Not to worry...You can use your iPhone for a quick confession:
Posted on 03/24/2015 12:27:30 PM PDT by Gamecock
The show that calls itself “Catholic Answers,” recently featured a Missouri Synod Lutheran caller as highlighted on a recent Dividing Line. In response to the caller, the hosts began asking him some questions. I wouldn’t be surprised if you get these same questions from some of your Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances, particularly those who listen to “Catholic Answers.”
Question 1: Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
Short Answer: John 20:31 says, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” And many other verses.
Brief Explanation: John’s statement implies that a person could pick up John’s gospel, read it, believe it, and receive eternal life in that way. Moreover, John’s statement at least hints at the fact that the other gospels have a similar purpose – they are written for us to read, believe, and have eternal life.
Possible Objection: But where is the only in that text?
Response: The sola or only of “Sola Scriptura” is simply a negative claim – in other words, it’s saying that Scripture is unique – there’s nothing else like Scripture. If you want some verses that emphasize the unique character of Scripture, those also exist.
For example, Romans 3:4 says “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, “That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.’ (Psalm 51:4)” This emphasizes the crucial distinction between God’s word and mens’ words.
Another example is this:
“ Deuteronomy 13:1-5 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;” thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
The point to take away from that passage is that even if someone has authority that appears to be attested by working wonders, the person’s message should be judged by the Scriptures (in this case, by the Pentateuch).
Paul similarly warns the Galatians: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) Someone may object that “preached” could refer to the gospel Paul delivered orally. Nevertheless, we have that gospel in written form today.
Likewise, the Bereans are commended for subjecting the apostles’ own preaching to a comparison with the Scriptures: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
Question 2: Where is “Scripture interprets Scripture” in the Bible?
Short answer: 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” If that is true, then it follows that all Scripture has one divine author even if it has many human authors.
Longer answer: Indeed, we have examples of Scripture interpreting itself explicitly, such as the quotation from John 20:31, above, which provides a purpose for the book of John, and more broadly for Scripture. Other examples include the citation of Old Testament passages in the New Testament, together with explanations of what they meant or how they were fulfilled in Christ. Indeed, sometimes the New Testament includes Jesus’ own explanation of his parables. Numerous other examples could be provided.
Rejoinder: But even if we had no answer, can the matter seriously be doubted? Does the person asking the question really think that the Bible is either incomprehensible or should not be understood by taking one part in relation to another?
Even the Roman Catholic “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” puts it this somewhat poetic (and consequently imprecise) way (CCC 102):
“ Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.
We understand that Rome wishes to deny Christians the ability to judge her doctrines by Scripture, but surely it cannot be denied that Scripture does interpret Scripture. How else would one read it? As just isolated statements each possibly meaning anything at all? The very notion seems bizarre.-TurretinFan
Please do not put all Catholics into one bucket. Would you be upset if I said the same thing about Baptists or Lutherans?
How are you following Christ’s command “Love God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself?”
Links?
BTW, Luther is not my pope. I don’t venerate fallible human beings. However, many Roman Catholics on FR are quite taken by him. Just look up thread. Not 10 posts and they mention him.
Now that was pretty good. Also so good Catholics are taking up the NT practice of full immersion. Hats off!
Not to worry...You can use your iPhone for a quick confession:
First of all, where else do you suggest the book of Revelation go? (at the beginning?)
And, tell me, which Bible fails to place Jude second from the last?
And so what if Jude & Revelation are "last" in ANY Bible? (Are you implying then that the entire Christian church deems them as "bottom rung"?) Really? A ridiculous argument.
Do you see how half of your argument here is utterly decimated?
So, this argument of yours here says absolutely ZERO about Jude & Revelation.
As for Hebrews, I already quoted Luther in my last post what his thoughts were on Hebrews. Anyway, so he transposed Peter's & John's epistles with Hebrews & James. So what?
Luther loved parts of the Bible, and had an incredible contempt for other parts of the Bible. “James is an Epistle of straw”.
This was Luther's conclusion in 1522, but was dropped thereafter in many republishing of his work thru the last 23 years of his life.
Contempt? If you said a book had "many good sayings in them," would you describe that as contemptuous? (Well that was a counterbalanced Luther summary of the book of James)
You see, this is the problem where you attempt to isolate a single quote Luther made before age 40 and attempt to construct an entire animus and worldview upon it!
Martin Luther, Works Erlangen Edition and Martin Luther Table Talk or Tischreden for the rest.
If Roman Catholics are so 'taken with Luther' how come you were the first one to post a chocolate-box picture of him in an attempt to win an argument?
Catholic.com
Easy to remember, and second only to the Vatican in terms of popularity among Catholics.
It’s a tremendous resource.
+ + +
The Bible ALONE as the SOLE or ULTIMATE rule of faith?
You can search forever, but you won’t find it in the Bible.
Luther made it up.
But you will find this:
“If he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
Using the criteria of those who signed either the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Constitution or served in the first Congress they come up with a number of 204 founding fathers.
| Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers | # of | % of |
| Episcopalian/Anglican | 88 | 54.7% |
| Presbyterian | 30 | 18.6% |
| Congregationalist | 27 | 16.8% |
| Quaker | 7 | 4.3% |
| Dutch Reformed/German Reformed | 6 | 3.7% |
| Lutheran | 5 | 3.1% |
| Catholic | 3 | 1.9% |
| Huguenot | 3 | 1.9% |
| Unitarian | 3 | 1.9% |
| Methodist | 2 | 1.2% |
| Calvinist | 1 | 0.6% |
| TOTAL | 204 |
This seems more in line with what I learned studying history. The few I know in detail about were Anglicans. John Hancock was the son and grandson of an Anglican pastor, for instance.
Got sources for your claim? Perhaps there is ambiguity about some of these categories.
The Catholic claim you mention I find ridiculous, for the same reason. And yes, Catholics did support the Divine Right of Kings for many centuries, that too is simply a fact.
I second that motion, and recommend we proceed to a full vote on the floor. :)
Peace,
SR
Well put!
Now that right there is funny I don't care who ya are!! Facts don't matter to you or what?
Wow! Just wow!
Wow! Just wow!
I know! I was shocked too. That's another area where we differ - Protestant men don't wear lipstick.
LOL!!
Well, let's think about that a bit.
According to the Inspired Word of God (aka The Bible) and if you wish, according to church tradition since it is recorded in the book of The Acts of the Apostles, the Bereans followed the principle of “Sola Scriptura” even though such wording is not in the Bible.
But then again, "Trinity" is not in the Bible either. The word that is. The doctrine is clearly stated as would be “Sola Scriptura” baced on THIS Scripture.
It’s not a single quote, but it’s based on his work of translating and compiling his version of the Bible.
Luther on Revelation: “For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”
If we looked at the entire life of Martin Luther, we would see a mixed bag... a man of great kindness and who brought many needed reformations to the church but also someone who would often write goofy things like “The Estate of Marriage”.
But their’s plenty of writings that show that ML was not someone who had great reverence for the Scripture, ALL the scripture, as it is written.
“Also so good Catholics are taking up the NT practice of full immersion.”
Taking up?
I prefer Confession the old fashioned way: John 20:19-23; 2 Corinthians 2:10 (in just about any Bible translation before 1965).
That's OK, you are already sleeping with the real ethnic-cleansers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.