defending the faith

[coleraine]

hi, ive been talking to a prodestant who believes in sola scriptura. he says that god is constantly saying in the bible that “the bible is our only resource for religion, and should be our stronghold, not the wisdom of man”

he also says that he doesnt care about the early church quotes. even ignatius’s early ones(110a.d.). i mean, how could you read from one of those quotes and not believe? any advice?

 

[lsburk]

My first question to him would be, “Who decided what books are the inspired word of God and who assembled them into the bible that we know today?” There is only one answer to these two questions. The Church is guided in all questions of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

 

[e61iuser]

I’d tell him: Then why does the Bible, which you firmly believe in, say that the pillar and ground of the TRUTH is the Church of the Living God? Not the Bible?

 

[JPatton]

hi, ive been talking to a prodestant who believes in sola scriptura. he says that god is constantly saying in the bible that “the bible is our only resource for religion, and should be our stronghold, not the wisdom of man”

he also says that he doesnt care about the early church quotes. even ignatius’s early ones(110a.d.). i mean, how could you read from one of those quotes and not believe? any advice?

Ask him where the bible came from, who decided what it would contain and how we knew it was inspired. Ask him what resource was used to teach before there was a complete bible. Even after the N.T. scriptures were written (approx 60 or 70 yrs. after Christ) the bible still was’nt a set book untill 300 yrs. or so after Jesus. With no bible, how were they able to teach then? Oral teaching (Tradition) is how. So how could there be Sola Scriptura without the Scriptura?

God Bless,
Jamie

 

[Fidelis]

hi, ive been talking to a prodestant who believes in sola scriptura. he says that god is constantly saying in the bible that “the bible is our only resource for religion, and should be our stronghold, not the wisdom of man”

If he can show this passage ANYWHERE in the Bible, I will become Protestant. Right now. This minute.

 

[Atemi]

hi, ive been talking to a prodestant who believes in sola scriptura.

He is wise.

he says that god is constantly saying in the bible that “the bible is our only resource for religion, and should be our stronghold, not the wisdom of man”

To be more accurate, God’s Word is our source, not the “bible.”

The Bible never mentions the Bible as any of us have it today.

he also says that he doesnt care about the early church quotes.

They are quite irrelevant for the life of faith and holiness today.

even ignatius’s early ones(110a.d.). i mean, how could you read from one of those quotes and not believe?

Not believe what?

I think you take too much for granted here and assume way too much.

Merely quoting people does nothing for the cause of Christ.

…

 

[sodak]

I would take the word of a disciple of Christ, or one of their disciples, over any modern-day Protestant preacher. That said, I take the word of the Church that Christ founded and gave us the Bible.

 

[zagjames]

If he can show this passage ANYWHERE in the Bible, I will become Protestant. Right now. This minute.

Ditto

He is wise.

To be more accurate, God’s Word is our source, not the “bible.”

The Bible never mentions the Bible as any of us have it today.

They are quite irrelevant for the life of faith and holiness today.

Not believe what?

I think you take too much for granted here and assume way too much.

Merely quoting people does nothing for the cause of Christ.

…

God’s Word is our source of truth. But God never wrote it all down and he certainly never told the Apostles to write any of it down. Anyways until they commited it to paper it was oral tradition. Its not like they followed Jesus around with a pen and clippad in hand! God’s Word was protected by the Holy Spirit as oral tradition, and for the portions that were written down the Holy Spirit insured their inspiration. The Bible was written for those already Christian as an example of Jesus’ life, and of true faith. It is not the end all and be all. It is a part of our faith, a part of God’s word.

The Early Christian Fathers can tell us how early christianity existed. Their testimony tells us more about the early church then the Bible and clues us in to the form of the early church.

The quote from 110 by Ignatius of Antioch is the one where he talks about the Catholic Church, and how Christianity is Catholic. He coined the term.

Quoting wise men who glorified God, and sought to spread his word to the world can help us understand our Faith better.

 

[Atemi]

God’s Word is our source of truth.

Agreed.

But God never wrote it all down and he certainly never told the Apostles to write any of it down.

But He did author His Word and purposefully have His Apostles write it down.

What He wanted recorded, He specifically did so.

Anyways until they commited it to paper it was oral tradition.

Yep.

The key word being “until”…

The Bible was written for those already Christian as an example of Jesus’ life, and of true faith. It is not the end all and be all. It is a part of our faith, a part of God’s word.

Scripture is never accurately called “part of God’s Word.” You will find no one using that phrase anywhere in Holy Writ.

It is simply God’s Word.

Please do not make less of it than what it claims for itself.

The Early Christian Fathers can tell us how early christianity existed.

Yes…warts and all.

Their testimony tells us more about the early church then the Bible

LOL. No way.

There is no greater witness to Apostolic era Christianity than the Scriptures which specifically cover that era.

Afterwards, we can then look at ECFs for their era and even local practices and beliefs.

and clues us in to the form of the early church.

The quote from 110 by Ignatius of Antioch is the one where he talks about the Catholic Church, and how Christianity is Catholic. He coined the term.

Not Catholic…but catholic.

It was an adjective, not a proper noun.

This is a common RC error.

…

 

[Donald45]

…he says that god is constantly saying in the bible that "the bible is our only resource for religion…

Challenge him, therefore, to provide a single biblical text which affirms this assumption. Since there aren’t any, his position reveals itself as directly self-refuting.

he also says that he doesnt care about the early church quotes…

Of course not, since the Fathers manifestly contradict the Protestant approach to Scripture, religious authority, doctrine, and liturgical practice. However, it should be noted that the early Church Fathers were themselves students of the Apostles, or of the Apostles’ students, and were millennia closer to the apostolic era than we are. They are in a far better position to know what the biblical writers meant in their written texts than anyone alive today (or during the Protestant reformation, from which modern Protestants derive their theory of sola scriptura). I’ll take the testimony of the Fathers over the conflicting opinions of Luther and Calvin any day.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

He is wise.

He is mistaken.

To be more accurate, God’s Word is our source, not the “bible.”

The Bible itself uses the phrase “word of God” to refer to apostolic oral Tradition, and not merely to the written texts. So, for Catholics, the “word of God” (i.e., Scripture and Tradition) is indeed our source.

They are quite irrelevant for the life of faith and holiness today.

The Christian Church throughout its history has always maintained that the testimony of the Fathers is essential to a proper understanding of the faith. In fact, even the founders of your own Protestant tradition would have disagreed profoundly with your claim. See Post #10 above.

I think you take too much for granted here and assume way too much.

I was going to say the same thing about you, friend. Sola scriptura, the dismissal of the Fathers, the validity of your private interpretation of the Bible----all merely assumptions.

Merely quoting people does nothing for the cause of Christ.

Merely stating one’s assumptions does nothing for the cause of truth.

Pax,

Don
+T+

 

[Atemi]

To be more accurate, God’s Word is our source, not the "bible."

The Bible itself uses the phrase “word of God” to refer to apostolic oral Tradition, and not merely to the written texts.

Of course…an oral tradition they wrote down.

So, for Catholics, the “word of God” (i.e., Scripture and Tradition) is indeed our source.

You cannot quote any of the Word of God outside of Scripture…nor can you ever cite it.

This extra “Word of God” is an ethereal concept that cannot ever be quoted, referenced, or cited. It is whatever the church using it says it is. That is why it is useful.

They are quite irrelevant for the life of faith and holiness today.

The Christian Church throughout its history has always maintained that the testimony of the Fathers is essential to a proper understanding of the faith.

No. Let us be accurate.

Some of the testimony of some of the Fathers…with that some being determined retroactively by the RCC as it goes.

No.

All things needed by the Christian for loving God and loving people, living a life of holiness and faith…all these can be found in God’s Holy Writ.

Ignatius can never supply you anything of spiritual value that the Holy Spirit failed to do so in His Scriptures. Seek the same in Justin, Augustine, Ambrose, and Basil.

All very pale stars compared to the splendid and abundant banquet found in the God breathed, inspired Scriptures.

Care to share what is missing from God’s Scriptures that you need to know to live a life of holiness?

I await your answer.

…

 

[6glargento]

Care to share what is missing from God’s Scriptures that you need to know to live a life of holiness?

how about the canon of scripture? The bible never tells us which books belong in the bible. For all you know it could be the wrong list, as there were many 1st century christian writings which were in dispute for almost 400 years. This certainly something “missing” from from the bibe. In order to know the canon of the new testament you need to look to the councils of the early church and the early church fathers, but the problem for you is that you need to explain why you feel that the church was trustworthy in ratifying the canon of scripture but not trust worthy when ratifying other catholic teachings. Also, all of these catholic doctrines which you find unbiblical, how do you know that you are correct in comming to this interpretation? If i say that i’ve read the bible and found them to be indeed biblical how can you say that i’m wrong, if under sola scriptura every single person has the ability to come to scripture and interpret it for themselves. What makes the catholic interpretation any less tahn the protestant interpretation. The truth is that under sola scriptura, nobody can tell what is essentially binding for the christian to believe, since it reduces all of scriptrue to a matter of each individuals interpretation which is condemmed in scripture (2 Peter 1:20).

In the end, sola scriptura actaully makes scripture meaningless.

 

[Atemi]

Care to share what is missing from God’s Scriptures that you need to know to live a life of holiness?

how about the canon of scripture? The bible never tells us which books belong in the bible.

How is it that God’s people were able to live lives of holiness and able to love God and love other people without this canon you speak of?

They did this for untold numbers of centuries.

No.

To say the RC canon of Scriptures is necessary to live a life of holiness and love is to attack the faith and lives of God’s people for all the millenia before that canon was ever supplied. And since the world did not get an authoritative definition from the RCC on the their canon until late at Trent, that makes such a position even less acceptable. It is faulty on its face.

…

 

[zagjames]

To say the RC canon of Scriptures is necessary to live a life of holiness and love is to attack the faith and lives of God’s people for all the millenia before that canon was ever supplied. And since the world did not get an authoritative definition from the RCC on the their canon until late at Trent, that makes such a position even less acceptable. It is faulty on its face.

…

The NT cannon was closed in the 300s and 400s. The OT cannon was closed in Trent due to disputes over what the OT cannon should be. Because it had never been an issue before the Church had made no statement cause it was generally accepted, but once it came into dispute the Church desided to settle it.

 

[Atemi]

The NT cannon was closed in the 300s and 400s. The OT cannon was closed in Trent due to disputes over what the OT cannon should be. Because it had never been an issue before the Church had made no statement cause it was generally accepted, but once it came into dispute the Church desided to settle it.

Thank you for your support. You are correct about Trent.

The RC canon of inspired Scripture was not closed until that Council…a millenia and a half after Christ.

…

 

[6glargento]

Thank you for your support. You are correct about Trent.

The RC canon of inspired Scripture was not closed until that Council…a millenia and a half after Christ.

…

At least ours is closed, your protestant canon was never closed period. infact, under sola scriptura you really have no way of knowing for sure what is inspired and what isn’t. This is an issue that protestants are constantly dancing around and can never answer.

 

[Atemi]

At least ours is closed, your protestant canon was never closed period. infact, under sola scriptura you really have no way of knowing for sure what is inspired and what isn’t. This is an issue that protestants are constantly dancing around and can never answer.

Yet somehow untold numbers of God’s people got by just fine without the Johnny-come-lately RC canon at Trent.

Too bad they all did not know what they were missing all that time…

…

 

[6glargento]

Yet somehow untold numbers of God’s people got by just fine without the Johnny-come-lately RC canon at Trent.

Too bad they all did not know what they were missing all that time…

…

just becasue the canon wasn’t infallibly defined at Trent doesn’t mean that it wasn’t for the most part closed. The 73 book canon was reaffirmed over and over again even before trent. Even the ecumenical council of florance dealt with the canon. And if any thing is johonny-come-lately its sola scriptura.

 

[john_ennis]

Yet somehow untold numbers of God’s people got by just fine without the Johnny-come-lately RC canon at Trent.

Too bad they all did not know what they were missing all that time…

…

Respectfully…
What logic!
You ask what is essential to know, which is not found in Scripture.
To the answer, the canon of Scripture itself, you imply that it is not essential to know that, because many have appeared to lead Christian lives without that knowledge.

Well, it may indeed be possible to follow Christ without knowing for sure what is in Scripture. Kind of risky, though, don’t you think? The Gospels themselves might be denied.

Peace.
John