 |
The definition of the word itself is not the problem. It is how the word is used. Like I had said, the sentences, "You love your mother" and "You love pizza" each use the word "love," but in two entirely different ways (unless you love pizza as much as you love your mother).Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
ClassyT,Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
You asked a question directed to Catholics who, unlike you, do not believe in the doctrine of "sola scriptura" and yet you demand that we produce evidence according to YOUR belief system?
We have backed up our belief with the teachings of the Magisterium, the "teaching authority of the Catholic Church" and our interpretation of verses as using hyperbole. While you may disagree with this, which is your right, it is our belief and that is what your original question asked for.
Furthermore the difference in opinion over whether certain verses in the Bible are hyperbole or not leads us again to the same impasse that I have posted before, on two different occasions in different threads (both receivied no answer), which is:
How can you decide, with absolute certainty, which interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, if you believe in "sola scriptura"?
This is one of the major flaws I see with the doctrine of "sola scriptura", i.e. God did not leave us with a way to decide with absolute certainty, what the truth of scripture is even though He is the Truth.
Wondergirl,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Did you not post two different definitions of the word "righteous"?
Did you not say that in Romans 3:10 the word "righteous" matched the meaning of your first definition?
Rather than nitpicking at the way I phrased the question, why not attempt to answer the question, which I will rephrase so as to make it absolutely clear what I am asking for.
Could you explain how "There is no one who does good" means the same thing as "there is no one righteous" according to the meaning of "righteous" which matches the first of your two definitions posted earlier.
ClassyT,Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
This is another one of the major flaws I see with the doctrine of "sola scriptura". Where did you get that the Bible contains only 66 Books?
Can you give me any verse/verses in Scripture that backs up your claim that the Bible contains only those 66 books that you refer to as the Bible?
The problem is that "sola scriptura" is not self consistent and complete, it does not provide us with a list of which of the many writings are the inspired Word of God.
elscarta,
First, please do not be offended by me. I hope you aren't. I am enjoying our discussion and I am not meaning to be offensive in any way.
Second, I will be back to answer your questions as to why I believe the Bible to be complete. But first I must tend to my motherly duties. Kids are complaining no clean socks and I guess they want me to make dinner which means I need to go buy food. Go figure?? But never fear, I shall return with some answers for you. :)
Tess
You know what. There are so many and too many stories about Christ and God to even put a whole book together. It is impossible to tell all the stories, all the lessons. What we have is a bible put together that best describes Gods love for us and sacrifices made and a blue print for our lives of yesterday, today and tomorrow. The bible contains a certain amount of books and you know what it is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
There will always be more stories, more lessons but they are free to look at whenever they may be found. We just have to trust that all of the books that we do have tell us the story that is most important for our faith.
elscarta,
I go along with what you are saying.
I do think that Paul was using hyperbole but maybe he wasn't.
If that's that case I find what he said to be perplexing.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred, you remind me of B. B. King on the guitar: master of the short phrase. What in the text indicates to you that he's using hyperbole, and if he's not, what do you find perplexing about his statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
dwashbur,
It is perplexing because it appears to be in conflict with other passages.
I believe that there are no conflicts in Scripture.
If so then what was he saying if it was not hyperbole?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Okay, let's go step by step. What other passages?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
All;
What do these verses mean to you?
What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. As it is written: There is not any man just. There is none that understands: there is none that seeks after God. (Romans 3:9-11)
I ask because my notion of these verses seems far removed from the non-Catholic understanding. It seems convoluted, so much so I figured that I'm reading too much between the lines. How does 'righteousness' figure into these verses? Do you read these verses to say that no man is just therefore no man is righteous or can't receive a state of righteousness or holiness through his works in cooperation with grace? Or, am I to assume the only way to salvation is to grit my teeth, hunker down in the big grunt, click my heals three times, spin around, and say 'I think I believe: I think: I believe!'? Do I do this once in a lifetime, or every waking minute?
How do you rectify your response with “Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)
Do you know that there is a difference between the law and the covenant? If the 'Law' is bad, then why did Paul say we needed to “establish the law”? In St. John Chrysostom's Homily on Romans he states that in verse 31 the word 'established' indicates it is worn out:
Do you see his varied and unspeakable judgment? For the bare use of the word “establish” shows that it was not then standing, but was worn out (katalelumenon). And note also Paul's exceeding power, and how superabundantly he maintains what he wishes. For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the “Law,” even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he saith, “being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets”), so here this establisheth that, now that it is unnerved.
'Covenant' can be construed as laws but normally it's used to refer to a body of laws. Let's look at an example like subdivision covenants. Such covenants form a relationship between the developer who established the covenants and the homeowner who buys a lot in the subdivision. Furthermore, these same subdivision covenants also forms reciprocity among the neighbors who are in a cooperative relationship for living and prospering in the subdivision. A similar relationship is formed between God and man in the Covenants of Moses, do they not? Did Christ come to destroy the Law, or as He said fulfill them?
The Old Testament Covenants holds this same nuance in meaning. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book “Many Religions, One Covenant” holds that “The relationship is therefore completely asymmetrical, because God, for the creature, is and remains the “wholly Other”. The covenant is not a two-sided contract but a gift, a creative act of God's Love.” God's act of love adds yet another dimension to 'covenant'. God's covenant becomes more than law, more than reciprocity, more than a spiritual love for “here God, the King, receives nothing from man; but in giving him law, he gives him the path of life.” This Holly ordinance becomes far more than direction, it brings a bridal love and a patristic relationship. So the Covenant of the Old Testament isn't 'simply' a set of laws it's a loving living, real live relationship (a.k.a. Covenant) between the immutable God and a mutable man.
All of which brings us head to head with a contradistinction if righteousness is denied to man. Why then did Paul want us to 'establish' the law in us'? Or, since no one is salvageable in the eyes of God, is He pernicious in His willy-nilly picking of who gets justified and who doesn't? If God is nilly-willy then how can we have assurances of salvation promised by the Protestants. Does God do a sort of 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe this one is saved, that one is damned '–if so of what value is the law or faith?
JoeT
Hey...
The other passages than HAVE BEEN POSTED HERE ON THIS THREAD
Fred
No need to shout, thank you. I already dealt with those. What else you got?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Dwashbur,Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
With regards to Romans 3:10 I have an outstanding question at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2320432 which I rephrased at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2321755
I sat down this morninig to attempt to explain why I believe the Word of God is complete and the absolute truth. It isn't so much that I don't believe in reading other people's opinions or thoughts about certain subjects of the Bible. But there is no other source BUT the Bible that is Gods word to mankind. As I began posting some scripture, I googled to see how others may exlpain it. I ran across this and as much as I would like to think I could do a better job at it I can't. Ii thought this guy's explanation was really good. He compares scripture with scripture to prove his position. So I shall copy it. It is long but worth the read if you get the time:Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” John 10:27.
The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.
In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
—Revelation 22:18-19
His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160).
The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.
Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.
Affirmed by Jesus Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.
In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
Other sources of authority condemned
People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.
Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.
How is Scripture to be accurately interpreted?
The principle of “sola Scriptura” is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).
The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.
Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).
If you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 “with a broken and a contrite heart”, the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles.
Is Scripture alone adequate, or do we need more?
The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul,
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
—2 Timothy 3:16-17
For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.
What about the claim that sola Scriptura is not possible?
In an attempt to justify traditions as being of equal or higher authority than Scripture, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel,
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
—John 21:25
Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.
Another attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states,
“…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
—2 Peter 3:15-16
Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12).
From the earliest days of Christianity, a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. “…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Truth, God’s Word, and our love for Him
The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. “Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).
The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”
Author: Richard M. Bennett, Berean Beacon Ministries
ClassyT,
Thank you for your post, even though it does not actually answer my question.
My question was not about what you think the Bible contains rather how do you know which books make up the Bible. You claim that there are 66 books in the Bible. Catholics believe that there are 73 books in the Bible. How do you justify the list of books that you believe make up the Bible, just by using Scripture?
Scripture is my ONLY authority because I believe it is the word of God. I don't need to justify it because it is what it is.
I don't claim there is only 66 books, go to the bookstore and pick up a Bible. It starts in Genesis and it ends in Revelation. Incidentally this book happens to be the best selling book of all time.
I didn't decided which books went into the Bible. I didn't decide it would be 66 books. But if I have enough faith to believe the God of the universe spoke this world into existence. I don't have too much trouble believing it was no accident how those books were chosen and in what order and how many. I didn't write it, I didn't pick it, I don't add to it and I don't take away from it. I just believe it. :)
Good question, but don't expect a direct answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
The decision to accept either 66 books or 73 was made by men for various reasons I will not go into here. That information can be found all over the Internet. God didn't mention to anyone specifically which books should be in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
A touch of sanity in a sea of obfuscation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
(It wouldn't let me agree with you, so I post this)
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 PM. |