Not the same God?

[Portrait]

Easily, most denominations, of which the RC is one, bring the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. True, many denominations have so watered-down this Gospel and others have made the true Gospel of no avail by virtue of its man-made traditions.

There is no scriptural mandate to be obedient to Rome…that is a classic example of a delusion of grandeur to which Rome has long ago succumbed. Even an aberrant Protestant church is not outdone by the RCC in its “accretions to the pure primitive faith”. The “faith once delivered” is no longer the faith promulgated by Rome.

Did I ever mention Kung?..no, I didn’t. In fact, I’ve mentioned RCC scholars(Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer) who were appointed by a pope and yet they deviate from what Rome considers evidence of a papacy and infallibility.

Yes, that’s partly true, however, that prestige was built on faulty ground. Paul did not found the church at Rome and there is no biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Much of what passes for history we find is simply “word of mouth” and second or third sources. We know what God has to say about “word of mouth” – it is not reliable - and we’ve seen evidence of just that. That is why He gave us His written Word - so that we would evermore have His truths before us, unfortunately, many are not interested in them except perhaps as a means to garner something anything to promote an already established doctrine.

Dear Kelman,

What most denominations bring is their own distinct understanding of the Gospel and what being a Christian entails. Thus, for example, some (Calvinists) believe in the ‘preservation of the saints’ (an unbiblical Protestant ‘tradition’) and are of the opinion that no true Christian can finally be lost eternally in Hell, whilst others believe the very opposite (Arminians). All make their appeal to the bible to support their teaching and vehemently claim that they alone are “rightly dividing the word of truth”. Here you have Protestant Christians disagreeing and, in my own experience often quite uncharitably, about a fundamental bible question, namely the doctrine of salvation. This is what results when men follow other men (Calvin or Arminius) rather than the teaching of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the whole course of this life is a state of probation and that no one can no for a certainty that they will be saved finally.

There is, dear friend, every “scriptural mandate” to be obedient to the Catholic Church, please refer to my lengthy posts on the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church and the Primacy of St. Peter (see # 319 & 325, # 326). Many “abberant” Protestant churches are far removed from the faith once delivered to the saints and are teaching some jolly bizzare things in the name of Christ, as we all know fully well.

Whilst you did not mention Hans Kung, I did to show that the Church does put a check on the dissemination of false and heretical teaching, even to the point of revoking a theologians license to teach if need be. This is far more than what some Protestant churches are prepared to do nowadays.

As regards Messers Brown and Fitzmeyer, I am afraid that I cannot comment as I do not know anything about them or how far they are supposed to be deviating from the official teaching of the Church. Perhaps you could elaborate upon their departures from *official *teaching. It seems to me that they might be able to question the reliabilty or veracity of certain evidence, without necessarily rejecting papal infallibilty.

On the contrary, there is indeed biblical evidence that St. Peter was in Rome. St. Peter himself ends his first epistle with the words, “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends greetings; and so does my son Mark” (5: 13). All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians designated pagan Rome ‘Babylon’ on account of its vices. As a footnote in the R.S.V. says, commenting on I Pet. 5: 13, “Babylon: Rome was as full of iniquity as ancient Babylon; cf. Rev. 17: 9”. St. Peter was therefore evidently writing from Rome. Moreover, St. Paul wrote to the Colossians from Rome, conveying the kind regards of St. Mark (companion of St. Peter), thus strongly indicating St. Peter’s presence in Rome. Lardner, the 19th. century Protestant scholar, once remarked, regarding St. Peter being in Rome, that it was the general uncontradicted and disinterested testimony of ancient writers.

Catholic tradition is not a mere matter of rumour, for it is written down in documents as historical as any other documents, beginning from the year 97 AD with the declaration of the fact by St. Clement. No single writer ever denied St. Peter’s presence in Rome until the 13th. century. At that time it was denied by the Waldenses, heretics who’s denial was for polemical purposes. Wycliffe, Luther and other Protestants took up the Waldensian assertion because they thought it a good argument to use against the Church in controversy. As I understand, modern elightened Protestant scholars are ashamed of such an argument with all the evidence against it and realize that it was only born out of controversy with Catholicism.

Goodbye for now, my dear friend, and God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[SteveVH]

And then God reiterates this principle as He insists that the written Scriptures are “breathed-out” by Him and totally able to bring man to “perfection” – ”All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2Tim 3:16-17). Therefore, whatever doctrine which is contrary to this, whatever cannot be supported by Scripture must be rejected.

The first comment I have is that when this was written we had no New Testament which would mean that he could have only been referring the Old Testament. Does this then mean that the New Testament was not needed.

The question I have is that how do you know that the New Testament is inspired scripture? Seriously, can you tell me?

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

The first comment I have is that when this was written we had no New Testament which would mean that he could have only been referring the Old Testament. Does this then mean that the New Testament was not needed.

The question I have is that how do you know that the New Testament is inspired scripture? Seriously, can you tell me?

Thanks.

I suspect that the response will be, “This has already been addressed ad nauseum earlier on this thread.”

Now, while it’s true that this point has been brought up, it’s also true that no satisfactory answer was forthcoming from the non-Catholic side.

Without the authority of the Catholic Church (or, as kelman prefers, “the early Christians”, who were, he admits, elders or “bishops”), he would not know that Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

There has been no answer as to how, without the authority of these bishops, kelman would know what belongs in the NT, except for him to say that the Scriptures are "self-attesting".

I find this “the Scriptures are self-attesting” to be a very, very peculiar argument.

Firstly, it’s non-Biblical, for no where does it say that the Scriptures are “self-attesting”.

Secondly, what does this even mean? It seems to be saying “I’ll know Scripture when I see it” which is, of course, an absurdity.

Can we say that “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” is self-attesting and that’s how we know it’s the inspired Word of God?

 

[PRmerger]

Two things. What anyone thinks would be “nice” for God to do is simply a matter of private judgment.

Of which, in your paradigm, all Christians are free to proclaim, yes? Private judgment is king, no, as long as one claims she is guided by the Holy Spirit?

Second, that is another unbiblical term for Mary – she is never referred to as “the Ark”.

Well, just to be precise, the term “ark” can not be an unbiblical term for Mary, as the word “ark” is found numerous times in the Bible.

Perhaps if you said, “Our Lady of the Carnations” is an unbiblical term for Mary I might agree with you. I just did a search and “carnation” is not found in the Bible, so then you would be correct.

”Ark of thy might”?..this has nothing to do with Mary. These are the same words used by Solomon at the dedication of the temple as he concluded his prayer with the following and clearly Mary is not in view in either passage:

And yet, in your paradigm, if a Christian claims that this is what the illumination of the Holy Spirit led her to believe, after prayerful reading of the Scriptures, her private judgment would be correct, right?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s as I said, there is no biblical evidence, no suggestion that Mary was assumed.

Have you ever been in discussion with JWs, kelman, in which you provide scores and scores of Biblical evidence for Christ’s divinity, and they respond with, “It’s as I said, there is no biblical evidence, no suggestion that Christ was divine.”



Seems to really illustrate the need for an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, no?

You can cite bible verses galore to someone, and if he’s looking at the verses through his (JW/Mormon/Methodist/SDA/4 Square Gospel/African New Life Ministries/Iglesia ni Cristo/Peace Evangelistic Center/Baptist) lenses, then he’s not going to come to your POV.

Again, it really illustrates the necessity of a final arbiter in disagreements over what Scripture means. :yup:

 

[PRmerger]

No need to be particularly “receptive” since it is only logical that not every word uttered by the Lord or His Apostles was written down. However, whatever God planned to reveal to us was written down so that, as Peter says, we might ever have the truth with us. In the following verse, John tells us that the written word is for the purpose of believing and thereby attaining eternal life.

John 20:21 ** But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.**

This is curious. These things that were written by John are all that’s required for believing that Jesus is the Christ?

Surely you can’t mean that, kelman!

Doesn’t Christian scholarship indicate that St. Paul’s epistles to Timothy were written after John’s letter?

By your reasoning, the things that were written by John would then dismiss these NT epistles that the Catholic Church has discerned to be* theopneustos*!

 

[PRmerger]

John 20:21 ** But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.**

Incidentally, I think you are unfamiliar with the Bible verses that you’re quoting. The verse you cite is actually this:
[BIBLEDRB]John 20:21[/BIBLEDRB]

The one you wanted to cite is from 1 John.
[BIBLEDRB]1 John 5:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Portrait]

Yes, that’s partly true, however, that prestige was built on faulty ground. Paul did not found the church at Rome and there is no biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Much of what passes for history we find is simply “word of mouth” and second or third sources. We know what God has to say about “word of mouth” – it is not reliable - and we’ve seen evidence of just that. That is why He gave us His written Word - so that we would evermore have His truths before us, unfortunately, many are not interested in them except perhaps as a means to garner something anything to promote an already established doctrine.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above.

As regards the “Babylon” of I Peter 5: 18 being a cryptic reference to Rome, here is what Protestant commentator Andrew McNab says:

“Tradition which runs back into the second century favours this. Rome is called Babylon in Rev. 17 and 18 just as in Rev. 11: 8 Jerusalem is refered to as Sodom, the thought being that Jerusalem then bore the marks of wickedness associated with the Sodom of Gn. 18 and 19. So in the mind of Peter the Rome of his day resembled ancient Babylon in its wealth, luxury and licentiousness. It may well be that he used the term ‘Babylon’ instead of Rome for reasons of prudence lest the letter should inadvertently fall into the hands of some Roman official who, reading the postscript, would take offence, a possibility which could not be ruled out and which might lead to dire consequences as far as the Christians were concerned. The view that the term ‘Babylon’ is here used for Rome was universally accepted in the early Christian era and commends itself today” (The New Bible Commentary, Eds. Professor F. Davidson assisted by A.M. Stibbs & E.F. Kevan, IVF 1959, p. 1129, emphasis mine).

This will probably be my final post this week, dear bother, so may I wish you and all other contributors to the thread a jolly splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[SteveVH]

I suspect that the response will be, “This has already been addressed ad nauseum earlier on this thread.”

Now, while it’s true that this point has been brought up, it’s also true that no satisfactory answer was forthcoming from the non-Catholic side.

Without the authority of the Catholic Church (or, as kelman prefers, “the early Christians”, who were, he admits, elders or “bishops”), he would not know that Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

There has been no answer as to how, without the authority of these bishops, kelman would know what belongs in the NT, except for him to say that the Scriptures are "self-attesting".

I find this “the Scriptures are self-attesting” to be a very, very peculiar argument.

Firstly, it’s non-Biblical, for no where does it say that the Scriptures are “self-attesting”.

Secondly, what does this even mean? It seems to be saying “I’ll know Scripture when I see it” which is, of course, an absurdity.

Can we say that “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” is self-attesting and that’s how we know it’s the inspired Word of God?

I will have to admit that I did not read through every post on this thread and honestly would have been surprised if this point would not have surfaced. My bad. It was not, however, evident that the point had already been made based upon the content of the post to which I was responding. As you said, it does not appear that the point has yet been adequately addressed from the non-Catholic side.

God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

I will have to admit that I did not read through every post on this thread and honestly would have been surprised if this point would not have surfaced. My bad.

Oh, I don’t believe that anyone need apologize for not reading through every post.

It’s the nature of a forum that people can jump in at any time and dialogue at any point in the discourse. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.

What I do get annoyed with, however, is the Phantom Poster–who posts and runs, ne’er to be seen again. It denies the basic human need to know that your arguments were heard.

However, that is not against forum rules so posters are free to do this.

It is, though, considered to be poor form to “hit and run”, but one cannot be banned or suspended for this.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Greetings~
Well, here I am in a mess again.
My husband is a Lutheran and he was deeply offended when I told him that Catholics have a different God than Lutherans have because the way I saw it, there was no way it ever could be the same one, the qualities are too disimilar. Protestants are too quick to say we make everything up.
It’s a bit strange because if our God *is the same *then either we are all going to hell or they are all going to hell. Better choose wisely. I knew I needed to find out for sure…
My husband said oh sure, go to CAF and ask the Catholics but I told him that the people on these forums are completely unbiased and have schooled me when I have been wrong and enlightened me about things when I needed to know the truth. So that’s why I posted here again
Thanks so much for reading this thread,
Jen

 

[kelman]

And yet this avails the Roman Catholic of little for he must always agree with whatever his church declares – even when said declarations have no basis in Scripture.

Yes, one man believed because another “Man” told him…and us. Jesus taught by means of the Holy Scriptures….nearly one hundred times He said ”it is written” which means God’s inspired words exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the OT in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

In the NT, it is the written word of God to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles refer as the final authority. In the Temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Mat 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible some eighty times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance.

The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the OT is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
It’s true, there is not “one single verse”…but multiple verses which speak to sola Scriptura - a biblical principle by which God expects us to live.

The Catholic Church was whole and entire before a single word of the New Testament was ever put to writ. The Scriptures, rather, reflect the faith of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Source of that faith. Jesus is the Source…

Since Jesus is the source of Scripture, you reject Him as your source when you reject Scripture as your source. The Lord’s message to the world was delivered first by our Lord Himself; in fact, it formed the theme of His sermons, and then it formed the subject-matter of the preaching of the Apostles. The Apostles preached the Gospel.

The church is posterior to the message of Jesus; in fact, it is the consequence, the product, the fruit of that message, and the written Gospels are nothing but the message itself consigned to writing by two Apostles and by two disciples of the Apostles. The Gospels, therefore, are prior to the church; and, in fact, they have created the church. They are the formal cause of the church, Jesus being its efficient cause.

Since the Bible is simply the Gospel in written form; we can, therefore, be assured that the Bible(its message) existed before the church.

We are not a people of the Book.

I certainly wouldn’t be proud about that admission. In any case, the rest of Christendom doesn’t agree with you as the following statement of Timothy Ware (Eastern Orthodox) demonstrates: "The Bible is the supreme expression of God’s revelation to the human race, and Christians must always be ‘People of the Book’. (Ware, p.199).

 

[kelman]

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above.

As regards the “Babylon” of I Peter 5: 18 being a cryptic reference to Rome, here is what Protestant commentator Andrew McNab says:

I’m always amazed that Roman Catholics want to believe the Babylon of 1Peter 5:13 is really Rome. I mean I know “why” you’d want to but really I’d give it up considering the horrific references to Babylon in the Book of Revelation. Paul felt no need to “hide” where he was writing from so why should Peter?

**Believer’s Study Bible **
“Peter is probably alluding to the Babylon on the Euphrates, a part of that Eastern world where he lived and did his work, rather than Rome (with Babylon being utilized as a cryptic word). Evidence for this position includes the following: (1) There is no evidence that Rome was ever called Babylon until after the writing of the Book of Revelation in a.d. 90–96, many years after Peter’s death. (2) Peter’s method and manner of writing are not apocalyptic. On the contrary, Peter is a man plain of speech, almost blunt, who would not interject such a mystical allusion into his personal explanations and final salutation. (3) Babylon is no more cryptic than Pontus, Asia, or the other places mentioned when Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. (4) Babylon, no longer a great world capital in the time of Peter, was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews, many of whom Peter befriended and won to Christ. (5) A study of the chronology of Peter’s travels argues for Babylon to be the Babylon on the Euphrates.

Lorraine Boettner
“…Paul’s work was primarily among the Gentiles, while Peter’s was primarily among the Jews. Peter ministered to the Jews who were in exile in Asia Minor, “to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (I Peter 1:1 and in his journeys he went as far east as Babylon, from which city his first epistle (and probably his second) was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Asia Minor—She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Peter 5:13). As most of Paul’s letters were addressed to churches he had evangelized, so Peter wrote to the Jewish brethren that he had evangelized, who were scattered through those provinces."

John Calvin
“As to the place from which he wrote, all do not agree. There is, however, no reason that I see why we should doubt that he was then at Babylon, as he expressly declares. But as the persuasion had prevailed, that he had moved from Antioch to Rome, and that he died at Rome, the ancients, led by this sole argument, imagined that Rome is here allegorically called Babylon. But as without any probable conjecture they rashly believed what they have said of the Roman episcopate of Peter, so also this allegorical figment ought to be regarded as nothing. It is indeed much more probable that Peter, according to the character of his apostleship, traveled over those parts in which most of the Jews resided; and we know that a great number of them were in Babylon and in the surrounding countries.” [Calvin’s Commentary on 1st Peter, introduction].

The Editors of Calvin’s Commentaries
“…[T]he Roman communion, [say Babylon]… is to be taken figuratively for Rome, according to what was done by John in Revelation 17 and 18: What renders [this] opinion very improbable is, that to date an epistle at a place to which a figurative name is given, is without another instance in Scripture, and the thing itself seems quite absurd. The language of prophecy is quite a different matter. Paul wrote several of his epistles at Rome, and in no instance did he do anything of this kind. Such an opinion would have never gained ground, had there not been from early times a foolish attempt to connect Peter with Rome. And it is to be regretted that some learned Protestants have been duped on this subject by a mass of fictitious evidence which has been collected by the partisans of the Roman Church. — Ed. [John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Peter, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection (Ages Digital Library, 1998]

Adam Clarke
"It true that all the ancient ecclesiastical writers have ascribed to the word Babylon a mystical meaning; for though the Greek and Latin fathers commonly understood Rome, yet the Syriac and Arabic writers understood it literally, as denoting a town in the east; and if we are to be guided by opinion, an oriental writer is surely as good authority, on the present question, as a European.” [commentary notes on 1 Peter].

Smith’s Bible Dictionary
“We next have traces of (Mark) in 1 Pet. 5:13 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : “The church that is in Babylon . . . saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son.” From this we infer that [Mark] joined his spiritual father, the great friend of his mother, at Babylon, then and for some hundred years afterward one of the chief seats of Jewish culture.” [Smith, W. (1997). Smith’s Bible dictionary (electronic ed. of the revised ed.). Nashville: Thomas Nelson)]

And remember, Peter was the Apostle to the Jews - sent to the Jews - not to the Gentiles.

 

[kelman]

(Originally by kelman)—This is an odd statement especially since it so obviously contradicts Scripture. God is clear that the only thing He calls inspired is sufficient for salvation and leading a godly life.

We’re all aware that the specific word need not be used and yet the concept be explicitly taught, i.e., The Trinity. The same is applicable with the biblical concept of the sufficiency of Scripture. In 2Tim 3:15-17 we see this principle clearly. As far as I can tell, God declares only of Scripture that it is able to bring men to salvation and sanctify the Christian unto godliness.

If you know where the Bible states that something else can bring salvation, what is it? Otherwise, we are left with the “sufficiency” of Scripture as declared in 2Tim 3:15-17. If the Bible is able to fully furnish/equip us for “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness”, how then does that not mean “sufficient”?..obviously, it does.

** 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.**

You have added that man-made tradition that says that Scripture Alone is SUFFICIENT.
Nowhere do the Scriptures say that.

Not so, as I’ve just shown, unless, of course, you consider the word Trinity a “man-made tradition” rather than a truth culled from the pages of Scripture?

Incidentally, in James 1:3-4 we read “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
Clearly, here the Scriptures are saying that what brings a man to “perfection” is not Scripture but rather patience.
Are you willing to argue that the Scriptures say that patience “alone” is what’s required to bring a man to “perfection”?
If you use the same exegesis that you applied to 2 Tim 3:15 then you’ll have to conclude that it’s Patience Alone that brings you to perfection. Not Scripture Alone.

First, we see that Scripture declares nothing else to be inspired. Second, even in verse 15 Paul tells us that it is the written Scriptures which brings us to faith ”And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

And this fact, that it is Scripture which “perfects” us is reiterated ”That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

In addition, it is further supported in Rom 10:17 where we see how it is that we obtain faith – through the Word of God – ”So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

As for the “patience” of James 1, it’s simply saying that our faith endures trials and through these “patiently” endured trials our works are perfected. Patience describes “the frame of mind which endures.” It is the ancient Greek word hupomene. This word does not describe a passive waiting, but an active endurance. It isn’t so much the quality that helps you sit quietly by as it is the quality that helps you finish a marathon.

We see this demonstrated in the similar admonition of Heb 12:1 ”… and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,” and in Mat 10:22 ”…but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” This “endureth” is the same Greek word * hupomeno* that is also translated “patience”.

So, there’s no problem with James 1 and “patience”. In fact, we read in James 1:21-22 that it is the written Scriptures which are in view and again we are told that the words of God save. "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves."

 

[PRmerger]

If you know where the Bible states that something else can bring salvation, what is it?

Well, since you asked…

Here’s where the Bible states that something else can bring salvation.

The Scriptures say we are saved

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

Notice what’s egregiously missing: NOWHERE does it say that we are saved by the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, one man believed because another “Man” told him…and us. .

Fair enough.

Then you’ll be able to show us a verse where Jesus states that “All declarations about our faith must be found in the Scriptures.”

Book, chapter and verse, please!

“All declarations about our faith must be found in the Bible” is a man-made tradition.

Incidentally, the “it is written” does not even come close to stating that “all declarations about our faith must be found in the bible”. It only supports the Catholic paradigm that Scripture is to be revered.

 

[PRmerger]

We are not a people of the Book.

I certainly wouldn’t be proud about that admission.

That certainly smacks of bibliolatry!

In any case, the rest of Christendom doesn’t agree with you…

And, it appears, neither does Islam.

Do they also not claim to be a People of the Book?

Just sayin’…

Clearly, being a People of the Book does not necessarily elevate one, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus taught by means of the Holy Scriptures….nearly one hundred times He said ”it is written” which means God’s inspired words exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay.

Amen!

The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

Indeed!

However, you’re just missing a HUGE part of the Word of God–Sacred Tradition.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word.

Certainly!

This is very Catholic of you to say!

Notice, though, that He never identifies truth with ONLY the written Word.

In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the OT in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.”

Yes!

There is no source other than Scripture to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

So here’s where you’re begging the question.

No verse in Scripture states that “there is no source other than Scripture”. In fact, the Scriptures proclaim the Catholic paradigm which is that God has revealed Himself to us through Scripture and Tradition.

So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.—2 Thessalonians 2:15

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11:2

[SIGN1]From Genesis through Revelation Scripture*** never ***says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. NEVER. [/SIGN1]

 

[kelman]

When you examine the Gospels you should notice Jesus did not write anything down on a scroll, if Jesus Christ is the highest authority Who lived on Earth why did He defer the writings to those before and after Him? Why didn’t Jesus just write things down Himself?

To all intents and purpose the Lord Jesus did write “things down” – through the Holy Spirit. To infer that because the Lord did not literally take up pen and paper Himself makes the authority of Scripture somehow tainted, is a demonstration of antipathy and/or a gross misunderstanding for the * Theopneustos* of Sacred Scripture. Additional evidence is the statement that only in matters of faith and morals is the Bible inerrant…other than that I guess God is…what?.. ignorant or just lying?

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Church…

And you find this piece of information where exactly?

I not saying you do but I find most people who argue for Sola Scriptura really have a passive aggressive attitude against or a secret desire to marginalize the Priesthood and the Seven Sacraments.

No “passive-aggressive” behavior with Protestants – we flat-out reject the sacerdotal priesthood and the “seven” sacraments because the Bible knows nothing of these things.

 

[kelman]

Returning to the subject of the canon, as far as the West was
concerned rejection of the Deutrocanonical’s was the exception rather
than the rule. However, it was to be expected that views frequently
expressed in the East should have some impact also in the West.
Hence, for example, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-366) reproduces the
canon of Origen.

I’m not sure this precisely true – that rejection of the Apocrypha was the “exception” rather than the rule. The list of fathers who rejected the Apocrypha is long.

Many of the fathers agree that the Apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon of inspired Scripture.

Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius – Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the Protestants and Jews do.
Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) acknowledges the same books as the Protestants as canonical.
Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon. The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.”
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.”
Nazianzen fixes the same number.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.)
**Epiphanius ** counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.”
Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees.
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.)

“The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.” (Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah)

Jerome, in his preface to the books of Solomon, “As therefore the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the book of Maccabees, yet receives them not among the canonical Scriptures; so she may read these two volumes (Wisdom and Sirach) for the edification of the people, not for affirming the authority of faith.”

They are absurd who imagine a double canon. Jerome calls the Pelagians heretics (rightly so) for citing testimonies of the Apocrypha while attempting to prove something of heaven.

Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest.
Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” (Contra Apion. L. I. C. 8.)
Isidore, who lived in those times almost, (Lib. Isad. De Eccl. Offic. Lib. 1. c. 12.) says that the OT was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that the books might correspond by the number of the letters.”
**John Damascus says (Lib. IV. C. 18) “It must be known that there are only two and twenty books of the OT, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language.”
** Nicephorus, “There are two and twenty books of the OT.”
**Rabanus Maurus **(De. Institutes. Cler. C. 54) says that the whole OT was distributed by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that there may be as many in the law as in the letters.”
Radalphus (Lib. XIV. in Lev. c. 1.), “Tobit, Judith and the Macabees, although they be read for instruction in the church, yet have they not authority.”
Leotinus says in his book of Sects (act. 2.) that there are no more than twenty two canonical books as the churches receive.
**Hugo S. Victoris **(Prolog. Lib. I. De Sacram. C. 7.) says “that these books are read indeed, but not written in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon; that is, such as the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.”
**Richard de S. Victore **(Exception. Lib. II. C. 9), Lyra (prolog. In Libros Aprocryph.)
**Dionysius Carthusianus **(Comment in Gen. in Princip.) ,
Abulensis (in Matt. c. 1),
Antonius (3 p. Tit. XVIII. C. 5.),
**Cardinal Hugo (Prologue to Joshua) says the apocryphal books are not a rule for faith.
Cardinal Cajetan and ** Erasmus both declare the canon glossed by the apocryphal books being included in it in their time. (See Leo’s Epistle “Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterd.”
Athanasius, who was the bishop of Alexandria where the LXX originated, rejected the Apocrypha. This is an important historical piece of supporting evidence that the LXX, at that time, did not include the Apocrypha. However, the evidence mounts as we continue to look into additional historical records.