It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[MariaG]

I don’t want to dent your Catholic faith! I’ve said this in this thread. Catholics are Christians. Catholics stand as much of a chance at Salvation as any other Christian. This is the case because nothing taught by the Catholic Church is in conflict with the Bible. What I want is someone to show me why I should accept extra-biblical teachings as necessary!

Because scripture tells you to. Hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter 2 Thess 2:15. Whether it was written or “extra” biblical and just spoken, you still are told to hold fast to it.

Mostly, just marking the thread, it is interesting.

God Bless

 

[AmateurPianist]

Interesting. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

Can you offer a definition of SS that you accept and possibly explain where the scriptures teach it?

Sure.

This one (with maybe a few technical nits on wordig) works for me.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

The reason why I like this one that it occurred to me one day that I do not feel that I have to logically prove this is true in some debate format in order for me to believe this is true. Maybe some other folks are up to this, but I think I will pass myself…

It occurred to me that it is a fact that today I do not hold to any other infallible rule of faith and conduct So logically unless I am convinced that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct out there (be it the Book of Mormon, your pope speaking on faith and morals, or David Koresh), the Bible is my only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Now of course convincing me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct is a very difficult sell. Per 1 Thess 5:21 I am to examine everything carefully and hold fast to that which is good. So I don’t know how one can convince me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct except through the rule of faith and conduct that I know is infallible. And I have not seen anything in the Bible that gives me the license to elevate any other rule of faith to the status of infallible.

And the best Catholic apologists (Dave Armstrong for example) have been unconvincing in this regard, so I doubt that anybody here will be any more so.

 

[DerekD]

Why do you accept “the Bible as God’s authority word, and that it contains no error?”

From a Christian perspective; the work of the Holy Spirit opens the heart and eyes to see the truth of His word. Without the HS no one can believe His Word or understand his word; which is what the Bible declares and what i have experienced. I see “so called” Christians that cannot understand the basics of the gospel message. The unregenerate to the regenerate transformation that I have witnessed and experienced, which again is as the Bible says.

Practically speaking; the prophecies that are in great detail and are 100% accurate as time and history have proven.
If you take just eight of the Old Testament prophecies Christ fulfilled, one would find that the probability of their coming to pass is one in 10 to the 17th power. Peter Stoner a mathematician illustrates this probability in this way:

We take 10 to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas . They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly. . . . Blindfold a man and tell him he must pick up one silver dollar. . . . What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them come true in any one man. ( Science Speaks;Chicago : Moody, 1963], 100-107)

Scientific aspects are interesting and worth noting.
The oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job, pre-dates Christ by about two thousand years. Job 26:7 says, “He hangs the earth on nothing.” In the sacred books of other religions you may read that the earth is on the backs of elephants that produce earthquakes when they shake.

Job also says that the earth is “turned like the clay to the seal” (38:14, KJV*). Soft clay was used for writing and a seal was used for applying one’s signature. One kind of seal was a hollow cylinder of hardened clay with a signature raised on it. A stick went through the center of it so that it could be rolled similar to a wooden rolling pin. Saying the earth is turned like the clay to the seal, Job implied that the earth rotates on its axis.

Miracles would be another reason the resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by more than 500 people; more than enough to convince any jury.

If I had to say one thing that is very convincing that the Bible does as it God has said is the fact that the nation of Israel and the Hebrew peple even exist. there were many and far superior people’s that have come and gone, yet god promised to always preserve a remnamt of Israel and He has.

I appreciate the question because it has made me think about this; i knew immediately i could not believe nor understand it’s truths unless i was first moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[DerekD]

Where is it written in the Bible what books should be included in the Bible? Where is it written in the Bible that all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible? What is the pillar and bullwark of truth; the Bible or the Church?

I appraoch this based on the presumption that the Word of God, the Bible is indeed God’s Word. Your line of questioning does not appear to accept the presumption, therefore no matter how I would answer, it would not make any difference to you. What your view of the Bible is will be the determining factor of how one receives the Word of God. When you cite the church as being the pillar and support of the truth; it simply means that God has chosen to work through His elect to maintain the purity of His word and all that is contained.

There is no place in the Bible that explicitly states that all Christian teachings MUST BE in the Bible, but a logical and rational thought will lead you to that conclusion; simply put, where else will you find it?

 

[DerekD]

What the Church has always taught is that the Bible is inspired and to be obeyed, as interpreted by the Church.

Where you are confused is in thinking the Bible is the end all and be all of Christian revelation. It isn’t. It is a part of Sacred Tradition. And Sacred Tradition is the teaching of Jesus passed down to the Apostles and their successors–the bishops of the Catholic Church.

The whole of the Bible didn’t even exist as a single canon for nearly 400 years after the Day of Pentecost. It was the oral AND written words of the Apostles and those appointed to preach and teach with them that formed the Church, not the New Testament alone. Most of the Christian world didn’t have all of the NT for many, many decades.

You have two premises that must be true for what you said above to be true and is a source of major doctrinal error within your church. First you must put your church above the authority of scripture to make the claim that your church interprets the bible. Second you presume that “scared tradition” were taught by Jesus adn passed down to the apostles and are outside of Scripture. How can you derive this and prove it is of divine authority unless you just make the claim that your church says it is that way; therefore it is.

The logic make no sense and I don’t believe it to be possible to show Jesus taught anythng that is not in the written pages of Scripture. Jesus himself said that Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; where do all Christians go to find what proceeded out of the mouth of God? the Bible?

 

[DerekD]

Fine…show me where the Bible specifically tells me this. By this logic of yours, it has to be there in order to be a valid Christian teaching.

I cannot force a reasonable and logical deduction on any person; you either get it and see it or you don’t. Jesus said the Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word the proceeds from the mouth of God; where does a Christian go to find what proceeds from the mouth of God? The Bible?

The antithesis of you question is where does it not say we are to use the Bible for all teaching of moral principle and practices? Where does it say we are to obey “traditions” not written and contradict the teaching God has given. traditions are okay if they don’t contradict, but when they do then they need to be done away with otherwise god’s word becomes perverted and another gospel will emerge…right?

How do you believe the Bible defines “church” and what Scipture do you reference and how does this compare to your church, it structure?

 

[DerekD]

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is a cult, DerekD?

When the Apostles died, who succeeded them as the legitimate leaders of the Church?

Every person that has faithfully preached the Word of God; that is easy. Why would Timothy and Peter and Paul and anyone else have ever appointed elders to oversee each church? Even they made a few mistakes in the appointments, but thi sis because ultimately , as the Bible says, God annoints and appoints those who are faithful to His word. Just like He picked the apostles, including Iscariot, He to also choses in all the ages. This sucession thing in the Catholic form has no Scriptural basis, but i don’t care to say anthing else in regards to this on this thread because it moves too far off topic. i would be happy to discuss this with you in a side bar or new thread.

On your first question; you siad it, I didn’t. you must hear that quite a bit; i don’t know enough about your church to say it is a cult. i would look first to how does this religion view the word of God, then I would look at what they teach on salvation. Cults always pervert two things, the bible and the gospel of salvation, it is usually ever so slight, enough to change the message; so you know more about your religion, you should be more able to answer that than I.

 

[DerekD]

Catholic beliefs are based upon the entire Word of God which includes both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Perhaps this is why God has protected the Church by the gift of infalliblity.

I pity you, my friend, because you have no theological understanding of the completely biblical basis for the idea that Mary is Queen of Heaven.

That’s right…Mary is said to be the Queen of Heaven because the Bible reveals this to those who know what to look for.

It is also a pity that your faith tradition is ignorant of these truths which have been understood by the true Church for 2,000 years.



How can you prove that the Bible itself is true? You cannot.

Oh, no…of course not. You would never come right out and SAY it…though you implied it strongly above.

Stick with the topic of the thread:

Does the Bible teach that everything must be proved from the Bible Alone?

If so, where?

I apologize for being off topic. There is no theological understanding of Mary other than what is writtenin Scripture; it is not “queen of heaven”. Not hard to tell where your heart lies…back to topic.

 

[JustaServant]

Scripture speaks of the Church with a hierarchal and apostolic government, in one Lord, one faith one baptism, in the unity of the faith, that it is the pillar and ground of truth, that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, that it is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and upon St. Peter…but that the holy Catholic Church is the true continuation of that early Church is a matter of historical record. We don’t derive our authority simply from interpreting Scripture alone, but rather look to how Church History bears out that it has continued up to this day. Just as the Resurrection is a historical fact and not just a theological idea - for the claims of Christ to be true, it has to be actual historical fact.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Every person that has faithfully preached the Word of God; that is easy. Why would Timothy and Peter and Paul and anyone else have ever appointed elders to oversee each church? Even they made a few mistakes in the appointments, but thi sis because ultimately , as the Bible says, God annoints and appoints those who are faithful to His word. Just like sucessiHe picked the apostles, including Iscariot, He to also choses in all the ages. [SIGN]This on thing in the Catholic form has no Scriptural basis, [/SIGN]but i don’t care to say anthing else in regards to this on this thread because it moves too far off topic. i would be happy to discuss this with you in a side bar or new thread.

On your first question; you siad it, I didn’t. you must hear that quite a bit; i don’t know enough about your church to say it is a cult. i would look first to how does this religion view the word of God, then I would look at what they teach on salvation. Cults always pervert two things, the bible and the gospel of salvation, it is usually ever so slight, enough to change the message; so you know more about your religion, you should be more able to answer that than I.

Wow! We sure think it does. We felt when Jesus told Peter feed my sheep, And handed him over the keys to the kingdom it was real important.

And the part that I thought was really important is when he told Peter in Luke to STRENGHTEN YOUR BRETHERN. Now you are saying that there is no scriptural basis. If that isnt scripture what is?

How about in Matt when he called the 12 Apostles and gave them authority over unclean spirits and to cast them out and heal every disease. You don’t consider that scripture. What do call those words in your church?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I apologize for being off topic. There is no theological understanding of Mary other than what is writtenin Scripture; it is not “queen of heaven”. Not hard to tell where your heart lies…back to topic.

Okay then if you feel it is wrong to call the Blessed Mother the queen of heaven, who do you feel deserves that roll?

 

[MariaG]

I maintain no such thing.
I maintain that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, to which all other authority is subordinate.

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the SUPREME canon of faith. There are other authorities. I, for instance, consider my pastor an authority, but his words should be measured against the Scriptures. If they collide, he is the one who’s in error.

Okay. So if scripture is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, but the words of a pastor or say a founder of a denomination collide with scripture, that person is in error?

So in Matthew 18 when scripture tells us that when there is a dispute with your brother you are supposed to take it to the Church for final ruling. Yet didn’t the Church do that with Luther and rule against him? You seem to believe that scripture is the final authority but follow the teachings of a man who had a dispute with the Church and the Church tried to correct him to the error of his ways, the man disagreed, and still choose to follow his way as interpreted by him instead of following scripture that tells us to let the Church decide.

And doesn’t Romans 12 tell us to avoid those who create discension? Yet you follow the teachings of a man who started one of the greatest discensions of Christianity. That too seems to contradict scripture, which you say is the sole infallible authority.

And of course throughout scripture, we are urged to be one. Was that just a suggestion? That one can choose not to be one if one disagrees with the Church? But again, that seems to contradict scripture that tells us to take disputes to the Church for final ruling.

Respectfully, even if you believe scripture is the only INFALLIBLE authority, the basic precept of Lutheran denomination seems to have to have been founded CONTRARY to scripture. Luther had a disagreement with people in the Church. Those in the Church took it to the Church. The Church told him he was wrong. He contiuned to believe what he choose, contrary to scripture would urge him to do.

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[ncgolf]

I apologize for being off topic. There is no theological understanding of Mary other than what is writtenin Scripture; it is not “queen of heaven”. Not hard to tell where your heart lies…back to topic.

This is the crux … Catholics have Sacred Tradition and Scripture as sources for the complete Deposit of Faith … without this it is obvious why your theological understanding of Mary is less than what has been passed down from the Apostles.

While Bible alone sounds good … it is not complete for it lacks Tradition and the Magesterium which is entrusted to protect the Deposit of Faith and to teach it’s content.

 

[clmowry]

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Ok so all Christians agree with this part:

“The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…”

But what does this part mean in practical terms?

“and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.”

How does a book exercise infallibility?

In order for something to be a “rule of faith and conduct” it must be:

1.) explicitly taught in the bible?
2.) explicitly or implicitly taught in the bible?
3.) explicitly or implicitly taught in the bible and is not in conflict with my other authorities?
4.) taught by my other authorities and not in conflict with the bible?
5.) Something else all together?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Well done and it still comes to me logically that if anyone truly has accepted the Word of God as inspired and inerrant, then what other source of “special” divine revelation is there?

Catholics agree the Bible is inerrant and materially sufficient.

We do not agree that the Bible is perspicuous.

The debates about the verses presented in this thread alone should be sufficient enough evidence to show this to be the truth.

Anything else outside of those bounds must show divine authority and one would always have to come to the one true authority to prove it.

And now we are back to the question at hand.

You declare the Bible the one true authority without having to “prove it” from the Bible and then demand proof from the bible for the existence of any authority.

But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4

Where is the mouth of God spoken? Only one place other than creation, the Bible through inspired men and without error.

This is an interesting interpretation.

Given the logic of this interpretation, we would have to conclude that nothing Christ, who left us no written words, said to His Apostles over a period of several years before He was put to death was the word of God.

Somehow it didn’t become the word of God until somebody chose to write it down 30-70 years later?

What did all of those who found faith prior to the writing of any of the new testament hear from the Apostles and their followers?

Chuck

 

[Lampo]

From a Christian perspective; the work of the Holy Spirit opens the heart and eyes to see the truth of His word. Without the HS no one can believe His Word or understand his word; which is what the Bible declares and what i have experienced.

So, how can there be more than one Holy Spirit? If there is only one HS which we all agree on, how can the HS tell you one truth and me another. Are you saying the HS is who is to blame to divide us. Because in the RCC faith the HS is who guides us and unites us into the truth not separate us.(borrowed from Rinnie)

I see “so called” Christians that cannot understand the basics of the gospel message.

Where is the list of “basics” recorded in Scripture?

The unregenerate to the regenerate transformation that I have witnessed and experienced, which again is as the Bible says.

Practically speaking; the prophecies that are in great detail and are 100% accurate as time and history have proven.
If you take just eight of the Old Testament prophecies Christ fulfilled, one would find that the probability of their coming to pass is one in 10 to the 17th power. Peter Stoner a mathematician illustrates this probability in this way:

We take 10 to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas . They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly. . . . Blindfold a man and tell him he must pick up one silver dollar. . . . What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them come true in any one man. ( Science Speaks;Chicago : Moody, 1963], 100-107)

Scientific aspects are interesting and worth noting.
The oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job, pre-dates Christ by about two thousand years. Job 26:7 says, “He hangs the earth on nothing.” In the sacred books of other religions you may read that the earth is on the backs of elephants that produce earthquakes when they shake.

Job also says that the earth is “turned like the clay to the seal” (38:14, KJV*). Soft clay was used for writing and a seal was used for applying one’s signature. One kind of seal was a hollow cylinder of hardened clay with a signature raised on it. A stick went through the center of it so that it could be rolled similar to a wooden rolling pin. Saying the earth is turned like the clay to the seal, Job implied that the earth rotates on its axis.

Miracles would be another reason the resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by more than 500 people; more than enough to convince any jury.

If I had to say one thing that is very convincing that the Bible does as it God has said is the fact that the nation of Israel and the Hebrew peple even exist. there were many and far superior people’s that have come and gone, yet god promised to always preserve a remnamt of Israel and He has.

I appreciate the question because it has made me think about this; i knew immediately i could not believe nor understand it’s truths unless i was first moved by the Holy Spirit.

Let me make sure I understand why you accept “the Bible as God’s authority word, and that it contains no error?” Is it because of the prophecies?

 

[Lampo]

I appraoch this based on the presumption that the Word of God, the Bible is indeed God’s Word.

And you presume this because of prophecies in the Bible, correct?

Your line of questioning does not appear to accept the presumption, therefore no matter how I would answer, it would not make any difference to you.

No, I do presume the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, but for different reasons than you. I presume it based on the authority that assembled the Bible and declared which books are the inspired inerrant Word of God - the Catholic Church.

Agreed. Who are the elect?

There is no place in the Bible that explicitly states that all Christian teachings MUST BE in the Bible, but a logical and rational thought will lead you to that conclusion;

The Holy Spirit has guided me to believe that all Christian teachings *are not necessarily *in the Bible. The exact opposite of what you believe. How do we resolve this?

…simply put, where else will you find it?

From the Church of the living God, the pillar and bullwark of truth - the Catholic Church.

 

[Lampo]

You have two premises that must be true for what you said above to be true and is a source of major doctrinal error within your church. First you must put your church above the authority of scripture to make the claim that your church interprets the bible.

No, the Catholic Church does not put the Church’s authority over Scripture. Sacred Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium make up the entire Deposit of Faith. Think of it as a three-legged stool. If you remove one of those legs, your stool becomes wobbly.

Second you presume that “scared tradition” were taught by Jesus adn passed down to the apostles and are outside of Scripture.

The Bible came *after *the Church. The Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.

How can you derive this and prove it is of divine authority unless you just make the claim that your church says it is that way; therefore it is.

Faith in the Church that Jesus established.

The logic make no sense and I don’t believe it to be possible to show Jesus taught anythng that is not in the written pages of Scripture.

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” [John 21:25].

There is no difference between “did” and “taught” because what the Savior “did” and “taught” were for our salvation. That means they are both part of divine revelation, but not all of these things were recorded in Scripture. Scripture accounts for only about 100 days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Moreover, Jesus never commanded any of the apostles to write anything down during His ministry, and only five of them chose to write at the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Jesus commanded all of them to hand on the gospel orally, which is Sacred Tradition.

I once undertook an experiment: I read from the entire New Testament at the rate of about 20 minutes per day. It took me about six weeks to complete. Jesus spent most of three years, nearly 24/7, with His Apostles. “[R]emember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you. . . .” [John 20:31]. He obviously said much more to them than 20 minutes per day for six weeks. “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” [John 21:25]. So most of what He taught never got written down, but has been passed down to us by word of mouth, as Tradition. Jesus said, “Observe ALL that I have commanded.” This certainly includes everything Jesus taught, which is both in Scripture and outside Scripture.

Jesus himself said that Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; where do all Christians go to find what proceeded out of the mouth of God? the Bible?

Yes, the Bible. Just not the Bible alone!

 

[Church_Militant]

Well done and it still comes to me logically that if anyone truly has accepted the Word of God as inspired and inerrant, then what other source of “special” divine revelation is there? Anything else outside of those bounds must show divine authority and one would always have to come to the one true authority to prove it.

But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4

Where is the mouth of God spoken? Only one place other than creation, the Bible through inspired men and without error.

Not so well done. I addressed each one of those scriptures and even a cursory glance at them shows that they do not say or even infer the kind of authority that you assert they do.

As I’ve said many times, we Catholics have no problem with what the Bible says in any given passage…what we disagree with is the modern misinterpretations of those passages by some people.

In the case of this post of yours, what we see here is a assertion of conclusion drawn from a fallacious premise not supported by the text of the scriptures quoted.

 

[AmateurPianist]

How does a book exercise infallibility?

I have wondered that myself. In times when I nitpick, I tend to think that the word “infallibility” can only apply to a repeatable process (only a process can be incapable of being incorrect). When I am in that mode, I tend to think “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” or something like that might be a better choice of words.

But admittedly that is nitpicky. And I am not sure correct.

In order for something to be a “rule of faith and conduct” it must be:

1.) explicitly taught in the bible?
2.) explicitly or implicitly taught in the bible?
3.) explicitly or implicitly taught in the bible and is not in conflict with my other authorities?
4.) taught by my other authorities and not in conflict with the bible?
5.) Something else all together?

Chuck

Actually none of the above.

The definition I use is qualified by “only infallible” (or ‘guaranteed to be perfectly reliable’) rule of faith and conduct. So this definition allows for other rules of faith and conduct. But none are guaranteed to be perfectly reliable.

Now to be a valid rule of faith or conduct it must not be in conflict with the Bible. It can be an issue the Bible is silent about (yes I know the Church of Christ disagrees with this)