Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bengal_fan said:
you don’t need to answer this question… i was baiting.

my point is that there must and always will be a final measuring rod. now, the plan is for Tradition, Magisterium, and Scripture to constantly be complementing each other. but in every council, when there have been disagreements, they always went back to the apostles’ teaching (which today we have as scripture). the final authority on interpreting the primary authority is the Magisterium and Tradition grows out of both. that is why i say prima scriptura.
Click to expand...
How was the Bible used at the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) when the Bible wasn’t completed?
 
bengal_fan said:
but where do you think they get their doctrines on faith and morals? it’s from scripture. humanae vitae which is (arguably) one of the most controversial documents of recent history (meaning lots of people disagreed with it… including from within the church) was formed out of the pope’s understanding of scripture, not just what the pope thought. that’s just one example, but my point is that all doctrines find their way back to scripture. i just have a problem when doctrines are made binding and there is little to no scriptural support for them. it doens’t mean those doctrines are wrong, just that they shouldn’t be binding.
Click to expand...
Ahh. So you have a problem with infallibility too then?(I’m not implying that I do.)
 
bengal_fan said:
so if (and this is purely hypothetical) the Magesterium came out with a doctrine that was actually nowhere to be found in scripture and some places even could be easily argued against, you would go with Magesterium or Scripture?
Click to expand...
That can’t happen. The Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and doctrine. I KNOW THIS IS A LEAP!!

But I’ll bet if you discuss what you think is a doctrine not supported by Scripture with a Theologian, they’ll show you how it is Scriptural. They’re a pretty nerdy bunch. Look at the writings of Benedict XVI. Pretty obscure topics if you ask me. Did I just say that? :bigyikes: I hope you understand the spirit in which I just said that. 🙂 🙂

I don’t understand the Trinity, no matter how much Scriptural evidence you give me. My puny little mind can’t wrap itself around it. But I believe in the Trinity.
 
bengal_fan said:
you don’t need to answer this question… i was baiting.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I just spend 15 minutes on a reply, lost it and had to start over again!! In the meantime, you came up with this!

I think it’s a valid question for a Protestant to ask.🙂
 
bengal_fan said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not of all Scripture is the apostle’s teachings. Surely, you can’t say that the OT was their teaching? Or do you?

Also, you must remember that every teaching that Jesus and the apostles did weren’t all written down.

*And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written. Amen.
John 21:25 *

Some were passed on as traditions.

From this passage you can deduce that every word that Jesus has spoken is bread of life. And every word is important for it was written…

'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"

If not all were written then those that were passed on as oral tradition is as important as those that were. Afterall, St. Paul told us to hold on fast to both written and oral traditions.

Therefore, how can there be a primacy in the written scripture as against to those that were passed on orally when every word is suppose to be important?

So you see, Prima Scriptura is not even scriptural. Sola Scriptura is not scriptural either. So I suggest to not event anymore terms that will confuse yourself even further.

Pardon me for calling somebody ignorant. But if you must fault me at that…then I suggest that St. Peter should ask for his apologies to you first. 2 Peter 3:16.

If this new invented theology “Prima Scriptura” is even considered, then, it goes against a lot of passages in the bible as “Sola Scriptura” did. And in the end, these two man-made inventions, may well be the same in nature.
 
nilofc said:
Not of all Scripture is the apostle’s teachings. Surely, you can’t say that the OT was their teaching? Or do you?

Also, you must remember that every teaching that Jesus and the apostles did weren’t all written down.

*And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written. Amen.
John 21:25 *

Some were passed on as traditions.

From this passage you can deduce that every word that Jesus has spoken is bread of life. And every word is important for it was written…

'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"

If not all were written then those that were passed on as oral tradition is as important as those that were. Afterall, St. Paul told us to hold on fast to both written and oral traditions.

Therefore, how can there be a primacy in the written scripture as against to those that were passed on orally when every word is suppose to be important?

So you see, Prima Scriptura is not even scriptural. Sola Scriptura is not scriptural either. So I suggest to not invent anymore terms that will confuse yourself even further.

Pardon me for calling somebody ignorant. But if you must fault me at that…then I suggest that St. Peter should ask for his apologies to you first. 2 Peter 3:16.

If this new invented theology “Prima Scriptura” is even considered, then, it goes against a lot of passages in the bible as “Sola Scriptura” did. And in the end, these two man-made inventions, may well be the same in nature.

By the way, the church is not founded on the apostle’s teachings, that’s another fallacy in your argumentation. It was founded on Peter, in which Christ is the builder. Read about it again.

And God gave authority to Peter so that the Church will be a teaching church.
Click to expand...
 
Lampo said:
How was the Bible used at the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) when the Bible wasn’t completed?
Click to expand...
They use the oral Tradition of the Church which they have received from the Apostles. You may have to look at the Council of Nicea in 325 itself to see the reasons behind it.
 
I think a lot of people in this debate have a problem with people using wording like ‘You owe the Catholic Church for the Bible you carry’.

To a Catholic this is easy to digest, but to a Protestant it is not, and even seems non-gracious for the Bible we have. Really, you have to get down to the minor aspects of that argument.

There are things you need to understand when hearing this argument:

#1- We are all thankful TO GOD for the Bible we have, we are not saying the Catholic Church is entirely responsible for creating the Bible, but you have to see the authority that was given BY GOD to the Church to arrange the Bible in the way he wants it. And, if you think there were books circulating that were known truth and known untruth, and it was that easy to just ‘bring them together’, you are being naive.

#2- Now this argument goes deeper than the Bibles ‘bringing together of the books’. We in these days take for granted that we have 5 Bibles in each home. Well, it wasn’t always like that, actually it was never like that till now. The Bible was not common, and in the Middle ages a parish usually, God willing, had one copy. Monks and Priests were the ‘printing press’ in those days, they had to manually copy every line and word. To this, I, as an ex-protestant, thank the Catholic Church.
 
Lampo said:
How was the Bible used at the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) when the Bible wasn’t completed?
Click to expand...
just because it wasn’t in one volume as we have it today doesn’t mean we didn’t have the writings of the apostles and their disciples then.
 
nilofc said:
Not of all Scripture is the apostle’s teachings. Surely, you can’t say that the OT was their teaching? Or do you?

Also, you must remember that every teaching that Jesus and the apostles did weren’t all written down.

*And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written. Amen.
John 21:25 *.
Click to expand...
the OT argument isn’t a valid one. Jesus and the apostles themselves are the ones who validated the Moses’, the prophets’, and the other writers’ books as scripture. the passage you quote is from John. it is speaking of the book of John. yes, not everything was written down, but the stuff the apostles’ wanted written down was written down. the important stuff. the primary stuff. the stuff salvation is made of.
 
nilofc said:
By the way, the church is not founded on the apostle’s teachings, that’s another fallacy in your argumentation. It was founded on Peter, in which Christ is the builder. Read about it again.
Click to expand...
that’s not what the book of acts suggests. the church was built upon Peter and his statement of faith (notice i didn’t just say it was built on his statement of faith, but on both) but it was founded on the teachings of the apostles. Acts 2 says that the practices of the earliest Christians was to meet together, eat together, have communion together, and they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching. the church is founded on apostolic authority and on their teachings. if they said it, either they wrote it down or their disciples wrote it down or people soon after wrote it down. we don’t see a lot of evidence early on for much of what we have regarding Mary, indulgences, or a few other binding doctrines. we do have evidence of what later becomes the Trinity, transubstantiation, and others. i think maybe you need to do a bit more reading yourself, or maybe we can both dispense with trying to make the other person look dumb and just debate in a civil manner.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

There are two types of tradition. There is tradition (lower case t) which can change and can be flawed at times. Things in this type would include clerical celibacy, unleavened vs. leavened bread, etc. The other type is Sacred Tradition (upper case T) which can never change (though we may be able to clarify and discern more into it - doctrinal development) and cannot be flawed since it is protected by the Holy Spirit. Things in this type are ministerial priesthood, Marian dogmas, etc.
Click to expand...
Do you happen to have an exhaustive list of these “Sacred Tradition (upper case T) which can never change”?
 
bengal_fan said:
so if (and this is purely hypothetical) the Magesterium came out with a doctrine that was actually nowhere to be found in scripture and some places even could be easily argued against, you would go with Magesterium or Scripture?
Click to expand...
This has already been done with the assumption of Mary. There is no scriptural support for it nor any historical support either.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
They use the oral Tradition of the Church which they have received from the Apostles. You may have to look at the Council of Nicea in 325 itself to see the reasons behind it.
Click to expand...
This oral Tradition of the Church that was recieved from the Apostles is not something outside the Scriptures is it?
 
justasking4 said:
Do you happen to have an exhaustive list of these “Sacred Tradition (upper case T) which can never change”?
Click to expand...
Does there need to be an “exhaustive list” to be true? How many? 10? 50? 100? 1000? I can think of one that is theologically impossible: a female priesthood. Even if a bishop ordained a woman, she would not theologically be a priest. IMPOSSIBLE. Is one enough? What is the magic number?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top