Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[byoby]

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

About the scriptures being God Breathed, yes it is in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God breathed…

That all Christians believe this, again yes. The bible does not say all Christians believe that the bible is God Breathed and is like asking where is the bible in the bible or where is the sky in the sky or where is the Catholic in the Catholic or where is the tree in the tree… it is I believe just absolutely true whether we believe it or not.

 

[byoby]

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!

I hope that everyone understands that I believe and hope that every person in the world be baptised when they have come to a saving knowledge of Christ. I would in no way by any means discourage water baptism and believe that it is a command of Christ that we are absolutely commanded to follow through with. If someone who claimed to be a Christian did not want to be baptised by water it would only cause me to question whether their faith is genuine. We only seem to disagree on what happens at baptism and it is a bit like two non mechanical persons arguing over how a car works. I do not think understanding how it works matters in the big picture so long as we do it with faith and agree that it is a command of Christ. I think that we can all agree that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, that faith without works is dead, and that a real living faith produces good perfect works.

I am finished with my thoughts on this subject in this thread out of respect for othres and the original topic of this thread.

 

[byoby]

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

I believe every section of the bible is God Breathed, the sections that we can all agree on.

 

[po18guy]

About the scriptures being God Breathed, yes it is in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God breathed…

That all Christians believe this, again yes. The bible does not say all Christians believe that the bible is God Breathed and is like asking where is the bible in the bible or where is the sky in the sky or where is the Catholic in the Catholic or where is the tree in the tree… it is I believe just absolutely true whether we believe it or not.

The point being, where in scripture does it teach that scripture is the sole rule of faith? Over 500 years, and no answer to that question. Christ, and His church, are much bigger than any book that could ever be written. Clearly, this is because Christ founded not a bible, but a church on Cepha in Matthew 16.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I am afraid that our protestant friend, byoby, is without a clue as to the origin of Holy Scripture.

The Liturgy has been the point of Christianity/Catholicism since Pentacost. Because of the widespread growth and to counter false teachers of the Good News (see St Paul’s letters), the early Church (through its Bishops) began to test what was canonical against what was done in the Liturgy.

When Pope Damasus I codified the Canon of Holy Scripture, it served as an exclamation point on what was already accepted by the Church through its Tradition and Teaching.

The Bible supports the Liturgy: it is not a “How to Be A Christian” book for budding young Martin Luthers.

There are many good reads out there, especially Scott Hahn’s “Letter and Spirit” as well as Jewish and Protestant authors who have come to the same realization about the early Church and its Scripture question.

Oh, and one more thing for byoby: don’t you just love that suggestion of Jesus to consider his body and blood in bread and wine “as a symbol?”

Because, contrary to what the Bible CLEARLY lays out, that is how millions of soi-disant “Christians” are changing “God’s word.”

O the irony of it all.

Robert

 

[byoby]

I am afraid that our protestant friend, byoby, is without a clue as to the origin of Holy Scripture.

The Liturgy has been the point of Christianity/Catholicism since Pentacost. Because of the widespread growth and to counter false teachers of the Good News (see St Paul’s letters), the early Church (through its Bishops) began to test what was canonical against what was done in the Liturgy.

When Pope Damasus I codified the Canon of Holy Scripture, it served as an exclamation point on what was already accepted by the Church through its Tradition and Teaching.

The Bible supports the Liturgy: it is not a “How to Be A Christian” book for budding young Martin Luthers.

There are many good reads out there, especially Scott Hahn’s “Letter and Spirit” as well as Jewish and Protestant authors who have come to the same realization about the early Church and its Scripture question.

Oh, and one more thing for byoby: don’t you just love that suggestion of Jesus to consider his body and blood in bread and wine “as a symbol?”

Because, contrary to what the Bible CLEARLY lays out, that is how millions of soi-disant “Christians” are changing “God’s word.”

O the irony of it all.

Robert

I have the names of the authors who penned all of the books in the bible under guidance of the Holy Spirit except for the ones where it remains unknown. Do you know who penned Hebrews?

I believe the Pope only acknowledged what was already.

I will not respond to your other point about the Body & Blood as it is not the topic of this thread. I was sidetracked earlier in this thread already.

 

[byoby]

The point being, where in scripture does it teach that scripture is the sole rule of faith? Over 500 years, and no answer to that question. Christ, and His church, are much bigger than any book that could ever be written. Clearly, this is because Christ founded not a bible, but a church on Cepha in Matthew 16.
.

If you believe as I do that the Scriptures are God Breathed-God communicating with words- The words of God then how can they not be authoritative? Are we not acknowledging that these are the very words of God? Do not Catholics claim that Catholic doctrines are found or at least supported in the Bible? Did not the earliest members of the Christian Church which is founded on the Apostles write the New Testament Scriptures? Does the Catholic Church make sure that Catholic teachings do not contradict the writings of the earliest church fathers? I will go out on a limb and guess that you would probably say yes to these questions and if I am right then the Catholic Church acknowledges the supreme authority of the bible as well.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

It might just be me but I do not think this verse relates to the topic unless the Catholic Church knows all of the good miracles and deeds that Christ did while walking the earth.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I would like to address the following points by our brother byoby:

“If you believe as I do that the Scriptures are God Breathed-God communicating with words- The words of God then how can they not be authoritative?” THEY ARE AUTHORITATIVE

“Are we not acknowledging that these are the very words of God? Do not Catholics claim that Catholic doctrines are found or at least supported in the Bible? Did not the earliest members of the Christian Church which is founded on the Apostles write the New Testament Scriptures?” YES

“Does the Catholic Church make sure that Catholic teachings do not contradict the writings of the earliest church fathers?” WHILE THEY LOOK TO THE ECF’s FOR ILLUMINATION, THEY ARE NOT THE PRIMARY AUTHORITIES. THE SEEMLESS GARMENT OF TRADITION, TEACHING, AND SCRIPTURE ARE THE AUTHORITY AS THEY FLOW FROM THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, JESUS CHRIST.

“I will go out on a limb and guess that you would probably say yes to these questions and if I am right then the Catholic Church acknowledges the supreme authority of the bible as well.” YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE ANSWER WAS NOT YES. JESUS CHRIST IS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY. HE GAVE THE CHARISM OF MAINTAINING TRADITION, TEACHING WHAT WAS IMPLICIT AND MAKING IT EXPLICIT, AND SCRIPTURE.

“It might just be me but I do not think this verse relates to the topic unless the Catholic Church knows all of the good miracles and deeds that Christ did while walking the earth.” IT IS RELEVANT BECAUSE THE EPISTLE LETTERS DIDN’T CONDEMN ADMONISH TRUE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. IN ADDITION TO THESE LETTERS, THE APOSTLES LEFT THEM WITH TRADITION AND TEACHING THEY DIDN’T INCLUDE IN THE BIBLE. THE MASS AND EUCHARIST ARE THE TWO MOST PROMINENT AND SIGNFICANT.

BYOBY, I’VE POINTED THIS OUT MANY TIMES:

THE APOSTLES WERE THE TEACHERS COMMISSIONED BY CHRIST. IN ADDITION TO WRITING THE GOSPELS AND THE EPISTLE LETTERS, THEY TAUGHT THEM THE MASS AND THE EUCHARIST. THERE IS A DISCONNECT IN ALL NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IF THE SCRIPTURE DOESN’T CONDEMN EITHER. IT WAS TOO CENTRAL TO EVERYTHING THEY DID.

 

[po18guy]

If you believe as I do that the Scriptures are God Breathed-God communicating with words- The words of God then how can they not be authoritative? Are we not acknowledging that these are the very words of God? Do not Catholics claim that Catholic doctrines are found or at least supported in the Bible?

The Catholic Church believes as you do about the inspiration of scripture. It’s just that the Catholic Church believes more than you do, and has believed more for 1,977 years, without interruption.

Did not the earliest members of the Christian Church which is founded on the Apostles write the New Testament Scriptures? Does the Catholic Church make sure that Catholic teachings do not contradict the writings of the earliest church fathers? I will go out on a limb and guess that you would probably say yes to these questions and if I am right then the Catholic Church acknowledges the supreme authority of the bible as well.

Yes, yes and no. Only God is the Supreme Authority. God goes far beyond scripture. In His infinite mercy, He left us Scripture, and Tradition to guide us. If the bible is your supreme authtority, then it appears-just appears- that you worship the bible. Nothing in the Catholic Church contradicts scripture, and nothing in scripture contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s just that interpretation of scripture changed significantly with Luther, who HAD to change it to support his disobedience.

It might just be me but I do not think this verse relates to the topic unless the Catholic Church knows all of the good miracles and deeds that Christ did while walking the earth.

What this passage means is that the bible, blessed as it certainly is, remains essentially the Cliffs Notes of the life of Christ. Don’t you hunger for more? Don’t you believe that God, who created the universe out of nothing, IS more and left us more?

St. Paul Admonished us to hold fast to the Traditions that were handed on to him, those passed on either orally or in letter form. Luther threw away many of these tradiditons (which were founded in scripture), and many of his successors threw away even more. What’s left for thousands of denominations today? Only the bible. There is a great part of Christianity that needs no interpretation. That is Christ Himself, who lives in the Real Presence. Here is a crude analogy: Scripture is 50% of Christ. Tradition is 50% of Christ. We retain both. Those with tradition only are ignorant of the fullness of Christ added by scripture. Those who retain scripture only are also ignorant of the fullness of Christ added by His Real Presence.

I don’t know about you, but 50% of Christ is not enough.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[agangbern]

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.

Suppose I doubt and therefore could not agree as yet that the bible is the Word of God, how would I believe that it is the word of God?

 

[Orionthehunter]

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.

Suppose I doubt and therefore could not agree as yet that the bible is the Word of God, how would I believe that it is the word of God?

Agangbern: May I add another question?

Byoby: If the Apostles were also teaching the followers of Christ to attend Mass and recieve the Eucharist, why didn’t God move them to admonish this most central teaching and practice of the Apostolic Church? He moved them to admonish/condemn other teachings and practices.

 

[byoby]

Suppose I doubt and therefore could not agree as yet that the bible is the Word of God, how would I believe that it is the word of God?

Anyones particular belief or agreement does not change what is.

For me it is self-evident and has been so for many since the writings of Moses.

 

[byoby]

Agangbern: May I add another question?

Byoby: If the Apostles were also teaching the followers of Christ to attend Mass and recieve the Eucharist, why didn’t God move them to admonish this most central teaching and practice of the Apostolic Church? He moved them to admonish/condemn other teachings and practices.

Are you saying that these practices are not in the Bible?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Are you saying that these practices are not in the Bible?

Are you saying they are? If so, you agree with Catholics and recognize Jesus in the “breaking of the bread” which is the mass, which is in Acts, which is in the Bible.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Agangbern: May I add another question?

Byoby: If the Apostles were also teaching the followers of Christ to attend Mass and recieve the Eucharist, why didn’t God move them to admonish this most central teaching and practice of the Apostolic Church? He moved them to admonish/condemn other teachings and practices.

Are you saying that these practices are not in the Bible?

No. But if you have ever read a thread here on Real Presence or the communal prayer called the Mass, there are a lot of non-Catholic Christians who assert that it is not in the Bible.

My question is: Assuming that the Mass and Real Presence is not part of Scripture, why didn’t the Scripture writers condemn it since it was the central teaching (Real Presence) and central expression of Christian worship (Mass) of these very same writers? It is a question that I have never ever gotten an answer.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
Suppose I doubt and therefore could not agree as yet that the bible is the Word of God, how would I believe that it is the word of God?

Anyones particular belief or agreement does not change what is.

For me it is self-evident and has been so for many since the writings of Moses.

That the bible is the word of God is self-evident? As evident as the sun rises in the east? If so, why is it that not all could see it as such?

 

[byoby]

Are you saying they are? If so, you agree with Catholics and recognize Jesus in the “breaking of the bread” which is the mass, which is in Acts, which is in the Bible.

I do not argue with the fact that Jesus instituted the practice of “breaking of the bread.” I also do not argue that we as Christians should gather together frequently for fellowship and worship as well.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by qui est ce View Post
Are you saying they are? If so, you agree with Catholics and recognize Jesus in the “breaking of the bread” which is the mass, which is in Acts, which is in the Bible.

I do not argue with the fact that Jesus instituted the practice of “breaking of the bread.” I also do not argue that we as Christians should gather together frequently for fellowship and worship as well.

That’s very nice of you, byoby! Very clear and specific.

 

[byoby]

No. But if you have ever read a thread here on Real Presence or the communal prayer called the Mass, there are a lot of non-Catholic Christians who assert that it is not in the Bible.

My question is: Assuming that the Mass and Real Presence is not part of Scripture, why didn’t the Scripture writers condemn it since it was the central teaching (Real Presence) and central expression of Christian worship (Mass) of these very same writers? It is a question that I have never ever gotten an answer.

I believe it is the topic of transubstantiation that is debated among Christians, not the issue of practicing the Lords Supper. I do not know if this is the correct thread to discuss this topic.

 

[byoby]

That the bible is the word of God is self-evident? As evident as the sun rises in the east? If so, why is it that not all could see it as such?

I might add that all did not recognize Christ for who He is either. To me it is as evident as the sun sets in the west.