Replies

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?

That has been refuted numerous times.

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

Some of what is considered denominations simply focus on different ministries. Like the Salvation Army, Navigators, Wycliff Bible Translators, simply some local congregations who wish to govern themselves.

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

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

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

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.

Sometimes the reason is simply that not everyone is as mature in Christ as others.

God allows for that in what the Holy Spirit refers to as *disputable matters* in Romans 14.

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.

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

Catholics do not all agree on every aspect of Catholicism, and yet they continue to claim they have a superior system by adding tradition and human leadership to the mix.

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.

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!