Cough me up ONE scripture passage . .

[Reformed_Rob]

Coming from the Protestant side of this matter, I will say a couple things that I have observed, then proceed to another segment of my Sola Scriptura defense.

1 - Most Protestants never happen to think "We talk about the 'Bible this' and 'Bible that' but how do we know what books are properly included in the Bible?"  Granted, there are several books defending Sola Scriptura, of which I might include a book by R.C. Sproul, Keith Mathison, and a set by William Webster, and I'm sure there are many more older ones.  But by and large, yes, it seems that most Protestants don't think seriously about the basic epistomilogical question - How can we know what books are Scripture?

1. • The ones that do will probably be in a situation where they hear about supposed contradictions in Catholic Councils, and different interpretations of official Church teaching. I"m not the Church Council Contradiction Man, but if, after reading through the “Dogmatic Councils” (I’m ready for Chalcedon I) and not finding any obvious contradictions, that argument will virtually go away for me. My pastor is all about showing how the Magesterium is all messed up and has even given a lecture on showing that infallible teachings have contradicted themselves. He loves Vatican II, it gives him lots of ammunition.

So, with that said, Protestants are perhaps rightly suspicious of the Intricate Tradition System in the RC Church.

Now, we can know that there are 66 books in the Complete Bible because the book of Isaiah has 66 Chapters! The first 39 are about God’s Judgement (Law) and the final 27 are about God’s Mercy (Grace). So there!!!

OK, I don’t even take that serious, but that is the kind of stuff you here out there from some of the pulpits!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Now, for Scriptural considerations (seriously)

Acts 20:35 - esp. "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, the He Himself said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

I was first going to say that, since Luke wrote Acts, and Luke wrote Luke, it’s ok for him to quote Christ. But that would be wrong, for in this passage, it seems to be Paul speaking. So, I will say that Paul, being an Apostle, and having spent time with other Apostles, would have heard, albeit orally, many things that Christ taught, that were not actually recorded in written Scriptures.

Matthew 2:23 esp. “that what was spoken by the Prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

It should be common knowledge that Judges 13:5 is the prophecy referenced. Sure, it doesn’t actually say exactly what Matthew quotes it as, but there are many OT quotations that differ somewhat. Also, it does not appear to be a prophecy of the coming Christ, but it can be applied easily to the Messiah by the allegorical sense of Scripture. We can understand this spiritual interpretation here in Judges, because Matthew gives us the literal interpretation.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

For the protestants in this whole thing, I want to get something established. You believe that the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith, NOTHING added to be EQUAL TO IT, or ABOVE IT, but GOD HIMSELF, true or false?

For those who want to answer this question, please do so in my new post titled: Baptism of blood

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Reformed Rob:

My pastor is all about showing how the Magesterium is all messed up and has even given a lecture on showing that infallible teachings have contradicted themselves.

Can you give a few examples that your pastor has given on how infallible teachings have contradicted themselves?

Ya know, it’s interesting. I’ve never belonged to a parish that even suggested offering a lecture on why any particular Protestant denomination is all “messed up”. The fact that Protestant churches do this about Catholicism is astounding!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Catholic4aReasn:

Can you give a few examples that your pastor has given on how infallible teachings have contradicted themselves?

Ya know, it’s interesting. I’ve never belonged to a parish that even suggested offering a lecture on why any particular Protestant denomination is all “messed up”. The fact that Protestant churches do this about Catholicism is astounding!!

In Christ,
Nancy

I’ve noticed this too. What we as Catholics SHOULD do is show people as they come in, whether they be cradle, convert, revert, whatever, how protestants actually go wrong in their teaching, and contradict themselves. According to them, I’m saved, yet not saved. Screwy, ain’t it?

 

[Peace-bwu]

SPOKENWORD:

But I thought we are like Jesus. The cathecism says we become Gods. We take on Christs nature. The spirit of Christ lives in me.So the written word was good enough for Jesus but its not good enough for me. Sorry but I disagree with you.

Not only are you misquoting the Catechism and intentionally misinterpreting it but this refers to when we die and go to heaven… On Earth, some of us may be full of Grace, but unless we have direct authority from God to interpret Scripture and have studied it in light of the Sacred Tradition it came from, we can easily misinterpret it. Also you capitalized Gods… it is actually gods and it does not mean we become separate gods like pagan gods… it means we take on Christ’s nature through salvation when we become the children of God. we dont have salvation until we die and are either saved or tossed into the hellfire!

 

[Peace-bwu]

Catholic4aReasn:

Can you give a few examples that your pastor has given on how infallible teachings have contradicted themselves?

Ya know, it’s interesting. I’ve never belonged to a parish that even suggested offering a lecture on why any particular Protestant denomination is all “messed up”. The fact that Protestant churches do this about Catholicism is astounding!!

In Christ,
Nancy

I have brought this up with Protestant friends and classmates time and again and they never believed me. A friend of mine was so frustrated with me saying “Catholic Priests don’t give lectures on how wrong various Protestant denominations are, we just simply go about worshiping God in the Mass.” That she told me she had visited a Catholic Church once and the priest was bashing Baptists… A few years later I caught that lie, because she went to Mass with me and was impressed with how much Scripture was read… she said it was the first time she had ever been in a Catholic Church… she forgot our prior conversation… but that’s OK, I was just glad she finally knew the truth.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Peace-bwu:

I have brought this up with Protestant friends and classmates time and again and they never believed me. A friend of mine was so frustrated with me saying “Catholic Priests don’t give lectures on how wrong various Protestant denominations are, we just simply go about worshiping God in the Mass.” That she told me she had visited a Catholic Church once and the priest was bashing Baptists… A few years later I caught that lie, because she went to Mass with me and was impressed with how much Scripture was read… she said it was the first time she had ever been in a Catholic Church… she forgot our prior conversation… but that’s OK, I was just glad she finally knew the truth.

If this ever comes up with anyone else in the future, tell them that it is found in SACRED SCRIPTURE that SATAN IS THE FATHER OF LIES. Tell them to think about that the next time they want to go as low as to lie to have a reason to bash the Church.

 

[RBushlow]

Reformed Rob:

1 - Most Protestants never happen to think “We talk about the ‘Bible this’ and ‘Bible that’ but how do we know what books are properly included in the Bible?”

I apologize for any confusion. On the subject is Solar Scriptura, that is the belief that Scripture Alone is sufficient. Can you please help me to answer the following questions using Scripture Alone:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say which books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text.
   Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

 

[E.E.N.S]

bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

Makes you think doesn’t it?

You are always asking for a proof for Sola Scriptura, proof proof proof… The question that should be asked after you visit the web site and read the questions is: Can you give me a proof that YOUR tradition is the true one? And please do not mention “we are the only true church” thing… bla bla bla. This is not a proof. The Holy Bible is a physical thing I have in hand. It is the Word of God for sure and the Word of God DOESN’T CHANGE and can always lead me in the right direction. Understand this: YOU DO NOT NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER SOURCE THAN THE WORD OF GOD.

Too WHICH Word of God are you referring too? From the earlier King James to the newer version alone had over 100,000 corrections/changes (drastic even)…
And you know that there were over 90 “gospels” floating around before the Church (that Jesus Christ himself established - more on this later…) canonized the Bible that you are using today? The Bible is the Church’s Written Tradition…you must ask yourself (as we all must) what gives these guys the authority to say what is the Inspired Word of God and what isn’t?
It was the biggest question I had to ask myself six years ago (when I was an anti-Catholic myself - or so I thought!) - but now after TONS of prayer and un-bias study (harder to do than you might think) I have come to REALLY see who Jesus is! (In fact, I have given up things I love dearly as to not compromise the faith and be indifferent…) Jesus established a Church (not a book) and that Church guided by the Holy Spirit wrote and cannonized the Bible…there is SOOO much beauty and love in Holy Mother Church, I can only hope that you could see through my eyes and experiences - because I’ve been there, and I know, believe me!
(I could go on forever, but I am at work…so more later!)

And remember, there really shouldn’t be hate between christians…we all love Jesus and try to follow him to the best of our understanding (some more than others…) but there is so much to learn and so much hate/sin/pride/bias-ness/etc…it makes it hard. Also, the Evil one is smarter than us all - yes, the war has already been won, but there will be heavy casualties of war, and we all want to survive [True] Life…“Divide and Conquer” is probably one of the devils best strategies, look at history for example - in the last 450 years there has been over 33,000 NEW protestant denominations/sects/cults - THAT’S 2 A DAY!!!

I know that this doesn’t PROVE anything, but it does lend credibility…(did Jesus PROVE that he was God? NO, he didn’t! But he gave REASON TO BELIEVE that he was)

So, I ask, and you should too, “what gave them (Catholics) the authority to say which books were Inspired and which weren’t?”

Go in love to serve the Lord, and God bless!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

RBushlow:

I apologize for any confusion. On the subject is Solar Scriptura, that is the belief that Scripture Alone is sufficient. Can you please help me to answer the following questions using Scripture Alone:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say which books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text.
   Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

I’d like to see someone else answer these 4 questions in a more thorough manner. Mainly because, I’m personally incapable of answering them in a convincing way. At least not in a way that’s convincing to me!

I would say, however, that since God is the God of order and reason, we submit our reasoning to seeking after the truth and separating the wheat from the chaff, and trust God that what we have chosen for Scriptures are genuine and free from error. Sola Scriptura does believe in God’s Spirit leading the Church into all truth (though not infallibly?). So I’d say that since there’s so many questionable things in the “Deuterocanonical” books, they were rejected by the Reformers. That, and as St. Francis de Sales points out, they disagreed with the doctrine in those books, so they emasculated the Scriptures rather than submit to what they taught. I’m trying to be balanced here.

So, since the challenge was posted with a quote of mine, I feel obliged to say “Hey, I don’t have the answers for you.” Other than of course saying that we reason to that end, led by God. But, then you have that issue of sin and depraved reasoning…

 

[MariaG]

One of the reasons I stay in the Catholic Church is no one has been able to tell me why the Reformers are right about their interpretation of what Scripture is as well as the actual interpretation of Sacred Scripture but Catholics are wrong. It all gets too subjective to me, and I do not believe God would leave us hanging in the wind on the next best most popular interpretation of Scripture or what really is Scripture. It seems to me that without Church authority, it leads to rewriting of history like some Non denominational churches that claim to be Christ’s hidden church that were not even founded until the 1800’s.
So sorry, I can’t help with you with those points, and no one I have met has answered similar questions to any satisfaction either.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

What about those who die as infants or they live their lives with a mental handicap or mental illness from birth and they can’t help what they do, and they of course, don’t have the capacity to have faith in Christ. Do they go to heaven or to hell? I’M ASKING THE PROTESTANTS FOR THEIR OPINIONS (notice I said opinions )

 

[RolandJS]

Corpus Cristi:

What about those who die as infants or they live their lives with a mental handicap or mental illness from birth and they can’t help what they do, and they of course, don’t have the capacity to have faith in Christ. Do they go to heaven or to hell? I’M ASKING THE PROTESTANTS FOR THEIR OPINIONS (notice I said opinions )

If I, being a Vulcan, believing and practicing Vulcan things, then my Vulcan “opinion” doesn’t matter one whit concerning the beliefs and practices of the Mim Bari.

Not a single Mim Bari shrine of worship has been brought down or changed due to any Vulcan “opinion.”

Not a single Vulcan place of worship has been brought down or changed due to any Mim Bari “opinion.”

Also, if I, being a Vulcan, believing and practicing Vulcan things, then your Mim Bari “opinions” do not matter one whit concerning my beliefs and practices as a Vulcan

Roland
AmbassadorMan

 

[Shibboleth]

Corpus Cristi:

What about those who die as infants or they live their lives with a mental handicap or mental illness from birth and they can’t help what they do, and they of course, don’t have the capacity to have faith in Christ. Do they go to heaven or to hell? I’M ASKING THE PROTESTANTS FOR THEIR OPINIONS (notice I said opinions )

Well… Lutherans do put a strong emphasis on baptism and yes there have been exceptions. The only way one can loose salvation after baptism is to reject God. Infants and the mentally handicapped do not have the ability to reject God.

We all should enter the gates of heaven as a child would. I think that these individuals have a leg up on us.

What do you think?

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by Shibboleth

Well… Lutherans do put a strong emphasis on baptism and yes there have been exceptions. The only way one can loose salvation after baptism is to reject God. Infants and the mentally handicapped do not have the ability to reject God.

We all should enter the gates of heaven as a child would. I think that these individuals have a leg up on us.

What do you think?

I would agree, with the understanding that the mentally handicapped are unable to reach the “age of reason” in their mental faculties.

In the churches I went to that only had adult Baptism, it was known/assumed children would go to heaven because they had not reached the age of reason. In other words there was no sin because the full understanding of sin was not there yet. Although I never got into the full theology of it, I think it would be something like the Baptism of Blood in Catholic terminology. Since God puts a desire for Him in all men, children would have a desire to be with God and do not have full understanding of sin.

And the Scripture that they use, is baptism of adults and that one must confess and repent. Infants and young children can’t “confess” just as they can’t repent sin if they don’t really understand sin. There is no need and to their understanding, no Scripture to support infant Baptism.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

MariaG:

In the churches I went to that only had adult Baptism, it was known/assumed children would go to heaven because they had not reached the age of reason.

The problem then arises in knowing when one has reached the age of reason. How can one be infallibley certain? The bible doesn’t tell us. Can a child decide for himself when he has reached the age of reason? Can a parent? It’s certainly an individual thing so how can one be infallibley certain?

If one HAS reached the age of reason does that necessarily mean that one is emtionally and spiritually mature enough to understand what it really means to “accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior”?

The “age of reason” argument seems very subjective.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Well, can anyone tell me where this is in scripture? I know that it makes sense, and it is a teaching of the church, but how do protestants believe this when it’s not in the Bible? I’m a convert and I was brought up to believe that if you died under the age of 12, then you would go straight to heaven! But this doesn’t have any place in the Bible. Could a PROTESTANT give a scripture passage supporting this, please?

 

[Shibboleth]

Through Batism infants are blessed with Grace - through that Grace comes the gifts of faith and works.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

“He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

“Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:14).

While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:22-23).

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Shibboleth:

Through Batism infants are blessed with Grace - through that Grace comes the gifts of faith and works.

This is so true! For those who have a difficult time with James’ teaching that we are justified by faith AND works look at it this way. The works that justify are not the things that we do ourselves but the thing that we allow God to do through us according to His grace.

In Christ,
Nancy