Protestants, Please humour us Catholics here,

[adstrinity]

To answer the never answered question.

Take the journey with me in this scenario. Curious Protestant or Protestant Apologist asks, “Catholics, where in the Bible does it say insert question or statement here,” or, “Catholics, why, insert question or statement here,” or, “Show me where insert question or statement here,” and that is immediately, IMMEDIATELY followed up with a post, by a Catholic stating, “Show me where the Bible is the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Show me in the Bible where it says everything we need to know can be found in the Bible? Where is the list of books that shows which books should found in the Bible in the Bible?” This then goes on to post three that may or may not answer CP/PA’s original question.

I have yet to see a Protestant here answer this fly-by thow away question. It may be hypothetical, but, by not answering it, it gets asked in every other post. Catholics think that this is the one way to make Protestants come to their logical senses about this, but, my dad had an answer when I asked him (I was flabbergasted and couldn’t believe anybody as smart and logical as my dad could accept what he said), so, I am proposing to the Protestants on this board to please answer the following questions to show that one or all of you do have an answer that is non-Catholic, but, in your knowledge, perfectly acceptable. So,

Protestants, please,

1. If everything that we need to know as Christians is in the Bible, then where in the Bible does it give us the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? How do we know all of those books are supposed to be in the Bible if there is no list in the Bible?
2. By who’s authority was the books of the bible chosen?
3. If the bible was the sole source of authority, why does it not say so clearly in the Bible?
4. What about Christians before the bible was put together…where did they get their direction?
5. If the assertion that the bible is the sole rule of faith, what did the evangelizers use until 397 when the canon of the New Testament was set? *

If these questions look familiar, it is because they are asked on every hypothetical, “Show Me…,” post, but, I did c&p them from “What questions should I ask a fundamentalist,” as found in the Apologetics folder.*

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I had to shut up when I got someone to ask the right questions… it’s wonderful to ask them.

then to prove that the bible actually demands the church. I love acts 15 v 28-29, and the entirety- because it shows that what the church gsays is true, is true- The foods forbidden were forbidden on and in church authority for that short phase…

To answer the never answered question.

Take the journey with me in this scenario. Curious Protestant or Protestant Apologist asks, “Catholics, where in the Bible does it say insert question or statement here,” or, “Catholics, why, insert question or statement here,” or, “Show me where insert question or statement here,” and that is immediately, IMMEDIATELY followed up with a post, by a Catholic stating, “Show me where the Bible is the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Show me in the Bible where it says everything we need to know can be found in the Bible? Where is the list of books that shows which books should found in the Bible in the Bible?” This then goes on to post three that may or may not answer CP/PA’s original question.

I have yet to see a Protestant here answer this fly-by thow away question. It may be hypothetical, but, by not answering it, it gets asked in every other post. Catholics think that this is the one way to make Protestants come to their logical senses about this, but, my dad had an answer when I asked him (I was flabbergasted and couldn’t believe anybody as smart and logical as my dad could accept what he said), so, I am proposing to the Protestants on this board to please answer the following questions to show that one or all of you do have an answer that is non-Catholic, but, in your knowledge, perfectly acceptable. So,

Protestants, please,

1. If everything that we need to know as Christians is in the Bible, then where in the Bible does it give us the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? How do we know all of those books are supposed to be in the Bible if there is no list in the Bible?
2. By who’s authority was the books of the bible chosen?
3. If the bible was the sole source of authority, why does it not say so clearly in the Bible?
4. What about Christians before the bible was put together…where did they get their direction?
5. If the assertion that the bible is the sole rule of faith, what did the evangelizers use until 397 when the canon of the New Testament was set? *

If these questions look familiar, it is because they are asked on every hypothetical, “Show Me…,” post, but, I did c&p them from “What questions should I ask a fundamentalist,” as found in the Apologetics folder.*

 

[NDfan]

Protestants, please,

1. If everything that we need to know as Christians is in the Bible, then where in the Bible does it give us the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? How do we know all of those books are supposed to be in the Bible if there is no list in the Bible?

I think this question is worded incorrectly. Everything regarding faith and morals is contained in the Bible. That’s different than everything we need.

The 2nd part with regards to a list is also a meaningless question since the Bible is a collection of books. It’s not a book that has the list of books that are supposed to be contained in it. The Bible is a compilation of books, letters etc. To answer how the list was compiled it was through the power of the Holy Spirit. There’s no doubt the early church fathers did a remarkable job with establishing the canon and preserving it through all the persecutions. But the ultimate credit goes to the power of the Holy Spirit.

1. By who’s authority was the books of the bible chosen?

The Holy Spirit plain and simple.

1. If the bible was the sole source of authority, why does it not say so clearly in the Bible?

In the beginning of Luke’s Gospel he plainly states that he was writing an orderly account so that Theophilus would know if what he was taught orally was in fact true. What I would ask you back is why were certain works not accepted as official canon? Why have an established canon if all we need are oral teachings or sacred tradition? The canon must serve some purpose.

Point in fact if you compiled everything that the early church fathers taught orally with regards to our faith you would be able to re-create the NT almost word for word with the exception of about 16verses. You lose some of Phillipians. So the Bible may not emphatically make the statement that it is the sole source of authority, but the early church fathers certainly referred to scripture every time to defend the faith.

1. What about Christians before the bible was put together…where did they get their direction?

Considering that by the year 100AD all the works that eventually became the official canon were written and pretty well circulated (some better than others no doubt), Christians did have access to scripture. They also had the oral teachings of the Apostles who were still alive and the followers of the Apostles. There’s no question that oral teachings were critical to the advancement of the Gospel given that the average person probably couldn’t read very well. But what was taught was contained in scripture. Ignatius pushed very early to have an established canon to refute the terrible teachings of Marcion who rejected all the Gospels except Luke, and most works with the exception of the Pauline Epistles. Marcion then proceeded to re-write these works to better fit his beliefs. He was literally pulling Christians away from the church with is false teachings. Ignatius goal was to show by official canon that Marcion’s teachings were in fact false. If scripture was not viewed as the authority on the Christian faith then Ignatius sure went counter to what you are proposing.

1. If the assertion that the bible is the sole rule of faith, what did the evangelizers use until 397 when the canon of the New Testament was set? **

This question is invalid to begin with based partly on my response above. The problem you have is you think that nobody had access to any writings that are contained within the Bible. The works contained in the Bible were circulated pretty well prior to 100AD. Again obviously some better than others. The book that we now know as the Bible may not have been formally established until 400AD but the writings had been in use for hundreds of years prior to that. You make it seem that the Bible was assembled in 400AD and then given out to everyone to read for the very first time. The writings that make up the Bible existed long before a book called the Bible was created. In fact the definition of the word bible is:

• the sacred writings of any religion
• any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable

Another point that may interest you is one of the criteria the early church fathers used in selecting the canon. They compared what writings the Christian churches were using from all over the world to gauge what was accepted and what was not. John’s Gospel met with alot of resistance at first until Ignatius asserted that it was genuine.

If these questions look familiar, it is because they are asked on every hypothetical, “Show Me…,” post, but, I did c&p them from “What questions should I ask a fundamentalist,” as found in the Apologetics folder.

I’ve answered these questions several times but the threads always get de-railed and nothing ever gets accomplished.

PEACE

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

The three fold rule is vital- the evidence is against those who reject the teachings. All is in the bible, but implicidly, not all explicidly- we still need it’
s protector, I timothy II XV (I timothy 3 verse 15)

Pax Catholici

I think this question is worded incorrectly. Everything regarding faith and morals is contained in the Bible. That’s different than everything we need.

The 2nd part with regards to a list is also a meaningless question since the Bible is a collection of books. It’s not a book that has the list of books that are supposed to be contained in it. The Bible is a compilation of books, letters etc. To answer how the list was compiled it was through the power of the Holy Spirit. There’s no doubt the early church fathers did a remarkable job with establishing the canon and preserving it through all the persecutions. But the ultimate credit goes to the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit plain and simple.

In the beginning of Luke’s Gospel he plainly states that he was writing an orderly account so that Theophilus would know if what he was taught orally was in fact true. What I would ask you back is why were certain works not accepted as official canon? Why have an established canon if all we need are oral teachings or sacred tradition? The canon must serve some purpose.

Point in fact if you compiled everything that the early church fathers taught orally with regards to our faith you would be able to re-create the NT almost word for word with the exception of about 16verses. You lose some of Phillipians. So the Bible may not emphatically make the statement that it is the sole source of authority, but the early church fathers certainly referred to scripture every time to defend the faith.

Considering that by the year 100AD all the works that eventually became the official canon were written and pretty well circulated (some better than others no doubt), Christians did have access to scripture. They also had the oral teachings of the Apostles who were still alive and the followers of the Apostles. There’s no question that oral teachings were critical to the advancement of the Gospel given that the average person probably couldn’t read very well. But what was taught was contained in scripture. Ignatius pushed very early to have an established canon to refute the terrible teachings of Marcion who rejected all the Gospels except Luke, and most works with the exception of the Pauline Epistles. Marcion then proceeded to re-write these works to better fit his beliefs. He was literally pulling Christians away from the church with is false teachings. Ignatius goal was to show by official canon that Marcion’s teachings were in fact false. If scripture was not viewed as the authority on the Christian faith then Ignatius sure went counter to what you are proposing.

This question is invalid to begin with based partly on my response above. The problem you have is you think that nobody had access to any writings that are contained within the Bible. The works contained in the Bible were circulated pretty well prior to 100AD. Again obviously some better than others. The book that we now know as the Bible may not have been formally established until 400AD but the writings had been in use for hundreds of years prior to that. You make it seem that the Bible was assembled in 400AD and then given out to everyone to read for the very first time. The writings that make up the Bible existed long before a book called the Bible was created. In fact the definition of the word bible is:

• the sacred writings of any religion
• any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable

Another point that may interest you is one of the criteria the early church fathers used in selecting the canon. They compared what writings the Christian churches were using from all over the world to gauge what was accepted and what was not. John’s Gospel met with alot of resistance at first until Ignatius asserted that it was genuine.

I’ve answered these questions several times but the threads always get de-railed and nothing ever gets accomplished.

PEACE

 

[FdeS2]

The Holy Spirit is certainly the one who brought the books of the Bible into existence (inspiring the writers). Through the early church fathers, the Holy Spirit worked. However, having read the writings of the early church fathers, I find it impossible to see that they were anything but Catholic. Their discussions of Mary as perpetually Virgin and as the new Eve (St. Jerome and Iraneus of Lyons, respectively), the Eucharist (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome, and MANY others), infant baptism (Origen), and so many others effectively prove that they were Catholic (Ignatius of Antioch even called the church “Catholic” in the earl 100s).

Giving so much credence to the early church fathers, one should logically follow them in faith and join the Church that they were a part of!

Now the writings that make up the Bible all did exist from early on, but each region of the world had bits and pieces. Asia had a different combination of books than did the west, and so on… Only in the 4th century, when at a council they compiled the Biblical canon, did the Church receive universally a more complete picture of of faith, to be taught by those who understood that faith.

There was also more to the selection of the Biblical canon than simply what the people of the early Christian churches were using…

 

[adstrinity]

NDfan, thank you for your reply. I am grateful that you replied and a little forlorn that no other Protestant has. I hope that your reply enlightens Catholics on how this question may be seen, and I started this thread specifically because other threads never do answer the question.

Any other Protestants have any other answers…or the same answer? This thread is to prove to Catholics that this question isn’t as clever and one sided as some see it.

 

[NDfan]

The Holy Spirit is certainly the one who brought the books of the Bible into existence (inspiring the writers). Through the early church fathers, the Holy Spirit worked. However, having read the writings of the early church fathers, I find it impossible to see that they were anything but Catholic. Their discussions of Mary as perpetually Virgin and as the new Eve (St. Jerome and Iraneus of Lyons, respectively), the Eucharist (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome, and MANY others), infant baptism (Origen), and so many others effectively prove that they were Catholic (Ignatius of Antioch even called the church “Catholic” in the earl 100s).

Please tell me which early church father(s) talked about Mary’s perpetual virginity. When I say Early church father I mean someone immediately after the Apostles. The 4th and 5th century fathers don’t mean anything since most doctrines of Mary didn’t really appear until then. That shows that many beliefs regarding her surfaced much much later and were not consistent with Apostolic teachings.

With regards to your Catholic comment, do you even know what the word means? Ignatius used the word Catholic to describe the church. Saying wherever Jesus is there is the Kathilocos (Universal) church. We’re not Catholic, we are Christians. I don’t tell people I am universal. Your argument doesn’t effectively prove anything. It’s your own take on what some of the ECFs may have said.

Giving so much credence to the early church fathers, one should logically follow them in faith and join the Church that they were a part of! ]

I am a part of the church they are part of. I am part of Christ’s church plain and simple.

Now the writings that make up the Bible all did exist from early on, but each region of the world had bits and pieces. Asia had a different combination of books than did the west, and so on… Only in the 4th century, when at a council they compiled the Biblical canon, did the Church receive universally a more complete picture of of faith, to be taught by those who understood that faith.

An official canon may have been establilshed but the writings were already in use. I already conceded that not all writings were widely circulated. As far as getting a complete picture of the faith, you really don’t know what you are saying here. That implies that no one understood the Christian Faith until almost the 5th century. That is ludicrous.

There was also more to the selection of the Biblical canon than simply what the people of the early Christian churches were using…

I’m well aware of how the biblical canon was established. I merely made the point that one of the major criteria used was the works everyone was reading. If the Gospel of John for instance was widely accepted in Asia Minor and in Rome and other places, then strong consideration was given for including that work as official canon. Initially the works accepted were anything from the Apostles or their followers. This dates back to the early 100sAD. Then around 150AD when other works started to appear with names of the Apostles on them or other prominent names the church started to call into question their vaildity. The infancy Gospel of James and the Gospel of Phillip are good examples here. Both were rejected by the early church as not being authentic among others. The official list may not have been established until later on but by that time it was widely agreed upon as to which books were official canon.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

NDfan, thank you for your reply. I am grateful that you replied and a little forlorn that no other Protestant has. I hope that your reply enlightens Catholics on how this question may be seen, and I started this thread specifically because other threads never do answer the question.

Any other Protestants have any other answers…or the same answer? This thread is to prove to Catholics that this question isn’t as clever and one sided as some see it.

Adstrinity you are quite welcome. I think many Protestants, or at least ones who have strong negative feelings about Rome tend to shy away from this conversation. There’s no doubt the Roman Catholic church brought forth the official Bible and protected it.

Blessings

 

[Steadfast]

1. If everything that we need to know as Christians is in the Bible, then where in the Bible does it give us the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? How do we know all of those books are supposed to be in the Bible if there is no list in the Bible?

It doesn’t have to. Sola Scriptura says nothing about the extent of Scripture but, rather, speaks to its intent and pupose.

The question is irrelevant.

1. By who’s authority was the books of the bible chosen?

This question assumes a structure not in evidence. It assumes that the “chosenness” of the books defined their canonicity, when in fact the canonicity of the books is what made them “chosen”.

The Church has the competence and responsibility to guard the faith. Part of this entailed a certain superintendence over the process by which the canon was eventually established.

But it took a long, long time.

1. If the bible was the sole source of authority, why does it not say so clearly in the Bible?

Well, the Bible does say that God’s Word is effective, accomplishing all His purposes; i.e. that it does what He intends it to do and that it is, in fact, authoritative. God’s Word is certainly our sole source of authority.

The debate happens when we begin to inquire as to where we find It.

Protestants argue that the only place we can be sure to have it is in the Bible.

Catholics posit that the Church, as the guardian and custodian of God’s Word (written and unwritten) is an authority in the matter.

These positions are, epistemologically speaking, of a piece. Both rest upon assertions, it depends on the one assessing the claims to hash it out.

1. What about Christians before the bible was put together…where did they get their direction?

From the church as it carried out its duty to unpack, interpret and teach from however much of the Bible they happened to have had.

1. If the assertion that the bible is the sole rule of faith, what did the evangelizers use until 397 when the canon of the New Testament was set? **

I think most Protestants would say that the idea that the BIble was the “Sole Rule of Faith” was formulated as a reaction to what were perceived as excesses and transgressions in the church as it ruled in the lives and hearts of Christians.

Most Protestants do not suggest that this idea of the Bible as a sort of constitution of the church was there from the beginning, but that what Catholics call the “Magisterium” had effectively disqualified itself as being authoritative in the same sense that the Bible had always been held to be.

Thus the Bible became the “Sole Rule” by default.

 

[Syele]

To answer the never answered question.

Take the journey with me in this scenario. Curious Protestant or Protestant Apologist asks, “Catholics, where in the Bible does it say insert question or statement here,” or, “Catholics, why, insert question or statement here,” or, “Show me where insert question or statement here,” and that is immediately, IMMEDIATELY followed up with a post, by a Catholic stating, “Show me where the Bible is the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Show me in the Bible where it says everything we need to know can be found in the Bible? Where is the list of books that shows which books should found in the Bible in the Bible?” This then goes on to post three that may or may not answer CP/PA’s original question.

I have yet to see a Protestant here answer this fly-by thow away question. It may be hypothetical, but, by not answering it, it gets asked in every other post. Catholics think that this is the one way to make Protestants come to their logical senses about this, but, my dad had an answer when I asked him (I was flabbergasted and couldn’t believe anybody as smart and logical as my dad could accept what he said), so, I am proposing to the Protestants on this board to please answer the following questions to show that one or all of you do have an answer that is non-Catholic, but, in your knowledge, perfectly acceptable.

I generally don’t bother to answer it as its a generalization of what protestants believe and since I don’t think the Bible is the SOLE rule of Faith. It is the sole written rule of faith. There is a very big difference and absolutely no need for the Bible to say in it that “everything we need to know can be found in the Bible.” Just because the Bible is the only written authority, doesn’t follow that everything is contained in it.

So,

Protestants, please,

1. If everything that we need to know as Christians is in the Bible, then where in the Bible does it give us the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? How do we know all of those books are supposed to be in the Bible if there is no list in the Bible?

the problem with this question is the IF. the answer to “if it is…” is that “it isn’t”. so why answer?

1. By who’s authority was the books of the bible chosen?

The Holy Spirit.

1. If the bible was the sole source of authority, why does it not say so clearly in the Bible?

there is the IF again. It clearly says its the Word of God. That is clear enough for me to believe what it says.

1. What about Christians before the bible was put together…where did they get their direction?

God is very powerful. He can direct our paths.

1. If the assertion that the bible is the sole rule of faith, what did the evangelizers use until 397 when the canon of the New Testament was set? **

Jesus Trained His disciples to evangelize and carry on His ministry. They were there first hand and were taught my Jesus Himself. They trained others in the same manner. Humans can be wrong though and make mistakes. especially when passing down things they learned from people before them to another generation, and then to another and another. People don’t always properly understand things they are told (If you don’t believe me reference the Cafeteria Catholics or even many denominations of Protestantism). Written Scriptures allow information to be the same from generation to generation. The Scriptures are not a product of a Human organization. they are there because God inspired them, guided them, and further inspired people to compile them.

If these questions look familiar, it is because they are asked on every hypothetical, “Show Me…,” post, but, I did c&p them from “What questions should I ask a fundamentalist,” as found in the Apologetics folder.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit Guides only a few Christians, or that He inspired the Scriptures and the compilation of them and then stopped inspiring people. I DO believe that God won’t Contradict Himself. I am convinced the written Scripture is God’s Word. I’m not convinced that every poster here is listening to God and can speak for Him. This means that I WILL, at times, ask for where something is in the Scriptures. That doesn’t mean I believe in sola Scriptura, It means I trust the known Word of God more than I trust you. I generally ignore these questions when they are spouted in answer to a show me question. They assume all protestants are sola scriptura, they assume ignorance of how the canon was compiled, they assume that my show me question is insincere. Then cause I don’t feel like listing all this out on every thread, the poster assumes its cause I’m stumped. Meanwhile my show me question rarely gets actually answered, and an opportunity to show the that Catholics are correct and the One true Church was missed entirely.

Perhaps you should really think about if the timing is right to ask those “questions should I ask a fundamentalist” rather than popping them in every thread where someone says “please show me…”

 

[FdeS2]

In the mid-400s, St. Vincent of Lerins compiled a set of criteria of who the early church fathers were, based on antiquity, holiness of life, Church approval, and orthodox doctrine. Now this is where the early church fathers were first defined, but I suppose you can use whatever time period you wish to. The early church fathers are technically those that meet the above criteria and lived from the 1st to the 8th centuries (St. John of Damascus was the last one).

As a Catholic, I’m fairly certain that I know it means “universal.” Interestingly enough, NDfan, there is still a church that calls itself by that term. It has been an adjective throughout our history, not just our name. The Roman (from Rome) Catholic (universal) Church… see how that works?

Let’s see if I can find some Eucharistic (and therefore Catholic) thoughts in early church fathers that match your criteria. Ah, yes, Irenaeus of Lyons (125-202)… here’s a passage from his work, “Against Heresies”: "Directing his disciples to offer God the first-fruits of His own creation ---- not because He stood in need of them, but that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful ---- He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ‘This is my body’ (Mt 26:26). And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant. This the Church has received from the Apostles, and offers now throughout all the world…

Then how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the Body of the Lord and with His Blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."
---- ANF 1: 484, 486

(Iraneus also loved Mary, and wrote about her as “Mary the Virgin”)

There’s one… I can put in writings from Hippolytus of Rome in the next segment, if you’d like, and there are more to come after that. ALL of the early church fathers were Catholic, and taught the same things that the Catholic Church continues to teach. One need only read all of their writings, without putting one’s own spin/criteria on them, to see the unfolding of the faith. It is most obvious when they speak of the Eucharist, of Mary, and of other Catholic dogmas. Your denial of these truths takes nothing away from them, dear NDfan.

You state that I imply that people did not have a complete picture of the faith until the 5th century. I implied nothing of the kind, and I would appreciate sticking to what was said and not how it is interpreted. I repeat, the writings were all written, but not everyone had all of the writings. It was very helpful to have a set canon, in order to defend against heresies that were arising from random priests and other deviants springing up all around.

The Gospels of James and Philip were rejected for other reasons than that as well… they had theologically unsound teaching in them, along with other false gospels. The early church was very strict and stuck to what was true, without allowing heresy to infiltrate the faith. References to this should logically lead you to understand that it does not make sense to say that the church would allow change to occur, like the supposedly inaccurate doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (by the way… this is from St. Jerome, who lived from 342-420; If you read his writings, you will see how utterly brilliant the man is, and what an excellent biblical scholar).

 

[Bwsherman]

Please tell me which early church father(s) talked about Mary’s perpetual virginity. When I say Early church father I mean someone immediately after the Apostles.

St. James in his Protoevangelism (120 A.D.) writes on the perpetual virginity of our Lady: www.earlychurchfathers.org . There are other Church Fathers who have written on this topic, but for whatever reason you choose to not accept their writings and yet you would seemingly be stating on your own terms that you would accept this because of a time frame issue. In any case, there it is.

Pax