Questions for adherents of the Bible alone.

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah, I'd still be basically non believer if that was the case. And I'm serious on that.

I was Muslim. Spent a lot of time believing the Bible was absolutely corrupted, furthermore, i was also willing (and happy) to throw out every word Paul said..

I thought we could trust the Torah, and i was willing to go out on a limb and accept the words the Bible says that Jesus spoke were true.

I wasn't willing to go any further, I was too convinced the Bible was written by men, and that likely a lot was left out, but I didn't know what.

I just couldn't trust the Book... and i was seriously confused, torn even. I just didn't know what to believe...

God literally gave me faith.

My husband helped in many ways, but God had to take me to faith.. and He did.

Nicely said. It is by Grace we have been saved. Faith is the gift of God. It is put into us, it does not depend on our efforts --it is done by God. In my opinion, it IS God in us.

 

[Fidelibus]

Because there is none.

Maybe not explicitly Major1, but implicitly?? Yes! As are other words and phrases not explicitly, but implicitly found in Scripture such as Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin birth. Correct? However, there are
words and phrases (and Protestant beliefs, practices, and teachings) that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Such as:

1. Altar call.

2. Evangelical Sinner’s Prayer.

3. Separating young people during church services.

4. Bible studies. (which I have no problem with)

5. Asking Jesus into one’s heart. (which I have no problem with)

6. Rapture.

7. Invisible Church.

To name a few. Now if you disagree, by all means Major1, please post the book, chapter or verse that proves me wrong. You know Maj1, I find it interesting how Protestants and Adhrerants to the belief of the Bible Alone like yourself have no problem believing these things. (Remember, before my conversion to the Catholic Church, I too had no problem believing these things, until the Holy Spirit led me to the truth. Thanks be to God!)

Why is this my friend? Why do you believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics a hard time for other doctrines and practices with equal or greater backing in Scripture?

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

To quote Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong:

“Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture. It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often in the pages of the Bible. We also acknowledge sacred Tradition, the authority of the Church, and the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths, as is to be expected with a living organism (the Body of Christ) guided by the Holy Spirit. A belief implicitly biblical is not necessarily antibiblical or unbiblical. But we maintain that the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”), on the other hand, is incoherent and — I dare say — quite unbiblical.

“In fact, many doctrines accepted by Protestants are either not found in the Bible at all (for example, sola Scriptura and the canon of Scripture), are based on only a very few direct passages (for example, the virgin birth), or are indirectly deduced from many implicit passages (for example, the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus, and many attributes of God, such as His omnipresence and omniscience).”

Let me be clear about the exact nature of my argument: I do distinguish between things that are not in the Bible at all — in word or concept — and particular words that aren’t in the Bible, whereas the concepts certainly are. For example, “Trinity” is obviously a biblical concept. I’ve spent more than 30 years defending this truth using the Bible (it was one of my first major apologetics efforts). There’s no justification for arguing that because a specific word isn’t in the Bible (such as “Lent”), neither is the concept. It doesn’t follow. Something is “biblical” if the concept can be deduced using the Bible; whether a specific word is used to describe it is largely irrelevant."

Thank you Mr. Armstrong, and thank you Major1 for your continued participation in this thread.

p.s. I could show you where Apostolic Succession is mentioned implicitly in Scripture if you'd like.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

However, there are
words and phrases (and Protestant beliefs, practices, and teachings) that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Such as:

1. Altar call.

2. Evangelical Sinner’s Prayer.

3. Separating young people during church services.

4. Bible studies. (which I have no problem with)t

5. Asking Jesus into one’s heart. (which I have no problem with)

6. Rapture.

7. Invisible Church.

To name a few. Now if you disagree, by all means Major1, please post the book, chapter or verse that proves me wrong.

We are discussing doctrines. Not a single entry on your list here, with the possible exception of #6 which IS in the Bible, refers to a doctrine.

 

[Fidelibus]

Nicely said. It is by Grace we have been saved. Faith is the gift of God. It is put into us, it does not depend on our efforts --it is done by God. In my opinion, it IS God in us.

Catholics believe – and have always believed – that we are saved by grace, through faith, working in love (Gal 5:6; 1 Cor 13). Baptism is the initial means by which we receive the grace of God which saves – confession, or the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is where we receive the grace we’ve lost through sin after baptism – and the process of justification leads ultimately to our inner sanctification, making us fit for heaven where “nothing unclean shall enter it” (Rev 21:27).

Justification takes time – it is not automatic. We have been saved objectively by Christ on the cross – no contention there – but subjectively we are “running the race”. We are “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Paul writes:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor 1:18)

(source- Matt Nelson, Catholic Apologist)

 

[Fidelibus]

We are discussing doctrines.

Is not the belief in Sola Scriptura considered a Protestant doctrine?

Not a single entry on your list here, with the possible exception of #6 which IS in the Bible, refers to a doctrine.

Yet adherents of The Bible Alone doctrine, (all one needs as a sole rule of faith) beleive and practice these teachings that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

As far as the Rapture goes, where in the Bible is the word "Rapture" explicitly found? Also, is there total unity among Protestant churches, non-denominational sects, and non-Catholics in the belief of the Rapture? If not, why not if they all are reading the same Bible and all supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit?

Here is an article from the Protestant news scource CBNNEWS.COM that might be of an interest:

Large Number of Pastors Don't Believe in the Rapture (04-27-2016)

Man looking up at sky, rapture
End-times theology is wavering in the Christian church and a large number of Protestant pastors believe there is no rapture.

Whether pre-tribulation or post rapture, a new study by LifeWay research reveals that pinning down details of the apocalypse among a group of pastors is hard to do.

Although the scriptures make it clear that Jesus is coming back researchers found varying views on three aspects of end-times theology: the rapture, the Antichrist, and the millennial kingdom.

Out of the 1,000 senior Protestant pastors surveyed, only a third (36 percent) believed in a pre-tribulation rapture where Christians disappear at the start of the apocalypse and those left behind suffer tribulation.

Thirty-six percent of pastors say the rapture is not literal, while almost 1 in 5 believe the rapture happens after the tribulation (18 percent).

End-times theology is popular with churchgoers but it is not an easy topic to preach about, Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research, explained.

"Most people want their pastor to preach about the Book of Revelation and the end of the world," he said. "But that's a complicated task. Pastors and the scholars they cite often disagree about how the end times will unfold."

The diversity among eschatological views includes varying opinions on the Anti-Christ and beliefs in a millennial kingdom.

About half of pastors (49 percent) see the Anti-Christ as a figure who will arise in the future, 14 percent believe he is the personification of evil, while 12 percent say he is not an actual person.

Close to half of the pastors surveyed believe in pre-millennialism (48 percent), which is the view that the thousand year reign of Christ happens in the future.

A third (31 percent) of leaders don't believe in a thousand year reign but they do believe that Jesus already rules in the hearts and minds of Christians. Close to 1 in 10 (11 percent) believe in post-millennialism, the idea that the world will gradually become more Christian until Jesus returns.

McConnell said it isn't a bad thing that pastors disagree on the details of the apocalypse because most agree on the main teachings about the Second Coming of Jesus. He said the rest doesn't affect the day-to-day life of most Christians.

"The big picture of Revelation is clear: Jesus returns, people must be ready, evil is defeated," he said. "With the rest of the details, there is room for disagreement."


Hmmmm.. By this article, there seems to be much disunity among these 1000 Protestant Pastors reguarding the Rapture being explicitly found in the Bible. Would you not agree?

As far as the Catholic view of the Rapture? From Jim Blackburn of Catholicanswers.com:


Full Question:

Do Catholics believe in the Rapture?

Answer:

The word Rapture is connected to the Latin word rapiemur, which appears in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. It means to be raised up or caught up:

The dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16–17)
Therefore, Catholics believe that those Christians who are still living at the Second Coming of Christ will be gathered together with those who have died in Christ to be forever with the Lord. Catholics do not generally use the term Rapture, nor do they believe in a Rapture that will take place some time before the Second Coming, as do many Evangelicals.


Have a Blessed Day my friend

 

[Fidelibus]

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.

So just to understand you correctly, what is your's and or the Anglican Church's definition between Sacred Tradition, lower case t tradition, and [Holy] Tradition?

 

[Albion]

Is not the belief in Sola Scriptura considered a Protestant doctrine?

I said we are discussing doctrines. That is what Sola Scriptura and its opposite number, Sacred Tradition AKA Holy Tradition, deal with. They do not deal with religious customs, non-doctrinal religious practices, etc. Yet this is what your list consisted of rather than doctrines.

As far as the Rapture goes, where in the Bible is the word "Rapture" explicitly found?

The word is not there, but the idea clearly is, so your charge is invalid. Those Christians who believe in the Rapture (as they envision it) certainly CAN turn to Scripture and find the events that are called by that term there.

Also, is there total unity among Protestant churches, non-denominational sects, and non-Catholics in the belief of the Rapture? If not, why not if they all are reading the same Bible and all supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit?

For about the umpteenth time, Sola Scripture concerns what the guiding authority for essential doctrine IS, not how any church or individual person interprets what is found there.

Also, the Catholic churches are just as divided in their interpretations of Holy Tradition as the Protestant churches are with Sola Scriptura. In fact, they are MORE divided.

But they all insist that they follow the same Holy Tradition, you know, therefore there is no merit to your diversion or whatever it might better be called.

 

[JESUSKiDtommy]

Back on the now locked thread, "Whose Sacred Traditions? (Fidelibus)" the OP made a couple of statements on page 4, post # 64:



And:



So my questions are..... is this the General Consensus among adherents of the Bible alone? If so, could you give your reasons why? And if you disagree, could you also give your reasons why you disagree?

Thank you

 

[JESUSKiDtommy]

If the HOLY LOVE OF GOD is not living in a person through them practicing the base teachings of JESUS as pertaining to LOVING others around us, then how does that person think their views on the BIBLE are correct? It is HIS LOVE in us that reveals understanding. So it can't be the BIBLE alone, HIS SPIRIT in us is our teacher and without HIM a person could memorize the entire BIBLE and still be lost.

 

[Fidelibus]

I said we are discussing doctrines. That is what Sola Scriptura and its opposite number, Sacred Tradition AKA Holy Tradition, deal with. They do not deal with religious customs, non-doctrinal religious practices, etc. Yet this is what your list consisted of rather than doctrines.

To fully understand Sacred Tradition, AKA Apostolic Tradition Albion, I would suggest reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church's Article two, The Transmission of Divine Revelation, Paragraphs 74-100.

As far as my list, I still noticed you did show where they are explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Isn't that the premise for Sola Scriptura, is that if it's not explicitly found in the Bible it is considerd an exrta-Biblical teaching or practice, not the Word of God and should be disreguarded as it is just a tradition of man? That's what non-Catholics on this forum keeps telling us Catholics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, But isn't the actual position, as developed by Luther, Calvin, and other Protestants over the past 500 years, is the belief that only Scripture is the final and infallible authority in Christianity?

As far as the Rapture goes, where in the Bible is the word "Rapture" explicitly found?
The word is not there, but the idea clearly is, so your charge is invalid.

So you are saying if there are Protestant teachings, practices, and beliefs that are not explicitly found in the Bible such as the Rapture, are permissible? But, any Sacred/ Apostolic Traditions of the Catholic Church that are not explicit, but implicitly found in the Bible are non-permissible?

Those Christians who believe in the Rapture (as they envision it) certainly CAN turn to Scripture and find the events that are called by that term there.

How about the Protestant Pastors in the article I provided that "don't" believe in the Rapture? Where are they to turn too if not the Bible? What other authority?

For about the umpteenth time, Sola Scripture concerns what the guiding authority for essential doctrine IS, not how any church or individual person interprets what is found there.

Where in the Bible does it explicity say this? Book, Chapter, and Verse please? Or could this be another man-made Protestant tradition? If it cannot be found in the Bible, by what other authority can Protestant churches turn too for an effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not?

Also, the Catholic churches are just as divided in their interpretations of Holy Tradition as the Protestant churches are with Sola Scriptura. In fact, they are MORE divided.

First off, it's the Catholic Church, (singluar) unlike Protestantism thousands of differing Churches and sects. (plural)

Secondly, I'll let the staff over at Catholicanswers.com address this myth there is more disunity in the Catholic Church's interpretation of Sacred/Apostolic Traditions than the thousands of different Protestant Churches adhereance of Sola Scriptura.

"Full Question:

The Catholic Church claims to be united on doctrine, yet it seems to me there are as many divisions among Catholics as there are among Protestants. Isn't this the case?

Answer:

Not really. Division isn't inherent in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism. To the extent there's doctrinal disunity among Catholics, this isn't the result of Catholics living by their own principles. It's caused by Catholics being insufficiently Catholic--by not following the teachings of the Church.

In a sense, dissenting Catholics are really Protestants (of a sort) because, while they may not dissent from Catholic teaching on the same issues as the Reformers did, they still reject the Church's teaching and replace it with their own ideas about what Christianity is.

Protestant disunity is due, at least in part, to Protestants following their principle of sola scriptura. Even when sin and pride are excluded from the equation, Protestants still interpreted the Bible differently on important issues--sometimes even on questions directly related to salvation (like the nature of baptism or whether Christians can lose their salvation). This points to a defective method of discerning what it is God has revealed, not merely to defective discerners."

Furthermore Albion , individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who "speak for the Church" and who can articulate what "the Catholic position" is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

Another example of disunity among the different Protestant Churches Albion (again, plural) is
a Lutheran Pastor's belief in baptismal regeneration would prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist Pastor's belief in high predestination would prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist Pastor's belief in infant baptism would prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, ect. ect. You would agree, correct?

But they all insist that they follow the same Holy Tradition, you know, therefore there is no merit to your diversion or whatever it might better be called.

One big difference though...... The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who "speak for the Church" and who can articulate what "the Catholic position" is. Unfortunately, for Protestantism there is nothing comparable, only disunity as I've showed above


Have a Blessed Day my friend

 

[Major1]

Is not the belief in Sola Scriptura considered a Protestant doctrine?



Yet adherents of The Bible Alone doctrine, (all one needs as a sole rule of faith) beleive and practice these teachings that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

As far as the Rapture goes, where in the Bible is the word "Rapture" explicitly found? Also, is there total unity among Protestant churches, non-denominational sects, and non-Catholics in the belief of the Rapture? If not, why not if they all are reading the same Bible and all supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit?

Here is an article from the Protestant news scource CBNNEWS.COM that might be of an interest:

Large Number of Pastors Don't Believe in the Rapture (04-27-2016)

Man looking up at sky, rapture
End-times theology is wavering in the Christian church and a large number of Protestant pastors believe there is no rapture.

Whether pre-tribulation or post rapture, a new study by LifeWay research reveals that pinning down details of the apocalypse among a group of pastors is hard to do.

Although the scriptures make it clear that Jesus is coming back researchers found varying views on three aspects of end-times theology: the rapture, the Antichrist, and the millennial kingdom.

Out of the 1,000 senior Protestant pastors surveyed, only a third (36 percent) believed in a pre-tribulation rapture where Christians disappear at the start of the apocalypse and those left behind suffer tribulation.

Thirty-six percent of pastors say the rapture is not literal, while almost 1 in 5 believe the rapture happens after the tribulation (18 percent).

End-times theology is popular with churchgoers but it is not an easy topic to preach about, Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research, explained.

"Most people want their pastor to preach about the Book of Revelation and the end of the world," he said. "But that's a complicated task. Pastors and the scholars they cite often disagree about how the end times will unfold."

The diversity among eschatological views includes varying opinions on the Anti-Christ and beliefs in a millennial kingdom.

About half of pastors (49 percent) see the Anti-Christ as a figure who will arise in the future, 14 percent believe he is the personification of evil, while 12 percent say he is not an actual person.

Close to half of the pastors surveyed believe in pre-millennialism (48 percent), which is the view that the thousand year reign of Christ happens in the future.

A third (31 percent) of leaders don't believe in a thousand year reign but they do believe that Jesus already rules in the hearts and minds of Christians. Close to 1 in 10 (11 percent) believe in post-millennialism, the idea that the world will gradually become more Christian until Jesus returns.

McConnell said it isn't a bad thing that pastors disagree on the details of the apocalypse because most agree on the main teachings about the Second Coming of Jesus. He said the rest doesn't affect the day-to-day life of most Christians.

"The big picture of Revelation is clear: Jesus returns, people must be ready, evil is defeated," he said. "With the rest of the details, there is room for disagreement."


Hmmmm.. By this article, there seems to be much disunity among these 1000 Protestant Pastors reguarding the Rapture being explicitly found in the Bible. Would you not agree?

As far as the Catholic view of the Rapture? From Jim Blackburn of Catholicanswers.com:


Full Question:

Do Catholics believe in the Rapture?

Answer:

The word Rapture is connected to the Latin word rapiemur, which appears in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. It means to be raised up or caught up:

The dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16–17)
Therefore, Catholics believe that those Christians who are still living at the Second Coming of Christ will be gathered together with those who have died in Christ to be forever with the Lord. Catholics do not generally use the term Rapture, nor do they believe in a Rapture that will take place some time before the Second Coming, as do many Evangelicals.


Have a Blessed Day my friend

If you are going to teach us about the Rapture, I suggest that you start a thread on the subject.

As for "Sola Scriptura", for centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This has resulted in many practices that are in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority.
(https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html)

The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines.

If anyone chooses to accept the teachings of men over the teachings of the Bible then that is their choice.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible.

2 Tim. 2:15...……..
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

 

[Major1]

Catholics believe – and have always believed – that we are saved by grace, through faith, working in love (Gal 5:6; 1 Cor 13). Baptism is the initial means by which we receive the grace of God which saves – confession, or the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is where we receive the grace we’ve lost through sin after baptism – and the process of justification leads ultimately to our inner sanctification, making us fit for heaven where “nothing unclean shall enter it” (Rev 21:27).

Justification takes time – it is not automatic. We have been saved objectively by Christ on the cross – no contention there – but subjectively we are “running the race”. We are “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Paul writes:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor 1:18)

(source- Matt Nelson, Catholic Apologist)

You said...………
"Baptism is the initial means by which we receive the grace of God which saves – confession, or the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is where we receive the grace we’ve lost through sin after baptism".

That is Catholic dogma and NOT Bible truth.
Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly reject that comment.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Not one single word about being Baptized to receive the grace of God.
Not one single word about Sacramental reconciliation.

As far as your idea of Justification, I disagree.
"Justification" is the word for declaring a sinner "Not Guilty".

The Scriptures you posted are not to be used as the context for salvations miracle.
AFTER we are saved we are to "run the race" but we only do that because we are saved and NOT TO BE SAVED because we are running the race.

1 Corth. 1:18 which says...…."But unto us which are saved" - ---
This stands opposed to “them that perish.” It refers to Christians, as being saved from the power and condemnation of sin; and as having a prospect of eternal salvation in the world to come.

Romans 5:1...…
"Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ".

Romans 8:1...….
"Therefore there is NOW NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus".

Traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor.

We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God.

This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.
https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

 

[Major1]

Maybe not explicitly Major1, but implicitly?? Yes! As are other words and phrases not explicitly, but implicitly found in Scripture such as Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin birth. Correct? However, there are
words and phrases (and Protestant beliefs, practices, and teachings) that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Such as:

1. Altar call.

2. Evangelical Sinner’s Prayer.

3. Separating young people during church services.

4. Bible studies. (which I have no problem with)

5. Asking Jesus into one’s heart. (which I have no problem with)

6. Rapture.

7. Invisible Church.

To name a few. Now if you disagree, by all means Major1, please post the book, chapter or verse that proves me wrong. You know Maj1, I find it interesting how Protestants and Adhrerants to the belief of the Bible Alone like yourself have no problem believing these things. (Remember, before my conversion to the Catholic Church, I too had no problem believing these things, until the Holy Spirit led me to the truth. Thanks be to God!)

Why is this my friend? Why do you believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics a hard time for other doctrines and practices with equal or greater backing in Scripture?




To quote Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong:

“Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture. It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often in the pages of the Bible. We also acknowledge sacred Tradition, the authority of the Church, and the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths, as is to be expected with a living organism (the Body of Christ) guided by the Holy Spirit. A belief implicitly biblical is not necessarily antibiblical or unbiblical. But we maintain that the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”), on the other hand, is incoherent and — I dare say — quite unbiblical.

“In fact, many doctrines accepted by Protestants are either not found in the Bible at all (for example, sola Scriptura and the canon of Scripture), are based on only a very few direct passages (for example, the virgin birth), or are indirectly deduced from many implicit passages (for example, the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus, and many attributes of God, such as His omnipresence and omniscience).”

Let me be clear about the exact nature of my argument: I do distinguish between things that are not in the Bible at all — in word or concept — and particular words that aren’t in the Bible, whereas the concepts certainly are. For example, “Trinity” is obviously a biblical concept. I’ve spent more than 30 years defending this truth using the Bible (it was one of my first major apologetics efforts). There’s no justification for arguing that because a specific word isn’t in the Bible (such as “Lent”), neither is the concept. It doesn’t follow. Something is “biblical” if the concept can be deduced using the Bible; whether a specific word is used to describe it is largely irrelevant."

Thank you Mr. Armstrong, and thank you Major1 for your continued participation in this thread.

p.s. I could show you where Apostolic Succession is mentioned implicitly in Scripture if you'd like.

Have a Blessed Day!

#1. Alter Call.
Matthew 4:19……….
"And Jesus said to them, Follow Me and I will make you fishers of men, and immediately they left their nets an followed Him".

Matthew 10:32...….
"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

#2. Evangelicals sinners prayer.
Romans 10:9-10...…..
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation".


#3. Seperating young people during church services.
I have NO idea what you are referring to on this one.

#4. Bible studies.
Joshua 1:8...…….
"The book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, BUT YOU SHALL MEDITATE ON IT DAY AND NIGHT, so that you may be carful to do according to all that is written in it, for then you will make your way prosperous and you will have success".

2 Timothy 2:15...……..
"STUDY to show thyself approved by God as a workman who rightly divides the Word of God".

#5. Asking Jesus into ones heart.
Same response as was to #2.

#6. Rapture.
Of course, every Bible believers I know of knows that the "word" Rapture is not in the Bible.

However as you are aware of, neither is the "word" Trinity but you as a Catholic believe in that so why not the Rapture. That is nothing more than a double standard used to satisfy your unbelief in something which is described without words.

If you or anyone else chooses to not believe the Rapture, that is no problem for me.
The truth is that the RCC does not teach the Rapture at all so your position on it would be in line with their non-teaching of it.

#7. Invisable church.
The only reason you listed that is to be able to claim the Pope as the head of the VISABLE church of the RCC.

Ephesians 1:22...……..
"And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church".

Jesus Christ is the risen head of the church and all believers in Christ are members of that church which has no walls.

Now then, as for showing me where Apostolic succession is in the Bible.

No my friend, YOU CAN NOT SHOW ME THAT AT ALL.

You will of course post what the RCC tells you to post but the truth is simply that there are NO Scriptures which suggest, say out right or even imply succession of the Apostles office.

You may use Peter as the "Commander" of the 1st church. But that will not satand as he was rebuked by Paul in Gal. 2:11-14.

Then you may try to use the chossing of Matthias. But he was picked to replace Judas which is nothing more than a Godly man being chosen over an un-Godly man so that will not stand either.

NOWHERE is there a record of any of the 12 Apostles passing on their office to another apostle!!!!

It is Biblically impossible for anyone to be an Apostle. The office simply does not exist as a Bible doctrine.

A RCC doctrine.....YES. As a Bible doctrine NO. But there is nothing new there.

 

[eleos1954]

Back on the now locked thread, "Whose Sacred Traditions? (Fidelibus)" the OP made a couple of statements on page 4, post # 64:
And:

So my questions are..... is this the General Consensus among adherents of the Bible alone? If so, could you give your reasons why? And if you disagree, could you also give your reasons why you disagree?

Thank you

I am a Bible only person:

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

adherents? what a strange word to be used in conjunction with the Holy Word of God

definition
someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas. Bible only belief is none of these. The Bible is not a party, The Bible is not a person , The Bible is not a set of ideas .... the Bible is the Holy Word of God.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If you are going to teach us about the Rapture, I suggest that you start a thread on the subject.

Far be it from me to speak for someone else. But what I took from that post was the author was enumerating a list of doctrines which many evangelicals believe in but which are not found in the scriptures.

Of which one was the "rapture". But I didn't get the idea that the post was necessarily inviting debate on that particular subject.

As for "Sola Scriptura", for centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This has resulted in many practices that are in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority.

Are you enumerating a list of Catholic doctrines there? Or are you inviting debate on them? Because if the latter, well, I think it might be better to start a separate thread for that.

So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines.

This is an interesting admission on your part. Do you believe that there are circumstances where sacred tradition has some level of authority?

Disclosure: The above is not meant to be rhetorical trap. On the contrary, I never thought I'd see the day when you would write something like that so I would like to find out a bit more of the contours of your views on this.

Part of the reason I ask is because you went on to write...

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture.

... and I'm not sure how those two principles can exist at the same time and in the same context.

 

[Major1]

Far be it from me to speak for someone else. But what I took from that post was the author was enumerating a list of doctrines which many evangelicals believe in but which are not found in the scriptures.

Of which one was the "rapture". But I didn't get the idea that the post was necessarily inviting debate on that particular subject.

Of which one was the "rapture". But I didn't get the idea that the post was necessarily inviting debate on that particular subject. Or are you inviting debate on them? Because if the latter, well, I think it might be better to start a separate thread for that.

This is an interesting admission on your part. Do you believe that there are circumstances where sacred tradition has some level of authority?

Disclosure: The above is not meant to be rhetorical trap. On the contrary, I never thought I'd see the day when you would write something like that so I would like to find out a bit more of the contours of your views on this.

Part of the reason I ask is because you went on to write...

... and I'm not sure how those two principles can exist at the same time and in the same context.

You said...…….
"But what I took from that post was the author was enumerating a list of doctrines which many evangelicals believe in but which are not found in the scriptures."

Agreed, and that is exactly why I posted the Scriptures where those items are found in the Bible.

You said...………….
"Of which one was the "rapture". But I didn't get the idea that the post was necessarily inviting debate on that particular subject."

Agreed. So then why bring it up at all??? There is ALWAYS an agenda behind Mr. Fidelibus's comments. Nothing is ever what it seems. He questioned the Rapture as a Bible doctrine but then turns right around and accepts the Trinity and NEITHER word is found in the Bible. So then by that logic the Rosary should not be a doctrine because the word is NOT in the Bible. So the point is.....why mention the Rapture at all??????

You said...…….
"This is an interesting admission on your part. Do you believe that there are circumstances where sacred tradition has some level of authority?"

Your question actually tells me that you did not read my post.
Allow me post it for you again.....So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines.

Now how you got the idea that you would think that is interesting is beyond me. What I posted is universally accepted by every Protestant scholar I know and have studied.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture.

I would encourage you to study the difference between oral “tradition” and oral “transmission.”

The term tradition implies a long-held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence.

Transmission is a method of conveying information. The content of the Bible was, in some cases, first relayed through oral “transmission,” but not as the result of “tradition.”

Rather, what was being transmitted was a direct explanation of specific facts regarding certain people, places, and times. In most cases, the biblical text was put into written form at the time of, or soon after, the events described.
How much of the Bible was transmitted by oral tradition?

Please do yourself a favor and do a study on the book of Luke.​

 

[Fidelibus]

If you are going to teach us about the Rapture, I suggest that you start a thread on the subject.

Teach about the unbiblical belief of "The Rapture?" I think not! All I was doing was showing the disunity among the many Protestant churches and non-denominational sects reguarding the "Rapture." ( see article......CBNNEWS.COM that might be of an interest: Large Number of Pastors Don't Believe in the Rapture (04-27-2016)..... on my post #65 to Albion.)

As for "Sola Scriptura", for centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible.

This is an out right fallacy on your (your?) part Maj1, and I can prove it.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. Each of then makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ. They both flow out of the same divine well-spring, and together make up one sacred deposit of faith from which the Church derives her certainty about revelation." ------Ref. CCC 80-82, 97

Care to retract your statement? (I won't be holding my breath)

This has resulted in many practices that are in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority.
(What is sola scriptura?)

Really Maj1,,,,, this is your source, gotquestions.com????? Lol! You'll have to do better than that my friend. Quoting this anti-Catholic web-sites views about Catholicism is like asking the Ku Klux Klan their views about African Americans. Sheesh!

The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative.

Well, lets not stop there. Please show where the Bible says it is all we need as a sole rule of faith. Book, Chapter, and verse? Also, could you show where the teaching come from of relying on the Bible alone? Can you show me when it started? Pre-Reformation? Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?

2 Tim. 2:15...……..
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

And where does the Bible say we can go to find the pillar and bulwark of the truth?



Have a Blessed Day!


p.s. Thanks for reviving my thread!

 

[Major1]

I am a Bible only person:

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

adherents? what a strange word to be used in conjunction with the Holy Word of God

definition
someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas. Bible only belief is none of these. The Bible is not a party, The Bible is not a person , The Bible is not a set of ideas .... the Bible is the Holy Word of God.

You said...….."I am a Bible only person".

As am I!!!!

 

[eleos1954]

You said...….."I am a Bible only person".

As am I!!!!

Amen and Amen

God Bless

 

[Major1]

Teach about the unbiblical belief of "The Rapture?" I think not! All I was doing was showing the disunity among the many Protestant churches and non-denominational sects reguarding the "Rapture." ( see article.....
Maybe not explicitly Major1, but implicitly?? Yes! As are other words and phrases not explicitly, but implicitly found in Scripture such as Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin birth. Correct? However, there are
words and phrases (and Protestant beliefs, practices, and teachings) that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Such as:

1. Altar call.

2. Evangelical Sinner’s Prayer.

3. Separating young people during church services.

4. Bible studies. (which I have no problem with)

5. Asking Jesus into one’s heart. (which I have no problem with)

6. Rapture.

7. Invisible Church.

To name a few. Now if you disagree, by all means Major1, please post the book, chapter or verse that proves me wrong. You know Maj1, I find it interesting how Protestants and Adhrerants to the belief of the Bible Alone like yourself have no problem believing these things. (Remember, before my conversion to the Catholic Church, I too had no problem believing these things, until the Holy Spirit led me to the truth. Thanks be to God!)

Why is this my friend? Why do you believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics a hard time for other doctrines and practices with equal or greater backing in Scripture?




To quote Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong:

“Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture. It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often in the pages of the Bible. We also acknowledge sacred Tradition, the authority of the Church, and the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths, as is to be expected with a living organism (the Body of Christ) guided by the Holy Spirit. A belief implicitly biblical is not necessarily antibiblical or unbiblical. But we maintain that the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”), on the other hand, is incoherent and — I dare say — quite unbiblical.

“In fact, many doctrines accepted by Protestants are either not found in the Bible at all (for example, sola Scriptura and the canon of Scripture), are based on only a very few direct passages (for example, the virgin birth), or are indirectly deduced from many implicit passages (for example, the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus, and many attributes of God, such as His omnipresence and omniscience).”

Let me be clear about the exact nature of my argument: I do distinguish between things that are not in the Bible at all — in word or concept — and particular words that aren’t in the Bible, whereas the concepts certainly are. For example, “Trinity” is obviously a biblical concept. I’ve spent more than 30 years defending this truth using the Bible (it was one of my first major apologetics efforts). There’s no justification for arguing that because a specific word isn’t in the Bible (such as “Lent”), neither is the concept. It doesn’t follow. Something is “biblical” if the concept can be deduced using the Bible; whether a specific word is used to describe it is largely irrelevant."

Thank you Mr. Armstrong, and thank you Major1 for your continued participation in this thread.

p.s. I could show you where Apostolic Succession is mentioned implicitly in Scripture if you'd like.

Have a Blessed Day!
Click to expand..




This is an out right fallacy on your (your?) part Maj1, and I can prove it.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. Each of then makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ. They both flow out of the same divine well-spring, and together make up one sacred deposit of faith from which the Church derives her certainty about revelation." ------Ref. CCC 80-82, 97

Care to retract your statement? (I won't be holding my breath)



Really Maj1,,,,, this is your source, gotquestions.com????? Lol! You'll have to do better than that my friend. Quoting this anti-Catholic web-sites views about Catholicism is like asking the Ku Klux Klan their views about African Americans. Sheesh!



Well, lets not stop there. Please show where the Bible says it is all we need as a sole rule of faith. Book, Chapter, and verse? Also, could you show where the teaching come from of relying on the Bible alone? Can you show me when it started? Pre-Reformation? Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?



And where does the Bible say we can go to find the pillar and bulwark of the truth?



Have a Blessed Day!


p.s. Thanks for reviving my thread!

You said...…….
"Teach about the unbiblical belief of "The Rapture?" I think not! All I was doing was showing the disunity among the many Protestant churches and non-denominational sects reguarding the "Rapture."

That simply is not true.

You said in post #73...……
"Maybe not explicitly Major1, but implicitly?? Yes! As are other words and phrases not explicitly, but implicitly found in Scripture such as Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin birth. Correct? However, there are words and phrases (and Protestant beliefs, practices, and teachings) that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture...….."

That is not about disunity at all. It was about believing something which is not found expressly printed in the Scriptures so as to allow you as a Catholic to continue to worship the Rosary, Purgatory, and many other NON Biblical practices of the Catholic church.

The thinking IMO from your post was YOU protestants accept the Rapture and it is not in the Bible hence you are arguing against Sola Scripture. BUT as I said, you as a Catholic practice the Rosary and believe in the Trinity so what is your point??

CBS is YOUR source of information. A worldly news organization???

And may I say that the number of people who are so called Christians are probably higher than 50% who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ. I would say that 75% of all RCC members do not accept the salvation of God through faith only so Once again what is the point of your comment.

You said...…..asked actually...…………

"Please show where the Bible says it is all we need as a sole rule of faith. Book, Chapter, and verse?"
​

My 1st thought is WHY? You do not accept the Bible as the written Word of God, why do you then ask me to post something that you will not receive????​

​

2 Timothy 3:16 ...........​

"the entire Bible is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."​

​

The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.​

https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html​

​

Rev. 22:18-19...……..​

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”!​

​

The Lord’s Jesus's total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18………
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

Then you asked...………….
"Also, could you show where the teaching come from of relying on the Bible alone? "

​

Again I have to ask WHY you would have to have that posted for you.​

Anyway, there is nothing "new" in your question at all. If we go back about 4000 years or so we can find in the Book of Deuteronomy the commands to follow the Written Word of God.​

This new role of the written word is particularly reflected in the Book of Deuteronomy, which commands the masses to write down the words of God, to read it and treasure it in their hearts, and to post the written word on the entrance to their homes.​

​

Deuteronomy 6:4-9..……….​

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."​

​

You asked...……….​

"Can you show me when it started?"​

​

Just did. See above.​

​

You asked...……….​

"Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?"​

​

A little history study tells us that when the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.​

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

Another way to view this confusion between TRADITIONS and the words os God found in the BIBLE are like God's fountain ...

Jeremiah 2:...…..
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."