Your wrong. The Catholic Church does say Holy scripture is the very word of God. Where do you get your information?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Would you stay? 2
- Thread starter Davyboy
- Start date
- Status
Your wrong. The Catholic Church does say Holy scripture is the very word of God. Where do you get your information?
Do the Scriptures have authority over the church or does the church have authority over the Scriptures?
First of all, you said: 'They (Catholics) will never say the scriptures are the very word of God'. That is absolutely wrong! You really should study what the Catholic Church teaches/believes before you make such absurd statements.
Tradition and scripture must line up together. there can be no “tradition” which contradicts scripture and since scripture is unchangeable, it is a primary source -i’m not saying tradition is “changeable” just interpreted from scripture and history and therefore must have something to be tested against to figure out if it’s tradition or Tradition. Scripture is what every tradition is tested against ultimately. The historical figures (jerome, ignatius, augustine, etc.) used scripture to back up any argument. this is the tenet of “prima scriptura”.
Last edited:
Not only is scripture inspired. God is the author of scripture, ALL scripture is like one book and this book is Christ.
Scripture is GOD-BREATHED.
Word of God is absolutely true. It states the authority of the church to bind and loose. Meaning it has the power to forbid and permit with indisputable authority.
No where does it state as a rule that the final and only authority rests with scriptures. The claim is made that it does, we simply say show us the bible verse for this.
Scripture is correct, Check.
Scripture is protected by God, Check
Scripture is always right, Check.
Scripture is helpful. Check
Scripture has the material sufficient to lead a person to salvation, check.
God could have just as well written the bible in front of my face, check.
Even one page of scripture can be sufficient, check.
Even if someone mistakenly believed SCRIPTURE was the final and only authority, they can still be saved, check.
Yet no where is this fake rule that people claim to be biblical. It is neither taught explicitly nor implicitly.
It is a false tradition of man that is completely unbiblical. If I am wrong you have the easiest job in the world, simply state the teaching that clarifies it.
The teaching does not exist. So the best people do is dance around the claim by providing scripture for things we are not even challenging.
I ask is the car blue?
Well it has an engine!
Is the car blue?
It has tires.
Is the car blue?
it has a steering wheel
Is the car blue?
what do you have against cars?
Nothing, is it blue?
Yes it is.
Show me the color.
See these windows roll up.
Does scripture teach Sola Scriptura?
Yes.
Great can you show me the bible verse?
Well, this verse here says scripture is profitable for teaching.
Yeah scripture is helpful, can you show me the verse that scripture is the Final and only Authority.
Here we have another verse see, scripture is TRUE and God breathed.
Yes scripture is very true, can you show me the verse that scripture is the Final and only Authority?
Here scripture says we shouldn't follow man made traditions, that wouldn't be biblical would it.
Yes making up fake rules to bypass the command of God would be pretty bad, Can you show me the verse that scripture is the Final and only authority?
Look over there! a cheetah!
Where did you go?
Yes.
Great can you show me the bible verse?
Well, this verse here says scripture is profitable for teaching.
Yeah scripture is helpful, can you show me the verse that scripture is the Final and only Authority.
Here we have another verse see, scripture is TRUE and God breathed.
Yes scripture is very true, can you show me the verse that scripture is the Final and only Authority?
Here scripture says we shouldn't follow man made traditions, that wouldn't be biblical would it.
Yes making up fake rules to bypass the command of God would be pretty bad, Can you show me the verse that scripture is the Final and only authority?
Look over there! a cheetah!
Where did you go?
Every debate goes in the same circle. Because people can't bring themselves to state the TRUTH when its against them.
Does scripture teach Sola Scriptura?
Yes.
Great, can you show me the bible verse?
Asking for that verse is a sin.
^thats how this vicious circle is going to keep going.
Does scripture teach Sola Scriptura?
Yes.
Great, can you show me the bible verse?
Asking for that verse is a sin.
^thats how this vicious circle is going to keep going.
Speaking of circles, The Protestant appeal to the ultimate authority of Scripture to defend Bible alone is a classic example of circular reasoning, and it betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself: It is contrary to reason. You can’t prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, the Qur’an, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired. Closely related to this is the question of the canon. After all, if the Bible alone is the rule of faith we first have to have a group of books then know which ones are included in the Bible. If you use the principle of sola scriptura to answer the question of the canon it simply cannot be done. The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon.
That’s why in the last thread I asked The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?
Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do you think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?
Now back to the topic.
That’s why in the last thread I asked The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?
Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do you think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?
Now back to the topic.
The bottom line with all this is that the New testament books were collated together by men, i.e. the Bishops of the new Christian faith. Many of the books initially looked at were discarded, and finally we got the resulting New Testament Canon. The Holy Spirit inspired, men ultimately decided as was their authority which was given to them from God Incarnate, Jesus Christ. To suddenly decide some 1600 years later that man should be removed from all Christian authority and words on paper replace thinking minds makes no sense at all and goes completely against the Christian tradition.
Pretend we are back in the year 50AD. Now I'll answer your question.
Wait, what's the Bible?
There was not "The Bible" until about 400AD. (guess who had the authority to define that, it surely wasn't the Scriptures.)
If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
Back to the topic
Still waiting...
Last edited:
This denies the Holy Ghost acting on a believer. It's akin to learning something like Physics. You can use a textbook (Bible) to get an understanding or listen to a teacher (Pastor) who knows the material to learn it yourself. Neither is 'Physics' (salvation), and both can be verified by the student once they know Physics themselves (through the Holy Ghost).
When someone does believe upon Jesus, and are filled with the Holy Spirit, they can easily spot lies vs. sound doctrine (KJV Bible). And further tend to want to use the 'textbook' to show where false teachers are lying.
The Bible is enough on it's own to understand the plan of salvation and make the leap of faith to Christ, and thus can be used as a lens to evaluate others' teaching. Once you trust in the Lord, and not man-made institutions/hierarchy, it becomes obvious that the Scriptures are a solid foundation and those who tell you otherwise are leading people astray.
2 Timothy 3:16-4:2
At that time, The OT Scriptures. And by the end of the 1st century, the teachings of the Apostles were circulating. Paul says even in his letter to the Colossians that when they are finished with his letter to pass it on to the Laodiceans.
Your orginization has tried to reconstruct history to make you believe their authority Trumps the Word.
If that’s the case, you are saying “Sola Old Testament”. And the verse you provide 2 Timothy was written 60+AD. So if we were back in 50AD, this text didn’t exist. The “teaching of the Apostles was circulating“ through preaching not the Bible. If I was not Laodicea and was on the opposite side of the world at 50AD they couldn’t get on a plane or car to get it to me. And they couldn’t run it through the copier so I could have a copy of this one book while there were other non-canonical books “being passed on" also. You said “Paul says even in his letter to the Colossians that when they are finished with his letter to pass it on to the Laodiceans” that sounds like your supporting that it’s “Sola Colossians” since there wasn’t a defined Canon by the Church until about 400AD
Nice, you quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 which says, “all scripture is god breath and is useful”. I loved how didn’t include verse 14. That would be considered a proof text. You tried to miss the fact that the two verses that you didn’t include stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. This verse you proved does NOT support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact it the opposite is true. Compare 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6
You have tried to reconstruct history to make yourself believe the "The Bible Alone" as final Authority.
Any other scriptures?
Last edited:
There was this question also asked Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
If you ask me why I should believe in your particular denominational teaching rather than another, each of those different denominations appeal to sola scriptura. Protestants act as if they have “absolutely no tradition” that guides their own interpretation. (Example of this is you have your “Baptist glasses or whatever glasses” on when you read the Bible.)
This would be like people on two sides of a constitutional debate, where they are saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t. The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. You would go the judges and the courts because they are necessary, and their decisions are legally binding. So there is always a final appeal that court system settles the matter. But since in Protestantism this system is absent, because it appeals to the logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by fallible human beings. It is obvious given the 50,000+ denominations (and growing), “Bible Alone” hasn’t worked. At the end of the day, no one has assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. Protestants can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either trusts there is one truth in any given theological dispute or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.” But the Bible does not teach that whole groups of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a way. Divisions are condemned. From the Bible, we can see the only conclusion is what I call the “three legged stool”: Bible, Church and Tradition are needed to arrive at truth. If anyone knocks out any leg of the three it collapses.
Made my comment on this, but I want to stay on topic, so don’t attempt to go off on a tangent about this.
Last edited:
JonShaff is 2 Tim 3:14-17 Bible Alone?
2 Tim. 3:14 –Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before you quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and you and other Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 – Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the NT.
2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive (not a command). The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 – further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even you would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless you argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 – Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
Any other passages you want to throw out?
Last edited:
The Bible Alone Does have final authority--One day you will stand in judgment for your heresy. Man does not have authority outside of the rightly expounded teaching of the Word of God. IT carries the authority. Not man.
What "Timothy was taught" was expounded from the OT, the Scriptures.
You, sir, are the one "throwing out" the plain teaching of the Apostles and Scripture. The Word has authority over man.
1Th 5:27
"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren."
Why Paul? Why do i have to read it to them? Can't I just tell them what I believe you are saying? Why do they need to have it read to them? Why the serious charge by the Lord? They don't have any need to know exactly what you said Paul, we leaders will let them know how they should behave and worship in the Lord. Don't get so demanding Paul.
Col 4:16
"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."
There you go again Paul with the causing it be read thing. Why all the reading Paul, we read it, we can tell them what you said. How about we just send a few of our best christian leaders to Laodicea and they can pass along what you said? That would be much better because if they were to know exactly what you said they could possibly misunderstand, let us explain it to them, we don't need these letters to get into the hands of the unlearned.
p.s. Paul, could you please send us a letter explaining how Jesus has placed us Church leaders in charge of interpreting all of the complicated letters you have sent out to all the churches. Thanks!
I cannot teach you which writings are inspired, that is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. I can only point you towards what the testimonies concerning Jesus Christ had to say about this subject. Jesus had said to His disciples....
Jhn 14:26
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
And then John repeats this for all who believe Jesus is the Son of God....
1Jo 2:27
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
There is also the law of contradiction which anyone can judge, believer or not. An example would be comparing the letter written by the Apostle John with the book written by Mohammad. John says Jesus is the Son of God. Mohammad says Jesus is not the Son of God. Only one can be right and thus only one can be Truth inspired by God. Are you still going to believe the Koran is inspired by God if you believe Jesus IS the Son of God?
Another example is comparing the letter written by Paul to the Ephesians in which he writes,
Eph 2:8
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"
Eph 2:9
"Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Joseph Smith writes this in his book of Mormon,
2 Nephi 25:23
".....for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
Just one of many contradictions. Can both be inspired by God? You would have to choose one or the other.
How do I know what Jesus' life looked like?
- Status