Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

[guanophore]

I believe in the one catholic church as stated in the Apostle’s creed.

If this is true, then you are in union with the successor of Peter, adn the Bishops appointed by the Apostles. Your posts have made it clear that this is not the case.

These are subjective postings. Please join me on our bible study to see if what you claim is true.

No, Reformed, they are not “subjective”. Even that fine product of Sacred Tradition you are using, the New Testament, states clearly that the fullness of the faith was committed to the Apostles prior to any word of it being written. If you claim that the Bible is the authority, but you won’t admit what the scripture states, what good is “study”?

 

[Reformed]

If this is true, then you are in union with the successor of Peter, adn the Bishops appointed by the Apostles. Your posts have made it clear that this is not the case.

By the grace of God alone, I am in union with Jesus Christ. Why is it important for you to be in union with mere men?

Death in Adam, Life in Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass [5] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [6] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

• Rom 5

 

[cfrancis]

You sound just like LDS Christians when I’m able to discuss and debate with them too. We can post all kinds of subjective prayers and statements which changes nothing in regards to the truth. Our common source of the truth is the Holy Scriptures. Until you are open to search the Scriptures for yourself, I’m afraid you will find great difficulty to see things with greater clarity.

Ahhhh, just as I predicted: your ego has taken full grasp of your senses.
Let’s see how this works…

I think you have to pray and wrestle with all of the Scriptures with a humble attitude before God. If you come to the Scriptures thinking that God teaches you through the Catholic Church as compared to the Scriptures as being authorative, you will be hardened to the truth which glorifies God and humbles mankind. If Scripture is received as authorative truth, then what is written would not allow you to live out your life as a Roman Catholic Christian. It is not a battle of private interpertation because there is only one Spirit. The testimonies of biblical Christians are uniformed in the Christian Faith because of the work of the Spirit. If we focus on the person and work of Christ, and the gospel of God’s grace…we will be focusing on the essentials that divide us. We want to glorify God in our lives, and God enables us to grow progressively to glorify Him based on truth. I really believe most Roman Catholics rather trust in what the Catholic Church teaches as compared to trusting in the Spirit to guide them in all truth through the Holy Scriptures. Do you personally believe that Sacred Tradition is infallible revelation just like the Holy Scriptures?

If a Christian believes that Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture consist of the Word of God, then that person will be Roman Catholic. If a Christian believes that the Holy Scirptures consists of the Word of God, then that person cannot be Roman Catholic, because the contents of the Scriptures alone does not support the Roman Catholic Faith. The Roman Catholic Faith is dependent on Sacred Tradition and apostolic succession to support what she teaches. Sacred Tradition will (IMO) always dim the light of Scripture. In really comes down to having either a very high view of Scripture or not. It may appear that you both, Sacred tradition and Scripture. But that is the illusion since Sacred tradition always trumps Scripture because Sacred Tradition tells you what to believe as truth. I have heard on tape and read testimonies of ex-protestants turned Roman Catholic. They all have the common theme of rejecting the sufficiency of Scripture and replaced it with a different source of authority (magestrium). Remember, our personal intelligence, background and personal testimonies are flawed when trying to determine the truth.

Do you see how ridiculous church history can be to determine truth? I can give you church history from a Protestant perspective. And you can give me church history from a Roman Catholic perspective. Both are mutually exclusive and nullify each other. In finding and determining truth together, we have to find a common source as our measuring rod of truth. I really notice that Roman Catholics are more into side issues as compared to the actual discussions about the contents of the Bible. The threads that are not about the actual contents of Scripture are flooded with participants. But once a thread is started about studying the Scriptures together as fellow Christians, seeking humbly before God to learn from the Scriptures… the participation on those threads are very small. I think Roman Catholics as a whole are very scared and frighten to read the Scriptures for themselves…maybe afraid what they might find in God’s Holy Scriptures?

This is only a small sample. How do I reply to these? Your words will do:

You sound just like LDS Christians when I’m able to discuss and debate with them too. We can post all kinds of subjective prayers and statements which changes nothing in regards to the truth. Our common source of the truth is the Holy Scriptures. Until you are open to search the Scriptures for yourself, I’m afraid you will find great difficulty to see things with greater clarity.

 

[guanophore]

By the grace of God alone, I am in union with Jesus Christ. Why is it important for you to be in union with mere men?

That you will have to take up with Our Lord, as I wonder the same thing myself at times. As Chesterton said “I would have become a Catholic a long time ago except for Catholics”!

Jesus brings us into relationship with one another through His Headship. When we are baptized into Him, we become members one of another, like it or not. He gave His authority to men, and prayed for their unity, then sent His spirit to lead them into all truth.

Did you know the prayer for St. Peter is singular?

• Rom 5

What is your point? This was written by a Catholic,that is why nothing in it contradicts Catholic teaching.

 

[ralphinal]

I believe in the one catholic church as stated in the Apostle’s creed.

And how will you know that Church? The Creed gives no clues as to who or what that Church is.

What does it mean to be one?

What does it mean to be catholic?

What does it mean to be a Church?

If we use the Nicean Creed, which any non-heretical Christian would accept, we get more questions.

What does it mean to be Apostolic?

What does it mean to be Holy?

 

[dawid]

Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God because

1. God the Holy Spirit revealed this truth to you personally.
2. The Roman Catholic Church taught you that the Bible is the Word of God.

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. - 1 Thessalonians 2:13

This implies that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not inspired by the holy Spirit.

Should this be your position, the New Testament, a product of the Catholic Church is not the Word of God.

Were it true that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church were inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the New Testament would be the Word of God.

This reasoning is disingenuous and contradictory.

 

[guanophore]

This implies that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not inspired by the holy Spirit.

Should this be your position, the New Testament, a product of the Catholic Church is not the Word of God.

Were it true that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church were inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the New Testament would be the Word of God.

You are right on, dawid! He suffers from a logical fallacy.

This reasoning is disingenuous and contradictory.

I looked at his posts today. This characterizes about 80% of them, including one whole thread!

It is pretty clear he is not here for any Catholic Answers, but to try to lead all of us poor blind Catholics to see the truth.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And how will you know that Church? The Creed gives no clues as to who or what that Church is.

What does it mean to be one?

What does it mean to be catholic?

What does it mean to be a Church?

If we use the Nicean Creed, which any non-heretical Christian would accept, we get more questions.

What does it mean to be Apostolic?

What does it mean to be Holy?

Who produced the Nicene Creed?

Perhaps that’s where you should start.

It’s not a difficult question.

 

[guanophore]

And how will you know that Church? The Creed gives no clues as to who or what that Church is.

What does it mean to be one?

What does it mean to be catholic?

What does it mean to be a Church?

If we use the Nicean Creed, which any non-heretical Christian would accept, we get more questions.

What does it mean to be Apostolic?

What does it mean to be Holy?

You are on the right track!

 

[thirdn6]

You are on the right track!

Keep on :hammering: !!!

 

[Zooey]

Us Protestant Christians cut out the middle man (Roman Catholic Church).

Speak for yourself, laddie.

The Holy Spirit reveals to our hearts and minds that the Bible is truly the Word of God.

.
Every wee bit of it??? To you, personally??? And, by the bye…How do you know it was the Holy Spirit?

First of all, there is an ambiguity with “because.” Are you asking how I came to believe it, or why I believe it now?

I came to believe it because my family taught it to me.

I believe it now because in my 34{61} years of life I have found no alternative to the Catholic Faith as delivered to me (with what I would now regard as some admixture of error) by my Wesleyan-Holiness parents and grandparents, and central to that Faith is the divine inspiration of at least the 66-book canon {full canon as used in the CC } of Scripture.

:yyeess::aok:…with the annotations in red…

Contarini:

I think it astounding that you have received personal revelation with regard to every single book of the Protestant Bible. God told you personally that the book of Esther was inspired?

Edwin

Yeah…I’m having the:yukonjoe: same problem, Edwin…

 

[Zooey]

You sound just like LDS Christians when I’m able to discuss and debate with them too.

LDS are NOT Christians.
They lack proper Trinitarian Christian baptism.

Reformed:

We can post all kinds of subjective prayers and statements which changes nothing in regards to the truth. Our common source of the truth is the Holy Scriptures. Until you are open to search the Scriptures for yourself, I’m afraid you will find great difficulty to see things with greater clarity.

Hello!!! I was searching the Scriptures when you were still in rompers, yean…with a:tada: binky, no less.
Dinnae be ye tryin’ to teach your:curtsey: granny to suck eggs.:twocents:

Reformed:

Do you at least agree that the split that occured at the Protestant Reformation is based on Scripture alone or what the Catholic Church teaches as being authorative?

[SIGN1]
No.
[/SIGN1]

 

[guanophore]

We can post all kinds of subjective prayers and statements which changes nothing in regards to the truth.

This is true, but understanding the origin of them might shed some light on the truth.

Our common source of the truth is the Holy Scriptures.

Well, yes and no. Catholic Doctrine is not based on the Scripture, but on Christ. The NT reflects this doctrine, because it was written by Catholics, and represents the Sacred Tradition that was given to the Apostles.

However, we also have received from Jesus that the Scriptures should not be separated from authentic interpretation, which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.

Until you are open to search the Scriptures for yourself, I’m afraid you will find great difficulty to see things with greater clarity.

Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. However, there is no need to risk wandering off by oneself when reading them. Jesus has left us the Spirit of Truth, through which we have the guidance of the Magesterium.

These are subjective postings. Please join me on our bible study to see if what you claim is true.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731

And how would looking at Scripture through your grossly anti-Catholic lenses shed any light on that?

 

[With_Questions]

Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God because

1. God the Holy Spirit revealed this truth to you personally.
2. The Roman Catholic Church taught you that the Bible is the Word of God
   Actually a good question.

However there are more than two possible answers.

For me, I was taught it was the Word of God after I came to Christ. I did not believe this to be the case when I came to Christ because I had intellectual hangups on Genesis 1 amongst other things. However, since the church I first got involved in was a fundamentalist church, I got with the program.

However, when I ponder the question “why” I believe this, I fall back on a number of reasons. First when I think about it, it does seem perfectly reasonable to me that God would leave a written account of Himself and His activities to mankind. This would be the Bible as far as I know.

Furthermore Christians since the time of Christ have universally accepted the Bible as the Word of God until the 20th century innovation of theological liberalism. So I stand in pretty good company in accepting the Bible as the Word of God.

Also, I have come to believe in the account of the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. From this starting point, it is not too great of a leap to accept the whole of the Bible as the Word of God.

However to be honest…

There is still grey area in my mind as to what exactly it means to be the “Word of God”. Does this mean that it is totally accurate in every historical and scientific detail? If so, does this mean that the age of the earth is in thousands of years instead of billions of years amongst other questions? I could also ask whether this means the universe is geocentric and the earth is flat but we won’t go there?

Also to be honest.

I accept the 66 book version instead of the 73 book version instead of the 81 book version because that is what I was initially taught. To be perfectly honest, if my first church used the 73 or 81 book version of the Bible, that would probably be the ones that I would accept.

So these are the reasons for myself. Other accounts may differ.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Actually a good question.

However there are more than two possible answers.

For me, I was taught it was the Word of God after I came to Christ. I did not believe this to be the case when I came to Christ because I had intellectual hangups on Genesis 1 amongst other things. However, since the church I first got involved in was a fundamentalist church, I got with the program.

However, when I ponder the question “why” I believe this, I fall back on a number of reasons. First when I think about it, it does seem perfectly reasonable to me that God would leave a written account of Himself and His activities to mankind. This would be the Bible as far as I know.

Furthermore Christians since the time of Christ have universally accepted the Bible as the Word of God until the 20th century innovation of theological liberalism. So I stand in pretty good company in accepting the Bible as the Word of God.

Also, I have come to believe in the account of the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. From this starting point, it is not too great of a leap to accept the whole of the Bible as the Word of God.

However to be honest…

There is still grey area in my mind as to what exactly it means to be the “Word of God”. Does this mean that it is totally accurate in every historical and scientific detail? If so, does this mean that the age of the earth is in thousands of years instead of billions of years amongst other questions? I could also ask whether this means the universe is geocentric and the earth is flat but we won’t go there?

Also to be honest.

I accept the 66 book version instead of the 73 book version instead of the 81 book version because that is what I was initially taught. To be perfectly honest, if my first church used the 73 or 81 book version of the Bible, that would probably be the ones that I would accept.

So these are the reasons for myself. Other accounts may differ.

Your positions are reasonable.

Given that I think you might like a challenge, I’d like to provide a challenging question for you:

Jesus never wrote a word, but he did found a church.

This church compiled the word of God into the scriptures.

If this Church still exists, then I think I should belong to it.

That’s why I am proud and confident in my decision to join the Catholic Church.

Have you proven to yourself that Jesus did not found a Church or that the Church he founded no longer exists?

 

[With_Questions]

Your positions are reasonable.

Given that I think you might like a challenge, I’d like to provide a challenging question for you:

Jesus never wrote a word, but he did found a church.

This church compiled the word of God into the scriptures.

If this Church still exists, then I think I should belong to it.

That’s why I am proud and confident in my decision to join the Catholic Church.

Have you proven to yourself that Jesus did not found a Church or that the Church he founded no longer exists?

For a number of reasons, the proposition that the church of Jesus Christ today consists of one and only one denomination today is very problematic to me.

However that is a separate topic.

If we return to this thread, if we were to replace the wording of “taught by the Roman Catholic church” to “taught by the church”, I can hardly see how these two options are mutually exclusive. In fact I can’t see where you can have one without the other.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

For a number of reasons, the proposition that the church of Jesus Christ today consists of one and only one denomination today is very problematic to me.

However that is a separate topic.

If we return to this thread, if we were to replace the wording of “taught by the Roman Catholic church” to “taught by the church”, I can hardly see how these two options are mutually exclusive. In fact I can’t see where you can have one without the other.

I agree.

Did Jesus found a Church, or write a book?

 

[With_Questions]

I agree.

Did Jesus found a Church, or write a book?

Both.

Since all Scripture is inspired by God and Jesus is God the son.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Both.

Since all Scripture is inspired by God and Jesus is God the son.

It is true that the bible is the word of God, but Jesus didn’t write in while on earth.

While on earth he did found a church, then the Holy Spirit worked through this church to produce and protect the truth of Jesus.

Why do you trust that the Church faithfully produced the scriptures and yet you seem to reject the Church?

 

[With_Questions]

It is true that the bible is the word of God, but Jesus didn’t write in while on earth.

I know. But your question did not limit the scope of the activity of the second person of the trinity to the 33 years He resided on earth.

While on earth he did found a church, then the Holy Spirit worked through this church to produce and protect the truth of Jesus.

Why do you trust that the Church faithfully produced the scriptures and yet you seem to reject the Church?

I’m not sure I like the words that the Church faithfully produced the Scriptures.

The source of Scripture ultimately is from God. That sentence makes it seems like the source of Scripture is the church.

It is just that God in His wisdom decided to let man join His work in providing the Word of God.

I don’t reject the Church. I do disagree with the proposition that the Church of Jesus Christ today consists of one and only one denomination.