.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.
“As it is written, man does not live by Bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God!”
Except for what came from the mouth of God, was quoted by His Son Jesus Christ, and is in Maccabees, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, and so on, right? So, just like Christ in His incarnate human form said, "my flesh" and "my blood" because He was too stupid to say what He meant, He also quoted from books He shouldn't have?
Christ and the Apostles never once mention that there is anything in error or improper about the collection of works contained in the Septuagint. Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, God from God, directly quoted from books of the Old Testament Luther threw out. Scripture Alone promoters ignore the fact that Christ Himself quoted from what Luther threw out, and by doing so are asserting that Luther knew far more about The Word of God than did Jesus Christ Himself. That's a pretty clear denial of the deity of Christ whether the folks doing it realize they're denying the deity of Christ or not.
It's clear that while Scripture Alone promoters like to pretend they only rely on Scripture and nothing else, they don't even accept all of the Scripture that Jesus Christ the Son of God very clearly did accept, so the promoters of the doctrine don't even believe in 'Scripture Alone' themselves. People who are trotting along behind Eve and Luther because they think the Scripture Alone doctrine is valid had better think again and work out their Salvation with fear and trembling rather going along to get along.
Scripture Alone is just a convenient smokescreen, otherwise those who claim they rely only on the Scriptures would have the same Old Testament the Catholic Church has.
At best those who claim to rely on Scripture Alone really mean "Subset I Like Alone", and more often than not actually believe that they can add to, subtract from, butcher, and ignore, Scriptures they don't like as long as they divert attention from their butchery by laying down the smokescreen of 'Scripture Alone'.
have a nice day
“I don’t need a pope because I have the Holy Spirit.
You have no assurance of that. That is purely a sentiment on your part. You are risking your eternal salvation on a hunch?”
I don’t know him, but he may be referring to the infilling of the Holy Spirit (Speaking in tongues, though most Catholics don’t believe in that.)
What I rely on is what His word says. If God’s written word isn’t enough, then how can anyone be responsible for working out their own salvation? How many call themselves men of God, and THEY know what must be done? Who do I follow, with so many claiming this? Even the Pope is no different and has been shown to be wrong. A Pope created Purgatory, and I’ve heard that another pope said there was no Purgatory. So one is wrong.
The Catholic church did not form the day Jesus died. Christianity was illegal in most places, hence the martyrs. The Catholic church rose over time, by men who may or may not have been Godly.
The only constant is God’s word, written and protected so that we would have a guide other than man to lead us.
I’m glad to see you have dipped your toe into Mariology, and encourage you to continue.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is precisely what guarantees the authenticity of the atonement, because any taint of sin in Mary would have rendered her incapable of giving an unreserved “fiat” to the annunciation delivered through the archangel Gabriel. Incompleteness in the assent of the woman to the joining of her flesh to the divine nature would have meant that the Incarnation was a hoax. If the Incarnation was a hoax, then Jesus’s “fiat” in the Garden is not a true gift of self and the Sacrifice of Calvary consequently a hoax. If Jesus’s passion and death were not the acts of a divine person also fully man, then his resurrection is not what it appears to be, and our hope to participate in it is pointless.
Mary is the true Ark of the Covenant, and her immaculate conception is the key to our redemption. Her preservation from sin from the first moment of her life is not about her at all, but about her son and his salvific work.
If you want to know Jesus better, get to know his mother.
When you really hit the books in studying Catholicism you learn that the early teachings of the Church regarded religious art, especially icons, as actual windows into heaven through which we can project our senses and perceptions. Although some early Christians went so far as to believe that the icons formed a two-way portal between this world and the next that has never been Church teachings.
Peace be with you.
“I trust the promises of Scripture.
Scripture that’s self-interpreting, self-authenticating, and self-sufficient.
I have some bad news for you. You’re an idolator. Your god is a book.”
I take it then that the written word of God is an evil in your eyes.
For me, I will treat His written word with reverence and trust. It is either His word, protected and guided by Him, or it is toilet paper.
You cannot say this with integrity till you explain by what right or authority you consider the Bible to be God's word.
How do you know the Bible is from God? C'mon -- how do you know that?
"Just because" is not an answer.
“”Mary was a sinner saved by grace, just like me.”
Mary was preserved free from sin by Grace before she sinned, unlike you and me.
Peace be with you “
Impossible. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Not all but Mary, but all as in....well all. Either the word of God is true, or a lie.
With a few translational variances we all agree on what He said, we all disagree frequently on what it means. This isn't a simple Catholic versus Protestant disagreement, but a cacophony of voices between and among the Church and the 33,000 denominations all claiming a unique and infallible interpretation of Scripture.
Unless you assert that this ever increasing fractioning and balkanization of Christendom is the stated objective of the Holy Spirit you must conclude that Jesus intended for there to be a teaching authority to facilitate His call to unity. You can call it what you will, we call it the Magisterium.
Peace be with you.
Or do you believe in the MAN-MADE TRADITION ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Yah'shua said I and the Father are one.
Is that clear enough ?
If you have seen me you have seen the Father.
Yah'shua is the WORD of G-d. Do you believe in the WORD of G-d ?
All who are born again are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As to the gift of tongues, I am a cessassionist.
Are you sure you aren't Catholic?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
Peace be with you
“”Purgatory also denies the sufficiency of Christ.”
Purgatory actually affirms the sufficiency of Christ. Most Protestants, and many Catholics argue tirelessly about Purgatory without ever having an understanding as to what it actually is. It is not a place. It is not a time. Unless you are claiming that we all die in a state of perfect Grace we leave this world imperfect, with the stain of sin. Purgatory is a process (purgation) not bounded by space or time. It is nothing more than the process or act of final purification of sinners, paid for by Jesus, so that they may enter the glory and infinite perfection of heaven.”
I’ll take that one as a name for the moment that God transforms us, as long as you aren’t trying to argue that suffering purifies us. No act we can do can cleans our sins but repentance and grace.
But many have argued that we can do a ‘penance’ for ourselves or others. That we can suffer in purgatory until our loved ones buy our way out. That is nonsense, and implies that Jesus wasn’t quite enough.
We can only rely grace, as no act can buy forgiveness for ourselves or others.
Correction. Your response should read "I reject all of the paganism of the New Testament", which is the source of Trinitarian doctrine (Matthew 28:19).
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” [[Matt. xxviii. 19.]] From Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio) by Eusebius. Eusebius (265-339 CE) Bishop of Caesarea around 314 CE Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm
also
In ~311 CE Eusebius (265-339) Bishop of Caesarea Apparently Matthew 28:19 was changed
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 28:19 KJV
(2) Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152
(3) Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159
(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175
(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20
(6) Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24
In his _Proof of the Gospels_
in Book three chapter seven states Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” [[Matt. xxviii. 19.]]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm
after Eusebius wrote his Proof of the Gospel.
“legitimate prophets generally met with unpleasant ends also”
Sure, but they saw that coming, now didn’t they?
He was also a Jew.
“What I rely on is what His word says.
You cannot say this with integrity till you explain by what right or authority you consider the Bible to be God’s word.
How do you know the Bible is from God? C’mon — how do you know that?
“Just because” is not an answer.”
FAITH
What else is there but faith? At some point, you have to choose to believe.
You trust the word of a normal man. Is that really wiser than trusting the bible?
33,000 denominations? You'd think there were more wouldn't you.
If you mean Jesus Christ is God, then yes. Correct me if I am wrong.
I infer that you believe Jesus is God the Father though, so there goes the Trinity..
My point was to illustrate the range of possibilities using sola scriptura.
If you will indulge me, I believe the following two statements are correct about your belief:
- You do not believe in the Most Holy Trinity (as defined in orthodox Christianity).
- You *do* believe in sola scriptura.
Am I correct here?
Not as glaring as the logical error in assuming the Bible excludes tradition, when it is tradition that dictates which books are included in the Bible. Where in Scripture does it list those books are to be included and which are to be considered apocryphal?
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.