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.

[Cronos]

“Shekinah” — so do you mean that Jesus was just a resting place for God? Just a vessel?

Ok, so the body or figure of a man on whom God's spirit dwelt until the cross?

[Cronos]

well, we've had disputes about the exact number.

I do admit that I'm troubled by some factionalism -- I'll take the Lutheran point of view for instance. Of course the ELCA is no longer Lutheran, but the conservative groups like WELS or LCMS should, in my humble, outsider's perspective, no longer be separate acronyms but one conservative Lutheran Church. Let individual parishes keep their own administration but the basic tenets are to be locked, unviolable. Dividing up conservative forces makes it easier for us to get picked on one by one

[Cronos]

We have been since the coming of the Christ Agreed and agree with you on the rest of your post.

[Cronos]

.45 --> "I know extent of the claim to infallibility"

But you got it wrong when your post called the pope infallible. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with the fallibilty of the person itself holding that office — who is a fallible being. P.i. is specifically that on matters of doctrine, when pronouncing a decision on matters and only when spoken with the authority invested in the chair of Peter, under the grace of God and thanks to the Holy Spirit — only that decision is infallible.

I humbly submit that you did not correctly state what papal infallibility is

[Cronos]

.45 --> " See if the claims of Rome are in line with the Word"

i have, and they are. Again, don't assume that Catholics don't read the written Word of God and worship with The Word -- Jesus Christ.

Also, your two statements are in opposition to each other, if you say that "I have studied" and at the same time say " Resting on the teachings of" -- your first statement is wrong

The Church rests on the Word of God -- Jesus Christ. All the rest are commentaries or elaborations on the Word.

I again submit that you have not adequately studied the Church.

[Cronos]

Go back to reading the Kroan.

[Cronos]

.45, you are jumping topic. Let's review. you said in post 85 claiming that Roman Catholics gave us the Bible.

to which verga asked you So where did the Bible come from? Who decided that Matthew was in and the Gosple of Peter was out? Who decided that Philemon was in and the Didache was out?

Hint Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393 and 397 respectively.

your statement There was broad consensus, often before 100 A.D., among the early Christians as to which books were inspired and which ones were not is incorrect -- because for instance the Revelation of John was right until the 300s rejected by most communities as non-inspired. The Georgian Orthodox Church doesn't include it in its canon

the question still holds -- "And how do you know what’s authentic Scripture and what isn’t?" on what basis would you say that the Shepherd of Hermes is not to be added in? And also note that Luther called the Epistle of St. James as the epistle of straw and, also Jewish canon was only closed in AD 70 -- yes, 40 odd years after Christ's death,

Marcion ws the first to put together a Biblical canon: This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion.

Or, Origen of Alexandria whose canon include all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John but included the Shepherd of Hermas

so how do you know that the list of inerrant books you have is complete or contains extra books?

As verga told you, this was due to the Holy Spirit acting in the councils of the Church.

So, while "Roman Catholics" as in verga and me from the 21st century :) didn't give you the Bible, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, under the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit DID collect together and define the books that form canon

[Cronos]

"And Paul came along well after that, yet the book of Acts doesn’t read like a Catholic church."

Actually, it does. Note that the bit about Mary you bring up -- during the Mass where the High Priest is Jesus Christ, Mary is mentioned but once -- during the Creed.

In the Acts chapter one, one sees the start of Apostolic succession where Matthias is added to the 12 (or rather to the 11)

In chapter 2 one sees the spreading of Christianity beyond it's Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek language boundaries

In chapter 3 we see Peter in the name of Jesus Christ performing a miracle - and a miracle can only be performed in the name of God

so on, it takes about "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people" (Acts 5:12).

Later you read about the Grecian Jews saying that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration and the first appointment of Deacons -- just as we have in the Church today

You see Peter through the book of Acts as a person who, yes, inspite of himself is leading the way forward. He doesn't understand it, but God leads through Him -- from the baptism of the first gentile to the signs of the eating of erstwhile forbidden food.

And we see that in the Church where the only explanation for this role to continue is that God's grace is on it, nothing else. This is inspite of the few corrupt and even fewer incredibly corrupt men who have filled it.

in Acts 1:8 we see Jesus declaring that the Apostles should receive power when the Holy Ghost should come upon them, and should be His witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth

The Church developed according to the plan conceived by Christ. Christ's great plan of the Church comes to fruition in Acts

Isn't it strange the the end of Acts (chapter 28) is in Rome? Jesus in Acts 1:8 says to take his message to the "ends of the earth" -- to Rome?

[Cronos]

The Church developed according to the plan conceived by Christ. Christ's great plan of the Church comes to fruition in Acts

Isn't it strange the the end of Acts (chapter 28) is in Rome? Jesus in Acts 1:8 says to take his message to the "ends of the earth" -- to Rome?

Rome formed a great Empire and God used this to spread His Word

Remember that saying “All roads lead to Rome.”? Christianity went to Rome, the roads' starting point of it's spread -- God's will. Rome is the symbol of this world-wide mission because Rome was the center of the known world to many in the 1st century

[Cronos]

We also read of the first developments of the Eucharist and Mass — Acts 2:46 and the works of the Spirit

[Cronos]

We’re told we worship a book, while they follow the words of men alone.

and here I thought you were the one who said not to distort the words of others. No one said to follow the words of men, alone or otherwise.

[Cronos]

I pray the Lord opens your eyes. Your posts have consistently been wrong on this thread.. your posts have also consistently given false statements about what we Christians in the Church believe -- right from your post's false statement about infallibilty to the incorrect statement about mediatorship

To be fair, your statements look like they come out of a standard "this is why caflix are wrong" and are unresearched from Catholic sources.

For instance,

• .45, you are wrong in what your post thinks are Catholic beliefs. We Catholics believe that there is ONE Mediator between God and man -- the God-man Jesus Christ. No saint on heaven or earth is the same special sense of mediator. All saints on heaven and earth are intercessors due to Christ's mediatorship

  Those living on earth or living in Christ follow as per 1 Tim 2:1-3 "supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone "

  This mediation is through Christ's and is only possible because Jesus IS the Mediator, the Bridge between Man and God

• the Bible and Christ and Christians since Apostolic times disagree with your statement on the sacraments

  Paul did preach that baptism is for remission of sins, and here is what Paul said Acts 2:38,

  38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

  Acts 22:16;

  16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

  Rom. 6:1–4;

  1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

  1 Cor 6:11,

  11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

  1 Cor 12:13;

  13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

  Gal. 3:26–27;

  26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

  Eph. 5:26;

  to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word,

  Col. 2:11–12;

  11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ,
  12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

  Titus 3:5;

  5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

  One cannot even say this was a symbol -- look at all of the examples above, look at the language, consistently same the same in each, that in baptism we are saved and buried with Christ, washed of our sins by this and born again
  
  Remember, the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19

  19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

• And your posts is wrong on the efficicy of the Eucharist:

  Christ and Christians since Apostolic times disagree with your statement on the sacraments

  if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

  30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
  31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
  32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
  33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
  34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
  35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
  36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

  They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
  
  and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.
  
  The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.
  
  Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

  48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
  50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
  51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

  And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
  And

  53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
  54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
  55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
  56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
  57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
  58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

  Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

  5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
  6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
  7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
  8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
  9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
  10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
  11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
  12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

  So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
  In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

  60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...
  
  66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

  You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
  
  You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

  Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
  
  Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

  61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
  62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
  63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
  64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

  Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

  John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
  16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

  Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.
  
  And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

  6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

  and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

  27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
  28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
  29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

  How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
  
  Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"
  
  in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

• And, you are wrong on the sacrament of penance --

  For the Sacrament of Penance, let me refer to our Protestant brethern, the Lutherans

  Note that the sacrament of Holy Penance is also there in Lutheranism, or rather as they call it "Holy Absolution" which is done privately to the pastor and is similar to Catholicism -- the pastor says "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

  The Pastor is also bound by the seal of Confession.

  Orthodox and Oriental Churches have variants on this as well...

  From the Lutheran LCMS perspective

  It is clear that the Lutheran Fathers had a concept of and a practice of Private Confession and Absolution.
  
  "...in an evangelical way, through instruction and exhortation, and through praising it, (he should) work toward the goal that it (P C&A) be diligently used in addition to general confession and that, where it is possible and advisable, it be finally reintroduced as the exclusive custom and that it be properly preserved where it exists.

  And Luther himself said "But whoever has a firm, strong faith in God and is certain that his sins have been forgiven him, he may well omit confession and confess to God alone. But how many are there who have such firm, strong faith and confidence in God? Let everyone look to himself that he does not mislead himself."

  "To think that one does not need a Father Confessor is dangerously over estimating one's ability to avoid and contest the accusations and derision of the Devil. Luther claims that the pastor who does not make use of the Absolution ought not to be surprised their preaching and practice does not reflect the precious gift God has given to His Church."

  From the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

  So basic is confession to the Christian life, that the Large Catechism simply says: “When I urge you to go to confession, I am simply urging you to be a Christian.” Christians confess their sins and are forgiven. Unbelievers deny their sins and have no use for forgiveness.

  Bonhoeffer calls absolution without personal confession a form of “cheap grace,” a cross-less Christianity. It is the attempt to have repentance without shame, contrition without guilt. It is the equivalent of an out of court settlement - just pay the money admit no wrongdoing. God wants us at the bar of His justice. There is no back room bargaining with the Lord. There is only the Law and the Gospel, our sin and the death of Christ for our sin.

  Confession is directed in three ways - to God, to the neighbor, and to the pastor. A Christian always confesses to God, and can always confess to God directly, as we do in the Lord’s Prayer and in our own personal prayers. That is your privilege as a baptized child of God. People sometimes use this privilege as a dodge and an excuse. “I can confess directly to God; therefore, I don’t need to confess before another.” That isn’t humility, but pride. The very words and deeds we are ashamed to admit before a fellow sinner, we were not ashamed to say and do in full view of the Lord of heaven and earth

  Though we may confess to God directly, He always deals with us through the external Word, the Word outside of ourselves - through Baptism, through the Lord’s Supper, through the preached Word. The person who boasts confidently, “I can confess my sins to God directly, and therefore don’t need the church,” misses the basic point. It’s not our confession, but God’s forgiveness that matters. And God always deals with us through the incarnation of Jesus, through earthy, creaturely means such as water, bread, wine, words, in this case sound waves that emanate from mouths and go into ear holes.

  Christians also confess to their pastor. There are several good reasons for doing this. First, he is ordained to hear confession. That’s what we put him there for. It is one of the tasks laid on a pastor at his ordination. Second, he is equipped by practice and training to help others sharpen and deepen their confession and to square them to the Word of God. Third, he is bound by solemn vow to secrecy, something that a close friends is not. For a pastor to break the seal of confession is grounds for dismissal
  
  Fourth, the pastor is a public, corporate person. He holds an office. The pastor does not speak for himself but for Christ and for the whole church. The pastor is a minister, a servant of the Word, a steward of God’s mysteries revealed in Christ. He is not there as superior, but as servant. He serves not “from above” but “from below.” He is there not to condemn but to forgive. He is under holy orders to forgive. A friend may forgive you simply to keep you as a friend. A family member may forgive you for no other reason than to keep peace in the family. Friends and family we have aplenty. Pastors, we have precious few. A pastor forgives by the divine order of the crucified, risen, and reigning Son of God, “in his stead and by his command.” He represents the person of Jesus, not his own person. Even if the pastor doesn’t like you, or even if you don’t like him, his forgiveness is Christ’s forgiveness, sure and certain, addressed to you. And that’s really all that matters.

  so, as you see, this is shared with our Lutheran brethern

• as described before ad-nauseum, the Pope as a person not ex-cathedra is not infallible, so as a human being he can make errors. However, God's grace through the poewr of the Holy Spirit protects the sub-shepherd of Christ when he defines a doctrine of faith This is not because, rather it is INSPITE of the person who is the bishop of Rome at that time. Nothing else but the power of the Holy Spirit explains this continuation.

  So, please do read the Bible

[Cronos]

yes, sorry for that earlier error.

[verga]

I'm willing to read the book but I refuse to send 9 something plus S&H to read what some crackpot thinks who doesn't believe the bible anyway... The guy may make his fortune off of gullible Catholics but I doubt many non Catholics will buy the book...

Iscool I find this very difficult to believe since on three occasions I have 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.

ISCOOL I am still waiting for you to freemail me that address so that I can send you FREE OF CHARGE, AT MY EXPENSE, GRATIS, AT NO COST TO YOU WHAT SO EVER, the copy of Tim Staples CD on how he was converted to the Catholic Church by Jimmy Swaggert and the Bible. Did I mention that it was FREE, and was NOT COSTING YOU ONE READ CENT?

I mean you made the point that you were more than willing to read something if it wasn't going to cost you anything. This is even easier all you have to do is listen.

[Nervous Tick]

This discussion is very interesting, but before we get too much further, I have a question for you.

I am a believing, baptized, and practicing Christian. I do not now, and never will, practice Christianity as a Roman Catholic.

So here comes the question: Simply because I am not Roman Catholic -- in your viewpoint (I'm not asking you to "play God", just your view) -- is my soul salvation at risk? Or not?

I will answer your question about my "stand" in a separate reply.

FRegards

[LevinFan]

Maybe your should read some of the stuff others have said to me. One guy laughed at me because I have faith that the bible is the word of God, ordained and protected by Him. I’m pretty sure the Pope and I are in agreement on THAT point. I’m not convinced the guy who laughed is really even Christian. He didn’t seem to understand that faith is a gift from God.
But there were a few in this thread with little or no respect for the Written Word. To them, the bible is Harry Potter.
I’m fine with you. You seem to have a respect for His written Word, and even I listen to my teachers and pastor. but I test what they say against His word. But as I said in and earlier post, not all Catholics are united. Nor are all members of my church.
We have people who are instructed by their pastor to read His Word, and they still don’t. Old joke is that the best place to hide something from a christian is inside their bible.

[Nervous Tick]

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

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD". Jesus was, is, and ever shall be God.

2.[T]he REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (as your post said)?

Ah, I see how you work: you copied these talking points from another reply to someone else. :-) I never replied to you about this issue before.

Communion is not "merely" a memorial to Jesus (as Church of Christ, for example). Nor does the bread literally become the body of Christ. During Communion with Christ, Christ draws *very* near in a powerful way and connects to believers to hear the groanings of their souls. That's what "communion" with another is, right? (*That's* a Methodist view, by the way, although it's tough to articulate in one phrase. Methodists do *not* believe in transsubstantiation, or even consubstantiation.)

3.talking in tongues -- does one HAVE to talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?

No. Talking in tongues (and interpreting tongues) is but one spiritual gift that some believers have. Read 1 Corinthians 12 in its entirety, verse 4 of which says "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."

4.and the episcopate (bishops etc.) -- some who have scripture alone have it, some don't

The Church of Jesus Christ allows for elders (bishops) to guide the flock; Paul does a thorough job of setting down their qualifications and their duties in his letters to Timothy and Titus. A better question would be: are elders (bishops) congregational only, that is "no hierarchy", or is there scriptural justification for a "world hierarchy" of men who govern the church? In this, I adhere to the Church of Christ et al belief that elders are intended to be "congregational only", without hierarchy. However I don't believe that soul salvation hinges on this point.

5. Do you read in scripture alone whether Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?

Baptism of infants is OK but unnecessary; an infant is without sin. After the age of accountability, a believer must, and will, be baptized. A better question: is baptism for the remission of sins, or a sacrament of belief?

Baptism is never sufficient for salvation, of course; men are saved through God's grace, freely given, in the form of Jesus Christ.

6. God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Calvinism is misguided but harmless in terms of men's souls. Think about it. :-)

7.Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?

Redundant question

8. agree or disagree with soul sleep?

Not sure I understand the question, but if you're asking what I think your asking, agree

That's all I have time for, Chronos. It's been an interesting exercise though. I may answer the others later, or not, depending on whether you give *me* an honest answer to my question to you.

In closing, let me mention this:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

"When we all get to heaven...":

A lot of Catholics are going to be shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- that members of the Church of Christ are there. And vice versa.

Catholics and Church of Christ are going to be rather surprised that ANYONE else is there. :-)

Calvinists will be amused to learn that they were NOT picked for all eternity.

Methodists will be asked why they came up with that presumptuous name, and won't have a good answer for the Almighty

Mennonites will discover that the hat and beard requirement went out of style in the first century

Pentecostals will learn -- as they always suspected -- that a lot of that gibberish that guy in the next pew spouted was in fact just gibberish...

But the point is, we'll BE there. In Heaven. Eternal life worshipping the Almighty, thanks be to GOD for the gift of Jesus, for " there in no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.".

What really matters, Chronos?

FRegards

[LevinFan]

Well, I can’t prove tongues as anything more than people’s enthusiasm. That is where faith, comes in. but I know for a fact that healing still exists. I’ve seen it and heard about it from too many reputable leaders.
I don’t beleive for a second that the gifts ceased, and I’m pretty sure Catholics agree. I gather Catholics don’t beleive tongues are for all.
Tongues are not salvation, but supernatural prayer. I fell into the tongues are salvation game until I was encouraged to read my bible. Drove me nuts thinking I was unsaved.

[xone]

Sorry, but it's not "all about you".

You're right it isn't, but it must be about standing on a corner screaming at any one who walks by because one is too ignorant to discern who is part of the problem. Lunatic ravings that include everyone, include no one. for no listens to the words of the screaming fool. Work on target ID, then the rants might have an effect. Good luck.

[xone]

No problem, you corrected yourself anyone can make a mistake.