Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[Hiedi]

You could respond that if the only test for being God’s Word is accurate predictions, then there are probably a great many scientists and economists who are prophets, since they write down predictions that sometimes end up being correct.

The reason you might go down this road is that as Catholics, we have an extrascriptural reason to believe that Scripture is the Word of God. By looking at the historical record, we can discover, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there was a man named Jesus who had some followers who ended up founding a church. It was this church that produced the canon of Scripture by deciding which books were divinely inspired and which books were not. Because the people who put the Bible together were commissioned by bishops, who were commissioned by the Apostles, who were commissioned by Christ, we believe, as Catholics, that these people had the authority to decide what belonged in the Bible. By exercising that authority, they created a book which we know to contain the Word of God.

Your relative, on the other hand, won’t accept that these men had this authority, because he believes the Bible is the only authority. So the question then becomes: How does he know that Scripture is the Word of God? (His answer may be that he takes it “on faith,” which isn’t a bad answer, since we do too, in a sense – but that’s beside the point.) Beyond that, you might ask: How does he know which books are in the Bible? Who decided which ones should be there? The Table of Contents certainly wasn’t divinely inspired, and the books themselves offer few clues as to which are canonical and which are not. By what authority does he know that his Bible should have 66 books in it?

I hope that helps you out a little bit. Keep us updated on how things are going.

Thanks, that helps me out a lot!

Sincerely,
Hiedi

 

[garysibio]

Hi! Please help me. I am Catholic. I told a Baptist relative that the Church came before the Bible, because the Bible was put together by the Church. Then he cleverly responded that the Bible is God’s Word, and thus existed before the Church, because the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, he says, the Bible came before the Church.

I already pointed him to the pillar of truth bible verse, but how do I refute this argument? (Besids pointing again to 1 Tim 3:15).

Thanks and God Bless you eternally.

Hiedi

I would point out two things:

First, the Church was also part of God’s plan from all eternity so the Bible cannot get priority on that basis.

Second, Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). It does not claim that for itself.

Gary

 

[porthos11]

Now I see what you mean. Did you guys go to law school or something? I see I have a lot to learn when it comes to logic. Can you recommend me any books on logical reasoning/arguments?

Anyway, What do I do Mr. Porthos if right away he comes back to me and says, “Gee, I don’t know. You just accept it on faith. It’s undeniable, because there is too much truth and it all fits together so well. I mean, it would be impossible not to be God’s word simply based on how accurately all the prophesies come true!” What would you say to him if he asks me, “How do you know it then, Hiedi?”

Thanks.

Don’t fall for it. For the sake of argument, you’ve essentially placed the burden of proof on him. You don’t need to admit, much less prove, for now that Scripture is inspired of God.

Novels and historical documents also fit together so well, as do many other religious writings. Many of them are even true. But none of them are inspired.

When he says, “you have to take it on faith”, counter with, “But why should I take your word for it? You are basically telling me to accept the Bible’s inspiration on your own authority.”

For as long as he doesn’t bite or admits that he cannot prove Sola Scriptura from the Bible, then you are under no obligation. He made the assertion (“The Bible is God’s Word”); he has to prove it. You make no assertion, so the burden of proof is not on you.

In any case, you ammunition is this, but keep this until he gives up.

1. We start from the Bible, but NOT as the inspired Word of God, but only as a collection of ancient documents. Nothing more, nothing less. More importantly, we start with the Gospels.
2. First you need to prove that the collection of ancient documents is accurate (not necessarily historically true), that is, what we have now are faithful reproductions of the original writings.
   2a. We can actually do this because of the advances in textual criticism. We have so much ancient manuscripts of the Greek gospels and many ancient translations such that there is no doubt that the Gospels we have today are clearly near exact copies of the original manuscripts. Moreover, the Gospels are relatively new. We deal with much more ancient writings such as Caesar, Homer, and Ovid, and their authenticity has not been questioned.
   2b. This part can scientifically establish that the Gospels are faithful copies of the originals.

*** At this point you have established that the Gospels are accurate textually. Not historically. ***

1. Now you have to show that the Gospels are accurate historically. This is a bit harder but not impossible. Remember, we are not dealing with inspiration, only historical correctness. Well first of all, we can start with the weak arguments: the Gospels are pretty ridiculous, especially that part about a Messiah being crucified by foreign authority and then rising again after three days. That’s not exactly something we can come up with on our own.

3a. But more importantly, we need to look at the historical writings and testimonies of the period and what immediately followed. First of all, Jesus did die on a cross, historically speaking. Non-Christian writings attest to that. But did he rise? The Resurrection is the key doctrine of the Christian faith.

The best witness for the Resurrection are the first- and second-century Christians who died professing the Resurrection. These people were within living memory of the Resurrection and had been taught by those who claimed to witness it. Moreover, those witnesses died for this testimony. It’s one thing to die for your belief; it’s quite another to die for something you claim to witness.

TBC.

 

[porthos11]

3b. No one dies for a hoax they know to be false, especially one as ridiculous as a dead man standing up and walking away from his tomb.

Moreover, looking at what he said, one cannnot accept them without a bit of a grain of salt. Especially those wherein he claimed that he was God. Those are the words of a lunatic. The only other alternative was that they were true, and that he was God.

But the blood of the early martyrs enable us to conclude that the Resurrection was indeed a historical event. And if he rose, then we can be certain of the truths of what he said. He was God (basing what we know of “God” from our natural reason).

*** Here we can show from pure history that Jesus was God. You may have to do some additional research to bolster the historical accuracy of the Gospels; the more the better. ***

1. One of the things he said was that he would build a Church which will never be prevailed upon by the gates of hell. So again one just needs to look at history and see which Church most resembled the Church of the first century. A Church with a hierarchy, liturgy, and doctrines that match the early writings. Because Jesus is God, we can be assured of the truth of what he said.
2. The Church in the 4th century came up with a list of the books that were considered inspired and to be used as the basis for doctrine.

*** This is why we know Scripture is inspired. Because the Church says so, and because it is a historical fact that the Church is of God. ***

So this is not double-circular reasoning because we do not start with the Gospels as inspired, merely accurate history.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Hi! Please help me. I am Catholic. I told a Baptist relative that the Church came before the Bible, because the Bible was put together by the Church. Then he cleverly responded that the Bible is God’s Word, and thus existed before the Church, because the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, he says, the Bible came before the Church.

I already pointed him to the pillar of truth bible verse, but how do I refute this argument? (Besids pointing again to 1 Tim 3:15).

Thanks and God Bless you eternally.

Hiedi

As so many have pointed out already, the Word in John’s Gospel refers to Christ Himself and not the written word of the Bible. However, to directly refute his argument further, the Bible is comprised of writings that the Church determined to be sacred and inspired by God. The bible your friend reads is dependent on the Catholic Church for its authenticity. For him to say that the bible is the word of God is for him to say that the early Catholic Church was inspired by God to place those writings and only those writings as sacred scripture.

A question to ask him in this matter is, where in the Bible is its own canon? There is nowhere in the bible that states which books are sacred and which are not.
Take care
Dennis

 

[BHTech]

Hi! Please help me. I am Catholic. I told a Baptist relative that the Church came before the Bible, because the Bible was put together by the Church. Then he cleverly responded that the Bible is God’s Word, and thus existed before the Church, because the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, he says, the Bible came before the Church.

I already pointed him to the pillar of truth bible verse, but how do I refute this argument? (Besids pointing again to 1 Tim 3:15).

Thanks and God Bless you eternally.

Hiedi

Hi Heidi

I am a new comer here and I think these guys before me have done a wonderful job of providing you with the ammo that you need to refute your friends’ argument. I might add and I can’t recall if anyone said this but you might simply ask your friend to prove it. Let him give you historical or archaeological or secular evidence to back up his claims. Taking this approach is akin to using a G.K. Chesterton type of argument to refute nonsensical claims. Or basically turning the argument on itself.

You see his simply giving you the argument that the book of John existed existed before the church is not in the strict sense a proof. In other words saying it is the case does not make it necessarily so. Of course as others here have pointed out in John 1, the WORD is Jesus or Logos and not the written word. If this were the case the John 1 would not make sense to say that the “Bible” was God.

You may wish to also follow that up with dates of writings of John 1 compared to the Book of Acts. Also why don’t you ask him why the Gospel of Peter or Judas or Mary is not not included in the Bible if the Bible came before the church. Presumably he would like to say that the church started late probably around Constantine time. Anyway they are more questions for him to think about. I wish you well in your future endeavors.

Blessings

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[germangreek]

These have been some really good points, but I wonder if another clarification is also helpful? What is meant by ‘the Bible is before the Church?’ It certainly isn’t chronologically prior, since the earliest-written book of the New Testament - the first letter to the Thessalonians - wasn’t put to paper (papyrus!) until about 12 years after the founding of the Church at Pentecost. It’s not morally prior, since, as has been pointed out, it is the Church, rather than Scripture, which is the foundation of truth. And the Church is founded on Christ, who is the truth, and the Word. But that’s a different meaning of ‘Word’.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Which came first, Scripture or the Church?

Historically, it is easy to see that the people of God, the household of faith, the congregation (Church if you will) has always preceded scripture. After all, Moses was the first one to write scripture. So that means God’s people, for all those generations, did not have any scripture until Moses finally began writing it down. God’s people produced scripture and produced it for the pre-existing people of God.

This applies for both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Christians existed before a word of the New Testament was ever written. Christians lived and died without a word of Christian scripture ever being written. We must realize, people did not become Christians by reading the New Testament; they became Christians by hearing the preaching of the apostles. They became Christians by the preaching of the Church.

It is clear that the word of God does not depend upon scripture.

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

You could respond that if the only test for being God’s Word is accurate predictions, then there are probably a great many scientists and economists who are prophets, since they write down predictions that sometimes end up being correct.

It is not the only test but it is *one * of the tests and 100% accuracy is what sets the Word of God apart from “a great many scientists and economists” whose accuracy is quite a bit less.

The reason you might go down this road is that as Catholics, we have an extrascriptural reason to believe that Scripture is the Word of God. By looking at the historical record, we can discover, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there was a man named Jesus who had some followers who ended up founding a church. It was this church that produced the canon of Scripture by deciding which books were divinely inspired and which books were not. Because the people who put the Bible together were commissioned by bishops, who were commissioned by the Apostles, who were commissioned by Christ, we believe, as Catholics, that these people had the authority to decide what belonged in the Bible. By exercising that authority, they created a book which we know to contain the Word of God.

Your relative, on the other hand, won’t accept that these men had this authority, because he believes the Bible is the only authority. So the question then becomes: How does he know that Scripture is the Word of God? (His answer may be that he takes it “on faith,” which isn’t a bad answer, since we do too, in a sense – but that’s beside the point.) Beyond that, you might ask: How does he know which books are in the Bible? Who decided which ones should be there? The Table of Contents certainly wasn’t divinely inspired, and the books themselves offer few clues as to which are canonical and which are not. By what authority does he know that his Bible should have 66 books in it?

The Canon of the Word of God existed as soon as God decided to inspire a person to record his Word. We humans have not always known the full extent of that Canon and there have been times when it was in flux as it was being inscripturated but the extent and content of God’s Word is not of human origin nor human decision, read His Word.
2 Peter 1:19-21
19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

God need’s no authority beyond Himself to attest to the validity of His Word, for He can appeal to no higher authority.

Matthew 22:31b
…—have you not read what God said to you,

We are to read His Word because thru it He is speaking to us.

 

[NDfan]

Don’t fall for it. For the sake of argument, you’ve essentially placed the burden of proof on him. You don’t need to admit, much less prove, for now that Scripture is inspired of God.
TBC.

Porthos all you are doing is making an argument that writings external to the Bible in fact support the Bible’s or I should say New Testament’s historical claims of Jesus. So in essence you are giving support for the reliability of scripture.

You also are acting like the Catholic church sat down one day and decided to write some glimpses of church history in what we now know as the NT and then distributed it to the world. The OT canon was created not by the Catholic church but by the Jews, and if you read your own Catechism on the Bible you will see that the RCC itself claims the Holy Spirit gave the inspired books of the NT to the church. The church didn’t decide.

The next thing you have to do is show me something the church taught in the early days that doesn’t appear in scripture. Or something that is taught today that is not backed up by some reference to scripture. Usually the typical RCC response is the trinity. But the elements of the trinity are in fact in scripture, otherwise the council of Nicea would have had nothing to discuss.

In refuting the early heretics like Marcion and the Gnostics, the Montanists etc., the ECFs who were students of scripture were extremely eager to finalize a canonical list of books for the Bible. Why? Because Marcion only accepted Luke and Paul’s letters and actually started to re-write them. To counter this the canonical books were compiled to prove that Marcion was basically off his rocker. If oral teachings were the only thing needed then why has the Bible survived countless attempts at destruction? Why was the early church so devoted to making copies and preserving them? If all we needed was oral teachings then the Bible shouldn’t even exist according to your logic.

Also after all readings within the RCC the last statement made is the word of the Lord. But now you want to say that Protestants have to prove the Bible is the word of GOD. Protestants don’t have to, everyone agrees that it is.

If you want proof that the Bible itself claims that it is GOD’s word then look to 2 Timothy 3:16. Now this of course says the word scripture and not Bible. So then what is scripture?

Here are 3 definitions of scripture:

1. Often, Scriptures. Also called Holy Scripture, Holy Scriptures. the sacred writings of the Old or New Testaments or both together.
2. (often lowercase) any writing or book, esp. when of a sacred or religious nature.
3. (sometimes lowercase) a particular passage from the Bible; text.

So the Bible contains scripture which according to Paul is breathed out by GOD. If there are parts of the Bible that you believe are not scripture then please enlighten us.

On a final note if you really want to discount scripture that much then you might as well say goodbye to all church teachings. Transubstantiation would not exist without John 6, the synoptic Gospel accounts of the last supper, and 1 Corinthians. Mary’s sinless nature would not exist as doctrine without Luke and purgatory would not exist without several references to scripture. This is to just name a few.

PEACE

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Hi everyone! I find it so amazing that we have so many people who have placed themselves at the same level as God’s Word for they themselves are establishing themselves as the authority to determine how it can or how it cannot be proven! Dangerous grounds my friends! God does not need you or i to prove that He and His Word exists. Job lost this argument but perhaps there are some in this thread who say that the book of Job is not God’s Word - aren’t these the ones who specified circular reasoning? Are they not doing the same for the circle ends back at each one of them declaring what is and what is not the Word of God? This arguement will never come to light for it is based upon the reasoning of man. Christ said it best that flesh and blood cannot reveal such things but the Father in Heaven. The kingdom is a mystery that cannot be fathomed by the natural man which is at war with God - or perhaps this should be thrown out as well for how can this be proven to be God’s Word? Man’s circular reasoning must be crushed and that by the Wisdom that is from above. God even spoke His Word before the World began by planning His redemption of fallen man with the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Funny - where was the church then and for that matter i don’t even think Adam was quite around yet. If the Bible is not God’s Word, then where does authority derive itself? Whoa all - here comes the error of the Pharisee’s traditions…Christ made war with them - the Woes. To throw out God’s Word is to throw God out as well for He and His Word cannot speak against one another.

Thanks for your time!

 

[po18guy]

If you want proof that the Bible itself claims that it is GOD’s word then look to 2 Timothy 3:16. Now this of course says the word scripture and not Bible.

This is only Paul claiming in writing that Scripture is God’s word. Since he did not determine that, someone else did. What authority decided the scripture that Paul used and which later became the bible? It’s not written anywhere, so someone must have had the God-given authority to compile (canonize) the bible. It wasn’t Christ. It was those to whom He gave the authority.

Transubstantiation would not exist without John 6, the synoptic Gospel accounts of the last supper, and 1 Corinthians.

WHOA!!! Jesus Christ Himself gave us the miracle that later came to be called “transubstantialtion” in writing. Whether or not it was ever written about has absolutely no effect on its existence, right?

Mary’s sinless nature would not exist as doctrine without Luke and purgatory would not exist without several references to scripture.

Fortunately, these were written down for us, but would exist solely from reason, if not written. Just writing something does not establish anything, except that something was written.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Protestant101]

I note that Christ never taught from, wrote, commanded the writing of, or authorized a “bible” I am most certainly joyful that we have Sacred Scripture, but there is far more to God than just the incomplete book written about Him. Witness:

Luke 3:18 And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them.

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Acts 2:40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”

Study up! And. may Christ’s peace always be with you.

It is a very long leap from these verses quoted, and so called Tradition. Heretical groups of all kinds focus first and foremost on weakening the authority of Scripture; which I see several in this thread have done a nice job of. None of these texts quoted prove or support Tradition, as held by Catholics. The word “book” in the two texts from John do not mean " Book" as in the whole Bible.

Catholics need to allow the same rules of interpretation for scripture authority, as they demand of Protestants, when they use the Bible to “prove” Tradition.

We must note too that the Bible does not attempt to “prove” itself; but rather; it gives witness. It proves God, it justifies Him; that we might be justified.

 

[po18guy]

How utterly myopic the sola scripturists are! It is precisely the oral Tradition that produced all NT scripture. Christ taught using it. You have something better than Christ? Scripture was never intended to be employed minus the traditions that the Apostles taught. You have someone better than Paul? Scripture and Tradition are the left and right hands of faith. The “sola scriptura” (bible only) mindset totally ignores over 1.500 years of Christianity, from its founding by Christ forward, believing that it was actually the reformers who finally brought the truth to light.

One particular church teaches that the Pope is the antichrist. How do they know this? “The bible” tells them. But which pope? There have been 266. The bible mentions a singular antichrist. That church also teaches that hell is not permanent and that souls in hell will just be snuffed out by God, and cease to exist. Where is that IN THE BIBLE??? This is precisely the danger of separating Scripture from Tradition. You get all sorts of odd and never before seen beliefs. Christ predicted this would happen, and it has.

They love the concept of Christ. It’s the reality they cannot accept.

 

[Protestant101]

How utterly myopic the sola scripturists are!

The “sola scriptura” (bible only) mindset totally ignores over 1.500 years of Christianity, from its founding by Christ forward, believing that it was actually the reformers who finally brought the truth to light.

What a curious label you have applied here. It certainly begs the question of why you would feel it so necesarry to defend your “truth” with such impropriety. If it is so “true;” why does it need such coercive bantering? In the real world; something different than the Catholic apologetics world; people do not “ignore” 1500 years, (some say 2000) of so called “Christianity;” rather, we have concluded that all of these years of history show only a progressive development of; rather than a continuation of. This, of course blows the lid off of several key doctrines which Catholic apologists have duped the world with.

 

[fellowChristian]

My daughter got into a similar discussion with a fallen away Catholic. Who said that the book of John is talking about the Bible.

She showed him in his Bible the book of John where it says…

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

He said “yeah”

She replied “so do you think that the Bible became flesh?”

He said " yes, thats what the Bible says."

My response?

 

[East_Anglican]

Hi! Please help me. I am Catholic. I told a Baptist relative that the Church came before the Bible, because the Bible was put together by the Church. Then he cleverly responded that the Bible is God’s Word, and thus existed before the Church, because the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, he says, the Bible came before the Church.

I already pointed him to the pillar of truth bible verse, but how do I refute this argument? (Besids pointing again to 1 Tim 3:15).

Thanks and God Bless you eternally.

Hiedi

1, Does your freind believe that The Church is eternal as Gods word is eternal?

2, If your friend believes The Church is eternal then how does he get round the fact that God spoke through prophets in the old testemant Church?

3, If Pauls letters are written by God, why does the ‘writer’ refer to himself as Paul?

4, I take it your friend believes Paul was a member of The Church.

5, Does your freind believe the gospel writers were members of The Church?

6, It seems obvious that The New Terstament was written by members of The Church.

7, Unfortunately your friend might not be able to get it.

 

[porthos11]

Porthos all you are doing is making an argument that writings external to the Bible in fact support the Bible’s or I should say New Testament’s historical claims of Jesus. So in essence you are giving support for the reliability of scripture.

Reliability, yes. Historical accuracy, yes. Inspiration, no.

You also are acting like the Catholic church sat down one day and decided to write some glimpses of church history in what we now know as the NT and then distributed it to the world. The OT canon was created not by the Catholic church but by the Jews, and if you read your own Catechism on the Bible you will see that the RCC itself claims the Holy Spirit gave the inspired books of the NT to the church. The church didn’t decide.

No, it didn’t. The Church did not write the New Testament. Inspired individuals did. It, however, determined which books were those given by the Holy Spirit and which weren’t, and there were indeed several contenders. It accepted some, rejected others.

How about you, what’s your basis for accepting the 66 books of the Bible and only those 66 books?

The next thing you have to do is show me something the church taught in the early days that doesn’t appear in scripture. Or something that is taught today that is not backed up by some reference to scripture. Usually the typical RCC response is the trinity. But the elements of the trinity are in fact in scripture, otherwise the council of Nicea would have had nothing to discuss.

But the Scriptures use no such terms as hypostasis, prosopon, and physis in the exact same context as used in the Councils when discussing the Trinity. Another is the Scripture itself and its canon.

But there is nothing in Catholic teaching that is not supported at least implicitly in the Catholic canon. That is no proof of the correctness of the Catholic canon.

In refuting the early heretics like Marcion and the Gnostics, the Montanists etc., the ECFs who were students of scripture were extremely eager to finalize a canonical list of books for the Bible. Why? Because Marcion only accepted Luke and Paul’s letters and actually started to re-write them. To counter this the canonical books were compiled to prove that Marcion was basically off his rocker. If oral teachings were the only thing needed then why has the Bible survived countless attempts at destruction? Why was the early church so devoted to making copies and preserving them? If all we needed was oral teachings then the Bible shouldn’t even exist according to your logic.

Clearly, we needed not only oral teachings.

But Protestants go to the other extreme and reject oral Tradition as well.

All you need to answer is this: What was the first book of the New Testament written and when? And what did they use to preach the Gospel before that time? What was the Word of God then?

Also after all readings within the RCC the last statement made is the word of the Lord. But now you want to say that Protestants have to prove the Bible is the word of GOD. Protestants don’t have to, everyone agrees that it is.

So? Catholics have to do the same thing for all I care. Just because they say “The Word of the Lord” doesn’t make it so. They have to prove it just as much as Protestants do.

If you want proof that the Bible itself claims that it is GOD’s word then look to 2 Timothy 3:16. Now this of course says the word scripture and not Bible. So then what is scripture?

Here are 3 definitions of scripture:

1. Often, Scriptures. Also called Holy Scripture, Holy Scriptures. the sacred writings of the Old or New Testaments or both together.
2. (often lowercase) any writing or book, esp. when of a sacred or religious nature.
3. (sometimes lowercase) a particular passage from the Bible; text.

So the Bible contains scripture which according to Paul is breathed out by GOD. If there are parts of the Bible that you believe are not scripture then please enlighten us.
Again, why only the 66 books and not anything else? Why not the Quran? Why not the so-called Apocrypha?

The Book of Mormon claims the same thing about itself, but I’m pretty sure you do not accept its claims. Why should I accept such a fantastic book as the Bible?

On a final note if you really want to discount scripture that much then you might as well say goodbye to all church teachings. Transubstantiation would not exist without John 6, the synoptic Gospel accounts of the last supper, and 1 Corinthians. Mary’s sinless nature would not exist as doctrine without Luke and purgatory would not exist without several references to scripture. This is to just name a few.

PEACE

Yes, exactly. That’s why before I believe in Transubstrantiation, trinity, purgatory, Mary or even Jesus, I must believe the Bible, specifically, the New Testament.

But if I come from a neutral background, why should I even believe you? If I’m a Jew, why should I accept the so-called New Testament? Because you simply say so?

 

[garysibio]

Hi everyone! I find it so amazing that we have so many people who have placed themselves at the same level as God’s Word for they themselves are establishing themselves as the authority to determine how it can or how it cannot be proven! Dangerous grounds my friends! God does not need you or i to prove that He and His Word exists.

Hi Thomas,

I think you misunderstand what we are doing here. We are not saying that the Bible is the word of God because we can prove it by our fancy logic; we are explaining what convinces us that it is the word of God. We are also exposing the errors of our separated brethren and suggesting ways we might be able to share the truth with them. Not only is this an acceptable thing to do, it is demanded of us.

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet 3:15)

I hope this clarifies it a bit for you.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

It is a very long leap from these verses quoted, and so called Tradition. Heretical groups of all kinds focus first and foremost on weakening the authority of Scripture; which I see several in this thread have done a nice job of. None of these texts quoted prove or support Tradition, as held by Catholics. The word “book” in the two texts from John do not mean " Book" as in the whole Bible.

Catholics need to allow the same rules of interpretation for scripture authority, as they demand of Protestants, when they use the Bible to “prove” Tradition.

We must note too that the Bible does not attempt to “prove” itself; but rather; it gives witness. It proves God, it justifies Him; that we might be justified.

The Bible as we know it did not exist until the end of the 4th century AD. (The books existed but their canonical status was not determined.) Where then did the Christians during this period turn for the truth – the Church.

Jesus never once commanded His followers to write anything and, with the exception of a few words in the dust (John 8), He did not write anything Himself. What He did do was command His followers to go out and teach.

Even the Bible tells us that it is the Church which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Gary