L
LJN21
Guest
Then how is the Book of Mormon and the Koran not divinely inspired? When you just open them up and read them they both say they are as well.
- Status
J
jpy15026
Guest
Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.
Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on *other *matters of faith and morals?
Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.”
Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on *other *matters of faith and morals?
Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.”
V
VociMike
Guest
No, and of course I never said otherwise, but since you’re curious, I’ll tell you why I believe the 73 books of the bible are scripture. I believe the 73 books are scripture solely based on the testimony of the Catholic Church. Since you reject the testimony of the Catholic Church, on what do you base your belief?
V
VociMike
Guest
Further, why did the Church come up with the canon of scripture in four different councils if the canon of scripture was so obvious to every Christian? Why did these four councils waste everybody’s time telling them what they already knew?
And while we’re at it, why isn’t the Protestant short canon (66 books) ever found in any council declaration at any time in history?
J
jpy15026
Guest
Protestants understand the term “church” to mean something different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. Protestants see “the church” as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance. Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as Christ’s Mystical Body, but we simultaneously understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one – and only that one – organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. It is this Church and this Church alone which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church alone which can claim to be that very "pillar and ground of the truth.”Protestantism, by comparison, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and no two denominations completely agree – even on major doctrinal issues. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or “ground of the truth.” When the foundation of a structure shifts or is improperly set, that structure’s very support is unreliable (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Since in practice the beliefs of Protestantism have undergone change both within denominations and through the continued appearance of new denominations, these beliefs are like a foundation which shifts and moves. Such beliefs therefore cease to provide the support necessary to maintain the structure they uphold, and the integrity of that structure becomes compromised, Our Lord clearly did not intend for His followers to build their spiritual houses on such an unreliable foundation
J
jpy15026
Guest
Saved, which interpretation do you want to pick based on scripture alone?
Mark 16:16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Romans 10:9-10
9 for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Acts 16:31
31 And they said, “*Believe *in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”
Romans 10:13
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord* will be saved*.”
Matthew 7:21
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
1 Timothy 4:16
16 Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
1 Timothy 2:15
15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Works or faith, which one do want to pick based on scripture alone?
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.
James 2:17-18
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
James 2:24
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone
James 2:14
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
John 5:28-29
28 Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.
Revelation 22:12
12 “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.
John 21:25
25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
Mark 16:16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Romans 10:9-10
9 for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Acts 16:31
31 And they said, “*Believe *in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”
Romans 10:13
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord* will be saved*.”
Matthew 7:21
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
1 Timothy 4:16
16 Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
1 Timothy 2:15
15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Works or faith, which one do want to pick based on scripture alone?
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.
James 2:17-18
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
James 2:24
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone
James 2:14
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
John 5:28-29
28 Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.
Revelation 22:12
12 “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.
John 21:25
25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
L
LilyM
Guest
Would this be the same Holy Spirit who reveals to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is also the truth? Or to JWs or SDAs that their churches, their prophets and so on, are also the truth? What is the difference between you and them?
J
jpy15026
Guest
Where are these references (taken from the New Testament) written in your handy dandy Old Testament?
Hebrews 11:5
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and “he was found no more because God had taken him.” Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God.
John 10:22
22 The feast of the Dedication was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter.
Hebrews 11:35
35 Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.
Matthew 23:1-2
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
C
ChrisWRIT
Guest
Hi Harmony,
Luke 1:34
As you note, she was already betrothed to Joseph.
But why in the world would Mary have asked this if she DID plan to have intercourse with Joseph?
While the gospels don’t present a National Geographic style of cultural study, (nor do they even pretend to), many Jewish customs & mores can be seen throughout it.
The woman who was caught in adultery was to be stoned to death according to the Mosaic Law, as John 8 shows. If we look at the Mosaic Law in Deut. 22:20-21, we can clearly see that Mary would have fallen to the same fate according to the existing law:
“*If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. *”
It is completely reasonable to infer that Mary would likely have suffered a similar fate if she had shown up unmarried & pregnant to the Jews, just as it is completely reasonable to note that Mary shouldn’t have been surprised or needed explanation at how she was to conceive as Gabriel told her unless she was planning on remaining a virgin.
God bless,
Chris
Actually, the verse cited by our latest Southern Baptist objector reveals the reason Mary’s perpetual virginity can reasonably be inferred.
Luke 1:34
- “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” *
As you note, she was already betrothed to Joseph.
But why in the world would Mary have asked this if she DID plan to have intercourse with Joseph?
Actually you can.
While the gospels don’t present a National Geographic style of cultural study, (nor do they even pretend to), many Jewish customs & mores can be seen throughout it.
The woman who was caught in adultery was to be stoned to death according to the Mosaic Law, as John 8 shows. If we look at the Mosaic Law in Deut. 22:20-21, we can clearly see that Mary would have fallen to the same fate according to the existing law:
“*If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. *”
It is completely reasonable to infer that Mary would likely have suffered a similar fate if she had shown up unmarried & pregnant to the Jews, just as it is completely reasonable to note that Mary shouldn’t have been surprised or needed explanation at how she was to conceive as Gabriel told her unless she was planning on remaining a virgin.
God bless,
Chris
C
clh1217
Guest
faith in God.
faith in Christ alone.
No "C"atholic church needed.
Christ came before the church…
Shame you trust your church over your God…
C
clh1217
Guest
no. It wouldn’t be one in the same.
None of those bring you strait back to scripture.
They always lead you to a person, another work, or another book…
OH wait, …sounds a lot like Catholocism doesn’t it?
L
LilyM
Guest
And yours doesn’t lead you back to, say, Luther? Calvin? Wesley? Your pastor? Your own misguided mind?
none of whom are mentioned in scripture - unlike Peter.
C
clh1217
Guest
no.And yours doesn’t lead you back to, say, Luther? Calvin? Wesley? Your pastor? Your own misguided mind?
Show me where I have backed up anything with anything but passages of scripture.
You are basing much of your ‘interpretation’ on unwritten "T"radition, and the catechism.
tsk tsk tsk…
L
LilyM
Guest
Ummm … you’ve backed up your own opinion on scripture with … your own opinion on scripture. No more and no less. And it’s a singularly useless way of proceeding about things when even scripture itself warns against private interpretation.
By the way - the Canon of scripture which you adhere to, for starters, is unwritten 'T’radition. So is your belief that Jesus Christ is both True God and True Man, one person with two natures. Neither are specified anywhere in Scripture itself. So are probably a lot of other things you believe, if you bother to examine them.
You know what they say about if you point a finger at someone three are pointing back at you …
By the way, if you’ve ever bothered to read the Catechism AND its footnotes, you could probably reconstruct the NT in toto from the scripture it quotes, and the scripture quoted in the other documents it references.
S
Sypo
Guest
Hello All! First time responding on CF! Thought I’d throw this out in regards to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. This is a topic where in my opinion you have to look at the entire Bible and understand the times in which Mary and Joseph lived. Way back in Numbers, Ch. 30, there is a good explanation about vows to God involving women. Mary made a vow to be the handmaid of the Lord. This vow trumps any vow or pledge she makes to Joseph because Joseph or Mary’s own father never, I repeat, NEVER anywhere in scripture forbade Mary from making this pledge. As Numbers explains, the father or husband must forbid the woman from making the pledge to nullify it. Neither did. So by Sola Scriptura, Mary made her vow to God and had to stand by it which means Joseph would have been more like a guardian and not a husband in the sense that we know today. So consumating their marriage would have been out of the question because Mary was committed to the Lord. Since we know that Mary and Joseph were devote Jews, they would never have violated the OT laws regarding vows.
Now if the above part makes sense, then we can make sense of what Paul says in 1 Timothy Ch. 5 which states “11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge.”
Mary’s first pledge was to God. She would not have broken this pledge by having marital relations with Joseph. Joseph in my humble opinion, knew this and chose to accept the role as Mary’s guardian. Hope this helps!
Now if the above part makes sense, then we can make sense of what Paul says in 1 Timothy Ch. 5 which states “11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge.”
Mary’s first pledge was to God. She would not have broken this pledge by having marital relations with Joseph. Joseph in my humble opinion, knew this and chose to accept the role as Mary’s guardian. Hope this helps!
V
VociMike
Guest
Unless Christ appeared to you in a miraculous vision, the way you know Christ and his teachings is through the Church he founded. No Church needed? Then you don’t have a New Testament, plain and simple. “He who rejects you (the Church) rejects me.”
I notice that you still haven’t offered any justification as to why you believe the books in your bible are actually scripture. You keep claiming to believe it, but you don’t seem to know why you believe it.
Yawn. Shame you can’t seem to end a single post without a gratuitous ad hominem, and one that always demonstrates how very little you know about the object of your antagonism, the Catholic Church.
C
clh1217
Guest
NO.
It just drives it home all the more how unscriptural the PV of Mary is.
There is NO evidence, with the exception of unfounded ‘evidence’ that you (with the help of being indoctrinated by the Catholic Church) has pulled from nothing. It was the Churches idea that she was the “Handmaiden” of God. God allowed her to be a wife, the the mother of Jesus. God chose Jesus to come into this world in the most humble of ways, why deny Jesus his humble large family that is found and scripturally CORRECT to be biological?
V
VociMike
Guest
I notice that you still haven’t explained why this large family allowed their mother to go live the rest of her days with an unrelated male, and furthermore one high up in the “cult” that got their eldest brother executed.
A good analogy today would be a Muslim woman sent by her eldest son to live in the house of a Jewish man for the rest of her days. Would her Muslim sons allow that, you think?
C
clh1217
Guest
Catholic apologists make reference to John 19 as evidence that Jesus appointed Mary as the mother of His disciples. They assert that when Jesus told John “Behold your mother!” He was in fact referring to all His disciples. An attentive reading of John 19:26,27 reveals that Catholic tradition twists the meaning of Jesus’ words:
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple who he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
There were several other disciples beneath the cross. If He meant to appoint Mary the mother of His church,** surely He would have addressed all the disciples present.**
But instead He addressed Mary and John as individuals.
At the hour of His death, the Lord asked His beloved disciple, John, to take care of Mary with filial affection and comfort her in her loneliness as a true son would.
That John so understood the Lord’s words is clear from his own explanation in the sentence immediately following:
"And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."
Catholics are given a false hope when they are encouraged to look unto Mary as their spiritual mother. For example, St. Alphonsus Liguori writes:
O most tender Mary, most loving Mother! This is just what you desire. You want us to become children and call out to you in every danger. For you long to help and save us, as you have saved all your children who had recourse to you (The Glories of Mary).
The Bible teaches no such thing. On the contrary, God’s Word tells us to have recourse to the Lord, who is our help and our salvation: “Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy” (Psalm 109:26).
So? What say you? Are you going to follow the word of God? Or will you continue to adhere to the tradition of men that contradicts what scripture tells us with proper study?
V
VociMike
Guest
Since you didn’t even try to answer my question in your reply to my question, I’ll post it again:
I notice that you still haven’t explained why this large family allowed their mother to go live the rest of her days with an unrelated male, and furthermore one high up in the “cult” that got their eldest brother executed.
A good analogy today would be a Muslim woman sent by her eldest son to live in the house of a Jewish man for the rest of her days. Would her Muslim sons allow that, you think?
I notice that you still haven’t explained why this large family allowed their mother to go live the rest of her days with an unrelated male, and furthermore one high up in the “cult” that got their eldest brother executed.
A good analogy today would be a Muslim woman sent by her eldest son to live in the house of a Jewish man for the rest of her days. Would her Muslim sons allow that, you think?
- Status