Why do protestants believe in Bible only?

[rfournier103]

Please note, also; The term Catholic Church is actually translated into “Universal Congregation.” This incorporates all believers in Jesus Christ.

I already knew that, but thank you for the gentle reminder.

This site is based on the Roman Catholic Church doctrines, as they are specific to the church based in Rome…

What about the Latin Catholics of the Ambrosian Rite and Mozarabic Rite? Also, what about the Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine Rite, Antiochian Rite, (Greek and Slavonic varieties), the Alexandrian Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Armenian Rite, the Maronite Rite and the Chaldean Rite? What about the Orthodox?

 

[rfournier103]

As someone who was raised Protestant- Church of Scotland- I would like to add that we do not just believe in the BiBle.

Thank you for saying so.

We also have traditions that we believe in- we just believe that the Bible is the authority- not a reverend/deacon/kirk session.

The Bible and our Sacred Tradition (with a capital “T”) form what the Church calls the “Deposit of Faith”. Nothing in our “Tradition” shall contradict the Bible. Our Traditions have been passed down to us from the Apostles and THEIR desciples almost two millenia ago…

Nothing the Church does shall contradict anything what is written in the Bible. Ever.

The Church passes on, teaches, and interpets from Scripture.

The Church has authority too… To interpet the Bible and administer the Sacraments.

PS: Welcome aboard, Ral91.

 

[rfournier103]

I have difficulty recognising the authority of a pope.

To be overly simplistic to the extreme, he’s like your pastor.

Except he’s the Successor to St. Peter, and he’s the pastor of a MUCH, MUCH bigger church.

 

[classica87]

To be overly simplistic to the extreme, he’s like your pastor.

Except he’s the Successor to St. Peter, and he’s the pastor of a MUCH, MUCH bigger church.

Nice! I think people get too hung up on the Pope being the leader of the Church, as if he does nothing but sit around and order people. Let’s not forget he’s also a priest; I saw the sweetest picture of Benedict XVI distributing first Communion to an adorable little girl the other day. Not recent, but it still makes your heart melt. Gotta love it!

 

[rfournier103]

To be overly simplistic to the extreme, he’s like your pastor.

Except he’s the Successor to St. Peter, and he’s the pastor of a MUCH, MUCH bigger church.

Nice! I think people get too hung up on the Pope being the leader of the Church, as if he does nothing but sit around and order people. Let’s not forget he’s also a priest; I saw the sweetest picture of Benedict XVI distributing first Communion to an adorable little girl the other day. Not recent, but it still makes your heart melt. Gotta love it!

You should read my overly simplistic to the extreme explaination of the Holy Eucharist…

 

[Lochias]

… that I have difficulty recognising the authority of a pope.

But you have no difficulty, I assume, in recognizing the authority of a pastor or other such person in your church, whose office and explanations most assuredly lack the historical and theological depth and documentation of the Pope?

 

[rfournier103]

But you have no difficulty, I assume, in recognizing the authority of a pastor or other such person in your church, whose office and explanations most assuredly lack the historical and theological depth and documentation of the Pope?

to be perfectly honest it would be easier if a reverend had some form of authority…

…in the same way that I have difficulty recognising the authority of a pope.

Lochais… I think he DOES have an issue with his Reverend’s authority (or lack thereof…).

At least he is consistant…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The bible as authority relies on faith! Complete and utter belief in what you read and learn from it. It is not easy and to be perfectly honest it would be easier if a reverend had some form of authority. For us, from a very very early age we read the bible from beginning to end- not an easy thing to do! And we continually have to re-read it! We then act (or at least should act) in accordance to what we have read! It does have its flaws but also it’s benefits. But the authority of it relies solely on individuals faith. If you do not believe it then it cannot exercise its authority. I have tried to explain this to a catholic friend and they found it difficult to understand, in the same way that I have difficulty recognising the authority of a pope.

I think its good that you trust the bible, but why trust it over other sources? Why is this particular collection of books to be believed in? Is it just faith? A burning of the bossom? I guess what I’m asking is how is this at all a justification to believe in the bible when others question this contention?

 

[jmcrae]

I believe I must take exception to some of your claims here. I am not trying to be a jerk, or anything else, but the reasoning you cite, is not exactly true. Especially regarding Scripture.

2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

First, since the New Testament had not yet even been written (remember, St. Paul was only just penning the very first words of the New Testament, the “Scriptures” are the 46 books of the Old Testament that he, as a first-century Pharisee, would have used in his teaching and preaching.

I agree whole heartedly about the Bible being authoritative, trusted, followed, and believed. However, that is not Roman Catholic dogma. The Bible and magisterium conflict on many key points. Sola Fida? Faith alone? Rom, 1:17"…the just shall live by faith."

It does not say “faith alone.” Yes, we live by faith - and also by bread, and water, and work, and many other things.

The Roman Catholic position is the need for faith AND works.

Actually, Roman Catholics are saved by grace. The ordinary means of grace is the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.

However, the Bible says…
Eph 2:8,9 For it is by grace you have been saved,* through faith*—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

There is no contradiction, here.

The magisterium tells RCs what is to be believed.

Because they are given authority from God to interpret the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition.

“Without an interpreter, how shall I understand?” Acts 8:31

 

[rfournier103]

“Without an interpreter, how shall I understand?” Acts 8:31

Bingo!

 

[Mike30]

And how does that prove the Bible-only when no fixed canon existed? Most commonly used? Like the Sheperd of Hermas or Clement’s Letter to the Corthinians? They were commonly used,so why aren’t they in our Bibles?

Lets not forget the Didache, still used in the Ethiopic Church. It was one of the earliest of all scriptuiral documents written was widely used and very popular.

 

[Maranatha33]

To jmcrae,

I wrote a long reply to your comments, however a censor must not have liked that I had Biblical answers for your points. Since censorship is allowed, it is hard to have a discussion of differences. Thank you for your answers. If you read your Bible and compare it to say the 15th and 22 Counsels of Trent doctrines (which were confirmed as official at Vatican II) you will see holes. May God Bless you, and all that call on the Name of the Lord Jesus.

ciao,
M33

 

[pablope]

To jmcrae,

I wrote a long reply to your comments, however a censor must not have liked that I had Biblical answers for your points. Since censorship is allowed, it is hard to have a discussion of differences. Thank you for your answers. If you read your Bible and compare it to say the 15th and 22 Counsels of Trent doctrines (which were confirmed as official at Vatican II) you will see holes. May God Bless you, and all that call on the Name of the Lord Jesus.

ciao,
M33

Counter argumenst are allowed…uncharitable posts are not.

You may have exceeded the 6000 character limit for posts. so try breaking up your reply into several posts.

I think everyone here would like to see the holes you found…

 

[Maranatha33]

And how does that prove the Bible-only when no fixed canon existed? Most commonly used? Like the Sheperd of Hermas or Clement’s Letter to the Corthinians? They were commonly used,so why aren’t they in our Bibles?

The Canon of Scripture was written by 100 A.D. At that time began the gathering process to put the Bible together. The early church required that each Book to be accepted must have been written by an apostle or the companion of an apostle. The Scripture Canon was closed with the Book of Revelation (about 95 A.D.) In 187, Church father, and Bishop of Gaul, Iraeneus wrote a 5 volume tome called “Against Heresies.” (which you can still get today.) He wrote it against all the false Gospels, i.e. any but the 4 now included, and railed against the falsehoods. Any writings not closed before the 27 Books in the Scriptures, or were written without one of the apostles or their companions in the eyewitness generation of Jesus, were removed. They were only added later by the denominations…

May God Bless.
M33

 

[Maranatha33]

Counter argumenst are allowed…uncharitable posts are not.

You may have exceeded the 6000 character limit for posts. so try breaking up your reply into several posts.

I think everyone here would like to see the holes you found…

I apologize. I am generally not this “uncharitable”. My temper got the best of me after a couple hours of writing. May I suggest that you go to the Counsel of Trent (I referenced #15, and #22, for example.) I had no problem finding them…

 

[Maranatha33]

To jmcrae,

I wrote a long reply to your comments, however but they got lost in cyberspace. Thank you for your answers. If you read your Bible and compare it to say the 15th and 22nd Counsels of Trent doctrines (which were confirmed as official at Vatican II) you will see holes. May God Bless you, and all that call on the Name of the Lord Jesus.

ciao,
M33

note: edited to be charitable. Thank you, pabloe, for your correction.

 

[pablope]

The Canon of Scripture was written by 100 A.D. At that time began the gathering process to put the Bible together. The early church required that each Book to be accepted must have been written by an apostle or the companion of an apostle. The Scripture Canon was closed with the Book of Revelation (about 95 A.D.) In 187, Church father, and Bishop of Gaul, Iraeneus wrote a 5 volume tome called “Against Heresies.” (which you can still get today.) He wrote it against all the false Gospels, i.e. any but the 4 now included, and railed against the falsehoods. Any writings not closed before the 27 Books in the Scriptures, or were written without one of the apostles or their companions in the eyewitness generation of Jesus, were removed. They were only added later by the denominations…

May God Bless.
M33

Can you explain how each community would have a copy of the various writings…with no printirng press and each one had to be copied by hand…the christians were under persecution by the romans and on the run…so how could the church come together and gather the NT wriitings tobether?

And by the way…who closed the NT canon at Ad95? Who declared it closed?

And how come, after AD 95, the epistle of Clement to corinth was considered as Scripture and read in Corinth during the Mass? Same with some writings, like the shepher of Hermas, the Didache…the letter of Barnabas…all these were considered Scripture at one time or another at various churches…yet did not make it to the final NT canon?

 

[pablope]

I apologize. I am generally not this “uncharitable”. My temper got the best of me after a couple hours of writing. May I suggest that you go to the Counsel of Trent (I referenced #15, and #22, for example.) I had no problem finding them…

You have to be more specific…what are refernce 15 and 22? Please provide a link or the opening sentences or paragraphs of #15 and 22?

 

[Maranatha33]

Can you explain how each community would have a copy of the various writings…with no printirng press and each one had to be copied by hand…the christians were under persecution by the romans and on the run…so how could the church come together and gather the NT wriitings tobether?

I did not say the Bible was completed by 100 A.D. It is the last of the eyewitness generation as John in Patmos, died. The early Christians were urged (in Scripture) to pass the letters around. Paul died in what 64 A.D.? Peter close to the same? It is no stretch to me that 21 of the 27 Books was referenced at the Muritorium Canon of 150 A.D…

And by the way…who closed the NT canon at Ad95? Who declared it closed?

The early church fathers, of the Universal Congregation, who scrutinized many Books, and only accepted the 27 over a period of years. The requirement was that it was written by an apostle or a companion of one, thus when John died in around 95-100 A.D. no book written later was accepted. They were very selective, and some good writings that may have not fit every criteria, as well as forgeries, were omitted.

And how come, after AD 95, the epistle of Clement to corinth was considered as Scripture and read in Corinth during the Mass

Who considered it Scripture? Obviously it was not a concensus, as it didn’t get included. It may have been wonderful preaching, but the church fathers only selected the 27 we now have.

like the shepher of Hermas, the Didache…the letter of Barnabas…all these were considered Scripture at one time or another at various churches…yet did not make it to the final NT canon?

Not Holy Scripture by the consensus of early church fathers. There were Bishops throughout the region, and these Bishops got together on occasions to consider the final outcome. I would recommend the book “Against Heresies” by the bishop of Gaul, Iraeneus. He addressed the problems that were considered, and why there is only a specific number chosen.

Since the points made at the 15th and 22nd Counsel are official RC doctrine, I presume that they are included in the Magisterium. Just analyze the points voted upon…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The Canon of Scripture was written by 100 A.D. At that time began the gathering process to put the Bible together. The early church required that each Book to be accepted must have been written by an apostle or the companion of an apostle. The Scripture Canon was closed with the Book of Revelation (about 95 A.D.) In 187, Church father, and Bishop of Gaul, Iraeneus wrote a 5 volume tome called “Against Heresies.” (which you can still get today.) He wrote it against all the false Gospels, i.e. any but the 4 now included, and railed against the falsehoods. Any writings not closed before the 27 Books in the Scriptures, or were written without one of the apostles or their companions in the eyewitness generation of Jesus, were removed. They were only added later by the denominations…

May God Bless.
M33

1. Where does Iraneaus mention a 27 book canon of the new testament? He certaintly makes use of a great many of the biblical books old and new testament alike and yes he was the first to say we ought have four gospels (the reason for which he gives is because the entire church catholic had received these books handed down in all the respective churches in the world, thus lending to their credibility against and over the gnostic gospels), but where do you arrive at that idea of him saying theres a 27 book canon of the new testament?
2. Why are you appealing to Iraneaus, a lesser authority (which sola scriptura neccessitates) in order to justify your canon? Shouldn’t the bible alone be enough to establish itself and your canon?
3. With respect to the New testament canon, things were not so clear for the ante Nicene fathers. We should not read in our understanding of things, often when they referred to scripture they were referring for the most part to the Old testament, though certaintly the Apostolic writings were gradually recognised as scripture. Even within that group of 27 books of the new testament, some books were still disputed, mostly the catholic or general epistles and the book of revelation. Things were not settled and they certaintly weren’t universal. Even at the time of Saint Cyril of Jeruselum (who gives his own canon in his 4th catechetical lecture) he neglects to include the book of revelation into his list of the books of the New testament and that was after the councils.