Replies

metmom wrote:

The Apocrypha WAS added later, at the Council of Trent.

No, it wasn't; it was part of the canon of Scripture since roughly 50 B.C. (when the translators at Alexandria finished translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek), and these books were solemnly recognized by the Church as "Scripture" since the late 4th century (when the Bible's contents were finalized), in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. No one rejected or questioned these books which you call "apocrypha" until the near-Renaissance period, when Luther and his compatriots tore them out of the Bible. Look up "Septuagint", for more information.

It is not recognized as Scripture by non-Catholics because it's not recognized as Scripture in the JEWISH canon. THEY didn't recognize it as Scripture.

Er... may I gently point out that the Jews didn't (and don't) recognize St. Paul's letters, or the Gospels, or any of the New Testament, as Scripture either? Why use the Jews (with all due respect to them) as any authority on the Christian Scriptures? But even on this point, the claim is not true: there were TWO canons (formally recognised collections) of Scripture which the Jews used: the Palestinian Canon (39 books, same books as Protestant OT), and the Alexandrian Canon (46 Books, including the bits of Daniel and Esther which were missing from the Palestinian Canon); both were used by Jews. Luther merely hand-picked the Palestinian Canon because it excluded books which contradicted his beliefs (and it was rather ironic, and absurd on its face, that the anti-Semitic Luther appealed to the Jews to settle the matter of "what books were inspired by the Holy Spirit", anyway!)

[paladinan] Of course it is. But unless you find somewhere in that sword which explicitly says to use "ONLY the sword", or (if you like) somewhere which says explicitly that "nothing but the sword is necessary", this won't help your particular case... and I really don't see anything of the sort, in Scripture. Do you?

[metmom]
If it's truth, what more do you need?

The WHOLE, ENTIRE truth, perhaps (e.g. the missing books of the Protestant Bible, Sacred Tradition, the teaching of the Church Magisterium, infallible interpretation of the Scriptures in question). "2 + 2 = 4" is truth, but is not ALL truth (and not even all *mathematical* truth). Do you see?

But let us not get distracted: "sola Scriptura" makes the original claim that "the 66-book Protestant Bible alone is sufficient for salvation matters; nothing else is binding on the Christian conscience"; and "sola Scriptura" needs to be proven on its own merits. You've not come close to doing that, yet. Can you? I've studied the matter for years, and I know of no way to do so.

(Nor, by the way, could Dr. Scott Hahn, a fiercely anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister who is one of the most brilliant Scripture scholars alive on Earth; he found that "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" were unbiblical and groundless, and that started him down the eventual journey to conversion to the Catholic Church. You might listen to his story, some time; it's on YouTube or elsewhere on teh web for free, I suspect.)

Is there any reference in Scripture to any other sword to be used spiritually? Where can I find it?

There are too many to list, here... but here's a small sampling:

1) perhaps some armor, in addition to the sword? Only a fool would go into battle with nothing but a broken sword (i.e. over 7/46ths of it broken off), after all. See Ephesians 6. Where did you get the idea that a sword (albeit a broken one) is all you ever needed?

2) Sacred Tradition. As St. Luke (in writing the Acts of the Apostles) commended the Bereans for "searching the Scriptures", St. Paul commended the Thessalonians for holding fast to the traditions which they received from him, ORALLY and in writing (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6). If Scripture is "proven authentic" by Scriptural praise, then Sacred Tradition is also "proven authentic" by the same means... yes? There are numerous other references, of course... but this will do, for starters.

3) the teaching of the Apostles. There were no New Testament books--not even one--for at least 10-15 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven (i.e. the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew); the first of the writings of St. Paul weren't in existence until at least 50 A.D. (27 years after the Ascension); the last book of the NT to be written (probably the Book of Revelation) wasn't written until at least 90 A.D. (67 years after Jesus ascended); and the specific contents of the New Testament weren't decided definitively (there were plenty of candidates for admission--e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) until the end of the 4th century (almost 400 years after Christ)! It's a bit rough to run an early Church by "sola Scriptura" if there's no "Scriptura" to use (except the Old Testament--or are you suggesting that we need only follow the OT, without the NT?)!

[paladinan]
If Scripture claims, even a million times, that Scripture is necessary (i.e. the faithful Christian must not throw it away or ignore it), then all that proves is that Scripture claims to be necessary. Not even a billion such mentions would go further, and prove that Scripture claims to be "sufficient ALONE". The "ALONE" is the bugaboo, here... as I (and others) have pointed out repeatedly.

[metmom]
IOW, there is NOTHING, not even the Word of God, that will convince anyone who does not want to believe Scripture is sufficient that it is.

Come, now. Do be reasonable, here! You have not shown that the "Word of God" says what you think it says... and you can cite no Scripture to back up your claim validly! It's a bit disingenuous and rash for you to suggest that "not even the Bible will convince an unbeliever"! How would you feel if I were to say, "IOW, there is NOTHING, not even the Word of God, that will convince a sola Scriptura believer that the Bible doesn't teach it ANYWHERE! Their loyalty to Luther is stronger than their loyalty to the Words of God Himself!"...? That's simply inflammatory rhetoric.

I can appreciate that you may be feeling frustrated; and I don't blame you. You're (by all appearances) a good and sincere Christian who has been taught "sola Scriptura" by word and deed since your childhood (probably by many people whom you loved dearly), and you've never seriously examined the logical claims for it. I do not say that your beloved teachers and family and pastors were evil or unbelieving or deliberately trying to mislead; I claim only that they (and you) have embraced a mistake... and a mistake that any unbiased observer can see in an instant.

Show us where else truth is and how we can identify it without using Scripture.

Again: you cannot dodge your own responsibilities by shifting the responsibility to others; either "sola Scriptura" is taught in Scripture, or it is not. If it is not, then that leaves open the possibility (which, upon investigation, can be found to be a certainty) that the 66-book Protestant Bible does not contain all things necessary for salvation. It really doesn't help your case to ask, rhetorically, "what else would you use?" (w3hich I answered, above, in brief).

Hey, bb, you have that historical evidence that the apocrypha was added at the Council of Trent on hand?

We have yet another Catholic that needs to be educated on the HISTORICAL FACTS.

Er... may I gently point out that the Jews didn't (and don't) recognize St. Paul's letters, or the Gospels, or any of the New Testament, as Scripture either?

I was talking about what the JEWS accepted as Scripture. The Old Testament. That would have been self-evident. The Protestant Bible accepts as Scripture all that the Jews accept as Scripture and since the Jews did not accept the apocrypha as Scripture, the Protestant Bible doesn't contain it.

But, FWIW, the Jews DID accept the writings of other Jews as NT Scripture. Peter (a Jew) called the writings of Paul (a Jew) "Scripture". So that argument falls flat.

The WHOLE, ENTIRE truth, perhaps (e.g. the missing books of the Protestant Bible, Sacred Tradition, the teaching of the Church Magisterium, infallible interpretation of the Scriptures in question). "2 + 2 = 4" is truth, but is not ALL truth (and not even all *mathematical* truth). Do you see?

And how do you verify that the *sacred tradition* has been passed down faithfully? We can see on another thread that forgeries were used as part of that tradition thus proving that what is called *sacred tradition* cannot be depended on.

It's a bit disingenuous and rash for you to suggest that "not even the Bible will convince an unbeliever"!

No, it isn't.

Scripture backs that one up.

Luke 16:19-31 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.

The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’

But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’

And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

People believe Scripture and believe that Scripture is truth and all the truth that they need because they want to.

People who don't want to will NEVER be convinced, because they don't want to be. They want to believe that there is truth to be found somewhere else relating to God. That is saying that the word of God, inspired and breathed out by the Holy Spirit, is not sufficient. Kind of like people who say that the death of Christ is not sufficient, but is lacking so we have to fill it up.

What a slap in the face of God.