"According to Scripture" by Tim Staples

[katholikos]

According to Scripture
By Tim Staples

"If a teaching isn't explicit in the Bible, then we don't accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.

What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?

Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.


Unreasonable


The Protestant appeal to the sole authority of Scripture to defend sola scriptura is a textbook example of circular reasoning, and it betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself: It is contrary to reason. One cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, the Qur'an, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired.

Closely related to this is the question of the canon. After all, if the Bible is the sole rule of faith, we first have to know which books are included in the Bible. Many books were believed to be inspired and, therefore, canonical in the early Church. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? The Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura to answer the question of the canon. It simply cannot be done.

I recall a conversation with a Protestant friend about this. He said, "The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God, as Jesus said in John 16:13." I thought that that answer was more Catholic than Protestant. John 16:13 does tells us that the Spirit will lead the apostles, and by extension, the Church, into truth. But it has nothing to say about sola scriptura or the nature or number of books in the canon.

The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon. Historically, the Church used sacred Tradition outside of Scripture as its criterion for the canon. The early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue, needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree to settle the question. Those are the historical facts.

To put my friend's argument into perspective, imagine a Catholic making a similar claim to demonstrate that Mary is the Mother of God. "We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth." Would the Protestant respond with a hearty amen? No. He would be more likely to say, "Show me where it says in the Bible that Mary is the Mother of God!" The same question, of course, applies to Protestants concerning the canon: "Show me where the canon of Scripture is in the Bible!"


Will the Circle Be Unbroken?


The issues of the inspiration and canon of Scripture are the Achilles heel of any intellectual defense of sola scriptura. So weak are the biblical attempts at an answer that often the Protestant response just turns the argument against the Catholic. "How do you know Scripture is inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular. You say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scripture says so, then you say that Scripture is inspired and infallible because the Church says so!"

Not only is this not an answer, but it also misrepresents the Catholic position. Catholics do not claim the Church is infallible because Scripture says so. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. The Church was established and functioning as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written.

It is true that we know Scripture to be inspired and canonical only because the Church has told us so. That is historical fact. Catholics reason to inspiration of Scripture through demonstrating first its historical reliability and the truth about Christ and the Church. Then we can reasonably rely upon the testimony of the Church to tell us the text is inspired. This is not circular reasoning. The New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history, but one cannot deduce from this that it is inspired.

The testimony of the New Testament is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christian and non-Christian writers. We have the first-century testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Church Fathers—some of whom were contemporaries of the apostles—and highly reliable non-Christian writers such as Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and others, all testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event in various ways. It is on the basis of the historical evidence that we can say it is a historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:6). Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the truth of the Resurrection of Christ (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:18-19; 24-25; Acts 1:1-11).

The historical record also tells us that Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the foundation of the Christian faith (Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ said of his Church, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

The many books that comprise the Bible never tell us that they are inspired, nor do they answer many other essential questions about their canonicity. Who can or cannot be the human authors of the texts? Who wrote them in the first place? But Scripture does tell us—remarkably clearly—that Jesus established a kingdom on earth, the Church, with a hierarchy and the authority to speak for him (Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20). If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.

The bottom line is that the truth of the Catholic Church is rooted in history. Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place. His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle.


Unbiblical


There are four problems with the defense of sola scriptura using 2 Timothy 3:16. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. The two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.

Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible teaches justification by faith, and we Catholics believe it, but we do not believe in justification by faith alone, as Protestants do. Among other reasons, the Bible says that we are "justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24). There is no sola in 2 Timothy 3:16 either. The passage never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith.

James 1:4 illustrates the problem:

And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We don't need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else.

Of course, any Christian knows this would be absurd. But James's emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than Paul's emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola in either text. Sola patientia would be just as wrong as sola scriptura.

Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture. It is silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but it is remarkably clear in teaching that oral Tradition is just as much the word of God as Scripture is. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, Paul said:

And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13)

According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:

So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained. R. J. Foster points out that the phrase "man of God" refers to ministers, not to the average layperson (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1149). This title was used in the Old Testament to describe those consecrated to the service of God (Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kgs. 12:22). Not only does the text not say Scripture sola, but Paul's exhortation for Timothy to study the word of God is in the context of an exhortation to "preach the word" as a minister of Christ. To use this text to claim that sola scriptura is being taught to the average layperson is—to borrow a phrase from Paul—going far "beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).


Unworkable


The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening. But when it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition and to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the text is clear:

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)

According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. It is telling that since the Reformation of almost 500 years ago—a Reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 Protestant denominations. In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be "one flock, one shepherd." Reliance on sola scriptura has not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.

[Tantor]

According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. It is telling that since the Reformation of almost 500 years ago—a Reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 Protestant denominations. In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be "one flock, one shepherd." Reliance on sola scriptura has not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.

The word translated into 'church' is an english meaning and does not reflect the meaning of the word when the greek was written.  'church' never meant an ongoing structure or organization.. it meant a special assembly called out temporarily to deal with specific issues from time to time.

[Lee Freeman]

Here's Reformed scholar Dr. Michael Horton on the historic Reformation view of sola Scriptura, from the Zondevan Counterpoints Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. Horton is responding to an essay by Orthodox scholar Fr. Vladimir Berezonsky ("Are Esastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism Compatible? No: An Orthodox Prespective: Responses" by Michael Horton). I don't  endorse everything he writes but he does a good job of explaining the Reformers' historic position on sola Scriptura. In the process I think he may correct a few misconceptions of Tim Staples in the article above:

Next, Father Berezonsky discusses the authority of Scripture. First, his reflections on Western experience of authority could be illuminating if they were not so stereotyped in terms of a pristine Eastern mentality and a corrupt Western orientation. Cultural captivity is hardly a Western phenomenon in this account. Once more he misstates at least the confessional Protestant view: "Unfathomable to them is the need for submitting their own subjective comprehension of truth to the objectivity of the church" (page 175). Not only is this fathomable, it is the common practice of confessional Protestants. (That is what it means to be confessional!) I am hardly unique in having to join my fellow ministers in a regular public act at synod, classis, and consistory (ecclesiastical assemblies), vowing to teach and confess the entire confession and catechism without reservation. And on that basis I may be disciplined by the broader assembly and, ultimately, have my ordination withdrawn. All members of our churches similarly, subscribe to hese symbols in their entirety and are catechized in them from their youth and in catechetical sermons. To suggest that, for us, "To test one's private opinion by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit at work through the body of Christ does not compute" (page 175) reveals more than a lack of sympathy; it reveals a lack of concern for actually engaging in a real conversation with historic Protestants.

Father Berezonsky presents the traditional argument adduced by Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, namely, that the church precedes the canon, leading to the conclusion that "the Bible is neither self-sufficient nor self-evident" (page 175). We would reply at least in part by saying that, although it is undeniable that the church preceded the completed canon of the Old and New Testaments, the material that composes the canon both precedes and creates the church throughout history. There is a difference between saying that the church created the Bible and saying that the church recognized the undeniable marks of apostolic origin and authenticity of the written Scripture. In this, the church had no choice but to be obedient to the Word of God written.

It is, of course, true that the church must interpret Scripture, but it can only do this because Scripture interprets itself. It is not a closed, dark, contradictory, or inscrutable Word that God has left his people.  Allowing for the fact that not all parts are "alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear to all," we nevertheless hold that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (Westminster Confession 1.7). If Scripture cannot interpret itself, surely the church cannot interpret itself more easily. Given the conflicting councils and decisions subsequent to the ecumenical creeds, it is only with considerable difficulty that one can have greater confidence in the church's interpretations than in Scripture's own witness to itself.

To be sure, God has given his church ministers. They are expected to be well trained in the biblical languages, biblical studies, theology, church history, pastoral ministry, and liturgics to lead their people in their understanding of scripture. They are assisted in this by the creeds, confessions, and catechisms. This is not because Scripture cannot interpret itself, but because individuals and churches are fallible and, in fact, sinful. They require the checks and balances of wise Christian reflection over the ages. This is why the Reformers and their heirs give so much attention and weight to the church fathers. But all of this is subject to the final authority of God's Word, which Father Rommen, in his essay, seems to take more seriously than this author.

If by "self-sufficient" Father Berezonsky imputes to us the belief that our reading of Scripture is divorced from these helps, he misunderstands the notion of sola Scriptura. Those who place so much weight on the assistance of the community of saints in interpreting Scripture cannot be accused of teaching that one can sit in a corner and read the Bible by oneself. That would not be "Scripture alone" as the final authority, but "myself alone" as the final authority. Scripture is self-sufficient, but we are not-which is why we need to read Scripture together with the faithful church in all ages. But because Scripture is itself the "unnormed norm," it always judges the church and is the criterion of its faithfulness in interpreting its message. One wonders, given the theory and practice of church history, whether Eastern Orthodoxy, like Rome, is capable of being addressed and undone by God's Word in Scripture.

Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

Is Staples identifying the Church with the kingdom? Because Jesus himself taught that the kingdom preceded the church. He taught that with his incarnation, and the start of his public ministry, the kingdom had come-though not fully. He also taught that the kingdom was within each believer, though again, not fully.

Also, he says that the books of the Bible don't tell us they are inspired, which I would argue is only partially true. Peter, in II Peter 3:15-17 writes:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here Peter seems to indicate that Paul's letters are Scripture. True, he doesn't use the word "sinpired," but I would argue that that is implied.

Staples also argues that II Timothy was "addressed to members of the hierarchy." But I'm not at all sure there was a hierarchy yet. This seemns to be an assumption Staples reads into the text. Nowhere in the NT is a hierarchy, less still anything like a monoepiscopate, indicated. In the NT we still have clear evidence of:

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. (I Corinthians 12:28)



Pax.

[ole Jake]

Here's Reformed scholar Dr. Michael Horton on the historic Reformation view of sola Scriptura, from the Zondevan Counterpoints Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. Horton is responding to an essay by Orthodox scholar Fr. Vladimir Berezonsky ("Are Esastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism Compatible? No: An Orthodox Prespective: Responses" by Michael Horton). I don't  endorse everything he writes but he does a good job of explaining the Reformers' historic position on sola Scriptura. In the process I think he may correct a few misconceptions of Tim Staples in the article above:

Next, Father Berezonsky discusses the authority of Scripture. First, his reflections on Western experience of authority could be illuminating if they were not so stereotyped in terms of a pristine Eastern mentality and a corrupt Western orientation. Cultural captivity is hardly a Western phenomenon in this account. Once more he misstates at least the confessional Protestant view: "Unfathomable to them is the need for submitting their own subjective comprehension of truth to the objectivity of the church" (page 175). Not only is this fathomable, it is the common practice of confessional Protestants. (That is what it means to be confessional!) I am hardly unique in having to join my fellow ministers in a regular public act at synod, classis, and consistory (ecclesiastical assemblies), vowing to teach and confess the entire confession and catechism without reservation. And on that basis I may be disciplined by the broader assembly and, ultimately, have my ordination withdrawn. All members of our churches similarly, subscribe to hese symbols in their entirety and are catechized in them from their youth and in catechetical sermons. To suggest that, for us, "To test one's private opinion by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit at work through the body of Christ does not compute" (page 175) reveals more than a lack of sympathy; it reveals a lack of concern for actually engaging in a real conversation with historic Protestants.

Father Berezonsky presents the traditional argument adduced by Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, namely, that the church precedes the canon, leading to the conclusion that "the Bible is neither self-sufficient nor self-evident" (page 175). We would reply at least in part by saying that, although it is undeniable that the church preceded the completed canon of the Old and New Testaments, the material that composes the canon both precedes and creates the church throughout history. There is a difference between saying that the church created the Bible and saying that the church recognized the undeniable marks of apostolic origin and authenticity of the written Scripture. In this, the church had no choice but to be obedient to the Word of God written.

It is, of course, true that the church must interpret Scripture, but it can only do this because Scripture interprets itself. It is not a closed, dark, contradictory, or inscrutable Word that God has left his people.  Allowing for the fact that not all parts are "alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear to all," we nevertheless hold that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (Westminster Confession 1.7). If Scripture cannot interpret itself, surely the church cannot interpret itself more easily. Given the conflicting councils and decisions subsequent to the ecumenical creeds, it is only with considerable difficulty that one can have greater confidence in the church's interpretations than in Scripture's own witness to itself.

To be sure, God has given his church ministers. They are expected to be well trained in the biblical languages, biblical studies, theology, church history, pastoral ministry, and liturgics to lead their people in their understanding of scripture. They are assisted in this by the creeds, confessions, and catechisms. This is not because Scripture cannot interpret itself, but because individuals and churches are fallible and, in fact, sinful. They require the checks and balances of wise Christian reflection over the ages. This is why the Reformers and their heirs give so much attention and weight to the church fathers. But all of this is subject to the final authority of God's Word, which Father Rommen, in his essay, seems to take more seriously than this author.

If by "self-sufficient" Father Berezonsky imputes to us the belief that our reading of Scripture is divorced from these helps, he misunderstands the notion of sola Scriptura. Those who place so much weight on the assistance of the community of saints in interpreting Scripture cannot be accused of teaching that one can sit in a corner and read the Bible by oneself. That would not be "Scripture alone" as the final authority, but "myself alone" as the final authority. Scripture is self-sufficient, but we are not-which is why we need to read Scripture together with the faithful church in all ages. But because Scripture is itself the "unnormed norm," it always judges the church and is the criterion of its faithfulness in interpreting its message. One wonders, given the theory and practice of church history, whether Eastern Orthodoxy, like Rome, is capable of being addressed and undone by God's Word in Scripture.

Pax.

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Why don't you, Lee Freeman, demonstrate exactly how to use sola scriptura correctly, so that nothing false is admitted and nothing true is excluded.

[Jimmy]

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Is the RCC willing to have a Council in which all non Protestant denominations get and equal vote to decalre what is true about the Christian faith?  If not, then their claims and yours are just hot air, which of course is the case.

[katholikos]

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Is the RCC willing to have a Council in which all non Protestant denominations get and equal vote to decalre what is true about the Christian faith?  If not, then their claims and yours are just hot air, which of course is the case.

LOL. Is truth a matter of popular opinion?

[ole Jake]

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Is the RCC willing to have a Council in which all non Protestant denominations get and equal vote to decalre what is true about the Christian faith?  If not, then their claims and yours are just hot air, which of course is the case.

You manage to keep proving the very point about sola scriptura and its adherents that Calvinist Horton attempts to disprove.

We already know what the Catholic faith teaches. What we do not know is which is the true Protestantism. That is the case because sola scriptura guarantees chaos because every man reads and decides for himself and does what is right in his own eyes.

[Jimmy]

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Is the RCC willing to have a Council in which all non Protestant denominations get and equal vote to decalre what is true about the Christian faith?  If not, then their claims and yours are just hot air, which of course is the case.

You manage to keep proving the very point about sola scriptura and its adherents that Calvinist Horton attempts to disprove.

We already know what the Catholic faith teaches. What we do not know is which is the true Protestantism. That is the case because sola scriptura guarantees chaos because every man reads and decides for himself and does what is right in his own eyes.

But you see ole Jake, you keep making the absurd assumption that what the RCC teaches is truth.  And the rest of us may not always agree with each other, but most of us agree that not all of what the RCC teaches is truth either.  Just because some high mucky mucks get together and issue some formal announcement doesn't make it right either.  No matter what you choose to think about it, truth isn't found in numbers.  The position of the RCC is much akin to that of the Scribes and Pharasees and we all know what Jesus thought about that group.  They contended against sola scriptura just like you do and for the same reasons too.

[ole Jake]

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Is the RCC willing to have a Council in which all non Protestant denominations get and equal vote to decalre what is true about the Christian faith?  If not, then their claims and yours are just hot air, which of course is the case.

You manage to keep proving the very point about sola scriptura and its adherents that Calvinist Horton attempts to disprove.

We already know what the Catholic faith teaches. What we do not know is which is the true Protestantism. That is the case because sola scriptura guarantees chaos because every man reads and decides for himself and does what is right in his own eyes.

But you see ole Jake, you keep making the absurd assumption that what the RCC teaches is truth.  And the rest of us may not always agree with each other, but most of us agree that not all of what the RCC teaches is truth either.  Just because some high mucky mucks get together and issue some formal announcement doesn't make it right either.  No matter what you choose to think about it, truth isn't found in numbers.  The position of the RCC is much akin to that of the Scribes and Pharasees and we all know what Jesus thought about that group.  They contended against sola scriptura just like you do and for the same reasons too.

The Pharisees (scribes are not a specific group as such) were not the the legitimate religious authority under the Mosaic covenant. The Levite priests were, with the High Priest in charge. The Pharisees were an extra-Temple, non-Levitical group of teachers who also led worship services, and the Pharisees very clearly rejected the authority of the Temple and the High Priest, which was a forerunner of their rejection of God Incarnate.

That is the simple way for even you to begin to see that your analogy is rather backwards.

You have failed to prove sola scriptura, and now you assert that the Pharisees opposed sola scriptura. That would mean that Jesus taught sola scriptura[i. Now you need to prove that.

[Jimmy]

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Is the RCC willing to have a Council in which all non Protestant denominations get and equal vote to decalre what is true about the Christian faith?  If not, then their claims and yours are just hot air, which of course is the case.

You manage to keep proving the very point about sola scriptura and its adherents that Calvinist Horton attempts to disprove.

We already know what the Catholic faith teaches. What we do not know is which is the true Protestantism. That is the case because sola scriptura guarantees chaos because every man reads and decides for himself and does what is right in his own eyes.

But you see ole Jake, you keep making the absurd assumption that what the RCC teaches is truth.  And the rest of us may not always agree with each other, but most of us agree that not all of what the RCC teaches is truth either.  Just because some high mucky mucks get together and issue some formal announcement doesn't make it right either.  No matter what you choose to think about it, truth isn't found in numbers.  The position of the RCC is much akin to that of the Scribes and Pharasees and we all know what Jesus thought about that group.  They contended against sola scriptura just like you do and for the same reasons too.

The Pharisees (scribes are not a specific group as such) were not the the legitimate religious authority under the Mosaic covenant. The Levite priests were, with the High Priest in charge. The Pharisees were an extra-Temple, non-Levitical group of teachers who also led worship services, and the Pharisees very clearly rejected the authority of the Temple and the High Priest, which was a forerunner of their rejection of God Incarnate.

Nope the Scribes and the pharisees are a good type to the RCC as far as I am concerned.  They were basically self proclaimed religious leaders who used their position at the expense of the people.  You are right, the Pharisees were and extra-Temple group of teachers who also led wordhip services.  And as I said, as far as I am concerned a very good description of the RCC hierarchy.

[ole Jake]

Is Horton willing to have a Council in which all Protestant denominations - not just Calvinists - get an equal vote to declare what is true about the Christian faith? If not, then his claims here are just hot air, for what they mean in reality is that each set of people seeing certain Bible verses diferently will form new denominations and have their own members serve as the 'community of saints' that allegedly prevents the individual from going overboard with his use of sola scriptura.

Is the RCC willing to have a Council in which all non Protestant denominations get and equal vote to decalre what is true about the Christian faith?  If not, then their claims and yours are just hot air, which of course is the case.

You manage to keep proving the very point about sola scriptura and its adherents that Calvinist Horton attempts to disprove.

We already know what the Catholic faith teaches. What we do not know is which is the true Protestantism. That is the case because sola scriptura guarantees chaos because every man reads and decides for himself and does what is right in his own eyes.

But you see ole Jake, you keep making the absurd assumption that what the RCC teaches is truth.  And the rest of us may not always agree with each other, but most of us agree that not all of what the RCC teaches is truth either.  Just because some high mucky mucks get together and issue some formal announcement doesn't make it right either.  No matter what you choose to think about it, truth isn't found in numbers.  The position of the RCC is much akin to that of the Scribes and Pharasees and we all know what Jesus thought about that group.  They contended against sola scriptura just like you do and for the same reasons too.

The Pharisees (scribes are not a specific group as such) were not the the legitimate religious authority under the Mosaic covenant. The Levite priests were, with the High Priest in charge. The Pharisees were an extra-Temple, non-Levitical group of teachers who also led worship services, and the Pharisees very clearly rejected the authority of the Temple and the High Priest, which was a forerunner of their rejection of God Incarnate.

Nope the Scribes and the pharisees are a good type to the RCC as far as I am concerned.  They were basically self proclaimed religious leaders who used their position at the expense of the people.  You are right, the Pharisees were and extra-Temple group of teachers who also led wordhip services.  And as I said, as far as I am concerned a very good description of the RCC hierarchy.

"As far as you are concerned ..." Unless your impressions are infallible - and by using sola scriptura you philosophically are declaring your faith in your infallible Bible interpretations - that which is as far as you are concerned has no merit beyond you. Thus we again see the solipsism and the atomism guaranteed by Luther's revolt.

Just as there was an hierarchy under the Mosaic covenant, there is an hierarchy under the Christian covenant. Just as groups arose to try to usurp the lawful authority of the Temple and its Levite priests, the Christian era has people who have arisen to reject the authority established by the Apostles as they had been taught by Christ.

[katholikos]

....But you see ole Jake, you keep making the absurd assumption that what the RCC teaches is truth.....

And that statement is based on your own absurd assumption, which is that you cannot be wrong.