A few questions for Protestants

[BNR32FAN]

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. It is a beautiful addition to Christ's Church, but remember Catholics were saved before one Word of the New Testament was written.

well the New Testament certainly is.

 

[Valletta]

Sounds like a struggle for ownership of something that had already existed without the official seal of some institution. All they did was put a seal on it and made the claim.

Not at all. As I stated, the readings at masses differed from place to place and it the Catholic Church recognized the importance of determining what was God-breathed and what was not. Only God-breathed text was to be used for the readings at masses.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church CHOSE the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. No Catholic Church, no Bible.

Sounds like a struggle for ownership of something that had already existed without the official seal of some institution. All they did was put a seal on it and made the claim.

To a large extent, that's true.

The Council of Carthage approved 66 books, appealed to the church at Rome to accept its work, and was generally successful in that respect. The Council's decisions were accepted in the Western part of the Roman Empire but not in the East.

 

[timothyu]

Only God-breathed text was to be used for the readings at masses.

That had been determined much earlier but again no official seal of approval from the new church government. You are right about the various churches and the struggle to incorporate or reject as needed in creating the new super power. Much how the new 'church', the WEF and Corporatism works today. They even struggled with James and Revelation, both totally Kingdom oriented following the Kingdom Gospel Jesus taught (God breathed text) but in conflict with any church that had sold out to the governments of man in order to incorporate even with them, exposing what is meant by good and bad fruits showing the value of a tree to God. In selling out, that harlot of Babylon(Rome) reference in Rev. must have insulted a few people of the original cancel culture..

 

[Valletta]

To a large extent, that's true.

The Council of Carthage approved 66 books, appealed to the church at Rome to accept its work, and was generally successful in that respect. The Council's decisions were accepted in the Western part of the Roman Empire but not in the East.

The Catholic Church, in a process that spanned centuries, chose the 73 books of the Bible and gave the world the Bible in the later 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. This was in 367 A.D. The list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D

 

[timothyu]

The Catholic Church, in a process that spanned centuries, chose the 73 books of the Bible and gave the world the Bible in the later 300s.

Might be better to stick to the 'church of the universe' which was the people caring for each other and called the Way.. Whoever absconded with their 'religion' certainly forgot to take and use their way.

 

[timothyu]

The church where the canon was ratified has been under the waters of Lake Iznik in Turkey for centuries beyond a millennia. Hope there is no relation to the Flood.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church, in a process that spanned centuries, chose the 73 books of the Bible and gave the world the Bible in the later 300s.

Nothing new here. See my previous post for the reply.

 

[Valletta]

The Catholic Church, in a process that spanned centuries, chose the 73 books of the Bible and gave the world the Bible in the later 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. This was in 367 A.D. The list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D

Nothing new here. See my previous post for the reply.

You can see in this excerpt from a 405 A.D. letter from Pope Innocent I to the Bishop of Toulouse that there are books that are not in Protestant Bibles: "Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings 2 together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, 3 and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra, 4 two of Chronicles. And of the New Testament: of the Gospels four. Epistles of the apostle Paul fourteen. 5 Epistles of John three. Epistles of Peter two. Epistle of Jude. Epistle of James. Acts of the Apostles. John's Apocalypse."
Letter of Innocent I on the Canon of Scripture

 

[Buzzard3]

Sounds like a struggle for ownership of something that had already existed without the official seal of some institution. All they did was put a seal on it and made the claim.

If I were a Protestant, I would want to avoid the inconvenient truth that my Bible is a Catholic publication too.

 

[timothyu]

If I were a Protestant, I would want to avoid the inconvenient truth that my Bible is a Catholic publication too.

Why would you twist my words to make it sound as if I had anything against scripture of the Bible regardless of who claims it? At least scripture is honest even when man is not.

 

[Valletta]

He didn't twist your words. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible is an historical fact.

 

[timothyu]

He didn't twist your words. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible is an historical fact.

But irrelevant to the content of those books. Can't ride on their coattails.

 

[Fidelibus]

No one interprets scripture perfectly. Certainly not the Catholic church.. . the Bible is inerrant, but no church organization holds all truth.

Let's make sure I have this right renniks, under this Protestant theology system you adhere too, regardless or impressive as any Protestant Pastor's, or televangelist scholarly background,,, be it the late Billy Graham, or todays Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, etc. his/her credentials mean absolutely nothing when it comes to having an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Does that sound about right?

If you agree, (which I think you do, for you did say..."No one interprets scripture perfectly") in Protestantism, the interpretation of any person who can read the Bible is just as valid, just as authoritative, as the interpretation of any other person who reads the bible, right?

IOW, my interpretations of the Bible, the Catholic Church's interpretation of the bible, and your interpretations of the Bible, are just as valid and just as authoritative as the late Billy Graham, or todays Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, etc. your pastor's interpretations. right?

So, under your Protestant theological belief system, there is no way to know for sure what is or is not true when it comes to the Christian faith and the Bible. Because without an infallible person or institution, then every single interpretation of the Bible done by anyone anywhere, carries with it the possibility of being wrong. There can be no such thing as "absolute assurance" of anything in Protestantism. Does that sound about right?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

If they expounded on scripture correctly the Catholic church wouldn't have so many doctrines that are directly opposite of what scripture says.

Our friend Valletta corrected your misunderstanding quite nicely on post #520.

Which brings us back to the topic of this thread, "A Few Questions for Protestants." Take note on the last word of the title. There are many other threads within this Christian Forum for you to question or comment on regarding the Catholic Church's beliefs and teachings. So please keep that in mind when posting. Thanks.

So renniks, the same question you passed over on my post # 513 to you.

"Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?"

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[YeshuaFan]

What Paul was actually referring to is right there in the verse that was cited in support of the notion that Jesus was speaking of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, what he actually said (and now I'm quoting directly from Fidelibus' post) was this--



Obviously, it's the people of God who as a whole are defined as Christ's church.

Indeed, as that is the "true church" of Christ!

 

[renniks]

Let's make sure I have this right renniks, under this Protestant theology system you adhere too, regardless or impressive as any Protestant Pastor's, or televangelist scholarly background,,, be it the late Billy Graham, or todays Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, etc. his/her credentials mean absolutely nothing when it comes to having an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Does that sound about right?

If you agree, (which I think you do, for you did say..."No one interprets scripture perfectly") in Protestantism, the interpretation of any person who can read the Bible is just as valid, just as authoritative, as the interpretation of any other person who reads the bible, right?

IOW, my interpretations of the Bible, the Catholic Church's interpretation of the bible, and your interpretations of the Bible, are just as valid and just as authoritative as the late Billy Graham, or todays Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, etc. your pastor's interpretations. right?

So, under your Protestant theological belief system, there is no way to know for sure what is or is not true when it comes to the Christian faith and the Bible. Because without an infallible person or institution, then every single interpretation of the Bible done by anyone anywhere, carries with it the possibility of being wrong. There can be no such thing as "absolute assurance" of anything in Protestantism. Does that sound about right?

Have a Blessed Day!

Well like anything else we put a lot more stock into the views of someone who studied the scripture for a lifetime, who understands the original language over someone who is merely a reader. And being Joel or Joyce certainly doesn't make them more authoritive just because they are popular. Your " infallible" popes have all kinds of different interpretations so how in the world can you trust thier authority? Does the current liberal pope speak for God? I sincerely hope not!

 

[renniks]

Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?"

Apparently not because no one is without flaws in understanding.
To claim your church got it right you have to account for all the contradictions from different popes.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Apparently not because no one is without flaws in understanding.
To claim your church got it right you have to account for all the contradictions from different popes.

And have to explain why many dogmas do not line up with the scriptures

 

[YeshuaFan]

Well like anything else we put a lot more stock into the views of someone who studied the scripture for a lifetime, who understands the original language over someone who is merely a reader. And being Joel or Joyce certainly doesn't make them more authoritive just because they are popular. Your " infallible" popes have all kinds of different interpretations so how in the world can you trust thier authority? Does the current liberal pope speak for God? I sincerely hope not!

Its when a Pope speaks to dogma and doctrines he is seen by Catholics as being infallible, correct?