.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 got nothing”.
............
I agree you have nothing. But so? I don’t hold that against you. You’re a Roman Catholic. Great. Roman catholics generally don’t expect much from their priest’s sermons. Why? Because Roman Catholics have tradition. If you expected more from your priest’s sermon — you wouldn’t be a Roman Catholic.
You’re just tap dancing and flapping your arms. Come back when you’re ready for a conversation.
If you are arguing for sola scriptura then you illustrate another problem with it:
If people can practice sola scriptura and can arrive at either: Christ is God, or Christ is not God, then the possibilities of sola scriptura are huge indeed.
I wasn't aware of that...
And if that is true, that alone is enough to show we are not dealing with any type of Christian organization here..
You’re still not aware of it.
About the time the instructions for how to operate a Christian mission come along (with a church hierarchy identified by office and responsibilities) you had already had the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Once that happened and Christians and other Jews were prohibited entry into Jerusalem except one day a year, other things occupied the minds of believers.
Noting that one of the earliest missions, Antioch, was where they were first called Christians ~ See: Acts 11:26 King James Version (KJV), it makes historic sense for the missionary way of life to have come to dominate the total structure of the church and just in time. The Romans finally expelled the Jews they could catch in the second century.
BTW, St. Peter himself is supposed to have founded the Antioch mission church anyway. They lay a claim on primacy on that basis.
Like I said, the original ambition was to recreate a first century Christianity and church order. They instead, adopted a second century Christianity and church order with elders and deacons at the congregational level.
Where in the Bible does it point to a command to create a Bible or and what is supposed to be in it? (It doesn't.) It was Tradition that established the need for the Bible and established the Canon, not the other way around.
You didn't answer the question because you can't...There is no unwritten teaching that we are supposed to obey...
Oh but sir! Your vile rhetoric indicates you wear a funny hat too! Cone-shaped and white, with matching robe.
-Theo
Please re-read the religion forums guidelines. By inferring motive you are making it personal.
Shekinahshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
She's one of the few people actually prophesied to exist in the future.
I won’t bother asking for Scripture reference because I know one can’t be proferred.
Mary, as a descendant of Adam, was born under the curse of sin, just like the rest of us. She had to be in order for Christ to be fully man. Christ lived and died as a substitute. No man really understands Christ’s work absent an understanding of substitution. Christ fulfilled the law for his people. He was the sinless substitute.
“For He (God the Father) hath made Him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (Christ).”—2 Corinthians 5:21
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
We know we have eternal life based on the authority of what was written by John the Apostle...
You could not be more wrong...
No; it's because we have the Sacraments.
BTW, protestants have tradition too. Some apostolic, some man-made. What protestants don't have is any systematic way of deciding questions requiring religious authority.
You seem not to get the unintentional irony of condemning tradition while extolling preaching -- but thanks for the laughs all the same.
Again, I will reaffirm that in its 2000 year history, there have been popes that were less than model christians. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
In so far as the priest is a public officer of a holy Church, a blameless life is expected from him, both because he is by his office the model of virtue to whom the laity look up, and because his life, when virtuous, inspires in onlookers respect for the society of which he is an ornament. But the treasures of the Church, her Divine character, her holiness, Divine revelation, the grace of God, spiritual authority, it is well known, are not dependent on the moral character of the agents and officers of the Church. The foremost of her priests cannot diminish by an iota the intrinsic value of the spiritual treasures confided to him." There have been at all times wicked men in the ecclesiastical ranks. Our Lord foretold, as one of its severest trials, the presence in His Church not only of false brethren, but of rulers who would offend, by various forms of selfishness, both the children of the household and "those who are without". Similarly, He compared His beloved spouse, the Church, to a threshing floor, on which fall both chaff and grain until the time of separation.
This is borne out by the fact that within its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in proclaiming doctrines of faith or morals. This is yet one more affirmation of the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Now that you have researched the "worst" popes, do yourself a favor and read a list of the "best" popes. In our lifetime, we have been truly blessed with John Paul II and now, Benedict XVI.
You say not God, others say God.
Sola scriptura also?
If Mary was born in sin, then atonement is a hoax.
I have no clue what you are trying to convey.
Paul, Luke, John, Peter, and Jude all disagree with you. Of course, they were Catholics...
From the link:
"Lincoln died as a result of orders from the Roman Catholic Church.."
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.