Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

[SovereignGrace]

But didn't King Henry VIII leave the RCC and start the Church of England so he could be their head? He could not be the head of the RCC, seeing the Pope had that position all to himself. So, in a sense, Tyndale was killed by the RCC...just once removed from the RCC to the CoE.

 

[JonC]

Jesus ALWAYS quoted the OT scriptures, and NEVER the Apocraph/deutrocanoncal ones, and he saw that the OT ones were perfect in all that was recorded down, and that he gave SAME testimony to the NT yet to come, as the same Holy Spirit inspired Apostles just as he did the OT prophets!

When did Jesus EVER quote and use to answer critica anything using tradition of the Jews, and not the OT itself?

I wonder about Michael contending for the body of Moses (Jude 9). These are not the words of Christ, but they are also not (that I know of, anyway) of an event described elsewhere in scripture.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

ReformedBaptist,



As a matter of history, William Tyndale was not "strangled and burned at the stake" by the "Roman Catholic Church." He was put to death by a Protestant Head of Church and State, King Henry VIII. He famously died with a prayer for the King on his lips.

Further, nothing you said represents an attempt on your part to demonstrate the legitimacy of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Instead, I see nearly everything you said as presuming the legitimacy of the very thing in question between us.

My central claim here is that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not found in the Scriptures, revealed by an angel, spoken by a prophet, or otherwise given to us by God.

If you'd like to discuss this, or share with me why it is you disagree with that claim, I'd be happy to consider anything you have to share.

Thank you so much for your time!

Herbert

My goal here is to preach to you the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The evidence you seek for is the Scripture itself. When someone asked for me any evidence of any teaching I simply offer the Bible. It is sufficient.

Regarding Tyndale, I believe you are mistaken. Take, for example, the following:

A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

You may read of his murder and scores of others in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Your church is a persecuting church and is drunk with the blood of the martyrs. The fact that you defend them here shows you are a partaker of this evil. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey in June of 1528, the archbishop of York, searched diligently for Tyndale to have him arrested but could not find him. I will not recount the whole history as it is readily found online and otherwise. Simply because the papacy doesn't swing the axe doesn't absolve them of their murderous deeds.

How this "church" pursued the saints of God into the highways and byways persecuting them from one city to the next, men, women, and children being beaten, burnt, strangled, tortured, and cast over cliffs. And what was their crime? Holding to Scripture Alone. Holding to Christ Alone as the Head of the Church. Denying the cannibalistic doctrine of transubstantiation. Holding to faith alone. These and others were the charges held against them and after tried handed over to the executioner.

Over 50 million people were murdered at the hand of this church. She is drunk with the blood of the martyrs. Popes may pretend a repentance of such wicked deeds, but until the wicked doctrines and practices have changed she is just a tame dragon. But give her the authority and influence again, which she is so desperately trying to obtain again, and bible-believers like me will fall again under her wrath.

Yet, like our Reformed brethren before us, like the apostles of the Lord Jesus and early Christians under Pagan Rome, the Lord will hold us up again should we face persecutions by Papal Rome again. For now, her persecutions are limited.

 

[herbert]

ReformedBaptist,

Thanks again for your further engagement!

As I said, though:

My central claim here is that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not found in the Scriptures, revealed by an angel, spoken by a prophet, or otherwise given to us by God.

If you'd like to discuss this claim, or share with me why it is you disagree with it, I'd be happy to consider anything you have to share.

And although I certainly appreciate you taking time to share your opinions with me, I came here to discuss the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not to be judged according to it. The judging can come after the doctrine itself has been demonstrated to be revealed by God and worthy of belief.

Thanks again!

Herbert

 

[herbert]

SovereignGrace,

As a matter of history, William Tyndale was put to death by the Protestant Authorities of his day. I only pointed that out because ReformedBaptist made a false claim when s/he said:

I am glad that William Tyndale was faithful to the only Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, in translating the Holy Scriptures into English for which the Roman Catholic Church strangled and burned at the stake.

Thanks for your continued discussion!

Herbert

 

[Martin Marprelate]

SovereignGrace,

As a matter of history, William Tyndale was put to death by the Protestant Authorities of his day. I only pointed that out because ReformedBaptist made a false claim when s/he said:

Herbert

As a matter of history this is wrong and rather specious. Henry VIII was never a Protestant and continued to burn Protestants pretty much to the end of his life (google up Anne Askew). Harry Philips, the man who betrayed Tyndale was certainly a Roman Catholic. Tyndale was kidnapped in Antwerp and taken to Vilvorde which was ruled by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. He was charged with heresy against the Church of Rome- basically, being a Lutheran. Philips may have betrayed Tyndale with the thought of ingratiating himself with Henry, but it appears that Henry had no knowledge of Philips' plan.
Of course, until 1534 when he broke with Rome, Henry was still formally a Roman Catholic, and was seeking Tyndale through various secret agents. Tyndale was betrayed in 1535 and executed the following year. His prayer, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes" was graciously answered when Henry ordered English Bibles placed in all churches in 1538.

 

[DHK]

2 of V to DHK

I am so very glad you asked this. For I don't have the upper hand at all. I am just another man. But there is someone who does have the upper hand over both of us, Jesus Christ. And He established the Catholic Church. So it is that I appeal to the provision established by Christ which has "much greater authority" than either of us. As people, we're on equal footing. This is why, at best, Sola Scriptura is nothing but a private belief which you think (as a matter of opinion) I should accept, also. So according to Sola Scriptura our competing traditions do nothing more than "cancel each other out." Therefore, we, just as Christ indicated in Matthew 18, take our disagreements to the Church which has the authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sin, and to "cast out" the unrepentant sinner.

I may get to some of the other points raised later, But for now let's get right down to the basic core of disagreement. It is summed up in this paragraph which is:
The finality of the Bible vs. The finality of the RCC.

In your post here you say: "But there is someone who does have the upper hand over both of us, Jesus Christ. And He established the Catholic Church. So it is that I appeal to..."

But this is patently false. There is no Catholic Church in the NT, and there never was. Furthermore you can't prove there was or is. You don't have the evidence.
Here is what you need to do in order to prove your premise true (according to RCC theology)

1. That Peter was a bishop in Rome. (He wasn't. There is on evidence he was even in Rome. His remains have been found in Jerusalem).

2. That the RCC Is a "church." It isn't. The word "ekklesai" applies only to local churches. The word means assembly or congregation. The Bible does not teach of a universal or invisible church.

3. That the doctrines taught now in the RCC are the same doctrines that were taught by Christ and his apostles (purgatory, indulgences, praying to Mary, assumption of Mary, acceptance of the Apocrypha, sinlessness of Mary, immaculate conception, confession to a priest, with the priest having the power to forgive, etc.

4. That there is a succession of Popes down to Peter--not of elected officials but of appointed officials. Elections are not successions. For example if Francis were baptized by Benedict VI who would have been baptized by John Paul II, who would have been baptized by Paul VI, etc. then that would be succession by baptism. There is no such thing as succession by election. Thus the RCC has no real succession does it? They just claim they do.

5. Show that they are infallible, as to the Catechism, the Magesterium, etc. The Bible says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. These men are just like any other, and probably worse. My guess is that they were all unregenerate and none of them were actually born again of the Spirit of God. Those that are born again do not believe as they believed or commit such acts as they committed.

That is just for starters.
You have put your faith in an authority that is fallible and fails.
I put my faith in the author of the Lord God Almighty who cannot lie nor change, the One who gave to us His revelation, inspired and preserved to this day. I need no other authority but His.

 

[BobRyan]

I may get to some of the other points raised later, But for now let's get right down to the basic core of disagreement. It is summed up in this paragraph which is:
The finality of the Bible vs. The finality of the RCC.

In your post here you say: "But there is someone who does have the upper hand over both of us, Jesus Christ. And He established the Catholic Church. So it is that I appeal to..."

But this is patently false. There is no Catholic Church in the NT, and there never was. Furthermore you can't prove there was or is. You don't have the evidence.
Here is what you need to do in order to prove your premise true (according to RCC theology)

1. That Peter was a bishop in Rome. (He wasn't. There is on evidence he was even in Rome. His remains have been found in Jerusalem).

I am not sure it would matter if Peter was in Rome ever in his life or not. Peter being in Rome does not make the JWs the one true church - or the RCC the one true church.

2. That the RCC Is a "church." It isn't. The word "ekklesai" applies only to local churches. The word means assembly or congregation. The Bible does not teach of a universal or invisible church.

I don't think that helps your case - given the Acts 15 state of a global church body of leaders able to make a decision for all other churches.

3. That the doctrines taught now in the RCC are the same doctrines that were taught by Christ and his apostles (purgatory, indulgences, praying to Mary, assumption of Mary, acceptance of the Apocrypha, sinlessness of Mary, immaculate conception, confession to a priest, with the priest having the power to forgive, etc.

And of course the "powers of the priest to confect the body blood AND DIVINITY of Christ in the mass" -- I would include that one.

4. That there is a succession of Popes down to Peter--not of elected officials but of appointed officials. Elections are not successions. For example if Francis were baptized by Benedict VI who would have been baptized by John Paul II, who would have been baptized by Paul VI, etc. then that would be succession by baptism. There is no such thing as succession by election. Thus the RCC has no real succession does it? They just claim they do.

Given 3 rival popes all raising armies to fight each other - and all having successors - and all defrocked by Sigismund -- it is hard to argue for succession of anything.

And certainly no indication at all that Peter handed off some keys to someone.

5. Show that they are infallible, as to the Catechism, the Magesterium, etc. The Bible says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. These men are just like any other, and probably worse. My guess is that they were all unregenerate and none of them were actually born again of the Spirit of God. Those that are born again do not believe as they believed or commit such acts as they committed.

Given that the ecumencial council of LateranIV called for the "extermination of heretics and jews" which means "you" - and is now repudiated by the church going around and apologizing to the groups they tried to exterminate - and rejecting the idea of stealing people's property and driving them out of town with the thread of death - ... not very "infallible".


As noted in your post - "Give me the Bible instead".

 

[ReformedBaptist]

ReformedBaptist,

Thanks again for your further engagement!

As I said, though:

My central claim here is that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not found in the Scriptures, revealed by an angel, spoken by a prophet, or otherwise given to us by God.

If you'd like to discuss this claim, or share with me why it is you disagree with it, I'd be happy to consider anything you have to share.

And although I certainly appreciate you taking time to share your opinions with me, I came here to discuss the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not to be judged according to it. The judging can come after the doctrine itself has been demonstrated to be revealed by God and worthy of belief.

Thanks again!

Herbert

Herbert -

Jesus said, He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:48

Answer this question: By what, according to Jesus, will you be judged in the last day? By His Word or by your popes?

 

[herbert]

As a matter of history this is wrong and rather specious...

Martin,

In the exchange of conversation it's easy to not say things that should be said. I want to say that regardless of how one looks upon the case of William Tyndale, it is a shame and a scandal that things happened the way they did. I lament Tyndale's death and am glad that we Christians are no longer killing each other over these matters.

When I made my remark, it was my understanding that being an Englishman, having dedicated his life to bringing his translation to the people of England, and dying with a prayer for the King to open his eyes on his lips, Tyndale could be seen as dying not at the hands of the "Roman Catholic Church," but ultimately, as a final matter, at the hands of authorities under the jurisdiction of the then non-catholic King.

I now see that my comment was indeed somewhat specious in that Tyndale's death was probably moreso ultimately brought about under the jurisdiction of Charles V than under that of King Henry. So although I don't think it's fair to say the "Roman Catholic Church" killed Tyndale, I also see myself as having oversimplified the matter. I was mistaken. So sorry to both you and ReformedBaptist for my inaccuracy.

One of the reasons I do appreciate these conversations is that they lead me to learn more of our shared history, even the more horrendous and tragic parts of it, so thanks to you for helping me out in this area.

Herbert

 

[Yeshua1]

I wonder about Michael contending for the body of Moses (Jude 9). These are not the words of Christ, but they are also not (that I know of, anyway) of an event described elsewhere in scripture.

Think that this came from perhaps something like the Assumption of Moses, or Book of Enoch either way, would show to us that even in uninspired writings, there might be some truth in them, but that the Holy Spirit would bring them out to us!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not sure what this: "When did Jesus EVER quote and use to answer critica anything using tradition of the Jews, and not the OT itself?" means. Could you please re-phrase that?

Herbert

Jesus alwats stated and appealed to the canon OT texts only in his debates.discussions with Satan and the religious leaders, so e should see that he did not give equal value to "tradition", as the church of Rome does!

 

[herbert]

Martin,

I have another response to you which has become quite lengthy. Because of that, I am going to keep it for now and possibly draw from it as the conversation proceeds. For now, here goes:

There is a big difference between seeking to establish a probability through induction and demonstrating an unavoidable truth through deduction. The former may point to, suggest, or indicate something, even strongly. But it cannot prove it. The latter, however, can. Because everything you have presented thus far represents, at best, an argument by induction, you have not demonstrated, with the certainty of unassailable premises and the sound conclusions they produce, the veracity of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Until you do this, I don't see that Sola Scriptura can be viewed as an authentic Christian doctrine.
If you don’t agree with what I’m saying here, could you please tell me why?

Thank you.

Herbert

 

[Adonia]

Jesus alwats stated and appealed to the canon OT texts only in his debates.discussions with Satan and the religious leaders, so e should see that he did not give equal value to "tradition", as the church of Rome does!

And then along came the Apostles and brought this idea of tradition to the fore. As they were moving along after Christ was here, they were actually establishing the traditions for the successive waves of Christians who would be following them. And this did not end with the Apostles, but also went on into the early centuries.

Maybe Jesus did not give "equal value" to the old traditions, but the Bishops of the newly emerging Christian Church certainly took heed of the new one's that had been established.

 

[Yeshua1]

And then along came the Apostles and brought this idea of tradition to the fore. As they were moving along after Christ was here, they were actually establishing the traditions for the successive waves of Christians who would be following them. And this did not end with the Apostles, but also went on into the early centuries.

Maybe Jesus did not give "equal value" to the old traditions, but the Bishops of the newly emerging Christian Church certainly took heed of the new one's that had been established.

Again, the is NO Apostolic succession, and the Church of Rome was NOT the one Jesus Founded, and ALL tradition so called that God intended for us are all ready included in the Canon of scripture, 66 Books, and NO additional traditions/revelations came after that!

 

[DHK]

I am not sure it would matter if Peter was in Rome ever in his life or not. Peter being in Rome does not make the JWs the one true church - or the RCC the one true church.

Truth is not built on a lie.
There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome, not even his remains are in Rome.
Here are a couple of lies promoted by the RCC:
1. That Peter was the first Pope at Rome[,/b] and secondly, that he ruled from there for 25 years. That is far-fetched fable, myth. No, rather it is just a plain out lie. And yet it is the premise of their religion, that all the Popes of Rome descended from Peter the first Pope of Rome. RCC is built on lies.

I don't think that helps your case - given the Acts 15 state of a global church body of leaders able to make a decision for all other churches.

In Acts 15 there is but one church: The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem,
It had but one pastor, Pastor James.
The other apostles, elders, and representatives met there to discuss the matter of legalism, which was a perversion of the gospel and to make a public statement to all that this heresy should not be accepted by any of the churches. It was then given in letter form to Paul to carry with him as he traveled on his missionary journeys.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
--James was the pastor; James made the decision.

And of course the "powers of the priest to confect the body blood AND DIVINITY of Christ in the mass" -- I would include that one.

Given 3 rival popes all raising armies to fight each other - and all having successors - and all defrocked by Sigismund -- it is hard to argue for succession of anything.

And certainly no indication at all that Peter handed off some keys to someone.

No he didn't. He wasn't a bishop, a pope, a pastor, etc. He took a sharp rebuke from Paul. The "keys" are simply the gospel. I have those keys as well.

Given that the ecumencial council of LateranIV called for the "extermination of heretics and jews" which means "you" - and is now repudiated by the church going around and apologizing to the groups they tried to exterminate - and rejecting the idea of stealing people's property and driving them out of town with the thread of death - ... not very "infallible".

As noted in your post - "Give me the Bible instead".

The Popes were never infallible in anything. Their shedding of innocent blood in the past proves it.
Their meeting with modern day terrorists of today proves it.
The Bible is our authority, not the popes, not the RCC.

 

[Adonia]

Again, the is NO Apostolic succession, and the Church of Rome was NOT the one Jesus Founded, and ALL tradition so called that God intended for us are all ready included in the Canon of scripture, 66 Books, and NO additional traditions/revelations came after that!

Yes, the Canon of Scripture - duly compiled by the Bishops of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. There was no other - just one - and that is the truth!

 

[Yeshua1]

Martin,

I have another response to you which has become quite lengthy. Because of that, I am going to keep it for now and possibly draw from it as the conversation proceeds. For now, here goes:

There is a big difference between seeking to establish a probability through induction and demonstrating an unavoidable truth through deduction. The former may point to, suggest, or indicate something, even strongly. But it cannot prove it. The latter, however, can. Because everything you have presented thus far represents, at best, an argument by induction, you have not demonstrated, with the certainty of unassailable premises and the sound conclusions they produce, the veracity of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Until you do this, I don't see that Sola Scriptura can be viewed as an authentic Christian doctrine.
If you don’t agree with what I’m saying here, could you please tell me why?

Thank you.

Herbert

John stated that ALL saved have the annoiting of the Holy Spirit to be able to understand the truths of the Bible, and all doctrines and practices per paul are found in the Bible, so when Rome gets so many of her doctrines from man made traditions that violate the Bible, what is up with that?

And you realise that Rome claiming to be the infallible teacher of what the Bible means is exactly same as Mormons and JW, right?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 10pm Pacific thread will be closed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, the Canon of Scripture - duly compiled by the Bishops of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. There was no other - just one - and that is the truth!

There are but 66 canonized Books of the Bible, and the Rome Church did NOT create them, they merely formally recognised what had been accepted as being sacred texts pretty much from of the Apostles themselves!