Hoever, his defense of certain unique Catholic doctrines is surprisingly faulty. We will cut him some slack, however, for his otherwise brilliant analysis.
If Sola Scriptura is a dogma necessary for salvation, it is found in scripture, explicitly or implicitly.
But it is not.
While there is a passage or two praising the scripture as useful for teaching and rebuking false teachings, nowhere does scripture positively affirm that scripture alone contains the sum of necessary Church teaching.
Now, if the scripture does not say openly that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine necessary for salvation, but if there are hints and riddles perhaps implying it, then merely reading scripture is not enough. Correct interpretation is necessary.
If the Church has the authority and mission to form and protect correct interpretation, she would vehemently denounce or even expel any contrary teaching, especially if, as was promised in scripture, the Church were guided and protected by the Holy Ghost to avoid all error, from that day to this.
Nowhere does scripture say or imply that the Church lacks this teaching authority. Indeed, it expressly says the opposite at the ascension.
Nowhere does scripture say or imply that the Church lacks the authority to authorize and canonize the scripture.
Obviously, if the disciples anointed to teach Church teaching lacked the authority to write the Epistles, and have them taken as infallibly inspired writings, not as private opinion, then no Epistles could be written.
Equally obviously, if the teachers appointed by those disciples to carry on their work lacked the authority to separate truth epistles from false, true gospels from false, true teaching from false, then they are not in any sense of the word teachers, nor is the Church in any sense of the word a Church. Instead she is merely a prayer meeting of like minded individuals whose Eucharist is a memorial, not a sacrament, and whose teaching is whatever doctrines their founders fancied.
Nowhere does scripture say or imply that the scripture defines itself, canonizes itself, nor interprets itself.
Indeed, there is not one example in the Gospel or Epistles of a single man interpreting scripture, Old Testament or New, in isolation, apart from tradition, without a teacher.
There is not a single line in any Early Church Fathers’ writings to hint that private interpretation of scripture was legitimate.
But there are clear examples, repeatedly, of warning against false prophets, false teachers, false Christs.
In the Gospel, the Devil quotes scripture spuriously, as part of the temptation of Christ. Book of the Revelation, Christ Himself condemns the teaching of Jezebel, Balaam, and the Nicolaitans.
Hence, the argument proposed by Sola Scriptura contradicts (1) reality and (2) history.
Sola Scriptura contradicts reality, because, in reality, no document interprets itself.
As an atheist with no dog in this fight, with no bias to either side, I could see clearly, even back then, that the idea of a self-interpreting document is absurd.
Every law student knows how to interpret any passage of statute or contract either strictly or loosely, literally or metaphorically, either to distinguish two similar cases or analogize two divergent cases. Laws and statutes are meant to be written and read as unambiguously as possible. Gospels and epistles, parables and mysteries, are not.
A self-interpreting document would necessarily produce the same interpretation, agreeing on all points, or all material points, regardless of who read it.
Even if we add the caveat that all misinterpretation is forwarded by false Christians, either insincere or deceived by diabolic forces, and that everyone who reads scripture with the aid of the Holy Ghost does not eliminate the problem, because false Christians are disguised as true Christians, false prophets as true prophets, and many a man honestly believing himself to be moved by the Holy Ghost is deceived or self-deceived.
Even with this caveat, the partisan of Sola Scriptura is left with no argument, except to say his denomination and his alone, out of the hundreds and thousands of separate denominations eternally dividing from each other, is the sole denomination guided by the Holy Ghost. All others have fallen to error. All prior generations of Christians were in error.
This is certain a bold claim, but unreasonable, since it assumes, first, that the original one, true, and apostolic universal Church established by Christ and His disciples evaporated from the universe, or hid, and only revived or came out of hiding then a lone theologian of the Fifth, Tenth, or Sixteenth Century deduced, using the scriptures provided by the false church, without any outside sources or confirmatory information, the true teachings of the true church.
It assumes, second, that the denomination to which one belongs, having reversed its decisions on various topics, such as the lawfulness of divorce, of contraception, of slaveholding, now is protected by the Holy Ghost against further and future error of teaching false doctrine, but was not previously protected. If your denomination split off too recently to be tempted to change doctrines or dogmas, the parent denomination from which you spring was likewise unprotected by the Holy Ghost.
Unless your denomination was mentioned by name and date and founder in scripture, you are relying on some teaching outside scripture to confirm your denomination and yours alone to be infallible.
No document is free from ambiguity. There is not prone to innocent misinterpretation. There is none not open to deliberate misinterpretation.
This is particularly true of religious writings, which speak of mystical things beyond human knowledge, and often speak in parables or figures. Moreover, the New Testament is not written by lawyers to be unambiguous, with every phrase repeated in French or Latin, and every term defined, every caveat written out.
The Gospel accounts are testimonies of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, His miracles and His sayings.
The Epistles are letters from Apostles to local church leaders of a Church that is already in existence, often decades in existence, hence established in their sacraments and traditions.
The Epistles are letters from Apostles to local church leaders to clarifying teachings and practices already shared by those to whom the letters are written. They are not meant to be read by outsiders unfamiliar with the Church, or rebels doubting the authority of the Church. They do not and cannot make sense to anyone who does not share the unspoken and unwritten assumptions, understanding, and sentiments of the Church.
The Epistles do not establish Church constitution, hierarchy, sacrament, rubric, calendar, discipline or dogma.
These letters clarify and correct a teaching already in place to a hierarchy already in place: they cannot be understood nor read in any other way.
These letters speak with the teaching authority of the Disciples and Apostles. One must either claim that this apostolic teaching authority died with the first generation of Christians, in which case the promises of Christ Himself to the contrary are in vain, or one must claim the apostles had the authority to appoint and anoint successors to succeed them.
The idea that if it is not in the canon of the Bible, it is not Church teaching is a self-refuting fallacy: for what is and is not in the canon of the Bible it itself a Church teaching.
And Sola Scriptura is not a Church teaching and never was.
Sola Scriptura, if it were true, logically necessitates that the Apostles lacked the ability and authority to teach and rebuke false teachings verbally, and to pass down to their disciples, i.e. the Early Church Fathers, teachings necessary for salvation, including the teaching that the sacred scriptures are sacred.
Sola Scriptura contradicts history.
“Scripture” as the word is used by the partisans of Sola Scriptura means the canon based on the Masoretic texts, which form the 66 book King James Bible, not the 73 of the Douay-Rheims, based on the Septuagint.
When a Protestant speaks of “Scripture” he does not mean the books history says were traditionally recognized by the whole body of the faithful since the Second Century AD, and authoritatively canonized as scripture by the Council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo, and the Council of Carthage in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries AD.
When a Protestant speaks of “Scripture” he means the books canonized by Martin Luther on his own personal opinion.
(Why all further and future heresiarchs will follow his lead on this, except, perhaps, Calvin, remains a mystery to me. Why Protestants suspicious of the Catholic Church do not follow the canon of the Coptic or Persian, Russian, or Greek Churches remains a mystery.)
To establish the private Lutheran canon, Martin Luther consulted with the Rabbinical authorities of the Sixteen Century AD, who naturally told him that their recent and local sect of Jews (unrelated to the Jews of antiquity) recognized only the Masoretic text as authoritatively Jewish.
The Masoretic text was copied, edited, and distributed by a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes , or ‘Masters of the Tradition’, between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. The Masters of the Tradition excluded the traditional books of the Old Testament books in the Septuagint of which no original in Aramaic survived, such as Maccabees I and II, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon.
The Septuagint is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and dates from the Third Century BC. It predates the First Advent, and is the version quoted in the New Testament by Our Lord and the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and everyone before the Tenth Century AD.
Unfortunately for the Masters of Tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that all of the books of the Catholic Old Testament were in use by Jews in the Third to First Century BC, except for Esther, at least by the Essene community. The Rabbinical Jews of the Seventh Century AD follow the Pharisee tradition, not the Sadducee. Note that the Pharisee and Sadducees did not agree on a canon for the Old Testament.
Martin Luther, in effect, held that neither the Pope nor Metropolitans nor the Archbishops nor any Church Council nor Synod, nor the Apostles, nor Christ, has any authority to rule on what is and is not correct Church teaching, except unless it was written down in a properly canonized book. Anything Christ said not written down in a properly canonized book does not count.
And Martin Luther, alone, is the infallible authority on what is and is not a properly canonized book.
The Church cannot define Church teaching. Only Luther. The Apostles cannot define Apostolic teaching. Only Luther.
Please note Martin Luther produced no signs and wonders to show he is a prophet speaking for God.
He convoked no Church Councils nor Synods, but claims his authority is equal to theirs.
He claims to have the same authority as the Pope, except without any vote by the College of Cardinals.
Indeed, he claims to have more authority than any Pope or Synod could ever claim, since he adds and subtracts longstanding doctrines of Christian teaching, and edits the canon of Scripture. No Pope ever unilaterally ripped a book of the Bible out of the Bible and tossed it aside, much less several books.
Honestly, I have more respect for Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy. He, at least, claimed the status of a Prophet visited by angels; and she healed the sick through prayer, as did the Apostles of old, or the waters of Lourdes.
To read Scripture is to be Protestant. To understand Scripture is to be Catholic.
Protestants “read” Scripture but, because they cut themselves off from the Apostolic Church, they over emphasize or overlook words and passages so as to follow the interpretation invented by their particular founder or teacher.
Let us list a part of the many the founders and teachers each claiming sole authority to teach the doctrines of Christ.
All but one are false.
The Church was established by Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, in AD 33, granted the mission to teach and preach the Gospel and baptize and make disciples at the Ascension. The disciples were further granted the power of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, which shall keep the Church from all error, and instruct her in all hidden things later revealed and clarified, such as the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Trinity.
Every doctrine dismissed by the Protestant as unbiblical is biblical, but only when read with the mind of the Church that gave us the Scriptures in the first place.
Let us list several doctrines routinely dismissed by Protestants as outside the Bible.
------‐--‐-------‐------
Once upon a time, not so long ago, as a militant, vituperative, zealous atheist, I came across a philosophical dialog written to show the arguments for and against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
As an atheist, I had no dog in that fight. To me, it was like hearing children argue over some entirely imaginary dispute over entirely fictional characters: as if one were the argue that Rudolph should or should not be counted among the eight tiny reindeer pulling Santa’s miniature sleigh.
To me, both sides were equally discussing nothing. Hence, I was able to judge them without favoritism, without bias.
That being said, the argument as given favoring the Sola Scriptura side contradicted itself handily and made no sense historically or realistically.
As best I understand it, Sola Scriptura or “Scripture Alone” holds that (1) Scripture is the final teaching authority for all Christians, contains all necessary and sufficient dogma for salvation, and (2) requires no interpreter aside from a literate reader who is open to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is a self-interpreting document. Each man is free to discover any interpretation or misinterpretation as he sees fit, as long as the Holy Ghost inspires his opinion.
Hence, it is the doctrine that no one needs the Church to learn Church Teaching. Each student can be his own teacher. Each sheep is his own shepherd.
This implies all necessary Church Teaching is written in the Gospels and Epistles. Once these documents were written, the Church teaching mission was over. The Church lacks magisterial authority (that is, the teaching authority) to rule on what is or is not a incorrect interpretation of Church teaching.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, in effect, says Christ never established a Church. He gathered a group of man to write testimonies and letters, and their mission as His Disciples ended the moment when Saint John dotted the final iota in the Book of Revelation. Of course, scripture itself nowise says this, and quite explicitly says the opposite.
Even as an outsider, even as an atheist, even as a enemy of Christ and Christian teaching, I could see this argument was as silly as a man who pulls himself into the air by his own bootstraps.
No reader of sacred scripture in the Sixteenth Century, or the Tenth, or the Fifth, would know sacred scripture was sacred scriptural. No reader would have known the Gospel of Luke was true and the Gospel of Thomas was forgery. No reader would know the doctrine of the Trinity nor the doctrine of Original Sin nor the intricacies of the doctrine of the Incarnation, because these things are not stated in the Gospels and Epistles so openly and so obviously that any honest reader would see them.
The argument contradicts itself quite simply:If Sola Scriptura were true, every dogma necessary for salvation is found in scripture, explicitly or implicitly.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, as a militant, vituperative, zealous atheist, I came across a philosophical dialog written to show the arguments for and against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
As an atheist, I had no dog in that fight. To me, it was like hearing children argue over some entirely imaginary dispute over entirely fictional characters: as if one were the argue that Rudolph should or should not be counted among the eight tiny reindeer pulling Santa’s miniature sleigh.
To me, both sides were equally discussing nothing. Hence, I was able to judge them without favoritism, without bias.
That being said, the argument as given favoring the Sola Scriptura side contradicted itself handily and made no sense historically or realistically.
As best I understand it, Sola Scriptura or “Scripture Alone” holds that (1) Scripture is the final teaching authority for all Christians, contains all necessary and sufficient dogma for salvation, and (2) requires no interpreter aside from a literate reader who is open to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is a self-interpreting document. Each man is free to discover any interpretation or misinterpretation as he sees fit, as long as the Holy Ghost inspires his opinion.
Hence, it is the doctrine that no one needs the Church to learn Church Teaching. Each student can be his own teacher. Each sheep is his own shepherd.
This implies all necessary Church Teaching is written in the Gospels and Epistles. Once these documents were written, the Church teaching mission was over. The Church lacks magisterial authority (that is, the teaching authority) to rule on what is or is not a incorrect interpretation of Church teaching.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, in effect, says Christ never established a Church. He gathered a group of man to write testimonies and letters, and their mission as His Disciples ended the moment when Saint John dotted the final iota in the Book of Revelation. Of course, scripture itself nowise says this, and quite explicitly says the opposite.
Even as an outsider, even as an atheist, even as a enemy of Christ and Christian teaching, I could see this argument was as silly as a man who pulls himself into the air by his own bootstraps.
No reader of sacred scripture in the Sixteenth Century, or the Tenth, or the Fifth, would know sacred scripture was sacred scriptural. No reader would have known the Gospel of Luke was true and the Gospel of Thomas was forgery. No reader would know the doctrine of the Trinity nor the doctrine of Original Sin nor the intricacies of the doctrine of the Incarnation, because these things are not stated in the Gospels and Epistles so openly and so obviously that any honest reader would see them.
The argument contradicts itself quite simply:If Sola Scriptura were true, every dogma necessary for salvation is found in scripture, explicitly or implicitly.
If Sola Scriptura is a dogma necessary for salvation, it is found in scripture, explicitly or implicitly.
But it is not.
While there is a passage or two praising the scripture as useful for teaching and rebuking false teachings, nowhere does scripture positively affirm that scripture alone contains the sum of necessary Church teaching.
Now, if the scripture does not say openly that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine necessary for salvation, but if there are hints and riddles perhaps implying it, then merely reading scripture is not enough. Correct interpretation is necessary.
If the Church has the authority and mission to form and protect correct interpretation, she would vehemently denounce or even expel any contrary teaching, especially if, as was promised in scripture, the Church were guided and protected by the Holy Ghost to avoid all error, from that day to this.
Nowhere does scripture say or imply that the Church lacks this teaching authority. Indeed, it expressly says the opposite at the ascension.
Nowhere does scripture say or imply that the Church lacks the authority to authorize and canonize the scripture.
Obviously, if the disciples anointed to teach Church teaching lacked the authority to write the Epistles, and have them taken as infallibly inspired writings, not as private opinion, then no Epistles could be written.
Equally obviously, if the teachers appointed by those disciples to carry on their work lacked the authority to separate truth epistles from false, true gospels from false, true teaching from false, then they are not in any sense of the word teachers, nor is the Church in any sense of the word a Church. Instead she is merely a prayer meeting of like minded individuals whose Eucharist is a memorial, not a sacrament, and whose teaching is whatever doctrines their founders fancied.
Nowhere does scripture say or imply that the scripture defines itself, canonizes itself, nor interprets itself.
Indeed, there is not one example in the Gospel or Epistles of a single man interpreting scripture, Old Testament or New, in isolation, apart from tradition, without a teacher.
There is not a single line in any Early Church Fathers’ writings to hint that private interpretation of scripture was legitimate.
But there are clear examples, repeatedly, of warning against false prophets, false teachers, false Christs.
In the Gospel, the Devil quotes scripture spuriously, as part of the temptation of Christ. Book of the Revelation, Christ Himself condemns the teaching of Jezebel, Balaam, and the Nicolaitans.
Hence, the argument proposed by Sola Scriptura contradicts (1) reality and (2) history.
Sola Scriptura contradicts reality, because, in reality, no document interprets itself.
As an atheist with no dog in this fight, with no bias to either side, I could see clearly, even back then, that the idea of a self-interpreting document is absurd.
Every law student knows how to interpret any passage of statute or contract either strictly or loosely, literally or metaphorically, either to distinguish two similar cases or analogize two divergent cases. Laws and statutes are meant to be written and read as unambiguously as possible. Gospels and epistles, parables and mysteries, are not.
A self-interpreting document would necessarily produce the same interpretation, agreeing on all points, or all material points, regardless of who read it.
Even if we add the caveat that all misinterpretation is forwarded by false Christians, either insincere or deceived by diabolic forces, and that everyone who reads scripture with the aid of the Holy Ghost does not eliminate the problem, because false Christians are disguised as true Christians, false prophets as true prophets, and many a man honestly believing himself to be moved by the Holy Ghost is deceived or self-deceived.
Even with this caveat, the partisan of Sola Scriptura is left with no argument, except to say his denomination and his alone, out of the hundreds and thousands of separate denominations eternally dividing from each other, is the sole denomination guided by the Holy Ghost. All others have fallen to error. All prior generations of Christians were in error.
This is certain a bold claim, but unreasonable, since it assumes, first, that the original one, true, and apostolic universal Church established by Christ and His disciples evaporated from the universe, or hid, and only revived or came out of hiding then a lone theologian of the Fifth, Tenth, or Sixteenth Century deduced, using the scriptures provided by the false church, without any outside sources or confirmatory information, the true teachings of the true church.
It assumes, second, that the denomination to which one belongs, having reversed its decisions on various topics, such as the lawfulness of divorce, of contraception, of slaveholding, now is protected by the Holy Ghost against further and future error of teaching false doctrine, but was not previously protected. If your denomination split off too recently to be tempted to change doctrines or dogmas, the parent denomination from which you spring was likewise unprotected by the Holy Ghost.
Unless your denomination was mentioned by name and date and founder in scripture, you are relying on some teaching outside scripture to confirm your denomination and yours alone to be infallible.
No document is free from ambiguity. There is not prone to innocent misinterpretation. There is none not open to deliberate misinterpretation.
This is particularly true of religious writings, which speak of mystical things beyond human knowledge, and often speak in parables or figures. Moreover, the New Testament is not written by lawyers to be unambiguous, with every phrase repeated in French or Latin, and every term defined, every caveat written out.
The Gospel accounts are testimonies of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, His miracles and His sayings.
The Epistles are letters from Apostles to local church leaders of a Church that is already in existence, often decades in existence, hence established in their sacraments and traditions.
The Epistles are letters from Apostles to local church leaders to clarifying teachings and practices already shared by those to whom the letters are written. They are not meant to be read by outsiders unfamiliar with the Church, or rebels doubting the authority of the Church. They do not and cannot make sense to anyone who does not share the unspoken and unwritten assumptions, understanding, and sentiments of the Church.
The Epistles do not establish Church constitution, hierarchy, sacrament, rubric, calendar, discipline or dogma.
These letters clarify and correct a teaching already in place to a hierarchy already in place: they cannot be understood nor read in any other way.
These letters speak with the teaching authority of the Disciples and Apostles. One must either claim that this apostolic teaching authority died with the first generation of Christians, in which case the promises of Christ Himself to the contrary are in vain, or one must claim the apostles had the authority to appoint and anoint successors to succeed them.
The idea that if it is not in the canon of the Bible, it is not Church teaching is a self-refuting fallacy: for what is and is not in the canon of the Bible it itself a Church teaching.
And Sola Scriptura is not a Church teaching and never was.
Sola Scriptura, if it were true, logically necessitates that the Apostles lacked the ability and authority to teach and rebuke false teachings verbally, and to pass down to their disciples, i.e. the Early Church Fathers, teachings necessary for salvation, including the teaching that the sacred scriptures are sacred.
Sola Scriptura contradicts history.
“Scripture” as the word is used by the partisans of Sola Scriptura means the canon based on the Masoretic texts, which form the 66 book King James Bible, not the 73 of the Douay-Rheims, based on the Septuagint.
When a Protestant speaks of “Scripture” he does not mean the books history says were traditionally recognized by the whole body of the faithful since the Second Century AD, and authoritatively canonized as scripture by the Council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo, and the Council of Carthage in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries AD.
When a Protestant speaks of “Scripture” he means the books canonized by Martin Luther on his own personal opinion.
(Why all further and future heresiarchs will follow his lead on this, except, perhaps, Calvin, remains a mystery to me. Why Protestants suspicious of the Catholic Church do not follow the canon of the Coptic or Persian, Russian, or Greek Churches remains a mystery.)
To establish the private Lutheran canon, Martin Luther consulted with the Rabbinical authorities of the Sixteen Century AD, who naturally told him that their recent and local sect of Jews (unrelated to the Jews of antiquity) recognized only the Masoretic text as authoritatively Jewish.
The Masoretic text was copied, edited, and distributed by a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes , or ‘Masters of the Tradition’, between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. The Masters of the Tradition excluded the traditional books of the Old Testament books in the Septuagint of which no original in Aramaic survived, such as Maccabees I and II, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon.
The Septuagint is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and dates from the Third Century BC. It predates the First Advent, and is the version quoted in the New Testament by Our Lord and the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and everyone before the Tenth Century AD.
Unfortunately for the Masters of Tradition, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that all of the books of the Catholic Old Testament were in use by Jews in the Third to First Century BC, except for Esther, at least by the Essene community. The Rabbinical Jews of the Seventh Century AD follow the Pharisee tradition, not the Sadducee. Note that the Pharisee and Sadducees did not agree on a canon for the Old Testament.
Martin Luther, in effect, held that neither the Pope nor Metropolitans nor the Archbishops nor any Church Council nor Synod, nor the Apostles, nor Christ, has any authority to rule on what is and is not correct Church teaching, except unless it was written down in a properly canonized book. Anything Christ said not written down in a properly canonized book does not count.
And Martin Luther, alone, is the infallible authority on what is and is not a properly canonized book.
The Church cannot define Church teaching. Only Luther. The Apostles cannot define Apostolic teaching. Only Luther.
Please note Martin Luther produced no signs and wonders to show he is a prophet speaking for God.
He convoked no Church Councils nor Synods, but claims his authority is equal to theirs.
He claims to have the same authority as the Pope, except without any vote by the College of Cardinals.
Indeed, he claims to have more authority than any Pope or Synod could ever claim, since he adds and subtracts longstanding doctrines of Christian teaching, and edits the canon of Scripture. No Pope ever unilaterally ripped a book of the Bible out of the Bible and tossed it aside, much less several books.
Honestly, I have more respect for Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy. He, at least, claimed the status of a Prophet visited by angels; and she healed the sick through prayer, as did the Apostles of old, or the waters of Lourdes.
To read Scripture is to be Protestant. To understand Scripture is to be Catholic.
Protestants “read” Scripture but, because they cut themselves off from the Apostolic Church, they over emphasize or overlook words and passages so as to follow the interpretation invented by their particular founder or teacher.
Let us list a part of the many the founders and teachers each claiming sole authority to teach the doctrines of Christ.
All but one are false.
The Church was established by Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, in AD 33, granted the mission to teach and preach the Gospel and baptize and make disciples at the Ascension. The disciples were further granted the power of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, which shall keep the Church from all error, and instruct her in all hidden things later revealed and clarified, such as the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Trinity.
- Church teaching was reinterpreted by Simon the Magician in AD 40 (Gnosticism: Matter is evil, God is spirit alone. Denied the Incarnation)
- Montanus in AD 177 (Private revelations trump Church teaching)
- Ebionite in AD 180 (Christ was not divine)
- Manichaeus in AD 210 (God equal and opposite to the Devil)
- Arius in AD 320 (The Son is less than the Father)
- Macedonius in AD 381 (Impugned the divinity of of the Holy Ghost)
- Pelagius in AD 430 (No original sin. Man can save himself)
- Nestorius in AD 431 (Christ was not both human and divine in union)
- Eutyches of Constantinople in AD 450 (Christ was not human)
- Photius of Constantinople in AD 815 (Denied Spirit Proceeds from Christ)
- Albigensians in AD 1163 (Gnosticism, again.)
- Waldenses in AD 1177 (Denied Eucharist, Purgatory, Sacraments, Works)
- Martin Luther in AD 1517 (Denied Eucharist, Purgatory, Sacraments, Works)
- King Henry VIII in AD 1534 (Secular Authority trumps Divine Authority)
- John Calvin in AD 1536 (Lutheranism but with Double Predestination)
- John Smyth in AD 1609 (Baptist)
- John and Charles Wesley in AD 1739 (Methodist)
- Samuel Seabury in AD 1789 (Episcopalian)
- Joseph Smith in AD 1830 (Church of Latter Day Saints)
- William Miller in the 1840s (Millerites)
- Ellen White in 1844 (Seventh Day Adventists)
- William Booth in AD 1865 (Salvation Army)
- Mary Eddy Baker in AD 1879 (Christian Science)
- Charles Taze Russel in AD 1896 (Jehovah’s Witnesses)
- Charles F Parkham (sic) in AD 1901 (Pentecostal)
- Chuck Smith in AD 1965 (Calvary Chapel)
Every doctrine dismissed by the Protestant as unbiblical is biblical, but only when read with the mind of the Church that gave us the Scriptures in the first place.
Let us list several doctrines routinely dismissed by Protestants as outside the Bible.
Purgatory: 1 Cor 3:15, 2 Macc 12:45
2 Macc 12:43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
Papacy: Mt 16:18–19, Jn 21:15–17, Is 22:22
Mt. 16:18 -19 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Revelation 3:7 This is what you must write to the angel of the church in Philadelphia: I am the one who is holy and true, and I have the keys that belonged to David. When I open a door, no one can close it. And when I close a door, no one can open it.
Relics: 2 Kgs 13:21, Acts 19:11–12
2Kg. 13:21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.
Ac. 19:11-12 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
Jn. 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
1Co. 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
1Co. 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
Prayers for the dead: 2 Macc 12:44–46, 2 Tim 1:16–18 (????)
Mary’s sinlessness: Lk 1:28, Gn 3:15
Lk. 1:28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
Ge. 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Ac. 1:20-22 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms, “`May his place be deserted; let there be no-one to dwell in it,’ [Psalm 69:25] and, “`May another take his place of leadership.’ [Psalm 109:8] 21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
2Ti. 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
Perpetual virginity of Mary: Ezek 44:2, Lk 1:34, Jn 19:26–27
Ez. 44:1-2 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no-one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.
Lk. 1:34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
Jn. 19:26-27 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
All of these allegedly extrabiblical teaching are seen in the Bible if correctly interpreted, certainly just as much, or more so, that the doctrine of the Trinity, or Sunday worship, or many other things many Protestants accept solely on Church authority, such as Monogamy (which is nowhere mentioned in Sculpture). (sic)
The early Christians unanimously believed these things centuries before a single Protestant existed. If the faithful Protestant reads the text and sees nothing, perhaps this is due to his manmade tradition, which redacted whole books out of the Bible, and cut itself off from the very Church that wrote, preserved, canonized, and spread the Bible.
The irony is, Protestants would not even have a Bible to redact and misinterpret if it were not for the Catholic Church. The mentions of Christ in Josephus or Tacitus are insufficient to inform even with wisest man of the sayings and deeds and teachings of Christ, much less the great story of the advent, the passion and resurrection, the ascension, and promise of the second advent.
No comments:
Post a Comment