Snake-handling and Sola Scriptura

[Chuck_Finley]

Jim Dandy:

Luther established the first definition of Sola Scriptura (summarized: Scripture is the highest authority). Calvin’s was second: (summarized: Scripture is the only authority). Aren’t both Luther‘s and Calvin‘s teachings “historical”?

Anything in history is “historical”. The issue is whether or not they are normative or authoritative.

I could just as easily say that plenary indulgences are “historic”, but I doubt I’d find many Catholics who believe they’re binding.

There are literally thousands of Protestant denominations, all of them with at least one doctrine or practice at variance with other denominations. Therefore, it’s impossible for Catholics to make a statement about Protestant belief that fits every Protestant.

Actually, it’s not impossible at all. All Protestants agree on those doctrines defined in scripture as essential.

Protestants claim that Catholics worship Mary due to ignorance of the Truth.

Just as you repeatedly misrepresent the doctrine of sola scriptura and eternal security based on your ignorance of the truth.

Please, Mr. Finley, there’s no need for hostility and insults. Thank you.

This, of course, coming from the guy who just made false accusations against me of prooftexting.

Thanks for trying, but there is no scripture that says the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice – or is the only authority

Actually, I never said that it’s the only rule or the only authority. In fact, I said just the opposite: that we have many sources of authority. To claim that I said it’s the only authority when I so clearly said that there are many is just dishonest on your part.

Therefore, SS is an unbiblical, self-defeating doctrine.

How is it self-defeating? How is it Unbiblical when I just showed you more than a dozen examples from the Bible?

At the very end of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, in the very same Councils, she canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia – the Book – the Bible. The Bible is a Catholic book. Protestants can’t even define “Bible” without using the list of contents formulated by the Catholic Church, because the list of “inspired” writings is not contained in the Bible.

Fine. I don’t know of any Protestant wwho would argue.

Protestants proof-text the Church Fathers like they do the Scriptures.

That’s a pretty serious accusation. I certainly hope you have evidence of my doing so.

You find a sentence of two that you think supports your POV – in this case, Sola Scriptura – and pounce on it. But if you read the Fathers in their entirety, you won’t find a single one who believes in the Scriptures apart from their source – the Church.

Where did I claim that they would believe that? And, if you’re so sure that the ECFs would oppose the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, where is your evidence?

The Church has authority and the Scriptures have authority – both/and. The Church Fathers all were members of the Catholic Church.

Again, no one is arguing otherwise. What’s your point?

Have you ever considered that all of the ancient, apostolic Churches – the Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox – are unanimous in believing in both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture?

How can they be when they’re split?

It’s only the come-lately Protestants who argue for Sola Scriptura. Why? Because Martin Luther separated the Scriptures from their source and tried to make them stand alone, and Protestants follow Luther. But the Bible was never meant to stand alone.

Who says the Bible stands alone?

 

[Rabbity]

My pastor was previously in Bluefield, WVA, and knew the man who died.

However, she did get some insights into the practices while in Bluefield. Snakes are often kept in a cold place until they are brought into the sanctuary. This means that the first ones to handle them are at very little risk, since it takes a while for the snakes to warm up.

If the snake has been milked, another practice to render them less dangerous in the services, it may take some days for the poison to build up again.

That’s cheating.

They’re putting on this big display and they’re not even honestly adhering to their own faith.

 

[JohnHall]

news.yahoo.com/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite-173406645–abc-news-topstories.html

The perils of Sola Scriptura and private interpretation of Scripture.

I believe that group is one small twisted section of protestants. Most of them are in the light of Christ.

 

[JustaServant]

My pastor was previously in Bluefield, WVA, and knew the man who died. Unfortunately, we are both travelling right not and have not had time to discuss his situation. However, she did get some insights into the practices while in Bluefield. ** Snakes are often kept in a cold place until they are brought into the sanctuary. This means that the first ones to handle them are at very little risk, since it takes a while for the snakes to warm up**. Second, it is possible to build up tolerance to strychnine, and it was used in medicine at one time. Getting bitten nonfatally by a pit viper will also build up a tolerance to the poison. Third, snakes can control the amount of poison they inject, or whether to inject any at all. The fangs are separately controllable, so a snake may bite with both, one, or none. The worst time to get bitten is when the snake is eating. At any rate, two people being bitten by the same snake may have very different reactions, or none at all, depending on the amount of poison injected. If the snake has been milked, another practice to render them less dangerous in the services, it may take some days for the poison to build up again.

The bolded above makes a lot of sense. They are putting on a show for ignorant and gullible people.

 

[Lochias]

Actually, I never said that it’s the only rule or the only authority. In fact, I said just the opposite: that we have many sources of authority. To claim that I said it’s the only authority when I so clearly said that there are many is just dishonest on your part.

But saying that the Bible is the highest authority doesn’t follow through logically. The Bible is the product of the Church, and represents Church teaching and instruction; the Bible is the inspired Word of God as selected by God’s inspired Church. One can’t be over the other, one can’t contradict the other.

It’s really rather reassuring.

 

[submariner2]

I believe that group is one small twisted section of protestants. Most of them are in the light of Christ.

JohnHall,

If we read the bible experts we find that portion of Mark they refer to was never in the original scriptures anyway.

Rob

 

[JohnHall]

JohnHall,

If we read the bible experts we find that portion of Mark they refer to was never in the original scriptures anyway.

Rob

I’m a bit confused. What are you talking about?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Anything in history is “historical”. The issue is whether or not they are normative or authoritative.

Whatever the multitude of denominations believe is normative or authoritative for them.

You said yours is the “historic” meaning of SS. I illustrated that both Luther’s and Calvin’s definitions are “historic” Anything is “historic” that occurs and is recorded in the historical record.

I could just as easily say that plenary indulgences are “historic”, but I doubt I’d find many Catholics who believe they’re binding.

What does “binding” mean to you? and what does this line of argumentation have to do with SS?

Actually, it’s not impossible at all. All Protestants agree on those doctrines defined in scripture as essential.

Please provide the citations for any doctrines defined as “essential” in Scripture. Who gets to decide what’s essential? TULIP is “essential” to some Presbyterians, but not to Lutherans. Free Will Baptists reject OSAS; Southern Baptists embrace it as “essential” to their belief system. Baptism is not “essential” to Southern Baptists and Presbyterians but is “essential” to Anglo-Catholics (Anglicans). Quakers are not so concerned with Bible reading as is “essential” to other Protestants, but with the “Inner Light” of the Holy Spirit. Protestants disagree about what the Bible means; that’s why there are thousands of denominations. Not all Protestants believe in the Trinity; e.g., the United Pentecostals, even though the Trinity is the defining doctrine for Christianity.

religioustolerance.org/chrcarddoc0.htm

QUOTE:

Common Protestant beliefs:

There appears to be a general consensus by conservative and some ***mainline ***Protestant faith groups that a list of common beliefs might include:

The Trinity,
The deity of Jesus,
The sinless life of Jesus,
Jesus’ bodily resurrection,
Jesus’ ascension towards Heaven,
The atonement as a result of the life, and particularly the death, of Jesus,
Personal salvation by grace,
The inerrancy of the Bible
The inspiration of the Bible’s authors by the Holy Spirit
God’s inspiration of the Bible’s authors,
The virgin birth, and
The anticipated second coming of Jesus.

But there does not appear to be an agreed upon single list that most Protestant faith groups accept as the most important or “cardinal doctrines.” END QUOTE

Just as you repeatedly misrepresent the doctrine of sola scriptura and eternal security based on your ignorance of the truth.

We haven’t discusses OSAS that I’m aware of. I was once an OSAS believer; that’s when I was ignorant!

You will not accept the fact that there is more than one definition of sola scriptura. The one I cited is that the Bible is the sole rule for faith and practice (which included morals). It isn’t wrong; it simply is not the only definition, as I have repeatedly stated.

This, of course, coming from the guy who just made false accusations against me of prooftexting.

That’s what all Protestants do. Each denom has its “proof texts” to “prove” that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

Actually, I never said that it’s the only rule or the only authority. In fact, I said just the opposite: that we have many sources of authority. To claim that I said it’s the only authority when I so clearly said that there are many is just dishonest on your part.

I highlighted your comment (above) in red. What is your denomination? Do you not accept that other denoms believe the only authority is the Bible? How much study of the denominations have you done? Please stop the ad hominims. I am not dishonest.

{quote]How is it self-defeating? How is it Unbiblical when I just showed you more than a dozen examples from the Bible?

A premise that holds that the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice logically or the ultimate rule, or whatever your preferred definition, must be included in the Bible. It isn’t. Define it any way you wish – it isn’t in the Bible.

Provide Scripture that says what Sola Scriptura alleges – that the Bible is the ultimate authority, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, or any other definition of SS you may wish to use. The verses you quoted don’t even come close.

Fine. I don’t know of any Protestant wwho would argue.

Protestantism rejects the authority of the ancient Mother Church from which they sprang.

That’s a pretty serious accusation. I certainly hope you have evidence of my doing so.

Huh? Your posts are evidence enough.

Where did I claim that they would believe that?

Hmmm. Isn’t that the point of your ECF quotes?

And, if you’re so sure that the ECFs would oppose the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, where is your evidence?

It’s up to you to prove your come-lately allegation that they DO support it, and not by cherry-picking their words.

Here’s one example: Basil of Caesarea – Protestants quote him: "Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth (Epistle ad Eustathius). They claim this ‘proves’ that Basil believed in SS. But the totality of his writings proves that he doesn’t.

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we posess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force (On the Holy Spirit, 27). (emphasis added)

"For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. ‘I praise you,’ it is said [by Paul in 1 Cor 11:1] ‘that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I handed them on to you,’ and ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught *whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours *[2 Thess 2:15].’ " (emphasis added)

There are many more examples, but that makes my point.

Again, no one is arguing otherwise. What’s your point?

Again, Protestantism by definition is a rejection of the Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem and an embrace of the novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible only). Few Protestants know that the New Testament consists of 27 of the Church’s own writings, written by Catholics for Catholics.

How can they be when they’re split?

orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/st_intro.aspx

Who says the Bible stands alone?

Martin Luther for one, and his doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is the foundational doctrine for all Protestantism. John Calvin for another. And Zwingli, Knox, and every other so-called “reformer.”

 

[Jim_Dandy]

JohnHall,

If we read the bible experts we find that portion of Mark they refer to was never in the original scriptures anyway.

Rob

These words in Mark were canonized by the Catholic Church at the close of the fourth Christian century when the canon of the first Bible, the original Bible, was established. The Catholic bishops who selected the contents of the New Testament and compiled the Bible are the “experts.” If anyone rejects this portion of the original Bible, how can they believe the rest of it? There are “experts” who reject the whole of Scripture. Shall we believe them? If the Church was not guided by the Spirit in collecting and canonizing the entire Bible, how can we trust any of it? That’s also my view of the so-called Old Testament “Apocrypha” (deuterocanon) that Protestants reject, but that’s for another thread.

The “deuterocanon” of the New Testament (writings which were controversial but were approved by general consensus of the entire Church later than other writings) are Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 1 and 3 John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. If we reject these verses in Mark, might we as well reject the rest of the deuterocanonical writings?

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;9405394] There are literally thousands of Protestant denominations, all of them with at least one doctrine or practice at variance with other denominations. Therefore, it’s impossible for Catholics to make a statement about Protestant belief that fits every Protestant.

Hi Jim,
Then why try to? When talking with a Baptist, converse and dialogue with him/her on those terms, in comparison with Catholicism. Methodists, the same.

And when conversing with snake-handlers, stand outside of striking range.

I would say that holding Calvinists, for example, accountable for Baptists is about the same as holding Rome accountable for SSPX.

Protestants claim that Catholics worship Mary due to ignorance of the Truth.

Indeed, it is ignorance.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Did another guy get bit playing with snakes???

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;9408445]

A premise that holds that the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice logically or the ultimate rule, or whatever your preferred definition, must be included in the Bible. It isn’t. Define it any way you wish – it isn’t in the Bible.

Why, Jim?

Provide Scripture that says what Sola Scriptura alleges – that the Bible is the ultimate authority, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, or any other definition of SS you may wish to use. The verses you quoted don’t even come close.

Proof texting for sola scriptura doesn’t work because sola scriptura is a post apostolic-era practice intended for hermeunetics, which is practiced by the Church. That’s why its not a doctrine.

But as hermuentic practices go, it hasn’t worked any better than Tradition and Scripture in bringing about unity.

Protestantism rejects the authority of the ancient Mother Church from which they sprang.

Which authority, Jim? The ancient Mother Church is divided for a 1,000 years now. Oh, that it were not.

Jon

 

[Chuck_Finley]

But saying that the Bible is the highest authority doesn’t follow through logically. The Bible is the product of the Church, and represents Church teaching and instruction; the Bible is the inspired Word of God as selected by God’s inspired Church. One can’t be over the other, one can’t contradict the other.

It’s really rather reassuring.

Actually, more than 2/3 of the Bible were in wide circulation before the Church even existed and the Bible represents the Church’s teaching and instruction because the Church adopted the teaching and instruction of scripture.

Now, this is the part where you insult me.

If you need pointers on being insulting, I’m sure your fellow Catholics who took place in the eternal security thread will be happy to help you.

 

[Lochias]

Actually, more than 2/3 of the Bible were in wide circulation before the Church even existed and the Bible represents the Church’s teaching and instruction because the Church adopted the teaching and instruction of scripture.

Now, this is the part where you insult me.

Insult you?

And, nope. You can’t have the Bible before the Church. Church and tradition came first, or else there wouldn’t have been anything to write down. Further, it was the Church that decided which texts would be in the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit.

What kind of insult were you expecting?

 

[Chuck_Finley]

Insult you?

Well, that is what you do best.

And, nope. You can’t have the Bible before the Church. Church and tradition came first, or else there wouldn’t have been anything to write down.

So, the Old Testament was the product of the Church and Church tradition?

 

[tabycat]

I can’t remember the website, but snake-handling groups have only 1000 to 2000 members and mostly in the rural South.:bounce:

 

[benjohnson]

I can’t remember the website, but snake-handling groups have only 1000 to 2000 members and mostly in the rural South.:bounce:

Looks like the snakes are winning.

 

[vz71]

Looks like the snakes are winning.

Can’t really tell that unless we know how many there were before.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi Jim,
Then why try to? When talking with a Baptist, converse and dialogue with him/her on those terms, in comparison with Catholicism. Methodists, the same.

And when conversing with snake-handlers, stand outside of striking range.

I would say that holding Calvinists, for example, accountable for Baptists is about the same as holding Rome accountable for SSPX.

Indeed, it is ignorance.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I and others don’t always know the affiliation of the posters. Mr. Finley, for example, left his “religion” blank when he joined CFA. In my last post, I asked him for his denomination. But he may or may not give it, since he preferred not to identify himself by denomination previously. Many simply identify as “Christian” or “Protestant.” Or, they leave “religion” blank.

Jim

 

[Lochias]

Well, that is what you do best.

…I have no idea who you are. Do you open every conversation you have with “Ok, hit me.”?

So, the Old Testament was the product of the Church and Church tradition?

Yup. The Church was the one who picked which books would go where, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Every time you pick up your Bible, you’ve got the Catholic Church to thank.