Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[po18guy]

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

Knocked me over.

This is a classic “sola fora scriptura” misperception that would not occur in a face to face conversation. The written word, however true, is easily misinterpreted once it lacks the human element of the spoken word.

Such disagreements over the written word tend to show that oral teaching would be more clear. No?

 

[mark_a]

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

The Church really “put together” the new testament only.

The old testament was already “put together”.

Protestants accept our new testament and the post temple old testament.

Muhammed uses what he likes of both and claims the rest is corrupt.

Joseph Smith finds new stuff to add and claims the Church who assembled the original became apostate before the last surviving apostle died.

Next someone will find a sacred book on the moon or mars that points out Catholic deficiencies.

It just never ends.

 

[Protestant101]

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.

Not everyone who gives their life for what they believe in will be saved; just based on that.

1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Martyrdom will excuse no one in the judgment; only the love of Christ “shed abroad in our hearts.”

“The practice of the faith” only means Catholics, according to the context of your post; but by authority of God’s Word, unweakened by apocrypha and tradition, people can be come what God wants them to be.

Authority is not our truth, truth is our authority.

 

[garysibio]

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.

Where do you get the idea that we need it all written down these days? A few years ago I asked a Protestant pastor a question he could not answer and admitted he had never thought of: Why would God give us an infallible Bible and not also provide us with an infallible way of knowing what He is saying in it?

You’re an SDA, right? Your church condemns those of us who worship on the Lord’s Day rather than the Sabbath despite the fact that Scripture clearly teaches that we are no longer bound by the rituals in the Mosaic Law (Gal 5:2-6 among others).

Having it in writing certainly hasn’t prevented wholesale doctrinal confusion among the proponents of sola scriptura.

You say that it is time we stop undermining the authority of the Bible yet you undermine Scripture with your rejection of the Catholic Church. You ignore the words of Jesus when He founded the Church and appointed Peter as its earthly head. You undermine the Spirit-breathed word of St. Paul when he told St. Timothy that the church and not the Bible is the ‘‘pillar and bulwark of the truth’’ (1 Tim 3:15).

Gary

 

[po18guy]

Not everyone who gives their life for what they believe in will be saved; just based on that.

Martyrdom will excuse no one in the judgment; only the love of Christ “shed abroad in our hearts.”

“The practice of the faith” only means Catholics, according to the context of your post; but by authority of God’s Word, unweakened by apocrypha and tradition, people can be come what God wants them to be.

Authority is not our truth, truth is our authority.

101, were they all wrong? According to your authority, they wasted their lives. You think that tradition weakens, yet it is how Christ taught. I must meditate on that.

 

[Protestant101]

Where do you get the idea that we need it all written down these days? A few years ago I asked a Protestant pastor a question he could not answer and admitted he had never thought of: Why would God give us an infallible Bible and not also provide us with an infallible way of knowing what He is saying in it?

You’re an SDA, right? Your church condemns those of us who worship on the Lord’s Day rather than the Sabbath despite the fact that Scripture clearly teaches that we are no longer bound by the rituals in the Mosaic Law (Gal 5:2-6 among others).

Having it in writing certainly hasn’t prevented wholesale doctrinal confusion among the proponents of sola scriptura.

You say that it is time we stop undermining the authority of the Bible yet you undermine Scripture with your rejection of the Catholic Church. You ignore the words of Jesus when He founded the Church and appointed Peter as its earthly head. You undermine the Spirit-breathed word of St. Paul when he told St. Timothy that the church and not the Bible is the ‘‘pillar and bulwark of the truth’’ (1 Tim 3:15).

Gary

Saying that the scriptures are not sufficient is undermining their authority; for there is not a Catholic on earth who has shown me, or can show me one single doctrine in the Bible that is not sufficiently explained; whereby we would be lost by believing it apart from other writings; and I include ALL writings from all denominations. Tell us one salvation doctrine in the Bible; in God’s written Word, that is not “sufficient.” People will always interpret scripture, and other writings with some variations; but speaking of the Bible; this is no reflection upon the "compleatness of God’s written Word.

Jesus actually has designed His written Word to be something that we have to “dig for” when it comes to seeing what is truth; and what He is saying.

Our salvation depends upon a knowledge of the truth contained in the Scriptures. It is God’s will that we should possess this. But we must search the Bible with hungry hearts; exploring God’s Word, as the miner explores the earth to find veins of gold. Some of the parables in the four gospels reflect this searching for treasure/pearl of great price; and it’s not wrong that some see it differently than others.

But Catholic leaders say it is wrong; and they prefer their congregants to not do this. They want to dictate what the Scriptures “really mean” by subverting them with all manner of “good” things, such as “tradition” magisterium" etc. Cults do this all the time, and it is impossible for the truth to be known in the Bible under such stricture. Oh yes, Catholics “read the Bible;” but reading, and personally searching for and understanding the meaning is apparently not allowed without stuff being added to the Bible.

Being told what to believe and discovering what to believe, doing it under your own volition - out of being truly convicted, are two different things.

Being “the pillar and the ground of truth” gives license to no church to re-write God’s Word in special books, and with better pronouncements of “new light.”

 

[Protestant101]

101, were they all wrong? According to your authority, they wasted their lives. You think that tradition weakens, yet it is how Christ taught. I must meditate on that.

My authority?? I quoted the Bible. How is that my authority?

 

[guanophore]

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

I suppose that depends upon what Tradition you are speaking of. However, I think there is much more evidence for divine liturgy and the communion of the saints.

 

[po18guy]

My authority?? I quoted the Bible. How is that my authority?

Originally Posted by Protestant101
but by authority of God’s Word, unweakened by apocrypha and tradition, people can be come what God wants them to be.

See? Another sola scriptura misinterpretation. If you and I were face to face, this would not have occurred.

From the scripture of your prior post, it sounds like the bible claims that tradition and apocrypha weaken God’s word. Tradition is in the bible. We are admonished by Paul to keep it. Apocrypha is not in the bible. Why? Which church kept it apocryphal rather than scriptural?

And, how can you trust a bible that came from the whore of Babylon? I’ve never figured that one out.

 

[Protestant101]

See? Another sola scriptura misinterpretation. If you and I were face to face, this would not have occurred.

From the scripture of your prior post, it sounds like the bible claims that tradition and apocrypha weaken God’s word. Tradition is in the bible. We are admonished by Paul to keep it. Apocrypha is not in the bible. Why? Which church kept it apocryphal rather than scriptural?

And, how can you trust a bible that came from the whore of Babylon? I’ve never figured that one out.

It would indeed have ocurred if we were face to face. I would have no reason to state it differently then. LOL, maybe if you had a big club in your hand I would say it from a distance or from a passing car; but you don’t seem to want to give the same criteria to yourself as you demand of others. Scripture mentions tradition in the context of being acceptable, but it also mentions it in an unacceptable context. You are consistently ignoring that. You keep saying “the Bible says” to “support” Catholic tradition; yet when a Protestant tries to say that the Bible condemns some tradition; you do not want to accord the same privilege to scripture then.

PS…I have never viewed the Bible as coming from the Catholic, or any other Church.

 

[garysibio]

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

Well, I wouldn’t have said this but,if you insist.

Gary

 

[juliamajor]

Saying that the scriptures are not sufficient is undermining their authority; for there is not a Catholic on earth who has shown me, or can show me one single doctrine in the Bible that is not sufficiently explained; whereby we would be lost by believing it apart from other writings; and I include ALL writings from all denominations. Tell us one salvation doctrine in the Bible; in God’s written Word, that is not “sufficient.” People will always interpret scripture, and other writings with some variations; but speaking of the Bible; this is no reflection upon the "compleatness of God’s written Word.

Jesus actually has designed His written Word to be something that we have to “dig for” when it comes to seeing what is truth; and what He is saying.

Our salvation depends upon a knowledge of the truth contained in the Scriptures. It is God’s will that we should possess this. But we must search the Bible with hungry hearts; exploring God’s Word, as the miner explores the earth to find veins of gold. Some of the parables in the four gospels reflect this searching for treasure/pearl of great price; and it’s not wrong that some see it differently than others.

But Catholic leaders say it is wrong; and they prefer their congregants to not do this. They want to dictate what the Scriptures “really mean” by subverting them with all manner of “good” things, such as “tradition” magisterium" etc. Cults do this all the time, and it is impossible for the truth to be known in the Bible under such stricture. Oh yes, Catholics “read the Bible;” but reading, and personally searching for and understanding the meaning is apparently not allowed without stuff being added to the Bible.

Being told what to believe and discovering what to believe, doing it under your own volition - out of being truly convicted, are two different things.

Being “the pillar and the ground of truth” gives license to no church to re-write God’s Word in special books, and with better pronouncements of “new light.”

Ah!-Like Ellen White Gould and her"visions"!

 

[Protestant101]

Ah!-Like Ellen White Gould and her"visions"!

As I said; ALL books. The Bible is sufficient; and the official Adventist teachings do reinforce this idea, including with Ellen White’s books, or those of any of our Pioneers. We can praise God that His Word is sufficient; and that we can always depend upon it.

I am still waiting for Catholics to show us even one written word teaching about salvation which is NOT sufficient, without some other source.

 

[mark_a]

As I said; ALL books. The Bible is sufficient; and the official Adventist teachings do reinforce this idea, including with Ellen White’s books, or those of any of our Pioneers. We can praise God that His Word is sufficient; and that we can always depend upon it.

I am still waiting for Catholics to show us even one written word teaching about salvation which is NOT sufficient, without some other source.

I know you’ve been through this exercise many times, but the Sacred Scripture sufficiency question is secondary to the Sacred Scripture interpetation question for Catholics.

 

[garysibio]

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?

A combination of the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

The old testament was already “put together”.

Uh, not quite. There were several different versions of the OT canon in use by the Jews during the time of Jesus.

1. The one used by the Saducees which consisted of the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) only.
2. The canon of the Pharisees which is identical to the OT canon used by Protestants. This canon was not formalized until around 90 AD so saying it was in the time of Jesus is stretching it a bit. Prior to that they used this same canon but it wasn’t formalized.
3. The canon of the Essenes. These are the guys who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their OT consisted of all of the books in the Protestant OT except for Esther. A few of the books that the Catholics accept which the Protestants reject and a few that neither one of us accept.
4. The Septuagint canon. This canon comes from a Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic OT done about 300 AD. This canon is important because the Septuagint is the version of the OT which is used when the NT quotes the OT. It is identical to the OT used by the Catholic Church.

There may have been some others. For example, I think the Zealots had their own canon but I am not certain and I don’t know what it contained if they did. At any rate it shows that it is not accurate to say that the Jews had determined their own canon when they had at least four in use.

However, even if the Jews had agreed on a canon, it would not mean that the Church did not get to decide on which books it would include it its version of the OT. After all, if we were bound by the Jewish biblical canon, we would have no grounds on which to accept any of the NT books, all of which are rejected by the Jews.

In addition, Protestants have another problem here. Allowing the Jews to determine the OT canon they will use violates their principle of sola scriptura. Where does the Bible say that the OT canon is up to the Jews? Even if you could find such a passage, how would you know for certain that it is canonical?

The same thing applies when they try to “prove” their canon by saying that the deuterocanonical books are not referred to in the NT. Besides violating the principle of sola scriptura, that argument is just factually wrong. It also fails to account for the fact that the book of Esther, which they include in their OT, is never quoted or alluded to in the NT.

You see, Protestants pay lip service to their belief in sola scriptura but it can’t even help them determine what the Bible is. You see, despite all of the griping about the Catholic use of tradition that has gone on here, Protestants have to rely on their own tradition to even make an attempt at determining what the Bible is.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Saying that the scriptures are not sufficient is undermining their authority; for there is not a Catholic on earth who has shown me, or can show me one single doctrine in the Bible that is not sufficiently explained; whereby we would be lost by believing it apart from other writings; and I include ALL writings from all denominations. Tell us one salvation doctrine in the Bible; in God’s written Word, that is not “sufficient.” People will always interpret scripture, and other writings with some variations; but speaking of the Bible; this is no reflection upon the "compleatness of God’s written Word.

The Catholic position does not undermine the authority of Scripture because Scripture does not claim for itself the authority you try to grant it.

How about the doctrine of the canon of Scripture? You can’t determine which books are biblical and which are not on the basis of the Bible alone. You can’t know what the Bible says about salvation until you know what is Bible and what is not.

Jesus actually has designed His written Word to be something that we have to “dig for” when it comes to seeing what is truth; and what He is saying.

So this is all a game to Jesus in your opinion. Kind of like finding the immunity idol on “Survivor” before we get kicked off the island and burn in Hell. Where do you get this nonsense. Jesus wants everyone to be saved. He is not in the business of putting obstacles in our way to see if we can figure them out.

Our salvation depends upon a knowledge of the truth contained in the Scriptures. It is God’s will that we should possess this. But we must search the Bible with hungry hearts; exploring God’s Word, as the miner explores the earth to find veins of gold. Some of the parables in the four gospels reflect this searching for treasure/pearl of great price; and it’s not wrong that some see it differently than others.

Our salvation depends on the grace and mercy of God. He is sovereign and can save whomever He wishes. You don’t get to tell Him who can be saved and who can’t.

But Catholic leaders say it is wrong; and they prefer their congregants to not do this. They want to dictate what the Scriptures “really mean” by subverting them with all manner of “good” things, such as “tradition” magisterium" etc. Cults do this all the time, and it is impossible for the truth to be known in the Bible under such stricture. Oh yes, Catholics “read the Bible;” but reading, and personally searching for and understanding the meaning is apparently not allowed without stuff being added to the Bible.

So now you are a mind reader. You know what the popes and bishops are thinking. Tell me, how did you get this amazing gift?

They didn’t take this authority upon themselves, it was given to them by Jesus. Your rejection of the truth and ridiculous claims does not alter that truth.

Being “the pillar and the ground of truth” gives license to no church to re-write God’s Word in special books, and with better pronouncements of “new light.”

That is exactly what Protestantism did. Luther even had the audacity to change the text of the Bible eliminating books of the OT which he didn’t like. He also wanted to remove the Letter of James and the Book of Revelation but was talked out of it by some friends. He also changed the text of Rom 3:28 to say “faith alone” in his German translation when the Greek does not say it. In a letter to his friend, Dr. Link, he wrote that if anyone were to ask why he made this change, he was to tell them that it was changed because Martin Luther said it should be changed.

Protestants have changed their beliefs regarding baptism and the Eucharist. Most recently they have changed their beliefs on birth control which all Protestants said was immoral prior to 1930. Now it’s hard to find a Protestant who holds to this biblical truth. Some Protestant churches have gone so far as to embrace abortion. And you have the nerve to tell us that the Catholic Church has changed the teachings of Scripture?

Gary

 

[po18guy]

It would indeed have ocurred if we were face to face. I would have no reason to state it differently then. LOL, maybe if you had a big club in your hand I would say it from a distance or from a passing car; but you don’t seem to want to give the same criteria to yourself as you demand of others. Scripture mentions tradition in the context of being acceptable, but it also mentions it in an unacceptable context. You are consistently ignoring that. You keep saying “the Bible says” to “support” Catholic tradition; yet when a Protestant tries to say that the Bible condemns some tradition; you do not want to accord the same privilege to scripture then.

First of all, no clubs in my hand. I invite you deeper into Christ than you’ve ever been. It is not arrogance that states that, it is confidence. Many confuse the two.

We’re on different pages in different books! First, separate the tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees out as bad. OK? Christ taught us that it was bad, as it served man and not God. Can we agree on this so far?

The reason I use “the bible” in my replies is that scripture itself specifically says that it is incomplete and that Christian tradition must be used with it. But, only if you believe the Apostle Paul. I do.

PS…I have never viewed the Bible as coming from the Catholic, or any other Church.

This is very interesting! Christ founded a church. When He spoke those words to Peter in Matthew 16, it is the first appearance of the word “church” in scripture. Your bible better have come from some sort of church, or is it really from Christ?

Even Catholic Priest Martin Luther credited his former church with scripture. Don’t tell me you even split off from Luther?

 

[Nousername]

First of all, no clubs in my hand. I invite you deeper into Christ than you’ve ever been. It is not arrogance that states that, it is confidence. Many confuse the two.

We’re on different pages in different books! First, separate the tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees out as bad. OK? Christ taught us that it was bad, as it served man and not God. Can we agree on this so far?

The reason I use “the bible” in my replies is that scripture itself specifically says that it is incomplete and that Christian tradition must be used with it. But, only if you believe the Apostle Paul. I do.

This is very interesting! Christ founded a church. When He spoke those words to Peter in Matthew 16, it is the first appearance of the word “church” in scripture. Your bible better have come from some sort of church, or is it really from Christ?

Even Catholic Priest Martin Luther credited his former church with scripture. Don’t tell me you even split off from Luther?

 

[Protestant101]

The Catholic position does not undermine the authority of Scripture because Scripture does not claim for itself the authority you try to grant it.

So now you are a mind reader. You know what the popes and bishops are thinking. Tell me, how did you get this amazing gift?

Marvellous “apologetics” Gary; but nothing factual or proven; just claimed, as usual.

I don’t have to “read minds,” the Popes and Bishops make it clear what they are thinking.

If you are going to try and say that your position does not "weaken the authority of scripture; I have decided to not even respond to that. I think people will figure that one out nicely, just by reading what you have written.