.jpg)
Posted on 07/03/2012 9:31:36 AM PDT by Teófilo
Another nail in the coffin of the foundational Protestant dogma
Sola scriptura is dead, or at least is undead, a zombie still stalking the darkened hallways of Protestantism. Many well-meaning Protestant Christians don’t see the zombie-dogma for what it is; instead, they choose to see it as a being of light. My friend Dave Armstrong has returned to blow the old decrepit sola scriptura monsters one at a time in his latest work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura.
Let’s recall the definition of the sola scriptura dogma – yes, it is a dogma – as understood by Norman Geisler, a recognized Protestant authority Dave quotes in his work:
By sola scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)… (p.16)Geisler, and other authorities Dave quotes, further explain that other authorities exist, but that these are of secondary importance. Geisler also defends what he calls the perspicuity of Holy Writ, which means that anyone can understand the basic truths of Scripture: the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things, Geisler states. (p.17). As a true analyst, Dave separated the sola scriptura dogma into its constituents claims, found out its contents, examined its individual parts, and studied the structure of sola scriptura as whole. He found them defective and insufficient to expound and explain the full spectrum of Christian claims.
Dave kills the sola scriptura zombie by selecting 100 verses from Scripture contradicting this central Protestant claim. I guess he selected 100 verses because the number “100” gives the reader a sense of exhaustive answer and completion, not because there are only 100 verses that should make all sincere Protestant Christian at least uncomfortable with the teaching. In fact, Dave is the author of another related work, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?, which is useful if you need another 401 arguments to kill the sola scriptura zombie dead.
100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. is a distillation of the 501 Biblical Arguments… in a more manageable, less overwhelming fashion for the beginning reader. It’s 133 pages in length and divided into two parts. In Part 1 Dave discusses the binding authority of Tradition, as substantiated in Scripture, and in Part 2 he discusses the binding authority of the Church, again from Scripture. The result must be uncontestable to the sincere Protestant Christian as well as eye opening to the full range of deeds and wonders the Incarnation of the Word of God brought to history.Will the sola scriptura zombie really die after Dave’s work? This is a senseless question because the zombie is already dead. It’s kept ambulating by strings pulled from the most diehard of its followers. Those strings must be cut by the individual, sincere Protestant Christian himself. Dave Armstrong’s work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. not only blows the zombie of sola scriptura away, he also provides the truth-searcher with the scissors to cut off the strings.
I match everything against scripture. If someone says something that goes against scripture, then he is a false prophet. If it isn’t scripture, I take it with a grain of salt as coming from a man.
My church has always tought me, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Read my bible and don’t count on a man to guide me.
Far too much dogma has com from the rcc to treat it as a credible source for salvation. Praying too anyone but God is idol worship. There is no biblical reference to purgatory. It was a money making scheme.
When you are dead, that’s it you can’t skirt the line and count on purgatory too still get you in. purgatory is the rcc’s biggest sin.
“Now — what about you? Who’s your authority? How do you know? Are you your own infallible pope?”
I trust my understanding of Scripture over the opinions of some Zyklon B sales rep or a member of the Hitler Youth. With confidence I guarantee you I have spent more time studying the Bible than the last five popes combined. Sometime you ought to look up a former priest, even those with a high level of education, and ask him how much time he spent being taught the Bible. His answer will shock you. My teens have spent more time in pure bible study than many priests.
And yes, there have been evil popes. Being pope does not make you infallible. All humans, with the exception of Christ and His Holy Mother of course, are sinful.
The fact that Catholic human leaders have behaved like humans is hardly unbelievable. It would be far more unbelievable to claim that being a clergyman makes you sinless.
Then Christianity crumbles from failure of its own structure.
Whatever the limits of the Truth, it must be self-consistent within; by definition and its own teaching, anything not consistent with the Truth isn't.
Tradition has proven itself inconsistent too often to be presumed correct from mere declaratory inclusion. That leaves Scripture as the only well-delineated bastion of Truth, whether or additional truth is contained therein. If inconsistencies - real ones, not perceived as such by sinful flawed minds - are found, they must be excised. The exercise has left us with the book we have; should more be removed, we have but dust left.
Then why aren’t you a muslim or a mormon?
.........
Come to think of it, Europe is being overrun with Muslims while the protestants there have all but disappeared. The USA is about to switch its president from a former muslim to a current mormon.
And you going after 500 year old doctrine from Calvinists who are in a distinct minority in the USA. Who agree with Romans on most political issues and most of the big theological questions like unitarianism vs trinitarianism. Who recite like Romans the Nicean creed.
Presumably you wouldn’t dare attack Jews who hold to their own tradition and their own opinion about the nature of Jesus—primarily because they don’t believe in the NT.
But even setting the Jews aside don’t you have better fish to fry? Certainly attacking protestants, evangelicals and calvinists won’t increase your standing. It just makes you look weak because everyone but everyone knows the threats from outside Christianity in general and the Roman church in particular—especially the threats posed by muslims & atheists externally and arians internally—are far more severe than those posed by protestants.
Then how do you explains relics?
Or, it may be a sign of humor-deprivation on the part of some readers.
+JMJ,
-Theo
Poeple may follow what ever prophet/vicar/synod/temple etc but as for myself I will try to follow Testament of Jesus Christ.
” Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people “ Jude
We’re not claiming anything not in scripture is wrong. That’s absurd.
We’re claiming scripture is true, and defines truth.
We’re also observing that just because something declares itself true doesn’t make it so.
We’re also observing that something which contradicts scripture is, by definition, false.
The Apostolic letters contain a written record of Apostolic tradition directly from the source.
If something contradicts scripture, it is clearly against Apostolic tradition.
If something isn't contained in scripture, it's value is indeterminate.
I'll stick with the promises and commands of definitive Apostolic tradition, rather then hearsay, inspiration, or revelation of dubious value.
Your assumption is that Dave's book is in fact, "evil" when it isn't. It's a good book, well-reasoned, and well-researched, authored by a very humble, unassuming man.
You won't read it because you are afraid of it.
+JMJ,
-Theo
Agreed. That’s a key, and oft overlooked, point. If “Purgatory” is true, then you can just chuck the whole book, crucifixion, etc. because Heaven is just a rinse cycle away.
Mary was a sinner saved by grace, just like me.
Sola Scriptura? Scripture Alone?
Which by the way, isn't contained in the Bible.
Fine by me! Go back to read Jack Chick crap. Happy reading.
+JMJ,
-Theo
I’ve seen too many Protestant-bashing posts here on FR which issue comparable insults in earnest.
I’d have taken the “zombie” comment as humor, but for the frequency of its use in just a few introductory paragraphs. A slap on the back may be friendly; a slap on the back, face, chest, rear, shins, etc. in the space of a few breaths is not.
I don’t think Jack Chick wrote any part of Scripture.
You’re gonna have to help me out here.
Where in scripture does it say unwritten Apostolic teaching is subordinate to written teaching?
Show me a promise or show me a command.
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Nothing about writing there.
Way to miss the point.
Scripture is sufficient and complete. There is not more waiting to be revealed.
If something contradicts scripture, it is wrong.
If something adheres with scripture, it is right.
If something neither contradicts nor adheres to scripture, it ... just is.
To reject Sola Scriptura is to set the Bible aside, give God with a puzzled look, and say “ok...now what?”
BTW: if you _do_ wish to open things up to the notion of post-scriptural revelation, best you adhere to the enumerated rules for identifying and disposing of false prophets. ...which, methinks, you don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.