Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[po18guy]

…debase the Bible…

Never! It’s just that the bible isn’t all of Christ. It’s part of Him.

If the Bible has errors as you claim then is it possible that Catholic Traditions might have errors as well?

Whoa! It’s the KJV translation that has errors. Google “KJV translation errors” to see. One King of England who had absolutely no claim of apostolic succession approved of it. Printing errors compounded that. Scripture itself is inerrant. How can traditions have errors, since Christ gave the absolute authority to “bind and loose” to Peter in Matthew 16:19?

What authority do I have to interpret the Catechism?

None is required. It is the explanation of the revelation and distillation of 1,977 years of Christian history.

I am searching only for the reason that the Catholic Church makes the claim of being the True Church and if this is true I do not want to be left out.

Every other Christian church was formed by someone who broke away from the Catholic church, or further broke away from someone who had. The Catholic church traces directly back to Christ. No interruptions, no “hidden” church, no “great apostacy”. Just one, unbroken line. Remember, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. We believe Christ from scripture. Ego has lead many of the faithful astray, most notably Judas, but as the One Church, she still stands, thank God Almighty.

You come from a bible background, which is a great starting point since ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. But, please realize that Protestantism discarded much of what had been consistent Christian practice for 1,500 years at the time. We believe everything in the bible, but we believe more. We believe in the seven Sacraments, not just two. We take John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 literally, not interpreted. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our faith.

We do not cut and paste our beliefs, since the bible (OT+NT) is one, continuous history of God’s covenants with man. Scripture is like a jigsaw puzzle. It’s one big picture. You can’t break the jigsaw puzzle up and just flash pieces of it to see the entire picture, or to form a belief system. You can’t use scriptural sound bites, throw away whole books, or add even ONE word and claim to have God’s full revelation.

Apostolic succession is a big stumbling block to Protestants. It started in Acts 1:15-26, with Matthias replacing Judas. That’s scripture. Each Catholic Priest can trace his ordination back to one of the Twelve. The laying on of hands accomplishes this today just as it did then. It has been continuous.

We haven’t made this stuff up. It’s all in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. But, realize that Protestant interpretation is different, since it had to change interpretation to justify leaving a church that needed reform, but eventually got it. Don’t you want the faith that goes all the way back?

If indeed you are sincere, we will delight in interacting with you. We’re just gun shy from all of the attacks. So, ask away.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[agangbern]

My question is this: Who is the 12th Apostle named in the foundation of the new Jeruselum?
Paul or Mathias?

Who else do you think? Were not the twelve already complete? Do you think Paul is one of the 12? He is not one of them.

 

[agangbern]

I cannot speak for anyone else so I will say my view goes back about 15 years, when I decided to believe what I was reading about Jesus.

So you are saying that you now have faith in Jesus because you have been reading about him and believed in what you have read, right?

 

[agangbern]

I do not worship a book either, but the one its words point to.

That’s better. It simply shows that you are not a slave of a book but the person whom the book points to.

I guess the real question here is can this 50% that you speak of contained in the Bible be enough for Salvation? If so then why practice the traditions?

The bible is not enough for salvation. In fact it cannot save because it is not itself the Savior. It only points to the true Savior, Jesus Christ. And once one finds Jesus, then he too will find the Church that He built and whom He declared as His bride.

I have more than a book as well, I believe that I have Christ interceeding for me to the Father, my local Church, the teachings of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and the Holy Spirit as promised by God in the Bible. Do I need more?

You need God’s confirmation of your belief. How can you be sure that your personal interpretation of passages of the bible are the ones approved by God?

 

[po18guy]

I do not worship a book either, but the one its words point to. If the Bible contains the Word of God, and Jesus is the Living Word then hopefully you can see what I mean.

Yes, I can see it. I am simply telling you that there is more to Christ.

I do not believe that your use of John 21:25 can be used to make your point. It does nat say that the Bible is incomplete, only that Jesus did many other things. I understand this to be other works of miracles and such, not every single example of Christ displaying his Divinity is recorded in this Gospel.

Neither are all of His teachings in scripture. The Holy Spirit taught the disciples what to say, but also what to practice. It is clear that the Apostles never originally intended to write the Gospels. They were written only at the end of the Apostles’ lives, so that tradition would have its perfect counterpart in scripture. They were written when the Apostles realized that Christ’s return would not be in their lifetime. Since much tradition was already established and in practice, there was no need to write down what they were already practicing.

Does the Catholic Church have records of these many other things?

No. They are lost to us. The point being that there was and is more to Christ, and more to following Him. The Church that you are questioning is the only reason that you even have a bible. The Catholic Church preserved it, at a cost in blood, for posterity. Where do you think Luther got his bible?

I guess the real question here is can this 50% that you speak of contained in the Bible be enough for Salvation? If so then why practice the traditions?

You just might make it to heaven with 50%. Why risk it? One reason for tradition is to have everyone in your One Church on the same page. The big Tradition is the Eucharist, established by Christ in John 6. Why would an entire chapter of scripture be devoted to a “figurative” eating of His Body? He could have said it in one or two sentences. Christ is not One to waste words. It is not a parable. It was begun by Jesus and has continued ever since. It is well portrayed in the last supper scene from The Passion of the Christ.

I have more than a book as well, I believe that I have Christ interceeding for me to the Father, my local Church, the teachings of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and the Holy Spirit as promised by God in the Bible. Do I need more?

“Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day” (John 6:53-54). He gives us the formula, just as he gave the formula for being “born again” by “water and the Holy Spirit” (John 3:3-5) He said it. He did it. We believe it. We do it. It’s just that simple.

Since we believe that God can do anything, and created heaven and earth from nothing, why is it so hard to believe that He, in Christ, changed the substance of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood? Especially since His command was later recorded in scripture, which documents the tradition that Christ established.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[agangbern]

So all are under Peter?

Yes, not according to the wisdom of this world, but in the sense that it was to Peter that Christ specially said to him three times in John 21, “Feed my lambs.” All true Christians are such lambs.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
You can be a slave to man, or a slave to sin, but the Lord frees you. If you are a slave to the bible, your faith appears disordered.

It is disordered to submit to my Master who is God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)?

You are asking the unquestionable question! That is very far from what pol8guy wrote above!

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
The KJV has over 2,600 translation errors, that’s why.

It is just quite baffling to me that I find myself trying to defend the Word of God written down in the bible on a Christian site to show the way I believe. It seems that the arguments against my point have to debase the Bible by saying that its revelations are incomplete or full of errors. I am not a Catholic and some of my questions do question Tradition. Honestly at this point in my life I would much rather be defending the Bible over Tradition. If I can be shown otherwise then I must change.

If the Bible has errors as you claim then is it possible that Catholic Traditions might have errors as well?

Just be honest byoby! po18guy did not say above that the bible has errors! You can read his subject post again.

 

[guanophore]

I will explain my logic. The Bible is a collection of the Holy Spirit, Son, and the Father’s Word written down for us through the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles of His choosing. I agree and fully recognize that the Holy Spirit is our teacher.

If this is true, why would you then be disobedient to the Teachings of that Spirit by separating yourself from the Authority appointed by Jesus?

 I only know what I know about Him from the writings of the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

This is not true. You also know of Him by the testimony of His body,the Church. You may not realize that you have accepted the Church as a source of Divine Revelation, since you do not know your family history very well, but you have.

Does the Successor succeed all of the Apostles or only Peter?

All of the Apostles appointed successors. Their lineage can be traced in all the bishops around the world today.

I think that all New Testament Books were written after the time of Pentecost, therefore they could and I believe do contain all Truth for Salvation and doctrine.

If this is true, would not the Bible say this about itself? Also, if this is true, then why did Jesus need to found a Church? Why would He say that His Church would remain until the end of the age? Why not dissolve it after the Bible was written?

It is disordered to submit to my Master who is God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)?

No, but it is wrong to separate the Holy Scriptures from the Sacred Tradition from which they came.

 

[guanophore]

So all are under Peter?

In as Peter has long since gone unto his heavenly reward, I think not. However, all who are Christians have been baptized into Christ, and are members of His Body, the Church. He cannot be separated from His Church, and there is only one Church. Jesus left a visible authority in charge of His Body on earth in the Apostles. This authority has been passed on through the Apostolic Succession. Those who are members of Christ are united with the successors of the Apostles. The Petrine gifts are unique to the Pope, and yes, the Pope is responsible as shepherd of the whole flock of God.

You might be interested in a recent thread here called “Rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff” on this topic.

I guess the real question here is can this 50% that you speak of contained in the Bible be enough for Salvation? If so then why practice the traditions?

What you have been taught about salvation is an error. This error proceeded from the rejection of the Authority established by Jesus, and the authority that produced the scriptures to which you cling.

I have more than a book as well, I believe that I have Christ interceeding for me to the Father, my local Church, the teachings of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and the Holy Spirit as promised by God in the Bible. Do I need more?

Perhaps not. One begins to wonder, why are you here?

 

[byoby]

Just be honest byoby! po18guy did not say above that the bible has errors! You can read his subject post again.

Sorry, I will restate.

It has been stated that there are translation errors. This still does not change my point.

 

[byoby]

Thank you everyone for responding to my thoughts. I do not have time to respond to all. I will say that we probably have different definitions for the word “Church”. I believe the “True Church” is the entire body of believers who have been saved through faith in Jesus as our eternal atoning sacrifice and follow his commands as written down for us by the Apostles in the Bible. We are all members of the True Church if we adhere to what the Holy Spirit inspired men to record in the bible regardless if it is learned by reading or spoken orally.I believe that what I know is Apostolic teachings because I learn from the writings of the Apostles. I realize that the early church had oral teachings that were passed on through tradition because they did not have the new testament as we do today as it was a work in progress. Today we do have these writings such as Romans, Hebrews, etc. that do contain what was being taught in the early church.

I would ask where is Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox in the Bible? Should not we just call ourselves Christians?

 

[byoby]

You are asking the unquestionable question! That is very far from what pol8guy wrote above!

What is the Bible?

 

[guanophore]

Thank you everyone for responding to my thoughts. I do not have time to respond to all. I will say that we probably have different definitions for the word “Church”. I believe the “True Church” is the entire body of believers who have been saved through faith in Jesus as our eternal atoning sacrifice and follow his commands as written down for us by the Apostles in the Bible. We are all members of the True Church if we adhere to what the Holy Spirit inspired men to record in the bible regardless if it is learned by reading or spoken orally.I believe that what I know is Apostolic teachings because I learn from the writings of the Apostles. I realize that the early church had oral teachings that were passed on through tradition because they did not have the new testament as we do today as it was a work in progress. Today we do have these writings such as Romans, Hebrews, etc. that do contain what was being taught in the early church.

I would ask where is Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox in the Bible? Should not we just call ourselves Christians?

I would agree with this except that there are some who believe in Christ by faith who have never been baptized, which is the manner in which Jesus ordained that we should become members of His body. You also reject the teaching authority that Jesus appointed for His Church. But yes, we are all Christians. Some are imperfectly joined to the Body, having rejected the Teachings of those who penned the Holy Scriptures.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
Just be honest byoby! po18guy did not say above that the bible has errors! You can read his subject post again.

Sorry, I will restate.

It has been stated that there are translation errors. This still does not change my point.

It changed the point from “the bible has errors” to “there are translations that has errors”. The two concepts are never the same. But if to you the point has not changed, then we simply have to disagree on this aspect.

 

[agangbern]

What is the Bible?

Sorry, but I start to doubt your sincerity. Your post above is # 728 already. You certainly know what the Catholic Church refer to as the bible, otherwise, you should have asked the question right in your first post in this thread.

 

[agangbern]

I would ask where is Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox in the Bible? Should not we just call ourselves Christians?

Christians. Yes, that is how the followers of Christ are called. But the Church which is the house of God, how is it to be called? Jesus said in Mark 11:17, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? What does “for all nations” mean? It means “Catholic”. Jesus was therefore saying that His house, or His Church, shall be called “Catholic Church”.

 

[byoby]

I would agree with this except that there are some who believe in Christ by faith who have never been baptized, which is the manner in which Jesus ordained that we should become members of His body. You also reject the teaching authority that Jesus appointed for His Church. But yes, we are all Christians. Some are imperfectly joined to the Body, having rejected the Teachings of those who penned the Holy Scriptures.

What about the thief on the cross? He obviously was not baptised in the visible sense by water but was told by Jesus that today he would be with him in paradise.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I would ask where is Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox in the Bible? Should not we just call ourselves Christians?

Catholic comes from the Greek word katholikos, which means universal. It is found in Acts as, I think, two words and is translated “throughout the whole”. It was first used to describe the Church by Saint Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century.

Orthodox means “right belief” and is also a descriptor for the Church. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox use it as a name - as the Catholic Church uses catholic - but the Catholic Church also describes herself as orthodox.

Protestant means to protest, to dissent. Pretty much the only time in the Bible dissenters are mentioned is with satan and his angels.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

What about the thief on the cross? He obviously was not baptised in the visible sense by water but was told by Jesus that today he would be with him in paradise.

It’s called Baptism of desire.