Why do some Protestants

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

Bill_Pick

Guest
Why do some protestants Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is actually the “Catholic Church?” Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
 
Well if you want to take “Whore of Babylon” literally you end up with Baghdad hooker.
 
they have to do something to justify their heresy 😉
Perhaps you are right. It really is too bad because they are truly missing a true treasure. I pray that one day they will all come home.
 
Seems to me that the answer in some cases is that the reader is reading into scripture (intentionally or not) their own meaning rather than trying get out of scripture what the Almighty intended.
 
Why do some protestants Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is actually the “Catholic Church?” Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
Well, Bill, this is an excellent question.

Genesis was the topic in one of the last few Sunday Bible Classes, I attended at the Baptist Church. The teacher told the class that if we did not accept the creation story literally, we may have a faith issue. Things kinda went downhill after that, since I do not believe the creation story is “literal.” This was one of those last few straws, so to speak.

Genesis reveals the fact that God is our creator and speaks to man’s relationship with God, how sin entered the world, and our need for reconciliation to God–which was ultimately fulfilled in Christ. I think valuable time is wasted in attempts to prove a 6-day creation, leading many children to believe they must choose between God and Science. That should not be.

When it comes to Revelation, I have absolutely no answers. I have been told about Revelation and its prophecies, since my childhood; and quite frankly, it is still a scary Book (probable cause of my fear: a lifetime of Protestant indoctrination.)

Not long ago, I commented on the fact that Hal Lindsey, who co-authored the book entitled, “The Late, Great Planet Earth,” indicated the tribulation and rapture would take place in the 1980’s. This did not come true. Yet, even now, Mr. Lindsey has a television ministry and still discusses prophecy. I’m not sure why he still has an audience, since his track record is a bit shaky in the area of prophecy.

Indeed, many Protestants have serious convictions concerning “tribulation” and “rapture” prophecies, attributed to Revelation. There was a Thread, fairly recently, asking what would happen if the Catholic Church disappeared tomorrow. My answer was that there would probably be a whole lot of Protestants wondering if they missed out on the rapture. 😉 What can I say. Sometimes, we need a little humor.

Back to our topic. The skillful use of literalism and allegory, can provide Biblical justification for almost anything. Needless to say, I do not accept Sola Scriptura. I do believe tradition plays a role in interpretation of Scripture.

Yet, before we go too far down the path in judgment of Protestants (keep in mind, I am still a Protestant–though “disenchanted”); I think we must also consider the role of literalism and allegory within the context of historical interpretation or “tradition.”

I guess I am trying to say, I really don’t understand the rules, when it comes to allegory and literalism. What are the rules, and who decides? It seems like people make them up as they go along.

Great question, Bill. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer-just more questions.
Anna
 
Well, Bill, this is an excellent question.

Genesis was the topic in one of the last few Sunday Bible Classes, I attended at the Baptist Church. The teacher told the class that if we did not accept the creation story literally, we may have a faith issue. Things kinda went downhill after that, since I do not believe the creation story is “literal.” This was one of those last few straws, so to speak.

Genesis reveals the fact that God is our creator and speaks to man’s relationship with God, how sin entered the world, and our need for reconciliation to God–which was ultimately fulfilled in Christ. I think valuable time is wasted in attempts to prove a 6-day creation, leading many children to believe they must choose between God and Science. That should not be.

When it comes to Revelation, I have absolutely no answers. I have been told about Revelation and its prophecies, since my childhood; and quite frankly, it is still a scary Book (probable cause of my fear: a lifetime of Protestant indoctrination.)

Not long ago, I commented on the fact that Hal Lindsey, who co-authored the book entitled, “The Late, Great Planet Earth,” indicated the tribulation and rapture would take place in the 1980’s. This did not come true. Yet, even now, Mr. Lindsey has a television ministry and still discusses prophecy. I’m not sure why he still has an audience, since his track record is a bit shaky in the area of prophecy.

Indeed, many Protestants have serious convictions concerning “tribulation” and “rapture” prophecies, attributed to Revelation. There was a Thread, fairly recently, asking what would happen if the Catholic Church disappeared tomorrow. My answer was that there would probably be a whole lot of Protestants wondering if they missed out on the rapture. 😉 What can I say. Sometimes, we need a little humor.

Back to our topic. The skillful use of literalism and allegory, can provide Biblical justification for almost anything. Needless to say, I do not accept Sola Scriptura. I do believe tradition plays a role in interpretation of Scripture.

Yet, before we go too far down the path in judgment of Protestants (keep in mind, I am still a Protestant–though “disenchanted”); I think we must also consider the role of literalism and allegory within the context of historical interpretation or “tradition.”

I guess I am trying to say, I really don’t understand the rules, when it comes to allegory and literalism. What are the rules, and who decides? It seems like people make them up as they go along.

Great question, Bill. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer-just more questions.
Anna
Anna Another A+ Thank You, I would love to see you in a RCIA Class, and I get there,You answer the question and me trying to answer them.====I do not think this is a good
idea LOL
 
Anna Another A+ Thank You, I would love to see you in a RCIA Class, and I get there,You answer the question and me trying to answer them.====I do not think this is a good
idea LOL
You never know, Bill. I might end up in an RCIA class.

Anna
 
You never know, Bill. I might end up in an RCIA class.

Anna
Anna I hope you do you will make a good one
I have been in 3 RCIA class and 2 have been great one was a little slow.
The 2 good one we had a nun that was doing the teaching and she was very good and she been aroung the world and she made you ask questions. Anna keep up the good work you are doing a great job.
I will be praying I will see you in a RCIA class in the furture
 
Why do some protestants Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is actually the “Catholic Church?” Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
Bill Pick,

It is not uncommon among Catholics to assign the designation to Rome of the Whore of Babylon. This is not just a Protestant thing. There are indications pointing to Rome that are compelling. The question is whether the Apocalypse is speaking of Pagan Rome or Catholic Rome. Clearly, we Catholics would say it is the former, but we cannot be surprised when Protestants arrive at the alternative conclusion. It makes much sense given their presuppositions and uses very similar arguments as our own commentators use for saying that Rome is the Harlot spoken of in the Apocalypse.
 
Why do some protestants Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is actually the “Catholic Church?” Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
Well, Bill, this is an excellent question.

Genesis was the topic in one of the last few Sunday Bible Classes, I attended at the Baptist Church. The teacher told the class that if we did not accept the creation story literally, we may have a faith issue. Things kinda went downhill after that, since I do not believe the creation story is “literal.” This was one of those last few straws, so to speak.

Genesis reveals the fact that God is our creator and speaks to man’s relationship with God, how sin entered the world, and our need for reconciliation to God–which was ultimately fulfilled in Christ. I think valuable time is wasted in attempts to prove a 6-day creation, leading many children to believe they must choose between God and Science. That should not be.

When it comes to Revelation, I have absolutely no answers. I have been told about Revelation and its prophecies, since my childhood; and quite frankly, it is still a scary Book (probable cause of my fear: a lifetime of Protestant indoctrination.)

Not long ago, I commented on the fact that Hal Lindsey, who co-authored the book entitled, “The Late, Great Planet Earth,” indicated the tribulation and rapture would take place in the 1980’s. This did not come true. Yet, even now, Mr. Lindsey has a television ministry and still discusses prophecy. I’m not sure why he still has an audience, since his track record is a bit shaky in the area of prophecy.

Indeed, many Protestants have serious convictions concerning “tribulation” and “rapture” prophecies, attributed to Revelation. There was a Thread, fairly recently, asking what would happen if the Catholic Church disappeared tomorrow. My answer was that there would probably be a whole lot of Protestants wondering if they missed out on the rapture. 😉 What can I say. Sometimes, we need a little humor.

Back to our topic. The skillful use of literalism and allegory, can provide Biblical justification for almost anything. Needless to say, I do not accept Sola Scriptura. I do believe tradition plays a role in interpretation of Scripture.

Yet, before we go too far down the path in judgment of Protestants (keep in mind, I am still a Protestant–though “disenchanted”); I think we must also consider the role of literalism and allegory within the context of historical interpretation or “tradition.”

I guess I am trying to say, I really don’t understand the rules, when it comes to allegory and literalism. What are the rules, and who decides? It seems like people make them up as they go along.

Great question, Bill. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer-just more questions.
Anna
Bill,

I’m sorry I did not address the issue of some Protestants calling the “whore of Babylon,” in Revelation, the Catholic Church. In my opinion, that is a hateful belief, that has no basis whatsoever. Sadly, anit-Catholic rhetoric comes from the pulpits of some (not all) Protestant Churches. The flock blindly follows.

I have learned, the hard way, to test everything–and I do mean the hard way. After my brief experience with the Mormon church (more than 10 years ago), I fell flat on my face. I realized, given the right circumstances, we are all capable of just about any sin. We are all capable of being seduced by a lying spirit.

So, we pray for those who hate us. We pray for those who blindly follow, knowing it could easily be any one of us with the blinders on.

Anna
 
Why do some protestants Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is actually the “Catholic Church?” Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
Sadly, a lot of them “make” the Bible back’em up in their beliefs… no matter how nonbiblical they may be.

Regards,
Universal
 
The reason is quite simple. many feel that they can interpt for all the meaning of scripture. If you pick and choose that becomes quite easy to do. the whole of scripture is to be taken literally. the problem comes into play as what literary style is being used by the inspired author in writting each book. I can read scripture and from it God can reveal to me what I need that day and at the time for my life. That may or may not be what the whole of the mankind needs. For revealation on that I have to look to the Church and what Tradition and the Magisterium teach. Without that I would be lost and confused. That is why we have today so much disunity in Christiandom each and every one for the last 500 + years has been their own scripture authority.
 
Why do some protestants Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is actually the “Catholic Church?” Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
Well, I think protestant might ask, why do the same thing. We all want to try to understand Christ’s teachings and some seem figurative and others seem literal. I might ask, in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man… is Abraham’s Bosom a real place?

Personally, I don’t thing anything is gained by calling anybody a whore.
 
Why do some protestants Christians take certain books of the Bible very much literally such as Genesis (creationism vs. evolutionism), but then claim that the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is actually the “Catholic Church?” Why would one book be taken so literally yet another not?
A lot of Protestants (and Christians in general) aren’t aware of the fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are poetic in form. That definitely changes how you approach the text. Poetry gets a much different interpretive treatment than a narrative that is a historical account, and many people look at the first three chapters of Genesis as if it were just that.

So that’s Genesis…and now Revelation. At first glance, it’s hard to see how Babylon could be a codeword for Rome. I always wrote that off as hate-induced nonsense and assumed that there was no good reason to suppose that Babylon would actually refer to Rome. That is, until I saw this.

"Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

The content isn’t really what convinced me- it was the source. catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp Scroll down to the section titled “What the Bible says.” I was quite surprised to see this in a Catholic tract- pretty convincing evidence for the idea that Babylon consistently refers to Rome when it’s used in this time period. The CC obviously “gets it” a good deal of the time just because of close association with Rome. Also, it often has something to do with an eschatological framework that is something other than amil, so the non-Catholic Rome of the first three centuries goes by the boards. And even if it is amil, the CC is still on the table under some circumstances and not others.

So those are the two sides. I hope that answers your question.
 
I think it is easy to take the ‘literal’ meaning of a passage if we have no vested other stance to that literal meaning …

As for the literal 6 day creation, the era of the enlightenment - coupled with advances in science have always lead some non-belivers to challenge the idea of a Creator God … thus believers turn to the scriputres to defend God [as if we can or as if God needed our defence - though I am not saying we should not defend - just that God being omnipotent does not ‘need’ our help] … so instead of reading the scriptures [like Genesis] as a revelation of our relationship to our Creator and His relationship with us … we reduce it to a science text book on biology … do enouth experiments, gather the hard data = proof og God … which always leaves one feeling ill at ease … as others noted …

The Whore of Baylon is not the Catholic Church IMHO … that said many Protestants who identify [or might take the position that the Church is the said Whore … will take these two contrary positions;

1] The Whore of Babylon from the Book of Revelation is the Catholic Church see proof text here … see this mention of Babylon refers to Rome and the Church … Blah Blah Blah

The catholic sees that the Whore of Babylon refers to Rome - to the persecutions either under Nero [whose name equates to the Mark of the Beast Number 666] oor the next one … being referenced by John and the Book being apocolyptic [like Daniel] to stregthen and give courage to those suffering the persecutions …

2] The reference to Babylon does not mean Rome … Peter was never in Rome because unlike Paul the Scriptures never say Peter went to Rome … Paul does not mention Peter when he writes to Rome … Peter may have went into modern dy Riaq [the location of Babylon to evangelize] … Blah Blah Blah

The Catholic responds that the reference to Baylon in Peter is just like the one in Revelation - Code word for Rome - used to protect Peter from being aprehended and martyred … which he was - in Rome …

That is an illustration [a true one - as this was what I learned in Bible Studies and was preached in Church Sermons as a protestant in one church I attended - regarding these two uses of “Baylon”] of taking one passage literally and one not - for arbitary reasons that fit a pre-concieved theology … 🤷

Now many Protestants are wonderful biblical scholars - they do not play that fast and loose God’s Holy Word 👍 The study and reflect with the Scriptures, they pray with and come to deeply love our Lord … [some of them end up Catholic 😉 and I personally know one such man who is now a Catholic Priest :)] One of my favorite scripture professors - while I was working on my masters- was a Lutheran [a Dead Sea Scholar - he had just returned from a year sabatical from the university spent translating and working with the Dead Sea Scrolls when I had him as an instructor]
 
To the OP: it’s hard to tell why Protestants choose to view the Scriptures this way. I suppose from their point of view we look at the “I am the vine” statement figuratively and the Eucharistic language of John 6 literally and seem to pick and choose. I certainly don’t feel that way but Catholics and Protestants both have a combination of allegory, figurative language, and a literal angle in their beliefs, just in different mixtures. I think it’s important just to keep in mind some of the Scriptures are allegory and meant to be didactic, not literal and some are indeed literal as concrete asphalt. I just choose to use the patristics, ECF’s, the catechism, and the Holy Father to make sure I get that mixture right and do go off into my own moral relativistic spiral! 🙂 It sure is easy to do…
 
Plain and simple, Protestants must always be against the Catholic Church, otherwise they would be Catholics. 🙂

Is it possible that Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon. Many times in the OT, God treated Israel as His wife and called Jerusalem as unfaithful. Many Prophets and Saints died in Jerusalem as Jesus attested.
In Mat 24, Jesus said that not all leaving in that generation will die until the ‘‘awful horror’’ happens. Jesus said that around 30-33 AD and a generation is about 40 years. So in 70 AD Jerusalem was destroyed.
Just curious:confused:
 
Good post but as a Christian we know that SS is a false teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top