Why do Non-Catholics believe the Bible is divinely inspired?

[rwillenborg]

I ask the question of Non-Catholics specifically because, from reading other posts, I think I already have a fairly good grasp of the Catholic position.

I actually posted this on some websites specifically for Protestants and, I’m sorry to say, I thought the answers were really, really weak. But I’ve asked questions of non-Catholics here, and I have found their answers to be very well thought out, even if I disagree with them, so I’m looking for more of the same!!
The answers I have gotten so far, from the other websites:

1. The Holy Spirit told me so. (This is not helpful to me, as I see many other God-loving people following different books because that’s what the Holy Spirit told them to do. Also, the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell me jack, or maybe that small, still voice gets shouted out by my obnoxious one. Either way, this is not helpful.)
2. It inspires me, and so it is inspired. (But that’s confusing emotions with objectivity. Additionally, oddly enough, the most inspiring book in the Bible to me is Sirach, which Protestants don’t recognize as being inspired)
3. It lists prophecies that came true. (That may very well be the case, but it also list prophecies that have yet to pass, as in the Book of Revelation, and additionally, I went to a psychic when I was 20 and that lady was DEAD ON. Freaky. And I certainly dont’ think her words were divinely inspired.)
4. It says it’s divinely inspired. (I would argue that it does not say that. Additionally, other books - like the Book of Mormon - claim to be divinely inspired, as did my psychic friend, and those are not either. I can claim to be a fish, but that doesn’t make it so.)
5. It lists events that are historically accurate. (So does my history book, but again, not divine)
6. It was compiled by many different authors over many different times. (I still don’t quite understand how this would translate to God-breathed.)

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. At the other websites, I got these types of answers, or I was told that I just needed more faith. Thanks again for your time!

 

[AmateurPianist]

For me personally it was #1. I also might add another reason #7, “because I was taught that by the church God led me into upon conversion.” Over time I have come to believe #8, "because it seems reasonable that God would leave a divinely inspired written account of Himself.

I did not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired right after I came to Christ. In fact that was an intellectual hang up for me before I came to Christ.

But that is the way that it happened for me. Other accounts may differ.

 

[lna419]

For me personally it was #1. I also might add another reason #7, “because I was taught that by the church God led me into upon conversion.” Over time I have come to believe #8, "because it seems reasonable that God would leave a divinely inspired written account of Himself.

I did not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired right after I came to Christ. In fact that was an intellectual hang up for me before I came to Christ.

But that is the way that it happened for me. Other accounts may differ.

Hello Amateur Pianist

You said for you personally it was #1. The Holy Spirit told me so. It sounds nice but that can’t be the answer. The reason it can never be the answer is because any other person from any other religion or faith can claim the same thing. Ex. Mormons, JW, Methodist, etc… We all know that God does not contradict himself and he’s all knowing. Well if he tells you the bible is inspired and then goes and tells the mormons there LDS book is inspired, we have a problem. Both can’t be right but both claim the Holy Spirit told them so. You have to leave God out.

You speak of #7 the church that God Led. There is a problem with this also. God created One Holy Universal (katolicos in greek, catholic in english) and Apostolic Church. We can’t all be right but over 9000 denominations declare they are the true church. Think about it, he built one but thousands claim to be the one. This one church is the true visible church. What church can claim to be apostolic?

That leaves us with #8 "because it seems reasonable that God would leave a divinely inspired written account of Himself. Of course it’s reasonable, human nature dictates that we leave historical documents behind. The only thing is that it didn’t magically fall from the sky. The bible we have today didn’t always exist. It took a little over 350 years to put the book together. When Paul writes to timothy and says to him all scripture is inspires, he was speaking of the old Testament. Half of pauls epistles weren’t even written along with revelation and others. My question to you is if all these books were not written yet how could they be considered inspired, they didn’t exist.

 

[manualman]

I don’t think your list quite does justice to the evangelicals that I’ve met (many). Frankly, the ones I knew in college were FAR more interested in reading and understanding the Bible than the average mass attending catholics I’ve known in life. Give them their due.

In my experience their reasoning goes something like this:

1. Jesus claimed to be Divine and proved it rather dramatically.
2. Jesus was an observant Jew, so the Jewish scriptures are Scripture by default.
3. Jesus appointed 12 apostles to the Great Commission and the writings of those apostles carry the authority Jesus granted to those persons.

So far, they aren’t much different than us (except that they use modern Judaism’s list of Scripture, not the ones accepted at the time of Christ for not very good reasons, IMO.

Where they majorly part ways with us is that they believe the special authority granted to the apostles was PERSONAL rather than an authority that was perpetuated in the office. Scripture argues pretty clearly against this idea (note how important the apostles thought it was to replace Judas with a NEW holder of his office when he killed himself) and there is no positive support FOR it in Scripture. But at least you must admit that the above is rather more respectable than any on your list of choices!

 

[lna419]

I don’t think your list quite does justice to the evangelicals that I’ve met (many). Frankly, the ones I knew in college were FAR more interested in reading and understanding the Bible than the average mass attending catholics I’ve known in life. Give them their due.

In my experience their reasoning goes something like this:

1. Jesus claimed to be Divine and proved it rather dramatically.
2. Jesus was an observant Jew, so the Jewish scriptures are Scripture by default.
3. Jesus appointed 12 apostles to the Great Commission and the writings of those apostles carry the authority Jesus granted to those persons.

So far, they aren’t much different than us (except that they use modern Judaism’s list of Scripture, not the ones accepted at the time of Christ for not very good reasons, IMO.

Where they majorly part ways with us is that they believe the special authority granted to the apostles was PERSONAL rather than an authority that was perpetuated in the office. Scripture argues pretty clearly against this idea (note how important the apostles thought it was to replace Judas with a NEW holder of his office when he killed himself) and there is no positive support FOR it in Scripture. But at least you must admit that the above is rather more respectable than any on your list of choices!

I’m not sure about your #1 but #2 is fairly simple. In those days the Jews them selves argued about what books should be part of the old testament. Different Jews used different writings. So, you can’t use Jewish writtings ipsofacto by default. #3 is way off because only about 2-3 apostles wrote anything in the bible. Just because you were an apostle didn’t make it inspired.

 

[Proallen]

I ask the question of Non-Catholics specifically because, from reading other posts, I think I already have a fairly good grasp of the Catholic position.

I actually posted this on some websites specifically for Protestants and, I’m sorry to say, I thought the answers were really, really weak. But I’ve asked questions of non-Catholics here, and I have found their answers to be very well thought out, even if I disagree with them, so I’m looking for more of the same!!
The answers I have gotten so far, from the other websites:

1. The Holy Spirit told me so. (This is not helpful to me, as I see many other God-loving people following different books because that’s what the Holy Spirit told them to do. Also, the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell me jack, or maybe that small, still voice gets shouted out by my obnoxious one. Either way, this is not helpful.)
2. It inspires me, and so it is inspired. (But that’s confusing emotions with objectivity. Additionally, oddly enough, the most inspiring book in the Bible to me is Sirach, which Protestants don’t recognize as being inspired)
3. It lists prophecies that came true. (That may very well be the case, but it also list prophecies that have yet to pass, as in the Book of Revelation, and additionally, I went to a psychic when I was 20 and that lady was DEAD ON. Freaky. And I certainly dont’ think her words were divinely inspired.)
4. It says it’s divinely inspired. (I would argue that it does not say that. Additionally, other books - like the Book of Mormon - claim to be divinely inspired, as did my psychic friend, and those are not either. I can claim to be a fish, but that doesn’t make it so.)
5. It lists events that are historically accurate. (So does my history book, but again, not divine)
6. It was compiled by many different authors over many different times. (I still don’t quite understand how this would translate to God-breathed.)

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. At the other websites, I got these types of answers, or I was told that I just needed more faith. Thanks again for your time!

Let me ask you a question. If the Catholic church came up with the Bible, then why do the present day Orthodox Christians have a different set of books in their Canon than you do?? Both churches were together when the Canon was produced so why the two different Bibles? Who’s wrong?? 30,000+ Protestants have the same books of the Bible, but 2 churches (Catholic and Orthodox) have 2 different ones. Hmmm. You both can’t be right.

 

[Spencerian]

Let me ask you a question. If the Catholic church came up with the Bible, then why do the present day Orthodox Christians have a different set of books in their Canon than you do?? Both churches were together when the Canon was produced so why the two different Bibles? Who’s wrong?? 30,000+ Protestants have the same books of the Bible, but 2 churches (Catholic and Orthodox) have 2 different ones. Hmmm. You both can’t be right.

Hi.

The reason that Catholic and Orthodox canons differ is simply because that our Orthodox brethren later added books to their Old Testament canon after their separation from Rome in 1054. These books are: 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees–all Old Testament books. The New Testament books are identical with the Catholic canon as established at the Synod of Hippo in the 3rd Century.

Five hundred years later, protestantism moved 7 of the New Testament books (which appear and are identical in both Catholic and Orthodox scriptures) into an appendix. After some printing presses removed them to save printing costs, some Protestant faiths today pretend that these books were never considered as inspired.

But both Catholic and Orthodox faiths, the oldest roots of Christianity, still have these 7 books.

However, the Bible is only part of both Orthodox and Catholic traditions. Both faiths share Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession and teaching authority. Their priests and bishops are just a validly ordained as Catholic clergy.

I would think that a Christian tradition that wants the complete word of God and considers the Bible alone as the only tool needed for worship would have more books in their bible, not less.

So, the simple answer is, the fullness of truth comes from either Catholic or Orthodox canons, for they hold more, not less, than Protestant scriptures.

There are over 30,000 Protestant traditions. Many of them have modified the KJB Authorized Version, creating their own scriptures. Some have badly or intentionally mistranslated their versions, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. A few have even added books not found in any other Christian tradition (such as the Mormons).

The Catholic and Orthodox testaments are identical in the New Testament and remain inclusive to each other in Old Testament.

I return the question to you. Which of your faith’s 30,000 biblical interpretations is the correct one?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let me ask you a question. If the Catholic church came up with the Bible, then why do the present day Orthodox Christians have a different set of books in their Canon than you do?? Both churches were together when the Canon was produced so why the two different Bibles? Who’s wrong?? 30,000+ Protestants have the same books of the Bible, but 2 churches (Catholic and Orthodox) have 2 different ones. Hmmm. You both can’t be right.

To make a statement like yours, ‘Hmmm. You both can’t be right’, infers that one is, unless you use the differences to somehow validate your own Church/beliefs, or the statement is made to somehow invalidate both of those Churches.

You attempt to validate the King James Version by stating, ‘30,000+ Protestants have the same books of the Bible’, but do they have the same interpretation? As you would say, ‘Hmmm. Which one is right?’

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I believe the Bible is inspired because the Holy Spirit led the early Christians whose task it was to assemble the New Testament to pick the right books.

There was no Roman Catholic Church, at this time, it should be noted. There was only the “One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church.”

The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until 1054 AD.

 

[T_More]

I believe the Bible is inspired because the Holy Spirit led the early Christians whose task it was to assemble the New Testament to pick the right books.

There was no Roman Catholic Church, at this time, it should be noted. There was only the “One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church.”

The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until 1054 AD.

So I guess the Early Church Fathers were all wrong? Who was Ignatius of Antioch referring to then in 110 AD? BTW, what did those same early Christians practice since the book wasn’t complied for a couple hundred years?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe the Bible is inspired because the Holy Spirit led the early Christians whose task it was to assemble the New Testament to pick the right books.

There was no Roman Catholic Church, at this time, it should be noted. There was only the “One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church.”

The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until 1054 AD.

Provide your sources for making a statement that the Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until 1054AD.

As I understand it, Popes were involved in the definition of the canon of the New Testament much earlier than 1054AD.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

**Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.**

 

[JonNC]

=Spencerian;6421628]Hi.
The reason that Catholic and Orthodox canons differ is simply because that our Orthodox brethren later added books to their Old Testament canon after their separation from Rome in 1054.

The Orthodox say Rome separated from them.

Five hundred years later, protestantism moved 7 of the New Testament books (which appear and are identical in both Catholic and Orthodox scriptures) into an appendix.

This would not have been an issue prior to Trent, because Catholic scholars dating back to St. Jerome questioned their canonicity, with the permission of the Church.

But both Catholic and Orthodox faiths, the oldest roots of Christianity, still have these 7 books.

However, the Bible is only part of both Orthodox and Catholic traditions. Both faiths share Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession and teaching authority. Their priests and bishops are just a validly ordained as Catholic clergy.

And yet, the sharing of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession has for 1,000 years not been enough to bring unity of doctrine and communion.

I would think that a Christian tradition that wants the complete word of God and considers the Bible alone as the only tool needed for worship would have more books in their bible, not less.

I certainly agree that the D-C’s should be in our bibles, just like Luther did.

So, the simple answer is, the fullness of truth comes from either Catholic or Orthodox canons, for they hold more, not less, than Protestant scriptures.

And the Orthodox more than Catholic???

I return the question to you. Which of your faith’s 30,000 biblical interpretations is the correct one?

The question is a strawman because it wrongly assumes that, at some time in the past, there was an institution called “Protestant Church”. My faith is not made up of 30,000 different biblical interpretations, unless you mean the Christian Faith, which then would make it 30,002. The Lutheran Confessions, for Lutherans, rightly reflect scripture. What other communions (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) do and say are up to them, and are frankly irrelevent to what we believe, other than we love them as fellow Christians, hope and pray for their salvation, and continue to dialogue for unity.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Orthodox say Rome separated from them.

So, because each other accuses the other, it invalidates both?

This would not have been an issue prior to Trent, because Catholic scholars dating back to St. Jerome questioned their canonicity, with the permission of the Church.

The Council of Trent was in response to changes reformers were taking, when a decree became necessary in the eyes of the Church.

And yet, the sharing of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession has for 1,000 years not been enough to bring unity of doctrine and communion.

Again, because two sides disagree justifies thousands of more ‘schisms’?

I certainly agree that the D-C’s should be in our bibles, just like Luther did.

Based on what authority?

And the Orthodox more than Catholic???

This seems to be a repeated argument. What significance does the two having differences play in validating more Churches?

The question is a strawman because it wrongly assumes that, at some time in the past, there was an institution called “Protestant Church”. My faith is not made up of 30,000 different biblical interpretations, unless you mean the Christian Faith, which then would make it 30,002. The Lutheran Confessions, for Lutherans, rightly reflect scripture. What other communions (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) do and say are up to them, and are frankly irrelevent to what we believe, other than we love them as fellow Christians, hope and pray for their salvation, and continue to dialogue for unity.

Jon

This paragraph seems to say the Catholics and the Orthodox are wrong, but Martin Luther was right. Where in scriptures does Martin Luther receive his authority to ‘rightly reflect scripture’?

 

[God4me]

I ask the question of Non-Catholics specifically because, from reading other posts, I think I already have a fairly good grasp of the Catholic position.

I actually posted this on some websites specifically for Protestants and, I’m sorry to say, I thought the answers were really, really weak. But I’ve asked questions of non-Catholics here, and I have found their answers to be very well thought out, even if I disagree with them, so I’m looking for more of the same!!
The answers I have gotten so far, from the other websites:

1. The Holy Spirit told me so. (This is not helpful to me, as I see many other God-loving people following different books because that’s what the Holy Spirit told them to do. Also, the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell me jack, or maybe that small, still voice gets shouted out by my obnoxious one. Either way, this is not helpful.)
2. It inspires me, and so it is inspired. (But that’s confusing emotions with objectivity. Additionally, oddly enough, the most inspiring book in the Bible to me is Sirach, which Protestants don’t recognize as being inspired)
3. It lists prophecies that came true. (That may very well be the case, but it also list prophecies that have yet to pass, as in the Book of Revelation, and additionally, I went to a psychic when I was 20 and that lady was DEAD ON. Freaky. And I certainly dont’ think her words were divinely inspired.)
4. It says it’s divinely inspired. (I would argue that it does not say that. Additionally, other books - like the Book of Mormon - claim to be divinely inspired, as did my psychic friend, and those are not either. I can claim to be a fish, but that doesn’t make it so.)
5. It lists events that are historically accurate. (So does my history book, but again, not divine)
6. It was compiled by many different authors over many different times. (I still don’t quite understand how this would translate to God-breathed.)

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. At the other websites, I got these types of answers, or I was told that I just needed more faith. Thanks again for your time!

Because God said it is.
2 Tim 3: 14–17. 2 Peter 1: 20–21.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Provide your sources for making a statement that the Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until 1054AD.

As I understand it, Popes were involved in the definition of the canon of the New Testament much earlier than 1054AD.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

**Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.**

It is agreed that there was a “Church” before the great schism of 1054. I will even grant you that the Church appeared far more like the Catholic and Orthodox Churches today than it does any modern Protestant service.

That being said, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054 AD, because before that point, there existed only the “Church.” Both the Eastern and Western portions were known as “catholic.” Only in 1054 was it known as such, and really became a “big C” Catholic.

At any rate, even if your affirmation that the Roman Catholic Church preexisted any other Church were true, and that the Roman Catholic Church composed the Bible, it still would not exclude the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

So I guess the Early Church Fathers were all wrong? Who was Ignatius of Antioch referring to then in 110 AD? BTW, what did those same early Christians practice since the book wasn’t complied for a couple hundred years?

What are you referring to? Wrong about what?

 

[T_More]

What are you referring to? Wrong about what?

**“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110])- Ignatius of Antioch

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 A.D. 155]).

“Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the [Catholic Church/U] (Muratorian fragment A.D. 177]).

“Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 A.D. 200]).- Tertullian
**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is agreed that there was a “Church” before the great schism of 1054. I will even grant you that the Church appeared far more like the Catholic and Orthodox Churches today than it does any modern Protestant service.

That being said, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054 AD, because before that point, there existed only the “Church.” Both the Eastern and Western portions were known as “catholic.” Only in 1054 was it known as such, and really became a “big C” Catholic.

At any rate, even if your affirmation that the Roman Catholic Church preexisted any other Church were true, and that the Roman Catholic Church composed the Bible, it still would not exclude the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

To think that the Church Christ started could fall into heresy, is to say the Church is not perfect, which subjects all that Christ did or taught to imperfection. Christ is the head of the body, which is His Church. There were no multiple Churches, with different teachings, as exists today.

The Church became the national religion under Constantine, who legalized Christianity and returned property to the Christians. The Church existed in Rome prior to that. It was established by Peter and Paul. The writings of the early Church fathers states such. Even secular history confirms this.

As for your little ‘c’ capital ‘C’ arguement, it is new and did not exist in the beginning. They were considered ONE and the same. Below is an excerpt from the writings of St. Ignatius, just as it is presented on a Protestant website. The emphasis is mine.

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

 

[TheosisM]

Hi.

The reason that Catholic and Orthodox canons differ is simply because that our Orthodox brethren later added books to their Old Testament canon after their separation from Rome in 1054.

I would be interested in reading about the point at which the Orthodox “added” the remaining books of the Septuagint to their canon, specifically that it occurred after 1054 AD.

 

[KathleenGee]

The problem is people do not trust the authority of the Church when it discerned, through what it believed, was the Holy Spirit’s guidance in drawing on and implementing the various books – that would best edify and unite Christ’s followers.

Christ called us to be one. I come across various spiritual sources all the time, and with my limited time, I pray and reflect which one would be most edifying and most complete and most helpful in my present walk in the Lord.

Nothing more and nothing less…

Alot of issues people have with the Catholic church is that they can’t recognize the Holy Spirit beyond the frailty of men. And in the United States, 95% of the clergy are faithful and upright.