It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[RedBert]

the sheep recognized their master’s voice

 

[Lampo]

the sheep recognized their master’s voice

Please elaborate in detail. I’ll ask again. If the Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. Who did?

 

[Philthy]

Did not the apostles say they had received the Commandments of God?

 

[RedBert]

Please elaborate in detail. I’ll ask again. If the Catholic Church didn’t give us the Bible. Who did?

Some defenders of the Roman Catholic Church argue that the Magisterium is the rightful interpreter and authoritative teacher of Scripture, because the Church gave Christianity the Bible. If it were not for the Church, they argue, no one could know with certainty even which books belong in the Bible.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions. The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Catholics who argue to the contrary are not representing the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaking of the books of both Testaments, the First Vatican Council stated:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church. –First Vatican Council i

The process of writing and recognizing the New Testament books began long before the Roman Catholic Church even existed. The night before the Lord was crucified, He told His disciples that they, empowered by the Holy Spirit, would bear witness to His life and teaching:

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. –John 15:26-27

Through the Holy Spirit, the disciples would also receive further revelation:

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. –John 16:12-14

In certain writings of the apostles and their associates, the first Christians recognized the prophetic and authoritative teaching of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had taught, “My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me” (John 10:27). In these writings, the early Christians heard the Savior’s voice. They compared the doctrinal content of these new writings to that of the Old Testament Scriptures and found agreement. They applied the teaching to their lives and experienced its transforming power. In these writings, they recognized the dynamic interaction between book and reader that is unique to Scripture:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. –Hebrews 4:12

…

The early Christians read, copied, and circulated the books widely. Teachers began to quote the books as authoritative in their own sermons and letters. Within the lifetime of the apostles, some of the writings were already considered God-given “wisdom” (2 Peter 3:15) on par with “the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).

The history of the events leading to the universal acceptance of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as inspired Scripture spans several centuries and is beyond the scope of this article. However, it should be noted that the role that church councils played in the process is often overstated by Roman Catholics.

The first councils to have addressed the question as to which books were inspired and were rightfully part of the Bible appear to have been the North African Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The list of books accepted by the Council of Hippo no longer exists. The Council of Carthage, however, is believed to have repeated the same list and its decree on the matter is extant.

Both councils were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole fourth-century church.

It is also important to note that by the time these councils addressed the matter at the close of the fourth century, the canon or list of books recognized as forming the New Testament was well established. F. F. Bruce comments:

What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. iv

Furthermore, the decision reached by these councils has never been universally accepted. The controversy centers around writings referred to by Roman Catholic scholars as the deuterocanonicals and by Protestant scholars as the Apocrypha. In that non-Catholics have never accepted the decision of the councils to accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, it can hardly be argued that were it not for the Roman Catholic Church no one would know with certainty which books belong in the Bible.

reachingcatholics.org/who_gave.html

 

[Lampo]

Some defenders of the Roman Catholic Church argue that the Magisterium is the rightful interpreter and authoritative teacher of Scripture, because the Church gave Christianity the Bible. If it were not for the Church, they argue, no one could know with certainty even which books belong in the Bible.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions. The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Catholics who argue to the contrary are not representing the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaking of the books of both Testaments, the First Vatican Council stated:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church. –First Vatican Council i

The process of writing and recognizing the New Testament books began long before the Roman Catholic Church even existed. The night before the Lord was crucified, He told His disciples that they, empowered by the Holy Spirit, would bear witness to His life and teaching:

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. –John 15:26-27

Through the Holy Spirit, the disciples would also receive further revelation:

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. –John 16:12-14

In certain writings of the apostles and their associates, the first Christians recognized the prophetic and authoritative teaching of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had taught, “My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me” (John 10:27). In these writings, the early Christians heard the Savior’s voice. They compared the doctrinal content of these new writings to that of the Old Testament Scriptures and found agreement. They applied the teaching to their lives and experienced its transforming power. In these writings, they recognized the dynamic interaction between book and reader that is unique to Scripture:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. –Hebrews 4:12

…

The early Christians read, copied, and circulated the books widely. Teachers began to quote the books as authoritative in their own sermons and letters. Within the lifetime of the apostles, some of the writings were already considered God-given “wisdom” (2 Peter 3:15) on par with “the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).

The history of the events leading to the universal acceptance of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as inspired Scripture spans several centuries and is beyond the scope of this article. However, it should be noted that the role that church councils played in the process is often overstated by Roman Catholics.

The first councils to have addressed the question as to which books were inspired and were rightfully part of the Bible appear to have been the North African Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The list of books accepted by the Council of Hippo no longer exists. The Council of Carthage, however, is believed to have repeated the same list and its decree on the matter is extant.

Both councils were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole fourth-century church.

It is also important to note that by the time these councils addressed the matter at the close of the fourth century, the canon or list of books recognized as forming the New Testament was well established. F. F. Bruce comments:

What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. iv

Furthermore, the decision reached by these councils has never been universally accepted. The controversy centers around writings referred to by Roman Catholic scholars as the deuterocanonicals and by Protestant scholars as the Apocrypha. In that non-Catholics have never accepted the decision of the councils to accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, it can hardly be argued that were it not for the Roman Catholic Church no one would know with certainty which books belong in the Bible.

reachingcatholics.org/who_gave.html

Thanks. How about in your own words.

 

[Apologist78]

I would much appreciate it if someone one, (especially you who are n-Cs) would display and clarify for me just precisely where it is in the Word of God that it specifically states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

I am not sure that Protestants would agree that this is an accurate portrayal of their belief regarding Scripture.

The way I understand it, it is not so much a matter of what the Bible says or doesn’t say so much as it is the AUTHORITY the Bible HAS in the life of the Church. For the Protestant, the Bible is the Supreme Court, the Court of final appeals when it comes to matters pertaining to Faith and Morals. Most mainline Protestants (with the exception of the Fundamentalists) would recognize and grant an authority to tradition and the Church- BUT those are fallible and always subject to correction by the Scriptures. They reject the Catholic position becasue they believe given the self proclaimed infallibility of the Church that the Church CANNOT by definion be open to correction by the Scriptures.

That is the fundamenal issue which divides protestants and Catholics- the role of Scripture within the Church.

This also is for some of you Catholics that come in here and all but demand to know where some Catholic teaching or practice is found in the Bible.

 

[Lampo]

Try 2 Timmothy 3:16. Where does Paul point Timmothy? To some pope? To some Tradition? He points him to the Scriptures. To say that Paul was referring to the OT in this passage is of no help, becasue the point is not WHAT constitutes Scripture, but it’s NATURE. The point is WHERE Paul is pointing Timmothy.

This is what the more learned Protestants would reply to you.

Would not the learned Catholic then ask how they know 2 Timothy 3:16(or any NT book/letter) is the inspired word of God?

 

[RedBert]

Thanks. How about in your own words.

Why so you can over analyze a single poor word choice that completely derails the context or the point being made.

For ex: I have seen the replies if someone confuses infallibility with infancy even though everyone knew exactly what the context was.

 

[Lampo]

Why so you can over analyze a single poor word choice that completely derails the context or the point being made.

No, that’s not my intention. Dialogue is clearer, more precise and to the point when you use your own words and thoughts.

For ex: I have seen the replies if someone confuses infallibility with infancy even though everyone knew exactly what the context was.

That’s the exception to the rule. Just tell me who gave us the Bible if it wasn’t the Catholic Church.

 

[Apologist78]

Would not the learned Catholic then ask how they know 2 Timothy 3:16(or any NT book/letter) is the inspired word of God?

There are as I understand it three approaches to the question:

1. It is self evident.
2. Another approach is to recognize that what Protestants possess as the Bible is itself a fallible collection of infallible books. (This is the position of R. C. Sproul) In other words his position grants the possibility- but only in theory that the Church could have errored in it’s decisions as to what constitutes the Canon.
3. Another argument- possibly related to the above and if I understand the argument correctly (and I am not saying I do) there is a distiction between Canon, and canon. Canon is what God breathed, it refers to those books authored by God. canon (small c) on the other hand is those books the Church recognizes as authored by God. Canon is a function of inspiration. I understand this statement to mean that the actual canon recognized by the Church is secondary to the fact of inspiration. Perhaps another way to say this (again- if I even understand what the statement correctly) is that the Church’s decision as to what it recieves as God Breathed is NOT itself God Breathed, and therefore is secondary to what IS actually God Breathed.

However this clever distinction in the thrird possibility misunderstands the Catholic position. It confuses the charism of Inspiration with the charism of Infalliblity- and Protestants seem to assume that unless something possess the charism of “God Breathed” that it therefore cannot be infallible. This seems to be the underlying assumption of those who point to 2 Timmothy 3:16The word used to describe Scripture is used to describe nothing else. The Church nor Tradition is described as “God Breathed.” Thus, reasons the protestant, only the Bible is infallible. I say “Non sequitar.” The Bible is infallible becasue of it’s Divine Origin., not becasue it is “God Breathed.” Paul can only call the Bible God Breathed BECASUE it originated from God. However- it is granted the Church is not called “God Breathed” BUT the Church originated from God, and therefore must not be able to decieve in it’s teaching. That which comes from God is truth.

The Charism of Inspiration refers to Scripture- and functions POSITIVELY- that is to say the words which were written is what God authored through a human writter. They are not human words. The Charism of Infalliblity however is NEGATIVE. Statements of councils are human words in human lanquage. God does not positively work on the councils as he did in authoring Scripture. Infalliblity is PROTECTIVE. It allows for the popes and councils to teach in human words and human lanquage- but protects what they teach. When they define something, becasue of the special charism- it can be taken (even though not inspired) as a reliable guide and directive to the Truth of God which is possessed by the Church.

 

[Prieldedi]

Catholics “gave” us the Bible like Columbus “discovered” America

The Reformer himself said this 487 years ago:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.

And 15 years later he said this:

“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304

God bless you

 

[JacobG]

JacobG;5946670:

I dont know and its largely irrelevant. What we were interested in is whether they were guided to proclaim the gospel -oral and written - infallibly. Whether or not they claimed to have received the Commandments of God does not answer the question of whether they infallibly passed it on in preaching and in writing. I believe they were infallible in both based upon, ultimately, the authority of the Catholic Church. Do you believe they were infallible in proclaiming and writing the Gospel, YES OR NO PLEASE. If your answer is yes, please state where the Apostles each acknowledge that their written Gospels and letters are, in fact, Scripture which God has infallibly guided them to write. If you have no such verse, please indicate the source of authority that you submit to in believing in said infallibility.

No it isnt, its called grasping at straws. Perhaps if Peter bothered to mention who, exactly, the men were and which writings, exactly, he was speaking of then we might have made some progress. This would require a definitive statement in Scripture that only Apostles can write infallibly - do you have such a statement? No, you dont. Oh really?? Where is that recorded in Scripture?? It isnt! The only way we know that it is closed is because the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit closed it. And please dont drag out John’s Revelation regarding his “book” and mistakenly attempt to apply it to the canon of Scripture…

This claim is located right next to the verses which say that:

• Sunday is the new day of Christian worship;
• It is permissible to translate Scripture out of the original language
• Grape juice and crackers are an acceptable substitute for bread and wine at the Lord’s table
• Non-apostolic writers - such as Luke - were also infallible
• The canon is closed
• The Gospel of Peter is not inspired
• Baptism is only a symbol
• Baptism must be by full immersion - even though its only a symbol
• God is a Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
• Jesus is fully God and fully man

etc, etc etc
I think you may need to re-read the title of the thread!

What the apostle Paul taught in 2 Thess. 2 and 3, were later gathered up and enclosed in what is our Holy Scriptures. (2 Thess. 3:14) His epistles are part of the written word of God. What apostle ever said any oral teachings were passed on as “tradition” apart from what we have in the written word? Paul never passed on the authority to men to write tradition. What he passed on and said to Timothy, was to pass along what he, Paul, had taught. We see nothing in the scriptures that Jesus nor the apostles ever taught that tradition can ever be placed on par with God’s Word. Jesus Himself had very little positive things to say about tradition.The RCC has so many unwritten traditions that you cannot even prove came from the apostles. There’s no paper trail. It isn’t written anywhere so one can look it up and check it. There is nothing anywhere that says there are oral teachings from the apostles that are separate or contradict with what God has already revealed in His Word. If you have traditions that agree with the Scriptures, then why do you need those traditions? If you have traditions that contradict the Scriptures, which the Holy Spirit authored and is God-breathed, then you better reject those traditions!

 

[Ignatius]

Some defenders of the Roman Catholic Church argue that the Magisterium is the rightful interpreter and authoritative teacher of Scripture, because the Church gave Christianity the Bible.

Historical evidence:

The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
***It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
***The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ***
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…AD 393: Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.” (canon 36).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

***AD 397: ***
Council of Carthage III. “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures.” (canon 47 A.D. 397).

If you would like to learn more about the teachings of Jesus Christ, please contact the folks at chnetwork.org/. I promise, if you unite yourself to Jesus Christ through His Church, you will experience the great gift the He has promised to those who follow Him. As Jesus said, “He who eats My body and drinks My blood lives in Me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.” And He is faithful and sure to keep His promises. Repent, turn to the Gospel and be saved and you will have everlasting life.

Grace and peace be with you.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[Ignatius]

What is the History of Your Church?

Church, Year Established, Founder, Where Established
Catholic, 33, Jesus Christ, Jerusalem
Lutheran, 1517, Martin Luther, Germany
Anabaptist, 1521, Nicholas Storch &Thomas Munzer, Germany
Anglican, 1534, Henry VII, England
Mennonites, 1536, Menno Simons, Switzerland
Calvinist, 1555, John Calvin, Switzerland
Presbyterian, 1560, John Knox, Scotland
Congregational, 1582, Robert Brown, Holland
Baptist, 1609, John Smyth, Amsterdam
Dutch Reformed, 1628, Michaelis Jones, New York
Congregationalist, 1648, Pilgrims and Puritans, Massachusetts
Quakers, 1649, George Fox, England
Amish, 1693, Jacob Amman, France
Methodist, 1739, John & Charles Wesley, England
Unitarian, 1774, Theophilus Lindey, London
Methodist Episcopal, 1784, 60 Preachers, Baltimore, MD
Episcopalian, 1789, Samuel Seabury, American Colonies
United Brethren, 1800, Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehn, Maryland
Disciples of Christ, 1827, Thomas & Alexander Campbell, Kentucky
Mormon, 1830, Joseph Smith, New York
Methodist Protestant, 1830, Methodist, United States
Church of Christ, 1836, Warren Stone & Alexander Campbell, Kentucky
Seventh Day Adventist, 1844, Ellen White, Washington, NH
Christadelphian (Brethren of Christ, 1844, John Thomas, Richmond, VA
Salvation Army, 1865, William Booth, London
Holiness, 1867, Methodist, United States
Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1874, Charles Taze Russell, Pennsylvania
Christian Science, 1879, Mary Baker Eddy, Boston
Church of God in Christ, 1895, Various churches of God, Arkansas
Church of Nazarene, c. 1850-1900, Various religious bodies, Pilot Point, TX
Pentecostal, 1901, Charles F. Parkham, Topeka, KS
Aglipayan, 1902, Gregorio Aglipay, Philippines
Assemblies of God, 1914, Pentecostalism, Hot Springs, AZ
Iglesia ni Christo, 1914, Felix Manalo, Philippines
Four-square Gospel, 1917, Aimee Semple McPherson, Los Angeles, CA
United Church of Christ, 1961, Reformed and Congregationalist, Philadelphia, PA
Calvary Chapel, 1965, Chuck Smith, Costa Mesa, CA
United Methodist, 1968, Methodist and United Brethren, Dallas, TX
Born-again, c. 1970s, Various religious bodies, United States
Harvest Christian, 1972, Greg Laurie, Riverside, CA
Saddleback, 1982, Rick Warren, California
Non-denominational, c. 1990s, various, United States

 

[SteveGC]

RedBert,

All of your countenance regarding the origin of Scripture is great…except that it contains a fatal flaw that completely eradicates your position…and that is the assumption that the Catholic Church did not begin at Pentecost. Seems to me that once you unlearn and divorce yourself from obvious anti-Catholic rantings and distorted rewrites of history, and recognize that all the apostles were Catholic (the first leaders of what would evolve into The One Church identified by the formal title “Catholic Church”, centered around the bishop of Rome), your view of the origins of Scripture will become much more accurate.

You just have to ask yourself whether or not you want the truth.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy;5955426:

What the apostle Paul taught in 2 Thess. 2 and 3, were later gathered up and enclosed in what is our Holy Scriptures. (2 Thess. 3:14)

Yes, I know - the Catholic Church accomplished this “gathering and enclosing”. What’s your point?

His epistles are part of the written word of God.

I believe they are, based on the authority of the Catholic Church. ** I ask again, what authority do you trust for believing they are part of the written word of God?**

What apostle ever said any oral teachings were passed on as “tradition” apart from what we have in the written word?

Paul

Paul never passed on the authority to men to write

tradition.Of course not, he never even claimed to have the authority *to write it *himself. What’s your point?

What he passed on and said to Timothy, was to pass along what he, Paul, had taught. We see nothing in the scriptures that Jesus nor the apostles ever taught that tradition can ever be placed on par with God’s Word.

This is simply not true. Paul specifically says to “hold fast” to what he has taught whether by “word or by letter”.

Jesus Himself had very little positive things to say about tradition.

We dont care about tradition, we only care about Tradition.
Also, y**ou have avoided answering my direct question to you for the second time - is it too difficult for you to answer?? Here it is again: **
Do you believe (the Apostles) were infallible in proclaiming and writing the Gospel, YES OR NO PLEASE. If your answer is yes, please state where the Apostles each acknowledge that their written Gospels and letters are, in fact, Scripture which God has infallibly guided them to write.

 

[Philthy]

Some defenders of the Roman Catholic Church argue that the Magisterium is the rightful interpreter and authoritative teacher of Scripture, because the Church gave Christianity the Bible. If it were not for the Church, they argue, no one could know with certainty even which books belong in the Bible.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions. The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it.

Your ignorance is worthy of compassion. Do you have any idea what you mean by the last sentence in your paragraph? Any idea at all? It seems like a reasonable statement, but it is in actuality pretty meaningless. Who, exactly were “they” that received the Bible from the Holy Spirit? When, exactly, was the Bible received from the HS? Where, exactly was it received from the HS? How, exactly, what the Bible received from the Holy Spirit? ** I don’t believe you have a single reasonable answer to any of these questions.** What you have is a preconceived idea that we simply could not have received the Bible through the Catholic Church.

The process of writing and recognizing the New Testament books began long before the Roman Catholic Church even existed. The night before the Lord was crucified, He told His disciples that they, empowered by the Holy Spirit, would bear witness to His life and teaching:

Too bad for your premise that we consider the Apostles part of the Catholic Church - otherwise you might have a point. As it stands your intended point is intellectually meaningless but significant in that it reiterates that your ignorance is worthy of compassion.

In certain writings of the apostles and their associates

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have something you wish to quote, please do so. Otherwise we will regard this as another meaningless, unsubstantiated claim from someone who has demonstrated a clear ignorance of history, poor analytical skills and prejudice against the Catholic Church.

The early Christians read, copied, and circulated the books widely. Teachers began to quote the books as authoritative in their own sermons and letters. Within the lifetime of the apostles, some of the writings were already considered God-given “wisdom” (2 Peter 3:15) on par with “the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).

Can you prove any of what Peter is speaking of is in the Bible today? Can you prove that everything that he was speaking of is in the Bible today? You cannot and that means that your intended point is…pointless.

Peace be with you!

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes I am qualified to teach the Bible.

An what qualifies you to do so and is there any assurance at all that your teaching is without error? Your response to this will be interesting.

“My guess is that many Catholics simply don’t want to do the work. They are content to let Mother Church spoon-feed them. (They want to remain “babes in Christ” who drink “milk,” as Paul says.)”

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

Really? So…your saying that my knowledge of the Word of God is not as good as your own…and that if I disagree with your teachings that I am the one in error?

That’s a bit weird to me since your whole premise is that any of us who are believers and prayerfully read the Bible for ourselves can correctly interpret it and decide Christian doctrine.

Yet we have several disagreements and I have supported my beliefs, (as taught by the Catholic Church), from the scriptures and while you maintain your belief and have yet to show a specific passage that supports it.

That’s a big problem because there is not even an implied teaching found in the Bible that lays claim the ultimate authority that you ascribe to the Bible, yet by virtue of your own doctrinal teaching, there would have to be.

Lacking that, how can you sidestep that contradiction and continue to believe what you do?

(My apologies for my absence from this thread as I have been super busy and I will be away for the next 10 days or so on vacation. :tanning:
Know that all of you will be in my prayers while I am gone)

 

[Church_Militant]

and back to the OP

**It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true. **

each of those things can be found implicitly in the scriptures, while the same cannot be said for Sola Scriptura.

Everything that you mentioned is implicitly taught in scripture, yet it was the Catholic Church over the last 2,000 years who defined and apologetically defended each one authoritatively when others who also read the Bible denied them.

The fact is that it is that very situation that points up the error of Sola Scriptura.

So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

So then there is a double standard of sorts that exists in your thinking.

When you oppose the teachings of the Catholic faith the way you do, what do you require of us Catholics? “[T]o supply chapter and verse to prove” what we believe, while you now tell me that I shouldn’t apply that same standard to your own belief?

Don’t you see a serious contradiction in that? I do… Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead.Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references.Yet

 

[Church_Militant]

and back to the OP

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true.

Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead.Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references.

Yet each of those things can be found implicitly in the scriptures, while the same cannot be said for Sola Scriptura.

Everything that you mentioned is implicitly taught in scripture, yet it was the Catholic Church over the last 2,000 years who defined and apologetically defended each one authoritatively when others who also read the Bible denied them.

The fact is that it is that very situation that points up the error of Sola Scriptura.

So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

So then there is a double standard of sorts that exists in your thinking.

When you oppose the teachings of the Catholic faith the way you do, what do you require of us Catholics? “[T]o supply chapter and verse to prove” what we believe, while you now tell me that I shouldn’t apply that same standard to your own belief?

Don’t you see a serious contradiction in that? I do…