Sola Scriptura

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

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offen­sive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then begin­ning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscov­ered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scrip­ture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for heal­ing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institu­tion such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the suffi­ciency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradi­tion is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradi­tion and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

1. Compare: Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 19.
2. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p. 22.
3. Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 21 and no. 24.

[CynicalBear]

>>And where does it say in Scripture that something needs to be in Scripture in order to be believed?<<

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

Unless you can show any other documented proof of what the apostles taught we are left with scripture alone.

>>Beyond that, see my comment at #730, re: the role of the Church.<<

Anybody with a lick of sense knows that foundations and pillars don't build or create. The Catholic Church putting out that "pillar and foundation" quote as some type of licenses to create truth other than found in scripture is imbecilic.

>>There's an obvious distinction between the "Churches" mentioned in Revelation and in the writings of St. Paul<<

First of all the word "church" and the concept of it as put forth today doesn't exist in the New Testament. The word used is ekklesia and Matthew 18:17 was talking about the local ekklesia of believers allowing someone persisting in sin to meet with that group. Once again the Catholic Church twisting that verse to mean something it doesn't is creating a false "church".

>>"He who endures to the end will be saved." (Matthew 10:22, repeated verbatim in Matthew 24:13) That looks pretty solid to me.<<

It sure does. And the Holy Spirit guarantee to us who know His voice will never be lost by the Father as He promised.

>>What's stopping me from freely choosing to throw it away?<<

A person with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit wouldn't even think to make that statement. Your "snatching away" comment is purely lacking in knowledge. It's Satan who does the "snatching away" and we have the promise of God that the possibility of that happening to those He has chosen isn't feasible.

>>But our acceptance of it is NOT irrevocable; we can still fall away (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:12, Hebrews 3:12, Hebrews 6:4-6, etc.)<<

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

I don't see much faith in God's abilities in your statements paladinan.

Hebrews 3:12 is under the heading "dangers of unbelief". Paul was talking about those who didn't believe the gospel. He's talking about encouraging others to believe rather than remain in unbelief.

>>We can trust His free offer, absolutely. It's the other side of the equation (i.e. OUR side, where we can use our free will to reject Him in favor of lesser things) that isn't so trustworthy.<<

Once again, no one with the indwelling Holy Spirit would even think to make a comment like that. If you think there is a possibility that you would "reject Him" it may be an indication that some serious private prayer asking for the closeness of the Holy Spirit is in order.

[paladinan]

Well then, I suppose where we stand after all of this is that my salvation is assured and yours isn’t unless you continue to satisfy your obligations.

Not quite. You *think* your salvation is assured (based, I'd argue, on a misunderstanding), and I think my salvation is not yet assured.

I didn't invent this. When Jesus said (twice, in the same Gospel [Matthew]) that "he who endures to the end will be saved", it's not reasonable to assume that He said such a thing (and repeated it, for emphasis) pointlessly. When Jesus warns us about something (especially if more than once), it must be a true threat. There are numerous other Scriptures to that effect, and NO Scriptures which guarantee salvation unconditionally (regardless of whether we keep sinning grievously or not).

Look... I completely understand that the idea of "once saved, always saved" is tempting and attractive, at least at first glance; the idea of "breathing a sigh of relief" and being "on" to do good works simply because it'd be a "nice thing to do" appeals to us, especially since we humans (including Christians) are so prone to fall into sin (and somesimes grave sin). It'd be a bit like an employer guaranteeing my salary for life, and guaranteeing me that--no matter what I did--I could never be fired, but that "if I'd continue to teach my classes, it'd be very good of me, and befitting a good employee, and an appropriate way to show my gratitude for the immense free gift".

But haven't you noticed that we humans (even those who have accepted Christ) can sometimes be pitifully UN-grateful? We have to ask the question: what of those who've "accepted Christ" (whatever that means to any given faith group), and have then "backslidden"? (That term, by the way, is not usually a Catholic one; it came into frequent use in Evangelical/Revivalist circles, mainly.) What if a "backsliding" Christian simply chooses NOT to reform his life, at least partially because he sees no need (and that various sins and sinful tendencies--especially sexual ones--are intoxicating and titillating and enjoyable, and he doesn't want to give them up)?

I've heard a variety of non-Catholic Christian answers to this:

1) "That person was never truly Christian in the first place!" Well... HE certainly THOUGHT he was! If a retroactive declaration of "he was never a Christian in the first place" can be used, then it could be used on YOU, should you fall into habitual sin in the future... and as such, your "guarantee of salvation" was no more real than HIS was. (I.e. you won't know if you're a "real" Christian until you die, and until it's too late to change... which is hardly what "once-saved-always-saved" offers as an assurance.)

2) "They're still saved, but a sinful lifestyle robs them of the JOY of their salvation!" This has two problems: first, it's a gross injustice to those who're being HARMED by this person's sins in the meantime; and second, this really seems to disregard Who God Is, and why He made us in the first place (i.e. to unite Himself to us as intimately as a bridegroom with a bride, and to unite us to each other--hence the two great commandments: "Love God, and love neighbor"). Anyone whose character has become laden with vice (i.e. evil habits) will not WANT to be in Heaven! Heaven will be more intolerable to them than Hell! At any rate: it's hardly a fitting justice for a life of sin to say that "you really didn't enjoy yourself as much as you could have, had you lived a life of virtue!"

3) "The sinful life will make the sinner suffer in THIS lifetime, and he'll be paid back plenty!" While there's a great deal of truth to the idea that sin will empty one's life of joy and will tend to visit evil on the sinner, that's nowhere near a universal guarantee; it's proverbial that "the evil flourish and the good suffer", and this life doesn't come close to redressing that. (Ironically, Protestantism [with all due respect] really doesn't know what to do with human suffering, whereas the Catholic Church's rich teaching on redemptive suffering makes sense of it in a way that nothing else does--it's one of the most consoling things about Church teaching, in fact, and the rest of the world just tries to ignore or self-medicate or euthanize the pain away.) It may seem like semantics, but it's really quite critical: the idea of "I've accepted Jesus once, so now I'm all set" is akin to a husband saying "I love you" on his wedding day, and then never saying it again (the so-called "joke" goes that he says to his complaining wife, "I told you I loved you 30 years ago; if that ever changes, I'll let you know!"). That relationship will wither, and it might die.

That's the horrid thing about Luther's error, in this regard: it reduces our RELATIONSHIP with God (which means nothing, if it's not ongoing and bi-directional) to a mere JURIDICAL arrangement; it replaces a marriage with a judicial acquittal. UNLIVING things can sometimes be kept intact without maintenance; but LIVING things need care, lest they sicken and die. That's true of our hearts and souls, as well; our relationship with God can sicken and die, if we neglect it, just as a houseplant can sicken and die if we forget to water it and prune it and get it adequate sun. No one is saying that we "made" the water and pruning shears and sunlight; but if we don't USE them, our souls can die.

Re: the idea of "worrying about salvation" vs. "assurance": at the risk of making this long, I want to post something from a Saint who was well-acquainted with suffering, sin, and the blessed virtue of divine Hope--St. Claude de la Columbiere (not well-known, but he's a spiritual master):

"An Act of Hope and Confidence in God
by Saint Claude De La Colombiere

My God, I believe most firmly that Thou watchest over all who hope in Thee, and that we can want for nothing when we rely upon Thee in all things; therefore I am resolved for the future to have no anxieties, and to cast all my cares upon Thee.

People may deprive me of worldly goods and of honors; sickness may take from me my strength and the means of serving Thee; I may even lose Thy grace by sin; but my trust shall never leave me. I will preserve it to the last moment of my life, and the powers of hell shall seek in vain to wrestle it from me.

Let others seek happiness in their wealth, in their talents; let them trust to the purity of their lives, the severity of their mortifications, to the number of their good works, the fervor of their prayers; as for me, O my God, in my very confidence lies all my hope. "For Thou, O Lord, singularly has settled me in hope." This confidence can never be in vain. "No one has hoped in the Lord and has been confounded."

I am assured, therefore, of my eternal happiness, for I firmly hope for it, and all my hope is in Thee. "In Thee, O Lord, I have hoped; let me never be confounded."

I know, alas! I know but too well that I am frail and changable; I know the power of temptation against the strongest virtue. I have seen stars fall from heaven, and pillars of firmament totter; but these things alarm me not. While I hope in Thee I am sheltered from all misfortune, and I am sure that my trust shall endure, for I rely upon Thee to sustain this unfailing hope.

Finally, I know that my confidence cannot exceed Thy bounty, and that I shall never receive less than I have hoped for from Thee. Therefore I hope that Thou wilt sustain me against my evil inclinations; that Thou wilt protect me against the most furious assults of the evil one, and that Thou wilt cause my weakness to triumph over my most powerful enemies. I hope that Thou wilt never cease to love me, and that I shall love Thee unceasingly. "In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped; let me never be confounded."

Now, St. Claude was as Catholic as I am (and a far better one)... but does this sound like someone who's despairing or fretting over every last little thing, regarding his salvation? The Catholic Church offers not just a comparable "assurance" which you seem to be wanting, but She offers one based in truth and the fullness of the Faith.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
And where does it say in Scripture that something needs to be in Scripture in order to be believed?

[CynicalBear]
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

All right. Now, you need to cover at least two more things:

1) Prove, from Scripture alone, that "the Gospel preached by St. Paul" is completely contained within the 66-book Protestant Bible, and never exceeds it.

2) Prove that the Catholic Church exceeds the Gospel as preached by St. Paul (and he preached both in writing and orally--see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.).

Your argument assumes both of these points... so you'll need to prove them, in order to get any traction.

Unless you can show any other documented proof of what the apostles taught we are left with scripture alone.

Er... and that "documentation" would need to be in the 66-book Protestant Bible, right? What other "documentation" would you take as authoritative?

Anybody with a lick of sense knows that foundations and pillars don't build or create.

The insinuation about "sense" aside, I agree. Were you assuming that I thought otherwise?

The Catholic Church putting out that "pillar and foundation" quote as some type of licenses to create truth other than found in scripture is imbecilic.

Forgive me for volleying your comment back at you, but: philosophies which claim that the Catholic Church has ever "created truth" of any sort, or that She has license to do so, could certainly be called imbecilic. Did you not read my reply to this claim, earlier?

First of all the word "church" and the concept of it as put forth today doesn't exist in the New Testament.

Given that you've not specified what YOU mean by "church", in that statement of yours, I can't reply to this, yet. Care to elaborate? And after that, can you prove your assertion from Scripture alone?

The word used is ekklesia and Matthew 18:17 was talking about the local ekklesia of believers allowing someone persisting in sin to meet with that group.

All right: I now know your opinion. Now, please prove it true, using Scripture alone. Any attempts to say, "this word/passage of Scripture really MEANS [x]" is interpretation (by definition)... which "sola SCriptura" is powerless to do.

Once again the Catholic Church twisting that verse to mean something it doesn't is creating a false "church".

Yes, you've mentioned your opinion on that point, repeatedly; but you're on to PROVE that point (keeping to your own standards, including "sola Scriptura"), if you want anyone else to give it weight.

[paladinan]
"He who endures to the end will be saved." (Matthew 10:22, repeated verbatim in Matthew 24:13) That looks pretty solid to me.

[CynicalBear]
It sure does. And the Holy Spirit guarantee to us who know His voice will never be lost by the Father as He promised.

Your answer begs at least two questions:

(1) How do you decide who "knows His voice" (as opposed to a counterfeit)? I've known plenty of Pentecostals who were convinced that the "Holy Spirit" was telling them to do some rather nutty things! And on that point: how would you prove that even YOU "know the Holy Spirit's voice", and prove it from Scripture alone?

(2) "Never be lost by the Father" is not what the Scripture says. Look again. So... how do you prove that your extrapolation/interpretation is RIGHT, using "sola Scriptura"?

[paladinan]
What's stopping me from freely choosing to throw it away?

[CynicalBear]
A person with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit wouldn't even think to make that statement.

Oh, come now! This is a "special pleading" fallacy (e.g. "if only you were enlightened, you would know that I'm right; your vision is clouded, that's all!"), it proves nothing other than your personal feelings (which I could guess, anyway), and it's just plain silly.

Your "snatching away" comment is purely lacking in knowledge.

Mm-hmm. Logical proofs impress me far more than do forceful declarations of personal opinion, FRiend.

It's Satan who does the "snatching away" and we have the promise of God that the possibility of that happening to those He has chosen isn't feasible.

The only way this could possibly make sense is if you think we (as Christians) have no free will at all! You seriously think that the only way to lose Heaven is for Satan to "snatch" us away against our will? You don't think it's possible to sin? I'm asking, here.

[paladinan]
But our acceptance of it is NOT irrevocable; we can still fall away (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:12, Hebrews 3:12, Hebrews 6:4-6, etc.)

[CynicalBear]
1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

I don't see much faith in God's abilities in your statements paladinan.

Let's see if your "seeing" is clear, in this instance. Are you assuming that St. Paul is warning against a nonexistent danger (i.e. falling), and that his audience--by definition--is incapable of falling? If you'll excuse me borrowing your figures of speech, again: I don't see much faith in St. Paul's ability to talk sense, in your statements, CynicalBear.

God certainly offers sufficient grace to escape/overcome any temptation; but what that means is that we have no excuse if we freely choose to sin anyway! Otherwise, St. Paul is talking nonsense... and given a choice between "St. Paul is talking nonsense (and the Holy Spirit included nonsense in the Scriptures)" vs. "CynicalBear is mistaken", I'll choose the latter (no offense).

Hebrews 3:12 is under the heading "dangers of unbelief". Paul was talking about those who didn't believe the gospel. He's talking about encouraging others to believe rather than remain in unbelief.

Hebrews 3:12 reads, "Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God." First, the author calls them "brethren" (an odd term, for those who didn't yet believe); second, he warns that "lest there be an evil, unbelieving heart IN YOU" (the audience members), not in "someone among you who doesn't believe"; third, "fall away from the living God" means exactly that--to "fall away from the living God". One can't "fall away" without having BEEN THERE, in the first place. Otherwise, he would have used a phrase such as "leading you to STAY away from the living God". Doesn't that make much more sense?

[paladinan]
We can trust His free offer, absolutely. It's the other side of the equation (i.e. OUR side, where we can use our free will to reject Him in favor of lesser things) that isn't so trustworthy.

[CynicalBear]
Once again, no one with the indwelling Holy Spirit would even think to make a comment like that.

And once again, you're resorting to a dismissive fallacy known as "special pleading", and anyone could say that about anything, while proving nothing. You need to prove your ideas, not just assert them.

If you think there is a possibility that you would "reject Him" it may be an indication that some serious private prayer asking for the closeness of the Holy Spirit is in order.

Every last sin--no matter how small--is a rejection of God, by definition. Do you not believe that? Alternately: do you seriously believe that you are now (and that you will remain, to your dying moment) completely without sin? That would be quite a feat...

[CynicalBear]

>>All right. Now, you need to cover at least two more things:<<

No, I don't.

>>Prove, from Scripture alone, that "the Gospel preached by St. Paul" is completely contained within the 66-book Protestant Bible, and never exceeds it.<<

I need to do no such thing. If someone claims he taught something more then is written in scripture they need to prove that with documentation.

>>Prove that the Catholic Church exceeds the Gospel as preached by St. Paul (and he preached both in writing and orally--see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.).<<

The assumption of Mary. Catholics need to prove that he or the other apostles taught it and the requirement to believe it. If they propose he taught it orally let's see the documented proof.

>>Your argument assumes both of these points... so you'll need to prove them, in order to get any traction.<<

Nonsense. Paul said that those who taught something they didn't was to be considered accursed. If the Catholic Church can't prove the apostles taught something like the assumptions I will consider them accursed. It's that simple.

>>Er... and that "documentation" would need to be in the 66-book Protestant Bible, right? What other "documentation" would you take as authoritative?<<

Show your documented proof that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.

>>Forgive me for volleying your comment back at you, but: philosophies which claim that the Catholic Church has ever "created truth" of any sort, or that She has license to do so, could certainly be called imbecilic.<<

Then prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. It's the Catholic Church that created that so called "truth".

>>All right: I now know your opinion. Now, please prove it true, using Scripture alone.<<

Matthew 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου* οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Only building an assembly of those called out of the world to God in there. Nothing about building an organized hierarchy such as the Catholic Church. The closest Greek word to "church" is kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" and it's not in that verse or any other verse that apostles addressed their letters to.

>>How do you decide who "knows His voice" (as opposed to a counterfeit)?<<

I have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

>>"Never be lost by the Father" is not what the Scripture says. Look again.<<

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

>>The only way this could possibly make sense is if you think we (as Christians) have no free will at all!<<

If you don't believe that all sin originates with the influence of Satan there isn't much I can say.

As for the rest of your post I will simply repeat. If anyone understood the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and His influence they wouldn't be plagued by fear of "falling away".

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

Mind reading is a form of making it personal.

[paladinan]

RM... with all due respect, I'm not sure how anything I've said could be construed as that. CynicalBear, for example, said all of the following, in his comment prior to mine:

Anybody with a lick of sense knows that foundations and pillars don't build or create.

A person with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit wouldn't even think to make that statement.

I don't see much faith in God's abilities in your statements paladinan.

Once again, no one with the indwelling Holy Spirit would even think to make a comment like that. If you think there is a possibility that you would "reject Him" it may be an indication that some serious private prayer asking for the closeness of the Holy Spirit is in order.

So... he can categorize me as one of the people "without a lick of sense", one who "lacks the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" (he said that twice--how would he know that without reading my heart?), and one who apparently "doesn't have faith in God's promises" (another reading of mind and heart)... and I didn't "ping" you, even though these certainly seem to fit your definition, since I was willing to have a "thick skin" about it. Why am I now being called to task for something which he does with abandon?

Again, with all due respect: so long as we're not getting fiery or insulting or profane, wouldn't it be easier on you (and easier on the conversation) to let the debate play out without intervention, in this case?

[Religion Moderator]

For something to be "making it personal" on the Religion Forum, it must be speaking of another Freeper, personally. Mind reading, attributing motive and making the thread "about" an individual Freeper are all types of "making it personal."

Saying "you *think*" is mind reading.

Arms-length generalizations (e.g. "anyone with a lick of sense knows") are not "making it personal." If the poster said "you do not have a lick of sense" it would be "making it personal."

"Baptists are heretics" is not "making it personal." "You are a heretic" is "making it personal."

Expressing one's own mind about another's statement is also not "making it personal" - e.g. "I don't see much faith ... in your statements..." If he had said "you don't have faith" it would be mind-reading, i.e. "making it personal."

Also, qualifying a statement with an "if" or wording a statement as a question is usually not "making it personal" - e.g. "If you think..." or "Are you a heretic?" If it had been stated "You think" or "You are a heretic" it would be "making it personal."

When in doubt, avoid personal pronouns and the use of other Freeper's names. Quote the other guy before revealing your understanding of what he said. These will keep the discussion focused on the message instead of the messenger.

[paladinan]

I’m short on time, at the moment; let me private-message you when I get a moment.

[metmom]

Why do you keep drawing an "either/or" line through the middle of things?

Because JESUS does.

HE said that He was the way, the truth, and the life and that no man comes to the Father but through HIM.

He told us that the HOLY SPIRIT would draw all men to Himself.

[metmom]

And do remember that it's not "lavished on us" by faith ALONE.

Sure it is. It's what God's word says.

Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

God says it's by faith.

[metmom]

(And to save precious time: please do not waste time by citing lots and lots of verses describing how spiritual gifts are through Christ, or through faith, or through grace; your job is to prove, from the Bible alone, that (despite 2000 years of history and Tradition which says otherwise) the Church is NOT the vehicle through which Jesus dispenses His grace and spiritual gifts. Don't do the artificial "either/or" thing.)

No. You are making the positive claim that the church is the means by which God's grace is dispensed therefore it's up to YOU to provide positive support for your claim.

It's not up to people to prove a negative, which it the SOP fallback position that Catholics always appeal to.

This business of *Our claims are true and have to be accepted as such because we said so unless you can prove them wrong* is ludicrous.

If you choose to reject the truth of Scripture, which you already have been shown, then there's nothing else to tell you. I have nothing new to add because Scripture does not change.

I don't care of it's 2,000 million years of church *tradition*, if it isn't based on Scripture, it's not true.

Their traditions of men claims of being the vehicle through which God dispenses His grace are meaningless, hot air if they cannot be backed up with Scripture and they can't.

You've heard the only answer I can give and will give. Asking again in another way is not going to produce any more information.

[metmom]

It is NOT guaranteed, at least until someone dies in a state of sanctifying grace and actually IS saved "once and for all".

All people who are saved are in a place of sanctifying grace.

God is in the process of sanctifying every believer as long as he is alive on this planet, and when he dies, he is absent from the body and present with the Lord.

Since the believer is already seated with Christ Jesus in the heavenly places, the only thing death does is free us from this body of sin. Our spirit and soul is already dealt with and because we are already alive in heaven spiritually, seated with Christ Jesus, we CANNOT be lost and go to hell.

[metmom]

Every last sin--no matter how small--is a rejection of God, by definition.

By the Catholic church's definition.

However, even if we selfishly choose to sin, God does not disown us and throw us into hell.

It's not an on again off again relationship with our heavenly father, any more than a earthly father disowns his own child for every act of disobedience the child commits, and then makes the child work his way back into his good graces through *penance*, etc. to get back into the family.

What a warped view of the love of God Catholicism has put forth.

God has given us a judicial pardon of our sin that allows Him to treat us, relate to us, and deal with us as if we had never sinned.

He doesn't expect us to be perfect and He knows we can't be. That's why He Himself provided the means for us to be made right with Him.

With the Law comes knowledge of sin. It was never put in place to show us how to earn salvation. It was put in charge to lead us to Christ so that we might be justified by faith.

If you want to continue to work your way to heaven and to try to work your way into God' favor and grace, have at it, but it's no longer grace you're operating under.

By trying to work to earn it, to do the *right* things to earn it or keep it, you negate grace and remove yourself from it. All that you are left with then is the justice of God for the deeds you have performed.

And that's not going to get any human being anywhere really fast.

[paladinan]

Not trying to neglect your replies; sorry for the delay! FR access is very spotty on weekends. More later!

[paladinan]

Sorry, again... I’ll try tomorrow; swamped, today!

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
All right. Now, you need to cover at least two more things:

[CynicalBear]
No, I don't.

Let me rephrase: if you want to be taken seriously, you'll supply the logically-necessary articles which I referenced for you. If you don't, then... well and good; bloviate away. It's not my choice; logic requires that sound conclusions have clear definitions, true premises, and a conclusion which follows from the premises. You haven't come close, yet.

[paladinan]
Prove, from Scripture alone, that "the Gospel preached by St. Paul" is completely contained within the 66-book Protestant Bible, and never exceeds it.

[CynicalBear]
I need to do no such thing. If someone claims he taught something more then is written in scripture they need to prove that with documentation.

FRiend, I didn't put the idea of "sola Scriptura" in your mouth; you (and others on this board) use it as a standard for measuring everything... and it is not only unproven, but unprovable! It also logically precedes any claims about things being "Scriptural", since only "sola Scriptura" gives the "green light" to dismissing any spiritual truths not explicitly found in Scripture (and, in this case, in the 66-book Protestant Bible). Don't shift the responsibility of proof. Your claim came before mine; so... own it, or drop it. Prove sola Scriptura, or drop the standard.

[paladinan]
Prove that the Catholic Church exceeds the Gospel as preached by St. Paul (and he preached both in writing and orally--see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.).

The assumption of Mary. Catholics need to prove that he or the other apostles taught it and the requirement to believe it. If they propose he taught it orally let's see the documented proof.

First, you'll need to make up your mind: are you requiring that ST. PAUL taught it (as you say in the last sentence), or are you allowing that ANY of the Apostles believed/taught it?

Second, let me ask you again: what "documented proof" would possibly convince you, outside of the 66-book Protestant Bible? What's to keep you from dismissing it as "unbiblical", on that spurious basis?

Paul said that those who taught something they didn't was to be considered accursed. If the Catholic Church can't prove the apostles taught something like the assumptions I will consider them accursed. It's that simple.

You're welcome to consider any personal opinion you like; it's simply that you'll need to prove sola Scriptura (i.e. prove that Divine Revelation was limited to the 66-book Protestant Bible alone, and that anything which non-Catholics don't see in that Bible fragment must [somehow] necessarily be "other than what the Apostles taught"), lest I (and others) simply take your statement as raw opinion, and nothing more.

[paladinan]
Er... and that "documentation" would need to be in the 66-book Protestant Bible, right? What other "documentation" would you take as authoritative?

[CynicalBear]
Show your documented proof that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.

I'll dig up what I can find. But: don't you have an answer to my question? Or are you choosing not to answer, for some reason, simply to have me do all the work? I'd rather not do lots of leg-work simply to have you dismiss it out of hand for some spurious "it's not in the Bible!" reason. I do have other things to do with my time, trust me.

Tell you what: as a gesture of good faith, would you be so kind as to tell me (while I'm searching) whether you'll accept any "proof" outside of your version of the Bible, at all?

Matthew 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου* οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Very good! (Nice coding!) Now, show how this supports your case.

Only building an assembly of those called out of the world to God in there. Nothing about building an organized hierarchy such as the Catholic Church. The closest Greek word to "church" is kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" and it's not in that verse or any other verse that apostles addressed their letters to.

It's odd, but... I don't see this "explanation" of yours anywhere in Scripture! Can you supply chapter/verse? (Note to your point: I don't see anything about use of television, 501c(3) donations to religious groups, or anything else indicative of modern development in Scripture, either. You'll need to prove that the Scriptures forbid it, I'm afraid.)

[paladinan]
How do you decide who "knows His voice" (as opposed to a counterfeit)?

[CynicalBear]
I have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

Mm-hmm. So claims every charlatan who's ever sold snake oil. It's obviously possible for those who claim to be Christian to be misled (you've said as much about Catholics, IIRC), and they can claim the "guarantee of the Holy Spirit" at least as reliably as you can (and they may say that you're misinterpreting Scripture woefully... since the Holy Spirit told them so, and they can pull "proof texts" and Biblical scholars and lexicons out to prove their case, as well as you can prove yours). So... you've pushed the problem back one step: how do you know that you're hearing the Holy Spirit, and not merely what you want to hear? And how do you prove that by the 66-book Protestant Bible alone?

[paladinan]
"Never be lost by the Father" is not what the Scripture says. Look again.

[CynicalBear]
John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

I can still argue the semantics and wording of that, but... all right; for the sake of the discussion, I'll give you that one. Now: can you define the set of "all people given Christ by the Father", and also the set of "all things willed by the Father"? I ask the latter question, because there are at least two types of "Will of God": His "positive", or "perfect" Will (which can never be thwarted), and His "permissive" Will (which He allows to be thwarted, to preserve our freedom). God never positively "wills" that we sin (or else He would not forbid it), and God never positively wills that anyone be damned (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4)... but He obviously ALLOWS people to be damned. So... which type of Will is being described, here? And how do you prove your answer using the 66-book Protestant Bible alone?

[paladinan]
The only way this could possibly make sense is if you think we (as Christians) have no free will at all!

[CynicalBear]
If you don't believe that all sin originates with the influence of Satan there isn't much I can say.

FRiend, if you dodge a clear question in order to substitute a red herring ("influence" vs. "snatched"), then there's not much *I* can say, either. Your whole state point was to refute the idea that we can "jump" out of God's Hand and be lost; citing "influence" really doesn't help your case; this perfectly fits the idea which I was proposing: that Satan influences/tempts us to "jump out" of the Hand of God, and be lost.

As for the rest of your post I will simply repeat. If anyone understood the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and His influence they wouldn't be plagued by fear of "falling away".

Fair enough: that's your personal opinion (albeit unproven and vacuous). And I'll repeat myself, as well:

Given a choice between "St. Paul is talking nonsense (and the Holy Spirit included nonsense in the Scriptures)" vs. "CynicalBear is mistaken", I'll choose the latter (no offense).

[paladinan]

I don't have much time, but here's a reference to one of the earlier teachings on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, by St. John of Damascus (revered by both East and West, alike).

Note, mainly, the absolute LACK of outcry against what many Protestants would call "a heretical innovation" (or worse). I don't think it's stretching things to say that, if you (or metmom, or others of like mind) were a Christian writer of prominence at the time of St. John of Damascus, you would have screamed your objections and denunciations from the rooftops. Am I wrong?

And yet... crickets. No calls for "the heretic to be reined in", no Church councils to condemn his propositions with anathemas, no horror-driven schisms of "Bible Christians" fleeing the Church in droves.

And why? Because--I submit--St. John was teaching something already known and accepted from of old. It wasn't an innovation at all; it was a clear statement of what was always true, and always (at least in some parts) known to be true.

Beyond that, you might check out the references from the actual Papal Document which defined (i.e. clarified, beyond all doubt) the dogma, once and for all. Sorry not to parse it more, for you... but, as mentioned, I'm short on time. Ask questions as you like... though I will say: the more civil and non-inflammatory your replies, the more likely I'll consider all this work worthwhile.

[CynicalBear]

>>I don't have much time, but here's a reference to one of the earlier teachings on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, by St. John of Damascus (revered by both East and West, alike).<<

From the 8th century??? How preposterous. Maybe you didn't understand the question. Here's my question again.

"Then prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary."

We know that churches were off track already by 96AD as evidenced in the letters to the churches recorded in Revelation. Some lame statement about "LACK of outcry" 600 years later doesn't cut it paladinan. Paul said anyone who taught something other than what they taught. We know what the Catholic Church teaches. We ask you to prove that the apostles taught it.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
I don't have much time, but here's a reference to one of the earlier teachings on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, by St. John of Damascus (revered by both East and West, alike).

[CynicalBear]
From the 8th century??? How preposterous. Maybe you didn't understand the question. Here's my question again.

:) Your snark is really cute, by the way. And the three question marks make for a nice, emotive "flair" at the end of that sentence.

But yes, it's from the 8th century... and I explained some of my reasoning, already. And did you read Munificentissimus Deus? You don't mention it, here. More on that, in a moment.

We know that churches were off track already by 96AD as evidenced in the letters to the churches recorded in Revelation.

After only 19 comments, did you forget my reply to the mistaken idea that "Church" = "churches"? I'm also not sure you have quite clear how to distinguish Church teaching from anything else; your comment confuses practices with teaching, for one thing, and it confuses Church teaching with individual acceptance of error.

Some lame statement about "LACK of outcry" 600 years later doesn't cut it paladinan.

Your personal opinion is noted and logged, yet again. But let's explore that: do you believe that ANY Christians were "untainted" by what you've described as "going off track"? If so, do you have any evidence for their existence, at all? If there is what Protestants might consider "a faithful remnant, unstained by Rome", where were they? Where is the evidence for them? Or do you think that the entire world and the entire Church was sunk into worldwide error (akin to what the Mormons believe), and only more recent "prophets" restored the truth?

Paul said anyone who taught something other than what they taught.

FRiend, I've supplied evidence on my side, albeit evidence which doesn't meet with your tastes. I've supplied a Doctor of the Church who attests that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was already established belief, and I've supplied a link to the document which defined the dogma, and which supplies its own references and reasons, including the fact that the Assumption was celebrated in the Church liturgy for centuries before St. John Damascene came on the scene--which you didn't address). Now, fair's fair: tell me how, when, or why you'd consider ANY extrabiblical source as "proof", given a "sola Scriptura" mindset.

And since you've pushed this quote of St. Paul so strongly... where does St. Paul (or any apostle) teach that we are justified by faith ALONE? (Your own reference to Revelation is ironic, actually, since Our Lord threatens to take away the lampstand of the Church at Ephesus, unless they repent and "do the works they did at first".) Where does St. Paul (or any apostle) spell out the exact contents of Scripture, or justify throwing away 7 books of the Bible (and parts of 2 other books)? Where do the Apostles ever contradict St. Peter, who says that Baptism SAVES?

We know what the Catholic Church teaches.

I'm not sure who "we" are... but I'd gently suggest that you might not know what the Church teaches, at all. You've made plenty of elementary errors, about it.

We ask you to prove that the apostles taught it.

...or that it was taught (implicitly or explicitly) in Scripture. Remember?

You might also work in a proof of "sola Scriptura", when you get a chance...

[CynicalBear]

>>where does St. Paul (or any apostle) teach that we are justified by faith ALONE?<<

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gallatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

>> Where does St. Paul (or any apostle) spell out the exact contents of Scripture, or justify throwing away 7 books of the Bible<<

The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews and were never part of scripture. The Catholic Church added them.

>>...or that it was taught (implicitly or explicitly) in Scripture. Remember?<<

I keep asking for another infallible proof of what the apostles taught and Catholics can never produce one. That leaves scripture alone.