What Is Your Authority?

[Protestant101]

“What’s Your Authority?”

There are quite a number of points brought up in this article, which I would find interesting to study, discuss, or debate. One has to admit; there sure are a lot of divergent opinions on “authority” when it comes to religious matters, and understanding of doctrines and Holy Scripture. I would appreciate having a topic like this to gather and compare info, and to study into the nature of church authority as depicted in this article I have linked to. I will try to follow the train of thought in the article; and mention one point at a time, in the order they are talked about in the article.

In this article; a “script” is provided for Catholics who wish to refute anyone who believes that the Bible is “sufficient;” and I have some observations/comments about this kind of thing.

The first cluster-bomb that the Catholic is instructed to drop on their poor, unsuspecting victim reads like this: (in the script)

First, ask him to prove from the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith (if he’s an Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestant he holds to the Reformation theory of sola scriptura—the Bible alone).

To the Protestant who really does know their Bible, this step is quite unecessary, and there is no need to “prove” this, for the Bible declares it in many ways, all without making any effort to “prove” it. The Bible declares many things without ever trying to
prove same; and to try to force people into the mold of proving such a needless point is simply a denial of complete faith in God’s Holy Word.

Catholics make the claim that the Bible is “not sufficient” only to bolster their doctrines on “Tradition;” but in doing so; they have never proven in all of their “apologetics” how that the Bible allegedly falls short in giving the essential information needed for “salvation.” To intimate in any way that if a person only had the Bible; they could not be saved, would not be something that is possible to defend on any “Christian” basis.

The script in this article tells Catholics to offer “a few words of Christian truth;” and if the authority of the Holy Bible is diluted by the doctrine of Tradition, then Catholics do not even have a leg to stand on here.

If a Catholic asks me this question about proving the Bible says it is “sufficient;” (and they have asked) then I just tell them that they will have an even harder time proving that it doesn’t say this.

Many times in Scripture; truths are implied or illustrated,
without being said verbatim; or “proven” expicitly. So in this first post, I would like to challenge the Catholic “script” here; and ask Catholics to prove that the Bible is not sufficient. What in this Holy Book of God would be classed as “insufficient” or “incomplete?” (for salvation). If all you can do is to appeal to Catholic authority; then you have not even come close to answering my first questions here. If The Holy Bible is so “incomplete” or “insufficient” then please let us know exactly where these faults are so that we finally know the whole truth on this matter.

After we discuss this point some; I will be glad to move on to the next point made in the “script.”

 

[NotWorthy]

What does the Bible teach on cloning and stem cell research?

What does the Bible teach on Contraception? Most religions taught it one way at one time (pre 1930’s) but another way since then. So what in the Bible changed to allow this new teaching?

If Scripture would have been all that is necessary to teach us, then it would have read more like Leviticus, instead of producing so many conflicts on things that are sinful or salvific.

 

[NotWorthy]

%between%
If a Catholic asks me this question about proving the Bible says it is “sufficient;” (and they have asked) then I just tell them that they will have an even harder time proving that it doesn’t say this.

It’s not a Catholics job to prove a negative. It’s your job to prove that Scriptures claims it is sufficient. If you can’t, then YOU have proved that it doesn’t say this.

 

[Protestant101]

What does the Bible teach on cloning and stem cell research?

What does the Bible teach on Contraception? Most religions taught it one way at one time (pre 1930’s) but another way since then. So what in the Bible changed to allow this new teaching?

If Scripture would have been all that is necessary to teach us, then it would have read more like Leviticus, instead of producing so many conflicts on things that are sinful or salvific.

As I said; anything, such as you post, that undermines the authority of the Holy Bible is not Christian.

Obviously; you don’t “have” to prove what you call a “negative;” but if people are asking why; why can’t they be given an answer? Objections have to be answered or you will never convince all us “heretics” of anything.

 

[NotWorthy]

As I said; anything, such as you post, that undermines the authority of the Holy Bible is not Christian.

Excuse me? You didn’t answer my question.

What changed in the Bible to allow fallible men to declare that Contraception is no longer sinful?

Obviously; you don’t “have” to prove what you call a “negative;” but if people are asking why; why can’t they be given an answer? Objections have to be answered or you will never convince all us “heretics” of anything.

P101, your assumption is false. To prove that something isn’t said in the Bible can simply be proven to be false. In other words, by proving that the Bible is sufficient, then you’ve disproved their theory.

It is illogical to ask someone to prove that the Bible does not say it is sufficient.

 

[jcrichton]

“What’s Your Authority?”

Many times in Scripture; truths are implied or illustrated,
without being said verbatim; or “proven” expicitly. So in this first post, I would like to challenge the Catholic “script” here; and ask Catholics to prove that the Bible is not sufficient. What in this Holy Book of God would be classed as “insufficient” or “incomplete?” (for salvation). If all you can do is to appeal to Catholic authority; then you have not even come close to answering my first questions here. If The Holy Bible is so “incomplete” or “insufficient” then please let us know exactly where these faults are so that we finally know the whole truth on this matter.

***Hi, Protestant!

Here’s the problem: I quote you from the Holy Scriptures and you turn around and tell me that I am subscribing to a definition that the Holy Spirit did not intend… but when you quote from Scripture you will uphold your denomenational interpretation of Scriptures as the exact definition which the Holy Spirit wants the world to have… this pattern never changes… its like convincing a non-Christian that Jesus is God!

First, not a single passage in the Holy Scriptures tells anyone to rely only on the Bible–and a good thing too for the Bible did not come into existence till over 300 years AD; had the Holy Scripture demanded Bible only that would place the early Church (inclusinve of the Twelve) with the hard task of waiting for the Holy Spirit to set the record straight!

Secondly, it is the direct disciples of Christ who introduce the term Traditions not as a cultural or national compilation of historical accounts but as a means of teaching and proselytizing:

Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15 NJB)

New International Version (NIV)
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Or traditions

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
So then, brethren, (A)stand firm and (B)hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether (C)by word of mouth or (D)by letter from us.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions and instructions which you were taught by us, whether by our word of mouth or by letter.

New Living Translation (NLT)
With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter.

King James Version (KJV)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

As you can attest, Paul is telling the Thessalonians that they are to hold on to the teachings of the Apostles. These teachings have come to them through oral or written means. These means he calls them traditions.

Either you accept Paul’s attestment of the Teachings or you deny it. If you claim Bible only than you are, in effect, telling yourself that you have a higher understanding than Paul and that the Holy Spirit has imparted upon you a divine gift of which not even Paul was worthy to receive.

Yet, if you agree with Paul, then you must agree that it is the Church that has the obligation to impart the Teachings through the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Traditions.

i.e.: If I were to come to you and tell you that the Holy Spirit has revealed to me that baptism should only be performed on 14 year old children and only on Friday’s you could easily tell me that I was incorrect… but if I could sway enough people to form a “church” around this new found doctrine would that mean that you rejected the Holy Spirit’s new revelations for the 21st century?

If not, then why has that exact thing happened throughout the Church’s history–when a new thought contradicted the old a schysm was formed which created one more which created one more which created…

Every single person that holds a Bible in his/her hands cannot be a new authority for Christianity to follow!

Hence the Teachings of the Apostles:

1Tm:3:15:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (DRV)

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[MarcoPolo]

anything, such as you post, that undermines the authority of the Holy Bible is not Christian.

I’m confused as to what the “authority of the Holy Bible” means. Could you walk us through how the Bible’s authority is exercised?

 

[Protestant101]

Excuse me? You didn’t answer my question.

What changed in the Bible to allow fallible men to declare that Contraception is no longer sinful?

P101, your assumption is false. To prove that something isn’t said in the Bible can simply be proven to be false. In other words, by proving that the Bible is sufficient, then you’ve disproved their theory.

It is illogical to ask someone to prove that the Bible does not say it is sufficient.

Thanks for your opinion here. It looks like Catholics cannot in fact prove that the Bible actually says that it is “insufficient” or “incomplete,” and that perhaps their “apologetic” script needs to be re-written.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks for your opinion here. It looks like Catholics cannot in fact prove that the Bible actually says that it is “insufficient” or “incomplete,” and that perhaps their “apologetic” script needs to be re-written.

Unless you can show us that the Bible tells us that it is “complete” we therefore should not consider it so. No? Because that is what you are saying above.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks for your opinion here. It looks like Catholics cannot in fact prove that the Bible actually says that it is “insufficient” or “incomplete,” and that perhaps their “apologetic” script needs to be re-written.

Ah, but you see, yours is the “man-made tradition”, my friend.

Do the inspired authors say it is sufficient? no.
Do the Early Church Fathers say it is sufficient? no.
Do any of the Church councils or Popes say it is sufficient? no.
Only a group of people 1500 years after Christ made this statement, and they have yet to prove it.

What does the Bible say if you have a problem with another person? Does it say, pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you through Scriptures? no.

It says, take it to the Church. Period.

Yours is the burden of proof, my friend. Not mine.

 

[Protestant101]

Well; I didn’t start this topic to discuss “burden of proof.” I am asking specific questions about a specific Catholic article I read on this web site. As I stated in my first post:

Catholics make the claim that the Bible is “not sufficient” only to bolster their doctrines on “Tradition;” but in doing so; they have never proven in all of their “apologetics” how that the Bible allegedly falls short in giving the essential information needed for “salvation.” To intimate in any way that if a person only had the Bible; they could not be saved, would not be something that is possible to defend on any “Christian” basis.

 

[TOME]

Hello Protestant101,
I hope you had a joy filled Thanksgiving!

What about if the following was the first question of our inquary:
“Which books of the Bible are listed in the bible as being inspired?” If there is no list of canonical works given in scripture how was the Canon of Scripture created and by whose authority?

 

[po18guy]

Here we go again: OP’s church teaches “with authority” that the Apostle Peter (and all subsequent Popes) was the first anti-Christ; “with authority” that 265 Popes have suddenly become the one anti-Christ in Revelation; “with authority” that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” and “with authority” that the self-admitted incomplete story of Christ (John 21:25) is all you need.

Well, for 350 years or so, there was no bible, and the vast majority of believers of that day were illiterate. No bible. Can’t read. Apparently those believers mentioned in scripture are all in hell. UNLESS, holding fast to the traditions of Paul lead them to salvation. But, OP’s church doesn’t have those traditions. And he worries about our salvation. Talk about chutzpah!

 

[Bamm]

Well; I didn’t start this topic to discuss “burden of proof.” I am asking specific questions about a specific Catholic article I read on this web site. As I stated in my first post:

Protestant101

It is entirely on “Christian” basis that I say to you that the Bible cannot save you. Christ saves. He is the Word of God not something made of paper and ink. The Book is a guide to the salvation that Jesus Christ provides. Christ is the root word in Christian.

An added note: When Jesus sent out the deciples on their first trip, He told them to take no script with them. They were to witness on their own.

Bamm

 

[Protestant101]

Hello Protestant101,
I hope you had a joy filled Thanksgiving!

What about if the following was the first question of our inquary:
“Which books of the Bible are listed in the bible as being inspired?” If there is no list of canonical works given in scripture how was the Canon of Scripture created and by whose authority?

OK; so are you saying that the Bible is “incomplete” if it does not have the “apocrypha” included? If so, then what specifically in the Bible falls short of giving us the essentials for salvation; without adding something that is written in the apocrypha?

Obviously, Catholics did assume authority to make this inclusion of the apocrypha; but I do not feel a need to debate the whys or why nots of that. Sometimes we tend to just take authority which is not really our’s to take. But I want to stick to the agenda as I layed it out in the first post; and that is, to follow each point in the article and to discuss those here.

Therefore, if someone could name one thing in the Bible, that really falls short of giving us the essentials for salvation, without having to include something from the apocrypha, that is what I would be interested in discussing here. Then; if anyone is able to name something from the Bible that fits this description; I would like to see them also tell us the specifics that would be needed from the apocrypha to add to the aforementioned Bible text which is allegedly “incomplete.”

Thanks in advance to anyone who is willing to work with me on this.

 

[NotWorthy]

What makes the Bible insufficient? Why it’s you and me, man!!!

I’ve asked this and you’ve glossed over it, but it proves my point.

I find it highly ironic that the Church that depends strictly on the Bible can vacillate on the sinfulness of Contraception, when the Bible has not changed. While at the same time, the Church that believes that the Bible is a part of the whole on authority (It shares authority with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium) has remained consistent on this and other doctrines that have changed among the Bible-only churches.

This, P101, is my point. Fallible humans insist on going to the Bible and reading their own interpretations out of it. You claim that this is people working against the Will of God. But to the “searching” Christian, how are they to know which church is following God’s Will and which one is interfering.

 

[Bamm]

OK; so are you saying that the Bible is “incomplete” if it does not have the “apocrypha” included? If so, then what specifically in the Bible falls short of giving us the essentials for salvation; without adding something that is written in the apocrypha?

Obviously, Catholics did assume authority to make this inclusion of the apocrypha; but I do not feel a need to debate the whys or why nots of that. Sometimes we tend to just take authority which is not really our’s to take. But I want to stick to the agenda as I layed it out in the first post; and that is, to follow each point in the article and to discuss those here.

Therefore, if someone could name one thing in the Bible, that really falls short of giving us the essentials for salvation, without having to include something from the apocrypha, that is what I would be interested in discussing here. Then; if anyone is able to name something from the Bible that fits this description; I would like to see them also tell us the specifics that would be needed from the apocrypha to add to the aforementioned Bible text which is allegedly “incomplete.”

Thanks in advance to anyone who is willing to work with me on this.

Protestant101

The early Christian Church included the 7 books of the Old Testament in what was considered the Canon of Scripture. It was not the Catholics that added the 7 books, but the Reformers later Protestants that removed the 7 books.

I have an extensive list of verses that tell us that we need more than writings, there by, the Bible to obtain salvation. We need first and foremost, Jesus Christ. We need His Holy Spirit to guide us as we read scriptures and other writings of pastors, prophets, and teachers and for Catholics that would include priests and bishops, etc.

If you never read the Bible at all, any version, you can call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Many have done just that, reading the scriptures later to learn and be guided in how to live a Godly life for Him.

Jesus saith unto him, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: NO man cometh unto the Father but by me.” (KJV) John 14:6

“I (Jesus) am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” (KJV) John 10:9

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (KJV) Acts 2:21 (Note: Peter referencing Joel 2:28-32)

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (KJV) Romans 10:13

More verses to read: Luke 10:22; John 6:40, 10:1-18, 14:6-20, Acts 2:15-21; Romans 10:13-17; Galatians 3:11; Ephesians 4 (whole chapter); Philippians 1:27

Bamm

 

[Nita]

Thanks for your opinion here. It looks like Catholics cannot in fact prove that the Bible actually says that it is “insufficient” or “incomplete,” and that perhaps their “apologetic” script needs to be re-written.

Hello Protestant101,

Catholics do not need to have the Bible “actually say” something before we hold it to be true. We don’t claim the necessity of a Biblical verse that specifically states a doctrine in order for that doctrine to be accepted as true. THAT IS A PROTESTANT POSITION, not a Catholic one, and therefore something YOU should be able to do, not us. It is Protestants who proclaim “sola scriptura” and thus should be able to point out verses that “actually say” what they are teaching; in this case, that the Bible is sufficient or complete.

Catholics hold Scripture and Tradition (capital T) to be the sources of our doctrines, with the ongoing development/growth of those doctrines throughout the years under the infallible authority of the Church’s magisterium (Pope and bishops in union with him) - a precious gift from Our Lord for His Church ("…My Church…" Mt. 16:18).

jchrichton did show you verses that happen to support our position, but so far you’ve chosen not to respond to his post. I was wondering if you would give us your understanding of 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Tim 3:15?

Thank you,
Nita

 

[Petergee]

Thanks for your opinion here. It looks like Catholics cannot in fact prove that the Bible actually says that it is “insufficient” or “incomplete,” and that perhaps their “apologetic” script needs to be re-written.

You’re arguing in a circle. You’re saying:
"1. First assume without evidence that the words of the Bible alone are all that is necessary for salvation.
2. The words of the Bible do not include the words “the Bible alone is insufficient for salvation” (Of course they couldn’t possibly say this, since the concept and even the word “bible” was not invented until centuries after the books were written.)
3. Therefore the Bible alone is necessary for salvation. "

Then you add:
“4. For some unexplained reason, nobody until the 16th century “realised” or expressed the idea that the Bible alone is necessary for salvation.
5. For further unexplained reason, all Christians until the 19th century totally misunderstood what the words of the Bible mean, until Ellen Gould White came up with the REAL meanings which are radically different to what the all Christians had thought up until then and the vast majority of Christians still believe.
6. The 16th century “reformers” and Ellen Gould White have the authority to declare that these radically changed beliefs are the one Christian Truth because I, Protestant101, say so. So how dare you presume to argue wuith me.”

 

[Protestant101]

You’re arguing in a circle. You’re saying:
"1. First assume without evidence that the words of the Bible alone are all that is necessary for salvation.
2. The words of the Bible do not include the words “the Bible alone is insufficient for salvation” (Of course they couldn’t possibly say this, since the concept and even the word “bible” was not invented until centuries after the books were written.)
3. Therefore the Bible alone is necessary for salvation. "

Then you add:
“4. For some unexplained reason, nobody until the 16th century “realised” or expressed the idea that the Bible alone is necessary for salvation.
5. For further unexplained reason, all Christians until the 19th century totally misunderstood what the words of the Bible mean, until Ellen Gould White came up with the REAL meanings which are radically different to what the all Christians had thought up until then and the vast majority of Christians still believe.
6. The 16th century “reformers” and Ellen Gould White have the authority to declare that these radically changed beliefs are the one Christian Truth because I, Protestant101, say so. So how dare you presume to argue wuith me.”

Actually; I did not say any of these things in my posts. I am just asking Catholics to please be specific, tell me exactly what in the Bible is NOT sufficient for “salvation;” and what, from the apocryphs needs to be added to it, in order for it to be “complete” enough for salvation? What Bible verse or doctrine, needs somthing from the apocrypha, in order for it to be “complete” or “sufficient?” And what specific passage from the apocrypha would be needed in this case?

I will not address anything here which does not address the topic at hand.