Book Review: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Vivificat - from Contemplation to Action ^ | July 3, 2012 | TDJ

[Teófilo]

Another nail in the coffin of the foundational Protestant dogma

Sola scriptura is dead, or at least is undead, a zombie still stalking the darkened hallways of Protestantism. Many well-meaning Protestant Christians don’t see the zombie-dogma for what it is; instead, they choose to see it as a being of light. My friend Dave Armstrong has returned to blow the old decrepit sola scriptura monsters one at a time in his latest work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura.

Let’s recall the definition of the sola scriptura dogma – yes, it is a dogma – as understood by Norman Geisler, a recognized Protestant authority Dave quotes in his work:

By sola scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)… (p.16)

Geisler, and other authorities Dave quotes, further explain that other authorities exist, but that these are of secondary importance. Geisler also defends what he calls the perspicuity of Holy Writ, which means that anyone can understand the basic truths of Scripture: the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things, Geisler states. (p.17). As a true analyst, Dave separated the sola scriptura dogma into its constituents claims, found out its contents, examined its individual parts, and studied the structure of sola scriptura as whole. He found them defective and insufficient to expound and explain the full spectrum of Christian claims.

Dave kills the sola scriptura zombie by selecting 100 verses from Scripture contradicting this central Protestant claim. I guess he selected 100 verses because the number “100” gives the reader a sense of exhaustive answer and completion, not because there are only 100 verses that should make all sincere Protestant Christian at least uncomfortable with the teaching. In fact, Dave is the author of another related work, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?, which is useful if you need another 401 arguments to kill the sola scriptura zombie dead.

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. is a distillation of the 501 Biblical Arguments… in a more manageable, less overwhelming fashion for the beginning reader. It’s 133 pages in length and divided into two parts. In Part 1 Dave discusses the binding authority of Tradition, as substantiated in Scripture, and in Part 2 he discusses the binding authority of the Church, again from Scripture. The result must be uncontestable to the sincere Protestant Christian as well as eye opening to the full range of deeds and wonders the Incarnation of the Word of God brought to history.Will the sola scriptura zombie really die after Dave’s work? This is a senseless question because the zombie is already dead. It’s kept ambulating by strings pulled from the most diehard of its followers. Those strings must be cut by the individual, sincere Protestant Christian himself. Dave Armstrong’s work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. not only blows the zombie of sola scriptura away, he also provides the truth-searcher with the scissors to cut off the strings.

[stfassisi]

If true, the same should be said of Mary's mother and ancestors to the earliest antiquity

That does not follow because a singular act of Grace from God can erase this,and since God sees everything as one NOW he foresaw Mary's perfect will from eternity

Ancestry is just one single event to God who saw Mary 's perfect following of the will of God

[xone]

Why do you cheapen the Incarnation as if Christ had to be Incarnated with a sinful Mother?

Cheapen it? Far from it! It is, as stated before, a Mighty Act of God and God alone! The results of which have been felt thoughout time. The Creator of the World born a sinless Man of a virgin to redeem the sins of all men ever, the Author of the universe, nailed to a tree to die for those sins, then rose again and destroyed the enemies of man, sin, death, and power of the devil. Author of one's faith, the same faith by which we are justified and made heirs/sons of God to reign with Him forever. Into this saving work of Christ alone, Catholics insert Mary, and I cheapen it?

[stfassisi]

Cheapen it? Far from it!

Until you grasp that God knew from all eternity that the free will of Mary is every part of the Incarnation you will never understand God seeing everything in one NOW and understand His Glory.

It's late.I wish you a Blessed evening!

[xone]

Your analogy seems to glorify sin.

Analogy? The Incarnation an analogy? I guess there are no depths that can't be plumbed. Glorify sin? Glory to God for His everlasting mercy to sinful me and the rest of mankind.

[Titanites]

Catholic leadership corrupted the Ten Commandments by deleting the 2nd (Thou shalt worship idols), and splitting the 10th commandment into two to get back to ten.

The Catholics include this in the first of the commandments. Here is the whole commandement as can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

I presume that the comment like yours comes from ignorance and not from malice. It is truly sad that this old canard is still being touted by non-Catholics to somehow denigrate the Church.

To confirm your error please quote for yourself, from Scripture, the way the Decalogue is divided and enumerated. In fact, you won't find it enumerated in Scripture as you know the 10 commandments.

Here is the Decalogue as presented in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Holy Bible Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Note the references to "graven images".

The division of the commandments as you know them is just as much a tradition as the tradition used by the Catholic Church, and is only a short-hand of the Decalogue for convenience. The early Church relied on the Decalogue as presented by Moses in Deuteronomy 5. Until the failed Reformation, the commandments were known by Christians in the order as received by the early Church fathers. And even today, Lutherans and Catholics still agree on this enumeration and arrangement.

Calvin and other Reformers relied on Exodus 20 for the enumeration and arrangment of the 10 commandments, not that there is any thing wrong with that.

Please read this article to educate yourself. From the article comes this table which illustrates how various groups divide the Ten Commandments:

	Jewish Reckoning	Augustinian-Lutheran Reckoning	Orthodox-Reformed Reckoning
Introduction	And God spoke all these words, saying,	And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God."	And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God."
1st Word	"I am the LORD your God."	"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image"	"You shall have no other gods before me."
2nd Word	"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image."	"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."	"You shall not make for yourself a graven image."
3rd Word	"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."	"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."	"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."
4th Word	"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."	"Honor your father and your mother."	"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
5th Word	"Honor your father and your mother."	"You shall not kill."	"Honor your father and your mother."
6th Word	"You shall not kill."	"You shall not commit adultery."	"You shall not kill."
7th Word	"You shall not commit adultery."	"You shall not steal."	"You shall not commit adultery."
8th Word	"You shall not steal."	"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."	"You shall not steal."
9th Word	"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."	"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."	"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
10th Word	"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's."	"You shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's."	"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's."

[Chunga]

That does not follow because a singular act of Grace from God can erase this

Can erase what?

[Titanites]

They also took the Book of Revelation out of the standard Catholic bible

Please tell us specifically which Bible version, and provide a link if you can. You do know that the Book of Revelation is known to Catholics as the Apocalypse of John.

And no wonder.

Well, you do have to wonder where people come up with this kind of accusation.

[Iscool]

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Just a couple of posts back you said it was the magisterium was your teaching authority...

Now you post something which says that the Holy Spirit is the teaching authority...

One thing's for sure...You guys are consistently inconsistent...

[Natural Law]

"Gen. says the Word is God."

It was the Gospel of John, not Genesis, that said; "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.". The actual word used was Logos, which in a Greek philosophical context means the rational principle that governs and develops the universe. In a theological context it means the divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus.

Peace be with you

[Religion Moderator]

Statements worded as questions are rarely "making it personal."

For instance, "Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal but "You are a heretic" is making it personal.

However it is "making it personal" when the discussion is redirected from issues to individual Freepers. Certain lines of questions can have that affect.

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

[LevinFan]

“Gen. says the Word is God.”

It was the Gospel of John, not Genesis, that said; “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”. The actual word used was Logos, which in a Greek philosophical context means the rational principle that governs and develops the universe. In a theological context it means the divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus.

---

Actually, I was pretty sure it was also in Gen. But I could be wrong.

I would wish you a happy 4th, but I think there were enough fire works here today as is. LOL
I love a good religion debate, but some people take it to personally and get into personal attacks instead of discussion. Like name calling is going to change anyone’s mind.

Reminds me of the joke about Ireland.

During the time of the IRA, it was safer to be a Jew or Muslim, than a Protestant or Catholic. They were too busy killing each other over minor differences to worry about the Jews or other religions.

[irishtenor]

There is no “Protestant Doctrine” of the Salvation Prayer. There have been some who use a rote prayer, but it is not a doctrine.

[Rashputin]

"Subtracting from God's glory to have another sinless?"

How can Mary being saved by Grace alone just like anyone else who is spared is saved by Grace alone be a problem for people who claim they're Christian and claim to believe in the Bible?

Mary was saved by Grace Alone, the only difference between Mary and anyone else is that she was saved by the Grace of God at the time of her conception rather later in her life. How is the Grace of God not the Grace of God? God didn't wait until Noah and his family were drowning to save them did He? God didn't wait until Abraham actually murdered Isaac and then revive Isaac rather than sparing him in advance, did He?

Time is meaningless to God and anyone who claims that God is bound to a timetable they're comfortable with is someone who doesn't believe in what Jesus Christ taught. God can bestow His Grace and Mercy on anyone He chooses at which ever point in their life he chooses to.

Someone who is arguing that God cannot do what He pleases whenever He pleases looks downright foolish when they claim that others are detracting from the glory due God the Father because they believe that God Almighty can and did bestow His Grace on Mary when she was first conceived as part of preparing the way for the birth of His Son Jesus Christ.

Mary and several other topics have always been something Protestants rely on as misdirection to keep people from focusing on what Protestants teach by by attacking someone else rather than defending what they teach. Naturally they try their best to distract others when the subject is Scripture Alone because Scripture Alone is so clearly contradicted by Scripture.

As anyone who cares to can figure out, though, now that most people can't imagine living without birth control pills, denying that Mary was saved by Grace Alone at the time of her conception has become more than a diversion. If someone admits Mary was saved by Grace alone at the time she was conceived, they're admitting that Mary was fully human as soon as she was conceived. If Mary was fully human as soon as she was conceived, then using contraceptives that work by denying an already conceived infant the means to survive is very, very, clearly murder and premeditated murder at that.

Far from being a diversion these days, denying that Mary was saved by Grace when she was conceived is the last line of defense for people who don't want own up to the fact that their personal self-gratification is more important to them than are the lives of infants.

[irishtenor]

But Jesus was formed NOT as an act between a man and a woman, but by GOD. Big difference there.

[papertyger]

Right.

“Why do you...etc?” isn’t making it personal because it’s a question.

I think sending a resume to MSNBC might provide appropriate opportunities.

[Cronos]

There is another argument as put forth by some who may think they are cool. that argument is that the Trinity is different "modes" of god, like steam-water-ice. This is negated by the scene of Christ's baptism.

to Levin's point, Multi-theism is wrong, Modalism (the first option) is also wrong as negated by the scene of Christ's baptism.

[Cronos]

Do the Scriptures not say that faithlessness and factionalism will increase as the end nears

There is an issue with that -- factionalism has increased and decreased at different points. in the first 700 years there were huge disagreements and you had Marcionism, Arianism, Gnosticism etc. This continued to the political disagreements of the 11th century to the politically influenced Reformation (yes of course there was a religious aspect, but when I see how the Duchy of Prussia converted I see sound pragmatic political reasons as well)

[Cronos]

Do the Scriptures not say that faithlessness and factionalism will increase as the end nears

I'm also a bit more hopeful -- I don't think faithlessness is so bad. Yes, it's more visible now than in the 50s, but come on, in the 1700s in England to make fun of the divine was a sport. These things come and go. These are not the end-times, any more than were the 900s or 1682 or 1452 etc

[Cronos]

Finally, one can attain a state of confusion and misbelief through sectarian factionalism, that is true, as you point out. But one can also attain it through centralized groupthink. Both of which have manifested themselves in mankind throughout the centuries. I don’t find any comfort or certainty in either.

Well, the Orthodox have a way that circumvents this. I'm going to heavily simplify it, but the Orthodox way is utter conservatism -- "that's the way it was and that's the way it should always be". In most conservative Churches whether Catholic or LCMS or WELS or others, core theological changes are not put to the vote.

On core, theological matters that must be sacrosant.

There can be no compromise or changes to what we believe in say the Nicene Creed (note as an aside, I also hold that the filioque should be discussed in council, but also that the meaning that we aim in the filioque is the same, namely "through" rather than "and").

[Cronos]

our brothers and sisters regardless of what they think of us.

Well, Levinfan, I am surprised by this, because on this forum I've mostly seen various non-catholics saying we Catholics are not Christian, or saying we are demonic led etc. etc. One or two are even coolly speaking on this thread.