Non-catholic Questions....

[ironmonk]

Where in the bible, does the bible teach that the bible alone is our authority for faith and morals?

How do we know what books belong in the bible?

Where in the bible does it say which books belong, or that they are inspired works by God?

Please provide references and scripture, I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for facts.

I pray that this brings us all, closer to Christ.

God Bless, Love in Christ,

ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) Where in the bible, does the bible teach that the bible alone is our authority for faith and morals?

(Me) The doctrine is taken from the following considerations:

1. It is taught that the completed Scripture is a sufficient rule of faith to make the man of God complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Therefore, we should only consider there to be another infallible rule of faith if another is taught.

2. No other infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic man of God is taught in the Scripture.

3. The traditions and teachings of men are often said to be rightly judged according to the standard of Scripture (e.g., Matthew 15, Acts 17).

(ironmonk) How do we know what books belong in the bible?

(Me) The witness of the Holy Spirit to the Church throughout the ages, and the foundation of previous revelation.

(ironmonk) Where in the bible does it say which books belong,

(Me) It does not explicitly say.

(ironmonk) or that they are inspired works by God?

(Me) 2 Timothy 3:16

[dUSt]

(ironmonk) Where in the bible, does the bible teach that the bible alone is our authority for faith and morals?

(Me) The doctrine is taken from the following considerations:

1. It is taught that the completed Scripture is a sufficient rule of faith to make the man of God complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  Therefore, we should only consider there to be another infallible rule of faith if another is taught.

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. - NAB

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, throughly furnished unto all good works. - KJV

Okay, I see where it says scripture, but nowhere does it say complete scripture. It says all scripture. That could have meant all the scripture written up to that point--and if inDouche it did say complete, it would have only meant the OT, as the NT wasn't even written yet. But regardless--you added the word complete for your own purposes.

You also added the word sufficient. All I see it described as is inspired, useful, profitable, etc. Nowhere does it say sufficient. Your translation is discouraging.

This verse doesn't imply that scripture is infallible either. (Catholics do believe scripture to be infallible)

2. No other infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic man of God is taught in the Scripture.

There's just as much evidence in scripture for the Church to be infallible as there is for scripture to be infallible.

3. The traditions and teachings of men are often said to be rightly judged according to the standard of Scripture (e.g., Matthew 15, Acts 17).

Exactly. This is proved by the teachings of the Church being in complete harmony with scripture.

The witness of the Holy Spirit to the Church throughout the ages, and the foundation of previous revelation.

What church? Previously you said "the Universal Church". Where is the universal Church?

Define "foundation of previous revelation".

(ironmonk) Where in the bible does it say which books belong,

(Me) It does not explicitly say.

For this, you must trust that the Church was infallibly led to define the correct cannon. There's no getting around this... or, in your case I guess, you must trust that the reformers were infallibly led.

(ironmonk) or that they are inspired works by God?

(Me) 2 Timothy 3:16

This proves only that the OT is inspired. You have to make a bold assumption (and a rather unsensical assumption at that) if you think 2 Timothy 3:16 was referencing books that hadn't even been written yet.

Peace be with you mustbenothing.

God bless.

[ironmonk]

arrgghh

<whines>Dust... I wanted to post that....lol

must,

When in the New Testament the word "Scripture" is used, the only Scripture at that time was the Septuagint. Which dates back to 285 BC.... It was what Jesus and all Christians used until 1611 AD.

It is what the Catholic Church uses as it's Old Testament...

As for the New Testament, it was not considered Scripture until around 400 AD. There were over 200 books considered for it. Yet, only 27 made it into the New Testament. Not all of Paul's writings went into the NT... The Gospel of Peter did not make it into the NT... The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) did not make it into the NT.... etc...

By what authority could any group of men decide what was Inspired by God?

What does the Bible say that the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is?

A few other verses to ponder:

John 5:39

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;"

2 Timoty 3:14

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

We believe Scripture because someone told us to... because from whom we learned it.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

[Brother Adam]

Where in the bible, does the bible teach that the bible alone is our authority for faith and morals?

No, it doesn't use the word "alone" as it doesn't use the word "trinity" but it can be reasonable understood.

How do we know what books belong in the bible?

The squirrels told us.

Where in the bible does it say which books belong, or that they are inspired works by God?

I'm telling you, it's the squirrels.

Please provide references and scripture, I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for facts.

No you are not. You're looking to prove Catholicism. You already know the answers to your questions and what you want to say to those answers. You sneek you.

[dUSt]

I think I'm going to open a Ironmonk and Bro Adam board.

[skuba steve]

Where in the bible, does the bible teach that the bible alone is our authority for faith and morals?

somewhere in the back... i think it's in the same place that talks about purgatory, holy water and stained glass windows.

there's also something about gathering in crowds to witness a statue of Mary that's leaking oil....

Look... you can put your faith in the teaching and tradition of others that has been passed down to you for 2000 years or so... and you can put your faith in all your doctrine and what the pope says is right

...that's fine by me...

but if you don't mind, I'm gonna put my faith in a God who remains the same yesterday, today and forever.... i'm gonna go straight to the source to find out how he wants me to live my life....and i'm gonna have faith that he loves me enough to make sure that the bible that he tells me to live by, is from him...

so, back to your questions... i can't prove any of them... but if everything was so easy to believe....then you wouldn't need any faith at all.... seriously...

[ironmonk]

Where in the bible, does the bible teach that the bible alone is our authority for faith and morals?

somewhere in the back... i think it's in the same place that talks about purgatory, holy water and stained glass windows.

there's also something about gathering in crowds to witness a statue of Mary that's leaking oil....

Look... you can put your faith in the teaching and tradition of others that has been passed down to you for 2000 years or so... and you can put your faith in all your doctrine and what the pope says is right

...that's fine by me...

but if you don't mind, I'm gonna put my faith in a God who remains the same yesterday, today and forever.... i'm gonna go straight to the source to find out how he wants me to live my life....and i'm gonna have faith that he loves me enough to make sure that the bible that he tells me to live by, is from him...

so, back to your questions... i can't prove any of them... but if everything was so easy to believe....then you wouldn't need any faith at all.... seriously...

Steve,

Ya know what... I, a Catholic, know the bible better than you. I've read it countless times over and over for the past 24 years.

<everyone, I'm saying the above because the kid does not read, not because I'm trying to be pompus... I am proving a point>

I will be happy to show you were everything is at... if you just READ THE WHOLE POST.

Purgatory is in the bible....

1 Peter 3:19 Matt. 12:32 Luke 12:59 2 Macc. 12:43-46 Rev 20:13-15

Rev. 21:27 1 Cor 3:15 Isaiah 6:6-7

1 Peter 3:15

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,

If you cannot explain it... then learn it... that is something as a Christian you are required to do...

It helps to read the bible.

www.Britannica.com is a good place to start your history study.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[dUSt]

there's also something about gathering in crowds to witness a statue of Mary that's leaking oil....

I find this offensive. Many people have witnessed miracles, and have been deeply touched, both spiritually and emotionally by them. Your comments lack compassion and show an unwillingness to accept that God still works miracles today.

Look... you can put your faith in the teaching and tradition of others that has been passed down to you for 2000 years or so... and you can put your faith in all your doctrine and what the pope says is right

Do you really believe that this is where we put our faith? Somehow, your faith is in God, but our faith is in doctrines and traditions?

Would it be fair for me to say that your faith is not in God, but the reasons why you believe in God (whatever those may be, as you've yet to really explain just why you believe the way you do).

but if you don't mind, I'm gonna put my faith in a God who remains the same yesterday, today and forever.... i'm gonna go straight to the source to find out how he wants me to live my life....and i'm gonna have faith that he loves me enough to make sure that the bible that he tells me to live by, is from him...

How does God communicate to you? When exactly did he tell you that the Bible came from him?

so, back to your questions... i can't prove any of them... but if everything was so easy to believe....then you wouldn't need any faith at all.... seriously...

Everything is far from easy to believe. What I'm saddened by is your apparent attitude that somehow you're closer to God, and better able to communicate with him than I am, because of all my "doctrines and traditions".

I know God. Personally. I see him, physically, almost every day. I kneel before him, literally, a few feet away almost every single day. I talk to him. I ask him for guidance. I beg him to grant me humbleness and remove my pride.

I pray for you too.

God bless.

[Mary's Knight, La]

1 I'd like to see the Bro Adam/Iron Monk Board not to mention I'd hand out printed copies to friends.

Bro Adam, if iron seeks to prove catholicism and comes up with convincing evidence, and you seek to disprove him and you come up with "the squirrels" which is logically as valid a Q-source (ask if you don't know what that means) then it would seem to suggest that Catholicism is true, until you can provide convincing evidence against it that cannot be refuted which of course I invite you to do (some of the strongest catholic apologists started from that premise) allow me to suggest starting points for your search 1. The bible 2. The beliefs of the early church (which means the earliest documentation you can find look for pre-Luther if you can cuz Iron certainly can)

these are valid questions as the concern the majority of attacks against catholicism so it would seem that the anti-catholic sword is now being turned against the hand that wielded it

[Paladin D]

If only we had some chairs to throw...

[Robyn]

The squirrel theory sounds good to me! :P

[[jas]]

Your comments ... show an unwillingness to accept that God still works miracles today.

Dude, he's a pente, I doubt if he'd say that. :P

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) The doctrine is taken from the following considerations:

1. It is taught that the completed Scripture is a sufficient rule of faith to make the man of God complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Therefore, we should only consider there to be another infallible rule of faith if another is taught.

(dUSt) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. - NAB

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, throughly furnished unto all good works. - KJV

Okay, I see where it says scripture, but nowhere does it say complete scripture. It says all scripture. That could have meant all the scripture written up to that point--and if inDouche it did say complete, it would have only meant the OT, as the NT wasn't even written yet. But regardless--you added the word complete for your own purposes.

(Me) This point is a little too complex to deal with before we get some of the broader, more vital, issues out of the way. However, Paul certainly does not exclude any new Scripture, as his quote of Luke shows that he does not believe in a close canon, and he simply says "all Scripture" generally, not "the Law and the Prophets," or something like that. If you want to know the basic outline of an argument I would make that he has in mind the completed canon: Paul is preparing Timothy for the post-apostolic age, and throughout these two epistles he seems to be looking at the time after the apostles and prophets had laid the foundation (Ephesians 2:20) -- meaning, founded the Church and stored up the deposit of truth once-for-all delivered to the saints in the Scripture. So, for instance, he doesn't intend to say that Philemon (alone) makes the man of God complete, equipped for every good work.

(dUSt) You also added the word sufficient. All I see it described as is inspired, useful, profitable, etc. Nowhere does it say sufficient. Your translation is discouraging.

(Me) I don't see how "complete" and "every good work" do not constitute sufficiency. If you are "complete" -- lacking nothing -- how can it be insufficient? If you are prepared for every good work, how can it be insufficient?

(dUSt) This verse doesn't imply that scripture is infallible either. (Catholics do believe scripture to be infallible)

(Me) It is breathed out by God, and God cannot err.

(Previous) 2. No other infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic man of God is taught in the Scripture.

(dUSt) There's just as much evidence in scripture for the Church to be infallible as there is for scripture to be infallible.

(Me) Where is the evidence? I've seen lots of Catholics prove that the Church has authority. However, where is infallible authority? And, why does 1 Timothy 3:15 say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, rather than the Church is truth itself? Jesus said, "Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17), and the Scripture is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible places Scripture on an echelon of authority higher than the Church.

(Previous) 3. The traditions and teachings of men are often said to be rightly judged according to the standard of Scripture (e.g., Matthew 15, Acts 17).

(dUSt) Exactly. This is proved by the teachings of the Church being in complete harmony with scripture.

(Me) That is, Scripture according to the Roman Catholic interpretation. However, if the Church controls the meaning of Scripture (as she does by claiming infallible interpretive authority), how can the Church's teachings and traditions be subordinate to Scripture? They cannot. Rather, the Scripture is subordinate to the Church.

(Previous) The witness of the Holy Spirit to the Church throughout the ages, and the foundation of previous revelation.

(dUSt) What church? Previously you said "the Universal Church". Where is the universal Church?

(Me) The Church is found wherever there is fidelity to Word and Sacrament. Throughout the first millenium, this was virtually indistinguishable from the Roman Catholic Church.

(dUSt) Define "foundation of previous revelation".

(Me) E.g., the OT Scripture, the things said by Christ, the apostles, and the prophets, etc.

(Previous) It does not explicitly say.

(dUSt) For this, you must trust that the Church was infallibly led to define the correct cannon. There's no getting around this... or, in your case I guess, you must trust that the reformers were infallibly led.

(Me) Correct, although I hope you understand that what you just said ("the Church was infallibly led") is not equivalent to the Roman Catholic position. I've explained this in more detail in the relevant thread.

(Previous) 2 Timothy 3:16

(dUSt) This proves only that the OT is inspired. You have to make a bold assumption (and a rather unsensical assumption at that) if you think 2 Timothy 3:16 was referencing books that hadn't even been written yet.

(Me) This proves that all Scripture is inspired; the NT books are Scripture; therefore, they are inspired.

(ironmonk) When in the New Testament the word "Scripture" is used, the only Scripture at that time was the Septuagint. Which dates back to 285 BC.... It was what Jesus and all Christians used until 1611 AD.

(Me) Peter says that Paul wrote Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

[Jake Huether]

This verse doesn't imply that scripture is infallible either. (Catholics do believe scripture to be infallible)

Actually, I just wanted to peep in about this. Catholics, from what I understand, believe Scripture to be inerrant, not infallible. Scripture can be fallible because it is open to interpritations that can be fallible. Only the ONE, true, complete interpritation of inerrant Scripture is infallible. Scripture alone is NOT infallible, because it is only an object which can NOT clarify itself.