Sola Scriptura

[Church_Militant]

Martin Luther:

It is really funny to see this. The problem is you have just refuted your own proposition. These are scholars that have served on papal commissions. If they were so bad, why hasn’t Rome censured them? You are, again, having to engage in private interpretation. How do you know if you are right since you are fallible? Isn’t this the same argument you used against me?

God Bless,
Martin Luther.

The fact that the church hasn’t changed tells you that those “scholars” are not accepted…You know what they say about opinions…
You waste my time with allegations that don’t wash out at all. Your whole arguments are nothing more than straw men. You really don’t know squat about the Catholic faith. I got nothin’ for ya…

 

[Ignatius]

Martin Luther:

Hello Ignatius!

Ignatius:

. . . . .because Jesus said it. It is from Scriputre. You see, in ancient Israel

, giving of the keys was symbolic of giving all authority and power. So, when Jesus gives the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and says “whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven”, and the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, He is conferring this power on the Church until His return in Glory.

The only way you know scripture is right as a Catholic is because the church says so, and hence, the Catholic church is right because it says so. . . .Would you not think it silly that if you then asked why I have that authority, I point back to the document and say because the document has that authority?

You missed the primary point, which is “it is because Jesus said it.” That is, unless you are disputing the authority of Jesus to give the Keys of the Kingdom.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello DeusSolus!

Again, this discourse is not between an atheist sceptic and a Catholic, (which in case, I believe, the argument may fall to infinite regression, since the most basic premise, God, is disputed), but between Catholic and Protestant who hold certain epistemelogical premises in common. Thus, it is up to both sides to provide logical arguments based on agreed premises for and against Sola Scriptura. The “table of contents” question is quite basic, given that both sides agree upon the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. It cannot be dismissed as a fallacy, since there is no infinite regression, and a theory for the existence of an inerrant table of contents must be provided by both sides.

This is not my argument. My argument is that Roman Catholicism is refuted under the arguments of scepticism. Protestantism is the only view that avoids refutation under the arguments of scepticism, because it adheres to a self-authenticating authority. Because Roman Catholicism insists on authenticating itself on the basis of evidence, I will just keep on using the same arguments that come from skepticism, and use it as the refutation of the Catholic Church because my position can answer these questions while, by necessity, the Catholic Church cannot as long as it continues to try to use evidence to support it. The reason it can be dismissed as a fallacy is because the only way the Catholic can know the canon is because of the authority of the Catholic Church. Of course, this gets into infinite regression when one asks how one knows that the Catholic Church is the one who presents that canon. Then they will answer that they know this because of premise A. I will ask you how you know premise A. You will tell me that you know premise A because of premise B. I will ask you how you know premise B and you will tell me you know premise C, and I will ask you how you know premise D and so on…

You are mistaking an assumption for a deduction. The Catholic bases the authority of the Church on the authority of Christ and the apostles in a series of logical steps from the above premises (again, which the SS Protestant would disagree with), thus the Church believes it is authenticated by Christ and apostolic tradition, not by itself. The Sola Scriptura Protestant, however, is left with an (again) much weaker self-authenticating authority.

You can’t answer an argument from skepticism with deduction. That is absolutely fatal. Here is the question. How do you know that the Catholic church bases it’s authority in Jesus and the apostles? Again, you have to say that this is because of certain premises such as tradition. Well, then why do we look to this tradition? You will then say, we look to tradition because of premise A. I will then ask you how you know premise A. You then must say that you know that by premise B and so on… Self authenticating authority is not weaker, therefore it is stronger. It is the only argument that can stand against the arguments of scepticism.

I disagree that we would fall to infinite regression, since both Sola Scriptura Protestants and Catholics would agree on the premises of: inerrancy of Scripture, the authority of Christ, and the authority to teach, passed on to the Apostles after Christs’s ascension, as well as a host of other valid premises more basic (i.e. omniscient God, incarnation of Christ, etc.). Thus, valid discourse on epistemelogical claims regarding the sufficiency of Scripture is possible.

Epistemelogical questions based on evidences only are infinitely regressive if neither party can agree on a premise or premises acceptable to both parties engaged in the dispute.

My argument is that the Catholic has no basis to believe those things, because their whole authority is based upon the authority of the Catholic Church. Hence, we do not agree on those premises you mentioned. The minute they try to defend the church, I will ask them how they know each of the things they use to defend it, and we are right back to infinite regression because everything they will use is arbitrary. Again, the only way to avoid this is a self-authenticating authority. The only way to avoid this is to say that the Catholic Church is self-authenticating. In other words, if Catholicism is true, then so is scepticism. If Catholicism is true, then we cannot know the truth. Unless the Catholic is willing to say that the Church is self-authenticating, then Catholicism ends up in pure arbitraryness at best, and scepticism at worst. You might say that Sola Scriptura is the basis for knowing anything at all. That, without Sola Scriptura, you are left with complete scepticism.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Ignatius!

You missed the primary point, which is “it is because Jesus said it.” That is, unless you are disputing the authority of Jesus to give the Keys of the Kingdom.

I realize that was your point. The problem is what is your basis for knowing that Jesus said it? You know Jesus said it because it is in scripture, and scripture is true because the Church says so. Hence, the reason it is true that Jesus said it is because the Church said so, which is a circular argument.

I can answer how I know that Jesus said it, because I believe that the scriptures are self-authenticating. However, your argument against Sola Scriptura presupposes, at very least, a self-authenticating revelation. I would argue that the only self authenticating revelation that can be held to which comports with reality is Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[jimmy]

Can you give me a list of the inspired books? From Scripture please. No outside sources. If you can not do this, then you can not claim that the scriptures are self authenticating because they would require someone outside of scripture to declare them scripture. One more thing on this, the preface to the King James bible, or any other bible, is not part of the inspired scripture so you can not use that.

Second, Scripture says, The Church is the “pillar and ground of truth.”[1Tim.3] Notice it does not say scripture here. Scripture also says “Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”[2Thes.2]

Third, Jesus did not teach sola scriptura and his apostles did not teach it. Here is the protestant theologian James White admiting it. bringyou.to/apolonio/truth.htm

 

[Catholic_Dude]

ML:

Notice, that between these two premises there is only one difference. That is, that the Catholic also embraces tradition as an ultimate authority. Hence, the way we prove that the canon of scripture is correct is by the impossibility of the contrary.

I have no idea what you are saying here. How is the canon proved? What is the impossiblity of the contrary? Im lost here.

If the Catholic seeks to add tradition to scripture, he is going to
have to define exactly what it is, and demonstrate that it is
apostolic.

What does “adding tradition to scripture” mean? They work hand in hand. It is apostolic because of the simple fact that the Apostles went around teaching by word and action. It works Hand in hand. Not everything they said was written down.

The problem is that the early church is silent on many of the dogmas that have been defined on the basis of tradition. The Queen of Heaven dogma … bodily assumption of Mary, the Papacy, the treasury of merit, and others are not attested in the early church at all, and many times in history no one would qualify as a modern day Roman Catholic with the beliefs they hold. Hence, it is impossible to define a body of tradition that is apostolic, and that is the most telling proof that the scriptures alone are to be the sole authority for faith and practice.

Silent on many?, you listed 4 things. The papacy and merit (if I understand your def. of merit), are both early things that were established “early”, (also these were written in the Bible).
That comment on tradition doesnt make sense at all. As people on here have already said you cant know much about the Bible unless someone has passed that information on to you. So you need a succession or else you will become a blind leader/follower.
The underlined statement holds no water. You made a weak claim about tradition and then jumped to an unfounded conclusion. The scriptures alone cant be the sole authority because they have to be interpreted by a human, they are ink and paper, they dont talk. So a line of tradition is what keeps interpretation on the right track over the years. A person who has never heard of the Bible or God cant go into a library and pick up a Bible, read it, and understand whats going on. The only way is if someone else told you, thats it.

Furthermore, if one believes we need some infallible tradition to
decide the scriptures, one must ask how a Jew living 50 years before the time of Christ would know that Zachariah and Malachi were canonical? Jesus did hold people accountible for what the scriptures were in Matthew 22, but he also criticized the Jewish traditions of the elders as being fallible. It is clear then that the Jews had no infallible tradition to know what the canon was, but then how could Jesus hold them accountible to know what the canon is?

First of all there are different levels of scripture. The first five books of the Bible are 100% written AND tradition. The others came in a different times and played different roles. The bottom line is God cares more about good leadership than what books belong where.
He didnt criticize them as being fallible, they were accused of hypocrisy. He never never mentioned a canon or said books were missing. He didnt mind that they didnt accept some books and He proved that you dont need all those books to do His will.

I know there is a lot more to catch up on so I will get back as soon as I can.

 

[jimmy]

Martin Luther, Matt.16 does not give the authority to the Church, but it attests to the authority, along with many other passages. The authority of the Church began at Pentecost in 33AD, the first book of the bible was not written for another 15 to 20 years, by a member of The Church. The last book of the bible was written about 50 to 60 years later by another member of The Church, John the apostle.

These writings were not meant to expound the whole teaching of The Church. Pauls letters were to correct errors and heresies. John wrote down a vision of heaven, which is both prophetic in a way and also a liturgical book in ways. The gospels were written to give testimony to the life of Jesus and some of what he did.

Further, if the Church outdates the scriptures, and was written by members of The Church, how can the scriptures be more authoritative than The Church? It is impossible.

 

[Deus_Solus]

Martin Luther,

Thank you for clearing things up. I thought your discourse on self-authentication was rooted in the principles of debate, which is how I approached your post.
Martin Luther:

Protestantism is the only view that avoids refutation under the arguments of scepticism, because it adheres to a self-authenticating authority.

Upon further examination, I realized that you were basically espousing Calvinistic doctrine from the Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 7, section 5. Here is what Calvin says regarding what the self-authenticating nature of Scripture:

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.

Basically, Calvin is saying that we know Scripture is Scripture because of conviction by the Spirit in which we feel a “divine energy” in it that supercedes human proofs or knowledge. However, for a proposition (or body of knowledge in this case, i.e. Scripture) to be self-authenticating, it must be analytic a priori. That is, the predicate concept must be contained in the subject by definition without the aid of experience. Calvin’s argument for Scripture’s innate authenticity fails at self-authentication because it is only through experience that we know it to be true. Furthermore, if Calvin’s argument held true, the believer would have the individual capacity to discern Scripture from non-Scripture. This is clearly not the case, as Luther himself considered James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation as non-apostolic in origin. Also Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian all rejected one or more of the canonical New Testament books, and these same fathers also accepted books we now reject.

Were Luther and the others not properly led by the Spirit? If not, how does do you determine if someone is led by the Sprit aside their being in agreement/disagreement with you? Scripture fails as a self-authenticating authority because it must appeal to experience, and it is the appeal to experience that Calvin says authenticates the canonicity of Scripture. Thus, we find ourselves back at the question of the origin of the canon.

God Bless.

 

[dennisknapp]

Martin Luther:

Hello Ignatius!

I realize that was your point. The problem is what is your basis for knowing that Jesus said it? You know Jesus said it because it is in scripture, and scripture is true because the Church says so. Hence, the reason it is true that Jesus said it is because the Church said so, which is a circular argument.

I can answer how I know that Jesus said it, because I believe that the scriptures are self-authenticating. However, your argument against Sola Scriptura presupposes, at very least, a self-authenticating revelation. I would argue that the only self authenticating revelation that can be held to which comports with reality is Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

Yes, but Sola Scriptura has no basis in Church history prior to the 1600’s, and is therefore suspect.

No Father taught it and the bible makes no mention of it, therefore it is a late innovation invented in the 16th century.

We as Catholics have an Apostolic Faith and cannot add anything we please. We have to stick with what was handed down by Christ to His Apostles and to us through His Church.

Peace

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Martin Luther:

…I have learned to do textual criticism of the New Testament and can demonstrate a very primitive origin for the New Testament texts. … Hence, while we must still weigh the evidence, and not accept it as a final authority, the patristic writers can be helpful in following the development of the canon. All of this evidence taken together brings us to the conclusion of a canon so strong that even secular scholars said that, given all the historical facts of Christianity and the text itself, the 27 book New Testament is correct. Catholics were doing “textual criticism” for over 1500 years. In fact some of them were direct apostles who personally knew some of the writers of the “primitive origin” texts and have non-canonical commentaries about them. I looked on Dr. Wallace’s page and he says that the author of Hebrews is pretty much unknown, in fact If I remember right he says that Clement was one of the first to quote from Hebrews, Clement was Catholic (which was the only Church around at the time).
Also what place does it indicate that there were 27 books? True there were places that had many of the writings circulating but no sure canon.

… see Dr. Daniel Wallace’s articles for each book of the bible entitled “Introduction, Argument, Outline” for every book of the Bible at his website: bible.org/author.asp?author_id=1

. The conclusion then is that I can begin to answer the questions about the origin of scripture, but the problem is for the Catholic that he must overcome all of the afore mentioned problems to show that there is an apostolic tradition that traces back to the apostles.
We can start the “tracing back to the apostles” on the Dr.'s page. He mentiones Early Church Fathers who in fact were successors. As far as your position goes the Bible fell out of Heaven and appeared in your hands.
You still have no proof what books belonged there, and how the magic number 27 came about. Or better yet who assembled it?

Now, we must give a definition of what sola scriptura is, and what sola scriptura is not… First, Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.
If the Bible doesnt contain all knowledge then what do you turn to so you can find answers? (I know where I turn to)

Hence, for instance, one cannot argue that because the Bible does not contain the canon, that it is therefore insufficient. … Second, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of all tradition. The Bible itself is a tradition passed down through over 5300 manuscripts. We also have traditions such as using plastic cups for communion. Such does not effect Sola Scriptura.

I never said that it is insufficient, we simply want to know how you decide what books are to be included. I hope it isnt luck of the draw.
Look at where your logic went. It went from 5300 manuscripts which had to be sifted through and selcted to be one of the lucky 27 (which I hope someone guided by the Holy Spirit was in charge of doing)…To plastic cup traditions. Plastic is a modern day invention, the Assumption of Mary is older than the plastic cup tradition. (but thats for a different thread).
Sola Scriptura is on its knees thanking the men who set aside 27 of the most special manuscripts ever to include in its hard back bindings.

However, Sola Scriptura does claim that all tradition is subject to the authority of scripture… Next, we do not deny that the church has authority to teach. Hence, it is irrelevant to quote passages such as 1 Timothy 3:15 which talk of the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church proclaims and upholds the truth with all of its might and speaks with God given authority. However, the church is still subject to the ultimate authority of scripture.

Where does it claim that tradition is subject to scripture? It was the Church (through Christ) who gave the NT its authority, as a few have already said the Church came FIRST, the NT SECOND.
So what is the “church” to you? Can someone put a sign on a house that says “church” and then have the authority to teach? 1Tim is not irrelevant at all because it specifically says church and not Bible is the FOUNDATION of truth. Back to the authority of the Church, how do we know who specifically holds that God given authority? Almost every denomination believes it is their church, but the problem is they cant agree. How can you continue to say that the ultimate authority is scripture when there are no passages in scripture which say that?

cont…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

… Being led by the spirit is something that is inherent in Sola Scriptura itself. Finally, Sola Scriptura is not a claim that God’s word was never spoken. Hence, the citation of texts such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2. This is the fallacy that you fell into in question #5. The issue is not whether the apostles ever passed along their traditions in oral form, but how we have access to that apostolic tradition today now that the apostles are gone.

Does the Bible say “sola scriptura”? Does it say that the Holy Spirit is inherent in SS?
Concerning question 5
5)How did people know what to believe before there was a Bible (as we know the Bible today)?
So your admitting that at one time there was no SS?? Your admitting that humans were in charge of passing this information on to future generations? And back to square one, How did we know what “belonged” in the Bible? It was either an authority on earth such as the Church or it fell from the Heavens. In either case an authority existed before the NT writings who in turn had the authority to define a canon.

…with regards to question #3, by what authority do I teach and interpret the Bible? From Biblical authority of course. The Bible tells us to teach the word, and to practice taught and careful exegesis. Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for doing just that with the message of Paul to verify that it is true. 2 Peter 3:16 talks about what happens when we are untaught and unstable and try to interpret the scriptures. We will distort them. …
You are right in the sense that scripture is a very good guide, but what happens when two groups disagree? Do they start a new church? The Bible is a very difficult book to fully understand, as I have said it is the from God written in human terms so that we can try and understand. Remember though that we know from the NT that there are authorities who stop people form twisting the scriptures, they are called Bishops and they are appointed successors! The problem Prots are in is that they all interpret passages differently, which is exactly what 2Peter3 was scared of.

Finally, I think that question #4 ( 4)Why are there so many divisions if many Prots go by SS?) is based on a faulty premise. That is, it assumes that all protestants hold to Sola Scriptura. With all of the things going on in pentacostal churches with new revelations, with people claiming God is audibly speaking to them, people who deny the Bible’s condemnation of Homosexuality, abortion, and premarital sex, how can we honestly say that these churches are actually holding to Sola Scriptura? In fact, if you take my church, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and all other reformed churches, and compare it with all of the groups that have scripture plus an infallible interpreter such as the Roman Catholic Church, Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Way International, Moonies, etc., you will find much greater unity between the reformed churches then all of these groups that have scripture plus and infallible interpreter.

True not every prot goes 100% by SS, but none the less they assume authority just like you. Second of all you cant throw the CC in to the same ring as JW and LDS as I have said earlier, so comparing them means nothing. The one true chruch the CC is the first, the oldest the biggest, apostolic, etc.
Quick questions, does the term “reformed” bother you? (Does the one true perfect God need to have His plans reformed? Did God make a Church that was bound to flop and needed to be reformed at the will of a human?)

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello DeusSolus!

Actually, you have misunderstood my argument. We as protestants believe that the scriptures are self-authenticating. That is how we can escape the infinitely regressive argument. What I mean by that is when you reject any of the books in that canon, you will be reduced to absurdity. This is the argument of Cornilius Van Til against people who reject the Bible as the word of God. You will crumble under the weight of the evidence against you if you do. As I said, Sola Scriptura is proved by the impossibility of the contrary. If you reject this, then you won’t be able to reason properly, because the scriptures are the precondition of all reasoning.

Secondly, you are in error about your use of historical figures. It is more than possible that some of those fathers did not have access to the Old Testament such as Justin Marytr. You also have to wonder if many of these other people you mentioned ever examined the evidence, or just made up something without looking at the entirity of the evidence. Finally, your statements about Martin Luther are horribly inaccurate. Take a look at this article by James Swan:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Finally, if I get you right, what you are saying is that you cannot know something like the canon for certain unless you have an infallible interpreter because you are a fallible individual. I already responded to this:

The problem is now your argument is becoming silly. You have said that we all must interpret things and our interpretations are fallible, and that is why we need an infallible interpreter. Now you are turning around and saying all sorts of things that have no basis in an infallible interpreter. According to your view, we cannot know that we came up with different interpretations of scripture because it is just your interpretation that we came up with different interpretations of scripture. We have to interpret things all of the time. Saying that we can’t know things because we are fallible means I can challange you on everything you know, and you can know nothing for certain, because everything you know is going to be fallible even, yes, your choice of an infallible interpreter [which means the alleged infallible interpretations are not infallible]. Here is a good example. I go to school up here in Wisconsin, and we have a lot of barns for the cows, but we also have a lot of houses as well. According to your logic, you cannot know that the building with an octagon shaped roof is a barn and the building with a triangle shaped roof is a house, because it is on the basis of your own fallible interpretation. You cannot tell the difference between the birds and the grass because it is just your fallible interpretation. I thought this is where you were going, but as you can see, this philosophy is doomed from the start. It makes complete nonsense out of the world.

Finally, it is irrefutibly true that we do not need an infallible interpreter to define the canon. How did a Jew living fifty years before the time of Christ know that Isaiah and Habakuk were canonical? Jesus already shot down the idea that the Jewish traditions were infallible, and yet he held people responsible for knowing the canon of scripture in Matthew 22:31. How could he do that?

Finally, the canon you now hold to did not even come into existance until the Council of Trent April of 1546. Some will point to the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The problem is that, not only were these provincial councils, and hence, not binding, but the council of Trent left out a book that the councils of Hippo and Carthage contained. All three councils listed 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras as canonical. However, the council of Trent did not mean the same thing that the councils of Hippo and Carthage meant by it. What happened was, when the Septuagint was translated it was divided into two books. The book of 2 Esdras contained two Hebrew books of Esra and Nehamiah. The apocryphal additions to Esra and Nehamiah were then put into a separate book called 1 Esdras. However, when Jerome translated his Latin Vulgate, he split Esra and Nehamiah, and put them into two books, 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, respectively. He then put the apocryphal additions to Ezra and Nehemiah into a separate book called 3 Esdras. Hence, Hippo and Carthage were saying that 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and 3 Esdras in the vulgate are canonical, while Trent was saying that only 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras from the vulgate are canonical. Hence, as The New Catholic Encyclopedia says “the Council of Trent definitively removed it [3 Esdras] from the canon” [See discussion on pp.396-397].

Hence, no one knew what the Canon was for over 1500 years, and not only that, the councils that were run by Augustine of Hippo came up with a different Canon. This is a serious problem for your position.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[surfinpure]

Shinobu:

There are about 36,000 (or is it 360,000?) types of Protestant Churches, all with their own teaching and beliefs of the Bible. Sola Scripture just does not cut it, I grew up on Sola Scripture and as I got older and learned more about Christianity I began to see that everyone had their own interpritation. It lead me to confusion.

Having grown up in that faith, I know Protestants mean well, however I feel like I have only received half of the teachings I need to learn. I feel unfullfilled and that is partly what led me to Catholocism.

That is EXACTLY what led me to Catholicism. Every different Protestant church I visited or joined had a different interpretation of Scripture. It was exasperating, because nobody could tell me what the *truth *was. Since coming home to the RCC, I have been gorging myself on the “rest of the story.” It’s wonderful!

 

[Subrosa]

I’m curious, Martin Luther. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have thier own version of the bible called “The New World Translation” which they regard with sola scriptura. How do you regard it?

How do you regard the NIV, or KJV? Are you aware that the very first KJV was published with the books you would consider “apocrypha”? Those books are contained in the New American Bible and Orthodox bibles?

How about the Gutenburg bible? Does it qualify for “sola scriptura”? It is the first printed bible published in 1452. It also contains the “apocrypha”.

How about the Vulgate, or Latin bible, which was completed by hand, before the printing press, in AD 383-4. St. Jerome wanted to remove the “apocryphal” books not included in the Hebrew scripture, but found that he couldn’t because the apostles taught from the Greek version of Jewish scripture, called the Septuagint.

Have you ever heard of the Septuagint? Do you consider it to be inspired, and therefore “sola scriptura”? (Do you know what it is?)

If you do not recognize any of these versions, which one, or more than one, do you consider validly “sola scriptura”? How do you judge which is the correct, or best, or most accurate? Mostly, which is without question “the inspired word”? Does your judgement disqualify the rest? If yes, by what authority do you disqualify them?

Have you considered that by rejecting that Apostolic Traditions, you have rejected the Word of God as taught to the apostles by Christ Himself? It is equally the Word of God, along with the bible.

 

[Subrosa]

I’m curious, Martin Luther.

There is no doubt that the Bible is the Word of God, but…

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have thier own version of the bible called “The New World Translation” which they regard with sola scriptura. How do you regard it? If you reject it, by what authority do you? The bible? It is the bible.

How do you regard the KJV? Are you aware that the very first KJV was published in 1611 with the books you would consider “apocrypha”? Those books are now contained in the New American Bible and Orthodox bibles. Are they inspired? If not, by what authority do you reject them? The bible? They are the bible.

How about the Gutenburg bible? Does it qualify for “sola scriptura”? It is the first printed bible published in 1452. It also contains the “apocrypha”.

How about the Vulgate, or Latin bible, which was completed by hand, before the printing press, in AD 383-4. St. Jerome wanted to remove the “apocryphal” books not included in the Hebrew scripture, but found that he couldn’t because the apostles taught from the Greek version of Hebrew scripture, called the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains the books rejected by Martin Luther.

Have you ever heard of the Septuagint? Do you consider it to be inspired, and therefore “sola scriptura”? Remember that it is the Greek version of Jewish scripture taught from the apostles, not the Hebrew. They used the Greek because the vast majority of people who lived around the Mediterranean spoke Greek. Hebrew was used in Jewish temples, not by Egyptians, Greeks, Syrians, etc.

The Jews don’t consider the the Torah “sola scriptura”. The Torah is what we call the Old Testament. They also have the Talmud, or traditions written down and added to yearly, to this day. They use both in observance of thier religion, just like the Catholics.

If you do not recognize any of these versions, which one, or more than one, do you consider validly “sola scriptura”? How do you judge which is the correct, or best, or most accurate? Mostly, which is without question “the inspired word”? Does your judgement disqualify the rest? If yes, by what authority do you disqualify them? If no, are they all equally the qualified? Then why don’t they agree? Shouldn’t they agree?

Have you considered that by rejecting that Apostolic Traditions, you have rejected the Word of God as taught to the apostles by Christ Himself? It is equally the Word of God, along with the bible. It is not added to scripture, but exists beside scripture. It’s source is the same.

Open your eyes, Martin Luther. Open your eyes.

With love in Christ,
Subrosa.

 

[Subrosa]

I don’t know why it came up twice.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello CatholicDude!

I started a response to your posts, and then I got an error and it deleted the whole thing so I will have to start all over again . I will do so tomorrow.

Hello Subrosa!

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that it is the Greek and Hebrew that are inspired. They believe that the New World Translation is the best translation, but are more than willing to go to the Greek, and in fact, they use it themselves.

Again, Subrosa, this argument from authority is infinitely regressive. For instance, how do you know that Rome is the authority you should follow? Why not follow the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society? Why not Mormonism? This gets us back to infinite regression again, because when you give me the answer I will ask you why that is, and then what the reason for the reason is, and then the reason for the reason, and so on…

Secondly, it is just fallacious to say that without an authority we cannot know something. For instance, what is your authority for saying that a bird is a bird and grass is grass? Why isn’t what you consider grass a bird, and what you consider a bird grass? By what authority do you accept the fact that one is grass and the other is a bird? What authority do you use to tell the difference between the two? Obviously, if we need authority for everything, then we can’t make any sense out of, not just birds and trees, but anything! Barns and Houses for example. By what authority do you know that a building with an octagon shaped roof is a barn, and the building with a triangle shaped roof is a house? Such argumentation is simply absurd, and makes nonsense out of the world.

Secondly, I said that we know the scriptures because they are self authenticating. Hence, you prove their existence from the impossibility of the contrary. When you reject them, you make nonsense out of the internal evidence of each book you added or deleted, and you also make nonsense out of reasoning [which you would have to to substantiate your claim], and you would make foolishness out of history. Note what the Bible says:

**

Romans 1:21-23

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.**

Notice what is said here. When you put something that is human [that includes a faulty view of scripture and the canon], you will become foolish. All it takes is a simple examination of the evidence such as that given by Daniel Wallace in his articles entitled “Introduction, Argument and Outline” on his website at bible.org/author.asp?author_id=1. I would also direct you to Bruce M. Metzger’s book on the New Testament Canon.

Finally, the argument from translations is absoultly foolish because we know the languages of the original tongues. The reason is first, because of the fact that some of the Old Testament was written long before Greek ever came into existance. After Greek did come into existance, we know from Archeology of the Holy Land that the language was Hebrew, and Aramaic. Hence, that settles the language for the Old Testament. For the New Testament, we compare documents and find that when examining the strucure of the language in each of the Old Documents that we have, and it is very consistent with the idea that the old translations are a translation of the Greek. That is how we know the language of the two Testaments. Hence, of course, since that is what they were written in, that is what they are inspired in.

Finally, you don’t realize how silly it is to say that the original septuagint contains the apocrypha. All of the manuscripts we have for the septuagint are from the fourth century, and they have massive textual variation amongst them in the apocryphal sections. In textual criticism, that is a tell tale sign of a later addition. Some even include books you don’t consider canonical.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Martin Luther. Becasue we have to look back at history we can never be 100% certain that what we believe to be the truth is the truth, because we rely on the words of people long dead.

The best we can do is make a detemrination upon the evidence as to which is the best or more probable. I am leaving out the concept of someone saying that the “Holy Spirit” tells them the truth because everybody makes the same claim, yet on logic most who make such a claim must be deluded, unless we are ALL WRONG.

As regards the Jews, there was no need for infalliablity amongst the Jews becasue the most important person in history was still to come along and thus be able to clarify errors, teach more correctly etc.

However As Christ is the last then it is encumbent upon God to ensure that what Christ taught is continued to be taught and taught correctly, in fact that is what the Holy Spirit is for. To guide us so that the teaching does not err. Ultimatley though it is Christ guiding and ensuring as much as the Spirit and Father.

It is a REQUIREMENT of God to ensure that someone teaches the gospels infalliably from the time of Christ and continue until Christ return.

If there is no guarantee of infalliable teaching being continuos then it is IMPOSSIBLE to know when infalliable teaching/expanantion stopped.

If we can’t know when infalliable teaching(explanation) stopped then it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to know what is TRUE.

If we cannot know what teaching/explanation is true, then God has failed us becasue all Christians belong to some sort of faith that draws a line in the sand where those who fail to abide in God are damned.

Logic requires that the Catholic Church is the true Church. I worked that out when I came in from the “wilderness”. There was no other option, logic through weight of evidence and philosophy only leaves us with one option in Christianity and that is the Catholic Faith.

At the time when I started my search I did not even consider the Catholic Church as a possiblity, yet I was left with no other option.

Pride is what prevented me from accepting Catholicism for a long time.

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Martin Luther,

Could you summarize the version of SS that you are working with?
I’d like to get an understanding of what you are advocating, there being multiple versions, some which don’t seem very defensible at all.

Thanks

Karl

 

[Mickey]

Martin Luther:

Finally, the canon you now hold to did not even come into existance until the Council of Trent April of 1546.

Good twist job, Marty! The coucil of Laodicea, 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was the earliest decision on the canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, listed the books of today’s canon by decree. The Council of Rome, 382, prompted this decree.

The Council of Hippo listed the OT and NT books in 393.

The Council of Carthage listed the same books in 397.

Another Council of Carthage listed the same books in 419.

The Council of Florence, 1441, declared these books as definitive.

Finally, the Couincil of Trent, 1556, in the face of the errors of the reformers who rejected seven books from the canon of Scripture, settle the issue with a final infallible definition.