Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hapaxparadidomi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Fear not, I understand the three legged stool approach. It was simply interesting the way you expressed it in the post.
Click to expand...
To me, they arrived chronologically (faith, authority, scripture), but it matters not, for the sake of discussion, in which order they are mentioned. A little picky today? šŸ˜ƒ
 
po18guy said:
But, what portion of the Apostolic Tradition have you? Anything beyond that portion recorded in scripture?
Click to expand...
Youā€™d have to demonstrate that anything beyond that is apostolic. And thatā€™s precisely whatā€™s in dispute.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Youā€™d have to demonstrate that anything beyond that is apostolic. And thatā€™s precisely whatā€™s in dispute.
Click to expand...
I think that evidence of the continuity of the Divine Liturgy ought to end this dispute.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Youā€™d have to demonstrate that anything beyond that is apostolic. And thatā€™s precisely whatā€™s in dispute.
Click to expand...
First, only the Holy Spirit can convict you of truth.

As a practical matter, try to show that 3 John is inspired by God. It does not claim it! We do not know that it was even written by John. The original is long gone. No originals of any scripture exist. All long lost.

This is the atheistsā€™ delight, since who can say that anything in the bible is correct or genuine, as not one jot is original or signed. All are copies of copies of copies of copies, with original meaning and intent potentially lost in the numerous translations into various evolving languages over twenty centuries in uncountable cultures by anonymous scribes of unknown and varying literacy. With many very good reasons, atheists claim that the bible is nothing more than a collection of the traditions of men that has been handed on from generation to generation of deluded believers. The confusion and discord that reigns in Christianity is a very strong, almost invincible argument for the bibleā€™s falseness - for the faithā€™s falseness.

You only response to the atheists must come from the bible alone. Proceed.
 
po18guy said:
First, only the Holy Spirit can convict you of truth.
Click to expand...
I agree.
As a practical matter, try to show that 3 John is inspired by God. It does not claim it! We do not know that it was even written by John. The original is long gone. No originals of any scripture exist. All long lost.
Click to expand...
Not sure what the point of saying that is.
This is the atheistsā€™ delight, since who can say that anything in the bible is correct or genuine, as not one jot is original or signed. All are copies of copies of copies of copies, with original meaning and intent potentially lost in the numerous translations into various evolving languages over twenty centuries in uncountable cultures by anonymous scribes of unknown and varying literacy. With many very good reasons, atheists claim that the bible is nothing more than a collection of the traditions of men that has been handed on from generation to generation of deluded believers. The confusion and discord that reigns in Christianity is a very strong, almost invincible argument for the bibleā€™s falseness - for the faithā€™s falseness.
Click to expand...
You only response to the atheists must come from the bible alone. Proceed.
Click to expand...
I am assuming you havenā€™t read much Machen, Lane Craig, White, Lewis, Habermas, Geisler, etc., who have argued with and written against atheism throughout history on a greater premise than ā€œcoming from the Bible alone.ā€ I am not sure where this is coming from.

Are you under the assumption that telling an atheist ā€œbecause the Pope says so,ā€ would be effective?
 
po18guy said:
Right after you demonstrate from the bible that the Apostles ceased oral teaching and advocated for bible alone.
Click to expand...
Considering that them ceasing oral teaching it would mean they were dead, I am not sure how one would demonstrate they said anything after that.

Youā€™re attacking a straw man, po.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Considering that them ceasing oral teaching it would mean they were dead, I am not sure how one would demonstrate they said anything after that.

Youā€™re attacking a straw man, po.
Click to expand...
No. I am asking you to reveal the foundation of your particular beliefs. You believe that the bible is the sole rule of faith - yet it does nowhere say this. Not one inspired author in either the OT or NT claims this. So, why do you?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I am assuming you havenā€™t read much Machen, Lane Craig, White, Lewis, Habermas, Geisler, etc., who have argued with and written against atheism throughout history on a greater premise than ā€œcoming from the Bible alone.ā€ I am not sure where this is coming from.
Click to expand...
None of them save me. And, atheism is growing.
Gaelic_Bard said:
Are you under the assumption that telling an atheist ā€œbecause the Pope says so,ā€ would be effective?
Click to expand...
I am asking you to refute the atheistā€™s argument, using your bible. The atheist argument is very logical and very strong. How do you overcome it?
 
po18guy said:
No. I am asking you to reveal the foundation of your particular beliefs. You believe that the bible is the sole rule of faith - yet it does nowhere say this. Not one inspired author in either the OT or NT claims this. So, why do you?
Click to expand...
No, I believe that Godā€™s revelation of Himself to man is the sole rule of faith, most especially and finally in the Person of His Son. The Bible contains that revelation.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Not sure what the point of saying that is.
Click to expand...
The bible does nowhere say that it is inspired. Why do you believe it?
Gaelic_Bard said:
I am assuming you havenā€™t read much Machen, Lane Craig, White, Lewis, Habermas, Geisler, etc., who have argued with and written against atheism throughout history on a greater premise than ā€œcoming from the Bible alone.ā€
Click to expand...
None of them save me. As to the force of their arguments, atheism is growing.
Gaelic_Bard said:
Are you under the assumption that telling an atheist ā€œbecause the Pope says so,ā€ would be effective?
Click to expand...
The bible. Refute the Atheistā€™s argument using only the bible. Their argument is very logical and very strong.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
No, I believe that Godā€™s revelation of Himself to man is the sole rule of faith, most especially and finally in the Person of His Son. The Bible contains that revelation.
Click to expand...
All of it, or just that portion that you are comfortable with? Have you ever suspected that there is more? Could there be more? Or is it all in there in its entirety - an infinite God contained within book covers?

Of course, these are all rhetorical and meant for contemplation.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Strictly speaking, it doesnā€™t. If you preach that Christ was crucified for sinners, raised for their justification and ascended into heaven, you are preaching revelation, I.e., the word of God. The issue, then, is whether at present there is revelation from God apart from what is written down. In order to demonstrate that a doctrine not written down is revelation, it must be shown to come from the apostles. It is the Protestant contention than many RCC distintictives do not. It is well established that the Scriptures did. That is why anything apart from them are subject to their authority.
Click to expand...
:nope:From what u ve written you clearly imply that revelation is restricted to the era of the apostles and you therefore deny the role of the Holy Spirit and the Church in history.
 
sennincatholic said:
:nope:From what u ve written you clearly imply that revelation is restricted to the era of the apostles and you therefore deny the role of the Holy Spirit and the Church in history.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do believe that public revelation is restricted to the apostolic period. So does the Catholic Church.
 
po18guy said:
All of it, or just that portion that you are comfortable with? Have you ever suspected that there is more? Could there be more? Or is it all in there in its entirety - an infinite God contained within book covers?

Of course, these are all rhetorical and meant for contemplation.
Click to expand...
Could there be more? Sure. The onus is not on me to prove there isnā€™t. I canā€™t disprove a negative.
 
sennincatholic said:
:thumbsup:this.
Besidesā€¦non catholics tend to reduce The WORD OF GOD who is the second person of the Holy Trinityā€¦Jesus Christ into a bookā€¦the Bibleā€¦That is so wrongā€¦How can men reduce God to writtings or a book?
Click to expand...
He is alive, and living within us. He can speak through us words that are not contained in scripture. Yet, He chose to establsish a Church and to give it all authority to speak and act on His behalf ('he who hears you hears Me", ā€œwhatever you bindā€). It sometimes shocks me how bible Christians implicitly trust the Catholic Church for that portion of revelation that is in scripture, but explicitly distrust her in all else. Yet, God so loves us that the only thing He does not take from us is our free will. With it, we can choose either to protest or to submit, to rebel or to obey. That is the proof of love.
 
po18guy said:
As a practical matter, try to show that 3 John is inspired by God. It does not claim it! We do not know that it was even written by John. The original is long gone. No originals of any scripture exist. All long lost.
Click to expand...
Gaelic_Bard said:
Not sure what the point of saying that is.
Click to expand...
The point is that there is no ā€œinternal evidenceā€ nor ā€œexternal evidenceā€, outside the authority of the CC to tell you that 3 John is inspired. It does not claim inspiration. In fact, it does not even mention Jesus.

You know itā€™s inspired by one reason only: because you defer to the authority of the CC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top