Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

[herbert]

To get away from Sola Scriptura is to fall prey to all other unworldly religions. Even they have a 'bible' they adhere to.

What does it mean to "get away" from Sola Scriptura? Before one could insist that to get away from Sola Scriptura is a dangerous thing, one would have to first demonstrate the legitimacy of the doctrine. In other words, one would have to demonstrate that God intends for believers to hold to the doctrine in the first place before he could effectively argue that we shouldn't stray from it.

The Muslims have the Qu'Ran for instance. They use it to justify their religion.

The question of Muslims and their view(s) of the Quran has no direct bearing on the question of the Bible's relationship to the Christian believer. The fact the people are confused about a host of books has nothing directly to do with the nature and role of Scripture under the New Covenant in Christ's Blood. What mistaken people do with their books has no direct influence upon what God intends His Scriptures to do in the life of the Christian believer.

But Jesus quoted scripture upon scripture as He taught. Sola scriptura is the only was a christian can know how to conduct their life.

Yes, Jesus quoted Scripture frequently. The fact is enirely uncontroversial, undeniable, and fully compatible with the truth of the Scriptures and of the Catholic Church which Christ established. You, Martin, and DHK all seem to think that the fact that Christ quoted Scripture demands that an individual believer must, in light of that fact, therefore, believe something like this:

1. “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” (London Baptist Confession)
2. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6 WCF)
3. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6, 39 Articles)

I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above.

Herbert

 

[DHK]

DHK,
If you're trying to point out the fact that Scripture is inherently authoritative, I agree. I don't know how many times I've acknowledged this point. I agree with you. Where I think you're mistaken isn't on that particular point. Where I think that you're mistaken is in imagining Scriptura to be the sole, final authority for all matters of faith.

If it is the greatest authority, then it is the final authority. It is God's inspired word, and therefore the greatest authority that we have. I admit that we have access to other sources, but none so great and final as God's revelation to mankind.

To suggest that something is a non sequitur is not to speak directly to the question of a point's relevance to a given topic. To say something is a non sequitur is simply to say that a given set of premises do not logically lead one to a given conclusion. To suggest the presence of a non sequitur is to say that someone has made an unjustified philosophical leap from one lily pad to another. The first lily pad (The Authority of Holy Scripture) is one thing. The second lily pad (The Sole Authority of Holy Scripture) apart from its practical problems, represents an unBiblical, illogical leap... a non sequitur. The fact that Scripture is God-breathed, authoritative, quoted by Christ, quoted by the Author of Hebrews, etc. does not inexorably lead one to accept the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is a divinely-revealed Christian doctrine.

First it is quoted by Christ, and therefore authoritative.
Second, it is stated in God's revelation to mankind that it is inspired, and therefore authoritative.
Therefore, the use of Scripture is not a "non sequitor."

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

It does have a logical conclusion. If both Christ used it as authoritative, and the Holy Spirit through the Word declares it to be inspired and therefore authoritative, it is a logical conclusion to say that the Word of God is indeed authoritative. That in no way is non sequitor, a conclusion that has nothing to do with the previous statements.

Further, you're once again so fixated upon the Scriptures that you're looking right past Christ, their Author. This leads you to say things like "They appealed to scripture because scripture is the authority." Again, Jesus is the Authority.

Correct. How do we know Jesus today? It is only through His Word. Those who think they can know him in other ways are very much mistaken.

He uses Scripture rightly simply because He's God. Satan uses it wrongly. We, too, can wrongly interpret or misapply Scripture. Christ is the Eternal Word made flesh, however. Therefore, when He speaks, whether or not He's quoting Scripture, He does so infallibly. One writer by the name of Jimmy Akin puts it more succinctly than I could when he says "This kind of verse (which cites Christ referring to Scripture) can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine)." In other words, you're demanding from the text a conclusion which it does not imply.

No, I am not. Your stated opinion here is that I am wrong in my interpretation of scripture. If so show me where I am wrong using Scripture.
You avoid the command of Scripture:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--If I study the scriptures, pray, and ask for guidance, the Lord will give me the correct interpretation. Most of those here agree with my interpretation. Why is that? The Spirit of God dwells in them. Most of them also disagree with the interpretation of the RCC. Why is that? We don't believe that the Spirit of God dwells in them that formulated the Catechism and most of the beliefs of the RCC. Thus the RCC is either a cult or a major religion of the world that is outside of Christianity preaching what Paul says "another gospel."

For that matter, the author continues "Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources."

Jesus often rebuked both Pharisees and Sadducees with statements such as:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
--Their mistake was not knowing the scriptures. Had they known the scriptures they would not have rejected Him.

Matthew 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
--Here Jesus calls them (the Pharisees and Saducees) hypocrites. The reason? They discarded the doctrine, that is the teaching of the Word of God, and taught their own traditions in their place.
This sounds much like the RCC today. They discard the Word of God and teach their Tradition instead. Our Lord condemns it.

Yes, all of this is perfectly compatible with the truth of the Catholic faith. I'd still ask that you look again at Hebrews 8:10-12, which reads:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, saith the Lord;
I will put my laws into their mind,
And on their heart also will I write them:
And I will be to them a God,
And they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen,
And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
For all shall know me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And their sins will I remember no more.

Christ is speaking of a coming Kingdom. Christ was the authority while on earth. The temple police returned to the Jewish authorities, the Sanhedrin, without apprehending Christ.
The reason was the authority of Christ:

Matthew 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
--But Christ is not among us in the flesh today. We have His Word instead.
However he will come again and set up His Kingdom in the future. In that day once again he will reign in the flesh, with a rod of iron, or with complete justice.
Then will be fulfilled this scripture with all the Jews:
11 And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen,
And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
For all shall know me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And their sins will I remember no more

Though there is certainly an affirmation of the idea that this covenant applies to the individual believer ("For all shall know me") as you suggest above, I think it's important to stress the idea that we mustn't overlook the commmunal element of the New Covenant which is affirmed here, also. For the writer appeals to this aspect of this new Covenant, saying "And they shall be to me a people:..."

The only covenant made to the Gentile believer today is that covenant between Christ and the one who comes to Him as a sinner in need of a Savior--the one who trusts Christ completely as Lord and Savior of His life. One cannot apply those covenant promises made to the Jews to the Gentiles. They are not for the Gentiles.

DHK, your continued appeals to Scripture quotations within Scripture suggest to me that you don't see the distinction I am making here. Do you see how it is possible that Scripture can be authoritative and that Sola Scriptura need not be true?

No. God does not change, and thus Scripture does not change and is never wrong.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
--You I question; God never! He is always faithful. His word and promises are always faithful. He never fails.

For, after all, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura isn't reducible to a statement such as "Scripture is authoritative." If that were all SS demanded, then Catholics would accept Sola Scriptura, also.

Scripture is authoritative; the RCC is not. The RCC ought to accept sola scriptura.

Where we part ways, and this is largely the point I am trying to make to "Martin," is in the "Sola" part. We don't teach "Sola Scriptura" because, simply put, the Bible doesn't.

In one statement the Bible does:
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.

 

[herbert]

1 of 2 to DHK

DHK,

First of all, as I said:

1. “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” (London Baptist Confession)
2. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6 WCF)
3. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6, 39 Articles)

I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above.

If it is the greatest authority, then it is the final authority. It is God's inspired word, and therefore the greatest authority that we have. I admit that we have access to other sources, but none so great and final as God's revelation to mankind.

You continue to miss my point, DHK. Please re-read my request above. You're arguing according to a non sequitur. The God-breathed nature of Scripture, which I don't question, doesn't require us to hold to Sola Scriptura. Christ instituted a Church. The truth is this:
i) The Second Person of the Holy Trinity established a Church.
ii) The Third Person of the Holy Trinity inspired the writing of Scripture.
These two things, both of which are divinely-established are intended to work together to achieve God's desired ends. In both cases, too, He is using fallible human agency to bring about His infallible plan of salvation.

Your non sequitur lies in the notion that these two truths cannot co-exist and are mutually destructive. So you condemn the Catholic Church on account of its acceptance of both of these truths. This has to do with the either/or mindset you have adopted. It is the Catholic who, arguing from Scripture, however, upholds both of these divinely-revealed truths while you re-define one for the sake of your desire to uphold the other. Thus you write off verses which reveal the role and authority of Christ's Church such as Ephesians 3:10 and 1st Timothy 3:15 as well as Matthew 18:17.

First it is quoted by Christ, and therefore authoritative.
Second, it is stated in God's revelation to mankind that it is inspired, and therefore authoritative.
Therefore, the use of Scripture is not a "non sequitor."

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

DHK, It is quite clear at this point that you do not understand what it is I am asking of you. It is quite clear, also, that you do not see what exactly it is that I am claiming is a non sequitur. I am not arguing against the authority of Scripture. Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed. I can have an infallible and authoritative text, however, and miss its meaning. In fact, ignorant and unstable men do this, according to Scripture itself. The non sequitur comes along, though, when people take the unquestioned authority of Scripture and make it out to be the "sole" authority. For although Scripture is inerrant and infallible, through Sola Scriptura, a stowaway has slipped on board. That stowaway is human fallibility. I will underline below the precise places where human fallibilty (and a degree of subjectivity) has snuck on board.

The 39 Articles do this here: "...whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man..."

The Scriptures say nothing of the sort.

The Westminster Confession does this here: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture..."

The Scriptures say nothing of the sort.

The London Baptist Confession does this in its entirety: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience."

Not only does the Scripture say nothing of the sort, but this Confession practically contradicts 2nd Peter 3:16. Further, it subjectivizes whatever it is that qualifies as "saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." In other words, it shifts from a public, objective realm, those responsibilities to "bind and loose" which are rightly exercised by the Church, to the individual believer, to a sort of gnosticism. This is unBiblical for a host of reasons, not the least among which is that St. Paul says: "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." and "...then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind." So where St. Paul calls for a public, objective principle of unity to act, the LBC privatizes that entire process of discernment which should be taking place in the Church and thus sacrifices the unity to which St. Paul called us for the sake of a private security that resides only in the fallible mind of a man or woman. And so the heresies proliferate and the heresiarchs see themselves as those true believers who are rightly accessing the content of Scripture.

It does have a logical conclusion. If both Christ used it as authoritative, and the Holy Spirit through the Word declares it to be inspired and therefore authoritative, it is a logical conclusion to say that the Word of God is indeed authoritative. That in no way is non sequitor, a conclusion that has nothing to do with the previous statements.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

DHK, Again, your comment reveals the fact that you are not speaking to the matter I am attempting to raise. I am NOT arguing against Scripture's authority. It IS a logical conclusion to say that the Word is authoritative based upon a host of factors. What is NOT a logical conclusion is to decide that by virtue of its authoritative nature, it acts alone or that an individual believer with a fallible mind can rightly interpret even its most complicated of passages. This, again, is a principle which Scripture itself affirms, saying that ignorant and unstable men wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Notice, again, we're not speak just of people with bad intentions. Mere ignorance can be the cause of someone's going astray.

No, I am not. Your stated opinion here is that I am wrong in my interpretation of scripture. If so show me where I am wrong using Scripture.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

DHK, You have thrown this gauntlet down many times before. I have offered numerous verses whose content you deny, the most obvious of which is James 2:24. But you, appealing to fallible human reason, and not Scripture alone, present various justifications for "interpeting" such verses to mean the exact opposite of what it is that they say. This is, again, why I have said so many times that the true danger of Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with Scripture itself, but rather, by convincing a person that he's right when he's right and that he's right when he's wrong, it renders a man incapable of reason. This is why someone as committed to Sola Scriptura as BobRyan doesn't have a problem squaring Ellen G. White's status as a genuine Prophetess with "Sola Scriptura."

 

[herbert]

2 of 2 to DHK

--Their mistake was not knowing the scriptures. Had they known the scriptures they would not have rejected Him.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

The Pharisees, in one sense "knew the Scriptures" and very well! In another sense, they didn't know them, that is, they didn't rightly interpret and apply them. For example, in Luke 6 we read the following:

Now it came to pass on a sabbath, that he was going through the grainfields; and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. But certain of the Pharisees said, Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day? And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read even this, what David did, when he was hungry, he, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and took and ate the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone? And he said unto them, The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.

Clearly the Pharisees "knew" the passage in question. Christ was challenging their interpretation of it. They had placed observance of the Sabbath above that to which the Sabbath itself was intended to be in service. This is why Christ closes His remarks here, saying "The Son of man is lord of the sabbath." Of course the Pharisees knew the Scriptures in the sense that they were familiar with their words. They likely had them memorized. It was their wrongful understanding and application of them which Christ called into question.

--Here Jesus calls them (the Pharisees and Saducees) hypocrites. The reason? They discarded the doctrine, that is the teaching of the Word of God, and taught their own traditions in their place.
This sounds much like the RCC today. They discard the Word of God and teach their Tradition instead. Our Lord condemns it.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

They "discarded the doctrine" of Scripture which God had in mind for the sake of their wrongful interpretations. Again, they had Scripture and it alone did not safeguard them from error. For their fallible minds and wills had corrupted their understanding of Scripture.

Christ is speaking of a coming Kingdom. Christ was the authority while on earth. The temple police returned to the Jewish authorities, the Sanhedrin, without apprehending Christ.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

You've done it again, DHK. You said "Christ was the authority while on earth." Christ was, is, and forever will be the Authority. His temporo-spatial location has no bearing on His identity as Lord of Heaven and Earth.

No. God does not change, and thus Scripture does not change and is never wrong.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

Nothing I said was intended to imply that God changes.

--You I question; God never! He is always faithful. His word and promises are always faithful. He never fails.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

Nothing I said was intended to imply that God changes or that God could ever fail.

Scripture is authoritative; the RCC is not. The RCC ought to accept sola scriptura.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

My identification of the Catholic Church as that Church which Christ established came after my coming to recognize the theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura. Again, though, I am not suggesting that Scripture is bankrupt. Rather, I am suggesting that when accessed by way of the fallible mind of a man or woman, one isn't guaranteed to come up with true doctrines as they objectively reside within the pages of the Sacred Scriptures. That guarantee comes by way of the Holy Spirit which guides the Church Christ established.

In one statement the Bible does:
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.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

To this very claim I offered the following on April 1, 2016:

Response: Within this context, Isaiah is primarily and most directly saying that if people don’t attest to the validity of the message he’s presenting, they are woefully mistaken. He’s not saying anything like: “There will one day be a 66-book Canon of Scripture which will enjoy a certain singular validity concerning the establishment of matters of faith and which will be rightly affirmed according to the remarks I am currently making which concern the specifics of another matter and situation entirely.” Further, there at the beginning of the passage Isaiah affirms the validity of a teacher’s testimony, that is a teacher’s “interpretation” or “oral validation” of a particular doctrine. Isn’t Isaiah saying something like “If their teaching is out of alignment with mine, they’re mistaken.”? Is it really reasonable to grant your Canon of Scripture (along with your interpretation of it) the status you do on account of your appeal to verses like these which, in their actual content, say nothing like what it is you’re asserting?

Finally, if you or someone else would please address the following, we could avoid a lot of this material which is often at least somewhat off-topic:

I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above.

Thanks again, DHK,

Herbert

 

[SovereignGrace]

What does it mean to "get away" from Sola Scriptura? Before one could insist that to get away from Sola Scriptura is a dangerous thing, one would have to first demonstrate the legitimacy of the doctrine. In other words, one would have to demonstrate that God intends for believers to hold to the doctrine in the first place before he could effectively argue that we shouldn't stray from it.



The question of Muslims and their view(s) of the Quran has no direct bearing on the question of the Bible's relationship to the Christian believer. The fact the people are confused about a host of books has nothing directly to do with the nature and role of Scripture under the New Covenant in Christ's Blood. What mistaken people do with their books has no direct influence upon what God intends His Scriptures to do in the life of the Christian believer.



Yes, Jesus quoted Scripture frequently. The fact is enirely uncontroversial, undeniable, and fully compatible with the truth of the Scriptures and of the Catholic Church which Christ established. You, Martin, and DHK all seem to think that the fact that Christ quoted Scripture demands that an individual believer must, in light of that fact, therefore, believe something like this:

1. “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” (London Baptist Confession)
2. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6 WCF)
3. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6, 39 Articles)

I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above.

Herbert

All I am saying...I may view what you are attempting to say in a wrong manner, seeing I came into this discussion late, and if I am seeing it in a wrong manner, please forgive me...is that I base my life...my Christian life...based upon the clear teachings of the bible. The bible tells me how I am to treat my wife, my neighbors, friends, family, &c. It tells me how to conduct my life in front of them, too.

Just look at our school systems of this day. They didn't want...and still don't want...God's influence in the school systems. Now teachers can not paddle students, teachers are being blamed when a student was lazy and got an 'F' on a report card. Kids are coming in and shooting schools up. They are now teaching evolution in public schools. Kids are being so disrespectful to teachers and the parents seem to not care about it. All of this is because they don't want God's influence in the school systems. Now Satan has got them by the short hairs and see what a hot mess the school systems are in now.

Our gov't is arresting parents if they spank their children. The bible clearly says God chastens those He loves. Chastening from God is not Him taking away our priveledges and putting us in time out, but a rod of correction. Our country was based upon the bible, and now it want anything but the bible. Now if you preach against the g@y lifestyle, that can be considered a hate crime, punishable by a jail sentence. The gov't has shoved g@y marriage down our throats and we had to take it.

Now Obummer and his cohorts are pushing for it to make guys who see themselves as girls and girls who see themselves as guys to use the restroom they recognize themselves as being. If I had a daughter in one of these schools, she no longer goes there. I don't want a boy in the same bathroom she is in, period. There are 'pervs' out there who will say they are really girls just to 'peep' or maybe even rape girls. The further you get away from the crystal clear teachings of the bible...Sola Scriptura...the more chaotic things get.

All of these examples are because of going away from the bible, away from Sola Scriptura.

 

[DHK]

1 of 2 to DHK

DHK,

First of all, as I said:

1. “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” (London Baptist Confession)
2. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6 WCF)
3. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6, 39 Articles)

I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above.

By faith I accept God's Word as God's revelation to mankind, His inspired revelation to mankind, and therefore every word inspired of God, accurate and true, without contradiction.
I support that statement with 2Tim.3:16 and 2Pet.1:20,21. The scripture here teach that these writings are "divinely inspired," and Christ himself quoted the OT in the same way.
If these scriptures state that the Bible is inspired of God, then I must believe it is so.
If the Bible states that Christ is deity, then I must believe it to be so.
What is the difference? Why should I believe the latter and not the former? Why do you pick and choose the doctrines you want to accept or reject. Isn't this clear enough for you?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--If it says it is inspired it is. I am required to believe just like I am required to believe in the deity of Christ. The real question is: Why do you reject it?

You continue to miss my point, DHK. Please re-read my request above. You're arguing according to a non sequitur. The God-breathed nature of Scripture, which I don't question, doesn't require us to hold to Sola Scriptura. Christ instituted a Church. The truth is this:
i) The Second Person of the Holy Trinity established a Church.
ii) The Third Person of the Holy Trinity inspired the writing of Scripture.
These two things, both of which are divinely-established are intended to work together to achieve God's desired ends. In both cases, too, He is using fallible human agency to bring about His infallible plan of salvation.

God did not institute the RCC as "His Church," and you have failed to prove that.
This is the crux of the whole matter isn't it?
You hate the doctrine of sola scriptura because you want to enter in a secondary authority that is just as authoritative as the Scriptures, but we say "NO!"
There is no RCC which is inspired. There is no RCC that originates from the apostles--4th century at the earliest, and then paganism was introduced into Christianity as it was made a state-religion. It is not another authority.

God gave His Word to mankind, to believers. Look what it says:
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
First, Paul wrote to churches, not "The Church." One will not find the concept of "The Church in the NT.
Second, churches, like the one at Corinth here, are made up of individuals. They are saved and sanctified as he identifies them. They are not nebulous mystical unidentified, meta-physical members of some universal invisible "Church" that doesn't and cannot exist. They are members of an actual existing local church.
1. They consist of believers in Christ who are "sanctified in Christ Jesus."
--Those who believe literally in the RCC Catechism are not sanctified in Christ Jesus. They cannot be, nor ever will be. For the RCC their sanctification comes through baptism and keeping the sacraments and other good works.
--The Bible teaches that God himself sanctifies a person initially at his salvation when he is born again (not of water), but of the Holy Spirit. He sets him apart from a life of sin. And then he continues to be sanctified as he lives a life of holiness.

2. The RCC Catechism lies in direct opposition to the "truth" of the Bible.
One cannot believe in both at the same time Either be a Catholic or be a born-again believer in Christ. Inasmuch as one cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time, one cannot be a Catholic and a Christian at the same time.

3. With these two points in mind the RCC is not and cannot be any source of authority that any believer has to worry about. Therefore he considers the Bible as His authority and the doctrine of sola scruptura as true. It is the Bible that guides the church, not the other way around.

Your non sequitur lies in the notion that these two truths cannot co-exist and are mutually destructive. So you condemn the Catholic Church on account of its acceptance of both of these truths. This has to do with the either/or mindset you have adopted. It is the Catholic who, arguing from Scripture, however, upholds both of these divinely-revealed truths while you re-define one for the sake of your desire to uphold the other.

The Catholics do not and cannot argue from Scripture. Most of their doctrine comes from man-made tradition and is directly contrary to Scripture. As Jesus condemned the Pharisees so he would condemn the Pharisees for the same thing:
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Thus you write off verses which reveal the role and authority of Christ's Church such as Ephesians 3:10 and 1st Timothy 3:15 as well as Matthew 18:17.

The RCC has nothing to do with the Ephesian church or with the words of Jesus.

Apart from the fact that you're not yet speaking to this: I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above... I will say this:

The scriptures is God's truth. The RCC is God's enemy. They teach tradition, not Biblical truth.
Purgatory and indulgences, Mariolatry, necromancy, etc. are doctrines that are condemned, not exalted by God.

DHK, It is quite clear at this point that you do not understand what it is I am asking of you. It is quite clear, also, that you do not see what exactly it is that I am claiming is a non sequitur. I am not arguing against the authority of Scripture. Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed. I can have an infallible and authoritative text, however, and miss its meaning. In fact, ignorant and unstable men do this, according to Scripture itself. The non sequitur comes along, though, when people take the unquestioned authority of Scripture and make it out to be the "sole" authority. For although Scripture is inerrant and infallible, through Sola Scriptura, a stowaway has slipped on board. That stowaway is human fallibility. I will underline below the precise places where human fallibilty (and a degree of subjectivity) has snuck on board.

Out of 13 epistles that Paul wrote each one was written either to a local church or a pastor of a local church. Those written to pastors were written to give both the pastor and the church of how to keep order in the church. What then has the greater authority? The "church" or the epistle (Word of God) written?
Even then, one must keep in mind, that there is no RCC in the NT.
--But this should be enough to digest for now.

 

[herbert]

1 of 2 to DHK

DHK,

By faith I accept God's Word as God's revelation to mankind, His inspired revelation to mankind, and therefore every word inspired of God, accurate and true, without contradiction.
I support that statement with 2Tim.3:16 and 2Pet.1:20,21. The scripture here teach that these writings are "divinely inspired," and Christ himself quoted the OT in the same way.
If these scriptures state that the Bible is inspired of God, then I must believe it is so.
If the Bible states that Christ is deity, then I must believe it to be so.
What is the difference? Why should I believe the latter and not the former? Why do you pick and choose the doctrines you want to accept or reject. Isn't this clear enough for you?

You are talking right past me. I affirm the God-breathed authority of Scripture. You're not speaking to any of the distinctions that I'm making, which are themselves made in Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--If it says it is inspired it is. I am required to believe just like I am required to believe in the deity of Christ. The real question is: Why do you reject it?

I don't reject Scripture. I believe it is inspired. I have said that numerous times now.

God did not institute the RCC as "His Church," and you have failed to prove that.
This is the crux of the whole matter isn't it?
You hate the doctrine of sola scriptura because you want to enter in a secondary authority that is just as authoritative as the Scriptures, but we say "NO!"
There is no RCC which is inspired. There is no RCC that originates from the apostles--4th century at the earliest, and then paganism was introduced into Christianity as it was made a state-religion. It is not another authority.

As I have said before, I am not here to prove anything. Both you and Revmitchell have suggested as much. It is a matter of fact and history that Christ did institute the Catholic Church. And though I don't appeal to secular encyclopedias as a matter of faith, it is, at least a matter of secular history that Christ instituted the Catholic Church. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica states as much (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism) as does the New World Encyclopedia, which states that "The Catholic Church has been the moving force in some of the major events of world history including the evangelization of Europe and Latin America, the spreading of literacy and the foundation of the Universities, hospitals, monasticism, the development of Art, Music and Architecture, the Inquisition, the Crusades, an analytical philosophical method, and the downfall ofCommunism in Eastern Europe in the late twentieth century." (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Roman_Catholic_Church). I, however, accept the witness of those who received the apostolic faith from those faithful Christians who handed to us that which they had received. This is the very principle according to which St. Paul wrote and it was indeed affirmed in both its written and its oral transmission by the Apostle himself when he said "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

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

God gave His Word to mankind, to believers. Look what it says:
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
First, Paul wrote to churches, not "The Church." One will not find the concept of "The Church in the NT.
Second, churches, like the one at Corinth here, are made up of individuals. They are saved and sanctified as he identifies them. They are not nebulous mystical unidentified, meta-physical members of some universal invisible "Church" that doesn't and cannot exist. They are members of an actual existing local church.
1. They consist of believers in Christ who are "sanctified in Christ Jesus."
--Those who believe literally in the RCC Catechism are not sanctified in Christ Jesus. They cannot be, nor ever will be. For the RCC their sanctification comes through baptism and keeping the sacraments and other good works.
--The Bible teaches that God himself sanctifies a person initially at his salvation when he is born again (not of water), but of the Holy Spirit. He sets him apart from a life of sin. And then he continues to be sanctified as he lives a life of holiness.

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.
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.

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."

 

[herbert]

2 of 2 to DHK

2. The RCC Catechism lies in direct opposition to the "truth" of the Bible.
One cannot believe in both at the same time Either be a Catholic or be a born-again believer in Christ. Inasmuch as one cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time, one cannot be a Catholic and a Christian at the same time.

You have presented your opinions here, not Scriptural truths. You are judging Catholics not according to Scripture, but according to your adoption of the fallible interpretive traditions of Scripture which you adopted some forty years ago and according to which you've been operating for all these years. You are a wonderful Christian with great zeal and a profound love for Christ. That is for certain. What's not for certain, though, is the theological system you've adopted. For it represents a philosophical tradition of men which fancies itself as Scriptural.

3. With these two points in mind the RCC is not and cannot be any source of authority that any believer has to worry about. Therefore he considers the Bible as His authority and the doctrine of sola scruptura as true. It is the Bible that guides the church, not the other way around.

Again, the Church is the servant of Scripture and is safeguarded from error according to the promises of Christ. It is thus that the the apostolic tradition and the Scriptures, together, speak with one voice. For this is the "equation" to which the early Christians appealed as they faced the Paganism of their day. It is also the equation to which we moderns must appeal when our wayward Christian brothers and sisters "wrest" the Scriptures to their own destruction:
[off topic]

The Catholics do not and cannot argue from Scripture. Most of their doctrine comes from man-made tradition and is directly contrary to Scripture. As Jesus condemned the Pharisees so he would condemn the Pharisees for the same thing:
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

You are mistaken. The Catholic Church presents the most coherent, considerate, profound, accurate, insightful, and gracious presentation of Scripture the world has ever known. You're failure to see this is a matter not of Scripture or holiness, but a matter of an intellect which, influenced by the will, is bent against the legitimacy of the very Church established by Christ.

The RCC has nothing to do with the Ephesian church or with the words of Jesus.

This is your opinion.

The scriptures is God's truth. The RCC is God's enemy. They teach tradition, not Biblical truth.
Purgatory and indulgences, Mariolatry, necromancy, etc. are doctrines that are condemned, not exalted by God.

These are expressions of human opinion, not divine revelation. They are, therefore, fallible. The Church teaches the legitimacy of Purgatory and Indulgences. However, "Mariolatry" and "Necromancy" are both condemned in the Catechism either directly or indirectly. If you would like me to explain specifically how it is that you are mistaken, I'd be happy to do so.

Out of 13 epistles that Paul wrote each one was written either to a local church or a pastor of a local church. Those written to pastors were written to give both the pastor and the church of how to keep order in the church. What then has the greater authority? The "church" or the epistle (Word of God) written?
Even then, one must keep in mind, that there is no RCC in the NT.
--But this should be enough to digest for now.

Every one of those churches saw itself as bound to the broader catholic and apostolic unity recognized, in part, by the apostolic pedigree shared by each Church. Further, it was by this very universal unity that St. Paul himself was recognized as an authority, as he said, as a "father" to other christians, in some cases. St. Paul's reaching out to these churches, then, far from demonstrating the local autonomy of each church, demonstrates the exact opposite: The fact that he, though an outsider to them, was recognized as an authority figure in the universal Church within which their local identities were, in some sense, subsumed.

DHK,
For many responses now, I see the content of what you write as little more than:
1) Arguments by repetition
2) non sequiturs
3) Arguments which do nothing but "beg the question" by presupposing the very thing in question between us.
4) Responses to "straw men." That is, you often respond to arguments I never advanced.

All the while, you've yet to respond to my points offered in response to Dr. Geisler's article.

All the while, you've yet to address the fact that what you see as "Sola Scriptura" is, practically speaking, a recipe for rank subjectivism as it convinces a man that he is right when he is right and that he is right when he is wrong.

All the while, you've yet to respond to my presentation of various historical points of consideration such as the historicity of the records of Apostolic Succession related to the Papacy.

All the while, you've yet to respond to my many alternate interpretations of Biblical passages which you see as obviously demonstrative of the invalidity of the Catholic Church.

All the while, you've yet to substantively respond to the fact that, though the Scriptures are inspired, there is no divinely revealed Table of Contents by which you may come to know which texts are truly canonical and thus are, de facto, a beneficiary of the very thing you claim to loath: the "traditions of men"... which, in this case, play a part, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the Church's process of coming to a place of recognition of those texts which are rightly identified as Scriptural.

Every time we share ideas, though, I feel a certain respect and fondness for you DHK, and I truly admire you personally, though we so heartily disagree.
Herbert

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

B. I asked that you would "demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture... as somehow revealing (our justification) in holding to Sola Scriptura." So where I am asking you to demonstrate how Christ's example justifies our holding to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you've defended an entirely separate and unquestioned practice. I am asking not that you justify the mere quoting of Scripture. I am asking that you demonstrate that your appeal to His example to justify your adherence to Sola Scriptura is anything but a non sequitur. You've responded not by speaking to what I asked about, but by introducing another entirely separate matter which, incidentally, I never questioned. So at this point instead of addressing the question of the non sequitur you've presented, we're dealing with two distinct and separate questions:

Well it's not a non sequitur, is it? Christ, in His earthly ministry, specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments, and chided others for not doing so. Now you may say, "Well that doesn't prove that we should follow Christ, but I say it does. 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?' 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.

ii) The adoption of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which you've not yet addressed).

I think you'll find I have.

C. The mere fact that Christ does something does not amount to a demonstration of our being justified in adopting the same practice. To claim so much would require you to (in order to avoid arguing according to another non sequitur), provide a demonstration for having validly reached such a conclusion.

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

In other words, He necessarily proclaims Scripture infallibly. Whereas, we don't. It's not the mere quoting of Scripture, then, which guarantees one's doctrines. For as we all know, even the heretics quote Scripture. What guarantees one's rightful interpretation of Scripture, then, has something to do with a broader alignment with that which God has instituted for His divine Purposes. In the case of the New Covenant in His Blood, this "broader" understanding of Christianity, though it is essentially bound to Scripture, contains, according to Christ's divine institution, other components which we now recognize according to the four Marks of the Church: its unity, its holiness, its catholicity, and its apostolicity.

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). The Holy Spirit is not given to us as a substitute for hard work in studying and interpreting the Scriptures. 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; its holiness is a myth, exposed by recent events; its catholicity is likewise mythical and self-proclaimed, and its apostolicity is a joke so long as it denies Sola Scriptura. Every church, regardless of denomination, where the word of God is faithfully preached and His ordinances observed is in unity with its Head, and catholic inasmuch as it does not despise other congregations that do likewise; every church where proper church discipline is imposed according to God's word is holy; every church that follows the Bible and preaches it faithfully is apostolic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

[speaking on 2 Timothy 3:14-17] Here we see that St. Paul, within the broader context of his exhortation, says many important things:

1) He links the validity of Timothy's doctrines with the very people from whom he received the teaching “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it”. He applauds Timothy for remaining faithful to what he “learned and believed” specifically “because” of those from whom Timothy received the faith. In other words, according to St. Paul a fundamental point here, and a necessary and essential component of a sound faith, is the identity of the very persons (themselves members of a public communion) through whom the transmission of faith takes place. St. Paul clearly points out two things which provide the basis for the soundness of Timothy’s doctrines:

i) The trustworthiness of those from whom Timothy learned

ii) The fact that Timothy has known the Scriptures for his entire life

Yes indeed, Timothy had a wonderful advantage in learning the faith that is not given to everyone: He learned it from his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5), who had presumably heard it from Paul. It is obviously important that Gospel ministers and evangelists be sound in the faith. Therefore Paul tells Timothy, 'The things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others' 2 Tim. 2:2). That is four generations. There is a continuing need for faithful Bible teachers.

In other words, to borrow your term, there, according to St. Paul, a certain “power” is expressed not in Scripture alone, but in the organic and interpersonal nature of the transmission of the faith. The means of delivery is not incidental, then, to the faith. St. Paul states this idea in Chapter 2, verse 2 of this same Epistle when he says: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”

2) He speaks of those who "make a pretense" [sic] of religion, but deny its power.

3) He speaks of those who always try to learn but never reach a knowledge of truth, even referring to the “deceivers” as those who are also themselves “deceived.”

So how does one know the a certain Bible teacher is authentic or a charlatan? Two ways: by his lifestyle (Matthew 7:15-17) and by checking what he says against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). The Scriptures are our only true touchstone. 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them' (Isaiah 8:20). The power is in the Scriptures ALONE. 'They are able......' (2 Timothy 3:15). If one comes to a false understanding of the Scriptures, adds to, or subtracts from, the Scriptures, or allows 'tradition' to cloud one's understanding, then that will ruin their effectiveness. Peter tells new Christians, 'As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby' (1 Peter 2:2).

The problem is that people are constantly adding to Scripture.

The J.W.s say that Scripture can only be interpreted by the Watchtower organization and read in their own version..
The Church of Rome says that it can only be interpreted by the 'magisterium,' and add the Apocrypha.
The 7th Day Adventists say that is must be interpreted by the prophecies of Ellen White
The Mormons say that it must be supplemented by the Book of Mormon.

Bible-believing Christians say 'Scripture alone.'

B. Also, there is no "knowledge that can save" a person.

I think you'll find there is. ( 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 8:11). That one can only receive the Scriptures savingly by the power of the Spirit (John 3:3; Acts 16:14), does not alter the fact.

Rightly exercised, knowledge is ordered toward the good of salvation, yes. But it is not knowledge or wisdom which, in any way, saves. As St. Paul says "And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

You are confusing salvation with sanctification. Love is a fruit of the Spirit, not a requirement for salvation. Christ justifies the ungodly (Romans 5:6).

 

[Adonia]

Yes indeed, Timothy had a wonderful advantage in learning the faith that is not given to everyone: He learned it from his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5), who had presumably heard it from Paul. It is obviously important that Gospel ministers and evangelists be sound in the faith. Therefore Paul tells Timothy, 'The things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others' 2 Tim. 2:2). That is four generations. There is a continuing need for faithful Bible teachers.

So how does one know the a certain Bible teacher is authentic or a charlatan? Two ways: by his lifestyle (Matthew 7:15-17) and by checking what he says against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). The Scriptures are our only true touchstone. 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them' (Isaiah 8:20). The power is in the Scriptures ALONE. 'They are able......' (2 Timothy 3:15). If one comes to a false understanding of the Scriptures, adds to, or subtracts from, the Scriptures, or allows 'tradition' to cloud one's understanding, then that will ruin their effectiveness. Peter tells new Christians, 'As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby' (1 Peter 2:2).

The problem is that people are constantly adding to Scripture.

The J.W.s say that Scripture can only be interpreted by the Watchtower organization and read in their own version..
The Church of Rome says that it can only be interpreted by the 'magisterium,' and add the Apocrypha.
The 7th Day Adventists say that is must be interpreted by the prophecies of Ellen White
The Mormons say that it must be supplemented by the Book of Mormon.

Bible-believing Christians say 'Scripture alone.'


I think you'll find there is. ( 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 8:11). That one can only receive the Scriptures savingly by the power of the Spirit (John 3:3; Acts 16:14), does not alter the fact.

You are confusing salvation with sanctification. Love is a fruit of the Spirit, not a requirement for salvation. Christ justifies the ungodly (Romans 5:6).

"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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"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.

There is nothing else, my dear. All your 'tradition' and magisterium' are the works of men and roundly condemned by the Lord (Mark 7:6-13).
If you want to find the truth of the Bible, follow 1Peter 2:2 and 2 Timothy 2:15, and seek out godly teachers, not the ones who go round in long robes and demand to be called 'Father' (Matthew 23:5-10).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Church of Rome says that it can only be interpreted by the 'magisterium,' and add the Apocrypha.

Sorry I should have added, "and their "traditions."

 

[DHK]

1 of 2 to DHK

DHK,

First of all, as I said:

1. “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” (London Baptist Confession)
2. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6 WCF)
3. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6, 39 Articles)

I am asking that any one of you demonstrate how a person is necessarily required, as a matter of divinely-revealed doctrine, to leap from one obvious and uncontroversial truth (that Scripture is authoritative and God-breathed) to any one of the "conclusions" I've listed above.

It comes down to a matter of authority. Who or what is your authority when it comes to salvation?
Some say that Shakespeare is "inspired." Or that he is just as inspired as the Bible is. Isn't that true? If so, can one find how to be saved in the pages of Shakespeare and will you allow Shakespeare to be your authority in "all things necessary to salvation?
--Demonstrate how a person is required to make that leap from one obvious truth (the authority of Scripture (as opposed to Shakespeare et. al.) to any of the above stated conclusion which deal with sola scriptura. I just did. It is a matter of Authority.

When Christ was born the Jews had a completed canon known as the OT (to us), that was complete in ca. 400 B.C. and already translated into Greek in 250 B.C. They were already practicing the doctrine of sola scriptura before Christ came as is evident by Isa.8:20 and Acts 17:11. They used the OT to demonstrate the veracity of Paul's message and Paul commended them for it. That is what is at the heart of sola scriptura.
God gave the Israelites the Word.
He gave Moses the Law.
He gave David and Solomon the poetical books.
He spoke through the prophets giving them the prophetical books.
It was God that gave the Israelites His authoritative Word!

In like manner when Christ was born God spoke through the apostles. The apostles, being guided by the Holy Spirit wrote the words of Christ down, their words down, and whatever God directed them to write down--under His guidance and direction so that the NT is perfectly inspired, accurate and true.
Thus it is God that gave the churches His Word, just as He gave Israel the Word.
Israel did not give God the word, and neither did "The Church" give God or anyone else the Word of God. God, working through the Apostles, gave it to the early believers which made up the early churches (Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.)

You continue to miss my point, DHK. Please re-read my request above. You're arguing according to a non sequitur. The God-breathed nature of Scripture, which I don't question, doesn't require us to hold to Sola Scriptura. Christ instituted a Church.

Christ instituted many churches. Every biblical church has Christ as its head. There is no such thing as "The Church." With that in mind "The Church" falls off the map as "your authority". It never was there in the first place. The local church only is an authority because it is granted that authority through the Word of God to which it must be subject. That is sola scriptura.

The truth is this:
i) The Second Person of the Holy Trinity established a Church.
ii) The Third Person of the Holy Trinity inspired the writing of Scripture.
These two things, both of which are divinely-established are intended to work together to achieve God's desired ends. In both cases, too, He is using fallible human agency to bring about His infallible plan of salvation.

The triune Godhead cannot be so easily divided. The Holy Spirit was very active in establishing the church. Or do you forget what happened in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, when the "Church Age" began?

 

[DHK]

2 of 2 to DHK

You have presented your opinions here, not Scriptural truths. You are judging Catholics not according to Scripture, but according to your adoption of the fallible interpretive traditions of Scripture which you adopted some forty years ago and according to which you've been operating for all these years. You are a wonderful Christian with great zeal and a profound love for Christ. That is for certain. What's not for certain, though, is the theological system you've adopted. For it represents a philosophical tradition of men which fancies itself as Scriptural.

They weren't opinions. Biblical truth compared to what the RCC catechism says is not simple opinion. The RCC is wrong because its teaching goes directly contrary to the Bible. I have demonstrated that many times. You call it "interpretive traditions." That is ironic! I don't have "interpretive traditions." What traditions do I hold to? Can you tell me? I left tradition behind when I left the RCC behind. I left Biblical illiteracy behind when I left the RCC behind.
When I left the RCC I started studying the Bible and memorizing it for myself. Without the help of anyone else I could clearly see how the teaching of the RCC contradicted the Bible.

The Bible itself says:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--This is a command you must avoid, run away from, if you are to obey the RCC. One cannot study the Bible and be allowed to come to their own conclusions like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11, can they? Sad.

Again, the Church is the servant of Scripture and is safeguarded from error according to the promises of Christ.

If the church is the servant of Scripture, sola scriptura should be no problem should it?

It is thus that the the apostolic tradition and the Scriptures, together, speak with one voice.

No they don't. Jesus condemned tradition. Tradition is fallible. Tradition is much of the time sinful, has its origin, sometimes, in paganism. Though some tradition may be good, no tradition outside of the Bible is inspired or of God.

For this is the "equation" to which the early Christians appealed as they faced the Paganism of their day.

For example, they followed their Popes into wars against other peace-loving Christians and slaughtered them, committing genocide (against the Albigenses for example). Were the Crusades a tradition for the RCC?

It is also the equation to which we moderns must appeal when our wayward Christian brothers and sisters "wrest" the Scriptures to their own destruction:
[off topic]

The person you referred to in the horrible video shown was not a Christian and had no idea about what it meant to be a Christian.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

You are mistaken. The Catholic Church presents the most coherent, considerate, profound, accurate, insightful, and gracious presentation of Scripture the world has ever known. You're failure to see this is a matter not of Scripture or holiness, but a matter of an intellect which, influenced by the will, is bent against the legitimacy of the very Church established by Christ.

No it doesn't. I know. I was there. I never heard it.
There is a difference between hearing the facts, and personalizing the message.
IOW, how does this message apply to me? The RCC doesn't have a clue. Even their Catechism cannot describe the new birth in biblical terms.

These are expressions of human opinion, not divine revelation. They are, therefore, fallible. The Church teaches the legitimacy of Purgatory and Indulgences. However, "Mariolatry" and "Necromancy" are both condemned in the Catechism either directly or indirectly. If you would like me to explain specifically how it is that you are mistaken, I'd be happy to do so.

Yes, they are fallible, and the RCC teaches them as divine doctrine. Don't you see a problem?
If the Church Fathers taught them as legitimate, then obviously they were wrong, and that is why we do not rely on them.
Every prayer to Mary (e.g. "Hail Mary") is worship, that God alone should have, but God is being robbed from that worship, for Mary is being worshiped in God's place. This is the idolizing of Mary every time she is prayed to. It is wrong. It is idolatry.

 

[Adonia]

There is nothing else, my dear. All your 'tradition' and magisterium' are the works of men and roundly condemned by the Lord (Mark 7:6-13).
If you want to find the truth of the Bible, follow 1Peter 2:2 and 2 Timothy 2:15, and seek out godly teachers, not the ones who go round in long robes and demand to be called 'Father' (Matthew 23:5-10).[/QUOTE

There is nothing else, my dear. All your 'tradition' and magisterium' are the works of men and roundly condemned by the Lord (Mark 7:6-13).
If you want to find the truth of the Bible, follow 1Peter 2:2 and 2 Timothy 2:15, and seek out godly teachers, not the ones who go round in long robes and demand to be called 'Father' (Matthew 23:5-10).

"Works of men" like who? That's right, Martin Luther who ripped up the Holy Scriptures like confetti and then the other "reformers" who didn't even agree with him! And then we have the other charletans like Ellen White, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith and a host of other "pastors" and "evangelists" who have gotten so far away from orthodox Christianity it isn't even funny. And then the "Sola Scripturists" who have taken it upon themselves to divine things that were initially left to the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. Yes, the "works of men" are truly all over the place and have led countless souls to their destruction.

 

[Adonia]

They weren't opinions. Biblical truth compared to what the RCC catechism says is not simple opinion. The RCC is wrong because its teaching goes directly contrary to the Bible. I have demonstrated that many times. You call it "interpretive traditions." That is ironic! I don't have "interpretive traditions." What traditions do I hold to? Can you tell me? I left tradition behind when I left the RCC behind. I left Biblical illiteracy behind when I left the RCC behind.
When I left the RCC I started studying the Bible and memorizing it for myself. Without the help of anyone else I could clearly see how the teaching of the RCC contradicted the Bible.

The Bible itself says:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--This is a command you must avoid, run away from, if you are to obey the RCC. One cannot study the Bible and be allowed to come to their own conclusions like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11, can they? Sad.


If the church is the servant of Scripture, sola scriptura should be no problem should it?

No they don't. Jesus condemned tradition. Tradition is fallible. Tradition is much of the time sinful, has its origin, sometimes, in paganism. Though some tradition may be good, no tradition outside of the Bible is inspired or of God.

For example, they followed their Popes into wars against other peace-loving Christians and slaughtered them, committing genocide (against the Albigenses for example). Were the Crusades a tradition for the RCC?

The person you referred to in the horrible video shown was not a Christian and had no idea about what it meant to be a Christian.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


No it doesn't. I know. I was there. I never heard it.
There is a difference between hearing the facts, and personalizing the message.
IOW, how does this message apply to me? The RCC doesn't have a clue. Even their Catechism cannot describe the new birth in biblical terms.


Yes, they are fallible, and the RCC teaches them as divine doctrine. Don't you see a problem?
If the Church Fathers taught them as legitimate, then obviously they were wrong, and that is why we do not rely on them.
Every prayer to Mary (e.g. "Hail Mary") is worship, that God alone should have, but God is being robbed from that worship, for Mary is being worshiped in God's place. This is the idolizing of Mary every time she is prayed to. It is wrong. It is idolatry.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Ummmmmm, now where have I seen those words before? Wait a minute - wait a minute - I think I remember - that's right, I read them in the Holy Scriptures! Gee, if God thought Mary was "full of grace" and "blessed", maybe you should too?

And the prayer goes on: Holy Mary (Yes, she is holy as we all try to be); Mother of God (Yes, she is the earthly mother of God Incarnated); Pray for us sinners (Yes, as the Scriptures say she is alive in Christ as all Christians are and can pray for us - to Jesus of course!); now and at the hour of our death - Amen!

As usual, your contention that God is being robbed of something is patently ridiculous. His greatness is manifested in her and what she did for all of us. She has her rightful place in the salvation narrative because without her there was no Savior. So you need to get on your knees tonight during prayer time and thank God for her and that she assented to be the bearer of Our Lord onto this earth. She is the Theotokos!

 

[DHK]

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Ummmmmm, now where have I seen those words before? Wait a minute - wait a minute - I think I remember - that's right, I read them in the Holy Scriptures! Gee, if God thought Mary was "full of grace" and "blessed", maybe you should too?

And the prayer goes on: Holy Mary (Yes, she is holy as we all try to be); Mother of God (Yes, she is the earthly mother of God Incarnated); Pray for us sinners (Yes, as the Scriptures say she is alive in Christ as all Christians are and can pray for us - to Jesus of course!); now and at the hour of our death - Amen!

As usual, your contention that God is being robbed of something is patently ridiculous. His greatness is manifested in her and what she did for all of us. She has her rightful place in the salvation narrative because without her there was no Savior. So you need to get on your knees tonight during prayer time and thank God for her and that she assented to be the bearer of Our Lord onto this earth. She is the Theotokos!

Mary is a sinner and admitted as much.
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
--Here is Mary's admission that she, a sinner, is in need of a Saviour. Only sinners need a Savior. Why else would she use the word "Saviour"?

What is happening here? Have you considered this passage carefully?
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Mary and Joseph lived very poor lives. They had little income with Joseph being a carpenter.
The law required Mary to bring two sacrifices at this time: one for her own purification (for she was a sinner), and one for the circumcision of Jesus.

Jesus was Mary's firstborn. By Levitical law he was presented to be circumcised (Lev.12:3).
Leviticus 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

33 days later Mary had to come back for her own purification.
Leviticus 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

They brought two doves because they were poor otherwise they would have brought a lamb.
Here is what Mary did. Note carefully the terms used:
Leviticus 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
--The entire reason for this offering was to admit that she was a sinner. She was unclean and needed to be purified, not only physically, but spiritually. She was a sinner. This was a sin offering, an admission that she was a sinner in need of a Savior which she already admitted in Luke 1:47.

Furthermore, Mary is dead. Why do you pray to dead people? Do you go into the cemetery and pray to your great grand parents and other relatives who have passed away. Why would you pray to the dead? Muslims go to them tomb of Allah and there pray. Those in other religions often go to the tombs of their founders and there pray. Why pray to the founder of a religion. He is dead. We are commanded not to pray to the dead. This is the sin of necromancy condemned in the Bible. Do not pray to the dead.
The resurrection has not happened yet.
Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
--It doesn't matter if the person(s) is Mary or the apostles or all your dead relatives that are in a cemetery nearby--they are all dead. One doesn't pray to the dead.

Thus from Scripture we see Mary was a sinner; Mary is dead. A dead sinner cannot have a part in the salvation of anyone. I have a better chance of playing a part in your salvation than Mary or any of the apostles including Peter.
Why? Because I have been given the keys of the Kingdom. (the gospel).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"Works of men" like who? That's right, Martin Luther who ripped up the Holy Scriptures like confetti and then the other "reformers" who didn't even agree with him! And then we have the other charletans like Ellen White, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith and a host of other "pastors" and "evangelists" who have gotten so far away from orthodox Christianity it isn't even funny. And then the "Sola Scripturists" who have taken it upon themselves to divine things that were initially left to the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. Yes, the "works of men" are truly all over the place and have led countless souls to their destruction.

Oh! So you want to play rough, do you?
Do you know your Roman catholic history? Do you know about the forged 'donation of Constantine'? It allegedly bestowed on 'Pope' Sylvester (314-335) great property and even greater power. It was exposed in the 15th Century as an 8th Century forgery.
Do you know that during the 9th century, three Roman high-class prostitutes, Theodora the elder and her daughters Marozia and Theodora filled the papacy with their lovers and illegitimate children? Even Romanist historians acknowledge this.
Do you know that between 1044 & 1046 there were three wicked men (Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI) all claiming to be 'Pope'?
Do you know about the Great Schism (1378-1417) when there were 'Popes' in Rome and Avignon hurling anathemas at each other? Or the Inquisition, started by 'Pope Gregory IX and given to the Dominican monks, whereby tens of thousands of innocent folk were tortured and/or slaughtered? Or John XXIII, a 'clerical brigand' who was forced to resign because of his 'detestable life and unseemly manners? Or 'Pope' Julius' who went hunting every day and led troops into battle? Or the Borgia Pope? Or the Lollard burnings? And so on and so forth. I have read that more Christians have been murdered by the Church of Rome than by Islam. I.S. may have changed that, but it was true until relatively recently.

Plenty more where that came from. Whistling

 

[DHK]

1 of 2 to DHK
DHK,
You are talking right past me. I affirm the God-breathed authority of Scripture. You're not speaking to any of the distinctions that I'm making, which are themselves made in Scripture.

Believing in the God-breathed authority of Scripture is in effect believing in sola scriptura. If it is our inspired authority what authority is greater, which in essence is sola scriptura.

I don't reject Scripture. I believe it is inspired. I have said that numerous times now.

I am glad we can agree.

As I have said before, I am not here to prove anything. Both you and Revmitchell have suggested as much. It is a matter of fact and history that Christ did institute the Catholic Church.

Not true. That "fact" is fact according to the RCC. You read according to RCC history, not according to Baptist History. Try reading Baptist history by Thomas Armitage, and A History of the Baptists by John Christian. Authors such as these will demonstrate that it is the Baptists that take Christianity down to the Apostles, not the RCC.

And though I don't appeal to secular encyclopedias as a matter of faith, it is, at least a matter of secular history that Christ instituted the Catholic Church. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica states as much (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism)

Britannica claims no such thing. It simply says:

The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

IOW, The Catholic church makes the claim to go back as far back as the Apostle (We can't verify it as true or not--it is there claim and that is all).

as does the New World Encyclopedia, which states that "The Catholic Church has been the moving force in some of the major events of world history including the evangelization of Europe and Latin America, the spreading of literacy and the foundation of the Universities, hospitals, monasticism, the development of Art, Music and Architecture, the Inquisition, the Crusades, an analytical philosophical method, and the downfall ofCommunism in Eastern Europe in the late twentieth century." (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Roman_Catholic_Church).

Its statements are similar:

It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus Christ and led by the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter.
--It is the RCC that traces its own origins, just like the Mormon trace their own origins to Adam. Nothing new under the sun.
--So the RCC has spread many good social things across different nations. Good for them.
They have also spread torture, persecution against Christians, inquistions, Crusades, the murder of thousands, etc. This is well documented by various sources. Does the good out weigh the evil?

I, however, accept the witness of those who received the apostolic faith from those faithful Christians who handed to us that which they had received. This is the very principle according to which St. Paul wrote and it was indeed affirmed in both its written and its oral transmission by the Apostle himself when he said "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

"You accept the witness of those..." And who would those witnesses be?
I accept the inspired writings of the Lord written by the apostles, qualified so because they were witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What were the "witnesses" you speak of, a witness to?
The apostles taught their disciples. When Paul taught Timothy he taught him the Word of God, which things are now recorded for us in Scripture. What proof do you have that he taught him any tradition so-called that is outside of the Word of God, and what would that tradition be?
Keep in mind that Jesus condemned "tradition" per se.
"Paul said hold fast the "teachings" meaning "doctrine," those things that are found in the Word of God. What do you think Paul taught them that is not found in the Word of God and how would you go about demonstrating it?