Replies

***I am glad that you admit that "sola scriptura" is an extra-scriptural prinicpal. In other words, it is not God's own word that that Scripture alone is the rule of faith, it is not God's own word that all that is necessary to be believed for salvation is found in scripture. Rather, this prinicple, "sola scriptura", is a principle of human reason. It certainly is not self-evident, and I cannot think of any really obvious truths from which to deduce it. So why believe it, why use it as your lens, as you admittedly do?***

Well, it is a little disingenuous to suggest that all that is necessary to be believed for salvation is not contained in the Bible. The authors laid out clearly what one must do to be "saved." Most importantly, Jesus's message was one of salvation, and is laid out in detail in the Gospel books.

I believe in the Reformation and Sola Scriptura because I believe the men who led the Catholic Church during that time were corrupted by their incredible sociopolitical power and perverted the message of Christ for their own personal gain. That's not to say that all Catholics today are corrupt or trying to pervert the Word of God -- but it does make me wary of allowing mere sinful men to interpret God's Word for me, and, based on those interpretations, create entire authoritative doctrines that I must follow.

Interesting. So the fact that the Church was successful in the world, led it to become corrupt. Is that what you are saying?

That's not to say that all Catholics today are corrupt or trying to pervert the Word of God -- but it does make me wary of allowing mere sinful men to interpret God's Word for me, and, based on those interpretations, create entire authoritative doctrines that I must follow.

Excepting yourself, of course.

Well, it is a little disingenuous to suggest that all that is necessary to be believed for salvation is not contained in the Bible. The authors laid out clearly what one must do to be "saved."

Why is it disingenuos? Scripture does not say that Scripture alone contains all that is necessary to be belived. As you yourself admitted this is an extra-scriptural principle. And I never understood how people can say that Scripture is perspicuous. Clearly, the necessity of Baptism, the Eucharist, and many other such issues are issues of what is necessary for salvation, and this so-called perspicuous text has generated rival and incompatible positions on whether the Scripture says they are necessary for salvation or not. It is hardly clear to me. And I think someone like Forrest Gump would have an even harder time figuring it out. What is Forrest to do or believe?

I believe in the Reformation and Sola Scriptura because I believe the men who led the Catholic Church during that time were corrupted by their incredible sociopolitical power and perverted the message of Christ for their own personal gain. What do you do then, when a Protestant Minister turns out to be a rather corrupt joe, unbeknowst to you? Do you leave the church? Where does it say in Scripture that when things get tough in the Church, you should just leave and set up a different Church? To dismiss an authority on account of the human's sinfulness alone would render all authorites invalid, unless I want to apply double standards or draw arbitrary lines. Why do you think that God cannot use a complete sinner as a perfect instrument for His teaching purposes? Is this impossible for God? OUr faith is not in men, as if their natural talents, virtues, and good character merited our assent. THey are established by God, despite all their wretchedness, and the Holy Spirit never fails to provide for the needs of the Church. At those crisis moments when the Chruch needs the truth from her teachers, the Holy Spirit does not fail to speak through them. Why is that IMPOSSIBLE? Why can't God use a sinful wretch to teach truth? Why wouldn't God use a sinful wretch to teach? If He had to choose between not teaching us the truth or teaching through a sinner, why would God opt for the former? Where is the divine goodness in that course?

I am just surprised, and always have been, indeed am seeking an explanation, as to why so many Protestants expect God's action to be limited to the saintliness of saintly Christians, as if God were not powerful enough to use even a sinner to achieve His goals. Why do you expect every Church leader to be a saint? Why do they need to be? It forms a much stronger motive of credibility to see that the Church survives with such jackasses at the helm than it would if all the Bishops were angels. For if they were all angels, then the world could easily respond that the Church survives because of the dynamism and good character of men. Rather, His power is made perfect is weakness. His power is manifested perfectly in their wretchedness, like St. Paul. And the time of the Reformation was not a special time when things were especially corrupt. It was probably worse during St. Francis of Assisi's time. Why react like Luther as opposed to the way of St. Francis, who used to kiss the hands of adulterous priests. It is not like the Reformation made corruption in the Church go away...it is still with us.

Please do not reply with the typical Protestant saying "Well, if things get that bad I can always leave". That is an unscriptural practice -- the practice of running away when it is time to get sanctified by righteous combat with sinners. And pelase do not reply that you do not rely upon your minister for authrotiy in interpreting the word of God. You know that is false. As Nehaus said about growing up a Lutheran " We had a Magisterium too, it was the faculty of theology at Concordia Seminary."