do. This is nitpicking, though.

I think what the original poster is driving at is, we have this set of books (meaning the canon of the New Testament) which is given to us by the infallible decree of the Bishop of Rome in about 405 AD.

Non-catholic Christians reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and say that he cannot be infallible - yet, they accept this set of books from him, without asking any of their usual questions - “what gives him the right to say,” “how do you really know he is right,” and so on.

Why on this one issue and no other is the Pope unquestioningly believed?

I, too, am puzzled. It would be interesting to know the answer.
Click to expand...
Actually the canons of the OT and NT. But yes this honestly puzzles me.
 
Bultaco said:
Actually the canons of the OT and NT. But yes this honestly puzzles me.
Click to expand...
I have heard someone call it a “fallible list of infallible works.” If that is true, is it not possible that some other scripture got left out? How do we know that all of them should be in there?
 
ralphinal said:
I have heard someone call it a “fallible list of infallible works.”
Click to expand...
That has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in my whole life, bar none. :rolleyes:

Sorry - emotional reaction; no insult intended against yourself. :o
 
Bultaco said:
I’m curious as to why non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians would even consider the Bible to be the word of God from the outset? Notice I said “consider” and not “believe.”

What causes non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians to even stop and consider the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God? The Bible itself cannot be that reason as nothing (not even the Bible) is self-authenticating and besides it would have taken something for them to even pick-up the Bible to begin with.

Further, what causes non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians to believe they have the authority to reject the deuterocanonical books from the Bible?
Click to expand...
I have answered this before but you have a grand total of 1 post and so I will answer it again. Understand, this is only why I accept it. I have heard lots of reasons why others do.
My story goes something like this:
Never read the Bible growing up except to pick some parts out to argue with Christians. I had a good friend from grad school I ran into later in life, he had all the same hang up as me, abusing our bodies with immoral substances, atheist worldview, and a generally miserable life. And I was miserable. So I ran into my friend, he had converted to Christianity, he led me to Christ and I became a Christian. It did not change my life, it transformed it. So I read the Bible through and then headed to the bookstore to read what people said about it.
Unfortunately the people I read were all liberals so I developed a skepticism about everything in the Bible despite being a Christian.
Well then I really looked at all of the presuppositions of the liberals right down to the dating of the books and decided that liberalism was empty and the conservative stance rang true. Fulfilled prophecy, the biblical promises of perservation which is rather complex, the miracles of Christ, the unity of the Bible as it relates to the convenants and dispensations, and so forth.
I decided God must have had a way to speak to the world and my study of history, the Bible, and lots of prayer has actually not just made me a stronger Christian, but a Christian who has a very firm belief in the inerrancy, preservation of scripture.
Why did I pick up the Bible as you say? Because I wallowing and miserable in sin and Christ transformed my life.
Thanks for asking.
 
jmcrae said:
That has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in my whole life, bar none. :rolleyes:

Sorry - emotional reaction; no insult intended against yourself. :o
Click to expand...
I completely disagree, while I do not completely agree, I think it makes a lot of sense. Interesting…
 
Bultaco said:
I’m curious as to why non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians would even consider the Bible to be the word of God from the outset? Notice I said “consider” and not “believe.”

What causes non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians to even stop and consider the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God? The Bible itself cannot be that reason as nothing (not even the Bible) is self-authenticating and besides it would have taken something for them to even pick-up the Bible to begin with.
Click to expand...
Why does that perplex you so?

Even though I can not logically prove the Bible as the Word of God, I believe I have credible reasons to believe that is the case.

I’m not going to touch the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha issue because I have no qualification to speak to that with any authority.
 
jm,
If that was the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard, you must not watch reality tv.

Rightly,

How would you say it? What do you agree with or disagree with?
 
ralphinal said:
jm,
If that was the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard, you must not watch reality tv.

Rightly,

How would you say it? What do you agree with or disagree with?
Click to expand...
Sure and maybe it is not so different. I have fallibly determined I believe in an infallible list…
You see…I think everyone is fallible and fallible people read history, scripture, and pray to determine what they believe. A person may fallibly decide to put faith in an infallible source, the Bible or the Bible and ex cathedra (sp?) decision of the Pope but people, all of us, are fallible.
 
mozart-250 said:
Why does that perplex you so?

Even though I can not logically prove the Bible as the Word of God, I believe I have credible reasons to believe that is the case.

I’m not going to touch the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha issue because I have no qualification to speak to that with any authority.
Click to expand...
I think that a good number of Catholics have trouble accepting the statement that Catholics are wrong but we were right about the Bible. I know that this is not mainline Protestant thought, who as a group feel that we are wrong about some things and right about others, but more like the Jack Chicks of the world. They cannot have it both ways. If the Church is of the devil, then why accept the scriptures.

I am putting words into the OP’s mouth, but that is how I read it.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Sure and maybe it is not so different. I have fallibly determined I believe in an infallible list…
You see…I think everyone is fallible and fallible people read history, scripture, and pray to determine what they believe. A person may fallibly decide to put faith in an infallible source, the Bible or the Bible and ex cathedra (sp?) decision of the Pope but people, all of us, are fallible.
Click to expand...
So it is possible that some Devine books were left out or some non-inspired books put in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top