MegaChurch or Catholic Church?

taylormarshall.com ^ | August 26, 2013 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

[Melian]

Well, the original Scripture is 100 percent correct... but not all the versions made by men to suit their own personal interpretation of Jesus. Leaving whole chapters out so those pesky passages that say works are needed are forgotten is a crime.

The Catholic Church collected the 100 percent correct Scripture, working with the Holy Spirit. We have the complete version, not the edited, dumbed-down version created much later by disgruntled men. I feel so sorry for anyone who reads the abridged version of Sacred Scripture. What a terrible loss.

[Melian]

I can’t believe I have to tell you about the scripture passage that says we each receive different gifts from the Holy Spirit. Try 1 Cor 12: 4-5, 8-11, 28-31 for starters.

Just what Bible do you read that you are not familiar with this concept that we each receive different gifts from the Holy Spirit? I am amazed you don’t seem to know this! And they say Catholics don’t know the Bible!

[Melian]

Well, thank you for acknowledging that Catholics are encouraged by Church leaders to read the Bible.

Judging from this thread, I would say a lot of Protestants are apparently not reading it either.

[Melian]

Catholics keep repeating it because it’s the truth. Isn’t it amazing that for the first 1500 years there was one Bible and Catholicism was taking care of it, teaching from it, and translating it.

Then a disobedient, headstrong priest decided to forsake his vow of obedience and wrote his own version of the Bible, deleting parts that he didn’t like or that were in conflict with the man-made church he intended to start. He started a Catholic-lite church. A sad, disgruntled, weak man started Protestantism.

No. Catholics never used a Protestant version of the Bible. That version is abridged and edited. That version is an abomination of God’s Sacred Scripture. Nope, no man-made Bible for me. I’ll take the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Church actually begun by Christ and the Apostles. Nothing less would do for me. I want it all.

[Melian]

I gave you many Scripture citations about the value of suffering and Christ’s own words. I’m sorry that’s not enough for you.

[terycarl]

Yeah, we all *know* that Catholics are better than everyone else. They tell us constantly.

while it is true that Catholics are better than everyone else...you are just a little paranoid about it.

[terycarl]

it is amazing that a person....maybe 50 years old, who has been an adult with adult reasoning for 30 or so years can suddenly become more knowledgeble than 2,000 years of church teachings....for a protestant to say, outright that a Catholic statement or belief is wrong is inane...without the Catholic Church there would be no bible in its current form....the Catholic church is not only scriptural, it is the ONLY scriptural authority on Earth....you cannot change scripture and then claim that you are right......you are WRONG........

[terycarl]

it is amazing that a person....maybe 50 years old, who has been an adult with adult reasoning for 30 or so years can suddenly become more knowledgeble than 2,000 years of church teachings....for a protestant to say, outright that a Catholic statement or belief is wrong is inane...without the Catholic Church there would be no bible in its current form....the Catholic church is not only scriptural, it is the ONLY scriptural authority on Earth....you cannot change scripture and then claim that you are right......you are WRONG........

[paladinan]

Terribly sorry for the delay, everyone; for some odd reason, FreeRepublic was loading only partial pages whenever I tried to read and/or post in the past few days (and I eventually left it alone for a bit, to catch up on "real life")--it'd stop loading in the middle of this-or-that random sentence, and never get near the post I wanted to address! (*sigh*) Ah, well... better late than never, I suppose.

metmom wrote, in reply to my comment:

What then is sola scriptura? The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

All right. Perhaps you (or someone else) might show where the Scriptures say THAT? I've heard several attempts, but all of them have fallen either into the "Scripture is good and necessary" (to which I don't object at all--of *course* it is!) category, or into the category of mistranslated Greek (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16, and some claims that the word "perfect" shows up... which it does not).

If Sola Scriptura were truly taught in the Bible, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to cite the Scripture verse(s)?

(I might also add: if Scripture *were* to cite itself as being all-sufficient, that would be what logicians would call a "circular argument"--i.e. a fallacy, without logical weight. The Qur'an also claims to be Scripture, as do the Buddhist Scriptures, the Bhagavad Gita, and other non-Christian works, after all. But that's an issue which could best be left alone for the moment.)

To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

With all due respect to Dr. James White (and yes, I've read a good deal of his material at Alpha-Omega Ministries, and elsewhere): he's making a provably false claim, here. For example:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.

No, it does not. In the least. It claims to be God-breathed (which it is), useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. (which it is), and necessary for equipping the apostle for his work (which it is). NOWHERE does it claim to be all-sufficient... and it would be a self-refuting claim, if it had.

The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement.

Yes, they are... and they say so, themselves (cf. John 21:25, 2 Peter 3:15-17, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, etc.). It's true that the FULL Scriptures (i.e. all 73 books... including the 7 books and parts of other books which Luther--mind-bogglingly--threw out, after 1000 years of their recognition and use as Sacred Scripture) contain all that is "materially" necessary for salvation, content-wise... but even that (full and complete Bible, rather than the maimed and incomplete Protestant piece of it) is not designed to work ALONE, as anyone can see easily; the Bible cannot interpret itself or apply itself to situations which the original writers did not foresee (e.g. what's the Biblical stance for or against human cloning?); we need an authoritative interpreter who can interpret needed doctrines infallibly, in order for it to work at all.

Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation.

That is quite true. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.

Their authority is not, per se; that is true. Their *interpretation*, and their application, and even their original compilation into one book (i.e. telling which books were "Biblical" and which were not), however, WERE (and are) dependent on the Church and Her Councils, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures are self-consistent,

Quite so.

self-interpreting,

This is nonsense (i.e. a logical impossibility), I'm afraid.

and self-authenticating.

This is also logically absurd; the fact that the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God proves nothing, per se... any more than I would "prove" anything by claiming to be the infallible emperor of the universe (and, being infallible, I couldn't possibly be *wrong* about being the infallible emperor of the universe!).

The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith

Correction: the Christians who follow the spiritual patrimony (and errors) of Luther believe thusly; the majority of Christians, including the original Church of Christ, do not.

and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Understood correctly, that is true.

[metmom]

Terribly sorry for the delay, everyone; for some odd reason, FreeRepublic was loading only partial pages whenever I tried to read and/or post in the past few days (and I eventually left it alone for a bit, to catch up on "real life")--it'd stop loading in the middle of this-or-that random sentence, and never get near the post I wanted to address! (*sigh*) Ah, well... better late than never, I suppose.

Yeah, that was happening to a lot of people. Freepathon time, you know.

I was advised to set my pagination, number of posts showing per page to 20 instead of 50 and it helped. I have set it back to 50 now.

If Sola Scriptura were truly taught in the Bible, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to cite the Scripture verse(s)?

That's been done, numerous times in the past and is rejected by Catholics every single time.

No, it does not. In the least. It claims to be God-breathed (which it is), useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. (which it is), and necessary for equipping the apostle for his work (which it is). NOWHERE does it claim to be all-sufficient... and it would be a self-refuting claim, if it had.

Yes it does, in 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit. Jesus used it against Satan in His temptation in the wilderness.

So, if the word of God is not complete, do tell us what is missing, how you know, and where to find it documented. What are the other sources that make it *complete*?

This is also logically absurd; the fact that the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God proves nothing, per se... any more than I would "prove" anything by claiming to be the infallible emperor of the universe (and, being infallible, I couldn't possibly be *wrong* about being the infallible emperor of the universe!).

OK, answer this question then. Is the Word of God TRUTH or not?

If it is the case that Scripture cannot be used to authenticate itself, then it certainly does not have the ability to authenticate the RCC. In which case, the RCC claims to infallibility and tradition, must also be held to that standard.

The RCC cannot then use its *sacred tradition* to support its use of sacred tradition.

[Melian]

I agree, wholeheartedly, terycarl!

[paladinan]

metmom,

:) Thank you for the tech update; I confess to being a bit out of the loop on such things!

Anyway... you wrote, in reply to my comment:

[paladinan]
If Sola Scriptura were truly taught in the Bible, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to cite the Scripture verse(s)?

[metmom] That's been done, numerous times in the past and is rejected by Catholics every single time.

Well... yes, but (at least in my case, and in several others) they/we also gave *reasons* why those citations were rejected as inadequate. You'd have to address those reasons, in order to make any headway.

[paladinan]
[Scripture] claims to be God-breathed (which it is), useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. (which it is), and necessary for equipping the apostle for his work (which it is). NOWHERE does it claim to be all-sufficient... and it would be a self-refuting claim, if it had.

[metmom]
Yes it does, in 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

I addressed that already, in a previous comment; nowhere does Scripture claim to be all-sufficient in those verses. The Greek simply doesn't say anything of the sort.

The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit.

Of course it is. But unless you find somewhwre 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?

Jesus used it against Satan in His temptation in the wilderness.

He did. That proves the necessity and value of the Scriptures (to which I already agreed--remember?). Now, your task is to prove that nothing else is necessary, in this (matter of salvific content/truth) regard.

So, if the word of God is not complete, do tell us what is missing, how you know, and where to find it documented.

Back up, a moment. I'll answer your question, but I'd like to point out a key point (no pun intended): "Sola Scriptura" made the original claim that "Scripture is all that is needed, and nothing else binds the Christian conscience" (or various permutations/variations of that--again, see this thread alone for some of those variations); moreover, sola-Scriptura adherents on this thread (and elsewhere) made the original claim that the Catholic Church is wrong in its inclusion of other elements which contain God's positive revelation (necessary for salvation). The original claimant is responsible for defending the claim, yes? It's hardly kosher to make a claim, and then dare anyone to disprove it without making your own claim solid, first! (E.g. "There's a magical invisible penguin in this room, and I dare anyone to prove that there isn't!")

As to your question, here are a few things which are missing from the Protestant (el al.) "sola" Bible:

the Book of Wisdom
the book of Sirach
the book of Baruch
the book of Tobit
the book of Judith
the book of 1 Maccabees
the book of 2 Maccabees
parts of the book of Esther
parts of the book of Daniel

...as well as:

an infallible interpreter of the Bible
an explanation of how the books of the Bible were chosen in the first place

...to name just a few. But again: before you address these (and I'd be thankful if you or someone *would* address them!), perhaps you could finish your proof that the Scriptures claim to be "all-sufficient" in content for salvation?

Do think about this: I (and those of like mind) do not say any of this in order to frustrate you (nor do I desire that). We say these things because sane reason demands that they be said. For instance:

1) 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.

2) If Scripture claims, even a million times, that Scripture is useful (and if it gives numerous examples of HOW it PROVED to be useful), then all that proves is that Scripture claims to be useful. Not even a billion such mentions would go further, and prove that Scripture claims to be "sufficient ALONE". Again: please don't fall into the nonsensical claim (as some anti-Catholic commenters do) that the Catholic Church "doesn't follow Scripture alone, therefore, they must not heed Scripture at ALL). Stuff and nonsense!

3) What is needed (to prove your case) is a clear, explicit, and unequivocal example of where Scripture claims to be all-sufficient ALONE. I really see no reference which does that. (And please look back at the link, above, before trying to recycle 2 Timothy 3, eh?)

What are the other sources that make it *complete*?

There are many ways to answer that, but here's one of the most brief:

The entirety of Divine Revelation is Jesus Christ, Who is the complete and full self-revelation of the Father (cf. John 14:9, Hebrews 1-2, etc.). When Protestants call the Bible the "Word of God", they're saying something true, but very incomplete; Jesus (and not the Book) is the true and full Word of God (cf. John 1:1), and no book--however holy and good and necessary and useful--could capture Him completely (and it explicitly says that it didn't even capture all Jesus *said and did* while on Earth, much less capture the fullness of His Divinity! cf. John 21:25). Therefore, everything which Jesus gave us (in terms of faith and morals--I don't refer to the bits of carpentry He may have given us while on Earth, etc.) is necessary for salvation. Right? And Jesus gave us at least three things: the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:13, etc.), His spoken Words *too many references to count easily), and a Church (cf. Matthew 16:18-20, Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.). It would be folly to ignore or throw away any of the above, and it would be equally unwise to assume that any one of those (save for the Holy Spirit, of course) can "do the job" ALONE.

[paladinan]
This is also logically absurd; the fact that the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God proves nothing, per se... any more than I would "prove" anything by claiming to be the infallible emperor of the universe (and, being infallible, I couldn't possibly be *wrong* about being the infallible emperor of the universe!).

[metmom]
OK, answer this question then. Is the Word of God TRUTH or not?

It is. It simply isn't the whole, complete truth (especially in the abridged, edited Protestant 66-book version!)... nor does it ever claim to be.

If it is the case that Scripture cannot be used to authenticate itself, then it certainly does not have the ability to authenticate the RCC.

Not ALONE, no... but the Church has never tried to use it alone (i.e. embraced the man-made error of Luther in that regard), anyway.

In which case, the RCC claims to infallibility and tradition, must also be held to that standard.

They must, indeed.

The RCC cannot then use its *sacred tradition* to support its use of sacred tradition.

Not ALONE, no. Do you see the difference, now?

[paladinan]

One other addendum on the 2 Timothy 3:16ff idea:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Greek actually claimed (and it doesn’t) Scripture is such that “the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly unto all good works”, as the flawed translation reads. Do you not notice that Scripture never claims to enact this “perfection” ALONE? If I say that one should “eat a good breakfast, that you might have an excellent day”, surely you see that other things are needed (e.g. a pleasant set of events for the rest of the day, a lack of bad events such as car breakdowns, etc.)? Call it pedantic, if you like... but if a claim is made and claims to be absolutely true, an airtight proof is needed.

[metmom]

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

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.

Of course it is. But unless you find somewhwre 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?

If it's truth, what more do you need? Is there any reference in Scripture to any other sword to be used spiritually? Where can I find it?

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.

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.

It is. It simply isn't the whole, complete truth (especially in the abridged, edited Protestant 66-book version!)... nor does it ever claim to be.

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

[paladinan]

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).

[metmom]

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.

[paladinan]

metmom... with all due respect, you’re lapsing (rather quickly) from sane reason into (forgive me) hyperventilating rhetoric. My point was that ANYONE, with as little logical basis as you’ve done here, can say virtually the same thing. It’s easy to start name-calling, and accuse your opponent of “not being Spirit-filled”, “not having saving faith”, “being blinded by arrogance, greed, mindless allegiance to Rome [or whatever], etc.”... and that’s all fluff (and sometimes rather rude and insulting fluff, depending on who’s saying it, and how—FWIW, you were NOT rude, by the way!).

Here are two of my key points:

1) Scripture does not (at any point) insist that it ALONE is the sole guide to faith, or the sole source of relevation, or anything of the sort. It doesn’t take faith (or a lack of faith) to see that, any more than it takes faith to see if I’ve ever used the word “onychophagy” in my posts before now. (Hint: I didn’t.) It’s a simple matter fo reading and comprehension (and a bit of knowledge of Greek... though an interlinear Greek Bible would do).

2) Saying that your opponent “will never get it, no matter what” (implying that I, and other Catholics, are exactly like the rich man in Luke 16—is there any chance you see how [unintentionally] arrogant that statement is?) is a fallacy known as “special pleading”; it implies that you have some sort of “secret knowledge” by which one can know the “enlightened” by finding those who happen to agree with you! I could just as easily say that your hidebound and stubborn desire to cling to Luther and his man-made traditions has blinded you to the plain sense of the Scriptures you seek to hold alone... and that, until you have a change of heart, you’ll never be able to grasp the truth.

How would you feel, if I said that? I have at least as much basis (i.e. not much) for saying that as you had for saying what you said.

No... if you have a point to make, you’ll need to defend it as I do (and as all reasonable people do): with sound reason and logic, and not with mere appeals to passion, emotion, and popularity.

[Seven_0]

So, you think we have a broken sword?

"THE NUMERICAL STRUCTURE OF SCRIPTURE: A SEAL UPON ITS PERFECT INSPIRATION, AND A DIVINELY GIVEN HELP TO ITS RIGHT INTERPRETATION. "

[paladinan]

Re: the supposed "introduction of the non-Protestant books by the Council of Trent", let me try to nip that canard in the bud:

1) Look up "septuagint", look up its dates of translation/composition, and then look up its table of contents (which I don't think you've done, yet, though I asked you to do so). You'll find that all seven non-Protestant books were there, included in the official lists of Scriptural books, as of the end of the 4th century A.D. See here for a link to a Protestant source which confirms this. (There are countless other references, if you'd like to dig them up; look up the documents of the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage.) That flatly refutes the silly claim that the books were somehow "added" at the Council of Trent. See #2.

2) The Council of Trent reinterated (i.e. repeated solemnly) the contents of the Bible; it was stating nothing new. It merely declared a solemn anathema (condemnation) against those (like Luther) who did not accept that 73-book canon as Scripture. The Church would never have bothered to repeat herself, had not Luther (et al.) stirred up controversy on the subject.

[paladinan]

Er... sorry, friend. I’m a mathematician, but I’m not into numerology (and other such superstition).