Skip to comments.Book Review: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura
Posted on 07/03/2012 9:31:36 AM PDT by Teůfilo
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 dont 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.
Lets 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. Its 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 Daves work? This is a senseless question because the zombie is already dead. Its 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 Armstrongs 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.
God is not the God of the dead. Therefore the saints are alive. If you asked your friends to pray for you it would be no different than asking that of say, Saint Augustine. And as for Mary we have Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the 2nd century to thank for ending the heresy that Jesus is not God. And since he is God then Mary is the Mother of God. Jesus is True God and true man. Saint Mary is alive just like the rest of the saints in heaven and we can ask her to pray for us. I don’t know what you believe but it’s probably more in agreement with the Catholic Church than you think.
“And how do you know whats authentic Scripture and what isnt? How do you know the Bible is Gods word?”
How do you know the pope is infallible?
.....gazillion and 327.... and lebenteen......... “whew, lots of angels there let me tell you’.
I have the Church to help me with those questions.
Now — what about you? Who’s your authority? How do you know? Are you your own infallible pope?
very good on you...
you analyzed me correctly
I don’t like this religion by committee nonsense so i must be “ ..happy and emotionally secure clinging to the dogma of _sola scriptura ..”
I remmber when Jesus talked about _sola scriptura and said “do this paperwork in memory of me”
Your problem is this: you don’t know what the Bible says.
Scripture tells us there is ONE mediator between God and men and His name is Jesus Christ. Prayers uttered dead men, even “saints,” are no more useful than praying to a stump. Christ and Christ alone is THE mediator. You don’t know that all of your “saints” are even in heaven.
And where did you get your Bible from?
Protestants often ignore the fact that the 10 Commandments are stated twice in the Bible, the first time in Exodus 20 and again in Deuteronomy 5. The Catholic Church in its enumeration, ensures that both are faithfully expressed.
Note, Catholics do not worship anything other than God. The prohibition against "graven images" in both Exodus and Deuteronomy, is not an absolute prohibition of religious art, but against objects believed to possess some divine powers unto themselves. Like the Old Testament instructions to decorate the Temple, statues of the saints and Mary are only images to glorify God help focus our minds on God. They are not objects of worship.
Peace be with you.
The Roman "church" was not invented until 325 CE. Paul and all the Apostles were Messianic Jews. Yah'shua was/is and will always be a Jew ! They were speaking of Jewish Traditions.
Was Rav Sha'ul (Paul) preaching about the shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Pagan Traditions of the Roman "church" ?
The Roman "church" was not invented until 325 CE.
Paul and all the Apostles were Messianic Jews.
Yah'shua was/is and will always be a Jew !
They were speaking of Jewish Traditions.
So to critique evil I must read what is evil? So to critique pornography I must view it first?
So I must put my head in a cement mixer first so I can report back to others how dangerous this is?
I’ll bet I can find at least 100 scriptural reasons why sola scriptura is the way to go but then I would be accused of semantic sculpturing to prove my point!
Technically our church's take on theology is a bit different from the later churches because, for one, Paul was still the enemy!
And that's a good thing ~ you can just imagine how many disputes are eliminated if you don't have to take Paul at his word, but simply as another advisor.
BTW, that first century thing was just an ambition. You really have to move on in your thinking into the second century ~ else you get those folks Paul warned against.
Let's begin with beethovenfan's question: "What about the zombie-dogma that Peter was the first pope?"
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peters faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christs flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peters preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was thataside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abrams name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacobs to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakims to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youthsDaniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Now, let's expound on Cobra's statement: "He would found His Church on Peter's confession that Jesus was the Son of God".
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the cityan honor that exists even today, though its import is lostmeant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simons new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church."
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peters profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peters profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
For some reason people want to overlook that.
All art is symbolic representation. One person prays the rosary; another reads Bible verses. A blind man listens. A deaf man sees.
If you insist that Peter was the first pope, and that Jesus established a hierarchy of popes, cardinals, priests, etc., how do you deal with the historical fact that some of the popes were evil men and could hardly be called “vicars of Christ”?
If one claims that the Bible alone is the rule of faith, then the Bible itself should contain an assertion that it is itself the rule of faith.
This is similar to the Unitarian argument that Trinitarianism is false doctrine because the bible never uses the word Trinitarian.(The bible never uses the word Unitarian either.)
For some reason people want to overlook that.
It's about being grafted into the true vine.
Amen ! shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
It's about being grafted into the true vine.
Says the guy who worships a man with a funny hat and eats magic crackers and drinks magic wine.
2 Thessalonians 2:15: . . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
We are supposed to hold to Apostolic tradition that we have been taught by word or letter. That's easy to do.
For some reason, the Catholics twist the the idea of Apostolic tradition to mean that tradition is oral. The previous verse clearly states that Apostolic tradition was spoken and was written. The Apostolic epistles are a settled matter. The Bible commands us to teach and to preach. The measure of an Apostolic tradition is how well it lines up with scripture. There is no other sure footing.
2 Thessalonians 3:6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
From the first verse, we know that Apostolic tradition was spoken and was written. The church received the tradition from the Apostles in word and epistle. The written traditions are clearly Apostolic. The oral tradition must be in accord with scripture or it has little value.
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.