How can a Christian/*non-Catholic* have a faitht that only relies on the Bible?

[catholic1seeks]

The Bible as you all know was formed about 350 years after Jesus. The Bible is a form of Sacred Tradition, for what is in it was originally taught orally.

Now Catholics believe Sacred Tradition is also the Word of God. In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. *The term does not *refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

For ALL Bible-Only Christians & Protestants:
Furthermore, the reason you accept the books(in the bible) you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

 

[allischalmers]

The Bible as you all know was formed about 350 years after Jesus. The Bible is a form of Sacred Tradition, for what is in it was originally taught orally.

Now Catholics believe Sacred Tradition is also the Word of God. In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. *The term does not *refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

For ALL Bible-Only Christians & Protestants:
Furthermore, the reason you accept the books(in the bible) you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

Soooo, what’s the point

 

[Pinkyyy]

The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

For ALL Bible-Only Christians & Protestants:
Furthermore, the reason you accept the books(in the bible) you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

All, I guess their point is the argument that all christians must follow Catholacism because of this knowledge passed down.

If the books were composed hundreds of years after these traditions were passed down then why did the CC not include these “facts” in the Bible? It makes no sense - so they know this is true, but left it out and later say they “know” it because it’s been that way for thousands of years, but it wasn’t important enough to include- is that correct?

For example, if purgatory is a teaching passed down, why is is not seen in the Bible?

If the bible was written decades after Christ’s ascention, then why did the CC include new books into the NT 50 1546 - what is the reasons why were kept out of the original scripture - makes no sense to me. The CC church does - seems to me anyway - to “change” religion and the Bible as they see fit. If they thought all sacred books should have been added, why did they not add these 7 books much much later than the first was made, and they did they not include other books. They played pick and choose IMO. So, what’s the problem with Protestants doing the same?

 

[holy_wood]

The Bible as you all know was formed about 350 years after Jesus. The Bible is a form of Sacred Tradition, for what is in it was originally taught orally.

Now Catholics believe Sacred Tradition is also the Word of God. In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. *The term does not *refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

For ALL Bible-Only Christians & Protestants:
Furthermore, the reason you accept the books(in the bible) you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

They don’t care dude.

 

[holy_wood]

All, I guess their point is the argument that all christians must follow Catholacism because of this knowledge passed down.

If the books were composed hundreds of years after these traditions were passed down then why did the CC not include these “facts” in the Bible? It makes no sense - so they know this is true, but left it out and later say they “know” it because it’s been that way for thousands of years, but it wasn’t important enough to include- is that correct?

For example, if purgatory is a teaching passed down, why is is not seen in the Bible?

If the bible was written decades after Christ’s ascention, then why did the CC include new books into the NT 50 1546 - what is the reasons why were kept out of the original scripture - makes no sense to me. The CC church does - seems to me anyway - to “change” religion and the Bible as they see fit. If they thought all sacred books should have been added, why did they not add these 7 books much much later than the first was made, and they did they not include other books. They played pick and choose IMO. So, what’s the problem with Protestants doing the same?

seriously?

My mind literally froze a second after reading the fallacies in your post.

The books found in the Catholic Bible were included in the list of inspired books handed down by the regional councils in the 4th century. (If you want proof I would be more than happy to provide it.)

The original King James BIBLE had them.

As to know purgatory in the Bible see

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

As to not being important enough to include in the Bible well like stated before the Bible was not around for 3 centuries. If anything ppl following your logic should have rejected it.

 

[brkn1]

It worked for Paul and Timothy.

(2 Timothy 3:15-17)
15. “And from a child thou hast know the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That a man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Why would any seeker of God want to complicate what was already working back then, which included the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[Harpazo]

It worked for Paul and Timothy.

(2 Timothy 3:15-17)
15. “And from a child thou hast know the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That a man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Why would any seeker of God want to complicate what was already working back then, which included the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Where in that verse does it tell us that the Bible is the only sufficient authority? If you believe that, shouldn’t it say that?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[ChristianRoots]

Originally Posted by catholic1seeks
The Bible as you all know was formed about 350 years after Jesus. The Bible is a form of Sacred Tradition, for what is in it was originally taught orally.

Now Catholics believe Sacred Tradition is also the Word of God. In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

For ALL Bible-Only Christians & Protestants:
Furthermore, the reason you accept the books(in the bible) you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

Soooo, what’s the point

Sola Scriptura is unscriptural, that’s the point.

 

[ChristianRoots]

All, I guess their point is the argument that all christians must follow Catholacism because of this knowledge passed down.

If the books were composed hundreds of years after these traditions were passed down then why did the CC not include these “facts” in the Bible? It makes no sense - so they know this is true, but left it out and later say they “know” it because it’s been that way for thousands of years, but it wasn’t important enough to include- is that correct?

For example, if purgatory is a teaching passed down, why is is not seen in the Bible?

If the bible was written decades after Christ’s ascention, then why did the CC include new books into the NT 50 1546 - what is the reasons why were kept out of the original scripture - makes no sense to me. The CC church does - seems to me anyway - to “change” religion and the Bible as they see fit. If they thought all sacred books should have been added, why did they not add these 7 books much much later than the first was made, and they did they not include other books. They played pick and choose IMO. So, what’s the problem with Protestants doing the same?

Are you kidding me with this post? Where do you get your information from? The back of a cereal box? Go read about Catholic history and theology from a scholarly author, please.

 

[NDfan]

The Bible as you all know was formed about 350 years after Jesus. The Bible is a form of Sacred Tradition, for what is in it was originally taught orally.

Now Catholics believe Sacred Tradition is also the Word of God. In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. *The term does not *refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

For ALL Bible-Only Christians & Protestants:
Furthermore, the reason you accept the books(in the bible) you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

For openers let’s just use Luke chapter 1:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,** it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” **

So Luke pretty much confirms that scripture holds the truth.

PEACE

 

[brkn1]

Where in that verse does it tell us that the Bible is the only sufficient authority? If you believe that, shouldn’t it say that?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

(2 Timothy 3:17) “That a man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works.”

brkn1

Pacific Ocean Swim Team

 

[Harpazo]

(2 Timothy 3:17) “That a man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works.”

brkn1

Pacific Ocean Swim Team

That verse does not say that Scripture is sufficient and/or the final authority for the Christian.

Please show me where the Bible says that it is the only sufficient and/or sole authority for the Christian.

What do you think is the upholder and defender of the Truth?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[holy_wood]

For openers let’s just use Luke chapter 1:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,** it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” **

So Luke pretty much confirms that scripture holds the truth.

PEACE

Who decided what books should be in the Bible?

Click on the link below at least one Christian community once saw those books as inspired, who decided they were wrong?

earlychristianwritings.com

 

[brkn1]

That verse does not say that Scripture is sufficient and/or the final authority for the Christian.

Please show me where the Bible says that it is the only sufficient and/or sole authority for the Christian.

What do you think is the upholder and defender of the Truth?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

In the final analysis, Truth will always be its own defense with no need for an upholder and defender outside of itself being the Truth.
Truth does not depend on some fallible human prone to error to defend itself.
The Bible is the only dependable source of God’s revelation of Himself to us.

If you feel the Bible is insufficient and lacks authority in describing God’s Truths and demands upon us, then there is no point in us going much further in our discussion; since you will never convince me that such Truth has another source other than what God chose to reveal in Scripture with the true seeker getting guidance from the Holy Spirit.

All those born of the Spirit are given such guidance, and they will be able to tell when a non-truth or false demand does not line up with Scripture. They can and must reject the non-Scriptural doctrine of those in such error. THAT is how the Truth upholds and defends itself.

 

[tbuley]

“How can a Christian/non-Catholic have a faitht that only relies on the Bible?”

As a Lutheran my understanding is that one needs a faith that relies on Christ Alone. Now how can I have this, by my own means? NO this comes by Grace Alone. How is this? The Holy Spirit works this in me and not only that he preserves me in the true Faith because I can’t even do this (the rechid sinner that I am). How could one expect a dead man to restore him self to life, so it is the same with one dead in sin, and so it is with the hearing of the Gospel of risen Lord and Savor that the Holy Spirit comes and Works in us. Is there some new revelation I need to hear than Christ Crucified for my sins, that a man two thousand years after my Lords Victory needs to tell me, that wasn’t written down by the very men who heard him speak and walked with him and those whom he inspired with the Paraclete to pen for us his Word?

 

[ChristianRoots]

So Luke pretty much confirms that scripture holds the truth.

 

[ChristianRoots]

(2 Timothy 3:17) “That a man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works.”

 

[graceandglory]

The truth is, Sola Scriptura Christians don’t have a faith that is “only Bible.” They have their own teachers who teach them how they are to interpret the bible within a Sola Scriptural frame of reference.

The only problem with that is, there are hundreds of thousands of interpretations.

As a Catholic convert, and a former Sola Scriptural evangelical, I have come to realize that the ONLY Church that consistently, for over 1,000 years,takes the Bible at face value and doesn’t take liberties with its meaning, is the Catholic Church.

 

[graceandglory]

Isn’t it interesting, how after the main sola scriptural text in 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, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
…
there is 2 Timothy 4:3-4

***“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

---

These words in 2 Timothy were prophetic.

I have to admit, I was just like them. It was so much easier and fun to sing for joy and shout to the Lord in the evangelical churches I attended. ***
To whom much has been given, shall much be required***. I had some phenomenal Bible teaching over the course of 20 yrs as a protestant. But there comes a day when things become crystal clear. *** “If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.”***

Don’t be so filled with pride that you don’t examine the truth in the Catholic Church.

 

[brkn1]

brkn1;3580591:

How

can a man of God know to be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works?

It can not be explained to anyone who does not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit doing God’s Work on a man of God’s heart and soul.
You seem to be looking for an answer that satisfies the fleshly mind and that is impossible when it comes to discussing such matters of the Spirit.
The “how” depends completely upon the sovereign will of the Spirit’s guidance, which is the promised help for all those who have been born again.

Study your Bible carefully, asking God’s help to understand how, instead of depending on the answers of others. It is God you should be asking that question with all sincerity. Your chances of getting the answers wrong increase infinitely if you depend on and trust in man’s answers. Trust in God alone.