Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[onemangang]

Yes, I get your attempt to convey the “reformed” presuppositional apologetics position, the only problem is that, when removing Sacred Tradition from Sacred Scripture, you end up missing the mark! The problem with your presuppositional apologetics approach, is that you have to fallibly interpret the infallible text, and mediate to the world, what that text means infallibly. You, nor I posses that authority, but the Pillar and Bulwork of Truth, the Church does!

No, God is the ultimate Authority and, He is not limited to Scripture. The Scriptures Speak of the Logos, the Christ, they don’t equal Christ.

I wouldn’t try to objectively refute Scripture, I probably don’t accept your interpretation of it!

Why don’t you spell out what you THINK Romans 9:17 and Galatians 3:8 is saying!

I agree with this statement!

God is the ultimate authority, and has given us an infallible guide to be an active participant in His Authority, the Pope and Magesterium, with an infallible book that is profitable for correction, instruction and rebuking!

Yeah, Christian Zionist are :hypno: I met a few that pray for Nuclear War

I don’t accept your premise. I do infact believe Scripture to be true, but to say because Scripture says its God breathed is circular. I understand where you are attempting to go with this, and would ask that you look a bit deeper into Presuppositional Apologetics. You are not conveying that argument so well!

Like I said before God has revealed Himself to men through the Person of Jesus Christ, So yes, I have to presuppose God. How is knowledge of God conceived in our finite minds? I posit that the fullness of God’s revelation to man subsist in the Church, and I do not remove Scripture from the Church! There are many approaches that we can take that will point us toward God, but many in deductive reasoning will only paint a mosaic, and be incomplete, including Scripture. I posit God is much bigger than what has been revealed to our small minds! We all look through a glass darkly, but one day we shall know, as we are known.

I think you are mistaken and should look more deeply into presuppositional apologetics, if you are to convey that message clearly!

 

[ofthesons]

Of,

You cite two verses. I did not ignore them. Explain to me your understanding of Romans 9:17 and Gal 3:8.

I’ve already layed out what supports my belief that Scripture existed and was known prior to the production of a physical book; you’ve even quoted what I’ve written on this.

Gal 3:8 says, “Scripture preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand.”

Is it my thinking that should be regarded as illogical when I see this verse as justification for concluding that Scripture is more than just a physical book (or collection of books)?

 

[Nicea325]

Quotefthesons:

But the bottom line, Scripture has always been the ultimate authority even when the Church had not been established and as I’ve said, even when Scripture was not yet written!

Really? Chapter and verse where Jesus explicitly teaches Scripture has always been the ultimate authority before He founded His Church and before it was written?

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve already layed out what supports my belief that Scripture existed and was known prior to the production of a physical book; you’ve even quoted what I’ve written on this.

Gal 3:8 says, “Scripture preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand.”

Is it my thinking that should be regarded as illogical when I see this verse as justification for concluding that Scripture is more than just a physical book (or collection of books)?

Of,

Ok. You are saying Scripture is a book. You are saying that Scripture is more than just a physical book. Pray tell me what is Extra-book that you desingate as Scripture?

 

[ofthesons]

1of2

Of,

Scripture constitutes a premise. According to who is that premise stated and what is that premise

In another thread, in an attempt to explaining one’s justification for believing in the canon of Scripture, a Catholic has conveyed to me that upon examining external and internal evidence for the Bible, it can or should be concluded that the Bible is historically reliable, which, to me, means that you can believe what it says. Having basis to believe what it says, you can conclude that the Catholic Church is infallible. Therefore, you can conclude that the word of the Catholic Church, which pronounces the Bible inspired, is actually true.

It wasn’t made clear to me what specific passage(s) could or should be taken to state that the Church is infallible upon the examination of the evidence (although it could be the one that says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth from where I stand considering how often I’m hearing that verse). But it was nonetheless stated that Scripture’s alleged claim that the the Church is infallible should be acknowledged in that it is supposedly found to be historically reliable. So then some scripture or some proposition that can be deduced from Scripture could be taken as a premise by which we conclude that it is already assumed in the premise. What is assumed in the premise? That Scripture is true. But then Scripture is supposedly true because the Catholic Church says it’s true. This is why I said that the Roman Catholic position is circular.

Of course, it was basically acknowledged before my actual response that the position might seem circular. And so to explain that impression away, the premise to which one should consent upon examination of the evidence was worded as, “The Bible is historically reliable” as if this must be the case without the Bible actually being true. Supposedly, this premise could not make for a circular argument because the conclusion, “The Bible is inspired”, is not assumed in the premise, “The Bible is historically reliable”. But using terms like “historically reliable” and “(name removed by moderator)sired”, from where I stand, only helps to conceal the circular reasoning.

If you can explain how this is not circular, please do so. If I’m not worth it, fine.

If the Bible is true, it is both inspired and historically reliable.

You unfortunately write incoherently, beg the question, lack the ability to express your thoughts and write run on sentences.

While I will admit that I’m not a perfect communicator and that there’s a measure of truth with what you’re saying, I don’t believe my communication skills are the ultimate issue. And I really don’t want to try debating you on whether or not that’s the case. I’ll simply state that I think a huge problem is that our worldviews are fundamentally different. If the way I write doesn’t work for you because it doesn’t help you to grasp at my beliefs, then you can address what you do understand, ask me to clarify what you don’t, or just get off me. I do my best articulate what I believe.

I’m certainly not question begging though.

You make a statement of belief not of fact. You then use this belief to argue that someone concludes the Scripture is true, whatever that means and then equate it to what you believe Catholics believe. This is all based on your presumption.

No, it’s not. I’ve only spoken in accordance with how the Catholic position was explained to me.

The Bible is a book.

I agree with you on that, but in respect to the question of what is the ultimate authority, that’s not all it is.

 

[ofthesons]

2of2

You express what I see in many unlearned Protestants that the first order of business is to prove that the Bible is true.

Wrong. I do not believe the Bible can be proved. But this is not to say that I think belief in the Bible is arbitrary or unjustified.

The reason for this is that you have no teaching Church

Oh, but I do. Just not that, which you accept.

and must lean on some authority for evangelization and this is your starting point. In my opinion it is a weak position for evangelization.

The Bible is my starting point.

The Bible is True.

Yep

My response to that would be, where did this book come from and how do I know what you call a Bible is Scripture and inspired as you say?

This book came from God through the Church. I know because my authority says so. For it says holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This applies with the New Testsment as well as the Old.

“Now in my understanding” is the key to your thought process. What you understand and what you believe is not universal.

I’m tempted to say this doesn’t matter, but can you clarify what you mean first so I can be sure I understand you?

You then go on to say what I call “think speak”…presupposing Scripture wouldn’t make one’s reasoning circular…this is a proposition. I would have to say what in the world are you talking about? You will see for yourself that you are a victim of your own reason. You state depending on how you define Scripture…Huh?

When did I say that? I said that one is being circular, depending on how ‘circular’ is defined. The reason I said this is because I’m trying to get into the substance behind the words that we use, especially considering that we are not necessarily always using the correct terminology or we are not always using terms in the same way, which is the kind of thing you’d expect if we have different and conflicting worldviews. Some say that my position is circular and others say it isn’t. Why? Because there are nuances between the definitions people give for ‘circular reasoning’.

Also, there are reasons why I say “I think” rather than “I know”. In a given instance, I could be prefacing a point with “I think” so as to express that I’m open for correction on what I’m saying.

Presupposing then depending is a long way from any reasoned argument.

Everyone has presuppositions (unprovable beliefs). It’s just that we must have correct presuppositions if we are to give an objective, irrefutable argument. If I made attempts at proving what should be presupposed, that would be when I’m begging the question.

Realize that when you speak and when you write when you use the word “but” and “however” it negates everything you just said…so to go on to say “But”…the problem is…this is where you unkowingly tell me that everything you just said is a bunch of nothing

I go on to say, “But” in order to state that the fact that one is not necessarily circular for presupposing the Bible doesn’t give Catholics a chance at being cleared from being circular. Do you really think that when you personally use ‘but’ in a discourse, everything you say previous to that means nothing? Come on now.

and your real issue is that you have a problem with the Catholic Church declaring the cannon of Scripture. I understand you have a problem with this. This is your real issue and you do not see how you laid it out for me to see.

I don’t have a problem with anyone declaring anything to the degree that I know they’re correct.

I cannot spend time with someone with such disordered thoughts.

That’s fine. Then as I said, get off me. If you don’t want to spend time with me, then I’m not interested in spending time with you. We’ll just have to find a way to live without each other.

Your dictum to go for it is part of your belief that you are better able to see what I don’t see and for that I have no time. I suggest you ask a question and get an answer.

I’m getting answers, as I’ve intended. And I really do appeciate those who have taken the time to exchange with me. Whether or not there are people in this forum and elsewhere that choose not to exchange with me is really a non-issue to me. If you think that I’m too inferior for you, then act accordingly.

I suppose you have had great success in speaking to others with this sort of mind set without challenge.

One of the main reasons I go here is for the challenge!

You may want to consider that since this isn’t going over so well and you are being challenged that your prior audience is different and less easily led by your brilliance than this audience.

You’re presuming upon my objectives, expectations, and my perception of how this is going.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote: Quotefthesons: But the bottom line, Scripture has always been the ultimate authority even when the Church had not been established and as I’ve said, even when Scripture was not yet written!

Really? Chapter and verse where Jesus explicitly teaches Scripture has always been the **ultimate authority **before He founded His Church and before it was written? Before it was written? Before it was taught orally? Wow?

Quote: The reason for this is that you have no teaching Church

Oh, but I do. Just not that, which you accept.

Jesus also founded your church and thousands of others too? Interesting,but to bad it is not factual.

 

[CopticChristian]

1of2

In another thread, in an attempt to explaining one’s justification for believing in the canon of Scripture, a Catholic has conveyed to me that upon examining external and internal evidence for the Bible, it can or should be concluded that the Bible is historically reliable, which, to me, means that you can believe what it says. Having basis to believe what it says, you can conclude that the Catholic Church is infallible. Therefore, you can conclude that the word of the Catholic Church, which pronounces the Bible inspired, is actually true.

It wasn’t made clear to me what specific passage(s) could or should be taken to state that the Church is infallible upon the examination of the evidence (although it could be the one that says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth from where I stand considering how often I’m hearing that verse). But it was nonetheless stated that Scripture’s alleged claim that the the Church is infallible should be acknowledged in that it is supposedly found to be historically reliable. So then some scripture or some proposition that can be deduced from Scripture could be taken as a premise by which we conclude that it is already assumed in the premise. What is assumed in the premise? That Scripture is true. But then Scripture is supposedly true because the Catholic Church says it’s true. This is why I said that the Roman Catholic position is circular.

Of course, it was basically acknowledged before my actual response that the position might seem circular. And so to explain that impression away, the premise to which one should consent upon examination of the evidence was worded as, “The Bible is historically reliable” as if this must be the case without the Bible actually being true. Supposedly, this premise could not make for a circular argument because the conclusion, “The Bible is inspired”, is not assumed in the premise, “The Bible is historically reliable”. But using terms like “historically reliable” and “(name removed by moderator)sired”, from where I stand, only helps to conceal the circular reasoning.

If you can explain how this is not circular, please do so. If I’m not worth it, fine.
**
If the Bible is true, it is both inspired and historically reliable. **

While I will admit that I’m not a perfect communicator and that there’s a measure of truth with what you’re saying, I don’t believe my communication skills are the ultimate issue. And I really don’t want to try debating you on whether or not that’s the case. I’ll simply state that I think a huge problem is that our worldviews are fundamentally different. If the way I write doesn’t work for you because it doesn’t help you to grasp at my beliefs, then you can address what you do understand, ask me to clarify what you don’t, or just get off me. I do my best articulate what I believe.

I’m certainly not question begging though.

No, it’s not. I’ve only spoken in accordance with how the Catholic position was explained to me.

I agree with you on that, but in respect to the question of what is the ultimate authority, that’s not all it is.

Of,

You cannot prove that the Bible is true as you say based on the Bible alone. Nowhere does the Bible state that Scripture is inspired and true.

 

[ofthesons]

Of,

Ok. You are saying Scripture is a book. You are saying that Scripture is more than just a physical book. Pray tell me what is Extra-book that you desingate as Scripture?

I’m going to word my understanding as best I can for now, but briefly. I gotta go after this. I hope I’m not too “incoherent” for you.

Truth, by definition, is propositional. Propositions can be written, but they are also metaphysical, which is how they can be comprehended or assumed by the incoporeal mind.

Scripture is propositional. Scripture is God’s Word. Scripture is Truth.

As Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 says, Scripture spoke to Abaham/Pharaoh before being written.

 

[ofthesons]

Really? Chapter and verse where Jesus explicitly teaches Scripture has always been the **ultimate authority **before He founded His Church and before it was written? Before it was written? Before it was taught orally? Wow? Jesus also founded your church and thousands of others too? Interesting,but to bad it is not factual.

I’ll get to you when I can, sir.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m going to word my understanding as best I can for now, but briefly. I gotta go after this. I hope I’m not too “incoherent” for you. Truth, by definition, is propositional. Propositions can be written, but they are also metaphysical, which is how they can be comprehended or assumed by the incoporeal mind. Scripture is propositional. Scripture is God’s Word. Scripture is Truth.

And where does God teach His Word is binded to the written word-ONLY?

Quote: Quote: Quotefthesons: But the bottom line, Scripture has always been the ultimate authority even when the Church had not been established and as I’ve said, even when Scripture was not yet written!

I am still waiting for a scriptural verse proving us all wrong? Really? Chapter and verse where Jesus explicitly teaches Scripture has always been the ultimate authority before He founded His Church and before it was written?

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll get to you when I can, sir.

Very well. I will wait to hear your answer. God Bless you and your loved ones.

 

[onemangang]

2of2

Everyone has presuppositions (unprovable beliefs). It’s just that we must have correct presuppositions if we are to give an objective, irrefutable argument. If I made attempts at proving what should be presupposed, that would be when I’m begging the question.

Here is my Problem with “reformed” Presuppositional Apologetics, it is that one can only fallibly interpret the infallible text, and fallibly present a Christian Theistic worldview to the world it is addressing. The infallible text, can only be infallibly presented to the world through infallible means, the Church!

Truth, by definition, is propositional. Propositions can be written, but they are also metaphysical, which is how they can be comprehended or assumed by the incoporeal mind.
Scripture is propositional. Scripture is God’s Word. Scripture is Truth.

Again God is unequivocal Truth, who is alive in the here and now! Our world needs addressed in the here and now. Good thing, there is a living voice to address the world in the here and now, the Church.

The missing piece to the puzzle in presuppositional apologetics is the living voice of God to address the problems of today! The Church is what Presuppositional apologetics lacks as I see it anyways!

Peace and Love in Christ!

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m going to word my understanding as best I can for now, but briefly. I gotta go after this. I hope I’m not too “incoherent” for you.

Truth, by definition, is propositional. Propositions can be written, but they are also metaphysical, which is how they can be comprehended or assumed by the incoporeal mind.

Scripture is propositional. Scripture is God’s Word. Scripture is Truth.

As Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 says, Scripture spoke to Abaham/Pharaoh before being written.

Of,

Someone taught you that a particular translation is translated “spoke” when in reality it is nothing like that. It sounds good to suit your purpose. The word “spoke” is

proeuaggelizomai: to announce good news beforehand
Original Word: προευαγγελίζομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: proeuaggelizomai
Phonetic Spelling: (pro-yoo-ang-ghel-id’-zom-ahee)
Short Definition: I preach the gospel beforehand
Definition: I preach the gospel beforehand, foretell good tidings.

In other words what you read and what is written “all nations will be blessed” is a foreshadowing of things to come not that Scripture spoke before it was written.

In Romans Paul is quoting Exodus.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Yes, I get your attempt to convey the “reformed” presuppositional apologetics position, the only problem is that, when removing Sacred Tradition from Sacred Scripture, you end up missing the mark! The problem with your presuppositional apologetics approach, is that you have to fallibly interpret the infallible text, and mediate to the world, what that text means infallibly. You, nor I posses that authority, but the Pillar and Bulwork of Truth, the Church does!

Reformed presuppositionalism is circular logic, and is therefore, a fallacy.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ll get to you when I can, sir.

I believe I understand the weakness of your approach. You are “Begging the question.” You aren’t proving your case, you are merely declaring it.

You somehow believe that you to begin with some premises or axioms that we merely accept, rather than attempt to prove.

The Bible is true. Prove that. Then let us talk.

You have a weak argument in approaching Christian thought this way. It is as I understand it Calvinistic and in that sense tends to shoot itself in the foot.

Prove to me that the Bible is true.

 

[James_Least]

Prove to me the Bible is true… Is this an individual challenge? Or may anyone participate? If the latter, may I offer my viewpoint with a minimal amount of consternation and contempt and a maximum of love and kindness–both of which are kind of foreign notions considering the subject at hand: Is there an infallible standard which man has not corrupted? This has been the bone of contention for 16-17 centuries–it is still going. It is also a pivotal point of Truth–what did God say? What does man say about what God said?

Allowing the doctrines of man alongside the Truth of God’s Word implies that man has a problem with what God has revealed in His Word. It is somehow inadequate or untrustworthy. So we have volumes of what learned men say God might have said and what God might have meant, adinfinitum.

For those of us unable to make it through Oxford, Cambridge and/or Vatican U, how does one sort through all of this? See John 3:5, in context. All of this is a futile exercise in religious semantics if one has not the spiritual discernment which accompanies being “born from above”. Nicodemus, a right reverend doctor of divinity did not understand. Jesus chided him for being so high and so dumb.

This should be enough to get the “light” saber slashing.

Peacefully,

James Least

 

[CopticChristian]

Prove to me the Bible is true… Is this an individual challenge? Or may anyone participate? If the latter, may I offer my viewpoint with a minimal amount of consternation and contempt and a maximum of love and kindness–both of which are kind of foreign notions considering the subject at hand: Is there an infallible standard which man has not corrupted? This has been the bone of contention for 16-17 centuries–it is still going. It is also a pivotal point of Truth–what did God say? What does man say about what God said?

Allowing the doctrines of man alongside the Truth of God’s Word implies that man has a problem with what God has revealed in His Word. It is somehow inadequate or untrustworthy. So we have volumes of what learned men say God might have said and what God might have meant, adinfinitum.

For those of us unable to make it through Oxford, Cambridge and/or Vatican U, how does one sort through all of this? See John 3:5, in context. All of this is a futile exercise in religious semantics if one has not the spiritual discernment which accompanies being “born from above”. Nicodemus, a right reverend doctor of divinity did not understand. Jesus chided him for being so high and so dumb.

This should be enough to get the “light” saber slashing.

Peacefully,

James Least

Least,

Have not seen you for awhile. I do not see what you write as proof that the Bible is true. Less words. More proof.

 

[James_Least]

Proof? Proof? Where is the Proof? The Agnostics say one cannot know if God is or is not. Apparently, there is not enough proof for them. They do err not knowing the scripture and the power of God. Curious: many believe we came from compacted hydrogen experiencing a Big Bang. While it was probably somewhat noisy, it was in fact the Word of God bringing the creation into existence–an intelligence far beyond the bounds of Mensa. Al Einstein attested to such an intelligence. He admitted no personal relationship with that intelligence. Regardless of one’s cosmology, many must admit that there is an intelligent design in the use of all the information required to make and maintain any biological system. Everything fits quite well–until man starts tweeking with it.

The truth of God and of His Word is a FAITH thing–and God is the one who gives the faith. Further: Faith comes by hearing–hearing The Word of God. And further: no one comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him.

Some people just were not called yet. Stick around–for the rest of the story.

Another proof: man did not write the Bible of himself–he would not have put mankind in such a perilous position: lost, separated from his Creator, and that without a self- remedy save the propitiation of the One without Sin, Jesus the Christ. “There is no other name in heaven or in earth whereby we must be saved.” There is no other book which discloses such things. God has made sure we still have The Book–which declares sin, righteousness and judgement to come–a witness for the whole world. No one has an excuse. It is available in Swahili, Braille and giant print.

Read the 11th of Hebrews, make a personal application.

This text got out of sync and I know not how to fix it short of starting over. No time for that.
Proof: The Bible, OT and NT, 39 and 27, total: 66 (no canonical diversions at this time please), has survived the most intelligent scoffers of the Age of Enlightenment and even a trip to the moon and back. Some of the folks who go in space actually believe in a personal God who also made the universe–his name is Jesus. The Bible is still a number one best seller of all time. How is that? Probably not the opiate of the people. God loves his creation–even the ones who do not believe. However, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Peace,

James Least.

 

[CopticChristian]

Proof? Proof? Where is the Proof? The Agnostics say one cannot **know if **God is or is not. Apparently, there is not enough proof for them. They do err not **knowing the scripture and the power of God. Curious: many believe **we came from compacted hydrogen experiencing a Big Bang. While it was probably somewhat noisy, it was in fact the Word of God bringing the creation into existence–an intelligence far beyond the bounds of Mensa. Al Einstein attested to such an intelligence. He admitted no personal relationship with that intelligence. Regardless of one’s cosmology, many must admit that there is an intelligent design in the use of all the information required to make and maintain any biological system. Everything fits quite well–until man starts tweeking with it.

The truth of God and of His Word is a FAITH thing–and God is the one who gives the faith. Further: Faith comes by hearing–hearing The Word of God. And further: no one comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him.

Some people just were not called yet. Stick around–for the rest of the story.

Another proof: **man did not write the Bible of himself–**he would not have put mankind in such a perilous position: lost, separated from his Creator, and that without a self- remedy save the propitiation of the One without Sin, Jesus the Christ. “There is no other name in heaven or in earth whereby we must be saved.” There is no other book which discloses such things. God has made sure we still have The Book–which declares sin, righteousness and judgement to come–a witness for the whole world. No one has an excuse. It is available in Swahili, Braille and giant print.

Read the 11th of Hebrews, make a personal application.

This text got out of sync and I know not how to fix it short of starting over. No time for that.
Proof: The Bible, OT and NT, 39 and 27, total: 66 (no canonical diversions at this time please), has survived the most intelligent scoffers of the Age of Enlightenment and even a trip to the moon and back. Some of the folks who go in space actually believe in a personal God who also made the universe–his name is Jesus. The Bible is still a number one best seller of all time. How is that? Probably not the opiate of the people. God loves his creation–even the ones who do not believe. However, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Peace,

James Least.

Least,

What you believe is not in question. How you came to that knowledge is in question. I know that if I jump off a diving board I will fall to the pool. I have proof of that from experience and can understand it based on an understanding of Physicis. I know that Jesus Peter and the Keys was written by Scott Butler, et al because I know Scott and witnessed them writing it. I have the authority of my experience and the witness that it was written by them.

I agree that the Bible was not written by man unto himself. I believe that. I understand it. I believe that because the Catholic Church, the mystery hidden for all ages, the mystery by which the manifold wisdom of God is known to rulers and principalities…so I believe that.

You declare the Protocanonicals as proof and yet the Protocanonicals were not used in the year 1200, so what proof is that?

What proof do you and ofthe have to offer me to sway my opinion otherwise. The Bible I read does not declare anything to say that the entirety of what I read is “true”. Prove to me that the Bible is true without invoking other than your belief without support for what that belief is based on. The Mormons tell me that the Book of Mormon is Scripture because they have a burning in their bosom and they believe it…