Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[jcrichton]

My response: true, Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received, his writings thus becoming Scripture. The word “verify” confirms that there is no difference between what was taught orally, and what was written, so how can anyone claim that this text supports the view that Tradition “adds” to Scripture? To my mind, it states the opposite case. If Luke meant that he was “adding” to oral tradition, he would have said so, but he did not, he said he was verifying it.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

…you are very eloquent in your expositions… even inviting the reader to simplathize with your position…

…but you leave blanks in your propositions… to agree with your statement there should be a greater number of volumes and a greater number of pages per velume in the Holy Bible…

…think on this… out of the blue we are told that it was at Antioch that the disciples (known before as the Way) were first called “Christians.” Either there was a general usage of this term or someone somewhere simply got up and coined the word! This whole historic account is missing from Scriptures.

Where are the written rules about baptism? Which book/writting tells us the “proper” manner, age, indoctrination or proof of indoctrination used…?

Priest and Bishops… the written Word simply tells us that Priest should be and behave thusly; that Bishops should be and behave thusly… but there’s no Scripture that shows how the Priests or Bishops were chosen and the very particulars of how they were approved… Scriptures are very general… so you think that Paul would just simply look into the crowds and pick a few from the front and a couple from the back… and if he was lead by the Holy Spirit to choose/select a particular person over another, where is it written?

As St. John said there are many other things that Jesus did that are not written… so too, there are many things taught by the Apostles that were not written… otherwise, why promise that the Holy Spirit (the other Paraclete) would reveal the total Truth and why state that what they taught in Scripture or Tradition was to be held as the basis for the Faith?

Just study this passage from St. Jude:

I should like to remind you–though you have already learnt it once and for all–that the Lord rescued the nation from Egypt, but afterwards he still destroyed the people who refused to believe him; and the angels who did not keep to the authority they had, but left their appointed sphere, he has kept in darkness in eternal bonds until the judgement of the great Day…

Not even the archangel Mitchael, when he was engaged in argument with the devil about the corpse of Moses, dare to denounce him in the language of abuse;…

It was with them in mind that Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam, made his prophecy when he said, 'I tell you, the Lord will come with his holy ones in their tens of thousands, to pronounce judgement on all humanity and to sentence the godless for all the godless things they have done, and for all the defiant things said against him by godless sinnners. (St. Jude 1:5-15)

Do you see it now? St. Jude speaks of oral Traditions which are not found anywhere else in Scriptures–had he made no mention we would not know that there was a battle for Moses’ corpse or that Mitchael, the archangel, was active in a spiritual battle protecting the body of God’s servant or that Enoch was a prophet!..

You must agree that Traditions contain extra-Biblical Teachings!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[jcrichton]

Did you really mean that, that “most of their common ground revolves around anti-Catholic doctrine” ???

I can’t say that I am personally acquainted with the 30,000+ denominations of which you speak, but of the ones I know, excluding the poly-theistics like the Mormons, and those that claim divine revelation through some new version of Scripture like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the common ground is mostly Scripture and the Apostle’s Creed.
Now, if you are saying that the bulk of Catholic doctrine is separate and distinct from Scripture and the Apostle’s Creed, you could be opening a whole new field of discussion, and a very interesting one at that.
I shall take the more conservative view, and consider that you were just exagerrating.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

…perhaps I should not have been so general… from my experience, every single non-Catholic person that I have encountered (live or online) has introduced his/her view of God, the Bible or some other religious text in a non-judgmental and seemingly genuine manner… as the exchange progresses the only true communality is their negative view of the Catholic Church and their desire to rescue me from a dommed religion. Just on this (Catholic) forum I was schooled about some Catholic Bishops not even owning a Bible–that should scare me into converting, I suppose…

What I find interesting is that every single encounter was with people who represent the true church of God… even when their interpretation of Scriptures defy any semblance of truth, their recourse is pointing out how wrong it is to be Catholic and how closer I can get to God by leaving the Catholic Church.

Just read your own interpretation of my post:

Now, if you are saying that the bulk of Catholic doctrine is separate and distinct from Scripture and the Apostle’s Creed, you could be opening a whole new field of discussion, and a very interesting one at that.***

Can you understand why I read anti-Catholicism as the true communality amongst non-Catholics?

It seems that they equate division as clarity and humility as weakness; their authority is proven by their founders’ direct discipleship with the Holy Spirit and any difference of doctrine from other Christian churches is seen as a necessary diversity–I guess Paul really had it wrong when he preached that there is only One God, One Lord, One Spirit, One Gospel, One Baptism, One Body!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[WayneTalbot]

---

You must agree that Traditions contain extra-Biblical Teachings!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

I do indeed, I have never stated otherwise, and if you read my earlier posts, for example on infant baptism, you will see that I have actually quoted extra-Biblical teachings.

The question I was attempting to resolve was - is Scripture sufficient?

Often, the difficulty with forums such as these, is that there is much generalising, and when we generalise, we are often simply stating opinions which are difficult to either support or refute. Generalisations contain so many assumptions that it is hard to know where to start.
For example, your statement regarding 30,000+ denominations.
Incidentally, I was not being anti-Catholic in my suggestion, I was following the natural logic that you opened. Think about it some more, perhaps you will recognise that it was you that opened that door, not I.

You have raised many points in your recent posts, but I am reluctant to respond, simply because I sense a futility in discussing generalisations. That could well be a limitation of mine, not in the subjects themselves, but I will happily acknowledge and accept that.
In is in my nature to attempt to be precise, though often I fail, and I try to remain on topic without opening new subjects, but again, I readily admit that I am often less than successful.
Regards,

 

[jcrichton]

I do indeed, I have never stated otherwise, and if you read my earlier posts, for example on infant baptism, you will see that I have actually quoted extra-Biblical teachings.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

In your statement you said that both the writen Word and the oral teachings did not differ… I understood that to mean that Traditions (oral teachings) would only contain that which was in the Holy Scriptures; if you mean something else, I apologize for the disparity of thoughts.***

The question I was attempting to resolve was - is Scripture sufficient?

***I think that here too there are discrepancies of thought… sola Scriptura rejects Traditions (though some form/interpretations say not)… yet, there are several reasons why Scripture cannot be sufficient for Salvation… putting aside any partisanship and allowing the Holy Spirit to Teach us we can verify this truth from the Holy Scriptures:

Jesus chastised both the Saducees and Pharisees (the two religious bodies that were scholars and custodians of the Written Sacred Scriptures and Oral Sacred Traditions… His main complaint was that they had the Word of God and they lived searching and studying the Word but refused to abide by them: “…if Moses was your father you would believe me for he spoke of me, but your father is the devil…” (paraphrased)

He puts them to shame when the question of John the Baptist arises…"…is he God sent, then why did you reject his baptism?" “…FYI, he is Elijah, the one that was to come!”

John is only important because he points to Jesus: the Lamb of God who takes the sins of the world; the Annointed one; the Son of God.

There was one humble man that Jesus teased, “…Nicodemus, you are a teacher in Israel and you do not know these things?..”

Here’s this teacher that comes to Jesus in secret and Jesus does not rebuke him for his cowardice but Teaches him away from the crowd; as Nicodemus comes in humility he learns that Scriptures are not suficient… that they point to a greater Law and Authority: the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete that Jesus will send to Teach and strengthen the Church!

Nicodemus should have known of this, but Jesus does not hold his ignorance against him. And as Nicodemus allows Jesus to Teach him he opens himself to God and lets go of his human intellect and understanding.

This is precisely what happened with Saul as he too was loaded with knowledge of the Holy Scriptures but persecuted his own Lord–the God for whom he thought he was fighting so couragously. When he humbled himself to Christ the Truth swelled his whole existence and he made Christ’s Gospel his whole reason for being. Saul had a spiritual awakening that the written Word could not afford him!***

Incidentally, I was not being anti-Catholic in my suggestion, I was following the natural logic that you opened. Think about it some more, perhaps you will recognise that it was you that opened that door, not I.

---

…I re-read my statement… you are correct! I missed a simple article (grammar) and it changed the whole meaning of what I meant to say:

or are they just automatically “in” since most of their common ground revolves around anti-Catholic doctrine?***
It should read: an anti-Catholic doctrine?

I was speaking of the various anti-Catholic doctrines held by non-Catholics.

You have raised many points in your recent posts, but I am reluctant to respond, simply because I sense a futility in discussing generalisations. That could well be a limitation of mine, not in the subjects themselves, but I will happily acknowledge and accept that.
In is in my nature to attempt to be precise, though often I fail, and I try to remain on topic without opening new subjects, but again, I readily admit that I am often less than successful.
Regards,

***I understand your plight… the problem is that sometimes we can only generalize; other times, as precise as we wish to be, a simple omision throws the whole thought out of wack…

Then there’s that human mind that races about jumping from tangent to tangent–sacrificing, at times, even the original thought!

Perhaps the solution could be as simple as minimizing the scope of the threads: instead of tackling several points we should steadfastly hold on to only the very first topic, rejecting even the posts that begin with multiple points of discourse!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Since you claim its untrue you would know exactly what it is. So again i ask you, what do you mean by sola scriptura?

Who knows i may even agree with you.

Did you read the links I provided for you?

If someone is going to explain to me that they believe in sola scriptura and then ask me to define sola scriptura for them, this kind of causes a bit of confusion as to what exactly sola scriptura actually means.

From my own understanding as a former Lutheran, sola scriptura could mean many things, mostly tied into the idea that only the Scriptures were binding on our consciences.

Nowadays, in the most moderate sense, most people seem to be meaning prima scriptura when talking about sola scriptura, and intending that the Scriptures are the most reliable of all sources that God provided to confirm his will, but not necessarilly the only source to confirm God’s will.

Even still, prima scriptura still doesn’t seem to resolve the issue either, since people have been transmitting the Scriptural record as moved by the Holy Spirit since apostolic times.

 

[justasking4]

Did you read the links I provided for you?

If someone is going to explain to me that they believe in sola scriptura and then ask me to define sola scriptura for them, this kind of causes a bit of confusion as to what exactly sola scriptura actually means.

From my own understanding as a former Lutheran, sola scriptura could mean many things, mostly tied into the idea that only the Scriptures were binding on our consciences.

Nowadays, in the most moderate sense, most people seem to be meaning prima scriptura when talking about sola scriptura, and intending that the Scriptures are the most reliable of all sources that God provided to confirm his will, but not necessarilly the only source to confirm God’s will.

Even still, prima scriptura still doesn’t seem to resolve the issue either, since people have been transmitting the Scriptural record as moved by the Holy Spirit since apostolic times.

Do you believe that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Hi, Nick Jones!

Are you insinuating that Christ made a BIG mistake by introducing an anti-synagogue that was really superfluous?

Not at all.

Are you saying that the Paraclete which He promised that would come to the Church was simply an energy of fire tongues which then disipated only to resurface in the 16th century?

No. The Paraclete works in union with Scripture to fulfill God’s sovereign plans and purposes.

Are you saying that the early Church is the only type that we should have: i.e.: no changes, no countering the multitude of heresies that arose, no defining Faith, God, Salvation?

Yes, I think that in most ways, our model should be the early church, but I agree with you that heresies will appear and must be refuted. Since error needs to be refuted by authority, what higher authority is there than God Himself?

Are you saying that when Jesus told the Apostles that they could not handle everything He needed to tell them but that He would send the other Paraclete to reveal the total Truth, He did not realy mean it?

No.

Are you saying that when the Apostles deferred and comanded that all Christians deferred to the Church they simply meant “majority rules?”

No, I believe that the church is ruled by Christ.

And are you saying that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Chirst but every Tom, Harry or Jane that erects a “church” is representing Christ’s and the Apostles’ authority?

Yes, I’m saying that the RCC is not the church of Christ. However, it doesn’t follow from this, that every Tom, Harry or Jane that erects a “church” is representing Christ’s and the Apostles’ authority.

How do you propose we test the authority and authenticity of the 30,000+ Christian denominations that purport that they have the Holy Spirit’s direct revelation?.. or are they just automatically “in” since most of their common ground revolves around anti-Catholic doctrine?

It is unnecessary to test the authority and authenticity of the 30,000+ Christian denominations that purport that they have the Holy Spirit’s direct revelation. A group of individuals is part of the church by what God has done in them; not merely by what they say they believe.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Do you believe that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant?

No. I believe that the Scriptures can be radically distorted from their original context without its translators having been moved by God the Holy Spirit who was just as much at work when inspiring their inerant nature to begin with.

 

[Romulus]

Yes, I’m saying that the RCC is not the church of Christ.

So, where, physically is the “one, true Church of Jesus, the pillar of Truth”?? I’m sure we all want go to the right place

 

[Romulus]

Wrong… read up on “Negation of Quantifiers” 2.1.9 here. Or just google “negation of Quantifiers” to read up on it.

If you have a source where it tells you otherwise in regards to “Negation of Quantifiers”…please post the link to the source so we may all read it for ourselves. Thanks.

Read up on Negation of Quantifiers.

Let us take the syllogism again…we all agree that

(false) Major Premise: Some God breathed things are sufficient
(false) Minor Premise: All God breathed things are Scripture
(false) Conclusion: Some Scripture is sufficient

If we all agree that both premises are false, then therefore conclusion is false. So the negation is true by the Law of Non-Contradiction…the Negation of the conclusion translates to, “For all Scripture is insufficient”

So for the conclusion to be true…both premises must be true:

(True) Negate Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Negate Minor Premise: Some God breathed things are not Scripture
(True) Negate Conclusion: All Scripture is insufficient

Just applying valid “deductive reasoning” here…and like you said, this reasoning follows if we all agree on the premises to begin with. Do we all agree with all the major and minor premises?

peace be with you

Ok correction here…after further study of syllogisms. Yes for the conclusion to be true, both premises must be true…but it also has to be a valid argument. And this argument is not valid:

(True) Negate Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Negate Minor Premise: Some God breathed things are not Scripture
(True) Conclusion: All Scripture is insufficient

Fallacy of the illicit minor. Check here.

Below is however, is a valid argument (Barbara syllogism):

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

Here is another valid argument (Dastisi syllogism):

(True) Negate Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Negate Minor Premise: Some God breathed things are not Scripture
(True) Conclusion: Some non-scriptures are insufficient

Non-scriptures can be Sacred Traditions.

So what do you all think about these syllogisms?

peace be with you

 

[Romulus]

To determine the truth or falsity of this assertion, we must examine Scripture to find out whether it does or does not make such a claim. We find a passage that does appear to make this claim in 2 Timothy 3:14:17:

Notice you said, “appear to make this claim”… Explicit?..we agree it does not…Implicit? Using deductive reasoning, we’ll see that it is also does not make the claim of sufficiency implicitly.

I’ve also shown everyone a syllogism to prove insufficiency…Wayne, what have you learned from the “Negation of quantified statements”??

Let us look at another valid argument (Barbara Syllogism):

(True) Major Premise: All Scripture(Sacred Writings) is sufficient
(True) Minor Premise: All of Psalms is Scripture(Sacred Writings)
(True) Conclusion: All of Psalms is sufficient

We could have used any other Book considered “Sacred Writing” instead of Psalms.

So this Barbara syllogism concludes that all we need is Psalms (A source of Sacred Writings) to instruct us unto salvation. Is this what Paul is really saying? We all agree NO. So the major premise can’t be true since we all agree that Psalms is a source of Sacred Writings.

The words “fully equipped” can sensibly be understood to mean “sufficient”, thus one can infer that Holy Scripture is sufficient to learn the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith. If Scripture is sufficient, then no other source of wisdom is necessary. That is not to say that other sources do not exist, simply that they are not necessary.

you said, “sensibly be understood”…“can infer”…

Show us using “deductive reasoning” a.k.a syllogism to prove sufficiency.

The Catholic position is that 2 Timothy 3 does not teach sufficiency, even though the wording seems clear enough.

If you believe it is clear, then clearly shown us using “deductive reasoning”.

 

[Nick_Jones]

So, where, physically is the “one, true Church of Jesus, the pillar of Truth”?? I’m sure we all want go to the right place

The church (physically speaking) is where ever two or three (or more) followers of Christ are gathered.

 

[Romulus]

The church (physically speaking) is where ever two or three (or more) followers of Christ are gathered.

Ok…but there is a problem… In Matthew 18, Jesus differentiates between “two or three witnesses/followers” and “the church”…so they are not the same.

*Matt 18: 15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven*.

Nick, this is off topic… but a good topic, we need to jump on over to a different thread in regards what/where is the CHURCH.

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you believe that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
No. I believe that the Scriptures can be radically distorted from their original context without its translators having been moved by God the Holy Spirit who was just as much at work when inspiring their inerant nature to begin with.

If i understand you correctly you are going against catholic teaching on this. Even the catholic church believes the Scriptures to be inspired-inerrant.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Romulus,
I have yet to consider your post introducing the Barbara and Dastisi syllogisms, I’ll get back to them if I can (if I can keep up), but in the meantime, I admit to having difficulty with your syllogisms and related references, chiefly because it is over 40 years since I did math, and it is taking me some time to come up to speed (if ever).
However, during reading as you recommended, on universal and existential quantifiers, I still sensed a lack of logic, and it came to me that maybe it is the definition of “sufficient” that is the stumbling block, as the term “sufficient” is more qualitative that quantitative. The rules of “Negation of Quantifiers” seems not to apply adequately to qualitative statements: the negation of a qualifier is simply “not”. But I am not sure I am on the right track there.

Coming back to the Laws of (Non) Contradiction, Aristotle stated it as, “for every affirmation, there is exactly one (and only one) negation, and that every affirmation and its negation are ‘opposed’ such that always one of them must be true, and the other false.”

Now to your syllogism and the negation of the false conclusion.

You stated, in part,
*Major Premise: Some God breathed things are sufficient
Minor Premise: All God breathed things are Scripture
Conclusion: Some Scripture is sufficient

If we all agree that both premises are false, then therefore conclusion is false. So the negation is true by the Law of Non-Contradiction…the Negation of the conclusion translates to, “For all Scripture is insufficient”*

I would contend thus.
Starting with the false conclusion “Some scripture is sufficient”, and absenting any attempt to understand the Negation of Quantifiers, and maybe you could help out there, let us separately negate the qualifiers “some/all” and “in/ not in” (I use the word qualifier deliberately to avoid confusion with Negation of Quantifiers):

1. Some scripture is insufficient
2. All scripture is sufficient

By negating just one qualifier, each of these statements negates the conclusion, but invoking Aristotle’s logic, of there being only one negation, which one is the right one?

If we go one step further, as you have done, and negate both qualifiers, we have the negation: For all Scripture is insufficient.

Our task now is to decide which of these three negations is the one true negation.

I believe that the correct correlation of the four statements is this:
Statement 1: Some scripture is sufficient.
Negation 1: Some scripture is insufficient.
Statement 2: All scripture is sufficient.
Negation 2: All scripture is insufficient.

Now without being able to refer to any authoritative text, I don’t believe that it is valid to go from Statement 1 to Negation 2, and interestingly, I find Negation 1 supports Statement 2, maybe proving my point (and maybe not).

Two further points and I will end for now, hoping that you can fuel the thought process a little further.

Your negation stated as “for all scripture is insufficient” could be expressed as:
All S (scripture) is Some T (some T being some sufficiency), or alternatively
All S (scripture) are not T (not T being a logical equivalent of not sufficient)
I tried working backwards to construct a syllogism where this conclusion was true, but ran out of time; maybe you would like to try it.
Lastly, if I ever agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to the falsity of the Major and Minor premises, then let me now say that I am not so sure. I am not sure of what exactly is covered by “God breathed things”, and how they relate to the sufficiency for salvation. I would reiterate, in case the point has been lost, that the issue as I understand it is the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, as per 2 Timothy 3, but maybe it is I who has wandered off the point.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If i understand you correctly you are going against catholic teaching on this. Even the catholic church believes the Scriptures to be inspired-inerrant.

No, I believe, as does the Catholic Church, that the Scriptures are only as inspired-inerrant as the authors were when God superintened them to write as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.

I also believe, as does the Catholic Church, that the modern translations of the Scriptures (into Greek, Latin, or Englsih for example) are likewise only as inspired-inerrant the translators were when God superintened them to translate as moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.

I believe that no Catholic in their right mind would claim the Scriptures were not inspired-inerrant.

And, consequently, claiming that the Scriptures can be seriously distorted from their original intention does not necessarilly mean that I believe that the Scriptures were not inspired-inerrant either.

Indeed, if the ability to distort the Scripture’s meaning necessarilly meant that the Scriptures were not inspired-inerrant, then this would also mean that passages like Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24, John 5:39 and 2 Peter 3:16 actually proved that the Scriptures were not inspired-inerrant after all.

That’s obviously not what Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24, John 5:39 and 2 Peter 3:16 actually mean. But I think you get my point regardng your counter-point above.

Simply put, every Catholic in good conscience that heeds sound doctrine would seriously question any claim that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant-- which is what your original question asked.

Is that a sufficient answer?

Now, speaking of things being sufficient, and looking toward the claim of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, could you please provide me with a clear-cut, all-inclusive, definition of sola scriptura that I could examine more carefully?

 

[jcrichton]

The Paraclete works in union with Scripture to fulfill God’s sovereign plans and purposes.

Yes, I think that in most ways, our model should be the early church, but I agree with you that heresies will appear and must be refuted. Since error needs to be refuted by authority, what higher authority is there than God Himself?

I believe that the church is ruled by Christ.

I’m saying that the RCC is not the church of Christ. However, it doesn’t follow from this, that every Tom, Harry or Jane that erects a “church” is representing Christ’s and the Apostles’ authority.

It is unnecessary to test the authority and authenticity of the 30,000+ Christian denominations that purport that they have the Holy Spirit’s direct revelation. A group of individuals is part of the church by what God has done in them; not merely by what they say they believe.

***Hi, Nick Jones!

…:ehh:

I’m confused!

I understand that it is your personal belief that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ…

That heresies have to be refuted…

That the Holy Spirit reveal the meaning of Scriptures…

That there’s no greater authority than God…

I think that what you mean by this last statement is that the Bible is that authority… so you are saying that when man needs clarification about spiritual matters all that has to be done is procure a Bible? Then pick a meeting place and study hard so that a definite rule “of engagement” can be deduced?

So when past heresies arose, were they solved by the guy with the latest version of the Bible, he simply said, “Here, read it it’s rigth here!” everybody agreed and no more heresies?

Why do you suppose that the Johovah Witnesses’ doctrine revolves around a Christ that is a superhuman being: an angel (the prince of angels: the archangel Michael)–they have very many scholars and theologians; they even produce “the only true error-free” Bible… just grabbing a Bible has not worked for them, has it?

Your authority about knowing that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christ’s Church, does that come from that same vein?

And is it not your understanding that most, if not all, of the 30K+ Christian denominations use the Jehovah Witnesses method of determining that theirs is the true authority since they are the true church of Christ?

I find that you contradict yourself (on one hand you say no non-Catholic does not prove that that’s Christ’s church; on the other hand you say yes the 30K+ denominations are lead by a group of men who God has done something to them hence authenticating their church’s authority as the Church of Christ)… so which is the proof, that they are non-Catholic (so automatically “in”) or that God has done something different to each group so that the church of Christ can be prolific in doctrine and membership?

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[WayneTalbot]

---

I’m confused!

Why do you suppose that the Johovah Witnesses’ doctrine revolves around a Christ that is a superhuman being: an angel (the prince of angels: the archangel Michael)–they have very many scholars and theologians; they even produce “the only true error-free” Bible… just grabbing a Bible has not worked for them, has it?

---

I can understand your confusion, and I suspect it is because you reach too far with your generalizations.
I am unaware of how deeply you have studied the history of the Jehovah Witnesses and the Watchtower Society, or other cults, but a novice of the Bible could refute their theology. First issue to address is whether Scripture as handed down to us, and it doesn’t much matter which of the mainstream Bible versions used, Catholic or Protestant, is a genuine record of what was said and done by Jesus. Over 90% of scholars, from atheist to whatever, agree that it is. If you then compare it JV’s scripture, the differences are significant - you don’t need to get into interpretation, simply compare the texts.
Also have a look at the lives of the founders, much as we do when analysing Islam, Scientology, Christian Science, or the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Charles Taze Russell was a charlatan and a fraud, convicted in a criminal court of fraud, and if you bring up Russell with JV’s or Watchtower proponents, they will disown him, even though they cling to his theologies. His successor, Rutherford, was hardly better, and split the group.
In discussing heresies, you need to differentiate those that are based on “scriptures” that are different from, for example, the New Jerusalem Bible, those that have limited acceptance of Catholic Tradition and the Magesterium, and those that are primarily a matter of disagreement over interpretation of an agreed text.
When, for example, you discuss heresies mentioned in the Epistles, understand what they are, and what they are not.
Essentially, they are refutations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not NT Scripture.
I will assume that you understand the difference between the two, and I am not being facetious here, but if you understand the heresies of the first and second centuries, you should appreciate that comparisons with the theologies of the Reformation are simply absurd.
Heresies mentioned in the NT are essentially the rejections of Jesus as the Messiah, and the Lord of All, as the one foretold in the OT. The so-called “heresies” of the Protestants are something entirely different, and as for the 30,000+ denominations you speak of, I really have no idea where they fit in relation to acceptance of Jesus Christ, and their acceptance of what we might loosely term, mainstream Christian Scripture.
Read carefully 1 Peter, and 2 Peter, and don’t take anything into your session from previous knowledge and belief (if that’s possible for any of us). Note his points. Therein is the essence of the beliefs that the heresies were disputing.
Incidentally, I only chose Peter because his espistles are among the simplest.
Enjoy his words, inspired by God, they are beautiful.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Hi, Nick Jones!

…:ehh:

I’m confused!

I understand that it is your personal belief that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ…

That heresies have to be refuted…

That the Holy Spirit reveal the meaning of Scriptures…

That there’s no greater authority than God…

I think that what you mean by this last statement is that the Bible is that authority… so you are saying that when man needs clarification about spiritual matters all that has to be done is procure a Bible? Then pick a meeting place and study hard so that a definite rule “of engagement” can be deduced?

So when past heresies arose, were they solved by the guy with the latest version of the Bible, he simply said, “Here, read it it’s rigth here!” everybody agreed and no more heresies?

No, actually the bible will not be understood even by those who study it day and night as many JW’s do, unless the Holy Spirit guides them. Even with the help of the HS, not every teaching in the bible will be made clear to very many people.

Why do you suppose that the Johovah Witnesses’ doctrine revolves around a Christ that is a superhuman being: an angel (the prince of angels: the archangel Michael)–they have very many scholars and theologians; they even produce “the only true error-free” Bible… just grabbing a Bible has not worked for them, has it?

Because sin separates people from God, sin separates people from truth. They cannot see the truth because they will not…unless and until God brings them to repentance. I was once an atheist. But God changed me from a lost dead sinner to one who is alive through the Spirit. This happened even though I never was seeking God and I didn’t want the truth if truth means God exists. I was in rebellion against God, and a slave to my own evil and selfish desires. The only way that the Truth can set a sinner free is if God makes that sinner receptive to the Truth.

Your authority about knowing that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christ’s Church, does that come from that same vein?

The emphasis of so many (not all) in the RCC, is on the certainty they claim to have through their visible religious system. They are seeking certain infallible knowledge. But the bible repeatedly tells us that the man of God walks by FAITH. But what need is there for faith if we have certain infallible knowledge? In the end, the whole RC system is really not much different from other religions that emphasize some supposedly infallible human authority. When I read the bible I see that the only infallible authority is God, and the men who were credited as righteous by their faith, were men who’s faith was in God.

And is it not your understanding that most, if not all, of the 30K+ Christian denominations use the Jehovah Witnesses method of determining that theirs is the true authority since they are the true church of Christ?

I’m a sinner, so I have to grant that everything I believe could be false. But I’d rather trust in what God (through the bible) seems to be saying than to trust in what human beings seem to be saying.

I find that you contradict yourself (on one hand you say no non-Catholic does not prove that that’s Christ’s church; on the other hand you say yes the 30K+ denominations are lead by a group of men who God has done something to them hence authenticating their church’s authority as the Church of Christ)…

I’m not assuming that the 30,000 denominations are all saved Christians. We simply have no way of knowing which people in any group are truly saved. That is for God to determine. But I have been led to a church that truly seems to want to honor God, and not men.

so which is the proof, that they are non-Catholic (so automatically “in”)

No, I do not believe that non-Catholic equals true. There are lots of non-Catholic “Christian” churches that are teaching error.

or that God has done something different to each group so that the church of Christ can be prolific in doctrine and membership?

I’m not sure what you mean here, but I don’t think it is necessarily the goal to be prolific in doctrine and membership.

 

[jcrichton]

I can understand your confusion, and I suspect it is because you reach too far with your generalizations.

First issue to address is whether Scripture as handed down to us, and it doesn’t much matter which of the mainstream Bible versions used, Catholic or Protestant, is a genuine record of what was said and done by Jesus. Over 90% of scholars, from atheist to whatever, agree that it is. If you then compare it JV’s scripture, the differences are significant - you don’t need to get into interpretation, simply compare the texts.

In discussing heresies, you need to differentiate those that are based on “scriptures” that are different from, for example, the New Jerusalem Bible, those that have limited acceptance of Catholic Tradition and the Magesterium, and those that are primarily a matter of disagreement over interpretation of an agreed text.

When, for example, you discuss heresies mentioned in the Epistles, understand what they are, and what they are not.
Essentially, they are refutations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not NT Scripture.

I will assume that you understand the difference between the two, and I am not being facetious here, but if you understand the heresies of the first and second centuries, you should appreciate that comparisons with the theologies of the Reformation are simply absurd.

Heresies mentioned in the NT are essentially the rejections of Jesus as the Messiah, and the Lord of All, as the one foretold in the OT. The so-called “heresies” of the Protestants are something entirely different, and as for the 30,000+ denominations you speak of, I really have no idea where they fit in relation to acceptance of Jesus Christ, and their acceptance of what we might loosely term, mainstream Christian Scripture.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

I redirected your post… just a little…

You’ve missed my point altogether.

I am saying that a person, any person in the world–yes, even the simplest individual–can pick up a Bible an interpret from the Word of God anything that he/she desires… I used the Jehovah Witnesses as an example because, from my understanding, they have gone the length of even restructuring the context of the Bible and in their indoctrination they are creating myriads of anti-Christians. They are selective in their studies and, though they pretend to be open to sharing the Holy Scriptures, they refuse to accept that Jesus is God; all the while professing their devotion to God and attempting to demonstrate a superior understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

This superior understanding is what the X number of denominations share with them!

Nowhere in Scripture is there a command to diversify Christ’s Doctrine, yet when members of a “church” decide that they can reform that “church” by creating their own “church” (a behavior that is symptomatic amongst denominations) and once some of the members of this new “church” feel that they too can improve/reform the existing “church…” the process begins anew and continues to no end.

But non-Catholics (all of the ones that I’ve come across in person and online) do not see a problem with these schisms, and, for some unknown reason, they are compeled to rescue Catholics (at least me) from our errors.

The problem I find is that they are selective in their obedience to the Holy Scriptures and they formulate their own “church’s” interpretation of the Word to support their views on what constitutes Yahweh’s true Doctrine–this, again, from my personal encounters with the various non-Catholic “Christians.”

---