Questions for adherents of the Bible alone.

[Fidelibus]

It does, however, say many times that Scripture is of highest reliability, good as gold, etc. I found 19 such verses in response to someone else who raised this issue a while back.

Highest reliabilty? Good as gold? How about "sufficient"? Does it say explicitly in these 19 verses (or anywhere else) that the “Bible alone” has infallible authority, or is sufficiant as a sole rule of faith?

Meanwhile, what your church puts in its place--Holy Tradition, so called--is not mentioned at all.

Well, lets see, the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible either, but are implicitly mentioned, agreed? Something your Anglican Church teaches to be true and absolute.... correct?

Just like the words Trinity and Incarnation, the words Sacred/Apostolic Tradition are not explicity found in Scripture either. However, as I stated above, the Trinity and the Incarnation (which you do believe in, right) are implicitly mentioned in Scripture as are Sacred and Apostolic Tradition. Not to mention the Early Church Fathers whose writings support Sacred and Apostolic Traditions, such as Papias, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, and St. Justin Martyr to name a few.



Have a Blessed Day

 

[Albion]

Highest reliabilty? Good as gold? How about "sufficient"? Does it say explicitly in these 19 verses (or anywhere else) that the “Bible alone” has infallible authority, or is sufficiant as a sole rule of faith?

You mean the Bible, don't you? Not the doctrine of Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura)?


Nevertheless, I commend the following to you:

2 Timothy 3:16-17.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

‭‭

Well, lets see, the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible either, but are implicitly mentioned, agreed? Something your Anglican Church teaches to be true and absolute.... correct?

Yes, but both of those beliefs are based upon the Scriptures, not upon so-called Holy Tradition.

 

[Greg J.]

I have noted that arguments for Catholic beliefs usually stem from the thinking of humans and not from God's own words. Such ideas will never be convincing to protestants. If one believes that God's authority is higher than any human's authority, then arguments that convince must only be derived from God's own words.

Btw, that God's authority cannot be passed according to human will is topic of some interest, but is a non-issue when it comes to application, because Peter was given the ministry to the Jews, and I am not Jewish.

 

[Fidelibus]

Thank you for the question. First of all, I think that you should post where you got your questions from and it is ...........
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/christianity-without-the-bible
That is "Plagerism" and it is strictly forbidden by the rules of the forum.

No, its called unity, members of the Catholic Church having the same beliefs. Something that's foreign among your thousands of different Protestant Churches and non-Denominational sects.

#1.You/THEY asked …..………..
"So how about the first Christians that preceded the Christian Bible? "

The driving force behind the growth and development of the New Testament church was the expository preaching of the Word of God by the APOSTLES.

Acts 19:20....……….
"In this way, the Word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed".

Lol! I can't believe you are actually supporting my argument against sola scriptura when you say:

"The driving force behind the growth and development of the New Testament church was the expository preaching of the Word of God by the APOSTLES."

You do relize that expository preaching of the Word of God by the APOSTLES means "ORALLY' preaching the word, they had no Bible, the Bible wasen't compiled until centuries after the last Apostle. IOW, Apostolic/oral Tradition!

#2. You/THEY asked...…….
Without the Bible, could you explain how Christianity continued to exist without most of its members possessing the New Testament?

Romans 10:17………
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

The question is with out merit! The obvious fact lies in the power of the Holy Spirit that worked in and through the Apostles to spread the gospel.

Major1 my dear friend, please read Rom.10:17 again very carefully. See where it say's "hearing" the word of God. They were taught "ORALLY" the Word of God. Which was the Old Testament by the way since, the New Testament had not yet been written.

Again, you support my postion when you stated:

"The obvious fact lies in the power of the Holy Spirit that worked in and through the Apostles to spread the gospel."

Spreading the gospel? Again do you mean the Old Testament because it was the only Scripture fully composed in the day's of the Apostles. St. Paul didn't start composing the New Testament (first/second Thess.) until 51-52 a.d. and wasen't completed by St. John until the years 98-100.(quite frankly, I'm surprised you didn't know this) Keep in mind, the Bible as a whole wasen't fully compiled until the forth century by........... the Catholic Church!

So again, what this means my friend, you are supporting my argument that early Christianity flourished without the bible but through the oral teachings of the Apostles! That's wat we Catholics call Apostolic and Sacred Traditions! p.s. thanks for your support!

From the Catholic website you used we find the root of YOUR/THEIR opinion...…….
"So, ultimately, it is not the Bible but the historic Christian Church (which gave the world the canonical scriptures and their orthodox interpretation) that skeptics must defeat in order to bring Christianity down. This puts the Catholic apologist in a much stronger position than the Protestant, who must build his defense on the trustworthiness of just part of the Church’s tradition while rejecting others."

That's correct, the Catholic Church preceeded the Bible which she compiled. I think the web-site discovercatholic.wordpress.com/11-2/where-did-we-get-the-bible/ can explain the best for you:

'Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Jews put together the old testament and The Catholic Church put together the new testament and it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage 397 years after Jesus death and subsequent approval by Pope Innocent I, that a New Testament was put together. Prior to that date, hundreds of gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around in many different languages, some not so good or some even controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the good writings from the bad and selected the 27 books that are now found in the New Testament bible today.

So far as we know, Jesus himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he command the Apostles to write anything. The Catholic Church operated for many years by word of mouth and Sacred Traditions that Jesus and the disciples established and handed down and guided by the Holy Spirit to insure it would not be changed. In much later years, some of the early Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books, which were finally selected almost 400 years later and that now comprise the New Testament that is used today by all Christians. It may be a surprise to some but the gospels where not all written by the original 12 apostles themselves. Most of the other documents included in the New Testament are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church and to reinforce the teaching of the Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. The vast majority of the new testament are letters that were written by Paul."

And there it is! No matter the facts, and no matter the Scriptures you as a Catholic believe that Christianity originated from the Roman Catholics and NOT THE WORD OF GOD.

I'm afraid not my friend, the only thing you proved was supporting my argument that the early Christians, before the Bible was compiled, Christianity didn't fall apart. or that only significant basis for Christian belief was found in the Bible, for it haden't yet exsisted. No, what you helped me prove was the early Christians flourished and believed the Word of God taught to them orally from the Apostles and thier successors. i.e. Through Apostolic and Sacred Traditions! Again.... Thanks!

p.s. you see, you didn't get the memo. I am a member of the "Catholic Church" and not necessarily one of her many Rites. Although, living in the west, I do lean towards the Latin Rite.

As for your other questions may I ask you where in the Bible is ……..
Purgatory,
Mary is sinless,
Mary was Assumed to heaven,
Mary did not have other children,
The Rosary,
Bishops are to be called FATHER,
Bishops can not be married,
The worship of Idols.

Sure, right after you answer where you, a sola scripturist, can show us where to find in the Bible:

1. The Altar Call

2.Where the Bible explicitly say's all revelation ceased after the apostolic age.

3..Where the Bible explicitly teaches that the “Bible alone” is God’s Word.

And finally:

4..Where the Bible say's explicitly that the “Bible alone” has infallible authority.

You do this, and I will address your above list, with the exception of the last one which is a total myth. Catholics do not worship idols, the Blessed Virgin Mary. We worship God and God alone, no matter how often this fallacy is posterd. Sheesh!

People who live in glass house should never pick up a rock.

Lol! You should heed your own words.

It is also said..... When you shoot your self in the foot, it hurts like the dickens!!! Oops!




Have a Blessed Day my friend

 

[Fidelibus]

You or they said...……….
" Human traditions may contain mistakes, but apostolic Tradition does not. Any teaching that the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church is inerrant, irrespective of whether it is written down."

Then you should have no problem showing otherwise.

p.s. you do know the differences between Catholic Doctrine, Discipline and Dogma, right?

Or the difference between the Sacraments and Sacramentals? If so, please give your definition. If not, I'd be glad to show you or point you to a Catholic web-site that could, like Catholicanswers.com.

Those are all products of the Catholic church without any apostolic authority.

After all I posted in my previous posts in this thread, you can actually say this with a straight face? Wow!


In the meen time, how about answering a question that was asked by concretecamper and myself numerous times that has gone completely ignored by our Protestant posters.


"Without using the Sacred Tradition, can you precisely define for us the table of contents of the Bible?"

 

[Fidelibus]

You mean the Bible, don't you? Not the doctrine of Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura)

You are correct, my question to you was where in the 19 verses you spoke of does it say;

1. that the “Bible alone” is God’s Word?

2.that the “Bible alone” has infallible authority?

Or....

3.Where in early Church history did Christians profess belief in “the Bible alone”?

4.Without using Sacred Tradition, how do you know what belongs in the Bible?

Nevertheless, I commend the following to you:

2 Timothy 3:16-17.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Yes, we Catholics know this passage very well that sola scrpturists try to use for their argument in support of Sola Scriptura. (the Bible Alone)

However, one has to look at what it does not say. What it does not say is....“Only scripture” It say's "All Scripture" which is silent of the sufficiency of the Bible. Keep in mind Albion, you would agree Paul was talking about the Old Testament, correct? I would agree that the the Bible is useful in the right teaching, but like I said before, this passage does not say it is "All" we need. The bible does have all the parts, but it didn't come with instructions.

This is why we Catholics look to the Magisterium ......... the teaching authority of the Church (pope and bishops) to remain true to the traditional understanding of the Scriptures. Remember, Scripture tells us 1 Tim.3:15 to look to the Church as the interpretative authority and “pillar and bulwark of truth” And without any interpretative authority. depending strickly on individual interpretation, look where that's got Protestantism, splinterd into thousands of different directions, all teaching thier own version of the Bible.

Well, lets see, the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible either, but are implicitly mentioned, agreed? Something your Anglican Church teaches to be true and absolute.... correct?

Yes, but both of those beliefs are based upon the Scriptures, not upon so-called Holy Tradition.

If these words are not explicit in the Bible, but only implicit, how can a sola scripturist deny Sacred and or Apostolic Traditions? To do so, one would have to be believing one thing, but saying another. Talking out of both sides of thier mouth, so to speak.


Have a Blessed Day

 

[Fidelibus]

Thank you for the post and the forgiveness. Actually I do not owe you and apology and I do not need to be forgiven of you.

As I said....let your conscience guide you. I've already forgiven you, Now it's between you and God.

You said in post #13 the following exact words...…………
"Could you give a couple examples of these extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church?"

That's right, I asked "Nicolaus Mourer" for a couple examples.

I then did as you asked and posted 30 examples of extra Biblical teachings of the RCC.

Please show where I asked you to post 30 examples of the so-called extra Biblical teachings from Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?

Now do you want to pursue the issue of who is lieing and the actions of deceit and twisting of facts??????

You might want to do yourself a favor Maj1, and let it go, for you're not making any points. People within this forum are not as naive that you think they are. Besides, Like I said, you've been forgiven on my part, it's now between God and you.

Peace to you brother

 

[Fidelibus]

I mean, as written down by original writers in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It is the way I say I believe the Bible is without error while trying to prevent a topic shift toward Bible inerrancy.

Okay

The "Protestant Bible" existed since it's original canonization in the 5th century, by the way

Would any of Greg J' fellow Protestant brothers and sisters care to correct him on his time-line of Protestantism?

unless one objectifies the Bible rather than views it as a collection of writings. Although as a collection of writings, it existed long before then.

???

 

[Albion]

You are correct, my question to you was where in the 19 verses you spoke of does it say;

1. that the “Bible alone” is God’s Word?

2.that the “Bible alone” has infallible authority?

I believe that I have addressed this. The Bible repeatedly describes Scripture as being of highest worth, unimpeachable, etc. That is significant, I hope you would agree...and IMHO it just about closes out anything else.

If something is considered to be what these verses say, there cannot be something else that is its equal.

But for the sake of the argument, let us say that this is not convincing. WHAT then is its equal?

You have nothing, but are simply arguing that there may be something else in theory AND SO you are going to come up with something, and give it a name of your own choosing, even if it is not mentioned or described at all in Scripture! Can you not see what is wrong with that approach?

3.Where in early Church history did Christians profess belief in “the Bible alone”?

The ECFs and the Nicene Creed both cite Scripture. Neither says anything about a concept by the name of, or similar to, Holy Tradition.

4.Without using Sacred Tradition, how do you know what belongs in the Bible?

You are speaking here of tradition, not Holy Tradition. And the Bible was not canonized on the basis of what writings were most popular or longest standing anyway.]

 

[Fidelibus]

Actually my dear friend, I do not have but ONE agenda and that is the TRUTH as found in the Word of God.

And where in Scripture does it tell us to find this truth?

All of this back and forth and confrontation is all about YOU standing up for your Catholic church and its doctrines made by sinners, and me standing up for the Word of God.

You are correct, I am standing up for the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and yes the Church is made up of sinners. Didn't Jesus Himself choose sinners (the Apostles) to follow Him? Also, part of my agenda is defending Christ's Church by exposing the myths and fallacies being posted by those with an anti-Catholic agenda.

That's it in a nut shell. You have just stated or at least the Catholic Web site you are coping from said that Christianity did not come from the Bible at all....

No, what my argument is, that Christianity exsisted before the Bible was completely compiled.

It was your claim that it did not. All I did was show you the early history of Christianity to show your error.

Your Post #39……..
"So, ultimately, it is not the Bible but the historic Christian Church (which gave the world the canonical scriptures and their orthodox interpretation) that skeptics must defeat in order to bring Christianity down. This puts the Catholic apologist in a much stronger position than the Protestant, who must build his defense on the trustworthiness of just part of the Church’s tradition while rejecting others."

Yes, what part of Christian history do you disagree with,,, every thing pre-Reformation?

But the Bible says in Acts 11:26 that the name "Christians" was first applied to the church at Antioch where the members had been converted by the missionary efforts of believers who had been scattered away from Israel as a result of the persecution of the followers of Jesus that arose after the death of the first martyr, Stephen.

Yes St. Stephen is recognized by the Catholic Church as a saint and the first martyr in Christian theology. He was condemned for committing blasphemy against the Jewish Temple, and was stoned to death circa the year 36. Now, my question to you, is his death recorded in Scripture? If not, how do you know he was the first martyr? Apostolic and or Sacred Tradition perhaps?

The roots of Christian church rests in the Jewish religion. ALL of the 1st Church were Jews and the church began with Jesus who was also a Jew.

Until the day of Pentecost

I wish you well my friend and I was very reluctant to engage you once again because of the methods of disinguiness debate and name calling that you always resort to.

Sorry to see you go Maj1, for I do enjoy our discussions as well as correcting some of the myths and untruths you have posted of the Catholic Church and Her teachings. My only hope is that you were to see the truth, and see all the anti-Catholic bigotry preached by the unlearned pastors, websites ect. for as they are.

Also, and with all due respect ny friend, showing what the Catholic Church truley teaches is not being disinguiness, it's just trying to be a good Catholic Apologists. And I cannot recall to have ever resorted to name calling towards you. If I had, my apologies. I would hope you'd reconsider leaving this thread, for your input is always welcone.


Peace to you Major1

 

[Fidelibus]

I believe that I have addressed this. The Bible repeatedly describes Scripture as being of highest worth, unimpeachable, etc. That is significant, I hope you would agree...and IMHO it just about closes out anything else.

Again, highest worth? unimpeachable? Again Albion, you are kinda making my point. Where does the Bible repeatedly describes Scripture as the "Only" thing or "Sufficient" thing one needs as a sole rule of fath? If I'm missing it, please show me. Back to 2 Tim. 3:16–17. it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal, would you not agree? I hate to keep striking a dead horse, but If one was to really understand this passage, you would notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.

If something is considered to be what these verses say, there cannot be something else that is its equal.But for the sake of the argument, let us say that this is not convincing. WHAT then is its equal?

Too what, Sola Scriptura?

You have nothing, but are simply arguing that there may be something else in theory AND SO you are going to come up with something, and give it a name of your own choosing, even if it is not mentioned or described at all in Scripture! Can you not see what is wrong with that approach?

You mean like Sola Scriptura, (the Bible alone) you have yet to show where that is mentioned in Scripture.

3.Where in early Church history did Christians profess belief in “the Bible alone”?
The ECFs and the Nicene Creed both cite Scripture. Neither says anything about a concept by the name of, or similar to, Holy Tradition.

I find it interseting you using the ECF' in your argument. The ECF such as Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Athanasius, and Augustine to name a few collectively affirm and defend doctrines such as salvation and regeneration through baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, special honor due to Mary, the primacy of the Pope, the sacrifice of the Mass. Are these not doctrines that you and most Protestants readily reject?

As far as the Nicene Creed goes, you are incorrect when you say it cites Scripture. What the Nicene Creed explains, is the Church's teachings about the Trinity and affirms historical realities of Jesus' life. The creed does not directly quote Scripture, but it is based on biblical truths.

The Nicene Creed, also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, wasen't defined at the Councils of Nicaea until 325 A.D. and Constantinople 381 A.D. over 281 years after John wrote the last book of the N.T. and twelve hundred years before the exsistence of Protestantism. So it is basicly a Catholic Tradition.

4.Without using Sacred Tradition, how do you know what belongs in the Bible?

You are speaking here of tradition, not Holy Tradition.

You mean...the tradition of the Table of Contents.

And the Bible was not canonized on the basis of what writings were most popular or longest standing anyway.

Thai's not answering the question. How do you know what belongs in the Bible? How do you know that the Bible, or what we call the canon of Scripture, cannot be further added to today?

Are you familiar with the writings of Protestant theologian R.C Sproul? He recognized this difficulty, going so far as to suggest that perhaps the New Testament is “a fallible collection of infallible books.”

But how does he/you (or any Protestant) know that the New Testament is not a “fallible collection of fallible books”?

We Catholics on the other hand, look to the authority of the Church for assurance regarding the New Testament. Since the fourth century, the bishops of the Catholic Church have repeatedly affirmed “what belongs in the Bible” through synods and ecumenical councils. The Church did not decide this on its own authority; rather it was guided by the Holy Spirit to discover (rather than invent) the New Testament.

Now provided Albion, that you and other Protestants accept the New Testament as infallible without a doubt, do you deny that you unwittingly hold to what amounts to a tradition of the Catholic Church?



Peace to you

 

[Call me Nic]

Again, highest worth? unimpeachable? Again Albion, you are kinda making my point. Where does the Bible repeatedly describes Scripture as the "Only" thing or "Sufficient" thing one needs as a sole rule of fath? If I'm missing it, please show me. Back to 2 Tim. 3:16–17. it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal, would you not agree? I hate to keep striking a dead horse, but If one was to really understand this passage, you would notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.



Too what, Sola Scriptura?



You mean like Sola Scriptura, (the Bible alone) you have yet to show where that is mentioned in Scripture.



I find it interseting you using the ECF' in your argument. The ECF such as Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Athanasius, and Augustine to name a few collectively affirm and defend doctrines such as salvation and regeneration through baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, special honor due to Mary, the primacy of the Pope, the sacrifice of the Mass. Are these not doctrines that you and most Protestants readily reject?

As far as the Nicene Creed goes, you are incorrect when you say it cites Scripture. What the Nicene Creed explains, is the Church's teachings about the Trinity and affirms historical realities of Jesus' life. The creed does not directly quote Scripture, but it is based on biblical truths.

The Nicene Creed, also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, wasen't defined at the Councils of Nicaea until 325 A.D. and Constantinople 381 A.D. over 281 years after John wrote the last book of the N.T. and twelve hundred years before the exsistence of Protestantism. So it is basicly a Catholic Tradition.




You mean...the tradition of the Table of Contents.




Thai's not answering the question. How do you know what belongs in the Bible? How do you know that the Bible, or what we call the canon of Scripture, cannot be further added to today?

Are you familiar with the writings of Protestant theologian R.C Sproul? He recognized this difficulty, going so far as to suggest that perhaps the New Testament is “a fallible collection of infallible books.”

But how does he/you (or any Protestant) know that the New Testament is not a “fallible collection of fallible books”?

We Catholics on the other hand, look to the authority of the Church for assurance regarding the New Testament. Since the fourth century, the bishops of the Catholic Church have repeatedly affirmed “what belongs in the Bible” through synods and ecumenical councils. The Church did not decide this on its own authority; rather it was guided by the Holy Spirit to discover (rather than invent) the New Testament.

Now provided Albion, that you and other Protestants accept the New Testament as infallible without a doubt, do you deny that you unwittingly hold to what amounts to a tradition of the Catholic Church?



Peace to you

Why haven't you proven to us in the Bible Apostolic succession?

 

[Fidelibus]

Why haven't you proven to us in the Bible Apostolic succession?

Sure, even though it is going off topic, I'd be happy to show you the short version of biblical evidence of Apostolic Succession, soon after you have addressed my post #33 and the four questions involved. I'm thinking I may have already proven it in one of my previous posts to the Maj1. I'd have to go back and see. If not, happy to do so!

You see N.M. the way a discussion works is that you ask a question, and I address it. Then I ask a question and you address it. Not, I or you asking all the questions with no rebuttle. Fair enough?

Here are the questions. You might want to go back to post # 33 to get the context of the questions before answering.


"Where does the Bible say all revelation ceased after the apostolic age?

Without using the Sacred Tradition, can you precisely define the table of contents of the Bible?

Once again, do you agree everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?

And where does Scripture tell us to find these truths?"


Looking forward to your responce, as well as me addressing your question on Apostolic Succession.


Thanks in advance!

 

[Albion]

Again, highest worth? unimpeachable? Again Albion, you are kinda making my point. Where does the Bible repeatedly describes Scripture as the "Only" thing or "Sufficient" thing one needs as a sole rule of fath?

My friend, you are misusing the words. If something is beyond questioning or is the final answer (to whatever it might be), then it necessarily means that it is sufficient. And if it were not, where do you look to find what the something is that might be its equal? Not to the Bible, since that is what you are saying is not adequate. So what else? Nothing. All you have is a hypothetic or theoretical equal but nothing in reality.

You mean like Sola Scriptura, (the Bible alone) you have yet to show where that is mentioned in Scripture.

Three or four explanations of that from me should have been sufficient IMHO.

I find it interseting you using the ECF' in your argument. The ECF such as Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Athanasius, and Augustine to name a few collectively affirm and defend doctrines such as salvation and regeneration through baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, special honor due to Mary, the primacy of the Pope, the sacrifice of the Mass.

And not a one of them mentions "Holy Tradition" as the reason for defining any doctrine!

As far as the Nicene Creed goes, you are incorrect when you say it cites Scripture. What the Nicene Creed explains, is the Church's teachings about the Trinity and affirms historical realities of Jesus' life. The creed does not directly quote Scripture, but it is based on biblical truths.

You are wrong there. Here is a segment of the Nicene Creed
taken from the CF Statement Faith. Notice the reference to the Scriptures, just as I said.

Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father

...and it is the only authority cited.

Thai's not answering the question. How do you know what belongs in the Bible? How do you know that the Bible, or what we call the canon of Scripture, cannot be further added to today?

I answered the question. Holy Tradition, so called, the alternative to Scripture that you are advocating, is not the reason that the Bible books were canonized as they were.

Are you familiar with the writings of Protestant theologian R.C Sproul? He recognized this difficulty, going so far as to suggest that perhaps the New Testament is “a fallible collection of infallible books.”

Then the books of the Bible would be infallible, wouldn't they? That is just the opposite of what you have been arguing.

 

[Major1]

Why haven't you proven to us in the Bible Apostolic succession?

Because there is none.

There is not one single Bible Scripture which tells us of any apostolic succession.

 

[Major1]

My friend, you are misusing the words. If something is beyond questioning or is the final answer (to whatever it might be), then it necessarily means that it is sufficient. And if it were not, where do you look to find what the something is that might be its equal? Not to the Bible, since that is what you are saying is not adequate. So what else? Nothing. All you have is a hypothetic or theoretical equal but nothing in reality.


Three or four explanations of that from me should have been sufficient IMHO.



And not a one of them mentions "Holy Tradition" as the reason for defining any doctrine!


You are wrong there. Here is a segment of the Nicene Creed
taken from the CF Statement Faith. Notice the reference to the Scriptures, just as I said.

Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father

...and it is the only authority cited.


I answered the question. Holy Tradition, so called, the alternative to Scripture that you are advocating, is not the reason that the Bible books were canonized as they were.


Then the books of the Bible would be infallible, wouldn't they? That is just the opposite of what you have been arguing.

You will get used to the "misuse of words". I commend you on your efforts to communicate with our dear Catholic friend.

 

[Major1]

It has been asked by Catholics over the years...…….
"Where does the Bible say all revelation ceased after the apostolic age?"

The problem here in giving the answer is that the Catholics who ask the question generaly do not accept the Bible as the final authority so then the Bible answer is muted to them. This then is an exercise in circular reasoning so as to make them feel better about following Cathoilc dogma instead of the Bible itself.

Heb. 1:1...…..….
"God used to speak through the prophets of the Old Testament, but in the “last days” he spoke through Christ".

He then used the apostles who he gave special sign gifts to establish the church of God.

Acts 1:22...….….
"Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."

But because the apostolic age ended with the death of the apostles and because no one since apostolic times has had the signs of a true apostle” whereby they can raise the dead and perform other unique supernatural events it may be correctly understood and concluded that God’s “last day” revelation is complete.

Acts 2:16-18 ......…
"No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy."

Then another popular method of questioning the Word of God is to ask:
"Without using the Sacred Tradition, can you precisely define the table of contents of the Bible?"

The truth however is that it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers:

• 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
• 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
• 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
• 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
• 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
• 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
• 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
• 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
• Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.

The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible.
http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm

 

[Fidelibus]

My friend, you are misusing the words. If something is beyond questioning or is the final answer (to whatever it might be), then it necessarily means that it is sufficient. And if it were not, where do you look to find what the something is that might be its equal? Not to the Bible, since that is what you are saying is not adequate. So what else? Nothing. All you have is a hypothetic or theoretical equal but nothing in reality.

No my friend, I think whats happening here is that you are commiting a common mistake (one of many) that's made by Protestants, confusing formal and material sufficiency.

And not a one of them mentions "Holy Tradition" as the reason for defining any doctrine!

You sure about that? Are you familiar with the nick-name that historians of ancient Christian history have put on St. Irenaeus of Lyons? The "Father of Tradition" Are you familiar with his writing..... Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) 180AD) He was also a disciple of St. Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, who was taught by the apostle, John the Evangelist.

"‘Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

And then we have..........

Origen: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Origen, First Principles 1,2 (c. A.D. 230).

Hippo: "It is not by drawing on the Holy Scriptures nor by guarding the tradition of some holy person that the heretics have formulated these doctrines." Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 1, Preface (c. A.D. 230).

To quote a few.

Three or four explanations of that from me should have been sufficient IMHO.

And yet, in these personal explanations I failed to see where you showed the Bible (or Jesus) tells us that "the Bible" is all we need for a sole rule of faith. Or, where the Bible say's that it is the “Ultimate Authority, the Authority to which ALL other authority must submit.” The reason for this thread is for any adhereant to the doctrine if Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone) a chance to back it up with book, chapter and verse. If the bible is the only authority, then surely the bible must tell us so.

You are wrong there. Here is a segment of the Nicene Creed
taken from the CF Statement Faith. Notice the reference to the Scriptures, just as I said.

Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father

...and it is the only authority cited.

I'll admit the Nicene Creed references Scripture. But will you admit history shows the Nicene Creed was originally formulated at the 1st Ecumenical Council of theCatholic Church held in Nicea in AD 325 and was later amplified, adopted and authorized as a true expression of the Faith at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in AD 381?

The point I was trying to make, is that by looking at the time-line, we can see the often overlooked facet of this Creed, that it was formulated before the Church made a determination of which books belonged in the N.T. So a side-bar of the Table of Contents of Scripture of the original version of the Nicene Creed is highly unlikly.

I answered the question. Holy Tradition, so called, the alternative to Scripture that you are advocating, is not the reason that the Bible books were canonized as they were.

So being Protestantism was over one thousand years in the future after the Canon was determined, what is the Protestant perspective reason the books in the Bible were canonized?

Then the books of the Bible would be infallible, wouldn't they? That is just the opposite of what you have been arguing.

Hey, remember, I was quoting R.C. Sproul, a Protestant, trying to undermine the Catholic Church’s decision in determining the canon. (councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397) That does not mean I agree with him. If the canon were only a fallible collection of infallible books, then why should we believe that the books in the canon are themselves infallible? The infallible books do not tell us what the canon should be, and this forces us to look outside the infallible books to understand how the canon was selected. As Sproul so well knows, this outside source was the Holy Catholic Church, who made the infallible decision concerning what Scriptures were inspired and canonical, and what Scriptures were not.

Have a Blessed Day Friend







(with the help from John Salza,- Catholic Apoloigist)

 

[Fidelibus]

It has been asked by Catholics over the years...…….
"Where does the Bible say all revelation ceased after the apostolic age?"

With all respect Maj1, Something you have failed to show from the Bible....... Book. Chapter, or verse that say's otherwise.

The problem here in giving the answer is that the Catholics who ask the question generaly do not accept the Bible as the final authority so then the Bible answer is muted to them.

Afraid not, the only thing that's muted from the Bible, is the belief/teaching of the Bible being the only authority. Again, Something you have not yet shown from the Bible... the Book. Chapter, or verse that say's otherwise.

This then is an exercise in circular reasoning so as to make them feel better about following Cathoilc dogma instead of the Bible itself.

Thank you for your personal, yet fallible opinion.

Heb. 1:1...…..….
"God used to speak through the prophets of the Old Testament, but in the “last days” he spoke through Christ".

He then used the apostles who he gave special sign gifts to establish the church of God.

Acts 1:22...….….
"Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."

But because the apostolic age ended with the death of the apostles and because no one since apostolic times has had the signs of a true apostle” whereby they can raise the dead and perform other unique supernatural events it may be correctly understood and concluded that God’s “last day” revelation is complete.

Acts 2:16-18 ......…
"No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy."

Then another popular method of questioning the Word of God is to ask:
"Without using the Sacred Tradition, can you precisely define the table of contents of the Bible?"

The truth however is that it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering

Again, thank you Maj1. However, and once again, isn't it fair to say that everything you (and/or the web-site you copied/pasted from) have said here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man/web-site who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you/they have vested in yourself/themself ? I ask that because, would you/they agree that you (or them) rest crucial points of yours,(their) not on the Word of God, but on your (their) fallible, non-authoritative opinion - the Word of Major1?

Then another popular method of questioning the Word of God is to ask:
"Without using the Sacred Tradition, can you precisely define the table of contents of the Bible?"

The truth however is that it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers:

Lol! I love it!! Something your anti-Catholic web-site fails to mention is that these "Early Christian writers were Catholic!!

I find it ironic you (or this anti-Catholic site) quoting the ECF in your/their argument against Catholicism! If you were to read the writings of the Early Fathers on your own, (something I highly recomended) you would see their believing in a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. You woud see their belief in a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. You would see their belief in a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary! ect.ect.

This sounds just like the Catholic Church of today dosen't it Maj1! Not only that...... It was even called that. Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, (one of those on your list) wrote the following in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans: "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (8:2 [A.D. 110]). Oops! What is your thought on that?

In the future Major1, I think you may want to screen what anti-Catholic web-site you'll use, so to be copy and pasteing accurate information


Have a Blessed Day


p.s. I'd like to thank you for your continued participation in this thread.

 

[Albion]

You sure about that? Are you familiar with the nick-name that historians of ancient Christian history have put on St. Irenaeus of Lyons? The "Father of Tradition" Are you familiar with his writing..... Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) 180AD) He was also a disciple of St. Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, who was taught by the apostle, John the Evangelist.

"‘Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

I don't know where you picked up the idea from what I have written that traditions don't exist or, if not that, that they don't count for anything. Maybe its just that old "Protestants say" thing.

Just look at the title of the Anglican forum here on CF and you will be disabused (hopefully) of that notion. But as has been said innumerable times here, traditions are not Holy Tradition, so called.