"Show it to me from scripture"

[exoflare]

“Show it to me from scripture”

This seems to be the fundamentalist slogan, that all Christian beliefs are explicitly stated in the Bible. Have you ever heard an argument as to why they think this is true?

Not to mention, who do Protestants think actually decided which books were or were not canonical? Believe it or not I’ve asked this question so many times, but never do I get a sensible answer.

 

[Syele]

What do you have against seeing what scripture says about stuff? I mean after all, You are bragging that your Church put it togeter and all. Are you saying you follow specific Traditions that aren’t in there anywhere? Because last time I asked on this board people were pretty vehement that it’s all in there!

If you want to argue sola scriptura… well we have several threads on that so lets just discuss “Show it to me from scripture”.

Give me one good reason why not.

 

[exoflare]

What do you have against seeing what scripture says about stuff? I mean after all, You are bragging that your Church put it togeter and all.

Point out where I’m bragging. Otherwise quit with the ad hominems.

Did I say I had something against looking at scripture for reference? Again, please point it out.

Are you saying you follow specific Traditions that aren’t in there anywhere?

Me and you both. Unless you can point out to me where the divinely inspired “table of contents” is located.

Because last time I asked on this board people were pretty vehement that it’s all in there!

Take it up with them.

If you want to argue sola scriptura… well we have several threads on that so lets just discuss “Show it to me from scripture”.

Give me one good reason why not.

I asked you first.

 

[Syele]

uhh Why would I argue your side? If the Bible is not corrupt and profitable for teaching why not use it extensively for teaching? Further, If it is not corrupted then if you compare something that is corrupted to it, they will disagree. I think the Bible is very valuable and I don’t understand why it shouldn’t be used as extensively as it is.

 

[exoflare]

If I wasn’t clear enough, actually I am talking about sola scriptura. The thing is that I’ve never heard any argument of just why it’s supposed to be true. The people who do believe it, in my experience, just seem to take it for granted.

 

[Syele]

I do not follow Sola Scriptura exactly, only sort of. At least not in the sense of the declaration that says

**The inerrant Scripture is the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. **

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

I do believe in personal revelation and that statement denies it. I believe scripture contains all we need to know to be saved, but certianly not everything there is to know ever. In this way I follow sola Scriptura because I have never been convinced that any other written source is infalliable. Catholics can repeat that tradition and the Magisterium are infalliable all day but that is not enough to convince me.

 

[Atreyu]

I do not follow Sola Scriptura exactly, only sort of. At least not in the sense of the declaration that says

I do believe in personal revelation and that statement denies it. I believe scripture contains all we need to know to be saved, but certianly not everything there is to know ever. In this way I follow sola Scriptura because I have never been convinced that any other written source is infalliable. Catholics can repeat that tradition and the Magisterium are infalliable all day but that is not enough to convince me.

So how do you know that the Bible itself is inspired?

 

[Sir_Knight]

When someone asks you to “Show it to me from scripture?”

Ask them, "By what authority do you believe the Holy Bible, is in fact, the Word of God?’

As a bonus question, ask them “How did the first 400 years of Christianity get along without a Bible?”

 

[Syele]

So how do you know that the Bible itself is inspired?

It is historically accurate. We know this from tons of evidence form other sources. We know the places and people existed due to outside verification. What is left is to examine the claims in it.

It Claims it is God’s Word. It claims is is not corrupt.

It comes down to prayer and Faith in God. Inerrancy is not currently demonstrable.We have many facts but not enough to erase every shadow of doubt that any new reader of it may come up with. We all must decide to believe in it or not. I believe the historical evidence plus the spiritual transformation that beliving has done in my life (and a huge number of others lives) is sufficient for me to conclude that the Bible is inerrant and infalliable. This is the short answer. I spent a year (A long itme ago) just focusing on this question because it is one of the biggest questions you can ask. IF the Bible cannot be trusted then we are basing our faith on lies.

 

[Syele]

When someone asks you to “Show it to me from scripture?”

Ask them, "By what authority do you believe the Holy Bible, is in fact, the Word of God?’

By God’s Authority… Or do you not believe in personal revelation?

As a bonus question, ask them “How did the first 400 years of Christianity get along without a Bible?”

They had the living eye witnesses of Jesus’ time on earth teaching them directly. They had the Holy Spirit. And they did have the Bible for much of that time… it’s books were simply seperated. Councils didn’t get together and write the Bible they declared to be true what they already knew… these books are inspired by God. Followers of God know His voice.

 

[Atreyu]

It is historically accurate. We know this from tons of evidence form other sources. We know the places and people existed due to outside verification. What is left is to examine the claims in it.

It Claims it is God’s Word. It claims is is not corrupt.

It comes down to prayer and Faith in God. Inerrancy is not currently demonstrable.We have many facts but not enough to erase every shadow of doubt that any new reader of it may come up with. We all must decide to believe in it or not. I believe the historical evidence plus the spiritual transformation that beliving has done in my life (and a huge number of others lives) is sufficient for me to conclude that the Bible is inerrant and infalliable. This is the short answer. I spent a year (A long itme ago) just focusing on this question because it is one of the biggest questions you can ask. IF the Bible cannot be trusted then we are basing our faith on lies.

I’m not saying the Bible cannot be trusted.

The problem with your reasoning is that it doesn’t tell us the scope of inspired writings. Not every book of the Bible would fit your criteria, and there are books that aren’t included in the Bible that would fit your criteria (from what you have said). The letter of Clement to the Corinthians for example. Then there are what Catholics call the “deuterocanonicals”. How would a Christian determine whether or not they are inspired, purely from faith? This is impossible, and therefore we must rely on something else to tell us what is inspired. Catholics happily point to the Magisterium and Tradition, whereas I have no idea what Protestants point to. Jewish tradition perhaps? With a mix of Catholic tradition?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight;1484942:

When someone asks you to "Show it to me from scripture?

"

Ask them, "By what authority do you believe the Holy Bible, is in fact, the Word of God?’ By God’s Authority… Or do you not believe in personal revelation?

And to who was this “personal revelation” made?

 

[Syele]

I’m not saying the Bible cannot be trusted.

The problem with your reasoning is that it doesn’t tell us the scope of inspired writings. Not every book of the Bible would fit your criteria, and there are books that aren’t included in the Bible that would fit your criteria (from what you have said). The letter of Clement to the Corinthians for example. Then there are what Catholics call the “deuterocanonicals”. How would a Christian determine whether or not they are inspired, purely from faith? This is impossible, and therefore we must rely on something else to tell us what is inspired. Catholics happily point to the Magisterium and Tradition, whereas I have no idea what Protestants point to. Jewish tradition perhaps? With a mix of Catholic tradition?

I didn’t go that in depth , I didn’t intend to imply it is only faith. I ment that even if you verify the majority of the Bible there will be things you either accept on faith or you deny God. It was only a short post and I said I studied these things for a over a year. LOL We mainly point to The Holy Spirit , to Jesus own words (referring to His quotes of the old testament) And Jesus’ heritage… (He was a Jew and quoted from Jewish Scripture) and he authority of the writers of the books themselves. All of these are just pieces of ecidence. The evidence adds up overwhelmingly but it still doesn’t come out completely provable that it’s inerrant.

Explain to me how the Holy Spirit is incapable of guiding us in knowing what is and isn’t God’s word? How is your pointing to the Magisterium and Tradition more powerful than my pointing to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Explain to me how the Holy Spirit is incapable of guiding us in knowing what is and isn’t God’s word? How is your pointing to the Magisterium and Tradition more powerful than my pointing to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

Because Jesus was talking to the Aposltes when He said that He would send them His Holy Spirit to guide them in all thing and not to the crowds. Thus, He was sending it to them in their role as church leaders and not to us individually.

The bible even warns against privately interperting scripture and at the same time calls the Church – the fountain of truth … meaning that it’s understanding HAS TO BE correct while our private understanding of scripture has no such assurance.

 

[Turtullian]

I didn’t go that in depth , I didn’t intend to imply it is only faith. I ment that even if you verify the majority of the Bible there will be things you either accept on faith or you deny God. It was only a short post and I said I studied these things for a over a year. LOL We mainly point to The Holy Spirit , to Jesus own words (referring to His quotes of the old testament) And Jesus’ heritage… (He was a Jew and quoted from Jewish Scripture) and he authority of the writers of the books themselves. All of these are just pieces of ecidence. The evidence adds up overwhelmingly but it still doesn’t come out completely provable that it’s inerrant.

However, it was the Four Great synods taht determined the canon of Scripture (Those being Rome, Carthage, Laodicea, and Hippo) in the 4th-5th centuries. Prior to these councils there were NO set Canons of the Christian NT or the OT. After the Synod of Rome, Pope Damasus I infallibly declared whaht would be the the bible and that is primarily the 73 Book Catholic Canon. If these council declared that the NT we have is infallible, why can’t we also state with authority that the OT as proclaimed by the canons of the councils are also infallible?

Infact, if we accept these this is a fallible council that proclaimed a semi-infallible then we have a infallible NT coming out of a fallible councils and dogmatic decretals.

Infact Luther himself went not only after the Dueterrocanonicals but Luther himself went after Esther and the Epistle of James for two seperate reasons. Luther himself didn’t think that Esther should have been included in even the Jewish OT as it does not have the word God in it outside the prayers found in Esther. Also not only that but James presented to him the problem of how sola fide is wrong.

Explain to me how the Holy Spirit is incapable of guiding us in knowing what is and isn’t God’s word? How is your pointing to the Magisterium and Tradition more powerful than my pointing to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

God in setting down his church proclaimed taht it would be the pillar and foundation of Truth. If that is so then it was up to the Church as a whole to find out what would comprise the OT and NT in a fixed canon.

 

[Syele]

I am falliable. If I State something that is completely true, my falliabiliy does not make the true thing wrong. It only meant that I’m not wrong 100% of the time.

 

[Turtullian]

I am falliable. If I State something that is completely true, my falliabiliy does not make the true thing wrong. It only meant that I’m not wrong 100% of the time.

How can we be so sure about the NT and OT Canon? You are claming that we have a fallible pronouncement of an infallible canon. Infact, even the reformers themselves weren’t so sure that even thier stripped down canon wasn’t infallible either. If we run around thinking that we have an fallible pronouncement of canon, then that logically means that the Canon is not closed and that there needs to be books either removed or added.

 

[Atreyu]

I didn’t go that in depth , I didn’t intend to imply it is only faith. I ment that even if you verify the majority of the Bible there will be things you either accept on faith or you deny God. It was only a short post and I said I studied these things for a over a year. LOL

Yes I know and I felt I interpolated a fair amount from your post. In fact, I was a little worried that you would accuse me of saying that you said something you didn’t!

We mainly point to The Holy Spirit , to Jesus own words (referring to His quotes of the old testament) And Jesus’ heritage… (He was a Jew and quoted from Jewish Scripture) and he authority of the writers of the books themselves. All of these are just pieces of ecidence. The evidence adds up overwhelmingly but it still doesn’t come out completely provable that it’s inerrant.

I actually like this argument, as it is an argument I would use about the Christian faith in general. Yet this argument still doesn’t tell us the scope of the inspired writings (the canon of the Bible). But let me ask you, if you don’t believe in an infallible list of inspired writings - if you don’t have confidence that your canon is completely correct - then why on Earth would you believe in such a doctrine as sola scriptura?! That doesn’t make any sense!

Explain to me how the Holy Spirit is incapable of guiding us in knowing what is and isn’t God’s word? How is your pointing to the Magisterium and Tradition more powerful than my pointing to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is capable of anything, (other than contradicting Himself). The vehicle by which the Holy Spirit guides us is what is up for discussion though. Catholics point to Tradition and the Magisterium as the Holy Spirit-guided vehicle in which Christians can look to and discover what is an inspired writing. Your argument seems to be that this vehicle is private revelation. By the way, your last sentence is a red-herring; we both point to “God [the father], Jesus and the Holy Spirit”. Now let me ask you this, if God inspires you through some private revelation to discover what is an inspired writing, as he does most other Protestants in the world, then why on Earth did God first inspire a man to do this in the 17th century (possibly 16th)?

 

[onmywayagain]

As father Corapi said, “The Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium go hand in hand. Take anyone of them away and it is incomplete.” Didn’t St Paul in his letter say to “hold fast” to the traditions handed to us orally and written. You must accept Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition for the Bible and God’s revalations to be complete. The ending of John’s Gospel tell us that not everything that Jesus did is in the Bible. Now there are a lot of other writtings that are not in the Bible but it still needs to be honored. The word Magisterium means, “teaching office.” It is intrusted that the Magisterium give an authentic interpretation of God, be it written or orally.

Scripture is not the sole authority. Why? Because it is not written in Scripture. To deny the Magisterium and Sacred Traditon is to deny Scripture as a whole.

Like it says in Scripture, “that the truth will set you free.” The sad reality is if you only have half the truth, then you are only half free. It is the fullness of truth that will set you free, not half truths. I really wish we could stop talking about sola scriptura because Scripture alone is not in the Bible and if many people believe that the Bible is the sole authority then why is sola scriptura even brought up? Jesus never wrote anything down nor did the Apostles. So what ever we have in writting now was passed down orally. Hence the word “Tradition.”

 

[Syele]

Yes I know and I felt I interpolated a fair amount from your post. In fact, I was a little worried that you would accuse me of saying that you said something you didn’t!

Well I did figure you were hoping I’d post every evidence for teh Bible being true that I know of by the way you responded. That would take an awfully long time.

I actually like this argument, as it is an argument I would use about the Christian faith in general. Yet this argument still doesn’t tell us the scope of the inspired writings (the canon of the Bible).

For a protestant like me wouldn’t the entire Christian Faith have basis in the Bible? The same arguments should apply. The Bible contains the docrtines that we believe.

But let me ask you, if you don’t believe in an infallible list of inspired writings - if you don’t have confidence that your canon is completely correct - then why on Earth would you believe in such a doctrine as sola scriptura?! That doesn’t make any sense!

It’s not that I don’t believe it’s correct. I do believe the list is correct. It’s that I don’t see it the same as you do. You see and infalliable council who declared a list of books to be an inerrant canon. I see a group of Books that the Holy Spirit led MANY belivers to understand were inspired, and a council of godly people listed what was already obvious and named it canon.

The Holy Spirit is capable of anything, (other than contradicting Himself). The vehicle by which the Holy Spirit guides us is what is up for discussion though. Catholics point to Tradition and the Magisterium as the Holy Spirit-guided vehicle in which Christians can look to and discover what is an inspired writing. Your argument seems to be that this vehicle is private revelation. … Now let me ask you this, if God inspires you through some private revelation to discover what is an inspired writing, as he does most other Protestants in the world, then why on Earth did God first inspire a man to do this in the 17th century (possibly 16th)?

I’d say he didn’t first use private revelation in the 17th Century. Jesus often talked to people individually. God talked privately with many people in the Old Testament too. There were 400 years with no canonical list of books, yet many of the New Testament books were already circulating - they were not hidden away until the council could get around to conferring with God about it on Behalf of all the people.

By the way, your last sentence is a red-herring; we both point to “God [the father], Jesus and the Holy Spirit”.

It was a complaint. Most of the time when a Catholic mentions their ability to point to Tradition and Magisterium it is an accusation that I am not looking to the Holy Spirit but making things up on my own power. If that was not your intention I apologize.

(BTW, You will find I’m a debate newbie. I’m not even aware of terms like ‘red herring’. That said I do try not to make arguments that make no sense or are unhelpful.)