A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[SolaScriptura]

But you can trust the infallable organization to bring you the infallable word of God in the bible. The bible came from the Tradition of the Church. You can’t accept one without the other.

This argument about the canon is so old and weak I don’t know why Catholics keep throwing it out. First of all, there was no infallible canon for Catholics until Trent. One must wonder what the church did for almost 1600 years without knowing what Scripture really was. Second, even the fathers who participated in the canon gathering process of Hippo and Carthage didn’t believe in Papal Infallibility or the infallibility of their councils. Third, the number of fathers and theologians that disagrees with Rome’s canon is numerous. Fourth, the tradition of the early church is not the sole property of Roman Catholics. They are our fathers in the faith too!! We are not required to agree with them 100% time for them to be so, just like Catholics don’t agree with them 100% of the time. Fifth, the church can pass on a correct canon without being infallible. The Jews themselves passed on their canon with the need of infallibility.

 

[mikeledes]

The nature of God as Truine and Jesus Christ as the God-man. The Scripture doesn’t say believing in these things are necessary for salvation, but by good and necessary consequence it follows that they are, otherwise you are believing in a false god that cannot save. Or to put it another way, you have to put your faith in the right God, not a god of your own imagination.

I also believe in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion as do a number of other denominations who uphold the Reformational tradition. Part of the problem here is that Catholicism has made so many things as necessary for salvation that Catholics often think Protestants should do the same. However, if you follow Scripture there is no way belief in things such as the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption of Mary should be required for salvation.

The interesting thing is that many Protestants would consider you a heretic for your views on baptism and communion. Just a couple of weeks ago, I heard an Assembly of God preacher condemn Martin Luther because he did not completely break free from the “idolatry of the Roman Church.” Another Baptist preacher had very strong words to say regarding “state churches” like Lutheranism and Anglicanism and condemned infant baptism as a perversion of the Gospel. Many Calvinists consider Arminianism a perversion of the true gospel and heresy. The Protestant reformers had very strong words to describe each others teachings and their followers persecuted those Protestants that disagreed with them (Lutherans vs. Anabaptists, Zwingli vs. Anabaptists, Puritans vs. Anglicans, Puritans vs. Quakers). This notion of essentials vs. nonessentials is a relatively new idea and is the product of looking back in hindsight at the development of Protestantism. This essentials/nonessentials construct is a tacit acceptance of the fact that Protestantism is terribly divided and that the Scriptures are not as “self-interpreting” as the original Protestant reformers thought them to be. This is also a construct rejected by many Protestants as compromising the Gospel and hence unbiblical.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[joshua_b]

Funny that you say that. Because I’ve scanned my Bible feverishly and I can’t find the Assumption of Mary or purgatory anywhere. I can’t find a “blessed heart” anywhere either. Guess I need those seven extra “books”?

On second thought, maybe I don’t. The 66 I currently possess would disprove them anyways.

That is completely immaterial to the debate. The fact remains that the SS side of this debate has stated that Scripture is the final and full revelation of Gods Word. NOONE who is standing for SS disputed this claim, so since YOU made the claim YOU must substantiate it Scripturally. This issue has nothing at all to do with Purgatory or the Assumption of Mary or anything else. It’s simple logic…Scripture is the full and final revelation of God’s Word, therefore, being the final and full revelation of God’s Word it must surely state as God’s final and full revelation of His Word that it IS the final and full revelation of His Word.

And as an aside, I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU to start a thread with the premise of using the 66 books of the KJV to disprove the 7 deuterocanonical books.

 

[mikeledes]

Also Sola Scriptura, who discerned that the books in the Bible you possess belong there? Specifically those of the New Testament? How are you so sure that one of those books is not really inspired?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy>>Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20 NIV)

What that verse is really saying is that all Scripture is inspired by God. We know this by looking at verse 21. The prophets spoke and the apostles wrote down exactly what God wanted them to do (which corresponds well with 2Tim. 3:16). The verse backs up the belief that Scripture is inspired. It doesn’t say that we can’t interpret Scripture on our own.

Hoosier-

Of course, scripture is inspired by God. There is no debate about the God-breathed nature of scripture.

The NIV translation that you quoted however is a badly flawed or biased translation, and there are other examples of the NIV’s anti-Catholic bias. But that’s another topic.

Peter is warning about trying to understand scripture according to “one’s own understanding” as another translation correctly states it.

Peter also said, “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

Now, do you think there are a bunch of people standing around saying, “Gee, I’m ignorant of scripture, I better be careful with the Word of God.”? NO! Ignorant people are ignorant of their own ignorance!

I must confess ignorance with regard to much of the Word of God…are you ignorant in any way about the Bible?

And who are these ignorant people? Does it say “these ignorant sinners” or “these ignorant unbelievers”? NO! A believer can be ignorant of the Word of God, also.

So, if we misinterpret or TWIST the scriptures to fit a pattern of theology that we like, we do so how? To our destruction.

Think about that, Hoosier…misunderstanding the Word leads to destruction.

This is why JESUS did not leave us a book. He left us a Church, and one of the offices found in the Church is that of TEACHER. (1 Co 12:28)

Why should the Church need teachers if the scriptures are so clear that anyone can read them and figure it all out correctly on his own? Because you can’t do that.

JESUS left us an infallible Church to teach the Word of God correctly. Without an infallible Church, you are simply guessing as to what the Bible actually means.

Read slowly and carefully through the Principles I posted above in this thread. I had you in mind when I posted them.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The interesting thing is that many Protestants would consider you a heretic for your views on baptism and communion.

I haven’t met any yet that considers me a heretic because of those views. However, I’m sure there is some out there. But could you document some of the many that you are thinking about?

Just a couple of weeks ago, I heard an Assembly of God preacher condemn Martin Luther because he did not completely break free from the “idolatry of the Roman Church.”

Yes, and there are Traditionalist Catholics that would condemn you and the Pope for accepting the new mass.

Another Baptist preacher had very strong words to say regarding “state churches” like Lutheranism and Anglicanism and condemned infant baptism as a perversion of the Gospel.

Yes, and Feenyites would condemn you for saying that people of other religions can be saved without receiving the Catholic baptism.

Many Calvinists consider Arminianism a perversion of the true gospel and heresy.

Many Traditionalist Catholics would consider it heretical for you not to kneel and receive the host in your mouth. However, could list some of the many Calvinists that consider Arminianism heresy?

The Protestant reformers had very strong words to describe each others teachings and their followers persecuted those Protestants that disagreed with them (Lutherans vs. Anabaptists, Zwingli vs. Anabaptists, Puritans vs. Anglicans, Puritans vs. Quakers).

Of course they had strong disagreements and often strong words, but that is true for Catholicism also. As a matter of fact you see it today. Robert Sungenis vs Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis vs Art Sippo, Dave Armstrong vs Shawn McElhinney, Dave Armstrong vs Robert Sungenis, Adam Kolasinski vs Art Sippo, and there are more.

This notion of essentials vs. nonessentials is a relatively new idea and is the product of looking back in hindsight at the development of Protestantism.

No it is not new, maybe it is new to you. It at least goes as far back as Augustine. This is even seen in Scripture where the Apostle Paul tells us not to judge brothers on disputable matters( Romans 14:1).

This essentials/nonessentials construct is a tacit acceptance of the fact that Protestantism is terribly divided and that the Scriptures are not as “self-interpreting” as the original Protestant reformers thought them to be.

This is not true. The fathers also embraced this principle. As a matter of fact every Christian body accepts it to a large extent or everybody would have their own denomination.

This is also a construct rejected by many Protestants as compromising the Gospel and hence unbiblical.

What many Protestants?

 

[RNRobert]

I’ve been following this thread for sometime, and the Protestant position seems to be this (not explicitly, but implicitly:

1. 
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the sacred writers wrote Holy Scripture.
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the Church leaders compiled Holy Scripture.
   *]But the Holy Spirit was unable to prevent error regarding the teaching Holy Scripture.
   Now before I get flamed for this, I want ask something: If the Catholic Church is wrong, to where is the Christian to go to to find the Scriptures expounded without error?
   For the Love of Christ, please do not reply with some flippant answer like “It’s a strawman argument.” I am being serious, deadly serious. There is nothing in this world more important than the salvation of our souls. I am not interested in a “close-enough Christianity.” That is not what our Savior intended.
   The Apostles taught for years before a word of Scripture was written, and did not have the New Testament as we know it today, but were able to teach the faith without error. Who teaches with their authority today? If there is a Church outside the Catholic Church (not counting the Orthodox) that teaches with the same authority today, then I will abandon the Catholic Church for that church.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Also Sola Scriptura, who discerned that the books in the Bible you possess belong there?
Specifically those of the New Testament?

The early church fathers.

How are you so sure that one of those books is not really inspired?

Actually, I’ve answered this whole line of question before. I’ve only participated in 3 threads on this board so it should be too hard to find. I think it was on the one that was closed and you were a participant there.

However, I’m as sure as I am that there is God. How are you so sure your church is infallible? And please don’t tell me it is based on your fallible limited research of all the material out there from competing sources. If so then you don’t have much reason to be certain from my perspective.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will answer you as soon as you this.

Yes or no … Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

Everyone here understands the dodge you just employed. Well, Hoosier doesn’t, but all the Catholics do.

You can’t answer the question so you attempt to shift the debate.

As a Catholic, I rely on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. I am not bound by Scripture Alone for my understanding. (You know, of course, that Catholics acknowledge the material sufficiency of scripture - so don’t give us any straw men here.)

Therefore, I can give you scriptures that implicitly support this doctrine along with the historical understanding of those verses and this doctrine found in the writings of the ECF’s. You reject this, of course, and I understand that. Ultimately, we won’t get very far in our discussion. But this is off topic.

You, however, do accept the doctrine of sola scriptura and there is absolutely NO WAY you will accept any man-made traditions in your faith position. Therefore, you will want to demonstrate to all of the Catholics here in this forum exactly why we are wrong to deny this sacred cow, er, doctrine.

So, please, with all of us Catholics who are headed to hell for our false beliefs and for the sake of a lot of your fellow Protestants who look up to you, please tell us all:

Yes or no… Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that the Scriptures are the sole [infallible] rule of faith for the Church today? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

 

[mikeledes]

The essential/nonessential contsruct in the Bible and in the Church Fathers, Sola, never applied to Baptism and the Eucharist, two of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Romans 14 dealt specifically with those who wanted to continue to follow Jewish dietary laws. As long as they did not impose it as the norm, they were allowed to follow them. Nowhere does Paul apply this essentia/nonessential construct to teachings that were specifically Christian (baptism, Holy Communion, the nature of salvation, etc.) That is very different from denying baptismal regeneration, particularly if Christ Himself taugh it.

If you want to see what other Protestants think of pedobaptists like you, check out a Baptist website, specifically a fuandmentalist Baptist website.

Concerning divisions in the Church. Those that you listed are considered schismatics and are not in communion with the Catholic Church (Feenyites, Sede Vacantis, etc.). We don’t consider them a legitimate alternative view of Catholicism. Also, there are far more similarities between these schismatics and the Church then there are between Protestant churches. Finally, the divisions within Protestantism far surpass any division in the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

This argument about the canon is so old and weak I don’t know why Catholics keep throwing it out.

So weak that Patrick Madrid destroyed James White with it in their debate on sola scriptura?

We keep throwing out the issue of canon is because you Protestants have no substantive answer to the issue.

If it were that weak, Sola, the professional Catholic apologists would have abandoned it long ago because they would be tired of losing to the Protestant apologists. Instead, the opposite is true.

C’mon, sola, give me a verse that tells me that the Bible alone teaches sola scriptura.

Luther made it up! Luther made it up! nyaa, nyaa, nyaa :bounce:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Concerning divisions in the Church. Those that you listed are considered schismatics and are not in communion with the Catholic Church (Feenyites, Sede Vacantis, etc.). We don’t consider them a legitimate alternative view of Catholicism. Also, there are far more similarities between these schismatics and the Church then there are between Protestant churches. Finally, the divisions within Protestantism far surpass any division in the Catholic Church.

I suspect that if you asked any of these groups if they acknowledge the leadership of the Pope, they would say no. Therefore, with the exception of the SSPXer’s, I’m not sure any of these folks would actually consider themselves Catholic - at least not as that term has been understood for the past couple of millenia.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The essential/nonessential contsruct in the Bible and in the Church Fathers, Sola, never applied to Baptism and the Eucharist, two of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

Once again you shift the debate. Before you were arguing it was not found or biblical, but now you at least seem to be saying it is biblical, but you only get to draw the line where it is biblical. However, even with this you fail. Anyone who is somewhat familiar with the fathers view on the Eucharist would know there were at least 3 different views. Though you talk with certainty about these things you seem to be making it up as you go along.

Romans 14 dealt specifically with those who wanted to continue to follow Jewish dietary laws. As long as they did not impose it as the norm, they were allowed to follow them. Nowhere does Paul apply this essentia/nonessential construct to teachings that were specifically Christian (baptism, Holy Communion, the nature of salvation, etc.) That is very different from denying baptismal regeneration, particularly if Christ Himself taugh it.

The point was not over what doctrines were essential or non-essential but that there is a pattern for not separating over non-essential things. Of course our communions differ on what is essential and non-essential. You communion considers all of its De Fide doctrines as essential, but this only goes to show how unbiblical she is. Anyone organization that says you must believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary for your salvation has no credibility in my book.

In case you didn’t know God himself taught everything in Scripture. Do you think if it came literally from the mouth of the God-man that gives it more authority?

If you want to see what other Protestants think of pedobaptists like you, check out a Baptist website, specifically a fuandmentalist Baptist website.

Which ones? You kept talking about the many believe this and the many believe that then you should be able to tell me some of the many.

Concerning divisions in the Church. Those that you listed are considered schismatics and are not in communion with the Catholic Church (Feenyites, Sede Vacantis, etc.).

Well, I would consider some of those you listed against me as heretics, but that didn’t stop you from listing them to prove your case, now did it?

We don’t consider them a legitimate alternative view of Catholicism.

Don’t give what you can’t take.

Also, there are far more similarities between these schismatics and the Church then there are between Protestant churches. Finally, the divisions within Protestantism far surpass any division in the Catholic Church.

That is nothing but an empty assertion. You want to make an argument to prove it?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**Randy>>Originally Posted by SolaScriptura
I will answer you as soon as you this.

Yes or no … Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

Everyone here understands the dodge you just employed. Well, Hoosier doesn’t, but all the Catholics do.

You can’t answer the question so you attempt to shift the debate.**

Randy that was not very fair of you at all. Of course I understood it. Dude, was I wrong about you? I thought we were cool but you wanna disrespect me like that? Thank you for reinforcing my belief in the total depravity of mankind. I fought Calvinism long and hard but I finally submitted to God and accepted it as the truth.

It’s funny that you accuse him of attempting to shift the debate without explaining why. It’s also funny to watch Catholics repeat their party line “The Bible does not say Sola Scriptura”. What’s even funnier is that after repeated attempts at instruction, you guys have only closed your ears and hardened your hearts and asked the same “cute” question over and over again thinking that you are being clever when you are being simply ridiculous.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

C’mon, sola, give me a verse that tells me that the Bible alone teaches sola scriptura.

Well, the Bible alone does not teach Sola Scriptura. Many other sources do as well, but the Bible is the best source. I understand more than you gave me credit for in your last post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Everyone here understands the dodge you just employed. Well, Hoosier doesn’t, but all the Catholics do.

You can’t answer the question so you attempt to shift the debate.

As a Catholic, I rely on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. I am not bound by Scripture Alone for my understanding. (You know, of course, that Catholics acknowledge the material sufficiency of scripture - so don’t give us any straw men here.)

Therefore, I can give you scriptures that implicitly support this doctrine along with the historical understanding of those verses and this doctrine found in the writings of the ECF’s. You reject this, of course, and I understand that. Ultimately, we won’t get very far in our discussion. But this is off topic.

You, however, do accept the doctrine of sola scriptura and there is absolutely NO WAY you will accept any man-made traditions in your faith position. Therefore, you will want to demonstrate to all of the Catholics here in this forum exactly why we are wrong to deny this sacred cow, er, doctrine.

So, please, with all of us Catholics who are headed to hell for our false beliefs and for the sake of a lot of your fellow Protestants who look up to you, please tell us all:

Yes or no… Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible asserts the concept that the Scriptures are the sole [infallible] rule of faith for the Church today? If yes, can you show me exegetically where said concept is asserted in the Holy Writ?

bump

 

[Randy_Carson]

So weak that Patrick Madrid destroyed James White with it in their debate on sola scriptura?

We keep throwing out the issue of canon is because you Protestants have no substantive answer to the issue.

If it were that weak, Sola, the professional Catholic apologists would have abandoned it long ago because they would be tired of losing to the Protestant apologists. Instead, the opposite is true.

C’mon, sola, give me a verse that tells me that the Bible alone teaches sola scriptura.

Luther made it up! Luther made it up! nyaa, nyaa, nyaa :bounce:

bump

 

[Randy_Carson]

The point was not over what doctrines were essential or non-essential but that there is a pattern for not separating over non-essential things. Of course our communions differ on what is essential and non-essential. You communion considers all of its De Fide doctrines as essential, but this only goes to show how unbiblical she is. Anyone organization that says you must believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary for your salvation has no credibility in my book.

That is because you don’t actually understand what is written in the book.

If you begin with the Bible as a purely historical (not inspired) book, you can come to the conclusion that God formed an infallible Church. In turn, the Church tells you infallibly that the Bible is inspired. She also tells you which books you are to consider inspired (theopnestos) and which are merely “inspiring”. IOW, what to leave in and what to leave out.

By contrast your hero, Luther, whose heretical ideas you have taken as your moniker and credo, tried to add to the word of God (by adding the word “alone” to a passage in Romans to support his novel teaching on “faith alone”) and to subtract from the word of God (by removing James because it refutes his novel teaching on “scripture alone”). His condemnation is deserved.

Think for a moment: how do you know your Bible is the word of God? Did your mom and dad teach you that? Or your pastor? Great. Who told them? And before that? And before that? Keep going back until you arrive at the councils of the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

Oh, well, you’re welcome. Just doing our job. :tiphat:

You Protestants arrive at the correct conclusion - that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God - but you do so by the wrong methodology which leaves you with no infallible Church by which you can be sure that what you read and believe is correct.

Without an infallible Church, you cannot find your way to the Assumption of Mary or the Baptism of Infants or even to something as obvious as “This is my body” or “if you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven”.

You’re like a ship cut adrift on the open sea, “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” (Ephesians 4:14)

 

[SolaScriptura]

So weak that Patrick Madrid destroyed James White with it in their debate on sola scriptura?

We keep throwing out the issue of canon is because you Protestants have no substantive answer to the issue.

If it were that weak, Sola, the professional Catholic apologists would have abandoned it long ago because they would be tired of losing to the Protestant apologists. Instead, the opposite is true.

C’mon, sola, give me a verse that tells me that the Bible alone teaches sola scriptura.

Luther made it up! Luther made it up! nyaa, nyaa, nyaa :bounce:

Okay, start a thread and let me show why it is weak. Remember the thread is only on the canon, not sola Scriptura. Think you can manage to distinguish between the two? As far as you other little post you keep bumping, because you think it is so unanswerable I will reply to it when I get a chance.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

That is because you don’t actually understand what is written in the book.

If you begin with the Bible as a purely historical (not inspired) book, you can come to the conclusion that God formed an infallible Church. In turn, the Church tells you infallibly that the Bible is inspired. She also tells you which books you are to consider inspired (theopnestos) and which are merely “inspiring”. IOW, what to leave in and what to leave out.

By contrast your hero, Luther, whose heretical ideas you have taken as your moniker and credo, tried to add to the word of God (by adding the word “alone” to a passage in Romans to support his novel teaching on “faith alone”) and to subtract from the word of God (by removing James because it refutes his novel teaching on “scripture alone”). His condemnation is deserved.

Think for a moment: how do you know your Bible is the word of God? Did your mom and dad teach you that? Or your pastor? Great. Who told them? And before that? And before that? Keep going back until you arrive at the councils of the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

Oh, well, you’re welcome. Just doing our job. :tiphat:

You Protestants arrive at the correct conclusion - that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God - but you do so by the wrong methodology which leaves you with no infallible Church by which you can be sure that what you read and believe is correct.

Without an infallible Church, you cannot find your way to the Assumption of Mary or the Baptism of Infants or even to something as obvious as “This is my body” or “if you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven”.

You’re like a ship cut adrift on the open sea, “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Luther tried to take out James, Catholics added seven books. What’s the diff?

I don’t know…I can’t be sure of much of anything when I read Catholic sources. I have a book called “This is the Faith” and there are things in there that are “necessary” for salvation that I don’t see in the Bible.

The Assumption of Mary is irrelevant as even all you Catholics are not in agreement on that. Plus, the Bible doesn’t mention it (which Revelation could have…but didn’t). I am not required to believe in the Assumption of Mary and God is not one bit displeased with me for not believing it. As for needing an infallible Church to find “this is my body”, etc. that couldn’t be further from the truth. However, you show by your own example the danger of not sticking to the inerrant Word of God alone; as Scripture would never lead you to believe in the Assumption of Mary.

How come you keep using that “tossed to and fro” verse against Protestants. If we were so tossed to and fro would we be standing on rock solid truth as we are and not being easily deceived. You have “Traditions” of fallible men, we have the inerrant Word of God which makes us COMPLETE. We are hardly being tossed to and fro. I’ve believed the same gospel for 12 years now. Praise God!

(Edited by Moderator) God bless.