A baptists response about the deuterocanon

[Shaolen]

Ok so I managed to ask him questions that lead him to a spot where I thought I could make a case.

I asked “Do you hold the bible to be your sole authority”

He said “Nope. God is the sole authority”

I then asked "Ok so how do you know what Truth God has revealed? How do you know what His will is? "

He then replied “God’s word”

I then asked “How do you know what God’s word is?”

He then answered “The bible (revealed word)”

This was what I was looking for. So I asked “So how do you know what books should constitute the bible. How do you know you’re not missing books that are God’s revealed word, or have books that really aren’t God’s revealed word?”

He then replies with this

"I don’t. But you don’t really know either. You just know what you’ve been taught. You weren’t there when the bible was written and put together. But God will lead me to reading what needs to be read. I trust that God has revealed to me what I should be reading. HE has led me to this point in my life. “How do you know you’re not missing books that are God’s revealed word, or have books that really aren’t God’s revealed word?” Again, same thing. God is mysterious and speaks to us in more ways than one. Especially when we open up the lines of communication to him through prayer. I know that I don’t have to know everything to follow the path that he wants me to follow.

You seem to not understand that I have a personal relationship with God. It’s not the same as what church I go to, what are their exact customs, do they include all proper inspired scripture, etc. etc. It’s a personal relationship between me and him. Jesus paid the ultimate price so that I could have this relationship because it was not something I could have ever afforded myself, no matter how good I am, no matter what scriptures I have read"

Any advice on how to respond to this?

 

[Shaolen]

Please if anyone has any insight on this, Please help

 

[Father_Read]

Please if anyone has any insight on this, Please help

Shaolen, I’m afraid that I am not able to help in a debate unless it follows the proper structure of a debate, which begins with a clear understanding of the topic that is being examined. At this point, I’m not even sure what the topic of this debate is, because it seems to have changed over time. I honestly believe that the whole discussion is in danger of spiraling down the rabbit hole, and I imagine this is why other people on CAF seem to have dropped off this thread. If you would like to proceed in accordance with the advice I gave in my last post then I will be happy to give further (name removed by moderator)ut, otherwise this will have to be the extent of my help. Simply put, I try to avoid rabbit holes.

I will, however, go ahead and point out something in regard to your brother’s last round of comments. I have personally heard your brother’s same basic argument used by Mormons to explain why they believe the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, and by Muslims to explain why they believe the Koran is divinely inspired. And I imagine that I could find certain proponents from each of the world’s other religions making the same claim about what they consider to be sacred scripture. And yet the teachings of all these books are incompatible with one another, so they cannot all be true (for example, the Bible teaches that there is only one God, while certain other religions teach that there are many gods; both concepts cannot simultaneously be true). So if other people can make the same argument your brother does in favor of the authenticity of their particular scriptures, then how does your brother explain that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and their sacred books are not? After all, I’m sure a lot of these people are just as dedicated to their spiritual journeys as he is, and are just as sincere in their beliefs as he is.

 

[Belshazzar]

So I’m in a discussion with my Baptist brother about the deuterocanon being sacred scripture. I mentioned how he and other protestants are missing out on these sacred scriptures and he then stated this

“The gospel is the greatest thing that anyone could ever be missing out on.”

I replied saying “A little besides my point. Are not the rest of the bible sacred? Are they not inspired?”

He then stated “Yes. But knowing all of inspired scripture is not a requirement to get into heaven.”

He seems to almost be saying that all we need are the four gospels and none of the other books of the bible. How can I respond to him?

The bible that the Baptists use, the KJV, originally had the deuterocanonicals. They were removed about 150 years later.

 

[Belshazzar]

I believe you are right. He just replied with this

“God made it simple so that any one of us could get into heaven, no matter how smart or how well-read or unread we are. It’s all summed up in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.””

I was thinking of asking him how he knows john 3:16 is inspired sacred scripture. How can I show him that it’s wrong to say that John 3:16 is all that is necessary?

When in doubt about a Scripture verse, look up the Greek translation.

…that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but MIGHT have eternal life.

The difference is subtle but profound.

 

[DavidFilmer]

He seems to almost be saying that all we need are the four gospels and none of the other books of the bible. How can I respond to him?

Well, he’s correct up to a point. The point at which he becomes incorrect is when he suggests that we need the four Gospels.

The Catholic Church does not need Scripture - ANY of it. It’s really nice to have, but it is completely optional. Jesus did not write or commission a book - he established a Church founded in the human authority of the Magesterium (Peter and the Apostles, and their successors, Popes and Bishops).

Catholicism is not a faith of any book, but a faith founded upon Our Lord’s Apostolic commission, ratified by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

If every copy of every Bible were somehow burned tomorrow, the Catholic Church would carry on quite well.

Tell him that you are willing to throw out the Deutos if he is willing to throw out the Gospels. When he complains, ask him why.

 

[zz912]

He then replies with this

"I don’t. But you don’t really know either. You just know what you’ve been taught. You weren’t there when the bible was written and put together. But God will lead me to reading what needs to be read. I trust that God has revealed to me what I should be reading. HE has led me to this point in my life. “How do you know you’re not missing books that are God’s revealed word, or have books that really aren’t God’s revealed word?” Again, same thing. God is mysterious and speaks to us in more ways than one. Especially when we open up the lines of communication to him through prayer. I know that I don’t have to know everything to follow the path that he wants me to follow.

You seem to not understand that I have a personal relationship with God. It’s not the same as what church I go to, what are their exact customs, do they include all proper inspired scripture, etc. etc. It’s a personal relationship between me and him. Jesus paid the ultimate price so that I could have this relationship because it was not something I could have ever afforded myself, no matter how good I am, no matter what scriptures I have read"

Any advice on how to respond to this?

God did not leave us to wander aimlessly, or leave us without proper guidance. Jesus built ONE Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of truth”. By listening to and remaining in the Church, a Christian will know how to behave. The Church has authority to speak in God’s name.

As to his comments about John 3:16, ask him to read a little bit further in John 6. Ask him what Jesus commands for us to be saved. Ask him if this is optional for salvation.

Another point to discuss, ask him why he is using a Catholic liturgical book (the Bible) for instructions on the faith? Most Protestants don’t even understand WHY the Bible was compiled together, or what its PURPOSE is. It is NOT an instruction manual for the faith. The Church was having some confusion in the late 300’s about which books could be read in the Mass. So Catholic bishops got together and decided which books could be read in the Mass, and this decision was ratified by the Pope.

These books were then grouped together and eventually became known as “the books”, which in Latin is bible.

So the purpose of the Bible is to support the Mass.

 

[Sola_Catholicus]

So I’m in a discussion with my Baptist brother about the deuterocanon being sacred scripture. I mentioned how he and other protestants are missing out on these sacred scriptures and he then stated this

“The gospel is the greatest thing that anyone could ever be missing out on.”

I replied saying “A little besides my point. Are not the rest of the bible sacred? Are they not inspired?”

He then stated “Yes. But knowing all of inspired scripture is not a requirement to get into heaven.”

He seems to almost be saying that all we need are the four gospels and none of the other books of the bible. How can I respond to him?

This is exactly what I mean when I call Baptists “minimalists.”

If something exists, even if sacred, but is not a requirement for salvation (in their view) then it really doesn’t matter.

It’s the same line as “Why ask Mary for prayers?” or “Why do good works” or “Why be so stringent about Christ’s teachings on marriage?” Their normal reasoning for questioning such practices is “you don’t have to do it to be saved.” Such a response is kind of funny for two reasons:

1. They’re kind of playing God with their simplistic assurance of salvation. They’re not God, nor do they have (nor does anyone) a complete understanding or comprehension of His grace. Acting like we “know” who and who won’t be saved is a bit presumptuous of us is it not?
2. Ask them why they even attend services or get baptized if none of it is a requirement for salvation. Why they require immersion (as in immersion-only) if baptism is only a symbolic gesture in the first place. If it’s only symbolic then why does the technique even matter? If they say it’s “because that’s how they did it in the Bible,” ask them if they know what “baptize” means, then ask them if they were baptized in the Jordan River by John. If not, they didn’t have a “biblical baptism.” Also, why pass around bread and grape juice if they’re only symbols and have no real meaning? What’s the point? It’s not necessary for salvation right?

 

[Sola_Catholicus]

Ok so I managed to ask him questions that lead him to a spot where I thought I could make a case.

I asked “Do you hold the bible to be your sole authority”

He said “Nope. God is the sole authority”

I then asked "Ok so how do you know what Truth God has revealed? How do you know what His will is? "

He then replied “God’s word”

I then asked “How do you know what God’s word is?”

He then answered “The bible (revealed word)”

This was what I was looking for. So I asked “So how do you know what books should constitute the bible. How do you know you’re not missing books that are God’s revealed word, or have books that really aren’t God’s revealed word?”

He then replies with this

"I don’t. But you don’t really know either. You just know what you’ve been taught. You weren’t there when the bible was written and put together. But God will lead me to reading what needs to be read. I trust that God has revealed to me what I should be reading. HE has led me to this point in my life. “How do you know you’re not missing books that are God’s revealed word, or have books that really aren’t God’s revealed word?” Again, same thing. God is mysterious and speaks to us in more ways than one. Especially when we open up the lines of communication to him through prayer. I know that I don’t have to know everything to follow the path that he wants me to follow.

You seem to not understand that I have a personal relationship with God. It’s not the same as what church I go to, what are their exact customs, do they include all proper inspired scripture, etc. etc. It’s a personal relationship between me and him. Jesus paid the ultimate price so that I could have this relationship because it was not something I could have ever afforded myself, no matter how good I am, no matter what scriptures I have read"

Any advice on how to respond to this?

Ask him if he realizes that Christianity existed for about 350 years with no New Testament. With no written compilation of Christ’s teachings. Then ask him if he realizes that millions, if not billions of Christians throughout history weren’t even able to read the Bible. As many probably never owned a Bible either because mass printing didn’t exist, illiteracy, or they couldn’t afford one.

 

[Gorgias]

When in doubt about a Scripture verse, look up the Greek translation.

…that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but MIGHT have eternal life.

The difference is subtle but profound.

If by this, you mean that the subjunctive is used, then yes, you’re right. (Of course, the verb for ‘perish’ is likewise in the subjunctive.) However, if you mean that the word ‘might’ is used there, with all the meanings that word takes on in English, then you’re kinda making the same mistake that you castigate.

 

[zz912]

1. Ask them why they even attend services or get baptized if none of it is a requirement for salvation. Why they require immersion (as in immersion-only) if baptism is only a symbolic gesture in the first place. If it’s only symbolic then why does the technique even matter? If they say it’s “because that’s how they did it in the Bible,” ask them if they know what “baptize” means, then ask them if they were baptized in the Jordan River by John. If not, they didn’t have a “biblical baptism.” Also, why pass around bread and grape juice if they’re only symbols and have no real meaning? What’s the point? It’s not necessary for salvation right?

This is actually happening in some areas of Baptist churches. There are many who simply don’t get baptized because “it’s not necessary for salvation”. Ironic considering the denomination name.

 

[Sola_Catholicus]

This is actually happening in some areas of Baptist churches. There are many who simply don’t get baptized because “it’s not necessary for salvation”. Ironic considering the denomination name.

Unfortunate. They’re generally good folks, just theologically wrong about almost everything. They should think twice about continuing to water down their practices or beliefs. I’ve noticed that, arguably, the Baptists are fed more lies about the Catholic Church than any other denomination. I’ve sat in on a few of their services and was dumbstruck at times…I don’t know if their misinformation is due to a lifetime of brainwashing or purposefully misleading slander.

They still believe in the divinity of Christ, which is certainly a plus. For now.

 

[patmiron]

=Shaolen;13186170]So I’m in a discussion with my Baptist brother about the deuterocanon being sacred scripture. I mentioned how he and other protestants are missing out on these sacred scriptures and he then stated this

“The gospel is the greatest thing that anyone could ever be missing out on.”

I replied saying “A little besides my point. Are not the rest of the bible sacred? Are they not inspired?”

He then stated “Yes. But knowing all of inspired scripture is not a requirement to get into heaven.”

He seems to almost be saying that all we need are the four gospels and none of the other books of the bible. How can I respond to him?

So here my friend from an old man, and experienced teacher of our cherrished Catholic Faith are a few points of discussion:

1. What is your understanding of the veracity of the bible? [truthfulness]

Matthew 4:4
Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

2nd Tim. 3:16-17 " All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work"

2.Did you know that the bible IS a Catholic Book?

It was the 1st Catholics ;a term that would come later as did “Christian” who choose the OT books guided by the HS to be included & it was Catholics who AUTHORED the entire New Testament.

1. So as the authors of the bible ought we not to have the right; the final say on what was God Inspired & included?
2. Our Catholic Church historically and biblically dates back directly to the Apostles as directed by Christ Mt. 10:1-8 compared to Mt 28:16-20
3. The myth that today’s CC somehow; somewhere; sometime lost God’s protection is either wrong or GOD is a LIAR!

Mt. 16:18-19 “[18] And I say to thee:[singular] That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,[singular] and the gates of hell shall not prevail againstB] it. [also singular] And I will give to thee [all of] the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

Jn. 17: 17-20 "Sanctify them [my Apostles and their successors] in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, **that they also may be sanctified in truth. **[20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

Then ask WHERE in the bible even ONE TIME did God ever allow differing faith beliefs from what HE Taught?

Mt. 10: 1-8 "And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them [HIS] power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [YOU!] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give"

Compared to: Mt.28:16-20 "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: … Going therefore, teach YOU! all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU!: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

My fried as a FYI:

I’m a trained and experienced Teacher of our Catholic Faith; now retired I offer a FREE OF ALL COST:thumbsup: home study e-mailed course; with a lesson mailed each week.

Now in my 6th year of doing so. If you’d like to learn how to explain, PROVE and defend our Catholic Faith just let me know. I also answer ALL faith questions with evidence of our beliefs.

God Bless you; PRAY MUCH!

Pat Miron

 

[teeboy]

That answer would not be correct, because there was quite a gap between the Ascension of Jesus and the assembly of the books of the Bible. Jesus and the Apostles began Sacred Tradition, a biblical practice of which Sacred Scripture is a part.

No, Sacred Tradition was and is a continuation from Moses. For instance, the laying on of hands predates Peter and the apostles by thousands of years. It was used to transmit the succession between Moses and Joshua.

Most of the text of the book predates Jesus’s conception and nativity.

 

[gus]

In Luke 24:27 Jesus tells 2 disciples how “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets …what was said in all the scriptures concerning himself.” This is the famous scene on the road to Emmaus. The disciples don’t know they are speaking to Jesus. He uses Old Testament scripture to prove that Jesus was the Christ. (Of course the New Testament had not been written.)

Yes but it took the breaking of the bread that opened their eyes.
Luke 24 actually mirrors the Sacred liturgy or the Mass
It’s the first Re-Presentation of his recent sacrifice.
And Jesus was the first priest.

 

[Luvadoxi]

Just a quick point of clarification–not to get into any points of the debate, but:

there is confusion from the beginning in this discussion because of a simple problem of definition. As a Catholic, you think Gospel means Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

The definition used by your brother in Christ is Gospel=Good News of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Someday I might just compose a Protestant-Catholic/Catholic-Protestant dictionary…

 

[Gorgias]

No, Sacred Tradition was and is a continuation from Moses. For instance, the laying on of hands predates Peter and the apostles by thousands of years. It was used to transmit the succession between Moses and Joshua.

You’re making the mistake of conflating ‘sacred tradition’ with ‘succession’, it seems.

From the Catechism, #80-81:

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. … “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching”

So, ‘sacred tradition’ has nothing to do with the laying on of hands, per se. It is a term that describes apostolic teaching. The ‘laying on of hands’ only speaks to how apostolicity is transmitted from one to another of the successors of the apostles, not to the content of Sacred Tradition.

 

[jonathan_hili]

So I’m in a discussion with my Baptist brother about the deuterocanon being sacred scripture. I mentioned how he and other protestants are missing out on these sacred scriptures and he then stated this

“The gospel is the greatest thing that anyone could ever be missing out on.”

I replied saying “A little besides my point. Are not the rest of the bible sacred? Are they not inspired?”

He then stated “Yes. But knowing all of inspired scripture is not a requirement to get into heaven.”

He seems to almost be saying that all we need are the four gospels and none of the other books of the bible. How can I respond to him?

Actually, if his basis is “what is required to get into heaven”, one needn’t even have the four Gospels. Someone could come to know Christ through the witness of others, trust in him, love him, live well and even partake of the sacraments without ever having even read or listened to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Moreover, I suppose, one could not even know Christ but live a godly life in invincible ignorance and find salvation.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, if his basis is “what is required to get into heaven”, one needn’t even have the four Gospels. Someone could come to know Christ through the witness of others, trust in him, love him, live well and even partake of the sacraments without ever having even read or listened to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Hmm… how could one “partake of the sacraments” – including the Eucharist, offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass – “without ever having … listened to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John”?

Moreover, I suppose, one could not even know Christ but live a godly life in invincible ignorance and find salvation.

True; but, that’s Catholic theology. Wouldn’t he assert that one must know Christ and accept Him as one’s personal savior in order to be saved?