Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[garysibio]

The Bible speaks for itself. Prove one salvation doctrine from the Protestant Canon as “insufficient;” and you will have my attention. Trying to “prove” what YOU say the Protestant interpretation is as wrong; doesn’t even come half-way to proving Romans 10:9, as stated in the Protestant Canon as “insufficient.” You can’t do it with that text or any other text; and that’s why you see me as “dodging.”

We already have and you refuse to respond. Before you can tell us what the Bible says about salvation, you have to know what the Bible is, what books it contains. Now prove that from the basis of sola scriptura like you said you would.

Gary

 

[Church_Militant]

It appears that you are not familiar with some sections of your own Catechism.

Par. #95 tells us

This means that Catholics do teach how that the scriptures are “insufficient;” and you say here re Romans 10:9 that it is “insufficient” by saying what you do about scripture needing Catholic interpretation.

The text is just fine by itself; without all your personal interpretation commentary. Romans 10:9 is quite “sufficient” all by itself, without any Pope, Bishop, catechism, apocrypha, tradition, etc.

Look at it again:

**

It covers the “confess with your mouth;” and also the “believe in thine heart” part.

What is “insufficient” about this text!!??**

The problem here for you is the idea of sufficiency. Your thinking on it is drastically different from both the Catholic Church today and the Catholic Church that wrote and collected and canonized the Bible that we have today.

MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY

By JAMES AKIN

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (*Tradition and Traditions *[New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

One will wonder if you even agree with other n-C definitions of what you say you believe, but this is a pretty good explanation of what we Catholics believe about the Word of God.

Since the Bible itself nowhere asserts itself as the only authority for all that Christians believe and practice, then there is no reason for Catholics to do more than state the Christian belief as handed down from Our Lord and the apostles and affirmed again and again by the church down through its history. The Bible itself proves that we are not the ones preaching and teaching error.

 

[ijohn5]

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

what church are we talking about ? you must know the catholic church did not give us the bible . also the first church was all jewish the head of the true church is Jesus not the pope and you must be born again to belong to it not baptized john 3:3-36 1st peter1:23 1stcor.2:14 john1:12. also not to baptize infants acts 8:26-40 mark 16:16 infant cannot believe anything does not even know where he is. and they went down into the water and came up out of the water no sprinkling .please read 1st and 2nd timothy about bishops one mediator etc. thank you gary (Edited)

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

My favorite is God created the 10 commandments, but his man had to carry them down the mountain to the people. The Bible is not a Sacrament, it is a tool.

Another concept is I can go into a Chinese Church and take the Eucharist and I get my daily bread. Hand me a Chinese Bible, and maybe 5 years later I might be able to read 10%.

I can also be blind and get my Daily Bread. Do you think God will limit the handicapped? The Church ministers to the sick, the hungry, the Poor.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

Another concept is that you have to be able to read the Bible and have enough reasoning skills to understand it. The Church puts no restrictions on the faithful. God doesn’t want scholars, he wants the meek, the humble and thef faithful. Come to Him like little children.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

ijohn5:

what church are we talking about ? you must know the catholic church did not give us the bible . also the first church was all jewish the head of the true church is Jesus not the pope and you must be born again to belong to it not baptized john 3:3-36 1st peter1:23 1stcor.2:14 john1:12. also not to baptize infants acts 8:26-40 mark 16:16 infant cannot believe anything does not even know where he is. and they went down into the water and came up out of the water no sprinkling .please read 1st and 2nd timothy about bishops one mediator etc. thank you gary (Edited)

We are talking about the Catholic Church, I have no clue which church you refer to in the 50,000 Protestent denomonations. Also, try capitalizing words, especially books of the Bible. Looks like Catholics hold the Bible in higher regard than Protestents.

 

[garysibio]

ijohn5:

what church are we talking about ? you must know the catholic church did not give us the bible . also the first church was all jewish the head of the true church is Jesus not the pope and you must be born again to belong to it not baptized john 3:3-36 1st peter1:23 1stcor.2:14 john1:12. also not to baptize infants acts 8:26-40 mark 16:16 infant cannot believe anything does not even know where he is. and they went down into the water and came up out of the water no sprinkling .please read 1st and 2nd timothy about bishops one mediator etc. thank you gary (Edited)

We are talking about the Catholic Church which Jesus founded in Matt 16:18 putting Peter in charge as its earthly head. Of course Jesus is the ultimate head of the Church; we don’t deny that at all.

While the Church was predominantly Jewish for the first few years, the events of Acts 10 & 15 and all the prophecies in the Old Testament about how the Jews were going to bring God’s truth to the Gentiles make it clear that the Church was not Jewish. In fact it was rejected by the Jews which led to the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

I don’t have the time to go into responding to all of your points because I have to go to work soon and doing so would be going way off-topic for this thread but, if you are interested, I’m sure there are threads on the forum where all of your points are addressed. If you want to discuss these items with me, email me at EMAIL=“gjsibio@gmail.com”[/EMAIL]

Gary

 

[steppenwolf1218]

The Bible speaks for itself. Prove one salvation doctrine from the Protestant Canon as “insufficient;” and you will have my attention. Trying to “prove” what YOU say the Protestant interpretation is as wrong; doesn’t even come half-way to proving Romans 10:9, as stated in the Protestant Canon as “insufficient.” You can’t do it with that text or any other text; and that’s why you see me as “dodging.”

No you dodged the question long before I asked it.

 

[Church_Militant]

ijohn5:

what church are we talking about ? you must know the catholic church did not give us the bible .

Really? That’s kinda odd since the all too Catholic teachings about salvation, baptism, and the Eucharistic Real Presence, as well all the Sacraments. If you can show me a single non-Catholic first or second century source who authoritatively discussed the content of the canon of the Bible then you might have a leg to stand on…but you can’t. They simply do not exist.

also the first church was all jewish

Really> That’s not what my New Testament says. What one are you using?

Acts 10

the head of the true church is Jesus not the pope

Show me where the catholic Church really teaches any such thing as this.

The fact is that here you are alleging something that is not a Catholic teaching.

and you must be born again to belong to it not baptized john 3:3-36 1st peter1:23 1stcor.2:14 john1:12.

If you say so…but the catholic Church has always taught that one must be born again. However, you err scripturally when you say that baptism is not necessary. I answer all this in several of my blog article. I doubt you will but I suggest that you check them out. HERE.

also not to baptize infants acts 8:26-40 mark 16:16 infant cannot believe anything does not even know where he is.

Really? (Again, see the articles above linked) So you’re going to try to assert that none of the “whole households” in the New Testament had any infants in them that were baptized? Even in the face of the precedent that God set when He commanded the Jews to circumcise their males on the 8th day…even as Our Lord was?

and they went down into the water and came up out of the water no sprinkling .

Really? That’s odd, just how then did the Philippian jailer (and his whole household BTW) get baptized in the middle of the night there in the jail?

please read 1st and 2nd timothy about bishops

Nowhere does it ever say that a bishop MUST be married, and in fact the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Who are you (or your modern denomination) to alter that of teach differently?
Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

one mediator etc.

Again… here you attack something that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with. I suggest that you take the time to actually study Catholic teaching before making your own decisions as to whether you agree or not.

 

[Protestant101]

We already have and you refuse to respond. Before you can tell us what the Bible says about salvation, you have to know what the Bible is, what books it contains. Now prove that from the basis of sola scriptura like you said you would.

Gary

Actually; the Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible; the Protestant Canon (and the Catholic one) actually tells us this, however, I do see, I think, why a number of you are trying so hard to draw me into a discussion on whose Bible is the best one; or the most accurate one or complete one. The OP here is of course one you do not want to have doubts about what the Catholic Church teaches, and what you say is truth about “the protestant argument on the word of God.”

You are trying to create an argument based upon “interpretation;” while I am trying to get at the text of the Protestant Canon itself. Without the interpretation. Just the text; as it reads.

Without me telling you what I think the text means; why can’t you just tell me how Romans 10:9-11 in the Protestant Canon is “insufficient?” Is it not enough for a salvation doctrine, just the way it is written?

There is no salvation doctrine which is in the Protestant Canon which the anagoges of Popes, Bishops and convoluting apologists like Akin can improve upon.

Isn’t there even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Canon which you can show as “insufficient” just as it is written?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Actually; the Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible; the Protestant Canon (and the Catholic one) actually tells us this, however, I do see, I think, why a number of you are trying so hard to draw me into a discussion on whose Bible is the best one; or the most accurate one or complete one. The OP here is of course one you do not want to have doubts about what the Catholic Church teaches, and what you say is truth about “the protestant argument on the word of God.”

Actually, the OP is “Which came first, the Church or the Bible?” and we can see in the Bible that the Church came first. It was the very first Catholic Christians who, after teaching orally for many years, were given inspiration of the Holy Spirit and wrote the Scriptures, as well as some other letters that did not make the canon. Paul’s two letters to the Corinthian Church are actually his 2nd and 3rd letters to that Church.

It was a Catholic Church Council in 398 AD that sifted through all 300-some Gospels, Acts of ____, and other epistles, all claiming apostolic authority, and determined that 27 documents met the criteria for “inspired Scripture.” What did believers do in the first 20-30 years of Christianity before the first letter was written? How did believers even up until today, who could not read know the Gospel and how to be saved? “Faith comes by hearing…” not “reading.”

You are trying to create an argument based upon “interpretation;” while I am trying to get at the text of the Protestant Canon itself. Without the interpretation. Just the text; as it reads.

Without me telling you what I think the text means; why can’t you just tell me how Romans 10:9-11 in the Protestant Canon is “insufficient?” Is it not enough for a salvation doctrine, just the way it is written?

There is no salvation doctrine which is in the Protestant Canon which the anagoges of Popes, Bishops and convoluting apologists like Akin can improve upon.

Isn’t there even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Canon which you can show as “insufficient” just as it is written?

**
Salvation according to which denomination?** Protestants do not agree on what is entailed in order to be saved. That is where the insufficiency is - Protestantism has no authoritative interpreter, so each one reading the Bible is deciding for his or her self what the Bible says about what we must do to be saved.

 

[Jibb_Smart]

Salvation according to which denomination? Protestants do not agree on what is entailed in order to be saved. That is where the insufficiency is - Protestantism has no authoritative interpreter, so each one reading the Bible is deciding for his or her self what the Bible says about what we must do to be saved.

No, faith is all that is required to be saved, ask almost any Protestant. And I say “almost” only because in any group or place, there is at least one who disagrees.

Now, the Church did come before the Bible. But it was a Church which pre-dates almost every Catholic tradition and belief that conflicts with Protestant teachings.

Jibb

 

[Protestant101]

Quote by Jimmy Akin

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

There is no rule, stating that Protestants must prove this about the scriptures; except perhaps for a Catholic rule. Deific platitudes of Catholic apologetics mantra such as what Akin supplies, shows no deficiency in the Protestant Canon. I would challenge Akin to come on board here and show us, for eg., just what is “insufficient” about Romans 10:9, just as it reads, with no interpretation; by either side. But he also needs to give a “reason” (1 Pet.3:15) for saying that the Catholic church was first to write the Bible. The Bible itself says differently; and perhaps this is why he proffers excuses such as “material sufficiency.”

One of the points that Akin so incredibly misses here is that the Bible actually is “sufficient,” mainly because of the fact that it explains itself; and needs no interpretation. It is just as it reads. No outside material or mind is needed to improve upon God’s Word, or to make it sound right. It is sufficient because God said it.

Because he is so busy with his psychedelic apologetics; Akin fails to give God credit due for His Word in which we hope. We cannot hope in something which needs improvement from outside, non-divine sources.

Maybe I should get on that special apologetics boat and see if Catholics can come up with something better than “We wrote the Bible; and we wrote it first/better.” Do you know how many cults in the world make the same kind of claims?

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually; the Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible; the Protestant Canon (and the Catholic one) actually tells us this,

Really? Where is that then?

however, I do see, I think, why a number of you are trying so hard to draw me into a discussion on whose Bible is the best one; or the most accurate one or complete one. The OP here is of course one you do not want to have doubts about what the Catholic Church teaches, and what you say is truth about “the protestant argument on the word of God.”

Check your ESP or whatever you are using to know what I and my Catholic brothers and sisters think, because I, for one, had no such thoughts. You brought up the KJV and I simply responded to that point, suspecting that you are trying to infer that the KJV is preferred by you, or that it is somehow a better version of the Bible.

You are trying to create an argument based upon “interpretation;” while I am trying to get at the text of the Protestant Canon itself. Without the interpretation. Just the text; as it reads.

Without me telling you what I think the text means; why can’t you just tell me how Romans 10:9-11 in the Protestant Canon is “insufficient?” Is it not enough for a salvation doctrine, just the way it is written?First, I’m not especially interested in the “Protestant Canon” as it is deficient and abridged.

Second, Romans 10:9-11 is not insufficient in and of itself. The Protestant interpretation and “gospel” built around it is. Here is what my Bible says in that passage including a very good note.

9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.

9 “Thou shalt be saved”… To confess the Lord Jesus, and to call upon the name of the Lord (ver. 13) is not barely the professing a belief in the person of Christ; but moreover, implies a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law; without which, the calling him Lord will save no man. St. Matt. 7. 21

.

11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.

There is no salvation doctrine which is in the Protestant Canon which the anagoges of Popes, Bishops and convoluting apologists like Akin can improve upon.

And why should they want to, since the truth of the Gospel as found in the New Testament needs no such. There is nothing “convoluted” about any of that, because it is in fact the truth.

However, I discuss this different and deficient “gospel” in teh following article on my blog. Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”? You might give it a read…

(BTW, I note with some distress your expression of contempt for our most holy faith and remind you again that you are a guest here at CAF and that the forum rules that you agreed to when you joined us do not allow for such.)

Isn’t there even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Canon which you can show as “insufficient” just as it is written?

IMO the “Protestant canon” is pretty much irrelevant to the issue here since it deals mostly with the Old Testament and not the New.

 

[garysibio]

Actually; the Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible; the Protestant Canon (and the Catholic one) actually tells us this, however, I do see, I think, why a number of you are trying so hard to draw me into a discussion on whose Bible is the best one; or the most accurate one or complete one. The OP here is of course one you do not want to have doubts about what the Catholic Church teaches, and what you say is truth about “the protestant argument on the word of God.”

While the people who wrote the Old Testament were Jews, those who wrote the New Testament were Catholics and it is the Catholic Church that determined which books belonged in the Bible and which did not.

That is why you can’t prove your beliefs about salvation based on the scripture alone because, if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, the pillar and support of the truth, you would not even have a Bible. Your church falls short.

You constantly refer to a Protestant Bible. There is no such thing. The Bible you have is the Catholic Bible on loan from us which you have allowed to be butchered by the likes of Martin Luther.

You are trying to create an argument based upon “interpretation;” while I am trying to get at the text of the Protestant Canon itself. Without the interpretation. Just the text; as it reads.

What you claim to be the “text” of the Bible is nothing more than your interpretation. You are deciding what it means.

Without me telling you what I think the text means; why can’t you just tell me how Romans 10:9-11 in the Protestant Canon is “insufficient?” Is it not enough for a salvation doctrine, just the way it is written?

Easily. Two points:

1. If this passage was sufficient, then it would be all we need. We wouldn’t have to bother with the rest of the Bible. There is a lot more said on the topic of salvation in Scripture so obviously the Holy Spirit believes that this passage, by itself, is not sufficient.
2. It condemns infants and those who, for whatever reason, are not able to understand it and act accordingly. If this passage is sufficient, then you are condemning them to Hell even though they are not guilty of any actual sin.

There is no salvation doctrine which is in the Protestant Canon which the anagoges of Popes, Bishops and convoluting apologists like Akin can improve upon.

Then I guess that Jesus made a mistake when He instituted the papacy. Protestantism teaches a lie about salvation which the Bible exposes. They say you are saved by faith alone but St. James wrote in his letter that we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). This is the only place in the Bible where you will find the phrase “faith alone.” So not only is Protestantism insufficient, it’s false.

Isn’t there even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Canon which you can show as “insufficient” just as it is written?

I gave you one but you know that you can’t answer it so you keep ignoring it. It’s not going to go away. You need to explain how you can know what the Bible is using your doctrine of sola scriptura. It is fundamental not only to salvation but every other doctrine.

Now either show me how you prove it or have the integrity to admit that you can’t.

Gary

 

[Church_Militant]

No, faith is all that is required to be saved, ask almost any Protestant. And I say “almost” only because in any group or place, there is at least one who disagrees.

The problem there of course is that that majority disagrees with both the New Testament and the verifiably historic Christian writings of the early church. So…who would you believe? The New Testament and the early Christians who in many cases were martyred for their faith, or some modern teachers who departed from that?

Now, the Church did come before the Bible. But it was a Church which pre-dates almost every Catholic tradition and belief that conflicts with Protestant teachings.

Jibb

Really? Please prove your point with historical facts and citations of the writings of the first and second century Christians… IOW, show me these early church “Protestant teachings” that you speak of, because I don’t believe that you can do so. :knight2: :dts:

 

[Protestant101]

(BTW, I note with some distress your expression of contempt for our most holy faith and remind you again that you are a guest here at CAF and that the forum rules that you agreed to when you joined us do not allow for such.)

Unfortunately, forum members here have gone a lot further than me in your concern for forum rules, calling some of my church leaders liars and all manner of derogatory names; so yes, I express contempt for the authority being claimed by your leaders, and by your forum members to say what they want about either my character, or the character of various Protestant Church leaders. I do not believe that I have broken any forum rules though, because I am sticking to observable behaviors and statements by same; and no malice or hatred is intended. It would be ludicrous to expect a dedicated Protestant to come to this forum and not express some contempt for some things. Just like you guys do when you talk about us.

Your reminder is duly noted though; and I will be glad to listen to the Moderators at CA if they choose to label me as you and others here have.

 

[Protestant101]

The problem there of course is that that majority disagrees with both the New Testament :knight2: :dts:

You are making this up. Prove it.

 

[Church_Militant]

There is no rule, stating that Protestants must prove this about the scriptures; except perhaps for a Catholic rule. Deific platitudes of Catholic apologetics mantra such as what Akin supplies, shows no deficiency in the Protestant Canon. I would challenge Akin to come on board here and show us, for eg., just what is “insufficient” about Romans 10:9, just as it reads, with no interpretation; by either side. But he also needs to give a “reason” (1 Pet.3:15) for saying that the Catholic church was first to write the Bible. The Bible itself says differently; and perhaps this is why he proffers excuses such as “material sufficiency.”

I’ve already answered this and this is the second time that you have engaged in offensive rhetoric against the Catholic faith in violation of the rules and I am now reporting you for it. I think you’ve been here at CAF long enough to know better. Usually such rhetoric is the mark of an opponent who has run out of viable arguments.:ehh:

One of the points that Akin so incredibly misses here is that the Bible actually is “sufficient,” mainly because of the fact that it explains itself; and needs no interpretation. It is just as it reads. No outside material or mind is needed to improve upon God’s Word, or to make it sound right. It is sufficient because God said it.

For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need…In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.

Mr. Akin misses nothing in these statements, but is simply pointing out that like you, many supposed SS proponents attempt to apologetically defend a position that does not exist, and in fact even the Bible does not claim in its own pages. If the Bible is so perspicacious, then why are there so great a volume of writings and sermons and such explaining and expounding upon what it says?

Because he is so busy with his psychedelic apologetics; Akin fails to give God credit due for His Word in which we hope. We cannot hope in something which needs improvement from outside, non-divine sources.

Here you attack Akin for something that he doesn’t do. He quite clearly gives God all the credit for His Word but he never in any way implies that it needs any improvement. I suspect that all that he feels needs improvement would be mankind’s understanding of it and obedience to it.

Maybe I should get on that special apologetics boat and see if Catholics can come up with something better than “We wrote the Bible; and we wrote it first/better.” Do you know how many cults in the world make the same kind of claims?

Any time you’d like to lay off the rhetoric and return to the discussion topic, that will be fine with me. Yeah, I know of one cult that does that for sure, (and I am not the only one that thinks this) it’s called the Seventh Day Adventists. Hate it for ya.

 

[Church_Militant]

You are making this up. Prove it.

You made the claim…substantiate it yourself…

My opinion is found here.
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?