.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.
During this series on the Sacrament of the Altar, we’ve been following the outline Luther uses in his treatment of this part of the Small Catechism. And so we began by asking, “What is the Sacrament of the Altar?” And we said that the nature of the Sacrament is that it is “the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.”...
the power to do these things comes from the words Christ attaches to the bread and wine that is his body and blood.
And so we believe what Jesus says about his Supper: That it is his true body and blood, the same body and blood he shed for us on the cross. That it is for, and that it actually gives, the forgiveness of sins. And that all this is for me....
Now besides not reading the Bible, you're not reading the reply posts -- no one said what you said. On the contrary, I told you Springfield, as with the Bible, you need to read in entirety, not excerpts
and So why don't you stop reading excerpts and actually read the details?
Because you did NOT read what Pope Gelasius actually said in entirety, what he DID say was
This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we 'are made sharers of the divine nature'(1 Pt 1:4). Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries." Pope Gelasius I[regn A.D. 492-496],Tract on the two natures against Eutchyes & NestoriusSo, first read it before making a statement. The Body of Christ being in the bread is not negated
Do you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or not?
Sure I read it. Why would you suggest I didn’t? It just isn’t necessary to read transubstantiation into it. Or a priestly miracle. Or adoration of the host. Or the tabernacle. Etc.
Which is why I raised the other fathers. They provide a broader context. But if you want to explain away each of the other father’s presented, I’m all ears. These are passages that strike me as supporting, at best, spiritual presence, but not transubstantiation, which is a very specific, very late doctrine, for which one can get anathematized by Rome if one doesn’t buy into it. Proving that is a heavy load to bear, and it’s all yours. Go for it.
There are food purity laws however in scripture. Circumcision on the other hand is a commandment, Doing a word study on circumcise & heart yields: It seems to be a metaphor for loving G-d and your fellow man. Yah'shua said if you love him, you will follow His commandments. Kosher is not scriptural but is merely a tradition.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6 & Jer 4:4
See: Exod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 7:9; 11:1, 13; 30:16; Jos. 22:5; Neh. 1:5; Ps. 119:47f, 127; Dan. 9:4; Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10; 1 Jn. 5:2f; 2 Jn. 1:6
Please stop telling me what I did or didn’t do. Do you have access to my laptop camera? No. Is God telling you what I am doing or not doing? Please tell me if he is, but he will know and you should know that I read the entire quote you presented and found no hint of transubstantiation, but rather found further confirmation of the use of analogy. Are you a mind reader? I thought that was against the rules here. I don’t ever call in admins to help me, but I think you should know there are excellent reasons for keeping the discussion cordial, academic, and not personal. I understand your passion and respect it, but a gentle spirit is really the more Christian way to do this.
One only needs a single excerpt from Matthew 6:11 to accept the Real Presence:
"Ton arton hêmôn ton epiousion" (Give us today our supersubstantial bread).
Peace be with you.
and thus Yah'shua was born during the YHvH Did John not say He tabernacled among us ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and
If you search the scriptures you will find Yah'shua
dwelt(tabernacled) among us, and we saw His glory,
glory as of the only begotten(unique) from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
was conceived during Hanukkah
When the LIGHT entered the world.
commanded Feast of Sukkoth ( Tabernacles or Booths).
After eight days(circumcision) is the feast of the Joy of the Torah
Hello, Cronos. My simple point in regard to factionalism was that we have, by one man’s count, 33,000 denominations within Christendom. I suspect that number has never been greater; and, furthermore, it is increasing.
The only "context" relevant here is that it was stated by a Protestant, which is why I and many other Catholics seldom get involved in religion threads anymore.
The FR religion forum is little more than a Catholic bashing echo chamber.
You (plural) are as duplicitous and unaccountable as any university faculty board.
I’m still wondering about my second question, re: the topic of this thread.
Are you an adherent of sola scriptura? Are you arriving at this dogma via sola scriptura?
I think the answer is yes, but want to make sure.
Again, the point being to illustrate the wide range of dogma and doctrine possible using sola scriptura.
your popes set the example bowing to and praying to statues of Mary...
Sorry, no one but an idolator prays to a statue. Sort of like the way you worship the flag, perhaps.
Cronos wrote:
“I’m also a bit more hopeful — I don’t think faithlessness is so bad. Yes, it’s more visible now than in the 50s, but come on, in the 1700s in England to make fun of the divine was a sport. These things come and go. These are not the end-times, any more than were the 900s or 1682 or 1452 etc”
The trouble with faithlessness is that, in the final analysis, only God knows how good or bad it is. But I would say given the prevailing sentiment of the times in regard to the 4th through the 8th Commandments (that would be the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran numeration) the visible symptoms of faithlessness in society and government are very prominent.
As far as the “end times” goes (a phrase I try to avoid because of all the baggage attached to it), we are in the end times. We have been since the coming of the Christ. The trouble is that most people do not follow the way of speaking of the Scriptures, and thus tend to misstate and misunderstand what the expressions “latter days”, “last days”, “end times,” etc. really mean. I will agree with you that factionalism and faithlessness goes up and down relatively speaking, but the trend line is always an increasing trajectory, for thus says the Lord.
This appears to be hectoring ! How many times must I answer your question ?
I’m sorry if I missed it, but I never saw your answer to this question; perhaps you could point me to it.
Otherwise, I’ll assume it is “yes” unless you correct me here.
But of course, no one here is claiming that.
Mary and several other topics have always been something Protestants rely on as misdirection to keep people from focusing on what Protestants teach by by attacking someone else rather than defending what they teach. Naturally they try their best to distract others when the subject is Scripture Alone because Scripture Alone is so clearly contradicted by Scripture.. most people can't imagine living without birth control pills,
A penchant for picking the wrong person much?
denying that Mary was saved by Grace when she was conceived is the last line of defense for people who don't want own up to the fact that their personal self-gratification is more important to them than are the lives of infants.
Aim is off again.
NL, I love your spirit, bro, but there’s no lexical basis for granting epiousion (“daily”) in Matt 6:11 any special status as a word expressing arcane Aristotelian categories of substance versus accidence. In most any modern standard translation, it reads:
Matt 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Greek Scholar AT Robertson notes that:
“The word occurs also in three late MSS. after 2 Maccabees 1:8, tous epiousious after tous artous. The meaning, in view of the kindred participle (epiouse¯i) in Act_16:12, seems to be “for the coming day,” a daily prayer for the needs of the next day as every housekeeper understands like the housekeeping book discovered by Debrunner.”
Robertson’s Word Pictures.
Furthermore, we have Chrysostom drawing roughly the same conclusion:
What is “daily bread”? That for one day. For because He had said thus, “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven,” but was discoursing to men encompassed with flesh, and subject to the necessities of nature, and incapable of the same impassibility with the angels:—while He enjoins the commands to be practised by us also, even as they perform them; He condescends likewise, in what follows, to the infirmity of our nature. Thus, “perfection of conduct,” saith He, “I require as great, not however freedom from passions; no, for the tyranny of nature permits it not: for it requires necessary food.” But mark, I pray thee, how even in things that are bodily, that which is spiritual abounds. For it is neither for riches, nor for delicate living, nor for costly raiment, nor for any other such thing, but for bread only, that He hath commanded us to make our prayer. And for “daily bread,” so as not to “take thought for the morrow.” Because of this He added, “daily bread,” that is, bread for one day. (Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily XIX).
The idea of a sufficient daily ration is compatible with the use of “epi” as a feature of some terms of measurement, as in measuring up to or over a limit. Furthermore, this complies very nicely with Jesus being the manna from Heaven, which was not supplied all at once, but was given according to the daily ration.
Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we find no need to go to an anachronistic reading of the term, which transubstantiation certainly would be. Transubstantiation is not an overabundance of substance generally, as Jerome’s “supersubstantial” would natively imply, but a miraculous swap of one substance for another with no change to the accidents (appearances). There is no net gain of substance. If anything, that would be Luther’s consubstantiation. Thus, the two meanings are incongruous.
So, unfortunately for transubstantiationists, the search for a reliable Biblical basis for their late and novel doctrine must continue, as the translation here probably really is just as it seems, “daily bread.” Sorry.
Peace,
SR
For clarification: Do you believe in the Real Presence, or the ‘symbol’ interpretation of Holy Eucharist?
thanks...
No he didn't. But you are correct that transubstatiation is not the way Lutherans perceive the Real Presence in communion. Cronos, I see later you change and point that out, but you already knew better.
Interesting. A quick check with another source reveals you are correct, the proper term being “sacramental union.” I appreciate the correction. More to learn. Thanks...
Because I have many relatives in Roman Catholicism, I have studied its structure, doctrines, and history at great length. I know extent of the claim to infallibility. Regardless, I stand with the Reformers of old in rejecting popery and the Roman system. It angers me that Potestants have forgotten their bloodbought heritage.
I urge you to be a berean and study the Scripture for yourself. See if the claims of Rome are in line with the Word. Resting on the teachings of priests and popes will be of no value to you on that sure Day of Judgment.
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.