Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?

[IggyAntiochus]

No, That is not what i was trying to say. What I was getting at was, God had set up this modus operandi to compile scriptures over the ages, there were many apocryphal writings in Judaism as well.

I agree. God did have a method through which His revelation was given to mankind. With the Old Testament, it was the nation of Israel, with the New the church. If, in the first instance it did not require the Israelites to be infallible to recognize God’s voice in the Scriptures, then it does not require it in the second instance. There is never any doubt on the part of Jesus or the apostles that the people know that they possess Scripture. Jesus expects the Jews He encounters to know and obey them without an infallible magisterium to confer certainty to the people.

I’m not saying the Jewish authorities were infallible, I’m trying to make the point that we each accept things that are handed down and cannot Infallibly know anything, but we can see a mosaic, and in that we can recognize infallibility. With the information we have in this present reality, in light of the Word of God we have received is it not plausible that an Infallible, Omniscient, God would complete the past ordained governing body infallibly?

Sure, its plausible. My only point is that, while plausible, the Catholic is no better position when it comes to infallible certainty than the Protestant is.

The Roman Catholic examines the Scriptures and history, and makes the judgment that the Roman Catholic teaching of infallibility, etc, best represents the Christian faith and submits to its claims, That is, the Catholic interprets the evidence and makes a fallible decision. The Protestant examines the Scriptures and history, and makes the judgment that Scripture is the final authority for faith and life and does, as best as he is able, to submit to it. This is also a fallible interpretive decision. Both parties have the same level of fallible certainty about their infallible authorities. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Catholic is in a more certain position, because his position is still based on his fallible decision.

I don’t believe one must be infallible to recognize infallibility, at least in regards to scripture. I think they are an infallible collection of books. I also think that if you have an infallible collection of books, it would logically lead to having them infallibly compiled by an infallible source, the Holy Spirit, delivering them through an infallible council, the Catholic Church. Otherwise if they are only a fallible collection of infallible books then why should I believe the books are infallible if the modus operandi of there discerning was fallible?

The understanding that the Scriptures are infallible and that we have the correct collection of them is not based on the level of our certainty. It is based on the Person of God Himself; if God is infallible, then anything He does is also infallible. Since it was God’s purpose to give His revelation to His church, we hold that He was successful in doing so. It does not require any authority on the part of the church recognizing His voice in order for Him to have been successful in attaining the goal. The necessity of the church to be infallible is superfluous. Again, if God was successful in giving His Scriptures to His people before the church without the Levitical priesthood being infallible, and the Jews to have recognized it, then the same is true for us.

 

[David]

The understanding that the Scriptures are infallible and that we have the correct collection of them is not based on the level of our certainty.

Hello IggyAntiochus, Would you say the canon of Scripture is a “tradition of man”?

Peace
David

 

[contrada1]

Because the Bible doesn’t require it. It requires the Apostles to have been given revelation which was written down. The Israelites did not have an infallible magisterium with divine succession, and yet they received the Scriptures.

By pointing to the empty tomb, which verifies Jesus’ claim to deity, which verifies that the Scriptures are the word of God, because He said they were. I can approach the Scriptures as a normal written work of literature that is generally reliable as history. If He rose, then they are something more.

 

[contrada1]

Because the Bible doesn’t require it. It requires the Apostles to have been given revelation which was written down. The Israelites did not have an infallible magisterium with divine succession, and yet they received the Scriptures.

By pointing to the empty tomb, which verifies Jesus’ claim to deity, which verifies that the Scriptures are the word of God, because He said they were. I can approach the Scriptures as a normal written work of literature that is generally reliable as history. If He rose, then they are something more.

This makes absolutly no sense! By pointing to the empty tomb? No body here is claiming the the Scriptures are not the word of God! The question was why there is no single Protestant Doctrine! The reason is because there is no authority! By that i mean, just as Martin Luther later realized, that by breaking away from the Apostolic authority of thr Catholic Church The door was opened for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to profess that they in fact could determine what christian Doctrine is or should be! This error is evident by the fact that there are so many different denominations! Even Luther regreted this towards the end of his life and professed all would eventually have to return to the Church!

 

[onemangang]

I agree. God did have a method through which His revelation was given to mankind. With the Old Testament, it was the nation of Israel, with the New the church. If, in the first instance it did not require the Israelites to be infallible to recognize God’s voice in the Scriptures, then it does not require it in the second instance. There is never any doubt on the part of Jesus or the apostles that the people know that they possess Scripture. Jesus expects the Jews He encounters to know and obey them without an infallible magisterium to confer certainty to the people. .

Agreed! As Jesus said :… The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

I think there was a completion of the old system in the Catholic Church and that they were given authority! We don’t separate the Bible from Tradition, or Jesus from His Bride. Separating Bible from Tradition is like separating man from wife, it’s an unbreakable bond that man cannot undo. From your writing saying Scripture is the final authority, I gather that you accept tradition, Who’s Tradition? We believe ours is from God while all others outside the Catholic tradition ( Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran…etc) are traditions of men. There are some that have incorporated more Catholic Traditions than others (Anglicans, Lutherans…etc…) But where they leave the Catholic Tradition and introduce their own, they have thereby left a Tradition that is divine and now have something man made!

Sure, its plausible. My only point is that, while plausible, the Catholic is no better position when it comes to infallible certainty than the Protestant is.

The Roman Catholic examines the Scriptures and history, and makes the judgment that the Roman Catholic teaching of infallibility, etc, best represents the Christian faith and submits to its claims, That is, the Catholic interprets the evidence and makes a fallible decision. The Protestant examines the Scriptures and history, and makes the judgment that Scripture is the final authority for faith and life and does, as best as he is able, to submit to it. This is also a fallible interpretive decision. Both parties have the same level of fallible certainty about their infallible authorities. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Catholic is in a more certain position, because his position is still based on his fallible decision.

Just as you have said in another post about the whole Legal Fiction claims Catholics make against Protestants is only true if the imputation is not real, and you say it is indeed a REAL Imputation. I can assert that The Infallibility claim of the Church that is Given by God is REAL and not merely something fictitious. When Christ gave Peter the Keys it was a REAL transaction.

The understanding that the Scriptures are infallible and that we have the correct collection of them is not based on the level of our certainty. It is based on the Person of God Himself; if God is infallible, then anything He does is also infallible. Since it was God’s purpose to give His revelation to His church, we hold that He was successful in doing so. It does not require any authority on the part of the church recognizing His voice in order for Him to have been successful in attaining the goal. The necessity of the church to be infallible is superfluous. Again, if God was successful in giving His Scriptures to His people before the church without the Levitical priesthood being infallible, and the Jews to have recognized it, then the same is true for us.

This asserts my claim that if God is infallible and what He does is infallible, giving Peter the Keys was REAL, giving the Apostles Authority as The Father sends Me I also send you. He then breathed on them and gave them The Authority to forgive sins or retain them. ALL REAL. That Authority is not fictitious but REAL. We don’t separate the Authority of the Church from the Authority of Christ. So to say “It does not require any authority on the part of the church” True Apart from Christ the Church has no Authority of Herself, but that is not the Catholic Claim. We don’t separated the bond between Christ and His Church, because Its an unbreakable bond like between man and wife! St. Paul recognized infallibility when he said the Church of the living God was the pillar and foundation of the Truth!

 

[Newsy]

Do you honestly think that we base our faith on protesting something? I assure you, I believe what I believe without any reference to what the Roman Catholic Church teaches or doesn’t teach.

I am sorry if I have offended you, but I stand by my statement. Historically, the Reformation was a protest. As the Reformation went on, more people rejected more ideas and created more divisions. So, yes, protestantism is based on protest. If you don’t look to the Catholic Church to figure out your beliefs, fine, but there are some who look to the CC and reject everything it says. You may not base your personal beliefs on protest, but I know you don’t have to look very far in the history of your denomination to find protests and splits. I am not trying to insult you, only pointing out how there came to be so many denominations.,

Because the Bible doesn’t require it. It requires the Apostles to have been given revelation which was written down. The Israelites did not have an infallible magisterium with divine succession, and yet they received the Scriptures.

By pointing to the empty tomb, which verifies Jesus’ claim to deity, which verifies that the Scriptures are the word of God, because He said they were. I can approach the Scriptures as a normal written work of literature that is generally reliable as history. If He rose, then they are something more.

The empty tomb proves nothing about the Bible. The empty tomb proves that Jesus was more than a man, it proves He was who He claimed to be. When the Bible Canon was first drawn together there were dozens of books, that claimed to be inspired, but were determined not to be. The CC teaches that it discerned the Canon of Scripture, first in 382ad, guided by the Holy Spirit. How did your church discern the Canon? There is no reference to Jesus saying to believe the Bible, b/c it wasn’t written yet. We cannot draw any conclusions about the Bible directly from the Bible, that wouldn’t prove anything (the Koran and the Book of Mormon do this). If you choose to reject the Catholic Church, then why do you believe the Bible? Two things you can never remove from your Christian Heritage, Judaism and the Catholic Church. Please tell me why you believe the Bible, but not the Church that discerned its contents.

As far as infallibility, you believe there is a Bible and that it is the inerrant word of God, that would be infallible. God protected this book from error. Why can’t God protect a group of people from teaching in error?

A problem we have is language, what we mean when we use certain words. What does the word church mean when you use it? If it means the invisible group of people who believe in Christ, with no other commonalities, this is not what I mean by the word church. You see, the word for church in Greek is ekklesia, it is never used in the Bible to reference an invisible group, rather it is used to reference a real gathering of people. When I use the word church, I mean one specific group of people. When I use the word Church, I mean the Catholic Church. I don’t believe in this idea of an “invisible church”, I believe that Christ started a church on Earth. I believe that institution is the Catholic Church, because no other denomination has the history to be an option(except the Orthodox, I see them as part of the OHCA Church). So, since Jesus promised the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His church, it must be with us still. Where is His church?

 

[Newsy]

Each denomination is a different group, is it not?
So why would Baptists understand the bible the same as, say, Episcopalians?
It’s like asking why don’t Baptists and Catholics agree on it?

It wasn’t always this way. There was only one Christian Church in the first few centuries.

Answer: Because they don’t; that is why they are different religions.

OK, explain this one to me. They are both part of the Christian religion, how are they separate religions? You have confused me.

But to answer your question from the perspective of a writer, I dare say that the difficulty is with the bible itself…those who wrote the books were unclear in their writing style or those being quoted were unclear with their words or meaning…or, perhaps, it is the result of the stories being passed around for so many decades before being written down and many details being lost.

My writing teachers would have given the bible writers an “A” for enthusiasm and a “D” for clarity
(The Ten Commandments, though, get an A-plus for lucidity!)

No, the problem is not with unclear writings, the problem is with translation from one language to another. Sometimes, things aren’t so clear after they have been translated, so if you pick up a Bible, say an NIV written in English, you won’t get everything the same as if you are able to read an earlier Greek manuscript. This is not a problem for laity, but when people start pulling verses out of context w/o reading an earlier manuscript it may lead to problems. Example, some churches are trying to reconstruct the first century church, without looking at the historical context or even reading early manuscripts. This is becomes one person’s opinion against another person’s opinion. One person misusing Scripture against another, neither can fall back on another language for support. Hence, many denominations.

 

[rinnie]

If Solo Scriptura is truly accurate in that not only is the Bible clear but that we could clearly understand it,then by test everyone with faith and effort should come to the same conclusions or at least a huge majority. Yet all the time I hear protestants say “that’s not what’s in the bible” when in discussion with Catholics even though no other protestant group may agree with them on their actual understanding. So why are there so many interpretations?

Simple because as we both know we all have our own ideas on thing’s. That is why the bible tells you itself that we must look to the early fathers of the Church to lead us.

And to find all truth look to the Church. The Pilar of all truth!

 

[Luvtosew]

I must say even being Catholic I thank John Wycliffe for translating the Bible, and I wonder why the early Church of Rome never wanted it be be read by people. The Church even burnt them so people couldn’t read them.

 

[Newsy]

I must say even being Catholic I thank John Wycliffe for translating the Bible, and I wonder why the early Church of Rome never wanted it be be read by people. The Church even burnt them so people couldn’t read them.

Could we have evidence please. That is an urban legend. They chained them up in churches, but I have never heard of them burning a legitimate Bible, maybe a heretic translation?

 

[rom422]

Fair enough, Loboto. However, I fail to see the difference between following the particular traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as a guide to understanding Scripture, and a Lutheran or Baptist who understands Scripture within the confines of their own tradition. Both allow for a personal understanding of the text of Scripture within the tenets of the stated beliefs of the tradition.

Catholics are encouraged to read the Scripture according to the Mind of the Catholic Church. That means, Catholics are allowed to read and interpret the Scripture personally as long as their interpretation does not conflict with the interpretation of the Catholic Church. It also means that when two Catholics differ from each other in interpreting the Scripture, then we have a Magisterium that decides for us which interpretation should be upheld and which one should be abandoned. The question I have now is this: Do Protestants do the same? When a Baptist, for example, differs from his pastor in interpreting a verse of scripture, how is the difference resolved? And how do you know which interpretation is the right interpretation?

 

[jlhargus]

How do you know the bible is true, without pointing to the bible?

By pointing to the empty tomb, which verifies Jesus’ claim to deity, which verifies that the Scriptures are the word of God, because He said they were. I can approach the Scriptures as a normal written work of literature that is generally reliable as history. If He rose, then they are something more.

JL: How do you know the tomb was empty without pointing to the bible?

 

[Luvtosew]

Could we have evidence please. That is an urban legend. They chained them up in churches, but I have never heard of them burning a legitimate Bible, maybe a heretic translation?

John WycliffeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and other places, the early RCC didn’t want the bible out and then they destroyed all those except in Latin becasue they taught the Priest to read Latin. I know even growing up in the 50’s they never talked about the Bible ot us, just the Cathechism. Now some Catholics probably had a Bible but most didn’t read the Bible, even to this day the Catholics I know don’t read the Bible and never had. Acutally my brother turned Protestant in the 80’s got me a Bible and introduced it to me, changed my life.

Also I have never read anywhere that Luther regretted what he did.

 

[Newsy]

John WycliffeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and other places, the early RCC didn’t want the bible out and then they destroyed all those except in Latin becasue they taught the Priest to read Latin. I know even growing up in the 50’s they never talked about the Bible ot us, just the Cathechism. Now some Catholics probably had a Bible but most didn’t read the Bible, even to this day the Catholics I know don’t read the Bible and never had. Acutally my brother turned Protestant in the 80’s got me a Bible and introduced it to me, changed my life.

Also I have never read anywhere that Luther regretted what he did.

I don’t understand what Wycliffe has to do with the CC burning Bibles. The CC has used local vernacular in most areas, the exception was English. I have never heard of the CC burning anything other than heretic memorobilia, seeing how they translated all of the world’s Bibles in the early centuries, do you think they burned a genuine Bible?

I am sorry that you weren’t talked to about the Bible, but weren’t there Mass readings? Couldn’t you have read the Bible on your own? If we judge any religion on it’s members, I think we would all be atheist or agnostic, but the actions of it’s members don’t prove or disprove any religion.

 

[Luvtosew]

I don’t understand what Wycliffe has to do with the CC burning Bibles. The CC has used local vernacular in most areas, the exception was English. I have never heard of the CC burning anything other than heretic memorobilia, seeing how they translated all of the world’s Bibles in the early centuries, do you think they burned a genuine Bible?

I am sorry that you weren’t talked to about the Bible, but weren’t there Mass readings? Couldn’t you have read the Bible on your own? If we judge any religion on it’s members, I think we would all be atheist or agnostic, but the actions of it’s members don’t prove or disprove any religion.

yes I do, the CC didn’t want the bible out, not in circulation, so I do believe they would like it if the Bible wasn’t even out there today.

Read about the Dark Ages, Also I’m saying the Bible was something the Church never encouraged people to read, of course a person could get the Bible, but why when the Church made so light of it. Yes they read it in Mass.
Anything that is not in agreement with the Church is heretic.

 

[Newsy]

yes I do, the CC didn’t want the bible out, not in circulation, so I do believe they would like it if the Bible wasn’t even out there today.

Read about the Dark Ages, Also I’m saying the Bible was something the Church never encouraged people to read, of course a person could get the Bible, but why when the Church made so light of it. Yes they read it in Mass.
Anything that is not in agreement with the Church is heretic.

Why would the CC keep the Bible, a book they published, from the people. It sounds like you have been listening to too many anti-Catholic ideas. The CC copied and translated the Bible throughout history, agree? Most people were illiterate until well after the Dark Ages, agree? So, why would it benefit the CC to burn Bibles if the people couldn’t read them anyway? If, the Wycliffe version encouraged ideas that were in conflict with Scripture and Tradition, by putting his opinions into it, then it wasn’t really a Bible anyway.

If you believe the CC would like to keep Scripture from us, then why are you Catholic? The accusation is questioning the very foundation of the Faith.

 

[Luvtosew]

I was actually born Catholic, not a convert.

Most people were illiterate until well after the Dark Ages, agree? No I don’t agree with that, how did people read the torah, don’t know why people think people were so illerate back then.

Why did they not want people to read the Bible, because they wanted control. they wanted to be the authority, they did not want people to know the bible just the Church teaching , just like the Cathechism thrumps the Bible nowdays also. Nothing has changed, except the Bible is everywhere now days.

 

[Newsy]

I was actually born Catholic, not a convert.

Most people were illiterate until well after the Dark Ages, agree? No I don’t agree with that, how did people read the torah, don’t know why people think people were so illerate back then.

Why did they not want people to read the Bible, because they wanted control. they wanted to be the authority, they did not want people to know the bible just the Church teaching , just like the Cathechism thrumps the Bible nowdays also. Nothing has changed, except the Bible is everywhere now days.

Most people didn’t read the Torah or have written copies, they memorized it. Amazing what can be accomplished when we don’t spend time in front of the TV. Only the educated could read, so most just memorized Scripture.

Please show me how the Catechism trumps the Bible. This is just untrue, they work together. The Bible gives us verses, the Catechism teaches us how to live the Christian life using the verses. You seem to have a protestant view of the CC, you may want to seek some council. If you believe that the CC wants total control and to limit Bible usage, you should consult your priest.

People think that the masses were illiterate during the middle ages, because they were uneducated and illiterate. The literacy rate was dismal, you can research that if you like.

 

[Newsy]

DaddyGirl:
You refer to heretic groups and call them Christian. The groups you mentioned were in opposition to much of Christianity today, not just Catholic theology. Do you think there is a reason those other groups are no longer around?

BTW, you may call them different religions, but they all fly the banner of Christan, that makes them part of one religion.

I wasn’t necessarily referring to errors in copies, but the problem with interpreting outside of Tradition. I have heard of the differences between early and late manuscripts, but I don’t read any other languages. I have also heard that there are more commonalities than differences, again, I can’t verify either.

One doesn’t need an “original manuscript” to verify their interpretation, but if they choose to ignore other sources then they are misleading themselves and others. My point is that a lot of people pick up a Bible and assume that they have the right interpretation, outside of Tradition or History or Reality, they assume they are right and proceed.

 

[Luvtosew]

Thank you I do not need coucil or Priestly help. God Bless You, your a very nice person I can tell. And yes I admit I’m 50/50 probably. I wasn’t when I first came to the
board, not sure whats happening here. But I"ll figure it out. I think I"m learning more than I wanted to or needed to, being a convert its probably different for you.