It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Awful_Things]

I missed it, can you give me the post # please?

 

[imkingdad]

Paul Clearly Preaches that Salvation is NOT Dependent upon Scripture. as do the Gospels,

Romans Chap 10, I pickup at vs 8;

8
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach),
9
for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10
For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
11
For the scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”
12
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him.
13
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14
But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?
15
And how can people preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring (the) good news!”
16
But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?”
17
Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
18
But I ask, did they not hear? Certainly they did; for “Their voice has gone forth to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”​

From Luke 11:28
“Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

must hear the word & Observe it ( sounds like we might have to do something here, Perhaps some Good Deeds? Works? )

---

Again in the Early Church it appears that it is all about speaking;
From Matt10: indicating that the Apostles did speak with the Authority of the HS.

18
and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans.
19
When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say.
20
For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21
Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.
22
You will be hated by all because of my name,** but whoever endures to the end will be saved. ** ( another interesting Gospel tidbit, indicating what Paul proclaims later about his own life & the need to persevere.))

 

[Church_Militant]

Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed?

Sure…2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Additionally, if tradition is God breathed then why can it chan, err I mean evolve?

Where has Sacred Tradition evolved? It hasn’t…what develops (and rightly so) is our understanding of doctrine.

Again you show that you do not know the Catholic faith as well as you thought you did. I’d say that is a very likely reason that you have been led astray from your Catholic faith. Don’t feel too bad. It worked on me for a pretty long time too. Not any more and never again.

 

[Church_Militant]

– Mark L. Chance.

Yourself Mark.

Still no one has shown me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible. C’mon n-Cs…I need to see this if I’m going to abandon my Catholic faith and return to what you have.

In fact…you need to show it to all of us Catholics because so long as you can’t, every Catholic on this thread has no chance of converting away from our most holy faith. Worse still…it makes it appear that we are right to reject this and (God help us all!), that would mean that you would be wise to seriously consider converting to the Catholic faith ASAP.

[sign]SHOW ME![/sign]

 

[Church_Militant]

You missed the point.
Didn’t say any of those things were bad, just said they were part of Protestant ‘tradition’ that has no Biblical basis.

[sign]Exactly![/sign]

I remember many years ago when I was a Baptist I got into a discussion with a fundamentalist preacher on the subject of inter-racial dating/marriage. He of course was dead set against it and provided a few scripture verses to ‘prove’ it. I pointed out the verses were taken out of context and showed him why. I continued to insist that he find anywhere in the Bible that spoke against inter-racial relationships. He became rather frustrated and said:
“Does everything have to be in Bible for it to be true”?
Eye opening statement.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=387719

Thank you my friend. Apparently “great” minds run along the same paths.

JL: It always takes me awhile to catch up. I got a chuckle out of Chuckism.

It is kinda funny…Now back to your regular scheduled discussion.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well said, CM.

I like this:

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before New Testament Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

Thanks Randy. I always appreciate your contributions to any thread.

That passage in red is pretty much exactly what I am seeking here.

If it’s not in the Bible then it violates the very tenet that virtually every n-C doctrine is based upon, that such things must be found in the pages of the Bible. That’s probably the fundamental foundation of most n-C belief and teaching in the last 500 years.

 

[Church_Militant]

No, it doesn’t. St. Jerome supposedly said that.

Correct! DM, you quoted Sacred Tradition!

 

[Church_Militant]

Nope! We can start with my original question or you can find someone else to play semantic games with.

This is not semantics, any more than your belief in (whatever variant) of Sola Scriptura is semantics.

C’mon DM, this should be a walk in the park for you. This is a doctrine that you hold very dear and I feel sure you know the Bible well enough to dialog on it, so bring it on my friend.

I’m serious…if you can show me this and not be refuted by me and my Catholic brothers and sisters, then you have a chance to really dent our Catholic faith. If you can’t…well…that dent might be somewhere else.

I have Bibles all over the place right here and you even get the benefit of the 73 book canon to use. I absolutely need to see this. Srsly.

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s the whole point of this thread. It doesn’t have to be in the Bible. Tradition and Scripture cannot, however, be contradictory. So I don’t have to tell you where the Bible says it is God breathed, but you do have to tell me where the Bible says that it is not. (And I mean tradition with a capital T, not “traditions of men”).

Well said BG!

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay, I get that. However, the claim about Sacred Traditions is based on the notion of Apostolic Succession. This his is a historic claim, and the Church does not claim infallibility in matters of history. So, fine it doesn’t have to be in the Bible, you can use any reasonable historic document. But prove this historic claim and do so in the face of 1 Tim’s requirements to be a Bishop and the fact that different sects and rites practice these traditions different, some even subscribe a different meaning to them.

[sign]NO[/sign] That will divert the thread from topic. Take that discussion somewhere else.

This thread is about getting you (or any million or so other n-Cs) to show me where this idea is found within the pages of the Word of God. Deal with the topic DM. That’s all I’m asking here.

If you want to shake me as a Catholic loose from my faith then this is what it will take.

I’ve read the Bible several times and cannot find this taught there, even with 73 books to work with.

I re-converted to the Catholic faith in part because of this every thing. If the Catholic Church is wrong on this…it should be pretty simple to show me.

This is why I never have and never will say that Catholics are not Christians or act like Catholics need to be converted. So long as what you teach isn’t contrary to Gospel you’re good to go in my book.

Well thanks for that my friend.

But, that doesn’t mean I accept those teachings as necessary either.

That’s where you go astray… We need to talk.

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Apostolic Church? Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the only Church with the full deposit of the faith? Do you believe that you should seek to convert me to Catholicism?

Yep to all of three. That last especially, since you are a fallen away Catholic like I was. See James 5:20. :hug1:

Okay, now I see no need to convert you because I hold different beliefs on what Church is than you do, but you should be seeking to convert me according to the Catholic teachings on ecumenism in the CCC. This being the case, I really don’t have to show you anything because I believe that you can be saved as easily where you are as I can where I am. So, if you really want to stand by this statement what you’re saying is – I don’t have to answer your questions about Catholicism;

Then don’t. So far I don’t think you’re well qualified to do so anyway. If you were still a faithful Catholic you might be, but even with the measure of good attitude you do display, you still don’t know or understand the Catholic faith that you deserted.

The Fullness of truth is important DM. In John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He is “the truth” and I for one want nothing less.

You have to show me why we’re wrong. You can say that all you want, but it’s probably not going to get many converts.

Not on this thread we don’t. Go get your own. Here…we are trying to get you or any of the other n-Cs here that hold that belief to show us where it is found in the Word of God.

Those are your beliefs, I do not want to misrepresent myself. I use the capital T for clarity when speaking of both. I simply don’t wish to misrepresent my beliefs.

Then don’t…but if you’re gonna get into this dialog with me, then show me where this is and we’ll ride out from that point. I asked a serious question and I need that answered. If you can’t or won’t engage it, then you aren’t gonna be much help.

Much like those Catholics that refuse to capitalize words like Protestant or say things like POR-TEST-ANT.

That’s irrelevant. You need to let stuff like that go. Tit for tat gets us nowhere.

 

[Church_Militant]

Does the existence of this one extra-Biblical Tradition disprove sola scriptura

since I am now obligated to believe the Bible AND the canon of the Bible which is not in the Bible?

An interesting perspective. What verses would you cite in support of this?

Verses?

Do I? I struggle to get my mind around it because there seems to be no fixed definition. Here is one I am familiar with:

Sola Scriptura** Defined by Protestant Author James White**

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?It also has to do with MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY which is one of the things that a lot of people on both sides of this issue don’t understand. My friend John Martignoni has a kinda neat way of explaining that here. A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t…is that true?

I hope you’ll read both because they are short but relevant DM.

 

[Church_Militant]

I apologize for being absent for so much of this thread. It started off so slowly that I really didn’t expect this much discussion. Then I got busy…

Please…PLEASE people stay on the topic.

We are trying to learn from the n-Cs on board CAF, and if we get off topic, you-know-who will step in and delete posts or (worse) close the thread and I would prefer that not happen. Okay?

 

[JustaServant]

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us. 2 Thess 3:7

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Hebrews 13:7

The disciples, the apostles and the early church, much less PAUL or the other 12 did NOT use the ‘scriptures’ (as we know them today as the bible) as their ‘final authority’.

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 1 Cor 12:27-28 . .

The Bible never says that God has appointed a BIBLE to be the authority, but here it reveals that GOD has appointed IN THE CHURCH in which HE established (Matt 16:18) PEOPLE who would PREACH and SHARE the Truth.
The BIBLE was NOT in existence until AFTER the printing press was invented in 1450 A.D. by Guttenberg. What in the world did the church (i.e. body of believers) USE as their FINAL AUTHORITY for the first 1450 years, or more? Even AFTER the printing press was invented, each individual did NOT have access to their OWN personal bible in their home.
WHY would the BIBLE, after some 1500 years, become the FINAL authority for the Word, Jesus Christ? I thought Jesus was the same Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Why didn’t he COMMAND His apostles or SOMEONE to WRITE a bible, and which BOOKS are to be contained in it? WHY didn’t JESUS write anything?

 

[crazzeto]

?? Randy was defining Sola Scriptura when he wrote this. Maybe you’re confused? He agrees with you.

EDIT:

Nevermind, you were agreeing with him. Apparently I can’t read .

Yeah, I was worried some one might understand my post in the way you initially did. I tried my best to word it such that it would be clear I wasn’t opposing that post, but commenting on the definition of sola scriptura

 

[crazzeto]

I guess I can’t edit posts anymore? I was going to add and edit. I was actually pretty close to throwing out a bet that you can’t find the bible saying of it’s self that it’s sufficient for the formation of good faith. My fiance and I are looking for a good family bible, but I figured that was going too far lol

But truely, I’m interested in which verse in the bible says the bible is in any way sufficient for learning everything you need to learn about the faith… in order to be saved, let alone anything else.

 

[mlchance]

The Magisterium has declared the doctrine of infallibility on matters of faith and morals only. If that doctrine is, itself, a matter of faith. Then this basically means the Magisterium said “we’re infallible because we say we’re infallible”. To me, this equates to placing your faith in an institution.

The Bible talks about tradition and the Bible talks about Scripture. However, it references Scripture as God Breathed. This elevates Scripture to a level far and away beyond anything else.

For the sake of argument, let’s grant your take on infallibility and it’s circular nature. Why then repeat the same argument regarding Scripture’s “God Breathedness”? Is it because some circular arguments are more acceptable than others? Or is it more likely that something is missing from your formulations?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Drawmack]

This means that it can be used by those who can read (most likely a bigger population than you assume), those who can memorize (fairly common in Jewish culture, and those who can sit and listen to regular proclamations of Scripture (common in regular worship, both Jewish and early Christian). If Scripture is sufficient, then where is the need for Tradition at that point, which you claim is the reason for those verses (the early “necessity” that doesn’t exist now)?

The New Testament scripture hadn’t been written yet!

No problem. As “God-breathed” or “inspired by God” refers to the guidance of the breath of God, which is a synonym for the Holy Spirit, some passages would be 1 Peter 1:12, which describes the oral teachings (i.e. “preaching”) of the apostles as :

If you read the chapters leading up to them the author is talking about how the truth was proclaimed to these people. As the New Testament had not been written yet it had to be passed on through oral teachings, preaching, This doesn’t say that Tradition, as the Catholic Church uses the word, is God Breathed.

I think this is fair enough. After all, the passage to which you refer, 2 Tim. 3:16 was (according to verse 15) refering to the Scriptures that the readers knew “from childhood”, yet by the addition of 27 more books that weren’t known “from childhood”, the Scriptures (as you sarcastically put it in the quoted portion) “chan, err I mean evolved”.

This is completely different. The Bible had to be written, the Bible says that Scripture is necessary. The fact that the New Testament was written does not show Scripture evolving it shows Scripture being defined in the first place. What I am talking about would be equivalent to someone rewriting an existent book of the Bible which does not happen.

Feel free to ask if these same oral teachings are the ones that were then passed on as Tradition through the Church, and I’ll provide support for that while you, at the same time, support (without falling upon the authority of tradition or the infallible authority of the Church) the inspiration of the book of Hebrews as well as others.

I love threats they are an awesome way to perform apologetics. This is what I read above, “Hey, you can challenge me if you want but be prepared to do the following if you do because I cannot defend my beliefs on their own merit so I’ll attempt to intimidate you into not questioning me.”

See, you’re committing the classic Catholic fallacy. I can accept that the Catholic Church got something right without accepting infallibility of everything. Claiming that I can’t is like claiming that it is impossible for someone to listen to the Holy Spirit once and then not listen at another time. Just because someone denies infallibility does not mean they must reject every decision the Magisterium has ever made.

Alter calls, definitely an extra-biblical practice.

Yes it is definitely extra-biblical to ask others to pray with you.

As are the sinner’s prayer and the selection of a pastor by elders or popular vote of the congregation.

Praying is not extra-biblical – but the exact prayer is. The election of church officials is not extra-biblical.

Paul Clearly Preaches that Salvation is NOT Dependent upon Scripture. as do the Gospels,

Ummm, have you heard the words Sola Fide?

 

[crazzeto]

Drawmack:

Ummm, have you heard the words Sola Fide?

I think the point is, we’ve heard of it but are absolutly stumped as to why anyone believes it’s true. Scripture it’s self doesn’t support the philosophy. In fact I would suggest the philosophy exists for no reason other than people don’t want to trust a centralized church authority, even though that’s exactly what scripture tells you to do.

I would challenge you sir, if you truely believe in the philosophy to prove scripture supports it. Because Sola Scriptura has the unique problem is requireing that scpiture must support the philosophy. If it does not then the philosophy is invalid. If the bible is the sole rule of faith, then the bible nust say that. So where is it?

 

[Drawmack]

Sure…2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

I’m sorry but I do not see tradition being called God Breathed there.

Where has Sacred Tradition evolved? It hasn’t…what develops (and rightly so) is our understanding of doctrine.

Are Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation still practiced the way the early church practiced them (i.e. all at the same time)? Is the Sacrament of Reconciliation still performed the way it was by the early church? Is Lent still practiced the way it was in the fourth century?

Again you show that you do not know the Catholic faith as well as you thought you did. I’d say that is a very likely reason that you have been led astray from your Catholic faith. Don’t feel too bad. It worked on me for a pretty long time too. Not any more and never again.

Yeah, (Edited) I disagree with Catholic teachings. (Edited)

 

[Drawmack]

Yourself Mark.

Still no one has shown me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible. C’mon n-Cs…I need to see this if I’m going to abandon my Catholic faith and return to what you have.

In fact…you need to show it to all of us Catholics because so long as you can’t, every Catholic on this thread has no chance of converting away from our most holy faith. Worse still…it makes it appear that we are right to reject this and (God help us all!), that would mean that you would be wise to seriously consider converting to the Catholic faith ASAP.

[sign]SHOW ME![/sign]

I see that you overlooked my post where I talked about this specifically.