Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone? - Page 39

CopticChristian · #**571** Dec 29, '12, 10:34 am

=Truthstalker;10181247][quote=kwortham;10181127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

Not necessarily. Please show me why that necessarily follows.That's silly, don't you know? You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents. It's not necessary. So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? That statement falls flat on its face.Jesus' church conforms to His desires. He laid out His desires in Scripture.Again, not necessarily.Nothing. I find this amusing, actually, that you take a Scripture in which the Scripture states what the church is and turn it upside down. In that passage Scripture is saying what the church is, not the church saying what Scripture is. It flows from Scripture to the church, not the other way around. watch it

The Orthodox include all 4 of the books of the Maccabees while you include only 2. So the Protestant canon has been there. Or are you accusing someone of adding a book that was not there before?

The point is that whether it was a 66 book canon or not does not really matter in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Truth,

The only one falling flat on their face is someone making a statement without support. If you believe that this was evident then you are not aware of the Books that were not included in the Bible and how the process went. I could say..."such ignorance denies a response"..however I would prefer to say your lack of understanding is evident and your ability to prove a point is lacking in knowledge.

I find nothing amusing about your distortion of what you call "Scripture" as here at the CAF, we Believe that Scripture is to be venerated as we venerate the Body of Christ and to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ. Do you believe that ignorance is amusing? In that vain, your daily life is an example of your lack of understanding. The United States came into existence absent writing and that body of people produced writing. The writing did not produce the United States. They met, spoke, discussed and then put in writing what it was they wanted to do. Do you believe that all the laws we follow appeared and then we as people just follow them? You lack understanding and common knowledge.

So the Protestant Canon has been there. Let us think. The Bible, produced by the Church, maintained by the Church and through Sin/stealing and by disobedience it was translated into English with error and without guidance produced people of the Book....the Book says....What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? by no means for to the Protestant was not given the utterance of Scripture, it was given to the Church the mystery hidden for all ages. It was stolen and through disobedience and sin translated into English. Wrong does not produce right. Shall we then say that whatever group comes along and steals from the very body of Scritpture that which it chooses to produce can say...."well it was there"...we just use this part. The Samaritans only used a certain part too you know...

I suggest you visit this thread...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=609262

Why Christians can't read Scripture

Protestants by their own admission deny access to original Scripture and that inerrancy is only available for the original. Then how do they convince themselves or anyone else that they are reading Scripture.

http://ag.org/top/

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P..._inerrancy.pdf

Quote:

1. We refer to original autographs. While the science of textual criticism assures
us of a trustworthy text, inerrancy can be claimed only for the original writings (Jeremiah
36:2).

1. Since we do not have the original autographs, any doctrine of inerrancy is
without value.

Protestant admit that certain translations may be filled with error and therefore do not resemble the original. This adds further doubt.

http://www.champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

Quote:

No translation is perfect. It may even be persuasively argued that no exact
copies of the original autographs still exist. This view
has led to the deplorable situation where some “translations” have only
scant resemblance to the sacred truth enshrined in the Scriptures.

If no manuscript in the original language is a perfect reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect.

Protestants criticize the Bible as preserved by the Church by stating books were added and that is not true.

Quote:

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew

This is not true as has been shown.

Quote:

2. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.

This is totally false, and has been shown to be incorrect by a few simple examples:
Protestants attack the Bible by saying that the Septuagint was not the Bible of the Church.

Quote:

3. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

Protestants resort to selecively incorectly quoting Church Councils ignoring the Councils that declared the Canon.

This is why I doubt and state that Protestants cannot be reading Scripture since they deny the Authority upon which the Bible was produced. Scholarship provides only doubt. Doubt cannot lead to truth.

**PRmerger** · #**572** Dec 29, '12, 11:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents.

But, Trudi, who was it that came up with this list of inspired books?

And to what did they appeal as an authority for what was inspired or not? They could not have appealed to Scripture, right?

Quote:

So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? That statement falls flat on its face.Jesus' church conforms to His desires.

They knew via Tradition, Trudi.

That which the early Christian witnesses proclaimed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was written down.

but the Scriptures came AFTER Sacred Tradition.

Quote:

He laid out His desires in Scripture.

Huh? Jesus wrote Scripture? Surely you can't mean that!

Truthstalker · #**573** Dec 29, '12, 1:00 pm

Let me respond this way.

1) I have on hand about 3 chapters of Calvin on the nature of Scripture in his Institutes. I read it once but I haven't really digested it. There is also a chapter on the formation of the canon in Grudem's Systematic Theology, which I read months ago. I also have a 40 page essay by B.B. Warfield on the formation of the canon, which I read several years ago. I also want to review Luther's position. In short, I don't feel I am ready to discuss the formation of the canon, as there are issues regarding Scripture/Church/Councils I am almost 100% guaranteed to make myself a fool on. I also want to compare the above to the Catholic Catechism. I have a charism of confusion anyway, so I hesitate to engage in something I know little of. There are others who know more who could respond better than I could. Ok, I am showing some humility here. Oops.

2) I think Jon and I have shown that Sola Scriptura is not 'Bible Alone', which is the core of this thread. In that sense, the thread is played out. Some of the posts are turning acidic, such as

Quote:

This seems to be the way Protestants deal with thier problems, simply ignore them

which does not really make me want to continue the discussion.

3) You (plural) have brought up a great many issues. Many of these have already been debated innumerable times on this Forum. And probably will be again.

At some point I hope to be ready to discuss those. But not now.

**PRmerger** · #**574** Dec 29, '12, 1:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthstalker

i have a charism of confusion anyway, so i hesitate to engage in something i know little of.

That, Trudi, was truly funny. Charism of confusion. If this were Facebook I'd click "Like!". And I'd also comment, "I disagree that you're confused!"

Nicea325 · #**575** Dec 29, '12, 3:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

Let me respond this way.

1) I have on hand about 3 chapters of Calvin on the nature of Scripture in his Institutes. I read it once but I haven't really digested it. There is also a chapter on the formation of the canon in Grudem's Systematic Theology, which I read months ago. I also have a 40 page essay by B.B. Warfield on the formation of the canon, which I read several years ago. I also want to review Luther's position. In short, I don't feel I am ready to discuss the formation of the canon, as there are issues regarding Scripture/Church/Councils I am almost 100% guaranteed to make myself a fool on. I also want to compare the above to the Catholic Catechism. I have a charism of confusion anyway, so I hesitate to engage in something I know little of. There are others who know more who could respond better than I could. Ok, I am showing some humility here. Oops.

2) I think Jon and I have shown that Sola Scriptura is not 'Bible Alone', which is the core of this thread. In that sense, the thread is played out. Some of the posts are turning acidic, such as which does not really make me want to continue the discussion.

3) You (plural) have brought up a great many issues. Many of these have already been debated innumerable times on this Forum. And probably will be again.

At some point I hope to be ready to discuss those. But not now.

Truth,

But that is the whole root of the problem with SS. What Protestant,fundamentalist,etc truly represents the correct understanding?

Nicea325 · #**576** Dec 29, '12, 3:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthstalker
Not necessarily. Please show me why that necessarily follows.That's silly, don't you know? You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents. It's not necessary. So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? That statement falls flat on its face.Jesus' church conforms to His desires. He laid out His desires in Scripture.Again, not necessarily.Nothing. I find this amusing, actually, that you take a Scripture in which the Scripture states what the church is and turn it upside down. In that passage Scripture is saying what the church is, not the church saying what Scripture is. It flows from Scripture to the church, not the other way around. watch it

The Orthodox include all 4 of the books of the Maccabees while you include only 2. So the Protestant canon has been there. Or are you accusing someone of adding a book that was not there before?

The point is that whether it was a 66 book canon or not does not really matter in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Does not matter? Then why exlcude the other books,if it does not matter? Apparently the canon does matter in the SS circles.

CopticChristian · #**577** Dec 29, '12, 7:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

Let me respond this way.

1) I have on hand about 3 chapters of Calvin on the nature of Scripture in his Institutes. I read it once but I haven't really digested it. There is also a chapter on the formation of the canon in Grudem's Systematic Theology, which I read months ago. I also have a 40 page essay by B.B. Warfield on the formation of the canon, which I read several years ago. I also want to review Luther's position. In short, I don't feel I am ready to discuss the formation of the canon, as there are issues regarding Scripture/Church/Councils I am almost 100% guaranteed to make myself a fool on. I also want to compare the above to the Catholic Catechism. I have a charism of confusion anyway, so I hesitate to engage in something I know little of. There are others who know more who could respond better than I could. Ok, I am showing some humility here. Oops.

2) I think Jon and I have shown that Sola Scriptura is not 'Bible Alone', which is the core of this thread. In that sense, the thread is played out. Some of the posts are turning acidic, such as which does not really make me want to continue the discussion.

3) You (plural) have brought up a great many issues. Many of these have already been debated innumerable times on this Forum. And probably will be again.

At some point I hope to be ready to discuss those. But not now.

Truth,

I appreciate your honesty and believe you understand that this issue is not amusing. We Catholic folk take it down right serious....

dancingrain91 · #**578** Jan 5, '13, 8:50 am

Each Protestant churchsays they only follow the Scriptures but they also follow the interpretations and practices of their founders. For example, Methodists follow Wesleyan tradition. As far as I can tell, Baptists make their own rules. Or that's how my church was.

**PRmerger** · #**579** Jan 5, '13, 9:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dancingrain91

Each Protestant churchsays they only follow the Scriptures but they also follow the interpretations and practices of their founders. For example, Methodists follow Wesleyan tradition. As far as I can tell, Baptists make their own rules. Or that's how my church was.

Right.

Which makes Sola Scriptura a farce, doesn't it?

CopticChristian · #**580** Jan 5, '13, 9:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dancingrain91

Each Protestant churchsays they only follow the Scriptures but they also follow the interpretations and practices of their founders. For example, Methodists follow Wesleyan tradition. As far as I can tell, Baptists make their own rules. Or that's how my church was.

Dancing,

You did not speak this knowing it of the flesh, but the gift from your Father in heaven provided that insight...Amen...