Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hiedi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Protestant101 said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK. Then, as they say, put your money where your mouth is. Show me exactly where it says in the Bible that the Bible alone is the source of God’s revelation to man. Be prepared to prove to me, using your principle of sola scriptura, that the books you are quoting are actually part of the Bible.

You can give any lame excuse you want for not responding to posts such as mine but we all know that the real reason is that you can’t. You have discovered that your beliefs are indefensible and you can’t bring yourself to admit it. (If you know what the bishops are thinking then I can know what you are thinking.)

Gary
 
garysibio said:
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
Click to expand...
Excellent points!

Blessings

Brent
 
garysibio said:
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?
Click to expand...

Gary, will you please tell me how those who believe in Sola Scriptura define the doctrine?

Be specific, please.
 
sandusky said:
Gary, will you please tell me how those who believe in Sola Scriptura define the doctrine?

Be specific, please.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to be specific because, in my experience, those who hold to the belief do not always define it in the same way. At gunpoint I would have to say that it is the belief that valid spiritual truth can only come from the Bible if it is to be considered authoritative. It is not that you can’t get spiritual truths from other sources - such as your pastor or the writings of another Christian - but they must be judged on the basis of what the Bible says. Of course “what the Bible says” is really what the person making the judgment says the Bible says.

Gary
 
Protestant101 said:
A Christian follows Jesus; not Martin Luther.:eek:
Click to expand...
A salient point, and well made. But, someone on earth was given the authority from on High to establish the sola scriptura that you now live by. That’s all.

And, I follow Christ to the Tabernacle. I pray before him. I eat His precious Body and drink His cleansing Blood. Talk about a personal relationship with Christ! There is nothing better on earth. Amen! Alleluia!

And, may Christ’s peace always be with you, as long as Canada’s human rights commission allows you to believe!. We should all take note of that.
 
po18guy said:
A salient point, and well made. But, someone on earth was given the authority from on High to establish the sola scriptura that you now live by. That’s all.

And, I follow Christ to the Tabernacle. I pray before him. I eat His precious Body and drink His cleansing Blood. Talk about a personal relationship with Christ! There is nothing better on earth. Amen! Alleluia!

And, may Christ’s peace always be with you, as long as Canada’s human rights commission allows you to believe!. We should all take note of that.
Click to expand...
Well; the human rights commission does not always look out for people’s “rights” and things in Canada are not as they seem; but that’s another story. I am glad I finally made a “salient point.”

I have been asking for a doctrine re SALVATION that is not made clear enough in the Bible; and needs something more, such as “tradition” before Christians can understand it in a saving sense. Both you & Gary seem unable or unwilling to respond specifically to this. Do you have any comment on this question?
 
Protestant101 said:
Well; the human rights commission does not always look out for people’s “rights” and things in Canada are not as they seem; but that’s another story. I am glad I finally made a “salient point.”

I have been asking for a doctrine re SALVATION that is not made clear enough in the Bible; and needs something more, such as “tradition” before Christians can understand it in a saving sense. Both you & Gary seem unable or unwilling to respond specifically to this. Do you have any comment on this question?
Click to expand...
I gave you one you never responded to: the canon of Scripture. Before you can know what the Bible says about salvation, you have to know what the Bible is.

Gary
 
Protestant101 said:
Well; the human rights commission does not always look out for people’s “rights” and things in Canada are not as they seem; but that’s another story. I am glad I finally made a “salient point.”

I have been asking for a doctrine re SALVATION that is not made clear enough in the Bible; and needs something more, such as “tradition” before Christians can understand it in a saving sense. Both you & Gary seem unable or unwilling to respond specifically to this. Do you have any comment on this question?
Click to expand...
Hmmm…I’m still waiting to hear an answer to Gary’s question about the canon of the Scriptures. Where in the Bible does it contain its own canon? I’ve yet to hear a Protestant from any denomination answer that one sufficiently yet.

As for a doctrine that needs a further explanation than its context in scipture, I offer Romans 10:9. I’m sure you’re familiar with it. That is probably one of the most misunderstood and misquoted snipets in the NT.
Take care
Dennis
 
Protestant101 said:
Well; the human rights commission does not always look out for people’s “rights” and things in Canada are not as they seem; but that’s another story. I am glad I finally made a “salient point.”

I have been asking for a doctrine re SALVATION that is not made clear enough in the Bible; and needs something more, such as “tradition” before Christians can understand it in a saving sense. Both you & Gary seem unable or unwilling to respond specifically to this. Do you have any comment on this question?
Click to expand...
God’s Grace through faith. Trinitarian baptism. Reception of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.

One caveat: Faith that does not lead to good works, the product of love, is dead.

p.s. I might point out that the Adventists are especially active in the area of good works. And, rightfully so.
 
garysibio said:
I gave you one you never responded to: the canon of Scripture. Before you can know what the Bible says about salvation, you have to know what the Bible is.

Gary
Click to expand...
Actually that is not true; even in the slightest sense. You are evading a real answer.

What is being challenged here from the OP and on is the “Protestant” scriptures of 66 books to the Bible. Can you; will you, tell us even one doctrine about salvation in THIS Bible, which needs further explaining in some other source, or in some other Bible? I don’t think any Catholic can do this; but it will be interesting to see you try. You will never be able to definitively prove that the Protestant Bible is NOT sufficient. Your watered down traditions and magisterium only obscure the Bible; they do not explain it or make it clearer.
 
Protestant101 said:
Actually that is not true; even in the slightest sense. You are evading a real answer.

What is being challenged here from the OP and on is the “Protestant” scriptures of 66 books to the Bible. Can you; will you, tell us even one doctrine about salvation in THIS Bible, which needs further explaining in some other source, or in some other Bible? I don’t think any Catholic can do this; but it will be interesting to see you try. You will never be able to definitively prove that the Protestant Bible is NOT sufficient. Your watered down traditions and magisterium only obscure the Bible; they do not explain it or make it clearer.
Click to expand...
I’m not letting you off the hook with this one. You say that the message of salvation is found in the Bible alone, Sacred Tradition is unnecessary. Then you must be able to prove what the Bible is before you can say what it teaches about salvation. How can you quote St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans or the Galatians or whatever when it speaks of salvation without knowing that it is Scripture? You are the one who believes in sola scriptura. NOw use it to show me which books belong in the Bible and which do not or admit that sola scriptura is insufficient. Those are your two options.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
I’m not letting you off the hook with this one. You say that the message of salvation is found in the Bible alone, Sacred Tradition is unnecessary. Then you must be able to prove what the Bible is before you can say what it teaches about salvation. How can you quote St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans or the Galatians or whatever when it speaks of salvation without knowing that it is Scripture? You are the one who believes in sola scriptura. NOw use it to show me which books belong in the Bible and which do not or admit that sola scriptura is insufficient. Those are your two options.

Gary
Click to expand...
If I had his address, I’d send some Tylenol. But hey, he’s got 222s up there anyway.

Christ’s peace, Bros.
 
garysibio said:
I’m not letting you off the hook with this one. You say that the message of salvation is found in the Bible alone, Sacred Tradition is unnecessary. Then you must be able to prove what the Bible is before you can say what it teaches about salvation. How can you quote St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans or the Galatians or whatever when it speaks of salvation without knowing that it is Scripture? You are the one who believes in sola scriptura. NOw use it to show me which books belong in the Bible and which do not or admit that sola scriptura is insufficient. Those are your two options.

Gary
Click to expand...
But I have been asking you for a salvation doctrine in the Protestant Bible which is not “sufficient;” and I have not been trying to address the other points you are mentioning. I am not worried right now which books belong to the Bible; I am asking something very specific from the accusers of the Protestant Bible. None of your fancy answers have answered the question.
 
Protestant101 said:
But I have been asking you for a salvation doctrine in the Protestant Bible which is not “sufficient;” and I have not been trying to address the other points you are mentioning. I am not worried right now which books belong to the Bible; I am asking something very specific from the accusers of the Protestant Bible. None of your fancy answers have answered the question.
Click to expand...
You better be concerned about which books belong in the Bible. You can’t possibly know one thing about what the Bible teaches about salvation until you know what the Bible is. You’re copping out now answer my question.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
You better be concerned about which books belong in the Bible. You can’t possibly know one thing about what the Bible teaches about salvation until you know what the Bible is. You’re copping out now answer my question.

Gary
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I cannot take orders from you. :banghead:

It’s obvious that there’s something you cannot do too. Neither you, or any other Catholic on this forum can tell us even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Bible of 66 books which is not sufficient, and needs more explanation from other sources.:tsktsk:
 
Protestant101 said:
I am sorry but I cannot take orders from you. :banghead:

It’s obvious that there’s something you cannot do too. Neither you, or any other Catholic on this forum can tell us even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Bible of 66 books which is not sufficient, and needs more explanation from other sources.:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
I’m not giving you orders. You put out a challenge to which I responded and now you are trying to avoid responding. Personally, you’ve disappointed me. I expected more. The canon of Scripture is foundational to every doctrine including salvation but not limited to it. Your problem is that you are finding out that sola scriptura, which is foundational to your beliefs, is a fraud. But, as that old saying says, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

You are never going to find the truth following the teachings of Ellen G.White,a false prophet and liar. She is a perfect example of why the pillar and support of the truth is the Church. I’m sorry to be so blunt but you need to hear the truth.

Gary
 
Protestant101 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Authority cannot be held or wielded by a book. Authority is something given to people, and propogated by persons. That is why Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles, or rather, allowed them to share in His. This is clear when we see how many different ways the words are interpreted and applied by every individual. The individual can become his own authority.
 
garysibio said:
I’m not giving you orders. You put out a challenge to which I responded and now you are trying to avoid responding. Personally, you’ve disappointed me. I expected more. The canon of Scripture is foundational to every doctrine including salvation but not limited to it. Your problem is that you are finding out that sola scriptura, which is foundational to your beliefs, is a fraud. But, as that old saying says, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

You are never going to find the truth following the teachings of Ellen G.White,a false prophet and liar. She is a perfect example of why the pillar and support of the truth is the Church. I’m sorry to be so blunt but you need to hear the truth.

Gary
Click to expand...
Well; you are making me chuckle now, whooshing forth with all this “bluntness” which I have already heard hundreds of times. You certainly havent shocked or surprised me.

But; in summary, I do not follow Ellen G White. I do not quote her or talk about her on this forum, and I have been here well over a year. When I come to Catholic Answers; I come with Bible answers. I don’t have a problem with that; only you do. It looks like you are not going to be able or willing to tell us even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Bible which is “insufficient.” That’s all I am asking. I challenge all other Catholics reading this to step up to the plate and show us Protestants where our Bible is “insufficient.” We can argue away all day about what is canon and what isn’t; but Catholics here are the ones denigrating the Protestant Bible as “insufficient” so I am asking them **WHERE?" **

What salvation doctrine in this Bible is so “insufficient” that it needs another source to make it “sufficient” for our salvation?

Salvation is Jesus; and He is in all 66 books of the Protestant Canon. If he is not; please show us where. I don’t think you ever will; because there isn’t a single fact about our salvation in the Protestant Canon which you and all the hosts of “fathers” and Popes will never be able to “improve” no matter how much “binding and loosing” you claim to have rights to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top