Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

You are wrong.

Definition of biblicism
: adherence to the letter of the Bible
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biblicism

Bib·li·cist (bĭb′lĭ-sĭst)
n. 1. An expert on the Bible.
2. One who interprets the Bible literally.

biblicism (ˈbɪblɪˌsɪzəm)
n (Bible) an adherence to the literal sense of the Bible
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Biblicism

Biblicism is never unbiblical. It is never unbiblical to study the Bible, to believe its doctrines, to believe it as it should be believed. It is wrong, however, to disdain it, to reject it, to add to it, etc.

As a divine “textbook” the children of Israel taught their children from it:

Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
--The parents were to take “texts” of scripture and memorize them. They were to take “texts” of scripture and teach them to their children day and night. It was a “divine textbook.”

And if the word “textbook” seems noxious to you, then so be it. I used it for want of a better word. You simply attacked it because I compared it to another subject and you could not defeat the illustration. Is the problem a problem of knowing secular subjects like biology better than your Bible? Is that the real problem?

Apparently you don’t understand “us” or the question. You are a guest at Baptist Board. You have the privilege, not the right, to post in non-Baptist forums, as long as you keep the rules (which you have). The “us” are the Baptists here on the board, especially the administration who are pretty much unified in doctrine. That is the “us,” “we Baptists of BB.”

You are confused. “We”, the Baptists of this board are agreed in principle and doctrine because we are Baptists and believe in the same Baptist distinctives that make us Baptists. They are at polar opposite ends of the RCC doctrines, which in many cases oppose Biblical doctrines. Our authority for determining which is right and which is wrong is the Bible. Throughout the history of the nation the Bible has always been that determining factor.

Yes it does. My challenge to you (and to every Catholic) must be based on the Word of God, not on the Catechism nor on any other authority of any other religion (if I be speaking to another person of another religion and be found saying a similar statement). The only authority that I have is the Bible. It is the only one that counts.

Many are; some are not. The same is true in Mormonism. Their emphasis on the unity of the family is not unbiblical, but they deny the deity of Christ. The former is not unbiblical, the latter is. Are we to accept them as Christians simply because some things are right even though they teach heresy? That is you want us to do.

This has nothing to do with the RCC which was non-existent. Some historians put the beginning of the RCC at the 11th century. One must be realistic. One cannot read into the Bible the RCC when it did not exist as an entity.

1. There is much error in the RCC Catechism, even basic error on salvation. It is a document leading people to hell not to heaven. It should be discarded not followed.

2. I rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me and even though I have been preaching and teaching for 40 years or more still put a tremendous amount of study into every sermon I preach or every class I teach. Thus my challenge still stands to the unsaved: show me where I am wrong. If I am I will change and become a Catholic. If you are wrong; you change and do as the Bible commands—you must be born again (as the Bible commands).

3. I have amply demonstrated that you are the one posting propaganda here. You post statements without evidence. They are assumptions that:

The Church in Acts 15 is the RCC—total nonsense.

The RCC is based on the prophets and apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Again, nonsense with no truth, evidence, etc. It is just propaganda as so many other things you say.

You cannot defend the Catholic doctrines you have such as Purgatory and indulgences through the Bible for such man-made doctrines do not exist in the Bible. They are and always have been abhorrent. As they were abhorrent to Luther so are they now to many others.

4. The RCC is made up of fallible men; the one who guides me is infallible, i.e., the Holy Spirit.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

Not true.

What I said is in response to two things.

First it is in response to your statement of relying on others, that is the RCC and the magisterium and Catechism. Thus your unwillingness to accept the doctrine of sola scriptura and the responsibility that goes with it—self bible study and the responsibility of true biblical application as one studies the Bible and interprets the Bible for themselves. Those who are truly born again do not remain infants. They grow. They feed themselves. They don’t continue to take milk from a bottle (a Catechism). They learn to eat on their own (without a Catechism)—their own study with their own interpretation. Thus we all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give account of ourselves before God, and we shall stand alone. This is biblical.

Second, out of very much concern, I give you one of the most important Bible truths in the scriptures: John 3:3. This is a butchered verse in the RCC Catechism. If followed in the Catechism not a single person will go to heaven. That is just how it is; those are the facts. The RCC does not teach biblical salvation in this area. This is not just “stuff.” It is truth. You need to find out what it means to be “born again.” Without the new birth one cannot enter the kingdom of God or heaven. As the RCC so errantly teaches, It is not baptism.

Take care.

 

Let me get this right. You claim you have the Holy Spirit when you read the Bible and then say that you come to infallible conclusions as you interpret it - is that correct? You have castigated the Catholic Church many times on this very issue saying no Pope, (who is being guided by the same Holy Spirit) is infallible, but now you make this infallibility claim yourself? Oh, this is too rich!


We proudly make no claim that each one of us is to decide what is right regarding what the Scriptures actually say. We rightly rely on the teaching authority of the Church which Jesus established to keep the faithful imbibed with the truth. It is not just one man, not just one point in time, but with the input of all the Bishops of the Church who came before us and handed everything down through the long period of time since the beginning of Christianity.

Like the Scriptures say, we accept the authority of those whom God has placed over us in this regard, because doing anything else could lead to grave error as the thousands of new Christian sects demonstrate for all to see.

 

Is it too rich? Ask any Baptist, any evangelical Christian on this board: "Is the new birth, as defined by the RCC Catechism, salvation by baptism, i.e., baptismal regeneration?" What answer do you think you will receive. I can guarantee that not one person guided by the Holy Spirit will agree with the RCC, the Catechism, or any Pope on that doctrine. It is blatant heresy.
It is my opinion that no pope is guided "by the same Holy Spirit," or has ever had the Holy Spirit of God, perhaps another spirit, a demonic spirit, but not the Holy Spirit of God. Now remember I just said: IMO. We have freedom of speech in Canada where I live; do you have the same in America? There is also that same freedom on this board. So be careful what you say or answer when I post "my opinion," which, BTW, I believe to be absolutely true. How many spirit-filled popes would order genocide (the whole-sale slaughter of the Albigenses). horrific inquisitions, brutal inquisitions (and just because they differed in doctrine--like a different mode of baptism), Crusades with the purpose in mind of killing others, etc. Yes, you say "Spirit-filled"? Convince me!

It is evidence of being devoid of the Holy Spirit of God.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The RCC is one of the most corrupt institutions on the face of the earth.
It is corrupt in its morals. Scandal after scandal--and they are still surfacing: pedophilia, sex crimes of various sorts, homosexuality, child brutality and molestation, rape, etc., etc.,
There are crimes of extortion, laundering of money, and other financial crimes.
There are the horrid documented crimes throughout history of murder and plundering.
--Yes be proud (a sin in itself) of all the hatred of the RCC, its wickedness and evil, its unbiblical Catechism which damns people to hell for it knows not the way of salvation itself--the blind leading the blind.

Your authorities have no more light than the authorities of Islam.
Learn this one basic truth:
An unsaved person is just as far away from God as the next unsaved person, whether that person be Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, or Catholic. Unsaved is unsaved--separated and on their way to hell.
Jesus said "you must be born again. Are you? When and how?

 

I drove through a town in Indiana the other day and I must have passed at least 15 churches. Among them was the 1st Baptist Church, Temple of God Church, Holiness Church, The Sanctuary of God Church, God's Bible Church, and on and on and on. You could walk into any one of them and the pastor of each church will say without a doubt they are also led by the Holy Spirit. How can this be? So many different interpretations of God's word and they are all right?

As for scandal and corruption, don't worry - you Baptists have your share. Why in my own hometown a short time ago a Baptist minister was arrested in an online sting as he went to meet a 12 year old boy for sexual perversion. And just last week on the internet there was the story of another pastor who was caught with thousands of child porn images on his computer by his wife and this then led to his arrest for the raping of two young girls in his own congfregation no less!

As for terrible things that have happened throughout history, you non-orthodox Christians have committed your share of terrible crimes and religious persecutions in the past. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, right my friend? Or perhaps maybe you should take the plank out of your own eye so so can see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye. Shouldn't you also be subscribing to those two biblical commands?


I would watch it if I were you for your continuing defamation of the Holy Catholic Church. Maybe your zeal against us has led you to forget that the only unforgiveable sin is the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit and if we are correct that the Holy Spirit is indeed a vital part of the Latin Rite Church, you could find yourself in big trouble on Judgement Day.

Oh, and I went back and re-read your previous post, and I saw no "IMO". You made definitive statements like: "The RCC is made up of fallible men; the one who guides me is infallible, i.e., the Holy Spirit". Now you are claiming infallibility, correct? If not, then you are fallible in your biblical determinations and any person should listen to what you say in that context.

 

I am not familiar with all of them. Perhaps someone else on the board is. But let me say this one thing. If they are all truly evangelical then they will all agree on the doctrine of salvation, and even if they have differences in other areas of doctrine that agreement in the area of salvation is what brings them together as brothers and sisters in Christ.
That disagreement in the same doctrine is what drives us farther apart.

You have nothing to compare to in comparison to the world-wide destruction that the RCC has left in its wake. Even the Bible speaks of it in a very prophetic way:
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--Read any of the older Protestant commentaries. On these verses they all agree and in spite of denominational differences will agree that this refers to the Pope, the leader of the RCC and the crimes that she has committed throughout the centuries. There is nothing in history

I do subscribe to those two great commands of love. That is why I keep emphasizing the doctrine of the new birth and its true meaning as opposed to the heretical teaching of the RCC.

Concerning any shameful acts committed on the part of non-RCC churches let me explain.
Yes, absolutely. Others out of every denomination have committed crimes before God. We are sinners. If a Baptist pastor were to commit adultery (in the churches I am acquainted with) he would be dismissed as a pastor and not be permitted to pastor any longer. If he committed any crime such as pedophilia or rape, he not only would be dismissed he would be taken to the police, charges would be laid, and an appropriate sentence would be given. Justice would be served. He would not be sent to another parish and hidden by the RCC or the pope!!!
DO THE CRIME; PAY THE TIME. We believe in justice, even for pastors and church leaders.

Now, secondly: I am an IFB. Independent means I am not a part of any denomination or group of any other churches. I belong to one local church, my church, and am not concerned with any other churches. We are independent of all other churches. Please understand that.
I am Fundamental. That means we stick to the fundamentals of the faith, not the man-made doctrines and traditions like Purgatory and indulgences. Our authority is the Bible. Fundamental does not mean extreme. It means we follow the Bible; we believe in the fundamentals of the faith.
Third, I am a Baptist. That means I believe in the traditional Baptist distinctives that Baptists have believed throughout history. sola fide, sola scriptura, are two of the most important ones.
--Now having said that, I am not therefore responsible for the sins, actions, crimes, etc., for all those Protestants and others that you have mentioned. I am responsible for myself first and most importantly, and then as a pastor for my people second.
Whereas your association with the RCC makes you associated with the entire RCC monster. I have no denomination. I am independent. You are not. You share in the disgraceful crimes of your church. I don't share in the crimes of the churches you mentioned. They must give account for their crimes, not I.

Have you been born again? I ask you again.
The RCC wrongly says that the new birth is by baptism. It is not.
The new birth is by the Holy Spirit. If you haven't been born again by the Holy Spirit of God (not baptism), you don't have the Holy Spirit, and cannot be led by the Holy Spirit of God. These are simple Bible 101 facts. I am not the one blaspheming the Holy Spirit (a sin that cannot be committed today). Your ranting does not scare me.

Wrong. Every believer, at the time they come to Christ (by faith alone), is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them from that time onward (not from baptism). Therefore the Holy Spirit is able to guide them. That doesn't make them infallible.
Peter was not fallible. In Galatians two, Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy. He "withstood him to the face for he was to blame."
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

People should listen to me if what I say is true according to the Bible.
That is what the Bereans did:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--It is the essence of sola scriptura.

If what I say is according to God's Word then you need to listen. It is the Bible that is infallible. I am just the messenger. You argument is with God as he reveals his message to you through His Word.

 

1 of 4


DHK,

When the way you frame your statement itself presupposes the legitimacy of your position, dialogue is impossible. It’s what we call “begging the question.” Underlying your statement above is a certain presupposition, a presupposition which views all matters pertaining to doctrine and all matters pertaining to Scripture as utterly equivalent. But that’s the very thing in question between us. For a Catholic, in refusing to place restrictions upon God, understands that God may reach out to us in any manner He wishes. God sometimes speaks in nature, sometimes He speaks in Scripture. Sometimes He speaks to us through a prophet. Sometimes God speaks to us through Apostles. Most profoundly God speaks to us the His Son, the Lord. These modes of communication aren’t to be seen as equal to one another, as if a prophet or nature could be put on the same level as the Incarnate Christ. At the same time, though, all of these things are ordered toward Christ and each occupies its own place in a great symphony that points upward to the Redeemer in Heaven. A whole host of problems arise, however, when one wrongly places any one of these things (all of which are created things but Christ) in the wrong position. This is what you’ve done. You have mis-appointed the Holy Scriptures. In doing this, you’ve re-orienting according to the mind of man, God’s appointed structure so as to uphold your desired one. Again, your confidence in Sola Scriptura, though you see it as confidence in the Bible is really, truly, and logically a confidence in the very thing you often lament: The fallible and corrupt minds of men. For you’re treating a man-made doctrine which is being mistaken treated as a divinely revealed truth. And instead of explaining why you’re not doing this, what you do instead is continue to heap the criticisms upon the Catholic Church. A criticism of the Catholic Church, though, cannot be mistaken for a defense of your own. Indeed, it is likely that you’d feel upset, confused, frustrated and surprised for a while were you to come face to face with the myriad logical incoherences of your preferred “Baptist” theology. So I’m not expecting you to suddenly realize that Sola Scriptura is unBiblical and suddenly become a Catholic. Like most non-Catholics (in my experience) who begin to question their respective denominational conditions, the Catholic Church is the last thing they have on their mind as they face that terrible truth that the “fundamentals” of Protestantism are historically confused, Biblically unfounded, and sometimes flat out unjust. So, again, you’ve wrongly adopted a “worldview” a “paradigm” which sees the Bible as the “sole, infallible guide for all matters of faith and Christian practice” when that very worldview has itself not been revealed by God. What you’ve done, then, followed the suit of a minority of Christians who’ve gone before. You think they’re right for the very reasons they thought they were right. None of you, though, can present a coherent argument for your position(s), for, as you’ve acknowledged, Sola Scriptura is an “inferred” doctrine.

Your position is unsound precisely because it isn't a position validated, taught, substantiated, or otherwise approved by the Scriptures. Period. End of argument. That’s the nail in your worldview’s coffin. For though you purport to go by the Bible alone, in the very act of attempting to do so, you’re violating the Scriptures on account of the fact that they don’t teach Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures don't teach your position. If you showed up at the door of an unbeliever, she could say something like this:


Unbeliever: "So you're telling me that I need to base everything on this book, that this book holds the fullness of the Christian faith and is the ultimate and final authority?"

You: "Yes!"

Unbeliever: "Okay, where exactly is that belief taught in the Scriptures?"


And that's where you can't answer without swaying from the very Scriptures you claim to uphold. It’s at that moment you’ll present a number of verses you “interpret” in such a way as to justify your doctrine. Those verses, though they affirm the authority of Scripture, don’t affirm the sole and independent authority which you ascribe to them. As I said above, you admitted this much when you said that Sola Scriptura is not explicitly taught in the Bible but is, instead, inferred in a manner similar to the way the doctrine of the Trinity is inferred. So, as I've said, and as David Anders said, your doctrine is wrong because it isn't taught by Scripture, God, a prophet, or an angel of God. If you disagree, please show me where either God, an angel of God, a prophet, or Scripture teaches that it is the "sole rule of faith."

The particular cultural and religious demographics of your Country aren’t quite related to my assertion. Nor does your assessment of various Catholic populations have anything directly to do with the fact that you’re holding to a profoundly and admittedly extraBiblical teaching. Further, to evangelize Catholics is to presuppose the legitimacy of your interpretation of Scripture over the generally Catholic interpretation of Scripture. For if Catholics are already Christians, evangelizing them is a lot like calling a fish into the pond. And only if you presuppose the illegitimacy of the Catholic paradigm could you conceive yourself as "evangelizing" those who've already been evangelized. Again, this is why nearly everything you’ve written here more or less “begs the question.” It’s like you’re walking around with a blindfold on, earplugs in, your lips sealed, and a T-shirt on that says “I believe Sola Scriptura!” For although you’ve written much, not a single jot or tittle as far as I can tell even begins to address the basic points I’ve made:

1. Sola Scriptura is refuted by the fact that by it we cannot live out the perfect unity, being of one mind, as a body to which both St. Paul and Christ Himself called us.
   
   
2. Sola Scriptura presents an illusion of “church” authority by putting the cart (the individual member of the Church) ahead of the horse (the authoritative, teaching Church established by Christ).
   
   
3. The Bible, since it didn’t come with a divinely revealed Table of Contents is itself something which God saw fit to deliver “through His Church.” It can be said, then, that it came forth from Christ, yet through His Church, which was made manifest on Pentecost which we see as the Church’s birthday.
   

What is salvation according to the implications of what you wrote above? Is it reducible to intellectual knowledge? Or is intellectual knowledge inconsequential? If it’s, for example, “faith alone” that saves and God does everything, what exactly are you calling people to do? Are you calling them to do some sort of “work” by saying some prayer or enacting their will in space and time in some way or not? A Catholic should understand that moment by moment we are called to turn our lives over to Christ, to hold every thought captive to Christ. And holding a Bible in your hands while you’re talking to someone doesn’t cause your opinions to somehow become truths of God. Further, in the case of these Catholics whom you’re attempting to engage on an intellectual level, one's status in the eyes of God isn't judged by his ability to present to you theological explanations of various doctrines in such a way as to satisfy your personal qualifications. God loves the simple-minded members of His Family as well as the intellectual. And there are plenty of Catholic theologians, people like St. Paul, for example, who teach doctrines which, as the great CS Lewis once wrote, present the faith in such a way as to recognize the fact that "our souls demand purgatory." The fact that through the adoption of an unBiblical system of believe you're bound to a viewpoint which cuts off the possibility of accepting the doctrine of Purgatory should by no means be mistaken for having demonstrated either the legitimacy of your doctrines or the illegitimacy of the doctrine of Purgatory. You've done neither.

 

2 of 4

DHK, your doctrine is unBiblical because it’s not taught in the Bible. What does it mean for something to be “based on” the Bible. And who says that Christian doctrine is supposed to be “based on” the Bible at all? Christian doctrine is supposed to be “based on” the person of Jesus Christ and what He did to save us. The Bible is an important part of that equation. But the whole thing starts and ends with Him. So it’s actually Catholic Doctrine which has the proper understanding of the role of Scripture within the Christian Faith. Further, you keep requesting that I do what I've already done. I have claimed that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is man-made. I can "prove" it simply by pointing out the obvious fact that the Bible says nothing like "These 66 Books are to be understood as the sole rule for all matters of faith and practice." There is no verse anywhere in the Bible which says anything like that. Your belief, therefore, is "unBiblical." It’s not amenable to anything actually taught in the Bible.


Also, I said that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ upon the prophets and the apostles with Jesus Christ as the Chief Cornerstone and you said:

I can back it up. Sorry for being obnoxious, but here goes:

1. St. Peter (32-67))
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)

---- Check the Catholic Encyclopedia for the rest of the list ---


261. St. John XXIII (1958-63)
262. Paul VI (1963-78)
263. John Paul I (1978)
264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
266. Francis (2013—)

 

3 of 4

In my personal experience, those who leave the Catholic Faith often didn’t really know it well. You left it when you were only 20 or so. And you did so, from what it sounds like, in a dramatic moment of frustration, confusion, and hope for a certain comforting delivery from your trials. But the fact that you wanted some sort of security or assurance badly at that time doesn’t mean that the Biblicism you adopted is at all coherent. Further, though you were young, it still may have occurred to you, had you sought advice from a Catholic, that the torment you were feeling was something from which you weren’t going to be delivered at the time any more than Christ was delivered from His Agony in the Garden in His hour of need. So often, and in great contrast to your story, those who enter the Catholic Faith from non-Catholic backgrounds are people who were deeply committed believers within their Protestant backgrounds and who were quite comfortable with things… until they realized, for example, that the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura… or until they realize that the greatest Christian writers are mostly Catholics. Many “converts” want anything but to become Catholics. They are often quite satisfied as Protestants, sometimes as pastors or employees of Christian organizations. When they encounter the problems inherent to Protestant theology, though, honesty and commitment to Christ compel them to sacrifice anything in order to follow the Lord.


Also, I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that has convinced masses of illiterate people. I have evidence that has convinced people with great minds such as John Henry Newman. I have Scriptural evidence. I have historical evidence. I have logical evidence. The Church isn't a "huge business organization," either. The Church's temporal function isn't to be confused with the other elements of its nature and constitution. And just as you fill an "organizational" role as a "Bible teacher," so does the Catholic Church have various roles associated with its institutional functions. In principle, these don't represent a problem for the Church any more than your being a teacher of the Bible in some formal capacity represents a problem for you. Further, the validation of the Church to which I appeal is largely found in the nature and manner of its divine institution. Many of those factors are, happily, recorded in Scripture itself. So, as I've said, I read the account of the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and am inspired. And seeing as how Christ Himself promised the Holy Spirit to the Church, I, unlike you, don't imagine that Christ's promises were empty. I, instead of imagining rupture in the Church, recognize God's sovereign power to, despite all odds, and all the corruption and sausage-making of history, shepherd His Church rightly, even in the face of those who, coming from within the Church, would attempt to strike at the very root of her legitimacy: Her organic, sacramental, and historical connection to the Incarnation itself.

First of all, I don't need to "prove" things. You speak in these legalistic terms quite a bit. Christianity is largely about relationship, growing up in communion, mutual discovery. Christianity is a family affair. And just as I don’t say “Prove it, Dad.” when I am conversing with my earthly Father, so I don’t go strutting around telling people to “prove” matters of faith. My job is to inform and share my experience with you, not convict. And though you don't accept my reasoning, history, or Scriptural appeal as “proof,” what I say does indeed represent the beginnings of an intellectual consideration of the Catholic Faith. And as far as your challenge goes, I need look no further than, for example, 1st Timothy 3:15. But you don’t accept it. So if my “proof’s” legitimacy is conditioned upon your means of authenticating a doctrine, which, incidentally, demands the invalidity of the Catholic Faith, then there’s simply no way I could present anything to you that would count as evidence because you’ve stacked the deck unconditionally in favor of your adopted system.

DHK, when you deligitimize my very "evidence" on account of your presuppositions and not by any objective measure of validity, it's not reasonable to write them off as "propaganda." Is 1 Timothy 3:15 propaganda? No. But your presupposed Biblicism renders it such. That's not my fault and it's certainly not 1 Timothy 3:15's fault. My “verification” of the Catholic Faith rests on Christ and statements He made such as “My flesh is real food.” But even when things come from the very words of Christ, you reject them. He says “This is my body.” You say it isn’t. And though no one thought He was a door or a vine, there in John 6 He caused scandal precisely because people recognized the fact that He, in that instance, was clearly NOT speaking metaphorically. For if He were, He would have been responsible for misguiding His hearers who, troubled at His words, chose to leave His side. It would have been incumbent upon Him to say “You’re misunderstanding me.” He didn’t do that, though. He let them leave not because they misunderstood, but precisely because they did take Him at His word and were disgusted. Even the Apostles didn’t understand Him, but followed Him on account of their faith and their recognition of the fact that He was who He was.

Notice the fact that instead of defending your position by demonstrating that it is Biblical (a point which I deny), you just go into attacking Purgatory and Indulgences. Like a basketball player who can’t compete just insults his opponent’s “momma,” you don’t actually attempt to explain and defend your position, you just cast a few more aspersions my way, heap on a few blanket statements (all of which beg the question, by the way), and cite a few Bible verses for good measure. Further, the means by which we go about determining what is “good” and “not good” or “authentic” or “inauthentic” or “revealed” or “mere opinion” is the very thing in question here. And all along, without demonstrating the validity and justification of your grand inference from Scripture (Sola Scriptura), you go on condemning Catholic doctrines on account of your unBiblical Biblicism.


Also, I affirm this and every other verse of Scripture, rightly understood. I am questioning neither Scripture nor valid and authentic Christian doctrines. What I am questioning is the unBiblical test by which you condemn authentic Christianity for the sake of a counterfeit Christianity which is, in many cases, little more than a few hundred years old. So when “two can play” at a given game, it does little to move the conversation forward to simply toss more Bible verses out. For the very thing in question between is focuses upon the question of how we are to go about interpreting those verses rightly. And since you’re not an angel or a prophet, I can’t just take your reading at face value. I have to test what you say and hold to what is good. In this case, I’ve tested Sola Scriptura and it’s come up bankrupt. And you’ve yet to so much as attempted a defense of it. Instead you sent me to Dr. Norman Geisler’s article on the doctrine which I went through with a fine-toothed comb. And I am still awaiting a rebuttal of the points I provided in response to it.

 

4 of 4

DHK, if you can show me that I’m mistaken, I will be happy to change. But you’ve not even so much as begun to even acknowledge, restate, respond to, or give the time of day to the numerous criticisms I’ve presented of Biblicism. I have pointed out the fact that Sola Scriptura is not Biblical. As I said above, you admitted as much when you said that it was rightly "inferred" from the Scriptures and not explicitly taught. But again, the statue from Nebuchadnezzar's dream comes to mind. You see a formidable head, etc. and overlook the clay (unBiblical) feet of the system you adopted in that dorm room some years ago. And there is no question that I believe the Scriptures. My Grandpa was as good a Baptist minister as ever lived on God's Earth. He taught me to love the Scriptures and I indeed do. I love the Bible so much, I left my Baptist errors for the Catholic Faith where the Bible finds its rightful home and within which it is rightly revered, interpreted, and proclaimed.

DHK, as I've said. I have a TON of respect and admiration for you. But I am telling you here: You are wrong (W-R-O-N-G). The Bible is NOT our final authority. Jesus, the Risen Lord is the Final Authority. Amen. When Jesus, the Incarnate Lord of Heaven and Earth is placed in the center, a person eventually becomes a Catholic. When the Scriptures are wrongly forced into that central place (which leads a person to say things like "The Bible is... our final authority") then some weird and incoherent, self-defeating Biblicism becomes the Point of one's Christianity instead of Christ. This is, again, when an "incidental good comes to be preferred over the eternal good which it signifies." This is a problem... As Christian Smith, the former Baptist turned Catholic Scholar's dust jacket from a recent book says: "Biblicism, an approach to the Bible common among some American evangelicals, emphasizes together the Bible's exclusive authority, infallibility, clarity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability. Acclaimed sociologist Christian Smith argues that this approach is misguided and unable to live up to its own claims. If evangelical biblicism worked as its proponents say it should, there would not be the vast variety of interpretive differences that biblicists themselves reach when they actually read and interpret the Bible." That's what I mean by "Biblicism." Your system doesn't work, DHK. The Bible’s great. But your use of it is mistaken. That's why you and BobRyan don't agree. That's why you and Martin Luther don't agree. That's why you and Martin Marprelate don't agree. Still, though, you call me away from the Church you left. When you do so, though, you're calling me not to unity, but to incoherence. What exactly are you calling me to other than your mindset, your adopted man-made tradition? After all, I already have the Bible. So you’re not calling me to that...

God’s people have also been castigated by the Lord for not following His appointed ministers. Don’t forget about Korah and his followers. Don’t forget it was they who cried out, saying “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?” And what did God do? He didn’t say “Good job, Korah. You tell ‘em. Now go back to your tent and memorize Scripture. No, Korah and his followers were swallowed by the Earth.


I memorize Scripture (I have since Awana). Memorizing Scripture is a worthwhile thing. Catholic teaching doesn't suggest otherwise. So what’s your point? Again, this is all some sort of benign subterfuge on your part. I don’t think you’re doing this from a bad heart. But why do you bring up all of this stuff? Why don’t you just speak directly to my point?

Of course a young man should take heed thereto according to God’s Word. I have never suggested otherwise. And no, a textbook is not simply a book to learn from. If that were the case, then every book would be a "textbook." A textbook presents a more thorough treatment of a given subject than a mere "book to learn from." The Scripture is more than a book. It's an entire library full of various genres. Certainly a man learns from it. But what it isn't, however, is an encyclopedia, something that purports to include all the necessary and pertinent details concerning a subject so as to essential "cover all the bases." Where Scripture is vague, the Church provides clarity. The Church is the Voice of Scripture and its Servant. Remember the Catholic Church understands Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to speak with one voice. The Church is responsible for rightly presenting the truth concerning those doctrines which some may twist and distort. For example, when Jesus says "My flesh is real food." and people say "He didn't mean that!" the Church is there to say "Actually... He did."

 

You know that the above is not true.
The Apostles are dead.
There are no more prophets today. You don't speak to them unless you are practicing necromancy, part of the paranormal.
When God speaks through His Son He uses the Word of God.
You know that "The Son" does not speak to you audibly.
Thus it is a misleading and a very false statement to say that God may reach out to us in any manner He wishes.
That is false.
First. God will not do anything contrary to His nature.
Second, God will not do anything contrary to His will.
Third, God will not do anything contrary to His word.

He has declared in his word that His Son is revealed to us in this present age through His Word.
In times past God spoke through the prophets in various manners such as dreams, visions, in an audible voice etc. He doesn't use those methods any longer.
In these days he speaks to us "through His Son." His Son is revealed to us through His Word.

Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
--Note that it is God's word that is preached. It is God's Word that is the sole content for all faithful preaching and teaching.
Then in the latter part of the verse Paul emphasized that the preaching of His Word, the plan of salvation as we know it today, originated in eternity past with God our Savior.
If one desires to know Christ, he must know his word. Christ will not be revealed to anyone without His word. The word is the agent by which Christ is revealed. Thus the need for sola scriptura.

Again, look at your list:
God does not use prophets (outside of the Word), Apostles (outside of the Word), Christ incarnate (outside of the Word, but he does and can use in a very limited way nature.

Psalm 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
--This is called general revelation. There are some things about God that are revealed to us in nature, but certainly not the plan of salvation and not enough to be saved. It is just enough to move one on to take the next step and seek out more about God or Christ. What he finds out about Christ will ultimately come from the Word.

You are stating your opinion, which you are entitled to. But sola scriptura is just as Biblical as the trinity is. Just because the words are not found in the Bible does not make unbiblical. The principles and practice of this divine principle is found all throughout the sacred writ.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

In contrast to the divine and biblical defense of the Word of God the RCC is barking up the wrong tree of man-made tradition. This is very easy to see and to point out. And yes, it proves my point. Paul used the same method throughout the Book of Galatians.

That would be the same as accusing God as being "upset, confused, frustrated and surprised..."
But God changes not. He is the same: yesterday, today and forever. He is a God of order and never confused about anything. The things you say are directed to the Word of God which God authored, and thus directed to the author of the book. Thus to us it would be blasphemous to write such things. Sola scriptura simply means that God's Word is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Inherent in that definition is allowing the author of the Word to be the Lord of your life. But now it seems that you say he is a confused person with a confused book.

God is not confused and His book or words are not confused. Why suggest that they are?
Those in our congregation pattern everything after the apostles and early believers of the first century, but the RCC don't. Recent history that I have been reading states that the RCC as we know it today, did not exist until the eleventh century. There is no possible way that it was ever connected with the apostles. That is just wishful thinking.

But it has been revealed by God. Only an unbeliever would deny such. Believers do not deny that the Bible came from God. They accept it by faith. Consider the very first verse:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
--Every true believer in Christ comes face to face with the first four words.
If they do not accept them by faith as true, reliable, accurate, then they are not true believers in Christ, they are importers. At the very beginning God declares himself to be the Creator of all. He does not try and prove his existence. He assumes it. The Bible is not a defense of God. One must accept by faith that God is, and subsequently that the book he is reading is His book and is His inspired book to mankind. We live by faith, walk by faith.

The trinity is truth revealed from scripture as sola scriptura is. Those who have ears to hear let him hear. Principles and truths for both have been given. Evidence has been given. Thus it remains in the hands and ears of those reading whether or not to accept the evidence given.
The Bible is the authority by which every Christian will be judged. He will not be judged according to the RCC Catechism, the RCC itself, the Magesterium, etc. He will stand alone before God and be judged according to what he has done on this earth, good or bad, in relation to this book, the Word of God.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
--There is more than one book here. I believe one of these books is the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures themselves.

 

Based on your say so, and what appears to be your emotions???
I don't think so!
Read what I wrote once again. I simply said to leave the word "challenge" out. Now, Prove me wrong. Give evidence that my position is wrong. Show me from the Bible I am wrong. And now look at your answer.
You gave an emotional outburst basically stating that "It is wrong because I said it is wrong and that is the end of argument." Well excuse me, but that is not even worthy of debate.

This is your opinion; RCC propaganda that you keep parroting over and over again, without evidence. If you can't give evidence for your statements then don't make them. Many of us have supported our position of sola scriptura with plenty of scripture. It is time to deal with scripture and refute the evidence actually given. A repeated opinion still remains opinion and usually wrong.

You keep parroting this. I have shown you through scriptures like Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; and the many times that the apostles preached using only the Word, and quoting from the Word (the OT) to appeal to.

Those that led me to Christ asked me these questions before talking to me directly about Christ.
1. Do you know for sure if you were to die right now, would you go to heaven? (no)
2. Would you like to know for sure?
3. Do you believe the Bible (yes--no reason why I shouldn't believe the Bible)
4. Can we show you through the Bible how to have your sins forgiven and be assured of heaven?
--And they did.
There was absolutely no reason why I, as a Catholic, should reject the Bible as God's Word.
They weren't talking to an absolute atheist; to an unregenerated, unsaved, sinner perhaps, but not an atheist. I believed as most Catholics believed--salvation by works through the RCC.

What makes you think I have to justify the Bible?
What books of mythology would you use instead?

And thus sola scriptura is just as true as the trinity is. There are many words in our theology ("theology" not withstanding) that are not used in our Bible.

I have; others have. You simply reject it. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. What do you think should be our final authority? The Quran?? Book of Mormon? No, it is God Himself.

I have never met a Catholic that is already a Christian. In my experience when a Catholic becomes a Christian he obeys the Lord and leaves the apostate RCC and joins a local church where the Bible is taught. He then is baptized by immersion and begins to serve the Lord.

As I have just stated, I have never met a Catholic that is already saved, and thus evangelism is an absolute necessity.
Think again. What does it mean to be "born again." What does the Bible teach, and what does the Catechism teach? If the two are different (and they are) then one's eternal destiny is in peril.

1. 
   --Spiritual unity can only come through the Word of God, and when the Word of God is put first and foremost in the believer's life.
   Paul, speaking to the local church at Ephesus wrote:
   Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
   --The local churches of the first century were given apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, all for what purpose? For the purpose of the preaching and teaching of the Word of God, that through the Word of God their church might be united.
   Now today, we don't have apostles and prophets, but still have evangelists, pastors, and teachers, and the same purpose can be attained.
   Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
   --The word "perfecting" means "maturing." That the saints might be matured, edified, and that they might serve.
   Ephesians 4:13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
   --What brings us all into unity? It is the teaching of the Word of God by pastors, teachers and evangelists of the local church. BTW, the word "saints" here simply refers to those that have been saved, trusted Christ by faith alone.
   
   [

 

An unfounded opinion which is nothing more than RCC propaganda. Your statement is a degradation of God's words, and thus of God himself. It is disgraceful.
It also is an illusion in and of itself for one cannot prove the existence of the RCC during the time of the apostles. Unbiased history books give a date of the 11th century. Others give a date of the fourth century when Constantine made Christianity a state religion. Either way this apostatized form of Christianity was not around during the time of the Apostles.

This is such a pitiful excuse. If I write a book it is my decision whether or not to put in a Table of Contents. That is a convenience not a requirement. And the page that has "The Table of Contents" is not inspired. It is simply a convenience just like the page that has the date and place of printing. Those facts are not inspired. Neither is my name when I write it in the inside cover.
God gave the Bible to the church; not the church gave the Bible to God (or the people
The Catholics here have taken a very arrogant and backwards position.
[/LIST]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
There must be some intellectual knowledge of what the gospel is, but then how does the gospel personally apply to you.
For example, Christ did not "just die," He died for each and every one, that whoever should trust him should have eternal life.
Who will trust him? Those who need him will trust him. Only those in need of a Savior will call for a Savior. IOW, all men are sinners, but unless one is willing to admit he is a sinner, in fact a criminal before God he will not be saved. It is that person that realizes he has no hope, no promise, no way out, He is doomed. Only then, when he realizes there is nothing left to turn to, will he turn to Christ, for then Christ can be his Savior and He will trust him as Lord and Savior of his life.
When that happens Christ not only becomes his Savior, but Lord. That means that implicit in salvation is service. There is an immediate Lord/servant relationship, just as there is an immediate Father/son relationship. At this time also Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, takes up residence in the believer. Now being indwelt with the Holy Spirit he is able to understand the scriptures which beforehand he couldn't. Thus it is not just intellectual, it is very spiritual.
The Holy Spirit must be there to convict of sin.

It is the Bible, not me, that says:
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
2. You must be born again; Except you be born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

No one said: "Turn your life over to Christ."
No one said that holding a Bible in your hands while talking to someone would cause an opinion to become truth.
--Why are you misrepresenting another's position?

I don't have personal qualifications. I use the Bible. The Bible states what God states. God demands that a person be saved, and tells how a person be saved. That is not me speaking. I am simply His messenger speaking forth his truth.

That is as good as a lie since purgatory is not found in the Bible, and Paul never taught it. Why suggest that Paul taught purgatory when he didn't? If it is your opinion that he taught such then back it up with scripture.

I don't have an unbiblical system, and you just demonstrated that point.
You suggested purgatory. You cannot defend through the scriptures that ungodly doctrine. If you could, you would.
It is not Biblical. It is ungodly; a man-made doctrine. Can you defend it? Sola scriptura will be a good test for you here.

 

Your problem, if I may say so, Herbert, is that you don't read the Scriptures with a heart to understand them. Read 2 Timothy 3:15-17 again and look at what it says. The Scriptures give us the information needed to be saved (v.15), and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that, as a result, the man of God may be thoroughly equipped. The word of God exactly does "cover all the bases" and by denying that you are denying the God-breathed Scriptures and making the Holy Spirit out to be a liar.

Since you like the Church Fathers, listen to Hyppolytus (c.170-236): 'There is, brethren, on God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source......Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn' ('Against the heresy of one Noetus.' 9).

 

You're doing it again, DHK. I never suggested that all of those various ways by which God may reach out to us are occurring presently. I was just saying that God can (and has) revealed Himself to us through all of those means. Look what you do, though. Instead of really reading what I say, you read into what I say (an idea that is not there) and then suggest things about necromancy, declare that the Apostles are "dead" (they aren't by the way for God is the God of the living). And then you start quoting Scripture at me and beg the question concerning the role of the Bible for the Christian today. Once again, you beg the question by saying "In these days he speaks to us 'through His Son.' His Son is revealed to us through His Word." Because when you say this, what you mean is the very specific and unBiblical idea that God speaks "only" through His Word (and not through the Church). You mean that everything that the Apostles needed to say was recorded in the New Testament (when the New Testaments says no such thing). You mean "Sola Scriptura." But the Bible doesn't teach "Sola Scriptura." You just demand it. And Titus 1:3 doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, either. Just as you read things into my words, you're reading things into St. Paul's. You're projecting your ideas wherever you look. You're interjecting "alones" where they weren't placed by God, a prophet, and angel, or the Apostle Paul. Look at how you close those remarks:

"If one desires to know Christ, he must know his word. Christ will not be revealed to anyone without His word. The word is the agent by which Christ is revealed. Thus the need for sola scriptura."

You hop, skip, and jump your way from some very broad and uncontroversial statements to an obvious non-sequitur. Those premises do not inexorably lead to that conclusion. Your "thus" doesn't work, DHK. You see a "need" where one doesn't exist. You insist that there is a "need" there when there isn't. And this is where the invalidity and unBiblical nature of Sola Scriptura is well-revealed. For here you've put it right out there by saying "Thus the need for Sola Scriptura." This is the point at which we see the transition in your thought process away from adherence to the teaching of God-breathed Scripture and into the realm of fallible human inference. This is the very point at which you're mistaking a human inference with God's revelation itself. All the while you've admitted that the Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura explicitly and apart from referring to Dr. Geisler's article you've done nothing but quote Scripture and demand that I agree with your opinion of it to explain yourself. And when St. Paul says "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms..." you, just like with James 2:24 or Matthew 26:26, find some way to make the text mean the exact opposite of what it says.

You've placed yourself into an impossible position. You need to demonstrate the validity of a man-made doctrine which you demand others to, like you, deduce from Scripture. And the great irony, then, of your intellectual problem here is that you're using a man-made doctrine to condemn what you see as the man-made doctrines of the Catholic Church. Demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is a divinely revealed doctrine and you'll be making some progress. Until then, you must realize that your opinions concerning the Christian Faith are not binding upon the consciences of other Christians.

Thanks for your time, I'll be back!

Herbert

 

This is the crux of the matter isn't it?
It is the Word of God vs. "The Church" (defined by you as the RCC).
Whereas I can prove my position that the Word of God is our authority and that authority is given to us by God--Christ even rebuking those who do not use sola scriptura, and do not know the Word, you have no evidence at all, not even one verse or any other evidence to suggest that the RCC is the historical venue by which all truth emanates. Where do you get such an absurd idea? This is just RCC propaganda without any evidence. Give forth your evidence. Prove your position.

Jesus said very clearly:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
--Look at the emphasis here. You are in error not knowing the Scriptures, not the RCC. There is no such suggestion in God's Word, in the writings of the apostles or the prophets, or in all the Bible.
You are in error not knowing the Word, the Scriptures. That is sola scriptura.

 

DHK,

Again, thanks for your continued discussion. As I said, I am working on a response to Martin Marprelate and I didn't intend to run down this rabbit trail. But I do enjoy our conversations and appreciate your being patient with me and pressing on...

I'd say that this statement itself represents another case of your almost constant tendency to beg the question. For here you've set up two categories: "The Scriptures" & "The Church"

Notice, too, how you pit these two things, both of which are, Biblically speaking, divinely appointed, against one another and thus, once again, beg the question by presuming "Sola Scriptura." For only by presuming Sola Scriptura would you subjugate the rightly co-operative role, authority, and identity of the Church to your preferred doctrine. In other words, you're presuming the very thing in question: That the Bible is the "sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian."

There are a few problems here:

1) Proving that the Scriptures are "our authority" isn't what's at issue here. What's up for discussion here is the idea that the Scriptures are the "sole infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice." For that matter, we're talking faith here. We're not here to "prove" anything. Faith is a gift from God, not an armwrestling match.

2) I am not arguing that the Scriptures weren't given to us by God. So you needn't attempt to "prove" that to me.

3) Christ did indeed rebuke Pharisees, etc. But if that's your premise, it's not sufficient to "prove" Sola Scriptura. In other words, from the mere fact that Christ chastised those who were misinterpreting Scripture one cannot justify his adherence to Sola Scriptura. The conclusion does not follow from that premise.

4) Having "no evidence" and having evidence which doesn't satisfy your presupposed paradigm are two VERY different things. The fact that you're not convinced by my evidence has more to do with your biases than it does with the soundness of my arguments. So I'd recommend rephrasing that line there. I most certainly do have evidence. You just don't find it convincing.

5) Further, you've created a strawman here, as well. For I have never claimed that "the RCC is the historical venue by which all truth emanates." Please criticise things I've actually said. I say that Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is divine and thus the Source from "which all truth emanates."

6) Also, this isn't "RCC propaganda." As a person writing on a website, I am not an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church.

7) You've repeated the request that I "prove" my position. As I said earlier, though, relationship doesn't call upon a person to "prove" things to his or her beloved. Family, relationship, membership in the Body of Christ, these things call upon us to, in charity, be ready to provide an apologia for the hope that is in us. You may weigh my presentation based upon my evidence, reasoning, and logic. But I am not here to attempt to strongarm anyone.

8) Finally, and I've said this before, my goal here isn't to "convert" you back to the Faith. I'd be happy to simply play some small role in your coming to recognize and admit the fact that the Bible does not actually teach Sola Scriptura. Were that to happen, I'd be very pleased. Beyond that, then, it's possible that you could come to see that the Catholic Church was indeed founded by Christ and that you were wrong to leave her so many years ago. But that would probably take a while and you'd have 40 years worth of Biblical Fundamentalism to "rinse off," which might take a while, also. After that, though, you may come to see that some imagined Age of Apostasy never took place, that Christ's Church was founded by the Lord Himself and that God's superintendence of it wasn't conditioned upon the impeccability of the men and women within it... and finally, then, you might come to accept, in faith, that the Pope is actually the 265th Successor to St. Peter.

But two can play at that game, DHK. Watch this: "No, DHK, you are in error. It is you who do not know the Scriptures." That won't get us anywhere. If that's what this is about we could just volley that stuff back and forth all day:

You're wrong.
No. You're wrong.
Nuh-uh! You're wrong.
No. It's you who is wrong!

That's why it's so important that we discuss our doctrines and their respective bases. Because that first statement you wrote above is about me as a person. It is directed at me "the man" and not at my arguments and criticisms of your position. Please address my point, not my person. In this case I am calling you to look to the Bible whose contents you claim to uphold to show me that it teaches Sola Scriptura. Earlier you admitted that it was an "inferred" doctrine. To that I say that your inference is itself unwarranted and that the Bible simply does not teach Sola Scriptura at all. I also say that your admitting that it is inferred is itself a demonstration of the point I've been making all along here: You adhere to a philosophical tradition of men which nullifies the Word of God.

If you believe otherwise, since Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, please explain some other reasoning by which you see a man as justified in holding to it. For the best way to defend your position isn't to try to shift the focus to my Catholicism.

Imagine for the sake of this discussion that it is not me but an unbeliever who is challenging you. That way you can just leave Purgatory, etc. out of it. What would you say to him were he to make the assertions I'm making?

In Him,

Herbert

 

Part 1 of 2 to Martin

Martin,

I am working on putting together a response to some of your most recent comments to me. It's taking me a minute! And b/c I dove into this new exchange with DHK, that's been put on the backburner. But I'll get back to it...

I believe you're saying this in goodwill and charity. But how can you presume to know my heart? The fact that I (and most Christians who've ever lived) disagree with you (and, for that matter, that most Protestants disagree with you) shouldn't indicate to you that my heart is in the wrong place. I do indeed read to understand them. But I also read them to understand the broader Christian world. The Scriptures are for me, yes. But they're also for everybody else. So just because I understand them differently than you do does not mean that I don't read to understand them. And just as DHK occasionally wanders dangerously close to making ad hominem attacks, so is this somewhat of an ad hominem instead of what it should be, an Scriptural, rational, logical argument.

Hold on here. Let's look more closely at this:


(From a previous post) Oftentimes, non-Catholic Christians who hold to a “Bible Alone” view, as I’m sure you’re aware, appeal to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 to justify their “Biblicism.” John Henry Newman… writing in the 19th Century had this to say in response to them: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy… Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Further, this passage presents truths with which a Catholic agrees. Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. That is, all Scripture does those things. In other words, this passage refers not to a collection of texts here (which was yet to be compiled and which you refer to as The Bible). Rather, it refers to all Scripture. That means that a single Psalm, for example, can and will be profitable for all of these things. But you're not saying that Psalm 23 alone is sufficient to know the Christian Faith in its doctrinal fullness. This is, again, why your attempted reading of this passage proves too much. For that matter, Chapter 1 of Genesis can and will be profitable for such efforts, as well. Isaiah 53 & 54 will be profitable for all of these things, also.

So this passage, on a strictly textual basis, doesn’t even begin to present the notion that a given “Canon of Scripture” (which did not yet exist) would become something against which the oral Apostolic Tradition elsewhere affirmed in the Scriptures would be pitted.

And ironically, the passage here culminates with a phrase that, in one sense, delegitimizes the whole argument for a Biblicist. For the passage closes with the phrase “...equipped for every good work.” Well, if the whole passage affirms, in its context, Scripture's efficacy as far as preparation for "works" is concerned, then it’s not helpful for "faith," the very thing you demand must operate "alone." So, for one who holds to the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, does it make much sense to appeal to a verse whose terms define a solid basis for a man's works? In other words, if the verses ended with the phrase “...that the man of God may be complete, equipped with a sound faith.” it would be far more consistent with the point a Biblicist is trying to prove.

St. Paul’s words, also, aren’t addressing the question of Canonicity, however. Neither are his words addressing the role of those "shepherds" who exercise various roles in the Church according to its divine constitution. In other words, there is nothing in these passages which is objectively incompatible with a teaching presented by or a discipline exercised within the Catholic Church.

St. Hippolytus also said these things:

1) "Fly to the Catholic Church! Adhere to the only faith which continues to exist from the beginning, that faith which was preached by Paul and is upheld by the Chair of Peter."

2) "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."

3) "But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man.”

 

Part 2 of 2 to Martin

4) Callistus attempted to confirm this heresy—a man cunning in wickedness, and subtle where deceit was concerned, (and) who was impelled by restless ambition to mount the episcopal throne… But after a time, there being in that place other martyrs, Marcia, a concubine of Commodus, who was a God-loving female, and desirous of performing some good work, invited into her presence the blessed Victor, who was at that time a bishop of the Church, and inquired of him what martyrs were in Sardinia. And he delivered to her the names of all, but did not give the name of Callistus, knowing the acts he had ventured upon. … Now (the governor) was persuaded, and liberated Callistus also. And when the latter arrived at Rome, Victor was very much grieved at what had taken place; but since he was a compassionate man, he took no action in the matter. Guarding, however, against the reproach (uttered) by many—for the attempts made by this Callistus were not distant occurrences—and because Carpophorus also still continued adverse, Victor sends Callistus to take up his abode in Antium, having settled on him a certain monthly allowance for food. And after Victor’s death, Zephyrinus, having had Callistus as a fellow-worker in the management of his clergy, paid him respect to his own damage; and transferring this person from Antium, appointed him over the cemetery. … Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained (the position) after which he so eagerly pursued, he excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions. St. Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies IX 6,7.

Whereas, all of these quotes are easily reconciled within the Catholic Faith with the quote you provided for me, not a one of these quotes is remotely reconcilable with your Baptist doctrines. For each of those quotes from this Catholic Martyr contain very Catholic truths, things which you'd deny even begin to be taught in the New Testament.

Further, as you probaby know, St. Hippolytus was an ardent opponent of the heresy of Modalism. In his writing to oppose those who fell prey to the confusion of Modalism he said many things. Let's look at what he said in a broader context:

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." - St. Hippolytus

As we can see here, St. Hippolytus is appealing to the Scriptures rightly and is entirely justified in doing so. Remember, too, that he's speaking from within the Church Christ founded. Indeed, he was a Catholic Priest. It's entirely consistent for one with a robust Catholic Faith to speak of Holy Scripture in these terms. They don't even begin to provide some sort of basis upon which a modern may justify his rejection of the Catholic Church and his clinging to a man-made doctrine.

Further, let's look at how St. Hippolytus closes this very letter written in the early 3rd Century:

"...This (is He who) breathes upon the disciples, and gives them the Spirit, and comes in among them when the doors are shut, and is taken up by a cloud into the heavens while the disciples gaze at Him, and is set down on the right hand of the Father, and comes again as the Judge of the living and the dead. This is the God who for our sakes became man, to whom also the Father has put all things in subjection. To Him be the glory and the power, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church both now and ever, and even for evermore. Amen."

He sees an affirmation of the holy Church's identity as being entirely harmonious with his Biblical exhortation found in the earlier paragraph.

And don't forget this Catholic Priest's tract entitled "The Apostolic Tradition" written around AD 215. In it, he says the following:

"Now, driven by love towards all the saints, we have arrived at the essence of the Tradition which is proper for the Churches. This is so that those who are well informed may keep the Tradition which has lasted until now, according to the explanation we give of it, and so that others by taking note of it may be strengthened against the fall or error which has recently occurred because of ignorance and ignorant people, with the Holy Spirit conferring perfect Grace on those who have a correct Faith, and so that they will know that those who are at the head of the Church must teach and guard all these things." - St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition

Here St. Hippolytus affirms the safeguarding nature of the Apostolic Tradition. For he says that "those who are well informed (of the Tradition)... may be strengthened against the fall or error which has recently occurred because of ignorance and ignorant people."

So he, like every other Church Father, provides a witness to BOTH Scriptura AND Sacred Tradition. Have you read his other works? Have you considered the fact that he lays out in great detail the responsibilities of priests, deacons, and bishops, going so far as to detail the ordination process as well as various practices concerning the consecration and distribution of the Body and Blood of Our Lord in Holy Communion?

In Him,

Herbert

 

i of iv to DHK

DHK,

I have no reason to believe that you don't come by your positions honestly. I am convinced that you truly mean well and that you're a beloved Child of God. I admire you and consider you to be a "kinsman in the faith." I consider you to be a brother in Christ, though separated, largely by the accidents of history and the frailty of human minds. But this conversation seems to be stuck in a rut. Please continue to be patient with me as I may spin my tires a bit!

I don't know why you think my words above represent an "emotional outburst" on my part. I didn't even use an exclamation point.

I went through Dr. Geisler's article line by line and responded directly to nearly every verse you've presented in an effort to demonstrate the fact that while they demonstrate many things, they don't prove "sola" Scriptura.

No, as a Catholic you're called upon to accept God's Word, not reject it.

If you believed "salvation by works through the RCC" then you believed wrongly. You were neither catechized nor evangelized. And though it's tragic that so many young Catholics are in that boat, such a problem doesn't justify your desertion of the Catholic Church.

The opening line above only makes sense from within the "Sola Scriptura" worldview and thus represents another case of you begging the question. For if you judge a person's status by the very worldview in question, your judgment remains just as unproven as the system through which you reach it. Why do you care if a person is baptized by immersion if, as you said earlier, all it does it "get you wet"? Further, doesn't the Bible teach one Lord, one faith, and one baptism? This practice represents another case of you "following the Bible" except for the many times in which you're justified in doing just the opposite of what it says according to your various man-made traditions.

Again, your understanding of salvation itself derives from your adopted (and unBiblical) worldview. Thus, you're again begging the question by presupposing (without demonstration) the validity of your position. And quoting Scripture and saying that I don't get it, apart from amounting to some interesting form of modern Biblicist gnosticism, at best puts us on even ground. For I have Scriptures, too. Therefore, without some other thing to represent you having the upper hand (like an angel or a prophet vouching for you), we stand on even ground as far as the Scriptures are concerned.

The only way you'd come to think that the two are different is by presupposing the validity of your adopted system. For I see a beautiful harmony between the Scriptures and the teaching of the Catholic Church. You, on the other hand, with your adopted fundamentalism, must see the two as being at odds with each other. But don't mistake your personal opinion on the matter for something that is binding upon another believer.

Here, again, you're conflating God and God's Word. Not only that, you're interpreting my criticism of *your opinion* as a criticism of God's Word. That's not what I'm doing, though. Is it really disgraceful for one man to criticize another man's opinion and ask that he demonstrate its validity?

As we've conversed you've consistently placed the establishment of the Catholic Church as having occurred some time during the 4th Century (more than once attributing its founding to Constantine). Now you're saying that it came about in the 11th Century. If you've been a Biblicist for 40 years and you're just now reading up on the Catholic Church enough to justify a sudden hop, skip, and jump from the 4th Century to the 11th in a matter of weeks, and thus present an entirely different conception of Church history, you're just demonstrating that you didn't even know the first thing about what it was you were leaving in that dormitory those many years ago. How could you so radically reconceive of practically a millennia's worth of Christian history if you can go from repeating one canard to an entirely different one in a matter of weeks?

The position of the Catholic Church is only "backward" and "arrogant" if you imagine the Church as being at odds with its own Scriptures.

And now here we come to a beautiful and powerful section of Scripture (though all Scripture is beautiful and powerful, all 73 books of it). Claims like yours above, though, may indicate that the Scriptures are not being approached rightly. For there are plenty of verses I could approach that way. For example, I could say "Mark 10:18 is black and white." And by such a claim I could mean that Christ isn't God and you may find me quite intractable in my confusion, too... Have you ever read the arguments of the Arians? There's a reason why people say that all heretics quote Scripture. It's because they do. And in doing so wrongly they self-justify and convince themselves they've figured things rightly while it's the others who are mistaken. This is why, as I've said before, GK Chesterton said that he indeed needed a Church to be right where he was right, to uphold the orthodoxies which he understood. But beyond that, said Chesterton, he needed a Church that had the authority to be right where he was wrong. In other words, we need a teaching Church (would we expect anything less than that in light of Christ's promises to the Apostles?). This is, again, why our principle of unity cannot be the very thing to which heretics appeal to justify their disagreement.

 

ii of iv to DHK

Please remember, though, that this claim should not be understood as an indictment of Scripture.

But it's so very important that, if we wish to treat the Scriptures rightly, that we don't mistake our personal understanding and interpretation of the Scriptural texts with the text itself. This is, again, the principle expressed by the Ethiopian Eunuch which I made above. He read from the Prophet Isaiah and said to Philip, "How can I (understand) unless someone guides me?" For I can access that text of Scripture (just as you can) and I affirm St. Paul's words here, too. But we must both be guided as the Eunuch indicated. Who's there to guide the pilgrim believer? Christ's Church! So in order to clear things up here, allow me to explain to you what St. Paul is saying here, according to a general Catholic, historical, time-honored reading of the text (which, incidentally, is the reading of the text which existed for 1,500 years before the texts was misinterpreted by Protestants and used for the next 500 years to justify the original act of schism from Christ's Church).
So, specifically, with regard to Ephesians 2:8-9:


First of all, Christ's Church teaches that we are saved by grace 100%.

The Catholic Church also teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.

The Church also teaches unequivocally that we cannot earn our salvation. There is nothing we can do to "right" ourselves, period.

Further, the Church's teaching regarding salvation is utterly harmonious with St. Paul's teaching here. The discord lies not between the Church and Sacred Scripture, but between St. Paul and those who'd misinterpret his words to suit their philosophical traditions.


For St. Paul is discussing the works of the law here. He's writing to Gentiles to let them know that Christians aren't saved by (ritual) legal observance. This is why in verse eleven and following he's discussing circumcision, and the Gentile convert's relationship to Christ apart from any works of the law. The fact that he's discussing circumcision here is what reveals to us the type of "works" of which he speaks.

It is important to note, too, that we ought not grab, for example, verses 8 and 9 without reading verse 10. For there in verse 10 St. Paul is still talking about "works." These works, however, are works which God has fore-ordained for the believer and which are done in Christ. So in 8-9 he's decrying the notion that works (of the Law) can save and then he goes on to speak of works (done in the love of Christ) which aren't just meritorious but are actually fore-ordained for us, indeed, they are the reason for our very existence which, incidentally came about through Christ!

So it is that there is a contrast being presented here. Verses 8 and 9 speak of the works that do not save. For they are works of the law and are done in the flesh. These non-salvific works are to be contrasted with the works mentioned in verse 10 for which we were created, that is, works done in the charity of Christ! These works, again, in contrast to the works of the law are works that are, since they're done in Christ, necessarily and unavoidably meritorious. It is with these works in mind that St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that we are "co-laborers with Christ" or that he'd "fill up in his flesh that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ." These are the works in whose completion no man could rightly boast, for they are all a gift of God in Christ! For they are done by grace and in Christ! In the completion of such works, certainly no man should boast. At the same time, though, as believers such works are meritorious as they're understood to be, as St. Augustine said, "God's works done in us." And anything God does is necessarily meritorious. Even if He does that work through the compromised hands of the race of men whom He's redeemed.

Further, to best understand St. Paul's words here, we should consider other things he says about works and faith and charity...

Romans 3:28: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."


Here St. Paul comes right out with an added measure of clarity by including that phrase "works of law." Here, now, his other remarks, which would seem to be contradicted if he simply meant *all* works, even those done in the supernatural charity of Christ, find their rightful context.


Interestingly, it was here in Romans 3 that Martin Luther, a Saxon Monk of the Augustinian tradition inserted the word "alone" just prior to the word "apart." So it was that he actually altered the words of Scripture. He justified his translation, saying that the word alone was utterly implied there. Nonetheless, though, the little word was not their in his source texts...


Romans 4:5: "And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."


Here, St. Paul affirms the idea that faith does indeed justify, which, again, the Catholic Church does not deny. Faith justifies. It's faith divorced from charity which becomes a mere concept or platitude, that the Church, with Scripture, refuses to accept as authentic Christian doctrine.

Romans 2:6-8: "For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury."


Here, again, is what I cited before. St. Paul discusses the role of the law and the state of the heart of man in relation to God's justifying grace delivered in Christ. Nowhere here do we find either implicitly or explicitly the notion of "faith alone" as it's often understood by non-Catholics in passages like the one you mentioned in Ephesians (2:8-9).


Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal . . . "

Here St. Paul is once again found driving the point home which resounds throughout all of his teaching: "Works of the law and the flesh don't save you!" Again, though, we can't take him to mean that works done in Christ (which are even fore-ordained by God for believers) are some how divorced from the economy of grace and the love of Christ!

Romans 5:1-2 "Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God"