Catholicism, Protestantism, and the nature of the Bible

[JeTmAn]

This isn't really about Catholicism, but it involves kind of everything. It came to me when I was contemplating the nature of the Bible....is it truly perfect? How do we know this? We've all been brought up to believe it is perfect, or at least I was, but when you compare the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you come up with a discrepancy; they have different books. Since they are different, they cannot both be perfectly whole and complete. Therefore, there is no guarantee either one of them is perfect and infallible.

However, along with this line of reasoning we find that it is not necessary to have a perfect Bible to be saved. Catholics are saved, Protestants are saved, many others are saved by believing in the core doctrine of Christ (he died for sins, he rose, etc.). There is also the fact that the Bible in its present form (more or less) has really only existed for about five hundred years. The first believers didn't have Bibles, all they knew was what Christ said. They didn't have the letters of Peter or Paul or anything else. But they knew the Lord, and lived.

So, where does this leave us? It seems to leave an awful conundrum for us...we know that we are saved by believing in Christ, but how can we be completely certain the writings we include in our holy book are correct?

 

[VOW]

To Jetman:

The present New Testament has been around since the fourth century.

The Old Testament Bible has been around much longer.

Your "five hundred year" argument is because Luther took it upon himself to remove the Deuterocanonical books which the Christian Church had been using for 1100 years or so.

The Catholic Church teaches that the complete Bible, with the Deuterocanonicals is the "correct" Bible.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[JeTmAn]

VOW, what about people living in the year 100? Do you see the point? They didn't have a Bible, and even the OT writings were not collected as they are today in our Bible. You haven't addressed any of my points.

 

[Wolseley]

Well, it was the Magesterium of the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, which collected the books, both OT and NT together, and proclaimed them to be Scripture, in accordance with the Sacred Tradition they had received from the Apostles.

How do you know it's right?

Well, that's a little thing called "faith".

 

[JeTmAn]

We all know that faith can mislead you. Case in point; the many misprintings of the Bible that had people believing all sorts of strange things. Faith is good, but it is never completely unfounded. It has a basis. Muslims have faith that their writings are holy and correct, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[VOW]

To Jetman:

The people in the year 100 were taught Christianity from Sacred Tradition. This is part of the Original Deposit of Faith, left by the Apostles. This Deposit consists of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Until the Council of the Early Church Fathers assembled ALL the writings of the Apostles and determined which were genuine and which were not, there WAS no "Bible." The only thing the people COULD be taught from was Sacred Tradition.

Further, when this Council studied the various writings, they used Sacred Tradition and guidance from the Holy Spirit to determine which books were inspired.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Blackhawk]

JeTmAn,

I understand what you are saying. The Protestant and the Catholic Bibles are not the same. But there are saved people in the Catholic and the Protestant church. But htey believe in different Bibles since the Catholic Bible has more books in it. Whether the Catholic should or should not have these books is not the issue. What is the issue is that people do not have to believe in a perfect set amount of books to be saved.

Is that what you are saying? If so then I guess you are correct but I have never thought of that.

blackhawk

 

[VOW]

To Jetman:

The Catholic Church teaches this authority was granted to the Apostles and their successors, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit has been and is still with them today.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[BigEd]

salvation isn't based on the number of books in the bible, but rather that Christ is our lord and savior.

both catholic and protestant bibles teach that Christ died for our sins.

 

[VOW]

To All:

The New Testament is identical in both the Catholic and the Protestant Bibles. So therefore, the salvation message in the Bible is available to all.

The Deuterocanonical books are in the Old Testament.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[onesheep]

If a person has the inclination to do the research they will find that even some of the early church fathers did not believe the deuterocanonical books belonged in the OT. There is an excellent article here written by Leslie J. Hoppe, a Franciscan friar of the Assumption Province. He has been Professor of Old Testament Studies at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago since 1981. The article is on Jerome and and his commission from the Pope to translate Scripture into Latin. Jerome’s view corresponded to that of the rabbis. He believed that, while these “extra books” may edify Christian readers, the Church should not use them as a source for doctrine.

Athanasius also believed some of the books were not part of the Canon. One of his Easter letters in late 360's is acknowledged as the earliest list of New Testament books. http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

So not all the early church fathers believed or taught the same thing.

 

[Wolseley]

That's true; but the Church has never claimed that the personal opinions of the early Fathers constitute dogma.

Sacred Tradition, just like Sacred Scripture, is determined by the Magesterium of the Church as a whole, and all subjects must be viewed within the context of that whole.

That's the Catholic viewpoint, anyway.

 

[Hoonbaba]

Hi Jetman,

I just wanted to share my opinion. God is the one who saves, not the Bible =) The Bible is a book filled with pages. The entire Bible is meaningless without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Whoa! Almost sound heretical doesn't it!??!) One only needs to look at liberal scholars and see this as a fact.

Anyway, I'm willing to believe that if every single Bible were burned, it would still be possible for God to reveal his plan of salvation. In fact I read somewhere that one can know a LOT about Christianity from secular historical texts alone. Basically, we can know that Jesus was worshipped on Sunday, people suffered persecution for it, and that they Christians firmly believed he was the savior. Maybe the mere knowledge of that can bring someone to Christ =)

By the way, St. Iraeneus believed that Jesus lived until he was 50. He also believes that flesh and blood inherits the kingdom of God, which clearly contradicts 1 Cor 15:50. And my view of eschatology is completely contrary to theirs, since Jesus said he would come in his kingdom before some of the apostles died (Matt 16:27-28), within the generation of the apostles (Matt 24:34), and that Christ said the high priest, Caiaphas, would personally witness Christ's second coming (Matt 26:64-65). That would probably explain why Christ was accused of blasphemy. The apostles also believe they were living the end times or last days (1 Cor 10:11, Heb 1:2, 1 Pet 1:20, 1 John 2:18). Was apostle Paul wrong by telling people not to marry, or for those married not to live as if they were? He clearly believed the end was near his day (1 cor 7:16-31)

By the way, I don't believe in a physical end of the cosmos (Ecc 1:4, Ps 78:69, Ps 104:5, Is 9:6-7, Dan 2:44, Luke 1:33, Eph 3:21). But rather I believe the 'end' was the end of Biblical judaism in 70 AD, when the 'power of the holy people were cut off' (Daniel 12:7), where the holy people were the 1st century Jews and the 'power' they possessed was their covenant relationship with God. This view of eschatology is called covenant eschatology, or more commonly known as preterism. I personally look at Revelation depicting a passing of the old covenant and the establishment of the new covenant (Heb 8:7-13, Gal 4:21-31). Ok i'm getting a bit carried away

So anyway, I personally believe that Christ and the apostles were right, yet the Church Father's could've made a mistake. Some of them, after all believed that the world would end in 400 AD...I think Augustine was one of them. And from the Church Fathers, Christianity as a whole kept picking dates on when Christ's 2nd coming would be. The history of apocalypticism is ridiculous and it makes Christianity look like a false religion. Ouch.

As for sacred tradition. 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6 speak of such teaching/tradition which was passed on by word of mouth or written word. Also 2 Peter 3:16 speaks about apostle Paul's writing and how they're difficult to understand. Apostle Peter seems to imply that the epistles of apostle Peter are up to par with 'other scriptures' (i.e. probably the old testament).

Fascinating isn't it?

God bless!

-Jason