The Sufficiency Of Bible Revelation

[Milliardo]

As noted time and again, Jesus could not have appealed to the Bible as it did not exist in His tme; His appeal was to Old Testament Scripture, which was present in His time. Ditto for Paul’s appeal when he said that all Scripture is inspired. I would note further on Paul that he certainly didn’t say only[/o] Scripture is inspired. Again, as noted, if we take Paul seriously, then the only Scripture that is inspired is the Old Testament, since that was the only Scripture then written when Paul wrote that; the earliest Gospel written would not appear until about 3 years after Paul had written most of his letters down. So if we take Paul seriously, even the Gospels must not be inspired then, as it wasn’t present when Paul was writing his letters.

 

[Sabda]

I can easily prove from my own library of books here in my office how the same situation exists within the Catholic Church; except it is in a different way. All the different factions within Catholicism still call themselves “Catholic;” whereas, instead of calling themselves “Protestant,” they call themselves their specific **denomination. ** But the factions exist on both sides, nevertheless.

I did not bother to vote because I felt my answer was not listed in their. If your going to go by the Scripures that Jesus Christ and the apostles used
then you may as well throw out the NewTestament since it didn’t even exist.

As for the above quote. This gets us into another thread but just thought I would clarify that Protestants have denominations, Catholics do not. If they are truly Catholic then they recoginize the authority of the Pope **regardless **of their rite. The different rites are just different ways of celebrating Mass/Divine Liturgy. Just thought I’d address this since no one else has. I’ll let you start the thread if you want to get into the differences.

 

[Thal59]

From Protestant101:

Therefore, the Bible is indeed sufficient as the final authority on matters of truth and doctrinal beliefs.<<<

Very well, have it your way…

“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”

Your reply would of course be… “No, no, no - He was taking only figuratively or symbolically.” Therefore, since you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ - you merely participate in the “symbolism” of bread and wine - then you have no life in you Protestant101.

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

No, no, nooooo… Jesus didn’t mean Simon was the rock He meant the revelation Simon received from the Father… No, wait, He meant the faith of Peter… Hold it, hold it… He meant Himself; Jesus is the rock… No, wait…

“This is my body… this is my blood.”

Noooooo, He’s talking symbolisms, figuratively, metaphors, analogies, etc., etc., etc.

“By grace you are saved through faith…”

But I can argue, Protestant101, that you have no faith. When Jesus speaks of His body and blood, you have no faith in His words or His ability to provide you with exactly what He is talking about. When Jesus says that Peter is the rock you have no faith in the Lord’s words. When Jesus says this is my body and this is my blood, you have no faith in His words.

According to the bible, you are not saved because you have no faith. But you will, of course, use symbolisms, analogies, metaphors, etc., to explain away these and other verses to demonstrate that you are saved.

So, the way you interpret the bible says you are saved… and the way over 1 billion Catholics interpret the bible you are not saved. Thus, the bible both saves and condemns you! This is why I wrote earlier…

Interpretation.

If the bible could “interpret itself” as many Protestants believe, there would not be such a multiplicity of Protestant denominations.

Now, if you cannot interpret the bible by use of the bible alone, then the bible is totally insufficient because you have no foundation to validate your interpretation on.<<<

You replied…

Hmmm. Just as I thought! No one here can explain what truth in my KJV Bible is “insufficent” or “incomplete.”<<<

But I have just shown you that the bible alone is sufficient to both save and condemn you. Therefore, the bible is totally insufficient alone, because its truth’s are subject to corrupt interpretations which makes a truth a lie and a lie a truth.

Without the magesterium of the apostolic church to clarify scriptures, your bible can lead you to hell just as fast as it can guide you to heaven.

Thal59

 

[Zooey]

Hmmm. Just as I thought! No one here can explain what truth in my KJV Bible is “insufficent” or “incomplete.”

Well, for starters, the KJV:nope: isn’t a complete Bible.
Unless you have the page for page copy of the 1611 original (which is going to be a trick to read, since its not in the same kind of English as the average KJV), you don’t have the whole thing.
Yes, yes,I know; you don’t believe in the so-called “apocryphal” books; the problem is that the Deuterocanonical books were in all Bibles up until the 18th C& 19th C publishers took them out.

Jesus always appealed to the Bible as the supreme authority for truth - Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:1-9.

With respect, Jesus was His own authority. He was & is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, no??

Jesus always said: “It is written;” not “it is spoken” as in Catholic Tradition." Catholic Tradition did not spring to life until well after Jesus made His personal appeals to the written Word of God.

(A) Neither did the New Testament “spring to life” until after Jesus’ day; I :tiphat: use it just the same.
(B) There is:tsktsk: no such thing as “Catholic Tradition” nor “Protestant Tradition”; there is only Christian Tradition, no small amount of which is the Bible itself.

More than one of the writers of the four Gospels wrote about Jesus’ appeal to Scripture, and it is really interesting to note that some extra details mentioned by Luke do not in the least negate the authority of God’s written Word as our Source of truth.

Okay…you lost me here; is Luke not in your Bible either? You seem to have set his work off as other than “God’s written word”.

These texts still “speak” to us today through the written Word.

Which we possess, only because Tradition told us to keep them. If there had been no support in Tradition for the books of the Bible, your KJV would be a mighty tiny thin volume.

“Tradition” and “Magisterium” have nothing to do with these texts; they are already written down for us.

See above; you clearly do not know how we got the Bible. They did not fall from the sky, as the KJV.

Jesus said these texts, it is not my opinion.

And this list of books, written in Jesus’ own handwriting is where??

You are denying the very Words of Jesus by saying “how can this be true?”

Au contraire; it is you, my friend, who are denying Jesus, by setting man’s opinion up against that of God.

Protestant101:

Words of Jesus"

**Jesus IS the Word. **
You seem to be willing to settle for words; I prefer the Author & Maker of those words, Who is the First & the Last.

But hey! That’s me…

 

[Protestant101]

From Protestant101:

Therefore, the Bible is indeed sufficient as the final authority on matters of truth and doctrinal beliefs.<<<

Unfortunately, this statement is falsehood.

Jesus says:

“Jo.7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

I will go with the Words of Jesus, who has sufficiently revealed what we need in His Word. He says that if we are willing to do whatever that Word says, we shall know of the doctrine. This shows that all we need is God’s Word…Be it literally, or through symbolism. Any “Tradition” would only re-iterate and reinforce that Word, and build up that Word, not redo it in “private interpretation” . Jesus makes no reference to “Magisterium;” and there is nothing in Scripture to say that people cannot go to God’s Word for themselves and let the Holy Spirit speak to them His truth. (see Jo.16). Even in the OT this truth was clear. God proposes through Isaiah: “Come now, let us reason together…” (Isa.1:16). God wants to reason with us as individuals; and he wants to do this through His Word "…The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth;" is entrusted with a gospel message, already written down for them; why does it need special “interpretation” by some elite few?

“The Church of the living God” should never seek to be another person’s mind and think for other people who can and should think for themselves. God did not make us a bunch of robots to bow down like automatons. This would amount to salvation by force.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Lest we Catholics forget that Protestants are led by the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible.

We poor Catholics need the Magisterium to led us.

 

[Zooey]

Unfortunately, this statement is falsehood.

Jesus says:

I will go with the Words of Jesus, who has sufficiently revealed what we need in His Word. He says that if we are willing to do whatever that Word says, we shall know of the doctrine. This shows that all we need is God’s Word…Be it literally, or through symbolism. Any “Tradition” would only re-iterate and reinforce that Word, and build up that Word, not redo it in “private interpretation” . Jesus makes no reference to “Magisterium;” and there is nothing in Scripture to say that people cannot go to God’s Word for themselves and let the Holy Spirit speak to them His truth. (see Jo.16). Even in the OT this truth was clear. God proposes through Isaiah: “Come now, let us reason together…” (Isa.1:16). God wants to reason with us as individuals; and he wants to do this through His Word "…The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth;" is entrusted with a gospel message, already written down for them; why does it need special “interpretation” by some elite few?

“The Church of the living God” should never seek to be another person’s mind and think for other people who can and should think for themselves. God did not make us a bunch of robots to bow down like automatons. This would amount to salvation by force.

With respect, who are these “automatons”???
CAF is positively awash with thinking people, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.It is nonsense to say that Catholics (or anyone else who disagrees with your personal interpretation) is a robot.
It’s also, & forgive me, but its not very charitable.

 

[Protestant101]

With respect, who are these “automatons”???
CAF is positively awash with thinking people, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.It is nonsense to say that Catholics (or anyone else who disagrees with your personal interpretation) is a robot.
It’s also, & forgive me, but its not very charitable.

“Charitable” has nothing to do with it. Disagreement does not connote “uncharitable;” unless one has no Bible answer to give me in reply to my last post. Then, of course, I am the dreaded uncharitable Protestant.

I did not say that anyone who agrees with my position was a robot - I said something much different. However, you seem to enjoy characterizing me rather than giving a Biblical answer.

Any time we let someone do our thinking for us, and “interpret” what God is really saying to us, we run the risk of becoming one of those “robots” I was referring to. But, by the looks of your posts above, you won’t believe me anyways if I tell you what “robots” is “symbolic” for.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Protestant 101 came here to argue, not discuss or debate.

It would be best NOT to accomodate him.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant 101 came here to argue, not discuss or debate.

It would be best NOT to accomodate him.

“Argue” or “Debate?” I thought that this apologetics forum was for debate?

I do find that no one is answering to the Bible texts I have referenced for some of my points above; but I don’t understand this kind of labelling which you have chosen for me. What you call “argue” others see as disagreement. In fact, I have been contacted privately by someone at this forum and was given an apology for the labels like this, that some are choosing for me. And I appreciate that very much.

Being a Protestant; how can I possibly post anything here that would not have some measure of disagreement? If no one wants to hear me out, and try to actually answer my questions, I can accept that; and I am sure such ones will take you up on your advice here to NOT accomodate me. As well, if I have broken a forum rule here, please address it via PM so that we can try to continue here.

I would just like to understand better why the Bible is not sufficient for salvation knowledge. I will not post here again, unless someone is interested in reasoning through this with me - and that could take quite a while to teach an old dog like me any “new tricks.” (yes, that was “symbolic”)

 

[Pug]

I would just like to understand better why the Bible is not sufficient for salvation knowledge.

Depending on what you mean (and what you mean is not clear to me), we may be in fairly close agreement. Catholics will agree that the bible is properly said, “to be inspired and to teach without error those truths which are necessary for our salvation.” Please see the Compendium of the Catholic Church Q18. You are talking about “salvation knowledge” and the Catholic Church is taking about “those truths which are necessary for our salvation.” Do you see why I say we may be in fairly close agreement?

In my own words, I see that one can read the gospels and encounter Jesus as he walks around Galilee. He is in the bible to be met. In fact, I think God has one entire revelation, one word. You can hear it in one mere sentence of the bible. Just listen.

 

[Thal59]

I will go with the Words of Jesus, who has sufficiently revealed what we need in His Word. He says that if we are willing to do whatever that Word says, we shall know of the doctrine.<<<

How many times must I tell you???INTERPRETATION!!!

if we are willing to do whatever that Word says… But if your interpretation of what the word tells you is errant, you will NOT do what the word says and you will therefore NOT know the doctrine.

>>>Jesus makes no reference to “Magisterium;” and there is nothing in Scripture to say that people cannot go to God’s Word for themselves and let the Holy Spirit speak to them His truth.<<<

Let’s start with the blue text. Jesus may not say the specific word “Magesterium,” but He speaks of this “teaching” authority the Gospel of John…

“…The words that I speak to you I speak not on my own authority. But my Father dwelling in me, it is He who does the works.” John 14:10

Christ’s authority is not His own, He recieves it from the Father.

“And I will ask the Father and He will give you another advocate to dwell with you forever…” John 14:16

“But the advocate, the HOLY SPIRIT, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you.” John 14:26

“But when He, the spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all the truth.” John 16:13

Jesus says nothing about a book, or a bible. His promise is something better, a living link perpetually guiding the church. This advocate, the Holy Spirit will…

1. Bring to mind all that I have taught you.
2. Teach you all things.
3. Guide you into ALL truth.
4. Be with you forever.

This is done, of course, by the apostles passing on their responsibilities and authorities to their successors via the laying on of hands. It has nothing to do with Protestantism or Sola Scriptura, because there were no Protestants, there was no bible, and there was no sola scriptura at the time.

Or have you never noticed that Jesus never wrote anything Himself? Doesn’t it strike you a bit odd that if Jesus intended this avenue of self-interpretation of scipture that he should resort to the message being relayed by fallible men through second-hand accounts and recollections? Jesus never resorted to leaving a laundry-list of written works. He never wrote, He only preached.

Jesus Himself never put His personal stamp of approval on anything that you find in your bible. **Everything that appears in your NT is there because the ADVOCATE guided the Church (Catholic Church) in determining what is truly canonical and what is not. **

Now look at the brown text above - here’s a part…
there is nothing in Scripture to say that people cannot go to God’s Word for themselves…

There isn’t? Try 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter warns that the “unlearned” and the “unstable” distort the works of Paul ,as well as the rest of scripture, to their own destruction! Peter makes it clear that a great deal of learning is required as well as “stability” meaning, of course, a stable holy life so that such a person could better receive and discern the aid of the Holy Spirit. Without this learning and stability, a person is apt to distort the meaning of scripture which in turn can lead to the person’s destruction.

Now, if such learning was required back then, how much more is required today - thousands of years after the fact where there is so much that the first century Christians clearly understood that we cannot always perceive? We are burdened with needing to be “learned” in ancient greek, aramaic, hebrew, first century customs, Greco-Roman history, etc., that the people of that day already understood.

>>>Even in the OT this truth was clear. God proposes through Isaiah: “Come now, let us reason together…” (Isa.1:16). God wants to reason with us as individuals; and he wants to do this through His Word "…<<<

My bible does not reflect your quote. But even if it did, God was speaking to Isaiah, not to you.

more…

 

[Thal59]

>>>The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth;" is entrusted with a gospel message, already written down for them; why does it need special “interpretation” by some elite few?<<<

But you are not a part of the church of the living God. Christ prayed for unity at the last supper; whereas you are separated from the apostolic church. And what of…“already written down for them?” Do you believe that when Paul wrote these words the entire NT was already written down? You are in dire need of a timeline that will arrange for you the many events over 360 years after the Lord’s ascension that contributed to the writting, canonization, and final inclusion of written works into the bible.

Protestant101… Why can’t you see the utter nonsense you are arguing in favor of? There is one Catholic church of over 1 billion people who follow ONE cathechism. But there are over 60,000 Protestant denominations who adhere to sola scriptura and they differ on many numerous doctrines.

If you cannot see the obvious failure of sola scriptura, how can I give you any credibility towards being able to self interpret the not-so-obvious profound teachings of ancient scriptures?

Thal59

 

[Protestant101]

>>>The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth;" is entrusted with a gospel message, already written down for them; why does it need special “interpretation” by some elite few?<<<

But you are not a part of the church of the living God. Christ prayed for unity at the last supper; whereas you are separated from the apostolic church. And what of…“already written down for them?” Do you believe that when Paul wrote these words the entire NT was already written down? You are in dire need of a timeline that will arrange for you the many events over 360 years after the Lord’s ascension that contributed to the writting, canonization, and final inclusion of written works into the bible.

Protestant101… Why can’t you see the utter nonsense you are arguing in favor of? There is one Catholic church of over 1 billion people who follow ONE cathechism. But there are over 60,000 Protestant denominations who adhere to sola scriptura and they differ on many numerous doctrines.

If you cannot see the obvious failure of sola scriptura, how can I give you any credibility towards being able to self interpret the not-so-obvious profound teachings of ancient scriptures?

Thal59

Dear Thal59

I do not know what you mean when you say that “Jesus’ authority was not His own - it was given to Him by the Father.” All I know is what the Bible says: “Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, **All power **is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

The Bible uses the phrase “all power,” not some or most power. Sola Scriptura has not failed; it is human understanding of same which has failed. This is why God appointed the Holy Spirit as (among other things) the Interpreter of His Word:

Jo.16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The text is specific and states “all truth,” so how do you justify adding things like “Magisterium” or Catechism to it? There is enough in the Bible, as it reads, period.

When the Bible calls the Church “the pillar and the ground of truth” it simply means that the Church has been appointed/entrusted with the Word, it does not mean that the Church re-invents or “interprets” the Word with magisterium or catechism or papal bulls.

“Pillar” (1 Tim.3:15) means:

Strongs #4769 stulov stulos stoo’-los

from stuo (to stiffen, properly akin to the base of 2476); TDNT-7:732,1096; n m

AV-pillar 4; 4

1. a pillar
2. a column
   2a) pillars of fire i.e. flames rising like pillars
3. a prop or support

The Church is supposed to preserve the Word the way it is and witness unto people through the Word.

When God talks about unity, He does not mean the catechism; He means His Word; and as I said, it is human understanding thereof that is the problem. There is only one Bible too, so unity on the essentials is possible. Here are some questions and answers to consider:

By whom were the prophets of old guided as they thus spake for God?

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21.

What specific example of this is mentioned by Peter?

“Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, **which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake **before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.” Acts 1:16.

Who was it, then, who spoke through these men?

“God, who at sundry times and divers manners spake in past unto the fathers by the prophets.” Hebrews 1:1.

For what purpose were the Holy Scriptures written?

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through **patience and comfort of the scriptures **might have hope.” Romans 15:4.

The only reason I have any hope at all in this world is because of the Bible.

 

[Protestant101]

>>>Even in the OT this truth was clear. God proposes through Isaiah: “Come now, let us reason together…” (Isa.1:16). God wants to reason with us as individuals; and he wants to do this through His Word "…<<<

 

[Protestant101]

Depending on what you mean (and what you mean is not clear to me), we may be in fairly close agreement. Catholics will agree that the bible is properly said, “to be inspired and to teach without error those truths which are necessary for our salvation.” Please see the Compendium of the Catholic Church Q18. You are talking about “salvation knowledge” and the Catholic Church is taking about “those truths which are necessary for our salvation.” Do you see why I say we may be in fairly close agreement?

In my own words, I see that one can read the gospels and encounter Jesus as he walks around Galilee. He is in the bible to be met. In fact, I think God has one entire revelation, one word. You can hear it in one mere sentence of the bible. Just listen.

Yes, in some ways we could be viewed as in close agreement; except for the fact that I think when a true Catholic says “the Bible” is sufficient; they do not mean the same thing as a true Protestant who also says: “the Bible.”

For eg., when I say “the Bible” that’s all I mean, but if you are Catholic, and you say “The Bible,” you mean Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, Papal Bulls, (and other writings) and Catechism.

I believe that Catholics and Protestants could/would be truly united if all they had was “the Bible.” The Bible already includes “Tradition” that we are to adhere to, there is no need and no call (by God) to add to what’s already there.

 

[Zooey]

“Charitable” has nothing to do with it.

Charitable has everything to do with it.

Disagreement does not connote “uncharitable;” unless one has no Bible answer to give me in reply to my last post. Then, of course, I am the dreaded uncharitable Protestant.

Ah, but you see, I am one of those ‘’dreaded …Protestants", too. Just not, I hope & pray, uncharitable, nor rude to my hosts.

I did not say that anyone who agrees with my position was a robot - I said something much different.

Nay, laddy, you stood all set to look for the wind-up key. Indeed, that’s why you assumed I was Catholic.

However, you seem to enjoy characterizing me rather than giving a Biblical answer.

“Pot, meet kettle; kettle, meet pot”.
The shrinks tell us, do they not, that folk hate most in others that which they know is in themselves??

Any time we let someone do our thinking for us, and “interpret” what God is really saying to us, we run the risk of becoming one of those “robots” I was referring to.

“Pot, meet ket-” Oops!! We covered that all ready.

But, by the looks of your posts above, you won’t believe me anyways if I tell you what “robots” is “symbolic” for.

I believe that you are :tsktsk: young & I am:yup: old, & dinna have time for your games.
CAF is not a campground, yean. Folk here have all of their wits about them.
Have a good Sabbath day.

 

[Milliardo]

“The Church of the living God” should never seek to be another person’s mind and think for other people who can and should think for themselves. God did not make us a bunch of robots to bow down like automatons. This would amount to salvation by force.

If we put this in perspective, no church today would be exempted from having people as “automatons”. Which church has truly been orignal in its concept or teachings? Even most mainline Protestants would agree that those who are novel in their teaching would not be orthodox in any way. So, never seek to be another person’s mind? I have yet to find a member of a congregation that does not repeat his pastor’s teachings. Again, one would suspect if a member of a certain congregation should speak contrary to what his denomination teaches, don’t you think?

 

[mo3]

Thank you for your discussion. It is good to communicate back and forth.

and there is nothing in Scripture to say that people cannot go to God’s Word for themselves and let the Holy Spirit speak to them His truth. (see Jo.16).

The Catholic church does not say individuals can’t “go to God’s Word for themselves and let the Holy Spirit speak to them His truth.” We agree on this point. However, you are implying here that private interpretation is acceptable.
There is plenty in the bible against individual private interpretation for which you seem to totally support. Here is a “Biblical Answer:“

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”— 2 Pet. 1-20
The word “Prophecy” is defined as “Public interpretation of Scripture; Preaching 2) To explain or teach on Religious subjects; Preach” (The Reader’s Digest Encyclopedic Dictionary (C) 1965)

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” — 2 Pet. 3-16

“And whereas indeed he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. . . .Of whom we have much to say, and hard to be intelligibly uttered : because you are become weak to hear.”— Heb. 5:8,11

“For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.”— Mal. 2,7

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.”— Jn. 16:13

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readiest? And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.”— Acts 8:30-31

" For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?"— Rom. 10:13-14

I have quoted “specific” chapters and verses per your request. Your private interpretation would be contrary to this “Biblical Answer.” May Jesus Christ fill you with Truth.

 

[Pug]

Yes, in some ways we could be viewed as in close agreement; except for the fact that I think when a true Catholic says “the Bible” is sufficient; they do not mean the same thing as a true Protestant who also says: “the Bible.”

First, I’ll try to flow with where I think you are going (I could be wrong). Okay, you don’t mean the table of contents thing, I think. I also don’t think you are talking about the salvation of one individual person, which can happen by only reading a small portion of the bible while alone on a desert island and encoutering Christ.

You are talking about something else, perhaps talking about what God planned for the message now that Jesus is at his right hand and not walking around down here. You are talking about a body of doctrine and how it is preserved? A list, if you will, of statements? A minimum/maximum list of statements designed to save the elect as a whole?

I suppose I ought to ask, are you a Protestant who uses tradition and reason and experience to interpret the bible? Also, do you think baptismal regeneration is agreed upon by Protestants and is that a core salvation issue?

Second, I’ll address a few points you made that I feel I need to clarify.

For eg., when I say “the Bible” that’s all I mean, but if you are Catholic, and you say “The Bible,” you mean Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, Papal Bulls, (and other writings) and Catechism.

I never would have said this as a Catholic. At the most basic, it is that book over there on my desk. Bulls and the like are not in the same category. I do not mean those other things when mentioning “the bible”.

I believe that Catholics and Protestants could/would be truly united if all they had was “the Bible.” The Bible already includes “Tradition” that we are to adhere to, there is no need and no call (by God) to add to what’s already there.

I don’t see Protestants as united, when considered by themselves. By Protestant, whom do you mean? There is no call by God to add to scripture. It is closed and already contains what God wants it to contain. Also, general revelation is complete. There is no more of it lurking about.

For the sake of explaining something to me, pretend that they had been baptizing small children since the beginning, and grant that this practice does not clearly appear in the bible. So, when the canon was closed and finalized, you are trying to say that this would mean:

A) that baptizing infants had always been wrong and must now be discarded.

B) that baptizing infants must therefore be just fine, but it cannot be taught that God desires infant baptism to be practiced, otherwise he would have listed it clearly in scripture.

C) please expound…