Bible being the Sole Authority??

[Attejohannes]

Jones,

Finland has a population of 5.4 million and the world population is presently over 7 billion. I don’t know the math on that however 5.4 million/7 billion is the percent that Finland occupies in the world as it concerns population. This is I believe 0.054/7= 0.77 % of the world population or less than 1%. Someone else can check the math. So your population is not the world population nor is it the world experience.

Next, what happened or is happening in Finland is this, as I understand it…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Finland

Your Christain roots are Catholic, and the government declared Lutheran thought to be the State religion. You live in a microcosm, however your experience is not the world experience and what you have to say should be seen as what happens when there is isolation, it is only your experience.

Dear, Dear…

I am impressed…

I can only add that we, together with Denmark, are counted as the happiest countires in the word (huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/world-happiness-report-2012_n_1408787.html).

Happy Atte Johannes

 

[billwh77]

Protestant one,

So how do you prove to me that you have the word of God?

I can only show what I have learned over the many years. Then its up to you to prove it to yourself via prayer and research. It was difficult for me to accept the bible but after years of research there was no other writings that had the answers. Lets say if we did not have the bible at all. We can only go by the patterns and signs and speech from many leaders, and symbols adorned on many churches. You can see people are in communication entities on the earth. Many actors and singers speak of their muse that takes them over and helps them act. Look at Lavey and his close work with Hollywood. I do not recommend it but you can learn much about your leaders by reading Albert Pike and Helena Blavatsky. Albert Pike with provide much in the way of who is truly worshiped and will provide incite to the many symbols that are paraded as christian. There is also the issue of baphomet that is placed in many artists videos discreetly, not including the hand symbols they all use. Again so many world leaders, pastors, artists show the hand sign used by Lavey? If you go by the news media you will be deceived they have long subverted to the prince of the air. You can watch Walter Cronkite speak of satan, this is just one of thousands of examples that can be found. I provide references to show that something is amiss in the world. And I could not fit everything I read into a logical framework. After years of trying to make sense of it all only one place had the answers. This is only a few quotes that provide wonderful insight to the issues I have wrestled with in the past to understand.
The bible states
Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Everything I have seen and researched proves this is absolutely true and is slowly taking place across the world.

The deceptions being propagated by leaders and media are absolutely incredible and two verses cut right to the issue.
Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

In closing I do not know the the motivation of you heart in the question. When I’m asked a question in conversation I will usually respond with a question so I can understand the motivation behind the question. I have learned over the years its important to understand this before hastily providing the answer. I do hope you find the answer to your question.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dear, Dear…

I am impressed…

I can only add that we, together with Denmark, are counted as the happiest countires in the word (huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/world-happiness-report-2012_n_1408787.html).

Happy Atte Johannes

Jones,

Mormons are the happiets people in Utah as well…

 

[Attejohannes]

Jones,

Mormons are the happiets people in Utah as well…

Good for them

 

[CopticChristian]

I can only show what I have learned over the many years. Then its up to you to prove it to yourself via prayer and research. It was difficult for me to accept the bible but after years of research there was no other writings that had the answers. Lets say if we did not have the bible at all. We can only go by the patterns and signs and speech from many leaders, and symbols adorned on many churches. You can see people are in communication entities on the earth. Many actors and singers speak of their muse that takes them over and helps them act. Look at Lavey and his close work with Hollywood. I do not recommend it but you can learn much about your leaders by reading Albert Pike and Helena Blavatsky. Albert Pike with provide much in the way of who is truly worshiped and will provide incite to the many symbols that are paraded as christian. There is also the issue of baphomet that is placed in many artists videos discreetly, not including the hand symbols they all use. Again so many world leaders, pastors, artists show the hand sign used by Lavey? If you go by the news media you will be deceived they have long subverted to the prince of the air. You can watch Walter Cronkite speak of satan, this is just one of thousands of examples that can be found. I provide references to show that something is amiss in the world. And I could not fit everything I read into a logical framework. After years of trying to make sense of it all only one place had the answers. This is only a few quotes that provide wonderful insight to the issues I have wrestled with in the past to understand.
The bible states
Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Everything I have seen and researched proves this is absolutely true and is slowly taking place across the world.

The deceptions being propagated by leaders and media are absolutely incredible and two verses cut right to the issue.
Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

In closing I do not know the the motivation of you heart in the question. When I’m asked a question in conversation I will usually respond with a question so I can understand the motivation behind the question. I have learned over the years its important to understand this before hastily providing the answer. I do hope you find the answer to your question.

Protestant one,

In your posting that I asked you a question you said…

Only in the end I decided to read the bible a most difficult decision.

The answer you provide above does not answer anything. They are thoughts.

I appreciate this thought from the aforementioned…

And I could not fit everything I read into a logical framework

My motives are to put your thoughts into a logical framework.

What version of the “bible” do you use?

 

[CopticChristian]

Good for them

Jones,

You may want to look further at the happiness scale…

forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

and how it is formulated, percent thriving, percent struggling, percent suffering and has to do with economics and not religion…it has to do with a daily experience based on factors other than religion…

The Netherlands is number 4 where you see a mix…

In 2010 the Netherlandic population was made up of 16.615.000 people. Among these 24.6% (4.100.000) were Roman Catholics, 14.6% (2.442.000) were Protestants (of these 2.250.000 or 13.5% were Reformed and Lutherans, 192.000 or 1.1% were Evangelicals and Pentecostals), 0.9% (166.000) were other Christians (Anglicans, Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others), 5.5% (907.000) were Muslims, 1.0% (170.000) were Buddhists, 0.9% (150.000) were Hindus. 8.527.000 people or 51.3% of the population were mostly non religious, and 2.1% were followers of other religions

#5 is Costa Rica, 90% Roman Catholic…

According to this study…

nbcnews.com/id/33830268/ns/health-mental_health/

Happiest U.S. states are wealthy and tolerant

•Utah: 69.2
•Hawaii: 68.2
•Wyoming: 68
•Colorado: 67.3
•Minnesota: 67.3
•Maryland: 67.1
•Washington: 67.1
•Massachusetts: 67
•California: 67
•Arizona: 66.8

So, maybe it would be better to move to Utah

How many Lutherans are there in Utah???

 

[PRmerger]

I did not state that Catholics worship Mary,

Of course. I never said you stated that.

only that the accusation that they do would be found offensive.

It’s offensive because it’s false. Not sure why Protestants find it “offensive” that we profess this truth: You accept Sacred Tradition each and very time you quote from the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

And this is also HUGE. By equating my understanding of tradition with your own, you acknowledge that the Anglican divines, the historic Books of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are evidences of the presence of the Holy Ghost at work in the Church. I had no thoughts of proselytizing, but your eyes are opening at last.

Sure. To the degree that the Anglican confessions are consonant with Catholicism I give them a hearty

Are we agreed, then, that you give submission to the authority of the Catholic Church when you quote from the NT?

And that you agree that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church, at least as it applies to discerning the canon of Scripture?

 

[jrtrent]

Sure. To the degree that the Anglican confessions are consonant with Catholicism I give them a hearty

I’m sure there must be a few things in common . . .

Are we agreed, then, that you give submission to the authority of the Catholic Church when you quote from the NT?

And that you agree that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church, at least as it applies to discerning the canon of Scripture?

No and No to the above questions. It would appear that we have different understandings of what tradition is, after all.

 

[PRmerger]

No and No to the above questions. It would appear that we have different understandings of what tradition is, after all.

Well, you believe something about the Word of God that comes not from Scripture.

That comes from Sacred Tradition.

And you believe that this Tradition was inerrant, at least as it applies to the canon of Scripture.

So I’m not sure how you can disagree with my points.

You do believe in the authority of the Catholic Church. And that she was infallible, on multiple occasions.

There is no way to refute those assertions.

 

[billwh77]

Protestant one,

In your posting that I asked you a question you said…

The answer you provide above does not answer anything. They are thoughts.

I appreciate this thought from the aforementioned…

My motives are to put your thoughts into a logical framework.

I approach much of our world completely different from the majority. My thoughts do not fit into many churches, when I read the bible and it states something I go and look for it and it has not let me down once. That said it puts me on the outside of most churches.

What version of the “bible” do you use?

I prefer the KJV, I do not argue about versions but I only trust version based on the received text. I really looked into this to determine which bible was truly represented
the original writings of the apostles.

To save time, I will add a little the research as to why. All originals were lost so we have to go by the copies.

Bibles based on the received text come from. Gothic 4th cent, Peshitta 2nd cent, Codex A 4 cent, Codex W 4 and 5th cent and a large part comes from the Extant Text. There are 1900 plus texts used to make up the KJV from many languages all in harmony.

Then you have the douay version, comprised of Old Latin 2nd cent, Lantin Vulgate 4th cent, Codex d 5th and 6th cent. Codex d2 6th cent, codex e2 7th cent.

Then you have the revised version, American standard version, revised standard version, new english bible, comprised of Papyrus 75 200ad, Papyrus 66 2nd cent, Codex B 4th cent, Codex Aleph 4th cent.

 

[jrtrent]

Not sure why Protestants find it “offensive” that we profess this truth: You accept Sacred Tradition each and very time you quote from the NT.

Because it is a false statement and misrepresents what people believe. What you mean by Sacred Tradition is not what even an Anglican would acknowledge as tradition, for by it you seem to mean something that goes well beyond its proper scope and role. From the CCC:

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

As is plain from the quotes I posted earlier, even Anglicans, who consider tradition a source of authority for the Church, do not give it equal devotion and reverence with Scripture, and many Protestant groups disregard tradition as a source of authority altogether. To state that people accept Sacred Tradition each and every time they quote from the NT is imposing your beliefs on someone else. Even if we are wrong not to accept Sacred Tradition, the fact remains that we don’t.

 

[PRmerger]

As is plain from the quotes I posted earlier, even Anglicans, who consider tradition a source of authority for the Church, does not give it equal devotion and reverence with Scripture,

Well, that’s a different argument, as to whether you give it equal devotion.

The point is that ALL Christians who quote from the NT do so because they are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC, which gave them this canon through Sacred Tradition.

Whether Christians give it equal devotion is, again, irrelevant to this discussion.

and many Protestant groups disregard tradition as a source of authority altogether.

Only because they haven’t thought about it. Truly, it appears as if some Protestants believe the Bible was delivered to their pastor by a dove from heaven, leather-bound and in the KJV translation.

But when asked as to how they know that, say, Hebrews is inspired, the only intellectually honest answer is: because the Catholic Church told me it was inspired.

 

[SteveVH]

Because it is a false statement and misrepresents what people believe. What you mean by Sacred Tradition is not what even an Anglican would acknowledge as tradition, for by it you seem to mean something that goes well beyond its proper scope and role. From the CCC:

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

As is plain from the quotes I posted earlier, even Anglicans, who consider tradition a source of authority for the Church, do not give it equal devotion and reverence with Scripture, and many Protestant groups disregard tradition as a source of authority altogether. To state that people accept Sacred Tradition each and every time they quote from the NT is imposing your beliefs on someone else. Even if we are wrong not to accept Sacred Tradition, the fact remains that we don’t.

But would you not agree that a faulty understanding by many Protestants of what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition does not then constitute a valid opposing argument? You are aware that “Tradition” and “tradition” are not the same thing, right? Those ecclesial communities who abandoned “Sacred Tradition”, or are so far removed from it that the entire idea is foreign to them, are really in no position to then define it.

PRmerger makes an absolutely valid point. If you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God then you, by default, must accept Sacred Tradition because the texts of Sacred Scripture flow from Sacred Tradition. It was how the various texts were determined to either be inspired or not. How did they stand up to the full and complete deposit of Apostolic faith already possessed by the Church? Sacred Tradition was the measuring stick. So one cannot accept the canonicity of the books of the Bible without also accepting the validity of Sacred Tradition from which they originate.

 

[CopticChristian]

I prefer the KJV, I do not argue about versions but I only trust version based on the received text. I really looked into this to determine which bible was truly represented
the original writings of the apostles.

To save time, I will add a little the research as to why. All originals were lost so we have to go by the copies.

Bibles based on the received text come from. Gothic 4th cent, Peshitta 2nd cent, Codex A 4 cent, Codex W 4 and 5th cent and a large part comes from the Extant Text. There are 1900 plus texts used to make up the KJV from many languages all in harmony.

Then you have the douay version, comprised of Old Latin 2nd cent, Lantin Vulgate 4th cent, Codex d 5th and 6th cent. Codex d2 6th cent, codex e2 7th cent.

Then you have the revised version, American standard version, revised standard version, new english bible, comprised of Papyrus 75 200ad, Papyrus 66 2nd cent, Codex B 4th cent, Codex Aleph 4th cent.

Bill,

Ok, you use the King James…here is the original King James with the Deuterocanonicals…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

Does your version have the deuterocanonicals?

 

[CopticChristian]

Because it is a false statement and misrepresents what people believe. Even if we are wrong not to accept Sacred Tradition, the fact remains that we don’t.

Trent,

Protestant Oral Traditions…

onearthasinheaven.com/tradition5x.html

The same thing is true regarding Baptism. The Bible does not state exactly how Baptism affects our salvation, nor how Baptism is to be correctly performed, and so dozens of ways to baptize people have caused much division within Christianity. Some churches totally immerse one’s whole body in water for a true Baptism. Other churches simply sprinkle some water on one’s head. Still other chuches require naturally running water, like a river. Some churches pronounce the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the person is baptized. Other churches dunk the person three times for each One of the Trinity. Some churches teach that only adults can be baptized, while other churches say that babies can be baptized. Some churches teach that Baptism is purely symbolic, while other churches and even Ancient Judaism, believe that the soul is literally affected by this act in some way. Some Christians simply say that it does not matter what the rules are. And the list goes on and on about what constitutes a true Baptism into the Christian Faith and how it does or does not affect salvation, let alone revealing if a properly- or improperly-performed Baptism does or does not affect our spirituality.

Whatever the case may be with all these doctrinal differences and understandings of Scripture over this most foundational spiritual Christian act, each and every one of these details of Baptism come only from a tradition, if Early Christian, Protestant, Catholic, or whatever. The Biblical references to Baptism are silent about its ritualistic and doctrinal details, though these details are necessary to the application and mystical effects of Baptism. Contrary to Protestant mythology, the Bible’s message of Baptism means little without an extra-biblical, oral tradition explaining what Baptism is, how it is to be practiced, how it affects the soul or not, and if or not it is necessary for salvation. This is a fact that Protestants have a difficult time acknowledging, since a major premise of their theology is the belief that no extra-biblical tradition can be equal to Scripture. The added fact that the Early Church, Protestants, Catholics, and others often interpret contrary meanings in Scripture about Baptism and other dogmas similarly does not register in the minds of Protestants how flawed their logic is in believing that extra-biblical traditions cannot and should not exist outside the Bible. If Tradition is pointless because the Bible’s truths are self-evident, then why are Christians so confused over how to interpret it, and why have they developed so many variant extra-biblical traditions to practice it? This is why the original Apostolic Tradition should be acknowledged and sought out. Scripture does not always explain its own doctrines, nor does it refer to every possible doctrine.

One of the most important points behind the issue of Baptism is that the Bible does not explain if or not Baptism is a mere symbolic ritual or if it affects the soul in some way. This involves a doctrine which is not taught in Scripture, with doctrinal implications also going beyond what is mentioned in the Bible. For the last 500 years Protestants have created much debate over the doctrinal meanings behind Baptism, proving that extra-biblical traditions must be applied to understand Baptism, faith, love, prayer, worship, and so on, all of which depend on and hinge on the rituals and theological meanings of Baptism. And so the argument goes back to this question, does the Bible explain itself, and if so, how does it explain itself, or does the Bible require an external tradition to codify certain doctrines, or both? Moreover, if Baptism does require an external tradition to practice it and understand its relevance, then are there other doctrines and rituals from the Apostles not recorded in Scripture or does the Bible contain them all, or at least mention them without the doctrinal and spiritual details? If only a few generalities in Holy Tradition can be found in the Bible, does that prove that Holy Tradition has been totally subsumed into Scripture? If so, where is the evidence of such a belief? The Bible again does not answer these questions, though Protestants go to great lengths to prove from Scripture that they can be answered, and that every single doctrine of the Apostles has been recorded in the Bible, despite the fact that this very doctrine has no obvious Biblical or historical basis itself, except among the cult of the Sadducees and the sects of the Protestants. It is a doctrine which must be forced into Biblical understanding, thus it comes from a tradition.

Though the Early Christians were adamant in believing that the Apostles had left behind unwritten doctrines, and some Protestants themselves are forced to admit to the existence of extra-biblical rituals and doctrines, most Protestants have invented ways around this dilemma by making up new doctrines, which no church or synagogue has ever believed in until the Protestants came along 4-5 centuries ago. In this way the Apostolic witness of the Early Christians can be twisted and interpreted any way a Protestant desires without admitting that an oral tradition has been applied and added into Scripture

.

 

[jrtrent]

You do believe in the authority of the Catholic Church. And that she was infallible, on multiple occasions.

There is no way to refute those assertions.

The refutation of those assertions consists in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in New Testament times or in the early centuries after Christ. There were Christian churches in many cities, including Rome, but the hierarchical structure, papacy, and the many unique doctrines and practices found in the Catholic church today did not exist til centuries after the scriptures were written, accepted, and shared among the early churches.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger makes an absolutely valid point.

My favorite words so far on this thread!

 

[CopticChristian]

The refutation of those assertions consists in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in New Testament times or in the early centuries after Christ. There were Christian churches in many cities, including Rome, but the hierarchical structure, papacy, and the many unique doctrines and practices found in the Catholic church today did not exist til centuries after the scriptures were written, accepted, and shared among the early churches.

Trent,

So the Catholic Church started with Constantine, is this where you are going?

 

[PRmerger]

The refutation of those assertions consists in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in New Testament times or in the early centuries after Christ. There were Christian churches in many cities, including Rome, but the hierarchical structure, papacy, and the many unique doctrines and practices found in the Catholic church today did not exist til centuries after the scriptures were written, accepted, and shared among the early churches.

Even if that argument is accepted, the point remains: ALL Christians must defer to an outside authority to tell them what is theopneustos.

This means that:
-they cannot be Sola Scriptura advocates

-they proclaim the charism of infallibility has been given to this outside entity. On multiple occasions. (Unless, of course, they want to claim that this outside entity got it wrong in discerning the NT canon and wish to proclaim that, perhaps, Revelation needs to be omitted and the Shepherd of Hermas included?)