Total Posts:170|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

WCF CHAPTER I"Of the Holy Scripture

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:56:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.reformed.org...

1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Rom. 2:14"15, Rom. 1:19"20, Ps. 19:1"3, Rom. 1:32, Rom. 2:1) yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. (1 Cor. 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:13"14) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; (Heb. 1:1) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: (Prov. 22:19"21, Luke 1:3"4, Rom. 15:4, Matt. 4:4,7,10, Isa. 8:19"20) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; (2 Tim. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:19) those former ways of God"s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (Heb. 1:1"2)
2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these,

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis Ecclesiastes
Exodus The Song of Songs
Leviticus Isaiah
Numbers Jeremiah
Deuteronomy Lamentations
Joshua Ezekiel
Judges Daniel
Ruth Hosea
I. Samuel Joel
II. Samuel Amos
I. Kings Obadiah
II. Kings Jonah
I. Chronicles Micah
II. Chronicles Nahum
Ezra Habakkuk
Nehemiah Zephaniah
Esther Haggai
Job Zechariah
Psalms Malachi
Proverbs

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Gospels according to Thessalonians I
Matthew Thessalonians II
Mark To Timothy I
Luke To Timothy II
John To Titus
The Acts of the Apostles To Philemon
Paul"s Epistles to the Romans The Epistle to Hebrews
Corinthians I The Epistle of James
Corinthians II The first and second Epistles of Peter
Galatians The first, second and third Epistles of John
Ephesians The Epistle of Jude
Philippians The Revelation of John
Colossians

All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. (Luke 16:29, 31, Eph. 2:20, Rev. 22:18"19, 2 Tim. 3:16)
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Luke 24:27, 44, Rom. 3:2, 2 Pet. 1:21)
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13)
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man"s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13"14, 1 Cor. 2:10"12, Isa. 59:21)
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man"s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (2 Tim. 3:15"17, Gal. 1:8"9, 2 Thess. 2:2) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9"12) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1 Cor. 11:13"14, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40)
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: (2 Pet. 3:16) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Ps. 119:105, 130)
8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39, 46) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, (John 5:39) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11"12, 24, 27"28) that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; (Col. 3:16) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (Rom. 15:4)
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (2 Pet. 1:20"21, Acts 15:15"16)
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Matt. 22:29, 31, Eph. 2:20, Acts 28:25)
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:12:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Here WCF says that God is revealed in nature by 1) creation, and 2) providence in creation. This is evident enough to leave no man inexcusable of sin and unbelief. However, this revelation in nature (Reformed folk call this General Revelation) is not enough to bring one into salvation. So, God revealed Himself in 'divers manners' to man and perseves His revelation in scripture.

2. Lists the books of the OT and the NT. I think the Protestant cannon is probably the smallest.

3. The Apocrypha is not part of the cannon. It is to be regarded on the same level as other human works.

4. The authority of scripture comes not from man or church but from God. I think it would be fair to note that point four is not referring to the cannoning of scripture but specifically to its authority.

5. The whole of scripture is to give glory to God. We believe in scripture because of a work of the Holy Spirit.

6. Scripture is closed and nothing aught to be added unto it. There are general rules in the word to guide worship and governing of the church.

7. There are things unclear in scripture. Those things necessary for salvation are clear.

8. The OT & NT are inspired by God. It may be translated to the common language for the hope and worship of all people.

9. Scripture interprets scripture. Verses that are in question aught to be understood by other verses.

10. God, through scripture, is the supreme judge over all things controversial in religion, councils, doctrines of man, private spirits (?).

Well, that's it for ch.1.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:45:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That these books (the Apocrypha) have no right to a place in the canon is proved by the following facts: (a.) They never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed. (b.) None of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles. (c.) They were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers; and even in the Roman Church their authority was not accepted by the most learned and candid men until after it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent, late in the sixteenth century. (d.) The internal evidence presented by their contents disproves their claims. None of them make any claim to inspiration, while the best of them disclaim it. Some of them consist in childish fables, and inculcate bad morals.

Hodge, A. A. (1869). A commentary on the confession of faith: With questions for theological students and Bible Classes (54). Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 6:21:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:54:48 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
I like it.

Sweet. This chapter is accepted by most Christians bar Catholics so I don't expect much involvement here. But it is large by no means. Section 1 implies that we can trust reality and existance. It addresses the Apocypha and such which I wish a Catholic would comment on as I know little to nothing about it. I will give this a day or two before moving on to section 2 which discusses the Trinity.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 6:30:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:45:34 PM, joneszj wrote:
That these books (the Apocrypha) have no right to a place in the canon is proved by the following facts: (a.) They never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed. (b.) None of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles. (c.) They were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers; and even in the Roman Church their authority was not accepted by the most learned and candid men until after it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent, late in the sixteenth century. (d.) The internal evidence presented by their contents disproves their claims. None of them make any claim to inspiration, while the best of them disclaim it. Some of them consist in childish fables, and inculcate bad morals.

Hodge, A. A. (1869). A commentary on the confession of faith: With questions for theological students and Bible Classes (54). Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work.

The first Bible ever printed contained the Deuterocanonical books.."The Gutenberg Bible" contained Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six!
The first "King James Bible" contained Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six!
Martin Luther the first "de-Former" had Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six in his bible!

Deuterocanonical is a term used since the sixteenth century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the Hebrew Bible.

Apocrypha: The term apocrypha is used with various meanings, including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious", "of questionable authenticity", ancient Chinese "revealed texts and objects" and "Christian texts that are not canonical".

Clearly Seventy Three Books were considered canonical before the "de-formation" they were Deuterocanonical NOT Apocrypha before Protestants removed them!!! Protestants claim they are not "canonical" CHRISTIANS have always considered them "Inspired"!!

Dogknox
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 7:09:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 6:30:16 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:45:34 PM, joneszj wrote:
That these books (the Apocrypha) have no right to a place in the canon is proved by the following facts: (a.) They never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed. (b.) None of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles. (c.) They were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers; and even in the Roman Church their authority was not accepted by the most learned and candid men until after it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent, late in the sixteenth century. (d.) The internal evidence presented by their contents disproves their claims. None of them make any claim to inspiration, while the best of them disclaim it. Some of them consist in childish fables, and inculcate bad morals.

Hodge, A. A. (1869). A commentary on the confession of faith: With questions for theological students and Bible Classes (54). Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work.

The first Bible ever printed contained the Deuterocanonical books.."The Gutenberg Bible" contained Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six!
The first "King James Bible" contained Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six!
Martin Luther the first "de-Former" had Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six in his bible!

Deuterocanonical is a term used since the sixteenth century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the Hebrew Bible.

Apocrypha: The term apocrypha is used with various meanings, including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious", "of questionable authenticity", ancient Chinese "revealed texts and objects" and "Christian texts that are not canonical".

They are not canonical?

Clearly Seventy Three Books were considered canonical before the "de-formation" they were Deuterocanonical NOT Apocrypha before Protestants removed them!!! Protestants claim they are not "canonical" CHRISTIANS have always considered them "Inspired"!!

Dogknox

So you are saying the Apocrypha is not canonical according to Catholics?

The reasons Protestants removed them is no because they were bad in anyway. They removed them because they don't view them as inspired. Do Catholics keep them in their canon for any reason other than they were in previous texts?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 7:31:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 7:09:58 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/9/2012 6:30:16 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:45:34 PM, joneszj wrote:
That these books (the Apocrypha) have no right to a place in the canon is proved by the following facts: (a.) They never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed. (b.) None of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles. (c.) They were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers; and even in the Roman Church their authority was not accepted by the most learned and candid men until after it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent, late in the sixteenth century. (d.) The internal evidence presented by their contents disproves their claims. None of them make any claim to inspiration, while the best of them disclaim it. Some of them consist in childish fables, and inculcate bad morals.

Hodge, A. A. (1869). A commentary on the confession of faith: With questions for theological students and Bible Classes (54). Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work.

The first Bible ever printed contained the Deuterocanonical books.."The Gutenberg Bible" contained Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six!
The first "King James Bible" contained Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six!
Martin Luther the first "de-Former" had Seventy Three Books (73) not sixty six in his bible!

Deuterocanonical is a term used since the sixteenth century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the Hebrew Bible.

Apocrypha: The term apocrypha is used with various meanings, including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious", "of questionable authenticity", ancient Chinese "revealed texts and objects" and "Christian texts that are not canonical".

They are not canonical?

Clearly Seventy Three Books were considered canonical before the "de-formation" they were Deuterocanonical NOT Apocrypha before Protestants removed them!!! Protestants claim they are not "canonical" CHRISTIANS have always considered them "Inspired"!!

Dogknox

So you are saying the Apocrypha is not canonical according to Catholics?

The reasons Protestants removed them is no because they were bad in anyway. They removed them because they don't view them as inspired. Do Catholics keep them in their canon for any reason other than they were in previous texts?
The Catholic Church closed the Canon in 400 A.D. it contained the Deuterocanonical books 73 books! The Bible has ALWAYS held the 73 books right up to today!! Protestants took them out of the bible, your bible contains 66 books because you removed books! Then you called the books you removed "Apocrypha" meaning Non-CANON!

joneszj Protestants took them out because IN THEM the Deuterocanonical books speak about; "the Jews expecting Resurrection from the dead!!"
They also contain; Jews praying for their dead!!!

HISTORY goes like this.. The Jews in the first century were losing lots of people to the Christians.. SO..
So they had a Council to see what they could do to FIGHT AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS!! They decided to use manuscripts that did not speak about the Resurrection! The Protestants use the manuscripts decided on by Jews fighting against CHRISTIANS!!

The first-century Christians--including Jesus and the apostles--considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books.

The Bible is INSPIRED words of God!
The Bible contains 73 books it has always contained 73 books!

Your man made bible is not complete it lacks inspired books!

Dogknox
Dogknox
Posts: 5,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 11:34:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
9. Scripture interprets scripture. Verses that are in question aught to be understood by other verses.
joneszj
I THINK NOT!!
Scripture CANNOT interpret scripture!!
One Protestant interprets scripture, "CAN LOSE SALVATION"!
Another Protestant interprets scriptures, "CANNOT LOSE SALVATION"!
Both got their interpretations from the same bible!!!
Both got their interpretations from interpreting the scriptures!

Yes: Scriptures are used to interpret other scriptures but the CHURCH is the final authority of the interpretation, not other scriptures!!!

One Protestant says "Grape Juice" another says wine!
One says "The bread holds Jesus" the other says "it is just ordinary bread!"
One says "Saturday worship" another says "Sunday" all from the same bible!
One says; "Jesus is God" another says "Jesus is only second to God" and another say "Jesus is Satan' brother" all from the scriptures!!!
joneszj One believes the; "Trinity and others do not" all from the same scriptures you read!

Scripture interprets scripture is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house; Chaos!!

The FACT there are the thousands and thousands of protestant man made churches PROVES scriptures do NOT interpret the scriptures!

CHURCH interprets the scriptures!!!
Church uses the scriptures to; "Teach, Train, Rebuke and to Correct!"
Scriptures do NOT "Teach, Train, Rebuke and Correct; Church does!"

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

DO YOU SEE IT?? Scriptures are "USEFUL" they are not alone used!
CHURCH TEACHES..Church uses the scriptures, the scriptures are useful!!

joneszj Books can't teach, teachers teach!!!!
Read a Math Text book, never attend one class, never listen to the teacher, "TEACH YOURSELF from the book" guaranteed when the exam comes along you will FAIL the Math exam!!!
You can't teach yourself and KNOW that you are learning is the truth!!!

The Great Commission
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations..

The Holy Catholic Church TAUGHT the world; "Jesus and Salvation" for the first Seventeen Hundred years!

joneszj There were very few bibles! Bibles were costly works of art.. only the very rich could own a bible.. Besides all that: MOST PEOPLE could not read!!!

joneszj CHURCH TAUGHT the Peoples..Church interprets the scriptures!
The scriptures did NOT interpreted other scriptures, they were interpreted by the CHURCH!!! She used other scriptures, the other scriptures were USEFUL, but they were NOT ALONE USED!

Scriptures say: "Church is the Pillar and the foundation of truth!"
NO SCRIPTURES say: "Scriptures interpret scriptures!"

IT SHOULD READ.. 9. Church interprets scripture. Verses that are in question; The Church uses other verses to interpret these.

Making a statement as your "confession" does PROVES it is untrustworthy!

FACT IS: It can't defend its own statements by the scriptures!!!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 1:32:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:45:34 PM, joneszj wrote:
That these books (the Apocrypha) have no right to a place in the canon is proved by the following facts: (a.) They never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed. (b.) None of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles.

Umm, Christ didn't quote from every Old Testament scripture that ever was. However, there are several references in the New Testament to the Deuterocanon.

(c.) They were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers; and even in the Roman Church their authority was not accepted by the most learned and candid men until after it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent, late in the sixteenth century.

There was always confusion regarding the canon by the early Fathers. I highly doubt you'll be able to find an early Father who endorsed the Protestant canon.

You can try, if you want. I'm just pretty sure you won't succeed.

(d.) The internal evidence presented by their contents disproves their claims. None of them make any claim to inspiration, while the best of them disclaim it. Some of them consist in childish fables, and inculcate bad morals.

lol, elaborate.

Apocrypha =/= Deuterocanon, at least not if you're talking to a Catholic.

The Deuterocanon is canonical, (DeuteroCANON), while I don't believe Apocrypha is inspired.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 3:24:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some additional information:

"For the prophet speaks against Israel, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us'[Wisdom 2:12]." - Epistle of Barnabas

"By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. 'Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? Or, who shall resist the power of His strength?'[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22]" - St. Clement to the Corinthians

"Do not waver in your decision. 'Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving' [Sirach 4:31]." - Didache

These are all 1st century writings.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 4:40:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 1:32:48 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
However, there are several references in the New Testament to the Deuterocanon.:
Provide those scriptures and references, please.

There was always confusion regarding the canon by the early Fathers. I highly doubt you'll be able to find an early Father who endorsed the Protestant canon.:
How early?

The Deuterocanon is canonical, (DeuteroCANON), while I don't believe Apocrypha is inspired.:
The deuterocanon is the second canon and was never included at first. The Hebrew Bible does consider them canon nor do protestant's. The reason is because they included texts not deemed fit to speak in teaching within the Jewish community and the Protestant's followed this course. The Hebrew and Protestant canon's are virually identical. The Apocrypha is not canon to no one but a few Catholic sects.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 5:00:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 4:40:37 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Provide those scriptures and references, please.

Don't wait on them. It'll take some time.

How early?

Early early. Fourth century or before. Try for first century, if possible.

The deuterocanon is the second canon and was never included at first. The Hebrew Bible does consider them canon nor do protestant's. The reason is because they included texts not deemed fit to speak in teaching within the Jewish community and the Protestant's followed this course. The Hebrew and Protestant canon's are virually identical. The Apocrypha is not canon to no one but a few Catholic sects.

You do realize that more Christians on earth accept the Deuterocanon than reject it, right?

Roman Catholics alone account for half of all Christians, and when you add in the Orthodox Catholic Churches, you're looking at a goodly percentage.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 5:30:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Blatant References to the Deuterocanon in the New Testament - Adapted by AlwaysMoreThanYou

----------

"John, to the seven churches in Asia: grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne," - Revelation 1:4

"I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord." - Tobit 12:15

----------

"So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate," - Ephesians 6:14

"He shall don justice for a breastplate and shall wear sure judgment for a helmet;" - Wisdom 5:18

----------

"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation resulting in knowledge of him." - Ephesians 1:17

"Therefore I prayed, and prudence was given me; I pleaded and the spirit of Wisdom came to me." - Wisdom 7:7

----------

"I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea," - 1 Corinthians 10:1

"The cloud overshadowed their camp; and out of what had before been water, dry land was seen emerging: Out of the Red Sea an unimpeded road, and a grassy plain out of the mighty flood." - Wisdom 19:7

----------

"No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons." - 1 Corinthians 10:20

"For you provoked your Maker with sacrifices to demons, to no-gods;" - Baruch 4:7

----------

"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?" - Romans 9:21

"For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge." - Wisdom 15:7

----------

"where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'" - Mark 9:48

"Woe to the nations that rise against my people! the Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgment he will punish them: He will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever." - Judith 16:17

----------

I could go on and on with these.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 5:46:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 11:34:47 PM, Dogknox wrote:
One says "The bread holds Jesus" the other says "it is just ordinary bread!"

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: %0 years in the catholic church priest Charles Chiniquay confirmed its just ordinary bread at every stage of the Pagan ritual!

For the Roman Catholic child, how beautiful and yet how sad is the day of his first communion! How many joys and anxieties by turn rise in his soul when for the first time he is about to eat what he has been taught to believe to be his God! How many efforts has he to make, in order to destroy the manifest teachings of his own rational faculties! I confess with deep regret that I had almost destroyed my reason, in order to prepare myself for my first communion. Yes, I was almost exhausted when the day came that I had to eat what the priest has assured us was the true body, the true blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I was about to eat Him, not in a symbolical or commemorative, but in a literal way. I was to eat His flesh, His bones, His hands, His feet, His head, His whole body! I had to believe this or be cast for ever into hell, while, all the time, my eyes, my hands, my mouth, my tongue, my reason told me that what I was eating was only bread! (Bold by Composer) (Source: 50 years in the church of Rome - Charles Chiniquay)

Your only literal Saviour moi!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 5:55:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 5:00:32 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Roman Catholics alone account for half of all Christians, and when you add in the Orthodox Catholic Churches, you're looking at a goodly percentage.

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Hey dimwit!

IF you actually took heed of your Story book you would know that your statement only confirms you are bound for utter destruction - (Matt. 7:13-14) RSV catholic Story book 1966 edition!

You remain busted by moi, then busted by your own statement!

LOL!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 5:59:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 5:55:12 AM, Composer wrote:
LOL!

I will not derail the thread.

I will not derail the thread.

I will not derail the- OH SCREW IT

Not only are you making another heretical private interpretation, but you really need to contort that to make it condemning.

By the way, have you justified your arguments from silence yet? I'm waiting...
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 6:21:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 6:21:03 PM, joneszj wrote:
Sweet. This chapter is accepted by most Christians bar Catholics so I don't expect much involvement here. But it is large by no means. Section 1 implies that we can trust reality and existance. It addresses the Apocypha and such which I wish a Catholic would comment on as I know little to nothing about it.

If you know little to nothing about it, on what grounds to you reject it?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 6:46:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 6:21:34 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/9/2012 6:21:03 PM, joneszj wrote:
Sweet. This chapter is accepted by most Christians bar Catholics so I don't expect much involvement here. But it is large by no means. Section 1 implies that we can trust reality and existence. It addresses the Apocrypha and such which I wish a Catholic would comment on as I know little to nothing about it.

If you know little to nothing about it, on what grounds to you reject it?

Well I knew it was not in the Hebrew canon. I never had any reason to question the NT. However, I have no reason to endorse the apocrypha as scripture. I would ask 'why would it be?' and subject the apocrypha to the same standard that was generally used for the NT:
1) Apostolic Origin " attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2) Universal Acceptance " acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).
3) Liturgical Use " read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4) Consistent Message " containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
(that was from wiki but it basically says what I was thinking)

I suppose, any text that is outside the Hebrew canon would have to go through this check before I could consider it canonical. I am aware some NT books like Hebrews has a questionable origin and such but it does not bother me.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 6:50:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 5:30:38 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

----------

"John, to the seven churches in Asia: grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne," - Revelation 1:4

"I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord." - Tobit 12:15

Those are the seven spirits of God, not angels???? Revelation 5:6
"I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent out into all the earth."
----------

"So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate," - Ephesians 6:14

"He shall don justice for a breastplate and shall wear sure judgment for a helmet;" - Wisdom 5:18

Truth to justice? Exodus 28:15
"You shall make a breastplate of judgment, the work of the skillful workman; like the work of the ephod you shall make it; of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, shall you make it."

Isaiah 59:17
"He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; and he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a mantle."
----------

"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation resulting in knowledge of him." - Ephesians 1:17

"Therefore I prayed, and prudence was given me; I pleaded and the spirit of Wisdom came to me." - Wisdom 7:7

Isaiah 11:2
"The spirit of Yahweh shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh."
----------

"I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea," - 1 Corinthians 10:1

"The cloud overshadowed their camp; and out of what had before been water, dry land was seen emerging: Out of the Red Sea an unimpeded road, and a grassy plain out of the mighty flood." - Wisdom 19:7

1 Kings 18:44
"It happened at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there arises a cloud out of the sea, as small as a man's hand. He said, Go up, tell Ahab, Make ready your chariot, and get you down, that the rain not stop you."
----------

"No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons." - 1 Corinthians 10:20

"For you provoked your Maker with sacrifices to demons, to no-gods;" - Baruch 4:7

Deuteronomy 32:17
"They sacrificed to demons, which were no god, To gods that they didn't know, To new gods that came up of late, Which your fathers didn't dread."
----------

"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?" - Romans 9:21

"For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge." - Wisdom 15:7

Isaiah 29:16
"You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him who made it, He didn't make me; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, He has no understanding?"
----------

"where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'" - Mark 9:48

"Woe to the nations that rise against my people! the Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgment he will punish them: He will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever." - Judith 16:17

Isaiah 66:24
"They shall go forth, and look on the dead bodies of the men who have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring to all flesh."
----------
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 6:51:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 6:46:50 AM, joneszj wrote:
Well I knew it was not in the Hebrew canon. I never had any reason to question the NT. However, I have no reason to endorse the apocrypha as scripture. I would ask 'why would it be?' and subject the apocrypha to the same standard that was generally used for the NT:
1) Apostolic Origin " attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

The Deuterocanon predates the first generation apostles, so it would not be based on them.

2) Universal Acceptance " acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).

The Deuterocanon was widely acknowledged by the end of the fourth century.

3) Liturgical Use " read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

What standard of evidence would you require for this?

4) Consistent Message " containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

I don't see any obvious issues with the Deuterocanon.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 7:01:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 6:51:10 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/10/2012 6:46:50 AM, joneszj wrote:
Well I knew it was not in the Hebrew canon. I never had any reason to question the NT. However, I have no reason to endorse the apocrypha as scripture. I would ask 'why would it be?' and subject the apocrypha to the same standard that was generally used for the NT:
1) Apostolic Origin " attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

The Deuterocanon predates the first generation apostles, so it would not be based on them.

Then on what basis would I endorse them? They were not accepted by the Hebrews; not written by the apostles or Christ. I do not see the early church fathers as being due cause to consider them scripture if that is what you would say.

2) Universal Acceptance " acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).

The Deuterocanon was widely acknowledged by the end of the fourth century.

I understand. But so were other spurious texts. I think there was one about a shepherd or a hermit or something. But that is in neither.

3) Liturgical Use " read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

What standard of evidence would you require for this?

Not sure, it is not a point I would have mentioned if left to myself. This could mean a lot of things but I am no expert in church history.

4) Consistent Message " containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

I don't see any obvious issues with the Deuterocanon.

Hmmm... I am not going to start a scripture war in this thread (please start a different thread if you want to) but there apparently are some that a quick Google search could elaborate on.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 8:45:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 7:01:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
Then on what basis would I endorse them? They were not accepted by the Hebrews; not written by the apostles or Christ. I do not see the early church fathers as being due cause to consider them scripture if that is what you would say.

The Deuterocanon was part of the septuagint, used by the Apostles as well as Jesus.

I have no source, I'm not even sure if this is true. Please stand by.

I understand. But so were other spurious texts. I think there was one about a shepherd or a hermit or something. But that is in neither.

Then why did you even make this a criterion?

Not sure, it is not a point I would have mentioned if left to myself. This could mean a lot of things but I am no expert in church history.

Mkay.

Hmmm... I am not going to start a scripture war in this thread (please start a different thread if you want to) but there apparently are some that a quick Google search could elaborate on.

If all you wanted was a bunch of Calvinists to mutually reaffirm their beliefs, I can leave.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 8:50:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I ignored many, so I suppose I'll have to draw out another huge list sometime soon.

At 10/10/2012 6:50:54 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
Those are the seven spirits of God, not angels???? Revelation 5:6
"I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent out into all the earth."

What do you suppose is the difference between a spirit and an angel? Seven. Seven. Seven.

1 Kings 18:44
"It happened at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there arises a cloud out of the sea, as small as a man's hand. He said, Go up, tell Ahab, Make ready your chariot, and get you down, that the rain not stop you."

You don't take chariots through the sea, do you? The Wisdom passage seems more accurate.

Isaiah 29:16
"You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him who made it, He didn't make me; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, He has no understanding?"

The Isaiah passage is not equivalent to the Wisdom one. The Wisdom passage, along with the passage from Romans, says the potter has power over the clay to make it whatever he desires.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 9:49:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 8:45:21 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/10/2012 7:01:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
Then on what basis would I endorse them? They were not accepted by the Hebrews; not written by the apostles or Christ. I do not see the early church fathers as being due cause to consider them scripture if that is what you would say.

The Deuterocanon was part of the septuagint, used by the Apostles as well as Jesus.

I have no source, I'm not even sure if this is true. Please stand by.

I think you are correct. However, that does not make it scripture. I think CARM has an interesting article on this. http://carm.org...
It mentions two references of Jesus not including the apocrypha when referencing the OT.

I understand. But so were other spurious texts. I think there was one about a shepherd or a hermit or something. But that is in neither.

Then why did you even make this a criterion?

To prevent things that did not meet criterion 1 but did meet criterion 2 to not be apart of the canon.

Not sure, it is not a point I would have mentioned if left to myself. This could mean a lot of things but I am no expert in church history.

Mkay.

Hmmm... I am not going to start a scripture war in this thread (please start a different thread if you want to) but there apparently are some that a quick Google search could elaborate on.

If all you wanted was a bunch of Calvinists to mutually reaffirm their beliefs, I can leave.

I think your reading me the wrong way. I just don't feel like citing verses to be responded by reciting verses 'while I'm at work'. Maybe later but I have practice tonight.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 9:56:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 9:49:37 AM, joneszj wrote:
I think you are correct. However, that does not make it scripture. I think CARM has an interesting article on this. http://carm.org...

Well, what does make something scripture?

It mentions two references of Jesus not including the apocrypha when referencing the OT.

We'll see.

To prevent things that did not meet criterion 1 but did meet criterion 2 to not be apart of the canon.

So you agree this criterion is met?

I think your reading me the wrong way. I just don't feel like citing verses to be responded by reciting verses 'while I'm at work'. Maybe later but I have practice tonight.

Sorry. That was unnecessarily uncharitable.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 10:11:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Matt Slick, lol. He's a character. I vaguely feel like you've already made up your mind against the Deuterocanon, so now you're looking for ways to refute it.

http://carm.org...

"Not quoted in the New Testament"

The Jewish canon wasn't closed until after Jesus' death, at which point they rejected both the Deuterocanon and the New Testament. Hebrew was a dead language at the time, so most Jews used the Greek Septuagint, Deuterocanon and all. This was only rejected when the canon was closed, which was long after the start of Christianity.

So to accept the Jews were entrusted with the final judgement on whether or not something is canonical is to reject the New Testament, which was deemed not worthy of inclusion in the canon.

"Jesus' references the Old Testament: from Abel to Zechariah"

Slicky is grasping at straws, and not doing a tremendous job at even that. There was no uniform Septuagint order and Zechariah was definitely not the last martyr, as John the Baptist was martyred well after him.

"Jesus references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms"

I have no idea what sort of argument this is even supposed to refute.

"Church Fathers"

Yes, there was no unanimous consensus until after the canon was established. However, many Deuterocanonical books were treated as canon.

And certainly, the Protestant canon was never considered.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13