Posted on 12/29/2019 1:57:07 PM PST by ebb tide
At the suggestion of Father Dave Nix, I recently read the short work by Joel Peters entitled “Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura.” It is a fast read and probably the most crushing blow to Protestantism I have ever read. You simply cannot argue with Peters’s logic and the historical facts he presents (it is well sourced), not to mention all of the Scripture he cites. Having been a Protestant before converting to the Catholic Church, I was not shocked by anything I read, but I was delighted to have such well researched reasons to back up what I knew to be true: sola scriptura is an intellectual joke created by a man too proud to submit to the Church.
The back of the booklet states that it “[t]otally devastates one of the two pillars of Protestantism.” I want to show that those two pillars, sola scriptura and sola fide, are dependent on each other in such a way that devastating one pillar actually devastates both.
To do this, I want to focus on how Scripture alone is dependent on the doctrine of faith alone; you can easily work the other way as well, but that is for another time. To do this, we need to look at one of the twenty-one reasons Peters gives and how it relates to sola fide, or the teaching that we are saved through faith alone. The booklet explains that without a valid authority — the existence of which would violate Sola Scriptura — to codify and to protect the canon of Scripture, we end up with thousands of versions of the Bible. Many of these versions contain serious theological errors, such as the Jehovah’s Witness Bible [1] and any number of translations that use Luther’s additions and retractions (think adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 or removing 1 and 2 Maccabees as well as several other books, whether partial or whole).
I proposed this problem to an intelligent, well read, and faithful Presbyterian friend of mine. This is not the kind of Christian who just goes to church on Sunday and speaks in platitudes about “being saved.” This is the kind of Christian who can quote the Westminster Confession and probably knows more about the early history of the Church than your typical Novus Ordo parish priest. After a long discussion with him, it dawned on me that the only way to refute Peters’s point about the necessity of an outside authority to approve the Bible is to acknowledge that different translations or interpretations and the theological differences that follow do not actually matter.
I proposed to my friend that how we interpret the Bible really does affect our salvation because, for example, if one Christian believes that contraception is acceptable and the other does not, only one of them is truly living according to Scripture. I presented Peters’s argument and said that we cannot leave this matter up to each person because it results in thousands of interpretations and denominations that teach different things about what actions are sinful and what actions are not. We need an authority to tell us which Bible is correct and how to interpret its contents so we can live according to God’s laws, not Luther’s or Zwingli’s or Joseph Smith’s.
His response is what gave me the thesis for this article: “So you have a different view of faith from mine. Outside faith in Jesus Christ (sola fide) by grace alone (sola gratia) there is no salvation. Whether you and I agree or disagree on contraception is not a matter that divides us into believer or non-believer. Could one of us be in error? Yes! Could both of us be in error? Yes! The question [of contraception] is outside of believing in the person and work of Jesus Christ; this is not fundamentally a divide we need to overcome to be saved.”
It hit me like a ton of bricks! Protestants — or at least this one Protestant — do not care if you have different ideas about the morality of certain actions, because to the Protestant, actions do not matter. You can insert any moral question in the place of contraception, and the answer would be the same. The Protestant needs the teaching of faith alone to justify the teaching of Scripture alone and to get around this particular refutation that an outside authority is needed. Sola scriptura is entirely dependent on sola fide. It is manifestly obvious to anyone and everyone that there are countless translations and interpretations of the Bible, so the Protestant has to say this does not matter and that each believer is free to interpret Scripture how they choose and then to live accordingly. And the only way to justify millions of people having different opinions on how to live and what constitutes sin and immorality is to say that their actions do not matter, only their faith in Christ. See how the defense of sola scriptura is just to resort to sola fide? One pillar depends on the other.
Obviously, sola scriptura falls flat and is gravely mistaken, but by destroying its merits so systematically, Joel Peters also destroyed the other pillar of Protestantism because of their inherent interdependence. The two pillars of Protestantism are illogical, and it is so much easier to prove than I ever imagined. The circle of defending one with the other fails, because they are both easily disprovable with Scripture and basic logic, as Mr. Peters aptly demonstrates in his other twenty reasons.
[1] From footnote 32 of the book, which concerns the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Of the numerous examples which could be cited, space considerations confine us to just a few to illustrate the point. In John 1:1, the NWT reads, “… and the Word was a god” rather than “and the Word was God,” because Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word “other” into the text four times because Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ Himself was created. In Matthew 26:26 the NWT reads “… this means my body…” instead of “This is my body,” because Witnesses deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist[.]”
Welcome aboard.
I’m pretty sure I’ve answered every point you’ve put to me, pal. I’m not sure what you are referring to.
Nope. Just saying your question is a moot one as Rome allows it.
Your remark is too ignorant to be innocent; it doesn't rate a rebuttal.
You've yet to address these questions.
*****
Hey, we've got Roman Catholics who don't recognize the current pope as legitimate.
Further, there are Roman Catholics who don't recognize a pope since 1958.
Further none of Roman Catholicism is following certain canons of the Fourth Lateran Council.
None of Roman Catholicism is following how people were baptized in the very early church.
So which "tradition" is the correct one?
You clearly do not know what sola scriptura actually means. You must be a Catholic.
Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 211). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Enlighten me, then.
But Catholicism teaches the adherents to that religion that the Bible, though the Word of God, is not enough truth so the magicstearingthem adds the Traditions. The poor Catholic doesn’t realize how insulting that is to the Author of The Bible.
BISHOP AUTHORIZES GENDER-NEUTRAL BAPTISMS FOR GAY COUPLES
- A Catholic diocese in northeastern France is endorsing new "gender-neutral" language in ecclesiastical baptismal registers after the bishop issued a letter recommending the removal of all references to "father" and "mother."
The Fourth Lateran Council? Are you kidding me?
(Tell me what they are so I can report somebody.)
>> The Fourth Lateran Council? <<
Are you kidding me?
Nope.
But your reply completely and perfectly illustrates my point and those made by others on this thread.
Roman Catholics selectively pick the "traditions" they like.
LOL!
The Catholic Church, the Org., is not Christianity. It is another religion fashioned to look Christian but with added fables and fraudulent signs and wonders. Would you like a list of the fraudulent signs and wonders, or would you prefer the liest of fables?
Considering that the actual definition of sola scriptura remains unanswered by you, I’ll just assume you conceded the point.
And considering how Roman Catholic teaching about contraception is incredibly hypocritical, I have no idea what ground you think you’re standing on.
There’s a Scriptural answer to your challenge, but I doubt you’ll like it.
The Roman Catholic gets tied in knots when confronted with their actual history.
For example, according to Catholic councils, Jews have to wear special clothing so that Chriatians won’t accidentally marry one...
I answered your question (126) and you replied to my answer (136).
The Scriptural answer to my challenge is that the sin of Onan is exactly that; "wasting seed" is a sin.
A post like this warrants a link to a source, but I am past expecting that kind of decorum.
I actually started to read the “21 reasons” article. I got through five. There were tons of straw men.
Same for this article:
“It hit me like a ton of bricks! Protestants — or at least this one Protestant — do not care if you have different ideas about the morality of certain actions, because to the Protestant, actions do not matter.”
Apparently the writer is completely ignorant of the lives of so many evangelical Christians, here and the world over, who certainly do think ALL their actions (and thoughts, and words) matter. But since this writer is somehow ignorant of that, he then doesn’t have to answer for the existence of such Christians.
What’s backed up by Scripture (which Catholics seem to be appealing to a lot these days to contradict their pope) is that a person can become conscious of their guilt before God. That person sees that they’ve broken God’s laws, and that those acts, which at the time they believed to be right, caused damage to themselves and others, and they’re ashamed before God for them.
They also see that they can’t trust themselves to know right from wrong and don’t want to live by the “wisdom” of human reason anymore. So then those who know of the Gospel think of how Jesus died for their sins, and they become grateful for that. It makes sense to them. They recognize they need Him and His sacrifice for them. They can’t undo the wrong they did. It’s eternally unchangeable.
But, they can have God’s forgiveness. He just wants them to accept Him as their god, their Lord, and to never forget, but accept, that HE paid the price for their sin. He wants their undying gratitude because it’s due Him.
And, they can also have His counsel, His direction, as well as His strength to turn away from sin and to grow more and more Christlike over time, as well as His patience and mercy as He protects and instructs and disciplines Him in this life.
Then they also find that besides having fellowship with other believers, they also have fellowship with God. Through His Word, His Spirit, and the experiences which are His will for them, they find themselves getting to know God intimately — something they never dreamed of when they just thought that God was an all-power being who was first and last their eternal judge giving out rewards and punishments.
They see that wasn’t the ultimate end of this life, but for us to live intimately with God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, forever.
The church made up of those known by God (”Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity,” 2 Timothy 2:19) are those people who have had this experience, even if, like the thief on the cross, it happens almost at the end of their life. As long as it truly happens in their hearts (and sometimes only God, the only one who absolutely sees and knows our hearts, knows for sure) then that person is a true Christian, wheat not a tare.
Your Google-fu is weak.
Took me less than 5 seconds.
So, do you agree with your church’s teachings on Jews?
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.