Replies

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2012/06/heresy-of-protestantism.html

Sola Scriptura is Latin for “Scripture Alone,” and what that means has been interpreted a little differently by different Protestants throughout the ages. After all is said and done though, the final definition is what many Protestants today think it means. That is simply this. If a Christian teaching cannot be found written plainly in the black and white pages of the Bible, then it need not be believed or accepted by Christians. Furthermore, Christians themselves have the authority to interpret the Scriptures for themselves without need of any authority outside of Scripture. Now some Protestants take this principle more seriously than others. Some take it more literally than others, but at the end of the day, all of them embrace this principle in some form. Therein lies the problem.

Now I could waste a lot of space here disproving the principle doctrine of Protestantism — Sola Scriptura — but alas I’ve done it before, and many others have done it too. So it will just have to suffice to say that Sola Scriptura is both un-Biblical and illogical. The doctrine can nowhere be found in the Bible, therefore based on its own premise, it disproves itself. Furthermore, plenty of Biblical texts can be referenced that call upon Christians to believe in oral Tradition as well as written Scripture (1st Corinthians 11:2; 2nd Thessalonians 2:25; 2nd Thessalonians 3:6; John 21:25). The Scriptures plainly condemn personal and private interpretation of the Bible apart from the established Tradition of the Church (2nd Peter 1:20; 2nd Peter 3:15-16). Finally, it is the Bible itself that calls the Church, not the Scriptures, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1st Timothy 3:15). This should be enough for any level-headed Protestant, not emotionally attached to Martin Luther or his teachings, to see that something is wrong with Sola Scriptura. However, it is rare to find such a Protestant, for most will become highly defensive before getting this far into this article. We have to remember that Protestantism is also at its core a very emotional religion. It is founded on the highly emotional and prideful state of “who are you to tell me what to believe!” and “no man but Christ Himself has spiritual authority over me!” This is the emotional state it takes to embrace Sola Scriptura. In the end, Protestantism is a highly individualist religion, and it is this very thing that gave it birth, that will ultimately be it’s end. For I do not believe Protestantism will survive the 21st century.

Not survive the 21st century!?! How could Protestantism be dead within 88 years? Yes, that is what I am saying. Within 88 years, by January 1st, 2100, there will be nothing left of the Protestantism we know today. It will essentially be extinct. What will have killed it? The answer is simple — moral relativism. You see, in a religion where there is no real authority other than an inanimate object (a book) that can no more interpret itself than it can read itself, the final authority on any religious matter is none other than the individual practitioner himself. In previous centuries, Protestants primarily fought over doctrinal issues, related to such things as: salvation, predestination, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc. But as Michael Voris pointed out in the second video above, something happened in 1930 that shaped the rapid decline of Protestantism, and in my opinion, ultimately sealed its fate. That something was artificial birth control. In 1930, the Anglican Communion led the way toward accepting what had previously been condemned by all Protestant denominations as a moral evil — contraception. Within just 30 years, every single Protestant denomination had followed suit, and artificial birth control became accepted within the Protestant world.

NKP,

Posting someone else’s opinion is different than proof, evidence, or logic. It is a logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”

As an example here of false evidence that is ultimately just opinion and easy to disprove:

“The doctrine can nowhere be found in the Bible, therefore based on its own premise, it disproves itself.”

The Bible states that “ALL Scripture is profitable for...”, and Scripture lists the functions of the Church, salvation, maturity of believers. So, despite the “Knights” opinion, it is there. Scripture teaches it alone is the inspired record of God’s message to us.

“Furthermore, plenty of Biblical texts can be referenced that call upon Christians to believe in oral Tradition as well as written Scripture (1st Corinthians 11:2; 2nd Thessalonians 2:25; 2nd Thessalonians 3:6; John 21:25).”

Moot point. You do not have a separate list of what those traditions were that Paul referenced. Provide such a list and we can discuss things like how you know that is the list.

“The Scriptures plainly condemn personal and private interpretation of the Bible apart from the established Tradition of the Church (2nd Peter 1:20; 2nd Peter 3:15-16). “

Scripture does the opposite. It never condemns personal study or interpretation. It simply says that the Scriptures themselves (particularly prophecy) did not result from someone’s personal views, but from God Himself.

These are all good examples that demonstrate you posted someone’s opinion and not evidence. As such, it does nothing to substantiate your personal claim that sola scriptura is a heresy.

So far, you’ve made a big claim, posted a link to someone else’s opinion that echoed your own and posted no actual evidence that supports your truth claim.

What else do you have. Anything you can bring personally that requires thought and analysis by yourself?

I’d like to see it.

After that, you can post the additional purported heresies, the examples of “catholic haters”, etc.

Lol! The extinction of Christianity has also been predicted many times over, but the Lord knows his own, and moral relativism will not stop His work of grace in human hearts no matter how many fallible human institutions collapse along the way.

Indeed, most of the denominational fissures our RC friends love to point to as evidence of disunity are in fact conservatives parting ways with relativists. The pattern is strong. The libs infest the leadership, stage a coup, steal the property (buildings, assets, etc), forcing the conservatives to regroup under new labels. But they remain conservatives, part of the long stream of faithful souls who trust God and believe in his absolute truths. God has no trouble keeping track of who these folks are, even if they present a problem to us mortals, who of course would rather have a human institution in place to clearly define who’s in and who’s not.

So no, those who “protest” corruption in the Church (aka “protest-ant”) will be here all the way to the end of days. Their “protest” is animated by their love for God and every word that proceeds from His mouth. They cannot cease from the earth until the Bride of Christ is evacuated from earth at the return of Christ. At that time it will be clear. But for now, not even the angels dare to separate the wheats from the tares. That is God’s work. I think its best left to Him.

In that spirit, I’ll make no predictions about the future of the various institutional churches 88 years from now. I will say this. I hope none of them remains, but that by then Jesus shall have returned and put all these vain disputings behind us, and we shall be glorified and giving glory to Him in the company of angels for eternity to come.

That is simply this. If a Christian teaching cannot be found written plainly in the black and white pages of the Bible, then it need not be believed or accepted by Christians.

Right from the get-go, you choice of a polemic is a poor one, for as usual, it begins with a straw man that does not even consider the basic teaching of Westminster, which states,

...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: 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.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: 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. - cps 6,7; http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm While salvific Truth is plain enough so that one could read Acts 10:36-43 and be born again, which relates to formal sufficiency, Scripture also provides for reason, the church, etc. which relates to the material sufficiency of Scripture, and "the light of nature, and Christian prudence," and "due use of ordinary means." The fact is that, left to the straw man of your pasted polemic, evangelicals could not even believe in the Trinity, which they have contended for against cults for hundreds of years!

So it will just have to suffice to say that Sola Scriptura is both un-Biblical and illogical. The doctrine can nowhere be found in the Bible,

Of course not, since his definition of it is a contrived straw man that does not allow for beliefs held as Truths unless explicitly stated, but a confluence of text support, and ignores material sufficiency.

And by which we see that it is abundantly evidenced in Scripture that it is held as the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

And which reveals, sanctions and thus provides for writings being recognized as being so, and thus by extension for a canon, without an assuredly infallible magisterium which Rome, which Rome presumes she is and is necessary for assurance of Truth.

And from the beginning Scripture was formally sufficient to provide salvific truth, and materially provided for more, and increasing its degree of both as God gave more grace. Thus SS can be seen in Scripture in that sense, but that it contains all that can be known is not claimed, nor does the sufficiency of Scripture mean that.

Furthermore, plenty of Biblical texts can be referenced that call upon Christians to believe in oral Tradition as well as written Scripture But which were known truths recently taught, which could be written, as was the norm for that which is called the "word of God/the Lord, not nebulous oral tradion, that of ancient tales such as the Assumption Of Mary that even lacks early evidence in tradition.

And SS preachers also enjoin obedience to the oral word, that of Scriptural preaching, while the NT was not yet complete in Paul's time.

Finally, it is the Bible itself that calls the Church, not the Scriptures, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1st Timothy 3:15). This should be enough for any level-headed Protestant,

That is absurd, absolutely ludicrous, and a testimony to the deceived heart that turns away from the Truth unto fables. What should be evident by God's grace to any level-headed believer is that all 1st Timothy 3:15 teaches is that the church supports the Truth, stulos and hedraiōma both having that meaning. And to extrapolate this means the church, not Scripture upon which it began, is the supreme authority is arrogant egregious wresting of texts.

Within 88 years, by January 1st, 2100, there will be nothing left of the Protestantism we know today. It will essentially be extinct.

The man is also a wannebe prophet, as while the Lord may return, it will not be Rome's errors that is in glory, but essential evangelical faith that exalts the Lord, not Mary.

Got to go now, but your attempts to support Rome have only once gain ended up exposing her fallacious support.