Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[BHTech]

Protestant101 said

…God’s holy Word which speaks for itself, and doesn’t need “interpreting” except as it is it’s own expositor.

Would you be so kind as to explain to me what is amillennialism? How does amillennialism differ from premillennialism and postmillennialism?

If your Bible doesn’t need interpreting except as it is it’s own expositor why then do Protestants have different views of the above subject and in the Bible’s opinion (as it’s own expositor) which one is correct? In response to my latter question please indicate which Bible you cite from. Thank you.

Bhtech

 

[RobHom]

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet…” (Ps.119:105). That sounds like authority to me.

Thats a “rather LIBERAL” grab, isn’t it? Kind of a “snippet” taken out of context, eh? But actually…its Psalm 118, line 105, not Ps 119. And if you put it in its “proper context”…there is absolutely no validation of your claim for “authority”… Wanna try again?

Also…rather than complicate the issues…why not try the “KISS” principle? Where Mrs Potiphar, aka as indicated by the “honorific” of “MRS”…is a married woman, and wherein Joseph, or for that matter, Pete, Fred, or any other man…other than MR. Potiphar (her husband) any “intimate” relations would simply be against God’s Laws…as “adultery” as noted in Exodus 20:14.

 

[RobHom]

101, for some reason, the Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Wesleyans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Congregationalists, and thousands of other denominations have reached vastly different conclusions from those you have, while reading your exact bible! It is obvious that you are comfortable with your unique-in-Christendom set of beliefs. Are you claiming that your fellow Protestants are wrong? Wouldn’t you be far better off trying to convince them of the truth, since they are also “sola scripturists”?

po18guy…very adroitly put!! I would like to know why it is that all of them can be so wrong, afterall…they must be, at least to each other, considering that none of them agree with the other, otherwise…there would not be so many “protestant denominations”…right?

Or, are you sent only to save the victims of the “whore of Babylon”?

Actually…if he or any protestant thinks they are on that mission they are sorely confused… Here’s why: Their knowledge of truth and geography are abysmal and they are merely “parroting” falsehoods they were indoctrinated with.

Further, while “they” say that “Rome” is the headquarters of the Church which is located in a city that sits on 7 hills (per Rev 17:9). But the problems with their claims are these: First, the word used in the Greek in Revelations 17:9 is 'ore, which comes from 'oros…which is “mountain”…and while Rome sits on a few minor rises…which barely can be considered hills…much less “mountains”…so that tends to negate much of the argument. But the “capstone” is this: Rome is NOT the Vatican City, which is the home or seat of the Catholic Church, and the Vatican is across the Tiber River from Rome (ancient Rome) and the Vatican City sits on “Vatican Hill”…which is not one of the “Seven Hills” of Rome…which are: The Quirinal, Aventine, Palatine, Capitoline, Caelian, Esquiline and Vinimal.

Interestingly enough… Jerusalem sits on “7 Hills”, as do some other cities in the world But… The Vatican City does not!

 

[steppenwolf1218]

po18guy…very adroitly put!! I would like to know why it is that all of them can be so wrong, afterall…they must be, at least to each other, considering that none of them agree with the other, otherwise…there would not be so many “protestant denominations”…right?

Actually…if he or any protestant thinks they are on that mission they are sorely confused… Here’s why: Their knowledge of truth and geography are abysmal and they are merely “parroting” falsehoods they were indoctrinated with.

Further, while “they” say that “Rome” is the headquarters of the Church which is located in a city that sits on 7 hills (per Rev 17:9). But the problems with their claims are these: First, the word used in the Greek in Revelations 17:9 is 'ore, which comes from 'oros…which is “mountain”…and while Rome sits on a few minor rises…which barely can be considered hills…much less “mountains”…so that tends to negate much of the argument. But the “capstone” is this: Rome is NOT the Vatican City, which is the home or seat of the Catholic Church, and the Vatican is across the Tiber River from Rome (ancient Rome) and the Vatican City sits on “Vatican Hill”…which is not one of the “Seven Hills” of Rome…which are: The Quirinal, Aventine, Palatine, Capitoline, Caelian, Esquiline and Vinimal.

Interestingly enough… Jerusalem sits on “7 Hills”, as do some other cities in the world But… The Vatican City does not!

Interesting history lesson. I’ll have to remember that one. I attended a conference a while back given by Fr. Benedict Groeschell (ETWN) where he quoted from a book written by Ratzinger (I think he was a bishop at the time of its initial release) where he likened the Church as being the harlot that rides in the chariot of God. Groeschell then went on to say that Ratzinger in his book (the name of which escapes me right now) that Catholics are sinners who realize they can not make it without the help and the Grace of our Lord. The point being that Catholics aren’t better and more righteous by being Catholic but rather we realize that we need to cling to Christ to guide us and save us from our sinful natures. Groeschell presented it in a very beautiful but facetious manner. He closed with saying, “So the next time a protestant tells you that Catholics are the whores of Babylon, tell them they’re right. The Pope even said so.”

 

[rinnie]

What do you mean “blessings?”

You asked, “What is the problem with people?”

If I am correct you say that the problem is that the Pope and Bishops are the ones that interpret scripture. And you claim that is wrong, Ok then can you answer me this, why does it say that in the bible that we are not to intrepret scripture then? That we are to leave it up to them to do so. Could you answer that for me , thanks.

 

[RobHom]

2 Peter 1

20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Rinnie…I believe this is the verse that you are referring to…its also one of those little things that some people , ahem… “protestants”, like to ignore…though they “declare” that the Bible is the “inerrant word of God”…

 

[Protestant101]

That is not at all true. These made up decrees and doctrines were in fact in response to the need to put a tradition into doctrine.

Where can we see this in official Catholic writings?

“The need to put a tradition into doctrine;” is a very curious statement indeed. It doesn’t have to be “put in” for it is already in, in the written Word, where ALL tradition that is Biblical comes from.

 

[Protestant101]

Rinnie…I believe this is the verse that you are referring to…its also one of those little things that some people , ahem… “protestants”, like to ignore…though they “declare” that the Bible is the “inerrant word of God”…

No “private interpretation” is the keynote here; so this means there is a correct interpretation; and the only expositor capable of correctly explaining these prophecies, is the Bible itself. The Bible is it’s own, best expositor. Always has been, always will be.

"Scripture Must Be Its Own Expositor, Since It Is A Rule Of Itself…"

 

[Protestant101]

Blessings in the name of our Lord P101. You have not answered my question as to which Bible is the solution. I await your answer.

Blessings,

BhTech

I actually did answer your question; what you really mean here is that you don’t like my answer.

 

[Jibb_Smart]

I’m glad to hear you’re open to learn about Catholicism. It’s always good to keep an open mind. However, make no mistake, there are as many or more preconceived notions about Catholicism that are based in ignorance of it by our Protestant brethren than there are Catholics who have similiar predujices against Protestantism. You mentioned one: All those decrees and doctrines made up centuries after the start of the early Church. That is not at all true. These made up decrees and doctrines were in fact in response to the need to put a tradition into doctrine.

From the very start, doctrine was needed to keep the faithful true to the new religion established by Jesus. For proof of this, look to the Acts of the Apostles and the various letters of Paul, Peter, James and John. From the start there were those who tried to make the teachings of Jesus their own by their own interpretations and agenda.

Mostly, the defining doctrines had to do either with the Church or with Jesus Himself since there were heresies to be dealt with such as Arianism, Nesetorianism, Monanticism etc. Later doctrine such as the Marian, papal infallibility, etc. were dealt with because of challenges to the accepted traditions. These traditions were held under the scrutiny of the Scriptures, early tradition from the Church fathers, and past Magesterium teachings. In short, if the tradition can not be backed up as sound and complete then it remains tradition and does not become doctrine. Tradition that would be proved to go against accepted doctrine would be banned as heresy. Tradition that can not be backed up yet does not go specifically against doctrine is acceptable for Catholics to believe in but it is not required. There are many legends and traditions that Catholics believe in that are not doctrine but they are acceptable because they do not go against doctrine.

As far as our Mass goes, obviously you have never attended a Catholic Mass. The entire Mass is Scripture in some form. The entrance antiphon is generally from Isaiah although it can be from any source in the Bible depending on the season of the year or the feast celebrated. The prayers and hymns are scripturally based. The Our Father is said at every Mass. There are three readings from the Bible every Sunday and two in the daily Mass. One of those readings must be from the Gospels. Each year has one of the synoptic Gospels that is assigned to it with the Gospel of John used each year interspersed as needed. Specifically, John is used every year for the Bread of Life Discourse. Sermons are also based on the readings. One thing our priests will do though is to many times apply those teachings to our present day daily lives in situations of 21st century living. IOW, how does a teaching that is 2000 years old apply to us today.

The consecration of the Eucharist is straight out of both the Last Supper and Revelations. We’re not waiting for the day when we can sing praises to God with the Heavenly hosts above. We already have that at each and every Mass when the Eucharist is consecrated. That is the most beautiful part of our Faith yet it is the one that comes under the most fire from many Protestants except for maybe the Marian doctrines or praying to the saints.

Take care
Dennis

“As far as our Mass goes, obviously you have never attended a Catholic Mass.”
Sorry but I don’t see how that can be interpreted out of what I said. I’ve been to a few Masses. I’m not saying you guys aren’t taught out of the Bible. ChurchMilitant asked me to point him to some Protestant “teachings” I mentioned (another misinterpretation). I was just saying we Protestants don’t have any “teachings” other than the Bible.

From the start there were also those who relied too much on tradition, praised Mary and were told not to, sought to be the religious “fathers” of others, and generally forgot that the first and foremostly important thing for a Christian is their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jibb

 

[RobHom]

No “private interpretation” is the keynote here; so this means there is a correct interpretation; and the only expositor capable of correctly explaining these prophecies, is the Bible itself. The Bible is it’s own, best expositor. Always has been, always will be.

"Scripture Must Be Its Own Expositor, Since It Is A Rule Of Itself…"

Your response is a tad “obtuse”… Sorry, no sale. “Expositor” simply put…is a “commentator”…or one who explains. Please explain how the Bible “explains” itself… try to avoid the old saw where “scripture interprets scripture”…ok?

I will agree that there is a “correct interpretation” available…but it is not “the opinion” or “opinions” of those lacking the proper knowledge and training to discern. I know that some protestants profess that anyone (note “anyone” is an inclusive word) can interpret the Bible. Bluntly put…this means that even a completely illiterate person can “interpret” the Bible. Of course, I completely reject this hypothesis…its an absurd notion.

Beyond that…tell me why it is…that every protestant denomination believes that it, and it alone holds the “truth” and is capable of producing the only “accurate” interpretation of the Bible. Now that may seem to be a specious argument… however if you take a deep breath and think about it… you will realize that this is a relative truism…otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for more than one protestant denomination…or even Church for that matter…right?

 

[BHTech]

I actually did answer your question; what you really mean here is that you don’t like my answer.

This is not a matter of like or dislike. You did not explicitly answer the question. On reviewing your previous post you quoted from the KJV, so henceforth I shall assume this is the Bible of your choice.

Answer me then the remainder of my questions regarding the Bishops.

Also why do you choose the KJV over say the Jerome Bible when one is 1300 years older than the next?

 

[RobHom]

I was just saying we Protestants don’t have any “teachings” other than the Bible.

Ahhh, but you do. Is not “sola scriptura” a “teaching”. It must be, as it is an invention created in the 15th century at the time of the reformation…and “man-made”…after all, there is absolutely no “biblical basis” for it.

From the start there were also those who relied too much on tradition, praised Mary and were told not to, sought to be the religious “fathers” of others, and generally forgot that the first and foremostly important thing for a Christian is their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Actually…the men who brought about the reformation… like Luther…and others realized that tradition was necessary, and they embraced the exact same beliefs as the Catholic Church where Mary is concerned davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm but it would seem that others who came along later merely decided to invoke further “man-made” traditions or rather “anti-traditions” to further separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

We Catholics realize that first and foremost is Jesus Christ, but we are not so arrogant, brash or foolish to deny that there is more to the totality of Christianity.

Are you trying to say that the subsequent followers of the founders of the reformation are smarter and more correct than the founders?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

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

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

This Catholic would like to know what certainty the Church has that its doctrine will not mutate into something like Mormonism. **Some of what’s going on devotionally really bothers me - the trouble with Tradition is that it has nothing to check what is in it, or how it grows. The Bible, OTOH, is a closed system - it has boundaries; Tradition is so open that it takes in a lot of sludge. **​

**It is very very dangerous to cut loose from the Bible - to do so, leaves the Church with no “magnetic North”. **

If this sounds “Protestant”, maybe that will be because it is truly traditional - as much of Protestantism is - & less open to objection than the one-sided exaltation of Tradition that seems to be so frequent on the fora.

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

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

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

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

**This is not as odd as it seems It’s possible because things can be considered under different aspects. ****Some parts of the Bible are inferior as literature to some of the Classics - but as the Word of God, they greatly exceed them. **​

**The Church testifies to which books are canonical - this is not contradictory to her duty to submit to them: canonicity & authority are both qualities of the Bible - but different ones. God Incarnate obeyed what He had defined - so must the Church. **

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

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

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

 

[rinnie]

No “private interpretation” is the keynote here; so this means there is a correct interpretation; and the only expositor capable of correctly explaining these prophecies, is the Bible itself. The Bible is it’s own, best expositor. Always has been, always will be.

"Scripture Must Be Its Own Expositor, Since It Is A Rule Of Itself…"

No Protestant 101 Bobhom is correct in what he quoted. thankyou bobhom that is what i was looking for and yes it is in the bible. But 101 your comment where can I find that one in the bible. Help me here i couldnt find that one. Also what about How the Bible also says there is Oral and Written, or did you miss that part too. Also 101 why didnt Jesus just leave us the bible then why did he leave us the Church. As Im sure you know or have been told many of times the church has been here long before the bible. If you dont believe me, look it up! You will find I would not mislead you. Also what about Church Tradition, what does that mean to you.

 

[rinnie]

This Catholic would like to know what certainty the Church has that its doctrine will not mutate into something like Mormonism. **Some of what’s going on devotionally really bothers me - the trouble with Tradition is that it has nothing to check what is in it, or how it grows. The Bible, OTOH, is a closed system - it has boundaries; Tradition is so open that it takes in a lot of sludge. **​

**It is very very dangerous to cut loose from the Bible - to do so, leaves the Church with no “magnetic North”. **

If this sounds “Protestant”, maybe that will be because it is truly traditional - as much of Protestantism is - & less open to objection than the one-sided exaltation of Tradition that seems to be so frequent on the fora.

**This is not as odd as it seems It’s possible because things can be considered under different aspects. ****Some parts of the Bible are inferior as literature to some of the Classics - but as the Word of God, they greatly exceed them. **​

**The Church testifies to which books are canonical - this is not contradictory to her duty to submit to them: canonicity & authority are both qualities of the Bible - but different ones. God Incarnate obeyed what He had defined - so must the Church. **

Jesus left us the Church, He told Peter to start THE CHURCH, the whole Bible is based on the teachings of THE CHURCH. The Catholic Church. How can you believe in the bible if you dont believe in THE CHURCH, Because if not for THE CHURCH you would not have the bible.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Where can we see this in official Catholic writings?

“The need to put a tradition into doctrine;” is a very curious statement indeed. It doesn’t have to be “put in” for it is already in, in the written Word, where ALL tradition that is Biblical comes from.

Not true. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have the Epistles of Paul, Peter, John and James. For that matter, we wouldn’t even have the Gospel of John either. All of these were written to address heretical teachings and deviations that had already developed within the early Church. From the start, the early Church had problems with self interpretation (which by the way is NOT what sola scripture is about). If there was no need for teaching authority, then why did Jesus give it to the Apostles through the Holy Spirt? If there was no need for teaching authority then why did Paul waste his time writing those letters to Timothy and Titus?

As far as your biblical tradition goes, let’s look at this in a way that hasn’t been addressed here in this discussion as of yet. As I said above, the premise of sola scripture isn’t for self interpretation. The term literally means “scripture alone”. All this means is it is the belief that scripture holds all the answers to salvation and no other source is nec. Let’s examine that.

Now except for a few lone wolves, the sola scripturalist has a church that he/she belongs to. Each of those churches have their own view of salvation based on what they perceive from the scriptures. Where do these salvation doctrines come from?

Well scripture for one, that’s obvious from their own admission. However, each of those doctrines differ from denomination to denomination in some or many aspects depending on which denomination it is. What could be the reason for this? Could it be the interpretation of the scriptures from each of these churches? If that is the case then one could well say that the interpretation comes from a teaching authority or magesterium of that particular denomination.

Further, how do each of these denominations base their teachings of the bible? Could it be that each generation has its own way of teaching? That doesn’t sound too good. How about if they base their teachings on what has been known to them through their own churches? IOW what has been passed down to them? That’s sounds strangely like tradition to me.

So far now it seems that each of these “sola scripture” churches rely not only on the scriptures but they each have their own form of magesterium and tradition to go along with them as well. Hmmm…kind of an imitation of the pillars of the Catholic Church wouldn’t you say? The trouble here is that there is no guarantee that those pillars are strong enough to hold up their church that they support. Now since no Protestant religion can claim a beginning before Martin Luther then that means their tradition and teaching authority goes back only until that time which was 1500 years after Christ. That’s not a good foundation.

So explain to me that unless you go it totally alone with no church to belong, how can sola scripture stand by itself when applied to a church without the need for both magesterium and tradition?

 

[po18guy]

If I am correct you say that the problem is that the Pope and Bishops are the ones that interpret scripture. And you claim that is wrong, Ok then can you answer me this, why does it say that in the bible that we are not to intrepret scripture then? That we are to leave it up to them to do so. Could you answer that for me , thanks.

2 Peter 1:19-20 (King James Version) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:19-20 (New American Standard Bible) So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

rinnie, you nailed this one. What has happened to Christianity in the past 500 years?

Christ’s peace.

 

[Jibb_Smart]

Ahhh, but you do. Is not “sola scriptura” a “teaching”. It must be, as it is an invention created in the 15th century at the time of the reformation…and “man-made”…after all, there is absolutely no “biblical basis” for it.

Actually…the men who brought about the reformation… like Luther…and others realized that tradition was necessary, and they embraced the exact same beliefs as the Catholic Church where Mary is concerned davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm but it would seem that others who came along later merely decided to invoke further “man-made” traditions or rather “anti-traditions” to further separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

We Catholics realize that first and foremost is Jesus Christ, but we are not so arrogant, brash or foolish to deny that there is more to the totality of Christianity.

Are you trying to say that the subsequent followers of the founders of the reformation are smarter and more correct than the founders?

Yup! Sola Scriptura is indeed a teaching but it’s a conclusion one can easily come to in faith that the Bible gives a good account of Jesus’ life and God’s power – would Jesus leave a new religion without everything we needed to know to be saved and please Him?

It’s totally incomparable to putting tradition before God’s word, as Jesus told the Pharisees “So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God” (Matthew 15:6, though this is not a teaching, it’s a symptom stereotypical of many self-proclaimed Catholics; I just though I’d mention it because I mentioned it before as you quoted); putting God’s mortal servant Mary in such a high position even though Jesus said “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (as opposed to bearing the Son of God, Luke 11:28); and calling priests “father”, even though Jesus said “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 22:8-9).

(all quotes RSV)

Jibb

 

[Jibb_Smart]

2 Peter 1:19-20 (King James Version) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:19-20 (New American Standard Bible) So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

rinnie, you nailed this one. What has happened to Christianity in the past 500 years?

Christ’s peace.

Read the next verse “because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:21, RSV)

He’s not saying not to read into the Bible and believe our own readings, he’s saying that the Bible is clear enough not to require interpretation.

It by no means supports the Pope’s (or Church’s) individual authority to interpret the Bible for Christians.

Jibb