F
Franz
Guest
no kidding, lol, I’m just finishing FOUR WITNESSES by Rod Bennet, my next book to read at home is Not by Scripture Alone…Sugenis ( I think ).
- Status
R
RNRobert
Guest
Also, don’t forget to tell them that using the table of contents to determine the canon doesn’t count!
B
bob
Guest
Kinsman,
This is the 2nd time I am posting this:
2 Tim 3:16-17 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The operative word here is “useful”. It does not mean “ultimate”, “alone” or only.
A text book is “useful” for teaching in a class. But it is NOT THE ONLY source of teaching.
Not a single copy of the “thousands” is original handwritten text. So all we have are either copies or translations.
Does the Scripture say which of those copies or translations are without errors?
Who selected the right copies of scriptures to be accepted as inspired? Why did the Church reject these books below as apocryphal? Did the Scriptures say they were?
Epistle of Barnabas
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Book of Enoch
Gospel of Thomas (140-170 AD)
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs
Second Baruch
Third Baruch
The Books of Adam and Eve
etc.
Basically where does scripture say which books are inspired and which are not?
The confusion was sorted out by the Church instituted by Christ.
By the way we are all still anxiously awaiting your answers to BobRobert’s 4 infamous questions.
You seem to have a ready answer for everything except those. Care to explain why?
This is the 2nd time I am posting this:
2 Tim 3:16-17 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The operative word here is “useful”. It does not mean “ultimate”, “alone” or only.
A text book is “useful” for teaching in a class. But it is NOT THE ONLY source of teaching.
Not a single copy of the “thousands” is original handwritten text. So all we have are either copies or translations.
Does the Scripture say which of those copies or translations are without errors?
Who selected the right copies of scriptures to be accepted as inspired? Why did the Church reject these books below as apocryphal? Did the Scriptures say they were?
Epistle of Barnabas
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Book of Enoch
Gospel of Thomas (140-170 AD)
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs
Second Baruch
Third Baruch
The Books of Adam and Eve
etc.
Basically where does scripture say which books are inspired and which are not?
The confusion was sorted out by the Church instituted by Christ.
By the way we are all still anxiously awaiting your answers to BobRobert’s 4 infamous questions.
You seem to have a ready answer for everything except those. Care to explain why?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
That’s right. The table of contents is not referenced by a scripture verse so it is an extra-scriptural Tradition.Also, don’t forget to tell them that using the table of contents to determine the canon doesn’t count!
B
BobCatholic
Guest
BobRobert’s? ( whomps you playfully with a pillow
)LOC admitted he didn’t know the answers to these infamous 4 questions on DCF message board, but for some reason kinsman won’t admit this. In this way, LOC is superior to kinsman (though both rebel against the Catholic Church)
F
Franz
Guest
oh really, isn’t that interesting. Well, let’s just hope that at least it causes LOC see the sand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based on. That’s all. It’s not about who wins or loses here, it’s about making people understand the truth and destroying LIES (like Sola Scriptura)BobRobert’s? ( whomps you playfully with a pillow
LOC admitted he didn’t know the answers to these infamous 4 questions on DCF message board, but for some reason kinsman won’t admit this. In this way, LOC is superior to kinsman (though both rebel against the Catholic Church)
J
James1234
Guest
RNRobert posted a rebuttal to Kinsman who uses sola scriptura. So far Kinsman can’t find the right answers to the 4 questions of where we got our New Testament from. He can anwer this quite simply:
THE CATHOLICS
Sorry Kinsman it hurts to hear the truth.
THE CATHOLICS
Sorry Kinsman it hurts to hear the truth.
R
RNRobert
Guest
Actually, Bobcatholic posted the 4 questions, not me. However, kinsman STILL has not told me where to find the word ‘trinity’ in the Bible…
J
James1234
Guest
Kinsman still hasn’t replied to your challenge.
BobCatholic:
Shhh!
That is the Catholic Church’s best kept secret
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I know. Kinsman is afraid to say “I don’t know” for some reason.
to: Kinsman, I won’t make fun of you if you admit you don’t know the answers to my infamous 4 questions. I didn’t make fun of LOC when he didn’t, so I won’t with you.
However : the answers to my infamous 4 questions are SO important to your belief set that if you can’t answer them, the very foundations of your belief set are jeopardized.
S
SteveG
Guest
Sorry this is off topic, but I just want to throw out here that Sungenis is at this point a Shismatic Catholic and has fallen in with the radical traditionalists. Not sure if this was yet the case when he wrote, Not by Scripture Alone, but IMHO, I’d tend to want to avoid works by folks who are not faithful Catholics. I can recommend some alternatives if you like. Just PM me.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I would recommend “21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura”
geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
By Joel Peters.
geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
By Joel Peters.
K
Kinsman
Guest
[Unlike Rome’s “magesterium” I don’t claim “infallible” interpretation of Scripture. When it comes to man and his institutions (religious, or even secular), no one nor anything can honestly claim infallibility. Oh, they may claim it, and you may believe the claim, but the claim and your personal submission to it, don’t create the reality.
You don’t rid the Church of false teachers and false doctrines by simply assigning to an ecclesiastical office the attribute of "infallibility. At best. the most that can be accomplished from that assignment is willful (as well as coerced), outward conformity by those who accept, by faith, the ascribed (divine) attribute. At worst (and this being the overall case) the door is wide open (which no man can shut) to all sorts of false doctrines. For the obvious reason that now no one is allowed to challenge the doctrines espoused by that “infallible” institution. And certainly no devotee would even dare for fear of excommunication, or even loss of salvation with the threat of spending eternity in Hell. This, people, is a cult mentality.
The early Church assigned “infallibility” to no man or office. And the great doctrinal issues were settled not by men graced with this divine attribute, but on the preponderance of evidence revealed in the Scriptures when carefully examined and brought before a Council. But not even the Councils were considered “infallible” in their time, since even after the Council of Nicea, the majority of the Bishops remained Arian in their belief, especially during the years of Emperor Constantius. Even the Roman Pope signed a document which opposed the decision of the Nicene Council in order that he be restored to the Papal chair. And after his defection the whole Roman empire was overspread with Arianism. You see, no man, no ecclesiastical office, no Council is ever infallible.
The idea that God must have, out of necessity, ordained an authoritative means to infallibly interpret His written Word (like Rome’s episcopate), is based only on subjective, human reasoning. A theory which can not be backed up by any sort of objective proof, either from Scripture or Church history. Historically, and realistically, orthodox doctrines were formed out of controversy, and controversy is a product of freedom. Removal of that freedom actually produces the opposite effect. The door is wide open for false doctrines to come into the Church totally unchallenged, and men are required to believe them or suffer the eternal consequences. This is the spirit of darkness behind Rome’s despotism and self-proclaimed infallibility.
Continued…
K
Kinsman
Guest
It was the semi-Pelagian monk/priest Vincestius who propounded the maxim for tradition which the Roman church adopted as its standard: “What has been everywhere, always, and by all believed.” A threefold test of ecclesiastical orthodoxy: A Catholicity of place, time, and number. Or, in other words, ubiquity, antiquity and universal consent. Hence “tradition,” declared an article of faith, cannot be new revelation but must be traced up to the Apostles, found in all Christian countries, and among all believers. Yet this standard Rome actually neglects, exampled by its extrabiblical Marian doctrines, as well as Purgatory, Indulgences, and Papal supremacy. Doctrines that can not be traced back to the Apostles nor ever universally believed by the whole Church (defined as the historic, Catholic Church - not limited to the church of Rome).
However, the Old and New Testaments pass Vincestius’ test with flying colors. And in all honesty, they’re all we have that do. The Apostles believed that the Scriptures were the written Word of God and recognized their divine Authority. Subsequently, all Christians everywhere have believed the same; based not on any intrinsic or independent quality, but the divine subject and Author to whom the term “infallible” is most properly applied. Only God Himself is infallible. Therefore this term could only apply to His written Word and the teachings found therein. But to the contrary, no human, or human institution (religious or secular), can ever honestly claim infallibility. If done, it is done in a cultish manner - not in reality.
“Sola Scriptura” simply means that the ultimate authority for the Church Christ is building, even to this present day, is God’s written Word. Its teachings being infallible based on its Author. Hence, all doctrines and practices taught by men within the Christian Church must be tested against what God has already written.
Your “infamous four questions” don’t challenge “Sola Scriptura,” but are instead a direct attack on the written Word of God itself. An attempt by Rome’s apologists to discredit its divine authority over the Church for the sake of defending its extrabiblical “traditions” and the elevation of itself as our only infallible source. This is called “sola ecclesia.”
However, the Old and New Testaments pass Vincestius’ test with flying colors. And in all honesty, they’re all we have that do. The Apostles believed that the Scriptures were the written Word of God and recognized their divine Authority. Subsequently, all Christians everywhere have believed the same; based not on any intrinsic or independent quality, but the divine subject and Author to whom the term “infallible” is most properly applied. Only God Himself is infallible. Therefore this term could only apply to His written Word and the teachings found therein. But to the contrary, no human, or human institution (religious or secular), can ever honestly claim infallibility. If done, it is done in a cultish manner - not in reality.
“Sola Scriptura” simply means that the ultimate authority for the Church Christ is building, even to this present day, is God’s written Word. Its teachings being infallible based on its Author. Hence, all doctrines and practices taught by men within the Christian Church must be tested against what God has already written.
Your “infamous four questions” don’t challenge “Sola Scriptura,” but are instead a direct attack on the written Word of God itself. An attempt by Rome’s apologists to discredit its divine authority over the Church for the sake of defending its extrabiblical “traditions” and the elevation of itself as our only infallible source. This is called “sola ecclesia.”
M
mtr01
Guest
II Paradox II:
If you are not willing to make such a conclusion, you must then concede that Sacred Tradition is also inerrant.
IMO, neither of these positions holds water. Case in point, what are we to make of the earliest Christians…say those living in time of Jesus himself (but never got to see him preach in person) or those born after the Resurrection (but before the NT was canonized)? You seem to be suggesting the without an inerrant NT to appeal to, they were fallibly instructed in the faith, since all they had was Sacred Tradition as preached by the Church.
If you are not willing to make such a conclusion, you must then concede that Sacred Tradition is also inerrant.
S
Sherlock
Guest
There are serious problems with the ideas you present. First off, you offer: “The early Church assigned “infallibility” to no man or office.”
Really? I have read the Church Fathers extensively, and would be very hesitant indeed to make that claim. On what do you base that hypothesis or theory? I would be most interested to know the basis for your claim.
Really? I have read the Church Fathers extensively, and would be very hesitant indeed to make that claim. On what do you base that hypothesis or theory? I would be most interested to know the basis for your claim.
M
mtr01
Guest
II Paradox II:
If one were to allow that the early Christians were properly instructed in the faith, one would also have to concede that Sacred Tradition is inerrant as well.
I don’t think either form of sola scriptura holds water. Case in point, take the early Christians; those who lived in the days of Jesus (but were unable to see him preach in person) or those born after the Resurrection, but before canon of the NT was formalized by the Church. Either position would suggest that these poor souls, without an inerrant NT to appeal to, were fallibly instructed in the faith (since all that existed was Sacred Tradition).
If one were to allow that the early Christians were properly instructed in the faith, one would also have to concede that Sacred Tradition is inerrant as well.
M
mtr01
Guest
go Leafs go:
Two words: printing press. For the 1500 years before it was invented, it would have made absolutely no sense to promote such a doctrine. With the time it took to hand copy a bible, let alone the virtual non-existence of public education (and thus literacy), *sola scriptura *could never have existed prior to Guttenburg.
M
mtr01
Guest
One analogy I like is from Karl Keating…saying scripture is profitable for the man of God is like saying water is profitable for life. Certainly we wouldn’t live without water, however it is not sufficient, we need more than water (e.g. food). 2 Tim 3:16 says scripture is profitable, not sufficient.
Another interesting point about that verse is that if it proves anything, it proves too much. As many have commented above, there was no " official New Testament" in existence while Paul was writing to Timothy. The only scriptures he would have had on hand would be the Old Testament. Certainly no adherent of sola scriptura would suggest that the Old Testament was all we need for salvation…would they
K
Kinsman
Guest
The argument is not based on the word “profitable” (Gr. ophelimos), but “inspired” [Gr. *theopneustos, God-breathed]. All Scripture is God-breathed. Hence, they wield the Authority of God Himself. We have no higher authority on earth than the God-breathed Scriptures, and they accomplish what they’re divinely intended to do: adequately reprove, correct, and train in righteousness the man of God for every good work. And in this respect, just as the water is sufficient (adequate) to keep a man from dying of dehydration (its intended purpose), so the Scriptures are sufficient (adequate) to accomplish what they were divinely intended to do as well.
Karl Keating? Sorry, but based on the argumentative logic you people have been presenting throughout this thread, you can’t trust anything that Karl Keating says. Not with any certainty, that is. You cannot be sure he is interpreting correctly what the “magesterium” has taught either directly or by implication regarding this verse. Unless you’re going to assign to him, as well, the divine attribute of infallibility. Based on the logic presented on this thread, you require an infallible interpreter of the infallible teachings of the infallible “magesterium.” You don’t have that in Karl Keating.
- Status