Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[Elsie]

. I hope you are not too heavily invested in Roman Catholicism to see the Truth of this matter.

I do not know the veracity of the following; whether it was fact, legend, myth or just something that sounds accurate...

In the 1800's, a sign near the start of the wagon trails west:

Choose your rut carefully; as you'll be in it for a thousand miles or more.

[Elsie]

How can there be two truths?

That's too vague a comment for me to answer.

Not for me, for I have no 'job'.

The is the TRUTH of the Bible, and there is the 'truth' of Catholic teachings.

[Elsie]

I have to tell you, FRiend... with all due respect, your post reeks of arrogance.

My!

That is interesting!

[Elsie]

...stop trying assume that I intend to “put anyone down” (I don’t) ...

My!

This is interesting; too!

[Elsie]

...we can agree to take words at face-value.

Jesus called the Pharisees VIPERS!

I guess they were really SNAKES!

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the message not the messenger.

[Resettozero]

Your “message” to me was not appreciated and further chats are declined.

-30-

R2z

[daniel1212]

That'd be about average for us. Almost. Our average is 120"

But again, that is like comparing 12 people getting into a car versus a bus! Not complaining though.

These poor pics are before the last 16''. I do not have a camera, just a web cam on an old laptop, but you can see there is no place to put more but to go higher!

[metmom]

Looks just like us.

The banks between the sidewalk and the street are a good 5 feet high.

The town usually comes around with a front loader and dump truck a couple times a year and clears the snowbanks away when they get bad enough but they haven’t this year.

I’m going to ask around town and see if anyone knows anything, but next step is talking to some of the board members and find out why.

[daniel1212]

The town usually comes around with a front loader and dump truck a couple times a year and clears the snowbanks away when they get bad enough but they haven’t this year.

Which is what they do not do here, despite likely 16,000+ ppl per sq. mile.

[metmom]

We’re nowhere near that densely populated, but we usually do get better services for our money.

However, what you’re looking at isn’t so unusual for us.

[paladinan]

Fine by me, FRiend.

(Thanks, RM!)

[BlueDragon]

The choice was one of putting one's faith in "Church" and putting one's faith in Christ.

You had said;

CynicalBear, Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. When you reject His Church, you reject Jesus Christ Himself.

To mimic your own style of reasoning and discourse in your above comment to CB, turning that same around in counter-point, I could ask you, Heart-Rest;

So are you saying that Roman Catholics have rejected Christ, for they have (long before you were born, so it's not your fault) erected an intricate structure of interlocking falsehood and shadings which in end result obscure and distort the truth of Christ, itself?

But that wouldn't be entirely fair. Yet for yourself to so casually mix and blur the identities of God Himself, on the one hand, to also on the other hand BE the Church (and by that you do mean the Roman Catholic one, the one which has an earthly & human "pope") isn't at all fair either.

That is what set me off against yourself having played games with CB's other statements, turning them this way and that, saying as much as If this-then that. The same treatment should be applied to your own statements and positions.

The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical community has long imported into the Gospel itself a variety of distortion, in the end having made many among their own ecclesia end up with some blend of often looking to Mary for salvation itself --- which salvation they must then also work for, somehow making themselves holy enough (through works) to be acceptable to God.

One may as well be a Mormon or perhaps better, a Muslim (they talk all nicey-nicey about how special *Mary* was, even as they say God created Christ within her) if it be by works that we are saved.

But go ahead, object and say that the RCC doesn't teach salvation by works ---it will fall on partially-deaf ears --- for I otherwise can see for myself that when the RCC is not teaching "grace" (having been forced to return to official endorsement of salvation by the Grace of God, through the bodily sacrifice of Jesus) due to the significant theological challenges and pressures arising from the Protestant Reformation, then "they" (the RCC) do also teach salvation by works, with that being inexorably mixed in with the teaching of the need and calling towards increasing sanctification being represented much as justification itself --- in overall end result rendering Christ's own sacrifice insufficient propitiation for our own sins, that must be added to in some manner, by our own efforts.

When the Gospel itself is not obscured by presenting salvation be of works which must be done (whatever the works are which the RCC would in any particular era proscribe) then Christ's own sacrifice is turned into a pill, a flat lozenge which only priests in communion with Rome are said have the ability to "confect" (into being the body of Christ, of which it is true, all must partake of).

It is no wonder that many, once they were able to read the Scriptures in their own native languages and thus understand what was written, reacted to what had evolved as being Rome's own (16th century) approach to the thanksgiving memorial remembrance with the rhetorical charge --- "blasphemy!".

It is simply not true, that to oppose the RCC in some way, is to oppose (thus reject) God Himself. The RCC is not God. Please stop broadcasting the confused (and confusing) message that He is.

[edwinland]

Sorry for the slow reply. I wanted to read what you wrote carefully first and it was a busy weekend.

Yes, I agree with everything you wrote in your reply. John testifies to Jesus, and so saying that Jesus is superior to John doesn’t mean we should ignore or reject John.

But if that’s the case, I don’t understand your suggestion that we should not “hold to” the Magesterium of the Catholic Church because Jesus is superior to the Magesterium? If the opposite of “hold to” is reject, it doesn’t make sense, because we both agree that we shouldn’t per se reject everything that is inferior to Christ.

So maybe I am missing the meaning of the phrase “hold to”?

[paladinan]

Slogging through some of the backlogged comments; thanks for your patience!

[paladinan]
There are literally thousands of denominations which claim to be "sola Scriptura" adherents, and yet they come to contradictory conclusions... to the extent that, at least at some point, they all split away from other Christian groups, and divided the Body of Christ more and more painfully. How are you, personally, in a position to say that they are wrong, and you are right?

[metmom]
That has been refuted numerous times.

I've seen many responses. I've yet to see any refutations.

Nor does the existence of numerous denominations mean that they by default, think that everyone else is wrong.

In the general sense, you're absolutely right--in the sense that two groups who split from each other don't *necessarily* have to differ in doctrine (I think of the second Catholic/Orthodox split in 1054 A.D., which was almost purely political... and core doctrinal differences didn't come up until much later; see my previous comment for details.) But I didn't just "assume" that "different group = different belief"; I went and checked (and I gave examples, above). Here's a short list, again:

1) "Baptism is a regenerative Sacrament, and it's necessary for salvation." (believed by Anglicans/Episcopalians, many Lutherans, and assorted other sola-Scriptura adherents [hereafter "SSA's"]

2) "Baptism may be a meaningful "ordinance" and symbol, but it is not a Sacrament, not regenerative, and not required for salvation." (believed by most Evangelical SSA's)

1) "Worship on Sunday is the prescribed and God-honoring way to keep holy the Lord's Day." (most SSA's)

2) "Worship on Sunday (as opposed to Saturday, the "true Sabbath") is the Mark of the Beast (as described in Revelation), a violation of the 4th commandment, and damns those who not repent of it." (Seventh-Day Adventists)

1) "God is three Persons in one God--the Trinity." (most SSA's)

2) "God is one Person in one God, since anything else is mere polytheism with a pretty mask." (Unitarian Pentecostals, and other modalist SSA's)

1) "The Eucharist is the highest form of worship we can offer to God, since it entails Christ's Own offering of Himself." (many Anglicans/Episcopalians, some Lutherans)

2) "The Eucharist is an abomination and sheer idolatry." (many Evangelical SSA's, Assemblies of God, etc.)

...and the list goes on. Remember when you said, "Something can't be true and not true at the same time" (which is absolutely correct)? That's the problem, here... and all of the above are believed by non-Catholics who attribute their beliefs to sola Scriptura. (Go check their statements of faith on their websites, if you doubt.)

Differences in governance or focus and ministry outreach, does not automatically translate into doctrinal differences.

That's true. I hope you keep that in mind if you're ever tempted to attribute "division" to Catholicism merely because the Dominicans have a different charism and approach than the Franciscans, for example.

Nor does it mean that they are not saved. There are Pentecostals who practice the gifts and Baptists who don't. Big deal.

What of the Pentecostals who claim that you are wrong, and that those who don't manifest charismata (e.g. speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc.) are not yet saved? You and they can't both be right; either it's a matter of salvation/damnation, or it's "no big deal"--not both. Which is it, and how do you prove your case?

Nowhere in Scripture does God ever demand lockstep adherence to the same teachings of the Bible.

See my previous comment, re: "lockstep" this-or-that.

The fact that some come to different interpretations on some verses does not disqualify the concept that Scripture contains all we need to know to attain salvation and to grow and mature in Christ. It's not a problem with the Scripture, nor the doctrine.

DIFFERENT interpretations are not necessarily a problem. CONTRADICTORY interpretations, on grave matters, ARE a problem.

Scripture is inherently authoritative by virtue of the fact that it is the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God. It is all we need to grow in the knowledge of Him, as Scripture itself states.

Scripture itself does NOT say that it is "all we need"; those are your words, not those of the Bible (see our previous discussion on 2 Timothy); in fact, it says the opposite on many occasions (e.g. Acts 8:30-31: "So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And [the eunuch] said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?") In addition, you haven't yet shown me that you have the correct Bible (instead of a 66-book fragment).

Every criticism against sola Scriptura can be used against the CCC and the RCC magisterium.

No, it can't. But even if it could, this is a "tu quoque" fallacy... trying to excuse your own argument's flaws by pointing out alleged flaws in those of others. Pointing out your neighbor's leaky boat doesn't patch your own leaky boat.

Catholics do not all agree on every aspect of Catholicism,

The teaching authority of the Church does not rest with "Catholics" as individuals; it rests with the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope, and the bishops in union with him). There are always going to be Catholics who are confused or disobedient, just as there are Protestants who are confused or disobedient; that's not the point, since they're not the source of doctrine in teh first place. We don't find out Catholic teaching by doing a survey of Catholics (even writers/theologians); we find it out by asking the Magisterium itself. (Have you checked out a Catechism, yet?)

and yet they continue to claim they have a superior system by adding tradition and human leadership to the mix.

We didn't "add" anything; Protestantism threw out the baby (Sacred Tradition) with the bathwater (TRUE abuses).

If Scripture isn't adequate, being from the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infallible, eternal, God Himself, then nothing fallible, mortal, sinful, blinded man adds to it is going to improve it in any way.

You keep saying that--i.e. "If Scripture isn't adequate!". Who's saying that it isn't adequate? (I'm not!) I'm simply saying that it was never designed to work ALONE. Key word: ALONE. (We also need to have ALL of the Scriptures, and not simply the books and parts which early Protestants decided not to edit out.) Scripture is more than adequate for the purposes for which God gave it to us, just as water may be more than adequate to put out a specific fire; but it needs other things, as well (e.g. a fire hose, water pressure, people to man the hose, etc.). I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that... but you keep missing that idea and "skidding around" that idea on two wheels!

[paladinan]

It is simply not true, that to oppose the RCC in some way, is to oppose (thus reject) God Himself. The RCC is not God. Please stop broadcasting the confused (and confusing) message that He is.

I think you missed Heart-Rest's point, here. The point is not that the Church is somehow ""God" (which is absurd); the point is that the Church is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the custodian of His revelation, and the God-ordained means by which His Salvation is communicated to the world. To reject the Church is akin to rejecting the ambassador of the King; and I imagine there would be few Kings who would be pleased by the excuse, "Hey, all I did was reject some dumb ambassador... I didn't reject YOU, Your Majesty!" If God established His Church, to the extent that He identifies Her with Himself (cf. Acts 9:4, etc.) and with His Beloved, spotless Bride (Ephesians 5:32, Revelation 9:7-9, Revelation 21, etc.), then it's no trivial matter to reject Her. She doesn't need to be deified in order to be beloved by (and acting in the Name of) the Deity.

[paladinan]

Good grief... this thread has gone to Mars, and back!

If I forgot to address anyone’s substantial points, could you ping me to that effect, and point me to the comment(s)? I can’t promise to get to them all, but I’d like to hit the major ones...

Daniel1212, I’m especially trying to get back to yours, if I could only find the silly thing! Even my ping list isn’t much help, because it’s flooded!

[daniel1212]

We’re nowhere near that densely populated, but we usually do get better services for our money. However, what you’re looking at isn’t so unusual for us.

With 6-7 foot banks now most would say that it is a good thing we do not have your usual! I heard that when the Ntl. Guard commander arrived here from Buffalo NY (i know not where you are) after the Blizzard of 78 then he said something like, "What's the big deal," but 3,0000 vehicles were abandoned on Rt. 128. Yet now they have to get sanction to even dump snow in the ocean!

[metmom]

God help us.

Deliver us from the government who is here to help.....

[MeganC]

You will be forced to choose either being Catholic, or being pagan.

Being Catholic is not and will never be a choice for me. I am first, last, and always a Christian. My Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ and He never asked me to pray to some demigod, He never asked me to pray to a statue, and He never said my salvation was conditioned on obedience to some dictator in Rome or his minions.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

That's what Jesus said. He didn't say that I could only be saved conditioned on satisfying the earthly requirements of a bureaucracy that was long ago compromised and infiltrated by homosexuals.