How do you know the Bible is the word of God

[CopticChristian]

Do you take issue with my use of the term “we” when speaking of the early church?

Can you also give me details concerning these “oral” traditions that have been supposedly deposited into the church?

Can you list five of them, and demonstrate that they are all still in practice today?

Ad,

Now concerning WE…I take no issue…as you can see WE are them early, nascent, subsequent and present…We be THEY…

 

[pablope]

"Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: so that the man of God may be complete . . "

Which Scripture is this talking about? There was not NT when this was written?

Besides…you forgot the other verses before this…14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

It is not just Scripture…but the instruction one receives also.

That sounds pretty pious. But we must remember that the church can only “decide matters with authority” when she is in full submission to the Scriptures.

 

[po18guy]

I guess my point was that Jesus Christ was not bound by the Scriptures, because He is above and beyond them (read: not equal). I suppose this is one of the unwritten reasons why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Jesus did neither write, nor found His Church on a book - any book. He did not found it on scripture. He founded it on the apostles, equipping them for their task.

Now, the modern trend toward founding a Christian assembly upon the easily misinterpreted scriptures may be very comforting, but it will never have the fulness of truth, nor will it ever be as Jesus intended.

We can see just how close to bible idolatry that sola scriptura has lead human souls.

 

[po18guy]

Which Scripture is this talking about? There was not NT when this was written?

Besides…you forgot the other verses before this…14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

It is not just Scripture…but the instruction one receives also.

Exactly! We see from Nehemiah 8:5-8 and from Acts 8:26-35 that scripture needs instruction. And, not instruction by just anyone - such instruction must come, not from the self-appointed, but from those whom the Lord Himself chooses. Ever notice that many of those who “feel called” always seem to end up preaching division?

Those who hold to sola scriptura violate the very bible they profess to believe, on at least two major counts:

1. Private interpretation, a violation of 2 Peter 1:20
2. They disregard Paul when they discard the teachings of the Apostles and hold solely to that fraction which was written 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Have they ever read and pondered the Prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4), in which we see that Luke wrote his Gospel only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received. Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada - from Luke’s Gospel. He was complete in the faith by the oral Apostolic teaching.

As well, the “Bereans” (Acts 17:11) are often trotted out as though they discovered Jesus of Nazareth on their own. They searched the scriptures daily - a good thing - but even when Jesus walked this earth, they completely missed the fact that all prophecy pointed directly to Him. They were waiting for someone else. They had no clue until Paul preached Christ crucified to them via the oral Apostolic Tradition.

And, just look at the Pharisees who also searched the scriptures, thinking they had found eternal life in them (John 5:39). Jesus Christ, Eternal Life itself, stood before them and they did not recognize Him via the scriptures.

Scripture alone, huh?

AD70, all of this is intended to inspire a sense of investigation in you. We know that there is more to God, more to Christ, more to the Holy Spirit than is found in he scriptures. Where is it to be found? Paul teaches us to have faith in both the oral and written traditions. I am well aware that is is very difficult for a bible Christian to trust anything that is not in the form of written proof. Yet, a seeking heart will find what it seeks.

 

[choliks]

Jesus did neither write, nor found His Church on a book - any book. He did not found it on scripture. He founded it on the apostles, equipping them for their task.

Now, the modern trend toward founding a Christian assembly upon the easily misinterpreted scriptures may be very comforting, but it will never have the fulness of truth, nor will it ever be as Jesus intended.

Amen, brother.

We can see just how close to bible idolatry that sola scriptura has lead human souls.

This became pretty apparent when our friend said that the authority of the Scriptures must be equated with God’s authority.

 

[AD70]

1. The Canon of the Bible
2. The Trinity
3. Two Natures of Christ
4. Baptism of Infants
5. Theotokos deposited by Oral Tradition …

is that enough…?

Sorry. The canon itself is defined by God and recognized by the church. I agree that God had providentially governed the process so that we can be sure that what we have is God’s word. As far as the “trinity” (the term itself is mis-leading), the Bible sets forth sufficient material to formulate the doctrine. I can articulate the doctrine clearly from Scripture alone. The fact that Christ is both human and divine is also evident from the Scriptures. The baptism of infants is certainly a tradition - which by the way - has no basis in the Scriptures. The fact that Mary was pregnant with the divine Son of God is no mystery. It’s right there in Luke chapter 2!

But I think you are misunderstanding me.

I’m talking about those supposed traditions that are NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE.

The whole point of Catholic apologetics is to convince Protestants that there is divine, God-ordained truth and revelation that has been deposited into the church APART FROM and IN ADDITION TO the Holy Scriptures.

So can you name for me five of those UN-INSCRIPTURATED traditions?

Can you demonstrate - through other means - that they were universally received, practiced and believed on in the early church, and have been preserved unto this day, and are still being universally upheld in the Catholic Church?

If you cannot, then what are these “traditions” that you guys are always talking about? And why do you pretend that you have some “fulness” of revelation that Protestants somehow do not? You cannot even define these traditions?

OR CAN YOU?

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry. The canon itself is defined by God and recognized by the church. I agree that God had providentially governed the process so that we can be sure that what we have is God’s word. As far as the “trinity” (the term itself is mis-leading), the Bible sets forth sufficient material to formulate the doctrine. I can articulate the doctrine clearly from Scripture alone. The fact that Christ is both human and divine is also evident from the Scriptures. The baptism of infants is certainly a tradition - which by the way - has no basis in the Scriptures. The fact that Mary was pregnant with the divine Son of God is no mystery. It’s right there in Luke chapter 2!

But I think you are misunderstanding me.

I’m talking about those supposed traditions that are NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE.

The whole point of Catholic apologetics is to convince Protestants that there is divine, God-ordained truth and revelation that has been deposited into the church APART FROM and IN ADDITION TO the Holy Scriptures.

So can you name for me five of those UN-INSCRIPTURATED traditions?

Can you demonstrate - through other means - that they were universally received, practiced and believed on in the early church, and have been preserved unto this day, and are still being universally upheld in the Catholic Church?

If you cannot, then what are these “traditions” that you guys are always talking about? And why do you pretend that you have some “fulness” of revelation that Protestants somehow do not? You cannot even define these traditions?

OR CAN YOU?

Ad,

Sorrow is upon your heart by way of confusion. Your notion of God defining and the Church recognizing in essence is true however the Bible you ascribe to says that the Church is the means by which the manifold wisdom of God is known and if the Bible bears witness to that wisdom…God used the Church to do what you say.

Now concerning the Traditions you speak of, understanding that you believe in the written word, knowing that you have heard what it is you believe…wait…

There, I just spoke an Oral Tradition, for to write what is spoken makes it written and it is therefore not spoken anymore…did you hear it?

 

[AD70]

I have never heard of such a teaching.

Apparently not . . .

I will tell you up front that “divine extension” sounds like Mormon teaching. They use very similar terms."

Well good for them.

But using the phrase “divine extention” is just another way of saying that some statements have perpetual force and application. The statement itself “extends” beyond any particular duration of time.

The reason I termed it “divine extention” is that technically the statement - being a part of Scripture - is God’s statement. Thus, the statement, “do not go beyond what is written,” is both “divine” and has “perpetual force” - (divine extention).

 

[pablope]

Sorry. The canon itself is defined by God

Hmmm…So how did God define the canon? Did a piece of paper come down from heaven and in it…this said this is what should be in the Canon?

and recognized by the church.

 

[dzheremi]

Wait, wait. I think I get it. It’s like this: God told the Ethiopians to have a LOT of books in their canon. God told the Copts to have relatively fewer books in their canon. Wait…no, that can’t be it, since the Coptic Church predates the Ethiopian Church, and the Ethiopian Church is the daughter of the Coptic Church…

Nevermind. I thought I had it there!

 

[AD70]

Ad,

Sorrow is upon your heart by way of confusion…wait…

I just spoke an Oral Tradition, for to write what is spoken makes it written and it is therefore not spoken anymore…did you hear it?

You are confused.

I am not saying that the traditions could not be written down. Just not in the Bible.

Show me the traditions that were handed down orally, received, believed, defined, etc.

And then show me that these traditions which came down orally were later written down for preservation and kept universally by the early church and are still in practice today.

 

[AD70]

Hmmm…So how did God define the canon? Did a piece of paper come down from heaven and in it…this said this is what should be in the Canon?

Gee, how did God* deliver *the canon? Did a piece of paper come down from heaven and in it, it said - this is what I want you to write as Scripture?

Obviously not. But by a providential act of divine governing, God “inspired” the authors to write the Scripture. I believe that by a similar process, God governed the process of recognition through divine providence.

The Bible came from Sacred Tradition.

Um. No it didn’t.

But hey, guys, thanks for the discussion. This thread is very interesting, and I had a lot of fun working through these issues with you guys. But right now, I am not convinced that the catholic perspective is the correct one. I will for now, continue to be a Protestant.

I will surf the forum, and what I am actually really interested in - is the doctrine of the “Trinity.” I will find a thread on that and join the discussion. See you guys there!

 

[CopticChristian]

Gee, how did God* deliver *the canon? Did a piece of paper come down from heaven and in it, it said - this is what I want you to write as Scripture?

Obviously not. But by a providential act of divine governing, God “inspired” the authors to write the Scripture. I believe that by a similar process, God governed the process of recognition through divine providence.

Um. No it didn’t.

Ad,

Was the Protestant printing press part of the providential act of divine governing and did God guide that process?

 

[CopticChristian]

You are confused.

I am not saying that the traditions could not be written down. Just not in the Bible.

Show me the traditions that were handed down orally, received, believed, defined, etc.

And then show me that these traditions which came down orally were later written down for preservation and kept universally by the early church and are still in practice today.

Ad,

I live my life in confusion for the most part when dialoguing with nonsense. You have been provided Traditions that have been handed down, received, believed and defined.

You are not aware of the heresies that the Church dealt with including ones of the recent past including the Jehovah Witness, 7th Day advenentists and Oneness Pentacostals that with the bible cannot see the Trinity that you say is evident? Now that does not take into account the LDS that sprang from Protestant thought that have a menagerie of god’s.

P.S. The early Church is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow…it be here…

 

[AD70]

Ad,

Was the Protestant printing press part of the providential act of divine governing and did God guide that process?

Hey guys, thanks for the discussion.

This thread is very interesting, and I had a lot of fun working through these issues with you guys. But right now, I am not convinced that the catholic perspective is the correct one.

I will therefore, at least for now, continue to be a Protestant.

I will continue to surf the forum, and what I am actually really interested in - is the doctrine of the “Trinity.” I will find a thread on that subject and join the discussion.

See you guys there!

 

[dzheremi]

Um. No it didn’t.

In the middle of the 2nd century or thereabouts, the heretic Marcion of Sinope put forth the idea of an NT canon that was in conformity with his own ideas of God. The reaction to that kind of got the ball rolling in defining the NT canon for people who were against Marcion (i.e., for the Orthodox Catholic Church). In 367, in his 39th festal (Easter) letter, our father HH Pope St. Athanasius the Apostolic of Alexandria presented a list of the 27 books in the NT as we know it today. This list was confirmed by councils in Rome and Carthage in 382 and 397, respectively, and later at the Quinisext Council (a.k.a. the Council in Trullo, which is not accepted by Rome but is accepted by the Byzantines/Eastern Orthodox) in 692.

Exactly which part of the above process is outside of the tradition of the Church? If you do not accept at least the results of extra-Biblical (really pre-Biblical, but I don’t want to start that argument) tradition such as the councils, the letters of our fathers, etc., then you have no canon.

You’re welcome, by the way.

 

[pablope]

Gee, how did God* deliver *

the canon? Did a piece of paper come down from heaven and in it, it said - this is what I want you to write as Scripture?

Obviously not. But by a providential act of divine governing, God “inspired” the authors to write the Scripture. I believe that by a similar process, God governed the process of recognition through divine providence.

Hmmm…what is divine governing? Can you define this? I have not heard of this term before?

But when those writers were writing, did they know that it was going to be Scripture what they were writing?

How about the Didache, the Sheperd of Hermas, the Epistle of Clement to Corinth, just a sample of other wriitings…why are these not Scripture?

Did the writers of these writings know what they were writing was scripture or not?

These writings were also read in Church…during the Mass or Liturgy, same as those in the Bible today…so how come they are not in the Bible?

Originally Posted by pablope
The Bible came from Sacred Tradition.

 

[po18guy]

The reason I termed it “divine extention” is that technically the statement - being a part of Scripture - is God’s statement. Thus, the statement, “do not go beyond what is written,” is both “divine” and has “perpetual force” - (divine extention).

The first, and most meaningful tradition that is not in the bible is the “Sacred Table of Contents” Where did it come from?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

See AD70, you submit that the canon itself was inspired and given by God, thats good. But lets look in scripture for that canon, its not in there, ultimately you have to appeal to God working through men in order to realise the canon. There is some truth to that, however that was not the only thing which canon is derived from. Historically, people, Christians didn’t just read these books and feel inspired by God to say, of course this Gospel of John is inspired but this Gospel of Truth is obviously wrong.No, God doesn’t operate in that manner. Rather it was through the tradition of apostolicity that the canon was ratified. That is which documents can be shown to be apostolic in character and historically?

The canon, eitherway, is not to be found from the bible alone. Its source is something other than the bible. I would say Holy tradition which is Godly, right and to be believed.

But as for tradition which is not purely to be found in the bible besides this, that you most likely would accept.

Sunday worship, for one. we aren’t told what day in the bible we ought gather, yet we know the consistent pattern of Christians since the begining (the acts of the apostles makes reference to the apostles breaking bread on sunday, though it isn’t made as if it were a firmly establish practice). Why should we gather on sunday? Is there a reason why? well there is, its the lord’s day, the day which Jesus rose and since its that day that was the high point of the week for early Christians and all of them since.

Worship in general. We know we are to gather and worship, but when, why, how, these things are left relatively unanswered in scripture. Sure we get vague ideas of what the apostles did, proably read the old testament, had a common bread (Ie eucharist), but what do we do specifically? Do we retain the old testament practices? Can we even institute our own days? Left unanswered, yet most protestants would practice easter and Christmas.

Those are just hte major ones, but they are some of the most important ones.

 

[Porknpie]

AD70:

Um. No it didn’t.

Christ directed his apostles to go out and preach…they did so without a bible…this is tradition. They then appointed successors and established churches. Still no bible. More T. This is written in the bible that you read. Do you not believe scripture? What did the Church do without a bible for the first 400 years…and them many years later until all churches had a hand written copy…?

But hey, guys, thanks for the discussion.

. I had just popped the popcorn. We have seen this before…

Show me in your bible where it says to not baptise infants or to wait until the age of reason or some other age…or that baptism is symbolic? It does not. The written Word of God says “whole households” were baptised…multiple times. This is consistent with T. Whole means everyone, infants included. Tradition as written by

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

AD70, was Christ a poor teacher? There are many more quotes from the Church on infant baptism. This is T consistent with scripture and scripture consistent with T. You can go here to find more. scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-II. And here catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism