Why do some Protestants accuse Catholics of being "unbiblical" when the Bible came from the Catholic Church?

Question

The Catholic faith is actually more biblical than any other form of Christianity.

This should not be surprising since the New Testament is a Catholic book put to together by the authority of the Catholic Church.

Here is proof that Catholic doctrine is more biblical than any other form of Christianity:

Scripture Support for Catholic Doctrines
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

Catholic Answers
http://www.catholic.com/

I'm not saying to cause division. I'm saying this BECAUSE there is so much division as a result of the unbiblical Protestant tradition of "Sola Scriptura" or in English, "Bible Alone".

The Bible can't be its own authority because it has to have an interpreter. If there is not a supreme authority to interpret the Bible, then people will be led in every direction by their own private interpretations. Private interpretation of scripture divorced from the authority of the Church is actually condemned by the Bible itself.
.

Answer 1

I agree. It often makes me wonder why they all split from the Church that Jesus Christ Himself created and placed within Peter's hands. Without the Catholic Church we would not have the New Testament, we would only have the Torah. God Bless you on this day of His Resurrection

Answer 2

I suppose that I'm simply not understanding how someone could not get the Word of God out of the Mass. During the Liturgy of the Word, there are three readings: the first is typically from the Old Testament, the second will typically be from an epistle, and the third is always from one of the Gospels. You cannot judge the amount that people should be getting out of a priest's homily or a pastor's sermon based upon how long it is. Just because a priest's homily is shorter does not mean that it doesn't clearly apply the Gospel message to life and help the members of the congregation to live their faith. God Bless! EDIT: @sylvia c: The Church does teach the Bible and encourages all Catholics to take time out to read Scripture. Where anyone gets an idea to the contrary, I cannot figure it out.

Answer 3

The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficult aspect of determining the Biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process, first by Jewish rabbis and scholars, and then later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the Biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha…with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God convincing His followers of what He had already decided upon. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

Answer 4

The Bible is a collection of Books written by men who were inspired by God. The Bible was translated from the original text of the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles both were written well before the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. The Septuagint was ancient Old Testament text which was translated into Latin in the 5th century. During that time the printing press was no yet discovered and translation of ancient text were tedious and expensive.

Rome had not authorized mass distribution of these Holy Books, but used them as relics of control over the minds of the people. The Catholic Church became the sole interpretative authority for the Christian faith. The translations of Bibles were deemed punishable by death unless authorized by the Pope or a monarch. Many translations were made before one of the most accurate translations the King James version in 1611. The small role King James had in this work was simply lifting the death penalty.

With the discovery of the printing press and the sweeping popularity of the Bible which continues to this day, Rome decided to translate its own version in order to quell the accusations that the Catholic Church used the ancient and Holy Books for the gain filthy lucre and control over the people.

Naughty, isn't it?

Answer 5

If Christ Jesus and his apostles established the Roman Catholic Church, we should expect to find its beliefs, doctrines and practices taught or at least mentioned somewhere from Matthew through the Revelation. But we do not. We find no mention whatsoever of the “Holy Father,” or a pope, a college of cardinals, archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, monsignors, right reverends, priests, abbots, monks and nuns.

The Scriptural record does tell us that the Christians were organized in the first century, but if the structure of the Catholic church is in line with the structure of the early Christians, how is it that we find no mention - not even a hint – of such an elaborate system? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave”; and, “One is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly One.” Matthew 20:27; 23:8, 9, NW.

Moreover,, if Christ established the Roman Catholic Church, how come we look and look but find in the Holy Bible no such expressions as trinity, purgatory, mass, immortal soul, lent, novenas, penances, holy water, veneration of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and so on?

On the other hand, we read much in the Bible regarding subjects seldom mentioned by the Catholic clergy, such as regards sin’s wages being death, the hope of a resurrection, a new heavens and a new earth, and, above all, the importance of Jehovah’s name.—See Romans 6:23; John 5:28, 29; Revelation 20:5, 6; 2 Peter 3:13; Psalm 83:18; John 17:4, 6; Acts 15:14.

It may be for these reasons, and still more, that many take the position that the Catholic church is unbiblical.

The apostle Peter, whom Catholics revere as the first pope, said "interpretation belongs to God." 2 Peter 1:20-21.

It is true that we are not free to explain Bible passages according to our own “belief, judgment, or circumstance”. It is also true that Catholics feel that they are the Bible scholars and translators and hence are being guided by God. Some even feel they have authority to go beyond the written word of God.

But at Galatians 1:8 the apostle Paul, under divine inspiration wrote: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.” Paul repeats this statement. He used the word accursed. Anathema. So how is it that so many Catholic teachings and practices, as mentioned at the outset, go well beyond what was declared to first century Christians?


Hannah J Paul

Answer 6

The books that comprise the Bible have been around a lot longer than the Catholic Church. Get over your religious pride. I would encourage you to study the Pharisees and Saducess to understand how detrimental religious pride can be.

Your statement "private interpretation of scripture divorced from the authority of the Church is actually condemned by the Bible itself" is hogwash and I would challenge you to provide a scriptural reference for that.

Your belief that the New Testament is the work of the Catholic Church is also false. The books were written long before the Council of Nicea which is generally believe to be the start of Catholocism.

Also the Apostle Peter is the foundation of the Church. The Church is ALWAYS represented as the body of Christ.... NOT the Catholic Church Specifically. Again, I would challenge you to back up your claims with scriptural reference.

Answer 7

The Catholic Church has more unBiblical traditions than any so called Chrisian Church, ad has declared that it's traditions are equal to scripture.But to be fair, catholics share the unscriptural pagan teachings of trinity, eternal hell, and immortal soul with most of christendom. Yet where they exceed is with the clergy class (Popes, cardinals, bishops priests, nuns,) Mary Worship, Idolitry, incense, candles, rosary, church seasons, preistly garb, etc. Of all the things I have listed, there s no scriptural support for any group claiming to be Christian.
As much is flawed with Catholicism, this person below me is a riot. Yesterday the Muslims were on a path trying to say that the Bible speaks of Mohammed, today they are back to "the Bible is corrupted".
When will Muslims stop their slander of the scripture?
We all no that the surviving manuscripts of the scripture predate the Koran by almost 900 years, and, that the sura in the Koran says, "do we not have the writings of Moses?"
So, if Islam is now saying that the Bible is corrupted, is this tantamount to Islamic Heresy? I mean how dare a Muslim contradict the writings of Muhammed.
Here is another sura to answer the outrageous lie from this MUslim, straight out of the Koran.
. “After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.”—Sura 5, Al-Ma’ida [The Table], verses 46, 47.
So, I ask, if the Koran at the year 630, does not proclaim the Bible corrupted, and we have manuscripts that predate the Koran by centuries, is not any Muslim claim to the reliability of the Bible heresy?
Heresy not only to the Bible but also the Koran?

Answer 8

Ummm...the Bible didn't come from the Catholic church. It came by the prophets who wrote- and most of those who even made the Bible available and readable to the public were Protestants!

However, I would agree that the Catholic Church is Biblical and Christian. Well, I don't think it's all Biblical (like where's holy water in the Bible), but the basic concepts like CHRIST AS SAVIOR are for sure Biblical :)

Answer 9

Gee, I wonder why "private interpretation of scripture divorced from authority of the church is actually condemned by the bible itself"? Probably because the church put that in there!

Yes, indeed we have the Catholic church, especially Pope Gregory, for Christianity being about control and fear. The church did not want people to think for themselves. Jesus spoke of enlightenment. The church could not have that! Many gospels did not further the position of the church so they just declared them to be heresy and ordered them destroyed. The church did not like women getting too much power, so they discredited Mary Magdalene by fabricating the story that she was a prostitute.

You are absolutely correct, it is the Catholic church who is to blame for the hate and bigotry found in the bible. It is the Catholic church who is to blame for a religion that relies on fear of an imaginary place to keep the money rolling in.

Answer 10

Some Protestants take the Bible literally. As an Anglican, I'm much closer to your views than to the literalists.