Need help answering a Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter alitaptap
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
William_C said:
Catholics seem to enjoy providing links that appeal to the writings of others to explain their doctrines.
Click to expand...
…?

Is this bitterness and condescension really necessary?

Forgive us if we don’t all gush at the mere mention of the glories of the sola Scriptura syllogism. Some of us are well acquainted with the Calvinistic superstars and their various attempts at salvaging SS from any meaningful challenge of demonstrating it from Scripture. :rolleyes:
 
Simpleton said:
Yep.👍
Click to expand...
Really? Then why is the book of Enoch quoted in the book of Jude, yet not included in the Bible?

Compare to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

The canon of the Ethiopic Bible differs both in the Old and New Testament from that of any other churches.
List all books. As a whole, books written in the Geez language and on parchment are numerous. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 46 books of the Old Testament and 35 books of the New Testament that will bring the total of canonized books of the Bible to 81.

These are the following
A. The Holy Books of the Old Testament
  1. Genesis
  2. Exodus
  3. Leviticus
  4. Numbers
  5. Deuteronomy
  6. Joshua
  7. Judges
  8. Ruth
  9. I and II Samuel
  10. I and II Kings
  11. I Chronicles
  12. II Chronicles
  13. Jublee
  14. Enoch
  15. Ezra and Nehemia
  16. Ezra (2nd) and Ezra Sutuel
  17. Tobit
  18. Judith
  19. Esther
  20. I Maccabees
  21. II and III Maccabees
  22. Job
  23. Psalms
  24. Proverbs
  25. Tegsats (Reproof)
  26. Metsihafe Tibeb (the books of wisdom)
  27. Ecclesiastes
  28. The Song of Songs
  29. Isaiah
  30. Jeremiah
  31. Ezekiel
  32. Daniel
  33. Hosea
  34. Amos
  35. Micah
  36. Joel
  37. Obadiah
  38. Jonah
  39. Nahum
  40. Habakkuk
  41. Zephaniah
  42. Haggai
  43. Zechariah
  44. Malachi
  45. Book of Joshua the son of Sirac
  46. The Book of Josephas the Son of Bengorion
B. The holy books of the New Testament
  1. Matthew
  2. Mark
  3. Luke
  4. John
  5. The Acts
  6. Romans
  7. I Corinthians
  8. II Corinthians
  9. Galatians
  10. Ephesians
  11. Philippians
  12. Colossians
  13. I Thessalonians
  14. II Thessalonians
  15. I Timothy
  16. II Timothy
  17. Titus
  18. Philemon
  19. Hebrews
  20. I Peter
  21. II Peter
  22. I John
  23. II John
  24. III John
  25. James
  26. Jude
  27. Revelation
  28. Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
  29. Tizaz (the book of Herald)
  30. Gitsew
  31. Abtilis
  32. The I book of Dominos
  33. The II book of Dominos
  34. The book of Clement
  35. Didascalia
LINK
 
Bookcat said:
The point actually is that since “Sola Scriptura”** is not found anywhere in the Scriptura -**-according to the idea of “Sola Scriptura” then it has to be rejected.
I do not believe Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
You don’t believe in the method that you just used to prove it’s not there. Ok. :confused:
 
Micah11 said:
Really? Then why is the book of Enoch quoted in the book of Jude, yet not included in the Bible?

Compare to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

The canon of the Ethiopic Bible differs both in the Old and New Testament from that of any other churches.
List all books. As a whole, books written in the Geez language and on parchment are numerous. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 46 books of the Old Testament and 35 books of the New Testament that will bring the total of canonized books of the Bible to 81.

These are the following
A. The Holy Books of the Old Testament
  1. Genesis
  2. Exodus
  3. Leviticus
  4. Numbers
  5. Deuteronomy
  6. Joshua
  7. Judges
  8. Ruth
  9. I and II Samuel
  10. I and II Kings
  11. I Chronicles
  12. II Chronicles
  13. Jublee
  14. Enoch
  15. Ezra and Nehemia
  16. Ezra (2nd) and Ezra Sutuel
  17. Tobit
  18. Judith
  19. Esther
  20. I Maccabees
  21. II and III Maccabees
  22. Job
  23. Psalms
  24. Proverbs
  25. Tegsats (Reproof)
  26. Metsihafe Tibeb (the books of wisdom)
  27. Ecclesiastes
  28. The Song of Songs
  29. Isaiah
  30. Jeremiah
  31. Ezekiel
  32. Daniel
  33. Hosea
  34. Amos
  35. Micah
  36. Joel
  37. Obadiah
  38. Jonah
  39. Nahum
  40. Habakkuk
  41. Zephaniah
  42. Haggai
  43. Zechariah
  44. Malachi
  45. Book of Joshua the son of Sirac
  46. The Book of Josephas the Son of Bengorion
B. The holy books of the New Testament
  1. Matthew
  2. Mark
  3. Luke
  4. John
  5. The Acts
  6. Romans
  7. I Corinthians
  8. II Corinthians
  9. Galatians
  10. Ephesians
  11. Philippians
  12. Colossians
  13. I Thessalonians
  14. II Thessalonians
  15. I Timothy
  16. II Timothy
  17. Titus
  18. Philemon
  19. Hebrews
  20. I Peter
  21. II Peter
  22. I John
  23. II John
  24. III John
  25. James
  26. Jude
  27. Revelation
  28. Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
  29. Tizaz (the book of Herald)
  30. Gitsew
  31. Abtilis
  32. The I book of Dominos
  33. The II book of Dominos
  34. The book of Clement
  35. Didascalia
LINK
Click to expand...
Do you accept this List as Canon? Of yes Why and if no Why?
 
InNomineDomini said:
I wonder if anyone else will be highly puzzled by this assertion.
Click to expand...
What assertion? You will not find the words “Sola Scriptura” anywhere in the bible,
yet to prove that sola scriptura is not mentioned you have appreciate and employ sola scriptura.

Just like the word “trinity” is not in the bible, you still appreciate and employ the concept.

There’s nothing puzzling about this.
 
InNomineDomini said:
…?

Is this bitterness and condescension really necessary?
Click to expand...
You’re projecting.
IND:
Forgive us if we don’t all gush at the mere mention of the glories of the sola Scriptura syllogism. Some of us are well acquainted with the Calvinistic superstars and their various attempts at salvaging SS from any meaningful challenge of demonstrating it from Scripture. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Simpleton said:
Do you accept this List as Canon? Of yes Why and if no Why?
Click to expand...
I don’t limit my Bible study to what other people have determined I can or cannot read.
The fact that the book of Enoch is referred to in the NT tells me that it was considered valuable by the 1st century Christians.
 
ajcstr said:
I was thinking about the phrase the other day “I believe what the Bible says”

The Bible says…Thou shalt not kill.

Where does abortion fit in with this? This question will be answered differently by CHRISTIANS let alone by people in general. I remember reading that Bill Clinton asked his pastor about the issue of abortion and the pastor told him that Adam was not alive until God breathed life into him, so a baby is not alive until he takes his first breath.

Who has the authority to distinguish in this case? If there is no authority then there is no right answer (or at least not one that we can figure out).
Click to expand...
Where does the Bible say that?
 
Micah11 said:
You don’t believe in the method that you just used to prove it’s not there. Ok. :confused:
Click to expand...
No I was showing how it it is self -refuting.

I do not believe that “there is no absolute truth” to be be true. Yet I can use it too --to show that it too is self-refuting.

I am not using the method as something that is true --but as “if it were true” it would refute itself.
 
Micah11 said:
What assertion? You will not find the words “Sola Scriptura” anywhere in the bible,
yet to prove that sola scriptura is not mentioned you have appreciate and employ sola scriptura.

Just like the word “trinity” is not in the bible, you still appreciate and employ the concept.

There’s nothing puzzling about this.
Click to expand...
It is not about the “words” but the “asserted doctrine”

Sola Scriptura holds that “all doctrine must be from the Bible alone”

Yet that doctrine is not in the Bible.

Such is similar to saying: “there is no absolute truth”

Yet one holds that such is an absolute truth (which is what one is doing by saying such)

These are self-refuting statements. The second part of each shows that the first part is not correct.
 
Bookcat said:
No I was showing how it it is self -refuting.

I do not believe that “there is no absolute truth” to be be true. Yet I can use it too --to show that it too is self-refuting.

I am not using the method as something that is true --but as “if it were true” it would refute itself.
Click to expand...
No, because in this case, we are depending upon something WRITTEN.

You cannot depend on the scriptures alone to prove you don’t have to depend on the scriptures alone.
 
Micah11 said:
No, because in this case, we are depending upon something WRITTEN.

You cannot depend on the scriptures alone to prove you don’t have to depend on the scriptures alone.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura says that ALL doctrine must come from the written Bible. The written Bible alone can give authentic doctrine.

Yet that doctrine is not found written in the Bible.

Self-refuting.
 
Bookcat said:
It is not about the “words” but the “asserted doctrine”

Sola Scriptura holds that “all doctrine must be from the Bible alone”

Yet that doctrine is not in the Bible.

Such is similar to saying: “there is no absolute truth”

Yet one holds that such is an absolute truth (which is what one is doing by saying such)

These are self-refuting statements. The second part of each shows that the first part is not correct.
Click to expand...
What you want is a verse stating, "Sola Scriptura is the instruction of God to His church."

You’re right. A verse stating your desired proof is not found in Scripture.

However, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and it is reasoned from Scripture.

Moreover, the only stated dwelling place of doctrine, according to Paul, is Scripture (2 Tim 3:16).
 
William_C said:
What you want is a verse stating, "Sola Scriptura is the instruction of God to His church."

You’re right. A verse stating your your express desires is not found in Scripture.

However, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and it is reasoned from Scripture.
Click to expand...
Actually no. Never suggested such. I am referring to the doctrine not a needful single verse.

And something that is refuted by itself --is by nature not logical.
 
Again…such is not how things were approached by those who wrote the New Testament…

or their first audience who received the actual inspired texts.

Nor by those who they passed them on to.
 
Bookcat said:
Sola Scriptura says that ALL doctrine must come from the written Bible. The written Bible alone can give authentic doctrine.

Yet that doctrine is not found written in the Bible.

Self-refuting.
Click to expand...
No, all doctrine doesn’t have to come from the bible-
only those who claim their doctrines are biblical.
 
Bookcat said:
Actually no. Never suggested such. I am referring to the doctrine not a needful single verse.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Your following statement proves that.
40.png
Bookcat:
And something that is refuted by itself --is by nature not logical.
Click to expand...
The only statement from Scripture that would satisfy you is one that states that Scripture is the final authority on faith and morals.

Nothing less will satisfy you.

That specific verse is not found in Scripture.

Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top