Anyone have some popcorn?
Nonsense. Don’t have time to address this in full, but your premise will not stand the test of scripture.
Fear is a sin. Honestly. Better repent before it's too late.
... LOL ... “I’m scared to death of what God says! ... :-) ...
Things that make you go Huh? ping
Only feeble minded children need someone “learned” to explain the plain language of the Bible to them. Only sheep blindly accept the “authority” of those who claim themselves to be the only way to enter Gods kingdom.
What a sad sight that would be. A soldier sent into battle without a sword is a useless soldier. Eph 6:17 "And take the helmet of Salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." Jesus met the temptations with OT texts. I don't really care what Jimmy Aiken or Clay Aiken says, God says "Come let us reason together". So I take Him at His word. You follow the Aikens.
Great Straw Man Attack Article of the Day!
As we know, the popes in those days were often highly corrupt and venal and twisted the scripture to say whatever they wanted. "Sola scriptura" was an attempt to protect the faith from corruption, not to make everyone his own theologist. That is just silly.
Luther said, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it".(Note: scripture vs A pope without it) The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority and to reject what Catholics considered to be Apostolic Tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible, wherever Tradition did not have Biblical support or where it supposedly contradicted Scripture.
Sola Scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Martin Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."[6].
(from wikipedia)
Well, no wonder the guy is scared...he doesn't even know what sola Scriptura even means! Is this how Catholicism is tricking people into joining them by scaring people with lies???!
The author’s arguments have holes big enough to drive a pope-mobile through.
If he’ll stop blindly following men and start thinking this subject through more carefully, I bet before long he’ll look back on this essay with embarrassment.
I was going to say that this fellow doesn’t not understand sola scriptura, but it looks like you guys have it covered.
Agree with the Straw Man article of the day comment.
Protestants don't teach scripture alone. But scripture is authoritative, because it was written by prophets and apostles. Scripture itself tells you that the Holy Spirit was sent to convict us and to remind of scriptures. Scripture itself also commands believers not to forsake fellowshiping together. And tells us no scripture is of private interpretation. Thus church helps us with interpretation, and helps us with understanding the right context.
Pax et bonum!
His argument is self contradictory. He decides what authority controls by using his own opinion that individual opinions are not authoritative.
Easy to lose sight of what that doctrine actually means. Sola Scriptura does beg a question: what, outside of Scripture, is needed for the salvation of a soul? That begs another question: if something else is needed, upon what is it based? There are arguments against the doctrine, but this piece isn’t a good one. Can a non-believer, stranded alone, with only a Bible to go on, or even just part of one, be saved? Food for thought.
Tradition should not supersede the Bible. If something in history caused the church to misapply Scripture, it is irrelevant how long practice might have been in place, it should be corrected, if it goes against what the Bible says.
Having said that, I think the principle of Sola Scriptura is often misapplied with many Protestants, because there can be a tendency to refuse to take context into account. I’ve had conversations with Christians, when you try to explain what was happening in the church during the period Scripture was written, they refuse to pay attention and just rely upon the literal writing without context.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
RE: Nowhere in the Bible will you find any discussion of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible. Both the New and Old Testament will make reference to “the Scriptures,” but this does not refer to the Bible as a whole, only the Old Testament.
Bluntly put, this is NOT a good argument.
The word “Trinity” is not found in scripture either, and yet it is clearly revealed in scripture to be a truth.
It is very similar to the Muslim declaration fallacy which demands that Christ state “I am God” in the New Testament to prove His divinity. We do not need a term to be present in order to demonstrate its definition.
St. Paul said to Timothy:
“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]
Just before this passage, Paul had told Timothy that “from childhood you have known the sacred writings” (referring to the education by his mother and grandmother; 2 Tim 1:5), and states that the scripture is “able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). As Paul explains to his spiritual son, the education and teaching of salvation is inherently found in the scriptures, he did not cite any other source.
In addition, it is worth noting that the phrase translated as “inspired by God” is actually a single Greek word which means — “God-breathed.”
In other words, the scripture is literally breathed out by God, and is the word of the Lord speaking to the churches even today. This special title is given to no other authority in all of holy writ except scripture itself.
Many will interject here with, “But didn’t tradition and customs have some role in the apostolic church?”
Yes, but it is never placed on so high a level as scripture, nor could it.
For example, many quote Paul’s reference to a Jewish tradition regarding the names of Pharaoh’s magicians (2 Tim 3:8), but this is no different than a Christian referring to the belief that Paul was beheaded or Peter was crucified upside down.
A person can live and die and not lose salvation if they do not know the names of Pharaoh’s magicians or what became of Paul after Acts 28, and therefore the knowledge itself is not paramount. Also note that one does NOT lose the meaning of the stories in Exodus or Acts if a person does not know either fact. This information is therefore not complimentary with scripture, but secondary.
Likewise, we see again contradictions between “unwritten traditions” of the various “apostolic” churches.
Roman Catholics will claim Purgatory, papal infallibility/supremacy, and various other dogmas as unwritten tradition, whereas most non-Roman Catholic churches deny all of them. Some (though not all) Eastern Orthodox will support Aerial Toll Houses as unwritten tradition while this belief cannot be found in other “apostolic” churches.
Yet the majority of apostolic churches believe a good portion of their traditions, dogma or not, to have come from the apostolic period, even if nothing is recorded of them until hundreds of years after the time of Acts (example: the bodily assumption of Mary).
Whereas we have an infallible source of written authority within sacred scripture, there is no infallible source of unwritten authority in any church. It is always simply circularly assumed that the individual church’s unwritten traditions are infallibly true.
Sola Scriptura Or Sola Papa?
by Chuck Durham
via Biblical Insights, Vol. 7, No. 9, Sept. 2007.
Pope Benedict XVI released a Vatican document on July 10, 2007 that reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church as providing the only true path to salvation. The document claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church on earth having “the fullness of the means of salvation.” All other churches (excepting the Greek Orthodox Church) “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles (Bryan-College Station Eagle, July 11, 2007).
It is the age-old question that so many people have asked: “Which church of all the churches is the right one? They all claim to follow the Bible, so how do we know which is right?” Good question. And it deserves a forthright answer. But it all depends upon the foundation on which we build.
The Bible is that foundation — the only foundation. The Bible claims to be the sole authoritative means by which we can rightly hear the One True Authority — God. The Roman Catholic Church claims that both 1)the Bible and 2)the apostolic succession of the Roman Pope (who alone may rightly interpret the Bible and speak law for the faithful on earth today) are authoritative. It is a battle as old as the Reformation.
The early Protestants called it “Sola Scriptura.” Only Scripture. Martin Luther told secular and Church officials at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason — I cannot accept the authority of popes and councils because they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”
Luther was right about popes and councils contradicting each other. They did — often — as history records. Not only did they contradict their teaching, accepting at times what had been condemned as heresy at others — they had, on occasions, as may as three men claiming to be the Pope at the same time. Who rightfully had “apostolic succession?” Who determined it? The answer comes: the Roman Catholic Church. Does this should like circular reasoning? Carefully study the history of the Roman Catholic Church and its claim to “apostolic succession” and it is as appalling as it is ludicrous. Time and again it was based upon political expediency, avarice, power hunger and every manipulation to which man is capable of descending.
What the Roman Catholic Church really wants is to be the sole interpreter of Scripture. The Pope alone can tell us what it means (and add to it when he wants). If their basis for being the “one, true church” lies in their ability to trace their lineage back to the apostles, don’t bet the farm on it! Why? Because the Scriptures never — ever — command, necessarily infer, or by apostolic example illustrate a “succession” to the original apostles.
Open the New Testament and read it from cover to cover. Where does any verse of Scripture claim apostolic succession? What the Scriptures claim is that the Scriptures alone hold the “fullness of the means of salvation” because they teach the truth regarding Jesus (Romans 1:16; II Timothy 3:16,17; II Peter 1:19-21; 3:15,16). Popes and councils over the centuries have originated doctrines foreign to the pages of the New Testament. And the early Protestants saw it. They could read. They could understand the Scriptures — and they didn’t need Popes and councils to tell them so. The threw out vestments; sacraments; instrumental music; they gave both elements of the Lord’s Supper to the people; priests married and monasticism was scrapped; fast days and masses for the dead were abandoned; relics and images were smashed. Some read further and discovered that only adult believers were baptized and so they ceased baptizing infants. Others saw only congregations as being the organization of the church.
Sola Scriptura
If you can’t find it in the Bible, then it’s not from God and must be discarded as a manmade invention. And if we accept this as our guiding authority in service to God — the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church will find themselves on the wrong side of the debate.
Do your homework
There are more than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament; thousands more translations in early tongues; a text that is nearly 100% certain in light of all variant readings (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 365). I’ll bank everything on Sola Scriptura. It never mentions a “pope.” It despises the very idea that “one man” would set himself up over the Lord’s church.
I believe that there is “only one true church” on earth (Ephesians 1:22,23; 4:4). And that church’s distinguishing features can only be determined by matching its practices with the New Testament. That’s the only way to know which church is the true church today.