Sola Scriptura

[bjcros]

MariaG:

I was going to say that sometimes it is easier to scale down an attack. Ask what “tradition of men” contradicts the Bible.

As for bjcros

Then why is it quoted in the NT? Jew’s of Jesus time did use it. Jesus used it.

That contradicts Scripture that tells us to hold fast to traditions whether by word or epistle, 2thes 2:15

As does the Catholic Church.

Which particular doctrine of the Catholic Church would you be referring to? I too have problems with coming up with beliefs after the fact. 1500 years after the fact is when we first see Scripture alone. Now there are even different levels to that one, Solo Scriptura and now Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
Maria

Could you give the references and write out the verse in the Apocrypha because I don’t have it. The Catholic Church does hold to new revelation. everytime they make a new statement that couldn’t have been around at the time, so it couldn’t be tradition. I wasn’t referring to any specific belief. I was making a general statement. And I get your point about Sola Scriptura.

 

[Mickey]

bjcros:

opps that was a typo by the way I meant “they are not evil.” That was once, not really that many times. I know when Sola Scriptura came about. You know your history. Catholics can’t argue against the New Testament scripture that Protestants use because we have the same thing. Why is it that the new revelation of the Pope binds the church, it is new because it wasn’t around to be tradition? I have problems with the Popes power in the first place. If anything I think that the Pope was seen as first among equals as the Eastern Church sees him by the early Christians. Because one of the problems the Eastern Church has with the Catholic is the Pope’s claim to supreme power. Aswell I don’t think that the Pope has the power of Peter, but that is another thread and I am not going to be convinced I am wrong an dI think you are the same way.

I’m a Byzantine Catholic. That’s eastern my friend, yet we are in union with Rome. Before the great schism of 1054, when the Eastern Othodox split away, did you ever wonder what it was like. Look no further brother. The Catholic Church with east and west in unity. Pope JPII used to say that we need to learn to breathe with both lungs–east and west. I pray that I will see the Orthodox re-unite with the Catholic Church in my lifetime. What a beautiful thing that would be. I also pray that protestants will recognize the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church–the pillar and the ground of the truth–the Church that Christ promised would endure to the end of time–the Catholic Church. I also pray for you my friend–that the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will come back home. God Bless you.

 

[st_felicity]

bjcros:

Could you give the references and write out the verse in the Apocrypha because I don’t have it. .

These are just some that I’m aware of…

Sirach 24:21
He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more;
John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge.
Rom. 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Sirach 27:6
The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had
Matt. 7:16,20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Judith 13:1
Then Uzziah said to her: "Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.
Luke 1:42
In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

Sirach 5:11
Be swift to hear, but slow to answer. 14 If you have the knowledge, answer your neighbor; if not, put your hand over your mouth. 15 Honor and dishonor through talking! A man’s tongue can be his downfall.
James 1:19
My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,

Continued…

 

[st_felicity]

These two are stories from deuterocanonical books that are referenced in the NT…

2 Maccabees 7
It also happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king, to force them to eat pork in violation of God’s law… When he was completely maimed but still breathing, the king ordered them to carry him to the fire and fry him. As a cloud of smoke spread from the pan, the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die bravely, saying such words as these: “The Lord God is looking on, and he truly has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his canticle, when he protested openly with the words, ‘And he will have pity on his servants…’” Do not be afraid of this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that in the time of mercy I may receive you again with them." Thus he too died undefiled, putting all his trust in the Lord. The mother was last to die, after her sons.
Hebrews 11:35
Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

Tobit 3:8
For she had been married to seven husbands, but the wicked demon Asmodeus killed them off before they could have intercourse with her, as it is prescribed for wives. So the maid said to her: “You are the one who strangles your husbands! Look at you! You have already been married seven times, but you have had no joy with any one of your husbands. I have given her in marriage to seven men, all of whom were kinsmen of ours, and all died on the very night they approached her. But now, son, eat and drink. I am sure the Lord will look after you both.” Tobiah answered, “I will eat or drink nothing until you set aside what belongs to me.” Raguel said to him: “I will do it. She is yours according to the decree of the Book of Moses. Your marriage to her has been decided in heaven! Take your kinswoman; from now on you are her love, and she is your beloved. She is yours today and ever after. And tonight, son, may the Lord of heaven prosper you both. May he grant you mercy and peace.”
Matt. 22:25
Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"

There are many more examples–some more convincing than others…I wish I could give credit to whomever compiled the huge list I have stored in an obscure file on my computer, but I did it so long ago that the link I saved fails, and I did not reference the researchers name in my file!:nope:

 

[Tom]

bjcros:

I am a protestant. My answer is that if it isn’t in the Bible it doesn’t bind us. All of the Catholics asking how Protestants got the Bible. The answer is through tradition. Catholics and Protestants don’t differ on any of the New Testament books. Protestants reject the Apocrypha and the argument is that the Jews of Jesus’ time wouldn’t have used it and don’t consider it scripture. The Apocrypha and Church teachings have their place and they are evil.

Your use of the term “Apocrypha” shows the deception you’ve been taught by man. If you’re referring to the 7 books and other writings removed in the 19th century by the protestants, they are the deuterocanonical books, not the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha are unbiblical writings the deuterocanon are the writings removed by protestors.The deuterocanon was indeed included in the original KJV of the bible, it wasn’t removed until the 19th century (please do a google search on the history of the KJV). One may question why it was considered Scripture for 19 centuries (well after the deformation) then discarded. Did the Holy Spirit have a change of heart or did man have a change of heart?

bjcros:

I hold that there is no new revelation, and I think that most people do. I have a problem with things coming about now or 400 years after the fact. If the Holy Spirit reveals to me that I shouldn’t listen to a particular type of music, it doesn’t mean that everyone is bound by my revelation.

If there was no new revelation (and I agree) why were the deuterocanonical books included for 19 centuries then removed?

 

[Tom]

The term “Apocrypha” is used by the Catholic Church to describe non Scriptural writings. Protestants began using it to describe the deuterocanonical books to deceive people into believing they were not “authorized”. It is a deception which was very effective in that most Catholics don’t know the difference. The Apocrypha is not approved by the Catholic Church, in fact popes have warned of using non Scriptural apocrypha because they can lead you astray. The deuterocanon is approved, always has been, was even in the KJV for several centuries before being removed in the 19th century.
My question, since we know the Holy Spirit would not use deception and we know that Satan is the father of all deception, which spirit would lead people into using a deception, like calling the deuterocanon the apocrypha in order to confuse people? Which Spirit do you follow?

 

[Mad_Amos]

Early in life children experience a psychological disposition termed “center of the universe syndrome” in which they regard perception as constituting ultimate reality. As an example, children generally believe that closing the door on a room transforms that room into a void that lies beyond their perception and, therefore, reality. Modern Fundamentalism, especially where the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is concerned, seems to carry this notion forward into adulthood. We’ve heard the idiom implying that Fundamentalism regards the Bible to have “descended from On High” bound and ready-to-go, but that assessment is not without some kernel of truth. Adherents seem to believe that the Bible has always existed and been referenced in its current form, “chapter and verse”, right down to the Apostles themselves. For those willing to re-open the door to that room beyond perception, however, it takes very little logic to see that this is certainly not the case, especially where the deuterocanon is concerned.

Christ established His Church to commend His gospel to the four corners of the earth, to teach the faithful and to exemplify the Christian life. He did not leave a “Christianity for Dummies” book meant to instruct everyone using only their own skill at interpretation as their guide. He did not heal, preach and suffer, gather the Apostles, form them in perfect discipleship - the exact details of which, it is worth noting, are not explicitly detailed in Scripture - and then send the Holy Spirit to confirm them in authority and power just to leave them the exclusive “printing rights” to His Word. Many authors, having a tome to sell, are reluctant to dispense too much of their knowledge for free, instead dismissing requests for pearls of their wisdom with an instruction to “read the book”. Thankfully, God in His great Wisdom and Mercy knew that we would require, and therefore granted us, so much more. Christ’s parting words of hope were not “now I AM going to the Father - you’re on your own”. Rather, He assured us He would remain with us all until the end of the world, and He continues to do so in the form of His Holy Church.

Dismissing the Magesterium in favor of Scripture alone is similar to disregarding a student’s high school tenure and instead recognizing his term papers and yearbook as sole testimony of his education. How many would claim, after completing a correspondence or self-study course, equal scholarship with one who holds a doctorate in the same field of study? How many martial artists would feel comfortable, after teaching themselves Jeet Koon Do from a how-to guide, in a conflict with an actual student of the late Bruce Lee? As with any great academic pursuit, there must be first and foremost a guide who imbues his charges with the depth and breadth of his applied knowledge in addition to illuminating them with theoretical discipline. He may utilize study material in order to reinforce his teachings, but even this material is typically nothing more than an examination of the teachings of great instructors who have gone before. Such is the relationship between Sacred Scripture and the Church. The Apostles had an intimate, practical experience of Christ. To quote James Farentino (playing St. Peter in the wonderful miniseries “Jesus of Nazareth”): “We lived with Him, we ate with Him, we slept with Him. We knew He was the Christ…”. And on the day of Pentecost it was these same profound teachers who were filled with the Spirit in a way such that many of us will not comprehend in this life. Therefore, if we place greater value on the study guide than we do on the instructor, then we might as well dismiss all teachers from our schools and leave the students with a required reading list and their own devices. Did Christ Himself not say “no servant is greater than his master”? We should not consider ourselves, then, as the ultimate arbiters of doctrinal interpretation; rather it is the Spirit who guides us, as promised, through His Church.

 

[Mad_Amos]

In the Sola Scriptura view, however, the Apostles and their teachings are completely unnecessary. Jesus could have saved the gospel authors a lot of time and writer’s cramp if, instead of verbally commissioning his Apostles to make disciples of all nations, cast out demons, forgive sins, etc., He had just stood on an ancient Palestinian street corner and handed future disciples a tract summarizing His principles. The Bible is indeed inspired Scripture, but only inasmuch as it is a written historical record of the activity of the Church. The Church was already active in ministry before the first gospel was written. Without the Church the epistle writers would have had very little to write about and even fewer people to address them to. Were the Apostles even aware that they were writing Scripture in the first place? Perhaps no, but they would certainly agree with one thing: New Testament scripture is nothing more than the written expression of the Church’s pre-existing traditions.

The fact that since the Protestant Reformation we have so many competing Christian factions, each claiming true Sola Scriptura accuracy and authority, demonstrates that perhaps not everyone is getting the same message from their Bible. Does the Holy Spirit communicate His guidance like a kindergarten grapevine game, such that everyone gets a different message? There doesn’t even seem to be agreement on which translation to use. The deuterocanon is an excellent example. We may as well use the Book of Moroni if removing Scripture with which we disagree is acceptable. After all, Joseph Smith claimed to be Divinely inspired, did he not?

When we speak of communion with the Church, we speak of communion with Christ Himself. There is no separation, for St. Paul tells us that we are joined to Him. The Church IS the Body of Christ. The Church IS the Word of God. To those who challenge her authority in deference to the primacy of Scripture, Christ, through His Holy Church, can confidently respond “before the Bible was, I AM”.

 

[Ignatius]

bjcros:

Catholics can’t argue against the New Testament scripture that Protestants use because we have the same thing. .

Catholics don’t argue against the New Testament. It is the Catholic Church which, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, defined the books which belong in the New Testament, declared by the Authority given it by Jesus Christ that these books are God breathed and inerrant, and delivered them unblemished and immaculate down through the millennia. The Protestants got the New Testament from the Catholic Church. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, it is the Septuagint version, including the duterocanonical books, which was used in the region of Palestine at the time of Jesus.

OK, let’s start from the beginning. Here’s are some questions for you. Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include? Where (geographic location) was this done? When (approximate dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon). Please reply to this post and let me know what you find out.

pray the Holy Spirit will guide you in your search and bring you to Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Yours in Christ.

 

[WILKM]

Hi All

Not sure how I got into Apologetics. It’s alot more intense online than face to face. I’m quoting below the exchange between me and the sola scriptura person. Any comments? Will have to post it on the next one too as it is long. Thanks

Quote:

**Jesus left us a Church - not a book. **

First, I’m not comfortable calling the Holy Word of God ‘a book’. I find it insulting and an attempt to diminish its importance.

Quote:

**There was no Bible for the first 300 years after Jesus’ death. **

The last book to be written was Revelation and that was by the apostle John, so how could it be 300 years after Jesus death?

Jesus valued Scripture greatly, and quoted it often. When faced with the devil in the wilderness, what did He do? How did he respond? He quoted Scripture. He quoted Scripture to the apostles. He quoted Scripture to the Pharisees.

Quote:

Was all that Jesus did written in a book (the Bible) or deposited with His Church?

No. And how do we know? From Scripture.

Quote:

**The Bible IS a tradition of the Church! **

The Bible is the WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD. It is not a tradition of the RCC. I find it astounding that you or anyone would make such a claim. It indicates that you either don’t believe it is the Word of God, or you don’t understand what that means. Scripture gives the account of God giving Moses the 10 Commandments. Is this considered ‘tradition’ by the RCC or Holy Scripture? I don’t think Moses ran down the mountain and took out his pen and wrote everything down. An event has to occur before it is recorded. That does not make it ‘tradition’. We are talking about ‘tradition’ here in the context of something that is NOT written down. That’s the whole point. It’s not Scripture.

 

[WILKM]

Quote:

**Do you honestly think that only letters we have in the Bible is ALL they wrote? How much more was destroyed or lost? Do you think that what was in those letters was forgotten about? **

I don’t think it’s relevant one way or another. I trust that the Lord ensured what we need is there and properly preserved. We already know there were many more writings by many other people.

Quote:

**No, what was in those letters was passed on anyway because they learned it from someone who had been taught by the Apostles or someone very close or who had been ordained by them or one of their successors. **

According to the RCC ‘ordained by them or one of their successors’ could mean any RCC clergy from 300 AD to the modern-day pope. Not buying it. Ever play the telephone game?

Quote:

**And then when the books were gathered together and the Canon decided - who did it? The faithful protectors of the oral tradition and the deposit of Faith - the Catholic Church. **

Again, we don’t believe that the RCC is responsbile for giving us the Bible. God gets all of the credit for that. Since it was written long before the RCC even existed, it is an erroneous claim. Did the publishing house that compiled Shakespeare’s works into one volume get credit for the content of the books? Of course not.

Quote:

**Tradition will not contradict Scripture and Scripture will not contradict Tradition because Scripture is a Tradition of the Church. The Bible itself is a tradition. **

Saying this over and over again does not make it true. Moses might be surprised to learn that parting the Red Sea is a tradition of the RCC.

Quote:

**Sola Scriptura is a tradition of man (started during the Reformation by Martin Luther) and to rely on one’s own interpretation rather than the Church Christ built on the Apostles seems to me to say we know better than God. **

‘Sola Scriptura’ is not an accurate description of what Christians believe. Once again, tradition is fine as long as it doesn’t contradict Scripture or its principles or invent new doctrine. Christians are not relying on their own interpretation of Scripture. We rely on the Holy Spirit to teach and instruct us. Does this mean there are no errors? No! We have the knowledge of Jesus Christ and his gift of salvation too, but that doesn’t make us perfect either. It is a process of instructing, learning, hearing from the Lord. This only happens when one spends time and studies Scripture. We don’t learn this from hearing a line or two of Scripture at church. It is dedication and the desire to know God better.

Quote:

**And, as the ever-dividing Protestant denominations exemplify, men have proved to be corrupt. The Catholic Church is so because we rely on the Holy Spirit through the Magesterium to give us the correct interpretations of Scripture. **

I am not a Protestant but I know for a fact that RCs have greatly exaggerated the numbers of Protestant churches. I have yet to meet two RCs who believe the same thing BTW. Saying that all RCs believe in the teachings of the church is like saying all Christians believe the teachings of the Bible. Maybe so, but there are differences. I’ve been here and on other forums and I’ve seen it over and over again.

 

[WILKM]

Quote:

**Yes, the Church has gone through some rough times with corruption. But if anything else, this PROVES that this is God’s Church because it’s still standing after attacks from without and corruption from within. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18) **

Some rough times? LOL. Ok. If that’s what you want to call it.

The ‘CHURCH’ is the body of Christ. It is not an organization, a denomination, a catechism or pope. 1 Corinthians 12 describes the body of Christ in this way:

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary.

Therefore, the ‘church’ is all believers. And yes, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Scriptural church.

Quote:

**When we reflect on this, it becomes obvious that there is a need for an authority that has received a mandate from God to tell apart the words of men from the word of God. **

History has proved that there is no such mandate given to one denomination. And we already have the Word of God in the Bible.

Quote:

**The “Word” that was breathed from God is “Jesus”–not “Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts…” and “the Word” (Jesus) himself “breathed” on the Apostles in the upper room (John 20:22) - imparting the Holy Spirit to them - “inspiring” them. **

I agree. So if you believe that God ‘breathed’ Scripture, why do you call it a ‘book’ and treat it like a second class citizen in the world of magesteriums and encyclicals and catechisms?

Quote:

**Further, the Bible itself says to “hold fast to traditions” (1 Cor. 11:2 & 2 Thess. 2:15) it says to shun those not acting according to tradition (2 Thess. 3:6) and it further says in 2 Tim 2:2 that what was heard was to be entrusted to faithful men to teach and in Rom. 10:17 it says faith comes from what is heard which comes from Christ. **

Um…I think you may have missed the various quotes from the Lord Jesus Christ regarding tradition when he spoke to the religious leaders of his day. When Paul says ‘hold fast to traditions you have been taught WHETHER BY WORD OR BY EPISTLE’ he is not referring to extrabiblical doctrines and teachings (since they did not yet exist).

 

[WILKM]

Quote:

**Jesus only founded one Church, gave it the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, said what it bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail in heaven. **

Of course He founded one church. That church is the body of Christ, of which ALL believers and followers of Jesus Christ are a part. And neither the gates of hell nor any denomination will prevail against the true church of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

**That Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth which, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, declared infallibly which books are the inerrant word of God and delivered the Holy Scripture undefiled down through the millennia. It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. **

Says the RCC. Christians don’t believe that. There has been so much corruption and misinformation that we know we cannot trust men, who in their inevitable sin, greed and lust for power, have proved that they are not worthy to be trusted to speak the truth. This is why it is so vital that we always test everything against Scripture.

Quote:

**The Protestants did not even exist until the 16th century. **

Well, again I am not a Protestant. However, I do believe that there were many who disagreed with the RCC. Unfortunately they were all burned at the stake and/or tortured to death so they didn’t have the opportunity to do what Martin Luther eventually did.

Quote:

**They got the New Testament from the Catholic Church and have been misinterpreting it ever since. **

I believe the RCC has misinterpreted Scripture, added to its meaning, and subtracted from its meaning. If we examine the fruits of the RCC from its beginning in 300 AD, we will see a truckload of bad fruit. Power corrupts and it has done so in this case.

BTW, I am not saying the Protestant churches are much better when it comes to corruption and error. But they don’t claim infallibility either. Once one claims infallibility, it becomes necessary to jump through hoops to keep that claim going, and it just isn’t the way things are. No human being is infallible. We all need correction from time to time and it is when we recognize that and our need for God and his Word that we are able to be steered in the proper direction through the power of the Holy Spirit. That is humility…knowing that we are fallible and incapable of getting it right on our own.

Quote:

**Why is it then so difficult to accept that, if God inspired fallible men to put to paper His infallible word, why could He not also have inspired fallible men to hand down holy tradition? **

I believe there are many divinely inspired works, but they don’t qualify as Scripture and they are not on the same level as Scripture. Besides, a divinely inspired work will not contradict Scripture or its principles and it will not invent doctrine.

That’s it all! Sorry it’s so long!

 

[Mickey]

WILKM:

I am not a Protestant but I know for a fact that RCs have greatly exaggerated the numbers of Protestant churches.

How do you figure?

WILKM:

I have yet to meet two RCs who believe the same thing

**All **Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Church. If they do not, then they are not Catholic. They may say they are Catholic and they may attend mass, but they are not Catholic. Therefore, **all **true Catholics believe the same thing.

 

[bjcros]

st_felicity:

These are just some that I’m aware of…

Sirach 24:21
He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more;
John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge.
Rom. 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Sirach 27:6
The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had
Matt. 7:16,20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Judith 13:1
Then Uzziah said to her: "Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.
Luke 1:42
In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

Sirach 5:11
Be swift to hear, but slow to answer. 14 If you have the knowledge, answer your neighbor; if not, put your hand over your mouth. 15 Honor and dishonor through talking! A man’s tongue can be his downfall.
James 1:19
My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,

Continued…

Firstly, Sirach 24:21 says that you will hunger again, and John says you won’t hunger. I don’t think it is a referance to that. Romans 9 is a reference to Isaiah 29:16, and 45:9. I’m not sure about Mathew. I don’t know what is going on in Judith, but the only similarity is the greeting. A major difference I don’t think it is a Angel speaking in Judith. James is a reference to one of the Proverbs or 1 Corinthians, at least I think.
I never knew about these, but I thought that the Palestinian Jews(which is what Jesus was) didn’t accept these as scriptures.

 

[bjcros]

Tom:

The term “Apocrypha” is used by the Catholic Church to describe non Scriptural writings. Protestants began using it to describe the deuterocanonical books to deceive people into believing they were not “authorized”. It is a deception which was very effective in that most Catholics don’t know the difference. The Apocrypha is not approved by the Catholic Church, in fact popes have warned of using non Scriptural apocrypha because they can lead you astray. The deuterocanon is approved, always has been, was even in the KJV for several centuries before being removed in the 19th century.
My question, since we know the Holy Spirit would not use deception and we know that Satan is the father of all deception, which spirit would lead people into using a deception, like calling the deuterocanon the apocrypha in order to confuse people? Which Spirit do you follow?

Don’t you dare question me on which Spirit I follow. I follow the Holy Spirit. I don’t go through human instruments to get forgiveness, or salvation. I go to the source. You follow a man. I follow God. I don’t go to priests to get forgiven because they can’t forgive me. especially if I haven’t sinned against them. It is only God who can forgive sin. I am justified only through faith. You are justified through faith and works. It isn’t confusing, maybe you are, because it may just be a little complicated. I don’t accept the dueterocannon, and it doesn’t matter when the KJV got rid of it. I don’t use it. How do you justify putting books in Holy Scripture that Palestinian Jews rejected?

 

[Mad_Amos]

Let’s have a look at each of these contentions:

1.) First let us understand that the word “bible” is an English translation of the Greek word “biblios” which means - quite literally - “book”. But my feeling is that your Protestant friend is objecting to more than simple semantics, so let’s address the underlying issue. When we state that Christ left us “more than a book”, we are by no means marginalizing the importance of Scripture any more than stating “a mother is more than milk” would somehow minimize the importance of nourishment to an infant. What we are in effect saying is that the spiritual treasury He bequeathed us is so much greater and far more wonderful than could be adequately captured between the pages of any book, or any human convention for that matter. In fact, John himself alludes to this in his gospel. The Church, on the other hand, is the wellspring of sacramental grace, something so transcendent that human intelligence is powerless to quantify it. We are not dismissing Scripture. We simply recognize that it is but part of a much greater reality.

2.) To many, the comparison of the Bible as a single entity to individual gospels is a distinction without a difference. This is flawed reasoning, however, because the Bible is, in essence, an anthology - a collection of works. The fact that the Gospel of John was completed relatively soon after Jesus’ death (on the island of Patmos, somewhere between 90 and 100AD) has absolutely no bearing on the date of the Bible’s formal compilation. St. John did not run an ad in the local Roman periodical advertising the Bible “coming soon to a STARBVCKS near you” once the ink had dried on Revelation. Many determinations had to be made, apocryphal works sorted, etc. The canon was not finally and officially decided until the council at Carthage in 419AD, when the Church finally gave the world what it would ultimately come to call the Bible. As to the Old Testament, the Scriptures certainly did exist and were quoted extensively by Our Lord. But these were Jewish texts in the truest sense, and certainly not perceived at the time to be part of any larger Christian convention. A copy of Isaiah was even discovered as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls find, but it was quite without binding of any sort I can assure you. I can also guarantee you that these same texts are quoted in synagogues even today, but you will find none of Matthew or John’s writings with them. So you see, while Scripture has certainly been with us since before Christ, the Bible - as we understand it - has not.

 

[Mad_Amos]

3.) It is absolutely certain that not everything that Christ did is recorded in Scripture. The Bible itself not only asserts this, but the childhood of Jesus and the full detail of the Apostles’ 40-day post-resurrection instruction period with our Lord are conspicuous by their absence. What IS certain, however, and again supported by Scripture, is that Christ commissioned his Apostles to perform certain tasks. They were called to evangelize, cast out demons, heal the sick, etc. In other words, Jesus created an active ministry that would serve as the deposit of faith and the vehicle for His Grace in the world. Conversely, nowhere in Scripture is there recorded His command to write down everything and pass it on the sole source of doctrine. A question I love to posit is this: what would the Christian world be like if the canon had never been established?

4.) To his point, your friend seems to be confusing the crux of the assertion, that the genesis of the Bible was an authoritative, non-scriptural act by the Church. Since we gave him the benefit of the doubt concerning the debate over semantics in item #1, he should afford you the same courtesy. Instead of claiming the author for each epistle and every psalm, as those who claim Sola Scriptura are wont to do, they should simply answer the following question: “who assembled the Bible into the book form that we use today?” And, since I have already pointed out that the Lord had issued no commandment toward the formation of such a book, the logical follow-up question would be “by whose authority was this compilation made?” And in reference to the question about whether the Decalogue is considered tradition, you can give him a resounding yes. He is correct that Moses did not likely descend Mount Sinai and immediately “flick his Bic”. More likely it was quite some time before any of the Mosaic law was actually recorded. So how do we think the Hebrews were made to understand what God intended for them in the interim? You guessed it – oral tradition.

I also find his comment about your alleged misunderstanding of the meaning of the “Word of God” to be most uncharitable. It is curious that he all but accuses you of being autocratic in claiming the Bible as the fruit of tradition and then, in the very next sentence, levies an equally definitive judgment against you about your understanding of Scripture.

Ultimately petty arguments verses, scriptures or what constitutes the “Word of God” are irrelevant and unnecessary. What matters is the inviolable heart of the message. Christ is the Word of God, and He is all that is necessary in God’s revelation. To Him the prophets give witness, in Him is the fulfillment of the law. What we should be concerning ourselves with is how best to follow the plan He gave us for our salvation, and this is best expressed through the continuing ministry of His Church.

 

[bjcros]

Please, disregard my last post. I typed it in response and I was very angry. So I apologize to all of you. I should have used a lighter tone.

 

[Tom]

bjcros:

Don’t you dare question me on which Spirit I follow.

I question which Spirit everyone follows, you’re no exception. When you reject Scripture because it doesn’t fit your theology, I seriously question.

bjcros:

I follow the Holy Spirit. I don’t go through human instruments to get forgiveness

I am sorry, you don’t follow the Holy Spirit if you refuse to follow the Catholic Church that He established.
Mt 18: 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

bjcros:

You follow a man.

Yes I do follow a man, that man is Jesus the Christ, but by following I do as He instructs, I do not give lip service to His Words, I follow them.

bjcros:

I follow God.

Not if you refuse to follow His Church you don’t. You follow your own distorted version of His message.

bjcros:

I don’t go to priests to get forgiven because they can’t forgive me.

Jn 20: 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Jesus established oral confession, I understand you don’t like that but, it’s a fact. Rejecting His teachings is rejecting Him.
Lk 10: 16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

bjcros:

I am justified only through faith. You are justified through faith and works.

James 2:20 - But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:26 - For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

bjcros:

I don’t accept the dueterocannon, and it doesn’t matter when the KJV got rid of it. I don’t use it. How do you justify putting books in Holy Scripture that Palestinian Jews rejected?

Excuse me but your reasoning is a little strange. The Jews also reject ALL of the new Testament, so by your reasoning, so should we? Why on earth would the Jews accept as Scripture the books Jesus used extensively, and point to Him as the Christ? Od course the Jews reject them, the question is why do you?