phatcatholic Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 phatpham, Its time to begin our comprehensive reference section for phatmass! Here's how it will probably work: 1. We will start w/ a particular doctrine 2. Once every conceivable aspect of that doctrine has been addressed, we will pin that doctrine to the Apologetics section. 3. That final post will either stay here or be moved to the Reading Section. Everyone ready? We'll start w/ the fundamental doctrine of Sola Scriptura, since every other debate usually comes back to this one issue of authority. Under Sola Scriptura, we'll begin with Logic. therefore, in this post, i need arguments, articles, essays, websites, books, and any other materials that discuss how Sola Scriptura fails from a LOGICAL standpoint. This would include proof of its circular reasoning and things of that nature. here is a list--to which we can add more if needed--of the aspects of Sola Scriptura that we can tackle. 1. Logically impossible 2. No basis in Scripture 3. Historicaly impossible 4. Against Tradition and the Early Church Fathers 5. Does not work in practice 6. Causes division 7. Not what Christ intended phatmass needs EVERYONE'S PARTICIPATION in order for this to be successful. let's make this site the most comprehensive apologetics site on that net. good luck and God Bless, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willguy Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Logically impossible - This one is linked with the "no basis in Scripture." In order for sola Scriptura to work, then sola Scriptura needs to be defined in Scripture. Not only that, but it would need to be in the New Testament. On top of that, it would need to list all the books that are Scripture. Why? Because, at least from their writings, many of the writers in the New Testament had no idea that what they were writing would be later considered Scripture. In addition, they probably had no idea about the other writers. Therefore, in order for Sola Scriptura to work, a letter in the New Testament would: 1. Have to proclaim itself as Scripture 2. Define the doctrine of Sola Scriptura 3. List the books that qualify as Scripture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappie Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I don't know if this helps but it goes to the argument that Scripture alone is necessary for salvation, the question is which version. It is a large essay Australian Ejournal of Theology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 from Traditional Catholic Apologetics One simple Example of why the Scripture Alone" concept does not work. The very concept of "Scripture Alone" believed by Protestants of today is illogical. This is Especially so when one considers the fact that their Versions of the Bible today can not even agree of what really is scripture, and what is not. Let me Give you just one example [there are many], lets look at John 7:53-8:11. The AAT and the WNTLT simply removes these verse completely, with no foot-note or Margin- note addressing were the twelve verses went or why. The NCV, NIV, NWT, and the TKIT remove these verses from the Text and place them in sort of a footnote form, with a note openly denying there legitimacy The NEB and the REB remove these verses from the Text and from the book of John, and place them as sort of a footnote ant the end of the book [of John], with a note openly denying there legitimacy The ASV, ED, GNB, ITAM, LB, LBP, NASV, NOAB, NKJV, NRSV, RV, RSV, SRE [KJV and NIV], and the WT have these verses in the text but have footnotes casting doubt on [or in some cases openly denying] there legitimacy. BNTLT, and the NKJV, both have these verses in the text, but oddly enough they have one footnotes casting doubt on there legitimacy, and one footnote supporting there legitimacy. These translations actually seems confessed as to if we should accept these Verses. The CEV, CT, CWE, DB, DV, GB, GT, HGKSB, LNT KJV, MLB, MRB, MT, PG, RBV, RDB, and the WB seem to openly accept these verse as part of the Text with out reservation. We find that there are over 40 such verses in the New Testament that are also contested in the Modern Protestant Bibles, starting with Matt 12:47 all the way to I John 5:7, this is not counting the scores of contested partial verses, and hundreds of wording variations. The Protestant confusion about John 7:53-8:11 does not discredit the scriptures, but to show the hypocrisy of this "Protestant" Belief. In order to verify ANY VERSE or ANY BOOK as being really scripture they must leave there "authority" [the Bible itself] and rely on Man who is fallible. Hence in truth there is not one "Protestant" out there who really thinks about honestly cannot truly believe what he preaches about "Scripture alone", hence the hypocrisy. As for Catholics there is no confusion about the legitimacy these verses, or any verses in sacred scripture, for we have a Infallible Church to guide us and determine what is scripture and what is not. LISTING OF BIBLES ABBREVIATIONS REFERENCED: Note ALL the Versions of the Bible listed in this article are of Non-Catholic origin. AAT: An American Translation (Both the "Complete Bible", and the "Short Bible") ASV: American Standard Version BNTLP: Beck's New Testament in the Language of the Today CEV: Contemporary English Bible CT: The Collin’s Bible CWE: The Christian Workers Edition DB: Darby’s Bible DV: Dratmouth Version ED: Emphatic Diaglott GB: Great Bible GT: The Geneva Translation GNB: Good New Bible HGKSB: Hewbrew-Greek Key Study Bible, KJV version ITAM: Interlinear Translation by Alfred Marshall KJV: King James Version LB: Living Bible LBP: Living Bible Paraphrased LNT: Laymen’s New Testament MLB: Modern Language Bible MRB: Modern Readers Bible MT: Matthew’s Translation NAS: New American Standard Version NCV: New Century Version NEB: New English Version NKJV: New King James Version NIV: New International Version NOAB: New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV: New Revised Standard Version NTJM: New Translation by James Moffati NWT: New World Translation PB: Polyglott Bible REB: Revised English Version RBV: The Revised Bereley Version RDB: Readers Digest Bible SRE: Scofield Reference Editions (The KJV and NIV editions) TKIT: The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures WB: Webster’s Bible WNTLT: William's New Testament in the Language of the Today WT: Worrell's Translation of the New Testament With Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 From the Same website: Sola which Scriptura: The KJV vs. NKJV The reason this is so intriguing should be obvious, one of the two pillers of Protestantism is "scripture alone" yet these two bibles do not agree. If two bibles disagree, which one is wrong, are both wrong? Both claim that you cannot add to or take from the word of the Lord, yet they differ. Why? Which one is right? How much do they differ? Does it affect doctrine? Who changed it? Some of the verses are total opposites, other verses are simply not saying the same thing. For example in the NKJV compared with the (old) KJV there are 66 omissions of the word "Lord", 51 omissions of "God", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 23 omissions of "blood", and the terms "devils", "damnation", "Jehovah", and "new testament" are completely omitted. How about that "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times. By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! The Jehovahs Witness "Bible" does this as well and the New International Version is guilty of the same stratagem. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - Do they turn Hell into MYTHOLOGY? But the should be nothing new to the readers of the KJV with nine refeances to unicorns and over 30 to dragons mythology is standerd reading . It must be noted, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"? The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes from the old 1611 KJV. There are 2,922 fewer words in the New Testament of the NKJV. Thus, the NKJV is shorter (In The New Testament) than that of the King James Bible by about the total number of words contained in I and II Peter combined! Matthew 16:18 KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke 16:23 KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." Hell is removed in 2 Sam. 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14. Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The NKJV also deals rather questionably with the Lord Jesus Christ. Following are some examples: Matt. 8:19 KJV: And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. NKJV: Then a certain scribe came and said to Him, "Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt. 19:16 KJV: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? NKJV: Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt. 20:20 KJV: Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. NKJV: Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts 3:13 KJV: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. NKJV: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts 3:26 KJV: Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. NKJV: To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities." Note: I wonder where they got the idea to change "Son" to "Servant"? How about the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts 4:27 KJV: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people NKJV: "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts 4:30 KJV: By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. NKJV: by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt. 7:14 KJV: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. NKJV: Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Cor. 1:18 KJV: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. NKJV: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. Note: In II Cor. 2:15 they change "in them that are saved" to "among those who are being saved". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heb. 10:14 KJV: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. NKJV: For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts 12:4 KJV: And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. NKJV: So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gal. 2:20 KJV: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. NKJV: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. They omit the words in bold type --- "nevertheless I live". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II Tim. 2:15 KJV: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. NKJV: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II Cor. 2:17 KJV: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. NKJV: For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 (edited) From the same website, part 2: Sola which Scriptura: The KJV vs. NIV The reason this is so intriguing should be obvious, one of the two pillers of Protestantism is "scripture alone" yet these two bibles do not agree. If two bibles disagree, which one is wrong, are both wrong? Both claim that you cannot add to or take from the word of the Lord, yet they differ. Why? Which one is right? How much do they differ? Does it affect doctrine? Who changed it? Some of the verses are total opposites, other verses are simply not saying the same thing. I ask all who read these comparisons to pray and ask the Lord to reveal which one is the true word of God. KJV: “...those things which he hath not seen...." (Col.2:18) NIV: “...great detail about what he has seen...." (Col.2:18) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Israel is an empty vine.” (Hos.10:1) NIV: “Israel was a spreading vine.” (Hos.10:1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.” (Hos.11:12) NIV: “...Judah is unruly against God, even against the faithful Holy One.” (Hos.11:12) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...thought it not robbery to be equal with God....” (Phil 2:6) NIV: “...did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” (Phil.2:6) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “My friends scorn me” (Job 16:20) NIV: “My intercessor is my friend.” (Job 16:20) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Save, LORD: let the king hear us when we call” (Psa 20:9) NIV: “O LORD, save the king! Answer us when we call!” (Psa.20:9) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off....” (Hos.8:5) NIV: “Throw out your calf-idol, O Samaria....” (Hos.8:5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.” (Prov.21:28) NIV: “...and whoever listens to him will be destroyed forever.” (Prov.21:28) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The words of a talebearer are as wounds....” (Prov.26:22) NIV: "The words of a gossip are like choice morsels...." (Prov.26:22) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea.” (Isa 9:1) NIV: “...In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles.” (Isa.9:1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The north wind driveth away rain: so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.” (Prov.25:23) NIV: “As a north wind brings rain, so a sly tongue brings angry looks.” (Prov.25:23) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty!” (Zech.9:17) NIV: “How attractive and beautiful they will be!” (Zech.9:17) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy.....” (Isa.9:3) NIV: “You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy....” (Isa.9:3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “And thou shalt swear, The LORD liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory.” (Jer.4:2) NIV: “and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, `As surely as the LORD lives,' then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory." (Jer.4:2) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow.” (Jer.51:3) NIV: “Let not the archer string his bow.” (Jer.51:3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols.” (Jer.50:38) NIV: “For it is a land of idols, idols that will go mad with terror.” (Jer.50:38) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isa.59:19) NIV: “From the west, men will fear the name of the LORD, and from the rising of the sun, they will revere his glory. For he [Who?] will come like a pent-up flood that the breath of the LORD drives along.” (Isa.59:19) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Ask ye of the LORD rain in the time of the latter rain.” (Zec.10:1) NIV: “Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime.” (Zec.10:1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence.” (Psa 62:3) NIV: “How long will you assault a man? Would all of you throw him down-- this leaning wall, this tottering fence?” (Psa.62:3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth." (Psa 10:3) NIV: “...he blesses the greedy and reviles the LORD." (Psa 10:3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “His ways are always grievous.” (Psa.10:5) NIV: “His ways are always prosperous.” (Psa.10:5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.” (Prov.26:10) NIV: “Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passer-by.” (Prov.26:10) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory.” (Psa.29:9) NIV: “The voice of the LORD twists the oaks and strips the forests bare. And in his temple all cry, ‘Glory!’” (Psa.29:9) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...an odious[hateful] woman when she is married.” (Prov.30:23) NIV: “an unloved woman who is married.” (Prov.30:23) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him.” (Psa 81:15) NIV: “Those who hate the LORD would cringe before him.” (Psa 81:15) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.” (Prov.30:28) NIV: “a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in kings' palaces.” (Prov.30:28) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks, shall be confounded. And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish." (Isa.19:9-10) NIV: “Those who work with combed flax will despair, the weavers of fine linen will lose hope. The workers in cloth will be dejected, and all the wage earners will be sick at heart." (Isa.19:9-10) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God.” (2Tim.2:15) NIV: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved.” (2Tim.2:15) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...is not he thy father that hath bought thee?” (Deut.32:6) NIV: “...Is he not your Father, your Creator.” (Deut.32:6) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.” (Isa.16:5) NIV: “In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it-- one from the house of David-- one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of righteousness.” (Isa.16:5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...but wisdom is profitable to direct.” (Ecc.10:10) NIV: “...skill will bring success.” (Ecc.10:10) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” (Isa.66:5) NIV: “Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: "Your brothers who hate you, and exclude you because of my name, have said, `Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy!' Yet they will be put to shame.” (Isa.66:5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.” (Hos.9:11) NIV: “Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird-- no birth, no pregnancy, no conception." (Hos.9:11) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.” (Hos.6:3) NIV: “Let us acknowledge the LORD; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth." (Hos.6:3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...by profaning the covenant of our fathers?" (Mal.2:10) NIV: “...by breaking faith with one another?" (Mal.2:10) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of bread: but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.” (Prov.28:19) NIV: “He who works his land will have abundant food, but the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty." (Prov.28:19) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...but he that is of a perverse heart shall be despised.” (Prov.12:8) NIV: “...but men with warped minds are despised.” (Prov.12:8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “I hate vain thoughts.” (Psa.119:113) NIV: “I hate double-minded men.” (Psa.119:113) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Prov.22:21) NIV: “Have I not written thirty sayings for you, sayings of counsel and knowledge, teaching you true and reliable words, so that you can give sound answers to him who sent you?" (Prov.22:21) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.” (Prov.23:6) NIV: “Do not eat the food of a stingy man, do not crave his delicacies; for he is the kind of man who is always thinking about the cost. "Eat and drink," he says to you, but his heart is not with you.” (Prov.23:6-7) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy.” (Prov.20:28) NIV: “Love and faithfulness keep a king safe; through love his throne is made secure.” (Prov.20:28) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.” (Prov.16:10) NIV: “The lips of a king speak as an oracle, and his mouth should not betray justice.” (Prov.16:10) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” (Psa.119:140) NIV: “Your promises have been thoroughly tested, and your servant loves them.” (Psa.119:140) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul.” (Psa.138:3) NIV: “When I called, you answered me; you made me bold and stouthearted." (Psa.138:3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “A gift is as a precious stone in the eyes of him that hath it: whithersoever it turneth, it prospereth.” (Prov.17:8) NIV: “A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds.” (Pro.17:8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.” (Ecc.2:8) NIV: “I acquired men and women singers, and a harem as well--the delights of the heart of man.” (Ecc.2:8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.” (Isa.60:5) NIV: “Then you will look and be radiant, your heart will throb and swell with joy; the wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the riches of the nations will come.” (Isa.60:5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God.” (2Cor.2:17) NIV: “Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.” (2Cor.2:17) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: "geniuses make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.” (Prov.14:9) NIV: “geniuses mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright.” (Prov.14:9) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: "The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself." (Prov.14:14) NIV: "The faithless will be fully repaid for their ways, and the good man rewarded for his." (Prov.14:14) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” (Dan.3:25) NIV: “He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods." (Dan.3:25) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” (Dan.11:37) NIV: “He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.” (Dan.11:37) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matt.11:12) NIV: “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.” (Matt.11:12) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The way of the just is uprightness: thou, most upright, dost weigh the path of the just.” (Isa.26:7) NIV: “The path of the righteous is level; O upright One, you make the way of the righteous smooth." (Isa.26:7) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “He is the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.” (2Sam.22:51) NIV: “He gives his king great victories; he shows unfailing kindness to his anointed, to David and his descendants forever.” (2Sam.22:51) The importance of taking away "seed" and putting in "descendents" is critical. Gal.3:16 says: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." By making "seed" plural, they have taken away from prophecy. Edited to highlight key words/phrases. Edited December 8, 2003 by Lil Red Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I jsut checked out the Apologetics section of the reading room and I was wondering why all the verses are in some crazy Old English junk. Is this the KJV? Or is it the RSV (I don't think I've ever read the RSV)? I personally usually only read the NAB because it is easily accessable online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Again, from the same website: Ten Obvious Objections to "Sola Scriptura" The Reformers said the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, and its understanding must be found by looking only at the words of the text. This is the Protestant theory of sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone), a view commonly called "the Bible alone." According to it, no outside authority may impose an interpretation, and no outside authority, such as the Church, has been established by Christ as an arbiter between conflicting interpretations. OBJECTION NUMBER ONE, SCRIPTURE TELLS THE INTENT OF THE APOSTLES: The intent to the apostles was simple, the word of God was to be preached verbally, it is for this reason that out of twelve apostles who were with Christ from the beginning only two left us written gospels. St. Paul tells us our faith is to be based on HEARING (this is verbal teach) St. Paul does not say nor did he ever intend faith comes from reading any written book or collection of books. Maybe that’s why himself did not write a gospel. Of course, this should be obvious to any reader scripture Christ commanded them to "preach" and "teach", NOWHERE did Christ say to "write" and "read". Maybe that’s why Christ established a Church to instead of a book. If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)? "If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immovable from the hope of the gospel which you HAVE HEARD, which is PREACHED (verbal teaching not written) in all the creation that is under heaven, where of I Paul am made a minister." (Col. i. 23) "Faith then cometh BY HEARING; AND HEARING by the word of Christ.But I say: Have they not HEARD? Yes, verily, THEIR SOUND hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world." (Rom. 10:17,18) OBJECTION NUMBER TWO, SCRIPTURE COMMANDS US TO FOLLOW THE UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS: Obviously, this means that the "sola scriptura" is not a scripturally sound premise. If We have to follow the unwritten word, then the written word cannot be sufficient by itself. "Therefore, brethren, STAND FAST, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether BY WORD, or our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15) "Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES (the Greek text says, 'keep the TRADITIONS'), as I delivered them to you." (1Cor 11:2) "And the things that thou hast HEARD of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2) "By which ye are saved, if ye keep in MEMORY what I PREACHED (verbal teaching not written) to you, unless ye have believed in vain." (1Cor 15:2) OBJECTION NUMBER THREE, EXPLAIN THESE: Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book? Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write down any of the Gosple or the teaching Epistles? Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book? How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture? If God 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 the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that "there are now as many doctrines as there are heads"? How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture? 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? Surely the Apostles did not depend upon a Christian Bible for religious and moral guidance as it was nonexistent. In fact there is only one of the Twelve who may possibly have seen the writings that formed the New Testament. That was St. John, as the other Eleven had gone to their eternal reward before St. John wrote his Gospel, which the Catholic Church declared to have been inspired by God. OBJECTION NUMBER FOUR, SCRIPTURE IT SELF ADMITS, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL: The problem with this is self explanatory. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book..."(John 20:30) "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen." (John 21:25:) It has been said, that all that is written in the Gospels cumulatively, would only cover 18 days in the life of Christ. Jesus lived for 33 years or 33 X 365 = 12045 days. What about the missing 12027 days? Christ walked among humanity and gave us 3 years or 3X 365 = 1095 days of verbal teaching before his death, What about Christ’s verbal peaching of the missing 1077 days? Did not Christ promise "the heavens and earth shall pass away but, my words shall not" where are thay? Where are the 'writings' of over 99% of His life? Are most of Christ’s words and actions lost to Christianity? The remainder is, no doubt are the unwritten SACRED APOSTOLIC TRADITION! A good example of this would be the "Agrapha" (unwritten things). Agrapha denotes words of Christ not written in the Four canonical gospels. Some examples within the Bible itself are Acts 20:35 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-24, many more are found to the writings of the early Christian fathers. This brings up the next point the MISSING book of the bible, there are 28 books quoted from or referred to in sacred scripture that no longer exist. In new Testament their three books (2 Epistles and a Prophecy) which are mentioned and are now missing, where are the teachings in these books? Obviously, the contents of these books or worthy of mention and sacred scripture therefore they must be important, where are these books? 1] The Former Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians:"I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world ." (1 Cor. 5:9-10) 2] The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans:"Salute the brethren who are at Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in his house. And when this epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans." (Col. 4:15-16) 3] The Prophecy of Enoch:"Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God." (Jude 1:14-15) OBJECTION NUMBER FIVE, SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A HYPOCRITICAL PREMISE: The best one liner, refutation of Sola Scriptura, is where in the Bible does it says, "only the Bible." or "the Bible alone" or "Bible" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 OBJECTION NUMBER SIX, WHAT CAME FIRST THE BOOK OR THE CHURCH?: The Catholic Church came into existence before a line in the New Testament was written: The Apostles preached Christ and Him crucified; St. Peter converted 3000 Jews; the Council of Jerusalem was assembled; and the Jewish law was abrogated, before a single line of the New Testament was written. Before St. John wrote his Gospel the Catholic Church celebrated her golden jubilee; and St. Paul could say that faith of Christ had been "proclaimed all over the (then-known) world" (Rom. 1:8). OBJECTION NUMBER SEVEN, LOOK AT MESS OF CHRISTIAN UNITY "SOLA SCRIPTURA" HAS CREATED If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, According to "The Christian Sourcebook" (1986 pg.326), there were "21,000 denominations in 1986, with 270 new ones being formed each year." All of these are Protestant. As of January, 1997, there were more than 28,000 Protestant denominations. Each of these denominations are certain that they are the only group that understands God's revelation, and that no one else in the last 2,000 years has found the true teaching of Jesus. Then why are there over 28,000 different Protestant denominations and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently? Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible? 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? Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not? For a example lets look at the unity of the Baptists. The Baptists were origionly Founded by John Smith, at one time pastor of a church at Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, England, that had separated from the Church of England. About 1606, to escape persecution, he and his flock emigrated to Amsterdam. Smith died in 1612. Smith Taught only baptism of immersion t be valid; predestination; denied free-will; good works ;purgatory; the Sacraments, and the forgiveness of sin. 1639 - British Separatists 1672 - Seventh-Day Baptists 1727 - Free Will Baptists 1770 - Old Lights 1787 - General Association of Separatists Baptists 1814 - Baptist Missionary Convention 1827 - Primitive Baptists 1845 - Northern Baptist Convention 1932 - General Assoc. of Regular Baptist Churches 1947 - Conservative Baptist Assoc. of America 1950 - America Baptist Convention 1770 - New Lights 1780 - Free Will Baptists (North) 1827 - Primitive Baptists 1910 - Northern Baptist Convention 1814 - Baptist Missionary Convention 1845 - Southern Baptist Convention 1895 - National Baptist Convention of America 1915 - National Baptist Convention of the U.S.A., Inc. 1961 - Progressive Baptist Convention 1905 - American Baptist Association 1895 - Northern Baptist Convention of America 1932 - General Assoc. of Regular Baptist Churches 1947 - Conservative Baptist Association of America 1950 - American Baptist Convention As the esteemed Protestant historian Friedrich Paulsen, in his much - prized History of German Education, writes "The Word of God does not suffice as a regula fidei, but a personal authority is also needed to decide on questions of doctrine, this is what the Luther of 1535 says and thereby confutes the Luther of 1521, who refused to allow anyone on earth to point out to him the faith unless he himself could gather its truth from the Word of God . . . What Luther had relied on in 1521 against the Papists, viz. inability to refute him from Scripture, was used against him in his own struggle with the 'fanatics' . . . For the confuting of heretics a rule of faith is needed, and what is more, a living one to decide in each case. The principle of 1521, to allow no authority on earth to prescribe the faith, is anarchical . . . This the Reformers also saw and thus there was nothing left for them, if they were to retain a 'Church,' than to set up their own authority in the stead of the authority of Pope and Councils. On one vexatious point they were, however, at a loss: Against the later Luther it was always possible to appeal to the Luther of Worms. The starting-point and raison d'etre of the whole Reformation was the repudiation on principle of all human authority in matters of faith; after this, to find Luther installed as Pope, was scarcely pleasing . . . The hole in Luther's teaching still remains a hole in the principle of the Protestant Church today: There can be no earthly authority in matters of faith, and: Such an authority there must be; this is an antinomy which lies at its very root." OBJECTION NUMBER EIGHT, SCRIPTURE DOES NOT LIST WHICH BOOKS ARE SCRIPTURE: Sola Scriptura is impossible for the simple fact that nowhere in the Bible doesn’t list how many or what books belong in it’s canon. Simply put the Christian of the fourth century would have most certainly agreed with this point for example, St. Augustine [A.D. 397] , Bishop of Hippo Stated "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." (St. Augustine, Conra Epist. Fundam. i,6) St. Augustine said this for good reason As it is, there were numerous apocryphal "gospels," "epistles," "acts," "apocalypses," etc., floating around. There was a large amount of confusion with regards to which books were canonical, or even written by the authors whose names they bear. the new Testament Canon was established by the consensus and authorities of the Roman Catholic Church "Apocryphal New Testament, title that refers to more than 100 books written by Christian authors between the 2nd and 4th centuries. The books have two characteristics in common: (1) In general form they resemble New Testament writings (see Bible); (2) they belong neither to the New Testament canon nor to the writings of the recognized Fathers of the Church. These books were written for a variety of reasons, including for use by sects such as the Gnostics" (The Encarta Concise Encyclopedia 1999) The fact that the "Gnostics or Carpocratians" Followers of Carpoerates, an Alexandrian philosopher, who flourished during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (117-138). The Carpocratians held that everyone has two souls; believed in the transmigration of souls; maintained that the world was created by angels; denied the divinity of Christ, and advocated the practice of immorality as a means of union with God. Carpoerates also held the believe that the old Testament was written by the Devil "It was only the Roman Catholic Church that saved the Protestant truths. It may be right to rest on the Bible, but there would be no Bible if the Gnostics had proved that the Old Testament was written by the Devil, or had succeeded lettering the world with Apocryphal Gospels"(UPON THIS ROCK by G.K. Chesterton) These Gnostics (or Carpocratians) and others attempted to discredit the true Scriptures by pointing out the fact that the world was inDouche, littered with apocryphal books as St. Athanasius (367) the Roman Catholic Bishop of Alexandria explains. "They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God" (St. Athanasius For 367. The Festal Letter Or Chronicon Athanasianum) History tells us that these counterfeit Gospels of the Gnostic caused such confusion among the early Church that Christianity (The Catholic Church) was forced to standardize the canon of the New Testament. "The development of Christian doctrine was to a large extent a reaction against Gnosticism. The formulation of creedal symbols, the canonization of the New Testament Scriptures, and the emphasis on episcopal authority all were made necessary by the Gnostics' claims."(© 1999-2000 Britannica.com) OBJECTION NUMBER NINE, THE BIBLE AS WE KNOW IT DID NOT EVEN EXIST FOR ALMOST THE FIRST 400 YEARS: Sola Scriptura, could not have been taught or accepted by the early church for the simple fact that until the mid fourth century the Bible as you Know it DID NOT EVEN EXIST. The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura? It was not until St. Athanasius, "Doctor of the Catholic Church and patriarch of Alexandria" (The Columbia Encyclopedia, copyright 1958, p. 114), wrote his Easter letter to the churches and monasteries of his diocese and identified the books they were to include in their New Testament Scripture. It was this St. Athanasius's New Testament canon that was accepted by the church in Rome and ratified by church leaders in Hippo Regius in 393 and in Carthage in 397. Carthage formally reaffirmed its acceptance of the canon in 419. "The Canon or list of approved New Testament books was not approved by the Catholic Church until the 4th cent. a festal epistel of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D.367), as well as a contemporary decree of pope St. Damasus in Rome (381)"(MacMillan Concicise Dictionary of World History,by Bruce Wetterau. © 1983) "In 367 Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, made a canonical list of all the presently accepted New Testament books. Church councils in subsequent decades established his list as final. "(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996) The third period begins in 325 and is marked by authoritative pronouncements, first by bishops of provincial churches and later by councils or synods. In 367 Athanasius put forth a litst of 27 N. T. books, which corresponds to the present canon. At the synods of Hippo Regius (393) and Carthage (397, 419), our N.T. of 27 books was accepted. Augustine supported this canon, which through the Vulgate eventually came into vogue throughout the West. The canon of the Eastern Church was ultimately the same as that of the Western. (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, © 1965) "Not until A.D. 367 does one enounter a canon identical to the modern one (in a "Festal Letter" of Bishop Athanasius), and even thereafter the status of several books (e.g., Hebrews, Revelation, and 1 Clement) continued uncertain for some time. To the present day, there is no universal agreement on the boundary of the Christian canon of Scripture; the Apocrypha which Roman Catholics include is excluded by the Protestants from their canon." (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, p. 154. 1985) "But in the second half of the 4th century Athanasius in the East (39th Paschal Letter: 367 A.D.) and in the West the local Council of Rome (382) give a complete NT canon, with all of its 27 books ranked on a par, as do also the local Councils of north Africa and the Roman canons of the 4th century, as mentioned above for the OT canon. After the doubts of the 4th and 5th centuries were overcome in the East as well as in the West, the Greek Church held the same complete NT canon as the Latin Church. Only the Nestorian Syriac Church continued to reject Ap and the above-mentioned smaller Catholic Epistles."(The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, p. 313. 1963) "The canon was even more firmly settled in 367. At that time Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Easter letter to the churches and monasteries of his diocese and identified the books they were to include in their New Testament Scripture...Athanasius’ canon had long been accepted by the church in Rome... his canon was ratified by church leaders in Hippo Regius in 393 and in Carthage in 397. Carthage formally reaffirmed its acceptance of the canon in 419."(The Bible Through the Ages © 1996) "Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria and a significant theologian, delimited the canon and settled the strife between East and West. On a principle of inclusiveness, both Revelation and Hebrews (as part of the Pauline corpus) were accepted. The 27 books of the New Testament--and they only--were declared canonical."(Britannica.com Inc © 1999-2000) "There are many more than these 27 early Christian works. Selection of New Testament books as canonical was slow, the present canon appearing for the first time in the Festal Epistle of St. Athanasius (A.D. 367). All major Christian churches use the same canon."(The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third Edition © 1994) "It would be the end of the 4th century (Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter, 369; the councils of Hippo Regius, 393, and Certhage, 397) before the Church of East and West could concure on the full 27 books which since that time have been commonly confessed in all major branches of Christendom...Athanasius' Festal Letter of 369 is probably the first list of the present 27 books alone" (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible © 2000) "The 39th festal letter of St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, sent to the churches under his jurisdiction in 367, ended all uncertainty about the limits of the New Testament canon. In the so-called festal letter, preserved in a collection of annual Lenten messages given by Athanasius, he listed as canonical the 27 books that remain the contents of the New Testament, although he arranged them in a different order. Those books of the New Testament, in their present-day order, are the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation." (Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997-2000) "In A.D. 367, the content of the New Testament was first listed exactly as we now know it. This canon was gradually adopted by all Christians."(World book Interactive Encyclopedia © 1999) "The first evidence for a canonical list which completely matches that widely accepted for the New Testament today was the 39th Easter letter of Athanasius (367), which designates 27 books of the New Testament" (Webster's World Encyclopedia, copyright 2001.) "We find the 27 documents which make up our new Testament today, first listed by Athanasius of Alexandria in A.D. 367 and not long afterwards by Jerome and Augustine in the West" (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, copyright 1977, p. 584) you might say "But, what about the Bible's own claim to inspiration"? There are not many places where such a claim is made even tangentially, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer claimed that he himself was writing under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the John, author of Revelation. Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, "The following is an inspired book," such phrases would prove nothing. The Koran claims to be inspired, as does the Book of Mormon, as do the holy books of various Eastern religions. Even the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, and Ellen G. White, the founder of Seventh-Day Adventism, claim inspiration. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish a book's bona fides. The point is that Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible is inspired, but their reasons for so believing are inadequate because knowledge of the inspiration of the Bible can be based only on an authority established by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church. And this is where a more serious problem comes in. It seems to some that it makes little difference why one believes in the Bible's inspiration, just so one believes in it. But the basis for one's belief in its inspiration directly affects how one goes about interpreting the Bible. The Catholic believes in inspiration because the Church tells him so--that's putting it bluntly--and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text. Fundamentalists believe in inspiration, though on weak grounds, but they have no interpreting authority other than themselves. Cardinal Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration first published in 1884: "Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself.Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs defter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural antic ipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility." The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just "felt." Second, the main fact behind the proof--the fact of an infallible, teaching Church--leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31): How is one to know what interpretations are right? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes its inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret his Word. OBJECTION NUMBER TEN, THE MANY FAULTY TRANSLATIONS OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. The devil has been playing with and altering translations of sacred scripture for longtime. two of the best examples is the Authorized King James of 1611 and the New International Version. The Authorized King James version is notoriously inaccurate, even from the very start many renowned Protestant scholars came out in opposition to its inaccuracies in 1612 Dr. Hugh Broughton stated: "The late Bible (The 1611 King James version)... bred in me sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done... to his Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, then any such translation by my consent should be urged upon the poor churches...the new edition crosseth me. I require it to be Burnt"(The Bible Through the Ages copyright 1996 p. 318) In The original Preface to the King James Version of 1611the translators themselves admitted there were many Hebrew and Greek words (lexicons) and whole sentences Thay did not understand, Thay were forced to GUESS there meanings. "REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH; Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point....It hath pleased God in His divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, ...There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once (having neither brother nor neighbor [ipax legomena], as the Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holden by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that rather because they would say something than because they were sure of that which they said, as St. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily (I.E. Final; absolute)? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption...so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good--yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." [From the "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER" The Original Preface to the King James Version of 1611 (The familiar "Epistle Dedicatory" to King James I, printed at the beginning of many current K.J.V. editions, is often mistakenly thought to be the preface of this translation. In actuality, the true preface is a lengthy section entitled "The Translators to the Reader") The above text, modernized as to spelling and punctuation, has been checked and corrected against the reprint of the 1611 edition of the "King James Version of 1611" by Thomas Nelson.] The editions have of the Authorized King James Version, been innumerable; we need mention but a few. Three distinct editions appeared in 1611; one is known as "The great SHE editions," the nomenclature being too to the fact that whereas Ruth 3:15 should read, "He [boaz] measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her [Ruth]; and she went," the first folio substituted "he" for "she"; subsequent editions based upon either the "he" or the "she" folio reproduced their respective readings some other editions noted for their misprints. The edition of 1631 Cambridge, is known as "The Wicked Bible" for printing the commandment, "Thou shalt commit adultery." Another Cambridge edition was guilty of at least four gems in the way of misprints: "sons of Bilial" for "sons of Bilhah (Bala)" (Gen. 37:2); "slew two lions like men," for two lion-like men" (II Sam. 23:20); the Midianites "vex you with their wives" instead of "wiles". Another unfortunate edition was that of 1653, which omitted "or who hath opened his eyes" from John 9:21, and in Rom. 6:13 wrote: "your members as instruments of righteousness," for "unrighteousness"; conversely, in I Cor. 6:9 ii has, "know you not that the righteous [for "unrighteous"] shall not process the kingdom of God?" One misprint was hard warming, at least for the Puritans. The apostles arranged for the selection by the faithful up seven deacons "whom we may appoint" (Acts 6:3); but the Puritans, binding that "ye" had been printed instead of "we," seized on this misprint as confirmation of their peculiar views on appointment to the ministry. The statement that "the dogs liked ["licked"] Achab’s blood" (III Kings 22:38) may raise a smile ; but "I will never forgive["forget"] thy precepts" (Ps. 119:93) is distinctly disedifying. several other editions have received nicknames owing to their misprints. One printed at Oxford, 1717, is called the "vinegar Bible" from the title affixed to Luke chapter 20, which reads, "The Parable of the Vinegar" for "Vineyard"; another 1795, is dubbed the "Murderers Bible" for Mark 7:27 reads, "Let the children first he killed" instead of "filled with" The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes from the old 1611 KJV. There are 2,922 fewer words in the New Testament of the NKJV. Thus, the NKJV is shorter (In The New Testament) than that of the King James Bible by about the total number of words contained in I and II Peter combined! in the NKJV there are 66 omissions of the word "Lord", 51 omissions of "God", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 23 omissions of "blood", and the terms "devils", "damnation", "Jehovah", and "new testament" are completely omitted. How about that "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times. By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! The Jehovahs Witness "Bible" does this as well and the New International Version is guilty of the same stratagem. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - Do they turn Hell into MYTHOLOGY? But the should be nothing new to the readers of the KJV with nine refeances to unicorns and over 30 to dragons mythology is standerd reading . The New International Version, many WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--many were moved from the text to a footnote...over 40 IN ALL!!! It is interesting to note that most of these verses were also eliminated by the translators of the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible "New World Translation". A TYPICAL EXAMPLE (Matthew 15): 27. "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 29. Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. (New International Version, 1978 edition) The new international version is severely lacking in its references to the divinity of Christ but as compare the following phrases; Phrases in the; DR. NIV Lord Jesus Christ; 84 60 Lord Jesus; 115 101 Jesus Christ; 187 132 The Son of God; 45 39 yet these two bibles (The KJV and NIV) do not agree. If two bibles disagree, which one is wrong, are both wrong? Both claim that you cannot add to or take from the word of the Lord, yet they differ. Why? Which one is right? How much do they differ? Does it affect doctrine? Who changed it? Some of the verses are total opposites, other verses are simply not saying the same thing. Allow me to list just a FEW. KJV: “...those things which he hath not seen...." (Col.2:18) NIV: “...great detail about what he has seen...." (Col.2:18) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Israel is an empty vine.” (Hos.10:1) NIV: “Israel was a spreading vine.” (Hos.10:1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.” (Hos.11:12) NIV: “...Judah is unruly against God, even against the faithful Holy One.” (Hos.11:12) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...thought it not robbery to be equal with God....” (Phil 2:6) NIV: “...did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” (Phil.2:6) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “My friends scorn me” (Job 16:20) NIV: “My intercessor is my friend.” (Job 16:20) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Save, LORD: let the king hear us when we call” (Psa 20:9) NIV: “O LORD, save the king! Answer us when we call!” (Psa.20:9) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off....” (Hos.8:5) NIV: “Throw out your calf-idol, O Samaria....” (Hos.8:5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “...but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.” (Prov.21:28) NIV: “...and whoever listens to him will be destroyed forever.” (Prov.21:28) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: “The words of a talebearer are as wounds....” (Prov.26:22) NIV: "The words of a gossip are like choice morsels...." (Prov.26:22) understanding this, how do you know the version of the Bible you use is sacred scripture or contains the true words of Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 lil red devil, thanks for all the info! that will be very useful when we get into the other aspects of sola scriptura. the long portion about the different interpretations may work under the LOGIC argument, but the 10 Arguments you posted are better suited for later. Good work, and i'll keep ur posts in mind. pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 (edited) this article should work: http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola1.htm LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM As an active Protestant in my mid-twenties I began to feel that I might have a vocation to become a minister. The trouble was that while I had quite definite convictions about the things that most Christians have traditionally held in common—the sort of thing C.S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity." I had had some firsthand experience with several denominations (Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist) and was far from certain as to which of them (if any) had an overall advantage over the others. So I began to think, study, search, and pray. Was there a true Church? If so, how was one to decide which? The more I studied, the more perplexed I became. At one stage my elder sister, a very committed evangelical with somewhat flexible denominational affiliations, chided me with becoming "obsessed" with trying to find a "true Church." "Does it really matter?" she would ask. Well, yes it did. It was all very well for a lay Protestant to relegate the denominational issue to a fairly low priority amongst religious questions: lay people can go to one Protestant Church one week and another the next week and nobody really worries too much. But an ordained minister obviously cannot do that. He must make a very serious commitment to a definite Church community, and under normal circumstances that commitment will be expected to last a lifetime. So clearly that choice had to be made with a deep sense of responsibility; and the time to make it was before, not after, ordination. As matters turned out, my search lasted several years, and eventually led me to where I never suspected it would at first. I shall not attempt to relate the full story, but will focus on just one aspect of the question as it developed for me—an aspect which seems quite fundamental. As I groped and prayed my way towards a decision, I came close to despair and agnosticism at times, as I contemplated the mountains of erudition, the vast labyrinth of conflicting interpretations of Christianity (not to mention other faiths) which lined the shelves of religious bookshops and libraries. If all the "experts" on Truth—the great theologians, historians, philosophers—disagreed interminably with each other, then how did God, if He was really there, expect me, an ordinary Joe Blow, to work out what was true? The more I became enmeshed in specific questions of Biblical interpretation—of who had the right understanding of justification, of the Eucharist, Baptism, grace, Christology, Church government and discipline, and so on—the more I came to feel that this whole-line of approach was a hopeless quest, a blind alley. These were all questions that required a great deal of erudition, learning, competence in Biblical exegesis, patristics, history, metaphysics, ancient languages—in short, scholarly research. But was it really credible (I began to ask myself) that God, if He were to reveal the truth about these disputed questions at all, would make this truth so inaccessible that only a small scholarly elite had even the faintest chance of reaching it? Wasn’t that a kind of gnosticism? Where did it leave the nonscholarly bulk of the human race? It didn’t seem to make sense. If, as they say, war is too important to be left to the generals, then revealed truth seemed too important to be left to the Biblical scholars. It was no use saying that perhaps God simply expected the non-scholars to trust the scholars. How were they to know which scholars to trust, given that the scholars all contradicted each other? Therefore, in my efforts to break out of the dense exegetical undergrowth where I could not see the wood for the trees, I shifted towards a new emphasis in my truth-seeking criteria: I tried to get beyond the bewildering mass of contingent historical and linguistic data upon which the rival exegetes and theologians constructed their doctrinal castles, in order to concentrate on those elemental, necessary principles of human thought which are accessible to all of us, learned and unlearned alike. In a word, I began to suspect that an emphasis on logic, rather than on research, might expedite an answer to my prayers for guidance. The advantage was that you don’t need to be learned to be logical. You need not have spent years amassing mountains of information in libraries in order to apply the first principles of reason. You can apply them from the comfort of your armchair, so to speak, in order to test the claims of any body of doctrine, on any subject whatsoever, that comes claiming your acceptance. Moreover logic, like mathematics, yields firm certitude, not mere changeable opinions and provisional hypotheses. Logic is the first natural "beacon of light" with which God has provided us as intelligent beings living in a world darkened by the confusion of countless conflicting attitudes, doctrines and world-views, all telling us how to live our lives during this brief time that is given to us here on earth. Logic of course has its limits. Pure "armchair" reasoning alone will never be able to tell you the meaning of your life and how you should live it. But as far as it goes, logic is an indispensable tool, and I even suspect that you sin against God, the first Truth, if you knowingly flout or ignore it in your thinking. "Thou shalt not contradict thyself" seems to me an important precept of the natural moral law. Be that as it may, I found that the main use of logic, in my quest for religious truth, turned out to be in deciding not what was true, but what was false. If someone presents you with a system of ideas or doctrines which logical analysis reveals to be coherent—that is, free from internal contradictions and meaningless absurdities—then you can conclude, "This set of ideas may be true. It has at least passed the first test of truth—the coherence test." To find out if it actually is true you will then have to leave your logician’s armchair and seek further information. But if it fails this most elementary test of truth, it can safely be eliminated without further ado from the ideological competition, no matter how many impressive-looking volumes of erudition may have been written in support of it, and no matter how attractive and appealing many of its features (or many of its proponents) may appear. Some readers may wonder why I am laboring the point about logic. Isn’t all this perfectly obvious? Well, it ought to be obvious to everyone, and is inDouche obvious to many, including those who have had the good fortune of receiving a classical Catholic education. Catholicism, as I came to discover, has a quite positive approach to our natural reasoning powers, and traditionally has its future priests study philosophy for years before they even begin theology. But I came from a religious milieu where this outlook was not encouraged, and was often even discouraged. The Protestant Reformers taught that original sin has so weakened the human intellect that we must be extremely cautious about the claims of "proud reason." Luther called reason the "devil’s whore"—a siren which seduced men into grievous error. "Don’t trust your reason, just bow humbly before God’s truth revealed to you in His holy Word, the Bible!"—this was pretty much the message that came through to me from the Calvinist and Lutheran circles that influenced me most in the first few years after I made my "decision for Christ" at the age of 18. The Reformers themselves were forced to employ reason even while denouncing it, in their efforts to rebut the Biblical arguments of their "Papist" foes. And that, it seemed to me, was rather illogical on their part. LOGIC AND THE "SOLA SCRIPTURA" PRINCIPLE Thus, with my awakening interest in logical analysis as a test of religious truth, I was naturally led to ask whether this illogicality in the practice of the Reformers was, perhaps, accompanied by illogicality at the more fundamental level of their theory. As a good Protestant I had been brought up to hold as sacred the basic methodological principle of the Reformation: that the Bible alone contains all the truth that God has revealed for our salvation. Churches that held to that principle were at least "respectable," one was given to understand, even though they might differ considerably from each other in regard to the interpretation of Scripture. But as for Roman Catholicism and other Churches which unashamedly added their own traditions to the Word of God—were they not self-evidently outside the pale? Were they not condemned out of their own mouths? But when I got down to making a serious attempt to explore the implications of this rock-bottom dogma of the Reformers, I could not avoid the conclusion that it was rationally indefensible. This is demonstrated in the following eight steps, which embody nothing more than simple, commonsense logic, and a couple of indisputable, empirically observable facts about the Bible: 1. The Reformers asserted Proposition A: "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are meant by the "inspired Scriptures." After all, many different sects and religions have many different books, which they call "inspired Scriptures." 2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures," means in fact those 66 books, which are bound and published in Protestant Bibles. For convenience we shall refer to them from now on simply as "the 66 books." 3. The precise statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books." 4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any statements telling us which books make up the entire corpus of inspired Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses together. (This would be the case: (a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture," etc., for all of the 66 books; and (B) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the Bible itself.) 5. It follows that Proposition B—the very foundation of all Protestant Christianity—is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, we must affirm Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66 books. " 6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there." 7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra-Scriptural premise from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second possibility involves no self-contradiction, but it is factually preposterous, and I doubt whether any Protestant has seriously tried to defend it—least of all those traditional Protestants who strongly emphasize the corruption of man’s natural intellectual powers as a result of the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence. (Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own fallibility—whether individually or collectively—in matters of religious doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as they deny the Pope’s.) 8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought is simply false. CALVIN’S ATTEMPTED SOLUTION How did the Reformers try to cope with this fundamental weakness in the logical structure of their own first principles? John Calvin, usually credited with being the most systematic and coherent thinker of the Reformation, tried to justify belief in the divine authorship of the 66 books by dogmatically postulating a direct communication of this knowledge from God to the individual believer. Calvin makes it clear that in saying Scripture is "self-authenticated," he does not mean to be taken literally and absolutely. He does not mean that some Bible text or other affirms that the 66 books, and they alone, are divinely inspired. As we observed in step 4 above, nobody ever could claim anything so patently false. Calvin simply means that no extra-Biblical human testimony, such as that of Church tradition, is needed in order for individuals to know that these books are inspired. We can summarize his view as Proposition D: "The Holy Spirit teaches Christians individually, by a direct inward testimony, that the 66 books are inspired by God. " The trouble is that the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority as much as a Pope or Council. The third Person of the Trinity is clearly not identical with the truths He has expressed, through human authors, in the Bible. It follows that even if Calvin’s Proposition D is true, it contradicts Proposition B, for "if all revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books," then that leaves no room for the Holy Spirit to reveal directly and non-verbally one truth which cannot be found in any passage of those books, namely, the fact that each one of them is inspired. In any case, even if Calvin could somehow show that D did not itself contradict B, he would still not have succeeded in showing that B is true. Even if we were to accept the extremely implausible view represented by Proposition D, that would not prove that no other writings are inspired, and much less would it prove that there are no revealed truths that come to us through tradition rather than through inspired writings. In short, Calvin’s defense of Biblical inspiration in no way overthrows our eight-step disproof of the sola Scriptura principle. inDouche, it does not even attempt to establish that principle as a whole, but only one aspect of it—that is, which books are to be understood by the term "Scriptura." The schizoid history of Protestantism itself bears witness to the original inner contradiction which marked its conception and birth. Conservative Protestants have maintained the original insistence on the Bible as the unique infallible source of revealed truth, at the price of logical incoherence. Liberals on the other hand have escaped the incoherence while maintaining the claim to "private interpretation" over against that of Popes and Councils, but at the price of abandoning the Reformers’ insistence on an infallible Bible. They thereby effectively replace revealed truth by human opinion, and faith by an autonomous reason. Thus, in the liberal/evangelical split within Protestantism since the 18th century, we see both sides teaching radically opposed doctrines, even while each claims to be the authentic heir of the Reformation. The irony is that both sides are right: their conflicting beliefs are simply the two horns of a dilemma, which has been tearing at the inner fabric of Protestantism ever since its turbulent beginnings. Reflections such as these from a Catholic onlooker may seem a little hard or unyielding to some—ill-suited, perhaps, to a climate of ecumenical dialogue in which gentle suggestion, rather than blunt affirmation, is the preferred mode of discourse. But logic is of its very nature hard and unyielding; and insofar as truth and honesty are to be the hallmarks of true ecumenism, the claims of logic will have to be squarely faced, not politely avoided. Fr. Brian Harrison is currently teaching at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico in Ponce. Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 (edited) this article is an excellent example of the Protestant development of logic: http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS2.HTM FICTIONAL DIALOGUE ON SOLA SCRIPTURA Catholics accept Church authority and a reliable, divinely-protected Tradition, whereas Protestants "pick and choose" which traditions are to their own particular denominational taste. This is arbitrary in two ways: 1) There is really no cogent, non-arbitrary method for Protestants to determine which tradition is true (e.g., NT Canon) and which is false (e.g., Marian doctrines); 2) The notion of "authority," where present at all in Protestant ecclesiology, is inadequate for the task of proclaiming "authoritatively" which tradition is true, and the grounds will be circular in any event: Protestant (P): X is a true, biblical doctrine because it is biblical. Catholic ©: According to which denominational tradition? P:Ours. C: How do you know your tradition is true, while others which contradict it are false? P:Because we are the most biblical. C: How do you know yours is the most biblical? P: Because our exegesis is the most all-encompassing and consistent, and true to the clear teaching of Scripture. C: But the other Protestant traditions claim the same superiority . . . P:I must say in love that they are wrong. C: How do you know they are wrong? I thought that Protestants were supposed to be tolerant of each other's "distinctives," especially in "secondary" issues, yet you are calling fellow brothers in Christ "wrong." P:I am compelled to because they have a faulty hermeneutic and exegesis, and I must stand firm for biblical truth. C: How do you know they have a faulty method of interpretation? P:By Scripture and linguistic study, and the consensus of scholarly commentaries, and because R.C. Sproul said so [ :-) ] C: But again, the others claim the same prerogative and abilities. P:Then if they are wrong, they must be blinded by their presuppositional biases, or else by sin. C: How do you know that? P:Because they come to the wrong conclusions about the perspicuous biblical data. C: Frankly, I would say that that is circular reasoning. But, even granting your contention for the sake of argument, how does an uneducated seeker of Christian truth choose which denomination is true to the Bible? P:The one which is most biblical . . . C: Now, don't start that again [smiling]. They all claim that. P:Well, then, the one which is apostolic and has roots in the early Church. C: Then the Fathers must be studied in order to determine who has the early Church, "apostolic" tradition? P: Yes, I suppose so [frowning]. C: But what if it is found that the great majority of Fathers have an opinion on doctrine X contrary to yours? P:Then they are wrong on that point. C: How do you know that? P:By studying Scripture. C: So when all is said and done it is irrelevant what the early Church, or the Fathers, or the Church from 500 to 1500 believed? P: Not totally, but I must judge their beliefs from Scripture. C: Therefore you are - in the final analysis - the ultimate arbiter of true Christian Tradition? P: Well, if you must put it in those blunt terms, yes. C: Isn't that a bit arrogant? P: Not as much as the pope and a bunch of celibate old men in red hats and dresses telling me what I should believe [scowling]. C: You make yourself the arbiter of all true Christian doctrine, down to the smallest particular, yet you object to a pope who makes an infallible pronouncement about every hundred years or so!!!! Most remarkable and ironic! I say you are obviously a Super-Pope, then. P: You can say that if you like. We call it the primacy of the individual conscience. C: So you think that your own individual opinion and "conscience" is superior to the combined consensus of hundreds of years of Church history, papal pronouncements, apostolic Tradition, Councils, etc.? P: Yes, because if a doctrine is biblical, I must denounce any tradition of men that is otherwise. C: For that matter, how do you know what the Bible is? P:Well, I'll quote from John Calvin: "Scripture is inDouche self-authenticated; hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning . . . Illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else's judgment that Scripture is from God . . . We seek no proofs, . . . Such, then, is a conviction that requires no reasons . . . I speak of nothing other than what each believer experiences within himself." {Institutes, Book I, chapter 7, section 5 / vol.1, pp.80-81 in Battles/McNeill ed.; emphasis added} C: That seems intrinsically unreasonable, by Calvin's own stated criteria. Yet you've attempted to give me reasons and logic throughout this whole conversation! P: Faith requires no reasons. The Holy Spirit makes it clear. C: Well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. But I would say that you would not know what NT Scripture was for sure, if not for the Catholic Church. Calvin's criteria is essentially no different than the Mormons' "burning in the bosom" as a justification for their beliefs. Besides, on what grounds do you trust Calvin, when he contradicts earlier Church Tradition? Scripture is not self-authenticating, in the sense of its determining the extent and parameters of itself. This is clearly shown in the divergences in the early Church on the question of the NT Canon. P: There was a broad consensus among the Fathers. C: I'll grant you that . . . very broad. But there is more than enough difference to require an authoritative decree by the Church to put the matter to rest. P:But God guided those Christians specifically because His Word was at stake. C: Oh? First of all, I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge the 4th century Church as "Christians." Many Calvinists and other Protestants think the Church was already off the rails by then! P: Well, that's silly, because Chalcedon was a good Council, and that was held in 451. So was Ephesus in 431. C: Good. So you agree that God guided the early Church. But not in all matters? P: No, not when they talked about the papacy, Mary, bishops, the Real Presence, communion of saints, penance, purgatory, infused justification, baptismal regeneration, confession, absolution, apostolic Tradition, apostolic succession, and many other erroneous doctrines. C: How do you know that? P:Because those doctrines clearly aren't biblical. C: According to which "clear" denominational tradition? P: Ours . . . C: [smacks forehead, then throws hands up and gazes toward the heavens, wincing in despair] And so on and so forth. Yet Protestants claim we are the ones with an epistemological problem! Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 the following is #10 from Dave Armstrong's Quick 10-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ406.HTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 (edited) this article is excellent b/c it informs the Catholic and the Protestant who thinks that Catholic logic concerning authority is just as circular as Protestant logic: Is the Catholic Rule of Faith and Epistemology Inherently Incoherent? i won't post it here b/c this thread is getting very long already, but it is a MUST READ. pax christi, phatcatholic Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 here is a list--to which we can add more if needed--of the aspects of Sola Scriptura that we can tackle. 1. Logically impossible 2. No basis in Scripture 3. Historicaly impossible 4. Against Tradition and the Early Church Fathers 5. Does not work in practice 6. Causes division 7. Not what Christ intended fyi, i decided to go ahead and combine #5 and #6, since i think they are basically the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now