Hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the Catholic Church?

[the_seraphim]

god authored the bible, and gave man logic to decide for himself which books are "canon" as you put it... what right does any of these things ie nicea have to decide which of gods books are ok?

 

[LST 1154]

Psalm 119:89, "Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven." Psa 119:152, "Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever." Psa 119:160, "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal."

If God's word is "forever" and "eternal" how could anyone claim to have chosen the "correct" books?

LST 1154

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the Catholic Church?

Subscribing............



.

 

[johnregnier]

I have one question: Catholics are big on church fathers. Well, How do we know they were right?


May God bless, John

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I have one question: Catholics are big on church fathers. Well, How do we know they were right?

Morning, for the apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox), the correctness of church fathers are based on consensus and consistency. An individual might not have been 100% about everything, but when we take a look at them as a whole, we can see a consistent argument about a particular doctrine.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Morning, for the apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox), the correctness of church fathers are based on consensus and consistency. An individual might not have been 100% about everything, but when we take a look at them as a whole, we can see a consistent argument about a particular doctrine.

There are numerous examples of writings which are consistent with each other, but which were rejected. Why were some accepted, but others rejected if consistency is the criteria being used? For example, the Gnostics were certainly consistent in their theology, were they not? But they were rejected? Why?

 

[Knee V]

Hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the Catholic Church?

Subscribing............

.

The Thread Necromancer strikes again!

 

[Rick Otto]

Turkleton;Now don't freak out at me. Read my statements carefully and think before posting. Be open to what I state and be charitable when answering. I really want to know where protestants stand on this topic. Correct whatever statements I've made that are incorrect (fact wise). Make sure you are well informed on the history of Christianity when answering here.

Historically, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged in the Bible, and to assure us that everything in the Bible is inspired. This is historical fact. Apart from the decision of the Church, we simply have no way of knowing either truth.

Now don't freak out at me, be charitable. Authority is not what determines if a piece is inspired or not. Truth is what determines that. So it would appear that on a subtext level, you have equated Catholicism with truth.
This could lead to problems of cognitive dissonance over what can properly be identified as "Catholic" since Catholics do not acknowlege error on their part as a church, but do acknowlege error on the part of individual members of their church. How they cognitively seperate the church from its membership necessarily involves self contradiction.

Martin Luther himself admits in his Commentary on St. John (ch. 16), "we are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]--that they possess the word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Luther is admitting that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church.

Not that I believe the so-called "Catholic Church" is to be given any of God's glory, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The Catholic Church's efforts owe gratitude to the apostles, not themselves. This just smacks of self promotion.

Luther's statement support the argument that without the decisions of the Catholic Church, we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired. St. Augustione says in "Contra Epistolam Manichaei, "I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of theCatholic Church had directed me to do so." St. Augustine recognized that theonly way to determine which books are inspired is to accept the teaching authority of the Cahtolic Church.

...On this one particular subject, maybe, but not because of it's self appointed authority. Besides, Protestants are in this aspect, immune to the personality cult aspect of authority figures generaly speaking, so disagreeing with Luther isn't a problem, it is the content of reasoning that becomes the focus instead of the veneration of authorities.

Historically, the Bible is a Catholic Book. The official canon of books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Thus it is from the Catholic Church that protestants have a Bible at all.

Arguable, but more importantly, having one & understanding one are seperate & equaly important considerations.

And here is my main point I would like to see most of the discussion go towards...

Logically, the Church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God, must have the infallbible authorty and guidance of the Holy Spirit

.

It's not logical to not expect some error on the part of the Church.

we have seen, apart from the declatartion fo the Catholic Church, we have abosulutely no guarantee that what is in the Bible is the genuine Word of God.

That's an outright contradiction of His Spirit witnessing to us. Believing that is what makes you a controllable asset.

To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible. It is contradictory for Protestans to accept the Bible and et to reject the authority of the Catholic Church.

The Bible is the authority, the Church is just the subject of that authority, not the origin of it.

Logically, Protestants should not quote the Bible at all, for they have no way of determining which books are inspired--unless, of course, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You have a lot to learn about inspiration & I suggest you investigate the criteria for determining it, other than a self-appointed authority that schismed itself over ten centuries ago.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some comments:

1. MUCH of the Scriptures were regarded as such and embraced as the norma normans LONG before even the RCC itself claims to have come into existance, so your claim that IT formed the Scirptures is baseless. Moses came down that Mountain with the first Scriptures long before Simon Peter was born. Jesus referenced the Scriptures BY NAME - as "the Scriptures" over a dozen times - long before even the RCC claims it was founded. Scripture is older than the RCC.


2. The consensus around what is and is not Scripture is a chapter in Jewish/Christian history that is largely unknown. We have the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD for the Jews - but it merely affirmed the process, it was not the whole of it. And yes, the Council of Hippo in the very late 4th century did list the NT canon books, but it was pretty much a settled issue by then - and the Council of Hippo did nothing to resolve the continued questions (which continued, of slight degree, through the middle ages and until Trent in the 16th Century).


3. Nearly all denominations have, in some formal sense at some formal meeting, declared their affirmation of the canon of Scripture. The RCC is in this sense no different than most of the other 34,999 denominations that Catholics insist exist - virtually all of them (RCC included) at some point had a formal embrace of the books. But to affirm and embrace the consensus is not the same as to form it, apples and oranges. I agree with history, St. Augustine and my Catholic teachers that the RCC AFFIRMED the canon - it didn't form it.


4. In a typical RCC style, you seem to assume that "the church" is The Catholic Denomination. No one else does. Scripture certainly doesn't. And your exclusion of Judaism and the Eastern Orthodox Christians is remarkable to me - as if none of them had a THING to do with the Scriptures and should bow in docility before the RCC as The Infallible Voice of God before they read the Scriptures.



This bit of history focuses on only PART of Scriptures - just the NT part - but it shows that even it was collected with ZERO involvement by the RCC (or any other denomination). Add to that the OT, which also did not involve the RCC.


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.

Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.

So now we have a consensus around 20 books. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.


Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cprian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.


Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.



Early Christian Meetings:


Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod and in no sense an ecumenical council, it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Again, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. It's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It's the now familiar 27.

Since then, hundreds upon hundreds of gatherings of various types have confirmed this consensus that Christians developed and which later these councils acknowledged.



The wisdom of St. Augustine on this:

Augustine (352-430): Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.



A note about the DEUTEROcanonical OT books,

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent"




.

 

[Albion]

Deleting post. I did not realize at first that this is a long dead discussion.

 

[childofdust]

Logically, Protestants should not quote the Bible at all, for they have no way of determining which books are inspired--unless, of course, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Logically, this would mean that no Jew could quote from their bible either—that no Jew before the coming of the Church had any way of determining which books were inspired. Logically, this is ludicrous—no ancient Jew would agree with such a statement. They obviously believed they knew which books were inspired and which were not. And the books they used and considered inspired were taken up and used by the first Jewish Christians when the Church began. The New Testament was not considered scripture for quite some time. The Word of God of the early Church was those texts considered by the Jews to be authoritative and inspired. So, really, your statement is backwards. It really should be: no Catholic (or Protestant) should quote from the Bible at all unless they are able to trace it to Jewish tradition.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Historically, the Bible is a Catholic Book. The official canon of books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Thus it is from the Catholic Church that protestants have a Bible at all.

NONE agrees with the RCC on what is and is not Scripture; what is "the Bible." And NONE ever have. The RCC has a UNIQUE Bible that NONE agree with. Ever. Not in the 4th century, not in the 21st Century.

If the RCC sees itself as the all-powerful Leader here, why does it have NO followers? And NEVER has had any? It ONLY agrees with ITSELF on this topic. And that only since the 16th Century.

Look at the OOC Bibles. NONE of them are the same as the RCC's new one. And they NEVER have been. Not in the 4th Century, not in the 16th, not now.

Look at the EOC Bible. It's NOT the same as the RCC's new one. And it NEVER has been. Not in the 4th Century, not in the 16th, not now.

Look at most RCC Bibles in the middle ages, with their 28th NT book, the Epistle to the Leodiceans. It started to disappear from Catholic tomes after Luther didn't include it in his German Translation...

Look at Luther's German translation..... note that it has one MORE book in it than the modern post-Trent RCC one.

Look at the official King James Anglican tome.... note it is NOT the same as the new RCC one.

NONE is like the new RCC Bible.
NONE ever has been.

How can the RCC be the big "leader" here if NONE follow it? And never have? Sure, it's an "authority" but history shows ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY and SOLELY and UNIQUELY for it itself. I can't think of any church, denomination, cult, sect, religion or group that is not an authority for ITSELF. Exclusively. Agreeing with none but self. Any that has less "leadership" than the RCC has shown here - ending up with a totally unique Bible.



I no longer visit here or post here much. I've 'moved.' I explain why in my "testimony - best of" thread (a link to it is below in my signature). IF you want to discuss this with me, go to the forums of CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry you'll find me in the Lutheran forum.




.

 

[Giver]

Hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the Catholic Church?

Subscribing............



.

Yes the Catholic Church teaches that what contradicts the written Word of God.

By the way Jesus taught me that the bible was his written Word. The only bible I owned when he taught me that, was the Jerusalem Bible.

The Catholic Church does not adhere to the Words of it’s own bible.

Because the Church does not live God’s Word, are the reason Holy Spirit no longer leads the Church.

If the Church had continued to live/teach God’s Word, there would not be any Protestant Churches, those churches who made the slide down to Hell much faster.

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

Jesus did not sin!

 

[Bill McEnaney]

Deleted by poster.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

I'm afraid Protestants shortened the Bible.

The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

 

[Albion]

I'm afraid Protestants shortened the Bible.

The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

Well, so did the RCC. The more important point is that the 66 books used by Protestants are the books that all Christians use and agree upon.

Of course a variety of Catholic churches use some others, each such church having its own idea as to which to use in addition to the Hebrew Bible with New Testament added. Some of them have fewer than the RCC does; some of them more.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

Yes the Catholic Church teaches that what contradicts the written Word of God.

By the way Jesus taught me that the bible was his written Word. The only bible I owned when he taught me that, was the Jerusalem Bible.

The Catholic Church does not adhere to the Words of it’s own bible.

Because the Church does not live God’s Word, are the reason Holy Spirit no longer leads the Church.

If the Church had continued to live/teach God’s Word, there would not be any Protestant Churches, those churches who made the slide down to Hell much faster.

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

Jesus did not sin!

Giver, what do you think Christian love consists in, probably not a kind of affection, eh? Were it a kind of affection, how could I love people I don't like? If you have any enemies whom you know, how much do you like them? For a Catholic, Christian love isn't a feeling. We choose to do it. We want the best, Heaven, for the ones we love, and even if we detest them, we're still willing to do all we can to help them get there.

Sometimes, when people quote the Bible to argue for what they believe, they don't even try to explain what the quotation means. Take the passage where Our Lord says, "If your eye offends you pluck it out." Does He want us to mutilate ourselves? No, the point is that we should avoid anything that tempts us to sin. For example, if I lust after women, I need to avoid circumstances where I'd do that. I know of evangelists who memorized the whole KJV, Jack van Impe, say. But he hasn't convinced me that he comprehends what he quotes. How much does he know about ancient Hebrew history, biblical literary genres, ancient biblical figures of speech, Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac, the Aramaic dialect Christ spoke?

Most people I've met who believe Catholic doctrine is unbiblical seem to know too, too little about Catholicism. To me, the theology I hear from those people, Jack Chick and Jimmy Swaggart, for example, sounds shallow. Think about some pastors of mega-churches. How much theology are their congregations learning from them when they tell them that God will give them a fortune? What does the prosperity gospel teach them about virtue, heroic sanctity, penitence, the commandments . . .? Too often, when I listen to Joel Osteen, he sounds like a motivational speaker, not like a pastor. I should know because one of my best friends is a professional motivational speaker.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would first want to ask, "What do you mean when you say 'Catholic Church'". If you mean that peculiar ecclesiastical communion HQ'd in Rome under the Pope. Well, no, it's not hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the "Catholic Church". Just ask those Orthodox folk.

But if by "Catholic Church" you mean the one universal Church established by Jesus Christ through the preaching and teaching of His apostles, who ordered and ordained bishops, pastors to shepherd the flock and which has received that teaching from the Apostles and which has continued to confess and believe the faith through the centuries in her Creeds and Confessions. Then, yeah, I would say it's hypocritical to say you accept the Bible but reject the Catholic Church, it's the Church that has received, confessed, and passed down the Scriptures so that you and I--as members of the Church--can continue to receive, confess, and pass them down.

It's just that Rome doesn't have a monopoly on being Catholic. Catholicity isn't determined by the successor of St. Peter saying he's the chief pontif. Catholicity is instead, as St. Vincent of Lerins said, "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." It is the Church's faithful confession, her confessing and believing what has been always believed and confessed that makes her catholic.

I cannot deny the Catholic Church, because it is Christ's Church. But I don't accept the claim by Rome that it has the claim and title over Christ's Catholic Church. Which, I suppose, is one reason I'm an Evangelical Catholic, a Lutheran.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bill McEnaney]

For me, Christ founded only the Catholic Church, the Church the pope rules. In my opinion, there's no such thing as "the Christian Church" if that phrase stands for the interdenominational collection of all Christians. Every non-Catholic Christian group is, I think, heretical, schismatic, or both. I don't mean to offend anyone. I'm only telling everyone exactly what I believe.

 

[Albion]

For me, Christ founded only the Catholic Church, the Church the pope rules. In my opinion,

You said it well. IF the Roman Catholic Church were the only church founded by Christ, or authorized by Christ, the rest of your proposition would logically follow. For you, it makes perfect sense because that is your opinion.

For the rest of us, however, who are convinced that Christ didn't found any particular denomination and have studied history and scripture sufficient to have reached a different conclusion about popes, etc. it would make no sense to suppress our best judgment and take the course you did, based upon your own best judgment.

In my opinion, there's no such thing as "the Christian Church" if that phrase stands for the interdenominational collection of all Christians. Every non-Catholic Christian group is, I think, heretical, schismatic, or both. I don't mean to offend anyone. I'm only telling everyone exactly what I believe.

There's certainly room here for different opinions. I do think, however, that it's a good idea to respect the beliefs of other Christians, and not speak as though one's own opinions are accepted fact to everyone. To that extent, I appreciate that you prefaced the paragraph above with the words "In my opinion." Saying that certainly isn't an admission that what you are saying is NOT the truth.