Protestants look Here


#1

Are there any good protestant forums like this one? I am looking to get an answer from protestant’s over how they know the scripture is truly God’s inspired word. Also if your a protestant, feel free to answer this question. Good Luck

Peace,
Michael


#2

[quote=michaelgazin]Are there any good protestant forums like this one? I am looking to get an answer from protestant’s over how they know the scripture is truly God’s inspired word. Also if your a protestant, feel free to answer this question. Good Luck

Peace,
Michael
[/quote]

Hi Michael, The bible contains the mind of God,the state of man,the way of salvation,the doom of sinners and the happiness of believers. Jesus said that Gods Word] it is written. There is power in Gods Word.It is the Sword of the Spirit.It will defeat satan. :thumbsup: God Bless


#3

I agree. So how do you know that?


#4

The poster was asking you protestants how you know the scripture is truly God’s inspired word.

Calvin


#5

[quote=Chipper]The poster was asking you protestants how you know the scripture is truly God’s inspired word.

Calvin
[/quote]

Here’s an explanation from the International Bible Society:

Is the Bible inspired? And what does that mean?
[left]Is the Bible inspired? And what does that mean? Christians do believe that the Bible is inspired, but not nearly everyone is clear as to what that means. The Bible itself says in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”(NIV) Did you catch that word “God-breathed”? That’s the biblical term to describe what is meant by the inspiration of God’s Word. But how did God “breathe”, that is, just how did he give the writers of the Bible his message?

Some Christians believe that God dictated the Bible word for word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and that the writers were simply secretaries who recorded those words. But there are two big problems with this view.

First of all, as we look at the writing styles of the various human authors, it is clear that their personalities are very much in evidence in what they write. There is no mechanical word-for-word dictation going on here.

[/left]
[list]

  • [left]For example, the apostle Paul wrote with long, complicated sentences, and our English translations generally put them into shorter sentences so we can more clearly understand them. However, Mark wrote his Gospel using short, action-packed sentences that race along in a much different way.

    [/left]
    *][left]While the Gospel of John also covers the life of Jesus, his description of Jesus’ life, words, and deeds comes from a much different point of view than Luke. Yet both were transmitting the inspired message which God gave them.

    [/left]
    [/list][left]That is why most Christians conclude that God provided the precise thought to the human author, and he then wrote it down in terms of his own vocabulary, culture, education, and writing style. So we have here no wooden, single-colored document, but a many-faceted and dynamic book.

    The second problem with the word-for-word view of inspiration is that many of the Psalms (and other passages) are the cries of imperfect, suffering people, who are voicing their own complaints or praises to God. They are words and thoughts emanating directly from the hearts of God’s people, which he in turn allowed to be placed in the Bible so we could identify with these complaining, suffering or rejoicing people who are so much like us. God used their words and thoughts.

    For those reasons many Christians believe that inspiration should be described as thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word. The human writers provide God’s message in terms of their own personalities and historical circumstances, and yet they transmit the message fully and exactly as God desired. So we can call this view of inspiration “dynamic”, as well as “verbal” (extending to the very words of the writer) and “plenary” (meaning that the Bible is fully and totally inspired.)

    There’s a third view of inspiration, too. This view asserts that the writers of the Bible were indeed inspired, but so were many great artists, musicians, and authors. Some superhuman, transcendent, divine aura possessed them and they produced works of sheer genius.

    This is* not* what most Christians mean when they refer to inspiration.

    [/left]
    [list]

  • [left]Rather, Christians believe that the message God gave us in the Bible is unique, and in fact, infallible.

    [/left]
    *][left]It is the work of the Holy Spirit who so guided the writers of the Scripture that they gave us, in their unique manner, exactly the message God intended.

    [/left]
    [/list][left]So we can say that the Bible is a very human book, for we see in it both elegance and lack of polish, both finesse and struggle. But it is a divine book as well, for it is the only book in all the world that is truly “God-breathed”. It is humanity’s precious gift from God. Is it your guide for time and eternity?

    ibs.org/bibles/about/5.php

    [/left]


  • #6

    [quote=Chipper]The poster was asking you protestants how you know the scripture is truly God’s inspired word.

    Calvin
    [/quote]

    Tangentially, this is what the International Bible Society says about how the books were selected in the Bible (note: it’s a Protestant site; hence the reference to 66 books in the Bible):

    **How were the books of the Bible chosen? **
    [left]The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.

    It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.

    [/left]
    [list]

  • [left]He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.

    [/left]
    *][left]The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.

    [/left]
    [/list][left]Let’s look first at the Old Testament. Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical. We’re not sure when this occurred, but it was probably during the fifth century before Christ. Of course, the Hebrews had the “Law” for many centuries already, but they certainly did not pay very good attention to it. It was probably the work of the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah that restored it to general use and fixed it once for all as authoritative.

    How about the rest of the Old Testament? The prophets’ writings were also not brought together in a single form until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as canonical even later. The Old Testament list was probably not finally fixed much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming divine authority were floating around. With the fixing of the canon they became a people of one Book, and this Book kept them together.

    Nor is there a single date when we can say that the canon of the New Testament was decided. In the first and second centuries after Christ, many, many writings and epistles were circulating among the Christians. Some of the churches were using books and letters in their services that were definitely spurious. Gradually the need to have a definite list of the inspired Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas.

    Gradually it became clear which works were truly genuine and which mixed truth with fantasy. By the end of the fourth century the canon was definitively settled and accepted. In this process Christians recognize the providence of God in providing us with his written revelation of himself and his purpose with the universe.

    Questions still arise now and then about the canon. Some wonder why just these 66 booklets were chosen. Why not 65 or 67? Why was the sometimes puzzling booklet of Jude included to the exclusion of other edifying scriptures? To these questions we reply that these books are the ones that God himself has chosen to preserve for us, and he has not told us exactly why. Together they form an immeasurable treasure, and in them we find God’s matchless gift to his people. Here we are moved simply to trust in his providence as he led his people through the years and gave us the most honored and powerful and comforting volume in the history of humanity, the book known as the Bible.

    And in his providence he has provided this treasure for you as well. Take up its ancient words and mandates and live by them! As you steep yourself in its pages, your heart will find peace at last.

    ibs.org/bibles/about/7.php

    [/left]


  • #7

    [quote=Chipper]The poster was asking you protestants how you know the scripture is truly God’s inspired word.

    Calvin
    [/quote]

    NOTE: not meant as an attack of the Apochrypha. This is what the International Bible Society says about the books that bridge the OT and the NT:

    Why do some Bibles have a section called the Apocrypha?
    [left]During the period between the completion of the Old Testament and the first writings included in the New Testament (i.e. the period between 450 BC and 50 AD), many essays, psalms and historical accounts circulated throughout the synagogues and early churches. Some of these documents gradually came to be regarded by certain of the believers as actually inspired and deserving of a place in the canon.

    We usually date the first definite listing of the accepted books of the Bible as occurring around 367 AD. However, a second set of booklets had been assembled through the years, and these were given the name Apocrypha (meaning “hidden”). Though they are all from the time before the birth of Christ, they were never included in the Hebrew Bible. However, many Christians regarded them as valuable for reading and edification, and in some editions of the Bible they were interspersed among the Old Testament books.

    Then Martin Luther, in his Bible translation of 1534, extracted the apocryphal books from their usual places in the Old Testament, and had them printed at the end of the Old Testament. He stated that they “are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” After that, many Protestant Bibles omitted them completely. However, in 1546 the Roman Catholic Council of Trent specifically listed the apocryphal books approved by the Roman Catholic Church as inspired and they are always included in Roman Catholic Bibles and are usually interspersed among the books of the Old Testament.

    The Apocrypha generally consists of 14 booklets of which 1 and 2 Maccabees and 1 Esdras are the main documents and form the bulk of the apocryphal writings. First Maccabees is an historical account of the struggle of the Maccabee family and their followers for Jewish independence from 167 to 134 BC. Second Maccabees covers the same ground but dramatizes the accounts and makes moral and doctrinal observations. Other books are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, and The Wisdom of Solomon.

    Since neither Jesus nor the apostles make any reference to the apocryphal books, most Christians have regarded their authority as secondary to that of the 39 books of the Old Testament. Yet within these apocryphal books are passages of great piety and historical information. We should therefore approach the Apocrypha with a discerning mind and heart, and carefully discriminate between that which is in harmony with the essentials of the Christian faith and that which deviates from what is taught in the 66 books of the canon. We have the Lord’s promise that he will lead us into the truth, and we live by that promise in everything we read.

    ibs.org/bibles/about/8.php

    [/left]


    #8

    [quote=David Brent]Since neither Jesus nor the apostles make any reference to the apocryphal books
    [/quote]

    This is an incorrect statement.

    Many Catholics are offended at the usage of the term apocryphal. Referring to these writings instead, as the deuterocanonical books.


    #9

    So the International Bible Society basicly says we have different personalities writing about God, therefore God is the coauthor if them. Also, 2 Tim. 3:16 says the Old Testament scripture’s are inspired, not at all referencing the New Testament canon that was largely incomplete or non-existent during Timothy’s “childhood.” Even if it did claim all the books in our Bible are inspired, we can not claim that is indeed why they are. That would be purely circular reasoning.

    The International Bible Society also says many people thought these scriptures were coauthored by the Holy Spirit in the early days therefore they are.

    Last, the Society, providing no evidence as to how they know the scriptures are inspired, conclude with "But it is a divine book as well, for it is the only book in all the world that is truly “God-breathed”. "

    There was not a single reason as to how one would know the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit in addition to the human authors.

    Are there any other “evidences” out there as to how we can know scripture was coauthored by God?

    Thanks,
    Michael


    #10

    [quote=michaelgazin]So the International Bible Society basicly says we have different personalities writing about God, therefore God is the coauthor if them. Also, 2 Tim. 3:16 says the Old Testament scripture’s are inspired, not at all referencing the New Testament canon that was largely incomplete or non-existent during Timothy’s “childhood.” Even if it did claim all the books in our Bible are inspired, we can not claim that is indeed why they are. That would be purely circular reasoning.

    The International Bible Society also says many people thought these scriptures were coauthored by the Holy Spirit in the early days therefore they are.

    Last, the Society, providing no evidence as to how they know the scriptures are inspired, conclude with "But it is a divine book as well, for it is the only book in all the world that is truly “God-breathed”. "

    There was not a single reason as to how one would know the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit in addition to the human authors.

    Are there any other “evidences” out there as to how we can know scripture was coauthored by God?

    Thanks,
    Michael
    [/quote]

    Are you suggesting that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God?

    If not, why read it at all?

    If so, what “evidence” do you have for its inspiration? Because the Pope said so? Is that really “better” evidence?

    The central assurance we have that the Bible is inspired is our own faith that it is. That will not be confirmed until we can sit before the Lord and get the inside information on how the books were written and selected and why others weren’t.


    #11

    [quote=Mickey]This is an incorrect statement.

    Many Catholics are offended at the usage of the term apocryphal. Referring to these writings instead, as the deuterocanonical books.
    [/quote]

    Where did Jesus or the apostles refer to one or more of these books?

    I prefaced the selection by noting that it was not included to attack the books, just describe them. Not sure referring to them as a second canon is appropriate.


    #12

    So David, did Jesus and the Aposltes use the Hebrew bible, or the Septuigint?


    #13

    David Brent, that last one you gave was inaccurate. The books that it refers to as Apocrypha were not called Apocrypha until after the reformation. The apocrypha are a complete different set of writings. The real name is the deuterocanonicals. Second, it says that they were never included in the Hebrew bible. That is a deception. The Hebrews never had a set canon until after Christ. There are some Jews that still regard the deuterocanonicals as scripture. The Jews also have a holiday called Hannuka, which is based on the book of Maccabees.

    Third, it is deceptive when it mentions that at Trent the Catholic Church declared them canonical. That is deceptive because it makes it sound like that was the first time they had declared it so. Actually they declared it at Hippo, Rome, and Carthage in the end of the fourth century and at Florence in the 14th century. Also the pope in like 380 AD also said they were inspired.

    Next, it is not a requirement that a book be referenced in the new testament to be considered scripture. Joshia and Judges are never referenced in the new testament but there inspiration has never been doubted. Same with Ruth and Eclesiastes, but they have never been doubted by protestants. Further, there are historical facts mentioned in the new testament that aren’t in the old testament. Take for example the “The Assumption of Moses” which is an apocryphal book referenced in Jude 9. If reference was a requirement you would have to include “The Assumption of Moses” and exclude "Judges and Eclesiastes.


    #14

    [quote=David Brent]Where did Jesus or the apostles refer to one or more of these books?

    I prefaced the selection by noting that it was not included to attack the books, just describe them. Not sure referring to them as a second canon is appropriate.
    [/quote]

    They were never called Apocrypha until after the reformation.


    #15

    First, the deuterocanonicals are not a “second canon.” They are referred to as God-inspired, as the rest of the Bible. “They are secondarily included in the one canon. They are not as primary as certain other books, for instance Matthew has primacy over 3 John, and Genesis is more important than Esther, however they are fully inspired by God.” James Akin

    Second, I firmly believe the Bible is inspired and should be read for certain. Is it because the pope says so? Your history might be a little off. The entire magisterium of the Catholic Church infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit decided which books were indeed inspired. Now is the guidance of the Holy Spirit “better” evidence. Yes He is. But the point of the post is to hear protestant evidence, not catholic evidence.

    It normally happens that when protestants put forth “evidences” of Biblical inspiration to Catholics, it usually results in them conceding their assurance of Biblical inspiration and telling Catholics they don’t know for sure either.

    I earnestly would like to hear of a solid case for biblical inspiration from a protestant though.

    Michael


    #16

    [quote=David Brent]Where did Jesus or the apostles refer to one or more of these books?

    [/quote]

    Over 300 Old Testament references in the New Testament can be shown to come from the Septuagint version, which contained the dueterocanon. Would you like all 300? I don’t have that kind of time. Besides this thread is not about the dueterocanon. I apologize for cooperating in the hi-jack. :o


    #17

    [quote=David Brent]Are you suggesting that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God?

    If not, why read it at all?

    If so, what “evidence” do you have for its inspiration? Because the Pope said so? Is that really “better” evidence?

    The central assurance we have that the Bible is inspired is our own faith that it is. That will not be confirmed until we can sit before the Lord and get the inside information on how the books were written and selected and why others weren’t.
    [/quote]

    Geez David…is that all? I could have faith that the writings of Dan Abnett are inspired, and though I much enjoy his writings would that make it so? If that is all it takes then the Quran and the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad Gita will all qualify because there are people who have faith that they are and base their moral lives upon it.
    Pax tecum,


    #18

    [quote=jimmy]David Brent, that last one you gave was inaccurate. The books that it refers to as Apocrypha were not called Apocrypha until after the reformation. The apocrypha are a complete different set of writings. The real name is the deuterocanonicals. Second, it says that they were never included in the Hebrew bible. That is a deception. The Hebrews never had a set canon until after Christ. There are some Jews that still regard the deuterocanonicals as scripture. The Jews also have a holiday called Hannuka, which is based on the book of Maccabees.

    Third, it is deceptive when it mentions that at Trent the Catholic Church declared them canonical. That is deceptive because it makes it sound like that was the first time they had declared it so. Actually they declared it at Hippo, Rome, and Carthage in the end of the fourth century and at Florence in the 14th century. Also the pope in like 380 AD also said they were inspired.

    Next, it is not a requirement that a book be referenced in the new testament to be considered scripture. Joshia and Judges are never referenced in the new testament but there inspiration has never been doubted. Same with Ruth and Eclesiastes, but they have never been doubted by protestants. Further, there are historical facts mentioned in the new testament that aren’t in the old testament. Take for example the “The Assumption of Moses” which is an apocryphal book referenced in Jude 9. If reference was a requirement you would have to include “The Assumption of Moses” and exclude "Judges and Eclesiastes.
    [/quote]

    Regarding references, I don’t see a reference to the Assumption of Moses in Jude 9. Reviewing the Assumption of Moses, I see no reference to Michael and Satan in it. Granted, Jude references Enoch, but if references aren’t useful to declare something inspired I guess that doesn’t matter anyway.


    #19

    [quote=jimmy]David Brent, that last one you gave was inaccurate. The books that it refers to as Apocrypha were not called Apocrypha until after the reformation. The apocrypha are a complete different set of writings. The real name is the deuterocanonicals. Second, it says that they were never included in the Hebrew bible. That is a deception. The Hebrews never had a set canon until after Christ. There are some Jews that still regard the deuterocanonicals as scripture. The Jews also have a holiday called Hannuka, which is based on the book of Maccabees.

    Third, it is deceptive when it mentions that at Trent the Catholic Church declared them canonical. That is deceptive because it makes it sound like that was the first time they had declared it so. Actually they declared it at Hippo, Rome, and Carthage in the end of the fourth century and at Florence in the 14th century. Also the pope in like 380 AD also said they were inspired.

    Next, it is not a requirement that a book be referenced in the new testament to be considered scripture. Joshia and Judges are never referenced in the new testament but there inspiration has never been doubted. Same with Ruth and Eclesiastes, but they have never been doubted by protestants. Further, there are historical facts mentioned in the new testament that aren’t in the old testament. Take for example the “The Assumption of Moses” which is an apocryphal book referenced in Jude 9. If reference was a requirement you would have to include “The Assumption of Moses” and exclude "Judges and Eclesiastes.
    [/quote]

    and don’t forget the Book of Enoch too!


    #20

    [quote=Catholic Tom]So David, did Jesus and the Aposltes use the Hebrew bible, or the Septuigint?
    [/quote]

    I am fairly certain that Christ knew the Jewish law backwards and forwards (see the temptation in the desert). The Apostles probably knew as much law as one can pick up in the local synagogue. Since most of them were of working class backgrounds, they would not have had the opportunity to study the law under a Rabbi – something reserved for the best of the best.

    The Septuagint question is just silly.


    DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.