It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Des]

Just as Paul does in Romans. I am both a creature of the flesh and of the Spirit at the same time. Though I am going on to perfection, I am not there yet. This is true of every aspect of me, including my ability to understand the leading of the Spirit. Sometimes I hear, understand and follow. Sometimes I only hear and understand, but elect to not follow. And sometimes while I may still hear, I neither understand nor follow. This, according to Paul, is the condition of those who are in Christ, but still awaiting glorification.

Grace Seeker. Are you suggesting to us that Paul meant that He sometimes got what He was preaching, wrong as would be the case in the example of the question put to you? That perhaps He taught error occasionally but never when He put it in writing which seems to be what you’re saying He meant using yourself as an example?

The question was how, when two Christians who read into Scripture differently, thereby inevitably creating two opposing doctrines, are to be resolved if there is no visible infallible authority present.

Scripture never says that Scripture alone will ‘always’ resolve these essential matters so I, like everyone here, am still waiting for that one definitive verse that clearly states this.

 

[Michael_Francis]

**Some 23 posts have been pruned from this thread and several have been edited to get this thread back on its topic.

If posts of yours are missing, please take the hint and do not diverge from the topic of offering scriptural proof that the Bible says what the OP says.

This thread is not about salvation, traditional Catholicism, or anything but the exploration of the OP’s premise.

Any further off topic posts on this thread will merit for the author citations of infraction.

If there is some peripheral discussion that you are interested in then open a new thread on it elsewhere as per the Forum Rules**.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very sincerely,

 

[sandyelder]

[SIGN][/SIGN][/SIGN]

What would you call the Pope and Bishops in communion with him?

No Pope or Bishop, from Peter until today has or does claim the mantle and authority of a prophet. CCC73 states that revelation from God ceased with Jesus. No revelation = no prophets.

Isn’t a Prophet a person sent by God to reveal Gods words?

Absolutely.

God sent us the Holy Spirit. There is no Prophet as you call it that can top the HS sorry. So all we have is the Pope and Bishops to reveal what are TRUE PROPHET as you call it the HS reveals to us. I would say we are in good hands.

The HS does lead us to truth - individually. However, where the establishment of doctrine is concerned, the HS and/or God Himself will deal only and directly with a designated prophet. Any interpretation, dispensation, introduction or change to doctrine or tradition MUST come from a prophet since they (the doctrines) were originally declared by them. In short, the HS speaking to you or I or even the Pope, absent the prophetic authority to REVEAL truth, is inadequate.

Read and consider the import of CCC 66 - 73. God has always used prophets to prepare and guide His people. Except us? We have no prophets nor will we until Jesus returns. Why not? Are we not as worthy as the people of Noah’s time to have such communication from God? John and others were sent to prepare the way (the people) for Jesus’ 1st Coming. Why would God not send a prophet or prophets to prepare a people for his 2nd Coming?

If you believe that the “Christian faith cannot accept revelations that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment”, and that “there will be no further revelation after Christ”, every extra-scriptural utterance, tradition or doctrine not clearly founded in scripture (the Bible) at a minimum is suspect and at most is to be rejected, regardless of its source.

The Church cannot declare that revelation has ceased, then claim the authority to interpret, proclaim and, yes, reveal God’s word. No prophet = no revelation = not okay.

I applaud your faith in the HS to provide guidance. Pray to God in Christ’s name and ask with an open heart for such guidance here, ie about the necessity of prophets. He will answer.

Peace.

 

[clmowry]

No Pope or Bishop, from Peter until today has or does claim the mantle and authority of a prophet.

Though I believe this is true and that there will be no further revelation relative to Gods plan for the Salvation of Man, i.e. John the Baptist was the last prophet in the pure since of the word, I do not think that this also precludes God from using human beings to make any prophetic pronouncements what so ever.

For example will the “two witnesses” not be sent very much like the Old Testament prophets with a prophetic message?

I think we have already received other “prophetic” messages. For example, I think Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae was more than just a scholarly Encyclical Letter. I think it was in fact “prophetic.”

But that’s just personal opinion, and I doubt the author would have claimed it to be so.

Chuck

 

[Clontarf]

Dear Thread,

The early church had no bible. The clergy was teaching, preaching, and expanding the Church at a supernatural rate!

There were many writings in circulation - too many to mention here.
In 405 AD, after years of councils, research and prayer, Pope Boniface First published the first list clarifying which writings were to be included in the bible we have today.

So, you see the Bible, on the authority of Christ’s Church through Peter’s successor, is one of the many teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

In Christ and Mary Immaculate.

Clontarf

 

[Grace_Seeker]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

If this is true how in the world can there be so many different faiths? If we all had the same teaching’s and were all led by the HS then how could we be separated in brothers.

I’ve answered this already. It appears to be among those things editted out for having been deteremined to be not related to the thread.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

**Some 23 posts have been pruned from this thread and several have been edited to get this thread back on its topic.

If posts of yours are missing, please take the hint and do not diverge from the topic of offering scriptural proof that the Bible says what the OP says.

This thread is not about salvation, traditional Catholicism, or anything but the exploration of the OP’s premise.

**

And what is the OP’s premise?

I have concluded that the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that the Bible does not say this and therefore it is error.

What is the “it” that is an error? That all things must be proved from the Bible.

How does he know that it is an error? Because he can’t find in the Bible where the Bible says “all things must be proved from the Bible.” Hence he adapts the position that all things must be proved from the Bible himself to object to others who say that all things must be proved from the Bible.

I submit to you that the argument itself is faulty.
First on the grounds that it is circular.
Second on the grounds that having apriori assumptions about the validity of a document does not mean that it negates using that document as a source of proof.

The Catholic Church has itself declared 73 books as canonical. What are they saying when they say that these books are “the canon”? According to the CCC to declare them as canon means that they are “a measuring standard or rule.”

It is for this reason, because we Protestants accept as true (as an apriori assumption, not because the Bible says so) that the scriptures are indeed a measuring standard or a rule. And because we accept them as a meausring standard we us them that way as well. We compare every other teaching against them to see if that teaching measures up. Does the teaching conform to the standard and rules of faith and practive taught in the scriptures or is it a new teaching?

Where we differ with Catholics is on the Catholic Church’s teaching that “the [Catholic] Church alone possesses the means to understand and interpret Scripture infallibly.” Why? Because we don’t see that statement supported in the canon. It does NOT “measure up.” It is simply the opinion of the Catholic Church, not the actual teaching of the measuring standard that we use for faith and practice. Indeed, when Catholics ask Protestants to point to a time that the Catholic Church has ever taught something that was an error, this teaching itself is the first and foremost of those errors which we would cite as evidence of the fallibility of the teaching magesterium of the Catholic Church in its role of teaching the faith. This is not to say that they have always been wrong. Indeed, I accept most of the teachings of the Catholic Church as right on. But they are fallible, in the sense that they do have the potential to err. And the Catholic Church is certainly not uniquely alone in being qualified to interpret and apply the faith to daily life and practice in ways that are also correct. Discerning when it is one and when the other, that is the work of the Holy Spirit which is not the unique property of the Catholic Church, but available to all who are in Christ. (Texts supporting that view being previously editted out of this discussion as not relevant. Showing in my view the bias of this forum against open and honest discussion,)

 

[rinnie]

No Pope or Bishop, from Peter until today has or does claim the mantle and authority of a prophet. CCC73 states that revelation from God ceased with Jesus. No revelation = no prophets.

Absolutely.

The HS does lead us to truth - individually. However, where the establishment of doctrine is concerned, the HS and/or God Himself will deal only and directly with a designated prophet. Any interpretation, dispensation, introduction or change to doctrine or tradition MUST come from a prophet since they (the doctrines) were originally declared by them. In short, the HS speaking to you or I or even the Pope, absent the prophetic authority to REVEAL truth, is inadequate.

Read and consider the import of CCC 66 - 73. God has always used prophets to prepare and guide His people. Except us? We have no prophets nor will we until Jesus returns. Why not? Are we not as worthy as the people of Noah’s time to have such communication from God? John and others were sent to prepare the way (the people) for Jesus’ 1st Coming. Why would God not send a prophet or prophets to prepare a people for his 2nd Coming?

If you believe that the “Christian faith cannot accept revelations that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment”, and that “there will be no further revelation after Christ”, every extra-scriptural utterance, tradition or doctrine not clearly founded in scripture (the Bible) at a minimum is suspect and at most is to be rejected, regardless of its source.

The Church cannot declare that revelation has ceased, then claim the authority to interpret, proclaim and, yes, reveal God’s word. No prophet = no revelation = not okay.

I applaud your faith in the HS to provide guidance. Pray to God in Christ’s name and ask with an open heart for such guidance here, ie about the necessity of prophets. He will answer.

Peace.

If you misunderstood my post, or I did not get my point across correct I apologize. Let me say it in another way.

If you consider a Prophet to be someone who has Authority from God to teach the word until God gets back, then the Pope and the Bishops are as close as you will get in this world until Jesus comes back. They are led by the real Prophet which is the HS. Thats it, there is no where else to look. The HS is the real thing, alive and well in the RCC.

Nothing will ever be added to scripture until Jesus comes. But better understanding of what is written can be revealed through the HS to the Bishops and Pope. Thats as close again as I said we will get to a Prophet.

And you are correct no revelation comes until Jesus comes again in Glory. That is the teaching of the Church. BUt our understanding of the teachings we do have can always grow with what the HS reveals to us.

That is why authority is what we must look for not false prophets. And if you want the true teachings of the Faith its in the RCC being led by HS and led through the Pope and Bishops.

Does this make what I said clearer?

 

[clmowry]

Grace_Seeker:
It is for this reason, because we Protestants accept as true (as an apriori assumption, not because the Bible says so) that the scriptures are indeed a measuring standard or a rule.

Admitting this to be the case is at least logically consistent.

I do think, however, you need to limit your statement as applying to “some” Protestants.

Since you admit that you can’t prove this assumption from Scripture alone. That’s really the only part of you post that’s relevant to this particular thread.

And because we accept them as a meausring standard we us them that way as well. We compare every other teaching against them to see if that teaching measures up. Does the teaching conform to the standard and rules of faith and practive taught in the scriptures or is it a new teaching?

And this is the inconsistent next step that always gets taken.

Though not “circular” in logic, your position does require you to have a double standard.

You expect everything except for your assumed standard of belief to conform to a standard of being confirmed by individual biblical interpretation.

Where we differ with Catholics is on the Catholic Church’s teaching that “the [Catholic] Church alone possesses the means to understand and interpret Scripture infallibly.” Why? Because we don’t see that statement supported in the canon. It does NOT “measure up.” It is simply the opinion of the Catholic Church, not the actual teaching of the measuring standard that we use for faith and practice.

Catholics of course read the same scripture (well mostly the same scriptures) and come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

Indeed, when Catholics ask Protestants to point to a time that the Catholic Church has ever taught something that was an error, this teaching itself is the first and foremost of those errors which we would cite as evidence of the fallibility of the teaching magesterium of the Catholic Church in its role of teaching the faith. This is not to say that they have always been wrong. Indeed, I accept most of the teachings of the Catholic Church as right on. But they are fallible, in the sense that they do have the potential to err.

And the Catholic Church is certainly not uniquely alone in being qualified to interpret and apply the faith to daily life and practice in ways that are also correct.

The validity [or lack of validity] of this assertion has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Discerning when it is one and when the other, that is the work of the Holy Spirit which is not the unique property of the Catholic Church, but available to all who are in Christ.

Except that the simple fact that you and most Catholics have diametrically opposed views on what we each believe scripture says invalidates this assertion.

Either you need to maintain that every time you disagree with someone (Catholic or fellow Protestant) on their interpretation of scripture that one of you has the “Holy Spirit” and the other does not, or that the Holy Spirit has led Christians to diametrically opposed “truths.’

But again this is a subject for another thread.

(Texts supporting that view being previously edited out of this discussion as not relevant. Showing in my view the bias of this forum against open and honest discussion,)

Well actually all you have to do if you want to have an “open and honest discussion” on whether or not scripture supports taking the position that the Holy Spirit will lead individual Christians to discern the truth of scripture is to start a thread on and then stick to that subject.

I can start one for you if you’d like.

Chuck

 

[Church_Militant]

And what is the OP’s premise?

That I cannot find, nor has anyone else offered precise scriptural citation that shows the Bible asserting that everything that we believe and practice must be found in its pages.

(Thanks for helping me get this thread back on track, BTW )

What is the “it” that is an error? That all things must be proved from the Bible.

Correct. And If I understand you correctly you have stated that you do not hold to that belief. Am I correct Pastor GS?

How does he know that it is an error? Because he can’t find in the Bible where the Bible says “all things must be proved from the Bible.” Hence he adapts the position that all things must be proved from the Bible himself to object to others who say that all things must be proved from the Bible.

It’s an objective premise Pastor. If someone who believes in SS tells me that some aspect of Catholic belief or practice is wrong because it cannot be found in the Bible, then, fundamentally, they need to show me where that belief is supported in said Bible. If that belief itself is not found in scripture, then the whole argument fails because of that.

I submit to you that the argument itself is faulty.
First on the grounds that it is circular.

That is precisely my point Pastor. The fact that the Bible does not support the belief that all we believe and practice must be found within it is based upon circular argument and without the benefit of scriptural support brings down the entire doctrinal house of cards based upon it to begin with, (which most post Reformation n-C doctrines are)

Second on the grounds that having apriori assumptions about the validity of a document does not mean that it negates using that document as a source of proof.

Yet if these assumptions are based upon and errant belief then their argument fails.

I am not saying that the document (in this case the Bible) cannot be used as proof. In fact I am asking that those who hold the SS belief expressed in my OP by all means use said document to make their case. Thus far, that has not happened.

The Catholic Church has itself declared 73 books as canonical. What are they saying when they say that these books are “the canon”? According to the CCC to declare them as canon means that they are “a measuring standard or rule.”

Irrelevant…since this is about n-C belief…not Catholic belief.

It is for this reason, because we Protestants accept as true (as an apriori assumption, not because the Bible says so) that the scriptures are indeed a measuring standard or a rule. And because we accept them as a meausring standard we us them that way as well. We compare every other teaching against them to see if that teaching measures up. Does the teaching conform to the standard and rules of faith and practive taught in the scriptures or is it a new teaching?

That’s fine, however, since you insist that the Bible is “a measuring standard or a rule”, if the Bible itself does not tell us that we should use it as the only and final such, then you refute your own case don’t you?

Again…the argument for this belief is circular and unscriptural, which is my whole point

Where we differ with Catholics is on the Catholic Church’s teaching that “the [Catholic] Church alone possesses the means to understand and interpret Scripture infallibly.” Why? Because we don’t see that statement supported in the canon. It does NOT “measure up.” It is simply the opinion of the Catholic Church, not the actual teaching of the measuring standard that we use for faith and practice. Indeed, when Catholics ask Protestants to point to a time that the Catholic Church has ever taught something that was an error, this teaching itself is the first and foremost of those errors which we would cite as evidence of the fallibility of the teaching magesterium of the Catholic Church in its role of teaching the faith. This is not to say that they have always been wrong. Indeed, I accept most of the teachings of the Catholic Church as right on. But they are fallible, in the sense that they do have the potential to err. And the Catholic Church is certainly not uniquely alone in being qualified to interpret and apply the faith to daily life and practice in ways that are also correct. Discerning when it is one and when the other, that is the work of the Holy Spirit which is not the unique property of the Catholic Church, but available to all who are in Christ. (Texts supporting that view being previously editted out of this discussion as not relevant. Showing in my view the bias of this forum against open and honest discussion,)

If you have problem with moderation, then, according to the Forum Rules, (see Enforcement) that should be taken up by PM with the moderator in question, which is easily done by clicking on his name in his post and sending him a private message. CAF is far better moderated than most other forums I have posted on.

As for the rest of your comments in this section, they are off topic and irrelevant since, (as I have pointed out before) this is not about Catholic teaching. It is about the n-C belief that so far has been shown to be without scriptural basis and its only defense a circular argument.

 

[dnlyle53]

The CC wrote the holy scriptures but not as an end all source book to control the direction and teaching of the faith. The early bishops knew they were held to keep the faith, even unto death, which happened a lot in the first 290 years after the resurrection. The Tradition of the church which is maintaining the faith and its true meanings, which for all you protestants is the one and only true interpretation. These interpretations don’t change, they may become better understood, but they never change in meaning.

Think about fire. As a kid you have a basic feel for fire, it’s warm or its hot depending on the nearness of it. Society and science has learned to tame fire and harness it’s benefits, we have come to understand fire very well. Has fire ever changed? Has the nature of fire changed? Our understanding has, not fire; it’s the same with scripture and tradition, they have not changed, they are understood better and deeper. A new depth of understanding can never alter a previous one. Is this so hard to understand?

In the protestant world if someone gets a new idea about scripture (which invariably is always a rehash of an earlier idea) they start a new church, this I believe is not what Christ wanted. Thanks for sharing.

 

[nuntym]

The CC wrote the holy scriptures but not as an end all source book to control the direction and teaching of the faith. The early bishops knew they were held to keep the faith, even unto death, which happened a lot in the first 290 years after the resurrection. The Tradition of the church which is maintaining the faith and its true meanings, which for all you protestants is the one and only true interpretation. These interpretations don’t change, they may become better understood, but they never change in meaning.

Think about fire. As a kid you have a basic feel for fire, it’s warm or its hot depending on the nearness of it. Society and science has learned to tame fire and harness it’s benefits, we have come to understand fire very well. Has fire ever changed? Has the nature of fire changed? Our understanding has, not fire; it’s the same with scripture and tradition, they have not changed, they are understood better and deeper. A new depth of understanding can never alter a previous one. Is this so hard to understand?

In the protestant world if someone gets a new idea about scripture (which invariably is always a rehash of an earlier idea) they start a new church, this I believe is not what Christ wanted. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I am not saying that the document (in this case the Bible) cannot be used as proof. In fact I am asking that those who hold the SS belief expressed in my OP by all means use said document to make their case. Thus far, that has not happened.

Nor will you, for those who hold to SS don’t do so because Scripture says that one must hold to Scripture alone. They do so because given that Scripture is understood as God’s revelation of himself, they doubt that any other source could hold a candle to scripture as a source of authority.

First we know that the scripture is truth. (Daniel 10:21). If anything should run contrary to it, it should then be false.

Given that, one is also enjoined to “Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, And apply thy heart unto my knowledge. For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thee, If they be established together upon thy lips. That thy trust may be in Jehovah, I have made them known to thee this day, even to thee” (Proverbs 22:17-19). This attention to the scripture is the source of learning to trust in Jehovah, and thus, by implication, without it, one is left without this knowledge.

On top of that, scripture tells us to “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they grow much towards ungodliness” (2 Timothy 2:15-16). Note the problem with profane language is note in the actual words used, but that it moves one toward ungodliness. For the building up of one’s knowledge of God, faith, and the practice of one’s faith, we need a source that can be depended on. One that we can have no doubt is from God and none other than God, so that we are not moved in the wrong direction. And since revelation has ceased until Christ’s return there now exists no other source of authority on par with it.

Thus, in the context of what one’s goals are, to know God and to present one’s self approved by God, it is the scriptures that is our primary source for guidance and edification. Those that would advocate SS, would ask, why would you use the scriptures only as a first source, why leave that which is perfect, in that it is God’s word, for something less than that?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nor will you, for those who hold to SS don’t do so because Scripture says that one must hold to Scripture alone. They do so because given that Scripture is understood as God’s revelation of himself, they doubt that any other source could hold a candle to scripture as a source of authority.

And this is fatally flawed reasoning since scripture itself declares:

Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. **Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. **And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Luke 10:18
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

And stuff like that…

 

[Grace_Seeker]

And thus you think that the CC speaks with the authority not just of scripture, but of Christ himself. Non-Cs would hold that this is a flawed and self-serving interpretation of those verses.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And thus you think that the CC speaks with the authority not just of scripture, but of Christ himself. Non-Cs would hold that this is a flawed and self-serving interpretation of those verses.

Of course I do since that is what the scriptures tell me.

The Bible does not form the basis for believing the truth of the gospel; the Church does, and the Bible testifies to this.

[1 Timothy 3:15](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:15&version=NIV)
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Consequently, non-C’s need to consider that the Church spoke with just such authority for nearly 400 years before the canon of scripture was settled and another thousand years before printing presses made the scriptures available to the common man.

And, of course, she still does.

 

[awantz]

I don’t believe that everything one believes has to be written in the BIBLE, but if it’s not then you don’t have the right to try and force another person to believe it.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

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.

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.

The reason I am posting this is because I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have yet to find anything that supports this idea. I have concluded that the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that the Bible does not say this and therefore it is error.

I want all of us Catholics to understand that this is a fundamental doctrinal error of some communities of n-C Christianity and so there is no reason to get distressed when someone comes at you with this stuff, because the fact of the matter is …it’s NOT in the Bible itself.

Church Militant, to what exactly do you refer?
Your statement seems dodgy and quantitatively accusative.
What Catholic Dogma cannot be justified by Scripture?
As it stands, what you post is justification of heretical Modernism.
Please illustrate your intellectual cogitation by providing demonstrable examples.

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant, to what exactly do you refer?
Your statement seems dodgy and quantitatively accusative.
What Catholic Dogma cannot be justified by Scripture?
As it stands, what you post is justification of heretical Modernism.
Please illustrate your intellectual cogitation by providing demonstrable examples.

Read it again Kevin and maybe some of the rest of the thread…and see that I’m not talking about Catholic doctrine at all but Sola Scriptura.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Read it again Kevin and maybe some of the rest of the thread…and see that I’m not talking about Catholic doctrine at all but Sola Scriptura.

I asked you to clarify your supposition - this you have done. Thank you.
I suffer the same affliction, the presumption that others understand what I mean.

I agree with your premise - Sola Scripturais not a valid approach to theology.

St Augustine says, “The beginning of the good life, to which the eternal life also belongs, is true faith.”