Bible being the Sole Authority??

[billwh77]

But you do see, bill, how you have set yourself up to be the arbiter of what’s inspired and what’s not?

Is the paradigm you use to determine whether you consider it to be the word of God the same as what the Mormons use–a “burning in the bosom”?

And how is it that you can know what’s considered to be necessary for our salvation? What if the things in 3 John are indeed necessary for your salvation but you have decided to dismiss it?

Let me try and show my perspective since I not able to convey properly. I have never been to a church that had the deuterocanonical books or a bible that had them. I only found out about them years later in my research. Did I choose to remove them no, did I pick and choose no. I have several bibles that were handed down to my from my grandparents who loved GOD and it showed. After reading the deuterocanonical books, I felt no conviction from the Holy Spirit that I had an incomplete bible or need to get one that had them. The arguments for and against are to numerous, if the Holy Spirit convicts me otherwise that is whats important.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let me try and show my perspective since I not able to convey properly. I have never been to a church that had the deuterocanonical books or a bible that had them. I only found out about them years later in my research. Did I choose to remove them no, did I pick and choose no. I have several bibles that were handed down to my from my grandparents who loved GOD and it showed. After reading the deuterocanonical books, I felt no conviction from the Holy Spirit that I had an incomplete bible or need to get one that had them. The arguments for and against are to numerous, if the Holy Spirit convicts me otherwise that is whats important.

Bill,

Is this like a burning in the bosom?

I earlier in my years, spent numerous hours in hotels. I was not strong in my faith. Honestly the Marriott has bibles in every room. I would read it now and again and I never felt anything except the urge to put it away. What I feel and what I am convicted over is the truth.

No Church you have been to=churches you attend are Protestant

Your grandparents loved God and had bibles without DC=they were Protestant

Do you discern the truth from your covictions after reading? If so, read the table of contents of your Bible, page and verse numbering, and tell me what the Holy Spirit tells you about how it got there, then I or others will tell you the truth hidden for some ages because I doubt the Holy Spirit will tell you, not that I doubt the Power of the Holy Spirit, but I believe God expects us to do our due dilligence and use that mush between our ears.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Let me try and show my perspective since I not able to convey properly. I have never been to a church that had the deuterocanonical books or a bible that had them. I only found out about them years later in my research. Did I choose to remove them no, did I pick and choose no. I have several bibles that were handed down to my from my grandparents who loved GOD and it showed. After reading the deuterocanonical books, I felt no conviction from the Holy Spirit that I had an incomplete bible or need to get one that had them. The arguments for and against are to numerous, if the Holy Spirit convicts me otherwise that is whats important.

billwh77,

[bibledrb]Acts 8:26-40[/bibledrb]

Please do not discard the different ways that the Spirit of Truth can convict you. If we can learn anything from Scriptures is that in order to understand them we need the guidance of those taught and sent by Christ - not in and of ourselves. This is why we have the physical presence of the Catholic Church on earth as the pillar and buttress of truth.

Peace,

Jose

 

[PRmerger]

How would you describe the use of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church?

Tradition is simply the lens by which we read and interpret Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me try and show my perspective since I not able to convey properly. I have never been to a church that had the deuterocanonical books or a bible that had them. I only found out about them years later in my research. Did I choose to remove them no, did I pick and choose no. I have several bibles that were handed down to my from my grandparents who loved GOD and it showed. After reading the deuterocanonical books, I felt no conviction from the Holy Spirit that I had an incomplete bible or need to get one that had them. The arguments for and against are to numerous, if the Holy Spirit convicts me otherwise that is whats important.

Do you know that there’s a sect of Christians who reject all of St. Paul’s writings?

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Do you believe that they have listened to the Holy Spirit and are living the full gospel by eliminating that which does not “convict” them?

 

[batman1973]

Do you know that there’s a sect of Christians who reject all of St. Paul’s writings?

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Do you believe that they have listened to the Holy Spirit and are living the full gospel by eliminating that which does not “convict” them?

PR, you’ve heard that saying “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?” If we’re gonna bring fringe groups to this party, then I invite The Society of St. Pius X, and the ‘‘Sedevacantist’’ groups.

Now that we have Sacred Scripture, all things, including Traditions, need to be held to God’s Word. Not the other way around. As a Lutheran, I’m beginning to appreciate Tradition more. I see a need for it. As long as it conforms to God’s Word. (That really sounded better in my head…)

 

[PRmerger]

PR, you’ve heard that saying “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?” If we’re gonna bring fringe groups to this party, then I invite The Society of St. Pius X, and the ‘‘Sedevacantist’’ groups.

Yes, these groups have divorced themselves from the Catholic faith.

The point is, and one I think you will agree, that we don’t get to decide what books are inspired and what books aren’t, based on how the Spirit convicts us.

Otherwise, we can’t object to this Christian sect that has thrown out all the writings of St. Paul.

Now that we have Sacred Scripture, all things, including Traditions, need to be held to God’s Word. Not the other way around. As a Lutheran, I’m beginning to appreciate Tradition more. I see a need for it. As long as it conforms to God’s Word. (That really sounded better in my head…)

God’s Word is both Scripture AND Tradition, batman.

If you want to say that God’s Word is ONLY Scripture, then you’ll need to provide a Bible verse that says this.

(Hint: you can search from Genesis to Revelation, and you’ll never find that verse.)

 

[batman1973]

Yes, these groups have divorced themselves from the Catholic faith.

The point is, and one I think you will agree, that we don’t get to decide what books are inspired and what books aren’t, based on how the Spirit convicts us.

Otherwise, we can’t object to this Christian sect that has thrown out all the writings of St. Paul.

God’s Word is both Scripture AND Tradition, batman.

If you want to say that God’s Word is ONLY Scripture, then you’ll need to provide a Bible verse that says this.

(Hint: you can search from Genesis to Revelation, and you’ll never find that verse.)

I agree with you on the first point, of course. Just wanted you to make sure that not just Non-Catholic Christians have the odd balls.

As for the 2nd, there are several verses, many that have been pointed out:
There’s Mark 7:13-“Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (KJV)

Matthew 22:29-Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (KJV)

From His Holiness, St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21) (KJV)

If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away”- Matthew 24:35 (KJV)

And of course, where would this end without the well worn 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

 

[rfournier103]

I’ve been on this website for a while and I checked some out some of the threads, let me see if I’ve got this correct: the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church she was the 1 that compiled it or wrote it depending on who you talk to, the Bible should have never been taken out of the church. It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory, if you wanna daily Bible study you go to daily Mass if you want a weekly Bible study then you for your weekly obligation. The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted, that is left up to the church’s infallible Magisterium. To do anything else is heretical. Does that about sum it up correctly?

I take serious offense to the underlined portion of that statement. The Bible is the WRITTEN portion of the “Deposit of Faith.”

 

[SteveVH]

Now that we have Sacred Scripture, all things, including Traditions, need to be held to God’s Word. Not the other way around. As a Lutheran, I’m beginning to appreciate Tradition more. I see a need for it. As long as it conforms to God’s Word. (That really sounded better in my head…)

Batman, have you considered that the sacred texts of the Bible were chosen because they conformed to Sacred Tradition? Maybe Sacred Tradition needs to be defined so that we’re all on the same page.

Our Church defines it as follows:

Tradition is “the living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible) are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Glossary)

 

[joe370]

batman1973 - the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church she was the 1 that compiled it or wrote it depending on who you talk to,

If not the CC, then who? We can exclude all present-day PCs for the simple fact that they did not exist prior to the protestant reformation.

the Bible should have never been taken out of the church.

Well, look what has happened since the Holy Bible has been put into the hands of each and every sola scriptura advocate.

It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory

I know of no one who views the word of God as a liturgical accessory. Perhaps you did not mean to word it that way?

if you wanna daily Bible study you go to daily Mass

Sure. Of course, if a Christian belonging to the CC is interested in daily Bible study, all he/she has to do is open the Bible and study it.

The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted, that is left up to the church’s infallible Magisterium.

All Christians belonging to the CC can certainly read and interpret the Bible. That is not the exclusive task of the teaching office of the CC. However, when doctrinal uncertainty occurs Catholics defer to the CC teaching office. This is what promotes unity and oneness.

To do anything else is heretical. Does that about sum it up correctly?

Not at all! Try again. LOL…

 

[SteveVH]

I do not believe they are inspired

Congradulations. You have just become your own Pope and Church Council.

 

[batman1973]

I take serious offense to the underlined portion of that statement. The Bible is the WRITTEN portion of the “Deposit of Faith.”

It wasn’t ment to offend, I did read those very words of the bible as a liturgical accessory right here on CAF. (I’ll try to find the post and link it.)

 

[jrtrent]

Maybe Sacred Tradition needs to be defined so that we’re all on the same page.

Our Church defines it as follows:

Tradition is “the living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible) are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Glossary)

Thanks for the definition, but I’m having a hard time understanding it. Is there a list of what the living Tradition teaches that is not in the written Scriptures? And is there a comparison available to help us understand the overlap and difference between the traditions of local churches and the apostolic Tradition?

 

[jrtrent]

JR -

Here’s some direct quotes from writers in the early Church. When did the Catholic Church not exist and when did it start in your belief?

Thanks for those great quotes. Where did you source those from? It would be interesting to read more of those in their entirety.

In answer to your question, I believe (though I know I need to read a lot more history) that it was in the 5th century when we see the beginnings of the Roman Catholic Church. Here’s an entry from a timeline:

AD 476: Fall of the Western Roman Empire as Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman emperor, is deposed by the German Odoacer, leaving the emperor in the Greek East as the sole imperial authority, and an unstable political environment in the West where the Church of Rome slowly developed a centralized structure, concentrating religious as well as secular authority in the office of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. (emphasis added)
orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodox_Church_and_Roman_Catholic_relations#Estrangement_and_Schism

Off-topic, but I got a phone message yesterday from the library that a copy of the Michael Barber book you recommended is available for me to pick up. Looking forward to it!

 

[jrtrent]

So help me understand, you can personally decided what is Scripture or not? I do not like Numbers. Can I take it out of the Bible?

You make it sound like billwh77 is the first and only person to not recognize the deuterocanonicals as scripture. Read the 39 Articles, the Westminster Confession, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, the titles to the Apocrypha section found in the Coverdale Bible and Luther’s Bible, and many other such documents, and you’ll find that a lot of people over the years have doubted the canonicity of these books.

At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.

The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume III, chapter IX)

 

[Porknpie]

Thanks for those great quotes. Where did you source those from? It would be interesting to read more of those in their entirety.

JR, see scripturecatholic.com. A terrific reference.

In answer to your question, I believe (though I know I need to read a lot more history) that it was in the 5th century when we see the beginnings of the Roman Catholic Church.

JR, you ask about beginnings. This is a little longer story but …Ok… where and when was the apostle Peter…The Rock…crucified? There’s a big basilica there named after him with his remains buried under the alter. Here’s another book that I’ve read that you may want to pick up. Easy reading but fascinating…it talks about beginnings…many great details.

amazon.com/Bones-Peter-John-Evangelist-Walsh/dp/1933184752

Here’s an entry from a timeline:

AD 476: Fall of the Western Roman Empire as Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman emperor, is deposed by the German Odoacer, leaving the emperor in the Greek East as the sole imperial authority, and an unstable political environment in the West where the Church of Rome slowly developed a centralized structure, concentrating religious as well as secular authority in the office of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. (emphasis added)
orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodox_Church_and_Roman_Catholic_relations#Estrangement_and_Schism

Go to scripturecatholic.com and read the early church references to the Catholic Church under Biblical Church. growth of the Church is a longer explanation…someone can jump in …I have to go to work.

Off-topic, but I got a phone message yesterday from the library that a copy of the Michael Barber book you recommended is available for me to pick up. Looking forward to it!

Wonderful! Get the OT nearby and ready. I’m now reading Little Flowers of St Francis…a much lighter read but very rewarding. Recommend by many on CAF to me.

 

[aidanbradypop]

You make it sound like billwh77 is the first and only person to not recognize the deuterocanonicals as scripture. Read the 39 Articles, the Westminster Confession, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, the titles to the Apocrypha section found in the Coverdale Bible and Luther’s Bible, and many other such documents, and you’ll find that a lot of people over the years have doubted the canonicity of these books.

At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.

The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume III, chapter IX)

Jr,

I do not believe Bill is the first nor will he be the last. He has yet to answer my question. I would offer it to you if you would like to answer it. If I do not feel that Numbers and feel it is not divinely inspired, can I take it out?

I have read the 39 Articles of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith. I have Anglican and Baptist in my family. I was raised by both and yet I am Catholic today. Praise God!

 

[jrtrent]

I do not believe Bill is the first nor will he be the last. He has yet to answer my question. I would offer it to you if you would like to answer it. If I do not feel that Numbers and feel it is not divinely inspired, can I take it out?

I have read the 39 Articles of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith. I have Anglican and Baptist in my family. I was raised by both and yet I am Catholic today. Praise God!

I believe that membership in a particular local church is a declaration that you are in agreement with its doctrines and that you place yourself under their oversight and discipline. If your church considers the book of Numbers to be canonical, then I don’t believe you have a right to remove it unless you are first willing to remove yourself from that church.

I don’t know billwh77’s church affiliation, if any, but he did say that none of the churches he’s attended used a Bible that contained the deuterocanonicals. He has removed nothing from his Bible and does not desire to. He even sensibly uses the KJV (see Alred Levell’s little book The Old is Better for a treatment as to why the KJV is more reliable than many modern translations).

I’m failing to see how your desire to remove Numbers is at all an analogous situation.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I believe that membership in a particular local church is a declaration that you are in agreement with its doctrines and that you place yourself under their oversight and discipline. If your church considers the book of Numbers to be canonical, then I don’t believe you have a right to remove it unless you are first willing to remove yourself from that church.

I don’t know billwh77’s church affiliation, if any, but he did say that none of the churches he’s attended used a Bible that contained the deuterocanonicals. He has removed nothing from his Bible and does not desire to. He even sensibly uses the KJV (see Alred Levell’s little book The Old is Better for a treatment as to why the KJV is more reliable than many modern translations).

I’m failing to see how your desire to remove Numbers is at all an analogous situation.

Jr thanks for answering the question.

I have no desire to remove Numbers from the Bible. I am simply making a point. Here are some examples of how the dueterocanonical text play a part in Sacred Scripture.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Should I post more?