Bible believer ... When?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

What makes you think He isn’t.

For the reasons I stated Do I really need to re-post it?

Do you think that it’s an accident that He took Word (logos) to indicate who He was. Further on in Jn17 we read 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Again, how is this supposed to lead me to believe that Christ is not talking about Himself? Christ is God’s Word, the Bible tells us this. Christ is the Truth, the Bible tells us this. So when Christ says:

Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Jn 17:17

How am I incorrect in believing that He is talking about Himself? Besides if we interpret this verse how you want to what is it that Christ is saying right now? The only Scriptures that were around when Christ spoke this was the OT so if we interpret this how you want it interpreted it is saying too much. What it is saying is that OT is all that is needed Is this really what you believe?

We abide (live) in the WORD OF GOD. We abide in Christ and He in us thru the WORD OF GOD.

I agree, God’s Word is Christ… Jn 1:. I am missing how this fact relates to SS?

Well, it’s the WORD OF GOD That the Spirit of God will bring to our remembrance, if we abide (live)** in THE WORD OF GOD, Jesus!!!**

:clapping: Yes Christ is God’s Word. What does this have to do with SS?

God bless

 

[estesbob]

At the risk of sounding nerdish (nerdly?) I would be curious to see the actual words Augustine used which are here replaced by “[of Pope Siricius]” …

Nothing was replaced-the parens were added to inform people of who the Pope was when this was written

 

[Peter_J]

Nothing was replaced-the parens were added to inform people of who the Pope was when this was written

So Augustine said “The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate” and the editor simply added on “of Pope Siricius”?

 

[estesbob]

So Augustine said “The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate” and the editor simply added on “of Pope Siricius”?

Becuase Pope Siiricus was the current episcopate at the time.

If 100 years fom now someone pulls up one of my posts where I have said "The Current president is the most pro-abortion President in histroy "they would have to add(Pesident Obama) to clarify who I was talking about.

 

[puppypatrol]

We are still forgetting, with the quotes being made, that Scripture and the Bible are not the same thing. The Bible is Scripture but Scripture includes more than just the Bible, it includes Oral Tradition (teachings) etc…

 

[Peter_J]

Because Pope Siricus was the current episcopate at the time.

I’m not ignoring you, but I think I’ll wait and see what comments others might make, before commenting myself. (I figure I’ve already got enough enemies among the posters here. )

 

[Richard_Kastner]

For the reasons I stated Do I really need to re-post it?

So, what I hear you saying is that you see no relationship between Jesus as the Word of God and SS. Is that right?

Again, how is this supposed to lead me to believe that Christ is not talking about Himself? Christ is God’s Word, the Bible tells us this. Christ is the Truth, the Bible tells us this. So when Christ says:

Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Jn 17:17

How am I incorrect in believing that He is talking about Himself?

I don’t believe I ever said that you were wrong in believing that Jesus is talking of Himself.

Besides if we interpret this verse how you want to what is it that Christ is saying right now? The only Scriptures that were around when Christ spoke this was the OT so if we interpret this how you want it interpreted it is saying too much. What it is saying is that OT is all that is needed Is this really what you believe?

What I am asking you to believe is that Jesus is the embodiment of what all scripture is about, old, and new testament. Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Matt 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Jesus is the fulfillment of everything spoken of in the law and the prophets and He is the new testament.

I agree, God’s Word is Christ… Jn 1:. I am missing how this fact relates to SS/
:clapping: Yes Christ is God’s Word. What does this have to do with SS?

God bless

So, again you don’t see how Jesus as God’s Word relates to scripture. I will pray for you.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

So, what I hear you saying is that you see no relationship between Jesus as the Word of God and SS. Is that right?

It is not Jesus and the Word of God. Christ is God’s Word. Jn 1:1

What I am asking you to believe is that Jesus is the embodiment of what all scripture is about, old, and new testament. Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Relevance to SS?

So, again you don’t see how Jesus as God’s Word relates to scripture. I will pray for you.

No, I don’t see how it relates to Sola Scriptura.

God bless you

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In many posts written by Non-catholics many describe themselves as Bible Christians or Bible believers. From a historical standpoint … when did this happen? Where is the root of Biblical Believers?

We know illiteracy was commonplace from the time of Jesus on earth to around the 1700’s and to be a Bible believing Christian you have to be able to read. Books were not readily available but the technology that could change this began in the mid 1400’s with the first printing presses.

For Christianity to spread to the masses (especially the poor and illiterate) before the widespread availability of the written Bible … where were Bible believing Christians, did they exist? How did Christianity spread without people reading a Bible, not because they did not want to but were incapable?

What about my assumption of having to be able to read to be a Bible Christian … is it correct?

Would a Bible believing Christian consider those Christians who never read a Bible in those early centuries Christian?

I say this because Catholics believe both the Bible and teaching Magesterium are equal and necessary to spread the Gospel. This is supported by the mechanism by which the Catholic Church is built … God breathed Scripture and a teaching authority to pass on those truths.

Comments.

One possible reply goes thus: before there was any sacred writings in the religion of Israel, there were the traditions that crystallised as those writings, the toroth or “instructions” of the priests; and other writings from other quarters, such as the wisdom literature. There was no Bible, but there were the parts of it. And these eventually “solidified” into the Tanakh as Judaism now has it.​

And so, in effect, with the the process that gave us the NT books, except that the NT Church always had a Bible - the OT ( as Christians think of the Tanakh). The process was shorter for the NT books, but it still took a long time. The uncertainties & disagreements as to which books were canonical, is a weakness in the argument for letting Tradition have equal authority with the Bible.

Now that the books of both Testaments are canonised, the written & recognised & canonical books replace the unwritten teaching that went into them - the UT is thought of as terminating in them. One result of this is that there is no need for extra-biblical ideas to be regarded as Tradition in the Roman manner.

Both positions have their strengths & weaknesses - Protestants don’t claim infallibility except for the Bible, & not all would go even that far; RCism OTOH has to square several kinds of infallibility with the facts; which is often very difficult. The Protestant equivalent of this, is the Fundamentalist insistence on the total inerrancy of the Bible. But that is really another subject.

 

[Peter_J]

So, what I hear you saying is that you see no relationship between Jesus as the Word of God and SS. Is that right?

Richard, when I first read this, I read “SS” as “sola scriptura”; however it now occurs to me that you might have meant “SS” as “sacred scripture”. Did you? (If so, then you’re asking an awfully silly question: how could we not see a relationship between Jesus as the Word of God and sacred scripture?)

 

[Departed_Light]

Do you meet in your home (or someone elses)?

Yes and yes

 

[Departed_Light]

The thing is, Protestants changed the idea from sufficiency of Scripture to sola scriptura (or, some would say, changed it from sola scriptura to solo scriptura).

And the thing was that the church changed from relying on Scripture to relying on tradition. And so the pendulum swings back and forth.

 

[ncgolf]

And so, in effect, with the the process that gave us the NT books, except that the NT Church always had a Bible - the OT ( as Christians think of the Tanakh). The process was shorter for the NT books, but it still took a long time. The uncertainties & disagreements as to which books were canonical, is a weakness in the argument for letting Tradition have equal authority with the Bible.

How is it weakness? I think it speaks to strength of Tradtion, not a weakness. Yes there were disagreements and discussion but in the end there was no uncertainity. In fact I believe they were certain they got it right.

Now that the books of both Testaments are canonised, the written & recognised & canonical books replace the unwritten teaching that went into them - the UT is thought of as terminating in them. One result of this is that there is no need for extra-biblical ideas to be regarded as Tradition in the Roman manner.

Is this a logical follow on or is it a Scripturally based? I do not see this as a logical follow-on.

Both positions have their strengths & weaknesses - Protestants don’t claim infallibility except for the Bible, & not all would go even that far; RCism OTOH has to square several kinds of infallibility with the facts; which is often very difficult. The Protestant equivalent of this, is the Fundamentalist insistence on the total inerrancy of the Bible. But that is really another subject.

Not strengths or weaknesses but a difference in perception. What do you mean several kinds of infallibilty?

When you say “total inerrancy” I assume both the text and understanding of such text to be without error …but yes … it is a completely new topic.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And the thing was that the church changed from relying on Scripture to relying on tradition. And so the pendulum swings back and forth.

Hmmm. I’m assuming you have sources and documentations to back up this claim? You have authentic evidence that the Church ‘relied on Scripture’. . .and exactly what does that mean? What does ‘rely’ mean? Exactly what was the Scripture? How was this demonstrated?

And you claim ‘changed’. OK, where is the documentation for the change? Where and when did it occur? What are the documents that show this change?

Where is the documentation that the Church did not ‘rely’ on BOTH Scripture and oral tradition? That at one point it was ‘all Scripture’ and at another point 'no, we use tradition instead?

You made the claims, show us the authentic documentation that backs them up. There must be a specific DATE somewhere and we’re dying to hear it.

 

[Departed_Light]

Hmmm. I’m assuming you have sources and documentations to back up this claim? You have authentic evidence that the Church ‘relied on Scripture’. . .and exactly what does that mean? What does ‘rely’ mean? Exactly what was the Scripture? How was this demonstrated?

And you claim ‘changed’. OK, where is the documentation for the change? Where and when did it occur? What are the documents that show this change?

Where is the documentation that the Church did not ‘rely’ on BOTH Scripture and oral tradition? That at one point it was ‘all Scripture’ and at another point 'no, we use tradition instead?

You made the claims, show us the authentic documentation that backs them up. There must be a specific DATE somewhere and we’re dying to hear it.

There is no reason to get your gander up. This is the same argument that goes back and forth forever on here. I supplied a lot of ECF quotes that support the ECFs view of the primacy of Scripture. The reformers pointed out at length where they saw the Church moving away from that. The dates for the tipping point are well known. The issues for the tipping point are also well known. How it is possible for any Catholic to pretend that never happened?

 

[estesbob]

There is no reason to get your gander up. This is the same argument that goes back and forth forever on here. I supplied a lot of ECF quotes that support the ECFs view of the primacy of Scripture. The reformers pointed out at length where they saw the Church moving away from that. The dates for the tipping point are well known. The issues for the tipping point are also well known. How it is possible for any Catholic to pretend that never happened?

No -you provided the usual pot pouri of out of context quotes that always cut n pasted into there discussion-quotes that NEVER support the primacy of Scripture-only the importance of Scripture-which the church , of course, agrees with.

For example you patsed an Augustine Quote but never responed to quotes posted in rebuttal where Augustime makes it clear he accpets the authority of the Church in matters of Doctrine.

 

[Departed_Light]

Hi Bob,
Are you saying that this quote from St. Augustine says the Magisterium as we have it today existed in the 4th century? (Or are we getting off topic?)

You are getting a little off topic but, then again, that is just my opinion.

No -you provided the usual pot pouri of out of context quotes that always cut n pasted into there discussion-quotes that NEVER support the primacy of Scripture-only the importance of Scripture-which the church , of course, agrees with.

For example you patsed an Augustine Quote but never responed to quotes posted in rebuttal where Augustime makes it clear he accpets the authority of the Church in matters of Doctrine.

Hi again Bob, hope you’re having a great day. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of not answering a post, when I did. And then was told (because I had asked) I was getting off topic so I let it be.

I don’t think anyone can claim that St. Augustine was anything other than a loyal and faithful servant to the Roman See. I think there is a famous quote by him that says something like, “Rome has spoken the matter is closed.” I hope that’s not an urban legend. So I hope that clears that up a bit.

The original OP asked when Bible Christians came on the scene. I say there have been Bible Christians from the very beginning of Christianity.

 

[estesbob]

Hi again Bob, hope you’re having a great day. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of not answering a post, when I did. And then was told (because I had asked) I was getting off topic so I let it be.

I don’t think anyone can claim that St. Augustine was anything other than a loyal and faithful servant to the Roman See. I think there is a famous quote by him that says something like, “Rome has spoken the matter is closed.” I hope that’s not an urban legend. So I hope that clears that up a bit.

The original OP asked when Bible Christians came on the scene. I say there have been Bible Christians from the very beginning of Christianity.

I beleive the discussion is when the doctrine of sola scriptura began-clearly not until 1500 plus uears after the church was founded.

There is abslutely no dispute that all christians were bible beleivers from day 1.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

In many posts written by Non-catholics many describe themselves as Bible Christians or Bible believers. From a historical standpoint … when did this happen? Where is the root of Biblical Believers?

.

Ireneaus…
*
proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." *

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Jerome
*
“I beg of you, my dear brother,** to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else**.”*