BIBLE AND THEOLOGY FORUM






Correct Addy: http://bible-forum.invisionzone.com/

is the new site, but if you click on that link, it may not go there. But if you put that addy http://Bible-Forum.InvisionZone.com in your URL box, it will go there.  The Invisionzone forum has many categories of Bible & Theology with special forums for each.  This Bravenet site here is the old general forum site.  We may eliminate that invision site because it is expensive and is not getting enough traffic.

Welcome!  You are at BibleAndTheology.com, which is the general forum for BibleAndTheology.org.  Persons are invited to post on Bible and Theology (widely interpreted).  Some postings may be chosen to be reposted on BibleAndTheology.org.  Give & receive love here. If you post here, please do not use "Anonymous" or the like. Choose your own screen names, but do not use one that you know is already being used by someone else. Please: 

1. You may debate with any ideas posted, but do not post objections to the topic, style, spelling, use of capital letters, or grammar of anyone's posting.  For example, you may debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but kindly refrain from reviling a poster by telling him that it is politically incorrect to discuss green cheese.   

2. Do not post complaints or attacks vs. other posters.  

3. No obscene language,cuss words, or blasphemy may be used.   

4. Send complaints privately by e-mail to NellPatKay@hotmail.com.  If your posting is deleted, it could be because it violates forum rules or is just chosen for a short run on the forum.  

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you want the password, register your screen names by e-mail, as password may be needed again if problems arise on the Forum. CHECK OUT THE search function, which is good: it checks the content of the postings.


Note that if you paste onto the Forum, for some reason Bravenet may change your quote marks and apostrophes into something else, like little boxes or funny U's.   Thanks for coming, participating, and for showing love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Also try out our new site:

http://bible-forum.invisionzone.com/

BIBLE AND THEOLOGY FORUM
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: SOLA SCRIPTURA

The argument here is not so much based on the axiomatic truth you profess as the authority that the Bible derived from.

It is not self-evident that a science textbook is true; it is only true to those who have heard it contains truths from an authority.
It is not self-evident that the Koran is true; it is only true to those who have learned from an authority that it is.
In the same way, we cannot simply pick up the Bible and know it to be true.
Say that you pick up a DC comic book collection and the Bible at the same time and have had no external influence in your entire life.
Which one is true?
They are both just as equally true to you who (having not yet learned about fiction) have read them as fact.
Or, contrarily, if you somehow knew of fiction, you would take them both to be fiction.
The only way to prove that the Bible is any truer than a comic book is if an established authority told this to you. Only the Catholic Church possesses such an authority.

That point aside, if we accept the Bible as true because an authority gave it to us, is the table of contents ever written within its pages?
The answer is no, the table of contents is never written within its own pages. However, the table of contents certainly is inspired.
But wait, does that mean that an authority OUTSIDE the Bible is authoritative? It most certainly does!
And if we have one outside source, who's to say we don't have more?

You cannot argue that the Bible is true simply because it seems like it in your innermost feelings. If someone else reads it, maybe one book (for example, John) doesn't seem to qualify as Sacred Scripture.
We both know this to be absurd (because an authority told us) and would reject his conclusion.
Yet you argue the same thing for the Deuterocanonical books! You call them "apocryphal" based on a "feeling" that they don't "seem" inspired. That is not valid in any way whatsoever.
When figuring out the table of contents of the Bible, we must look to history. From there, it is irrefutably obvious that the Catholic canon is the original.

You challenge me to prove that something else is God's word. I put forth the Deuterocanonical books.

If you do not accept them, then I counterchallenge. Prove that the other 66 books of the Bible are God's word. "Self-evidence" doesn't cut it.

The Bible is not true because it says so, it is true because God built an trustworthy authority to call it true. To ensure that this authority seems valid, God put in the Bible irrefutable evidence of this authority.
I guess God can use circular reasoning!

Re: SOLA SCRIPTURA

You Say:

"In the same way, we cannot simply pick up the Bible and know it to be true."

My sheep hear my voice. I pick up the Bible & it screams to me THIS IS GOD'S WORD. I immediately detect it just as I detect that I exist. That is my 2nd axiom. There are arguments for the Bible being God's word, but if I gave argument A,
someone could ask, OK, but how do u know A is true?
Then I cud say, BECAUSE OF B .
Then someone cud rejoin, how do u know that B is true?
There is no end to this.

I say read the book, does God speak to you or not?
You decide for yourself.
I testify that I hear God's voice in that book.
It is self-evident that it is God's Word.

After Axiom 1 (The God of the Bible exists), that is my 2nd axiom: The Bible is God's Word.
Let every man read for himself & make up his own mind.

Like the Lord Jesus, who never is recorded as arguing to prove that the Bible was God's word,
I just quote it ,"IT IS WRITTEN" and that settles the argument.

Suppose I have a .45. A thief enters my house to rape my wife. Thief says to me: "That's not a real gun; it won't do you any good." Then he advances on me. Do you think I will stand there & argue with him about it? I would use the .45. Let him draw his own conclusions.

I hope you can tell God's Word from a comic book without integral calculus.

Now what is your proof that the papal system has greater authority than the Bible?
It certainly is NOT self-evident that the papal system speaks for God.
Now don't try to prove it from the Bible, & then reason in a circle.
But if you have proof that the papal system is the Word of God, give your proof.

I don't argue that the Bible is true because . . .
I state that certain propositions are true because the Bible says so.
The Bible is the because for settling theological debates.
For it is God's Word.

Lets see your proof for your Deuteros & explain why the NT never cites them to prove anything.

Ultimate logical proof depends on axioms, self-evident truths (like if A = B , then A + C = B +C). I do not believe these because the pope agrees with them. It is self-evident to me that I exist. I do not believe this because the RCC says so.
Do you?

Circular logic proves nothing. You must have one or more starting points; givens.

You may want to read what I wrote on this below at length. See my posts on


FAITH & BELIEF - by THUNKFUL - May 14, 2011 4:54pm

EPISTEMOLOGY & THEOLOGY - by THUNKFUL - May 14, 2011 4:44pm

Re: SOLA SCRIPTURA

I was simply trying to say that YOU alone cannot determine what is Scriptural and what is not. A "feeling" that something is divine or not has led to the creation of Islam, Hinduism, and many other false religions. You cannot logically rely on just yourself or even a few people to decide what is and what is not true.

Actually, whenever the NT cites the OT, it always is from the Septuagint (LXX). As you should know, the LXX DID include the deuterocanonical books. To name one example, Mary's Magnificat is based on a prayer of Judith from the book of the same name.


If you accept the Bible simply because you feel like God is speaking to you in it, then a Muslim who feels that God is speaking to him in the Quran is just as correct as you. The obvious falsehood of this is easily avoidable by only using sourceds tyhat come from a good authority.

Not to delve too far into philosophy, but actually it is not an axiomatic truth that you exist. The only universal truth able to be defined is that you perceive. All else derives from this.

Again, this debate is far from its original topic.
I DO NOT need to prove ANY Sacred Traditions to refute sola scriptura (though I can). However, YOU MUST prove sola scriptura from JUST the Bible.

If you cannot prove sola scriptura, then admit it is false and THEN I will give you an example of a Sacred Tradition.

Re: SOLA SCRIPTURA

We must determine what is Scriptural and what is not. Your answer seems to be that you determine what is Scripture based on your theory that what ever the RCC says is scripture is scripture. You are still making a determination, though on faulty grounds, as you cannot prove that what the RCC says is God's Word.

In fact there are millions of persons in the Church. These have said all kinds of conflicting things over 2000 years of time. Thus the statements of the Church cannot be taken to be God's Word.

Neither do you have any proof that ecclesiastical council decrees, papal bulls, or sayings of Church Fathers are God's Word. Your reference to the word "traditions" in the NT refers to things said in the past, oral statements by prophets & written prophecy, like Paul's letters. It has no ref at all to future decrees or statements by future "church fathers." Anyone who heard a prophecy given orally or read a prophetic epistle became responsible to obey the truth received. This has nothing to do with imaginary church father traditions.

MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE

Christians have an innate ability & the indwelling Holy Spirit anointing which enables then to recognize the voice of God when they hear it. Thus they have little trouble knowing what is scripture & what is bogus. There was no centuries long process of discovering what was God's Word. When it was published immediately the recipients knew what it was.

GOSPEL OF JOHN:

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand."


1 JOHN

"And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all the things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth. "

1 JOHN 2

"And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. 27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him. "

1 THES 1-2

"how that our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; even as ye know what manner of men we showed ourselves toward you for your sake. 6 And ye became imitators of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit;"

" 13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe. "

Believers who heard the prophetic message received it at that time; they did not wait hundreds of years for ecclesiastical canons.

1 Cor 15

"15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. "

It is clear that those who received the Word of God were expected to recognize it as such & obey it very quickly. No ecclesiastic council was required.

Well, I hold it axiomatic that I exist & prior to affirming that I perceive. How could I perceive, if there were no I???

I do not need to prove the 66 books since you accept them. They are common ground.

Also the facts that 1) the God of the Bible exists & that 2) the Bible is the Word of God are axioms. They are self-evident. You have to affirm these for yourself.

MY CLAIM IS THAT THE 66 BOOKS ARE GOD'S WORD. It has never been proven to me that anything else (which is readily available to me) is God's Word. Now if you want to refute my POV, you have to prove to me that something else is God's Word.

Can you do that?

Did you read my postings on faith, epistemology, & axioms below?