If you don’t agree, why not just excuse yourself from the meeting?
Excellent article, thank you for posting it Gonzo.
Christ established a Church, not a Book.
The bottom line is that Jesus believed in teaching through people. If He had believed in teaching through writing, He would have written the book. The canon of the Bible did not even come into existence for centuries after Jesus.
“Step One: Sola Scriptura is unreasonable.
As briefly as possible, you quickly point out that Robert’s reasoning is circular, and therefore fallacious: “You cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself.”
Nor can you prove a text is scripture because a church says so. The LDS can call the BofM scripture all they want, but not make it so.
To suggest the Chruch defines scripture is only to move the argument back one step to “Why believe the church?” Your author writes ““They needed Tradition outside of Scripture as their criterion for the canon. This criterion is not found in Scripture itself. They needed Tradition to authenticate the books in question.”
No, because that doesn’t solve the question - why believe ANY of it involves God? Nor does the next part of his argument hold water - that it is proven because the NT is historically accurate. THAT is a question non-believers would emphatically deny, just as we deny ancient writings that talk about Gods becoming human are ‘historically accurate’.
Argument 2: ““My question is this: Many of the early Christians disagreed over which books were inspired. So where do you go to get a definitive answer about the canon of Scripture if you use the principle of sola scriptura?”
A) Sola Scriptura has NOTHING to do with Canon. It says scripture has authority, but does not attempt to define scripture. The Protestant answer is that, in reality, each individual determines what he will or will not accept as scripture - just as I deny the BofM.
B) Also, the Protestant argument is to read the scriptures. If you deny them...that is your business. Frankly, if the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide you to believing them, then no one else will convince you!
“Step Three: Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.”
Hogwash. The argument that follows tries to claim that tradition is equally valid, without identifying what that tradition is. It cites 2 Tim 3: “14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
The oral teaching Paul refers to came...from Paul! So if I have to guess, did that oral teaching agree with what Paul wrote, or is Paul referring to writings by Catholic doctors and Popes 1500+ years later? Which do YOU think it applies to? By Catholic teaching, the Magisterium “unfolds” previously unknown (unrecognized?) doctrine...so it clearly was NOT passed on verbally to Timothy in clear terms.
The author then says, ““In fact, Jesus refers to an oral tradition in Matthew 23:2-3: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’ Jesus both refers to this oral tradition about ‘the chair of Moses’ Himself, and commands the apostles to believe and obey it.”
Here is the passage, in context:
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13”But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves...
It continues on for the rest of the chapter. I’d suggest the author of your article isn’t good at recognizing sarcasm. If that is how Jesus views tradition, then His view is harsher than mine!
But lets go on...
Step 4: “Realizing you have monopolized the time at this Bible study, and looking for a graceful exit, you conclude your remarks. “If I could leave you with one last biblical text: ‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).
“The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.”
Nice try. The scripture quoted refers to sin, not to doctrinal discussions. How are doctrinal discussions to be dealt with?
“7For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach...He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” - Titus
Notice - the overseer (Bishop) is supposed to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” - NOT unfold new teachings with time.
And he is to refute it, not by calling on his authority, but “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it”. And how would a Bishop show he is holding on to sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict it? Well, based on the actions of the Apostles and based on early church examples, he should be able to cite scripture - as Paul did, and as many church fathers did in response to heresy.
And why could they count on scripture? Well:
“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Even when scripture consisted of the Old Testament, it was “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”! And “All [or every - the word translates either way] scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, REBUKING, CORRECTING, AND TRAINING in righteousness. And what is the result? The man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Not some good works, but EVERY. And how could the man of God been equipped for every good work in 60 AD, when the Magisterium hadn’t “unfolded” the truth for them?
Frankly, I find these sorts of smug articles appalling, on both sides. For an equally smug article on the opposite side, read here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/MarkandTim.htm
It was a response to another article by Tim Staples, and James White (who has written some good stuff and has a number of debates between himself and Catholic apologists available on his website) proves himself capable of being just as condescending as Tim Staples was in this article.
Burning straw men (and no, I’m not talking about Purgatory...) may be fun, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
This attitude — that those who trust in Christ aren’t Christian, only those who are part of the Roman Catholic Church are real Christians — is all too prevalent among Roman Catholics here on FR. And it’s tiring.
One of the many reasons I’m not “going home to Rome” — they’ve made an idol of their particular denomination, at the expense of the glory of Christ.
Read my tagline.
Is this the sci-fi forum?
This guy thinks that was evangelism? Who was saved? Who was glorified?
I think this one particular Catholic should leave evangelism to the professionals.
I wonder what the FReeper names are.
ping
I think that it really comes down to faith.
The Catholic Church has, obviously, not conducted herself in a way which adequately supports faith in its teachings.
One example of Church action which belies its claimed authority is its past union with the Roman Empire, despite the clear teaching of scripture ...James 4:4 Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.SO ... I guess I have a choice to make.
Do I stay loyal to a Church which has compromised iself by uniting with the world system ?
Or do I stay true to the teachings of scripture ?
Those who claim leadership must live up to that claim. Even the Old Testament prophets were subject to the test of their trueness to the Word of God. If they strayed from the truth in word or deed, ... God's instruction was to no longer follow them.
Paul declared ...1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.Even Jesus did not claim authority until after His resurrection, ... He simply lived it.Matthew 7:28 And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. 29 For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.Fortunately, God has preserved for us His Word in the Holy Scriptures, ... and we may confidently place our full trust in them.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
I've been in conservative evangelical Protestant circles all my life, and this is not the language we use to describe sola scriptura nor is it the correct definition of the term. This is a classic "straw man" argument, since this is not what educated Protestants mean by the term sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura, from the 16th Century Reformers up to today, means that holy scripture is the sole FINAL authority--it never implies that other authorities (such as that of the Church, or tradition, or reason) exist, only that they can and do err--whereas God's word itself never errs, and does not fail.
The "rule of faith" or regula fide is the essential body of belief--that includes scripture properly interpreted--which is passed on generation to generation. Things like the Nicene Creed have "regula fide" status--and are accepted by all orthodox Christians.
Knowledeagle Protestants definitely distinguish between sola scriptura and regula fide.
I've been in conservative evangelical Protestant circles all my life, and this is not the language we use to describe sola scriptura nor is it the correct definition of the term. This is a classic "straw man" argument, since this is not what educated Protestants mean by the term sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura, from the 16th Century Reformers up to today, means that holy scripture is the sole FINAL authority--it never implies that other authorities (such as that of the Church, or tradition, or reason) exist, only that they can and do err--whereas God's word itself never errs, and does not fail.
The "rule of faith" or regula fide is the essential body of belief--that includes scripture properly interpreted--which is passed on generation to generation. Things like the Nicene Creed have "regula fide" status--and are accepted by all orthodox Christians.
Knowledgeable Protestants definitely distinguish between sola scriptura and regula fide.