Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[Mannyfit75]

The mass predates the old testament scriptures?

The Holy Spirit flowed out of men of God’s choosing to write His Word, not the Mass or Magisterium. An argument could be made for the Church which all Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles are members although we might have a different definition of Church.

Before the Church Age, it was just Judaism. God establish his covenant with the Jewish people through the Patriarchs. After Jesus established a New Covenant, he founded a Church, build upon the Apostles. The Apostles were succeeded by Bishops by laying on the hands.

I also like to add that the Mass does not pre-date Old Testament Scripture. The first Mass was called Mass. It was commonly called “Breaking of the Bread” in Acts.

The Mass itself is based on Paschal Sacrifice of the Passover. A lamb is offer to God for the atonement of sins for the Jewish people. The lamb is spotless and not one bone is to be broken. In the Mass, the Lamb of God, who is Jesus is offered to the Father.

The consecrated Host becomes Jesus. It makes the sacrifice of the cross present. It transcends time and space.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The mass predates the old testament scriptures?

Yes it does! Read all about it here:
newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm or really any independent historical source. Do not read what people THINK the CC believes. Read the facts.

The Holy Spirit flowed out of men of God’s choosing to write His Word, not the Mass or Magisterium. An argument could be made for the Church which all Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles are members although we might have a different definition of Church.

The Holy Spirit is God in the third person of the Trinity. HS was given to us at Pentecost by God, HS does not come from man but from God. HS protects the Church so the “gates of Hell will not prevail against her.”

I never said that baptism does not save, I said water baptism does not save. The question is which baptism? Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.

If it is the physical act of water baptism that saves then in theory we could by force save someone who does not want to be with Christ. I believe that your faith produces the good work, not that your good work produces faith. This is plainly shown in the bible by the Pharisees (spelling?) and Scribes who did good works of the law without faith or had faith in their own good works and were condemned.

Jesus condemned them because they were hypocrites. Telling people what to do, not doing themselves. They cared more about people following the law, than in God, or the purpose behind the Law. In a sense, they were worshipping the law. (re: healing on the Sabbath was a forbidden work)

If water baptism always followed belief and people were saved without water baptism then can I assume that people are saved by their belief and faith in God?

We must PARTICIPATE Christ’s saving Grace. One can be baptized, but they condemn themselves if they do not participatee in what Baptism requires: following in the footsteps of Jesus, following His commandments, putting God FIRST in our lives. The Sacraments give us the Grace we need to participate in the unfinished work of Christ (Col 1:24)

 

[Orionthehunter]

The mass predates the old testament scriptures?

The Holy Spirit flowed out of men of God’s choosing to write His Word, not the Mass or Magisterium. An argument could be made for the Church which all Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles are members although we might have a different definition of Church.

I should have said New Testament Scripture. I guess I thought it would be known what I meant. Sorry for hte confusion.

Yes, the Holy Spirit inspired all of the Scripture writers. However, there were several other steps which required the Holy Spirit for us to get the Bible.

The Writer had to be inspired and follow the inspiration.

The reason that it flowed from the Mass is that after the Gospels and Epistles were written, they were used for Mass readings. For hundreds of years, there was no Bible. But as copies of individual letters got exchanged between cities like Corinth and Ephesus, new writings (Scripture) was read at the Mass. It was the Mass itself that was the instrument for the preservation, exchange, and ultimately canonization of what we now know as the Bible.

The Church had to assess these writings and many others (some of which may have been written by these same writers). It was in this process that the Holy Spirit flowed from through Magisterium to determine what was inspired.

The Canonization of Scripture into one book had three motives:

1. Extinquish false teaching. In addition to readings from what we now know as the Bible, other religious writings were read at the Mass which were deemed collectively by the Church as not inspired despite certain locales which held them to be so. It is also very important that until the canonization of the Bible, the only source of learning (catechesis) was at the Mass. They read whatever portion of Scripture they had available in that local church. Except for the Sees, some of the more distant churches for a long time might have only had a single letter or a few letters and maybe one of the Gospels. After the canonization (and prior the printing press 1,200 years later), the Bible was hand copied and the only copy was in the safekeeping of the Priest.
2. Protect the Mass: Reading false writings during the Liturgy of the Word is of course unacceptable.
3. Protect Tradition: As time passed, later writings of Early Church Father’s were introduced during the Liturgy of the Word. While the writing may not have been heretical or scandalous, the Church did not find it good that the Apostolic Writings were sharing time with later writers.

All of these were done by an exertion the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium which Protestants reject.

It really is ironic that non-Catholic Christians who hold singularly to Scripture as the only source of revealed Teaching and condemn the Mass, Magisterium and Tradition don’t realize these stubborn little facts. Without Tradition, the Mass, and the Magisterium, we wouldn’t have what we now know as the Bible.

 

[agangbern]

Should not we test Tradition and Teachings against Scripture?

How do you propose to do it, when the scripture itself would declare that it is the Church who is the pillar and mainstay of the truth?

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the thief needed further purification, that’s all.

Father Ken Roberts used to preach about purgatory using the example of the good thief. He would ask: “When did the good thief go to heaven? Was it Good Friday? No, because the gates of heaven were still closed. Was it on Easter? No, because Christ had not ascended yet. Christ ascended 43 days after Good Friday, so where was the thief? He didn’t just cease to exist, he had to be somewhere. Was he in Heaven? No. Was he in hell? No. Well then, where the hell was he? Purgatory. Like the Trinity, the word isn’t in the bible, but it’s described.”

 

[milesawayman]

I’d like to ask a question however, where do you get the impression that you “have to base any belief on what the Bible says.”?

Does the Bible say that? Or does the Bible say?

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?

Which Bible (the first is from a book not included in most Protestant Bibles - it’s from the Douay-Rheims)? Here are some quotes to help…

“And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. With godliness… Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” - 2 Maccabees 12:43-46

I find it “funny” that the Jews, even today, pray for their dead (i.e., such as at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem). They’ve been doing this for thousands of years. They say prayers for 9 months after the passing of a loved one. I’m sure Jesus did this. St. Paul did do this as mentioned in Scripture (2 Timothy 1:16-18). This practice was not forbidden by Christ. So why wouldn’t Christians today continue this practice as the Catholics have?

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” - 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

“I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.” - Luke 12:59

“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.” - Matthew 12:32

In regards to this passage of Scripture, I’ll let St. Thomas Aquinas explain from the Summa:

“Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in Heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in Hell, because they cannot be loosed from sins. Therefore after this life, there are some not yet loosed from sins, who can be loosed therefrom; and the like have charity, without which sins cannot be loosed, for ‘charity covereth all sins’ [Prov. 10:12]. Hence they will not be consigned to everlasting death, since ‘he that liveth and believeth in Me, shall not die for ever’ [Jn. 11:26]: nor will they obtain glory without being cleansed, because nothing unclean shall obtain it, as stated in the last chapter of the Apocalypse (Rev. 21:27). Therefore some kind of cleansing remains after this life.”

Yours in Christ,

milesawayman

 

[byoby]

How do you propose to do it, when the scripture itself would declare that it is the Church who is the pillar and mainstay of the truth?

I agree seeing how the bible was written by members of the Church.

 

[byoby]

I’d like to ask a question however, where do you get the impression that you “have to base any belief on what the Bible says.”?

Because it is written by the members of the earliest church and these writings are agreed upon by all Christians as truly God Breathed writings.

 

[MariaG]

This is the point I have been trying to make.

Water baptism is not what saves us, but it is an act of obediance. Therefore I believe any truly born again Christian will want to get baptised out of a response to God’s free gift of salvation. Who would not if you truly believe and have faith in Christ? On the other hand there will be people who get baptised that are not truly born again simply because it is expected of them or they have a false view that because they did the act of baptism they have checked the box for salvation.

It seems logical to me that water baptism is not the crux of our salvation but it is our belief and faith in Christ. We have to continue in our faith until the end.

If water baptism is the crux then all new & old test. Saints who have not been baptised by water would not be saved.

Thank you for restating my 2nd point.

You make a distinction between “water baptism” and baptism. Am I correct in saying that you define “water baptism” as simply the act of pouring or immersing, divorced from any faith?

This is not how the Catholic Church, nor scripture defines it. Baptism by water, is the means by which we are born again into the body of Christ. How is this possible? Through Christ’s sacrifice. How do we know this? Through faith.

Again, while the Catholic Church and scripture clearly teach that one should be baptized with water to recieve the Holy Spirit, scripture is also clear that God can choose to save anyone however He wants to.

Respectfully, you seem to be stuck on what YOU think Catholic believe “water” baptism is rather than what we actually believe.

Sometimes it is too hard for people to believe that Catholics actually believe baptism saves because we have faith in Christ and His promises.

Part of the problem lies with the issue even with faith, if baptism is only a symbol, or something in which God actually does something to our souls.

May I suggest you open a thread on one or possibly two subjects?

Original sin would be the best in my opinion, since it cuts to the heart of the matter, but the other would be to specifically discuss Regenerative baptism. Both are being discussed here, but I think more understanding would happen if they would be targeted more specifically:twocents:

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by milesawayman View Post
I’d like to ask a question however, where do you get the impression that you “have to base any belief on what the Bible says.”?

Because it is written by the members of the earliest church and these writings are agreed upon by all Christians as truly God Breathed writings.

Is the above belief of yours, byoby, also said by the Bible?

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

Oh,for goodness sake,why doesn’t everyone quit arguing?Prodestants and Catholics both love Jesus,and thats all that really matters.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by byoby View Post
Should not we test Tradition and Teachings against Scripture?

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
How do you propose to do it, when the scripture itself would declare that it is the Church who is the pillar and mainstay of the truth?

I agree seeing how the bible was written by members of the Church.

You mean to say that you now withdraw your suggestion that we test Tradition and Teachings against Scriptures"? Or, what did you agree with?

 

[guanophore]

I believe that the baptism that Christ underwent for us is what saves us.

I agree, however, the manner in which He wished us to become participants in that salvation is by being born again from above by water and spirit. Perhaps you would like to move this discussion on the baptism thread, since we are now completely off topic?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=193213

 

[agangbern]

Oh,for goodness sake,why doesn’t everyone quit arguing?Prodestants and Catholics both love Jesus,and thats all that really matters.

1 Corinthians 11:19, “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Btw, a site for the Orthodox take on sola scriptura, Scripture, etc.

www.ocabs.org

The Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies.

 

[guanophore]

Oh,for goodness sake,why doesn’t everyone quit arguing?Prodestants and Catholics both love Jesus,and thats all that really matters.

Because Jesus says that those who love Him will keep His commandments:

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments” John 14:15

And that those that don’t obey will be damned:

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; **he who does not obey the Son **shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. John 3:36

The disagreement seems to be about what exactly is the command, and how to go about obeying it.

We are having this problem BECAUSE we love Him!

 

[guanophore]

In the bible, baptism always followed belief. If it is the physical act of water baptism that saves then in theory we could by force save someone who does not want to be with Christ.

No, this is not the case. Faith must be present in order for the sacrament to be valid. Otherwise it is just going through a form of godliness, without the power thereof. It is like the priests, who practice the celebration of the eucharist during preparation. It is not a valid mass until after they are ordained.

I believe that your faith produces the good work, not that your good work produces faith.

Well, both things are true!

This is plainly shown in the bible by the Pharisees (spelling?) and Scribes who did good works of the law without faith or had faith in their own good works and were condemned.

Yes, I agree with your point here. I still hold that good works can increase faith, though.

If water baptism always followed belief and people were saved without water baptism then can I assume that people are saved by their belief and faith in God?

Of course! The only problem is that many folks separate faith from the action of water baptism, which is not appropriate. This is not how it came to us from the Apostles.

 

[po18guy]

The mass predates the old testament scriptures?

Think about this: the mass is defined and predicted in OT scripture. The bloodless bread and wine sacrifice of Melchizedek in Genesis 14. He was the only man in scripture who was both Priest and King. (Christ is Priest, Prophet and King) He was King of Salem, which later became Jerusalem. His bloodless sacrifice was completely different from the bloody sacrifice of the Levites. He ministered to Abram (later renamed by God: Abraham), and so was an extremely important part of God’s covenant with man.

Genesis 14:18-20
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I agree seeing how the bible was written by members of the Church.

Are you saying that this section of the Bible is not God-breathed?

 

[byoby]

You mean to say that you now withdraw your suggestion that we test Tradition and Teachings against Scriptures"? Or, what did you agree with?

Not at all. I mean to say that God moved men in the early church to write the Gospels and letters that contain the doctrines and revelations of the earliest church. If we agree that the bible is the Word of God and God never changes then the bible is the standard we are to test our traditions and teachings with.