Sola Scriptura 2

[marks]

By the authentication of the Church that Jesus founded and which he promised would be led into all truth (John 16:13)
I believe Jesus.

I believe Him also. But we believe different things. So there's that.

Much love!

 

[marks]

They do say that but they are wrong. Evidence of that is the way they have split into factions, some parts of which do not accept the baptism of other parts.

Do you accept my baptism?

Much love!

 

[Mungo]

Exactly correct - except not a complaint just an observation that claiming something is inspired by God - that others accept (such as Scripture) - is not the same thing as the RCC making unilateral proclamations of its own power - that others reject.

See the difference?

The RCC does not make such assertions.

The Catholic Church asserts that it has been give authority by Christ. That is a fact that can be demonstrated by history.
Whether you or anyone else does not accept that does not change the facts.

 

[Mungo]

The true Catholic Church includes all who are born again from God, not only a certain sect.

Much love!

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It is currently led by Pope Francis. There are others who are connected to the Catholic Church by their common baptism but do not accept the leadership of Pope Francis. As such they are not members of the Catholic Church.

 

[Mungo]

Do you accept my baptism?

Much love!

If your baptism was perfomed with water and according to the correct Trinitarian formula then yes.

 

[Mungo]

We seem to be well off the topic.
Anyone want to get back to Sola Scriptura?

 

[Mungo]

Not authenticated . . . actually written into Scripture.

The "Book of Enoch" is not, and was not Scripture, not before, not after Jude wrote his letter. The quote from Enoch is Scripture because Jude wrote it in his letter, not because it appears in the "Book of Enoch".

Paul wrote Scripture. But the Cretan poets were not Scripture. Paul quoted one, writing it into the Bible. But this says nothing whatsoever about the source material in any other respects. In that case, he's just saying, your own people know this about themselves.

Jude, quoting Enoch, isn't even neccesarily quoting from the "Book of Enoch". My thinking is that this quote from Enoch was known long before the pseudepigraphical "Book of Enoch" was written, what, a few centuries before Christ? Jude was quoting Enoch himself, not a false book that happens to contain the same quote. That's my thinking.

But no, it's not that a quote is authenticated, and that demonstrating a non-Bible only stance, rather, it's that a Bible writer writes it. God inspired them what to write, and those Words are from God, and even if the same words appear somewhere else, that does not mean that other words in that other thing are likewise words from God.

Much love!

And how do you determine which words come from God and which do not?

 

[robert derrick]

Of course I care about Scripture and I believe the Bible is all scripture. Indeed it's so important I have a bigger Bible that you. I haven't chopped things out :)


That's just a silly question.

I believe scripture is what the Catholic Church canonised at the Council of Rome in 382 and which was confirmed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Since all the Bible is Scripture, why is it wrong to insist all teaching about the God of the Bible be in agreement with Scripture?

You implied something before, that I may have gotten wrong:
Certainly all Scripture in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is God's word and is authoritative (true and reliable) in it's original manuscripts. But we do not have any original manuscripts.

I don't say it has needed correction by God but there are disputes about the accuracy of the manuscripts we have now. There may be copyists mistakes and certainly there are some differences between the manuscripts we have.

This means to me, that the Bible today cannot be proven to be all Scripture, because the original manuscripts that were all Scripture are gone.

But since you now say, that the Bible as we have it from Genesis to Revelation, is all Scripture of God; therefore, andything not found written and plainly supported by Scripture, cannot be taught as doctrine of the God of Scripture, else the Scriptures we have written in the Bible are contradicted: Sola Scriptura.

Or, is the canonized book more than Genesis-Revelation?

 

[robert derrick]

That does not refer to "all Scripture God ever had written".
It refers to the Mosaic Law.

I'm still waiting for the scriptural proofs of Sola Scriptura that you promised.

If the gospels and the doctrine of the apostles from Matthew-Revelation are also Scripture, then the point is true: The Scriptures given by God and Jesus in the old and the new covenant are all written in letter today in the book called the Bible.

No Scripture spoken by God into the world is missing for any and all to read.

You are still waiting to believe something from those Scriptures, that I give as proof of Sola Scriptura, because you reject them.

I believe them to be proof, you don't.

I'm thinking we may have different definitions for Sola Scriptura. What is yours that you reject? If I agree with you, then so be it.

 

[Mungo]

Since all the Bible is Scripture, why is it wrong to insist all teaching about the God of the Bible be in agreement with Scripture?

You implied something before, that I may have gotten wrong:
Certainly all Scripture in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is God's word and is authoritative (true and reliable) in it's original manuscripts. But we do not have any original manuscripts.

I don't say it has needed correction by God but there are disputes about the accuracy of the manuscripts we have now. There may be copyists mistakes and certainly there are some differences between the manuscripts we have.

This means to me, that the Bible today cannot be proven to be all Scripture, because the original manuscripts that were all Scripture are gone.

But since you now say, that the Bible as we have it from Genesis to Revelation, is all Scripture of God; therefore, andything not found written and plainly supported by Scripture, cannot be taught as doctrine of the God of Scripture, else the Scriptures we have written in the Bible are contradicted: Sola Scriptura.

Or, is the canonized book more than Genesis-Revelation?

God's words are more than those recorded in scripture as I showed in post #37.
The Catholic Church calls Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition) that which was passed on orally. Note the capital "T" to distinguish it from tradition with a small "t" which are those human customs and practices that arise and may change or disappear over time.

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are part of the "Deposit of Faith" handed on by the apostles.
From the Catechism of The Catholic Church para 76
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing"

 

[Mungo]

If the gospels and the doctrine of the apostles from Matthew-Revelation are also Scripture, then the point is true: The Scriptures given by God and Jesus in the old and the new covenant are all written in letter today in the book called the Bible.

No Scripture spoken by God into the world is missing for any and all to read.

You are still waiting to believe something from those Scriptures, that I give as proof of Sola Scriptura, because you reject them.

I believe them to be proof, you don't.

I'm thinking we may have different definitions for Sola Scriptura. What is yours that you reject? If I agree with you, then so be it.

What proofs have you given from scripture? I have seen only two and refuted them both.

 

[Mungo]

No Scripture spoken by God into the world is missing for any and all to read.

In the other thread I gave you many examples of where manuscripts differ slightly.
Here is another example from the footnotes to the RSV for Mark 16

Footnotes

1. Mark 16:20 Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9–20. In most authorities verses 9–20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14

How do you explain that?

 

[marks]

And how do you determine which words come from God and which do not?

I feel very confident in the Words of the Bible. Men say many things, and to the extent that they agree with the Words in the Bible, great! But this does not authenticate their other words.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

Not authenticated . . . actually written into Scripture.

The "Book of Enoch" is not, and was not Scripture, not before, not after Jude wrote his letter. The quote from Enoch is Scripture because Jude wrote it in his letter, not because it appears in the "Book of Enoch".

Paul wrote Scripture. But the Cretan poets were not Scripture. Paul quoted one, writing it into the Bible. But this says nothing whatsoever about the source material in any other respects. In that case, he's just saying, your own people know this about themselves.

Jude, quoting Enoch, isn't even neccesarily quoting from the "Book of Enoch". My thinking is that this quote from Enoch was known long before the pseudepigraphical "Book of Enoch" was written, what, a few centuries before Christ? Jude was quoting Enoch himself, not a false book that happens to contain the same quote. That's my thinking.

But no, it's not that a quote is authenticated, and that demonstrating a non-Bible only stance, rather, it's that a Bible writer writes it. God inspired them what to write, and those Words are from God, and even if the same words appear somewhere else, that does not mean that other words in that other thing are likewise words from God.

Much love!

Thank you.

Not authenticated . . . actually written into Scripture.

This is an important point, that shows the real divide here.

God's Word became Scripture in the world, when His prophets and apostles spoke and wrote it, not when others 'authenticated' it: agreed to call it Scripture.

They were not just acknowledging by manuscript evidence, what was actually written by the prophets and apostles, they were 'authorizing' them to be called Scripture, as though the writings of the prophets and apostles were not officially written Scripture, until that time?

If so, then they 'authorized' what was to be called Scripture, and made equal in authority as the writers called prophets and apostles.

And so, their followers treat them as the writers of Scripture themselves: their leaders have equal authority with the prophets and apostles, as though they wrote the Scripture themselves.

And so, who's going to argue with Moses - John, about whether their writings were Scripture from God or not?

To argue with leaders equal in authority to the prophets and apostles, in oral pronouncement and in writing of God, is to argue with the writers themselves, which is to argue with God.

And so, what is actually written in the Bible loses sole authority for spoken and written words of God, after the 'authenticators' came to 'authenticate' them for the first time on earth, as Scripture indeed from God: they were not Scripture on earth until that time.

And those 'authentic' fathers and their inheriting leaders become equally trusted in word and pen as prophets and apostles themselves: and they can even be seen and heard and be touched by.

 

[robert derrick]

In the other thread I gave you many examples of where manuscripts differ slightly.
Here is another example from the footnotes to the RSV for Mark 16

Footnotes

1. Mark 16:20 Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9–20. In most authorities verses 9–20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14

How do you explain that?

I am speaking of Scripture: the written words of God in the Bible.

Did you not say the Bible is all Scripture? All the written words of the Bible are words from God's own mouth to His prophets and apostles?

If we believe that, then manuscript argument is a scholarly sideshow, since we already believe the Bible is all Scripture indeed and in truth.

Unless, you take back your confession that the Bible is all Scripture, since all the manuscripts written for it cannot be confirmed as all truly original Scripture, not without the original manuscripts.

 

[Mungo]

I am speaking of Scripture: the written words of God in the Bible.

Did you not say the Bible is all Scripture? All the written words of the Bible are words from God's own mouth to His prophets and apostles?

If we believe that, then manuscript argument is a scholarly sideshow, since we already believe the Bible is all Scripture indeed and in truth.

Unless, you take back your confession that the Bible is all Scripture, since all the manuscripts written for it cannot be confirmed as all truly original Scripture, not without the original manuscripts.

I can't work out what you are saying here.
You say the written words of God in the Bible. But which Bible?

If the manuscripts we have differ then how do we know which is the most accurate?

If, as some believe, Matthew actually wrote his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew then how do we know the Greek version(s) we have are accurate?

If English translations differ how do we know which is the most accurate?

 

[marks]

If the manuscripts we have differ then how do we know which is the most accurate?

By using the Majority Manuscript.

If, as some believe, Matthew actually wrote his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew then how do we know the Greek version(s) we have are accurate?

That is purely speculation. Matthew's Greek Gospel is inspired.

If English translations differ how do we know which is the most accurate?

By the Holy Spirit. By study, and submitting ourselves to the Word. It's amazing to me the revelation we can receive from God through His Word when we are humble and submitted to it, as unto Him. There's not too much difference between the different manuscripts and translations. I've compared many manuscripts and translations over the years. I think by and large the differences between the KJV and the NASB and the ESV, for instance, don't impact doctrine. When you get to ones like the NLT, or the NIV, these get more off track sometimes. By the time you arrive at the MSG and GW, the message gets lost.

And God gives us teachers, not to add to His Word, but to show the meaning. I believe once we come to know truth, we can see it plainly in Scripture.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

I can't work out what you are saying here.
You say the written words of God in the Bible. But which Bible?

If the manuscripts we have differ then how do we know which is the most accurate?

If, as some believe, Matthew actually wrote his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew then how do we know the Greek version(s) we have are accurate?

If English translations differ how do we know which is the most accurate?

You say the written words of God in the Bible. But which Bible?

My Bible. Do you read a Bible that is not all scripture? I don't.

The Bible I have has sufficiently proven to me, that there is a God in heaven, by the perfection of it's doctrine over thousands of years with multitudes of different men and times and places, writing them altogether without error nor contradiction.

That is not possible without One God guiding them all word for word. Not in general, nor just in principle, but in fact: every jot and tittle.

I don't need anything added to it, nor changed, nor taken away from it. And no manuscript dispute will do so for me.

The only thing that can make me doubt this, is if there is any proven contradiction shown in it. You use your Bible to show me one, and I will use mine to show it is not.

And if you are seeing contradiction in your Bible, then why do you read it?

Books that are not all Scripture I read for fun, entertainment, and learning interest, not for faith of God and salvation of my soul.

I have no need for, nor interest in manuscript librarians. Their job is done. Let them haggle about it all they want, and if they are paid to do so, then more power to them. The faith of Jesus I have from the Scriptures of the Bible, that I read, is the faith of Jesus indeed and in truth.

If you have not that faith of Jesus with perfect certitude, that is dependent on no other man nor manuscript nor leadership training, then you are lacking the most important thing:

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Try reading the Bible only for a season, without careful study in other books, and see what happens. Maybe nothing. But you might try it.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Luke says that the Bereans were more noble than the Jews, because they searched the Scriptures daily to ensure that Paul was preaching the truth about Christ and Him crucified and resurrected.

This means that the Bereans had total confidence in the Old Testament Scriptures. Apollos was "mighty in the Scriptures", so he had total confidence in them as well. Jesus told the story of the rich man in hell where Abraham told the guy that the rich guy's brothers had Moses and the Prophets and if they didn't believe them, they would not believe even a person rising from the dead to warn them of hell.

When Paul preached the Gospel to the Jews, he used Sola Scriptura. We don't see him using Jewish tradition at all. He didn't use the Scriptures when preaching to the Gentiles, because they had no background in them so quoting the Old Testament would have gone over their heads.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that Christ was crucified according to the Scriptures, and rose again according to the Scriptures. Jesus went right through the Scriptures to show how they spoke to the disciples at Emmaeus. He did not use Jewish or any other tradition to convince them that He was the Messiah who died and rose again so they could believe in Him and be saved.

Jewish or Christian tradition never saved anyone, and never will. Only the Jesus of the Gospels can save. There is no other name under heaven by which anyone can be saved. And the only way we can know the real Jesus is through the Bible and nowhere else.

 

[Mungo]

You say the written words of God in the Bible. But which Bible?

My Bible. Do you read a Bible that is not all scripture? I don't.

The Bible I have has sufficiently proven to me, that there is a God in heaven, by the perfection of it's doctrine over thousands of years with multitudes of different men and times and places, writing them altogether without error nor contradiction.

That is not possible without One God guiding them all word for word. Not in general, nor just in principle, but in fact: every jot and tittle.

I don't need anything added to it, nor changed, nor taken away from it. And no manuscript dispute will do so for me.

The only thing that can make me doubt this, is if there is any proven contradiction shown in it. You use your Bible to show me one, and I will use mine to show it is not.

And if you are seeing contradiction in your Bible, then why do you read it?

Books that are not all Scripture I read for fun, entertainment, and learning interest, not for faith of God and salvation of my soul.

I have no need for, nor interest in manuscript librarians. Their job is done. Let them haggle about it all they want, and if they are paid to do so, then more power to them. The faith of Jesus I have from the Scriptures of the Bible, that I read, is the faith of Jesus indeed and in truth.

If you have not that faith of Jesus with perfect certitude, that is dependent on no other man nor manuscript nor leadership training, then you are lacking the most important thing:

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Try reading the Bible only for a season, without careful study in other books, and see what happens. Maybe nothing. But you might try it.

You completely failed to answer my questions just as you have completely failed to provide scripture that proves Sola Scriptura.