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

[tbuley]

,takes the Bible at face value and doesn’t take liberties with its meaning, is the Catholic Church.

Google these guys - Preterism was first advanced in 1604 by Jesuit Luis de Alcasar to destroy the Reformed Protestant teaching

Francisco Ribera and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, two Jesuit scholars, who pushed futurism to destroy protestant teaching

The problam with papist teaching is your alowed to believe any thing under the sun as long as it has not become a dogma so you have guys pushing from every angle, Unity?

 

[ChristianRoots]

QUOTE]
Truth does not depend on some fallible human prone to error to defend itself.

How do you arrive at the truth then since by your own admission your interpretation of Scripture is “prone to error”?

You were saying that, right? Or were you saying that your understanding of Scripture is infallible? Which one is it?

The Bible is the only dependable source of God’s revelation of Himself to us.

Just give me the chapter and verse number to look up supporting this belief.

What, there is no chapter and verse number?

Then why do make such an unbiblical claim?

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.

FYI, the BIBLE IS NOT INSUFFICIENT AND **DOES NOT **LACK AUTHORITY describing God’s Truths.

Why would you ever think Catholics believe this?

Catholics uphold the Sacred Scriptures along with Sacred Tradition. They are both on an equal footing and compliment one another.

Why do you assume that God’s Revelation can only be found in the written Scriptures? The first generation of Christians did not just look at the Scriptures. As a matter of fact the early Christians used oral tradition to modify the written Scriptures (Old Testament) to support the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. As a result, they came under constant ridicule and attack from the Jews.

The Jews in A.D. 90 even held a council to reject all the books written about Jesus and to toss out other books in the Old Testament that supported the belief system of the early Christians. Ironically, Protestants today use the list of Old Testament books decreed by that Jewish council, the same council that denounced Jesus as a fraud.

Do you even know that it was Sacred Tradition, imbued with the charisma of infallibility, that finalized the canon of the New Testament?

If you disagree, then how do you explain the origin of the New Testament? And don’t bother looking for this answer in Scripture itself, it’s not there.

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.

Where does it say in your Bible that the Bible is the **final **authoirty on all religious matters? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture is profitable. But the last time I checked in my dictionary, profitable did not mean final. Does your dictionary say profitable is equal to final???

 

[tbuley]

Do you even know that it was Sacred Tradition, imbued with the charisma of infallibility, that finalized the canon of the New Testament?

I know that scripture is God inspired but I do not think the process of canonization of books was that why there was such a problem with what books from Jerome to Luther.

If you disagree, then how do you explain the origin of the New Testament? And don’t bother looking for this answer in Scripture itself, it’s not there.

By good christians coming together and weighing the legitimacy of each book, The Epistles of Clement No of Paul yes.

 

[ChristianRoots]

ChristianRoots;3581803:

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.

Very convenient answer to use when one doesn’t know how to biblically respond to a specific question. You must use that remark quite a bit.

How do you know you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

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.

Are you infallible in making this assertion?

Why are you assuming to know what I’m looking for? I guess you **do not know **how to respond to my initial question.

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.

How is one “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.

I do trust in God. Why do you assume I don’t? Just because I wanted to know how the man of God may be equipped for every good work? You made the statement. I wanted clarification. Now, using the Bible, tell me HOW.

 

[Singinbeauty]

I think a HUGE fact that gets over looked is that the teachings, writings, and letters contained in the bible existed WAY before the bible was put in the form we have today. Some were written within 30-40 years after Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection.

The BIBLE existed in the beginning of christianity - first as the words of Christ and the Apostles - then the writings - then the form we have today.

By the By… my Faith doesn’t rely on the bible, the bible just confirms what I believe. Anything that SEEMS (doesn’t necessarily mean that it does) to contradict what scripture says deserves great scrutiny. So it helps to have something to test it against…

 

[ChristianRoots]

By good christians coming together and weighing the legitimacy of each book, The Epistles of Clement No of Paul yes.

Do you know this with infallibility?

 

[tbuley]

By good christians coming together and weighing the legitimacy of each book, The Epistles of Clement No of Paul yes.

Do you know this with infallibility?
What, that Christians weighing the legitimacy of each book and argued about it for a long time after.

Did you know that it wasn’t until Trent that your church
had an infallible Bible?

 

[ChristianRoots]

Did you know that it wasn’t until Trent that your church
had an infallible Bible?

Sorry, you’re wrong.

The Church infallibly decreed the books of the New Testament in the fourth century. Trent re-emphasized the list again, in response to Protestant assertions.

Getting back to my original question now, how do you **infallibly **know the books of the New Testament is the inspired Word of God? (Can it be infallibly known?)

 

[tbuley]

I’m sorry perhaps you are declaring that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were ecumenical councils? If not it was not until April of 1546 when you got your infallible Bible, I don’t know how the church could have ever survived with out the Pope telling us what books were ok.

 

[brkn1]

FYI, the BIBLE IS NOT INSUFFICIENT AND **DOES NOT **LACK AUTHORITY describing God’s Truths.

Why would you ever think Catholics believe this?

If “the Bible is not insufficient and does not lack authority” is the true RCC position, then we are in agreement on the answer to the title of this thread.

 

[tbuley]

If “the Bible is not insufficient and does not lack authority” is the true RCC position, then we are in agreement on the answer to the title of this thread.

I think his argument is that the Bible only has authority because the Pope says so and if he didn’t the Bible wouldn’t, so if your not R.Catholic who tells you it’s OK.

I disagree with the assertion the one holy (catholic) christian church out side of which there is no salvation and the R.C.C is one and the same. That one must be subject to the Bishop of Rome to claim heir to Christ’s Church.

 

[ChristianRoots]

If “the Bible is not insufficient and does not lack authority” is the true RCC position, then we are in agreement on the answer to the title of this thread.

Wrong. Sacred Tradition is also sufficient and has binding authority. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures compliment one another on a equal footing, they never “out do” each other.

 

[ChristianRoots]

I’m sorry perhaps you are declaring that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were ecumenical councils?

 

[ChristianRoots]

I think his argument is that the Bible only has authority because the Pope says so and if he didn’t the Bible wouldn’t, so if your not R.Catholic who tells you it’s OK.

 

[brkn1]

Wrong. Sacred Tradition is also sufficient and has binding authority. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures compliment one another on a equal footing, they never “out do” each other.

Then the Bible LACKS authority according to the RCC, which I must strongly disagree with. God’s inspired Word lacks no authority. It is as if you are saying that man’s word (traditions, etc.) is equal to God’s Word.
I ain’t buying that nonsense!

 

[justinthemartyr]

bible alone is unbiblical. period, end of story.

it was invented by Luther who was a deformationist.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Then the Bible LACKS authority according to the RCC, which I must strongly disagree with. God’s inspired Word lacks no authority. It is as if you are saying that man’s word (traditions, etc.) is equal to God’s Word.
I ain’t buying that nonsense!

What you are calling nonsense is God’s Word, too.

You see Sacred Tradition is God’s Word in the oral form, its original form. It’s the traditions of the Apostles that was passed down by them. Remember that Jesus never commanded the Apostles to go and write, but rather to go and preach. And trust me they did a lot of preaching.

So God’s Word was spoken first before He ever ordered it to be penned down. This is an inescapable fact.

I’m always perplexed when people assume the written Word is mightier than the orally-transmitted Word. Remember, it was the orally transmitted Word, i.e. Sacred Tradition that produced the New Testament and declared it inspired in the first place.

The ironic thing is that you are forced to look outside your Bible to figure out how the New Testament was infallibly compiled.

Sacred Tradition, nonsense? I don’t think so.

Also, the Bible does not lack authority if it is has an equal like Sacred Tradition.

Just like God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three in one, one in three, God’s Word is also in multiples: the written and oral forms that are one and the same.

Your belief that only the Bible is God’s Word, i.e. written form only, is a man-made tradition perpetuated because of convenience at the expense of the Almighty power of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I ain’t buying that!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

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!

My faith comes from God:thumbsup: The only reason I even believe in the bible and its truth is because God drew me to Him . I heard the message, I believed the message, I repented and confessed Jesus as my Savior.

Liek Singing Beauty said. The bible confirms what God has already given me. AMEN!!

I do not rest my hope on the bible, but the bible teaches where my hope lies.

 

[tbuley]

The Council of Carthage in the fourth century decided which books should belong in the New Testament. That decision was sent to Rome for confirmation because no Council was considered authoritative unless it was approved by the Pope.

Catholic Encyclopedia - At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as “Apocrypha”). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”.

Now is this looking for an infallible ok or a gesture of christian unity, seeing that a few years later - “Prompted by the reinstatement by the bishop of Rome of a deposed African priest, the synod enacted that whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (meaning Rome) may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa (canon 17).” Here I don’t see a submission to pontifical authority.

You said - “The Church infallibly decreed the books of the New Testament in the fourth century. Trent re-emphasized the list again, in response to Protestant assertions.”
Please point me were I can find this infallible decree.

I see you have asked me questions also I will respond please have patience.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Catholic Encyclopedia - At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as “Apocrypha”). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”.

Now is this looking for an infallible ok or a gesture of christian unity, seeing that a few years later - “Prompted by the reinstatement by the bishop of Rome of a deposed African priest, the synod enacted that whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (meaning Rome) may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa (canon 17).” Here I don’t see a submission to pontifical authority.

You said - “The Church infallibly decreed the books of the New Testament in the fourth century. Trent re-emphasized the list again, in response to Protestant assertions.”
Please point me were I can find this infallible decree.

I see you have asked me questions also I will respond please have patience.

The decisions of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage regarding the books of the Bible were the same ones adopted by Trent, over 1,000 years later.

Trent solemnly decreed the books of the Bible in 1546, using Sacred Tradition as its guide, i.e. in this case, the councils of the 4th century that initially approved and finalized the canon of the New Testament.

The current Catholic canon dates back to the 4th century, not the 16th. And yes this includes the deteurocanonicals.

This is proof that Catholics did not add any books in the 16th century. All one has to do is compare Trent’s list with the list from Hippo or Carthage in the 4th century. No discrepancies. None.

There was no dispute “from Jerome to Luther” about which books belonged and which ones did not. The matter was settled in the 4th century. Trent’s affirmation, in response to Protestantism, was the icing on the cake and proves that the 4th century councils were in fact infallible in determining the canon.

You should be fully aware of this. If we were having this discussion in a year prior to Trent, then you would have a point in your post. But the year is 2008, that’s 462 years AFTER Trent. Trent vindicated what Hippo and Carthage were saying all along. And that is the Pope was speaking the TRUTH when he confirmed the decision made at Carthage regarding the canon. Trent declared so when it solemnly affirmed the same canon.