tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post51494215753776052..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Reply to the Arguments of a (Protestant) Panning Review of Dave Armstrong's Book, "100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura"Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90523810598844866272013-02-27T18:05:23.100-05:002013-02-27T18:05:23.100-05:00Yeah, it was a typo (now corrected). Thanks for po...Yeah, it was a typo (now corrected). Thanks for pointing this out.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-41284939379641784792013-02-27T18:03:09.685-05:002013-02-27T18:03:09.685-05:00..Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-51616517314669743742013-02-27T17:04:55.843-05:002013-02-27T17:04:55.843-05:00Dave, you say, "He is so radically "Scri...Dave, you say, "He is so radically "Scripture alone" that he claims (and absurdly contends that Aquinas claims) that Scripture Alone is the course of "all truth" -- not merely the only infallible authority for Christians, which is what sola Scriptura means."<br /><br />I suspect this is a typo. Shouldn't "course" be "source"? If so, can you change it in the original? If not, can you explain what you mean by "the course of all truth"?Rosary Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259265802298354034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79834190687622422442012-08-06T16:40:32.110-04:002012-08-06T16:40:32.110-04:00I wasn't clear enough with my categorization. ...I wasn't clear enough with my categorization. There's indisputable doctrine that, if denied, would cause one to discern one to be unsaved: the trinity, salvation by faith in Christ, all men are sinners,...<br /><br />Then there's major doctrine that's very clear in the Bible: homosexuality is a sin, lying is a sin, and female pastors are not allowed. To deny those things is serious but doesn't necessarily exclude one from salvation.<br /><br />Then there's doctrine that can be viewed multiple ways (not necessarily minor): what day you worship the Lord, what you eat (or don't eat), whether one is baptized as an infant or as a believer,... What day one worships & what one eats or doesn't were MAJOR issues in Paul's day, but they're not now. And apparently they were disputable.<br /><br />There's no command to be baptized as an infant. There is a command to believe and be baptized. There are instances of whole households being baptized but no <b>confirmed</b> infants being baptized. If there were, Southern Baptists would baptize infants.<br /><br />Paul equates baptism to circumcision, which is why Methodists baptize infants, however neither of us believes baptism brings salvation. That's why Baptists & Methodists can agree to disagree even though it's not a trivial matter.Grubbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521138399370808696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-26665753150070150092012-08-06T14:49:21.368-04:002012-08-06T14:49:21.368-04:00You prove my point that your system is unworkable....You prove my point that your system is unworkable. Baptism is not a minor issue at all (as you hold). It's tied directly to salvation several times in Scripture. That's pretty important:<br /><br /> <b>Acts 2:38</b> And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;<br /><br /> <b>1 Peter 3:18-21</b> For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,<br /><br /> <b>Acts 22:16</b> And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'<br /><br /> <b>Romans 6:3-4</b> Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (cf. Romans 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 2:11-13)<br /><br /> <b>1 Corinthians 6:11</b> And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.<br /><br /> <b>Mark 16:16</b> [disputed manuscript, but still indicates the early Christian, apostolic belief] He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.<br /><br />Paul seems to imply an organic connection between baptism (washed), sanctification and justification.<br /><br /> <b>Titus 3:5</b> he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,<br /><br />Compare this to <b>John 3:5</b>:<br /><br /> Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (cf. 3:3: "unless a man is born again ...")<br /><br />The two passages are almost exactly parallel:<br /><br /> Titus: "saved" / John: "enter the kingdom of God"<br /><br /> Titus: "washing of rebirth" / John: "born of water"<br /><br /> Titus: "renewal by the Holy Spirit" / John: "born . . . of the Spirit"Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-27932510772219635212012-08-06T14:43:34.963-04:002012-08-06T14:43:34.963-04:00What do you do when men don't agree on the int...<i>What do you do when men don't agree on the interpretation of what this inspired, infallible Bible teaches? Fall back on denominational traditions of men? If so, how is that better than the Catholic system?</i><br /><br />In many instances, we agree to disagree. Romans 14:1-6 allows for differences on many issues, and some were major issues in their day: what they could or couldn't eat and what days to observe or not. And this wasn't just at the church or denomination level; it was at the individual level.<br /><br />We can't agree to disagree on major issues like the Trinity or salvation by faith in Christ, but with things like infant baptism vs believer's baptism (as long as one doesn't believe baptism = salvation), we agree to disagree.<br /><br />On serious issues such as homosexuality or female pastors, we point to scripture that condemns both and encourage wayward churches to change their theology and ways.<br /><br />Hebrews 4:11-13 says, <i>"Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."</i><br /><br />It's the Word that does the convicting not the man. So with those whom have faulty theology we "correct, rebuke, and encourage with great patience and careful instruction." (II Tim 4:2b)Grubbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521138399370808696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82701088908293694762012-08-06T14:10:34.259-04:002012-08-06T14:10:34.259-04:00What do you do when men don't agree on the int...What do you do when men don't agree on the interpretation of what this inspired, infallible Bible teaches? Fall back on denominational traditions of men? If so, how is that better than the Catholic system?<br /><br />You've simply put your faith in the "Reformed" denomination: which, of course, teaches several things that are unbiblical, as interpreted (and proven) by unbroken apostolic, patristic, and Catholic tradition through the centuries.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-66570994946321191082012-08-06T13:59:15.182-04:002012-08-06T13:59:15.182-04:00Dave,
Good to hear from you. Sorry I didn't ...Dave,<br /><br />Good to hear from you. Sorry I didn't reply sooner; I thought I had checked the box to let me know when someone replied...apparently I didn't. : )<br /><br />The Bereans (Acts 17) weren't comparing what the apostles said to what they had already heard from Rome. They were comparing it to what the Word of God said and were commended for it. That's what the Reformed Church did (and does) as well.<br /><br />There's no reason to believe that the Pope or the RCC cannot err. First of all, it's not put forth in scripture; and secondly, local churches wouldn't compare to scripture what passers by said, they'd just compare it to what the RCC & Pope say. But clearly, comparing what religious people say to Scripture is not only acceptable, it's advisable and commendable.<br /><br />If a third of the angels (ANGELS!!) could spiritually err, a Pope and the RCC can too. That's why it's good always to go back to the written Word, because it doesn't change. The RCC and Popes do.Grubbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521138399370808696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9410898973452526212012-08-02T10:39:36.816-04:002012-08-02T10:39:36.816-04:00Hi Grubb,
Good to hear from ya, buddy!
We would ...Hi Grubb,<br /><br />Good to hear from ya, buddy!<br /><br />We would say that the "Reformed Church" has no ultimate authority, since it departed from the line of apostolic succession, and holds views different from the received tradition as passed down by same. This is how the Church fathers always reasoned.<br /><br />Now, Reformed Protestants get many things right, where they agree with Catholic tradition, but overall, because of differences, we deny its authority per se, based on the biblical, patristic notion of apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, and specifically because it differs from what the Church in Rome has held in unbroken succession all the way back to the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself.<br /><br />In other words, Rome is the criteria of orthodoxy, which goes back to Peter being the leader of the apostles and being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and being made the "rock" upon which the Church was built.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59107537606852872632012-08-01T09:39:14.094-04:002012-08-01T09:39:14.094-04:00Hey Everyone,
It's been a while since I stopp...Hey Everyone,<br /><br />It's been a while since I stopped by, so I thought I'd say hi. The topic of sola scriptura is always intriguing, so I read much of your reply Dave. You said,<br /><br /><i>Paul says nothing about "private judgment" in the sense that Matt and Protestants mean. He says nothing about a scenario in which mere laymen judge apostles and reject them. He simply says that if anyone preaches a different gospel (even supposed apostles or angels: since if they preached a false gospel, it would prove -- strongly implied -- they they were false apostles and demons), that they should be "accursed" for doing so.</i><br /><br />Suppose we take it out of the hands of "mere laymen" and allow the Reformed Church to decide. Is that acceptable? We've got Elders at our church who teach at a local seminary, and they believe based on Scripture that sola scriptura is right and that the Roman Catholic Church has added doctrine. Now it's no longer Grubb the "mere layman" exercising his "private judgment," it's a genuine body of Christ followers with wise elders exercising its wise judgment.<br /><br />Wouldn't that be in line with what Paul was saying? If not, why not?Grubbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521138399370808696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-5816018803725690772012-07-26T23:24:53.828-04:002012-07-26T23:24:53.828-04:00Whoa!!!Whoa!!!johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01700969815388623848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-47281986035439289832012-07-21T11:26:12.627-04:002012-07-21T11:26:12.627-04:00I have many dialogues with Michael Patton about so...I have many dialogues with Michael Patton about <i>sola Scriptura</i> posted. I doubt that this piece would cover much new ground. <i>You</i> should answer it! I'm working hard on my new book of St. Augustine quotations.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84679917669209133852012-07-21T06:51:20.725-04:002012-07-21T06:51:20.725-04:00Dave
While we ae on to sola scriptura, you might...Dave<br /><br />While we ae on to sola scriptura, you might be interested in this Posting over at Credo House.<br /><br />http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/07/the-rise-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-a-nutshell/<br /><br />When I read it, I thought of responding to it myself, but thought I woud like to read your shot at it.<br /><br />God Bless You<br /><br />Michael BrandonMichael Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17557797099650457723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45763945466228609592012-07-03T22:50:41.468-04:002012-07-03T22:50:41.468-04:00Thanks for buying!Thanks for buying!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54953130318493871362012-07-03T20:03:53.158-04:002012-07-03T20:03:53.158-04:00The truth lies in the Catholic Church! I am defini...The truth lies in the Catholic Church! I am definitely going to buy the book now after reading your critique of a critique of your own book! Thank you for this useful apologetics work.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00861424709303647331noreply@blogger.com