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

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

You have to learn how to make your point more succinctly. Many words do not make a more convincing response. All you end up doing is wasting a lot of time.

You are proving my point not refuting. Fr Raymond Brown,Fr Joseph Fitzmyer, Fr Roland Murphy, and many other Catholic scholars would disagree with you on your interpretations and the significance of those encyclicals. Furthermore, Fr Brown was appointed by two different Popes to Biblical Commissions in 1972 and 1996. This was after all the quotes you provided and he openly held to his views that the Scriptures contained errors. If this was official church teaching why would Popes honor men such as these to be on Biblical Commissions of all things? All you have provided is your private interpretation of what the church officially teaches and you act as if the above scholars have never seen those encyclicals before? Do you think all encyclicals are infallible teaching?

Anyway the point is demonstrated because Catholics have different opinions on such important matters and neither side is considered outside of the bounds of the church by Popes.

I did not realize that we are in a hurry, and I thought you might appreciate a thoughtful reply. After watching you and Redbandito absolutely beat John Chrysostom to a bloody pulp in another thread, I thought we might take our time about this. Or are you simply frustrated by the weight of what I said and have no other retort?

No, not all encyclicals are infallible, but the consistent teaching of the Church on this matter is.

There are, of course, many theologians today who dissent from Humanae Vitae even though this teaching is “definitive and irreformable”.

Given your prejudice, I did not expect to convince you to abandon this pet argument of yours, but at least you have been put on notice that it is all bark and no bite.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I must say that I had to sit back and catch my breath for just a moment when I read the first sentence quoted above. Even now, several days later, I still find it hard to believe that you have openly abandoned the central premise that has sustained sola scripturists such as James White in his debate with Patrick Madrid or Michael Horton and team v. Patrick Madrid and team or the countless thousands of pastors, preachers and internet apologists who have virtually worn 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a talisman against all the evils of Rome from time out of memory. So be it. May that argument finally rest in peace.

What this shows is that you are not reading carefully. I said the following:
"The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith …"
How can anyone argue with that because the Bible never explicitly says, “the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith”. However, if you would have read more carefully you would have seen that I went on to argue why the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith for the church. The Scriptures do not have say something explicitly for it to teach that truth and that is my point.

Also this shows your understanding of the arguments of James White, Michael Horton, thousands of pastors, thousands of preachers, and internet apologists is flawed. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is used to show that the Scriptures are formally and materially sufficient, not that it teaches the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. So I hope you will sit back and catch your breath again, because you haven’t understood a basic argument all those gentlemen have been making.
Randy Carson:

I confess that I do not frequent the website of James White nor do I read his books. Those that do, however, tell me that the argument you offered above is along the lines of the approach he has been espousing for some time (no doubt after realizing finally that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was not “sufficient” to save sola scriptura). I note specifically that you state, “It was not true when Jesus walked the earth”. Madrid pointed out the exact problem of “two ultimate authorities” in his debate with White. White must have taken the matter to heart because now the issue is addressed as an explicit component of your formulation. Rather than concede the point to Madrid, however, the new rationale for sola scriptura is that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith – just not always.

Once again I think you have missed the point and so did Mr Madrid. The ultimate authority is always God, whether He is speaking through Apostles, speaking as Jesus Christ, or speaking through the written word. These are not 3 ultimate authorities, but one authority(i.e. God ) speaking in different ways.
Rand Carson:

I say the sola scripturist position is nonsensical in the end. You have to believe the following in order to accept this teaching.

• The Bible was the sole infallible rule of faith
• Then Jesus came and it wasn’t the sole infallible rule of faith
• Then He ascended and it was the sole infallible rule of faith
• Then the Holy Spirit started inspiring the Apostles and it wasn’t the sole infallible rule of faith
• Now the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith because the canon is closed.
  Obviously, I’m having a bit of fun lampooning your argument here, but I do see a parallel.

Yeah, you are lampooning a caricature. The sole infallible rule of faith is always God’s word. God’s word has come to us in divers ways at different times. God ‘s word is always the sole infallible rule of faith. It just so happens that today the Scriptures is the only sure word from God that we have. If you can convincingly show me God’s word in some other form I would accept it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Randy Carson:

With this statement, the doctrine of sola scriptura is dead. Why? Because what you declare to be the “only verifiable word of God in the possession of the church” does not teach the very doctrine that you seek to defend. It is self-refuting.

The Scriptures teach they are the word of God. The Scriptures teach they are infallible. Therefore, unless you can show an authority that is equal to God’s word it logically follows that the Scriptures are sole infallible rule of faith. That is not that hard to follow. You are swinging at the wind my friend.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Remember - focus like a laser!

I’m focused. Now you focus on my response

1. Is the doctrine of sola scriptura an infallible teaching? If so, please cite the authority by which I can be sure of this.

Sola Scriptura is a principle that one derives at from the logical consequence of Scriptural teaching. I believe it is an infallible principle and unless you can convincingly document God’s words anywhere else today you should join me.

1. Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian?

Yes, you would if you have not evidence of God’s word being found anywhere else today.

If yes, then since the “Scriptures are the only verifiable word of God in the possession of the Church”, please provide the scriptures which prove my error.

No, the onus is on you if you claim there is another source that contains authority equal with God’s word to prove it. I cannot prove a universal negative. I can show you where the Scriptures claim they are the word of God, and they therefore are infallible. So it is incumbent on you to show me the source that is equal to this authority. If you cannot, then it logically follows that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith in the possession of the church.

Now I have answered different variations of this same questions at least 3 times. Hopefully you will grasp the argument and deal with it. If you keep repeating the same questions without advancing the dialogue then I have no reason to continue.

 

[SolaScriptura]

mikeledes:

Sola Scriptura, you mentioned the divisions in the early church, using the Arians as an example. So do you believe the Arians were your “brothers and sisters in Christ?” I see them for what they were, heretics. All of the divisions of the first five centuries were heresies, and any Protestant will agree with that (i.e. Arians, Nestorians, Sabellians, Montanists, Gnostics, etc.). There was a clear distinction between orthodoxy and heresy.

That is irrelevant to the point being made. Read carefully. The existence of all these heretics demonstrate that your rule of faith is unworkable since they all at one time adhered to it. Why could so many people who had the same rule of faith disagree on such fundamental issues?

mikeledes:

Now the Molinists and the Thomists disagree on the precise relationship between divine election and free will. However, like I said, they remain within the structure of the Church, identify themselves as Catholic, and subect themselves to the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Since the Magisterium has not formally pronounced on this issue, both the Molinist and Thomist positions are acceptable. What has been the historic practice of Protestantism. You disagree with your church’s teaching on baptism? Split and form your own church if you don’t find one that fits your own theology. Most Protestant Churches are splinter groups from other Protestant Churches (ex. Methodism split from Anglicanism).

This is quite amusing. If they split from your church as the Arians, Nestorians, and Montanist they don’t count because they are heretics. If they remain in your church with their differences it doesn’t count because they remain in the church. Head you win, tails I lose. It doesn’t matter where they are, the point is that they adhere to your rule of faith and there are many disagreements. The same people using the same infallible rule of faith coming to all these different positions demonstrate the rule of faith is not workable. Well, at least that same fallacious argument is used against Protestants, but when it comes to Catholicism you make all of these convenient exceptions. :eek

mikeledes:

Now I ask you and all Protestants this question. Why is it that what you see as clearly taught in the Bible is not seen by other sincere Protestants?

If you answer this question you will have your answer. Why is it some Catholics clearly see things taught in your rule of faith, but other sincere conservative Catholics do not see it?

mikeledes:

Why is Soonerservant against infant baptism and sees baptism as being necessary for salvation, while Sola Scriptura sees infant baptism as being clearly Scriptural and does not believe baptism is necessary for salvation? And yet they both uphold Sola Scriptura.

Why is it that Feenyites see in infallible tradition that no one can be saved unless they receive the Roman Catholic baptism, while Michael sees it as equally clear in tradition that individuals can be saved who do not receive baptism in the Roman Catholic church?

mikeledes:

Finally, why did God allow His Church to fall into error for over a millenia and then, when Martin Luther came along, a whole host of new denominations arose with contradictroy teachings?

Why is it that God allow his Church for over a millennium to not know belief in Marian Dogmas was necessary for salvation, until some Pope came along in the 20 century to teach it?

mikeledes:

Contradiction means that someone has mixed truth with error (falsehood). Either all Protestants sects are a mixture of truth and falsehood, or one is doctrinally pure while the others are polluted. The church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” You can only have one church that proclaims God’s Word accurately.

But there are contradictions all over the place in Catholicism which means it is not doctrinally pure.

Michael you have been repeating this same argument now for too long. Either you advance the discussion by offering something different or I’m going to drop. I don’t have time to keep pointing out the same fallacious argument you are making.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

You have to learn how to make your point more succinctly. Many words do not make a more convincing response. All you end up doing is wasting a lot of time.

You are proving my point not refuting. Fr Raymond Brown,Fr Joseph Fitzmyer, Fr Roland Murphy, and many other Catholic scholars would disagree with you on your interpretations and the significance of those encyclicals. Furthermore, Fr Brown was appointed by two different Popes to Biblical Commissions in 1972 and 1996. This was after all the quotes you provided and he openly held to his views that the Scriptures contained errors. If this was official church teaching why would Popes honor men such as these to be on Biblical Commissions of all things? All you have provided is your private interpretation of what the church officially teaches and you act as if the above scholars have never seen those encyclicals before? Do you think all encyclicals are infallible teaching?

Anyway the point is demonstrated because Catholics have different opinions on such important matters and neither side is considered outside of the bounds of the church by Popes.

Theologians are supposed to push the edge of the envelope to work out incompletely revealed doctrine. When they get something right, their work is helpful. When they get it wrong, the Church ignores it.

Lots of companies have lots of research scientists and engineers on staff whose work will never see the light of day, but every now and then there is a break-through.

Next question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What this shows is that you are not reading carefully. I said the following:"The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith …"How can anyone argue with that because the Bible never explicitly says, “the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith”.

You’re right, it doesn’t. But that has not stopped a whole host of non-Catholic apologists from attempting to claim that it does just the same. After all, when you’re limited to the pages of scripture itself, where else can you go to defend your doctrine?

However, if you would have read more carefully you would have seen that I went on to argue why the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

Yes you did. I read that carefully.

The Scriptures do not have say something explicitly for it to teach that truth and that is my point.

Sola, you are truly a Catholic apologist’s best friend. Not only have you verified for us all that "The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith" but now you have just confirmed for all the world to see that implicit doctrines can be found within the pages of Holy Writ. Have Catholics not been making that same argument forever concerning:

Purgatory
Marian doctrines
Baptism of infants
Baptismal Regeneration

Well, you get the idea. This is another gift for which I thank you.

Also this shows your understanding of the arguments of James White, Michael Horton, thousands of pastors, thousands of preachers, and internet apologists is flawed. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is used to show that the Scriptures are formally and materially sufficient, not that it teaches the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. So I hope you will sit back and catch your breath again, because you haven’t understood a basic argument all those gentlemen have been making.

I can only go by what I’ve heard them say on tape, and I think they said what they meant. OTOH, I confess that I waste no time or money reading anything they have written. However, from what I’ve heard them say, they have failed to make the case for 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and I know of no other Catholic apologist who takes their arguments seriously, either. In other words, we Catholics aren’t exactly sitting around wringing out hands over this.

Once again I think you have missed the point and so did Mr Madrid. The ultimate authority is always God, whether He is speaking through Apostles, speaking as Jesus Christ, or speaking through the written word. These are not 3 ultimate authorities, but one authority(i.e. God ) speaking in different ways.

You know, I could almost go along with this if I thought I could trust you not to turn it against me. If you’re willing to concede that (1) the Bishops of the Catholic Church are heirs to the Apostles and (2) speak with the same Apostolic Authority by virtue of (a) the “laying on of hands” that we call Apostolic Succession and (b) the promises of Christ, then we might have some common ground.

But I do have one issue that I’m sure you would correct - “The ultimate authority is always God, whether He is speaking through Apostles, speaking as Jesus Christ…” Huh? Jesus Christ is God - one is being with the Father. “Jesus” is not a persona that God takes off and puts on at various times. I’m sure you were writing quickly out of pique with me and did not mean to write what your words appear to imply.

Yeah, you are lampooning a caricature. The sole infallible rule of faith is always God’s word. God’s word has come to us in divers ways at different times. God ‘s word is always the sole infallible rule of faith. It just so happens that today the Scriptures is the only sure word from God that we have. If you can convincingly show me God’s word in some other form I would accept it.

Whoops. Now you’ve taken the Apostles and their successors right out of the equation again. We were doing so well before. Now, when you say, “accept it” do you mean that if I demonstrate to your satisfaction that God continues to speak to his Church through Apostles, that you would be willing to become a Catholic?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also this shows your understanding of the arguments of James White, Michael Horton, thousands of pastors, thousands of preachers, and internet apologists is flawed. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is used to show that the Scriptures are formally and materially sufficient, not that it teaches the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith.

Okay, I hope you will bear with me just a little bit longer on this issue.

I have sitting on the desk before me a CD containing the audio recording of the debate between Patrick Madrid and James White. I also have a notebook containing the transcript of the debate which I got at James’ website along with follow up articles such as “The White Man’s Burden”, etc.

Q: What was the title of the debate?
A: “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?”

Q: Who chose the title of the debate?
A: James White

Q: Who took the affirmative position?
A: James White

Q: What verses did James White use assert the affirmative?
A: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Therefore, in contradiction to what you wrote above (highlighted and underlined for emphasis), White (and others) have used 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura: “the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer.”

Finally, just peruse the threads of this forum. Whenever any Catholic asks a visiting Protestant where the Bible teaches sola scriptura, they all trot out 2 Timothy 3:16-17 just like they have been taught at church by their pastors.

Sola, my understanding of the stakes involved is not flawed. Now you may begin to see why I was floored when you gave away the store.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Scriptures teach they are the word of God. The Scriptures teach they are infallible. Therefore, unless you can show an authority that is equal to God’s word it logically follows that the Scriptures are sole infallible rule of faith. That is not that hard to follow. You are swinging at the wind my friend.

This is the same ploy attempted by James White - shifting the burden of proof.

I do not have to prove the existence of another infallible rule of faith (though I could do so in another thread, and I would be happy to do so since I think it might bring you home to the true Church).

You have the burden of proof to show where the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura. If James White could not do it, I am not optimistic about your chances. I still have this ringing in my ears:
"The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith …"

 

[SolaScriptura]

Theologians are supposed to push the edge of the envelope to work out incompletely revealed doctrine. When they get something right, their work is helpful. When they get it wrong, the Church ignores it.

Yes, but the question who is wrong? They would say you are wrong and being that Popes have rewarded them with positions on Biblical Commissions( how ironic ), they are renown Catholic Biblical Scholars, they were/are Professors at Catholic seminaries, and they are Fathers why should I believe your private interpretation over theirs? But being that there is debate over who is right or wrong proves the point.
Randy Carson:

Lots of companies have lots of research scientists and engineers on staff whose work will never see the light of day, but every now and then there is a break-through.

Well, I would say there research has seen the light of day. They have published all kinds of works with the Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on it. They serve in some of the highest and prestigious positions of the church. The light is all over them. You are acting just like Protestant. You are interpreting your rule of faith and you think your interpretation is right and others are wrong.

Next question.

We can move to the next one, but my point is proven. Catholics in good standing with the church have different opinions on the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, but the question who is wrong? They would say you are wrong and being that Popes have rewarded them with positions on Biblical Commissions( how ironic ), they are renown Catholic Biblical Scholars, they were/are Professors at Catholic seminaries, and they are Fathers why should I believe your private interpretation over theirs? But being that there is debate over who is right or wrong proves the point.

Well, I would say there research has seen the light of day. They have published all kinds of works with the Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on it. They serve in some of the highest and prestigious positions of the church. The light is all over them. You are acting just like Protestant. You are interpreting your rule of faith and you think your interpretation is right and others are wrong.

We can move to the next one, but my point is proven. Catholics in good standing with the church have different opinions on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Individual Catholics have different opinions but the Catholic Church itself offers one consistent teaching as I illustrated in my lengthy posts which you complained about and may not have read. Revisit them. The Church is clear and unwavering despite what her theologians have to say.

Look, some of what Brown, Fitzmyer and others said has been good. For this, they have been rewarded. However, not everything they have written will make its way into the official teaching of the Church. Maybe nothing at all. The Church, thankfully, moves very slowly and is not “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Here’s a more practical example: Robert Sungenis has done some excellent work in his books, Not By Faith Alone, Not By Bread Alone and Not By Scripture Alone. You won’t agree with everything he wrote, of course. On the other hand, he may have anti-Semitic tendencies and he’s a geocentrist. So, I take the good, toss out the bad, and move on.

The Church does the same with her theologians. I don’t listen to the theologians, I listen to the Church. There is a huge difference, and one that is not perhaps easily grasped by someone such as yourself who places such importance upon what a mere man says to you from the pulpit of your church each Sunday. He may be preaching from the Word of God, but his preaching is NOT the Word of God - he is FALLIBLE. My Church is not.

Is this so terribly difficult to understand?

 

[mikeledes]

Sola Scriptura, you said, and I’m paraphrasing, that Sola Scriptura does not have to be explicit in order to be true. I agree that a teaching does not have to be explicity taught in the Bible in order to be true. The only problem is that how do you know if something that is implicit in Scripture is actually there? You, for example, believe in infant baptism, despite the fact that it is not explicitly taught in Scripture. And yet for many Protestants, that belief does not hold water when tested against Scripture. Your “necessary conclusion” argument would be dismissed as purely speculative. What assurance do you have that you’re right and they’re wrong if can’t point to a single verse that explicitly refers to infant baptism.

So if you can’t point to a single verse that expliciltly teaches Sola Scriptura, what assurance do you have that it’s right?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[kaycee]

This is the same ploy attempted by James White - shifting the burden of proof.

I do not have to prove the existence of another infallible rule of faith (though I could do so in another thread, and I would be happy to do so since I think it might bring you home to the true Church).

You have the burden of proof to show where the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura. If James White could not do it, I am not optimistic about your chances. I still have this ringing in my ears:
"The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith …"

Scripture also never says. “The Word of God must be interpreted by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church”

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee-

Amen! As a member of the original Bible Church, I, as a Catholic, love and agree with every single one of those verses. I just don’t agree with your personal interpretation of them.

Has the RCC infallibly interpreted all those verses? hmmm, looks your own private interpretation must be involved there as well.

You are right about one thing: you need no other God-breathed revelation. What you do need is Apostolic Authority to interpret what you read infallibly. This you do not have.

Psalm 138:2 I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
Apparently untrue for the RCC, with the insertion of the magisterium above Gods Word.

Fortunately, Jesus did not leave us a book - He left a Church led by Apostles to which He gave his own Authority received from the Father along with the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them (ie, the Church - not you individually) into all truth. For example:

“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” (1 Th 2:13)

In this passage, Paul states that his preaching is the word of God. How does this compare with scripture which is “God-breathed” (theopneustos)?

Offcourse, no one is saying The Word was not preached before being written down. We have the deposit of Faith, once and for all delivered to the Saints in Gods Word! Seems like we cant get over this straw man. The Church upholds the Truth, not invents or defines it.

How do you know - all by yourself - that the 27 books in your New Testament are, in fact, God-breathed?

Do you rely upon a “burning in the bosom” as the Mormons do to know that scripture is true?

Did God provide an inspired table of contents or did the publisher add that to make it easier to find your way around?

Can you specify what it is about the book of Philemon that seems especially “God-breathed” as you read it?

Why did Luther leave out the Epistle of James and Revelation from the first edition of his German translation? Why did Luther attempt to add the word “alone” to Romans 3:28?

Revelation 22:18-19 says, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

How does this passage apply to Martin Luther in light of the additions and subtractions he made to the word of God?

What would you say if any Pope had ever attempted to add or subtract from the word of God the way the “Father of the Reformation” did?

**I would say he was obviously infallible also.

But, we can trust the RCC that claims the Book of Tobit is inspired???

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.).

These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)!

Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).**

 

[mikeledes]

Scripture also never says. “The Word of God must be interpreted by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church”

What about Acts 15? Or what about Ephesians 4:11-14? That is why God established teachers.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Psalm 138:2 I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
Apparently untrue for the RC, with the insertion of the magisterium above Gods Word.

The Magisterium was established to serve and interpret the Word of God, not to be above the Word.

Concerning the so-called “errors” in Tobit and Judith, those books are not literal history, but a parable. Any Jew would know that Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon.

In addition, I’m sure you’ve come across the list of “errors” in the Bible presented by atheists and other non-belivers.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

mikeledes:

Sola Scriptura, you said, and I’m paraphrasing, that Sola Scriptura does not have to be explicit in order to be true. I agree that a teaching does not have to be explicity taught in the Bible in order to be true. The only problem is that how do you know if something that is implicit in Scripture is actually there?

It is there by good and necessary consequence. If my reasoning is wrong, then you should be able to show where it is wrong. If you cannot then it must be right. It is very simple.
God’s word ( Scripture in this case ) is infallible. You agree.
God’s authority is the highest authority. You agree.
Scriptures teach they are the word of God. You agree.
So unless you can show that there is another source in possession of the church, then it logically follows that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. All you have to do to refute the logic is demonstrate another rule of faith that is infallible and equal to God’s authority.

mikeledes:

You, for example, believe in infant baptism, despite the fact that it is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

You believe in material sufficiency of Scripture, despite the fact that your rule of faith doesn’t explicitly teach it.

mikeledes:

And yet for many Protestants, that belief does not hold water when tested against Scripture.

And for many Catholics the belief does not hold water when tested against your rule of faith.

mikeledes:

Your “necessary conclusion” argument would be dismissed as purely speculative. What assurance do you have that you’re right and they’re wrong if can’t point to a single verse that explicitly refers to infant baptism.

Whatever your reasons are for believing in it would be dismissed as purely private interpretation. What assurance do you have that you’re right and they’re wrong if you can’t point to the unanimous consent or dogma of your church for believing in material sufficiency.

mikeledes:

So if you can’t point to a single verse that expliciltly teaches Sola Scriptura, what assurance do you have that it’s right?

So if you can’t point to a single dogma or universal consent that explicitly teaches material sufficiency or a host of other doctrines what assurance do you have that it’s right?
This is getting old Michael. You have to advance the argument and quit repeating the same ole tired arguments warmed over. What I mean by advancing the argument is that you have to demonstrate why all of your argument don’t boomerang back on your own position. You have not done this. You offer some special pleading(i.e. heretics if they leave the church, doesn’t count if they stay it), but no cogent reason. Maybe you should dedicate a post to that so we can get off this merry-go-round.

 

[kaycee]

Concerning the so-called “errors” in Tobit and Judith, those books are not literal history, but a parable. Any Jew would know that Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon.

In addition, I’m sure you’ve come across the list of “errors” in the Bible presented by atheists and other non-belivers.

God Bless,
Michael

Jerome

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

 

[SolaScriptura]

Individual Catholics have different opinions but the Catholic Church itself offers one consistent teaching as I illustrated in my lengthy posts which you complained about and may not have read. Revisit them. The Church is clear and unwavering despite what her theologians have to say.

I read what you posted. You act as if Fr Brown, Fr Fitzmyer, and others have never read these things. First of all as I pointed out to you everything a Pope writes in an encyclical is considered infallible and binding on all Catholics. If so, you are force to admit the earlier Popes who wrote encyclicals agreeing with the Arians bound all Catholics over to that heresy.

Look, some of what Brown, Fitzmyer and others said has been good. For this, they have been rewarded. However, not everything they have written will make its way into the official teaching of the Church. Maybe nothing at all. The Church, thankfully, moves very slowly and is not “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching.” (Ephesians 4:14)

I don’t know that the above has to do with this conversation. The point is that their views and beliefs have been widely disseminated since the those encyclicals you reference. They are aware them they just don’t interpret them as you do. How do we know whose interpretation is right? Why should we think a guy on a keyboard is right compared to scholars that Popes have embraced and put on their Biblical Commissions? Their works have been approved by the teaching magisterium that you guys claim we desparately need.

Here’s a more practical example: Robert Sungenis has done some excellent work in his books, Not By Faith Alone, Not By Bread Alone and Not By Scripture Alone. You won’t agree with everything he wrote, of course. On the other hand, he may have anti-Semitic tendencies and he’s a geocentrist. So, I take the good, toss out the bad, and move on.

No, but Sungenis is OK to believe in geoncentrism because the church has not ruled on it. That is also an acceptable belief in church. So while you think you are throwing water on the fire, there is actually gasoline in your container, because these are additional points where Catholics disagree.

The Church does the same with her theologians. I don’t listen to the theologians, I listen to the Church.

Of course, but the theologians also claim they are listening to the church and therein lies the problem. As a matter of fact you are not only listening to the church, but you are also interpreting with your private judgment what the church means by what it says. So in essence you are a Protestant on this point

There is a huge difference, and one that is not perhaps easily grasped by someone such as yourself who places such importance upon what a mere man says to you from the pulpit of your church each Sunday. He may be preaching from the Word of God, but his preaching is NOT the Word of God - he is FALLIBLE. My Church is not.

Assertion without an argument. Claiming your church is infallible is far from proving it. Furthermore, if you are not infallible your belief that you have an infallible church could be( actually is) wrong.

Is this so terribly difficult to understand?

No its not. I understand you perfectly, the problem is your reasoning is not sound. You are making many assumptions. One is that you don’t interpret you just listen, whereas the scholars I mentioned are speculating.

 

[Catherine_S]

The Gospel is “Good News”. Basically, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ done on behalf of sinners to give them the free gift of eternal life if they believe in Him. He then promises that He will never cast them out, that they have "eternal life’, etc. I’m sure you will find every Protestant Christian to believe in this. The question is, do you?

Nope :nope: !

In John 15 Jesus states that it is possible to be taken out of him and thrown into hell. He says that the Father himself will do this. So while in John 10 it is the Father who keeps one from being snatched out of Jesus’ hand, in John 15 it is the Father who removes one from Jesus.

This allows us to build a more complete picture of how the believer’s security works. According to Jesus, if someone comes to him, he will not cast the believer out. Neither will he let anyone pull the believer away from him against the believer’s will. But if the believer fails to bear fruit and abide in God’s love, God himself will take him out and, barring repentance, the believer will end up in hell.

The security of the believer is not unconditional. We have a conditional security of salvation—conditional on our bearing fruit, keeping Christ’s commandments, and abiding in God’s love. If we do these things, no one is going to snatch us away, and we will never be turned away.
.