Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

[murphdog261]

Here’s the distinction in the CCC:

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[sandusky]

Then you misunderstand the word ‘alone’ or ‘only’.

Who would better know whether or not Catholics Worship Mary? A protestant, or a catholic?

Do you know how stupid you sound when you try to tell me what I believe?

 

[Bishopite]

We call it ‘scripture *in *tradition’

An oral tradition we keep; that Jesus had no brothers and sisters. Another as to the names of Mary’s parents.

 

[Ginger2]

Quote: “It seems you’re simply going around in circles. All you offer is unconvincing circular logic.”

How’s this for “circular logic”:
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith … no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Jhn 6:65 … no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

I don’t believe Luther ever used the term Sola Scriptura.

He said something to the effect that all teaching must be compatable with Scripture. That Scriptures are the test for truth in teaching.

I think most of the difficulty here stems from Catholics misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura means.

Sola Scripture is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. (It contains all that we need to know about God.)

Scripture is a test for truth. “If they speak not according to this word, there in no light in them.” - Isaiah

The Apostles had Jesus, They didn’t need anything more.

When the Apostles taught others what they had received directly from Christ they proved their message from Scripture (Acts 17:2) (Even the Apostles knew their teaching was subject to Scripture) and 18:28)

Therefore, having proved their teaching was divinely inspired, their writings automatically became part of Scripture. (Mat 16:17)

Those who preach after the Apostles need their teaching checked for truth against both Old and New Testaments.

 

[murphdog261]

Quote: “It seems you’re simply going around in circles. All you offer is unconvincing circular logic.”

How’s this for “circular logic”:
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith … no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Jhn 6:65 … no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

I don’t believe Luther ever used the term Sola Scriptura.

He said something to the effect that all teaching must be compatable with Scripture. That Scriptures are the test for truth in teaching.

I think most of the difficulty here stems from Catholics misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura means.

Sola Scripture is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. (It contains all that we need to know about God.)

Scripture is a test for truth. “If they speak not according to this word, there in no light in them.” - Isaiah

The Apostles had Jesus, They didn’t need anything more.

When the Apostles taught others what they had received directly from Christ they proved their message from Scripture (Acts 17:2) (Even the Apostles knew their teaching was subject to Scripture) and 18:28)

Therefore, having proved their teaching was divinely inspired, their writings automatically became part of Scripture. (Mat 16:17)

Those who preach after the Apostles need their teaching checked for truth against both Old and New Testaments.

Indeed, this is what the Church does.

Since both Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition come from the same source of God’s Releveation, they are extremely tied together. Now this doesn’t mean that Tradition can go running off without Scripture. (Notice I didn’t say “shouldn’t go running off”). Tradition canNOT depart from Scriptural teachings. It is impossible, seeing that both Tradition and Scripture are divinely inspired through the Holy Spirit.

If you look closely, in no way does the Church’s Tradition depart from Sacred Scripture.

In Christ,

Murph

 

[Bishopite]

I don’t believe Luther ever used the term Sola Scriptura.

Martin Luther certainly did practice sola scriptura and lead the charge and Protestants regularly affirm Luthers support of it as they write books in support of it so it is irrelevant whether Luther actually said those words, what matters is that he certainly practiced and promoted it.

He said something to the effect that all teaching must be compatable with Scripture. That Scriptures are the test for truth in teaching.

All teaching compatible with who’s interpretation of scripture. Amazing how Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (I use both because we both deny sola scriptura) are often attacked as having incorrect doctrine, i.e., Apostolic succession, as though Protestants “KNOW” that we are wrong, yet can’t agree to what is “compatible with Scripture.” 2 Tim 2:15 says we are to “rightly divide the Word of God” so which sola scriptura group “rightly divides the Word of God” and which one’s teachings are “compatible with Scripture?”

I think most of the difficulty here stems from Catholics misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura means.

If there is any element of truth in your statement it is that there are so many different version of what Protestants mean by sola scriptura. We Catholics often hear differing versions of it, so it is completely understandable that some Catholics misunderstand it. Which Protestant group holds to the correct version of sola scriptura?

Sola Scripture is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. (It contains all that we need to know about God.)

“The Four Spritual Laws” a Christian tract I used to use to evangelize in college also contain all that I need to know about God?

Scripture is a test for truth. “If they speak not according to this word, there in no light in them.” - Isaiah

Which sola scriptura group speaks “according to his word?”

The Apostles had Jesus, They didn’t need anything more.

The Apostles had Jesus’ teaching, what He did in practice by example and His words which are what He Traditioned to the Apostles.

When the Apostles taught others what they had received directly from Christ they proved their message from Scripture (Acts 17:2) (Even the Apostles knew their teaching was subject to Scripture) and 18:28)

Again, the cart before the horse. How could the Apostles know what was all scripture if it hadn’t yet been written?
And how did they know for sure that all revelation would cease after the death of the last Apostle? They didn’t that’s the answer.

Therefore, having proved their teaching was divinely inspired, their writings automatically became part of Scripture. (Mat 16:17)

What about Hebrews? Did an Apostle write that too?

Those who preach after the Apostles need their teaching checked for truth against both Old and New Testaments.

And which Protestant group could do that if they didn’t exist until the 16th century?

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

No that’s incorrect and I never affirmed that they did. What I said was there was no canon in the time of Jesus, the Jews didn’t have a fixed canon.

Bishopite, here’s a test for your “human reason;” from what canon were the apostles quoting when they were quoting the from the OT canon?

And, from what canon was Christ quoting, and what canon did He expect the Jews to know when He quoted from the OT canon?**Romans 3:2

…they [the Jews] were entrusted with the oracles of God.**

The Jews had a canon, and they received it without a church, and without an infallible teaching magisterium, and without an infallible Pope.

The scripture, and common sense defeats your arguments everytime.

Bishopite:

My point on being, Athanasius being the first to As there were divisions within the church at that time is nothing new, there are certainly divisions with Paul and Peter also.

Yes; and Athanasius, by himself, used scripture alone against the Arians; and who opposed Athansius? Many bishops, including the one sitting in Rome; I guess the Pope is only infallible when he’s right.

Bishopite:

Yeah exactly, you know, we Catholics can’t say nor do anything without Romes approval.

Thank you for your candor.

Bishopite:

They were? Hey thanks for the eclessial history lesson. You know…I’m still looking for Protestantism within the ECF’s?

As are protestants continually searching the ECFs for your brand of modern, neo-catholicism.

Bishopite:

Wow, and who would have thought that the reformers had the same authority as the ECF’s!

Neither the teachings of the Reformers, the ECFs, nor the teachings of your 2,000 year old teaching magisterium are scripture; and, none of the teachings of any of those 3 is binding upon the hearts of God’s people; and, the teachings of all 3 must be in line with, and submit to, the teaching revealed by God in is Word.

Bishopite:

Hey, thanks for not asking me for that list.

But, I did ask you for the list; I merely said that you didn’t have to do all of the legwork, but merely copy and past the list compiled by your 2,000 year old, infallible teaching magisterium.

 

[Bishopite]

sandusky;2603788]Bishopite, here’s a test for your “human reason;” from what canon were the apostles quoting when they were quoting the from the OT canon?

There was no fixed canon in Jesus’ time. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament Septuagint but their was not a “fixed” canon in Jesus’ day. There was the Alexandrian canon which included the dueterocanonicals, there was a Pharisial canon (which ironically included all of the Protestant 66 books) a Saducee canon (which included the pentateuch the first five books of the Bible as they didn’t affirm the resurection) and there was a Qumron canon which scholars don’t precisely know what was in it. So there were at least four canons within Jesus’ day and again there was NO fixed canon in Jesus time. Didn’t you know that the Saducees and Pharsees disagreed to what was the OT canon?

And, from what canon was Christ quoting, and what canon did He expect the Jews to know when He quoted from the OT canon?

Jesus quoted from or referrenced from the Old Testment scrolls and the Septuagint as did the Apostles, how could He quote from one canon being the Saducees and Pharisees disagreed to what was the Old Testament.

The Jews had a canon, and they received it without a church, and without an infallible teaching magisterium, and without an infallible Pope.

What canon did the Jews have?

The scripture, and common sense defeats your arguments everytime.

Right… The Scriptures are God’s word because they say so.

Yes; and Athanasius, by himself, used scripture alone against the Arians; and who opposed Athansius? Many bishops, including the one sitting in Rome; I guess the Pope is only infallible when he’s right.

Ha, that’s funny.

As are protestants continually searching the ECFs for your brand of modern, neo-catholicism.

Neo-Catholicism, that’s a new one…,so who are the real “Catholics?” I’m not sure if Protestant’s are searching for the ECF’s or not?

Neither the teachings of the Reformers, the ECFs, nor the teachings of your 2,000 year old teaching magisterium are scripture; and, none of the teachings of any of those 3 is binding upon the hearts of God’s people; and, the teachings of all 3 must be in line with, and submit to, the teaching revealed by God in is Word.

Great, we finally agree on at least two issues.
One–that the ECF’s, Reformers, nor the teaching of my 2000 year old magisterium are scripture, that I agree with you. Two-- All three must be in line with scripture, but what you nor any other sola scriptura supporter never answers is which “teaching revealed by God” IS “in line” with scripture??

But, I did ask you for the list; I merely said that you didn’t have to do all of the legwork, but merely copy and past the list compiled by your 2,000 year old, infallible teaching magisterium.

Oh, I thought you said you gave me a personal dispensation for not having to give you the list. Boy I was wrong.
Well, then I can’t as a Catholic say too much on my own, you know I’ll have to instant message my Bishop and of course he will instant message Rome (hopefully it will even reach Pope Bendict XVI) and then my Bishop will instant message me back with the list. But these things take time you know.
Or a better way to understand oral Tradition is to perhaps read the Catechism which has some of the 2000 year old, infallible teaching of the magisterium within it.
Or you can read this link which shows a plethora of examples from scripture where oral Tradition is used…
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ORALTRAD.htm

 

[Montalban]

Who would better know whether or not Catholics Worship Mary? A protestant, or a catholic?

Do you know how stupid you sound when you try to tell me what I believe?

Do you realise how strange it is to say “We believe in the Scripture ONLY” and then add “Oh, and Martin Luther as an authority…”

Obviously not!

But hey, if you want to demand one thing, but allow exceptions that *is *entirely up to you

 

[Montalban]

Those who preach after the Apostles need their teaching checked for truth against both Old and New Testaments.

Still your evidence-lite approach to discussion fails to impress.

Cite the Scripture that says that Scripture alone is to be the test.

Cite the Scripture that authorises itself.

Cite the Scripture that gives this cut-off date you now introduce (ie. that after the Apostles has to be tested)…

 

[Ginger2]

Since (Quote Bishopite) “The Four Spiritual Laws” …also contain all that I need to know about God?" I guess your Catholic Bibles are now obsolete.

---

Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

Catholics, take a moment to think about this question and then ask yourselves why you are trying so hard to use Tradition to convince me the Bible is insufficient.

---

"Do you realize how strange it is to say “We believe in the Scripture ONLY” - Montalban

Protestant believe in God, alone, and we believe the Scriptures were written under the Divine inspiration of God, and we believe God placed everything necessary to our salvation within His inspired writings.

AND we don’t believe the extra-biblical doctrines of the Catholic Church add anything of value to God’s written word.

---

Original question: “…how do you convert those who cannot read?”

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:17)

We give testimony to our great faith in Christ, but we do not convert or try to save anyone. God does what He wants with who He wants, when He wants. And sometimes we are blessed because He uses us to accomplish His goal.

I don’t need to convince anyone that Mary had no other children…it’s a waste of precious time. Knowing how many children Mary had does not bring eternal life

My time is better spent telling what God has done for me and what He will do for you - if you let Him.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Since (Quote Bishopite) “The Four Spiritual Laws” …also contain all that I need to know about God?" I guess your Catholic Bibles are now obsolete.

No really. The Catholic Church’s Pontificial Biblical Commission’s document on Interpretation of the Bible states,

The texts of the Bible are the expression of religious traditions which existed before them. The mode of their connection with these traditions is different in each case, with the creativity of the authors shown in various degrees. In the course of time, multiple traditions have flowed together little by little to form one great common tradition. The Bible is a privileged expression of this process: it has itself contributed to the process and continues to have controlling influence upon it.

The subject, “Interpretation in the Biblical Tradition,” can be approached in very many ways. The expression can be taken to include the manner in which the Bible interprets fundamental human experiences or the particular events of the history of Israel, or again the manner in which the biblical texts make use of their sources, written or oral, some of which may well come from other religions or cultures-through a process of reinterpretation. But our subject is the interpretation of the Bible; we do not want to treat here these very broad questions but simply to make some observations about the interpretation of biblical texts that occurs within the Bible itself.

---

Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

I think I will leave this question to them.

Catholics, take a moment to think about this question and then ask yourselves why you are trying so hard to use Tradition to convince me the Bible is insufficient.

Is that what you think we Catholics are trying to convey here? The Catholic Church as well other Catholic in this forum will say that the Bible isn’t insufficient. The Bible itself is part of the oral tradition of the Christian Church. They acknowledge oral and written tradition of the Gospel as the Word of God. In other words, neither Scripture nor Tradition is greater but are equal.

For St. John wrote,

*But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25.
*

---

"Do you realize how strange it is to say “We believe in the Scripture ONLY” - Montalban

Protestant believe in God, alone, and we believe the Scriptures were written under the Divine inspiration of God, and we believe God placed everything necessary to our salvation within His inspired writings.

AND we don’t believe the extra-biblical doctrines of the Catholic Church add anything of value to God’s written word.

They aren’t extra-Biblical. They have been there in the beginning. You also have to note that doctrine develop overtime. For example, it took 300 yrs for the CC to define the doctrine of the Trinity.

---

Original question: “…how do you convert those who cannot read?”

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:17)

The Father revealed that Jesus would establish His Church upon Peter. If you read the following verse. “You are Peter and Upon this Rock I will built My Church.”

We give testimony to our great faith in Christ, but we do not convert or try to save anyone. God does what He wants with who He wants, when He wants. And sometimes we are blessed because He uses us to accomplish His goal.

I don’t need to convince anyone that Mary had no other children…it’s a waste of precious time. Knowing how many children Mary had does not bring eternal life

My time is better spent telling what God has done for me and what He will do for you - if you let Him.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not discuss here so we better stick to that topic. I can give you countless why the Church professes that she is indeed the Blessed Ever Virgin Mary. It has to do with her close relationship with Jesus Christ. She is the only human who have a more intimate relationship with her son than anyone else.

 

[Ginger2]

I’ve asked before so there probably uisn’t any point in asking again, but here goes…

What piece of information essential to our salvation is missing from the Bible?

Quote: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25.”

Name one thing that Jesus did, that is not in the Bible, that I have to know about in order to received eternal salvation.

 

[SeanTom]

Although Tradition is not one of the areas we are discussing here, they do have a part in how the Bible was written.

As you know, there were no witnesses, other than God Himself, at the Creation Story. The writers had to depend largely on oral accounts received from the fore-fathers of our world as to what they have heard about or heard God say in those early times of human existence. Also, the Word of God and historical events were given to us orally since the early people could not read or write, let alone write the books of the Bible. This leaves us with the passing down of oral teachings, including traditions, to help the writers prepare the Books of the Bible. Writers, of course, were largely inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing down the Word of God which is now contained in Scripture.

Tradition played a large part in our receiving the Word of God and His teachings, teachings and actions which are not contained in the Bible. As stated in the last verse of John’s Gospel, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Not all faiths believe in traditions - but only believe in what is actually contained in the Bible itself, and nothing else. We should be prepared to answer people of other faiths when questioning us as to why we don’t believe “solely” in Scripture, and ignore tradition. `

 

[Ginger2]

“…If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority…”

The question itself is erroneous. I don’t know anyone who claims “the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority”

God is the sole rule of authority. The Bible is one way that God speaks to us.

The books within the Bible are the inspired word - that we agree upon - correct?

The real question here is from a Catholic who believes Tradition, found only within the Catholic church is necessary.

That is why I ask:

What piece of information essential to our salvation is missing from the Bible?

Quote: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25.”

Name one thing that Jesus did, that is not in the Bible, that I have to know about in order to received eternal salvation.

What do the extra-biblical teachings, which the Catholic church calls Tradition, add that are necessary for salvation?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’ve asked before so there probably uisn’t any point in asking again, but here goes…

What piece of information essential to our salvation is missing from the Bible?

Quote: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25.”

Name one thing that Jesus did, that is not in the Bible, that I have to know about in order to received eternal salvation.

The doctrine of the Trinity, which was not put by Word of Mouth by Jesus Christ himself but through his Church the doctrine was defined. But we know that the Trinity is necessary to be consider part of our salvation.

The Gospel of Matthew which states, 3 And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene. is no where found in any Old Testament Books.

To answer your question what other things that Jesus Christ did that is not written in the Bible, we do not know. However, Jesus Christ did promised the Holy Spirit to Us to lead us to all Truths. This was affirmed in the Book of Acts. As you know Peter received a vision by God about Gentile. “Take and eat.” In which Peter replied to the Lord. “Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean. 15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God has made clean, do not call unclean.”

 

[sandusky]

Montalban:

ou realise how strange it is to say “We believe in the Scripture ONLY” and then add “Oh, and Martin Luther as an authority…”

Obviously not!

But hey, if you want to demand one thing, but allow exceptions that is entirely up to you

Again you proudly parade before us your ignorance of Sola Scriptura; the insistence on the 5 solas did not occur in a vacuum; do the work, and you’ll find that out.

Until then, all you are doing is what every other Catholic on this forum does with respect to SS—erect a strawman, and then beat it into the ground.

Flail away foolish Montalban; flail away.

 

[Bishopite]

Since (Quote Bishopite) “The Four Spiritual Laws” …also contain all that I need to know about God?" I guess your Catholic Bibles are now obsolete.

---

I’m not seeing the rational here. My point was that simply saying that reading a Christian tract to “know about God” is as effective as having the Bible alone to “know about God.” But to “know about God” isn’t the same as to know the totality of divinely revealed revelation*

Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

Do you follow the Bible alone as your own authority or is there also another authority that you follow under.

Catholics, take a moment to think about this question and then ask yourselves why you are trying so hard to use Tradition to convince me the Bible is insufficient.

Material or Formal?

Protestant believe in God, alone, and we believe the Scriptures were written under the Divine inspiration of God, and we believe God placed everything necessary to our salvation within His inspired writings.

Do you know how many times we have asked you to tell us how you know the Bible was “written under Divine inspiration?”

AND we don’t believe the extra-biblical doctrines of the Catholic Church add anything of value to God’s written word.

Huh, can you show me where Sunday School is in the Bible?
You know the same Bible that fell from heaven in a complete codex bound and folded.

Original question: “…how do you convert those who cannot read?”

How can you say humans convert anyone…don’t you know it is God alone who does everything?

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:17)

What about it?

We give testimony to our great faith in Christ, but we do not convert or try to save anyone. God does what He wants with who He wants, when He wants. And sometimes we are blessed because He uses us to accomplish His goal.

So…when Paul said in 1 Cor 9:19-23…
“I have become all things to all men, that*** I might by all means save some.”***
Is Paul saving them? Or is Paul cooperating in saving them because God alone saves them?

I don’t need to convince anyone that Mary had no other children…it’s a waste of precious time. Knowing how many children Mary had does not bring eternal life

Tell that to those in the fourth century who questioned whether Mary was the mother of a nature or a person.

My time is better spent telling what God has done for me and what He will do for you - if you let Him.

I guess only you correctly divide the word of God–2 Tim 2:15

 

[Ginger2]

The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly written in the new Testament and can be cross-referenced to the OT.

The Church did not define it, but supported it when heretical doctrines began to surface.

You have noit shown me anything essential lacking from the Bible So, I do not need Catholic tradition to receive eternal life.

I really don’t care whether Mary had other children besides Jesus. The number of children Mary had, her state of virginity after Jesus’ birth, nor whether or not she was assumed into heaven. It is of no consequence to my salvation.

Satan must take glee over all the time spent arguing about the Virgin Mary. Every minute spent of Mary is one less minute spent witnessing about Christ Jesus.

Have a blessed day

 

[Contarini]

The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly written in the new Testament and can be cross-referenced to the OT.

You can find it in the NT and even in some sense in the Old, but you really have to work at it and it is far from obvious.

Satan must take glee over all the time spent arguing about the Virgin Mary. Every minute spent of Mary is one less minute spent witnessing about Christ Jesus.

No, every minute spent on Mary is a minute spent on Jesus, because Mary points us to Jesus. Mary is the primary witness to the Incarnation, so I agree that Satan rejoices when we argue about her instead of venerating her and asking her to bring us to her Son.

Edwin