Why do Fundamentalist Protestants consider hearing scriptures not the same as reading the scriptures?

Question

I'm a Catholic and get regularly accused of not knowing scripture because of one or more of the following,

1) I don't read it at home.
2) I don't have a KJV only version.
3) I don't carry a bible to Mass with me.

With regards to the first and second, I actually do read the bible at home and infact have not one bible but several including a KJV version.

On the third point how many of you read an entire bible cover to cover in an hour? I'm sure no one does and yet you critize Catholics for trusting in their pastor and lectors to read out loud the scriptures to the people. Funny enough I've asked in one of my other questions why some Protestants have a love affair with everything of Jewish origin and yet shun early Christian practise. This practise of being read to that Catholics imbrace is actually a Jewish one so why the issue with it?

I've often heard that some Protestants like to be seen with dog-ear bibles is this true? If so wouldn't this be similar to the Pharisees

you know what mibandbee I have and it's always the same :O go figure. Fact is there are always bibles available at Catholic Churches if you only ask for them. During the Mass you'll cover several verses of OT and NT scripture as reading as well as most of the prayers which are scriptural and the reponse of a OT psalm by the congregation. The Gospel reading is of course read by the pastor who is the priest and then a homily (fr. Greek homila, discourse) is given by the pastor based on the Gospel reading. You can either follow along with your bible, or use a Church bible or use what Catholics call a missal which provides all the scriptural verse covered for the particular day.

Barry appreciate you quoting Romans as I was thinking along the same lines...
Perhaps you know offhand another verse as written by Paul or is it Peter about not leaning onto our own understanding. Many times the differences that separate us on scriptural understanding is not whether one has a bible or not but on the tradition of interpretation we hold to.

John Henry Newman wrote "The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility." point is that Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible is inspired, but their reasons for so believing are inadequate because knowledge of the inspiration of the Bible can be based only on an authority established by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just "felt." Second, the main fact behind the proof--the fact of an infallible, teaching Church--leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31): How is one to know what interpretations are right? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes its inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret his Word.

you know that more i think about this question/answer the more I realize it is a very good and everyone should have their thinking caps on. Jesus when conversing with the leaders of the temple and sandherin mentioned to them as it is written starting with John 8-9 Jesus said "If you were Abraham"s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I HEARD from God. Abraham did not do this." John 9:40...... then Jesus also says later "Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word" John 9:43.... and finally "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." John9:47

Answer 1

Protestants, even we Catholics, take literacy for granted. We live in an age, depending on the country you live in, where the majority of the population can read and write. Therefore, anyone can pick up a bible and read its pages.

Protestants, however, seem to overlook a little basic history. First, the Faith was transmitted primarily by oral means during the early church. There was no bible in existence until the 4th century. Additionally, even after the bible was canonized, who could read it? The majority of the population was illiterate, and getting a copy of the bible was expensive. Before the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, books were copied by hand, including the bible. This was usually done by CATHOLIC monks and was very expensive, so the poor classes didn't have access to them. Even if they did, most likely they couldn't read them anyway. This shows that even AFTER the canonization of the bible, its words and meanings were still transmitted orally. If you couldn't READ it, you had to LISTEN to it.

Protestants are simply trying to discredit we Catholics again, implying we do not study the Faith for ourselves but are, in essence, brainwashed. Another fact they overlook is that the beliefs they hold to are interpretations of scriptures they've read. Anyone can read the words in the bible, but what are their correct meanings? Any cult leader can grab a hold of the same scriptures and brainwash people into their beliefs. I know, I used to be a Jehovah's Witness.

The facts are that the Protestant position is baseless. A simple use of reason and logic (attributes given to us by God, by the way), and a little knowledge of history shows them up. Now, are they willing to listen?

God bless.

Answer 2

The preference for hearing over reading has its origins with the verse Romans 10:17, which reads (in NIV):

"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."

This forms the basis for the first step in being saved, hearing the word. From there you move to believing, then repenting, confessing, and baptism for the remission of sins.

Also, in the old days of Catholic tradition, it was reserved for the priest to read from the Bible, as the sinners were not worthy to do so. This actually grew from the priests being trained to both read and write, while the lay people did not have this type of schooling.

Even though modern Catholic traditions encourage people to have and read Bibles, the old reputation seems to continue on.

KJV is the preferred version for many Christians because a panel of highly trained specialists from many different Christian churches got together and approved that translation as true. Subsequent translations have been met with acceptance, but none as wide as the KJV in its time.

Of course, not all Protestants disrespect Catholics, just like all Catholics do not disrespect Protestants. We are, after all, Christians, are we not? With such divisions among Christians, some of us are merely concerned that others may be following a false prophet, as described in 1st John 4:1 which reads:

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

Answer 3

Oh, not all of us do. I am a "Protty" but I have a KJV, NIV, Ryrie Study Bible and a Max Lucardo Bible. My Ryrie is dog eared along with the NIV but it's not for show. The NIV I took from the garbage and the Ryrie was studied intensely by my husband and now me. We even have children's Bibles here. I LIKE hearing what a good Pastor/Priest/Minister has to say. I LIKE to hear it. I love to hear Joel Osteen speak and my dream is to hear Chuck Missler. So, not all of us are reading the Bible in an hour (it took me years and I'm still at it) and I like to HEAR with my ears that God gave me what others have to say. Don't let people get to you. They are humans and they are NOT God. Let God do the talking and you do the walking. It's our personal relationship with Him that is the most precious. Even on here I feel closer to Him. That's why I come here. I love God and he loves me, whether I have 5000 Bibles or just one. And nowhere is is said that you have to carry the Bible to church. Some do because they want to READ along when the leader speaks. Some maybe do it for show. Those are the ones we need to pray for.

Answer 4

Please don't lump all of us Protestants together. You read the Bible, you go to church, you've accepted God's plan of salvation. No one can say you're not a Christian. I think sometimes those in my religion tend to get a bit self-righteous. We're not all that way. And I have KJV's but I actually prefer the NKJV and the Amplified. I read the Bible through in a year. Some of it is really, really interesting. I've enjoyed reading about the kings of old. And I personally believe that every Christian should yearly read the Law. It reminds us of what Jesus redeemed us from. :-)

Answer 5

"I will give you the keys to heaven and earth", Mt 16-18-19

Peter is the leader of the church, he wrote 2 infallible teachings (1 and 2 peter) he extended his authority to his successors the pope their teachings are also infallible when they are spoken from the chair of peter.

"the church is the spirit and ground of the truth" 1 timothy 3:15

The reason for so many other versions of the bible opposed the the KJV is because a board of scholars found numerous linguistic errors in it, despite its high and lofty tone. The NIV is fairly accurate and is even accepted in Catholic circles.

ultimately though faith is the only real requirement for salvation, the churches are merely mediums to that end. so zi suggest we all stand down regarding who has the most truth because it mostly comes down to ritual practices rather than matters of faith.

Answer 6

As others have already implied, faith and evolution are not jointly unique. The Catholic Church accepts evolution, same to they now get carry of that the Earth revolves around the solar - some persons have been burned on the stake for claiming that one a number of hundred years in the past. maximum mainstream religions do likewise. The bastion of creationism is interior the the U.S. And the fundamentalist Christian religions. for this reason the USA of a is falling at the back of in technology education, for the reason that they disrupt and stress compromise onto the technology curriculum in colleges. specific, i will take a seat right here and assume that i replaced into at first another organism, for the reason that it is the main handy ingredient that's clever to me. Why else could I share DNA with a chimpanzee, if I wasn't appropriate? Why will could desire to my DNA be greater purely like a gorilla than to a hummingbird, if I wasn't greater desirable heavily touching directly to the Gorilla? in case you may get in the past the offence you assume at being a branch of the ape relatives, it is likewise possible to work out this as stable. you're saying that there are too many holes in Evolution. the situation? Are those gaps purely parts of evolution which you do no longer settle for? Or are they genuine lacking areas of skills? provided that evolutionary concept has been supported via each branch of technology on account that Darwin proposed his concept, even sciences which got here after him, exceptionally Genetics, which no longer purely right supported evolution, besides the undeniable fact that defined the way it befell all the way right down to the molecular degree. the place are the gaps? There are not any problems with evolution, purely easy improvements to how the concept works, the required premise keeps to be unchanged. in assessment to the quite some production reasons such because of the fact the Judeo-Christian, Australian Aborigine, Sumerian, Navaho etc etc. the place is the information for them? definite, we are able to comprehend. that's what thousands of thousands of scientists around the international do with their lives. They artwork and be experienced biology and different sciences, and so as that they do it intense-high quality in the event that they are not weighted down by using utilising having to incorporate faith of their artwork or teachings. because of the actuality that, frankly, Creationism in any of its guises, is a millstone to medical achievement. It purely encourages lively loss of understanding, and the guidance of those dealing with potential of company now will only go through provided that of it. . .

Answer 7

Many Pastors ENCOURAGE their flock to read the Bible verses they are preaching so they can know for sure that they are being accurate when they preach. Good Pastors don't have a problem with their congregation making sure they are preaching God's Word accurately.

Listen as your priest preaches, but go home and look up and read the verses yourself, so you can know that they are true.

Answer 8

They try to base themselves on the Bible. That fact, combined with the fact that they have mostly misinformation about Roman Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) leaves them to assume that someone who doesn't doesn't respect the Bible as much as them. It's erroneous and fallacious, but it's there.

Answer 9

LOL...I still love you, Pastor Billy!

Send me that T-shirt!!


Hey MIB - that "catholic' Bible is the same one you're holding, minus the 7 OT books that Luther removed. Silly girl..

Answer 10

Not to worry. I haven't met many Catholics, Prostestants, Jews, or Mormons who really know what they believe because they haven't studied their scriptures and doctrines well enough. Most take verses out of context and apply them any way they want. Sad, because we have so much in common. "Love thy neighbor" for instance. :-)

We have plenty we agree on so build on that; we know where contention originates.

Keep on reading and studying, praying for inspiration to understand and don't let the buggers get you down.