Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[sandusky]

GJx86:

Either Jesus meant that we have to actually eat His flesh and drink His blood, or He didn’t mean that. Regardless of what He actually meant, these positions contradict each other, so how can we say that they’re equally correct?

We can’t; we are both fallible; therefore, one, or both of us is clearly wrong.

GJx86:

The problem with disagreements that arise from sola scriptura is that there’s never any way to resolve them: If there are two contradictory, but plausible, interpretations of a passage, we have no way of knowing which one is correct and which is not. Since God’s not writing any more Scripture to help us out,…

A side note, the “blued” statement is not really true with respect to the Roman church.

As stated by a Catholic on another thread, "a dogma may derive inexorably from the Deposit of Faith as our understanding matures." That poster then illustrates that point with a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger:**…it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities of the words of the Deposit of Faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines also as dogmas of divine and Catholic faith, **which is to say, **being divinely revealed.**It would seem that in your church, God has written new scripture, and may indeed do so in the future as well.

GJx86:

Combining Scripture and Tradition avoids this problem by allowing us a way to determine what God actually meant. Tradition gives us a living authority, equal to the Bible, that is capable of defining doctrine to settle these disagreements.

The difficulty with that, for me and many others, is that the idea of oral apostolic tradition being equal to the scripture is, IMO, misleading. What you have, IMO, is an oral tradition that trumps the scripture; that is plainly demonstrated in the so-called Marian dogmas (another topic).

Though the makeup of the canon is disputed between us, what is written in the OT, and NT is plainly recorded for all to see. OTOH, what is spoken of as oral tradition is ambiguous, obscure, and not plainly recorded for all to see, and what the church claims is oral tradition, cannot, IMO, be proven.

Furthermore, in both instances, the Roman church claims that it has both written, and defined the canon of scripture, and it has spoken and defined what is oral tradition as well; moreover, that church claims, for itself, the right of sole determiner of what both scripture and tradition means; therefore, the church claims an authority that is greater than both scripture, and tradition.

(That being the case, how can your church logically be subservient to the things she defines?)

What you are espousing, then, is sola ecclesia—church alone; in point of fact, that is the argument that you are using against sola scriptura—sola ecclesia.

So then, if the Catholic is justified in charging the sola scripturist with circular reasoning (and I’m not saying that you’ve specifically done that, however, that is the most common Catholic charge against sola scriptura) when he admonishes, “you can’t argue that the Bible is authorititive by appealing to the Bible as claiming authority for itself,” so too, the magisterium’s argument for its authority is a circular argument because the magisterium appeals to itself for its authority.

GJx86:

So, the short version: With the Bible alone, I have no way of being certain any one of my possibly-false beliefs is correct, and I will never have any way of gaining that certainty. With the Bible and Tradition, I can gain that certainty, because the teaching authority of Tradition can clarify things that were previously unclear.

Your conclusion, as I’ve shown, is based upon circular reasoning.

 

[GJx86]

The argument would indeed be circular if I needed the Church’s authority to show that the Church has authority. But I wonder if I can’t skirt the problem…

We know, from a historical standpoint, that there was a man named Jesus, that he was executed, and that he had some followers who were members of a church centered around him. The actions of these followers, especially the Apostles, are sufficient to convince me that Jesus was who everyone said he was, which is why I’m Christian.

If Jesus really was God, as his followers’ actions seem to attest, then he would have been capable of giving those followers the authority to teach in his name and the power to keep from teaching error. Since, to the best of our knowledge, Jesus didn’t actually write anything down, he would have had to commit that authority to somebody in order to make sure that God’s teaching could continue to exist in the world. The people he would have given it to would have been his closest followers, and the historical record shows that those followers taught their own followers – apostolic succession.

For me, the leap of faith isn’t in deciding that the Catholic Church (and not some other church) has this authority, because it’s the only church that can convincingly trace its origins back to Jesus and the Apostles. The leap of faith, rather, is in deciding that Jesus had any authority to transmit in the first place. If he did, then I can reason about why and to whom he would have transmitted it, which lets me draw conclusions about the teaching authority of the Church, which is what lets me safely draw the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.

(Note that I don’t intend this last statement to mean that the Church’s teaching authority is greater than the Bible’s teaching authority. Each must confirm the other. A teaching is not part of Sacred Tradition if other Tradition or Scripture contradicts it; a writing is not part of Scripture if other Scripture or Sacred Tradition contradict it.)

 

[garysibio]

I know that’s not the reason you believe the Catholic church is the true church, because it couldn’t be the true church if the measure of the true church were absolute agreement; however, you are certain Protestant churches are not true churches because they lack absolute agreement on points—that’s a double standard; isn’t it?

No, I’m not making myself understood. Let’s use a mathematical analogy to see if I can clarify my meaning. 2 x 3 = 6 In the Catholic Church, anyone who says that 2 X 3 = 4 is considered wrong. They are in error for not agreeing with the truth. In Protestantism, since every believer gets to interpret things for themselves, there are 35,000 different answers for what 2 X 3 equals and each one is just as good as the other since they claim that they were led to their answer by the Holy Spirit.

So your assertion is that disagreement within the Catholic church is fine, and those disagreements neither harm, nor do they destroy the Catholic church’s claim of being the one true church; however, disagreements within Protestant churches are the indicator that they are not true churches? More double standard?

I’m not saying this at all. In fact I would go so far as to say that Catholic dissidents are in a worse position than Protestants because the Catholics should have known better.

Catholic dissidents arrive at their conclusions by rejecting the teaching authority of the Church. Protestants who disagree are all arriving at their conclusions by listening to the Holy Spirit. Catholic dissidents reject the Catholic way of finding the truth. Protestants disagree because they are following the Protestant way of determining the truth.

Do you see the difference now?

(That’s a strawman). Be that as it may, aren’t those dissidents within the Catholic church doing the very same thing that you are accusing protestants of doing; namely, they are claiming the guidance of the HS to arrive at the truth, and disagreeing with the Catholic church because they believe that their interpretation is "just as valid as anyone else’s?" Another double standard?

Actually, based on what I have read of their writings, claims to be following the Holy Spirit among Catholic dissidents are rare. Also, since Catholics do not believe that individual believers are guaranteed that the specific guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture.

That’s within the Catholic community.

Within the biblical, apostolic community, God has gifted the members of Christ’s body with certain gifts specific to the individual members (1 Cor 12ff). Furthermore, for the members of that body, God states that he has sent not only men gifted to teach, but His Spirit, who, dwelling within each member, is teaching them individually as well (1 Jn 2:20, 26, 27; 1 Cor 2:12;
1 Thess 4:9).

You are comparing apples and oranges. I’m a charismatic. I believe that each believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That is Catholic doctrine. But we also have to remember that we are one body and that believers have a different role within that body. Not everyone gets to be a head like Protestantism teaches.

Yes, some are teachers but that doesn’t mean they teach unchecked. In fact, according to James 3, teaches will be judged by a harsher standard because they are responsible for making absolutely certain that they are not leading people astray.

None of the passages you mentioned specifically address the issue of interpreting Scripture. No Scripture teaches this. In fact, the practice is condemned (2 Pet 1:20).

Not true; the roots of my faith flow forward from the apostles, through your church, through the reformation, and into the present.

You can claim this all you want but where is the proof. For the first 1500 years of the Church you don’t find people teaching sola scriptura or sola fide. You don’t find people teaching that the Eucharist is to be view symbolically. Protestantism didn’t exist until Luther.

I said >> …The fact that there are differences of opinion disproves the Protestant view that individuals are inspired by the Holy Spirit when they interpret the Bible. <<

How so?

Oops, a typo. I meant to say that they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit when interpreting the Bible. Sorry.

Gary

 

[sandusky]

GJx86:

The argument would indeed be circular if I needed the Church’s authority to show that the Church has authority. But I wonder if I can’t skirt the problem…

On whose authority, then, would you base your conclusions?

GJx86:

We know, from a historical standpoint, that there was a man named Jesus, that he was executed, and that he had some followers who were members of a church centered around him. The actions of these followers, especially the Apostles, are sufficient to convince me that Jesus was who everyone said he was, which is why I’m Christian.

ISTM, that you are saying that you are able to determine the accuracy, the truthfulness, and the authority of the NT, by interpreting the scripture on your own, without the need of your church’s authority?1) How do you know that you’re right?

1. When I said that I’d done that with respect to Jn 6, po18guy leveled the following charge against me:

You have just formed your own personal church, by interpreting scripture in the most easily accepted form.

Isn’t that you what you’ve done—formed your own personal church by interpreting scripture?

If not, why not?
GJk86:

For me, the leap of faith isn’t in deciding that the Catholic Church (and not some other church) has this authority, because it’s the only church that can convincingly trace its origins back to Jesus and the Apostles.

What about the Eastern, so-called “schismatic” church? What’s unconvincing about its trace back to Jesus and the Apostles?

GJx86:

The leap of faith, rather, is in deciding that Jesus had any authority to transmit in the first place. If he did, then I can reason about why and to whom he would have transmitted it, which lets me draw conclusions about the teaching authority of the Church, which is what lets me safely draw the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.

But, if an initial leap of faith is crucial for you in determining that Jesus had the authority to transmit His authority, then everything subsequent to that initial leap of faith on your part (including your conclusion that the Roman church is the one true church with sole authority in all things Christians) is also a leap of faith, because everything that you believe issues from that initial leap of faith, correct?

What makes you so certain that your initial leap of faith is correct?

You are fallible, aren’t you?

(Note that I don’t intend this last statement to mean that the Church’s teaching authority is greater than the Bible’s teaching authority. Each must confirm the other. A teaching is not part of Sacred Tradition if other Tradition or Scripture contradicts it; a writing is not part of Scripture if other Scripture or Sacred Tradition contradict it.)

The intention of your statement is not at issue; what is at issue are the claims of your Church—that she has written and defined the scripture, and the canon, and, she also claims that she defines tradition, and, she further claims that only she can has the authority to interpret and determine the meaning of both.

(Again, how can your church logically be subservient to that which she defines?)

 

[sandusky]

garysibio:

No, I’m not making myself understood. Let’s use a mathematical analogy to see if I can clarify my meaning. 2 x 3 = 6 In the Catholic Church, anyone who says that 2 X 3 = 4 is considered wrong. They are in error for not agreeing with the truth. In Protestantism, since every believer gets to interpret things for themselves, there are 35,000 different answers for what 2 X 3 equals and each one is just as good as the other since they claim that they were led to their answer by the Holy Spirit.

That’s a strawman.

I’m certain that in every church, those who don’t agree with that church’s teaching are considered wrong, and they are considered to be error for not agreeing with the truth (scripture).

garysibio:

I’m not saying this at all. In fact I would go so far as to say that Catholic dissidents are in a worse position than Protestants because the Catholics should have known better.

Catholic dissidents arrive at their conclusions by rejecting the teaching authority of the Church. Protestants who disagree are all arriving at their conclusions by listening to the Holy Spirit. Catholic dissidents reject the Catholic way of finding the truth. Protestants disagree because they are following the Protestant way of determining the truth.

If you’ll think about it for a while, Catholics and protestants, alike, all claim to arrive at their conclusions by listening to the Holy Spirit.

garysibio:

Actually, based on what I have read of their writings, claims to be following the Holy Spirit among Catholic dissidents are rare.

I’ll take your word for that.

garysibio:

Also, since Catholics do not believe that individual believers are guaranteed that the specific guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture.

Is that a Tradition, or, just disregard for John’s teaching in his first epistle?

garysibio:

You are comparing apples and oranges. I’m a charismatic. I believe that each believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That is Catholic doctrine. But we also have to remember that we are one body and that believers have a different role within that body.

I’m neither a charismatic, nor a Roman Catholic, but what you’ve stated is Protestant doctrine.

garysibio:

Not everyone gets to be a head like Protestantism teaches.

That’s a strawman.

garysibio:

Yes, some are teachers but that doesn’t mean they teach unchecked. In fact, according to James 3, teaches will be judged by a harsher standard because they are responsible for making absolutely certain that they are not leading people astray.

More Protestant doctrine.

garysibio:

None of the passages you mentioned specifically address the issue of interpreting Scripture. No Scripture teaches this. In fact, the practice is condemned (2 Pet 1:20).

Please explain how that passage condemns the believer for interpreting scripture.

garysibio:

You can claim this all you want but where is the proof. For the first 1500 years of the Church you don’t find people teaching sola scriptura or sola fide. You don’t find people teaching that the Eucharist is to be view symbolically. Protestantism didn’t exist until Luther.

You’re changing the form of the original statement to which I responded. :tsktsk:

As I stated, my faith flows from Jesus and the apostles, through your church, through the reformation, and into the present time. If that’s difficult for you to accept…

 

[GJx86]

But, if an initial leap of faith is crucial for you in determining that Jesus had the authority to transmit His authority, then everything subsequent to that initial leap of faith on your part (including your conclusion that the Roman church is the one true church with sole authority in all things Christians) is also a leap of faith, because everything that you believe issues from that initial leap of faith, correct?

What makes you so certain that your initial leap of faith is correct?

You are fallible, aren’t you?

Certainly, everything else is a leap of faith. Belief in God requires faith. Belief that God is the Christian God requires faith. Belief that Jesus was really who he said requires faith. Belief that Scripture really is the divinely inspired word of God requires faith.

How can any of us be sure of any of these things? After all, we’re all fallible, aren’t we?

This is, of course, the crux of the classic atheist argument that Christianity itself requires circularity: We don’t know anything about God save for His teachings, written or otherwise, but we can’t know that those teachings are correct without knowing they were ordained by God.

The intention of your statement is not at issue; what is at issue are the claims of your Church—that she has written and defined the scripture, and the canon, and, she also claims that she defines tradition, and, she further claims that only she can has the authority to interpret and determine the meaning of both.

As I mentioned, I believe God gave the Church that authority, and for reasons other than that the Church claims that this is so.

Again, how can your church logically be subservient to that which she defines?

The deposit of faith already exists. The Church’s role is to preserve and teach its contents. She has that role because Christ bestowed it on her and gave her that deposit. Doctrinal definitions explain what is in the teaching that God already gave us; they don’t invent new doctrine out of whole cloth.

 

[garysibio]

That’s a strawman.

But then you say that about everything you don’t want to respond to.

I’m certain that in every church, those who don’t agree with that church’s teaching are considered wrong, and they are considered to be error for not agreeing with the truth (scripture).

Actually, they tend to split off and form new churches. That’s how you get to 35,000.

At any rate, even if Protestant dissenters are considered to be wrong in their conclusions, the process by which they came to those conclusions is not rejected. In fact, it is a fundamental part of Protestantism. The same cannot be said of Catholic dissidents.

If you’ll think about it for a while, Catholics and protestants, alike, all claim to arrive at their conclusions by listening to the Holy Spirit.

In the Catholic Church the only people with the authority to speak in a dogmatic manner are the magisterium. The average Catholic in the pew knows that, while he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he can fall into error. The magisterium is protected from error by the Holy Spirit because of its function in the body of Christ.

Is that a Tradition, or, just disregard for John’s teaching in his first epistle?

On the contrary, it is the clear teaching of Scripture that not every believer is guaranteed infallibility in interpreting Scripture. The promise of the Holy Spirit in this regard was given only to the apostles who were to become the first bishops of the Church, the magisterium. They were the only ones in the room with Jesus in John 14 - 16 in which the relevant passages, which I gave before, are found.

Post-Reformation history has shown what a disaster individual interpretation of Scripture can produce and show exactly why St. Peter forbade it in his second epistle.

The problem with the passage you quoted from 1 John is not that I’m ignoring it but that you are twisting it to prove something it does not teach.

I’m neither a charismatic, nor a Roman Catholic, but what you’ve stated is Protestant doctrine.

Which you took from us. I don’t believe that everything that Protestants believe is wrong. When you agree with the Catholic Church, you are correct.

That’s a strawman.

To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.”

More Protestant doctrine.

Which you also got from us.

Please explain how that passage condemns the believer for interpreting scripture.

I should also have included v. 21 but it’s quite clear: Scripture is not to be interpreted by individuals. In Protestantism the individual interprets Scripture. Ergo, Protestantism is unscriptural on this point. Any clearer?

You’re changing the form of the original statement to which I responded. :tsktsk:

No, I’m using the Eucharist as an example of how Protestantism’s use of personal interpretation of Scripture has led them into horrible error.

As I stated, my faith flows from Jesus and the apostles, through your church, through the reformation, and into the present time. If that’s difficult for you to accept…

But, at the end of the day, it’s still you deciding what Scripture means.

Gary

 

[sandusky]

But then you say that about everything you don’t want to respond to.

Actually, they tend to split off and form new churches. That’s how you get to 35,000.

At any rate, even if Protestant dissenters are considered to be wrong in their conclusions, the process by which they came to those conclusions is not rejected. In fact, it is a fundamental part of Protestantism. The same cannot be said of Catholic dissidents.

In the Catholic Church the only people with the authority to speak in a dogmatic manner are the magisterium. The average Catholic in the pew knows that, while he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he can fall into error. The magisterium is protected from error by the Holy Spirit because of its function in the body of Christ.

On the contrary, it is the clear teaching of Scripture that not every believer is guaranteed infallibility in interpreting Scripture. The promise of the Holy Spirit in this regard was given only to the apostles who were to become the first bishops of the Church, the magisterium. They were the only ones in the room with Jesus in John 14 - 16 in which the relevant passages, which I gave before, are found.

Post-Reformation history has shown what a disaster individual interpretation of Scripture can produce and show exactly why St. Peter forbade it in his second epistle.

The problem with the passage you quoted from 1 John is not that I’m ignoring it but that you are twisting it to prove something it does not teach.

Which you took from us. I don’t believe that everything that Protestants believe is wrong. When you agree with the Catholic Church, you are correct.

To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.”

Which you also got from us.

I should also have included v. 21 but it’s quite clear: Scripture is not to be interpreted by individuals. In Protestantism the individual interprets Scripture. Ergo, Protestantism is unscriptural on this point. Any clearer?

No, I’m using the Eucharist as an example of how Protestantism’s use of personal interpretation of Scripture has led them into horrible error.

But, at the end of the day, it’s still you deciding what Scripture means.

Gary

You are a gigo e-pologist, IMO.

When you get some new material, let me know.

 

[sandusky]

po18guy:

I wonder where the bible get its authority? From itself? Then, we should worship it.

From God, the Holy Spirit; scripture is theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21).From Augustine:

You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that **God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. **For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read."

(In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2)

po18guy:

Rather, only God has the Authority, and He vested it in His church.

Sola ecclesia—a circular argument; your church claims that it determines everything Christian, and that it alone can properly interpret the true meaning of everything Christian. That’s about as circular as an argument can get.

po18guy:

The Book is words, but the Word is not a Book. The Word is Christ. A few of His words are recorded in the Book. Is this all you want of Christ?

Don’t be ridiculous; the word of God is both Christ, and the written word, depending on the context, and the grammar.

po18guy:

Can’t you imagine that there is more to Christ than the few things he did that are written in the bible? You cannot avoid John 20:30 or John 21:25. After all, they’re in the bible.

I don’t need to imagine that as the apostle tells us that.

Furthermore, I’m thankful for that statement of John’s.

It’s God’s way of comforting His people, and letting them know, that though Christ said and did things that were not recorded in scripture, what the Holy Spirit directed to be recorded provides the believer with everything he needs to know; he lacks for nothing with respect to the written word, which is able to adequately equip the Christian for every good work (Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16-17).

po18guy:

Interesting point! But not the one you think. Since Christ taught using the oral tradition, and told His disciples to do the same, is it not easily arguable that the Oral Tradition was the only method He intended?

Then you should be able to provide a list of orally transmitted teachings attributed this, or that apostle stating specifically what this, or that apostle taught.

Also, cite the writings of any ECF who refers to this, or that apostle, and state what this, or that apostle orally passed on to that writer with respect to the subject they were expounding.

But, you can’t do that, can you.

Furthermore, inherent in the Catholic argument concerning oral transmission of teachings is the concept that what Jesus and the apostle taught orally, differs from the teaching that the apostles wrote down.

But, you can’t prove that either, can you.

po18guy:

Secular example: why do college professors lecture?

To allow for interaction (questions, discussions), between them, and those they are instructing.

po18guy:

As uncomfortable as it is to accept, this was the perfect method chosen by Christ, Who read from Sacred Scrolls and taught orally. It is the perfect method of those whom Christ chose. “Bible only” is the imperfect method instituted by those who chose themselves.

”For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read."—Augustine.

po18guy:

You have just formed your own personal church, by interpreting scripture in the most easily accepted form. This is exactly what those in John 6:66 did. Bummer of a verse, huh? What He said was hard, so they left Him and returned to something they found more comfortable. As with so many today, they loved the concept of Christ. It was Christ’s reality they had problems with.

po18guy:

If it is that easy to follow Christ, is it really Christ we are following?

Christ talks much about the troubles of this world, and He warns that the one who desires to follow Him must count the cost; He also says the following:**Matthew 11:28-30

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

“For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”**But you don’t believe that, do you.

 

[Protestant101]

When you agree with the Catholic Church, you are correct.

Gary

Hello Gary;

You are doing quite a job on this forum in embodying Catholic apologetics mantra; however, there is very little Biblical substance to much of your diatribe.

I would be interested to see if you can get back on track with the topic of this thread; and perhaps, give us a clear definition of “The Protestant Argument On The Word Of God.” I don’t think you really know what it is. If you do come up with a definition; I would like to see references for same, that are publically verifiable.

You talk away so much about the allegedly “35000” Protestant denominations; yet you fail to acknowledge what your own Pope said many times during his visit to the USA recently. He expressed great concern about the disunity, and disagreement within the Catholic Church, so maybe you would do well to clean up your own corner before trying to clean up the Protestant one on that respect.

That’s the trouble with being spoon-fed all your beliefs, you don’t get to think them through and search for yourself. it poisons your relationships with all those “heretical” Protestants you are trying to “reach.”

 

[po18guy]

2 John 1:12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

Each word here is inspired of God. So, why use easily misinterpreted, printed words when oral communication leads to complete joy?

Sola scriptura = incomplete joy.
Teaching face-to-face = complete joy.

Christ used only one form.

 

[sandusky]

2 John 1:12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

Each word here is inspired of God. So, why use easily misinterpreted, printed words when oral communication leads to complete joy?

Sola scriptura = incomplete joy.
Teaching face-to-face = complete joy.

Christ used only one form.

You have as much proof for orally passed on tradition as you do for the Marian dogmas, and it’s not very much, IMO.

 

[garysibio]

sandusky;

As long as you’re quoting St. Augustine, you might want to include the quote where he says “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6).

Gary

 

[Pixie_Dust]

You have as much proof for orally passed on tradition as you do for the Marian dogmas, and it’s not very much, IMO.

Most of the Bible, with the exception of the epistles, obviously, was passed on orally for many, MANY years before it was written down. Moses is believed to have written Genesis, yet he personally doesn’t appear on the scene until Exodus. Joseph didn’t have Scriptures, the 10 Commandments were still hundreds of years in the future, so how would he have known that going to bed with Mrs Potiphar was a sin against God? Oral Tradition.

 

[garysibio]

Hello Gary;

You are doing quite a job on this forum in embodying Catholic apologetics mantra; however, there is very little Biblical substance to much of your diatribe.

I would be interested to see if you can get back on track with the topic of this thread; and perhaps, give us a clear definition of “The Protestant Argument On The Word Of God.” I don’t think you really know what it is. If you do come up with a definition; I would like to see references for same, that are publically verifiable.

You talk away so much about the allegedly “35000” Protestant denominations; yet you fail to acknowledge what your own Pope said many times during his visit to the USA recently. He expressed great concern about the disunity, and disagreement within the Catholic Church, so maybe you would do well to clean up your own corner before trying to clean up the Protestant one on that respect.

That’s the trouble with being spoon-fed all your beliefs, you don’t get to think them through and search for yourself. it poisons your relationships with all those “heretical” Protestants you are trying to “reach.”

Whew! And you talk about my mantra!

I hate to waste my time so please go back and read my discussion of divisions within the Catholic Church and how they differ from the inherent divisiveness of Protestantism that I’ve had with Sandusky over the past few days.

As far as being spoon-fed, at least I’m getting mine from the pope, an office established by Jesus Christ Himself (Matt 16:18). You are getting yours from Ellen G. White who is a liar.

Years ago I got in a discussion with an SDA member who quoted one of her attacks on the RCC which named three papal encyclicals which she claimed proved her point. Trouble is, those encyclicals never existed. She made them up.

Now you can claim all you want that you are getting your beliefs from the Bible but you are really passing on her teachings. If not, why would the SDAs hand out copies of her books the way the Gideons pass out Bibles?

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Most of the Bible, with the exception of the epistles, obviously, was passed on orally for many, MANY years before it was written down. Moses is believed to have written Genesis, yet he personally doesn’t appear on the scene until Exodus. Joseph didn’t have Scriptures, the 10 Commandments were still hundreds of years in the future, so how would he have known that going to bed with Mrs Potiphar was a sin against God? Oral Tradition.

Even after we had the Bible, general illiteracy and the difficulty of getting a written copy of the Bible required that most of the passing on of truth be done orally. That’s why Catholic churches have Bible stories represented in the stained glass. To remind people who couldn’t read about the Scriptures.

Gary

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Even after we had the Bible, general illiteracy and the difficulty of getting a written copy of the Bible required that most of the passing on of truth be done orally. That’s why Catholic churches have Bible stories represented in the stained glass. To remind people who couldn’t read about the Scriptures.

Gary

Not only that - Before the printing press, a Bible had to be copied by hand and took years to complete. Only the very rich could afford to own one, as they cost the average man’s wages for a year. I wonder how many people today would be willing/able to save every penny of their earnings for a year to buy a Bible? We’re such a literacy driven society we sometimes forget that it’s only been in the last 200 years or so that the general population could even read. One of the things that drew me to the Catholic Church was the (comparatively) huge amount of Scripture reading done in the Mass! Nothing gets my knickers in a twist faster than hearing an ex-Catholic say they never heard the Bible read in Mass.

Back to the Topic of this Thread: There was a Church long before the New Testament was complete and canonized. The New Testament itself is proof of that, as it contains letters to churches in Corinth, Phillipi, etc…, not to mention the story of the beginning of the Church, which could only have been written after the fact. Those churches didn’t have all 27 NT books at once, and they had other letters and Gospels that they read and considered authoritative, that were later determined to be non-canonical.

It was not obvious to your Average Joe 1st, 2nd or 3rd Century Christian which writings were truly apostolic and which were spurious. Even 1100 years after the NT was canonized, Luther believed James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation to be spurious writings and wanted to remove them from his translation of the Bible.

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

Most of the Bible, with the exception of the epistles, obviously, was passed on orally for many, MANY years before it was written down. Moses is believed to have written Genesis, yet he personally doesn’t appear on the scene until Exodus. Joseph didn’t have Scriptures, the 10 Commandments were still hundreds of years in the future, so how would he have known that going to bed with Mrs Potiphar was a sin against God? Oral Tradition.

How have you come to know that going to bed with Mrs Potiphar was a sin? :ehh:

 

[sandusky]

garysibio:

sandusky;

As long as you’re quoting St. Augustine, you might want to include the quote where he says “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6).

Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures—Augustine, *De unitate ecclesiae, *3.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

How have you come to know that going to bed with Mrs Potiphar was a sin? :ehh:

Answering a question with a question. Nice. Missed my point completely - not sure if that was deliberate since you seem to be an intelligent person and I hesitate to attribute motive to posts. Yes, I now have the written Scriptures but Joseph did not, yet he knew it would be a sin against God. Even with all the writings in the Old Testament, the Jewish people have Oral Traditions that are referenced in the New Testament.

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.