Why do protestants believe in Bible only?

[eggsbenedictine]

This might be the case, since the Church that, as you say, compiled scripture even today has differing canons, since the compiling took place before the Great Schism

Jon

As far as I’ve ever been aware, there were always 73 canonical books. until the 1500’s rolled around and 7 were removed because they were not found in the Hebrew text, yet we’re present in the Septuagint.

 

[JonNC]

As far as I’ve ever been aware, there were always 73 canonical books. until the 1500’s rolled around and 7 were removed because they were not found in the Hebrew text, yet we’re present in the Septuagint.

If one looks at the various canons of the Orthodox, they have more than 73.
Additionally, the dispute over the dueterocanon is far older than the 1500’s

Jon

 

[Geo17]

What are the 7 books removed? I only know of Maccabees 1 and 2. What else? Were any NT books removed? I’m wondering about the Infantile Gospel of Jesus, (something like that).

I can’t recall the names of some others I’ve seen.

What about the Books of Enoch? Were they ever considered canon?

 

[JonNC]

What are the 7 books removed? I only know of Maccabees 1 and 2. What else? Were any NT books removed? I’m wondering about the Infantile Gospel of Jesus, (something like that).

I can’t recall the names of some others I’ve seen.

What about the Books of Enoch? Were they ever considered canon?

The poster is referring to the 7 books that are called by Protestants as apocrypha, and by the Catholic Church as deuterocanon - 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus. These seven have been disputed by scholars since the time of St. Jerome. The dispute came to a head during the Reformation era when Luther followed in this line of disputing them. After his death the Council of Trent affirmed them as part of the canon of scripture for Catholics.

The 27 books of the NT has always been universally accepted, even though 4 of the books have also been disputed since the early Church, James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.

Jon

 

[KingJohn]

KingJohn;10941301:

Luke 10:
Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road…16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Those Jesus sent, the apostles…built the church of Christ as He commissioned them.

The passage say…if you reject those he sent…you are in effect rejecting Him also.

If you reject the work of those He sent…who built Christ’s Church…then you are rejecting Christ also.

That passage from Luke 10 is clear.

John 15:

26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

And those He sent will testify about Him, the truth…guided by the Holy Spirit.

Where did I or anyone here say you are damned to hell? You asked for Scripture passages…we provided them, yet you still stick your one man view of yourself…

You don’t trust in man…yet you trust in yourself…a man…so what does that make you?

I said I DO me. I DO what I believe.

Sense you have not studied the english dictionairy, let me give you definitions.

Trust: Firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

I have a firm belief in Jesus’ ability, his strenth, and his power. I TRUST HIM. I can do NOTHING WITHIN MY OWN STRENGTH.

Let’s go to beliefs.

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

I do not BELIEVE IN MYSELF. I believe that Jesus gives me my strength and confidence.

You are damning me to hell by interpitating that “Oh, because our CHURCH, OUR CHURCH says all the apostles built it, if you reject them you reject Christ.”

Know what our LORD says about rejection!?

Matthew 10:33 But whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

HOW DARE YOU SAY I’M DENYING MY LORD CHRIST!?

You have offended me for the last time.

I’m done with this thread.

 

[pablope]

Thanks for the lesson…

Let’s go to beliefs.

I do not BELIEVE IN MYSELF. I believe that Jesus gives me my strength and confidence.

How does Jesus accomplish this? How does He give you strength? What vehicle did Jesus establish to give you strength and confidence?

Let me ask you this…if you ask for strength…will Jesus zap you and you will instantly have strength and confidence?

You are damning me to hell by interpitating that “Oh, because our CHURCH, OUR CHURCH says all the apostles built it, if you reject them you reject Christ.”

Again…you are making your own arguments and conclusions…where has anyone here condemned you?

I provided you the passage from the Bible…you have not addressed it…Luke 10:
Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road…16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Know what our LORD says about rejection!?

Matthew 10:33 But whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

In addition…Luke 10:
Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road…16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

HOW DARE YOU SAY I’M DENYING MY LORD CHRIST!?

You have offended me for the last time.

I’m done with this thread.

Where have I said this?

Maybe you should take not of this passage:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

And consider this passage with Luke 10…Luke 10:
16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

 

[jlhargus]

I suppose it’s because the Bible makes some pretty explicit statements that make us feel there is no need for anything extra Biblical. John 3:16 is straight forward, there is no special context to it. God loved the world that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

So how does anyone obtain Salvation and not perish? Believing in His Son.

Dronald if that is all there is to salvation we don’t even need a full page for the NT. No need to repent we can still live the same old sinful life as before all we need to do is believe.

The bible also says in [Acts2:37 Now **when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, **what shall we do? **38 Then **Peter said **unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And **with many other words did he testify **and exhort, **saying, Save yourselves **from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.]

Even all the above just sets one on the road to salvation. Salvation is a life time process not a one time event.

 

[dronald]

Dronald if that is all there is to salvation we don’t even need a full page for the NT. No need to repent we can still live the same old sinful life as before all we need to do is believe.

The bible also says in [Acts2:37 Now **when they heard

this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, **what shall we do? **38 Then **Peter said **unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And **with many other words did he testify **and exhort, **saying, Save yourselves **from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.]

Even all the above just sets one on the road to salvation. Salvation is a life time process not a one time event.

No doubt. But God will guide us to do all that He commands us.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

No doubt. But God will guide us to do all that He commands us.

I’m still Protestant myself, dronald, but on the face of it, history doesn’t seem to bear you out. Folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Jack Chick, David Koresh, and the Hale-Bopp dudes seemed to assume as much … and yet it didn’t take. (And saying that those particular exceptions weren’t really trusting God is to incur the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.) It appears there’s more to it than simply trusting the Lord will infallibly set our internal exegete towards truth. We seem almost in need of something–dare I say it?–external both to us and His scripture.

 

[pablope]

No doubt. But God will guide us to do all that He commands us.

But the question, Dronald…is how does God guide us?

Does he speak to us directly? What is the vehicle God gave us to guide us? How do we know the guidance that is from God?

 

[joe371]

JonNC;10943140]The position of universal jurisdiction and infallibility ex cathedra? Joe, if this were so obvious from the Early Church, it would never have been a Church-dividing issue.

Sure it could have been a church-dividing issue. People have always had issues with authority. I can share plenty of quotes…You’d be surprised; I was…if you are interested check this book out from the library. Written by a former Evangelical non-Catholic:

amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234

Again, I think it is more grey, less black and white. But all of us try to do what the savior wills, and sometimes we fail. And of course, I am not the expert, and maybe the Orthodox are wrong about this. Maybe their ecclesiology is lacking as well. The only answer is for the Church, together, to solve the differences.

Well said…

Thanks, Joe. Recovery is finally starting to be positive.

Phew…That’s good news. You have been in my prayers brother!

 

[JonNC]

Sure it could have been a church-dividing issue. People have always had issues with authority. I can share plenty of quotes…You’d be surprised; I was…if you are interested check this book out from the library. Written by a former Evangelical non-Catholic:

amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234

Well said…

Phew…That’s good news. You have been in my prayers brother!

Thanks, Joe, for the prayers. You have no idea how much I appreciate the prayers and support I’ve received from my friends at CAF.

Jon

 

[dronald]

I’m still Protestant myself, dronald, but on the face of it, history doesn’t seem to bear you out. Folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Jack Chick, David Koresh, and the Hale-Bopp dudes seemed to assume as much … and yet it didn’t take. (And saying that those particular exceptions weren’t really trusting God is to incur the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.) It appears there’s more to it than simply trusting the Lord will infallibly set our internal exegete towards truth. We seem almost in need of something–dare I say it?–external both to us and His scripture.

I’m speaking of doing good works. The argument was on OSAS, a position that I do not hold.

 

[underwhelmed]

He invited Luther to come to Rome, and Luther refused.

I ask you now the same question I asked myself as I converted: Whose authority do you accept? Luther’s? Or Christ’s? Will you trust man or God? I invite you to learn more about the Catholic faith through this site. Also, look at Scripture Catholic for some great biblical outlines of Church teaching. Pick up a copy of the Catechism and find out for yourself what we believe.

I had never thought of that until now. I knew Luther was catholic before leaving the church,but I never stopped to think that he personally , in a way, rewrote the bible to fit his point. Sort of like taking a quote out of context to prove yourself right. But more to the point Lutherans believe the bible is the inspired, unerring word of God. But if Luther took portions out to water down Catholicism by removing the honoring of saints, removing the honoring of mary, and denouncing the highest elected church official then what is WELS really? We are headed by the top elected Lutheran pastors,but not one central authority. We gloss over the saints and mary as being merely vessels for God’s fulfillment of His promises. Why did Luther water it down? I’ve read that he was a little bitter, and the amount of time spent praying, fasting, preaching to others was exhausting. Simply because it was tiresome to one man, he took it upon himself to remove parts of the worship and Word to make it less cumbersome to be a Christian? This is not meant to be offensive but as a WELS member undergoing consideration to join the RCC I find it illuminating to consider Luther’s authority vs. Christ’s.

 

[JonNC]

=underwhelmed;10946894]

He invited Luther to come to Rome, and Luther refused.

Luther’s ability to travel was, let’s say, not without significant risk.

I ask you now the same question I asked myself as I converted: Whose authority do you accept? Luther’s? Or Christ’s? Will you trust man or God? I invite you to learn more about the Catholic faith through this site. Also, look at Scripture Catholic for some great biblical outlines of Church teaching. Pick up a copy of the Catechism and find out for yourself what we believe.

The choice presented is a false choice. Neither Luther nor Lutheranism presumes any authority other than Christ. I, first, would encourage the OP to understand Lutheran teaching, then explore the teachings of the Catholic Church. What I won’t do is try to paint Catholic teaching ahead of time into something it is not, which is what the false choice above tries to do to Lutheranism.

I had never thought of that until now. I knew Luther was catholic before leaving the church,but I never stopped to think that he personally , in a way, rewrote the bible to fit his point. Sort of like taking a quote out of context to prove yourself right. But more to the point Lutherans believe the bible is the inspired, unerring word of God. But if Luther took portions out to water down Catholicism by removing the honoring of saints, removing the honoring of mary, and denouncing the highest elected church official then what is WELS really?

The reason you did not know this is because it is not true. Lutherans and Catholics can dispute the nature of translation, but the fact is Luther took nothing out. In fact, Luther’s translation had 74 books, one more than the typical western Bible of his time.
There is no removal of the honoring of the saints in Lutheranism.
There is no removal of the honoring of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Lutheranism.
There is no denunciation of any official of the Church, only a denunciation of claims of authority and jurisdiction not provided by either scripture of the early councils of the Church.

We are headed by the top elected Lutheran pastors,but not one central authority. We gloss over the saints and mary as being merely vessels for God’s fulfillment of His promises. Why did Luther water it down? I’ve read that he was a little bitter, and the amount of time spent praying, fasting, preaching to others was exhausting. Simply because it was tiresome to one man, he took it upon himself to remove parts of the worship and Word to make it less cumbersome to be a Christian? This is not meant to be offensive but as a WELS member undergoing consideration to join the RCC I find it illuminating to consider Luther’s authority vs. Christ’s.

I would strongly encourage you, my friend, to more deeply investigate Lutheran teaching and doctrine, as your comments seem to portray a necessity to do so.
Proselytizing is prohibited at CAF, an I would never discourage one from exploring the Catholic Church, but I believe it is just as important to know what one is walking away from as it is to know what one is walking toward. Explore the confessions of the Lutheran faith, and if you feel the need to expand that search, there is nothing wrong with looking at other synods if needed to find more information.

Best wishes,
Jon

 

[jmcrae]

No doubt. But God will guide us to do all that He commands us.

Yes - through the Church. Not by means of mental telepathy (most of the time).

 

[underwhelmed]

Luther’s ability to travel was, let’s say, not without significant risk.

The choice presented is a false choice. Neither Luther nor Lutheranism presumes any authority other than Christ. I, first, would encourage the OP to understand Lutheran teaching, then explore the teachings of the Catholic Church. What I won’t do is try to paint Catholic teaching ahead of time into something it is not, which is what the false choice above tries to do to Lutheranism.

The reason you did not know this is because it is not true. Lutherans and Catholics can dispute the nature of translation, but the fact is Luther took nothing out. In fact, Luther’s translation had 74 books, one more than the typical western Bible of his time.
There is no removal of the honoring of the saints in Lutheranism. WELS doesn’t honor saints in any way. Having thoroughly researched Luther as well as the WELS, also the other half of my family is MIssouri synod so my knowledge is extensive.
There is no removal of the honoring of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Lutheranism. we in WELS and Missouri synod believe she was a vessel and nothing more. We don’t spend a lot of time on her, but to cover their journey to the manger and thereafter Jesus birth not much is mentioned of Mary. So no we don’t honor or spend time on her except for the birth.
There is no denunciation of any official of the Church, only a denunciation of claims of authority and jurisdiction not provided by either scripture of the early councils of the Church. WELS and missouri believe that the pope is the antichrist in thinking he is God on earth and that we should not have an intermediary between us and God. Having done the historical background on Luther I’m only too aware of his life expectancy if he had returned to speak to the Vatican in any way. I also know from talking to three pastors, two priests and this forum that the Catholic Church is not the big bad it has been made out to be. I firmly believe the Catholic Church is the one Jesus built and was carried on through apostle Peter. The core beliefs and almost identical worship services are too similar to be separated and as the RCC and the Lutheran church body are celebrating the reformation together in 2017 a call to end the separation is needed because its not necessary anymore when we believe the same core values and have set aside the good works argument as proof of a joint celebration. Having spent my life in a Lutheran worship I knew that things were left out and going to mass further proved it to me. As a confirmed and baptized member of the WELS synod my knowledge of the lutheran church, Luther himself and what we believe is vast. My knowledge of the Catholic Church has been wholly negative because of Luther’s catechism, Sunday school and talks with religious officials within the churches I’ve visited. There has never been a more whole feeling for me as when I’m at mass.

 

[JonNC]

=

underwhelmed;10947082].

There is no removal of the honoring of the saints in Lutheranism. WELS doesn’t honor saints in any way. Having thoroughly researched Luther as well as the WELS, also the other half of my family is MIssouri synod so my knowledge is extensive.
There is no removal of the honoring of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Lutheranism. we in WELS and Missouri synod believe she was a vessel and nothing more. We don’t spend a lot of time on her, but to cover their journey to the manger and thereafter Jesus birth not much is mentioned of Mary. So no we don’t honor or spend time on her except for the birth.
**There is no denunciation of any official of the Church, only a denunciation of claims of authority and jurisdiction not provided by either scripture of the early councils of the Church.

**.

Even though, again, this response does not reflect the teachings of the confessions, it seems clear to me that you have already made up your mind. That being the case, I have no desire to debate or dialogue. Instead, I encourage you to enroll in RCIA, and allow the Spirit to guide you where he wants you. May you there be blessed in word and sacrament.

I will respond to one thing: the idea of the Blessed Virgin as simply a vessel is offensive on its face, and contrary to what the Lutheran confessions and the Lutheran reformers believed. Luther called her the greatest gem in all of Christendom except Christ Himself. the reformers believed, and the confessions affirm, that she was the Holy Theotokos, the Mother of God, and that she was ever-virgin.
If you learned in WELS that she was simply a vessel, then those in charge of your catechesis there have much to be ashamed of! You are welcome to let them know I said so, and where they can find me for dialogue on the Blessed Mother.

Jon

 

[dronald]

Yes - through the Church. Not by means of mental telepathy (most of the time).

Indeed.

 

[rfournier103]

=.

Even though, again, this response does not reflect the teachings of the confessions, it seems clear to me that you have already made up your mind. That being the case, I have no desire to debate or dialogue. Instead, I encourage you to enroll in RCIA, and allow the Spirit to guide you where he wants you. May you there be blessed in word and sacrament.

I will respond to one thing: the idea of the Blessed Virgin as simply a vessel is offensive on its face, and contrary to what the Lutheran confessions and the Lutheran reformers believed. Luther called her the greatest gem in all of Christendom except Christ Himself. the reformers believed, and the confessions affirm, that she was the Holy Theotokos, the Mother of God, and that she was ever-virgin.
If you learned in WELS that she was simply a vessel, then those in charge of your catechesis there have much to be ashamed of! You are welcome to let them know I said so, and where they can find me for dialogue on the Blessed Mother.

Jon

Well said, Jon. I hope they take you up on it. I’m not a big “Mary guy”, but I give her all due respect. The “vessel” treatment really makes me very angry…

If they come here to discuss with you, I don’t know if I’ll participate, but I’ll definately be watching…