Catholicism vs Protestantism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
Is this the idea that you are putting forward? Go with scripture only, Sola scriptura, and decide for yourself what is scripture?
Sola Scriptura is a solidly biblical doctrine (Matthew 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16,17). However Christians do not decide for themselves what is Scripture and what is not. The Holy Spirit has already guided the early Christians to exclude all the books that do not belong in the Bible.

Christ Himself established the divine inspiration of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), which is presently the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. See Luke 24. Those 24 books were split into 39 in the Septuagint, but the Reformers retained that arrangement. However, they should really have followed the Tanakh which has three major divisions -- Torah (5 books), Neviim (8 books), and Ketuvim (11 books).

The Holy Spirit led Peter to confirm that over half the New Testament (NT) -- all the epistles of Paul -- were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). There are other books in the NT which testify to their divine inspiration. And there are probably five books which do not directly say that they are inspired, but they are in perfect harmony with the rest of the Bible, and have been accepted as Scripture since the 2nd century (since they are found in the Syriac Peshitta).

The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek corruption of the Old Testament (OT) from around 200 BC, which incorporated 50 apocryphal books (which were never a part of the Tanakh).

The Orthodox churches allowed some of these books to remain within their bibles. The Catholic church chose seven of those books to remain in their bibles. Had the Catholic church accepted the recommendation of their scholar Jerome (who translated directly out of both the Hebrew and Greek to produce the Latin Vulgate) those apocryphal books [called "deutero-canonical" (second canon) by the RCC] would have been removed.

By the time of the Reformation the RCC was bound and determined to prove that they had the correct Bible, therefore the Council of Trent declared those books to be canonical. Thus Catholics believe that they have seven extra books in their OT.

When the King James Bible was first published it included the Apocrypha between the two testaments. But the preface of the translators made it clear that it was not Scripture, but an adjunct. Eventually it was removed (as was the preface).
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
I understand but wouldn't you agree that a unbeliever Biblically cannot find salvation on his own merits? What do you preach to unbelievers about salvation? Reason I ask is in your opinion does Catholicism lead to salvation? If no then wouldn't you be afraid that your friends destination would be the same?

Many people on here says it doesn't lead to salvation.
Impossible to lead to salvation. It leads to Rome. . the patron saint factory .(3500 the legion and rising picking up speed).

Doing despite to the grace of God leads people away from the gospel .It is the damnable or judge-able heresy that reveals those who have no light. In need of the gospel.

In that way there must be different understandings .the kingdom does not come by observing the temporal things seen .we walk by faith the unseen eternal.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.


2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
I never read directly those book but some article that quote that book I did, and to me its not consistent with the Bible
Seems to beg the question. Your opinion of what Bible doctrine is doesn't determine what the Bible is. Those books were in use when Jesus preached. The Bible didn't come as a complete book all at once, it was compiled and canonized. Those books were canon up until Luther decided that they didn't fit with his ideas about what the Bible should teach. Thankfully the other books that he did the same thing with (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) were recognized to be canonical. So other than your opinion, what reason do you have for rejecting books that until the 1600s were basically universally recognized to be part of the Bible?
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
Sola Scriptura is a solidly biblical doctrine (Matthew 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16,17). However Christians do not decide for themselves what is Scripture and what is not. The Holy Spirit has already guided the early Christians to exclude all the books that do not belong in the Bible.

Christ Himself established the divine inspiration of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), which is presently the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. See Luke 24. Those 24 books were split into 39 in the Septuagint, but the Reformers retained that arrangement. However, they should really have followed the Tanakh which has three major divisions -- Torah (5 books), Neviim (8 books), and Ketuvim (11 books).

The Holy Spirit led Peter to confirm that over half the New Testament (NT) -- all the epistles of Paul -- were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). There are other books in the NT which testify to their divine inspiration. And there are probably five books which do not directly say that they are inspired, but they are in perfect harmony with the rest of the Bible, and have been accepted as Scripture since the 2nd century (since they are found in the Syriac Peshitta).

The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek corruption of the Old Testament (OT) from around 200 BC, which incorporated 50 apocryphal books (which were never a part of the Tanakh).

The Orthodox churches allowed some of these books to remain within their bibles. The Catholic church chose seven of those books to remain in their bibles. Had the Catholic church accepted the recommendation of their scholar Jerome (who translated directly out of both the Hebrew and Greek to produce the Latin Vulgate) those apocryphal books [called "deutero-canonical" (second canon) by the RCC] would have been removed.

By the time of the Reformation the RCC was bound and determined to prove that they had the correct Bible, therefore the Council of Trent declared those books to be canonical. Thus Catholics believe that they have seven extra books in their OT.

When the King James Bible was first published it included the Apocrypha between the two testaments. But the preface of the translators made it clear that it was not Scripture, but an adjunct. Eventually it was removed (as was the preface).
This is ahistorical. It could be argued that the reformers were led to reject what is now considered apocrypha, but early councils that met on the issue recognized those books. Christian writers who gave lists recognized those books. Early manuscripts recognized those books. So why did the Holy Spirit wait until Martin Luther to exclude them in favor of the canon set by Jewish leaders in reaction to Christianitys rise at the council of Jamnia?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
This is ahistorical. It could be argued that the reformers were led to reject what is now considered apocrypha, but early councils that met on the issue recognized those books. Christian writers who gave lists recognized those books. Early manuscripts recognized those books. So why did the Holy Spirit wait until Martin Luther to exclude them in favor of the canon set by Jewish leaders in reaction to Christianitys rise at the council of Jamnia?
Well it is not likely that if folks do not read the 66 books recognized as canonical it is not likely that they will read the apocryphal book or the gnostic books except to find an excuse to not believe the bible.

There is no question as to whether the epistle to the Romans or the gospel of John should be in the bible. Reconcile your beliefs here first then we will discuss these additional writings.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
Well it is not likely that if folks do not read the 66 books recognized as canonical it is not likely that they will read the apocryphal book or the gnostic books except to find an excuse to not believe the bible.

There is no question as to whether the epistle to the Romans or the gospel of John should be in the bible. Reconcile your beliefs here first then we will discuss these additional writings.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say to reconcile my beliefs here. There may be no question on Romans, but some of the reformers were led to try to kick James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation out of the canon as well as speaking derisively of the pentateuch, Esther and other OT books. To claim it was the work of the Holy Spirit is nothing more than ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to your particular tradition to escape discussion of the historical work of canonization.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
...theology has driven translation...
Very true!

Also, the English word "grace", for example, is shaped in part by how translators have used it in English Bibles in the past.


This reminds me of a situation, and maybe our good brother Jackson can add more to this.

In Indonesian there is the word "ajaib". It can mean wondrous, miraculous, or magical, and it is often applied to God's works.

In English, we will say God's works are miraculous, but never magical because that has the wrong implications.

But Indonesian doesn't have that luxury, so it's just based on context.

I think this is all because Christianity was present on the island of Britain before English developed. But in Indonesia, the language is older than the arrival of Christianity. So there wasn't a need, centuries ago, to separate magical and miraculous.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
It could be argued that the reformers were led to reject what is now considered apocrypha, but early councils that met on the issue recognized those books.
Early councils were not investigating those books. But Jerome did investigate them and rejected them as being non-canonical. And the final authority is Christ Himself, who made it perfectly clear that only the 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh were Scripture. Please read and study -- and digest -- Luke 24.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
Early councils were not investigating those books. But Jerome did investigate them and rejected them as being non-canonical. And the final authority is Christ Himself, who made it perfectly clear that only the 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh were Scripture. Please read and study -- and digest -- Luke 24.
Investigated them on what criteria? Who decided the criteria to investigate them under? Picking out Jerome is nothing more than cherry-picking, and part of the issue is in Jesus' time the ketuvim was not part of the official Hebrew canon that came with Jamnia after Christ. So why not exclude that as well?
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
...Holy Spirit will lead us to understand Bible...
I'm glad you said that because maybe it can save us a lot of time.

It is good that the spirit helps us to understand the scriptures!

It's just that we are then no longer using scripture alone as "the soul rule of faith and practice". We are using scripture plus spirit.

In Latin I think that would be "scriptura et spiritus".
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
Seems to beg the question. Your opinion of what Bible doctrine is doesn't determine what the Bible is. Those books were in use when Jesus preached.
Seem to me you know those book very well, is that book teach you to pray to mary? What part or verse in the what you call bible teach you pray to Mary or it is ok to sale forgiveness.

Your opinion of what Bible doctrine is doesn't determine what the Bible is.
But your opinion is? Than every body has his own opinion.

So other than your opinion, what reason do you have for rejecting books that until the 1600s were basically universally recognized to be part of the Bible?
Other than my opinion? Do you expect your opinion?

No I like my own opinion.

Other than your opinion what the reason you accept those book as part of the Bible?
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
Sorry, I don't understand this part.
I think one of the brother say that unless you read bible in original language you read people opinion.

So I ask if that mean translator edit the original bible
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
Sola Scriptura is a solidly biblical doctrine (Matthew 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16,17). However Christians do not decide for themselves what is Scripture and what is not. The Holy Spirit has already guided the early Christians to exclude all the books that do not belong in the Bible.

Christ Himself established the divine inspiration of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), which is presently the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. See Luke 24. Those 24 books were split into 39 in the Septuagint, but the Reformers retained that arrangement. However, they should really have followed the Tanakh which has three major divisions -- Torah (5 books), Neviim (8 books), and Ketuvim (11 books).

The Holy Spirit led Peter to confirm that over half the New Testament (NT) -- all the epistles of Paul -- were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). There are other books in the NT which testify to their divine inspiration. And there are probably five books which do not directly say that they are inspired, but they are in perfect harmony with the rest of the Bible, and have been accepted as Scripture since the 2nd century (since they are found in the Syriac Peshitta).

The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek corruption of the Old Testament (OT) from around 200 BC, which incorporated 50 apocryphal books (which were never a part of the Tanakh).

The Orthodox churches allowed some of these books to remain within their bibles. The Catholic church chose seven of those books to remain in their bibles. Had the Catholic church accepted the recommendation of their scholar Jerome (who translated directly out of both the Hebrew and Greek to produce the Latin Vulgate) those apocryphal books [called "deutero-canonical" (second canon) by the RCC] would have been removed.

By the time of the Reformation the RCC was bound and determined to prove that they had the correct Bible, therefore the Council of Trent declared those books to be canonical. Thus Catholics believe that they have seven extra books in their OT.

When the King James Bible was first published it included the Apocrypha between the two testaments. But the preface of the translators made it clear that it was not Scripture, but an adjunct. Eventually it was removed (as was the preface).
Hi Nehemiah6, glad to see you here!


When you say
The Holy Spirit has already guided the early Christians to exclude all the books that do not belong in the Bible.
which early Christians are you referring to?


My understanding was that different groups of Christians had different ideas about which books were scripture.
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
I'm glad you said that because maybe it can save us a lot of time.

It is good that the spirit helps us to understand the scriptures!

It's just that we are then no longer using scripture alone as "the soul rule of faith and practice". We are using scripture plus spirit.

In Latin I think that would be "scriptura et spiritus".
And we use our eyes to read, and for me I need glases.

Not in that context brother.

Scriptura is the source of teaching, Holy Spirit help us to understand.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
I think one of the brother say that unless you read bible in original language you read people opinion.

So I ask if that mean translator edit the original bible
Thanks!

Yes, translators do edit the Bible based on their opinions. It's a necessary part of deciding how to best translate the original into the destination language.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
And we use our eyes to read, and for me I need glases.

Not in that context brother.

Scriptura is the source of teaching, Holy Spirit help us to understand.
Well, your eyes and glasses wouldn't alter your understanding of the words.

But the spirit may give a different understanding then a human would reach on their own.

So, a different rule (guide or measurement).

Again, maybe we can save some steps in our discussion, or maybe we would benefit by going step by step.
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
Thanks!

Yes, translators do edit the Bible based on their opinions. It's a necessary part of deciding how to best translate the original into the destination language.
I agree, if we have time and talent to learn koine Greek we better do it. But I don't have a talent to learn language, to old to learn new language