It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[crazzeto]

What I can prove is that the historical facts spoken of in the Bible are accurate. Then, I can say this is worthy of trust because of that. Now that it has been deemed worthy of trust I can trust that when it says it is God inspired that is the truth.

your problem here is that the same case can be made of many books which are not cannolical or in other words, inspired. The Acts of Peter were widly considered inspired, there’s a lot of early Christian writing about this. Yet they aren’t in the bible, why? Same for the Gospel of Peter. I beleive the Apacolyps of James was in the same category and lots of early christian writings also attest to that book. The Revelation to John was widly disputed, a BUNCH of early Christian writings record how disputed the book is. How do you know it’s supposed to be in be in the bible? How do you know our Bishops (make no mistake, it was Catholic Bishops that put the bible together) didn’t make a mistake. How do you know the Gosple of Peter isn’t supposed to be in there?

You brought up the Gospels and why we can trust the Canonical ones but not the extra-biblical ones. I answered this question. Then you’re assuming that I am denying the rest of the New Testament. That doesn’t even make sense. That would be like me asking you about the Marian doctrine and when you answer and don’t talk about Purgatory accusing you of not believing in Purgatory.

You are arguing that all you need to know is what Jesus said to be saved. Forget the rest of everything else, what did Jesus say. That’s all that you need. You’ve already done so in this very thread, you’ve tried using “what Jesus said” to either refute or otherwise minimize passages else where in the bible. You can’t do that as I pointed out.

I’ve said numerous times that the number of Protestant denominations does not prove anything because all the sources where you could pull that number from also say there is more than one Catholic denomination.

Every conversation on these boards always comes to this. You run out of stuff to say so you just throw up something unrelated.

It proves why Sola Scriptura is different, and illistrates how the philosophy violates scripture.

 

[Drawmack]

make no mistake, it was Catholic Bishops that put the bible together

Prove it! Provide me with a list of every voting member at every one of those counsels where the cannon was defined which clearly states which area they were a bishop of. Oh, that’s right you can’t it’s been lost to time.

It proves why Sola Scriptura is different, and illistrates how the philosophy violates scripture.

This conversation is over. Anyone who honestly believes they can jump to a disingenuous number to prove their point is not worthy of conversation.

 

[crazzeto]

Prove it! Provide me with a list of every voting member at every one of those counsels where the cannon was defined which clearly states which area they were a bishop of. Oh, that’s right you can’t it’s been lost to time.

This conversation is over. Anyone who honestly believes they can jump to a disingenuous number to prove their point is not worthy of conversation.

So basically, you can’t historically prove why the “non-inspired” books I list shouldn’t be in the bible, nor can you prove why the Revelation to John should be in the Bible. So instead of that your going to try asking me “prove it was the catholic church” that put the bible together.

Why don’t you look at some of the many challenges I put to you previously about the verification of Peter’s residency in Rome, which I put to you in the “how old is the catholic church” thread. You never directly addressed the writings of our Church fathers. Rather you ignored them and tried going on “why would paul write a letter to the romans…” even though Paul was in Rome with Peter.

Further you never adiquatly disproved Peter’s primacy, which appears in Scripture. Rather like you are now, you seemed to just ignore it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve actually been thinking about this today and would like to amend my earlier answer. You said I have to agree that it is not alluded to in the Bible. The Canon of scripture is not defined in the Bible but the fact that we need scripture is stated in the Bible and this statement alludes to the fact that we do need to have a canon. Therefore this is alluded to in the Bible. Thus, it does not meet with your list that we must both agree on. Sorry for not being more clear on this, this morning.

Needing a canon…even knowing we need a canon is a FAR CRY from knowing what the canon is.

The point I made is that the CANON as we have it - 27 books - are not named in the Bible itseld, and yet every believer is obliged to believe that these books, no more, no less, are the NT.

That list of books is an extra-biblical Tradition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You addressed the first part, or at least attempted to, but you didn’t address the second part.

Thanks…I wasn’t trying to be difficult…I simply couldn’t find it.

Sacred Tradition does not change, in the sense that nothing is being taught on the authority of Tradition today the opposite of which was taught in times gone by.

Does Tradition evolve? Sure, but that is not the same thing. So, if it troubles you that Tradition (or the Church itself for that matter) does not look exactly like it did in its infancy, neither do you, and your mom has a bunch of cute photos to prove it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Actually, my own take is that Tradition is that which is “handed on” by the Church, and we know from scripture that the Magisterium of the Church is “God-Breathed”.

Oh, really? Well, sure…I’d be happy to show you:

John 20:21-23
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Jesus is God, and He breathed on the Apostles who made up the proto-magisterium of the Catholic Church. Only one other time in scripture when this occurs…the other is in Genesis when God breathed life into Adam.

So, this is important…the Apostles who gave us Apostolic Tradition were God-breathed!

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Really? I don’t understand how you missed it since St. Paul plainly tells Timothy that he’s to withdraw from anyone who doesn’t walk according to that tradition. If it wasn’t inspired, the why would he make a big deal of it?

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.

The following article from my blog points out some other ways in which the apostles showed their thinking on Sacred Tradition.
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

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?

Lent is a discipline, so there’s no case for you there.

The Sacraments already existed from the New Testament on but the form or liturgy of each developed, which is not a problem.

Again though…where is this scriptural mandate that all that we believe and practice must be found in the pages of the Bible? You have yet to provide it.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Honestly I don’t care whether you want to convert me or not, but if you hold this error in doctrine and you want to offer a serious apologetic for it then I don’t understand what this delay has been.

If you don’t hold the belief, say so and you can bail from the discussion, though I fail to understand why you keep posting on it if that is the case.

If you cannot make a substantive case for it then just say so and step side and allow someone who can to do so.

You’re not the only n-C on CAF that probably holds this belief, so it’s certainly fine if you choose to let someone else step up.

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.

Well that’s good. Maybe you could spread that around to the a-C n-Cs that I have dealt with.

This is the case because nothing taught by the Catholic Church is in conflict with the Bible.

We’ve been saying that for some 500 years.

What I want is someone to show me why I should accept extra-biblical teachings as necessary!

That’s a topic for another thread, not this one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

By and large, yeah…they are the same. Most importantly, the underlying beliefs about each of those sacraments is identical.

Baptism? Regenerates and infants are welcome.
First Communion - no clue what your complaint is here
Confirmation - at the hands of the Bishop (or those whom he authorizes) just as we see in Acts when Peter went to Samaria
Reconcilation - it’s private now instead of public, but if you mean that Catholics still believe they should confess their sins to a priest who has the authority to forgive them…yeah, we got that, too.

Surely you aren’t quibbling over insignificant changes like the fact that we have organs now or electric lights instead of oil lamps?

All kidding aside, isn’t there some hypocrisy here?

I mean…NONE of the early Christians practiced sola scriptura, and they held fast to the Tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles.

Consequently, those who insist upon sola scriptura today are the ones who are clearly NOT practicing what the early Church believed and taught.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, I will answer. I defend the principle of praying to the saints because it’s no different than asking anyone to pray with you.

:extrahappy:

So, does the practice of praying to saints come to us from scripture or from tradition?

 

[RedBert]

I am pleading that you qutoe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura correctly:

From www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

Upon examination of Wesley’s work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
• Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
• Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
• Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
• Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

Protestant do NOT have an issue with traditions that are not the Bible
St. Thomas went to India, not tin the Bible.

The issue is where we feel there is a contradiction: who wins the tie -breaker: (see the Methodist doctrine above.)

I repeat: :not in the Bible is ok ,if it does NOT go against what IS in the Bible, thats all there is do it.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we **yield assent in all matters **of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. –

St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3, online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at Wheaton College.
*
Seems VERY close to what the Methodist say*

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.–St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

 

[Mintaka]

Re: the St. Irenaeus quote –

“…than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public…”

Those through whom the Gospel has come down to us. Handed down to us. “traditio”, a thing handed over or handed on.

You also don’t mention all the sections Irenaeus has about “I learned Christianity from Polycarp, who learned it straight from John the Evangelist” – a very literal “traditio” of customs, interpretations, beliefs, and laying on of hands to make bishops and priests. You don’t mention Irenaeus’ quotes of stuff that Jesus and the Apostles said that didn’t make it into the Bible, either.

You really don’t want to quote St. Irenaeus against tradition. Seriously. It’s like quoting peanut butter against jelly and bread, or fire against burning stuff up.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am pleading that you qutoe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura correctly:

From www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

Upon examination of Wesley’s work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
• Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
• Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
• Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
• Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

Protestant do NOT have an issue with traditions that are not the Bible
St. Thomas went to India, not tin the Bible.

The issue is where we feel there is a contradiction: who wins the tie -breaker: (see the Methodist doctrine above.)

I repeat: :not in the Bible is ok ,if it does NOT go against what IS in the Bible, thats all there is do it.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we **yield assent in all matters **of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. –

St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3, online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at Wheaton College.

Seems VERY close to what the Methodist say

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.–St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

My post contained a verbatim quote taken from James White’s opening remarks in his debate with Patrick Madrid, “Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?”

If you object to Mr. White’s definition, then let me suggest that this, too, is part of the problem with sola scriptura…none of you can even agree on what the proper definition is.

 

[LutheranDK]

Hmmm,things NCs believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.

1. Evangelistic appeals.
2. VBS.
3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
4. Church picnics,
5. Praise bands.
6. Bible Colleges.
7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crewcut)
   I’m sure there’s more, but I can’t think of any right now.
   Too much Chinese food for lunch.
   

If you add “some” between “some” and “N[R]Cs”, then you’d be correct.
Although #7 is closer to the truth (though not true!) than the way Jesus is normally portrayed in the arts, and on the fake shroud of Turin, as well…
The very idea of a man having long hair during the time of Christ is ridiculous.
(so is, as an addendum, the distinctive European look of Jesus in the arts…and on the shroud…)

 

[RedBert]

so even after I show you a Catholic .com definition of of Sola Scritura
even after I show you how it defined in a major Protestant denomination
I can add a wiiki or webster defintion, but would it matter?

you are DETERMINED to use your own definition, or quote some misguided example

I think I will go ask my Catholic friends if they believe in the Immaculate Conception; then ask them what it means,

or i could use the CORRECT definition as found on Catholic .com or Wiki , or Websters…

I’m willing to have a debate, can you agree to use the defintion below?

“means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition, but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized”

 

[Ignatius]

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

Unfortunately for your request, there is no authoritative definition for the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even though virtually every denomination (including the so called ‘non-denominational’ denomination) believes that it is an essential doctrine even though each subscribes to some different variant of it.

You should also be aware that many (maybe even the majority) of those here are formerly Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, etc. Some were even pastors of large congregations. So, the understanding of the disparity of views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura is quite complete.

 

[Church_Militant]

One of the big problems in discussing this topic is that so many different n-Cs have differing definitions of what this actually means and that makes it really hard.

This is another case where we Catholics have difficulty seeing that often propagated “Unity in essentials” that n-Cs speak of.

Perhaps this is also another by product of this very foundational doctrine of post reformation n-C Christianity?

 

[Ignatius]

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

Unfortunately for your request, there is no authoritative definition for the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even though virtually every denomination (including the so called ‘non-denominational’ denomination) believes that it is an essential doctrine even though each subscribes to some different variant of it. Also the ‘Bible Only’ variant is by far the most widely held version.

You should also be aware that many (maybe even the majority) of those here are formerly Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, etc. Some were even pastors of large congregations. So, the understanding of the disparity of views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura is quite complete.

 

[RedBert]

so can we use Wiki?
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

Unfortunately for your request, there is no authoritative definition for the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even though virtually every denomination (including the so called ‘non-denominational’ denomination) believes that it is an essential doctrine even though each subscribes to some different variant of it. Also the ‘Bible Only’ variant is by far the most widely held version.

You should also be aware that many (maybe even the majority) of those here are formerly Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, etc. Some were even pastors of large congregations. So, the understanding of the disparity of views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura is quite complete.

so can we use Wiki?

First of all, even Wikipedia states “most protestants look at scripture alone and no other authority”. And No, we should use the most widely held variant, ‘Bible Alone’ Sola Scriptura.

What you guys should really do is get together and come up with an Authoritative definition so that you can have unity in this Essential n-C doctrine.