Sola Scriptura (continued)

[hvg3akaek]

So, I am puzzled. If a tradition which has been passed down by men is not a tradition of men, what is?

Ah, you have to realise subsets

Turkey =/= Animal, but a turkey is an animal. The reason a turkey is not equal to an animal is because there are other animals that are clearly not turkeys, thus the two terms are not equal, and cannot be freely interchanged

Many things come from men. I could give you a spade - that spade has just come from a man. That spade is not a tradition of men.

On the other hand, Traditions of men do come from men, just as turkeys are animals.

To answer your specific question, yes, a tradition passed down by men and originating with men is clearly a tradition of men. However, the post you quoted of mine was arguing Roman_Catholic’s statement that:

“If the Canon of the Bible is not found in Scripture … then, using your rule #1 it is a tradition of men.”

The same (faulty) logic could be applied to say that since computers are not in the Bible, computers are “Traditions of men”. Basically, things aren’t that simple, and I was trying to correct Roman_Catholic’s idea.

 

[hvg3akaek]

You still haven’t answered the question: How do you know that the Bible is inspired? How do you know what books to include and which not to include?

Hello. Go. Read. My. Posts. Please.

(actually, just reread yours, since you quotemy answers…)

And most importantly (for the sola scriptura crowd) where is that in the Bible?

I think you have a very faulty idea of what “only scripture” means. Do you also expect that we cannot use manuals for physics, chemistry or the like, because they were not in the Bible?

Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up. Imagine that the Bible is dropped off at an isolated tropical island. It is in the language of the natives, so they can read it. Show how, without any outside influence telling them how to interpret it, they come to the knowledge of the Trinity.

Here’s a start. have a read through all that, and get back to me with any questions/responses you may have afterwards.

It can be argued that Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses but learned the faith from the Apostles.

Ooh, wow, I cannot believe you just said that right after what you just requested of me!

"Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up. "

There are many historical documents from that period, like Roman governmental decrees and such, and secular historian’s works. Why aren’t they then in the Bible?

Now, you are failing to see that the summary I gave you is not a simple cover-all, but more of a check list. Just having been an eyewitness, or just being an historical document does not get you in. Those things would, for example, also have to be in agreeance with the OT.

Lack of disagreement?! You’re kidding right?! Most of Paul’s correspondence was to correct errant thinking in the communities he founded.

And how many of them disagreed that Paul wrote said letter?

The NIV is one of the worst translations I have ever seen of the Bible. For serious study in English, your best bet is the RSV:

Really? You should have a look at the NLT, or the KJV!

But, for one whowants to start complaining about ‘bad translations’ (without offering any proof, by the way…remember what you said above? “Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up.” ), you then turn to…latin??? Yeah, thats going to be better…lets translate a dead language into another dead language, and then into our own language…bound to have no mistakes then!

I use the NIV because it is clear and easy to understand. I use the NRSV sometimes as well. And I use the ESV to try to keep the ambiguities of the greek (but it does fail at times). I also use the KJV, but mainly for the Strong number cross reference. And I also use the Robinson / Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament, but have to have a lexicon at very close range

Anyway, I will give you that it is not quite clear…having the term “epilusis” there, which does not occur elsewhere in the NT, is a troubling start!

“private interpretation” is contrast to “moved by the Holy Spirit” (eg 2 Peter 1:16)

However, when we look at v21, we see that it is talking about the beginnings and origin of prophecy. It comes from God, not man. Man cannot make it into what they want, only God controls it.

Yes, it can be argued, and has - and has been refuted. The Catholic teaching on Mary is not contradictory to Scripture, unlike the common Protestant understanding of Mary which is in direct conflict with Scripture.

I like this line you gave me!

"Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up. "

Here is a thread for you to do so in, too!

No, but there are the Bishops, who are the direct successors of the Apostles.

So there are only eleven bishops? Or did Paul also start a chain of successors? Oh - and there is also no biblical support for Paul ‘ruling over’ the other (11/12/13+?) apostles.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Additionally, none of the books in the Bible say which books are to be considered as inspired.

You loose a lot of credibility when you make a statement such as this, which has already been shown to be wrong a number of times in this thread alone…

How do you know know it is inspired.
It is a matter of blind faith - meaning you simply accept it?
Or is it because it speaks about Jesus and the apostles? In this case you will need to include many more books than the ones you already believe in.
Or do you accept some authority that decided it for you?
Or is do you have a different reason?

No, no, no, and yes. Go read my other posts for more answers

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

You loose a lot of credibility when you make a statement such as this, which has already been shown to be wrong a number of times in this thread alone…

No, no, no, and yes. Go read my other posts for more answers

I’m sorry. Please, show me again which book tells us which books and letters are inspired.

I will respond to the rest later.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Additionally, **none **of the books in the Bible say which books are to be considered as inspired.

I’m sorry. Please, show me again which book tells us which books and letters are inspired.

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[NotWorthy]

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This doesn’t answer the question that we have been begging for two evenings.

 

[hvg3akaek]

This doesn’t answer the question that we have been begging for two evenings.

Well, it definitely answers the situation GandalfTheWhite and I were discussing

As for begging the question, really - you shouldn’t.

 

[porthos11]

Well, it definitely answers the situation GandalfTheWhite and I were discussing

As for begging the question, really - you shouldn’t.

You’ll forgive us if we’re not convinced. You’re using the Bible to prove the Bible’s inspiration. Of course, you see why it doesn’t work for us.

As for asking us to point out the obvious, we can of course see that it’s raining, and that we can see that we exist and that you exist. But we can’t see that the Bible is inspired; we have to take your word for it. We can see that the Bible is a book, we can see that it is literature, even good literature. But how can we just take for granted that it is inspired of God?

You try to prove it by using the Bible but up until now you use the Bible to prove its own authority. That’s just like me using my own writings to prove that I’m the President of the World.

So no, you’ve merely been avoiding the proof we’ve been looking for by resorting so philosophical ploys and circular logic.

You use Peter to prove Paul, but what do you use to prove Peter? Is Peter inspired? How do you know? Is Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? How about Thomas, James, Philip, Clement? There are books attributed to them If yes, what’s your basis for these? If no, what’s your basis? The Bible does not say “Matthew is inspired.” “John is inspired.”

Show us: why do you accept the inspiration of these books?

Let’s make it even simpler for you, since you so obvously need it. Just prove that Matthew is inspired. Just that one book: the Gospel of Matthew. If you can prove this you can prove the rest.

 

[Chancellare]

I apologize that I disappeared in the middle of the previous thread which is now way too long to catch up on (my life has a lot going on and unfortunately debating online sometimes loses the priority contest).

Anyway my defense of the doctrine basically was as follows:

1.We all (Christians) believe in the inspiration of the Bible
2.“Infallible” Catholic teaching is at times directly contradictory to the Bible
3.The Christian has no where left to go but Sola Scriptura

Obviously this assumes that Sola Scriptura is not ideal. However it is my belief that normal sinful men are incapable of remaining faithful enough to handle infallibly preserving all truth, faith, and doctrine (additionally demonstrated by church history and the history of the papacy) so God in His wisdom provided us with perfect Scriptures for His people apart from any particular corruptible man, church, or denomination. Again this obviously assumes perfect theological unity is impossible (or not terribly important) or as most evangelicals believe: “In the essentials unity, in the nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.”

So (though many of you will certainly poke holes elsewhere) my argument lives or dies on #2…

The RCC teaches salvation is possible for those who do not believe in Jesus (RCC Catechism #847).

The Bible very clearly says:
John 3: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

-Tim

Protestants divorce while Scripture says 'what God has joined together let no man put asunder"

How’s that for a beam in thine own eye?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

No, that’s not what I’m looking for - this doesn’t help me at all. I’m looking for a list of books that are inspired not one separate case. If I would go by this passage then I would discard everything not written by Paul. No…in fact all since how do I know that 2 Peter is inspired and has the authority to determine which books are inspired? You’re proving inspiration from Bible and that unfortunately doesn’t work.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

sigh

You are failing to see something very important here.

Do you need to have divine revelation to decide whether it is raining outside?

I am not trying to determine if it is raining outside. I am trying to determine Canon.

Do you need your “Traditions” to inform you if the newspaper you are reading is accurately relating to you the news?

hvg3akaek I am trying to determine the Canon. What do I need Traditions for? I need Traditions for one, to decide for me what is and is not Canon. Since I have been given the run around by you I am going to conclude that you could not find for me in the Bible where the books that belong in it are outlined at. This means that you are rellying on something outside the Bible, some “tradition of man” that you have accepted. If you are going outside the Bible for something as important as the Canon, what does that say about Sola Scriptura? Are you using Scripture alone? With that I will leave you with this:

That most definitely has come from men - for it is not found in the Bible!

with 2 Tim. 3:16, why do we need traditions of men?

God bless

 

[NotWorthy]

Who was it that determined that Revelation was Scriptural, when many religious thought that it was not?

Who was it that determined that Hebrews, John’s and Peter’s Epistles were Scriptural when many thought they weren’t?

Who was it that determined that the Shepherd of Hermes or the Gospel of Barnabus, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, or the Acts of Peter were not Scriptural, when many thought they were?

Ok, yeah, yeah, I understand it was God. But who did the Holy Spirit guide to determine the NT Canon when roughly 110 books were being considered for Canonization?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Hello. Go. Read. My. Posts. Please.

(actually, just reread yours, since you quotemy answers…)

I must be missing something. Please try to re-explain it to me like I’m a two year old.

I think you have a very faulty idea of what “only scripture” means. Do you also expect that we cannot use manuals for physics, chemistry or the like, because they were not in the Bible?

Physics, chemistry and the rest of the physical sciences are not necessary for salvation. According to Sola Scriptura, all things necessary for salvation are explicitly laid out in Scriptures and easy enough for all to understand. A main tenet of this is that Scriptures are necessary for salvation - how can you know the rest of the necessities without Scriptures to tell you. So if Scriptures are necessary and all things necessary are in the Bible then where does it give the list of inspired books. How would you know you had all of them, or had some that weren’t inspired. If this is necessary for salvation, then it must be explicitly in Scriptures and easy enough for anyone to understand.

Here’s a start. have a read through all that, and get back to me with any questions/responses you may have afterwards.

Questions!!!

This is trying to prove with the Old Testament. If it was so apparent (remember must be easy enough for anyone to understand) then why are there no Jews who believe in the Trinity (well, maybe the Messianic Jews)? And why did no one at all understand the Trinity until Jesus came down and told us? Remember, the Jews in Jesus’ time knew the Old Testament even better than the Bible Christians today know the New Testament. Why did none of them see this?

The answer is because we view the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. All the prophecies, laws, etc. - we view with a Christological viewpoint.

Ooh, wow, I cannot believe you just said that right after what you just requested of me!

"Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up. "

Is it written anywhere that Mark or Luke were disciples of Jesus or present in the upper room at Pentecost? Not saying they weren’t, just that I don’t think it was not written. If they were not, then they had to learn the faith from the Apostles. We know that Mark was the disciple of Peter and his Gospel is consider to be Peter’s account. We know Luke was the disciple of Paul and his Gospel is considered to be Paul’s account.

Speaking of Paul, where did he learn all about the faith? He knew Jesus truly rose and was God after his conversion on the road to Damascus. But where did he learn things like justification, the three theological virtues, etc.?

Note, I am not really trying to make a big argument or apology on this. I am really just positing questions for consideration.

Now, you are failing to see that the summary I gave you is not a simple cover-all, but more of a check list. Just having been an eyewitness, or just being an historical document does not get you in. Those things would, for example, also have to be in agreeance with the OT.

That begs the question how do you know the Old Testament is inspired? And what books should be included?

And how many of them disagreed that Paul wrote said letter?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

Really? You should have a look at the NLT, or the KJV!

But, for one whowants to start complaining about ‘bad translations’ (without offering any proof, by the way…remember what you said above? “Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up.” ), you then turn to…latin??? Yeah, thats going to be better…lets translate a dead language into another dead language, and then into our own language…bound to have no mistakes then!

I use the NIV because it is clear and easy to understand. I use the NRSV sometimes as well. And I use the ESV to try to keep the ambiguities of the greek (but it does fail at times). I also use the KJV, but mainly for the Strong number cross reference. And I also use the Robinson / Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament, but have to have a lexicon at very close range

Anyway, I will give you that it is not quite clear…having the term “epilusis” there, which does not occur elsewhere in the NT, is a troubling start!

“private interpretation” is contrast to “moved by the Holy Spirit” (eg 2 Peter 1:16)

However, when we look at v21, we see that it is talking about the beginnings and origin of prophecy. It comes from God, not man. Man cannot make it into what they want, only God controls it.

That is why I don’t say that the NIV is the worst, but it is on the list. I think the worst version was some feminist bible where the Our Father began “our mother who might be in heaven”.

And those translators who translated the Greek and Hebrew into Latin knew those languages better than you probably know English.

And those moved by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who have the authority to authentically interpret Scriptures are the Magisterium.

I like this line you gave me!

I aim to please.

I like this line you gave me!

"Please prove it. You made the assertion, so back it up. "

Here is a thread for you to do so in, too!

I’ll make all replies on this in the new thread.

So there are only eleven bishops? Or did Paul also start a chain of successors? Oh - and there is also no biblical support for Paul ‘ruling over’ the other (11/12/13+?) apostles.

Each Bishop today can trace his ordination back to one of the Apostles. The Apostles couldn’t just ordain one person, but as many as were necessary for the pastoring of the flock.

You may find this helpful:

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

 

[guanophore]

Are you, or are you not a Roman Catholic? Your profile suggests that you are…

If that is the case, then I will happily move on. There is nothing to prove. We both believe it.

If you still, for some reason (I can only think “wasting time” is your main point here, but I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt…) want it proven, I will first ask you to prove that the Bible exists. And that you are actually a living being. And that these “computer” things we use are not just figments of our imagination.

I mean, I believe all that, but then, you believe the Bible to be inspired, do you not?

Go back and answer my mary/children dilemma then

Great! Coz we already agree on #1, and thus it is pointless to worry about proving it. And, as yet, you haven’t answered #2, so we have to assume it is also correct

Actually, more hinges on it than not. Simply - if it is not inspired, then we should all just go home. There is no Christianity (or even Judaism) without it being inspired. Just like I am going to assume you are a real person, and not some advanced AI forum-talking bot, so we all assume that Biblical Inspiration is given.

If you think otherwise, prove it

-hvg3

The problem, -hvg3, is that Catholics believe scripture is inspired because of tradition. It is the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth that wrote, assembled, preserved and canonized the scripture. Without the testimony of the apostolic succession, we would not believe it inspired. Since you reject this testimony, it is incumbent up on you to find some other source of validation.

Did Jesus believe in the inspiration of the OT because of RCT? Did Peter believe in Paul’s inspired letters because of RCT? No in both cases. If they didn’t, why do I have to?

They believed they were inspired because of the testimony of sacred tradition. This is the same basis upon which the inspiration of the NT is derived. Since you deny the testimony of sacred tradition, upon what basis,then, do you claim that scripture is inspired?

 

[guanophore]

Personally, I thought it was more of seeing which were historically accurate, which were written by eye witnesses and apostles, and which matched up to scripture. Not really any need for revelation.

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that the decisions made about which books were in the NT was not the result of divine inspiration??

It is about Protestants and Roman Catholics, both of who already accept that the Bible is inspired.

Yes, but on what BASIS do you accept that the Bible is inspired?

Are not these common things already?

No. Catholics accept the scriptures as inspired because of the testimony of the Church.

So, I ask again, as I did in my first post: with 2 Timothy 3:16, why do we need Roman Catholic Traditions, which are, after all, traditions of men? (Matthew 15:2-6, Colossians 2:8)

Apparently you don’t feel that you need them at all! You are in error, anyway, over the nature of the tradition. The tradition is sacred, just as it was when Jesus used it, and the apostles and their successors before the NT was written. Of course you will not feel a need for anything divine, if you don’t recoginize it as Holy in the first place! It is pearls before swine.

So both of them had good reasons to believe it. And so because I know they have these good reasons, can I not believe the same as they did, and not have to work it out for myself? I mean, if God said the OT was His word, can I not have faith that it is? If God inspired Peter to acknowledge God’s writing through Paul, can I not have faith that it is so?

With that, what reason is there to require anyone else to OK them for me?

You cannot believe as they did, because both believed, valued, recited and practiced sacred tradition, which you reject.

I have basis, you just so far have not liked it.

It has no foundation!

However, how does one find “the church” in the multiple-church society of today? Or, do you mean “the church” as in the actual body of Christ, not a mere earthly thing, but something bigger and better than what we have here on earth?

This is, exactly, the root of the problem. This cannot be done with Sola Scriptura, because that doctrine ignores the body of teaching that comes to us from Jesus and the Apostles that testifies to the truth of the scriptures, and the source of their authority.

Indeed! .

I would say that the church right after Jesus was definitely part of this “church”, but it was in no way limited to those of the day. It was always more than that - for Abraham and Moses etc were as much members of that church as we today are.

So, did the 1st C church = the “body of Christ” church? No. But it was a subset of said church.

News Flash! There is only one Church. Only One Body.

Which is why today I am happy to say that the Roman Catholic church =/= the “body of Christ” church, and nor does any protestant church. The body of Christ is made up from all those who belong to God from today, from the past, and from the future.

That is very Catholic of you!

But a single church still existing down through the centuries? No. The major splinters that has happened, the smaller fractures, the internal strife all show that this is just an earthly church.

Wow. How can a SS person deny such a blatant promise of Christ?

 

[guanophore]

Even giving the point to you now that the word is correctly translated as “traditions” (small “t”, not bug “T” ) instead of “teachings”, this is the stuff that they taught then and there, not the extra stuff that is what RCT teaches today. That most definitely has come from men - for it is not found in the Bible!

Or, Paul tells us to follow what he taught them…which was what the NT says and has captured anyway. And thus sola scripture is not violating anything, but rather is firmly biblical.

On what basis do you assert that the scripture has captured all the sacred traditions? Scripture itself testifies that it has not!

 

[hvg3akaek]

You’ll forgive us if we’re not convinced. You’re using the Bible to prove the Bible’s inspiration. Of course, you see why it doesn’t work for us.

Not convinced??Of what??

Mr Gandalf claimed that none of the books in the Bible claim that others are inspired. Clearly, that is untrue, as my example states. If that does not convince you that a book i the bible claims that some books in the bible are inspired, then I cannot see you being convinced of anything, ever…

As for asking us to point out the obvious, we can of course see that it’s raining, and that we can see that we exist and that you exist. But we can’t see that the Bible is inspired; we have to take your word for it. We can see that the Bible is a book, we can see that it is literature, even good literature. But how can we just take for granted that it is inspired of God?

I take it no more for granted than I do the fact we exist

My point about existing/raining/etc is that we can find things out and know them through other methods other than inspiration. We do not need God to grant infallibility to someone to know it is raining. Nor do we need God to grant infallibility to someone to know the Bible is inspired.

Partially, it is claimed by the book itself, one person writing about another person’s inspired-ness. Partly it is its historical accuracy. Partly it is its agreement with other scripture. Partly it is the lack of disagreement of the accounts, in a time when people could have stood up and said “Hey! That never happened!” when the original witnesses were still there. Partly because we see a history of God inspiring people to write his Word down throughout the Old Testament.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Protestants divorce while Scripture says 'what God has joined together let no man put asunder"

How’s that for a beam in thine own eye?

Wow, I am always impressed when people can be so arrogant and self-righteous as to make such bold claims with little to no backing up!

Matthew 19:6
So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery

So, which is correct? No one can divorce, or people can only divorce on the grounds of marital unfaithfulness?

Who is right - Jesus or Jesus?

…or, perhaps, you have mistaken Jesus’ intention in the “let no man separate” statement?

No one should separate it. And, in a perfect world, that would be the case. However, we are sinful, and instead of being united to an adulterer, Jesus says that on some grounds, there is allowance for divorce.

 

[hvg3akaek]

No, that’s not what I’m looking for - this doesn’t help me at all. I’m looking for a list of books that are inspired not one separate case. If I would go by this passage then I would discard everything not written by Paul. No…in fact all since how do I know that 2 Peter is inspired and has the authority to determine which books are inspired? You’re proving inspiration from Bible and that unfortunately doesn’t work.

The passage was not to prove inspiration of the bible, but that some of the bible claims that other parts of the bible are inspired, which your previous comment was against.

I am not trying to determine if it is raining outside. I am trying to determine Canon.

Yet for rain, you do not need Traditions. Why so for Cannon?

hvg3akaek I am trying to determine the Canon. What do I need Traditions for? I need Traditions for one, to decide for me what is and is not Canon.

And why can you not use the same things that you use elsewhere to determine rain, to determine the news, and so on? Why do you have to turn to Traditions?

Since I have been given the run around by you I am going to conclude that you could not find for me in the Bible where the books that belong in it are outlined at.

I never made this claim. It was not so much a ‘run around’ by me as a ‘goose chase’ by you

This means that you are rellying on something outside the Bible, some “tradition of man” that you have accepted. If you are going outside the Bible for something as important as the Canon, what does that say about Sola Scriptura? Are you using Scripture alone?

And once more I ask - why is it only “scripture” or “traditions”? Do we not have something else, something that we can use to see if its raining? Or to reason if we actually exist? Or to work out if a witness is accurate or not?

Outside of the Bible =/= Tradition.