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.

[Springfield Reformer]

First, “real presence” is subject to multiple interpretations. You need to narrow that down. Some of my Catholic friends seem to think it uniformly means corporeal presence of the kind found only in transubstantiation. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, God is spirit, and He is real, so “spiritual presence” is just as real, and would get closer to what non-transubstantiationists actually mean when they speak of “real presence.”

But since it’s your question, and I don’t know if you’ve accounted for the ambiguity, I suppose I could wait for a clarification.

As for “symbol” interpretations, I think you might be talking about supposedly pure Zwinglian memorialism (or not, I can’t really tell). However, based on my experience with both “spiritual presence” and “memorialist” churches, I doubt if there even is such a thing as a bare memorialist. Everyone who takes the Bible seriously takes the Lord’s Supper seriously, as a special conduit of the blessing and grace of God in Christ, as well as a certain fearful appreciation of the danger of participating unworthily. That’s not really bare memorialism. There are even indications Zwingli himself was not so wooden in the matter as his detractors would make him out to be.

But, because “symbol” or “figure” or “representation” beliefs are not at all inconsistent with spiritual presence, are supported by the language of Scripture, and even appear regularly in many of the fathers, such as Tertullian and Augustine, I would say there is warrant for both. But the details are important, as there is much Biblical guidance to consider. A thing should be as simple as it can be, but no simpler.

[xone]

Thanks...

You are welcome, don't have all the answers, but got hammered on this subject awhile back, learned not to trust my HS Latin and to look it up instead.

[.45 Long Colt]

There was broad consensus, often before 100 A.D., among the early Christians as to which books were inspired and which ones were not. It would be hundreds of years later before there was anything resembling the Roman Catholic Church that we know today.

[LevinFan]

“There was broad consensus, often before 100 A.D., among the early Christians as to which books were inspired and which ones were not. It would be hundreds of years later before there was anything resembling the Roman Catholic Church that we know today.”

---

Do any Catholics even recognize how long the church spent just trying to keep from getting fed to lions? The Catholic church didn’t spring up the day Jesus rose again.
And Paul came along well after that, yet the book of Acts doesn’t read like a Catholic church. Mary doesn’t have any role in the bible that I’m aware of after the day of Pentecost.

[.45 Long Colt]

I think the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant of both the Bible and Christian history. Those that know anything simply spout the usual Roman Catholic myths. Unfortunately they haven’t just bought into Catholic myth about history, they have bought the huge soul-damning lies regarding justification. The default position of mankind is to want to work his way to heaven. Men want to DO something to make themselves better and Catholicism plays into that desire.

But salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. He is the author and finisher of my faith. Catholics want to add their own merit. They don’t understand that they possess no merit and cannot acquire any because they are sons of Adam. The only merit that saves is the merit found in Christ and His perfect rightousness imputed to the account of sinners. My sin was laid on Him and His rightousness was laid on me. What mercy and grace!

I pray the Lord will be gracious to open eyes and heal hearts!

[LevinFan]

Look at the responses to those of us who read the Word of God, and base our faith on whether something lines up with it. We’re told we worship a book, while they follow the words of men alone. They act like we were reading some pagan book.
And the bible makes it clear they looked to scripture daily. Most of us would be ashamed of ourselves if we compared our time in the scripture to theirs.

Man’s natural inclination isn’t really to better himself. Man’s natural inclination is to pride. That is what cause to original fall of man. What they want is an easy way to get in, that still lets them thump their chest at earning it.
But remember that not all Catholics are that way, and many Protestants are just as big a chest thumping.

A preacher once said that the reason God wants salvation to be purely a gift is that God wouldn’t be able to stand eternity with people boasting of what they’d ‘earned’
Could you blame Him for that? It would be like listening to some amateur drummer for eternity. I’d go nuts.

[.45 Long Colt]

I couldn’t agree more.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

I would define 'real presence' as 'this is my body.' As opposed to not real presence being, 'this represents' or 'this is a symbol of'.

The real presence is the meaning of the scripture, as taught by the Apostolic Church to this day and in all extant records.

I appreciate that you point out that 'spiritual' does mean 'not real' or 'not existing in reality.' Many do not see this.

We might agree that, at some point, words and reason - and science - fall short in this sphere of knowledge. Transubstantiation, to me, merely states that there is a difference between substance and accidents and applies it to the Holy Eucharist.

For an analogy, I think I could safely say that you are not the same person, substantially, that you were before your conversion. However, this difference in substance is not detectable by the senses alone or their extensions.

Most clearly, "real presence' means 'this *is* my body' is truth, that's all we need to know and acknowledge of this aspect of Holy Eucharist. Of course, C.S. Lewis put it better: ""The command, after all, was 'Take and eat,' NOT take and understand."

As for Zwingli and Luther, I think this might be a good place to post a bit of Luther's response in his "That these words of Christ, ‘This is my body’, etc., still stand firm against the fanatics." It is also interesting the context of the dogma of sola scriptura. What follows is from this work:

"But listen, I ask you, how they remove our interpretation from this saying of Christ and bring in their own. They say, ‘The word “is” must mean the same as the word “represents”’, as Zwingli writes; and the expression ‘my body’ must mean the same as the expression ‘sign of my body’, as Oecolampadius writes. So Christ’s Word and meaning according to Zwingli’s text would read ‘Take, eat; this represents my body’ or according to Oecolampadius’ text, ‘Take and eat; this is a sign of my body.’... Then at once they boast that we have no passage from scripture which says that Christ’s body is in the Supper...

"Whoever read the scriptures that ‘body’ means the same as ‘sign of the body’, and ‘is’ means the same as ‘represents’? Indeed, what language in all the world has ever expressed itself so?"

[xone]

Luther's response //"Whoever read the scriptures that ‘body’ means the same as ‘sign of the body’, and ‘is’ means the same as ‘represents’? Indeed, what language in all the world has ever expressed itself so?"

It is indeed interesting in relation to Sola Scriptura, and although it is only Wednesday, thank you for the use of Luther as a reference. But again, it is Independence Day.

[Natural Law]

"I love your spirit, bro, but there’s no lexical basis for granting epiousion (“daily”) in Matt 6:11 any special status as a word expressing arcane Aristotelian categories of substance versus accidence."

If you are overly concerned with arcane Aristotelian concepts you ought to reject St . John’s use of the word Logos too. The word Epiousious is a hapax legomenon and was never used before Matthew 6:11 and is used in no other context in Greek literature. Had Jesus meant simply bread He would have said “artos”.

While it is good to look to the Early Church Fathers guidance in determining what was meant by the Gospels citing a single writing of a single Early Church Father is not conclusive proof. Rest assured that St. John Chrysostom did believe in the Real Presence. Here is but one example from one of his homilies:

“We behold in the Eucharist the one who is beheld in heaven.

Christ gave his flesh to eat in order to deepen our love for him. When we approach him there should be a burning within us a fire of live and longing. This food strengthens us; it emboldens us to speak freely to our God; it is our hope, our salvation, our light and our life. If we go to the next world fortified by this sacrifice we shall enter sacred portals with perfect confidence, as though protected all over by armor of gold.”

“But why do I speak of the next world? Because of this sacrament earth becomes heaven for you. Throw open the gates of heaven – or rather, not heaven, but of heaven of heavens-look through and you will see proof of what I say. What is heaven’s most precious possession? I will show you it here on earth. I do not show you archangels, heaven or the heaven of heavens, but I show you the very Lord of all these. Do you not see how you gaze, here on earth, upon what is most precious of all? You not only gaze on it but touch it as well. You not only touch it, but even eat it and take away with you to your homes. It is essential therefore when you wish to deceive this sacrament you cleanse your soul from sin and to prepare your mind.”

Additionally, many of St. John Chrysostom’s contemporaries taught similarly:

"Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. The bread which is of the common sort is not supersubstantial. But the Bread which is holy, that Bread is supersubstantial, as if to say, directed toward the substance of the soul. This Bread does not go into the belly, to be cast out into the privy. Rather, it is distributed through your whole system, for the benefit of body and soul." – St. Cyril of Jerusalem

"He (Jesus) called it bread indeed, but He called it epiousion, that is, supersubstantial. It is not the bread that passes into the body but that bread of eternal life, which sustains the substance of our souls. Therefore, in Greek it is called epiousios." St. Ambrose -Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397

“”If Jesus Christ, yielding to your prayer, grants me the favor and it is His will, I shall, in the subsequent letter which I intend to write to you, still further explain the dispensation which I have here only touched upon, regarding the New Man Jesus Christ--a dispensation founded on faith in Him and love for Him, on His Passion and Resurrection. I will do so especially if the Lord should reveal to me that you--the entire community of you!--are in the habit, through grace derived from the Name, of meeting in common, animated by one faith and in union with Jesus Christ--who in the flesh was of the line of David, the Son of Man and the Son of God--of meeting, I say, to show obedience with undivided mind to the bishop and the presbytery, and to break the same Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, and everlasting life in Jesus Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch

If you study the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers that immediately followed the Apostles and those that preceded St. John Chrysostom you will find that they all unanimously believed in the Real Presence

Peace be with you.

[Springfield Reformer]

And thank you for your response. It was cordial and thoughtful.

I would only offer a few, hopefully not too controversial responses.

The only problem with your definition of real presence is that it still blends some categories that should probably be distinct. One of the reasons I like to use the word corporeal is to distinguish between two kinds of real. We know that physical reality is what a materialist regards as real, period.

But a Christian subscribes, by definition, to two realities, the physical and the spiritual. Unfortunately, due to the biases of sinful human imagination, we tend to think of physical reality as more real than the spiritual realm, full as it is of ghosts and half-dreamed dreams. But as CS Lewis loved to point out, there is every reason to suspect that the spiritual realm is more real than we are, that we are the phantoms and spirituality has the solid stuff.

Therefore, to keep things clear, I think is it necessary to distinguish between a real presence that connotes corporeality, as in transubstantiation, versus a presence that is just as real, but is not materialistic, but all of the spirit, hence “spiritual presence.” This view, though anathema to Trent, gives a reasonable accounting for the unmistakable language of metaphor in both Scripture and the fathers, while also protecting the Christian from falling into reliance on priestly intermediaries or the temptation to give worship to mere signs and figures, which worship Jesus said should be reserved to God who is a spirit, and is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, not in place.

Nevertheless, here’s looking forward to that time when all our childish attempts at understanding are set aside for better things.

Peace,

SR

[Rashputin]

"A penchant for picking the wrong person much?"

Penchant for looking at the world as if it's all about you?

A generalization about a clearly identified group you apparently don't consider yourself to be a part of obviously doesn't apply to you. Unless, of course, you're equally fond of being free to murder infants if it gets in the way of your self-gratification the same way millions of folks routinely do whether they claim to be Christian or not. In which case it's only natural for a dog that's bitten to yelp.

Sorry, but it's not "all about you". If it were, I'd have sent you an email like the half dozen cowards who sent me emails because they couldn't argue the point without using language that the RM would delete and probably even ban them for using.

Thanks for the little note, TTFN and don't get your head stuck in any Homey Jars.

have a nice day

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much. I think we understand each other's views.

There's only one other that I think you bring up:

protecting the Christian from falling into reliance on priestly intermediaries

The Sacraments through His Church are one of means of Christ for dispensing grace. The Sacramental Life of His Church is an immeasurable gift worthy of more gratitude from me with each passing year - rather than something I wish to be protected against.

We differ here, but I wanted to give the other side.

thanks again...

[Cronos]

Nope, I know this. If you take scripture ALONE without any other discussions with others or reading of commentaries, you have the wide varieties of fundamental differences.

As I asked you: What is your stand on:

1. something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching) -- all three use scripture alone to justify their points of view and have three diverge in their points of view
2. he REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (as your post said)?
3. talking in tongues -- does one HAVE to talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
4. and the episcopate (bishops etc.) -- some who have scripture alone have it, some don't
5. Do you read in scripture alone whether Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
6. God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)
7. Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
8. agree or disagree with soul sleep?
9. worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
10. agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
11. and spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
12. "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
13. Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
14. do you read that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
15. is baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
16. imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

[Cronos]

It's been pretty consistent -- the Apostolic Church as a whole (Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians) -- i'll even add in confessional, conservative Lutherans, Anglicans etc. who stick close to orthodoxy.

The celebration of divine liturgy/mass and the beliefs as encapsulated in the Creed are consistent from the beginnings.

More critically, when there were differences, the solution is not to hive off but to sit together and pray as a community.

[Cronos]

Regarding the concept of speaking in tongues:

Here's some more on what Calvinists from their own doctrinal opc website say about the Pentecostals and you compare it to what Catholics say

OrthodoPresbyterianC doctrine

Catholic doctrine

It will be noted that the Confession sharply contradicts the view popularized today by the neo-Pentecostal movement. In essence this view would have us believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today. This is a very serious error. In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation. Never again will there be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit such as took place on the day of Pentecost. The sending of the Holy Spirit is just as much an unrepeatable event as the birth of Christ was.

Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. 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

[Cronos]

“because your task, “ —> attempted and failed attempt at mind-reading and also making it personal, against Forum rules

[Cronos]

So, do you believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? you state that I already told you that “real” and “spiritual” presence are functionally equivalent, --> so do you take that to mean that the Eucharist is both the body of Christ and bread?

[Cronos]

That statement is itself an INTERPRETATION — YOUR interpretation

Nope. Firstly, it's not just mine but that handed down by generations

Secondly, the facts are that the beliefs on the nature of Christ etc. are as handed down from Apostolic times, the celebration of the mass is as in Didache etc.

[Cronos]

Kosher is not scriptural but is merely a tradition....Circumcision on the other hand is a commandment,

Ok, thanks for clarification on your position that circumcision is a commandment that all Christians should adhere to.