What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

[jpusateri]

BouleTheou:

Beng -

I’ll accept your dodge (which is what your post is) as an admission of defeat - thanks.

BouleThoue

Boule,

I am tired of your persiflage myself. I have posted several times without your response. You seem to prefer bantering with others over whom you must “win” and extract an admission of defeat.

I have no interest in “winning” over anyone. My job is to give you the explanation and let the Spirit work. I have done that.

You are the only one who will be the “winner” of this debate because the winner is the one who didn’t understand the truth at the start, but does at the end.

The rest of us here seem to understand. I pray you will soon also.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

BouleTheou:

1. I’m an adherent of the Reformation/Biblical concept of Sola Scriptura. What that means is this: I affirm that there exists today one source of fixed and unchanging, God-breathed, inspired, infallible **special [as opposed to general] **revelation in Christ’s Church.

What is special [as opposed to general] revelation? Where do we find these catagories in scripture? If they are not there, then that would be one thing that’s missing.

1. Since you reject Sola Scriptura as a Tradition of men which nullifies the Word of God,

Tradition (with the big “T”) is the word of God. The assumption you make (another essential part of Protestant Christianity that isn’t in scripture) is that “word of God” is a reference always and only to the written word. Scripture doesn’t support this idea but rather refutes it in that neither reading nor writing is every mentioned in scripture in relation to the “word of God”. To be sure, Scripture is the word of God, but your claim that only Scripture is the word of God can’t be supported with Scripture.

then you must be able to answer the question: What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

---

1) The list of “special [as opposed to general] revelation”.

---

What I am

• saying is that in the possession of Christians today there is one source of God-breathed, special revelation. Hence, Sola Scriptura - only Scripture is God-breathed. **

---

Scripture claims to be God-breathed but not the ONLY God-breathed source. Where does scripture claim for itself that it’s the ONLY God-breathed source that Christians possess? If it’s not there that would be another essential part of Christianity that is not found in scripture.

---

As has already been mentioned, the canon of scripture is an essential part of Christianity that is not in scripture. A God-breathed source would be necessary for infallibley determining the canon of scripture which would be the other God-breathed source. That would be the Church.

---

In Christ,
***Nancy ***

---

 

[BouleTheou]

Nancy

Thanks for the response -

What is special [as opposed to general] revelation?

General revelation is God’s self-disclosure of his existence, wisdom, divine attributes, and power through creation. Special revelation is when God actually speaks or inspires Scripture.

Where do we find these catagories in scripture?

General Revelation (it is not salvific at all, it merely reveals God’s existence and man’s culpability before Him - no one can come to know Christ through general revelation)

Romans 1:20 - “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,”

Psalm 19:1-4, “1 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. 2Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. 4Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.”

Special Revelation (This is how God reveals Himself in a saving way, through Christ’s incarnation, His work in our behalf, and the divine explanation of the effects of His work given in the written Word.)

2 Timothy 3:16 - “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”

Psalm 119:105 - “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.”

Hebrews 1:1 - “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;”

If they are not there, then that would be one thing that’s missing.

They are there… I’ve given you but a very small sampling of what could be brought forth…

Tradition (with the big “T”) is the word of God. The assumption you make (another essential part of Protestant Christianity that isn’t in scripture) is that “word of God” is a reference always and only to the written word. Scripture doesn’t support this idea but rather refutes it in that neither reading nor writing is every mentioned in scripture in relation to the “word of God”. To be sure, Scripture is the word of God, but your claim that only Scripture is the word of God can’t be supported with Scripture.

If Tradition is the Word of God in addition to Scripture and not all of the Word of God is in Scripture, then please tell me what does "T"radition teach doctrinally that is not in Scripture?

***Scripture claims to be God-breathed but not the ONLY God-breathed source. Where does scripture claim for itself that it’s the ONLY God-breathed source that Christians possess? ***

---

Yes it does - 2 Timothy 3:16 is the only reference anywhere in Scripture where we are told that something is “theopneustos” - i.e. “God-breathed.” Not Tradition, not the bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra - Scripture is the only thing listed. Now, if you’re going to say that because the text does not say only Scripture is God-breathed in defense of some other source of special revelation - then tell us what that source of special revelation is and its extra-Biblical doctrinal content.

cont’d

 

[BouleTheou]

As has already been mentioned, the canon of scripture is an essential part of Christianity that is not in scripture. A God-breathed source would be necessary for infallibley determining the canon of scripture which would be the other God-breathed source. That would be the Church.

And PhilVaz, a catholic apologist, has already pointed out that the canon does not fit the category of extra-Biblical apostolic teaching. Nancy, think about how absurd that is for a second. Are you telling me that Jesus and the apostles actually taught people, “Ok, now eventually, you’ll have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, etc…” I think you know how silly that is, and I’m thankful for the Catholic apologists who admit as much.

BouleTheou

 

[Sarah_Jane]

BouleTheou:

And PhilVaz, a catholic apologist, has already pointed out that the canon does not fit the category of extra-Biblical apostolic teaching. Nancy, think about how absurd that is for a second. Are you telling me that Jesus and the apostles actually taught people, “Ok, now eventually, you’ll have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, etc…” I think you know how silly that is, and I’m thankful for the Catholic apologists who admit as much.

BouleTheou

The Tradition determined the canon of Scriptures and not the Scriptures themselves.

 

[JPrejean]

BouleTheou:

Yes it does - 2 Timothy 3:16 is the only reference anywhere in Scripture where we are told that something is “theopneustos” - i.e. “God-breathed.”

Hmm, what an odd coincidence…

John 20
[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

There is a Person of the Holy Trinity who is said to proceed by spiration (breathing), and is called ruach (Hebrew) and pneuma (Greek), both meaning “breath.” Every single Christian on the entire planet, including the ones that were fluent in Greek, understood this to mean that the bishops in apostolic succession had authority by a charism of the Holy Spirit received in ordination. Pardon me if I therefore raise a skeptical eyebrow at your suggestion that the use of theopneustos implies that Scripture was intended to be a sole and self-sufficient authority.

 

[Strider]

BouleTheou:

b]2 Timothy 3:16

• “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”
  Please read this passage you quoted very carefully

Boule Theou:

Yes it does - 2 Timothy 3:16 is the only reference anywhere in Scripture where we are told that something is “theopneustos” - i.e. “God-breathed.”

No one is arguing that Scripture is not given by inspiration of God, or that it is not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
What every Catholic has said is that it is not the only source for these things. Neither does that passage you wrote say it is the only source, only that it is profitble. I agree.
Boule, I usually don’t involve myself in these painfully long and argumentative threads, but I had to write this.
First, you are NOT a Troll. From your posts, I see that you are a very sincere, devout believing Christian.
I don’t, of course, know for sure, but I get the impression you are relatively young. I say this because your most negative character trait is failure to admit, or to recoignize, when you’ve been bested.
You have your mind so set on “proving” Catholics or the Catholic Church wrong that you don’t seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. That is a shame, because if you opened your mind just a little (net enough to let your very good brains fall out), you might be able to see the beauty and richness of Catholicism that no Protestant denomination can match.
I will pray for you.

 

[beng]

BouleTheou:

Beng -

I’ll accept your dodge (which is what your post is) as an admission of defeat - thanks.

BouleThoue

LOL

Dude, you are obnoxious and have a tendency to sprout deragotary remarks. And there you are posting some holier than thou comment.

Look yourselves in the mirror.

What do you want? for me to address your verses one by one? I did not do so because it will take time and it’s clearly doesn’t show anything about Sola Fide.

But if you whine like an obnoxious baby, then fine. I will do so and kill your silly argument.

Wait. It shall be dealt with.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

BouleTheou:

And PhilVaz, a catholic apologist, has already pointed out that the canon does not fit the category of extra-Biblical apostolic teaching. Nancy, think about how absurd that is for a second. Are you telling me that Jesus and the apostles actually taught people, “Ok, now eventually, you’ll have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, etc…” I think you know how silly that is, and I’m thankful for the Catholic apologists who admit as much.

BouleTheou

Hi!

You specifically asked “what essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture”? You did not ask “which essential parts of Christianity, that were held by the apostles, are not found in Scripture?” You’re adding a new qualifier in the middle of the discussion. If you re-read post #219 you’ll see your post that I was responding to didn’t request only teachings that the apostles themselves held. The question that you are asking now is entirely different from the original.

If one is going to hold to Scripture alone then there really isn’t anything more essential than the canon of Scripture. Without it you’d have no idea on what you should alone be relying. This is, of course, in response to your original question minus your most recent qualifier.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

BouleTheou:

They are there… I’ve given you but a very small sampling of what could be brought forth…

Hi!

You’ve given me a sampling of how you have personally cataegorized revelation (Tradition of Boule Theou??) but no sampling of God having done so (God-breathed). If Scripture alone is sufficient why is it necessary to add these catagories of revelation that don’t appear in God’s word? Did the apostles hold to these catagories? How do we know?

If Tradition is the Word of God in addition to Scripture and not all of the Word of God is in Scripture, then please tell me what does "T"radition teach doctrinally that is not in Scripture?

Again you’re adding a qualifier. Your original question asked “what essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?” When given examples you keep narrowing your focus, first requiring these parts of Christianity to have been held by the apostles themselves and now requiring that they be doctrinal in nature. Will there be any more qualifiers forthcoming?

Your categories of revelation would fall into realm of the non-apostolic yet doctrinal essential parts of Christianity that are not found in Scripture.

Yes it does - 2 Timothy 3:16 is the only reference anywhere in Scripture where we are told that something is “theopneustos” - i.e. “God-breathed.” Not Tradition, not the bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra - Scripture is the only thing listed. Now, if you’re going to say that because the text does not say only Scripture is God-breathed in defense of some other source of special revelation - then tell us what that source of special revelation is and its extra-Biblical doctrinal content.

I’m confused as to your method of Scripture interpretation. Here you are saying that there is only one reference to something being God-breathed therefore it is the only thing that is God-breathed.

one reference=only

However, in another post you also claim that salvation is by faith alone, yet it is not the only thing listed as necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21,John 5:29, Romans 2:6-7, etc).

other references=only

How do you decide when the “only-thing-listed” rule kicks in?

Incidently, we might add methods of scripture interpretation to the list of essential parts of Christianity that are not found in Scripture. It’s absolutely essential since without an accurate, reliable method of Scripture interpration Scripture is rendered meaningless. Not much point in relying alone on something one could be inadvertanly misunderstanding. This could be considered apostolic but not doctrinal though.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Ransom]

I skipped a lot of this thread, so please forgive me if I repeat things that have already been said.

Nancy, think about how absurd that is for a second. Are you telling me that Jesus and the apostles actually taught people, “Ok, now eventually, you’ll have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, etc…” I think you know how silly that is, and I’m thankful for the Catholic apologists who admit as much.
BouleTheou

First off, I would like to compliment you on your name. “Will of God,” very nice! I have taken 3.5 years of Greek, and I always love when people use Greek in their names. The only reason I didn’t is the admiration I have for the main character of C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy. Secondly, I also have been one going up against many, and I understand how hard it is. You don’t want to leave because you don’t want us to feel like we won, and therefore we would continue to be misled; however, you don’t feel like you’re making any real headway against people who don’t want to listen to your points.

That being said, here’s my problem with sola scriptura. Of course it’s absurd to say that Jesus and/or the apostles enumerated the books that would eventually be in the New Testament. I’m sure that’s not what Nancy meant, and no one in their right mind would ever have reason to believe that. However, this does leave the question as to how we know which books belong in the Bible. If there is absolutely no inspiration from God outside of what is written in the books of what we now know as the Bible, then you’re going to have to tell us what specifically in Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John, amongst others proves beyond any doubt that they should be included. Otherwise, it was a judgment of men uninspired by God, and I see no reason that I should hold their judgment as superior to mine.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Whew!!:whacky:

I read this whole thread!!!

Not that it really matters to anyone that I read the thread.

But… I was hoping that it would be helpful to me. Well, I suppose it was. Some good posts were made, and I have to say that BouleTheou Patrick carried the thread well.

The point was made, that Mark P. Shea made in “Not By Scripture Alone” that even though many things are contained in Scripture, it’s not necessarily evident how to apply them. Take for instance the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Where in the OT did the Bishops there get that the Gentile converts shouldn’t be troubled with circumcision? You’d think that they would have to be circumcised, if indeed the Church* is* Israel and they were to be true Jews (Covenant Theology applied). Well, James the Apostle had his bit to say about it, but he didn’t bring up any texts supporting the council’s decision, rather he interpreted Scripture the way (apparently) that Christ had taught him to understand it.

Already this thread is long enough, and it’s time to perhaps polish your shields and wipe the blood off your swords. Take a moment for that, since I’m not wanting to start this debate up again. But am I wrong in saying (which point was made again and again) that just from Scripture alone, we are missing the “environment” and “history” from which to properly understand it?

Bravo Catholic Answerers

 

[lindalou725]

BouleTheou: It is obvious that you have no idea WHO the Catholic Church is. Yes, that’s right–WHO!!!

Have you never read Acts 22:4 I persecuted this
Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, 5 as the high priest and the whole council of elders bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brethren, and I journeyed to Damascus to take toose also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.
6 "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascur, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me ,"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?’ 8 And I answered, ’ Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’
This shows CLEARLY that Jesus’ BODY is his CHURCH.

Jesus told his disciples, LUKE 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

And Jesus promises, John 14:16 “He (the Father) will give you another Advocate to be with you always.”

And further promises, Eph 3:10 “Wisdom of God might now be made known through the church”

And in Matt 18:17 refering to settle unbelief “If he refuses to listen…tell the church”

Rome is where the head of the church ended up–by the will of God. This is the system that Jesus in his supreme wisdom gave us and it has persevered til this day and will prevail against the “gates of hell”–because Jesus said so Matt 16:18!!

So Mr. Bible Only, where in the bible does it show ANYONE setting up YOUR church?:tsktsk: lindalou

 

[RMP]

Immaculate conception, essential?

Assumption of MARY, essential?

Ever Virgin MARY, essential?

Papal Infallabilty?..Since most non catholics deny it is in the bible. IT is DEFINATELY essential, as we can all see why.

 

[dcdurel]

RMP:

Immaculate conception, essential?

Assumption of MARY, essential?

Ever Virgin MARY, essential?

Papal Infallabilty?..Since most non catholics deny it is in the bible. IT is DEFINATELY essential, as we can all see why.

Scripture itself is not essential.
After all, Abel is in heaven and he never had scripture.

The question should be
“What parts of the Gospel are not explicit in scripture”

The answer is that all fundamental teachings of the Gospel are NOT explicit in scripture