Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

[DHK]

Also, I don't hate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Then why not accept it?

I actually feel sorrow at its proliferation. For it spreads like gossip, like falsity which appeals to those who may very mean well and who desire self-assurance, but who aren't considering the broader implications of the doctrine which, incidentally, undercut the Faith itself and lead to the relativism and skepticism that define our age.

That is your opinion. Would you care to substantiate it with a bit of evidence?
Why is it like gossip spreading that which is false? Jesus said,
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
--Catholics as a whole are Biblically illiterate. That has been my experience. They don't continue in the Word of God; don't study it; don't meditate on it; don't memorize it; all of which we are commanded to do. Of course they can't. They must adhere to the interpretation of the RCC. Their hands are tied.
Therefore they cannot come to the truth, and the truth will never set them free. They will remain in the darkness of man-made doctrine forever.

Those who are free to study the Bible, using the Bible as their final authority will come to the truth, and that truth will indeed set them free as Jesus promised. They will not bound by the traditions of fallible men.

That which undercuts the Faith itself and leads to the relativism and skepticism that define our age are those documents that stand against the authority of the Word of God such as the RCC Catechism.
Amos said:
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
--The answer to this rhetorical question is NO!
The RCC and the Bible do not walk together. Their doctrines are opposed to each other. The doctrines of the RCC, most of them, cannot be found in the Bible.
It is the Word of God that stays the same and never changes; not the RCC. The RCC will accommodate itself wherever and whenever it deems necessary. It is very ecumenical.
To Biblical Christians Jude wrote:
Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--Evangelicals still know what "the faith" that we are to contend for" is. The RCC has lost sight. In fact, it never knew what that "faith" was in the first place.

Further, I don't hate it. I just recognize that it has not been revealed by Scripture, God, a prophet, or an angel. I, therefore, don't hold to it. I have asked you why you and others why you hold to it despite these facts... and why you do remain faithful to it. You've not answered me directly. Further, you presented to me an article by Dr. Norman Geisler to justify your position. When I responded to each paragraph of it in quite some detail, however, you never even wrote back.

Sola scriptural was held to by Israel when given to them by God. This truth is self evident.
It was used by the Bereans in the same way as it was in the OT times when Paul came to them, and Paul commended them for it.
It is inspired and authoritative. Thus the doctrine, which, if for those reasons alone, should stand.
--I answered many of your responses, but I admit, not all.
Recently I put your ten responses into a word document. It was 40 pages long.. I don't know if I can answer all of it; perhaps I will try to do that for you, bit by bit.

Although I agree with Scripture. I do not agree with your fallible interpretations of it. Nor am I bound to accept your opinion concerning the contents of Scripture as though it was Scripture itself.

That is the nature of debate. Take my interpretation and show me where I am wrong. Don't simply and blindly accept that the RCC is right. They are not right on their interpretation of the new birth. In fact, they are dead wrong. If my interpretation is wrong show me how it is wrong.

Since you are so wont to appeal to "proofs" of the various claims I make, I feel as though it may be appropriate, for rhetoric's sake, to ask that you "prove" that "those who believe literally in the RCC Catechism are not sanctified in Christ Jesus." For you to say such a thing, it seems to me, you'd need an infallible knowledge of the eternal state of those souls who do indeed believe the Catechism's teachings to be true (such as myself). Instead of just condemning, though, I'd recommend explaining how it is that you've come to, apart from emotional necessity, dismiss what the Catholic Church teaches.

I compare what the RCC Catechism says to the Bible. If I can explain what the Bible says and it is contrary to what the RCC teaches, then don't you think it is worthy of some consideration? It is the Bible that is inspired, not the Catechism.

As far the the "not of water" phrase goes, I must point out that it was Jesus Christ Himself who said "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Who has the right to say that water means baptism? There is no baptism mentioned in that passage. Baptism does not fit the context. There are other interpretations which are far more natural and make much better sense. Scripture cannot contradict scripture, and it would if water meant baptism. All scripture must be in agreement with each other.

 

[DHK]

Again, the arguments for sola scriptura are laid out in detail here:

http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

Knowing the objections that Catholics have to sola scriptura, Norman Geisler writes a defense of sola scriptura.
In ten different posts Herbert took the time to answer it. This was in the first two days of April. I will attempt to answer as much as I can in the following days.

I of X

Hello, DHK, you asked that I read Dr. Geisler’s article. I have done that. Here is my response. Please know that I strive to sound polite and courteous. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to ensure that the right tone comes through to a reader. So please be assured of my goodwill toward Dr. Geisler!

His article begins:

As convincing as these arguments may seem to a devout Catholic, they are devoid of substance. As we will see, each of the Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura fails, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.

Response: First of all, there’s not just one “Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.” There are many. The “doctrine” in question provides the springboard by which people jump off in any and every doctrinal direction. From Unitarians, to Marcionites, from Westboro Baptist to my friend’s Baptist friend who’s come to reject everything St. Paul wrote, the “doctrine of sola Scriptura” is simply not one objective thing which leads to an essential unity among its adherents. Further, a member of the Christian Reformed denomination will hold to a number of doctrines which you, DHK, reject on account of your many Baptist “refinements.” And the fact that Norman Geisler is engaged in on-going conflicts concerning the fundamental nature of grace and justification with a Bible teacher such as James White such as this one (http://vintage.aomin.org/CBFRep2.html) while both men claim to be following the doctirine of Sola Scriptura seriously calls into question the validity of the doctrine to which both men appeal.

There is only one doctrine of sola scriptura. There may be many ways of expressing the same doctrine, but the doctrine is one doctrine—that the scripture alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The way I just said it (in my own words), may not be the way you find it in a Confession of Faith, an encyclopedia, etc. But it expresses the same doctrine.

You pull the old association card. The Westboro Church believes in the trinity like you do. Does that mean you both have all the same beliefs? Do you associate with them because you both believe in the trinity? You have a very weak argument. Simply because more than one religion believes the same concept is true does not mean all those religions agree on everything. You know better than that.

What has the differences between White and Geisler have to do with sola scriptura? Sola scriptura is very similar to the freedom of religion. Your nation gives you that right doesn’t it? Odd that America gives you this basic right but the RCC does not. Don’t you find that strange? The RCC robs you of a basic freedom that God gives to every man. In fact he commands every man to study the scriptures and come to his own conclusions as 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.

The article continues: Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?


Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

Response:

1) It is true that “many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly” present in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity being one such case. But I’d like to stress the importance of Dr. Geisler’s use of the word “necessary” here. For in such cases, the the contents of Scripture are still two separate things. There is, on the one hand the actual words of Scripture (1) and then there is, on the other hand, the “mind” of the interpreter (2). And what’s fundamental to his argument here is not the actual content of Scripture, but the second of the two things at work here: the “mind” of the interpreter. For it just so happens that what is or what is not recognized as “necessary” has everything to do with the public and objective status of the individual or community of faith who is going about the business of interpreting the Scripture. So it is that Dr. Geisler reads the Scripture and considers a “necessary logical deduction” to be, for example, the doctrines many refer to as “Total Depravity” and “the Perseverance of Saints.” Meanwhile, another man with a Ph.D, a Reformed Baptist himself, walks away from the Scriptures, and with John Calvin, affirms all Five Points of Calvinism and deems them each “necessary logical deductions” from Scripture. The problem here, though, lies in that word “necessary.” For neither Dr. White nor Dr. Geisler has an upper hand over the other. One recognizes some doctrines as necessary logical deductions and the other identifies another set. Already, then, in the first three sentences of the article, Dr. Geisler has revealed the Achilles’ Heel of Sola Scriptura.

Both doctrines: trinity and sola scriptura, are firmly anchored in Scripture. That point should be taken, not taken and then rationalized.

Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible is our final authority and the believer ought to study the Bible to come to a proper conclusion of what God has said in his infallible, inspired Word concerning all things pertaining to life and doctrine.

This is opposed to the RCC which teaches that only the RCC has the authority to tell you what the Bible teaches, even if you believe the Bible teaches something different than what is in the Catechism, or even if what is in the Catechism is contrary to what is in the Bible. “Just shut up and believe the Catechism anyway,” right?? They just want Biblically illiterate robots to carry on their tasks—“do as I do, and don’t ask questions. Nevermind what the Bible says; it doesn’t matter. Look at our rich tradition instead,” Right?

However, God expects us to study His Word. It is our obligation. He commands us to do so, and to come to our own conclusions. It is not a sin if we disagree on some things. Even the apostles sometimes disagreed among themselves and sometimes had to be corrected, but never by the so-called “Church.”

2) Dr. Geisler’s final sentence, which reads “Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” Speaks only to the mere possibility of something. What is he saying? Is he imagining some sort of “binding possibility”? The fact that this statement represents some of the groundwork that Dr. Geisler is laying as a foundation for his article reminds me of my comment to both of you above in which I state that the best you have to offer, as far as your understanding of Sola Scriptura is concerned, is an “opinion.”

The context of his statement is this:

“Likewise, (just like the trinity) it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.”

So, is the trinity just a possibility? Or is it actually taught? Your answer will logically be the same as sola scriptura for both are applied equally. It is not the best; it is simply a comparison. You don’t find the doctrine of trinity explicitly taught in the Bible, but the founding principles are there. That also holds true for the doctrine of sola scriptura. Why should one accept one doctrine and not the other on that basis alone.

 

[DHK]

The article continues: [Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.

Response:

1) This is a rather ambiguous way of referring to the status of the Scriptures. If they’re formally and explicitly teaching everything one needs to know, then why doesn’t Dr. Geisler just say so? Why does he say that the Bible “does teach implicitly and logically” that it is the only basis for “faith and practice” only to suggest that it may also do so “formally and explicitly”? Which one is it?

2) I want to focus in upon one word here. Dr. Geisler has carefully placed the word “alone” here in his claim. I want to focus upon that because it is central to the question as to whether or not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura stands or falls.

“Why doesn’t he just say so,” you ask. He does. Be patient. His exact statement was:

the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways:

--It is a very clear statement that he makes: The Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. Then he will go on in his article and give a number of ways to prove that statement. Don’t let the words “formally and explicitly” confuse you. Take away the floss and get to germ of the statement. Your response was only a response to the grammar of his sentence. It didn’t really address anything. Your objection was to the adverbs he used:

Again:
Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.

--He used four adverbs, and you concentrated on them instead of looking past the adverbs to the subject of the sentence: “The Bible does teach…that the Bible alone is the only…”

The article continues: This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

Response:

1) This claim represents a non sequitur. Just as you, DHK and BobRyan, have made similar claims, which I’ve described as non sequiturs, so does Dr. Geisler’s conclusion not follow from its premises. If a Detroit Piston walked into the room and I introduced him as a genuine Detroit Piston would the fact that he is an authentic Detroit Piston indicate that he is the only such athlete in the Universe? Certainly not. And the mere acknowledgment and recognition of the fact that the Scriptures are God-breathed in no way demands that we conclude that they are thus, as a logical corollary, understood to operate alone.

The Detroit Piston may not be the only athlete in the world, but the Bible is the only scripture that is infallible and inspired in this world. Not the Koran, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, neither the Oral Tradition of the RCC is inspired. The only inspired source that we have today is God’s written word, the Bible. Thus the claim is true and it is not a non sequitur as you claim. It is very relevant and logical. The scriptures that we have are God’s revelation to mankind, therefore man needs to take heed and obey these scriptures. They are our guidebook for this life, for faith and practice, and give us what we need to know for salvation and holy living. The scriptures are our final authority.

2) For it isn’t by a stubborn and willful insistence that the Church calls upon Christians to acknowledge Sacred Tradition. Our understanding of the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition could be, on some level, understood as an analogue between the Lord (the Divine Logos) and the Apostles themselves (the Community of Hearers and Witnesses). A measured recognition of the role of Sacred Tradition is, far from being the result of a corrupt Church’s desperate attempt to cling to temporal power, something that flows naturally from a recognition of the relationship between a reader and a text or the Deposit of Faith, and the moral agency of that community of people which has come to receive it and live it out.

Tradition isn’t sacred. It is man-made often leading man into heretical doctrine and far away from God and truth.

Who is “the Church”? There is no RCC in the Bible, and it is never defined by the word “Church.”

The Bible speaks of “churches” not “The Church.”

God ordained the local church as that institution for this day and age in which he chose to bless and use. All of Paul’s epistles were either written to local churches or pastors of local churches. All of the seven letters of Christ in Revelation 2 and 3 were written to pastors of existing local churches of that day and age. Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established over 100 local churches. There was no “Church;” only churches. God’s instrument of blessing today is the local church, of which the RCC is not.

There is no Oral Tradition. It is not in the Word. It is condemned by Christ Himself.

The Catholic is like the unsaved Pharisee who asks Jesus:

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

--He is more concerned about his “tradition” than the Word of God or about Christ.

Jesus answered and said:

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

--This is a stunning rebuke concerning their “tradition.” They transgressed God’s commandments by keeping their own tradition. Tradition was more important than God’s Word. Thus the rebuke.

3) Further, for the reasons described by John Henry Newman above, Dr. Geisler is wrong.

Huh?? Because someone says he is wrong, therefore he is wrong??

Further, I’ve read a host of modern Catholic responses which acknowledge that St. Paul’s writing, even during those days, were already regarded as Scripture. But the identification of some New Testament letters as Scripture, though, is not the sticking point here. As St. Paul describes things to Timothy, all Scripture, as I said above, is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, and instruct. Again, though, according to the text here, these qualities are ascribed to “all Scripture.” That means, Psalm 23, for example is “God-breathed” and is “profitable” all of the things St. Paul states. St. Paul’s words, though, aren’t addressing the question of Canonicity, however. Neither are his words addressing the role of those who exercise various roles in the Church according to its divine constitution.

No, Paul is not addressing canonicity. That is off topic.

Neither is he addressing roles in the church. That is off topic. But Timothy at the time of writing was the pastor of the church of Ephesus.

The point of 2Tim.3:16 is simply that all scripture is inspired of God/God-breathed. It is therefore authoritative. It is profitable, etc. It is all scripture—OT and NT; “all scripture.”

4) Finally, this passage says nothing about Scripture alone or the “Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.” It says things about Scripture. But as far as Sola Scriptura goes, it suggests no such thing.

Every verse that teaches anything about the inspiration, infallibility, finality, authority of Scripture, etc. is speaking of sola scriptura. It sets the foundation just like the deity of Christ sets the foundation for the trinity.

The article continues: This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.

Response: No, it doesn’t. It does not “fly in the face” of Catholic teaching any more than the fact that many 1st Century Jews didn’t recognize Christ demonstrates the idea that He wasn’t God in the flesh. Scripture is God-breathed. Christ is God. The fact that these two things aren’t obvious to every person in the world doesn’t indicate otherwise. And the fact that the Ethiopian Eunuch, when asked if he understood the Scriptures he was reading, responded, saying “How can I, unless someone guides me?” far from “flying in the face” of the Catholic Church’s claim, actually stands in complete harmony with it. Indeed, the Ethiopian Eunuch was among the first of the world’s Catholic Christians.

#202 herbert, Apr 2, 2016

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/vicar-of-jesus-christ.96127/page-11#post-2219685

Oh come now. You know better.

The Jews rejected Christ as Messiah. But that didn’t change the fact: Christ is the Messiah.

Gnostics rejected the trinity; that doesn’t change the reality of the trinity.

The RCC rejects sola scriptura; that doesn’t change the truth of sola scriptura.

Just because a person rejects truth, that doesn’t mean the truth disappears.

Sola scriptura never disappeared when the RCC refused to believe it.

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.

 

[SovereignGrace]

"Bible believing" Christians say Scripture alone - right along with their own interpretation of it. Your claim that others "add" to it abuts against other Christian faith traditions claims that they are fulfilling it. And that brings us right back to square one, your interpretation against other people's interpretation.

Upon what basis do you live your life? What causes you to live your life the way you do?

 

[Adonia]

[

Upon what basis do you live your life? What causes you to live your life the way you do?

My belief in Jesus Christ who has redeemed me of my sins and my continuing faith journey via the Latin Rite of Christianity. This helps me with the trials and tribulations of each and every day, and guides me to become the best person I can be.

 

[SovereignGrace]

My belief in Jesus Christ who has redeemed me of my sins and my continuing faith journey via the Latin Rite of Christianity. This helps me with the trials and tribulations of each and every day, and guides me to become the best person I can be.

Well, I base my life upon the bible. This Latin Rite is extra biblical and needs to be avoided like the plague.

 

[Adonia]

Well, I base my life upon the bible. This Latin Rite is extra biblical and needs to be avoided like the plague.

So you say, and such is only your opinion. You are the one who has deviated from the Scriptures, not us. This can be best summed up in the way each of us worships. The focus of your service is the pulpit and a pastor who preaches to you his biblical interpretation. Our Mass is focused upon the altar and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and what he did for us on that fateful day on Calvary, just like he told us to do.

 

[SovereignGrace]

My belief in Jesus Christ who has redeemed me of my sins

Good. Now, what caused you to have faith in Christ? What showed you Jesus redeemed you from your sins? The bible. Sola scriptura. Period. End of story.

and my continuing faith journey via the Latin Rite of Christianity. This helps me with the trials and tribulations of each and every day, and guides me to become the best person I can be.

Not being Catholic, please expound on what this Latin Right is.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So you say, and such is only your opinion. You are the one who has deviated from the Scriptures, not us.

Oh puh-leeze. We don't don't eat a wafer and drink the fruit of the vine, blindly thinking it is Jesus in a literal sense.

This can be best summed up in the way each of us worships.

Bzzzzzzz!! Wrong!! There is only one way to worship God, and that is in Spirit and in Truth. Not by eating a wafer and drinking a cup of grape juice, blindly thinking that was Jesus.

The focus of your service is the pulpit and a pastor who preaches to you his biblical interpretation.

Bzzzzzzz!!! Wrong!! Our focus is on Christ, not a wafer and cup of grape juice being worshipped as being Christ.

Our Mass is focused upon the altar and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and what he did for us on that fateful day on Calvary, just like he told us to do.

[Edited; JonC]
You are blindly worshipping a wafer and cup of grape juice. Puh-leeze.

 

[Adonia]

Good. Now, what caused you to have faith in Christ? What showed you Jesus redeemed you from your sins? The bible. Sola scriptura. Period. End of story.



Not being Catholic, please expound on what this Latin Right is.

Yes, you are correct, the Bible, which the One Universal (Catholic) Church compiled for the rest of the world.

The Latin Rite is simply one of the 23 or so Rites that make up the One Universal (Catholic) Church. There are many such as the Coptic Rite, the Ethipic Rite, the Maronite Rite, the Syrian Rite, the Armenian Rite, and so on. All believe in the same doctrines as us, only differing in some of the ways of worship, but all worship remains liturgical in nature.

Of course there is also our Eastern Orthodox brothers who still maintain the belief in the Sacraments same as us, but have a different liturgical way of worship, but they do not see the Bishop of Rome as their head pastor.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes, you are correct, the Bible, which the One Universal (Catholic) Church compiled for the rest of the world.

The Latin Rite is simply one of the 23 or so Rites that make up the One Universal (Catholic) Church. There are many such as the Coptic Rite, the Ethipic Rite, the Maronite Rite, the Syrian Rite, the Armenian Rite, and so on. All believe in the same doctrines as us, only differing in some of the ways of worship, but all worship remains liturgical in nature.

Of course there is also our Eastern Orthodox brothers who still maintain the belief in the Sacraments same as us, but have a different liturgical way of worship, but they do not see the Bishop of Rome as their head pastor.

23 or so rites??? Wowzers! How do you know which one is correct?

As for the bible. Catholic is a generic term in that it means all things common. That does not equate to the RCC. They have murdered many souls to advance their beliefs. God is not in that.

 

[Adonia]

Yes, you are correct, the Bible, which the One Universal (Catholic) Church compiled for the rest of the world.

The Latin Rite is simply one of the 23 or so Rites that make up the One Universal (Catholic) Church. There are many such as the Coptic Rite, the Ethipic Rite, the Maronite Rite, the Syrian Rite, the Armenian Rite, and so on. All believe in the same doctrines as us, only differing in some of the ways of worship, but all worship remains liturgical in nature.

Of course there is also our Eastern Orthodox brothers who still maintain the belief in the Sacraments same as us, but have a different liturgical way of worship, but they do not see the Bishop of Rome as their head pastor.

Oh puh-leeze. We don't don't eat a wafer and drink the fruit of the vine, blindly thinking it is Jesus in a literal sense.


Bzzzzzzz!! Wrong!! There is only one way to worship God, and that is in Spirit and in Truth. Not by eating a wafer and drinking a cup of grape juice, blindly thinking that was Jesus.


Bzzzzzzz!!! Wrong!! Our focus is on Christ, not a wafer and cup of grape juice being worshipped as being Christ.


You are blindly worshipping a wafer and cup of grape juice. Puh-leeze.

I know it's hard for you to understand such things, but we believe what we believe in all truth and honesty. Even Martin Luther never jettisoned this belief in Jesus's "Real Presence" in the Holy Eucharist, nor the Eastern Orthodox who split from us in the 11th century.

And sorry, but we do not use grape juice as one of the elements of Holy Communion. We use wine just as the Scriptures tell us that Jesus used at the Last Supper. It's the permanent memorial to Him, we transcend time and are there at the foot of the Cross. All very Scriptural.

 

[Adonia]

23 or so rites??? Wowzers! How do you know which one is correct?

As for the bible. Catholic is a generic term in that it means all things common. That does not equate to the RCC. They have murdered many souls to advance their beliefs. God is not in that.

They are all correct as they believe in the same doctrines as us, they look to the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) as their head Bishop. I can receive Holy Communion in any one of them and it would be the same as receiving in a Latin Rite Church. We all believe the same, unlike the many non-orthodox faiths who split and go their own way over doctrinal differences.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I know it's hard for you to understand such things, but we believe what we believe in all truth and honesty. Even Martin Luther never jettisoned this belief in Jesus's "Real Presence" in the Holy Eucharist, nor the Eastern Orthodox who split from us in the 11th century.

And sorry, but we do not use grape juice as one of the elements of Holy Communion. We use wine just as the Scriptures tell us that Jesus used at the Last Supper. It's the permanent memorial to Him, we transcend time and are there at the foot of the Cross. All very Scriptural.

I do not oppose the use oof actual wine at all. Ppl who are teetotalers oppose it, however.

But if you look at the history of the RCC, they have shed lots of blood to propagate their beliefs. God is not in that...not in the least.

 

[SovereignGrace]

They are all correct as they believe in the same doctrines as us, they look to the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) as their head Bishop. I can receive Holy Communion in any one of them and it would be the same as receiving in a Latin Rite Church. We all believe the same, unlike the many non-orthodox faiths who split and go their own way over doctrinal differences.

The Pope is not the head of the church. That title belongs to Christ. When the Pope comes to cities, they venerate him. He is the false prophet, the antichrist written about in the bible.

 

[Adonia]

The Pope is not the head of the church. That title belongs to Christ. When the Pope comes to cities, they venerate him. He is the false prophet, the antichrist written about in the bible.

Oh there we go, I knew that would come up - any discussion about Catholic beliefs always leads to that scurrilous charge and I say you are wrong. As for the Pope, he is our Bishop, the human being now alive who is the head of our church here on earth. Yes, you will get no argument from me that Jesus is the head of the whole Christian Church, but he is not here walking around right now.

 

[herbert]

i of v to Martin

Martin,

I have two responses for you. You may choose the first, which is brief... or you may choose the second, which is longer. Either way thanks for your continued engagement!
Herbert
Response #1
"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

Response #2

Unfortunately, your prolixity makes it almost impossible to discuss with you as every post seems to take far more time than I have to spare. If you would try to be concise it would be really helpful.

You've suggested that I try to be more concise. Please bear a few things in mind:

• It needn't be almost impossible to discuss things with me because you're free to ignore or discuss anything you'd like. You needn't feel obligated to respond to everything I write.
• My most lengthy responses here are nearly all presented in response to the myriad criticisms that you, DHK, and others have presented. Again, you and others suggest that I am not a follower of Christ, that I don't understand the Scriptures, that I've accepted a false gospel, that I follow an idolatrous, blasphemous, disobedient, Godless, institution of men... Therefore, I attempt to be thorough in my responses.
• "Prolixity" is about being tedious and unneccessarily wordy. When dealing with these matters, matters which relate to the question of salvation, I think details matter all the more. So it's hard work to wrestle with these topics. It's easy, though, to hand-wave our way through the centuries, mischaracterizing the Fathers of the Church, mischaracterizing the impact of Constantine upon Christianity, and otherwise hop, skip, and jump our way into our comfortable little respective "denominations" (to use Calvin's term). Taking the time to really investigate opposing views doesn't work that way, however.
• What is more important, what demands more of our time, than our efforts to know and follow Him? (Psalm 63)
• I try to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you (me) a reason of the hope that is in you (me) with meekness and fear..." even if that answer is lengthy. (1st Peter 3:15)
• A number of the people here have stated quite bluntly that I (and all Catholics, for that matter) am bound for eternal damnation. When dealing with such charges, can a person respond with too much detail? (1st Peter 3:15)
• We are sifting through 2,000 years of Church history and myriad philosophical, linguistic, cultural, historical, and Scriptural considerations. We must be thorough in our consideration of these matters as we strive to "be aware lest any man spoil you (us) through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of men, after the tradition of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8). By the way, notice the fact that the threat here from Colossians doesn't warn us of all tradition, just "the tradition of the world." The importance of that distinction will come up again further down the page.
• Despite all of the talk, nobody here has yet responded to my original question. If someone would do that rather than bring up a whole bunch of other matters, to which I've taken the time to respond, there'd be less response from me for you to sift through. Remember, early on I asked something very straightforward of you and and anyone who'd be happy to respond:

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

This original request has not yet been spoken to.

However, though I'd like to stay on point here as I await your direct response to my request above, I will address a recent response below:

Well it's not a non sequitur, is it?

To respond to my claim that your non sequitur is in fact a non sequitur by asking me whether or not it's a non sequitur doesn't really seem to move the conversation forward. My claim is that your argument, which seems to run something like this:
1. Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. Christ quoted from and thus affirmed Scripture's authority.
3. Therefore, Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians.
is a non sequitur because #3 does not logically follow from numbers 1 and 2. My challenge to you is to demonstrate how you get #3 from #s 1 and 2... and writing "Well it's not a non sequitur, is it?" doesn't do that.

Christ, in His earthly ministry, specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments, and chided others for not doing so.

i. I know I'm changing some of your words here, but the fact that Christ "specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture... to (further demonstrate the legitimacy of) His arguments, and chided others for not doing so..." once again, is compatible with numbers 1 and 2 above, but in no way entails the truth of #3. Catholics affirm Scripture's authority unquestioningly. We just don't accept the philosophical tradition, nowhere revealed by God, which states anything like "Sola Scriptura."

ii. Condemning certain "traditions" and condemning "all tradition" are two very different things. Christ did the former, not the latter. My position is that you're unjustified in dismissing "all" tradition simply because Christ condemned some tradition (namely, the really bad traditions which were followed by the Pharisees and others). This represents, by the way, another non sequitur. The idea that "all" traditions are to be condemned does not follow from the fact that Christ condemned the unGodly traditions held to by certain people of His day.

iii. Christ didn't use "Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments." He wasthe "argument." He spoke with the "Authoritative I," saying things such as "You've heard it said... But I tell you." Further, in such passages, far from affirming the meanings and interpretations people had come to accept with regard to such verses, He clarified not specifically what the words said, but what they were *intended* to mean (by the Holy Spirit) for the follower of God. In other words we can't attribute the potency of what He did or said exclusively according to the particular nature or content of what He was doing or saying at a given moment. We must evaluate everything He said and did in light of the fact that He is the Lord God Incarnate. So to attribute the "proof" of His "arguments" strictly or exclusively to Scripture (and thereby distinguish their demonstration from His Person as you did), is a Scripturally unjustified move on your part.

 

[herbert]

ii of v to Martin

iv. You said "Christ, in His earthly ministry, specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments, and chided others for not doing so." I think it's worth noting that this statement reveals something quite interesting. For within it is buried your implicit acknowledgement of both the action and role of Scripture as well as Tradition. For "Sacred Tradition," in a certain way, could be described as the "right perspective" or "right position" or "authentic teaching" concerning a given moral topic. The right "tradition," then, is the very thing Christ would be "arguing" for. And He appealed to Scripture to support His tradition, if you will, and not Scripture alone. So there are, found in your statement, two distinct notions. One of them represents the authority of the Scriptures to which Christ appealed. The other is the "argument" or the "right understanding" of a given topic, which He was presenting in contrast to the "wrong understanding" or man-made tradition held to by the Pharisees or whomever it was who were supplanting the things of God with the corrupt teachings of men. In other words, you said that Christ "used Scripture to prove His arguments." Your phrasing reveals the fact that arguments, which are acknowledged by men, are themselves distinct from, yet bound to Scripture by virtue of the fact that both avenues of revelation are, when rightly presented, done so according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So it was that Christ could "use" Scripture to "prove" His arguments. In other words, Scripture itself was, again, distinct from the argument He was making. Though they were interdependent of one another, His arguments were themselves distinct from those Scriptures to which He appealed in support of them. Add to that His identity and we have a trio of forces which produce for us the infallible teaching of God. This is part of the reason why Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the stewardly Teaching Authority of the Magisterium act as they do and are rightly seen as being in utter harmony with each other according to God's guidance. Again, from the Second Vatican Council:

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence." (Dei Verbum)

v. Let me ask the question this way: Are "arguments" and the "Scripture" one and the same thing? You said yourself that Christ used Scripture "exclusively" to prove His arguments. But if His arguments themselves weren't Scripture, then He wasn't using Scripture "exclusively." He would have been, in that case, using Arguments + Scripture and not Scripture "exclusively" as you said. So again, which one is it? And where does the important distinction between you being a man (who's not an apostle and is thereby capable of error) and Christ being God Himself (and not capable of error) come into play here?

Now you may say, "Well that doesn't prove that we should follow Christ, but I say it does.

Martin, guessing at my responses while simultaneously missing my point and thus formulating responses which are themselves off-point further complicates things. Further, that's not how I'd respond to the claim that Christ's life and witness compel us to follow Him. For I do indeed follow Christ and wish that, like you and me, all people would follow Christ with us. Amen.

 

[herbert]

iii of v

The question is not, 'do I have to follow Jesus in what He did on earth?' but 'do I have the right to despise the example He left to us?'

Neither of those are questions I'm asking. To the first, I'd answer "Yes." As for the second, well, I wouldn't even ask it. For I don't believe we should "despise" anything He did. I don't despise His example. By attributing to me a loathing for Christ's example that I haven't expressed, you're, in a sense, due to the nature of that remark, presenting a sort of ad hominem attack. For what is more insulting to a Christian than suggesting that he "despises" the example left by his Savior or attributing to him a loathing of His Savior's witness? More specifically, though, it's a strawman. For nothing I have said suggests that I despise Christ's example. So you're attacking a position ("We should despise the example Christ left to us") which I never presented and which doesn't follow from any premises I've offered (Which, by the way, suggests that you came to it by way of another non sequitur).

What I don't accept (yet still don't "despise") are any philosophical or interpretive traditions hich are not revealed by God but which are, by men, insisted upon as legitimately revealed by God. Especially troubling are doctrines with no precedence prior to the 16th Century (and which could not, therefore, have been handed down to us from the Apostles), and which were not revealed by God, an angel, a prophet, or Scripture itself. And rather than just saying "You're wrong, Martin." I am trying to talk it over in all its detail. Further, if you're suggesting that I don't believe that Christians should, like Christ, quote Scripture, you're once again going after a straw man.

Paul said,'Imitate me [or 'follow My example']as I imitate Christ' (1 Cor. 11:1). So if we would follow Paul's example, we shall follow Christ's example. Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God. Sola Scripture.

1- Apart from having presented another non sequitur, again, you're still failing to speak to the actual point that I've raised. In other words, you blew right past that non sequitur and, building upon its cracked foundation, you're moving on to more straw men.

2- For the record, notice that St. Paul isn't saying anything like "Follow Scripture alone." If he had intended such a thing, it's likely that he'd have written the notion down somewhere. But even 2nd Timothy, to which you turn as the "locus classicus" of Sola Scriptura, doesn't present such an idea. Even there you're mistaken in reading his text in such a way as to conclude that he had anything like Sola Scriptura in mind. If St. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were inclined to, it seems they could have just come right out with a clear teaching of the doctrine. For that matter, why isn't there a record of Christ clearly teaching such a doctrine? Further, why aren't Christians prior to the 16th Century found preaching "sola" Scriptura. They certainly preach the authority of Scripture. But they don't preach the "sola" to which you, by appeal to an egregious non sequitur, insist all Christians be bound. And for St. Paul's part, he's saying "Imitate me" or, as you put it "Follow my example." That is, no matter how you slice it, definitely NOT Sola Scriptura.

3- In an effort to undermine or disprove the authority of Apostolic Tradition, you're appealing to a man who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the following: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2nd Thessalonians 2:15) and "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1st Corinthians 11:2) Again, though you claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, you're holding to, instead, your fallible interpretations of Scripture.

4- You hop, skip, and jump your way from entirely Scriptural ideas which, for example, suggest that we should follow Christ's example, to completely unScriptural ideas such as: "Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God." For the Bible says nothing like that. What that statement represents is an inference, arrived at by means of the entirely fallible operation of the human mind. And, once again, it is another non sequitur. The fact that Pharisees, for example, held to unGodly traditions does not inexorably lead us to conclude that all traditions, even those safeguarded within the Christian Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be maintained in harmony with their original deposit, for the sake of the very public, visible witness for which Christ prayed in His last hours. (John 17:20-23)

5- You suggest that the witness of Jesus attests to Sola Scriptura. I beg to differ. When he most intentionally and purposefully commissioned His very Disciples, He didn't say a word about the writing of Scripture. And at that great moment of commissioning, the Scriptures record the following: "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20) Yes, He instituted a church whose members would comprise His very body on Earth in His absence (leading Him to later refer to His followers as His very self, when He said: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?") in a profound and miraculous witness to the grace of God, which is now shed abroad in our hearts (Romans 5:5).And for all that the Scriptures are to us and even despite the great power and authority they represent in the Church He founded, He doesn't even mention Scripture here. We must, therefore, let Scripture dictate the terms according to which we understand Scripture and not insist that they occupy a position in the individual Christian's life which they never claim for themselves.

I think you'll find I have.

No. I don't believe you have shed light on this matter. At best you've presented an argument by repetition which is itself a non sequitur.

My 'demonstration' is that He is my Lord and Saviour. His command to His disciples is "Come, follow Me.' We do not need any justification for obeying Him or in following His example.

The above comments are largely subjective in nature. They demonstrate nothing but the fact that you believe what I already know you to believe. Further, I am not arguing against the reality that He is indeed your Lord and Saviour. I consider you a Christian, a brother in the faith, a fellow heir to God's gracious gift of His Son. Further, though, as far as making a valid point goes, you're presenting an "argument by assertion." I can do the same thing by sharing my "demonstration" in the same way. Further, your remarks beg the question by presupposing the truth of your position (concerning those matters which divide us) over and above mine. Also, since I am not saying that we shouldn't follow Him, they entirely mischaracterize my position and in that way represent another strawman. After all, I agree that "we do not need any justification for obeying Him or in following His example."

 

[herbert]

iv of v

YOU need to justify yourself in your wilful disregard for your Master's words and your sophistic attempts to justify such disobedience.

As I attempt to explain my position to you, I am by no means attempting to justify some sort of wrongdoing on my part. Here you're telling me what I'm doing, rather than asking me how it is I see myself operating. What you're doing though is claiming to know that I am "willing" to disregard, in a grand act of disobedience, the wishes of Christ for me, His creature. These remarks are directed at me, my personal lack of integrity, and my personal moral shortcomings. To the extent they're criticisms of me, rather than explanations as to why my positions are wrong, they represent ad hominem attacks. After all, to charge someone with disobedience is to credit him with knowledge of his wrongdoing. If you just said I was ignorant, you might at least imagine me as meaning well. As it is, you've described me as one who knows he is wrong yet won't admit it and who, even more, goes to great lengths to defend his misbehavior.

Further, to charge me with sophistry is to suggest that I am *willfully* attempting to deceive you and others. To the degree that you intend to ascribe to me ill will towards you and others, this charge represents another ad hominem attack. Also, to charge me with sophistry is to indicate that you believe me to be deliberately employing fallacious argumentation to make my point. The best way for you to respond to such a thing would, I suggest, be to demonstrate the invalidity of a particular point I'm making rather than criticizing my person. Instead of doing that, though, you're talking past my actual points and speaking negatively of me, the person who's saying them. And as I said, the vast majority of what I've said here has been written *in response* to things that I never even brought up. What I'd like to discuss, again, is the following:

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

More sophistry. What do the Scriptures say? 'Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth' (2 Timothy 2:15).

When two people agree upon the power and authority of Scripture but differ as to how the Scripture is to be understood (which is a disagreement that originates in the minds of men and not on the pages of Scripture), the way to solve the problem isn't for one to quote Scripture in an act which demonstrates the very point which divides them. It's not Scripture, after all, that I don't agree with. I agree with every word of Scripture. Specifically what I don't agree with is your particular appointment of Scripture to a status it never claims for itself. You put it on a shelf "all alone." But it doesn't place itself alone on that shelf. That's something you did, and fallibly so, according to a sweeping and profound inference which, apart from dismissing a host of Biblical truths, invalidates itself on account of the fact that the very text by which you claim to operate doesn't instruct you to operate in this manner. For that placement of Scripture on your part, which you insist is legitimate and justified, represents an act of the fallible mind's processing of questions concerning linguistics, culture, history, etc. So I am asking you to demonstrate how it is that you justify your first and most fundamental error, an error with far-reaching effects:

How do you justify transitioning from an acknowledgement of Scripture's authority, to an insistence upon Scripture's sole authority?

And ultimately, to suggest that it is I who fail to "rightly divide the word of truth" and you who "gets it" is to appeal to an argument which begs the question (by presuming the very thing in question between us) and even to hint at a certain Biblicist Gnosticism which indicates the presence of some sort of secret knowledge that I just don't get... but you do. Instead of doing this, why don't you just let the light shine on the matter and share with me how it is that Christ's practical affirmation of Scriptural authority justifies adherence to the doctrine of *Sola* Scriptura? If you'd do that, and simply stick to that question (or effectively argue that I'm asking a moot point, or something) this conversation could proceed.

The Holy Spirit is not given to us as a substitute for hard work in studying and interpreting the Scriptures.

What, exactly, and please quote me, did I say which led you to conclude that I believe that the Holy Spirit was given to us "as a substitute for hard work in studying and interpreting the Scriptures"? You're compounding straw men here by arguing against points I never made which, if anything, reveal that you're quick to draw conclusions which don't follow from their given premises (i.e., non sequiturs).

As for your 'four marks of holiness,' the Church of Rome fails on all four. It's unity is that of the grave, as it has slaughtered all those who opposed it

By attempting to apply these standards to the Catholic Faith, I am afraid you'll prove too much and find yourself quite hard pressed to argue for the essential integrity of any Christian group. For the Church has never compromised its teaching to match the conduct of its members. And going back in history, even those who settled on the Trinity itself during a very trying time, are known to have been caught up in the most acrimonious of conflicts. And though I don't condone or support the killing of a single person who refused to recant a position which was determined to be heretical, the predominant historical view throughout most of Christian history was one which is far more complex than you imply for at least three reasons: