Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
okay to reword the thread topic question… since no one is biting with the Bible in the Bible part.

Why did Jesus have 12 apostles? When only a handful contributed to the New Testament. Why would Jesus not just have a scribe write everything down that he says and does, if all he wanted was a book as authority and not people?

Seems to me that if Christ intended the Bible to be the sole authority separate from Tradition then we would have heard something about it from him.

What do you guys think?
:yup:

Kewel way to renew the thread. I knew that if we stuck to topic the thread would be dead!! 👋
 
cascherman;2802457]okay to reword the thread topic question… since no one is biting with the Bible in the Bible part.
The Bible doesn’t say its the only authority. In fact it does point to other authorities in the church. Howerver these authorties are not inspired-inerrant. They can and do err.
Why did Jesus have 12 apostles? When only a handful contributed to the New Testament. Why would Jesus not just have a scribe write everything down that he says and does, if all he wanted was a book as authority and not people?
He certainly intended the NT.
Seems to me that if Christ intended the Bible to be the sole authority separate from Tradition then we would have heard something about it from him.
What do you guys think?
We know what the Bible is. What exactly is Tradition? Can you give me 2-3 examples of it?
 
Where does it say it isn’t?
Nowhere. But it does say that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. (1 Tim 3:15).

Not the bible, the Church.

Someone pointed out in another post that the bible doesn’t mention the word trinity either. But we know from studying the bible that there is a trinity.

To re-iterate: The Church is over 2,000 years old. It’s no slouch.

If you want more than that, you need to go to the library. Don’t take if from a catholic or a protestant. Study the history and figure it out for yourself.

:tiphat:
 
Hello,
Where does it say it isn’t?
In many, many, many places. Here are just a couple:

1 Thessalonians 3:10 - Night and day more abundantly praying that we may see your face, and may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith? (why are the Scriptures not enough?)

1 Thessalonians 2:14 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [emphasis mine]

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (how can something self-attesting and revealing be able to be so easily misinterpreted? if we are warned about misinterpreting Scriptures, there must be something outside of them to be able to interpret them properly)

Colossians 4:16 - And when this epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans. (one of many places where a non-canonical source is appealed to - what need of this if all is contained in the canonical Scriptures?)

Ephesians 1:13 - In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation; ) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise (one of many places we are told that Faith comes by hearing, not reading)

2 Timothy 1:13-14 - Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us. (that which is transmitted orally - Sacred Tradition - is protected by the Holy Spirit)

This is just a brief sampling.
 
How? How do you know? Chapter and verse, please.
Part of the answer can be found in Hebrews 4:12-13; 2 Peter 3:15-16 would be passages to look at. Also the Lord Jesus believe in the OT as being scripture. The church in the 4th century also had criteria they used to determine what the scriptures were.
 
Logic tells me that the Holy Scriptures contain the vast majority of the most important happenings and teachings of Christianity. Surely there is more than what is written in Scripture, I don’t think anyone can deny this, but the question is, just how much? When you take a look at all of the doctrines and dogma in the Catholic church that are not spoken of or supported in the Scriptures, these are much of the Sacred Tradition that the Catholic church speaks of and even admits that many are not found in Scripture. The Catholic argument is that they don’t have to be in the Bible to be truth because the Bible isn’t the only authority. That’s fair enough I guess until you really put a microscope on these dogmas and doctrines. There aren’t just a couple, there are many. Logic tells me that of these many supposed truths, Scripture would surely speak at least a small amount about some of them if not most of them. But, the truth is, it doesn’t. Mary: queen of Heaven, Immaculately conceived, assumed into Heaven body and soul, nowhere in Scripture does it even hint to these. This to me leaves the whole idea of these being truth very suspect!
 
Hello,

In many, many, many places. Here are just a couple:

1 Thessalonians 3:10 - Night and day more abundantly praying that we may see your face, and may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith? (why are the Scriptures not enough?)

1 Thessalonians 2:14 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [emphasis mine]

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (how can something self-attesting and revealing be able to be so easily misinterpreted? if we are warned about misinterpreting Scriptures, there must be something outside of them to be able to interpret them properly)

Colossians 4:16 - And when this epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans. (one of many places where a non-canonical source is appealed to - what need of this if all is contained in the canonical Scriptures?)

Ephesians 1:13 - In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation; ) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise (one of many places we are told that Faith comes by hearing, not reading)

2 Timothy 1:13-14 - Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us. (that which is transmitted orally - Sacred Tradition - is protected by the Holy Spirit)

This is just a brief sampling.
Are these non biblical sources you quote considered inspired-inerrant?
 
The Bible doesn’t say its the only authority. In fact it does point to other authorities in the church. Howerver these authorties are not inspired-inerrant. They can and do err.

He certainly intended the NT.

We know what the Bible is. What exactly is Tradition? Can you give me 2-3 examples of it?
Your answers confuse me on the Protestant stance…

So, you have other authorities that share authority with the Bible but cannot truly be relied on?

Definition of authority at Dictionary.com
  1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
  2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
  3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
  4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
I’m not seeing any of the 4 definitions there saying the authority can err… sometimes… and still be considered an authority.

As for Tradition.
1- One chief leader of the Christian Church
2- Cleansing of our connection to sin after death (Purgatory)
3- Beliefs of Mary
4- Real Presence
5- Reconciliation (Confession)

but, I will not stray from the subject onto these topics.
 
Logic tells me that the Holy Scriptures contain the vast majority of the most important happenings and teachings of Christianity. Surely there is more than what is written in Scripture, I don’t think anyone can deny this, but the question is, just how much? When you take a look at all of the doctrines and dogma in the Catholic church that are not spoken of or supported in the Scriptures, these are much of the Sacred Tradition that the Catholic church speaks of and even admits that many are not found in Scripture. The Catholic argument is that they don’t have to be in the Bible to be truth because the Bible isn’t the only authority. That’s fair enough I guess until you really put a microscope on these dogmas and doctrines. There aren’t just a couple, there are many. Logic tells me that of these many supposed truths, Scripture would surely speak at least a small amount about some of them if not most of them. But, the truth is, it doesn’t. Mary: queen of Heaven, Immaculately conceived, assumed into Heaven body and soul, nowhere in Scripture does it even hint to these. This to me leaves the whole idea of these being truth very suspect!
excellent points.
 
Hello,
The Bible doesn’t say its the only authority. In fact it does point to other authorities in the church. Howerver these authorties are not inspired-inerrant. They can and do err.
The Bible says that Sacred Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit (i.e., 2 Tim 1:13-14).
He certainly intended the NT.
How do you know? Where is that in the Bible?
We know what the Bible is. What exactly is Tradition? Can you give me 2-3 examples of it?
Tradition is that oral teaching of the Apostles. Just 2 or 3 - I’ll use some that most Protestants would accept as true (though they aren’t explicit in the Bible):

Trinity
Sunday
 
Logic tells me that the Holy Scriptures contain the vast majority of the most important happenings and teachings of Christianity. Surely there is more than what is written in Scripture, I don’t think anyone can deny this, but the question is, just how much? When you take a look at all of the doctrines and dogma in the Catholic church that are not spoken of or supported in the Scriptures, these are much of the Sacred Tradition that the Catholic church speaks of and even admits that many are not found in Scripture. The Catholic argument is that they don’t have to be in the Bible to be truth because the Bible isn’t the only authority. That’s fair enough I guess until you really put a microscope on these dogmas and doctrines. There aren’t just a couple, there are many. Logic tells me that of these many supposed truths, Scripture would surely speak at least a small amount about some of them if not most of them. But, the truth is, it doesn’t. Mary: queen of Heaven, Immaculately conceived, assumed into Heaven body and soul, nowhere in Scripture does it even hint to these. This to me leaves the whole idea of these being truth very suspect!
As Justasking said, these are interesting things to think about, even if I disagree on your conclusions, but, you are straying from the subject.

Turning it back on the Catholic Church, there are other threads for that.
 
Trinity
Sunday
??? The Trinity is screamed out in Scripture. How many times do we see that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Trinity Sunday is very Biblical. I don’t think Protestants would have a problem with that.
 
cascherman;2802651]Your answers confuse me on the Protestant stance…
So, you have other authorities that share authority with the Bible but cannot truly be relied on?
Christians are to listen to their leaders and pray for them. These leader-authorties are not infallible nor inspired-inerrant.
Definition of authority at Dictionary.com
I’m not seeing any of the 4 definitions there saying the authority can err… sometimes… and still be considered an authority.
Something-someone can be an authority without being infallible. This is true in the catholic church where you have priests and bishops who are in authority, have authority and yet can and do make mistakes.
As for Tradition.
1- One chief leader of the Christian Church
2- Cleansing of our connection to sin after death (Purgatory)
3- Beliefs of Mary
4- Real Presence
5- Reconciliation (Confession)
but, I will not stray from the subject onto these topics.
I don’t think these would stray from the topic since we need to look at where they are in the scriptures if at all. We know from scripture that there was no one chief leader in the NT church for example. You don’t see that in scripture.
 
Hello,
Are these non biblical sources you quote considered inspired-inerrant?
Not all of them are canonical. They may be very well be inspired and inerrant, but they are not a part of the Scriptures. Some may have been canonical if we knew what they were - for instance, the letter referred to in the verse I provided which is to the Laodiceans may have been in the Bible if we knew with certainty what it was. But, no one has been able to positively identify what letter that is. I guess all those important teachings are only retained in the oral traditions.
 
Trinity
Sunday
If I am reading what Justasking is saying correctly it looks like they will pick and choose the traditions that they accept and which that they do not, because some tradition is Ok and some is not. (???!!!??)

So Trinity and Sunday, they won’t question those because those are the ones passed down (through tradition!!) to them in Sunday School.
 
Hello,
??? The Trinity is screamed out in Scripture. How many times do we see that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Trinity Sunday is very Biblical. I don’t think Protestants would have a problem with that.
There is nowhere in one place a verse that says the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. And that there are not three gods but one God. The closest you come is the Johannine Comma which not everyone agrees is an original authentic part of the 1 John. While the divinity of Christ is spelled out fairly well in Scriptures the divinity of the Holy Spirit is not explicit. It can be deduced from Scriptures since we know what we are looking for, but I would question whether it would be obvious to someone who just had the Scriptures and no one to point it out.
 
Christians are to listen to their leaders and pray for them. These leader-authorties are not infallible nor inspired-inerrant.

Something-someone can be an authority without being infallible. This is true in the catholic church where you have priests and bishops who are in authority, have authority and yet can and do make mistakes.

I don’t think these would stray from the topic since we need to look at where they are in the scriptures if at all. We know from scripture that there was no one chief leader in the NT church for example. You don’t see that in scripture.
Priests and Bishops are indeed fallible. But, they have an infallible set of doctrines that they can fall back on. These beliefs have been passed down since the early Christian Church and many of these are beliefs you would say are not in the Bible.

And touching on these topics would indeed stray away from topic since the question was directed toward protestants and where the Bible is mentioned in the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top