It’s funny, but as a Protestant I never asked this question. It was as if I thought the Bible magically appeared after the Crucifixion. Thankfully, Henry G. Graham did the homework and put together this book entitled Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.
The book is very good and raises some obvious issues with typical Protestant positions. One example is the viewpoint that “Luther gave the Bible to the people, who weren’t allowed to read it beforehand” when in actuality there were Bibles available in every language and the Catholic Church worked diligently to provide Bibles to those who could not afford them – this was before the printing press, so Bibles were handwritten and expensive. However, many people owned personal versions of the Gospels or the Torah long before Luther arrived on the scene. Graham also points out the idiocy of the suggestion that the Catholic Church tried to destroy the Bible: they had 1,500 years to do it, if they had wanted to, the Bible would have become non-existent.
But most of all the author points out that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. The only thing Luther did was remove books he didn’t like and add words to force his meaning upon it. This is highly recommended reading for Catholics (know your history and your faith) and Protestants who don’t realize what was involved in deciding which books should be part of the Bible.
Recommended. Click here to order from Amazon.com.
Jay
Speaking as a former Protestant, I still find it interesting that soooo many Protestants believe that anything other than the Kings James Bible is evil. There's a large lack of education when it comes to the history of the Christian church.
if they (books) were meant to be in the Bible, they would be there. i'm just grateful to God that we do have something besides the internet to read about Him-lol. Luther couldn't have been that stupid to leave out God inspired words intended for the Bible because somehow, someway they would have ended up back there after his death. but let's just say he did, hell is dark and it's hot............
Paul,
The books are in the Bible, they just aren't in you're version of the Bible which was changed to fit Luther's views. This is important: Luther had to remove books in order to throw out critical teaching. So you suffer with a partial Bible because of Luther's sin. This also means you don't have the full Truth - you have an edited version.
Jay
my dear friend jay,
give me the nmae of the Bible version i should have and i shall purchase!
thanks,
Paul
The Catholic Church uses the NAB (New American Bible), so that is the one that I use as well.
Lynne
thanks lynne,
so what you're telling me jay is that Luther is a greater teacher than the Holy Spirit? do you believe that God would have moved on somebody by now to correct His Words or do you think all of these publshers just like getting checks and won't pay the monks to proof read it, if it is so wrong?-lol. the Word gives you God's Voice on Truth, Wisdom, Freedom, Conviction, Direction, Love, Forgiveness, Endurance, Patience, Worship, Praise, Thanksgiving, Commitment, Excellence and Honesty. The Word is the epitome of God leaving us some directions on how to get back Home. we all come from Him and some of us won't make it back............
Paul,
What? You need to read my post before you start writing. Luther was a far worse teacher than the Holy Spirit. You, Paul, are following Luther. I am following the Holy Spirit. Is that clear? Luther changed 1,500 years of the Holy Spirit's work to fit his interpretation. He removed books of the Bible because they clearly taught doctrines he personally didn't like. You are using the Bible Luther made, not the original Bible. Work with me, Paul.
A question for you, Paul: How do you know that you have the correct Bible? Did you know there were numerous other books considered as "Scripture" at the time the Bible was put together? There are also books included (such as Revelation) that many considered not Scriptural. How do you personally know that you have the right book? You have to trust that the Catholic Church gathered the correct books (that's right, the Catholic Church decided which books are in the Bible).
Of course, Luther later removed most of the ones he didn't like, so you only have part of the true Bible.
God bless,
Jay
jay,
i never said that i didn't believe you, i just needed to get the correct direction to the appropriate doctrine of Scripture, but no you blast me for not reading your blog correctly. and you say that i'm not Spirit-led, do you know jay that God has inspired me to write everything i have posted here before i knew 30% of all this new teaching i have given to you was Word based not just inspired. God will always give His man the proper words to say, gentle and wise. when you made me go back to prove my points, i personally see that this is God talking to you through me, not to change you but to love you and help you spread the truth, not bring division. the only reason i ever looked on this blog was because you were blasting Charles Stanley too. i have personally met and prayed with Dr. Stanley and i know only one other person physically that is anointed as he is. if Catholics have a pope, we can have dr. Stanley and i ain't Baptist either. but with Jesus and the Holy Spirit we have been made complete not by doctrine but by a one on one personal relationship with the Father through Jesus by the Holy Spirit. i thank the catholic church for my bible and putting it together, but if is incomplete, tell me which one to buy and i'll do it. God keeps no secrets form His followers, please study what i have presented to you out of love, so the "truth" will be spread. because Jesus said,"blessed is the man who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book."
(Revelation 22:7)
peace be with you,
Paul
Okay, Paul,
First, you say I'm "blasting" you, but you miss that God has inspired me to write everything I have posted here. Paul, I was once lost like you and I believed that the Holy Spirit led me. But the Holy Spirit clearly led me to the Catholic Church, since it is the Church He founded.
First, you claim that "God will always give his man the proper words," yet you first claimed on this blog that sometimes abortion is okay. I don't think God inspired that since it is completely against His teachings.
You also say that you think God is speaking to me through you, but I see the opposite. God is trying to show you through this website that the Catholic Church is the Church He founded. We have shown this to be Biblically true over and over, but you seem to ignore the direct questions we ask and avoid the Truth. The Holy Spirit directed you here, Paul, open your heart and mind to the Spirit's direction toward the Catholic Church. You will enjoy knowing you are following in the direction Christ intended for you to follow.
The difference between the Pope and Dr. Stanley is immense. The Pope is the direct successor to St. Peter and the head of the Christian Church. Dr. Stanley is actually only part of the mystical church, he's not part of the Church Jesus founded. The Pope is Christ's human representative on earth.
Another point: the "doctrine" you dislike is from Christ. Jesus taught the Eucharist. Jesus taught Baptism. God uses doctrine to keep us on the straight and narrow. Don't be so quick to throw out doctrine, God obviously feels it is important.
I recommend you read the Navarre Bible or the Ignatius Bible. The Navarre Bible is only sold in separate books at this time, but it's a great translation. Both are available at Amazon.com.
One final point: when Revelation was written there was no Bible. That quote cannot be applied to the entire Bible. It can be applied to the book of Revelation.
God bless,
Jay
Several problems with your comment here...
I'll quote your "Spirit led" words:
Now I'll present the problems with this statement. Under multiple posts on this blog you have stated things that directly contradict God's law:
These are the clear contradictions with this post: 1) Abortion is murder and there is never a time nor a place for it. God would not "inspire" you to say such a thing. 2) Demonic spirits cannot be the cause of a child being born, for if every child is a gift from God, as Scripture states, then the demonic spirits would have brought about something good which is impossible. No where does Scripture refer to a child as a gift from the devil.Next...
The devil cannot make any person sin, we all have free will, the devil can only tempt us period. So again, it would be impossible for God to have inspired this statement.
Next...
I'll allow Jesus to address this comment:
So once again, I think your words fall short of being God's words, for the words of Jesus clearly state something different than yours. I'll stick with Jesus' words.
Jay and I choose to follow Christ through the Church he established and gave authority to here on earth (Matthew 16). This belief is supported biblically, historically, and through our own personal faith journeys. Our foundation is our faith in Christ and His will. We know that His will is manifested to us through the Catholic Church and our spiritual growth is nurtured and fed through the sacramental life and the Word of God, found in Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Your foundation of faith is basically moral relativism...it's the Word of God according to Paul Baccus, for everything is dependent on how you intrepret it. We aren't here to blast you, but to help you see the reality of the situation. You fault us for following the Catholic Faith, almost mocking us for adherring to the only Faith that can trace its' origins back to Christ. How can you trace your faith back to anything? Someone at one point or another convinced you that the Bible was the sole source for knowing God and His will for your life, so I would say that this individual is the foundation of your faith. In truth, this is the case. My parents raised me in the Catholic Faith, so they planted the seed of faith, but through study and pray, I can in all honesty say that I belong to the Church Christ founded. Can you?
In Christ,
Joe
check this out,
abortion is murder out of freewill, since you guys don't think that i understand freewill. i never said that abortion was right or wrong, what i said was,"after the abortion does God have your attention now?" this is Scripture about children born into evil.
Genesis 6:4," the Nephilim were on earth in those days -and also afterward- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. they were heroes of the old, men of renown." the Nephilim are the incarnation of fallen angels, spirits who created children with mortal women who were great in strength and size. in God's eyes they were ripe for judgement since they left Heaven to be with satan. through them evil swept through the earth before the flood. the flood destroyed mankind but not those spirits. check out Numbers 13:33.
Let's turn to 1 John 5. God testifies for Jesus and Jesus testifies for the Spirit. you have to believe in God and that God sent Jesus and the Spirit lives in us and teaches us about Jesus and God both. no one goes to the Father but by Him. the key word is go.
matter of fact, savrx is asking about the Scriptures also. let me tell you what God told me and you determine it's value. everything that is came from God (the universe, everything we see). God made the celestial beings known as angels. Lucifer, the top angel decides over pride and greed to turn against God. God in turn casts him down to earth. God told Lucifer and those with him (angels) that they could have dominion over this place, earth because He was going to create a new creature. God said that he would create a being less than but greater than angels because although they wouldn't know Him directly, living with Him in Heaven; He would give them souls (individuality) and freewill to choose if they wanted a relationship with Him or not. all creation on earth was destroyed and God began new life on the earth. God created what was known as paradise (Eden) a environment where man and his children, His' new creations could solely depend on Him through an intimate relationship with Him. man abandoned this relationship with God because they did not totally trust Him, giving satan what he needed to enter into paradise and destroy it. God upset with man decides to kill off mankind with the exception with of one man and his family. after this God chooses agin one man through whom all the world would be blessed, Abraham. he did this because of Abraham's faith and total dependance upon Him, even when the situations did not look right. throughout mankind God decides to have very intimate relationships with man and teaches them His ways. although sin was still in the world He told them that one day He would send someone to redeem mankind to Him because no one man could live without breaking the Laws and Traditions set by Him. God saw that when He gave men the desires of their heart through their obedience in Him they still gave into their sinful nature and this hurt Him deeply. after many years He fulfill the prophechies of the men He chose to document the His Words that incarnated into His Son, a living sacrifice who would justify and redeem mankind once and for all. Jesus lived as a man who was lured by every temptation of man because He was born of the flesh of man but inside He carried the Spirit of God. He is greater than all the angels because He is the Son of God who fulfilled everything God said would happen and will happen. through His teachings, man pride once again got in the way of them believing God's truth and they crucifed Him, only to find out it was true. He is the Son of God. after his resurrection, He claimed victory of death and confirms that there will be a place for all believers to be with Him and the father after earth passed away for good. God again chooses men who belived in Him to document all of this firsthand and through witnesses. God in turns sends the Holy Spirit as evidence that the Scriptures are true, Jesus is real and man is once again justifed to have an intimate relationship to Him. then Jesus reveals Himself to a man who openly persecuted His believers and followers. He shows him the Throne of God and His splendor. not the poor carpenter from Nazareth who went from town to town teaching but the true esscence of Him. this man becomes Paul and teaches through the Holy Spirit the lifestyle that believers should live. to beleive in the Trinity and continue to die of worldly lusts and desries and conform to a likeness of Jesus to please God. in one Book describes the judgement for those who fell from Heaven, those who defiled His Words, those who mistreated His Truths and those who did not believe in Jesus. God describes their fate and also promises through Jesus, victory over satan and the place He promised for all of His children to reside forever.
this is the Bible, the one i read. the Holy Words of God put together by Him, not man to tell His Story, not ours. through periods of time translations the words have been somewhat diluted by not changed to the point that they are not completely valid. every religion stems from God's Word and all religions have comparisions similar to the Bible, but there is only one Book that teaches about One God, One Son and One Spirit. we can believe what we want, that's freewill, a God given right. we talk obedience but we break man-made laws all the time and even worse we break God's but He forgives and we do too, sometimes. God's Words are Him, they are the Holy Bible there is no doubt in it because whatever God speaks comes into existence therefore He cannot lie. so, if you can't believe the Bible completely, where does your faith lie?
1) So what guarantee do you have that the Bible is actually the Word of God? I mean someone could have just made up a really good story and said that it was the Word of God, so how do you know that God actually inspired the authors of the books in the Bible?
2) And why did other books written at that time remain left out, i.e. the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, etc? These books exists, you can actually read them.
3) Why did Martin Luther (the forefather of all Protestantism) decide after 1500 years(more accurately approximately 1100 years, considering that the Bible wasn't even compiled as one book until around the year 392 A.D.) that the deutero-canonical books were no longer necessary, i.e. 1 and 2 Macabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, etc.?
Answer these three questions and then I'll answer the rest of the points you have made, but these questions are pivotal and are ultimately what savrx is asking as well. And please attempt to answer the questions directly, no dancing around the issue.
In Christ,
Joe
joe,
i'm not looking for man-made awnsers, i'm listening for awnsers from God to my prayers. i can't tell you how i feel about the Bible, i don't believe that you could understand it. Joe you have to bury the Word so deep into your heart that your lifestyle reflects your belief in what God says to do in the Bible. honestly you have to go to God in prayer directly, not Mary, not Jesus, but god and ask Him with every intention in your soul that He will reveal the truth to you. awnser two, i can't tell you why these books are not including in the final version of the Holy Bible, the question is if they are authentic, which you say that they are, man changes laws so man can add these into the Bible if God permits it. you i don't know Martin Luther personally. i have seen these books too in Bibles with the Acroypha or something like that in it. at first i was like what is this, then i was like well maybe these books are condensed into the Holy Bible. i had really thought about it until now from talking to you guys. satan came to steal, kill and destroy. Joe if we allow satan to steal our belief that the Bible is complete we are in trouble and that will kill our faith and destory us creating the division that has already occured with denominations and all of this other stuff that exists today. all i have seen in my 24 years of living is man breaking up the Bible into religion. muslims believe in the same God as we do. the buddhists come so close to conforming to Christ that it is scary. the occult believes in the devil, which proves us true. mormons and latter-day saints well........... but what about us, the Christians? choose not only to believe in Jesus but to take up the cross and follow Him. i'm not paying attention as much to the souls that need rehabilitation in the Kingdom as i am looking for new souls in the Kingdom. we have to put a lot to the side Joe. my friend, i've said this once before and i'll say it now. the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth is the way to God's thoughts and ways. there is no other book that is named Holy. that alone should tell you, because no other god is Holy. if Catholics study from it, it all is either true or something is immensely wrong in Catholicism. a man cannot tell what is proper in God's eyes more than God Himself, that's Who we have to seek diligently, the Rewarder Himself for all righteousness to be revealed. not the church, not Luther, nor these other false pretenses. god said to seek Him. so seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be open, speak and ye shall have what thine say, in Jesus' name.
Amen,
Paul
sorry Joe, i meant to say:
Joe if we allow satan to steal our belief that the Bible is incomplete then we are in trouble and that will kill our faith and destory us creating the division that has already occured... and i also meant adding new souls souls to the Kingdom, my bad. i can't type-lol!
Paul,
So basically you don't know the answers to Joseph's questions? That's not faith, Paul, that's ignorance. We should all be able to explain why we believe what we believe in real terms - you seem to be focused simply on emotion, rather than grounded in real faith.
Again, how do you know that God inspired the books of the Bible? This is a very important question, Paul.
To sum up: Satan has stolen books from you, Paul. Books that teach clearly Catholic practices such as purgatory. But you have to want to know the Truth, rather than just accept whatever anyone tells you! By the way, Buddism is very far from Christianity.
God bless,
Jay
dear jay,
we are not perfect so if you are proud by your own account you are really empty. Jesus had the same problems with the Pharisees that i'm having with ya'll and they despised Him for it, so i can imagine how you guys talk about me in private. you know that the Bible is true and don't live it because in your heart you believe that you're right. Paul said that we have to press towards the mark of the higher calling which is Christ Jesus. to no be of our own ability but Jesus' and His Word so that we will be able to do all things and convert to true men of God. if we could forget the literaty means of the Bible and take the Spirit of God's Words into our lives, we would exalt Him higher than any praise because God will have us where He desires us. if our hearts burned for a Word from the Lord we would truly experiemce an uncanny relationship with the Father. look at David in 1 Samuel, God's covenant for Israel was good enough for him to act in faith, where was his Bible? read Deuteronomy 32:30. what are you using to convert people? i feel like Jeremiah 20:9, that's my emotion as you would say. the Bible is full of the history of God's men through His covenants. a journal of spiritual warfares. just by looking at it you could get the wrong picture and it seems that you have. so you disconnect it from your beliefs and it is written that man will perish from the lack of knowledge, God's Word. all revelations come out of faith. Psalm 138:2, Scripture is the ultimate authority.....
buddhism teaches laws and traditions, cause and effect, what is the basis of a moral life, to be mindful of your thoughts and actions and to develop wisdom and understanding. it teaches that wealth doesn't mean happiness and compassion. things associated with Christianity, but you are mmmmm.... Catholics who don't believe that the bible is God's word and you study from knowingly man wriiten books about their testimonies and accounts and choose to believe them over the Bible. sounds like religion to me. oh, what i am i? a follower and a seeker of God through faith, not by sight.
faith, hope and love,
Paul
Paul,
Comparing us to the Pharisees and yourself to Jesus Christ is comical at best. Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for asking others to obey and follow God's law. What He condemned was the failure on the part of the Pharisees to live it. As I've stated before, you have no idea what Jay or myself are like in our personal lives, so making this comparison displays what I perceive to be your own frustration with the questions that are being asked of you on this blog. We are challenging you and asking direct questions which you continue to leave unanswered.
That leads to the second point I would like to make in reference to another one of your comments above. We do talk you about in private, expressing to one another our amazement that you can continually avoid the issues that are so pivotal to the entire basis of your faith. It isn't that you confound us, it's just that you seem to be more interested in telling us how you have been inspired by God to post your intrepretations of the Bible and His Will on this blog than answering fundamental questions.
Examples:
1)What guarantee do you have that the Bible is truly a divinely inspired book? How do you know that it wasn't just created at some point over the past 2000 years? Someone (a human being), at some point in your life, introduced you to the Bible as the inspired Word of God, how do you know that they didn't mislead you?
2) Why are the books included in the Bible the inspired Word of God, yet other books written at that time, i.e. the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, etc, are not considered to be divinely inspired? Who was it that gave you that assurance that the books in the Bible belong there?
3) Why did Martin Luther decide to remove certain books from the Bible? And who gave him the authority to do it? Keep in mind he did this approximately 1500 years after the time of Jesus and the apostles and approximately 1100 years after the Bible had been compiled.
4) If we are to live by how we intrepret the Bible alone, what did the Christians of the first four centuries (that's approximately 400 years!) do before the Bible was compiled? Different areas had different books, some even adherred to books like the gospel of Thomas, but very few had all the books that make up the Bible today.
5) If Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, is correct how in the world do you deal with the fact that throughout the centuries most of the world was illiterate?
These are direct questions that, if possible, deserve direct answers.
In Christ,
Joe
Warrant & Biblical vs. Extra-Biblical Propositions
Part I
Dr. Michael Sudduth
May 20, 2001 (RB Post)
The following post originally appeared on the Reformed Baptist discussion group listserv on May 20, 2001. In this post, I respond to a variety of concerns about the use of extra-biblical propositions in theology. The post followed earlier posts on the use of good and necessary consequences from Scripture. This is the first of two posts. Part II engages Mr. X’s response to this post.
-------------------------------------
Mr. X,
Thank you for your post. I was hoping eventually to get to these questions. The points you raise and the arguments you present below are quite common, but ultimately I don't think they are very successful.
Mr. X wrote:
>I think we must be very careful concerning extra-biblical premises. In one sense, they are permissible, but they can never have the same
level of assurance of truth as scripture has. The same thing with logical conclusions.
I think we may have some problems here at the outset.
First, I must admit that I am not sure what "level of assurance of truth" really means. Surely you are not simply thinking of "degree of belief," a purely psychological claim. Many people have a level of assurance of truth in beliefs that are manifestly
false or for which there is little evidence to suppose that they are true. In fact, many people are quite assured that the Bible is false. So I take it you to be making a normative claim here, objective grounds for assurance, degree of warrant, rationally
justified confidence, or something in that neighborhood.
Now I don't think there is any plausible epistemology of belief according to which belief in Biblical propositions *always* has more warrant or involves a more reliable mode of belief formation than beliefs in extra-biblical propositions.
There are many extra-biblical beliefs that have at least as much warrant as beliefs we have based on Scripture. We are right to be as confident about these as we are of Biblical truths. They are formed in a manner as reliable as the formation of beliefs we have about the teaching of Scripture. For instance, my belief that has (under the present circumstances) as much warrant for me as my present belief that , , or .
Also, there are many theological beliefs, even beliefs in the direct statements of Scripture, that have less warrant than some extra-biblical beliefs. I step into a factory that makes red widgets and immediately form the belief that . I should think that this belief has maximal warrant for me. It is not subject to error, revision, or doubt. It has what we
epistemologists call "epistemic immunity." Why? Because it is true simply by the virtue of the fact that I believe it. I can't believe it and it be false. Although most extra-biblical truths do not possess epistemic immunities, some of them clearly do. These beliefs have maximal warrant. And I don't think that there are any biblical propositions that are such that if we believed them, the belief would have epistemic immunity. There is no belief in any proposition found in Scripture where the truth of the
proposition simply follows from the fact that I believe it. But if the truth of the belief does not follow from the fact that I believe it, I *could* believe it and yet it is false. Hence, I *could* be mistaken that . This proposition *can* be doubted in the broad sense since its truth does not follow from the mere fact that I believe it. One can always find some
possible situation in which I hold the belief and it is false. And since we can't be sure that such a situation does not obtain, we can't be objectively sure or certain of the truth of belief that would be false in such a situation.
The *further* away you get from the face value of scripture, the more opportunity there is for error to creep in. (Please keep in mind that things which are very close to scripture with very little or no extra-biblical premise, of very little logical consequence, have a high degree of reliability.)
Right, and this is true in two cases, one where the inferences become very long and complicated and another where we depend on more and more extra-biblical premises. But I think a similar sort of point can be made about the alleged face value of Scripture. In many such cases, that value depends the presuppositions we bring to the text and how we interpret the text. The Reformed Baptist discussion group is a great example of how many differences of interpretation can exist on relatively
significant topics within a particular denomination.
If the item is not found directly in scripture, then the assurance that the item is true starts to lose its luster, and therefore cannot be demanded that it be believed.
So, then, you can't properly demand that I believe *this.* This statement itself is nowhere given directly in Scripture. This is the sort of self-referential incoherence that I think we must avoid at all costs. You really undermine your own argument here I am afraid.
Moreover, once again, there are plausible counterexamples. The truth of the corresponding conditional of modus ponens (i.e., a valid inference form in propositional logic: p=>q, p; q) is nowhere found in Scripture. The mere fact that this is not found in Scripture hardly renders it less certain or somehow subject to doubt. It has maximal luster to me and most people who understand it. Although I don't think I can demand that you believe modus ponens, I think it would be epistemically right and
proper for you to do so, and that there is something epistemically wrong with a person who upon considering and understanding it doesn't believe it. The same sort of defect is present when a person believes both and . Similarly, my belief that I am presently thinking about the letter "Q" on my typewriter isn't found in Scripture, but it doesn't lose its luster on that account. It shines with an epistemic luster as clear to me as .
Moreover, if logical principles or other extra-biblical truths lose their luster simply because they are not directly given in Scripture, I don't see how you can seriously have a *Biblical* theology. The reconditions for a biblical theology are, generally
speaking, the reliability of sense and reason. Without it you never get into the text. Hence, if you can't have some sufficient degree of warrant say, in trusting sensory perceptual beliefs and logical beliefs, you can't very well trust a word of Scripture. You wouldn't know that such and such *is* a word *of Scripture.* Hence, it makes little sense to me suppose that Scriptural beliefs always have more warrant than extra-biblical beliefs. This is just overly simplistic and self-defeating.
The "reason" for this is that the accepted extra-biblical logic we use, or the extra-biblical premise we state, is by definition not grounded in scripture because it is "extra-." Anything "extra-" is not biblical, therefore it is untrustworthy.
Two problems. First, Scripture never says that *anything* outside of Scripture is untrustworthy or unreliable. You have introduced an extra-biblical presupposition here, which happens also to be false, thereby rendering your argument unsound.
More importantly, I should think it renders your argument self-defeating. If anything extra-biblical is untrustworthy, so is your judgment to this effect, since it too is unbiblical. So you are stuck with a logical tar baby. Christians need to make a concerted effort to avoid sharing the same house with the postmodernists. However noble the motives here, the position is logically precarious to say the least.
Secondly, there are plenty of examples of extra-biblical propositions that are highly trustworthy or possess much warrant: I feel tired, I seem to see a red car, nothing can have and not have four sides at the same time, it was physically impossible for
Thomas Aquinas to swim across the Atlantic ocean four times, no one is taller than himself, nothing is blue but non-colored, all bachelors are unmarried, 1 + 3 = 4, triangles have three sides, if p then p, and - well - the list goes on. None of these truths are found in Scripture, but I think I can believe them with a very high degree of warrant.
Third, a point already suggested above, it is not very coherent to suppose that sense experience or reason is unreliable and yet truth communicated to us by way of Scripture is reliable. I have no access to truth found in Scripture unless I use sense
experience and reason to see and interpret the text. If my senses are unreliable, how can I trust that I read Paul say, "the just shall live by faith" vs. "the just shall live by works"? I can't. The subjective, cognitive preconditions of even entertaining propositions found in Scripture requires that we trust our senses, reason, and memory, that they be sufficiently reliable for
producing beliefs that correspond to the meaning expressed by sentences in Scripture.
This is why Clark's Scripturalism is incoherent. If the Holy Spirit communicates the content of Scripture to you directly, then you have no need of Scripture at all. The very notion of Scripture presupposes that our standard modes of forming
beliefs are normally reliable for providing us with knowledge of the external world, mathematics, self, the past, etc.
Now sure, it is logically possible that our senses trick us or that reason makes a mistake, and the more one specifies the function or context of sense and reason in a particular situation, one might even say, "at that point," or "in this situation" my senses are not reliable. But the wholesale reduction of sense and reason to the level of being unreliable is philosophically unsound and theologically dangerous. which is the point; and therefore, though it may be profitable for life or understanding of truth, we cannot call a person to obedience on extra-biblical derived positions (which start to get significantly further from pure scripture) no matter how valid they *seem*to us.
And this would apply equally to the position you are allegedly inferring from Scripture. Your position here depends considerably on what you call extra-biblical logic and premises. "We cannot call a person to obedience on extra-biblical derived positions....no matter how valid they seem to us." What verse is this?
Who knows, what *seems* right to us today may not *seem* right to us tomorrow; which statement is full of examples we can look at in our own lives to see the truth of (we change our minds a lot on
what we think is true). It all boils down to that it is only scripture that we can trust for the truth, not extra-biblical statements which is subject to depraved minds discerning them.
Is there supposed to be an argument here?
The mere fact that we experience doxastic revision (a change in beliefs) hardly implies that our beliefs are unreliable or that we cannot trust them or that they lack warrant. And what you say here applies equally to Scripture. Hence, one could construct
a parallel argument. What the Bible seems to us to say today, may not seem to us to be what the Bible says tomorrow. "There was a time when I believed that all divorce was sinful, then I changed my mind and believed divorce under some conditions
is permissible but that remarriage was always sinful. Then I changed my view on remarriage. . . ."Sounds like a discussion
on the RB list. So can I really trust that what the Bible seems to say is really what is says? Moreover, we are all sinful and the human mind depraved. Interpretation is filtered through our depraved minds. Hence, although we might be able to trust that , we cannot say the same thing for our *judgments* about what it says.
Like Mr. Y, you seem to be conflating what Scripture says with judgments about what Scripture says. The properties of Scripture, infallibility and such, are not necessarily properties of our access to Scripture, and thus do not apply to our
judgments about Scripture. More tar babies.
Let's be reasonable in this and not wrangle about so basic an extra-biblical notion that cannot be proven false on the external simply because to our minds it is so basically true. The extra-biblical premisesthat are proposed are usually more
than very basic statements God has endowed His rational creatures to discern.
I see nothing unreasonable about the example I used. It proved what it was designed to prove, namely that important applications of Scripture to self require mediation through extra-biblical statements, which prima facie have a good deal of
warrant I should think. The fact that there are other sorts of extra-biblical propositions with less warrant than the one I used is something I am obviously willing to concede. But I don't see how this generates any problem for anything I have claimed.
In response to my syllogism:
1) All men are sinners (biblical premise)
(2) I, Michael Sudduth, am a man. (extra-biblical premise)
------------------------------------
Therefore, (3) I, Michael Sudduth, am a sinner. (conclusion)
you wrote:
Michael, how do we know that you are not an angel?
Have you been reading Gordon Clark?
If I can't know that I am a man, I cannot know that I am a sinner. So if you are suggesting that I do not know that I am a man, I find your position to have some rather unfortunate theological consequences. And if you agree that I can know this, you already must have an answer to the question you are asking me. So why ask me?
But I'll tell you my answer anyhow. Yes I know that I am a man. It is an inference to best explanation with sufficient inductive warrant such that if it is true it counts as knowledge. Now if you want me to give you my epistemology of belief, Stan may have
to change the name of this group. :-)
(You might say it is evident .) Were the angel's at Lot's house sinners?
It *seemed* like they were men to all around, even the homosexuals. So (2) above may be an false assumption, a false extra-biblical premise,
>which the "therefore" (3) has no warrant oflogic. Hence (3) can be true or false if you are an angel. (3) would befalse if you were an elect angel,or (3) w ould be true if you were a reprobate angel.
Keith, I don't know whether to be flattered by this or not. :-)
First, a technical point, an argument with a false premise can still be a valid argument, i.e., one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. Thus it would be incorrect to say that because of falsity in a premise the conclusion has no warrant *of logic*. The logic may be impeccable, even if all the premises are false. Logic is not concerned with the truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion, but with the formal relationships between them.
Now, of course, if you are to *know* the conclusion on the basis of some set of premises, then you must know the premises, but you couldn't know any premise if it is false (because knowledge entails truth). But one could still be rationally justified in accepting a premise that is false, and thus rationally justified in accepting the conclusion on the basis of such rationally justified beliefs.
I agree with you that in the case of Lot, there were people who believed that these persons were human men, but they were really angels. Yes, and so what follows? People sometimes think there is water in the road, but it is really a mirage. So we are deceived *at times.* What follows? That I am always deceived like this? Nope. That I can't trust reason or sense experience? Nope. That at every time, it is possible that I am deceived. Yep. But so what? Who would care about this except some die
hard Cartesian who is still interested in fighting off evil demons who could be toying with our minds?
You write: "So (2) above may be an false assumption, a false extra-biblical premise, which the "therefore" (3) has no warrant of logic."
But all you really establish here is that one premise *may* be false or it is *logically possible* that one premise is false, namely my belief that I am a man. But it certainly does not follow from this that the conclusion I derive has no warrant of logic. What's the argument for that?
The possibility that I might be an angel, the possibility that (2) is false, does not entail that (3) has no warrant of logic unless you assume that a proposition having warrant of logic requires eliminating the *possibility* of falsity in the premises. Otherwise it makes little sense to say that simply because I might be mistaken in a premise, therefore my conclusion has no warrant of
logic. This is just another way of saying that if my conclusion has warrant of logic, then it *cannot* be the case that I am mistaken in a premise. But this seems wholly false to me.
This is just a variation on Cartesianism, which incidentally is not Biblical: I know p only if I can eliminate or rule out all possibilities incompatible with p. So, as you say, (3) won't have warrant of logic because it depends on a premise about
which I *may* be mistaken. Unless I can rule this out, my conclusion will not have warrant of logic. This is good Cartesianism, but bad epistemology.
See my epistemology course handouts:
http://www.homestead.com/mscourses/files/philosophy357handout1.htm
http://www.homestead.com/mscourses/files/philosophy357handout2.htm
Also, your position ultimately undermines knowledge of God's Word. It is always possible that your interpretation of Scripture is mistaken too. For any interpretation of Scripture, you may be mistaken about it because you are fallible. But if this corrupts everything downstream from Scripture, you have quite easily corrupted your entire theological river. Related, your very
statement above is not found directly in Scripture. You might be mistaken in what you say above, therefore it has no warrant of logic. Tar baby again. By even your own standards, you should doubt your own objections to me since they quite
obviously depend on philosophical assumptions about "warrant of logic." I'm not aware that the Bible has anything to say about the conditions of "warrant of logic," much less that warrant of logic is undermined by the possibility that a premise in an argument is false. Apparently you are more philosophical than I thought. :-)
I cannot show as false (1), the reason being because it is based on scripture alone,
Well, you cannot show that (2) is false either. You can only show that it is *possibly* false. But it is easy to show that (1) is possibly false too. It is possible that you have been created by an all-powerful malevolent being who has made you believe that all men are sinners (as part of some unusual but entertaining redemptive drama), but in fact some men are not sinners. In this scenario, (1) is false, but since this is a logically possible scenario, it is logically possible that (1) is false, but extra-biblical premise (2) is suspect (shown
by undeniable scripture), and logical result (3) is suspect because some angels are sinners, and other angels are not.
Well, let's consider your argument for (2) being suspect.
You begin with a Scripture verse that rather straightforwardly implies:
(A) There were many people in Sodom who believed that persons S1 and S2 were human men, but in fact S1 and S2 were really angels.
And it follows from this quite clearly that:
(B) It is possible for some person S to be mistaken about the actual identity of another person S*.
But if (2) is to be suspect you must also assume the following:
(C) The possibility stipulated in (B) can be universalized as conditions of similar deception
to all human persons.
and
(D) Given any person S, the possibility of one person S mistakenly identifying another person
S* as human entails that a person S could also be mistaken about his own self-identification as human.
With these assumptions, you can then argue:
(D) The person, Michael Sudduth, could be mistaken about his self-identification as a human person.
But what shall we say to this?
First, it would not follow that (2) lacked warrant, or that I could not know that (2) is true. This would be like saying because I could presently be mistaken about whether there is water in the road, therefore I can't know that there is water in the road or
believe this with any warrant. Such a conclusion requires an epistemological assumption that is wholly implausible, namely that knowledge requires epistemic or logical certainty (of the sort of that Descartes advocated).
Secondly, I fail to see how (D) implies that (2) is "suspect." The fact that I *could* be mistaken about what sort of being I am does not provide adequate support for the view that therefore I must be "suspect" about what I am, i..e, doubt the truth that I am a man. That's just silly. Again, this would be like saying that because I could be mistaken about whether I am awake or sleep (dreaming), all my sensory perceptual beliefs are suspect. Again, this is just another Cartesian spook.
Third, your argument about (2) being suspect requires the employment of several extra-biblical philosophical assumptions which I have noted above. But in making the extra-biblical assumptions you undermine your own argument. If everything extra-biblical is untrustworthy, then you cannot trust your extra-biblical presuppositions, philosophical and otherwise. Tar baby appears again.
Fourth, though, even if everything you say is correct, you over all conclusion here about (3) lacking warrant does not follow. Warrant can be transferred from one set of beliefs to another if the premises are warranted, the conclusion follows by
necessary inference, and I see the connection between the premises and conclusion. The possibility that (2) is false does not entail that (2) is not warranted, much less that (3) is not warranted. This is just not good reasoning at all.
Also, on your last comment here:
>logical result (3) is suspect because some angels are sinners, >and other angels are not.
This makes zero sense to me, Keith. What is the logical relationship between and ? They are logically compatible. So.....(3) is suspect because there is some other true proposition logically consistent with (3). How does undermine the warrant of (3) or whether (3) follows from (1) and (2)? I can't make any sense out of this.
You said something to the effect that a person needs philosophy to show he doesn't need philosophy. First off, this is circular reasoning and is not acceptable reasoning for a proof.
Why exactly was my argument circular? And more fundamentally, what *was* my argument? I don't recall *giving* an argument. I simply *described* a situation in which I gave an argument for the conclusion that one needs philosophy to refute
it. But I don't believe that I actually provided the actual argument in my post. Hence, I am a bit curious as to how an argument, the premises of which I did not state, could be accused of being circular? Wouldn't you need to know the premises to
determine this?
God has endowed us with basic reason, and though you can define philosophy to include that basic reason which God has endowed us with, we don't need the reasoning that stems from philosophy to debunk philosophy, we can simply use the reasoning God has endowed us with (though I am not suggesting that is correct to debunk philosophy).
The reasoning God has endowed with is precisely the power to philosophize. I shall take this present response of yours as a great example of this. Throughout your post you have introduced or assumed propositions about the nature of logical inference, warrant transfer, possibility, and knowledge. These presuppositions are certainly not found anywhere in the Bible. So by your own logic they are untrustworthy. But these assumptions moreover are philosophical ones, though you keep them concealed as best as possible. But it is obvious that the validity of your argument depends on them. I have shown how above in several places. You are just arbitrarily relabeling what I call philosophy and calling it "basic reason." Convenient, but a distinction lacking any principled basis. Whether you like it or not you are philosophizing, just not very well. :-)
So if I make it seem like an apple is a pear, then it looks like my proof is sound regardless of its truth; but my proof is circular and therefore invalid. Note that circular proof is invalid even if the premise is valid; just the proof would not be acceptable.
Well, I don't know about this pear stuff, much less about the rest of what you say here. Just for your information, though, a valid argument is one where it cannot be the case that premises are all true and the conclusion false. Since a circular argument
contains the conclusion in the form of a premise somewhere, it must be a valid argument by the definition of validity. And premises are neither valid nor invalid, they are true or false, or warranted or unwarranted.
Anyhow. . . .
I find it highly ironic that a post designed to raise doubts about human reason and privilege Scripture as alone trustworthy, should have to make its case by using reason. In this way you have done precisely what my student did. You provide an
argument for why reason is unreliable, but you use reason to do it, just as my student tried to show why philosophy was irrelevant but had to use philosophical premises to make his point. You have depended on several clearly extra-biblical
assumptions, some of which are distinctly philosophical. But you have the epistemic audacity to attempt to derive a conclusion about the untrustworthy nature of *anything* extra-biblical, philosophical or otherwise.
I suspect that you will deny that you use philosophy here, but surely you can't deny that you are offering arguments based on "extra-biblical logic" and "premises." Where does Scripture sanction your inferences, much less your various premises? It doesn't. And with respect to your anticipated denial that you are engaging in philosophizing here, I only point out your own
principle:
"Anything "extra-" is not biblical, therefore it is untrustworthy."
Your belief that "you are not relying on philosophy" is extra-biblical, therefore, by your own principle, it is untrustworthy. So if I were you, I would, on the basis of the biblical authority to which you refer, not trust your judgment that you are not engaging
in philosophy, which means you ought to be open to the possibility that you are engaged in precisely what reason tells you you are not doing. :-)
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael Sudduth
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Saint Michael's College, Vermont
see you could believe that HOLLOWAY posted that article or that i did. let's say that i was a disciple with my own personal journal of God's work in my life outside of the Scriptures and thousands of years later someone found it and said, hey let's throw this in the Bible. it couldn't because God saw that the book was complete in His views, not man. you mention Luther a lot, but Guttenburg wrote a Bible translation before he did. if you want me to awnser your questions, then awnser some of the ones that i have posed to you. frankly, i find the artice above interesting and full of logical point of views. i did a little reading at the same time about Martin Luther. explain to me like a 5 year old why should i convert to Catholicism. explain to me what does the Bible mean to you. and finally tell me like a never read the Bible, the origin of man, who satan is, why should i believe that there is a God and why do we exist. oh, yeah is there a Heaven, i'm dying to know. these all are topics and things that i have addressed you guys with, but you never awnser back. you hide behind your beliefs like they are infallible. and i would never think of my self as Jesus, but if you roll with Him, expect to get treated like Him. in John, He told the Pharisees that since they live by the Law of Moses and won't accept Him, then Moses would judge them. a man judging another man was my point. but when you you search your hearts the truth that you lone for will rise. oh yeah, most of the world is illiterate now, but you don't see me complaining because when the Word speaks it says enough. we are all men called by God but how many of us know that we are chosen?
with God Speed,
Paul
Thanks Holloway for the long and painful post...
Painful because it is much to do about nothing and doesn't prove the validity of Sola Scriptura nor answer any of my questions.
Allow me to quote Dr. Michael Sudduth's closing statement:
Two assumptions that he bases his whole argument on:
1) That the Bible is a divinely inspired book without a shadow of a doubt?
2) That the Bible has always existed as the source of truth for all believers.
Now for the problems with this train of thought.
1) Lack of historical knowledge - the Bible as Dr. Michael Sudduth and all of us know it today did not come into existence until the year 392 A.D. That is devastating to his argument, for that means that in 392 A.D. the Catholic Church had the authority and fullness of truth to discern which books needed to be included in the Bible, thus making their authority and selection divinely inspired in itself.
2) How does he justify the beliefs of Christians who lived during the years 33 A.D. and 392 A.D. who had no Bible to discern "truth" from? How were they to know "truth"?
Not to mention all the other questions I have asked you all earlier.
This lengthy post of Dr. Michael Sudduth is considerably inadequate and I believe illusive. Frankly, his argument became so confusing that his train of thought become difficult to follow. Sound arguments shouldn't be this way.
Now on to your questions Paul ; )
1)Why should you convert to Catholicism? Because the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, it is the only "Christian church" that can be traced back to the time of Christ, it gave us the Bible, and through the Catholic Church we receive the sacraments: Baptism, Confession, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and the Anointing of the Sick; all of which are God-given channels of grace.
2) What does the Bible mean to me? - It is the Word of God. God is the author of Sacred Scripture, He inspired the human authors of the sacred books. The Bible teaches the truth. Yet, (and please take note of this) "it was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg.34, paragraph 120), which makes up the Bible as we know it today.
3) Is there a God? - Yes. There have been multiple philosophical, metaphysical, and theological arguments that have proven this from the Primary Mover argument of St. Thomas Aquinas to Paschal's Wager. I will be happy to list these out if you are unfamiliar with them. Just let me know.
4)Why are we here? To understand this question one must first have agreed with the answer to question (3), namely that God exists. That being the case, we exist because God created us. So the natural conclusion of this thought is that we exist to know the one who created us, namely God, and through knowing God, who must be good, we will love God, and if we love God we will want to serve God. Therefore, we exist to know, love, and serve God.
5) Is there a heaven? - Yes. Heaven is simply eternal existence with God. If God loves us than He will desire to always be with us, therefore existence with Him eternally is naturally necessary. Yet here is where free will comes in to play for God desires us to love Him. Love must be freely given. Therefore we can choose to live with God eternally or reject God eternally. As St. Thomas Aquinas said "being proceeds action", therefore if we live a life knowing, loving, and serving God that is what we will do eternally. If we choose not to, than we will do that eternally.
Holloway and Paul know that I pray for each of you daily. You are here posting on this blog for a reason. God has inspired you to seek His truth, and that seeking has led you here. I have always been an intense debator and I apologize if that intensity sometimes comes across as "being unChristian". Just know this, that the reason Jay and I spend so much time posting articles and answering comments is that we love our Catholic Faith and know that in the Catholic Church we have found the way God established as the channel of His Grace and Love to this world. We hope that the time you spend here will not be in vain and that, one day, you will come to the realization that so many others have come to, that Christ founded the Catholic Church and that through it you will come to know and experience the fullness of truth. May God bless you both.
Your brother in Christ,
Joe
Holloway,
Your post explains why God created a church that can interpret Scripture for us (Acts 8:30-31). We cannot consistently interpret Scripture according to God's will (proof: all of the various protestant denominations each teaching their own "version" of the same books). So God, in His wisdom, created a Church (Matt 16) that is permanent (the gates of hell shall not prevail against) and, this is important, is "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). And that is not extra-Biblical, but Biblical. According to Dr. Suddeth the Bible is Truth, so every verse within it must be true. Including the verse that says the Church not the Bible is the pillar of Truth.
He must have missed that verse in his analysis.
God bless,
Jay
As children, many of us played “the gossip game.” After forming a line, the child at the beginning would tell his neighbor a story. Then, the narrative would be passed down, with each child having the opportunity to hear and relay the message.
The point to the game was to see how the story had changed by the time it reached the end of the line. Interestingly enough, the final tale was rarely similar to what was said at the beginning.
Sadly, the Gospel can be distorted in the same manner. When Jesus ascended into heaven, He commanded the disciples to spread His Word throughout a lost and sinful world. His message of truth was untainted, one hundred percent pure.
They followed Jesus’ command, but, as the Gospel spread, the opportunity for error arose. Wherever the apostles preached, false teachers would quickly follow, instructing the early church to obey legalistic rules and regulations that God Himself did not require.
Two thousand years have passed since Jesus walked the earth. With this inevitable passage of time comes more opportunity for God’s truth to be distorted. Teachers from all faiths are prepared to tell you whatever you want to hear. Paul warned Timothy about this when he wrote:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
False doctrine is rampant in our world. We are surrounded by beliefs and guidelines that fail to match up with the litmus test that is the Word of God. The Lord not only wants us to come to know Him as Savior, He also desires that all men “come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
In the Great Commission, Jesus commands His followers to reach the world with His Gospel. But how are we as Christians to spread His Word if we do not understand what we believe?
The Apostle Peter tells Christians to:
Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:15-16)
Even as false doctrine was widespread in Peter’s day, he realized that believers would always be tempted with the lure of doctrinal error. In 2 Peter 2:1-3, he says:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words.
In order to defend our faith from false doctrine, we must first examine our beliefs. We shouldn’t read through the Bible only to pull out verses that confirm what we already hold true. Instead, we should take all of what we believe and examine it against the entirety of truth found in the Bible. Are your beliefs firmly set in the Word of God?
If someone asked you, “tell me about the Bible,” what would you say? If they asked you why baptism is important, what would you tell them? If you were asked to explain the Trinity, how would you answer?
We should be entrenched and deeply rooted in God’s Word, formulating a mental grid of beliefs in our minds. If we understand the Bible’s truth, false teaching will not infiltrate this mental grid. God will alert us to error, allowing us to eliminate untruths from our understanding of His Word.
Why should you want to defend your beliefs? The world may tell you that as long as you believe something, then you will be okay. This is not true. When we believe the truth—the Bible—we are:
Prevented from being misled by false doctrine
Protected from those who attack our faith
Prepared to answer those who are honestly seeking truth
Persuasive in our expression and presentation of what we believe
Prosperous in our personal relationship with Christ
We are surrounded by those who are eager to tell us that salvation is based on works and legalistic rules, that Christ was a “great teacher” but not the Son of God, that Jesus is not coming again, and that baptism is the only requirement to being saved.
Rarely will we find someone that believes exactly as we do. However, if their values are not rooted in the Word of God, then they are adhering to false doctrine.
Jude tells us that false teachers are like “clouds without water, carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 1:12-13).
There are thousands of teachers that are attempting to sell us something that sounds good and appeals to our “sensuality.” However, when we are grounded in the principles of the Bible, we can wisely discern the difference between truth and error.
In a world saturated with untruth, let God guide you to all the answers that you seek. Know what you believe!
Sorry guys, i've been busy. i have awnsers to your questions, if you guys don't feel that it's time to move on.
Good lookin' out,
Paul
Hi Paul,
I think all that you have just said supports in a greater way the need for the Church. If there are so many opportunities for misintrepretation and false doctrines, why wouldn't "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church" be absolutely necessary? I will continue to appeal to history, the Church preceded the Bible that is a historical fact. When Jesus commanded His apostles to go forth and spread His Gospel, the 4 gospels that we have today hadn't even been written. Jesus founded the Catholic Church. As Jay once stated before, if all God wanted us to base our faith on was a book, why didn't He just write it Himself, He was among us for 33 years, surely that would have given Him enough time to do so?
Yes, I would like you to answer all of my questions, for they are pivotal and directly tied to why Catholics know that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus founded the Church.
Protestantism in reality doesn't work (that is why it is breaking apart today, over 20,000 denominations).
1)If I only need the Bible to know truth, then that means that ultimately I am the authority on what truth is...yet this contradicts Scripture (1 Timothy 3:15).
2) Sola Scriptura becomes the mine field of religious relativism for if the Bible is all that is needed to know truth than each individual's intrepretation of the Bible must be true, at least for them it is true, for they sincerely believe that their intrepretation is the true intrepretation. Yet at the same time, if they accept that the Bible is the only way to know truth than they must also acknowledge that their fellow Christians' intrepretation is true as well (in whatever form that might be). If only your intrepretation of the Bible is true and not mine or any other Christians' intrepretation than you make yourself the "authority" on what is biblically true, which directly contradicts the belief that the Bible is the only way that we can know truth, for now you place yourself and your intrepretation above my being able to know the truth by reading the Bible.
The whole idea of Sola Scriptura is just full of holes and contradictions. You really need to ponder these things and pray about them. What leaves more room for error, truth that is safeguarded by the Church or millions of people's intrepretation of what the Bible says truth is for them? It really isn't that difficult to see which group has the greatest possibility for error, again explaining why there are so many Protestant denominations today (a number that is growing rapidly).
In Christ,
Joe
Hey Joe,
check this out. i will go through all of the motions this time like the times before, by the Word of God.
the church was founded in by God in Exodus.
Exodus 25:8-9, 35:20 & 36:4-7. not Peter.
Joshua 1:8 validates the Bible as a Book back then. not 392 A.D.
1 Corinthians 10:4, Jesus is called the Rock in which the Church will be built upon. His Way not ours and not by Peter.
Hebrews 6:20, Jesus is the High Priest, not the Pope.
Ephesians 5:23, Jesus is the Head of the Church, not the Mage...whatever you call it.
John 1:1, Jesus is the Word of God manifested into man, oops.
2 Colossians puts every religion into the blender and turns it into dust. only Jesus stands and He stands alone.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit not a building, Exodus clearly states this.
Matthew 16:18, you guys favorite verse. Jesus prophecizes to Peter that he will be the leader among the apostles which comes to pass in John 21:15-19. the foundation of the Church is Jesus, the apostles and the prophets. not Peter alone.
Numbers 5 and Hebrews 5 clearly explains the duty of the priest and why they are no longer needed today.
Hebrews 6-13 explains the rest of the basis and applications for Christian Living as it should be known.
now what you may believe may contradict the Bible, but i have spoke my peace. if you don't believe the Bible as God's Word and Jesus is the Living Word, living inside of You through the Holy Spirit and God is Sovereign Authority over all creation and the Bible is His Truth revealed to us, you may be on the wrong track. you guys quote the Bible left and right on this blog, but like i said before if you don't believe the entirity of It, then don't play with It. all the stuff you suggest for me to read will harm my spirit because it is man-made doctorine and books which the Holy Spirit will not allow me to contaminate myself with. the Bible has always existed and i take that other guys side, Martin Luther gave the Word to the public because the Catholic Church was holding It hostage. that's it. God sent him and you guys slay him with a passion, i wish that he was here to defend himself but he's not. the Bible is though. so thank God for him. we are not divided, you guys are just prejudice and only God can Judge. i will admit there are some people out here with wrong motives but God will handle them, not us. that's not our job. we are to seek the Kingdom, and add to the Foundation until Jesus returns 1 John 3:16.
peace be unto,
Paul
How unfortunate that in all of this blogging, Paul still refuses to answer one simple question:
How do you know that your 66 books are supposed to be in the Bible?
I finally had to answer this question three months ago by admitting that it is only because God inspired the successors to the apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit to inerrantly discern His true word.
Paul, if you have another answer that is true, state it! Do not continue to post long responses. Answer me if you can this one simple question. You quote from Colossians--how do you know this is Scripture? And from 2 Timothy--how do you know this is Scripture? And from 2 Peter--how do you know this is Scripture? And from Jude (which much of the early church did NOT believe was scriptural)--how do you know this is Scripture?
Once the simplicity and truth of the only possible response is realized, the Catholic Church is revealed as the true body of Christ our Lord. For this reason, I and my wife and children are in the process of being reconciled to the fullness of the Gospel in the Church. It is not easy, especially considering that my father and my younger brother are both Protestant ministers. But it is righteous.
Paul, I pray that you (and others considering the Church) will honestly ponder and meditate upon this single question that I have asked you. Far from stealing your faith, it will yield the "answer... for the hope that you have." (1 Pet. 3:15) The answer is Jesus Christ revealed to us in His Church which is animated by the Holy Spirit!
Yours in Christ,
Dave
my dear Dave,
how do you make your heart beat or lungs breath? can you make the sun come up or set the moon and stars at night? if the awnsers to these are i can't, then you are absolutely right. God does these things. where do you find that information, the Bible. books of science can tell you why it happens but not how it happens. as i have stated before there is nothing complex to figure out about the Bible. it is very simple to read but very hard to live. i see that you guys (Catholics) refer to a book call Catchism a lot, how do you know who it was written by and that all of it's content is there. you don't, you just believe it, like i believe in the Bible. you comment on some of the Scripture that i post but not all of it. my point is, is that religion is trying to add and take away from God's Word. we are supposed to lift the name of Jesus and exalt the Father but we are too busy pointing fingers at what is not right about society,churches and God's Word. those are cares of the world not ours. if we tell the truth about the Trinity then we will fufill our duty assigned to us by Jesus in His Word. we are the Great Commission.the Catholic Church as well as any other denomination have enough errancy as Martha Stewart on the bench. that's why i believe soley in the Bible. we as believers make mistakes thinking that we know it all, but we don't. this blog is supposedly dedicated to spreading the truth of the Catholic faith, well what about spreading the truth about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit revealed to us in the Bible and our everyday walk with the Lord. Jesus is God's Word, do you believe in Him? then you have to believe the in the Bible, which other book is the 4 Gospels written? my prayer for you guys is that God shows you His Way through revelation, not by the Bible, not by attending mass, but just by meditating on Him. not Jesus, not the Holy Spirit and in ya'lls case the saints. whew, if they were no denominations in the Bible then why are we so divided now? SATAN will and man desire to stray from the truth which is found where? you guess right!
Keep seeking His' Face,
Paul
Paul you seem to be changing the subject and are missing the point people are trying to get you to realize. You keep repeating the same things, saying that you believe in the bible and that you know the bible reveals Jesus to us, but the question people are asking you is how do you know that the bible is accurate. How do you know that the bible you have is the true story of Jesus? What the people posting here are trying to get you to realize is that the Catholic Church built the bible and you are relying on the Catholic Church’s accuracy in deciding which books are scripture (the gospels u read) and which aren’t (the gospel’s of Thomas and Peter). Yet at the same time you are throwing out books of the bible without having any reason what so ever. Paul you are being hypocritical by never researching which books are truly scripture and which are not, and instead trusting the Catholic Church’s judgment on almost all of them, then throwing out a handful that teach things that you don’t want to believe in because it’s a small inconvenience. Paul you really have two options, and you can’t take a middle ground without sounding ridiculous. You can assume that the Catholic Church didn’t compile the bible correctly and research every piece of writing by the followers of Christ in the years after his death and decided which ones are truly accurate and which ones aren’t. Or you can trust (through the evidence the church found researching the history of the different books at the time the bible was compiled) that the Catholic Church compiled the bible correctly, and start to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. By taking a middle ground and trusting the Catholic Church on some but not all of the books your being hypocritical and on top of that selfish for not wanting to believe the things they teach because they might be inconvenient to you.
tom and family,
i believe in faith that the Holy Bible is God's Word by the application of It in my life. no one ever told me about God, but He called me to seek Him. history proves you correct about Martin Luther and the Catholic Church's claim of assmbling of the Bible. as i have said before words get lost in translation now, so imagine back then. if the Catholic faith is so holier than thou, why isn't the Catholic Bible or New American Bible so popular among the masses. we all ought to sign up for Hebrew reading classes and get bootleg copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls. my point was never to argue the whose translation is right or wrong, i'm arguing the validity of God's Word. how to i know it's real? show me that It is fake. not from a religious point of view, but from what God has placed on your heart to say about the Holy Bible, His Words.
Paul,
I find that to be the most common Protestant response. Basically, "the Holy Spirit tells me that those 66 books are the word of God." The problem is twofold. First, it lacks historical legitimacy--it means that for 1500 years, the Holy Spirit couldn't find anyone to get the message throught that Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees were not really God's Word. What lack of power or foresight on the part of the Spirit!
Which raises the second point--that "Holy Spirit told me so" argument is very Mormon. The LDS church also claims that for 1800 years the Holy Spirit stayed silent. It also claims that the only way to know what is right is by the "burning in the bosom", which is imparted by the Holy Spirit. The problem with that is there is no way to break the stalemate. The Mormons say "here is what the Holy Spirit declares to be God's Word!" And you say, "Wrong-o Brigham... the Holy Spirit says thus and thus." And ultimately, who comes out on top? What is really scary is the Mormons are pretty "good" people--better than most in fact. Thus, if I were an impartial observer, I might have to conclude that their Holy Spirit wins.
That is why the Catholic Church makes so much sense. Christ, knowing that everyone likes to do as he sees fit in his own eyes (Jud. 21:25), set up his church, with bishops and deacons (I Tim. 3) to have authority over all Christian doctrine (Acts 15), which would be excercised under the influence of the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-22). Look that up. This claim is supported not only by Scripture, but by the historical truth of apostolic succession, which can only be claimed by the Catholic/Orthodox Church.
Nobody here is saying that the Bible is wrong. What we are saying is that it is holy, inspired, and inerrant, and that we know it is because the Church founded by Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit has declared it to be so. In other words, while Protestants and Mormons claim to be given some word from the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church is the only body that can authoritatively declare that it speaks with the very words of God, and support that claim through both Scripture and history.
In Christ,
Dave
dave,
did you just leave the Holy Spirit out of the Catholic Church? shame on you. John Smith the founder of Mormonism claimed that a very beautiful angel of the Lord appeared to him and told him to start a church, not a religion. as far as i'm concerned they believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers and that Jesus is an angel too, Hebrews 1:1 takes that right out. good morals ain't going to get you pass the Gate, sorry. how can the Holy Spirit be dormant? God is not dormant. the Holy Spirit living within us can be dormant, but God has always talked to us through the Spirit, the world calls it making the right decision, we call it walking in faith. you guys rant and rave about who wrote what, i'll tell you this. give me Genesis, Exodus, the 4 Gospels and Revelation and you with every major religion can corrupt the rest. well, that's what's happening. i'll take these Books because they tell me why we are here, that God loves us, Whom our salvation comes through and what will happen to us in the end. the Scripture translations have been made imperfect by man but they tell us the only thing that really matters Jesus is the incarnate of God's Word and that's what i believe. you can have as many Bibles as you want but if you don't have faith you're empty.
by faith, not by sight...
Paul
Paul,
You amazes me...I still haven't seen a clear answer to our questions. You say "give me Genesis, Exodus, the 4 Gospels, and Revelation and you with every major religion can corrupt the rest." What an illogical and anti-biblical comment!
First, what guarantee do you have that these books were written 2000+ years ago? How do you know?
Second, all of your arguments are very egocentric...meaning truth and knowledge of God is something that is only relevant to you. You fail to take into consideration how it was known and lived by the millions of Christians who came before you. How can you think that way?
Third, your reasoning is contradictory. You state in one place that you know that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church but then want to say that only the Bible can teach you the truth. In acknowledging that the Church compiled the Bible you contradict yourself in saying this, because if you can't trust the Catholic Church in teaching the Truth how can you trust that the Church chose the "trully" inspired books to be included in the Bible?
Now, I would like to address your earlier comments (format will be your comment than my response in bold print):
joe,
we live in, so clearly these Books are older than 2,000 years old. Jesus refers to the prohets and the Law quite a bit. How about Pentecost happened 3,000 years after Moses recieved the Law on Mt. Sinai? God reveals the Truth all of the time to everyone. for the many called, few are chosen. the Bible doesn't contain hidden codes, but It reveals distant facts like the aforementioned. you claim that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible, OT and NT, not wrote It. i gave you guys credit for that. i just don't dig your traditions and rituals, that's where our confusion lies, that's our problem. i attend a New Testament Church. at the Exodus, the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, that's Baptism enough for me. confession was established at the Tent of Meeting and the Eucharist (communion)wasn't needed because of the other atonements of the time. you say that the Catholic Church assembled the writings of Scripture and Martin Luther corrupted their order but even you guys voted on what to keep and what not to, correct? so then how do you know that a step wasn't missed on ya'lls part? when Jesus lived the OT was already compiled, and of course the NT was being written. Jesus validates the Law and the prophets as do the NT authors. i don't believe that Jesus would have studied false doctrine as a child. your interpretation of Matthew 16 is off to me. Peter unlocks the doors of the Kingdom for the Jews at Pentecost. what about Matthew 16:23? Peter gets influenced by old satan too. in John 20:22-25, Peter and Jesus are talking about John, the writer and apostle. in Acts, the existing 10 apostles pick a new one, that's it. John Paul II is the leader of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ is the Head of my church. the Inspiring Body of Christ Church, Pastor Rush will tell you that. it's funny, i've never seen the name Pope in the Bible. i see teachers, preachers, Reverend, apostles, shepards and prophets, but not Pope. since Jesus is the Living Word of God, God's Word, the Bible has to be infalliable. unless, you believe that Jesus is being misrepresented by non-Catholic Christians? i meant Colossians 2 chapter, point taken. you're right the Catholic Church isn't a building, it's a base of religion. i walk around with communion in my pocket, i'm thoroughly equipped for the Father's Work. the Holy Spirit is alive in everyone, through belief in Jesus as the Truth, the Way and the Life. He awkens the Holy Spirit that lies dormant in every human. that's why praise and worship is so important, to be on one accord with the Living Trinity. the sick and afflicted don't need Scripture to believe in Jesus, they need faith. faith alone. God rewards the faithful, the obedient and the fruitful. the Kingdom Seekers and the Kingdom Builders, which make up the Church!
glory to God!,
Paul
Paul,
You ask if the Catholic Church could have gotten the wrong books for the New Testament. EXACTLY!!! We may be making some progress here my friend :-)
Look, you accept Matthew (we'll just use that one for convenience sake) as the Word of God. Yet to this day you have not given us a single reason explaining how you know that Matthew is the Word of God.
Here is the deal Paul: DO NOT GO SIDEWAYS ON ME! I don't want to hear any more jibberish about how this is all bunk and you are just a Bible loving fool. You claim that Matthew is inspired and as such part of the Bible. Time has come to support that claim. If you cannot do it, Paul, then have the honesty to admit it. Quit acting like this is unimportant. Your entire belief system depends on the Bible--that's right, THE BIBLE (please, no snide remarks about how your beliefs really come from God and not the Bible). It guides your entire view of who and what God is, what God commands of you, how you can serve Him, and how you can get to Heaven. If you are incapable of defending the infallibility of this Bible (starting with Matthew) then your entire belief system is completely without foundation.
Here is our point: Luther, the people in the Catholic Church, or any human being are all fallible and not God. Therefore, (in your view) none of them had the authority to infallibly declare which books belonged in the Bible. If this is an accurate statement of your position, then you have absolutely no way of knowing which books should belong in the Bible... your faith is groundless.
If this is not an accurate statement, I challenge you to tell me who has the authority (from the Holy Spirit of course) to state which books should be in the Bible. Luther? You? Or the Catholic Church? As I see it, these are the only possible answers, but if you have another one, let's hear it. No more evasion, Paul. Your double-speak nonsense is getting tiresome. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!! Do not give me some pithy response like "only God" or "the Holy Spirit" or "God's Word is God's Word". God and the Holy Spirit never physically appeared on earth and declared that Matthew was inspired. So, to whom did they give authority to declare what was Scripture?
Once you figure out that you do not know the answer and are man enough to admit it, we will explain how we know that the Catholic Church is the only body with that authority. Come on Paul, don't let us down!
In Christ,
Dave
my dear friend dave,
i hope that you are well. it has been quite awhile since you all have heard from me. i hadn't been reading as much Word as i use to for the fact that God wanted me to live out some of His teachings to gain knowledge,wisdom and understanding. on my behalf friend, i am not double-minded nor a hypocrite. our views differ because of the way we chose to view God and His Word. please examine 1 Corinthians 4,8,9,10 and 11:17-34. Now examine Deuteronomy 26, Proverbs 21:1-3, 22:17-21, 30:5-6 and Malachi 3. Isaiah 52:13-53(all)clearly explains Jesus to us before brother Matthew was up to bat.
my point in all of these different Scriptures is ultimately tell you is that God is in control over everything whether good or bad, right or wrong. He always has been in control and He always will be. man's logic of the Bible is nothing comapred to what was left out. just to imagine, God told John on the island of Patmus that he would not be able to handle the whole truth. so yes, there are some "deleted scenes" (hopefully God will let us watch them in His documentary movie of us-ha!) out of the Bible for our benefit because God knew that we would have a problem for what He considered enough for us to know. which is our discussion.
as far as my responses for "God and the Holy Spirit" on everything. you should pick your words more carefully because Jesus said a man would be condemned by the words that came out of his mouth because words really point out what is in a man's heart (blasphemies of the Holy Spirit, not Jesus nor the Father, but of the Holy Spirit, Who does not forgive). God ate with Abraham, talked to Moses face to face and both the Holy Spirit and God came to earth in the physical life of Jesus.
so...........if any man lacks wisdom, he should ask for it. i'm not here to set any records straight but the truth is out here now, hidden in us, waiting to be exposed. the Bible tells all about it, but we were not told what it is, we are just a part of what is to come and the Kingdom of God (Jesus)is really near, Who gives all authority in the life of the believer and non-believer.
You seem to have many misconceptions of the Protestant religion. We do NOT think that every bible except for the King James Version is evil and, Luther did give out bibles to people who were not allowed to read them in their native tongue because many were persecuted back then for reading it in their native tongue. Why? Because the Catholics didn't want the people to see that some of the things they were doing were not in the bible or that some of the things they were doing were wrong. Like, for instance, the Pope at the time gave out some piece of paper declaring that if you bought this, you could do whatever sin you'd like as long as you had this, you would go to heaven. Or, by giving some certain amount of money to the church, you could get a relative out of purgatory or whatever. These earthly things will not do that. Your money means nothing to God. He just wants it to be given to the poor. It's in the bible. Luther didn't change anything about the bible, he translated it into what others could read. I think you are forgetting that Luther himself was a Catholic. He only wanted to stop the bad things that were going on. He didn't want to create another denomination. He was a scholar, and only the scholars and priests and bishops, cardinals, popes, etc. could read the bible. When he read the bible in something he could understand for the first time, he saw what was going on and realized the things the Catholics were doing were not stated in the bible anywhere. People were killed for owning one in their own language because then they would know the truth. The Catholics did NOT encourage reading the bible in the peoples' native tongue. That's why they tried to kill Luther. Maybe you should do some more research before slandering Protestants like that. Doesn't your bible say that you shouldn't judge other people?? Leave it to God to do that.
Sara,
I highly recommend you take some time to study history as it relates to this - you have many misconceptions about historical events before and during the protestant reformation.
First, please understand that Bibles were very expensive to produce during those times - someone had to hand copy Scripture in order to produce a Bible. And yet, Catholic Churches all had a Bible publically available for those without the money to purchase one. The Catholic Church has always encouraged reading of Scripture and if it weren't for the monks in the Dark Ages, Luther wouldn't have had a Bible to revolt against!
I also suggest you read through our website. We clearly show where everything Catholic believe has its origins in the Bible and does not contradict Scripture. Luther did change your Bible (which I thought wasn't allowed) in several key ways, so we only use the books you have available to show where Catholic practices are clear in the Bible.
Finally, I'm not sure where you got some of your other misconceptions (death for reading the Bible, for instance!), but I doubt you can show me historical proof that they are anything but falsehoods.
God bless,
Jay
There is a book about Christian martyrs written by the Christian group "d.c. talk" and that is about the only place I can think of right now that has-in writing- said that people were killed in the 14-1500s for reading the Bible in their native tongue. Forgive me if I sounded harsh, but I am a Lutheran and I hate seeing when people slander us so much like this. I have not heard everything that I put down on my previous comment only from my church, it has been in books and in documentaries as well. To my knowledge, Luther never took out books "he simply didn't like". If you are referring to the apocryphal books, they were taken out by a council long before Luther. And back in that time anyway, the bible was only written in Latin and Hebrew and Greek. The Catholics (this is from many sources including the book I listed above) forbade the people to read it, saying it should not be translated out of its original language or something along those lines...Luther went to Wittenburg University and learned Greek and studied the bible. As he saw that the things he practiced were apparently not in it, he rebelled. It was not against a bible. It was against beliefs he felt were not right. He nailed the 95 things he found to be wrong onto the cathedral door, hoping to get the Pope to change these things and reform the Catholic church. Of course, this did not work. The Pope tried to kill Luther but he was protected by the government and lived 3x longer than the average person of his day. These things I am so sure of. However, my father is a Muslim and my mother's side of the family branches off into Baptists and Presbyterians, so I am very very open to other religions and denominations and what they believe and have to say. I believe any religion is as good as any other, as long as it means good for humanity. I guess you could say I believe my religion is right and I believe whole-heartedly in the way that I worship God, but I will never ever tell someone that their religion is wrong. That is not what God wants us to do. So I am looking forward into reading more of your website and I hope, if there is proof that I am mistaken, you will let me know. I will look for historical proof in what I have stated and if I find it, I will post that. Thank you for taking the time to read what I have written and God Bless you.
heres a website talking about the history of a man named William Tyndale and there are some fragments proving what I was talking about and about Martin Luther-
http://www.stmarksthegap.org.au/tyndale_printer.htm
this is on the history of the english bible as well:
History of the English Bible