sola scriptura

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

These are Honest Protestants pointing out what is fact. Do you deny honesty? Do you deny fact?

Yes, I do deny that the translation issue you raised based on what that website said has anything to do with what I believe about Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I do deny that the translation issue you raised based on what that website said has anything to do with what I believe about Scripture.

Gaelic,

When you quote anything to me then all I can say is that you are quoting a translation and if you disagree then prove to me that what you have is not just a translation because if you cannot then my ears are deaf. Prove what you assert. The book you have is the Word of God based on your saying so or can you prove this?

Then you deny what other Protestants say about translations. Who is going to settle this dispute?

Do you believe that I and other’s are truly Christian?

Do you believe that those that wrote this about translations are truly Christian?

I know, let us take it to the Church…

Help me find my way…where do we go?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

When you quote anything to me then all I can say is that you are quoting a translation and if you disagree then prove to me that what you have is not just a translation because if you cannot then my ears are deaf. Prove what you assert. The book you have is the Word of God based on your saying so or can you prove this?

Yes, I know it’s a translation. And yes I also know that the documentary evidence demonstrates that our translations are accurate reflections of the original autographs.

Do you believe that I and other’s are truly Christian?

It’s above my paygrade to determine if you are truly Christian. I can judge whether the church body you belong to teaches Christian truth or not but I can’t judge your standing before God based on an internet forum.

Do you believe that those that wrote this about translations are truly Christian?

Sure. I just don’t think what they are discussing is relevant to what we are discussing.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I know it’s a translation. And yes I also know that the documentary evidence demonstrates that our translations are accurate reflections of the original autographs.

It’s above my paygrade to determine if you are truly Christian. I can judge whether the church body you belong to teaches Christian truth or not but I can’t judge your standing before God based on an internet forum.

Sure. I just don’t think what they are discussing is relevant to what we are discussing.

Gaelic,

So I ask if you are baptized in the trinitarin formula and if you answer I say you are truly Christian. My pay grade is one of the faithful.

You say that you cannot determine this suggesting you have a Private Revelation not part of the deposit of Faith that says otherwise. If this is true then whatever your position on who is Christian and how that happens must have historical Record because Christ and those followers have been around 2000 years.

If you deny what is relevant and I ask you which Church to take it to and resolve it you cannot answer. Are we as Christians always supposed to have a ready answer? It appears that you do not.

So you say that there is documentary evidence, do you mean documented evidence? If so, show me so that I may accept the Baptist position without doubt.

I have discussed the Protestant canon here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609709

Protestant canon using Masoretic text v.s Catholic Canon Septuagint…is this pretty much why Protestants deny the Catholic Canon, deuterocanonical books (DB)?

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.

1. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.

1. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

I say you have an incomplete translation. You say you have documented evidence.

How can you expect a simple minded man like myself to accept that we can discuss The Bible alone if I am not convinced that what you have is truly the Word of God?

Prove that you have the Word of God.

Go easy on me. I am just a simple minded Catholic that attends mass, reads the Bible now and again and studies the Catechism. I am not one of these well schooled apologists.

 

[SteveVH]

Thats an assertion, not evidence.

One who claims the Bible as the sole source of revelation must either believe their interpretation is without error, making themselves infallible, or they must admit that they can be certain of nothing. It is not the authority of Scripture that is in question, it is the authority and ability of the one interpreting it. The thousands of divisions present in Protestantism are a testament to the success of private interpretation in gleaning truth from the scriptures. Rather than the Holy Spirit guiding them into all truth, Protestantism resembles a peice of glass dropped out of a ten story building. I live in a small town of around 10,000 people. In the last 10 years the original Baptist church that was here when I arrived has split into 5 different “churches”, all of them abandoning the name Baptist and adopting rather generic “bible church” names. So which one of them has the correct interpretation and can anyone be sure that any of them ever did?

Now lets take a look at what you call an ascertion, the claim that the Church is “the Bride of Christ, the Pillar and Foundation of God’s Truth … whom Christ said he would be with until the end of time, protecting it faithfully on matters of faith and morals.” What you refer to as ascertions are based on evidence from the only source you accept, no less. I mean, do you not believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth; that Christ did not promise to remain with it until the end of time and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth? You will deny that it is the Catholic Church that is being spoken of, yet no other Church was in existence.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

So I ask if you are baptized in the trinitarin formula and if you answer I say you are truly Christian. My pay grade is one of the faithful.

You say that you cannot determine this suggesting you have a Private Revelation not part of the deposit of Faith that says otherwise. If this is true then whatever your position on who is Christian and how that happens must have historical Record because Christ and those followers have been around 2000 years.

I base it on what people profess to believe about the gospel of Jesus Christ and whether they live in a manner consistent with that profession. I don’t base it on whether they are baptized only. I only know a little about what you professs and nothing about how you live.

If you deny what is relevant and I ask you which Church to take it to and resolve it you cannot answer. Are we as Christians always supposed to have a ready answer? It appears that you do not.

I deny that the translation issue is relevant to what we are discussing.

So you say that there is documentary evidence, do you mean documented evidence? If so, show me so that I may accept the Baptist position without doubt.

Documentary evidence, yes. There is no “Baptist” position. There is a Christian position on the evidence for the authenticity, reliability and accuracy of the New Testament. This evidence has caused thousands of atheists worldwide to repent and place their faith in Christ. Not one that I know of has done so because when they asked for evidence of the truth claim of Scripture they were told “because the magisterium says so.”

Protestant canon using Masoretic text v.s Catholic Canon Septuagint…is this pretty much why Protestants deny the Catholic Canon, deuterocanonical books (DB)?

No…I have Septuagint translations as well as Masoretic.

 

[CopticChristian]

I base it on what people profess to believe about the gospel of Jesus Christ and whether they live in a manner consistent with that profession. I don’t base it on whether they are baptized only. I only know a little about what you professs and nothing about how you live.

I deny that the translation issue is relevant to what we are discussing.

Documentary evidence, yes. There is no “Baptist” position. There is a Christian position on the evidence for the authenticity, reliability and accuracy of the New Testament. This evidence has caused thousands of atheists worldwide to repent and place their faith in Christ. Not one that I know of has done so because when they asked for evidence of the truth claim of Scripture they were told "because the magisterium.

No…I have Septuagint translations as well as Masoretic.

Gaelic,

So you are a judge. The Word of God, declared to be the Word of God by the Church, says…I do not judge myself…yet you judge others to determine that they are Christian.

What I profess is seen here…in it’s entirety.

We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."

You then want to judge how I live?

The translation issue is irrelevant because you cannot prove that you have the Word of God. Prove that you have the word of God or there is no discussion about Sola Word of God. You must prove you have it.

There is Christian evidence. What Christians are these? By saying this you differentiate yourself and reveal a known bias. I am Christian and that evidence is by the Church. Do you deny that this is Christian evidence?

You say that athiests come to Christ. You say that you cannot determine who is Christian. I want to know how you so easily convince someone you have the word of God.

Are you not able to prove you have the word of God?

This is only post 444, so there are at least 456 posts left for you to prove this.

If you can’t prove you have the word of God then when you cite something you say is the word of God you have no authority other than you saying so.

Prove you have the word of God, if you are able.

There are 5317 people viewing this thread. Think of how much knowledge and truth you can impart those that are lurking and not posting. Imagine how many lives you can change. Do you want these people not to know what you know. Please, please prove you have the word of God. Enquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps you lack ability, I understand.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

One who claims the Bible as the sole source of revelation must either believe their interpretation is without error, making themselves infallible, or they must admit that they can be certain of nothing. It is not the authority of Scripture that is in question, it is the authority and ability of the one interpreting it.

Okay, Steve, we can take the subjective approach if you wish, for epistemological knowledge (which I’ve yet to understand why Catholics become postmodern liberals on this issue, but I digress). You claim that my belief is subjective to my own interpretation, or it’s infallible. Epistemologically, you are no more certain than I. You claim to have a hierarchy which can interpret Scripture infallibly. That removes the interpretation question from the table. However, what is just as fallible and uncertain as you claim my interpretation of Scripture is, is your fallible certainty that the hierarchy to which you submit is infallible to begin with. Unless you want to claim that your interpretation of history, tradition, and Scripture was infallible in determining that the Roman communion is the true, infallible church of Christ, as opposed to the Orthodox, Oriental, PNCC, Old Catholic, Sedevacantist, or independent Eastern communions, which also claim to have an infallible teaching authority. If you do claim your investigation into the authenticity of the magisterium is infallible, then you are no different than the Protestant who claims his interpretation is infallible (of which I don’t know any). Since I am assuming that you don’t claim that, your certainty of the truth of Rome’s claims is just as certain as mine.

The thousands of divisions present in Protestantism are a testament to the success of private interpretation in gleaning truth from the scriptures. Rather than the Holy Spirit guiding them into all truth, Protestantism resembles a peice of glass dropped out of a ten story building. I live in a small town of around 10,000 people. In the last 10 years the original Baptist church that was here when I arrived has split into 5 different “churches”, all of them abandoning the name Baptist and adopting rather generic “bible church” names. So which one of them has the correct interpretation and can anyone be sure that any of them ever did?

And if the division within non-Catholic churches is evidence of the insufficiency of Scripture to determine doctrine, I would assert that the division within the churches that claim to possess apostolic tradition, demonstrates the insufficiency of tradition.

Now lets take a look at what you call an ascertion, the claim that the Church is “the Bride of Christ, the Pillar and Foundation of God’s Truth … whom Christ said he would be with until the end of time, protecting it faithfully on matters of faith and morals.” What you refer to as ascertions are based on evidence from the only source you accept, no less. I mean, do you not believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth; that Christ did not promise to remain with it until the end of time and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth? You will deny that it is the Catholic Church that is being spoken of, yet no other Church was in existence.

I don’t reject the assertion that the church is the bride of Christ, or the pillar of truth (and I mean the church, not the hierarchy). What I reject is that the Roman Catholic Church is solely that bride.

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay, Steve, we can take the subjective approach if you wish, for epistemological knowledge (which I’ve yet to understand why Catholics become postmodern liberals on this issue, but I digress). You claim that my belief is subjective to my own interpretation, or it’s infallible. Epistemologically, you are no more certain than I. You claim to have a hierarchy which can interpret Scripture infallibly. That removes the interpretation question from the table. However, what is just as fallible and uncertain as you claim my interpretation of Scripture is, is your fallible certainty that the hierarchy to which you submit is infallible to begin with. Unless you want to claim that your interpretation of history, tradition, and Scripture was infallible in determining that the Roman communion is the true, infallible church of Christ, as opposed to the Orthodox, Oriental, PNCC, Old Catholic, Sedevacantist, or independent Eastern communions, which also claim to have an infallible teaching authority. If you do claim your investigation into the authenticity of the magisterium is infallible, then you are no different than the Protestant who claims his interpretation is infallible (of which I don’t know any). Since I am assuming that you don’t claim that, your certainty of the truth of Rome’s claims is just as certain as mine.

And if the division within non-Catholic churches is evidence of the insufficiency of Scripture to determine doctrine, I would assert that the division within the churches that claim to possess apostolic tradition, demonstrates the insufficiency of tradition.

I don’t reject the assertion that the church is the bride of Christ, or the pillar of truth (and I mean the church, not the hierarchy). What I reject is that the Roman Catholic Church is solely that bride.

Gaelic,

The Bride of Christ is the OHCAC that is composed of

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic Latin/Eastern and all those baptized in the Trinitarian Formula…

The Catholic Church retains the structures of episcopal leadership and sacramental life that are the gift of Christ to his Church (cf. CCC, nos. 765, 766) and that date back to apostolic times. At the same time, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Holy Spirit uses other churches and ecclesial communities “as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church” (CCC, no. 819; LG, no. 8). Depending on what and how much of the elements of sanctincation and truth (UR, no. 3) these communities have retained, they have a certain though imperfect com¬munion with the Catholic Church. There are also real differences. In some cases “there are very weighty differences not only of a historical, sociological, psychological and cultural character, but especially in the interpretation of revealed truth” (UR, no. 19). (The word church applies to those bodies of Christians who have a valid episcopal leadership or hierarchy, while the phrase ecclesial communities refers to those bodies of Christians that do not have an apostolic hierarchy.)

You are correct it is not the Roman Catholic Church alone…

Are you giving up on proving that you have the Word of God…if you can’t do it, you can’t do it. Not to worry. I just thought you might have an opportunity to impart some spiritual gift as you sojourn with this CAF…

Don’t give the thought of trying to prove you have the word of God another moment. Don’t think about it. Don’t concern yourself with it. When you think of the Word of God do not give the fact that you cannot prove that it is what you say it is any time and just ingore any request to …

Prove you have the word of God

any consideration…you just don’t have the ability…

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10262564]Well, if I understand, you state that the Bible is the highest authority. My question is where do you get that specific truth from?

No, what I said was that, in the practice of sola scriptura, scripture is the final norm by which teachers, doctrines, etc are held accountable.

Because I am not aware of it being in the Bible.

Why would a practice have to be in the Bible?

But even if it did, you would still need to arrive at the truth that the Bible has any authority. So this means that in order for you to even come to realize that the Bible has any authority, there must be some other authority (equal or higher) that must be accepted, no? This authority would be the one that made such pronouncements as “Bible IS the word of God” or “Bible IS the highest authority”.

Since I didn’t use the term authority,let me phrase my response this way.
Since SS is a practice of the Church, we recognise the role of the Church to teach, to practice hermeunetics, etc.

What I am asking is that how did you come to accept that authority and what it might be?

Hopefully, I’ve answered this.

Or are you saying that it is intuitive to anyone that

1. Bible IS the word of God
2. Bible IS the highest authority

I don’t know about intuitive, but certainly we agree that it is the word of God, our differences on how we use the historically disputed books notwithstanding.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Since I am assuming that you don’t claim that, your certainty of the truth of Rome’s claims is just as certain as mine.

And yet only one of the claims is true. Either the Catholic Church, or your claim. Can you prove your claim that you have the Wod of God??

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

So you are a judge. The Word of God, declared to be the Word of God by the Church, says…I do not judge myself…yet you judge others to determine that they are Christian.

What I profess is seen here…in it’s entirety.

You then want to judge how I live?

Yes. Which I can’t. Based on an internet forum. Which was my original statement to begin with. So moving right along…

The translation issue is irrelevant because you cannot prove that you have the Word of God. Prove that you have the word of God or there is no discussion about Sola Word of God. You must prove you have it.

There is Christian evidence. What Christians are these? By saying this you differentiate yourself and reveal a known bias. I am Christian and that evidence is by the Church. Do you deny that this is Christian evidence?

Um, no…you asked for the “Baptist” position on the evidence for the word of God. There is no “Baptist” evidence.

You say that athiests come to Christ. You say that you cannot determine who is Christian. I want to know how you so easily convince someone you have the word of God.

Are you not able to prove you have the word of God?

Sure I am. But I don’t know why you’d want to debate it. You believe it’s the word of God, right?

This is only post 444, so there are at least 456 posts left for you to prove this.

If you can’t prove you have the word of God then when you cite something you say is the word of God you have no authority other than you saying so.

Prove you have the word of God, if you are able.

There are 5317 people viewing this thread. Think of how much knowledge and truth you can impart those that are lurking and not posting. Imagine how many lives you can change. Do you want these people not to know what you know. Please, please prove you have the word of God. Enquiring minds want to know.

gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

Since I am sure the intent of your question is for inquiring minds reading the thread, there is a basic introduction that doesn’t require that I try to explain it in 6000 words

Perhaps you lack ability, I understand.

Perhaps you can’t have a conversation without ad hominem fallacy arguments. I understand.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

And yet only one of the claims is true. Either the Catholic Church, or your claim. Can you prove your claim that you have the Wod of God??

Well, not if you want to reduce it to that, no. Since you also have the claims of about 4 or 5 other churches that claim to be apostolic. We could both be wrong and it’s really the Orthodox church, no?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

And yet only one of the claims is true. Either the Catholic Church, or your claim. Can you prove your claim that you have the Wod of God??

Or you could refer to this post, Denise.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10226758&postcount=34

 

[Denise1957]

Well, not if you want to reduce it to that, no. Since you also have the claims of about 4 or 5 other churches that claim to be apostolic. We could both be wrong and it’s really the Orthodox church, no?

You seem to be trying to prove a positive (that you have the word of God) by proving a negative (the situation with the Orthodox in relation to Rome). Do you not have any other evidence than this to prove that you have the Word of God? And how is this proof?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You seem to be trying to prove a positive (that you have the word of God) by proving a negative (the situation with the Orthodox in relation to Rome). Do you not have any other evidence than this to prove that you have the Word of God? And how is this proof?

See above. And no, that was in response to your comnent that its either my church or the CC.

 

[Denise1957]

See above. And no, that was in response to your comnent that its either my church or the CC.

I didn’t look at the link. So if you are not trying to prove that you have the Word of God by the situation with the Orthodox and Rome, then we are back to square one. Can you prove that you have the Word of God?

 

[Porknpie]

One who claims the Bible as the sole source of revelation must either believe their interpretation is without error, making themselves infallible, or they must admit that they can be certain of nothing. It is not the authority of Scripture that is in question, it is the authority and ability of the one interpreting it. The thousands of divisions present in Protestantism are a testament to the success of private interpretation in gleaning truth from the scriptures. Rather than the Holy Spirit guiding them into all truth, Protestantism resembles a peice of glass dropped out of a ten story building. I live in a small town of around 10,000 people. In the last 10 years the original Baptist church that was here when I arrived has split into 5 different “churches”, all of them abandoning the name Baptist and adopting rather generic “bible church” names. So which one of them has the correct interpretation and can anyone be sure that any of them ever did?

Now lets take a look at what you call an ascertion, the claim that the Church is “the Bride of Christ, the Pillar and Foundation of God’s Truth … whom Christ said he would be with until the end of time, protecting it faithfully on matters of faith and morals.” What you refer to as ascertions are based on evidence from the only source you accept, no less. I mean, do you not believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth; that Christ did not promise to remain with it until the end of time and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth? You will deny that it is the Catholic Church that is being spoken of, yet no other Church was in existence.

Steve -

I could feel your presence. I knew it wasn’t just Coptic that I was feeling. :hug3:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaelic Bard
Thats an assertion, not evidence.

Gealic,

From your viewpoint maybe. But your church is the new kid on the block, rejecting the deposit of faith - both the oral tradition and the written Word as it has been understood - for a millenia and more…dismissing scripture and then saying that scripture doesn’t support anything with Christ establishing a Church, singular. This is interesting as a Catholic because the bible was written by, for and about the Catholic church, in part for instruction but also to have universal set of readings for Mass. And then your chuch is likely using a KJV bible, where 7 books have been removed from the original 1611 KJV bible. So confusion exists on faith, morals and what even the written Word of God consists of.

Twist of scripture: believing that Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is symbolic.

Now there is no evidence for that. On the contrary, it’s not what the bible explicitly states, it’s not what the early church taught and it’s not what the Church has believed for 2,000 years.

It’s identical to the crowd leaving Jesus and Jesus turning to disciples and asking “are you too going to leave?”. St. Peter reponded, “to whom shall we go”? I’m not sure what evidence that I can provide if you won’t follow the words of Christ himself. Christ was clear on the Eucharist and never corrected those following him saying it was symbolic. And that is an apostolic teaching…

On a personal and charitable note… I am glad you are here…

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes. Which I can’t. Based on an internet forum. Which was my original statement to begin with. So moving right along…

Um, no…you asked for the “Baptist” position on the evidence for the word of God. There is no “Baptist” evidence.

Sure I am. But I don’t know why you’d want to debate it. You believe it’s the word of God, right?

gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

Since I am sure the intent of your question is for inquiring minds reading the thread, there is a basic introduction that doesn’t require that I try to explain it in 6000 words

Perhaps you can’t have a conversation without ad hominem fallacy arguments. I understand.

Gaelic,

I ask you to reflect on your thinking…

You rightly say that God cannot be summed up in words; but it is only in revelation that we can learn about the Word made flesh for us. That is why we place such value in a book.

God can be summed up in one Word Jesus. You place value on a book. Where does that book say to place value on the book? Certainly if the book has value and it has all you as a Christian should know, then it should be clear as day that the book says so. Prove this point.

Everything that a Christian needs to know is based on His word to us.

Where does the book say this. Let me save you some time here…do not go here…

14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

All this does is validate the Old Testament since at the time of this writing the New Testament did not exist and all it says is that it gives you wisdom that leads to salvation, it is profitable for teaching, etc…but it does not say only the Old Testament…so forget that one.

That is not how evidence works, pablope. The one making the positive claim has the burden of providing evidence that supports the claim. If you want to claim any doctrine is apostolic, you have to show that it is.

So you claim that all knowledge a Christian has comes from the book, everything we need is in the book, and then you tell Pablope that the one making positive claims has the burden of proof to support that claim. You claim you have the word of God and all that is needed is there. Yet, your positive claim lacks what you say others do not provide. Prove that what you have is the Word of God.

That isn’t a rational way to determine truth, Coptic. The obsession with infallibility in order to prove or disprove something is a standard that is simply illogical. One can think of some pretty bizarre scenarios that that kind of an argument can be made to apply to.

You tell me that there is a rational way to determine truth. I don’t mind criticism. Teach me the rational way to determine and prove that you have the Word of God.

Prove you have the word of God

Thats an assertion, not evidence.

You have asserted that the word of God is all you need, that there must be evidence when someone posits a possitive assertion, as you have, saying that this is all you need and that you have the Word of God…so be true to yourself…

Do not assert…Provide the evidence that you say others must provide.

Prove that you have the Word of God.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I didn’t look at the link. So if you are not trying to prove that you have the Word of God by the situation with the Orthodox and Rome, then we are back to square one. Can you prove that you have the Word of God?

The evidence I would use is what I posted, Denise.