Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, but that was not Holy Baptism.
Some of the disciples were first disciples of John the Baptist, so they would have had been baptized by water during that time. But it was not this water baptism that saved them. Even John the Baptist pointed out that the baptism that Jesus has to offer with the Holy Spirit is greater than the one he was offering with water.
 
Some of the disciples were first disciples of John the Baptist, so they would have had been baptized by water during that time. But it was not this water baptism that saved them. Even John the Baptist pointed out that the baptism that Jesus has to offer with the Holy Spirit is greater than the one he was offering with water.
Amen! Agreed! But this doesn’t mean that the Baptism Our Lord performs is without water!
 
Last edited:
Except that we do not have Saint John the Baptist baptizing us with only water. We have the Eternal High Priest who baptizes us through his earthly ministers with water and the Holy Spirit; one baptism. To say otherwise is a mutilation of Scripture and 2,000 years of Apostolic Tradition.
No, that is not what the scripture says.
Why do you ignore what is said in Matthew 3:11 and Acts 11:16?
How does that fit with what you have just said?
 
Why do you ignore what is said in Matthew 3:11 and Acts 11:16?
I don’t. I just do not isolate those two verses, build an entire non-Apostolic doctrine upon them, and ignore the other verses that explicitly and unambiguously state the use of water and the Holy Spirit in Holy Baptism.
 
I don’t. I just do not isolate those two verses, build an entire non-Apostolic doctrine upon them, and ignore the other verses that explicitly and unambiguously state the use of water and the Holy Spirit in Holy Baptism.
It seems you are placing more value on “Apostolic Tradition” over the Word.
These verses clearly point out 2 different types of baptism. But if your value in tradition makes you blind to the Word, I can’t change your mind. All I can do is leave you with what Jesus had to say on the matter of tradition vs the Word: Matthew 15:3 "He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”
 
Last edited:
Jesus
Man is to live by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.
.

medwigel . . .
It is impossible to know every person’s words verbatim . . .
Aside from you saying something Jesus never said, I think your issue here is with Jesus. Not me.
 
Aside from you saying something Jesus never said, I think your issue here is with Jesus. Not me.
I’m cool with Jesus.
I feel that He has equipped me with everything I need to succeed in this life through His word.
He gave me the playbook for life through the Bible and I’m rolling with that.
Like I said, me and Jesus are cool 👌
 
medwigel . . .
I feel that He has equipped me with everything I need . . .
The issue medwigel isn’t our “feelings”.

The issue is what Jesus commands us.

I’ll get back on this thread hopefully tomorrow.

I’ve gotta get to bed because in the morning I will be receiving “EVERY WORD that comes forth from the mouth of God” at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And when I am really and substantially Communing with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in body, blood, soul, and Divinity tomorrow at Mass, I’ll pray for everyone here too.

And yes I pray for 'yall at other times when I am communing with Jesus in Spirit too.
 
Last edited:
medwigel . . .
The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
Thank you medwigel for the kind words in that context.

You please pray for me too.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
But even the Catholic church acknowledges that these books were not necessarily inspired by God as the rest of the Bible. It is seen as good for getting lessons but not for doctrine.
Actually, that’s not what the Church teaches!

In fact, these books do confirm doctrine! If you look at Hebrews 1:3 (Jesus is “the refulgence of [God’s] glory”), which (if you look at the cross-references in your Bible, you’ll find a reference back to Wisdom 7:26) is the doctrine found in the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom! The word ἀπαύγασμα is found in the NT only at Hebrews 1:3 and, you guessed it… it’s the word that’s used to describe the glory of God in Wisdom 7:26!

So, yeah… the Church does assert that the deuterocanonical books are inspired and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness!

(If you’d like to listen to a good discussion of the deuterocanonical books from a Catholic perspective, check out this link!)
 
Last edited:
So, yeah… the Church does assert that the deuterocanonical books are inspired and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness!

(If you’d like to listen to a good discussion of the deuterocanonical books from a Catholic perspective, check out this link!)
And yet they were not fully canonized…so, why is that.
That’s because there are flaws that were found in those books.
 
And yet they were not fully canonized…so, why is that.
Not quite sure what you mean by this. They are part of the canon of Scripture!

The word ‘deuterocanon’ does not imply that they hold a ‘lesser rank’ or ‘lesser authority’ than other books of Scripture, let alone that they “have flaws”! See this link for an explanation of what the Catholic Church means by the term ‘deuterocanon’.

The ‘money quote’ in that article is:
Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews and the O. T. as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the O. T. are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”.
So, I’m terribly sorry @medwigel, but you misunderstand what the Church means by ‘deuterocanon’. It means none of the things that you’ve been asserting here…
 
(Oh… and just to substantiate my claims, here’s what the Council of Trent has to say about the canon of Scripture:
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent… has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Now, this isn’t the first time that a canon of Scripture was declared by the Church, but your claim was that the books referred to as ‘deuterocanonical’ “were not fully canonized.” As you can see, they most certainly were declared the canon of Scripture by the Church.)
 
medwigel (on several Old Testament books that were disputed by early Christians as to if they belonged in the Canon of Scripture or not) . . . .
And yet they were not fully canonized…so, why is that.
The same reason there were some NEW Testament books that had the SAME dispute.
They needed the authority of the Church to be applied to settle the issue.

And the Church DID settle the issue (in the late 300’s A.D. over a thousand years before Protestantism was invented by men).

Which is why there was no significant dispute over the Canon until the Protestant Revolt or “Reformation” (when that authority was invalidly assumed by those INDIVIDUALS rejecting the authority of the Church–a completely new invention where . . . anyone and their Bible . . . became their own “pope”).
 
Last edited:
I
Which is why there was no significant dispute over the Canon until the Protestant Revolt or “Reformation” (when that authority was invalidly assumed by those INDIVIDUALS rejecting the authority of the Church–a completely new invention where . . . anyone and their Bible . . . became their own “pope”).

The issue of the inclusion of these books was debated way before the Protestant Reformation.
Jerome, a Bible translator from the 5th century at first refused to translate these books because he thought they were not canonical and when he was pressed to finally translate them he went as far as to write about the doubtfulness of the text in the prologue of each book.
So this question of whether these books are truly inspired by God did not start with the Protestant Reformation, it started with the Catholic church.
 
medwigel . . .
Jerome, a Bible translator from the 5th century at first refused to translate these books because he thought they were not canonical and when he was pressed to finally translate them he went as far as to write about the doubtfulness of the text in the prologue of each book.
If I showed you St. Jerome later admitting he made a mistake in this area because he was influenced by the rabbis would it make a difference to you?

(I can do this, but if it’s not going to matter to you, I am not going to take the time to do “the homework”).
 
medwigel . . .
The issue of the inclusion of these books was debated way before the Protestant Reformation.
But I am not talking about it being “debated”. Portions of the New Testament Canon were “debated” too (you seemed to ignore this).

I am talking about HOW the “debate” was settled (not begun). And it WAS settled by the AUTHORITY of the Church.
 
Last edited:
medwigel . . .

.
So this question of whether these books are truly inspired by God did not start with the Protestant Reformation, it started with the Catholic church.
Let’s look at that medwigel.
So this question of whether these books are truly inspired by God did not start with the Protestant Reformation . . .
That’s correct. The Protestant Reformation wasn’t invented by men for over a thousand years LATER. Protestants could not hqve POSSIBLY have had a role such early Christian debates.

Why? Because Protestantisms were not INVENTED yet that’s why.
So this question of whether these books are truly inspired by God . . . started with the Catholic church.
Which is what you’d expect.

Just like the question of the lack of need for circumcision before becoming a Christian started with the Catholic Church too. . . . Culminating in Acts 15.

And the question ENDED with the Catholic Church as well (in Acts 15). Just like the Canonicity of Scripture of the NEW Testament AND the Old Testament ENDED with the Catholic Church (in the late 300’s. And it is only REJECTIONS of authority, that result in virtually any teaching being WRONGLY brought into question. REJECTIONS such as the “Reformation” that was to come along in the late 1500’s A.D.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top