Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[herbert]

iii of iv to DHK

Again, St. Paul is teaching that Gospel message of justification by faith. Notice, though, in these numerous cases, he never drives home the point that ALL works are divorced from this saving faith of which he speaks. Again, elsewhere he describes on numerous occasions the love in the charity of Christ that will naturally flow from a saving faith. It's again, the forced distinction (denied in numerous other passages of Scripture) that represents the mis-understanding of St. Paul. This is, again, an error that the Church has refused to stamp with approval for 500 years. For the Church, as servant of the Scriptures, hasn't the authority to twist the meaning of Scripture any more than she has the authority to allow divorce and "remarriage," condone abortion, and support any number of other unGodly practices.

Romans 6:16: "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness"


Another important passage to consider is this one. As I see it, this passage directly conflicts with your (implied) reading of Ephesians 2:8-9. Why? I see it as contradicting what it is you seem to imply because once again, St. Paul is driving home the point of the importance of obedience. Obedience "leads to" righteousness. What is righteousness but justification? So if "justification" is a done deal when faith is in the heart, what's the point of obedience "lead(ing)" to righteousness? Well, this is the obedience that is made in Christ. A believer is a new creation in Christ and is, like his Master, bound to do good works in Him. Obedience, then, is key, just as Christ says "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." Here, like St. Paul, our Lord doesn't say anything about "faith alone" representing a fulfilled contract in any legalistic manner. Rather, relationship, obedience, trust, a living faith, these are the concepts presented by the whole of the New Testament and here, by Christ Himself.

There's also that question of Galatians 5:19-21 and 6:7-9. Here St. Paul says: "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption (eternal death); but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart."

Notice that little "if" he throws in there at the end. This isn't just the rambling of an itinerant preacher. These are the very words of the Holy Spirit uttered through the inspired authors of Scripture. And there it is, that word "if." That if represents a conditional state. Let's look at that again: "Let us not grow weary in well-doing (These are works of love in Christ done in continual obedience and informed by faith), for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart."

In other places, the implications of what I'm saying are driven home even further. For example, in that famous passage put to such good use by Soren Kierkegaard we read:

"work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in [him], both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13).

Here again is a presentation of the saving gospel that is made manifest not through some instantaneous declaration on God's part (though that's part of it), but through, like everything else from marriage to growing up, relationship. But not mere human or natural relationship... but through supernatural relationship effected by grace through faith which expresses itself in such a way as to make humans to become participants in the very nature of God (2 Peter 1:4).

A great writer and convert to the faith whom I admire contrasts these two passages:

1. Jesus says "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live."

2. He also says: "...If you would enter life, keep the commandments... You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

This is a picture of faith + works of charity done in Christ... of the faith "expressing itself in love," as St. Paul worded it.

And there's Matthew 12:37: "...for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

So much for the "eternal assurance" promised to you by those mistaken but well-meaning friends in the dormitory.

For example, Christ did not "just die," He died for each and every one, that whoever should trust him should have eternal life.

Yes. I agree with that.

 

[herbert]

iv of iv to DHK

Who will trust him? Those who need him will trust him. Only those in need of a Savior will call for a Savior. IOW, all men are sinners, but unless one is willing to admit he is a sinner, in fact a criminal before God he will not be saved. It is that person that realizes he has no hope, no promise, no way out, He is doomed. Only then, when he realizes there is nothing left to turn to, will he turn to Christ, for then Christ can be his Savior and He will trust him as Lord and Savior of his life.
When that happens Christ not only becomes his Savior, but Lord. That means that implicit in salvation is service. There is an immediate Lord/servant relationship, just as there is an immediate Father/son relationship. At this time also Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, takes up residence in the believer. Now being indwelt with the Holy Spirit he is able to understand the scriptures which beforehand he couldn't. Thus it is not just intellectual, it is very spiritual.
The Holy Spirit must be there to convict of sin.

I admit that I am a sinner. I have no hope apart from Him. I, therefore, turn to Christ for salvation. "Lord, have mercy upon me, a sinner." He is the Lord of my life. What is your point with all of this? you have no corner on the humility market. And to the extent your presentation of these truths is right and Biblical, you're repeating Catholic doctrine.

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

Yes. I affirm all of those things.

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

I am not following you. I wasn't attempting to misrepresent you or anyone else. I was just saying that it is possible that a person could be preaching false doctrine while holding a Bible. This is what I would say that you're doing in some ways (although you're certainly quite orthodox in many ways).

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

If you don't have personal qualifications are you really teaching the Bible? You brought up the fact that you teach the Bible. Now you're saying that you just basically repeat what the Bible says. Well, why, then, would a literate person need you at all, then? Are you really teaching anything? According to the way you just described the situation, a person would be just fine grabbing a Bible off the shelf and reading it.

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

I am saying that one can understand certain aspects of St. Paul's teaching concerning justification to be well-aligned with the Church's teachings concerning Purgatory. I am not saying, however, that St. Paul explicitly taught it, however.

I don't have an unbiblical system, and you just demonstrated that point.
You suggested purgatory. You cannot defend through the scriptures that ungodly doctrine. If you could, you would.

DHK, you originally brought up Purgatory. It was I who said that it would be better left to be dealt with further down the line as Sola Scriptura is the initial mistake you've accepted by which you have come to reject some of the Church's other doctrines.

It is not Biblical. It is ungodly; a man-made doctrine. Can you defend it? Sola scriptura will be a good test for you here.

I'd be happy to discuss Purgatory. But since it's a railcar somewhere quite a ways down the tracks AFTER the engine, I do suggest putting that conversation of for a time. Again, it seems as though you're attempting to go with the "best defense is a good offense" approach to this conversation. The problem, though, is that I initially responded to your "challenge." Once I did that, though, you re-worded things, suggested removal of the term "challenge" and generally obfuscated, went on the offensive, begged the question, accused me of having an emotional outburst, etc.

My point remains, however: Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine revealed by God, an angel, a prophet, or Scripture itself. It is, therefore, not to be regarded as a binding doctrine upon any Christian. And though you've referred to bald Scripture many times, which has certainly demonstrated the authority of Scripture, you've presented nothing which demonstrates the "sole" authority of Scripture. So, let's just say that you have done that and I somehow missed it. Could you please, instead of talking about a bunch of other stuff, just this once, for my confusion's sake, repeat a simple, direct, and clear refutation of the following claim:

"Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine revealed by God, an angel, a prophet, or Scripture itself and it is therefore not to be regarded as binding upon any Christian."

Thanks,

Herbert

 

[DHK]

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

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

This is your statement not mine:

Because when you say this, what you mean is the very specific and unBiblical idea that God speaks "only" through His Word (and not through the Church).

Notice that you are the one that juxtaposed "the Church" against "the Bible." I was speaking about the Bible, The Word and you took the time to correct me, immediately posting and not through the Church.
Thus you are the one who contrasted the two, not I.
Furthermore you simply post propaganda when it comes to defining "The Church" in the light of the Bible. You have no evidence that the RCC is "The Church" spoken of in the NT.
It is like this:
You say "The moon is made of green cheese."
You want me to believe this although you don't have any evidence. You say it is true and it always has been true. You don't have to prove it to me. Some things are just accepted by faith. Just accept by faith that the moon is made of green cheese.
Do you think I am mad? Crazy? Anyone else would. Thus a man needs evidence if he makes such a statement that either the moon is made of cheese or that the RCC is the church that is spoken of in the NT. But you have no evidence and fail to present evidence.

Notice, too, how you pit these two things, both of which are, Biblically speaking, divinely appointed, against one another and thus, once again, beg the question by presuming "Sola Scriptura."

Excuse me. You pitted the two against each other. I only responded to your statement. If you hadn't made that statement the conversation would not have made that turn.

However, now that it has the question must be asked, and it is a question of authority.
Who or what is your authority?
My authority is the Word, God's revelation to mankind.
You say that your authority is "The Church," that is the RCC.
My authority is inspired of God and infallible. God is the author.
Your authority is corrupt, man made, full of a trail of murder, corruption sex scandals, etc. It is not a divinely ordained institution whatsoever. This organization that you belong to has nothing to do with the Bride of Christ that Christ often refers to.

For only by presuming Sola Scriptura would you subjugate the rightly co-operative role, authority, and identity of the Church to your preferred doctrine. In other words, you're presuming the very thing in question: That the Bible is the "sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian."

The Bible has always been the sole authority for the believer. "Sole" means final.

Please read:
The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html
Read the entire article.

There are a few problems here:

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

"Sole" means "only" or as the Baptists usually frame it "final."
From the same site referenced above here is an accurate definition:

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
--Thus Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.
It is not speaking of Math and science, it is speaking of our faith, doctrine, and Christian walk.

To say that "faith is a gift from God" is debatable. Many of the Calvinists here may agree with you but I don't. Jesus said that unless you be as one of these children you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What was he referring to? He was referring to faith. The small children have simplistic faith in their parents that they will protect, provide, nourish, etc., them, and not a stranger. Therefore we often see how a small child goes only to their parents and not to a stranger. Faith is innate, not a gift. We all have faith. Faith is exercised every day. A person (man) puts his faith in his wife, children, etc. What would their family be like if their was no faith, no trust? Faith is innate. Jesus, over and over again said: "THY faith has made you whole." He commended "their faith."

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

Good. If they are given by God then they are authoritative. This debate is a matter of authority. Which authority do we go to? The authority that God gave us is his Word.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

 

[DHK]

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

Again:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
--Prove means to test, test on the basis of the Word of God, and on that basis reject or accept.
That is what sola scriptura is all about.
Here are some other translations to give you an idea of the sense of the verse:

(KJV-1611) Proue all things: hold fast that which is good.

(LITV) Test all things, hold fast the good.

(MKJV) Prove all things, hold fast to the good.

(WNT) but test all such, and retain hold of the good.
--We always test everything against or according to the Word of God.

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

1. Where is your evidence that the moon is made up of green cheese? Convince me. If you can't provide evidence for such foolish statements don't make them.
2. Where is your evidence that the "Church" spoken of in the Bible is the RCC? Convince me. If you can't provide evidence for such foolish statements don't make them. It is just propaganda.
3. If you have any evidence at all, convincing evidence you would provide it; but I haven't seen any.

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

Then that leads us to authority once again.
How is Christ revealed?
The RCC does have mystics. Do you believe you must go to a mystic? Is He mystically revealed to you, or even somehow through the paranormal?
Is Christ revealed through the RCC, "The Church," thus "The Church" becoming your authority?
Is Christi revealed through His Word, thus sola scriptura, for His Word becomes the authority?
What is your authority? Mysticism? The Church? The Word? What?
How is Christ revealed to you? What is the source?
Christ is revealed to me through His Word, the only way He can be known to us in this day and age. If He is known by any in any other way, it will be "another Christ," another spirit," and not the Christ of the Bible. Beware of false Christs, the Bible says.

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

You don't have to be an official spokesperson for anyone. A person can be accepted or rejected here according to the purpose for which they come. You do well at friendly debate unlike some other Catholics in the past. There have been some that were not interested in debate at all. They came either to proselytize or advertise (put up their propaganda). It is easy for a person to be a cheerleader for the RCC, quoting its epithets, pushing its doctrines, all the while avoiding the questions of others and debating. If one is here just to use this place to advertise their own religion they are here for the wrong reason.

7) You've repeated the request that I "prove" my position.

Can you prove that the moon is made of green cheese. I hope you are getting my point.

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

It is not a matter of strongarming. It is a matter of providing the evidence.
Whether it is the assumption that "The Church" is the RCC, or,
Peter was in Rome and was the first pope, or,
Purgatory is a Biblical doctrine, etc.
--evidence must be given. No one here is going to accept these things at face value just because you say so. They are Catholic doctrines, but we do not agree they are Christian doctrines. Therefore the burden of proof lies on you to convince us of their legitimacy.

8) Finally, and I've said this before, my goal here isn't to "convert" you back to the Faith. I'd be happy to simply play some small role in your coming to recognize and admit the fact that the Bible does not actually teach Sola Scriptura.

The article I gave you does a good job of presenting the facts and demonstrating how the Bible teaches sola scriptura. It answers the Catholic's objections. I urge you to read it.
http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Were that to happen, I'd be very pleased. Beyond that, then, it's possible that you could come to see that the Catholic Church was indeed founded by Christ and that you were wrong to leave her so many years ago.

The light of the world is Jesus. I came to the light and was saved. I left the darkness of the RCC.

But that would probably take a while and you'd have 40 years worth of Biblical Fundamentalism to "rinse off," which might take a while, also.

When I was saved I wasn't a fundamentalist. Salvation has nothing to do with fundamentalism. The new birth has nothing to do with fundamentalism. Every evangelical I know understands salvation, but the Catholic does not, and the Catechism doesn't teach it. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

After that, though, you may come to see that some imagined Age of Apostasy never took place, that Christ's Church was founded by the Lord Himself and that God's superintendence of it wasn't conditioned upon the impeccability of the men and women within it... and finally, then, you might come to accept, in faith, that the Pope is actually the 265th Successor to St. Peter.
1. There is that assumption that you cannot prove, have no evidence for and accept blindly without any basis just as a young Muslim man accepts blindly the "fact" that he will go to paradise if he blows himself up as a martyr for Allah. Your blind faith without evidence is equal to his. Both have no evidence and are not based on any fact. They are based on blind faith.

2. The present pope did not succeed anyone, and you know that. He was elected.
3. Peter never was a Pope, bishop, or pastor. Neither was he ever in Rome. His bones were recently discovered in Jerusalem. So much for the foundation of the popes of the RCC. If the foundation be destroyed what does that do for the rest of your house of cards??

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

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

That's why it's so important that we discuss our doctrines and their respective bases.

Yes it is. But my position is always based on the Bible, and I can say, "According to the Bible I am right and you are wrong. If I am wrong then show me from the Bible where I am wrong." This is lacking.

Because that first statement you wrote above is about me as a person. It is directed at me "the man" and not at my arguments and criticisms of your position. Please address my point, not my person. In this case I am calling you to look to the Bible whose contents you claim to uphold to show me that it teaches Sola Scriptura.

I often say "You are wrong according to what the Word of God teaches." I don't say you are wrong on any other basis unless it is personal or historical.

Earlier you admitted that it was an "inferred" doctrine. ... I believe you are wrong here, at least wrong in quoting me. I said it is as inferred as much as the doctrine of the trinity is inferred. If the trinity is truth that you believe then you ought to believe sola scripura. Both are as much as "inferred truth" as the other. If one falls so does the other. I wasn't making my position weak. I was strengthening it.

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

The discussion has been about Catholicism.
However, in discussing sola scriptura, it is in relation to the RCC and thus in relation to authority.
The RCC rejects soal scriptura because they reject the authority of the Bible. Their authority is "The Church." But they don't have the evidence that this "Church" (RCC specifically) is found in the Bible. Assumptions are not good enough. Provide the evidence.

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

If the moon is made out of green cheese prove it.
If the RCC is the church in the NT where is your evidence?
Don't just post things without the solid evidence that it is true; otherwise it is advertising and propaganda. It has no truth to it. Truth needs to have a basis, a reason to be true. Why believe what you believe if you don't know if it is true?

 

[herbert]

DHK,

I'll get to the rest later. But for now, I'd like to quickly respond to this:

Notice that you are the one that juxtaposed "the Church" against "the Bible." I was speaking about the Bible, The Word and you took the time to correct me, immediately posting and not through the Church.
Thus you are the one who contrasted the two, not I.

Yes, but I did this because since I began posting here it is you who have said, at least a 327 times, that there is "no church, just churches." You've been sidelining the church since I showed up here. You've been promoting the idea that it's all "SOLA" Scriptura. This is why I said "Because when you say this, what you mean is the very specific and unBiblical idea that God speaks "only" through His Word (and not through the Church)." Was I not corrrect to characterize your position in this way? And if I wasn't, has your position changed suddenly?

Was it not a fair restatement of your position for me to characterize your ideas in this way? I'm the one who's been arguing Scriptures + Church while you've been saying "There is no church, only churches" and telling me that my ecclesiology is terribly distorted. Isn't it fair to summarize your position by saying "Because when you say this, what you mean is the very specific and unBiblical idea that God speaks "only" through His Word (and not through the Church)." If it isn't, please tell me how the Church + Scripture position you've apparently just recently adopted can be squared with nearly everything you've said since I showed up including your repeated statement about there being no church, only churches or "local assemblies."

But seriously, you're the one who's placed the Bible as the final and sole "rule of faith," not me. I was just drawing out the essence of your position in clearer terms, then you called me out... So what is it, DHK? Is it Church + Bible or Bible Alone?

You've been saying "either/or" while I've been saying "both/and" al along. Now it sounds as though, for rhetorical purposes, you're trying to play the "both/and" card. Is there an authoritative and unified universal Church which, working hand in hand with Scripture, acts authoritatively? Or was my characterization of your position accurate?

Herbert

 

[DHK]

DHK,

I'll get to the rest later. But for now, I'd like to quickly respond to this:

Yes, but I did this because since I began posting here it is you who have said, at least a 327 times, that there is "no church, just churches." You've been sidelining the church since I showed up here.

I am not sure where the "327" comes in. You might have to explain that one.
I have said that the Bible uses the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" 430 times in the Bible which is an argument for sola scriptura. The Lord speaks "His exact words" through the prophet. That is sola scriptura. It is the finality of the Word of God, that He Himself utters through His prophets, and He did so at least 430 times.

You've been promoting the idea that it's all "SOLA" Scriptura. This is why I said "Because when you say this, what you mean is the very specific and unBiblical idea that God speaks "only" through His Word (and not through the Church)." Was I not corrrect to characterize your position in this way? And if I wasn't, has your position changed suddenly?

1. Not and never through the Roman Catholic Church, which is what you simply assume when you read "Church," and so assume without evidence.
2. Paul writes to Timothy as the pastor of the local church at Ephesus with these instructions:
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
--Instructions how to behave in the local church at Ephesus. In so doing he describes the church, not the building but the church, the members, the assembly (ekklesia).
They are the pillar and ground of the truth. First the truth is doctrine; that is the Word of God.
A pillar is a support. It holds up the porch of the temple. Spiritually it holds up the Bible, proclaiming the truth to all around. The church has a foundation upon which it must rest. The Bible is the foundation of every biblical local church. The Bible is both the pillar and the foundation of the local church. It rests upon it and the local church proclaims it, but in order to do so the local church must first have an understanding of the Bible. The Bible, God's revelation to mankind, always comes first. It is our authority. Everything we do is based on it. The reason a believer is baptized is because the Bible commands it. That is sola scriptura.

Was it not a fair restatement of your position for me to characterize your ideas in this way? I'm the one who's been arguing Scriptures + Church while you've been saying "There is no church, only churches" and telling me that my ecclesiology is terribly distorted.

Not only is it distorted, you read "RCC" into the Bible without any justification.
Thus my example: Is the moon made up of green cheese. Can you demonstrate it?
You have as much evidence in proving the moon is made of green cheese as you have evidence that "The Church" in the Bible is the RCC or that Peter is the first pope. You simply say these things and then assume they are true.

Isn't it fair to summarize your position by saying "Because when you say this, what you mean is the very specific and unBiblical idea that God speaks "only" through His Word (and not through the Church)." If it isn't, please tell me how the Church + Scripture position you've apparently just recently adopted can be squared with nearly everything you've said since I showed up including your repeated statement about there being no church, only churches or "local assemblies."

Yes they are local churches. There is no such thing as a universal church. The word used for church is ekklesia which means "assembly." It is impossible to have an "unassembled assembly."
The Bible does not speak of any such animal. Nor does it speak of a denomination. Nor does it speak of any kind of hierarchical organization. It never speaks of anything remotely similar to what the RCC is. It speaks only of local churches.
Nevertheless, these local churches have the Bible as their authority.

The duty of the pastor:
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
--This is sola scriptura from the top down. Hold fast or true to the Bible and in doing so, through that same Word both exhort and convince

(EMTV) holding fast to the faithful word as he was taught, that he may be able to exhort by sound doctrine, and to convince those who oppose it.

(ESV) He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
--The pastor ought to be able both to instruct and convince, with the Bible, those who oppose and contradict the Bible. This is sola scriptura. The Bible is our foundation; our authority; the authority of all the churches.

But seriously, you're the one who's placed the Bible as the final and sole "rule of faith," not me. I was just drawing out the essence of your position in clearer terms, then you called me out... So what is it, DHK? Is it Church + Bible or Bible Alone?

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (the scriptures).
If the church is the pillar and ground of the truth or Scriptures then it is the scriptures that are the authority, and not the church.

(WNT) But, for fear I may be hindered, I now write, so that you may have rules to guide you in dealing with God's household. For this is what the Church of the ever-living God is, and it is the pillar and foundation-stone of the truth.

(YLT) and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth thee to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God--a pillar and foundation of the truth,

You've been saying "either/or" while I've been saying "both/and" al along. Now it sounds as though, for rhetorical purposes, you're trying to play the "both/and" card. Is there an authoritative and unified universal Church which, working hand in hand with Scripture, acts authoritatively? Or was my characterization of your position accurate?

There would be no need for the church if there was no word. God ordained churches according to His Word. His Word is the authority. We have churches because we have God's Word. God gave us the Word. The Word came first, not the church/churches. The first church was the church at Jerusalem. Peter preached the first sermon, a sermon filled with scripture, a sermon preached before the church came into existence on that day, the Day of Pentecost. What did he preach? He preached the Word of God, and that word was final. That is sola scriptura.

 

[Adonia]

Again:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
--Prove means to test, test on the basis of the Word of God, and on that basis reject or accept.
That is what sola scriptura is all about.
Here are some other translations to give you an idea of the sense of the verse:

(KJV-1611) Proue all things: hold fast that which is good.

(LITV) Test all things, hold fast the good.

(MKJV) Prove all things, hold fast to the good.

(WNT) but test all such, and retain hold of the good.
--We always test everything against or according to the Word of God.


1. Where is your evidence that the moon is made up of green cheese? Convince me. If you can't provide evidence for such foolish statements don't make them.
2. Where is your evidence that the "Church" spoken of in the Bible is the RCC? Convince me. If you can't provide evidence for such foolish statements don't make them. It is just propaganda.
3. If you have any evidence at all, convincing evidence you would provide it; but I haven't seen any.


Then that leads us to authority once again.
How is Christ revealed?
The RCC does have mystics. Do you believe you must go to a mystic? Is He mystically revealed to you, or even somehow through the paranormal?
Is Christ revealed through the RCC, "The Church," thus "The Church" becoming your authority?
Is Christi revealed through His Word, thus sola scriptura, for His Word becomes the authority?
What is your authority? Mysticism? The Church? The Word? What?
How is Christ revealed to you? What is the source?
Christ is revealed to me through His Word, the only way He can be known to us in this day and age. If He is known by any in any other way, it will be "another Christ," another spirit," and not the Christ of the Bible. Beware of false Christs, the Bible says.

You don't have to be an official spokesperson for anyone. A person can be accepted or rejected here according to the purpose for which they come. You do well at friendly debate unlike some other Catholics in the past. There have been some that were not interested in debate at all. They came either to proselytize or advertise (put up their propaganda). It is easy for a person to be a cheerleader for the RCC, quoting its epithets, pushing its doctrines, all the while avoiding the questions of others and debating. If one is here just to use this place to advertise their own religion they are here for the wrong reason.


Can you prove that the moon is made of green cheese. I hope you are getting my point.

It is not a matter of strongarming. It is a matter of providing the evidence.
Whether it is the assumption that "The Church" is the RCC, or,
Peter was in Rome and was the first pope, or,
Purgatory is a Biblical doctrine, etc.
--evidence must be given. No one here is going to accept these things at face value just because you say so. They are Catholic doctrines, but we do not agree they are Christian doctrines. Therefore the burden of proof lies on you to convince us of their legitimacy.

The article I gave you does a good job of presenting the facts and demonstrating how the Bible teaches sola scriptura. It answers the Catholic's objections. I urge you to read it.
http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html


The light of the world is Jesus. I came to the light and was saved. I left the darkness of the RCC.

When I was saved I wasn't a fundamentalist. Salvation has nothing to do with fundamentalism. The new birth has nothing to do with fundamentalism. Every evangelical I know understands salvation, but the Catholic does not, and the Catechism doesn't teach it. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

I went and read the piece at "got questions" and I am sorry to say that it does not answer Catholic objections. As you know, we believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, especially when it comes down to interpreting the Scriptures. Not me, not Herbert, and certainly not you are the person's who should be believed about what is true as regards the Holy Writ. It's looking to the Church for clarity and it's that simple.

As for "evidence", it is you that continues to ignore the evidence, the historical evidence of the One Universal (Catholic) Church. From the Apostles, to the newly forming Christian Church in the early years all the way down to this time. Yes, you are right, there was but one Christian Church, no denominations, just one and it wasn't known as the "Baptist Church" either.

 

[herbert]

1 of 4

Excuse me. You pitted the two against each other. I only responded to your statement. If you hadn't made that statement the conversation would not have made that turn.

DHK, as I said above, I was just putting a finer point on your statement. My doing so, based upon having read every word you've shared here thus far, was entirely justified as I was just clarifying what it is you mean when you talk about the Bible's Authority. You’ve been arguing for insisting upon Sola Scriptura all along here.

However, now that it has the question must be asked, and it is a question of authority.

Who or what is your authority?

Jesus Christ is my authority (He's everyone's authority, whether they know it or not!). Christ is the Head of the Church. He established the Church and members of the Church are called “Christians” since they are under His authority.

My authority is the Word, God's revelation to mankind.

There are some problems here:


1) You've put a book, a written record, in the place rightly occupied by Christ. Does the term "Bibliolatry" fit? I don't know. But it seems to me that to place anything other than Christ in that ultimate place of authority is to demonstrate a "preference for the incidental good over the eternal good which it signifies."


2) God has revealed Himself in many ways, as I said earlier. The supreme and ultimate way by which God has revealed Himself is through the Incarnation of Christ. He's also revealed Himself through Scripture. Scripture says, too, that He's revealed Himself through the Church. St. Paul goes so far as to say that Christ and the Church are mysteriously one (Ephesians 5:32).


3) Nowhere within the pages of Scripture are we taught that the Bible is the "sole" or the "final" authority. I've said this approximately 637 times. And you've never addressed this distinction I keep making. You take the Bible's authority and make it the "only" authority. That is where your unBiblical misstep occurs. You, however, have neither defended your position in response to this criticism nor so much as expressed an idea that reveals that you actually understand the criticism that is being presented. Do you understand the difference between "an authority" and "the authority"? Further, do you understand that the Bible can be "an authority" without being "the authority"? And if you don't accept the idea that the Bible can be "an authority" without being "the authority" could you please explain why?


4) The “Word of God” is a phrase which isn’t limited to Scripture. It is defined as “the manifestation of the mind and will of God.” The Gospel itself (the Good News of Christ) is also rightly referred to as the “Word of God.” Most profoundly, Christ is the “Word” become flesh. Scripture is also the “Word of God.” So any Christian would say that “the Word” is his authority. You don’t have a corner on that market, either.

You say that your authority is "The Church," that is the RCC.

• I say that my authority is Christ.
  
  
• Before Christ’s Ascension, He conferred upon men His divine authority.
  
  
• He granted them the Keys to the Kingdom.
  
  
• He gave them the authority to bind and loose.
  
  
• He granted them the authority to forgive and retain sin.
  
  
• He promised them the Holy Spirit who’d lead them into all truth.
  
  
• He instructed them to teach all that He commanded.
  
  
• He never said a word about them recording all that was necessary to be known on paper and compiling the teachings to serve as the “sole” authority for all matters of faith and “practice.”
  
  
• On Pentecost the Descent of the Holy Spirit which was promised by Christ occurred.
  
  
• Over time, growing like an acorn grows into an oak, we can trace this early Church through history.
  
  
• We have the record of St. Paul exhorting us to hold fast to the traditions which are passed on, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
  
  
• We read of the the communion which existed among those early Christians and within which they were dedicated to “teaching, fellowship, breaking of the bread and prayers.”
  
  
• We see the Apostles convene in Acts 15 to decide a matter of great importance to that early community.
  
  
• We see there an exercise of a binding authority which, against all apparent Scriptural witness, decided that Gentile converts are NOT bound to circumcision. In the mind of the Jew of the day, such a decision (which was expressed in terms which indicated the Holy Spirit’s safeguarding of the Apostles’ decision) would have sounded like anything but “Sola Scriptura.”
  
  
• This history continues unbroken over the centuries and reaches us today according to the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit. For Jesus established a Church. And, to borrow from a Biblical phrase, what God hath joined together, no man shall put asunder… including His Church.
  

My authority is inspired of God and infallible. God is the author.

You have said this around 797 times. This is, however, exactly what Martin Luther believed. It’s what Oneness Pentecostals believe. It’s what a bunch of people who don’t agree with you would state as their justification for holding to their mistaken views. It’s what John Calvin believed. So let me respond in a way I’ve not yet tried:

1. If you were mistaken about some important doctrine, how would you know?
   
   
2. How do you differentiate between human opinion and divinely revealed truth?
   
   
3. Are you infallibly sure that 1 Peter 3:21 is not true?
   
   
4. Are you infallibly sure that you are right and that BobRyan is wrong?
   
   
5. How do you explain the fact that neither you nor BobRyan can bind each other’s conscience when it comes to doctrine? If you both claim that the Bible’s the authority, yet you disagree with each other, how do you settle things?
   

Your authority is corrupt, man made, full of a trail of murder, corruption sex scandals, etc. It is not a divinely ordained institution whatsoever. This organization that you belong to has nothing to do with the Bride of Christ that Christ often refers to.

King David saw to it that a man was killed so that he could have that man’s wife. Yet the Messiah came from the line David. So it is that God may achieve His Will despite the sins of men. Further, any little faith community within which you participate is subject to the same problems which have plagued the Catholic Faith for all of these centuries. In other words, the presence of sin within an institution doesn’t disqualify it from being guided by the Holy Spirit any more than the presence of sins in an individual believer’s life prevent her from being sanctified in and through Christ and serving the Lord in various capacities. What I’m saying is that you’re committing another logical fallacy. You’ve presented a non sequitur. If you disagree, please demonstrate how it is that you conclude that the presence of sin within the Church disqualifies it from maintaining its identity in Christ. As I’ve said before, Judas’s betrayal of Christ didn’t delegitimize the Apostolic witness. And neither does the presence of sinners in Christ’s Church strip it of its fundamental nature and constitution- though it certainly causes great and horrible scandal.

The Bible has always been the sole authority for the believer.

This is a false statement. Just look at the words from Hippolytus that I offered yesterday. Clearly he wasn’t a proponent of Sola Scriptura. Further, as I’ve said before, the witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch holds a lot of weight because of his proximity to the Apostles. These men, whose words have been protected over the millennia by Christians, clearly stand as a witnesses against your claim above.

"Sole" means final.

You can do a lot of things with words. You can’t, however, make them mean things they don’t mean. The word “sole” comes from the Latin word solus. And it doesn’t mean “final.” The word sole means “alone” or “being the only one.”

Please read:

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue.

Usually people with whom a person disagrees do not provide evidence for their opponent’s position. You have done so here, however. All along I’ve been saying that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura and that instead it is an unjustified inference, a logical non sequitur, which people wrongly deduce from Scripture. It is, therefore, not revealed by God and the text you pasted demonstrates this fact quite nicely. Look at how the writer flatly admits that the Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura is true. The writer then transitions away from the realm of divine revelation and squarely into the realm of human linguistic and rational philosophy. It is right at that point that he loses infallibility. It is right at that point that he loses the ability to present a “binding teaching” of the faith. It is right there that he steps away from the safeguard of the Holy Spirit and into the realm of human error. This brief text quite nicely demonstrates exactly what I’ve been saying all along.

 

[herbert]

2 of 4

We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.

It is pretty obvious that the author of this text has “gotquestions,” mostly about logic. For the author “begs the question” by presuming that Catholic doctrines “contradict” the Bible. But that’s the very thing that is in question between Catholics and non-Catholics. It is the position of the Catholic Church that not a single verse of Scripture, rightly interpreted, is contradicted by a single Catholic doctrine. Further, it is the position of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit is the Guarantor of Apostolic Tradition and the Divine Author of Scripture (through human agency). It is, therefore, from a Catholic viewpoint, absurd to imagine that Sacred Tradition could be at odds with Sacred Scripture. As the Catechism says, the two are, essentially, expressed as “one voice.”

Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible.

Again, the Bible contains passages which affirm the validity of Apostolic Tradition. What I don’t understand is that, though I’ve said that before, and cited chapter and verse to back it up, no one here as taken the time to acknowledge, for example, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, and convincingly write it off or interpret it to say what it doesn’t say. People at least attempted (and failed) to do that with James 2:24…

We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Read the entire article.

Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. Scripture will get it right. That is solid Catholic teaching (which is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit). What’s not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, for the reason I pointed out above) is that Martin Marprelate [either the one who posts here or the original(s)], DHK, BobRyan, steaver, Gerhard Obersoehn, Martin Luther, or anybody else who’s wandered beyond the realm of divinely guaranteed teaching, will get it right. And as the author who’s “gotquestions” above so nicely demonstrated, that’s exactly where adherents to Sola Scriptura have wandered.

"Sole" means "only" or as the Baptists usually frame it "final."

In this case, the word “sole” doesn’t mean “final.” It means “sole.” It wouldn’t make sense for me to say “I usually go shopping on Mondays… as as my wife frames it, on Tuesdays.” For “sole” and “final” are, just like “Monday” and “Tuesday,” two “different” things. Now if “Baptists” don’t really mean “sole” but instead mean “final.” Well, that’s an entirely different claim. However, since you’re a Baptist, it seems to contradict what you’ve been doing all along here: defending “SOLA” Scriptura. So if what you really mean is “final,” could you please explain why that is such an important distinction to make and why “final” is preferable to “sole”? Also, in my experience, I’d say that Baptists usually frame it in the “Sola Scriptura” form and not the “final” form that you suggest.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Yes, I know what you mean by “Sola Scriptura.” And as I’ve said, it’s a man-made doctrine which is grounded upon a mistaken inference which grew out of the corrupted soil of the minds of men. It has not been revealed by God and is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. I keep saying this.

--Thus Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice. It is not speaking of Math and science, it is speaking of our faith, doctrine, and Christian walk.

Yes, you’re repeating the mistaken inference that the author of the “gotquestions” text admitted was, just as Catholics teach, not found in the Bible.

To say that "faith is a gift from God" is debatable. Many of the Calvinists here may agree with you but I don't.

It is statements like this, also, which reveal what I’ve been saying all along:

1) Apart from the fact that Calvinists tend to be more Scripturally rigorous, consistent, systematic in their theology than Baptists, you are here glossing over the fact (as though it’s inconsequential) that the Calvinists believe with the Catholics despite the fact that you and the Calvinists claim to hold to Sola Scriptura.

2) Notice how you say “Many of the Calvinists here may agree with you but I don’t.” As I see it, you’ve (inadvertently) revealed the fact that it’s not really just the Bible you’re presenting, but your very own thinking. Yes, you convince yourself you’re justified in holding to your doctrines by insisting that they come directly to you from the Bible. But in conversation, your opinion is revealed for what it really is: manifestly yours. If this isn’t the case, why did you not say “Many of the Calvinists here may agree with you but the Bible doesn’t.”? It’s because we Catholics are the ones who agree with the Bible. But since it’s a book, it doesn’t speak up to tell you you’re mistaken. That is, after all, the job of the Teaching Church which Christ established.

3) I just don’t know how to approach this with you, DHK. You’ve been talking about Sola Scriptura since I arrived and then you come out saying that “faith is innate” and that whether or not it’s a gift is “debatable.” You’ve once again demonstrated that you don’t really hold to Sola Scriptura. For it is Ephesians 2:8 which reads: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God…” St. Paul is saying that we are saved by grace, through faith. And although earlier you indicated that we can do nothing to merit salvation (which is what Catholics teach), you are now saying that “faith is innate.” Well, if faith is “innate” and we are “saved by grace” through faith, then the grace by which we’re saved is coming to us, not from God, but through something that you claim is “innate,” namely, faith. In saying that faith is “innate” you’ve created a knot of mutually contradictory doctrines, if I ever saw one. This is one of the reasons why it is the Reformed Calvinists who represent the strongest, most consistent theological framework apart from the Catholic Faith. Even Charles Spurgeon certainly seems to be what we’d call a Five-Point Calvinist.

Jesus said that unless you be as one of these children you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What was he referring to? He was referring to faith. The small children have simplistic faith in their parents that they will protect, provide, nourish, etc., them, and not a stranger. Therefore we often see how a small child goes only to their parents and not to a stranger. Faith is innate, not a gift. We all have faith. Faith is exercised every day. A person (man) puts his faith in his wife, children, etc. What would their family be like if their was no faith, no trust? Faith is innate. Jesus, over and over again said: "THY faith has made you whole." He commended "their faith."

There is a big difference between a natural trust or a “faith” on a natural level and the supernatural faith spoken of in Ephesians 2. It seems as though you’re conflating these two entirely different expressions of “faith.”

Good. If they are given by God then they are authoritative. This debate is a matter of authority. Which authority do we go to? The authority that God gave us is his Word.

Yes, God gave us His Word, Jesus Christ, through the Virgin Mary. He also gave us His Word, the Scriptures, through the agency of men. What’s your point? And as far as “which authority” to which we should turn, well, to God, of course. Your statement which claims that “The authority that God gave us is his Word” (if you mean by that “Sola Scriptura”) is the very thing which is not taught by Scripture, not rightly inferred from Scripture, and unwarranted in its limitation of the scope of the phrase “Word of God.”

 

[herbert]

3 of 4

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

--Prove means to test, test on the basis of the Word of God, and on that basis reject or accept.

That is what sola scriptura is all about.

DHK, it seems that at this point you’re just stacking up evidence in favor of the Catholic position. Consider this: You’ve just cited a Scriptural passage which calls us to, in your words “test on the basis of the Word of God” a given doctrine and accept it or reject it accordingly. Just a few paragraphs earlier, though, you presented to me a text which openly admits that the Catholics are right about the Bible not teaching Sola Scriptura. Therefore, if I “test” Sola Scriptura “on the basis of the Word of God” I’ll reject it immediately and not just according to Catholic teaching, but according to the author who’s “gotquestions.”

Here are some other translations to give you an idea of the sense of the verse:


(KJV-1611) Proue all things: hold fast that which is good.


(LITV) Test all things, hold fast the good.


(MKJV) Prove all things, hold fast to the good.


(WNT) but test all such, and retain hold of the good.

--We always test everything against or according to the Word of God.

Nope. Having strayed from the direct teaching of God (as the author who’s “gotquestions” admitted), you’ve moved into the realm of intellectual deduction and are, thus, testing things according to the fallible workings of the human mind.

1. Where is your evidence that the moon is made up of green cheese? Convince me. If you can't provide evidence for such foolish statements don't make them.

2. Where is your evidence that the "Church" spoken of in the Bible is the RCC? Convince me. If you can't provide evidence for such foolish statements don't make them. It is just propaganda.

3. If you have any evidence at all, convincing evidence you would provide it; but I haven't seen any.

As I’ve said before, I have presented quite a bit of evidence, some of it just above a little ways. I also referred you to the Catholic Encyclopedia which provides a list of all of the Popes going back to St. Peter. I have also presented the Bible as evidence that Christ established a Church which has the Holy Spirit as its Guarantor and can, therefore, not be led astray completely despite the presence of “tares” among the “wheat.” All of these concepts, though, are entirely Biblical. And the rupture in the Church which you imagine is the thing which should be demonstrated from history. You’re the one claiming that Sola Scriptura has always been the essential doctrine of Christians. Further, the validity of Catholicism need not be “proven” or demonstrated in order for your system of belief to be disproven and revealed as illogical, incoherent, and mistaken. So let’s just leave Catholicism out of it for a while, shall we? After all, as I was realizing and admitting to the bankruptcy of Biblicism, I wasn’t convinced of the legitimacy of the Catholic Faith. Neither must I “prove” Catholicism to you in order to realize there’s a big hole in your raft and that it’s taking on water, and fast.

Then that leads us to authority once again.

How is Christ revealed?

Christ is fundamentally and most essentially revealed in His Person, as the Incarnation of God among us. “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.”

The RCC does have mystics. Do you believe you must go to a mystic? Is He mystically revealed to you, or even somehow through the paranormal?

Questions like these do little but substantiate my suspicion that you truly left a Faith you didn’t know the first thing about.

Is Christ revealed through the RCC, "The Church," thus "The Church" becoming your authority?

The Lord Almighty conferred upon men, His very divine authority, saying “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” So what’s your point? Are you trying to argue with the words of Christ? Certainly He didn’t say anything like “All I have taught you shall be recorded in what will one day be called the New Testament which will be treated as an Encyclopedia of the the New Covenant.”

Is Christ revealed through His Word, thus sola scriptura, for His Word becomes the authority?

Scripture is authoritative. The Church exercises a certain authority. Together, they speak with one voice. Again, if you don’t know these things, then, as I said, you left a Faith you had not yet come to know (apart from the empty routine of your childhood, which left you confused, frustrated, and emotionally worn out).

What is your authority? Mysticism? The Church? The Word? What?

Christ is the Head of the Church. Again, I am repeating myself.

How is Christ revealed to you? What is the source?

The source of Christ revealing Himself is Christ Himself. It is through an encounter with Christ that we come to know Him. This encounter came, for me, largely through certain aspects of my Baptist childhood. When I was about 23 I had a very powerful experience of Christ’s love for me. It’s been a journey. And He’s been there every step of the way. But to summarize I’d say turn your question around and say “How is Christ NOT revealed to me?” Because, the truth is that He’s revealed to me in everything, in my job, my family, nature, Scripture, at the Mass, in Confession, as a parent… He’s the Center of everything. And the Source of all that revelation is Christ Himself.

Christ is revealed to me through His Word, the only way He can be known to us in this day and age.

Again, there is nothing anywhere in the Bible which states that it is through the “Word” ONLY that “He can be known to us in this day and age.” This is another case of you and the guy who’s “gotquestions” hopping, skipping, and jumping through a host of logical non sequiturs to land at your desired place, Sola Scriptura.

If He is known by any in any other way, it will be "another Christ," another spirit," and not the Christ of the Bible. Beware of false Christs, the Bible says.

This is simply not true. It represents another case of you limiting God for the sake of your adopted paradigm. I await His Second Coming. When He returns, according to your statement above, He will be “another Christ.” For you demand that “If He is known by any in any other way, it will be another Christ, another spirit, and not the Christ of the Bible.” So if He returns tomorrow, and you see Him in glory, I believe that you will worship and adore Him. I believe that you will immediately disregard the statement above. For, as a child of God, you will rejoice in His return. How could any servant of God do anything else? And DHK, for all of our disagreements, not for one second do I question your integrity, your desire to serve Him, and your earnest faith.

 

[herbert]

4 of 4

You don't have to be an official spokesperson for anyone. A person can be accepted or rejected here according to the purpose for which they come. You do well at friendly debate unlike some other Catholics in the past.

Thanks for this, DHK, it means a lot to me. As I’ve said, it’s so very hard to read a person’s tone through such a medium as this. And I do hope that you hear respect and kindness in my words. I am not sure that you fully understand my appreciation for the many godly Baptists I remember from my formative years. I can picture you standing among them with a devotion to God that frustrates Satan Himself.

There have been some that were not interested in debate at all. They came either to proselytize or advertise (put up their propaganda). It is easy for a person to be a cheerleader for the RCC, quoting its epithets, pushing its doctrines, all the while avoiding the questions of others and debating. If one is here just to use this place to advertise their own religion they are here for the wrong reason.

I agree. To come to a forum such as this to “cheerlead” and to “root” for one’s team is to miss the whole point of a place like this. I only hope that you and anybody else who’s reading can detect in my words a respect for all that you represent… Because for all that I dislike about Biblicism, I number Biblicists, ultimately, as those who are fighting for the things of God, as those who are so often dedicated to furthering the Kingdom. And I don’t resent them for what I see as their points of confusion. For I am certainly confused by plenty of things myself!!! May God have mercy on all of us! Amen.

Can you prove that the moon is made of green cheese. I hope you are getting my point.

I get your point. But I don’t think that the logic behind it holds.

It is not a matter of strongarming. It is a matter of providing the evidence.

Whether it is the assumption that "The Church" is the RCC, or,

Peter was in Rome and was the first pope, or,

Purgatory is a Biblical doctrine, etc.

Again, on an immediate level, the main point of what I am writing is somewhat unrelated to the Catholic Faith. As I said, when I began to see that my views didn’t hold, I was not yet convinced of Catholicism… Still, the system fell apart. So what did I do, I sifted through the ashes, collected what had endured through the flames, and allowed God to rebuild things. To my surprise the pieces of my past which had endured were those few which had always held fast in his Church, the Catholic Church.

--evidence must be given. No one here is going to accept these things at face value just because you say so. They are Catholic doctrines, but we do not agree they are Christian doctrines. Therefore the burden of proof lies on you to convince us of their legitimacy.

First of all, the burden of proof for matters of faith, lies on anyone who claims to know what the content of the faith is. So to an agnostic the burden of proof lies with both of us. Since, however, we both have faith in Christ, our terms of engagement with one another are somewhat different. This is why the Catholic Church sees baptized non-Catholics as brothers and sisters who are tragically separated. Also, where an appeal to Scripture might mean very little to an agnostic, an appeal to Scripture means much to you. You see, DHK, we have so much more in common than we have that separates us.

The article I gave you does a good job of presenting the facts and demonstrating how the Bible teaches sola scriptura. It answers the Catholic's objections. I urge you to read it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

DHK, there is something fishy going on. The last time you presented to me a piece of text which you thought laid Sola Scriptura out nicely, it was written by Dr. Norman Geisler. Now, I responded to each of Dr. Geisler’s paragraphs individually and haven’t heard anything about those responses since. At this point, though, you’re referring me to another piece of text which takes a somewhat different approach. And what’s really interesting to me is that Dr. James White, a 5-Point Calvinist, is referenced at the bottom of this most recent article. Where it gets really interesting is in the fact that Dr. Geisler and Dr. White have actually debated each other in the past. In other words, you’re attempting to reason with me from “both sides of your mouth,” as it were. You have a 5-Point Calvinist referenced in one case and a Not-5-Point Calvinist whom he’s debated in the other. In other words, in presenting information to me by which you seek to substantiate your position, you’re actually demonstrating one of the fatal flaws of Biblicism because the two Doctors to whom you’re directly or indirectly appealing don’t agree with each other.

The light of the world is Jesus. I came to the light and was saved. I left the darkness of the RCC.

I am with you for the first part. But you’ve yet to demonstrate that a single doctrine of the Catholic Faith contradicts a single jot or tittle of Holy Scripture, rightly interpreted.

When I was saved I wasn't a fundamentalist. Salvation has nothing to do with fundamentalism. The new birth has nothing to do with fundamentalism. Every evangelical I know understands salvation, but the Catholic does not, and the Catechism doesn't teach it. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

You’re begging the question.

 

[herbert]

There would be no need for the church if there was no word. God ordained churches according to His Word. His Word is the authority. We have churches because we have God's Word. God gave us the Word. The Word came first, not the church/churches. The first church was the church at Jerusalem. Peter preached the first sermon, a sermon filled with scripture, a sermon preached before the church came into existence on that day, the Day of Pentecost. What did he preach? He preached the Word of God, and that word was final. That is sola scriptura.

DHK,

It turns out that I guess I was right in characterizing your position in the manner I did. In your words I described you as "juxtaposing" the Church and Scripture. Your statement above demonstrates that I was right in doing so.

Herbert

 

[DHK]

i of iv to DHK

DHK,

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

Thank you, but I am a child of God, by no accident. It was by the providence of God that he put two young men in my path who would explain to me what the RCC does not teach--the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Please don't counter that they do. They don't. Never heard it in 20 years; never was taught it. And it is a message that runs directly contrary to the doctrine of the RCC.

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

It is hard to determine emotions over the internet. Perhaps because of the way you had worded your post I thought that.

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

I appreciate that. I don't know what happened then, just as I don't know what will happen here. There are many posts piling up at the end of a thread. It may end up (not on purpose) that there will be too many to answer, but I hope not.

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

I said to myself at that time: "I am a Catholic. I see no reason why I should reject it." IOW, I did accept it and not reject it. It became the basis or authority by which I got saved. Why? The Bible said so. I had committed myself to what the Bible said!

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

No I didn't believe wrongly. You are stating things wrongly right now. You know the RCC teaches salvation by works, and it always have and always will, just like every other religion of the world, and unlike true biblical Christianity.
The RCC teaches that to be saved:
One must be baptized. This is a work.
One must keep the sacraments. These are works.
One must maintain works. This is salvation by works.
The RCC hates and detests the doctrine sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. Consequently, by this very denial, it believes in salvation by works. There is no getting around this.

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

The above doesn't make sense unless put in context.
I had said:
I have never met a Catholic that is already a Christian. In my experience when a Catholic becomes a Christian he obeys the Lord and leaves the apostate RCC and joins a local church where the Bible is taught. He then is baptized by immersion and begins to serve the Lord.
Now consider: The Bible is our authority, not any church, yours or mine. Thus sola scriptura.
1. Baptism does not save. That is not what the Bible teaches--anywhere.
2. One faith, yes, but not the RCC faith for it is diametrically opposed to the truth of the Bible.
3. I do follow the Bible as opposed to the man-made traditions and unbiblical doctrines of the RCC. Following the Bible is the Baptist's primary distinctive which results in sola scriptura.
4. Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them." Mat.7:20. "Fruit" does not mean works, but rather doctrine. I judge a person by the doctrine which he holds, not his worldview. If one's doctrine is not according to what the Bible teaches then that person is in error.
Furthermore, the Israelites were much more harsh than I am:
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.
--Judgment is made not according to one's worldview, but according to one's doctrine, and that doctrine judged by the Word of God.

 

[DHK]

Again, your understanding of salvation itself derives from your adopted (and unBiblical) worldview.

NO it isn't.
I have, over many years, developed a very good understanding of the Bible--something that Catholics don't have.
Secondly, I was a Catholic. I know what Catholics believe both by experience and my own personal study. You cannot just sit behind a computer and deny that.
Third, I have spoken to thousands of Catholics: in Canada, in the U.S., and in Asia.
They are all the same: Biblically illiterate, ignorant of salvation, and sadly, unregenerate.
It is my testimony that I have never met one that has been regenerated by the Spirit of God.
How do I know? They tell me that they need to be born again; need to be saved, etc.

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

The scriptures are very clear concerning the way of salvation; the new birth, how to be saved, etc. Almost anyone on this board can tell you how to be saved. But that message is in direct contradiction to what the RCC teaches. It is not a matter of gnosticism but of truth. Who holds the truth and who does not?
When the RCC proclaims that the new birth is baptism they show their heretical hand and that they have not the truth nor understand the truth.
When Jesus said you must be born again he made it clear that one must be born again of the Holy Spirit, not of baptism. Baptism is not part of the new birth at all.

The only way you'd come to think that the two are different is by presupposing the validity of your adopted system.

It has nothing to do with an "adopted system." I have been a missionary/teacher/pastor now for over 40 years. My faith is not adopted for it is God that has adopted me and made me his child. He forgave me all my sins, clothed me with a cloak of his righteousness, so that when he looks down on me he does not see the filthy rags of my self-righteousness, but rather the righteousness of Jesus Christ in whom I stand. My sins: past, present and future are covered by the blood of Christ. The waters of baptism fail you but the blood of Christ will avail you for only Christ can save you.
No, I did not adopt anything; but Christ adopted me, and once He did I became an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.
Catholics have no such blessings. They have only what they "think" the sacraments can give them. And even that is imaginary.

For I see a beautiful harmony between the Scriptures and the teaching of the Catholic Church. You, on the other hand, with your adopted fundamentalism, must see the two as being at odds with each other. But don't mistake your personal opinion on the matter for something that is binding upon another believer.

There is no such harmony.
The scriptures teach salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
The RCC teach salvation by works--through obedience to baptism and the sacraments.
There is no harmony. One cannot add to the work of Christ as the Catholic attempts to.
Neither can the many pagan beliefs such as purgatory and indulgences be justified in the light of the teachings of the scriptures. There is no harmony.
Again, I never adopted fundamentalism. It was Christ that adopted me, and from that day onward has led my by His Spirit. No one would go to the places that I go and have gone unless they were deliberately led by the Holy Spirit.
I have no opinion of my own. I believe what the scriptures teach. That is why I continue to challenge you: show me from the scriptures where I am wrong and I will change, but if I show you that you are wrong, will you change? Is that not fair enough? It is sola scriptura at its best. The Bible becomes our guide; our authority. I have no opinion. I believe what God leads me to believe. It is God's truth.

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

When you make a statement at least make it credible. Make it so that it holds water, has evidence.
Is the moon made up of cheese? Where is the evidence?
I have given plenty of evidence why sola scriptura is true. Now (in the post referred to) you are simply dismissing it as false doctrine (unbiblical), without any reason, without evidence, just as if you are claiming the moon is made of green cheese without evidence. Whether you believe it or not give evidence. Just don't dismiss it without evidence.
You wouldn't do that with the trinity. Why would you take that attitude with sola scriptura.
When one casts doubt on the Word of God are they not casting doubt on the author of the same?

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

Here are some things that I have said recently, and they are not contradictory.
1. The RCC in its present form seems to have originated from the eleventh century. I have been reading some older history books recently and that is where they place it.
2. I still tend to place the origin of the RCC at the time of paganism when Christianity became a state-religion, and Constantine also introduced paganism.
3. One thing we do know is that the "Church" as defined by the RCC was not and is not in the first century or in the Bible. The first century, Christ, or His Apostles knew no such thing.

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

The RCC has always been at odds with the Scriptures. I have been demonstrating that throughout every thread relating to Catholicism with the new birth being my primary example.

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

IOW,
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
There must be some intellectual knowledge of what the gospel is, but then how does the gospel personally apply to you.

In spite of your short essay, you don't know what the passage means or how it applies to you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Part 1 of 2 to Martin

Martin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your reply, Herbert.
Unfortunately neither you nor Newman address the point I was making and underlined. 'All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable......that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.'
That is why I made the comment I did. 'For out of the abundance of the heart, [the] mouth speaks' (Luke 6:45). You (and Newman) are not looking at the whole passage, just the bit that you think you can reply to. The Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are sufficient for all purposes. That is what the text is saying very clearly if you read it from the beginning of v.16 to the end of v.17. Sola Scriptura is entirely Biblical.

You run down various rabbit-holes in your reply above. Paul does not mention 'Tradition' here. Why not start another thread on 2 Thes. 2:15? Nor does he mention the Canon. Why not start another thread on that? And one on the papacy, and one on the mass? I will be delighted to discuss these with you. But here we're talking about the sufficiency of the Scriptures. So what Scriptures is Paul taking about. Well, in v.15, he is obviously talking about the O.T. In Timothy's childhood, the N.T. canon had scarcely been started. But in v.16, he deliberately says, 'All Scripture.....' What does he mean? Well, he has already canonized Luke's Gospel (1 Timothy 5:18) by calling it Scripture, and we know that Luke was not the earliest Gospel to be written. Peter also canonizes all Paul's writings in 2 Peter 2:15-16. So 'all Scripture' means all Scripture, New and Old Testaments. Most of it had already been written; if there were some portions not yet down on paper, they existed in the mind of God and would be breathed out by Him in due course.

But of course, Sola Scriptura is not dependent on a couple of verses. In His temptation with the devil, our Lord did nothing but quote Scripture at him. In conversation with the scribes and Pharisees, He is constantly pointing them away from 'tradition' to the word of God. "It is written......." "Have you not read.......?" The Holy Spirit prompts the writer to the Hebrews to quote the Scriptures over and over again to prove his points, and never from 'tradition,' because, of course, if He did, it would become Scripture, wouldn't it?

With regard to the 'good works' mentioned. Scripture has two purposes, both of which it fulfils: one is to make one 'wise unto salvation through faith.....in Christ Jesus.' The second is for one who has already been saved- the 'man of God.' The Scriptures are sufficient to equip such a man thoroughly 'for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them' (Ephesians 2:10). Before someone is saved, no amount of good works can help him (Isaiah 64:6). He must be saved by grace through faith (John 6:28-29). Once he is saved, his salvation is proved by a changed life which will include good works (Acts 26:20). The Scriptures, says Paul, will thoroughly equip him for such works.

With regard to Hippolytus, you have just proved how unreliable the Church Fathers are. In my quote he is saying that only the Scriptures tell us about God; in yours he is boosting 'tradition.' My experience of them is that if you look hard enough, you can get them to say just about anything. Certainly I can find you quotations opposing Transubstantiation and the office of 'Universal Bishop' if you would like to see them. Certainly, 'Pope' Gregory I did not believe that he was any such thing. See his First Letter to John of Constantinople.

Oh, one other thing. Would you please attribute your quotations from Hippolytus? I've been struggling to find them on line. Thanks!

 

[herbert]

Hello, Martin-

It's good to hear from you. I find your posts intriguing, challenging, thoughtful, etc. So I look forward to getting back to you and seeing what I may have to learn from your insight.

I am just about to head out for a night in the woods with my sons, so I will be responding to your points upon my return.

Thanks again!

Herbert

 

[DHK]

I went and read the piece at "got questions" and I am sorry to say that it does not answer Catholic objections. As you know, we believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, especially when it comes down to interpreting the Scriptures. Not me, not Herbert, and certainly not you are the person's who should be believed about what is true as regards the Holy Writ. It's looking to the Church for clarity and it's that simple.

The Muslim believes the Quran is his authority and that the Maulvi (the one [like the priest] who represents Islam) is the one who has the power of interpretation.
The Mormon believes the Book of Mormon is his authority and the priesthood is the one who has the power of interpretation.
The RCC pays lip service to the Bible and says that the priest or any of its clergy has the power of interpretation--all according to the Catechism and Magesterium of course. What a farce! Sinful men void of the Holy Spirit trying to interpret spiritual scriptures. No wonder the Catechism is full of error.
I will ask you the same questions I ask Herbert.
On what basis do you believe the moon is made of green cheese? You do believe that don't you? Why or why not?
On what basis do you believe the Catholic Church should be your authority? What evidence can you give other than your blind faith. Do you have any more evidence than the moon is made of green cheese? I thought so.

As for "evidence", it is you that continues to ignore the evidence, the historical evidence of the One Universal (Catholic) Church. From the Apostles, to the newly forming Christian Church in the early years all the way down to this time. Yes, you are right, there was but one Christian Church, no denominations, just one and it wasn't known as the "Baptist Church" either.

Provide the evidence! If you make statements like the above you must provide evidence lest you be found a liar.
Let me give you a good example from history.
Years ago, while Charles Taze Russell was visiting Canada, he was taken to court. To question "the reliability of the witness" the prosecutor asked him: "You claim to read Greek don't you."
He responded, "Yes, I do."
At that moment, he took out a Greek NT, turned to a page, and asked Russell to read this page for him.
Stuttering on the witness stand, Russell admitted, "I can't read it."
He had committed perjury, was a a false witness, and asked to leave the country.

When you claim something you must substantiate your claim.
What evidence do you have that the RCC is "the one Universal Church from the Apostles?
I have never seen that evidence. If you don't give it, you would be found a false witness, and one who is simply here to give Catholic propaganda--an offense that comes with being banned. That is not what this board is for.

 

[steaver]

I have been following these conversations between DHK and Herbert, Adonia, and Utilyan. Dozens of times two questions put to the Catholics has yet to be answered. 1) How does one become born-again? 2) Where is the evidence from the Scriptures that Jesus Christ instituted the RCC? I have read loads of rhetoric given from these three Catholics, yet these two key questions continue to go unanswered...this alone is very telling.

 

[DHK]

1 of 4

DHK, as I said above, I was just putting a finer point on your statement. My doing so, based upon having read every word you've shared here thus far, was entirely justified as I was just clarifying what it is you mean when you talk about the Bible's Authority. You’ve been arguing for insisting upon Sola Scriptura all along here.

One of the problems I have encountered here is that you fail to address the actual argument of sola scriptura which is the scripture itself. I don't have to defend the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. I will put forth this doctrine--that the Bible is our final authority once again. See if you can refute what I put forth.

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:
--Paul speaks of all scripture. All agree that he is referring to the OT. Most agree that he is also referring to the many books that had already been written by this time as this epistle was the last one that Paul wrote before his death. Either way the principle is the same today.
All scripture is inspired. There is not one that isn't. Thus the finality of scripture.
--It is "inspired." The word means "God-breathed," that is, that God communicated His word to men and led them to write it down for permanent preservation. Thus this inspired Word of God is His final Word of God. It is authoritative.
We believe it is "plenary," that is that this inspiration extends to every part of the Bible--the Bible in all of its parts.
We believe it is verbal, that it extends to every word of the Bible, not one word omitted. It is our final authority.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--This teaches that the prophecies did not originate from the prophets (and by extension the apostles) themselves, but from God. The "prophecy" did not come from the "will of man" but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The author of the words is God, not man. The finality of scripture is God. It makes them authoritative.

2 Samuel 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
--These are the last words of David.
Note that David acknowledges that God had spoken to him. It was God's Word that was forever on David's tongue, always ready for him to speak. It was his final authority.

Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
--Peter uses the OT and quotes from it. The OT is his authority. This is sola scriptura, referring to scriptura as his authority.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Note well that these verses teach how God may be known. We know God through his Word. There is no other way to come to know God except through the Word of God. Thus the finality of the Word of God.
The same warning is given here as is given in Rev.22--One must not add to the Word of God, lest he be found a liar. This puts the RCC in a serious position since they are the only ones that accept the Apocrypha and have added them to the inspired canon of scripture. This should be taken very seriously.

Revelation 22:18,19;
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
--A liar?? His name shall not even be written in the Book of Life. It demonstrates his attitude to God's revelation to mankind. God has something to say to man. Here man is puffing himself up saying: "But God you must listen to me; your words don't matter!"
What arrogance! God's Word is God's message to man! It is our final and only authority in matters of faith and practice. There is no other. Here he is saying: "Don't be so arrogant as to think you can tamper with my word!"

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--This is sola scriptura, and as you might know it is the verse that is used to demonstrate sola scriptura more than any other. Here Paul comes to the Jews (not believers) in the synagogue and is able to preach the gospel to them.
The result:
Acts 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
--Because of the Word of God preached by Paul (not the Church) many believed.
However, the most important point of this passage is that when Paul preached, as great and well-known as he was, the Bereans insisted on verifying the truth of what he preached. They verified his NT message with the OT Word. The Word of God was their authority as it is ours. This is our responsibility. We measure everyone and every thing by the Word of God. The Apostle Paul was not offended; rather, he commended them for doing so.

1 Timothy 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
--Paul instructs Timothy, the pastor of the church at Ephesus, how to behave in the house of God, that is the local church. This local church is the pillar and ground of the truth. It upholds the Word of God and it stands on the Word of God. This is a local church that does this, not the RCC. There is no RCC in this verse. And this church in Ephesus both has a foundation that is the Word of God and upholds by preaching the truth of the Word of God--something the RCC doesn't do.

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
--Paul was telling them the truth and doing it very boldly. What he wrote at that time to them was the inspired Word of God. He knew it, and he was telling them that he was writing under inspiration.
Know this he was saying: I write unto you the commandment of the Lord.
Paul was writing the inspired Word of God, the final authority for mankind, and Paul knew he was writing the inspired Word. This goes contrary to the many doubt expressed by Catholics.

The Catholics arrogantly tell us that they produced the Bible. No, rather, God gave us the Bible. We see here that Paul knew when he was writing under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. He tells them that he is writing God's commands to them.
Furthermore, Paul continues:
1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Concerning this verse Walvoord says:

Anyone who ignores the Lord’s commands would find himself… ignored by Him at the last day (cf. 1Co_3:17; Gen_9:6; Mat_10:32-33), because his actions would show that he never knew the Lord (cf. 1Co_8:3; Mat_7:22-23; 1Jn_4:6).

The final authority is always the Word of God, and thus sola scriptura.

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.
If any verse teaches sola scriptura this one does.
In Israel absolutely everything was judged by God's Word. If it wasn't according to God's Word than that one speaking such was not saved. He had no light in him. The same truth is expressed in the qualifications of a prophet in Deu.18. Those speaking contrary to the Word of God were taken out and stoned. The Word of God was always the guide and the authority of the nation of Israel. There is hardly a better verse to demonstrate this than Isaiah 8:20.

Now there is my evidence how this doctrine is a Biblical doctrine Please don't come along and say it is not Biblical unless you are able to refute the evidence given.

 

[DHK]

Jesus Christ is my authority (He's everyone's authority, whether they know it or not!). Christ is the Head of the Church. He established the Church and members of the Church are called “Christians” since they are under His authority.

Jesus Christ is revealed to us through the Bible. How else is he revealed? How is he revealed to you in a way that is in any sense accurate and reliable?
For example, the Muslim claims that absolutely every word of the Bible has been corrupted and that the only parts of the Bible that have now been preserved are in the Koran. Therefore one can only come to learn of Jesus through the Koran. Is the Jesus of the Koran the same as the Jesus of the Bible?
How would you know that your concept of Jesus is reliable unless he is the Christs of the Bible, or defined by the only accurate authority that we have?

There are some problems here:

Then let's consider them.

1) You've put a book, a written record, in the place rightly occupied by Christ. Does the term "Bibliolatry" fit? I don't know. But it seems to me that to place anything other than Christ in that ultimate place of authority is to demonstrate a "preference for the incidental good over the eternal good which it signifies."

Christ calls himself "The Word."
The Word is a living Word.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.
--It is a living Word, an active Word, unlike any other Word.

It is a powerful Word. All things came into existence by the power of His Word.
It is the Word that proclaims Christ, and through the Word we know Christ.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Others corrupt the Word of God.
I am not as those others, but in the sight of God, through the Word of God, I speak Christ.
How else is Christ spoken. What venue do you take? Is he existential? mystical? No, he is preached through God's Word and revealed through God's Word. There is no other way.
You may protest with some metaphysical answer: "through the incarnate Christ."
The only way we know "the incarnate Christ" is through the Scriptures.

2) God has revealed Himself in many ways, as I said earlier. The supreme and ultimate way by which God has revealed Himself is through the Incarnation of Christ. He's also revealed Himself through Scripture. Scripture says, too, that He's revealed Himself through the Church. St. Paul goes so far as to say that Christ and the Church are mysteriously one (Ephesians 5:32).

Were you there at the incarnation of Christ? Have you seen him in his incarnation? Would you like to describe those experiences to us?
Christ is in heaven. He sits on the right hand of the throne of God. What do you mean: "He is also revealed Himself through his incarnation." The thought is absurd.

Define Church. It certainly isn't the RCC. There is no connection between the RCC and anything that is mentioned in the Bible.
Consider the context of the verse you referred to:
Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
--Paul is speaking about the relationship of a man to his wife. The "mystery" referred to is that the two become one flesh. But then Paul mentions Christ and the church. Christ loves the church, and so a man ought to love his wife. There is nothing about the RCC here, and nothing about the authority of the church, and nothing that contradicts the Word as being the authority in the believers life.

3) Nowhere within the pages of Scripture are we taught that the Bible is the "sole" or the "final" authority. I've said this approximately 637 times. And you've never addressed this distinction I keep making. You take the Bible's authority and make it the "only" authority. That is where your unBiblical misstep occurs. You, however, have neither defended your position in response to this criticism nor so much as expressed an idea that reveals that you actually understand the criticism that is being presented. Do you understand the difference between "an authority" and "the authority"? Further, do you understand that the Bible can be "an authority" without being "the authority"? And if you don't accept the idea that the Bible can be "an authority" without being "the authority" could you please explain why?

The Bible is THE final authority in ALL matters of FAITH and practice.
This eliminates math, science, and other areas.
It doesn't say "a authority" for it says "The Final Authority." There must be a final authority. There must be someone or somebody that will make a decision. It isn't the Pope, the Magesterium, the Book of Mormon, Charles Taze Russell and his writings, etc. It is the Bible itself, for God is the writer, the author. There is no higher person to appeal to, even as in a republic there is no higher appeal than the President.
The Declaration of Independence was originally composed by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It had some minor editions made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Then it was adopted by Congress. Now the principal author is Thomas Jefferson. Supposedly if you had trouble with understanding the Declaration you would go to Jefferson, but he, unlike God, is not alive. The author of the document is always the most reliable source.
I go straight to the source, not "the church" but to God directly.
This is what sola scriptura is about. It goes hand in hand with the priesthood of the believer--that every believer is a priest before God and need not to confess his sin to anyone but God Himself. Christ alone is His intercessor.