Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[qui_est_ce]

CORRECT!

Now that’t the kind of discussion this forum seeks to promote!

 

[Protestant101]

Now that’t the kind of discussion this forum seeks to promote!

Sola Scriptura

Here you will see a brief definition of Sola Scriptura. It states that

“the holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God; and that whatsoever mankind ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein.”

“Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule.”

Can Catholics show from the Bible why what we need to believe for salvation is not sufficiently taught therein? I haven’t seen it yet.

The official Adventist belief is closely aligned with that of the Reformation of the Middle Ages:

1. The Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

**
**
My question remains: in what area of the Bible does it fall short, and not give enough knowledge for our salvation?

 

[Lampo]

Sola Scriptura

Here you will see a brief definition of Sola Scriptura. It states that

Can Catholics show from the Bible why what we need to believe for salvation is not sufficiently taught therein? I haven’t seen it yet.

The official Adventist belief is closely aligned with that of the Reformation of the Middle Ages:

**
**
My question remains: in what area of the Bible does it fall short, and not give enough knowledge for our salvation?

Does every Protestant denomination adhere to this definition? Again, Catholics do not go by the “Bible Alone” (Sola Scriptura). Catholics are not bound by “it must be in the Bible”, as Protestants are. Catholics, having the fullness of revealed Truth have all three modes of divine revelation - Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

 

[bengal_fan]

Does every Protestant denomination adhere to this definition? .

not exactly. i would say i differ on this word:

*“the holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God; and that whatsoever mankind ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein.” *

i believe it should be replace with “found”. everything we need for salvation can be found therein. notice it doesn’t say that every way we can experience God is found therein.

 

[Protestant101]

Does every Protestant denomination adhere to this definition? Again, Catholics do not go by the “Bible Alone” (Sola Scriptura). Catholics are not bound by “it must be in the Bible”, as Protestants are. Catholics, having the fullness of revealed Truth have all three modes of divine revelation - Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Catholics actually do not have the corner on “truth;” for the scriptures define what are the bounds of Tradition and Church authority; magisterium) both of which must in all respects agree with the Holy Bible; or it is not Biblical.

“Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet;” (Ps.119:105); not “Thy Tradition” or “Thy Magisterium.” Tradition and Magisterium would have be under authority of the Bible.

 

[Lampo]

Well, there are at least two protestants that don’t agree on the definition of a protestant core belief - sola scripture. How can Protestant101 say that qui est ce’s definition is wrong then?

 

[Lampo]

“Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet;” (Ps.119:105); not “Thy Tradition” or “Thy Magisterium.” Tradition and Magisterium would have be under authority of the Bible.

Catholics agree 100% with that passage. Both written AND SPOKEN (oral Tradition.)

 

[Protestant101]

Correct. Both written AND SPOKEN (oral Tradition.)

This is exactly why God has it so that the “spoken” word is tested by the written word. We sometimes lose track of what was actually said; that’s why the Bible needs to be the final or ultimate authority; not meaning the only one.

 

[bengal_fan]

This is exactly why God has it so that the “spoken” word is tested by the written word. We sometimes lose track of what was actually said; that’s why the Bible needs to be the final or ultimate authority; not meaning the only one.

so you believe in prima scriptura (scripture first or above or primary) rather than sola scriptura (scripture alone). good, welcome to my side… muuuaaaahhhhhh!!! (maniacal laughter)

 

[Lampo]

This is exactly why God has it so that the “spoken” word is tested by the written word. We sometimes lose track of what was actually said; that’s why the Bible needs to be the final or ultimate authority; not meaning the only one.

What passage are you referring to when you make this claim? Or is this your fallible interpretation? Where in Scripture did Jesus tell anyone to write down ANYTHING He said or did?

 

[Lampo]

This is exactly why God has it so that the “spoken” word is tested by the written word. We sometimes lose track of what was actually said; that’s why the Bible needs to be the final or ultimate authority; not meaning the only one.

So the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth?

 

[Lampo]

Around 397 AD, the Council of Carthage ratified the Council of Hippo, which approved the Canon of Scripture. BTW, is the same canon in the Catholic Bible today. All disputes ended until Luther, 1,100 years later!

There was only one Christian Church at the time - the CC. The assurance that you have that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is based on the authority of the CC. And what authority is that? Apostolic Authority

 

[qui_est_ce]

i agree that the councils were convened to mostly deal with heresies arising. there were many arguments and disagreements in these councils but eventually decisions would be made and the church would move forward. i see the councils where the books of scripture being decided upon as councils convened to battle heresy. they finally decided to best battle heresy was to nail down exactly what books exemplified the apostle’s teaching. these books were decided upon and then used to battle heresy.

) and that it was up to the church to really be the lightning rod of unity, but it didn’t do that and still has not done that (IMO again). why were none of the reformers invited to Trent? why was Luther not given a fair chance to air his disagreements to those who had the power to hear them and do something (i don’t hold to all that Luther disagreed with mind you). why was Calvin not taken seriously by the church?

the burden should fall to the Vicar of Christ to feel the sheep and lambs, and to take care of those God put in his charge. the church allowed politics to corrupt her thinking (i am not speaking doctrinally here and the reformers allowed the same thing as well). all this is to say, i’m not sure exactly where i stand, but i am searching for answers and there must, must, must be a way to bridge the gap that separates all who claim to love and know Christ. but i believe firmly that the Roman Catholic Church (and the eastern churches in communion with the pope) will have to take the lead.

Well said. Following are my thoughts:

One of the problems with the Catholic Church was it’s inability to disentangle itself from politics when she was no longer needed. You have to remember that there was a political vacuum in the West when Rome fell and the Barbarians took over. The Church was the logical power that filled this vacuum.

Due to plague killing many people in late 1400’s, especially the clergy who tended the sick, there weren’t a lot of educated people who became priests. By the time Martin Luther, who was extremely well educated, came around, there were some corrupt priests and practices, not condoned by the CC, which ML rightly addressed in his 95 Theses. Why didn’t the CC act sooner to correct ML? Travel and communication in that day were not what they are today. ML went on to commit error with Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides, which was not what Christianity taught before ML. ML threw out the Deuterocanonical Books, James, and Revelation. He later added back James and Revelation. By this time he completed cut himself off from the Holy See.

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

A papal legate, Cajetan, was dispatch to meet with Luther (see above link), and was astonished by " the rude, discourteous, bawling tone of the friar," (New Advent.org)

Regarding Luther not being asked to the Council of Trent, I’m not sure about that. I will research further. Luther hated the “Whore of Babylon.” I double he would have wanted to go to Rome. In any event, the Council convened in 1545 and ended in 1563. Luther died in 1546. He had been in poor health for many years.

The above is a simplification, as you know, but those are some of my thoughts regarding your post. A lot of what you said about political situation of the times makes it complicated. But I have to believe in the Church that could withstand and prevail through all that turmoil.

We can’t all be Theologians, so we trust in her Magesterium. The many denominations out there seem to be constantly re-inventing the wheel.

Christ’s Peace

P.S. What does IMO and IMHO mean?

 

[Lampo]

P.S. What does IMO and IMHO mean?

I can answer this! IMO=in my opinion. IMHO=in my humble opinion

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sola Scriptura

Here you will see a brief definition of Sola Scriptura. It states that

I can’t find that quote in the Bible, nor can I find Sola Scriptura in the Bible, I did find this, though:

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” 2 Peter 2:15

My question remains: in what area of the Bible does it fall short, and not give enough knowledge for our salvation?

The Bible does not fall short, it it just not the ONLY source.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I can answer this! IMO=in my opinion. IMHO=in my humble opinion

Thanks Lamp!

 

[Lampo]

Thanks Lamp!

My pleasure.

 

[nilofc]

No. I don’t claim to go by the Bible alone. I claim that the Bible is first in authority, not the only authority. Big difference. Traditions are important, but they can also be flawed by man especially over time. Scripture is the inspired word of God. The Bible is over 2000 years old and God’s word is the same then as it will be forever.

Prima Scriptura??? Hmmm…that’s not scriptural either.

Who holds and defends the truth? What is the pillar and foundation of truth? 1 Tim 3:15 - It is the CHURCH.

The church came first before the bible. So before you consider what is written in the bible as the truth, you have to know how the church interprets that particular passage first. Otherwise, you’d be led astray by your ignorance in twisting the facts (2 Peter 3:16)

 

[bengal_fan]

Prima Scriptura??? Hmmm…that’s not scriptural either.

Who holds and defends the truth? What is the pillar and foundation of truth? 1 Tim 3:15 - It is the CHURCH.

The church came first before the bible. So before you consider what is written in the bible as the truth, you have to know how the church interprets that particular passage first. Otherwise, you’d be led astray by your ignorance in twisting the facts (2 Peter 3:16)

well, actually… Jesus’ teaching and then the apostle’s teaching came before the church. then, when the church was established they were “devoted to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2). scripture is the apostles’ teaching in written form (as stated by the church) so technically, the church was founded on the apostles’ teaching, the word of God (not the Word of God, Jesus, which it was also, moreso founded upon) which was written down and put in the form of the bible which we have today. so, therefore, prima scriptura. and let’s try not to call anyone ignorant huh?

 

[nilofc]

In an earlier post, I think it was post #17 the claim was made that “Tradition” with a capitol T was infallible; and that as such Marian doctrines held by Catholics, are Tradition, and infallible. None of that is in the Bible. Catholic “tradition” is different than the Tradition approved of in the Bible; and Catholic Marian doctrines, are not the same as Bible doctrines/Traditions about Mary.

The Catholic interpretation of “Mary” in Rev.12 is utterly eisegesis gone wild. I think you have a lot more explaining to do than Brew.

ahhhh…don’t get me started on trying to prove the Queenship of Mother Mary in the Bible…because you’d be surprise that it is everywhere in the OLD TESTAMENT and in the NEW.

My brother…you really do need to understand the Bible.