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

  • Thread starter Thread starter couponfit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
It might sound like that to you and others but it’s not really. I’ve repeatedly said there is truth. It’s just not everyone is totally correct obviously on what the whole realm of truth is. God, I have faith, is able to understand our hearts though. I think Protestants believe the HS guides His Church too. Peace.
Click to expand...
CMatt with all respect I was going to comment earlier but I was distracted. I honestly believe you have subjective and objective confused? Perhaps its me.🤷

Look here…

“we can’t begin to think we know the subjective one truth unless we first have faith and believe. Believing we have the one truth is not the same as knowing with 100% absolute certainty”

A subjective truth is an opinion. Its like stating Red apples taste better than Green:shrug:

Do you not see here reside’s the largest issue with Protestant interpretation? The truth isn’t an interpretation which results in an opinion. There is an Objective Truth, now you may not believe that, and I have no issue with that. But you should understand it. The subjective truth is in your mind and you “think” it may be the truth, it kinda, sorta sounds and seems like the truth, and you may even really believe it.

In other words the Catholic Church doesn’t interpret the Bible so it is never, and has never been reduced to a subjective truth. It is and always has been the objective truth.

Its like this, who knows what was meant in the context of a book better? The author or the reader?

Often the issue arrives with “where did the CC get that from”? Well they didn’t place every single document in the Bible. Here you are reduced to believing what you can only find in scripture. And then interpreting that as you “thnk” sounds like the logical truth which in fact is subjective.

That is my point above. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Gary,
I guess we should be indebted to the CC for the Bible then,
did they keep part of it for themselves?
I’m not understanding what you mean, except that the CC doesn’t not go by the Bible.
They seem to like John 6 a lot.🙂
 
Luvtosew said:
Gary,
I guess we should be indebted to the CC for the Bible then,
did they keep part of it for themselves?
I’m not understanding what you mean, except that the CC doesn’t not go by the Bible.
They seem to like John 6 a lot.🙂
Click to expand...
The CC does not go by the Bible? Is that what you truly believe?
 
I’m reply to Gary’s thread where he said the CC doesn’t interpret the Bible, wondering what he meant by that:)
 
Luvtosew said:
Gary,
I guess we should be indebted to the CC for the Bible then,
did they keep part of it for themselves?
I’m not understanding what you mean, except that the CC doesn’t not go by the Bible.
They seem to like John 6 a lot.🙂
Click to expand...
They compiled the Bible, they believe the Bible and they revere the Bible. They don’t think it is the only source of Divine Revelation.

You should be indebted to the CC for the Bible. As for “keeping part of it”, the Protestant world threw part of it out. The deuterocanonicals started as “just not the same” and eventually became “uninspired” to the protestant world. So, no the CC passed the whole Bible through the generations, some chose to reject parts of it.
 
So then I can assume , if having a Catholic Bible that we have the whole inspired written word of God the Almighty with no changes as you say the CC compiled it?

I would think if any other inspired documents were found they would have them on the internet freely and of even offered them to Prostestants as well. (by that I mean any writings before 100AD so to say.🙂
 
Newsy said:
They compiled the Bible, they believe the Bible and they revere the Bible. They don’t think it is the only source of Divine Revelation.

You should be indebted to the CC for the Bible. As for “keeping part of it”, the Protestant world threw part of it out. The deuterocanonicals started as “just not the same” and eventually became “uninspired” to the protestant world. So, no the CC passed the whole Bible through the generations, some chose to reject parts of it.
Click to expand...
Question…does the CC use the same canon as did the “undivided church”, since the Orthodox have more books from the LXX than the Latin church?
 
Luvtosew said:
Now who fault is it that these teens dout the existance of God after spending 14 or so years in the CC and recieving the host for several years now?
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
What are your suggestions? What is the Church not doing that you think she should be doing?

Please be specific.
Click to expand...
Hi, Luv,

Just wondering if you could answer the above. Thanks. 🙂
 
Luvtosew said:
So then I can assume , if having a Catholic Bible that we have the whole inspired written word of God the Almighty with no changes as you say the CC compiled it?

I would think if any other inspired documents were found they would have them on the internet freely and of even offered them to Prostestants as well. (by that I mean any writings before 100AD so to say.🙂
Click to expand...
In 382ad, at the Council of Rome, we see the first list of Scripture. It includes the Deutero’s, that the Protestants reject. When Luther translated the Bible into German, it contained the Deutero’s. The Protestants accept the Church’s Canon of the NT, why not the OT?

The Deutero’s are on the internet, for free and offered to all.😃 And they are much older than 100 ad.
 
Publisher said:
Question…does the CC use the same canon as did the “undivided church”, since the Orthodox have more books from the LXX than the Latin church?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I have an Orthodox Study Bible (NT only) it is the same. I have heard the EO have a larger canon, but I honestly never checked.
 
Newsy said:
I don’t know, I have an Orthodox Study Bible (NT only) it is the same. I have heard the EO have a larger canon, but I honestly never checked.
Click to expand...
I always read on this forum…“Protestants removed books from the canon…”…Did Catholics as well? Since the Orthodox canon is larger and based too on the LXX and the books they have ARE in the LXX…I find it odd that Protestants are “accused” of removing books…yet Catholics have fewer books than the Orthodox…who removed the “extra” books from the Catholic canon that are in the Orthodox canon?
 
thanks but I do have a Catholic Bible.
So your Orthodox Bible is the same as the Catholic Bible?
 
Publisher said:
I always read on this forum…“Protestants removed books from the canon…”…Did Catholics as well? Since the Orthodox canon is larger and based too on the LXX and the books they have ARE in the LXX…I find it odd that Protestants are “accused” of removing books…yet Catholics have fewer books than the Orthodox…who removed the “extra” books from the Catholic canon that are in the Orthodox canon?
Click to expand...
Trent again pronounced the minimum inclusion of books. Some eastern Catholic churches have more than than others, to my understanding.

The root of the problem is that this biblical difference caused a domino effect in doctrinal splintering. If the protestant churches weren’t sola (or solo) scriptura, then this wouldn’t be as much a problem.
 
Publisher said:
I always read on this forum…“Protestants removed books from the canon…”…Did Catholics as well? Since the Orthodox canon is larger and based too on the LXX and the books they have ARE in the LXX…I find it odd that Protestants are “accused” of removing books…yet Catholics have fewer books than the Orthodox…who removed the “extra” books from the Catholic canon that are in the Orthodox canon?
Click to expand...
I understand your perspective. I would pose my answer in the form of a question (I should have been on Jeopardy). Is the Orthodox canon the same as the one from 382ad, Council of Rome? As I said earlier, I haven’t looked into the subject, but it seems easy to figure out.

How do the Quakers view the Canon and its development?
 
Luvtosew said:
I would think if **any other inspired documents **were found they would have them on the internet freely and of even offered them to Prostestants as well. (by that I mean any writings before 100AD so to say.🙂
Click to expand...
Huh? Any* other i*nspired documents?

What would these be? And how does one know that they’re “inspired”? :confused:

Luv, have you learned how to use the quote feature yet? Instead of clicking on “post reply” look at the bottom right hand corner of the post you’re responding to. There’s an icon that says “quote”. Hit that, and the post that you’re replying to will appear.

It makes it easier to dialogue with you if we know exactly to what you’re responding. Thanks! 🙂
 
Anthony_V said:
Trent again pronounced the minimum inclusion of books. Some eastern Catholic churches have more than than others, to my understanding.

The root of the problem is that this biblical difference caused a domino effect in doctrinal splintering. If the protestant churches weren’t sola (or solo) scriptura, then this wouldn’t be as much a problem.
Click to expand...
Didn’t Trent pronounce the same list as Rome? Wasn’t this a complete list of inspired books? I know Trent proclaimed it, but that is the same list the CC always recognized.
 
Newsy said:
I understand your perspective. I would pose my answer in the form of a question (I should have been on Jeopardy). Is the Orthodox canon the same as the one from 382ad, Council of Rome? As I said earlier, I haven’t looked into the subject, but it seems easy to figure out.

How do the Quakers view the Canon and its development?
Click to expand...
Friends view the Old and New Testaments as containing the word of God…and any “canon” whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant can be used to seek the wisdom of the scriptures. It is not the only source of God’s word…the word of God can be discerned from the Tao Te Ching…Holy Qur’an…the Vedas…the Upanishads…Book of Mormon…Science and Health…the Sunday paper.

God is Present among us to teach His People Himself…and is not restricted to a book.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top