 |
I notice that the Roman Catholics discussing this topic always want to get into great detail on this side of the issue, but appear to avoid dealing with the fact that the onus is on this to valid their additions to the canon.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Great dodge! So you blame the Bible for not wanting to explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If I remember my history correctly it was Wyclif and the Lollards (circa 1380), Jan Hus (circa 1400) and Martin Luther (circa 1520) who came up with Sola Scriptura along with host of other errors. To my knowledge Wyclif and Hus never mention deleting books from the Cannon.
Even still I’m looking forward to seeing a logical explanation of Sola Scriptura; I’ve never seen one. It seems to me that since I’m not a proponent and don’t understand Sola Scriptura the burden to explain its scriptural validity is yours.
JoeT
If it is not explained in the Bible maybe it is because it is not Biblical
So why would the Bible explain something that didn't exist?
That would be like saying it is the Bibles fault that it doesn't explain Mormon's teaching on Jesus and Lucifer being brother angels.
No, that is not it at all, but the OP was:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.
Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon a claim that Sola Scriptura contradicted the Bible. The onus would be on those who support that claim to validate that claim. But it seems that those who support extraBiblical sources of doctrine do not wish to validate their beliefs.
N0help4u:Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I agree Holy Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God to reveal his Truth. So as to discern Scripture from other writings we look to the authority of the Catholic Church. Thus we find that Roman Catholic Church doctrines harmonize with apostolic teachings (tradition) as well as Holy Scriptures.
This is why, when speaking of doctrine, St. Augustine says, “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes”. FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY
If by asserting, “Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit Church doctrine” we are affirming the same concepts in different ways, then yes I agree. Just to be perfectly clear, your statement as written here, does not consider Sola Scriptura; which is a concept I do not hold.
JoeT
While I disagree with your assertion here, being new to the forum, I'll start with the Catholic view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Consequently, this makes Apostolic tradition usually in the form of papal and councils decrees to be the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.
On the other hand, we have a view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture are the only infallible basis for the rule of faith. Each individual holding the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to interpret the Scripture. Most Protestants form distinct groups of likeminded sole arbitrators of the rule of faith, i.e. Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, etc. Since each individual has the same rights to authenticate what the Scriptures represent then there can be as many different rules of faith as there are Protestant denominations; for that matter hypothetically we could end up with as many denominations as there are Protestants. Only one can represent an absolute truth; which is infallibly right and which isn't?
We see that Protestantism isn't 'one' faith and can never be 'one' given that each is the arbitrator of his own faith. So when we come to (John 17:11): as you may recall Christ prayed, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.”
I've indicated the Catholic position; so how is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?
JoeT
You've a short memory TJ. I've demonstrated over and over that Sola Scriptura not only contradicts the Bible but it also contradicts itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Lets go over it again. We'll use your definition of Sola Scriptura.
See Scripture alone? Thread, page 20, message #194 wherein you defined Sola Scriptura as:
the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.
Now lets hold that belief up to the Biblical standard:
Scripture says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,
Obviously, if you are supposed to follow the faith taught by your prelates, your leaders in the Church, then the oral teaching of the prelates is your standard.
This is confirmed elsewhere:
1 Corinthians 2 13 Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
So, the doctrine which they learned was spoken to them. Therefore ANOTHER standard for doctrine is oral teaching.
And the Bible also says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
So obviously, if we must go to the Church to settle doctrinal disputes, then the Church must also be a standard for doctrine.
So, if the Bible did teach that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine, it would contradict Itself. But It doesn't teach that doctrine. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men which contradicts Scripture.
And since Scripture nowhere says that scripture is the sole standard of doctrine, that means that the doctrine named Sola Scriptura, contradicts itself.
Sincerely,
De Maria
The OP once again was:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.
Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is not about your denomination's position.
Let's once again stick to scripture, not to your denomination, nor any other.Quote:
On the other hand, we have a view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture are the only infallible basis for the rule of faith.
This is the same mis-representation that De Maria posted. How can anyone claim to be able to evaluate sola scriptura if you do not know what it is?Quote:
Each individual holding the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to interpret the Scripture
BTW, before you point fingers with an accusation such as this, does your denomination claim the right to interpret scripture?
We're making progress!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Using a better translation it states:Quote:
Now lets hold that belief up to the Biblical standard:
Scripture says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,
Obviously, if you are supposed to follow the faith taught by your prelates, your leaders in the Church, then the oral teaching of the prelates is your standard.
Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV
It may be yours, but not mine. Note that the men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard, but rather Paul's words were tested by going to scripture - and Paul commended them.
Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV
This says nothing of the sort. This refers to judging actions, and has nothing to do with establishing doctrine. Read the passage just before to see the context:Quote:
And the Bible also says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
So obviously, if we must go to the Church to settle doctrinal disputes, then the Church must also be a standard for doctrine.
Matt 18:15-16
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
NKJV
It is important to understand what doctrine is.
The Bible is the authoritative standard we are to live by.
Ecclesiastes 3:14
And I know that whatever God does is final. Nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God's purpose is that people should fear him.
Isaiah 55:11
So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
God tells us by His Word and His Spirit what we need to live by.
Job 28:20
“From where then does wisdom come?And where is the place of understanding?
Psalm 119:104
Through Your precepts I get understanding;Therefore I hate every false way.
Psalm 119:130
The entrance of Your words gives light;It gives understanding to the simple.
Psalm 119:144
The righteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting;Give me understanding, and I shall live.
Psalm 119:169
[ ת TAU ] Let my cry come before You, O LORD;Give me understanding according to Your word.
Proverbs 2:6
For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;
Proverbs 3:19
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens;
Proverbs 9:10
“ The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:28
Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God.
2 Chronicles 6:10
So the LORD has fulfilled His word which He spoke,
2 Chronicles 6:17
And now, O LORD God of Israel, let Your word come true,
2 Chronicles 11:2
But the word of the LORD came
Ezra 9:4
Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”
I didn't endorse your interpretation. I have simply proved again that it is not to be found in Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It says the same thing. The Scripture is telling you to follow the standard of Church teaching.Quote:
Using a better translation it states:
Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV
That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. Obviously, Paul and Silas represent the Teaching Church. The Magisterium. They are not here saying, look it up in Scripture alone. They have taught the Bereans the traditions by word which they look for in Scripture.Quote:
It may be yours, but not mine. Note that the men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard, but rather Paul's words were tested by going to scripture - and Paul commended them.
Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV
Therefore the teaching of the Catholic Church is depicted here. The Teaching Church, aka, the Magisterium teaches the traditions by word and epistle.
But it has everything to do with obeying and interpreting doctrine.Quote:
This says nothing of the sort. This refers to judging actions, and has nothing to do with establishing doctrine. Read the passage just before to see the context:
Matt 18:15-16
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
NKJV
It is important to understand what doctrine is.
Doctrine is Teaching. In respect of the Church, it is Church teaching. And the Church teaches the word of God. This brother has sinned by offending the word of God.
Hamartanō
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Otherwise the Church would not be brought into the fray:
Luke 12 13 And one of the multitude said to him: Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 But he said to him: Man, who hath appointed me judge, or divider, over you?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Matthew 16:19, Mat18:18, John 21:15-19Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
Mark 7:13
I did not say that you did - but it is the first time that you actually acknowledged the correct definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Perhaps in your own mind, you have, but not in reality.Quote:
I have simply proved again that it is not to be found in Scripture.
No it does not - how you managed to get that interpretation out of that verse is beyond me. You comment emphasizes the danger of private interpretation.Quote:
It says the same thing. The Scripture is telling you to follow the standard of Church teaching.
Wow - can you build a story where it doesn't exist.Quote:
That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. Obviously, Paul and Silas represent the Teaching Church. The Magisterium. They are not here saying, look it up in Scripture alone. They have taught the Bereans the traditions by word which they look for in Scripture.
Doctrine is one thing which can be taught, yes, but to say that by teaching something orally it becomes the standard of doctrine is not true at all. Indeed rarely if ever true. You have made a stretch of logic not supported either by the facts at hand or by the rules of logic.Quote:
Doctrine is Teaching. In respect of the Church, it is Church teaching.
First of all you did not answer the question (yes or no would do fine), and second, just posting verses does not explain anything - you need to tell us your intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Savedsinner7, Tj3, et al
Savedsinner7 lists a series of verses claiming they are biblical proof of authoritative standard to live by. I would agree that they are standards benefitting our holiness. On the other hand, none are authoritative verification of the Sola Scriptura theory.
Tj3 said that it was so clear and logical that it was “unnecessary to go into it in detail.” However, I find it unclear and illogical that a book can authenticate itself. The Apostle Thomas had a doubting nature; Christ never reproached him for his nature. When asked a question by a doubting Thomas, I don’t recall Christ saying “it’s unnecessary to go into it in detail.”
How am I to understand that each time I ask this question it’s dodged or ignored? Is it that the authority for the idea of Sola Scriptura can’t be shown to be scriptural? Please do explain how you find Sola Scriptura to be scripturally based in some detail. It’s not logically evident.
How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?
JoeT
Tj3 Good, good, I didn't know we were playing dodge ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Your words not mine. Do you mean that the verses need to be explained? Should we get an "authority" in to explain it to you? Maybe the Pope?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Your it!
JoeT
You see, here's the point you keep missing. The New Testament was first SPOKEN. First by Jesus Christ. Then by the Apostles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If the spoken word being taught was not the standard of doctrine then, what was?
Of course, the spoken word was then written in the New Testament. Did the Church stop teaching after the doctrines it was teaching were written down?
NO! That never happens. Even today, math is still taught. Yet how many books have written down the knowledge that 1+1=2?
And to whom do we run to learn math? To a book, or to a teacher?
A very simple example is the assemby instruction that comes with a new toy which you must assemble for your child. How often do those instructions wind up in the trash because they are difficult to follow?
Isn't it ALWAYS better to have someone teach you who knows rather than to try to figger it out from "instructions"?
Read the Scripture:
2 Peter 3 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Acts Of Apostles 8 27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. 33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? 34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
And that is why the Sciptures always depict the Apostles teaching:
Romans 10 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
1 Timothy 2 7 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle, (I say the truth, I lie not,) a doctor of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2 Timothy 1 11 Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles.
That is why one can't divorce Tradition and Scipture. The Mass is a perfect example:
Acts Of Apostles 2 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
From the time of the Apostles, we read the Scriptures and remember Our Lord's Sacrifice, partake of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord all in an atmosphere of prayer and worship.
This is why Scripture says of the Mass:
1 Corinthians 11 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.
Sincerely,
De Maria
The RCC isn’t creating tradition unto its own; it is fulfilling Christ’s commission. There is a marked difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
Jesus' commission was to win disciples
By teaching:Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Sincerely,
De Maria
This is a common mistake made by those who wish to force their view of sola scriptura on the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Seems everyone skips the context...
A Berean is someone who accepts the faith as preached, finding the pertinent Scriptures. The Thessalonians searched the SAME Scriptures and did not believe Paul's interpretation. The Bereans did believe. Not because they were smarter, had more Bible college graduates, had Thayer's Greek Lexicon, or had a superior "personal relationship" with God! God has not required that people be really smart to understand Scriptures. He has given apostles, evangelists, preachers, etc. for that purpose.
It's also important to note that Acts doesn't hold Paul accountable to the Bereans. Nor is Scriptures holding Paul accountable to Scriptures. Have you read Galatians 1? Who is Paul accountable to? Certainly not the Galatians or THEIR interpretations of Scriptures...
When one considers the REST of the Bible, that thesis is promptly destroyed. Acts 15 is the pinnacle of proof of that concept - and Paul states it quite clearly in Gal 1:8-10 that HIS GOSPEL, not some Berean's INTERPRETATION of the Bible, was the Truth.
Jesus very clearly tells that Apostles that "he who hears you hears me". The Apostles were given authority. The Apostles were given the power to bind and loosen. Rejecting the Apostles' teachings were akin to rejecting Christ (Luke 10:16, for example).
You advocating that men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard is ludicrous, because it make the BEREANS authoritative over Paul.
Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If you are going to claim that I said something - quote it - don't take a snippet out of context and mis-represent me. That is not what I said at all. I said that there is no need because of the fact that we all agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally accepted as canon, and thus, based upon Proverbs 30:5-6 and others, the onus is on you if you wish to argue other sources to be God's word.
Are you arguing that the 66 original books of the canon are NOT the word of God?Quote:
However, I find it unclear and illogical that a book can authenticate itself.
It isn't. How come each time that I ask you questions, they are dodged or ignored?Quote:
How am I to understand that each time I ask this question it’s dodged or ignored?
Not all of it, but parts, yes. So?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Now I see where you are mis-understanding. If I got this right, you think that anything spoken is doctrine then. Perhaps you could validate why you believe that. The men of Berea tested paul's words using scripture. Paul did not claim his spoken words to be the standard of doctrine, but rather commended the Bereans for checking what he said by testing it with scripture. When Jesus was on earth in the flesh, he validated doctrine by going to scripture.Quote:
If the spoken word being taught was not the standard of doctrine then, what was?
Now we have what is written and scripture tells us not to go beyond what is written.Quote:
Of course, the spoken word was then written in the New Testament.
Read the context. They checked what Paul said to see if what he said was true. That is a test of true or false, and how do you test - you use a standard which you know is always true - the scriptures.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Really? You must be reading quite a different Bible than I am. Do you allow the Bib le to interpret itself or do you accept your denomination's private interpretation?Quote:
When one considers the REST of the Bible, that thesis is promptly destroyed.
His gospel is what he was inspired to write. This says nothing about it being his gospel verses how his gospel aligns with the Bibklical interpretation of it. If his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit (and they were), then allowing the Bible to interpret will give us the right understanding because the Hioly Spirit does not contradict Himself.Quote:
Acts 15 is the pinnacle of proof of that concept - and Paul states it quite clearly in Gal 1:8-10 that HIS GOSPEL, not some Berean's INTERPRETATION of the Bible, was the Truth.
On the other hand, private interpretations by men (i.e. leaders of a denomination) can indeed get it wrong.
To think that the Bereans had AUTHORITY over Paul is absurd...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Are you saying that if they read the OT and decided Paul was wrong they could just ignore his teachings and toss him out of town?
Hardly screams respect for the Bible.
Yet again, I'll point out the contradiction of this... you are interpreting the Bible... you can say the Bible is doing it by "itself", but anyone above the age of 3 understands that you are simply giving your opinion.Quote:
On the other hand, private interpretations by men (i.e. leaders of a denomination) can indeed get it wrong.
That is right the Bible does say anybody that teaches contrary to the Bible is not to be followed and it also says study to show yourself approved and so you do not follow false doctrine. By questioning Paul it is not so much to prove him wrong but that it is good study habits to back up what Paul said. No disrespect. And as you said the Bible was not written until hundreds of years later but now you want to use the Bible to back up your point of them respecting the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
You seem to be forgetting that the Bereans were referring to the OLD Testament... I would challenge you to find PROOF of the New Testament from the writings of the Old.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Please show me where in the Old Testament does it say that we are no longer bound by the Law of Moses.
You can't... these teachings were NEW and some CONTRARY to the clear teaching of the OT and Judaism... the notion that all Christian teaching needed to be supported by the Jewish OT is kind of foolish.
What laws are we bound to and what laws are we not bound to?
Because I have noticed everybody seems to pick.
The 10 commandments sure we are to live by them.
Again... please show me in the Old Testament that our salvation is not tied to meeting the standard of the Law of Moses.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
You break one law, you break them all... and must go to the Jewish high priest to attone for your sins, right?
Please... just like the Bereans... show me in the OLD Testament why you don't need to any longer.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law: Matt. 5:17, "...I am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill..." He fulfilled the Commandments by living perfectly under the Law. His impeccability and perfect life fulfilled Code I. The Ordinances, Code II, were fulfilled by Christ's death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and session. The Judgments, Code III, were fulfilled by Christ as He observed the law of the land; he lived under divine institutions and establishment.
Jesus Christ is the "end of the Law" for believers: Rom. 10:4.
Believers in the church age are under a higher law of spirituality: Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 5:18,22,23; I Cor. 13. The believer who functions under the filling of the Holy Spirit takes up where Christ left off and fulfills the Law.
Limitations of the Mosaic Law
The Law cannot provide justification either for individuals or for groups: Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:20; Rom. 3:28; Acts 13:39; Phil. 3:9.
The Law cannot give life: Gal. 3:21.
The Law cannot give God the Holy Spirit nor the divine power and energy from the Holy spirit: Gal. 3:2.
The Law cannot solve the problem of the Sin Nature: Rom. 8:3. While there were laws of punishment in varying degrees, and fear of punishment helps keep people in line, the Law does nothing to provide victory over sin.
Present Purpose of Mosaic Law
The Commandments provide laws of human freedom and provide a divine standard to which the sinner can compare himself and his actions and recognize that he is a sinner and needs a Saviour: Rom. 3:20,28; 1 Tim. 1:8,9.
Jesus fulfilled the law so now we are to do the law intent but through love for Christ rather than obligation to the law.
Jesus said something along the lines of I give one command to love others and in all that all the other laws are met.
Again... please show me LIKE THE BEREANS DID... the teaching of the Old Testament that confirms this.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:
Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.
Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.
If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.
Usually I deal with questions like this from atheists who are trying to discredit Christianity. I have spent time researching question such as this many times, but unless you are questioning whether the NT and the OT are canonical, this is simply playing games, and is a tactic that I see used often to keep your opponent in a debate tied up on wild goose chases while you get away with ignoring the real question. The approach which would resolve this isssue is:Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
- We agree on the original (common) 66 books as canonical. So lets not play games and waste each others time in that regard.
- I presume that you agree with scripture which says that we are not to add to God's word (Prov 30:5-6).
So the onus is on you to validate addition to the Bible. Why do I see so many folk opposed to sola scriptura run when I ask this each time?
I never said that. I said that God's word had authority over us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
You know, I once was a person who asked that same question, until I studied scripture in more detail, and I was amazed at how much of the NT is found in the OT. What the NT added was primarily more detail regarding the fulfillment of OT prophecy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
No, history shows ample evidence that the canon INCLUDED those "additions"... the onus is on YOU to try to show why Luther and non-Catholic Christians REMOVED those books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Which does not come close to answering my questions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
... but NOT over an APOSTLE.Quote:
I never said that. I said that God's word had authority over us all.
Too many people seem to ignore that the Bereans did not accept Paul at his word, something I doubt many Christians would support.
Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia which I have posted up here a number of times acknowledges the facts of history. I have other Roman Catholic books that do also. Why then, do so many Roman Catholics refuse to acknowledge that the books were added at the Council of Trent?Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Really? Would you care to show us scripture which says that an Apostle has authority over the word of God? This is like saying that an Apostle does not need to submit to God.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Let's just stick with one error at a time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Have you ever even read the Council of Trent?
One more time:Quote:
Council of Trent
SESSION THE FOURTH
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
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.
HAVE BEEN USED (past tense)
AS THEY ARE CONTAINED IN THE VULGATE (from 404 AD)
PART OF CHRISTIAN TRADITION
All Trent did was make it official IN RESPONSE to the heresy of Luther and his removal of books from the Bible.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 PM. |