Proof that sola scriptura is not true

  • Thread starter Thread starter jennyhay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2ndGen said:
We can’t pick and choose what we believe…we have to believe all of it. Every letter as written.
Click to expand...
***Hi, 2ndGen!

…that is precisely the problem with many who read the Holy Scritpures… they make their preferred selections and they run with it… all the while ignoring or outright rejecting anything that they deem unnecessary or superfluous ('course they do not use the that term exactly).

i.e.: Paul wacks us over the head (at least he did me) when he introduces Jesus as the Rock that gave water to the people of Israel in the desert (the rock that followed the Israelites)–clearly, this declarition is singular; neither was it refuted by any of the Apostles nor was there anything written prior to Pauls reference nor afterwards… so there must have been a non-written Tradition that spoke on this revelation; imagine that, Scriptures not emcompassing everything that Christians knew and believed!

Maran atha!

Angel ***
 
justasking4 said:
Isn’t it true though that the “extra books” in the catholic bible were of a secondary canon and was not totally accepted as being fully inspired-inerrant?
Click to expand...
That’s a fair and intelligently asked question.

Firstly, there’s not such thing as a “Catholic” Bible.
There’s a “catholic” Bible.

What’s that mean? The Bible is not The Bible of “our” Church only (big C), but of all Christianity (little c). Catholic (little c) just meaning universal; for all Christians.

Now, for you to ask about “extra” books implies that you believe that they were “added”.

To answer your question finally, they were always “in” the canon, but the canon wasn’t closed until almost 2,000 years later.

The Church has always displayed patience and great care in making her decisions.

And that is definately a “+”.

Think about how many churches have come and gone that decided their doctrines in a year or two. If your religion was surgery, would you want a doctor to make his decision to operate after a 15 minute visit or would you prefer one that conferred with other specialists and who made a well thought out, well planned, well prepared decision?

🙂
 
Harsalter said:
The 7 books you speak of were used in the times of Christ by Christ and the original Apostles. Orthodox Jews took them out after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD only because of their Greek origins, no other reasons.

If they were good enough for Christ and the original Apostles, they they should be good enough for everyone else. But Protestants aren’t even satisfied with the Church that Christ instituted, so of course they had to make changes to the Bible.

The original KJV of the Bible had them, did you protestants realize that?
Click to expand...
Not trying to be Da’ Pope here, but your post was excellently worded until this:

“But Protestants aren’t even satisfied with the Church that Christ instituted, so of course they had to make changes to the Bible.”

It had nothing to do with proving your point.

Normally, I don’t comment on a person’s personal sentiments, but if the rest of your post wasn’t so darn good, I wouldn’t have said anything. In other words, remove that, and you would’ve left them with a very convincing argument.

👍
 
jcrichton said:
***Hi, 2ndGen!

…that is precisely the problem with many who read the Holy Scritpures… they make their preferred selections and they run with it… all the while ignoring or outright rejecting anything that they deem unnecessary or superfluous ('course they do not use the that term exactly).

i.e.: Paul wacks us over the head (at least he did me) when he introduces Jesus as the Rock that gave water to the people of Israel in the desert (the rock that followed the Israelites)–clearly, this declarition is singular; neither was it refuted by any of the Apostles nor was there anything written prior to Pauls reference nor afterwards… so there must have been a non-written Tradition that spoke on this revelation; imagine that, Scriptures not emcompassing everything that Christians knew and believed!

Maran atha!

Angel ***
Click to expand...
Well, “we” can’t pick and choose,
but non-Catholics can.

That’s their religion.
Yes, they are Christians,
but we cannot tell them what to do.
They submit their wills to their own religious leaders.

Just the same, they cannot tell us what to do or have an opinion on what we do.

🙂
 
2ndGen said:
Not trying to be Da’ Pope here, but your post was excellently worded until this:

“But Protestants aren’t even satisfied with the Church that Christ instituted, so of course they had to make changes to the Bible.”

It had nothing to do with proving your point.

Normally, I don’t comment on a person’s personal sentiments, but if the rest of your post wasn’t so darn good, I wouldn’t have said anything. In other words, remove that, and you would’ve left them with a very convincing argument.

👍
Click to expand...
Actually, it has everything to do with the point. The books were removed because Martin Luther had to “set himself” apart from the Catholic Church and in doing so, he followed the lead of the Jews in 70 AD.

So Martin Luther wasn’t satisfied with the Church that Christ instituted (although reform was needed), so he took his ball and went home and created his own church. And then he ripped out 7 books of the Bible, although these books were used and taught by Christ himself.

My dad was a so. baptist preacher and I’m a convert to Catholcism myself. I sometimes get angry because they either hid the truth from me or they didn’t know it themselves. I am sure they didn’t know the truth, or they wouldn’t have stayed baptist another day.
 
2ndGen;3163014]
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Isn’t it true though that the “extra books” in the catholic bible were of a secondary canon and was not totally accepted as being fully inspired-inerrant?
2ndGen
That’s a fair and intelligently asked question.
Click to expand...
Firstly, there’s not such thing as a “Catholic” Bible.
There’s a “catholic” Bible.
Click to expand...
What’s that mean? The Bible is not The Bible of “our” Church only (big C), but of all Christianity (little c). Catholic (little c) just meaning universal; for all Christians.
Click to expand...
Now, for you to ask about “extra” books implies that you believe that they were “added”.
Click to expand...
To answer your question finally, they alwasy “in” the canon, but the canon wasn’t closed until almost 2,000 years later.
Click to expand...
You do agree then that these “deuterocanonical” were not at the same status as the other 66 books because there was doubts about them?
The Church has always displayed patience and great care in making her decisions.
Click to expand...
A strong case could be made that the “elevating” of the deuterocanonical books was in response to the reformation.
And that is definately a “+”.
Click to expand...
Think about how many churches have come and gone that decided their doctrines in a year or two.
Click to expand...
Can you give me a couple of examples of this?
If your religion was surgery, would you want a doctor to make his decision to operate after a 15 minute visit or would you prefer one that conferred with other specialists and who made a well thought out, well planned, well prepared decision?
Click to expand...
The latter.
 
2ndGen said:
Harsalter;3163072:
I think that the issue he questioned was what he mistankingly believed to have been books that were added to The Holy Bible, not canon of The Protestant Bible.
Click to expand...
Protestant Bible? :confused: They only have an incomplete Catholic Bible that they can’t even understand correctly as they no longer have the Church to teach them…
Click to expand...
 
Harsalter said:
2ndGen;3163102:
Protestant Bible? :confused: They only have an incomplete Catholic Bible that they can’t even understand correctly as they no longer have the Church to teach them…
Click to expand...
Don’t you believe that God can reveal to a good hearted Protestant His Word without The Church?

Each individual doesn’t “need” The Church to have access to God. Jesus never said “shove yourselves down non-beleivers’ throats”. He said preach the Word. Whoever listens, listens.

Don’t forget Romans 2 my brother.

It states that God judges man by how they live, not just by what religion they belong to.

The belief that you “have to” have someone tell you how and/or what to believe is a “protestant” belief, not a Catholic belief.

🙂
Click to expand...
 
Harsalter;3163096]
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
A strong case could be made that the “elevating” of the deuterocanonical books was in response to the reformation.
.
Harsalter
The books were not added! They were removed by protestants.
Click to expand...
The books were elevated to full status with the rest of the 66 inspired-inerrant books at the council of Trent.
It is true that some protestant did reject them or did not hold them as inspired-inerrant.
 
2ndGen said:
…they cannot tell us what to do or have an opinion on what we do.

🙂
Click to expand...
***Hi, 2ndGen!

:tsktsk:

…sorry to disagree with you… it should read, “they should not…”

It seems that part of their missionary work is telling Catholics what, when, how, how often, who, with whom, where, where not…

…so far… I’ve not met a non-Catholic who does not believe that I am doomed or lacking or ignorant or confused or mislead or unable to comprehend that the Church is not the Church of Christ and that most, if not all, that she teaches is wrong or based on “not Biblical” doctrine.

They are specialists who can tell when the Bible means what it says (literal) and when it is simply making a “suggestion” (not literal); when a doctrine must be explicitly found in Scriptures and when it can be implicit; finally, only the Catholic Church has not the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

Maran atha!

Angel***
 
Harsalter said:
My dad was a so. baptist preacher and I’m a convert to Catholcism myself. I sometimes get angry because they either hid the truth from me or they didn’t know it themselves. I am sure they didn’t know the truth, or they wouldn’t have stayed baptist another day.
Click to expand...
***Hi, Harsalter!

I must concur… Jesus told His Disciples that there would come a time that even those who would be putting them to death would think that they were doing the Father’s Will… so it is not surprising that in their zeal to serve Christ they made their judgment based upon what they understood to be correct… keeping the truth from you was simply symptomatic.

Maran atha!

Angel***
 
2ndGen said:
Harsalter;3163111:
Don’t you believe that God can reveal to a good hearted Protestant His Word without The Church?
Click to expand...
God does reveal His Word to anyone that will listen as he does this through the Holy Catholic Church. This is the Church Christ instituted, no other. And with that said, even most Catholics are not “authorized” to decipher or interpret what scripture means, only the leadership of the Catholic Church through the ages has been authorized in it’s infallibility to do this. It took the Church leadership together with the Church’s Sacred Tradition to fully understand scripture.

If you don’t believe this then ask why there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. Because there are 30,000 different opinons of what the Bible says.
Click to expand...
 
2ndGen said:
Harsalter;3163111:
Don’t you believe that God can reveal to a good hearted Protestant His Word without The Church?

Each individual doesn’t “need” The Church to have access to God. Jesus never said “shove yourselves down non-beleivers’ throats”. He said preach the Word. Whoever listens, listens.
🙂
Click to expand...
You list under your profile that you are Catholic, but you do not post as such.

Earlier this week, you said similar things that Christ is separate from the Church. He is not. Christ is the God Head of the Catholic Church and the Church itself is his mystical body. So yes, everyone needs the Church to have access to God. You are wrong and need to speak with a good Catholic priest.

Please, if you claim to be Catholic, learn and follow the Church’s teachings. Just this past year the Pope put out instruction on this very subject and he said that the only way to salvation is through the Church. It ruffled the feathers of many Protestants, but even their scholars conceded that this was nothing new and was traditional Catholic teachings. Read his encyclical letter on this and also his book “Jesus of Nazareth”.
Click to expand...
 
Romulus said:
By the way, do you have scriptural evidence to support that “Some God-breathed things are sufficient” and all other “God-breathed things” are not?

I seek more feedback on my “deductive reasoning”. I’ve proved that “All Scripture is insufficient” using 2nd Tim…of course it all rests upon the Major premise…the axiom.

(Barbara syllogism):

(True) Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Minor Premise: All Scripture is God breathed
(True) Conclusion: All Scripture is insufficient

Most of us are truth seekers here…I am…and I’m open to reading responses from “Scripture sufficient believers” and/or Catholics to show us where in Scripture does it say that, “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”…which is the negation of the Major premise.

If someone can prove using scripture that the negation of the Major Premise is TRUE…then the above syllogism I have posted cannot make its conclusion.

Thanks for the feedback and for sticking with me with this logical proof or disproof of Scripture insufficienty, which in way relates to SS:)
Click to expand...
bump…

Anymore “scripture sufficiency protestants” have any feedback in regards to my previous post?? Wayne has some good feedback…but I believe he is still researching on which “God breathed things are sufficient” for the christian.

Thanks
 
jcrichton said:
***Hi, 2ndGen!

:tsktsk:

…sorry to disagree with you… it should read, “they should not…”

It seems that part of their missionary work is telling Catholics what, when, how, how often, who, with whom, where, where not…

…so far… I’ve not met a non-Catholic who does not believe that I am doomed or lacking or ignorant or confused or mislead or unable to comprehend that the Church is not the Church of Christ and that most, if not all, that she teaches is wrong or based on “not Biblical” doctrine.

They are specialists who can tell when the Bible means what it says (literal) and when it is simply making a “suggestion” (not literal); when a doctrine must be explicitly found in Scriptures and when it can be implicit; finally, only the Catholic Church has not the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

Maran atha!

Angel***
Click to expand...
There are complete websites dedicated to discrediting Catholicism.

I always thought that if they put as much effort into reading The Holy Bible as they did into discrediting The Church, they’d be tremendous Christians.

😦
 
2ndGen said:
I always thought that if they put as much effort into reading The Holy Bible as they did into discrediting The Church, they’d be tremendous Christians.

😦
Click to expand...
***Hi, 2ndGen!

…I think that what truly gets them in trouble is their “personal revelations.” …somehow they believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal, to each individual Christian, a doctrine that denies/conflicts other Christians’ doctrine. :eek:

Maran atha!

Angel***
 
jcrichton said:
…somehow the reformists got an updated list from the Holy Spirit where he told them that He had made a mistake or rather that the three Councils in the 4th century were overzealous in their devotion to serve that they included more books than what was necessary, and He just didn’t have it in His heart to tell them they were wrong… so He gave their efforts a few centuries before correcting the error! 😛

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
You realize of course the reformers weren’t the first to reject the inspiration of the deutero’s don’t you?

Even at Trent we find only 44% of the bishops/cardinals who were tasked with deciding the canon voting to affirm the canonocity of the apocrypha, 27% voted to the negative and 29% abstaining.

So, it’s not like the reformers were alone in believing the deutero’s weren’t worthy of being included in the canon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top