|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 11/29/2007 9:38:43 PM
|
|
|
jdrutaylor
Posts: 1
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
|
My people of God...Its simple...Catholics believe in salvation through works, Protestants believe in salvation through faith..
Jesus says...."believe in me and the kingdom of heaven is yours..." he did not say..."work for me and the kingdom of heaven isyours..."
However, what is faith with out works. You have to question one's faith if they have no works.
Being saved should automatically start to slowly change you..After all, repenting of your sins-if sincere repentence occurs- should equal a change in your life and many good works to follow.
God Bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 2/12/2008 11:16:15 AM
|
|
|
Tirno
Posts: 42
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where rockinghorse people eat marshmallow pies
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jdrutaylor
My people of God...Its simple...Catholics believe in salvation through works, Protestants believe in salvation through faith..
Jesus says...."believe in me and the kingdom of heaven is yours..." he did not say..."work for me and the kingdom of heaven isyours..."
However, what is faith with out works. You have to question one's faith if they have no works.
Being saved should automatically start to slowly change you..After all, repenting of your sins-if sincere repentence occurs- should equal a change in your life and many good works to follow.
God Bless
*bangs head upon desk*
I can see why this forum hasn't gone anywhere.
_____________________________
“While you are proclaiming peace with your lips, be careful to have it even more fully in your heart.”
-St. Francis of Assisi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 2/12/2008 7:05:06 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 947
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
Canonization is an interesting process. However, neither the catholic nor protestant canon appears to have been formally ordained by Adonai. In fact the Torah is the only scripture that has been formally ordained by Adonai. Yeshua(Jesus) did not contest the Torah and Haftorah(Old Testiment) as scripture and quoted from both, so we can presume that His followers would accept them also.
Regarding the apistolic writings it appears that we are having difficulty agreeing on who speaks for Adonai with regard to their status as scripture. If I might point out, prior to Constintine there was no monolithic body known as "The Church" to make such a determination. In fact as recorded in the acts of the apostles, the followers of Yeshua(Jesus) continued to met regularly in the synagogue as they had done before his resurrection until they were cast out. The council of Jerusalem appears to be just that, an assembly from which other assemblies might seek advise. This would have been a practical matter since this assembly would be in contact with all others through the members that would visit at least three times a year(the pilgrimage feasts). However, we see that the Jerusalem Council does not dictate, but advises those in other communities.
Therefore, I submit that biblical canonization is the same as it has been since the giving of the Torah. Adonai provides revelation through those He has called, who speak at risk to their lives. These revelations are compared to what we have already determined to be ordained of Adonai. If it is determined that those words are in ageement with prior ordained revelation and prove to be true by experience, then and only then can they be considered to be scripture. I believe this is the method Paul learned from Gamaliel and employed in validating Yeshua(Jesus) as the Messiah.
In conclusion, it is up to each one of us to search the scriptures daily to see if what has been presented is correct. This is what we are told to do in the Torah and Paul praised those who lived in Beria for doing just that. Please, excuse the my presentation. It is just how how I tend to speak. I fully intend on being challenged on these matters.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/7/2008 1:37:57 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
This is a continuation of a discussion from the "Praying to the Saints and Mary" thread that had wandered off into Scriptures and their interpretation...
quote:
To answer your question about "interpretation" the Scriptures teach us that believers have the Holy Spirit of God within them. Jesus himself taught this in John 14and 16 when he was discussing his going away with the disciples. He promised them a "Comforter" from God the Father who would be "with them" and abide "in" them. One who would remind them, teach them, convict them and guide them into "all truth" (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-15).
What I never can quite resolve about this is that the interpretation of this for so many has to mean that the Holy Spirit automatically allows personal interpretation, and does not mean that a resource and authority for that interpretation is indeed the result of the Holy Spirit in providing this for us.
It's almost like the old joke about the guy being stranded on an island who falls to his knees and prays to God for food. When he awakens the next morning, he is dismayed to find that not only is there no food, but he cannot even leave his shelter without tripping over fishing poles and fishing lures. He can't believe that God would not answer his prayer and wallows in self-pity and despair....
Sounds all too familiar to some of us when we hear some of the rationalizations for self-discernment.
The fact of the matter is that a person that can complete a doctorate degree in ancient languages or theology, and is willing to serve the rest of Christendom with that gift - IS how the Holy Spirit blesses believers, and remains with us today. However, from my point of view, too many are too busy tripping over the fishing poles to be bothered to use them to catch fish - simple as that.
quote:
II Timothy 2:15 states that each believer is responsible to study for himself. I don't believe this is exactly what this verse says, and I believe the Greek will back me up. What this verse says is that we are to resolve our doctrinal differences and not bicker about them, and in fact, together with the proceding verse, can indeed be used to justify the call for an authority, as we must all "impart the word of truth, without deviation". This assumes Timothy learned this from Paul, who learned it from Jesus, and Timothy is to instruct it without deviation to others. This verse is describing magisterium - which Protestants universally dismiss and have abandoned in favor of having a fresh go at Scriptures on their own - 1,500 years (at the time) removed from both Timothy and Paul.
quote:
then I must question MY INTERPRETATION FIRST to see if it lines up with SCRIPTURE If you re-read what you wrote, you will realize that you are describing the breaking of a fundamental rule of language. We can't test our interpretation of Scriptures against Scriptures - we would interpet them the same way again, and would always be in agreement with ourselves. We have to test our interpretations against those of others, and in consensus - define an instruction or discernment, or otherwise agree to disagree. So - there is no "self" discernment in this model either because discernment of the self has to be compared to discernment of others, including Church Fathers and Doctors for an example. In the case of Catholics, this "testing" and "discernment" is done for us by the Church, who is the authority in this matter, which is what we are really after - someone to tell us "this is the right way", rather than having us all constantly squabbling and bickering about it (which Paul instructs against in II Tim 2:14 - the verse preceeding your cite).
More to follow...
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/8/2008 12:45:49 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 66
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
To answer your question about "interpretation" the Scriptures teach us that believers have the Holy Spirit of God within them. Jesus himself taught this in John 14and 16 when he was discussing his going away with the disciples. He promised them a "Comforter" from God the Father who would be "with them" and abide "in" them. One who would remind them, teach them, convict them and guide them into "all truth" (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-15).
quote:
What I never can quite resolve about this is that the interpretation of this for so many has to mean that the Holy Spirit automatically allows personal interpretation, and does not mean that a resource and authority for that interpretation is indeed the result of the Holy Spirit in providing this for us.
Doghouse, my friend, I believe you have missed my point. If you re-read my original post on this, you will see that I do not deny the spiritual authority of those whom God has gifted with the ability to interpret the Scriptures. I believe that we should honor them, read their writings, study their sermons, and seek confirmation of our own views of interpretation of Scripture through them. I do not deny that the Holy Spirit has provided these men to the church.
Where I take issue with the RCC on this is in the area of elevating the writings of the church fathers, the pope, the saints, the traditions of the church, etc. to a level equal with or above the Scriptures. Scripture, the Word of God, is the supreme authority in matters of Faith, Doctrine, and Practice NOTHING ELSE. According to II Timothy 3:16-17, " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. "
The Word of God alone is sufficient as the source of Doctrine. I believe Martin Luther used the words "Sole Scriptura" to make this statement. The writings of the popes, saints, the magisterium, the church Fathers, the traditions of the church, etc. are the writings, thoughts and words of men. As sincere and godly as these MEN may have been, they are still human beings. They are fallible and their writings are fallible because they are not inspired. Only the Scriptures can rightly make that claim and they do. II Timothy 3:16-17.
In all fairness, I must also say that the writings, commentaries, confessions, creeds, sermons, etc. of my faith, C. H. Spurgeon and any other minister that I might consider are also the writings of men. these things are good BUT they are not Scripture. They are, like their authors, fallible.
Nothing written by men, whether pope, priest, saint, or minister, commentator, etc. is to be placed on a level EQUAL with the Scriptures. When the commentator, pope, priest, magisterium, etc. disagrees with the Scriptures, the Scriptures are to be followed as the SUPREME AUTHORITY. In an earlier post (on the other thread) you stated that the Scriptures are among the "least" of the sources used by Catholics. This is ONE of the basic differences between us.
Interpretation of Scripture is, to an extent, a matter of a personal nature. There may be differences of interpretation among individuals, but the question is always "does it line up with what Scripture teaches?" If the interpretation is in line with Scripture no correction is needed. If a particular interpretation fails to line up with the teachings of the Scriptures as a whole. The INTERPRETATION not the SCRIPTURES is to be corrected.
The Bible interprets itself for the most part. Discernment as to the meaning of Scripture is a gift from the Holy Spirit. He has also given the believer a great number of sources from which to draw confirmation of our beliefs concerning his Word. These other sources are to be used "sparingly" and never to be elevated equally or above the Word of God itself.
Peace to you my friend,
2Preacher
(By now you have read enough of my posts to know that I consider the KJV to be the authoritative word of God. When I refer to "the Scriptures", I am referring to the KJV and it's supporting Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/9/2008 9:36:58 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
Where I take issue with the RCC on this is in the area of elevating the writings of the church fathers, the pope, the saints, the traditions of the church, etc. to a level equal with or above the Scriptures. Scripture, the Word of God, is the supreme authority in matters of Faith, Doctrine, and Practice NOTHING ELSE. Again, Scriptures are subject to interpretation - always. The best we can do is hope that there is authority behind what is being instructed to us in the interpretations we learn.
I believe as I believe the first century Christians did. This is borne out for me by the agreement of what I have been instructed with the interpretations of the Church fathers and doctors. I still believe you presume flawless interpretation by anyone who picks up Scriptures, and the posts that appear on this website alone are more then ample evidence that perfect interpretation just does not happen.
What did Jesus have for lunch the 65th day of the 31st year of His life here on earth? An Apostle could no doubt tell us (maybe), but ths information was lost to Scriptures, as this sort of thing did not get recorded. There were maybe some other things that got conveyed to the first century Church that did not get recorded either. A lot of what we know about Jesus came to us from a passionate little man who used to persecute the Church, but was blinded on the road to Damascus. Not from someone who could tell us what Jesus had for breakfast the 65th day of His 31st year on earth.
So fast forward to the beginnings of the compilations of writings of the Apostles (or those writings attributed to Apostles, such as the Gospel of Thomas). Against which standard were the books of this effort of compiling judged in order to come up with the current New Testament that you and I both accept? (our Old Testaments are different - that's another topic for down the road) The New Testament itself does not contain any authorization as to what is to be included in the New Testament - in fact, every time one sees the word "Scripture" in the Bible, it is referring to the Old Testament", and should be read that way.
So how was this standard or criteria established? It had to be by some pertinent information that resided outside the bounds of Scripture. By some force or inspiration or culture that existed that those who did the sorting were led to the correct selections, and not the poor ones. This "tradition", this "standard", this "culture" is that from which the Roman Catholic faith descends. We had no "Bible" until the 5th century or so - the same amount of time removed from Christ as we are removed from the reformation.
So, 1,500 after the fact, the reformers come in and abandoned the magisterium. They abandoned that culture, that standard, that tradition - in favor of "Sola Scripture"; as if a leather-bound book dropped magically from the sky one day and landed with a thud in the middle of Canterbury. They stripped all those lenses that had been used to interpret Scripture, in favor of their own lens, ground and polished in England in the 16th century.
I find THAT somewhat less than authoritative for faith. A divorce from the tool by which Scripture was judged to be Scripture (under the guidance and watchful eye of the Holy Spirit) - the magisterium.
So lacking the tool by which Scripture is interpreted, just how authoirtative is that Scripture? If I set an English Bible in front of a Frenchman who cannot speak English, then that Scripture has no authority for the Frenchman, it is simply paper stained with blotches of ink.
If I set the same Bible in front of an illiterate, that Bible has no authority for him, either, and he must rely on one who can read to instruct for him. In that case, the authority lies in the instructor, because the illiterate has to decide if he can trust or accept that what the instructor is telling him is an honest reading and rendering of the ink on the paper, and having made that decision in the affirmative, he must fully commit to it.
The problem with "Authority of Scriptures" comes not from a misunderstanding of the word "Scripture", but a corruption of the word "Authority".
The Roman Catholic Church does not elevate anything to the level of Scriptures; it simply understands the means and mechanisms by which the instruction contained in them is discerned and interpreted, in a world of the internet, stem cell research and nuclear weapons, into what we know as instruction. I believe this to be something lost on Protestants for the most part. The word "authority" is waved about without really understanding (or contemplating) just what that means or says.
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 8/9/2008 3:17:54 PM >
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/9/2008 10:54:30 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 66
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Doghouse:
Once again I appreciate your candor and honest approach to answering me. I am afraid we just don't see "eye to eye" on this issue.
quote:
The Roman Catholic Church does not elevate anything to the level of Scriptures; it simply understands the means and mechanisms by which the instruction contained in them is discerned and interpreted, in a world of the internet, stem cell research and nuclear weapons, into what we know as instruction.
If the above statement is so, then why is it also so, as you stated earlier, that the "Scriptures are among the least sources" that RC's are encouraged to use? It seems to me, that you are placing much more emphasis on "oral tradition" from the "Fathers and doctors" than on the Scriptures (whether they be"Rheims-Douay" or "KJV")?
I use commentaries to assist me in interpreting my Bible, but I don't view them the same as I do my Bible. The two are in no way equal. The Scriptures themselves are the AUTHORITY. The commentaries, no matter who the interpreter is, are SUBJECTIVE to the Scriptures.
quote:
The problem with "Authority of Scriptures" comes not from a misunderstanding of the word "Scripture", but a corruption of the word "Authority"
I don't believe that I have any misunderstanding of the word "authority" as it applies to the Scriptures. The "authority" is the HOLY SPIRIT of God who is the author of the Scriptures. Yes, they were written by men, but those men were under the inspirational control of the Holy Spirit. He gave them the words and they wrote them down. "Holy men of God, spake as they were moved" (II Peter 1:21) The context of this verse, from the two verses above it states that "prophecy" as contained in the Scriptures is the subject, but this phrase in the end of verse 21 tells us the authority of the writers - it is God himself in the person of the Holy Spirit.
II Timothy 3:16-17 applies to "ALL SCRIPTURE" as it states. Again the authority is the Holy Spirit of God as the author. The meaning of the words "inspiration of God" is that God inspired the writers to write. The Greek word "theopneustos" literally means "divinely breathed in" or "God breathed". All Scripture is given in this manner whether is in the OLD or NEW Testament. "All Scripture" means exactly that ALL SCRIPTURE or do you think that the New Testament is NOT inspired? Show me where the "oral tradition" of the Church can make this same claim- to be the Word of God? Show me where the Church Father's - can make this same claim?
quote:
The New Testament itself does not contain any authorization as to what is to be included in the New Testament - in fact, every time one sees the word "Scripture" in the Bible, it is referring to the Old Testament", and should be read that way.
I am not completely sure the first half of this statement is correct. As to the last half, I partly agree. The New Testament is also Scripture. The OLD testament, the Scriptures as Jesus and the Apostles would have known them, is referred to every time. But NOTE that it is the SCRIPTURES not THE ORAL TRADITIONS WHICH ARE REFERRED TO?
Jesus himself told the Pharisees to "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39) Yes, Christ was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. More importantly to the prophecies concerning himself. But, again, notice that it is the SCRIPTURES not the ORAL TRADITIONS which are referred to. Did the Jews have oral traditions? They had many, but Jesus himself told them to SEARCH the SCRIPTURES, not the oral traditions.
In his instruction to Timothy, the Apostle Paul admonished him to
"continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (II Timothy 3:14-15)
Paul admonished Timothy to "continue" in the things he had been taught as any teacher would encourage his student. But NOTE the special authority he gave to the SCRIPTURES. He stated that they "are ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS." Again note that it is the SCRIPTURES that are elevated NOT oral traditions.
I am not saying that "oral traditions" are not important only that God places the emphasis on His written Word - the Scriptures. The authority of the Scriptures comes from God. I am more interested in what God has to say than what man has written which may or may not agree with God's Word. Both Jesus and Paul emphasized the Scriptures.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/11/2008 6:51:03 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
It seems to me, that you are placing much more emphasis on "oral tradition" from the "Fathers and doctors" than on the Scriptures (whether they be"Rheims-Douay" or "KJV")? Maybe we try this a different way...
quote:
The "authority" is the HOLY SPIRIT of God who is the author of the Scriptures.
First of all - the word "authority" as used in the last couple of posts is of the usage found in this sentence: "George Will, in addition to being a political commentator, is noted authority on professional baseball history". When you hear a Catholic use the word in relation to Church and instruction, it is for the most part this usage. It also means "authority" as in that which we place our assent and our trust, as in "Police are civil authorities". Really - there is no difference between the two, but for some reason these terms have evolved a bit in English. If George Will tells me that Mickey Mantle hit .353 for the season in 1959, I have to take him at this word, unless (or until) I find another authoritative source (the baseball almanac, perhaps).
Having said that, there was a time when we were both little kids that we couldn't speak, nor read. Our parents and/or siblings gave us our initial instruction in language, and we mimicked them in order to learn and assimilate our language skills. Thus, when our parents pointed to a drinking glass and said "drinking glass", we took that for the truth, and this is also how we referred to this item. So, we were instructed our speech assenting to the authority of our instructor (namely, because we didn't know any better).
That authority was verified or confirmed to us by the time we reached kindergarten and began to react with other kids. As we pointed to the drinking glass sitting on a table, and said "drinking glass", the trust and assent we had given to the teaching authority was confirmed. If our parents had taught us that a "drinking glass" was actually a "baseball mitt", we would have quickly found out our error - being corrected by a preponderance of evidence that indeed a drinking glass is "drinking glass", and we would have viewed the "authority" of our parents quite differently.
How does this relate to the above discussion? First, the student cannot be the authority - ever. If we are to learn and if we are to grow, we place our trust in an authority that knows what we would like to know, and assent to that instruction. That instruction then is used and will be eventually tested against other instruction. Sola Scriptura and the sole discernment of Scriptures is the equivalent of the small child walking around the house, naming the dog "houseplant" and naming the drinking glass "baseball mitt", etc. until that "discernment" can be tested and checked against something more authoritative - in this case, someone who can actually speak the Queen's English, and correct the "discernment" of the child in regards to his invented vocabulary.
Second - the discernment may simply be tested by results. In my neck of the woods, there are versions of faith labeled "Christian" that for my money are just about as far from that as can be, with an emphasis on self and material possessions and "winning" and...etc., coupled with a complete abandonment of compassion, mercy and charity. There are entire congregations (which, in the grand scheme of Christianity, represent the smallest of slivers of the total number of faithful), that have assented to an authority which both you and I, without a doubt, would recognize as a complete and utter corruption and perversion of Scriptural message.
I can contrast that with people I have observed of yet other faiths, who do exhibit those choices, actions and values that I would associate with a follower of Christ.
In my life, when I look at the numbers of folks in these camps, the overwhelming affirmation of the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings as being authoritative is present for me. This observation has been formulated through the observation of and participation in dozens of parishes scattered all over he US and some abroad.
Maybe your experience is different.
The bottom line here to me being that sole discernment as a practice is not even a valid description of how people come to formulate belief and faith - it is a denial that we learn what we think we know about the instruction described within Scriptures from someone else. In my case, I can clearly point you to the English translation of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and I can assure you that the French High School student has received the same instruction I have.
In your case...who knows? You are throwing the same "Scripture is the authority" line that is used by the Trinity Broadcasting Network to fleece millions of dollars from pensioners on fixed incomes, so that the executives of that network can live in lavish homes, purchase private jets and vacation homes in exotic places. Where do I query your faith? How do I know how you interpret Luke 1:28 and its significance and meaning for Christians? What source do I turn to to understand how you wind up interpreting Scriptures?
Is it more correct to say that we should be following the faith Jesus deposited in the Apostles, or that faith that we can discern with our own limited gifts and skills from a KJV?
quote:
But NOTE that it is the SCRIPTURES not THE ORAL TRADITIONS WHICH ARE REFERRED TO? Is it not the case that Scriptures, for the most part, are oral traditions that somebody was inspired to write down? The closest writings we have to Jesus time on earth were at least 20 years after the fact.
quote:
In his instruction to Timothy, the Apostle Paul admonished him to
"continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (II Timothy 3:14-15)
2 Peter 1:20-21 - "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."
Church is the means and authority for Christians in the matters of discernment and interpretation (see my signature below). No individual has been given the personal authority to interpret Scriptures for himself - this authority was placed in the Apostolic Church by Jesus, which was charged on the day of Pentecost with the mission and purpose of spreading the faith, and guarding it from heresy.
The fact the the KJV is so widely and ubiquitously used with Protestant Churches implies an assent to authority. Just what is that authority which "authorizes" this version, and not the version authorized by the Roman Catholic Church?
Where do I find this authoritative body? The Latter Day Saints have done the very same thing with their "Book of Mormon", and everybody gives them grief about it, and yet very few Protestants can name the authority to which they assent in the use of the KJV. They just know what they have been taught - that the only Bible is the KJV. They are assenting to the person that taught them, with very little regard for the preparation, training and pedigree of that authority.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/11/2008 10:13:21 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4921
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
As the the subject of the thread "Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible" the Aprocrypha aside there is precious llittle difference in the rest.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my new book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/11/2008 10:17:06 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5493
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
Scripture testifies to its own authority, but ultimately, if we are looking at the issue of the precise bounds of Scripture (the canon issue), there are various authorities that come into play.
Most people initially come to know what the Bible is because someone says, "This is the Bible," and hands them a bound copy. But ultimately, believers accept the Bible as the word of God because of inward persuasion and conviction of the Holy Spirit.
What is interesting is how universally the 27 books of the New Testament are accepted - even in the face of numerous disagreements on other subjects (and in the face of disagreements over the Old Testament).
Ultimately the subject of this thread, "Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible," is really one that is more about those distinctions regarding the part of the Bible that we call the Old Testament, something that was already finished prior to the Incarnation of Christ.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/11/2008 12:12:12 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 66
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Doghouse, My friend:
Once again as usual you have answered me with candor and honesty. Although I do not fully agree with what you are saying, I see your point.
I also see many things that go on in the "church" today that I disagree with strongly. There are many, as you say, that "are versions of faith labeled "Christian" that for my money are just about as far from that as can be, with an emphasis on self and material possessions and "winning" and...etc., coupled with a complete abandonment of compassion, mercy and charity." Surely you must realize, as I do, that not everything that calls itself "Christian" is not truly Christian. There are many counterfeits out there.
As for me, I believe that :
1. The Bible is the Word of God from beginning to end i.e. from the first words of Genesis to the final "amen" of Revelation without any admixture of error. Inspiration is the act of the Holy Spirit of God whereby he implanted the very thoughts and words of Scripture in the hearts and minds of the writers and then superintended the writing of the Scriptures.
(II Timothy 3:16; II Peter 1:19-21)
You stated in your post :
quote:
"Our parents and/or siblings gave us our initial instruction in language, and we mimicked them in order to learn and assimilate our language skills....we were instructed our speech assenting to the authority of our instructor (namely, because we didn't know any better).... That authority was verified or confirmed to us by the time we reached kindergarten and began to react with other kids."
God is the Author of the Scriptures. As such He is the Authority to whom I make my appeal. Just as a child does with his parents, so I do with God. When I was young, if momma or daddy had told me that there was a monster under my bed, I would have believed them because, as you say, at that point, "I simply didn't know any better".
Scripture states that "without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. 11:6)
When it comes to God, we are talking about the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. There is none above him. He states in Isaiah 45:5-ff, " I am the LORD, there is none else, there is no god beside me:..." When we speak of Him, we are speaking of the one who made the earth and everything in it. We are speaking of the one who holds it all together and could destroy it with only a word if he so chooses to do .
ALL other authorities, religious, familial, or civil are given their authority from God. Children are instructed to Honor and obey their parents (Ex. 20:12; Ephesians 6:1-2) We are instructed to obey the Civil Authorities and pray for them. (Heb. 13:17; Romans 13:1-6;I Timothy 2:1-3) We are instructed to respect, honor, and obey those who have been given religious authority as well. ( Hebrews 13:17; I Timothy 5:17-19)
Scripture as it is written in both OLD and NEW TESTAMENTS is the written Word of God for us. It alone carries his authority because he is the source. The only time we are permitted to "buck" the authority of lesser authorities i.e. civil, parental, or religious is when those authorities direct us against or disagree with what God has said in his Word.
Example: Where did Paul gain his understanding of the Gospel? According to Galatians it was in the desert.
NOTE: Galatians 1: 10- ¶ For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Paul got his understanding of the Gospel directly from the Lord Jesus Christ (vs. 12) He did not receive it from men (no oral tradition) but was taught it by the Holy Spirit during his time in ARABIA (desert) vs. 17. When he returned to Jerusalem after three years in the desert, he spent just fifteen days with Peter (vs.18). The only other apostle he reports as seeing is James the Lord's brother.
Paul wrote concerning the Gospel that it is the message of the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins ( I Corinthians 15:1-7) In Galatians 1:8-9 Paul writes concerning false teachers, "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Paul is stating that if some "preacher" comes into our church, home, or any where else preaching a different gospel ("another"of a different kind), even though he may be ordained (approved) by a church, we are free to and should reject his message as false. There is only ONE gospel message.
Paul used the Greek word "anathema" which literally means "let him be accursed" or "excommunicated" i.e. put out of the assembly of believers.
On what authority did Paul say this? On the authority of the Word of God i.e. the Scriptures and what he had received "by the revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul's message, the Gospel, was based on his "knowledge of the Scriptures" and his time spent with the Holy Spirit in the desert studying those Scriptures. Peter's Gospel as preached in Acts 2 was based on his knowledge of the Scriptures and time spent with Jesus Christ. Therefore, anything which contradicts the SCRIPTURES is to be rejected as false doctrine. The Scriptures ARE the word of God.
It is for this reason that I reject the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons,and Hare Krishna's as cults. It is for this reason that I disagree with many of the teachings of televangelists, faith healers, and those who preach the health and wealth message. It is because they are preaching another "gospel" which I don't find in my Bible not simply because I disagree with them but because God's Word disagrees with them.
You state that quote:
"the student cannot be the authority - ever. If we are to learn and if we are to grow, we place our trust in an authority that knows what we would like to know, and assent to that instruction. "
I agree with this statement. "The student cannot be the authority- ever". This is exactly why I attend church regularly and listen to my pastor. It is exactly why I went to a Christian College and Seminary. It is why I submitted myself to the process of ordination or "pastoral approval" of my ministry and doctrinal beliefs. You are absolutely right, but is this not exactly what we are doing when we make statements like quote:
"In my life, when I look at the numbers of folks in these camps, the overwhelming affirmation of the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings as being authoritative is present for me.
I realize that you are speaking about those "who do exhibit those choices, actions and values that I would associate with a follower of Christ" and that is your right, but please note the words I highlighted. The words "for me" and "those choices, actions and values that I would associate" indicate a subjective tone in your statement.
The Scriptures do state that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20) to quote Jesus when he was teaching on the subject of false teachers, but how do we judge the "fruits"? By the Scriptures, not by our own opinions. The Scriptures are NOT the word of God "for me". They are the Word of God whether I believe them to be or not. My part in it is to accept by faith what the Scriptures teach and do it.
Years ago there was a song which said "God said it; I believe it; and that settles it for me". I used to sing this song until I thought about it. The phrase "I believe it " really has nothing to do with whether or not what God says is right or not. If God said it, that settles it.
The Scriptures are the same way. God said, "thou shalt not steal" that settles it. I should not steal. God said, "thou shalt not commit adultery". That settles it. No need for interpretation or another opinion. I should not go out and cheat on my wife. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That settles it. That is the way it happened whether I believe or not. Why is this the case? Because God, not Moses, although he wrote the book of Genesis, said so. I do not question. I simply accept it as fact. This is FAITH.
In the New Testament, when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, says " I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6) There is no need for interpretation, no need for second opinion. Jesus is God in the flesh. He is the authority. He said it. That settles it. Neither I nor any one else has the right to question what Jesus has said.
The reason we have so many denominations today is that men, however well meaning they may be have disagreed with each other over "interpretation" of Scripture. They have spent too much time trying to decide what God meant by what he said and not enough time trying do what God says. Some have decided that certain parts of the Bible don't belong, so they leave them out. Others have added to the Bible things that were never there to begin with. All of this causes CONFUSION as you have noted, and, like you, I also believe that it is not of God but of the Devil - the author of Confusion.
I am going to go now. I will write more later i.e. if this one posts. I hope I haven't "timed out". I have been on here 2 hours + and only attempted to answer you. I hope you will read the references I have used.
Peace.
P.S. I down loaded a copy of the Catechism and I have read through most of it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/11/2008 12:13:03 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 79
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
Scripture testifies to its own authority, but ultimately, if we are looking at the issue of the precise bounds of Scripture (the canon issue), there are various authorities that come into play.
How exactly would you say scripture testifies to itself? If a book doesnt claim an author, is that self testifying? If a book doesnt quote another book, or is not quoted by other books, is that self testifying? Also what authorites come into play? And who gave them their authority? I am just looking to see how you would answer the following questions.
quote:
Most people initially come to know what the Bible is because someone says, "This is the Bible," and hands them a bound copy. But ultimately, believers accept the Bible as the word of God because of inward persuasion and conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Mormons claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, so do they have equal claim to the bible? Also almost every world religion claims some sort of divine inspiration and conviction, does this mean we all have equal claim to divine guidance? How would you objectively be able to look at someone and say that you are guided by a divine God and they are not? If their intentions are just as pure, and their convictions just as strong as yours, how are you given more divine authority than someone else?
quote:
What is interesting is how universally the 27 books of the New Testament are accepted - even in the face of numerous disagreements on other subjects (and in the face of disagreements over the Old Testament).
Ultimately the subject of this thread, "Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible," is really one that is more about those distinctions regarding the part of the Bible that we call the Old Testament, something that was already finished prior to the Incarnation of Christ.
Again there is no official date the OT was defined closed. The only true closed books were the Pentateuch. The rest of history has many views on when and where the OT was finally closed, and there is still no clear evedince as to when it was.
In all actuality there is really only one time period in when we see that all scripture was closed. That was in 393 and 397. This is the only real time in history, with the exception of the Pentateuch, that a church has closed scripture. There is no hard visible evidence for the complete OT before these dates. Like I stated earlier I know that there are many theories going around, but not one actually lays down a closure of scripture with all authority.
I know that some like to say the council of Jamnia, and we all know that at this council the NT was rejected. If we are to take this as authority, then we must also reject our staple as Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/12/2008 6:12:06 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 916
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: online
|
quote:
Scripture testifies to its own authority, Sorry...its probably a personal flaw or shortcoming of mine, but this sentence makes just zero sense to me.
We know the "meaning" of Scripture, because some Sunday school teacher back in the third grade told us that "unto" is the same word and means the same thing as the way we use "for" today. So it does beg the question - how "authoritative" was that third grade teacher? In this case, I would say that the authority of the teacher can be verified by the test of "what does everyone else seem to think 'unto' means?". And I would concede that the "conviction of the Holy Spirit" in this case might the Spirit's blessing us with good teachers, and the ability to rationalize just who is a good teacher and who is a poor one.
That's not to say that there aren't some teachers out there who have claimed a position of pastoral leadership making nonsense out of Scriptures, in absense of some higher authority directing them in their instruction.
quote:
Most people initially come to know what the Bible is because someone says, "This is the Bible," and hands them a bound copy. And I would argue that this process continues on and on as long as the faithful presume to be the student and not the teacher (noting that great teachers are students for life, and are simply passing on the lessons they learn as they learn them). Once an individual presumes authority, the learning ceases. I could argue that if the teaching authority is a collective one based on all the knowledge of the best and the brightest over the years, gathered and compiled and organized, to be disseminated to those who wish to learn, then that teaching becomes quite authoritative.
quote:
Ultimately the subject of this thread, "Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible," is really one that is more about those distinctions regarding the part of the Bible that we call the Old Testament, something that was already finished prior to the Incarnation of Christ. Not necessarily. Apparently, Catholics and Protestants approach the Bible differently and think of it differently and treat it differently, as I pointed out previously about my signature below. I am thinking that there is really nowhere else to discuss this type of subject other than here.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/12/2008 8:35:32 AM
|
|
|
Abishua
Posts: 53
Joined: 8/2/2008
Status: offline
|
I did not read all of the posts in this thread, so maybe my response will only be redundant.....I believe the Catholic Bible, containing the deuterocanonical books, is a very valuable resource.
The deuterocanonical books are quoted, referenced, or alluded to by the writers of the New Testament many, many times, therefore, knowledge of these works will help to clarify the meaning behind those references.
In fact, the original cross references in the KJV included links to the "Apocrypha" and the Apocrypha includes links to the Old and New Testaments
< Message edited by Abishua -- 8/12/2008 11:05:29 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/12/2008 10:50:19 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 66
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Apparently, Catholics and Protestants approach the Bible differently and think of it differently and treat it differently,
Doghouse, my friend:
You have "hit the nail on the head" here. Catholics and Protestants do view the Scriptures differently. The main difference is that, where RC's see three sources of authority i.e. the magisterium, etc. most Protestants see the Scriptures as the Supreme authority. ( at least that it how it use to be, sometimes today I wonder).
You did not respond to my post? I'm wondering why? Hopefully you're just think through your answer. Not trying to taunt you, just waiting for your reply.
Peace,
2Preacher 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/12/2008 11:53:02 AM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 79
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
2Preacher
I have read over a couple of your posts and I am happy to see someone that is willing to talk with fellow christians without attacking and judging.
I have a few questions if you have the time to answer them.
I too believe that the scripute is profitable for learning and reproof, and when you read the verse before it. Paul talks about the scripture Timothy has known from as a child. And after searching the only scripture Timothy would have known would have been the OT. Now I know some say that when Paul said "All" he was refering to OT and NT,and the problem with that is, that the NT wasnt finished or put together. So how would you know what all scripture is, if it is not explicitily in the bible?
I have been searching and still cannot find a place where a table of contents pops up anywhere in the NT. As a matter of fact one of my favorite books in the whole bible, Hebrews, doesnt even have an author. Neither do Math, Mark, Lk and Jn as well as Acts. So following scripture as the supreme authority and no other, we cannot really prove the authenticity of these books.
I have heard some responses as faith is how we know that these books belong, and still what would the faith be in? If faith in God is all that is needed to know which books belong, then any book could be added. Faith that the supreme authority as scripture, would also leave many question marks as to why men inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit couldnt even put their name on a book or letter, as it would have been. How could such profound books be rendered nameless?
It is only through tradition that we know that these books belong. It is ironic that neither in the OT or th NT none of the writers, especially the NT writers, on their own compiled atleast a list of books that should be considered Holy. Some say "All scripture" and say "Scripture" and in the end for both the OT and NT it was the tradition of the church that actually told us what "all scripture" really is.
Since I know that you are a scriptural man, I think that is is funny how the bible tells us to settle our disputes by the Church and not the bible. The pillar of truth is the Churh and not the bible. The power to baptise is given by the Church. The power to bind and loose is given to the Church. The power to forgive is given to the Church. Member of the Church should pray for each other. Jesus said that he is to the Church as husband is to his wife. ( I do know that church authority and tradition are in other discussions, and for this point I feel you cant look at authority of the scripture without briefly discussing authority itself)
Following your own criteria of scripture as the supreme authority (I am assuming of course that we both agree that God is the supreme authority), then the bible authority is relatively limited. The bible even tells us that all thing are not written down because there are too many things to do so.
If i look at my life and all of the things that I have been taught by my parents and grandparents and so forth, it makes sense that not everything was put in the bible. My parents have family traditions that have been passed on to me and me, and me to my children that have never been written down. And if I ceased to stop teaching them, then they would no longer exist. We do things that have been done for hundreds of years, and you could write all you want about my family history and upbringing and maybe only capture 15% of what takes place.
When I look at Jesus in my studies, I find that he could have easily closed what books go in the OT and didnt, he could have created a NT himself and he didnt. What he did create was a Church, and gave the church many responsibilities. He also said that he will lead and protect the Church.
I am serious when I ask that when you are in your study if you have the time could you please find for me in the bible where we can clearly identify the writers Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts and Hb from scripture alone.
Sorry this is a little longer than I expected
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/12/2008 6:21:19 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 66
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
some say that when Paul said "All" he was refering to OT and NT,and the problem with that is, that the NT wasnt finished or put together. So how would you know what all scripture is, if it is not explicitily in the bible?
Loco79:
Welcome to the discussion. I have read your post and I would be happy to attempt to answer your questions if I can. I say "if" because some times there are no clear cut answers. If you will be patient with me, I am willing to research and give you an answer.
As with any other portion of God's word, I accept it on Faith. Who wrote it is not nearly as important as the subject matter which is contained in it's pages. As I stated before, II Timothy 3:16 states that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God . . ." meaning that God the Holy Spirit is the author. He chose to use men to write it down for other men.
When we look at the individual books of Scripture, we find 66 books (in KJV) penned by 40 different human writers. Each human writer had his own vocabulary, occupation, and style of writing. The Holy Spirit used these men to write. He used their vocabulary and style of writing. I personally believe that the reason he used different men from different occupations is because of the fact that those who would later read the Scriptures come from diverse backgrounds as well. He did this so that we, who are reading it now 2000 plus years later can personally relate to the writers. (Just my theory cannot back it up, but there are others who believe the same)
Knowing the occupations, writing styles, and background of the human writers of Scripture gives us clues as to who wrote what even when the writer is not named.
It | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
