.jpg)
Posted on 07/03/2012 9:31:36 AM PDT by 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.
Which one do you hold as correct and why?
Just because your religion invented a title to paste on people doesn't mean it's anything credible...
Seems to me your religion turns the Trinity into a substance but when it comes to defining 'substance' we're required to throw away the dictionary and listen to Catholics dance around the word as tho it's something mysterious that no mortal can understand...
Can you describe the Trinity in a simple English language???, or not...
“Because under the non-Trinitarian umbrella there can be a number of different, options: 1. Pneumatomachi: who said that the Holy Spirit is just an angel and not God 2. Arians: who said that Jesus was just an angel and not God 3. Marcionites who said the Jesus was God and the Father was not 4. denying that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God 5. saying that all three are modes of the other like steam-water-ice 6. incarnations/manifestations Which one do you hold as correct and why?”
I’m a 5. The word says the Word is God, and it also says Jesus is the Word made flesh. I can only see that as God was born as flesh in the person of Jesus. The word also says God is One. There are no submit gods under Him.
There was another one about the Spirit being Jesus, but I can’t remember it right now.
I don't know what would happen in a Lutheran or Baptist church so won't comment
If you do try speaking in tongues with me, I'll say this, that the Church holds that There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.54 -- we have always held that
I would also be initially sceptical - as I'm sure you would be, but i'm not going to dismiss it straight off as wrong or fake. That's the Catholic position -- that this is possible, you can believe or disbelieve but it's not a flat-out no.
Iscool I find this very difficult to beleive since on three occasions I havee offered to send you FREE of CHARGE a copy of Tim Staples CD on how reading the Bible converted him to the Catholic Church.
I am pleased to hear that you have changed your mind. Please Frremail me an address where I can send this to you at MY EXPENSE.
Why would we not? It is the will of God to provide these ordinances and sin is going against the known will of God. Even better would be to follow the original Eden diet.
“the earliest Christian texts like the Didache show the Mass celebrated in 70 AD in the same way we do now”
Um, no:
Ch 14 “On every Lord’s Day – his special day - come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. Anyone at variance with his neighbor must not join you, until they are reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. For it was of this sacrifice that the Lord said, “Always and everywhere offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is marveled at by the nations.”
Ch. 9:5 “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.
The RC doctrine you are committed to via Trent is this:
“If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Second Canon, Thirteenth Session).
Note the many additional concepts in Trent’s Aquinian formulation. Without buying into pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle’s categories of substance and accidence, and then inverting them, you cannot be a Christian. Isn’t that what anathematized means?
And look who’s not talking at all like a transubstantiationist:
“But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 9, 13).
Let me reiterate what Augustine is saying here:
“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
So does this mean Augustine is lost? Anathematized? Because his words present a clear contradiction to the Aquinian formula of Trent. Has there been a modification since Trent, that would let Augustine back in? Just curious.
Anyway, back at the Didache, go back to the quotes above and take another look. I didn’t notice any adoration of the host. What of the tabernacle? And do you really see anything here as specific as transubstantiation? Where is the discussion of the priest, or his consecration of the host, or the miraculous swapping out of the corporeal substance of bread and the sweeping in of the corporeal substance of our Lord, all while leaving the freestanding “accidents” of bread and wine in place so as not to be able to verify that any miracle at all has occurred? Where is all that? That seems like a lot to leave out, if your service and their service are really the same. If I have missed it please point it out and I will gladly consider it.
But I won’t hold my breath. Transubstantiation is a doctrine that was unheard of even in the Roman church until invented by Benedictine monk Radbertus in the 9th Century. It was ratified in general terms in 1215 by the 4th Lateran Council, and received the full blessing of pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle at the hand of Aquinas in the 13th Century. From there it was on to the road show known as Trent, with which to disagree is anathema.
Or so Rome alleges.
Happily, Jesus saw things differently:
Luk 10:21-22 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. [22] All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
So who is wise guys and who is babes? We report. You decide. :)
Peace,
SR
Try to be a little less combative. Show patience in the sharing of ideas and understanding. People respond poorly to negative dialog.
Back to the guy in the funny hat. Do you perhaps refer him as "Holy Father"? When (my) Bible states to call no man Father except He Who is in heaven. Also Jesus would not even let people call Him good.
Actually nothing saves us but God's grace.
Faith is how we accept this freely given grace of salvation. The relationship with Jesus is not the 'Jesus my home-boy' kind nor a personal God, but God in our community led by the High Priest, Jesus Christ.
so today it’s not denying the Trinity. What’s tomorrow going to be?
that's different from last's years "God is a modal God"
What does Jesus say saves us?
| 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. |
Jesus said it is not faith ALONE. We are saved by God's GRACE. Full-stop.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. -- it's never faith ALONE. Note that
no one is denying that one MUST have faith to be saved by the freely given grace of salvation, however, it is not faith ALONE. As shown above, Jesus Himself said that
He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
[U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3
[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
So, do listen to the words of Jesus who said it is faith+ repentance+baptism+the Eucharist+endurance, not any of these in isolation. Of course, these don't "save us" per se, since it is Christ's sacrifice on the Cross that grants us our salvation that we can accept or reject
The problem happens when one takes one section of the word in isolation.
And why do you hold to your religion’s five pillars? What does it teach to count on to get you to heaven???
I’m just saying, as someone who believes in something not particularly popular, I can understand how a Catholic feels when walled the Whore from Revelations.
We’re called all kind of names.
My first pastor use the term Holy Roller, and offensive term used to describe those of the pentecostal faith, to describe someone who hits the snooze button on sunday morning and rolls back over.
Tongues are for all, and a growing movement throughout the church. (all faiths, including Catholicism) So you will probably hear more about it in the years to come.
More human philosophy, eh???
If the essence was identical it couldn't be distinct...
If what you say is true, people would have witnessed Jesus, in the image of Jesus descending upon the same Jesus that was standing in the water...
And if the verse you quoted was the only account that was recorded, that could be true, since it said the Spirit of God descended, like a dove that is descending...However, there are other verses that say the Spirit looked appeard to be a dove...
ESSENCE
1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
If the Spirit and Jesus did not look identical, their essence was not identical...
God is one, yet these are not modes -- as then the baptism scene would negate the divinity of two
Not at all...The word mode seems to have a lot of definitions...So what is the Catholic definition of mode as used in modalism???
Wow -- so do you think the Title of Jesus Christ, Lord, God and Savior is not credible?
The steam- etc. analogy to me has problems. I'm sure you of course see problems in what I believe too :)
To me if these were different modes, how can the scene of Christ's baptism occur? seriously?
so, do you, Bipolarbob, think that we should follow Jewish traditions on matters such as kosher meat and circumcision?
Firstly, it’s not “as Rome alleges” because Lutherans too believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The True presence is also held by the Orthodox and Orientals, i.e. the majority of Christians since apostolic times..
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.