Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[sandusky]

garysibio:

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.

Yours was a brilliant argument—Catholic dissidents are better dissidents than protestants dissidents.

Knocked me over.

 

[sandusky]

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.

Thank you; however, you haven’t answered my question: how have you come to know that had Joseph slept with Mrs Potiphar he would have committed a sin?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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.

So did you get this quote from justforcatholics.org or aomin.org?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Thank you; however, you haven’t answered my question: how have you come to know that had Joseph slept with Mrs Potiphar he would have committed a sin?

I know what you’re getting at. Yes,** I** read it in Scripture. And it is because of Oral Tradition that it even exists in Scripture! My point was that Joseph did not have Scripture, but still knew it would have been a sin against God.

Having Scripture does not eradicate the usefulness of Oral Tradition. Every one of us understands verbal communication before we can read. For that matter, dogs understand oral commands, but I can’t leave my dogs a note asking them to please not chew on my kids’ stuffed animals, can I? Just having the writings does not suffice - we need an authoritative teacher to interpret those writings correctly, otherwise we can twist verses around or ignore them completely if needed to make the Scriptures fit our theology, and form our own denomination based on our private interpretation of Scripture. Oh wait, people have been doing that for about 500 years now.

 

[Protestant101]

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

I see that you are having a difficult time getting back on topic here; but I would still be interested to hear what your take on “the Protestant “Argument” On The Word Of God Is.” I really don’t think you have a clue on that subject.

 

[Protestant101]

I know what you’re getting at. Yes,** I** read it in Scripture. And it is because of Oral Tradition that it even exists in Scripture! My point was that Joseph did not have Scripture, but still knew it would have been a sin against God.

Having Scripture does not eradicate the usefulness of Oral Tradition. Every one of us understands verbal communication before we can read. For that matter, dogs understand oral commands, but I can’t leave my dogs a note asking them to please not chew on my kids’ stuffed animals, can I? Just having the writings does not suffice - we need an authoritative teacher to interpret those writings correctly, otherwise we can twist verses around or ignore them completely if needed to make the Scriptures fit our theology, and form our own denomination based on our private interpretation of Scripture. Oh wait, people have been doing that for about 500 years now.

LOL; that is funny…leaving your dogs a note. But I see this from a different way around. We now need it all in writing; else why would God even write it out in the first place - people, all people are fallible; and when it is in writing; during times of doubt, we can always refer to the “Contract.” People twist the Pope’s words all the time so having it come straight from him, orally; is not a guarantee; he is fallible too. I think we should stop undermining the authority of the Bible; and give it it’s rightful place in matters of doctrine and practice of the Christian faith.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I am afraid this is not entirely the case. Of course God’s word is immutable, and has existed since before eternity. However, when God decided to break into the timeline of human history, that Word became revelation to man. The canon is a human conception of God’s word, and it was formulated by, for, and about people. God has no need of an “official authenticated collection” of His Holy word, because, as you say, He has always known it. People are the ones that need it defined, because our understanding of God’s revelation is limited, and we are prone to error. Therefore, God authenticated HIs Apostles and gave them the authority to guide and guard the Church. Together with the Holy Spirit, the Church collected, defined, and promulgated the canon for the benefit of the faithful. It is not God that required this authenitication, but man.

 

[Protestant101]

Yours was a brilliant argument—Catholic dissidents are better dissidents than protestants dissidents.

Knocked me over.

Yea; kind of like Catholic sinners being better than Protestant ones…LOL.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

LOL; that is funny…leaving your dogs a note. But I see this from a different way around. We now need it all in writing; else why would God even write it out in the first place - people, all people are fallible; and when it is in writing; during times of doubt, we can always refer to the “Contract.” People twist the Pope’s words all the time so having it come straight from him, orally; is not a guarantee; he is fallible too. I think we should stop undermining the authority of the Bible; and give it it’s rightful place in matters of doctrine and practice of the Christian faith.

People twisted and distorted the message in Paul’s letters in the early days of the Church, too. Having it in writing is certainly not a guarantee that the message will be perfectly understood and/or followed. If you ever read the children’s book, Amelia Bedelia, she was left written instructions for housekeeping and food preparation which she followed exactly, yet she got it all wrong!

I’m not undermining the authority of Scriptures, I’m just saying they’re not the ONLY authority and were never meant to be.

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

So did you get this quote from justforcatholics.org or aomin.org?

Neither; from where one gathers the truth is not the issue; the issue is, is it the truth?
Pixie Dust:

I know what you’re getting at. Yes, I read it in Scripture. And it is because of Oral Tradition that it even exists in Scripture! My point was that Joseph did not have Scripture, but still knew it would have been a sin against God.

Thank you; you read it in Scripture.

Also, not only did men not have scripture in the time of Joseph, they also didn’t have the law in the time of Joseph.
Pixie Dust:

Having Scripture does not eradicate the usefulness of Oral Tradition.

ISTM that you’re inferring one of two things here: 1) that written Scripture is different from Oral Tradition, or, 2) that your church’s interpretation of Scripture is Oral Tradition; are you saying one of those two things?
Pixie Dust:

Just having the writings does not suffice - we need an authoritative teacher to interpret those writings correctly, otherwise we can twist verses around or ignore them completely if needed to make the Scriptures fit our theology, and form our own denomination based on our private interpretation of Scripture.

How do you know you have an authoritative teacher?

 

[sandusky]

Yea; kind of like Catholic sinners being better than Protestant ones…LOL.

Yep.

 

[guanophore]

  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, I don’t think you will find that in the Catechism. In fact, the HS revealed to Catholics both the canon of the OT and the NT. The Jews, though they penned the OT books, did not close the canon for almost a century after Jesus. It is from Jesus and the Apostles that we know the books that belong in it, because they used them. This is why Catholics are mystified by the Reformers reverting the the canon used by those who rejected Christ.

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.

I am curious why this is necessary? There are many examples, of course, the transfer of the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday, the word Trinity, hypostatic union, etc. The Didache even mentions some things not in the NT. However, the Apostles and their disciples never made any effort to separate the Teaching from the Holy Writing, so we don’t either.

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.

Did someone say that the Written word is not important? Obviously, God thought both were necessary, or we would not have both! There is just no reason to separate them. It was the oral teaching of the Apostles that allowed the Church to identify the canon.

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.

Catholics believe it is the Word of God because we believe the HS inspired Catholics to write it, and guided Catholics to identify it as such. Since Protestants reject the authority of Catholics to do this, there must be some other method to authenticate the books, right?

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?

This is exactly the question that the Catholic councils answered. Yet Protestants throw out the authority of the councils to guide the Church, so it is incumbent upon Protestants to authenticate the book by some other method.

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.

Please compare and contrast the 400 extant writings in the fourth century claimed to be scripture, and determine why the others were not included in the canon, even though they also claim to be scripture.

On a final note if you really want to discount scripture that much then you might as well say goodbye to all church teachings.

This is exactly the point, NDfan. If you discount the authority of the Church to determine the canon, then you discount the very scriptures you claim are authentic. Does that not make sense?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Neither; from where one gathers the truth is not the issue; the issue is, is it the truth?

I asked because those were the only two places on the internet that I could find that quote, and I really wanted to read it in context and confirm that he was quoted accurately, and that he even said that to begin with.

Also, not only did men not have scripture in the time of Joseph, they also didn’t have the law in the time of Joseph.

Not the law that Moses gave the Israelites, since he wasn’t born yet.

ISTM that you’re inferring one of two things here: 1) that written Scripture is different from Oral Tradition, or, 2) that your church’s interpretation of Scripture is Oral Tradition; are you saying one of those two things?

Written Scripture (NT epistles being the exception) is the product of Oral Tradition. It was first heard, then later written down. Luke’s Gospel says as much in the first verses.

How do you know you have an authoritative teacher?

Because my Church was founded by Christ who breathed on His Apostles and gave them the authority to teach everything as He taught them, authority which they passed on to their successors.

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

Written Scripture (NT epistles being the exception) is the product of Oral Tradition. It was first heard, then later written down. Luke’s Gospel says as much in the first verses.

Explain this, and I’m particularly interested in why you except the epistles.
Pixie Dust:

Because my Church was founded by Christ who breathed on His Apostles and gave them the authority to teach everything as He taught them, authority which they passed on to their successors

That’s not what I asked you.

I asked you how you know.

You’re telling me what you believe.

 

[Protestant101]

My replies will be in blue fonts below

Did someone say that the Written word is not important? Obviously, God thought both were necessary, or we would not have both! There is just no reason to separate them. It was the oral teaching of the Apostles that allowed the Church to identify the canon.

There is a very good reason to separate them - because Jesus did:

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Unfortunately; this is maladroit theology at it’s finest. Authority is not truth; truth is AUTHORITY.

****Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. ****

It needs to be noted that so called Catholic “Tradition” is not a blank check by Jesus to just write your own “inspired” materials, because true inspiration comes only from divinity. Especially when said "inspiration is isolated in documents like the apocrypha, and not even in the Bible. Well; of course! It’s not rocket science. Just call it “Bible” and BINGO! All of a sudden it’s “Christian” and “in the Bible.” How many groups do we know that do that? (Let me count the ways…)

Biblical Tradition; the kind condoned by Jesus, is actually NOT composed of things outside the written Bible; it is rather; calling upon a deeper reflection of things already in the written Word.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

“Traditions” here refers to just that, things we can verify in the written Word, for eg., The Exodus Movement out of Egypt. There are “Tradition” that came out of that situation which we are to hold fast to for all time. “Tradition” is an accounting or a story of something in the Bible that has already happened. It is not ever a license to write new doctrines, strange to the Bible; and only in the apocrypha.

 

[garysibio]

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

Natural law. The Bible is clear that there are things we can pick up about God if we are willing to look. This is where the atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens make their fatal error.

Actually, Potiphar wouldn’t have cared. There was no such thing as marriage in ancient Egypt and Egyptians were not all that particular about who they had sex with.

Gary

 

[sandusky]

Natural law. The Bible is clear that there are things we can pick up about God if we are willing to look. This is where the atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens make their fatal error.

Gary

And what source is it that you’ve cited for that truth?

It is by that same source that you have you come to know that there even was a Joseph, and a Mrs. Potiphar, correct?

 

[garysibio]

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.

We’re not disagreeing with Scripture; we’re saying that the use of Scripture alone is bad theology.

Gary

 

[po18guy]

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

But, it all comes from the bible. If your O is really H, please consider the lives of the Saints and Martyrs, who shed their blood, gave their lives for the practice of the faith. They had both reason and faith which lead them to such extremes of sacrifice.

Frankly, I have found that following Christ is difficult. It should be and must be. To believe Catholicism requires a deep, profound faith that appears confusing or erroneous to those who do not follow, and who may have the limitations of the written word as spoken of by John.

The Catholic Church and its beliefs appear mysterious, and off-putting, just as God is mysterious, and may appear off-putting to human senses. It is His church, after all, guided by His Holy Spirit. If it were not, He would come against it, and has. The reforms were needed. God came against the church from within, and the changes came. The recent scandals are another example. Sinful men have caused corruption, and so the Lord has come against her in discipline. None of this affects the truth she teaches, it only cleanses the impurity that the evil one has willingly provided.

I tell you that there is great truth in your Christian tradition. My point to you is that there is more to the Lord, more to Christ, and more to the Holy Spirit. The Lord’s church completely accommodates all races and creeds, all cultures, all nations over all times until the end comes. That takes a vast, mysterious faith, but again only reflects, however poorly, the Creator Who gave us faith.

When not furiously debating on these forums , please spend a few moments reflecting on the possibility that Christ really is present in the Blessed Sacrament; that Catholics who worship Christ in the Sacrament are not crazy and wasting their time; that the supernatural things that have happened are actually true. Just imagine. I am not asking you to adopt the beliefs, or even to agree with them. Only that you consider them.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[po18guy]

Yep.

Please do not mistake confidence for arrogance. I consider myself a worse sinner than either of you. See how the evil one divides Christians!