Surpassing Sola Scriptura

Answering Protestants ^ | 31 March 2014 | Matthew Olson

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

What a beautiful and appropriate Scripture, dear brother in Christ!

[matthewrobertolson]

(Thanks for the article - the attempts at refuting it will never hold up, no matter how long winded, becase sola scriptura is a man made construct that is NOT found in the bible) - stonehouse01

I totally agree, as any student of history would. Dominus vobiscum! :)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I totally agree, as any student of history would. “

A great many students of history affirm the meaning of Sola Scriptura and reject Sola Ecclesia.

[Alamo-Girl]

It seems to me these Sola Scriptura discussions eventually come down to who we believe is the author and preserver of the Scriptures.

The above article claims "The biggest fallacy of Protestantism is that it trusts the Church to write, compile, canonize, spread + preserve the Bible."

That is a false statement for me because I trust God for all those things and give Him the glory for their being done.

Indeed, it does not surprise me at all that a group of Christians were able to itemize a canon. We know God's words when we hear them.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. - Psalms 12:6-7

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. - John 8:47

And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. - John 10:4

To GOD be the glory, not man, never man.

[BipolarBob]

"To GOD be the glory, not man, never man. "

Amen.

[boatbums]

No we simply understand Matthew 7:6.

LOL! If that were true, you wouldn't even post ANY comments! Sounds like you missed out on the verse BEFORE that one.

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

What you offer is neither pearls nor holy and we aren't dogs or pigs!

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults, while they allow themselves in greater ones. Some sins are as motes, while others are as beams; some as a gnat, others as a camel. Not that there is any sin little; if it be a mote, or splinter, it is in the eye; if a gnat, it is in the throat; both are painful and dangerous, and we cannot be easy or well till they are got out. That which charity teaches us to call but a splinter in our brother's eye, true repentance and godly sorrow will teach us to call a beam in our own. It is as strange that a man can be in a sinful, miserable condition, and not be aware of it, as that a man should have a beam in his eye, and not consider it; but the god of this world blinds their minds. Here is a good rule for reprovers; first reform thyself.

[redleghunter]

It was an acorn which sprouted to a tree. See this:

Post 266

[verga]

I just finished watching half of the first video and all of the second. This man was not a Knight of Columbus. I am a current member and he has nothing about the initiation ceremony correct. If he has something that simple wrong why should I believe him about anything?

Also He is making stuff up about the drinking that occurs at KoC meetings as well as priests not being members of the KoC. Not all are but there are quite a few.

As far as Richard Bennett: Please explain to me how this man who claims to be a priest knew so little about the Letter to the Ephesians or the Letter to the Romans.

I spent 3 years in the seminary as a lay person and we were required to take classes on both the OT and NT. Students for the Priesthood and Deaconate programs were require to take classes on the entire Bible.

How about listening to these. Scott Hahn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW-qX6DgcPw

Peter Kreeft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO2NGGmWBQo

[redleghunter]

Would this be the exact same Greek manuscript used when translating the KJV,NIV, etc...? You don't have to answer Christians know the answer.

KJV used mostly the Received Text. NIV uses the Critical Text. Most modern Bibles also include footnotes to DSS references.

[verga]

You need to read a bit more secular history, rather than your biased sources. Feel free to have the last word.

[redleghunter]

You need to read a bit more secular history, rather than your biased sources. Feel free to have the last word.

The last word would be....Present your sources and another last word will come about. I notice you hardly keep that promise of the "last word.":)

[Colonel_Flagg]

I totally agree, as any student of history would.

One of those students was evidently not the Apostle Paul.

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." - I Corinthians 4:6

And ...

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Scripture uses the absolute. It's EVERY good work, which thus defines Scripture as entirely sufficient to rule and guide our faith. It's not most good works, or ones for which God's word is somehow not good enough.

Absolutes are of course common in Scripture, such as Hebrews 10:10, which refutes the notion of purgatory by noting Christ's sacrifice once for ALL, or Romans 3:23, which notes that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Bless your day!

[.45 Long Colt]

Whatever. You obviously know more than he does. Since you have it all figured out, don’t waste your time.

I’m not going to continue going back and forth. For the sake of your soul I hope you truly know Christ, the tried stone, the only sure foundation. If you don’t know Him, the Bible promises that your refuge of lies, whatever uncertain and false foundation you have put your hope in, will be washed away and you will stand in judgment according to the terms of strict justice, a more terrifying promise I cannot imagine.

“Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.”
—Isaiah 28:17

One more time I’ll point you toward the gospel.

The Gospel Discerned and Defined
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=81901181950

Unmasking the False Gospel
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1010665821

[BipolarBob]

"Also He is making stuff up about the drinking that occurs at KoC meetings"

I don't know about drinking at KC meetings. I've never been to a KC meeting. But on my graduation night I was partying with some Italian Catholics and we ran out of booze. They called a KC official and he opened up the KC Hall "stash" and it was like a liquor store. I don't say that to poke them. I don't care if they drink. Or when they drink. I certainly don't judge them for that. But the preponderance of evidence from my eyewitness experience suggests they do some drinking there, whether before, during or after their meeting I don't know (or care).

[Elsie]

I see what you did there!

You MUST be a PROTESTant; for no one explained it to you.

(Did they???)

[Elsie]

It is a well known quote, which any literate person knows.

Do you use the front or the back or your hand to deliver these?

[Elsie]

It was a lesson in reasoning (you failed by the way).

Then it's lesson time; yet again!

---

Logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful.

 

1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

 

2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
Example: Convert or die.
 
3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

 

4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

 

5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
 
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.

 

7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
 
8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question
Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.

 

9. Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

 

10. False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over)
Example: Do you still beat your wife?

 

11. Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.

 

12. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.
Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

 

13. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

 

14. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

 

15. Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.

 

16. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.
Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.

 

17. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.
Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

 

18. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.

Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.

[Elsie]

However; his grasp of adequacy is flaccid.