Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[Mannyfit75]

That’s like saying in Jeffery Dahmer’s opinion, he didn’t do anything wrong.

Jeffrey Dahmer self-interpret Scripture using Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church uses Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Authority.

So far, Catholicism has not taught heresy. Well in fact it would never taught heretical doctrine.

 

[BrewMax]

Well, if we did away with congress just as protestants have done away with papal authority, Jeffrey would be a free man today.

This is laughable.

 

[Little_Mary]

This is some of the most blatantly untrue material I have ever seen on here. Catholic tradition and magisterium did NOT exist before Jesus Christ spoke the words contained in the Gospels. You must think the Catholic church is larger than God himself! You obviously do because you claim that the Catholic church created the material contained in the Bible.

I didn’t say that they preceded Jesus Christ, But they did precede the bible. Catholic tradition and the magisterium came from Jesus Christ. He established it for us. It is his “baby”.

Do not take words out of my mouth. I did not say the Catholic church created the material contained in the Bible. I was very careful to use the word “compiled”. However, the authors are all Catholic and the book was compiled by Catholic priests and bishops and ratified by the Pope.

 

[BrewMax]

Jeffrey Dahmer self-interpret Scripture using Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church uses Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Authority.

So far, Catholicism has not taught heresy. Well in fact it would never taught heretical doctrine.

In the eyes of the Catholic church, it will never teach heresy regardless of what it teaches. This certainly isn’t the case in the eyes of others. Take for example the WELS Lutherans. They would not permit a Roman Catholic to receive communion in their church.

 

[BrewMax]

I didn’t say that they preceded Jesus Christ, But they did precede the bible. Catholic tradition and the magisterium came from Jesus Christ. He established it for us. It is his “baby”.

Do not take words out of my mouth. I did not say the Catholic church created the material contained in the Bible. I was very careful to use the word “compiled”. However, the authors are all Catholic and the book was compiled by Catholic priests and bishops and ratified by the Pope.

ah ha! Someone finally admitted that the actual writers of Scripture were NOT Catholic!!

 

[Little_Mary]

ah ha! Someone finally admitted that the actual writers of Scripture were NOT Catholic!!

:hypno: Are you loco? Go back and re-read my post!

 

[BrewMax]

:hypno: Are you loco? Go back and re-read my post!

Do I really need to put up with you shouting at me? You were very clear were you not?

 

[Mannyfit75]

not so. Mary herself said, “I rejoice in my God and my Savior”. Why would Mary need a Savior if she was sin free? Scripture also says that ALL have fallen short of God’s grace. This is squarely an anti-Biblical Catholic teaching.

It’s not Anti-Biblical. It is very Biblical.

One place is Luke 1:28 where Mary is said to be “full of grace”. The core of the Greek word is kecharitomene meaning perfectly, endowed with grace. Also, this is a parallel to Judith 13:18 where it says God guided Mary from Satan.

We get one hint of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception in our Gospel today, the account of the Archangel Gabriel’s visit to Mary announcing the birth of Jesus. The angel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace!” Sometimes this is translated as “Rejoice, highly favored one” but that is not really a good translation of the Greek in which Luke wrote his Gospel. The particular word Luke used to describe Mary as “full of grace” (kecaritwmenh) means that Mary was full of grace all her life. (This is signified by kecaritwmenh being a perfect passive particle). It means that Mary is full of grace not just at the moment the angel comes to her but that she is full of grace since the beginning of her life. He could have used a different word to show that Mary was only full of grace at that particular moment as he did when he described Stephen as “full of grace” (plhrhV caritoV) only for a moment in Acts 6:8 before he was stoned to death. But Luke insists that Mary was full of grace all her life. So indirectly we get a hint of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in our Gospel today in the account of the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is the belief that God preserved Mary from any inclination to sin, the inheritance of original sin passed on to all mankind from our first parents, Adam and Eve. The belief of the Immaculate Conception of Mary says nothing about Mary and personal sin (Rom 3:23).

Christian belief holds that every human being through faith and through baptism is freed from sin - original sin and personal sin - through the grace of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic Christians simply claim that Mary was the first one to whom this was done.

The basis for the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be found in the Biblical revelation of holiness and the opposite of that state, sinfulness.

God is revealed as perfect interior holiness.

Is 6:3
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!” they (the Seraphim) cried one to the other.
No sin or anything tainted with sin can stand in the face of the holiness of God. “Enmity” is that mutual hatred between Mary and sin, between Christ and sin.

Gen 3:15
I will put enmity between you (the serpent, Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring (minions of Satan) and hers (Jesus); He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.
For the birth of God as a human being, God was interested in the condition of the mother’s womb. For even a great, but imperfect, judge of Israel, Samson, God was directive about the state of the mother during the pregnancy. The request for the mother to be pure is repeated for emphasis.

Judges 13:3-4

An angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Though you are barren and have had no children, yet you will conceive and bear a son. Now, then, be careful to take no wine or strong drink and to eat nothing unclean.”

Judges 13:7
"But he (the angel) said to me, ‘You will be with child and will bear a son. So take neither wine nor strong drink, and eat nothing unclean. For the boy shall be consecrated to God from the womb, until the day of his death.’ "

Judges 13:13-14
The angel of the LORD answered Manoah, “Your wife is to abstain from all the things of which I spoke to her. She must not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor take wine or strong drink, nor eat anything unclean. Let her observe all that I have commanded her.”

How much more would God be interested in the state of His own mother’s womb!

The salutation of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. It indicates that Mary was exceptionally “highly favored with grace” (Greek: charitoo, used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary - before Christ’s redemption; and Eph 1:6 for Christ’s grace to us - after Christ’s redemption).

Lk 1:28

And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, “Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)”

Eph 1:4-6
(God) chose us in him (Jesus), before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace (echaritosen) that he granted us in the beloved.

Note that the angel’s salutation preceded Mary’s acquiescence. Mary was already highly favored. God’s grace was not given in time after Mary accepted the angel’s word. The Church believes that this grace was given from the very beginning of Mary’s life. It is clearly grace because at the time of Mary’s conception she could have done nothing to earn it.

The constant faith (paradosis) of the Church attests to the belief in the special preparation of the holiness of the person of Mary to bear in her body the most holy person of the Son of God.

 

[guanophore]

So in reality its a useless claim since it appears to have no substance. If you want to use Sacred Traditions as a defense for the catholicism then you are going to need to show specific examples of it so we can examine it.

It is not a “claim”, ja4, but the Truth. It may be useless to YOU because you cannot accept that something has substance and reality outside the pages of your holy writ. There is really no reason for you to “examine” it, since it is of no value or substance you as an individual. Why concern yourself about it?

Better to live by I Thessalonians 5:21. That is a command for all Christians.

There are some problems with your lens, ja4. You are examining with a very limited lens, that has filters, and cannot admit all the evidence. It is ok, though. You are sincere, and you are acting within the revelation that you have. I commend your soul to a faithful creator.

Do we agree then that there is no such thing as an “oral tradition” of the apostles that is not in written form in the NT?

Of course not! What we can agree upon is that you are not able to accept the fact that it exists, and that there are no “proofs” that meet your criteria. We can agree that you consider Sacred Tradition “speculations of men”. I think we can also agree that you have no need for it.

The problem with this approach is that its impossible to discern what a Tradition is by merely reading the catechism.

By itself, yes, but what you asked me was, where can it be found? I directed you to the catechism because that word means “faithful echoing”. In the catechism is faithfully echoed the Sacred Traditions taught by the Apostles.

Secondly who decides what a Sacred Tradition is vs a regular tradition? What criteria does the church use?

This is an excellent question, and deserves it’s own thread. It is off topic here, I think.

The other issue is: are these Traditions also inerrant-inspired as the scriptures are? How does one know?

Yes. We know because they originate from the same source, and are preserved by the same means, and are protected by the same promise.

 

[guanophore]

This is not the only issue. What do you do when catholics are commanded to believe in the assumption of Mary when its not mentioned in scripture and unknown for centuries. In this case there are no eyewitness accounts you can go. There is nothing for centuries.

It seems to you like there is “nothing” ja4, because the living Tradition of the Church is invisible to you. This is what happens when a person wears blinders. There are certain things they cannot see. But, that is the PURPOSE of the blinders, is it not? There are none so blind as those who do not WISH to see!

If Jesus is making Mary the mother of the church why then don’t we see any of the apostles teaching this? Its not even hinted at in the NT letters.

The letters were written about other subjects. Why would it need to be written there? The hypostatic union wasnt’ written there either. The contents of the Bible aren’t listed either! If a real inspired inerrant bible is so important, why isn’t the table of contents written?

 

[Little_Mary]

Do I really need to put up with you shouting at me? You were very clear were you not?

**Yes, you really need to put up with my shouting at you. You have twisted two of my posts to make it sound like I said something else. But, hey, if you are a sola scriptura follower, you don’t know how else to do it, so I forgive you.

Unless and until you respond to what I actually posted, I’m finished with you. :yawn: **

 

[guanophore]

The unbeliever would be well within his grounds to dismiss it as a myth.

I think you have done an excellent job demonstrating this, ja4!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello,

This question is for Protestants and those who hold to sola scriptura.

Where does the Bible say that it is the sole authority for revelation?

1. Does anyone say it is (apart from Catholics saying what non-Catholics believe) ? ​

1. The question in the post is a different question from that in the title - are you asking both ?

 

[cascherman]

brewmax,

okay, things are getting a little heated obviously. My thinking is this, you are set in your belief that the Bible is all you need. We are set in our beliefs that the Word of God is all we need, meaning Tradition and the Bible.

Let’s take an alternate approach, convince me with the 25,000+ different ‘interpretations’ or ‘denominations’, why I should succumb myself to the puzzle/labyrinth that would be my search for the true protestant/sola-scriptura church. Don’t tell me all I need is the Gospel truth (it is all I need, but read on) because every protestant denomination ‘dabbles’ in defining other doctrine and beliefs, separating and differentiating themselves from other denominations.

Essentially, why should I, or anyone, leave a Church that is 2,000+ years old, with priests who can trace their lineage to the apostles, the only system that makes sense of John 20:22-23 (forgiveness of sins), has 2,000+ years of Church doctors and fathers attesting to our faith, and with the most evidence that it is the modern form of the original Christian Church for a faith system that has to put verses ‘on the shelf’ because they can’t rectify them, is less than 500 years old, has no obvious connection with the early church, and the only piece of evidence for their faith they can’t agree on…

 

[brother_dan_mac]

brewmax,

okay, things are getting a little heated obviously. My thinking is this, you are set in your belief that the Bible is all you need. We are set in our beliefs that the Word of God is all we need, meaning Tradition and the Bible.

Let’s take an alternate approach, convince me with the 25,000+ different ‘interpretations’ or ‘denominations’, why I should succumb myself to the puzzle/labyrinth that would be my search for the true protestant/sola-scriptura church. Don’t tell me all I need is the Gospel truth (it is all I need, but read on) because every protestant denomination ‘dabbles’ in defining other doctrine and beliefs, separating and differentiating themselves from other denominations.

Essentially, why should I, or anyone, leave a Church that is 2,000+ years old, with priests who can trace their lineage to the apostles, the only system that makes sense of John 20:22-23 (forgiveness of sins), has 2,000+ years of Church doctors and fathers attesting to our faith, and with the most evidence that it is the modern form of the original Christian Church for a faith system that has to put verses ‘on the shelf’ because they can’t rectify them, is less than 500 years old, has no obvious connection with the early church, and the only piece of evidence for their faith they can’t agree on…

Well itterated, my catholic brother! Apostloic succession also is a concept that is of optimal value here. Suffice to say that all members of churches that derrived after Luther’s descent have lost this concept, as they are PROTESTANT to our original church. I for one do not fault them for it, for it was tought to them for the last 500+ years. We all have salvation through the blood of Christ by way of baptism and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this subject is exausted, and we should all concentrate on our common beliefs. We are all brothers and sisters in Him after all, aren’t we? AND ON EARTH PEACE TO MEN OF GOOD WILL

 

[Lampo]

Mary was remained free from actual sin her whole entire life. Contradicting to Scripture and untrue.

The ECF (ones taught by the actual Apostles would disagree with you.)

Many more passages than these, but here are a few:

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

 

[Lampo]

not so. Mary herself said, “I rejoice in my God and my Savior”. Why would Mary need a Savior if she was sin free? Scripture also says that ALL have fallen short of God’s grace. This is squarely an anti-Biblical Catholic teaching.

Does this mean that Mary didn’t need a savior? Not at all, we can be preserved from sin or we can be saved from sin. Mary was preserved from sin. On a smaller scale we are sometimes preserved from sin. By the grace of God I have never killed anyone. I was preserved from a particular sin. There are murderers who have turned to Christ and no longer have the desire to kill. They were saved from a particular sin.

But what about Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God?” Do you suppose that the word “all” includes severely retarded adults or babies who die at birth? Of course not. Paul is not speaking in the absolute terms that some assume he is. The meaning of this verse lies in its context. Who is Paul talking to? What is the issue being discussed? In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul is telling the Jewish Christians that they have no advantage over the Gentile Christians. In effect he is saying it doesn’t make a difference, you are all in the same boat. Jews and Gentiles have all sinned and fallen short. Mary’s sin offering in Luke 2:22 does not present a problem either, as it refers to ritual uncleanness and was purely external.

Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation and the chief proponent of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), said the following in a sermon: “But as the Virgin Mary was herself born of a father and mother in the natural way, many have been disposed to assert that she was also born in original sin, though all with one mouth affirm that she was sanctified in the maternal womb, and conceived without concupiscence.” (On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God).

 

[Lampo]

In the eyes of the Catholic church, it will never teach heresy regardless of what it teaches. This certainly isn’t the case in the eyes of others. Take for example the WELS Lutherans. They would not permit a Roman Catholic to receive communion in their church.

A Catholic isn’t permitted to receive communion anywhere besides the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

A Catholic isn’t permitted to receive communion anywhere besides the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox sacraments and Holy Orders as valid, and a Catholic may be dispensed to receive them.