Catholic Challenge # 7

 Finally, "Ed" presents an interesting challenge in his seventh point. This is the seventh challenge of nine that has been charged against Sola Scriptura from him. Today, we are looking at a challenge against SS from church history, a topic that I love. It's quite enjoyable to go through the many different articles and arguments that people make about today's point, which is an argument concerning the canon of the Scriptures. As always, texts from "Ed" are in red while the Scriptures are in blue.

7. The canon of scripture wasn’t settled until 382 AD and further ratified in 392 and 397. All were at catholic councils.

This point needs to be broken up a bit in order to respond to it properly. The reason for this is because this point is actually making at least four separate points at once. 

"The canon of scripture wasn’t settled until 382 AD" is the first point that we must address. This point appears to be vague if people aren't aware of what "Ed" is referring to here. It's entirely possible that he was vague on purpose to trip up people who are unaware of church history and the history of the formation of the Bible. Undoubtedly "Ed" is referring to the Council of Rome held in 382AD. Here is a list of the books viewed as canonical from the Council of Rome given by Dr. Taylor Marshall:

https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html

Dr. Marshall is a bias Roman Catholic as can be seen by his mishandling of Luther's view of the canon (a different topic that we can address at a later date if need be). However, the list of the books that are viewed as canonical by the Council of Rome as given to us by Dr. Marshall are the same as the modern Roman Catholic canon. But even with that, there is an issue. What is the primary source of the canon list from the Council of Rome (382AD)? 

That would be the Decretum Gelasianum, which was probably written in the early sixth century AD. It apparently reflects Roman tradition, and parts of the Decretum Gelasianum may date back to the time of Damasus, bishop of Rome 366-384AD. But that's the problem, we don't have first hand documents of the council. So even though the list that has been given to us from the Decretum Gelasianum is the same list given at the Council of Rome, we don't know if this is what the council agreed upon for sure. But I am willing to give this as an example of an early list that matches the Roman Catholic canon for the sake of argument. Here is the list as given by the Decretum Gelasianum:

Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Amos one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.

"and further ratified in 392" This next part of his argument would be confusing to someone who is unaware of what "Ed" is talking about. I believe that "Ed" is referencing the Council of Hippo in 393, not 392. It appears that this is a typo by "Ed" but it just adds to the mess of his arguments. From what I can find, the canon that the Council of Hippo promulgated was confirmed by the Council of Carthage. 

"and 397" This is a reference to the Council of Carthage in 397, which was technically the third council convened there. But not much is known about what happened at that council. What is our primary source for what took place in Carthage? That would be the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ which was compiled in 419AD. This is the list provided by the Codex:

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

The interesting thing about the councils of Hippo and Carthage is the absence of the book of Baruch. All of the other books of the Apocrypha are admittedly there, but not Baruch. The canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage actually do have a difference with the modern Roman Catholic canon then. I would be interested in a response to that. Especially considering how much Jerome was against the book of Baruch.

"All were at catholic councils." I would actually disagree, but there can be different definitions of the word "catholic." If you are saying "catholic" as in the definition that Ignatius gave "according to the whole," then I would still disagree. These three councils listed by "Ed" were regional councils and the latter two were heavily influenced by Augustine. Augustine did argue in favor of the Apocrypha in his discussions with Jerome, but that is a story for a different day. These councils weren't according to the whole but were held by local churches, and even by Roman Catholic standards these three councils weren't ecumenical councils. They only pertained to their local areas.

The real debate however comes when someone's understanding of the word "catholic" as being the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. I recognize that I disagree with many here, but I don't believe that these councils were Roman Catholic councils. Yes, the councils were held in the West, and they were under the jurisdiction of the Roman See, but even that isn't enough to demonstrate that these were Roman Catholic councils. One would have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these men believed in the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit, among many other dogmas and doctrines that is definitional of modern Roman Catholicism's understanding of what the Gospel is. It is clear to me that these men did not believe any of this, and therefore modern Roman Catholicism is a different religion then what these men practiced.

Finally, the last point that I would like to make is that "Ed" is incorrect even by Roman Catholic standards. When "Ed" states: "The canon of scripture wasn’t settled until 382" this isn't even accepted by Roman Catholicism. The infallible definition of the canon of Scriptures had to wait for centuries after what"Ed" claimed. It wasn't until April 8, 1546 during the Council of Trent in the fourth Session that defined "infallibly" what the content of the canon of the Scriptures were, and therefore "settled" the canon of the Scriptures. There are many problems with the Council of Trent too, but it isn't necessary to explore them here.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Acts 17:10‭-‬11

Catholic Challenge # 6

 I feel like I'm starting to make progress. Today my blog will be looking at the sixth point of nine given by "Ed" against Sola Scriptura. It is totally possible to have a good conversation with people that you disagree with, but "Ed" is not one of them. However, if he believes that his arguments are compelling, then I believe it is worthwhile to respond to his challenges. As always, text from "Ed" is in red, while the Scriptures are in blue.

6. Only a few could even read. The printing press wasn’t invented until 1436. 

According to this source: https://www.britannica.com/technology/printing-press the first time that we find the printing press in history is 1439. However, it also appears that Gutenberg began designing the printing press in 1436, not invented. The printing press was built during the 1440s and didn't start being used for commercial use until 1454. The first book printed by him was the Bible around 1455, but no earlier than 1454. See this source: http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/omeka/exhibits/show/mcdonald/incunabula/gutenberg/

Regardless, one can see where "Ed" is going with this point. If God endorses Sola Scriptura, then why are so many people illiterate? If we are to have the written Word of God as our only infallible rule of faith, then what do we make of all the people who can't read? Wouldn't God make it mandatory that people be able to read first? Therefore, SS cannot be true.

First of all, in order to understand the Word of God for ourselves, it is important, but not necessary, that one know how to read. The interesting thing about language is though is that so many times in history we find language to be quite fluid. Yet, once there is a great piece of literature introduced into a language (such as the Bible), the language freezes, or slows down. In fact, we have seen many times where the Bible became the standard of a language. The King James version for instance became the standard form of early modern English for the English language. It is the Word of God in fact that often times propells people to strive to be able to read.

Secondly, SS does not demand in any way shape or form that in order to have salvation, one must be able to read. There is no basis for this thought whatsoever. The Word of God can be preached to anyone, whether they are illiterate or blind or anything else. A true believer will have Christ in his heart, regardless of his capabilities.

So far, these points that "Ed" has been making are incredibly week. It would surprise me if these arguments have persuaded anyone to swim the Tiber to Rome, especially if they were educated in these issues at all. If I was a defender of Rome, I would be embarrassed by the shallow thinking of these points. There is no doubt that people have their arguments against SS that are interesting, but these last six points have not been compelling.

Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Matthew 21:42

Catholic Challenge # 5

 It can be intimidating to face someone when they give you a list of issues to work through. With my interactions with "Ed" on Facebook, it's clear to me that this is strategic. He intended for his list to be big and daunting in order to dissuade me from responding to him, especially in any meaningful fashion. But, I do believe that "Ed" is in error, and that people should know that there are people who will stand up and defend the truth of Sola Scriptura. Today I will continue my examination and response to his charges against SS. This is his fifth point and as always, the text by "Ed" are in red and the Scriptures are in blue.

5.  Those letters and books were read during the liturgy (the mass).

One of the major problems that "Ed" and other defenders of Rome like him, is that they take way too much for granted. The whole premise of this question is misleading and assumes too much, and this must be noted before anything is addressed. The point of contention between Roman Catholics and Protestants is not that the early church didn't see the Scriptures as important. What the point of contention is is the many theological claims that Rome throws out there without any defense.

You see, Rome makes declarations, and then explains that these declarations are true by saying something like: 

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the Lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the Apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

Pastor Aeternus Ch 1.4

Pastor Aeternus is the document that declared and defined the Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility. This is probably one of the clearest examples of a Roman Catholic dogma that doesn't have any basis in the Bible, history, or tradition of any sort. The document provides a few citations to validate its argument, such as in chapter 3.5 and 4.2. There is also a vague reference to Matthew 16 in chapter 1.2 and 4.2, as well as a couple other Biblical references that have absolutely nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. The only way that Papal Infallibility can come to mind from the quotes and passages given in Pastor Aeternus is by utilizing eisegesis. 

Pastor Aeternus is a poor defense of Papal Infallibility that leaves it up to the layman to substantiate its own claims. "Ed" is also utilizing a similar technique. Make a bunch of claims that don't really mean anything and then says that Sola Scriptura is wrong. Just because different churches read from the Scriptures all throughout history doesn't even come close to being a good point against SS. 

Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

Psalms 119:105

Catholic Challenge # 4

 This is a continuation of a series of challenges that I am responding to that is supposed to demonstrate how wrong Sola Scriptura is. The point of my response to "Ed" (from Facebook) on this blog is to provide believers with a practical response, and also to provide Roman Catholics and unbelievers with an answer to their challenges. As usual, texts from "Ed" are in red and verses from the Bible are in blue.

4. There was no printing press to distribute copies of the individual letters and books.

It truly is amazing that this is viewed as a persuasive argument to people. Has this argument actually been effective in persuading people to Rome? I've never seen a definition of Sola Scriptura from someone who subscribes to SS that has as part of its definition that there either must be a printing press in order to be correct, or that every single believer must own at least one complete copy of the Bible. What confession or catechism can be provided to substantiate such an argument or appeal?

Now a response might be something to the effect of, yes, but, we need someone to say the Word of God to believers and therefore that is an example of the spoken Word (i.e. "Tradition"). This cannot be supported however due to the fact that if somebody tells me what the Bible says, even if I had never read the Bible before, someone is still giving me what the Bible teaches. Therefore, the person ignorant of the Bible, is still being given the Word of God from the Bible. This is completely in line with SS.

The next logical direction in the conversation would be the discussion of the difference between the Formal Sufficiency and Material Sufficiency of the Scriptures. I'm not going to get into that here, but I can discuss it if needed. For now, I would direct people to TurretinFan's blog: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/?m=1 There are a number of tags that you can click on and Formal Sufficiency is one of them. He has many good articles on that subject.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 

Catholic Challenge # 3

Today I'm going to continue looking at some points that "Ed" challenged me with on Facebook. This is point number three out of nine points that he made where he is challenging Sola Scriptura and attempting to demonstrate that SS is a false doctrine. I will be examining these points one by one to expose false narratives similar to these. Words from "Ed" are in red while words from the Scriptures are in blue.

3.  It took from 45-90 AD for all books to be written.

This is probably true give or take, but I still must stress that we don't know that for a fact. One of the main criteria to determine when a book of the New Testament was written is if it seems to be aware of certain historical events such as the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD or if it's aware of the death of an apostle. We really don't have much to work with because even at times, there is debate on whether or not we know who the author of a book is.

Regardless, this point isn't a compelling point at all. For Protestants who have not only studied the Scriptures, but also the background of the Scriptures, this bit of information isn't a surprise at all. In fact, most of these points seem to be trying to educate people who know next to nothing about the Scriptures. But if we take just a little bit of time to dig below the surface, arguments like these won't effect you.

False religions and their followers often prey on ignorant people. The problem is that we can't have exhaustive knowledge on everything, so how do we face a religion that we don't know? The most important thing that a Christian can do, is read the Word of God. In this day and age, we have access to so much. The amount of information we have would have been mind blowing to people throughout the middle ages and the Reformation.

Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.

Psalms 119:89

Catholic Challenge # 2

In my last blog post I began reviewing a list of points made by a man on Facebook. As I had said before, "Ed" continually would attack Protestantism by using popular Roman Catholic tropes. When these wouldn't work, he just moved on to the next point. If that wasn't bad enough, he did bring back at least one of the erroneous tropes to attack me with again. After that, he gave me a list of points that is supposed to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is false. Today I will be looking at the second point that he made. Words by "Ed" are in red and words from the Scriptures are in blue.

2. The first NT books written were 17-20 years after the resurrection.

This point is basically a sub point from point number one. However, there are some things that should be noted. The first thing is that we don't know when exactly any of the books of the Bible were written. We can make educated guesses for when we believe any particular book was written, but we still don't know for sure. It's not like the authors dated their books.

Something that is very popular right now is the theory that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel written. The understanding of this is that the Synoptic Gospels are so similar to each other that there must be a written source that they all came from. Some people even believe that there is an unknown source of the Gospels which is labeled the "Q" source (coming from the German word "Quelle", which means "source" in English). I don't believe in the "Q" source. The problem with all of this dating though is that we just don't know.

There are plenty of good arguments as to why Mark was the first Gospel written, and while it is the popular opinion, it is not the sole opinion. Other arguments have been made as to why Matthew was the first, and even some believing that Luke was the first. But even if Mark is the first Gospel written, we don't know when it was written. Maybe it was written just after the Resurrection, it could have been.

The opposite is also possible. Maybe the first NT writing was decades later, even beyond the 17-20 year window that "Ed" believes in. My point is is that "Ed" is prone to making a lot of assumptions. Just because the first NT writing MIGHT have been written down 17-20 years later, it doesn't follow that Sola Scriptura is false and Roman Catholicism is true. 

If it's true that the first NT writing was about 17-20 years after the Resurrection, that has no effect on Sola Scriptura. The Apostles were first hand eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ. They didn't rely on their own authority either. In fact, believers who tested the words of the Apostles were praised, and followers were encouraged to test everything by the Scriptures.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

Acts 17:10‭-‬12

As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Galatians 1:9 NASB1995

 

Catholic Challenge #1

 

With this post, I'm going to begin responding to the first of nine points that "Ed" challenged me with on Facebook. Before I begin though, I would like to point out that "Ed" had been challenging me with a number of Roman Catholic tropes, and everytime I dismantled his challenges, he wouldn't acknowledge it, and would move on to the next erroneous trope. In his this post to me, he decided to use the shotgun approach in order to maintain his offense against me. This is very common with people who are having difficulties in a debate. When your arguments aren't working, they just throw out a bunch of talking points and overwhelm the person that they're debating. Giving someone nine points to respond to in a Facebook post is difficult to deal with in a meaningful fashion. It's not impossible to deal with, but it certainly is impractical. The text in red is from "Ed" and the text in blue is from the Bible.

1.  The early church didn’t have a NT scripture.

When looking at this claim, we must look ahead to where this line of reasoning is heading towards. He's building his case by making what appears to be a claim that is not threatening. Did he state anything wrong here? Is this an error? Where is he going with this? To answer the last question, he is trying to demonstrate Roman Catholic "Tradition" being present in the early church.

This first point actually demonstrates that "Ed" does have the capacity to be careful with his words when he so chooses. Most of the time that I see this challenge presented by Roman Catholics, they claim that the early church didn't have the Bible. That claim is easy to dismiss, but this point is different. This point implicitly acknowledges that the early church had the Scriptures, but they had the Old Testament, not the New Testament.

Sola Scriptura however is still not defeated at this point, nor is it weakened. Just as a reminder, Sola Scriptura is defined as the Bible being the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. There is no contradiction for the believer if they appeal to a different source of faith, as long as that source or any other is held accountable to the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is also not a denial of the fact that there was a time of inscripturation. The Bible didn't fall down from Heaven on a bunch of golden plates for instance.

As far as what the infant church had concerning the NT, we honestly don't know. We only have educated guesses. Back in the 19th century many people thought that the New Testament was probably written in the 2nd or 3rd century AD. William Lane Craig here: ( https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/dating-the-gospels ) brings up a great point for the early dating of Luke and Acts. He explains, "The evidence that Acts was written prior to AD 70 (e.g., Paul’s being still alive under house arrest in Rome, no mention of significant events during the AD 60s such as the martyrdom of James, the persecution of Nero, the siege of Jerusalem, etc., and the disproportionate emphasis on Paul’s recent voyage to Rome) strikes me as very persuasive." While I don't agree with everything he stated in that article, I do agree with this statement.

Another thing to think about is that as a Protestant, I understand that there was a time before the New Testament that was after the resurrection of Jesus. That's not a problem for our side. My argument is not that God suddenly gave us a book as soon as His earthly ministry was done. In fact, I don't believe that Jesus Himself wrote any of the books of the NT with His own physical hand. But God guided the writers of the NT and what they wrote is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which means God breathed. God spoke through the writers of the Scriptures.

So we looked at what Sola Scriptura means from a positive position, but what would the negative position be? Well, in relation to the first point that "Ed" made here, this would mean that "Tradition" is held accountable to the Scriptures. Simply because the NT wasn't complete for a period of time doesn't mean that the people of God didn't have the Scriptures. It also doesn't mean that the Apostles were going around preaching about Jesus' body still being on Earth (the Eucharist), nor were they teaching that the pope in Rome is the vicar of Christ who has supreme authority over the entire church. Nor does it mean that the Apostles showed people how to pray to and devote their lives to Mary or any other saint that we can think of.

Let's say we grant for the sake of the argument that Sola Scriptura is false, and that the early church depending on sacred "Tradition" in its liturgy. That still wouldn't automatically default "Tradition" to be Roman Catholic Tradition. There are other groups that claim this form of "Tradition" as well, such as Eastern Orthodoxy. In order to prove the "Traditions" of the early church as being Roman Catholic, you would have to demonstrate that they were unique to Roman Catholicism. That simply isn't possible.

Sola Scriptura is however the correct position to take. When one subjects themselves to the sole infallible authority of the Scriptures, they don't fall into the pitfalls of legends and fables like those from Roman Catholicism. As the Scripture says:

But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness;
1 Timothy 4:7

Against Sola Scriptura Prologue

 Yesterday I shared a discussion that "Ed" and I had on Facebook. I don't plan on talking to him anymore, but I will be looking at what he said in his last post to me. Anything that you read here in quotes with red text are from "Ed" while the text after the quotes is how I would reply. Blue text is Scripture.

"It’s your reality. You haven’t shown me the scripture that supports or uses the term “alone” with scripture."

It's important to notice something here. In order for this man to change his mind, he has forced the argument into a war on words. This is something that can be difficult to get over, and if the person that you are dealing with is like this man, he's using it as a shield to protect himself from an opposing argument. If someone is open to having an honest discussion however, it is possible to demonstrate how this mentality isn't logical.

For instance, when arguing against an anti-Trinitarian, often times people will say, show me where the word "Trinity" is in the Bible. It is not necessary for the word "Trinity" to be in the Bible in order for the doctrine to be true. What is necessary is that the principle is there. People like "Ed" that I had a discussion with isn't interested in having a conversation. He's only interested in giving his talking points and then abandoning them when they don't work anymore. So just because we don't have the words "Scripture alone" in that order, it doesn't necessarily follow that the principle isn't there.

"1 Tm 3:15 doesn’t even come close to teaching that scripture “alone” is the sole rule of faith.""

Already in this first paragraph, "Ed" has purposefully or ignorantly misdefined the definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is NOT that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Sola Scriptura IS that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE rule of faith. This is an important distinction to make. I personally believe that this man is purposefully building up a strawman in order to feel superior. A careful Roman Catholic would attempt to explain why he believes that Sola Scriptura is incorrect based on the proper definition of the term. So already, "Ed" is demonstrating why I stopped discussing theology with him. If you can't show respect for what others believe, then there is no reason to continue the conversation. Not to mention that I wasn't the one who brought up 1 Tim 3:15. There are lots of passages in the Bible that don't deal explicitly with Sola Scriptura. 

But, let's look at 1 Tim 3:15:

"but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

The person who wrote this is a Roman Catholic. He is obviously reading this passage with Roman Catholic pressupostions in mind. If we look at the context however, one sees no reason to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is being discussed here. What in 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Roman Magisterium and its organization is the only possible definition of the word "church"? 

My argument is twofold. Number one is that when a Roman Catholic brings this verse up as a defense of Roman Catholicism, they can be unknowingly reading things eisegetically with anachronism. 

In fact, if one reads the entire chapter 3 of 1 Timothy, we get an entirely different vision of what the hierarchy of the church is. From verse 1 through 7, we are given clear instructions on what a bishop/overseer/elder should be. The Greek word used here for bishop/overseer/elder is έπίσκοπον (episkopon). Verse 2 explains it like this:

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Think about this for a moment. How many Roman Catholic bishops fulfill all of these instructions? How many Roman Catholic bishops are above reproach? Quite a number I would imagine, but not all. How many of them are the husband of one wife? I can't think of any. That doesn't mean that there are none, but certainly the Roman Catholic Church goes just shy of disqualifying a man as bishop if he is married. Someone may say that they know of a bishop who is married. That is possible. However, he would be an exception in the modern Roman Catholic Church, not the rule. Already we see that Rome is very different than the church that Paul is describing here. In verses 8 through 13 Paul explains the role of Deacons and women in the church. I would also like to add that there is no office of the papacy mentioned here, nor cardinals, not even priests.

The second thing to consider is what verse 15 is talking about. What does it mean for the church to be the pillar and support of the truth? What does a pillar or a support do? They hold something else up. We as the body are to hold up the truth of Christ, and to present that truth to the world.

Lastly, Protestants read verse 15 without any problem. The language used in it is common language in Protestant circles. Only those who are ignorant of what Protestants discuss when discussing theology would think that this would be persuasive to them. We are the church, the bride of Christ.

I think that this is a good place to end this post. My opponent after stating this gives nine reasons why he believes that Sola Scriptura is false. I will discuss each point in its own post.

Roman Catholic Tropes

Hello again, it's been awhile since I've created a blog post. Sometimes the good Lord has other plans for our lives, but I decided that I would finally get back to this after all these years. What inspired this was a discussion that I had with a couple Roman Catholics on Facebook dealing with an add for a copy of the Geneva Bible, and I was really surprised at how awful some of the arguments were. I won't be using screen shots, but I will be copying the text here.

Me:

Wow, the comments section here is a mess. Just reading through these ignorant comments and one realizes what a Christian is up against.

For instance, there are plenty of Roman Catholics in here claiming that this demonstrates how Luther was wrong, and all these translations confuse things, and therefore we should all convert, submit, and follow "The Church" that has never changed since Christ "founded" it. Obviously they are talking about the Roman Catholic Church. It's all very interesting, but these comments are ignorant and completely untrue.

Then you find people who seem to be mimicking talking points from Independent Fundamentalist Baptist preachers about how if it's not the King James Bible, then that Bible is corrupt. They explain that there have been things added and removed and obviously the KJV is the perfect Bible, so why should we read anything else? Plus, you should never buy a Bible with notes! Heavens no! We should never listen to what other Christians have learned from the Bible, obviously. /comment What's obvious to me is that comments like these are ignorant of the history of God's Word and how it has been handed down to us. There is much that we can learn from those who have come before us. Believe it or not, the church didn't start with Billy Graham.

Other comments say things like, oh no John Calvin. Did you know that he believed in predestination? He's obviously wrong. /comment Again, what's obvious about these comments are that they are made from ignorant people who haven't read one word written by Calvin. While I understand that some of Calvin's doctrines trouble people, I would like to see how many of these people could make a logical, coherent, and compelling argument against Calvin's more distinct doctrines. It would be fascinating to see. He actually was a very caring and compassionate Christian. I also can see it now, so let me say it here, I don't agree with every single thing that Calvin has said or done.

And then there are grumblings from those who have a blind prejudice against Christianity who say that there are mistakes in the Bible, or that books were removed and/or added such as the Apocrypha, or that it's a book full of myths. I keep saying this, but it's obvious that these people are ignorant. Very few would be able to name one specific example of the points that they are making.

I'm sorry for the long post, but when I see this Bible, it stirs my interest. We can learn so much from it. For instance, the historical value in and of itself is there. Who were the translators? Who read this translation? Who criticized it, and why? What translations were influenced by this one? Not to mention how doctrinally sound is this translation?  

You see there is so much we can learn from these translations of the Bible. If someone has a legitimate complaint against the Geneva Bible, that's fine. No translation is perfect. But ignorant comments like: Luther left the church! are not needed. Luther was excommunicated, plus he wasn't even against indulgences per se when he wrote the 95 Thesis. He was against the abuse of the indulgence salesmen of that time. 

Also, how can the Geneva Bible add or remove things from the Bible when compared to the King James Bible? The Geneva Bible predates the King James Version.

Anyways, I truly hope this is a blessing for someone. We can learn a lot from the past and especially from the Bible.

Jeff:

What a ramble, I don’t know where to begin. I will simply say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true church founded by Jesus Christ. And we should listen to those that knew Christ and those that were taught by the apostles such as Polycarp, Barnabas, Gregory, Augustine, and Ambrose. I have to believe their understanding of Christ’s teaching is more instructive for us than anything Knox, Calvin, Luther, or Zwingli had to say.

Me:

Thank you for your response. Here is my reply:

"I will simply say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true church founded by Jesus Christ."

This is an assumption that you are making, not a fact. I completely disagree with the argument that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church. Church history is a passion of mine and I see no substantiation of Rome's claims about the early church. 

"And we should listen to those that knew Christ and those that were taught by the apostles"

I never said that we shouldn't. In fact, I even implied we should when I said that the church didn't start with Billy Graham and when I said that we can learn from those who came before us. My position is that I believe that we should be students of history and I have read from many of the early church fathers.

"[...]such as Polycarp, Barnabas, Gregory, Augustine, and Ambrose."

Don't forget the Didache, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian as well as many others, and even those such as Tertullian or Origen who weren't exactly orthodox. Ambrose and Augustine were certainly early, but I don't view them as early church fathers. I'm sure that they didn't view themselves in that way. Jerome is a fascinating man that we can learn a lot from as well. Gregory is even later, but he's interesting too.

"I have to believe their understanding of Christ’s teaching is more instructive for us than anything Knox, Calvin, Luther, or Zwingli had to say."

In a way, I agree with you but not completely. However, if you were to follow the people that you referenced, you wouldn't be a Roman Catholic, because they weren't Roman Catholics either. Plus, the Reformers that you listed were students of history themselves. They studied from the very men that you listed and more.

John Henry Cardinal Newman was wrong. To be deep in history is not to cease to be Protestant.

Jeff:

I don’t have time to educate you on each point, but first, there were only Christians in the early days of the Church and they did refer to themselves as Catholic, at least as early as 110 AD. The first documented use of the name Catholic was by Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD.

Me:

You are talking about Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8. The word Ignatius used there is "catholic" (καθολικός) but he didn't use it as a proper noun. The word is used there as an adjective. In other words, he's only describing that wherever Christ is, there the whole church is too. 

There's no justification for understanding that the word "catholic" as used by Ignatius here means that he believed in a church that was organized around Rome, and that the Roman bishop had universal supremacy over the entire church worldwide. To come to that understanding, one must read eisegetically into the text concepts that aren't there. I prefer to read exegetically.

Ed:

Catholic is the “whole church”. You’re making a distinction without a difference. He also refers to the Eucharist as the flesh of Jesus Christ. He also mentions the role of Bishop.

Letter to the Smyrnaeans 

7 They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God’s gift face death. They would have done better to love and so share in the resurrection. The right thing to do, then, is to avoid such people and to talk about them neither in private nor in public. Rather pay attention to the prophets and above all to the gospel. There we get a clear picture of the Passion and see that the resurrection has really happened.

8 Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid.

9 It is well for us to come to our senses at last, while we still have a chance to repent and turn to God. It is a fine thing to acknowledge God and the bishop. He who pays the bishop honor has been honored by God. But he who acts without the bishop’s knowledge is in the devil’s service.

By God’s grace may you have an abundance of everything! You deserve it. 

Doesn’t sound protestant.

Me:

"Catholic is the “whole church”."

That's correct. Like I mentioned in my post, Ignatius used the term καθολικός, and this comes from two terms: κατά which means "against, or according to" and ὅλος which means "whole". Thank you for bringing that to the readers attention.

"You’re making a distinction without a difference."

On the contrary, I believe that my distinction is important. To elaborate on my point that Ignatius was using the term "catholic" as an adjective, rather than a proper noun is to demonstrate that Roman Catholic apologists data mine different sources for anything that can be used to sound like it's coming from the Roman Catholic Church. Ignatius would not understand the church as being an organization focused primarily, solely, and with supremacy on the bishop of Rome. One must already have these ideas in mind in order to understand Ignatius in that way. This is eisegesis, which is an error.

"He also refers to the Eucharist as the flesh of Jesus Christ."

Protestants use this exact terminology as well. His letter at best gives a possibility to the Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, but it doesn't come close to proving it.

"He also mentions the role of Bishop."

This is also something that Protestants wouldn't disagree with either. What Protestants would disagree with is if somebody said that whenever Ignatius uses the term "bishop", then that means he's talking about Roman Catholic bishops. Again, this is only at best a possible support for Roman Catholicism, it is not proof.

"Doesn’t sound protestant."

I would suggest that you may want this to not sound Protestant. As a Protestant myself, I love Ignatius. His defense of the diety of Christ is in his writings, including chapter 10 of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, and it's amazing to read, especially from such an early source. If you wish to read more from Ignatius or a number of other early church fathers, I would direct you to www.ccel.org

Anyways, I tried to be a Roman Catholic long ago. In my studies through the years I have always tried to read the other side, and look at things through their eyes. I did that with Rome and I found that Rome is incorrect on many doctrines. I would like to invite you to read passages such as this one from Ignatius without wearing Roman Catholic glasses so to speak. If you were to talk to Ignatius today, would he be fully onboard with the bishop of Rome being the sole, supreme, and infallible Vicar of Christ? Would he believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice that we must represent to God day after day, and that we are to worship the bread and the wine as if it were Christ himself? Would he agree that Mary was immaculately conceived and assumed into Heaven? Would he believe in Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit that can be used whenever the pope decides to?

I see no evidence for all of this, and therefore, I encourage people to leave Roman Catholicism. Come to the real Jesus who died for His church. He will lose nobody who He has chosen (John 6:39) because Jesus is a complete Savior who always accomplishes what he sets out to do. Jesus is the Savior, we are not co-saviors.

Ed:

Sorry. Your personal Opinion was not compelling. Protestantism is a contradiction. 

It fails on two false doctrines. Neither biblical. And gets worse by each denomination. 

Sola fide

Sola scriptura 

It fails on its metastatic division and multiplication of tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, traditions and solo Bible thumpers since Luther. All separated by a common bible. All claiming the Holy Spirit. 

Which flavor is true? What tradition do you follow?

Me:

"Sorry. Your personal Opinion was not compelling. Protestantism is a contradiction."

You don't have to listen to me if you don't want. There's nothing I can do about that. But what I write is for those who will listen. If you want to listen to Roman Catholic apologists who are in error, that's for you to deal with. If someone wants to see contradictions, Roman Catholicism has plenty of them too.

"It fails on two false doctrines. Neither biblical. And gets worse by each denomination. 

Sola fide

Sola scriptura"

You are in error. Both doctrines are Biblical. I will reply to your brief claim with a brief response, but I can flesh out my reasoning if you wish. Sola Fide is both Scriptural and historical. See Ephesians 2:8-10. Sola Scriptura is also Biblical and historical. See 2 Tim 3:16-17.

"It fails on its metastatic division and multiplication of tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, traditions and solo Bible thumpers since Luther. All separated by a common bible. All claiming the Holy Spirit." 

Well, there's a lot stated here. For one, I would claim that it is Rome who has created metastatic divisions by creating new dogmas and doctrines that cannot be supported by the Bible or history.

Two, this is where it's obvious that you're listening to Roman Catholic apologists without thinking critically. Have you ever wondered where the idea that there are tens of thousands of denominations come from? I've heard many Roman Catholic apologists claim that there are 25,000, 28,000, 30,000, 33,000, 37,000, 40,000 or more different denominations. The source for this claim is from the World Christian Encyclopedia by David B. Barrett. On page 14 he gives a list of denominations across the world and comes to a number of over 22,000 denominations. There are many problems with citing this number however. 

This was the number he gave for 1985 and assumed that number would continually grow at a steady rate. Another problem is that not all of the denominations that he lists are based on Sola Scriptura or even Sola Fide. Of the 22,000 listed, only 8,196 denominations can claim to be Protestant, and not all of those Protestants accept Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura. This leads to my last point. Out of those many different denominations, there are 223 listed as Roman Catholic. Interesting. If you want, I am more than ready to dive deeper into this, but I wanted you to know that you have been mislead by a common Roman Catholic trope.

"Which flavor is true? What tradition do you follow?"

This is a very similar question as "which translation of the Bible is correct?" The church doesn't need to be perfect, nor can it be perfect because it is made up of people. The church is made of by God's chosen people. The church isn't defined by its governing body. The church is defined by the One who leads them, namely Jesus Christ. I am a Reformed Christian, but I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who are Baptist, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Methodist, Anglican, ect. Just because we have disagreements with each other doesn't mean that we all aren't a member of Christ's church.

Ed:

Lol. Show me the “alone” in Eph 2:8-9. You’re adding to scripture to support your theology. The scripture Paul is speaking of is the scripture of Timothy’s youth. Which would have been the OT. Mist of the NT hadn’t even been written yet. 

2 Tm 3:15 likewise does not teach scripture “alone” is the sole rule of faith. It’s “profitable” for sir if you purposes. But not scripture “alone”. You keep adding to scripture with words that aren’t there. Big no no. 

2 Timothy 3:15-17 

15 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.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God andprofitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 

17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Sorry. Your whole Protestant system is based on false unbiblical doctrine. 

Luther tried adding “alone” to Rom 3:28 in his German bible. Got busted.

Pretty sad all those churches created by men who know better than Jesus. Such protest of Jesus and his church is obstinate and arrogant.

Me:

"Lol. Show me the “alone” in Eph 2:8-9. You’re adding to scripture to support your theology." 

I actually cited Ephesians 2:8-10. The reason I don't end my citation at verse 9 is deliberate. The passage I cited reads as follows:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Just because the word "alone" doesn't appear after the word faith doesn't mean that I am adding to the meaning of the passage. I believe that faith is a gift from God, and that this faith that I have is not from myself (verse 8). I could never come to faith in Christ on my own. God had to gift me this faith. Being that this faith is not of myself or by any works that I do, because then I would have something to boast of in myself. Somehow I would be smarter or wiser than others. No, the only thing that I will ever boast in is Jesus Christ and His grace and mercy that He has given to me and to his church. In verse 10 we see why we do any works at all. These works that we do are predestined by God and we will do them because God has prepared us for these works.

Nothing was added there. This is the plain understanding of this text.

"The scripture Paul is speaking of is the scripture of Timothy’s youth. Which would have been the OT. Mist of the NT hadn’t even been written yet."

There is no doubt at all that Paul had in mind the Scriptures that he had from his youth (verse 15), but 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not limit the Scriptures to the Old Testament. If it is Scripture at all, then this passage applies to it. Unless you are saying that the Old Testament is more important than the New. I would disagree with that claim.

"2 Tm 3:15 likewise does not teach scripture “alone” is the sole rule of faith."

It appears that you don't understand what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is. Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, not the sole rule. We acknowledge that there are other rules of faith, but they all must be held accountable to the Word of God, the Bible. 

"It’s “profitable” for sir if you purposes."

I'm not entirely sure about what you are saying here. This sentence that you wrote is difficult to understand, maybe you could clarify. But it appears that you are trying to say that the Bible is only profitable and therefore is not sufficient as the sole infallible rule of faith. Verses 16 and 17 tell us that the Scriptures make us equipped for every good work. If you are equipped for every good work, then that is the very definition of sufficient. You seem to believe that specific words must be in specific places in order to disprove Roman Catholic doctrines. That's a very shallow understanding of theology.

"Luther tried adding “alone” to Rom 3:28 in his German bible. Got busted."

Another popular Roman Catholic trope. Aren't you getting tired of falling for these? I would be ashamed of it. Luther did not "try" to add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 of his translation of the New Testament; he actually did add the word "alone" to that verse. 

Luther was not the only one to have done so however. Others before him who had done this was Origen, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyral of Alexandria, Bernard, among others including Thomas Aquinas, the great Roman Catholic theologian himself. Luther explained his reasoning too as to why he added the word "alone" to his translation. He defended his translation and explained that he was tired of Roman Catholics charging him with adding to the Scriptures when they were plagiarizing his translation of the Bible at the same time. Luther was far from busted. It was Luther who busted Roman Catholicism in this area. I can elaborate more if you need me to.

"Pretty sad all those churches created by men who know better than Jesus. Such protest of Jesus and his church is obstinate and arrogant."

An empty claim. We never claim to know better than Jesus. Is this really the best that you can do to counter Protestant theology? Making up these baseless and offensive claims against Protestantism only divides us further. I have demonstrated where you were following useless tropes and this is your response? Far from me being obstinate and arrogant.

Ed:

Um. Yeah it does. Can I add the word to baptism “alone”? It changes everything. Especially when it is rejected in James 2:24. That’s very sloppy. I would think if Paul meant faith “alone” he would have said it. Rather than waiting you 2,000 years to add it.

Like I said. Protestantism was founded on the material and formal principle of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.

An as you so expertly demonstrated it is indeed unscriptural. A false doctrine. Luther said protestantism will stand or fall on these two principles. It has fallen. You all just haven’t realized it yet when you continue obfuscate based on your biased lenses of scripture.

James 2:24

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Get into a good catholic bible study. Don’t be afraid.

Me:

"Um. Yeah it does. Can I add the word to baptism “alone”? It changes everything."

Your argument is with the church fathers that I listed. You are not dealing with my argument at all here. Adding the word "alone" to the text of Rom 3:28 does not change the context of that passage. That does not logically mean that adding the word "alone" wouldn't change a different passages meaning, but it doesn't change this one.

"Especially when it is rejected in James 2:24. That’s very sloppy."

What Protestants are you talking to? I don't know any that remove the word "alone" from James 2:24. You are the one creating baseless claims and false arguments.

"I would think if Paul meant faith “alone” he would have said it."  

The logic doesn't follow.

"Rather than waiting you 2,000 years to add it."

What are you talking about? We know that Origen used the word "alone" in reference to Rom 3:28. Origen lived during the late second century to the mid third century. I gave a small list of others who did so too and I am prepared to add more. Plus Luther was a 16th century writer. Hardly 2,000 years to "add" the word. 

"You all just haven’t realized it yet when you continue obfuscate based on your biased lenses of scripture"

You mean to tell me that Roman Catholicism doesn't demand that people read the Bible with Roman Catholic dogmas already in mind? Rome is the one who has biased lenses. That's the problem. Maybe you should consider that you are the one with biased lenses.

"James 2:24"

James is talking about being justified before men not before God, we can see this from the context out of 2:18. 

"Get into a good catholic bible study. Don’t be afraid."

I already have, there is no fear here. Roman Catholic Bible studies are severally lacking in substance. I've been studying Roman Catholicism since 2005. This includes attending Mass at least 100 times over the years. I sincerely wanted Roman Catholicism to be true, but the fact is that it isn't. Rome has left the church and sadly, Rome has left Jesus Christ.

Ed:

Luther had to remove it. You can’t just add words that totally change the context. 

I thought you all subscribed to sola scriptura. So now you’re appealing to commentaries that you think supports sola fide? So we want to look at all ECF commentaries on all Catholic doctrine? (Origen wasn’t a ECF). So you’re saying they are equal to scripture? If that’s your argument then here are all the ECF on Catholic doctrine. See you at mass tomorrow. 

If Rome has left the church then Jesus lied. He lied on his promise that the Holy Spirit is with the church and the gates of hell would not prevail. Is that why you all feel you have a messiah complex to create your own churches?  

https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2014/04/24/before-300-christianity/

Infallible teachings of the early fathers. 

https://www.catholic.com/tract/what-the-early-church-believed-faith-and-works

Didn’t know this. Origen is not consider a church father.  

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/origens-origin

Me:

"Luther had to remove it."

Remove what? We have been talking about how Luther added the word "alone" to Rom 3:28. You're not being clear here. Are you claiming that Luther removed the word "alone" from James 2:24? If so, please demonstrate this. I've taken the time to look and I can't find any edition of the Bible that Luther translated where he removed the word "alone" from James 2:24. It doesn't mean that he didn't remove the word, but I can't find it. What I found was this from his 1545 edition of the Bible:

So sehet ihr nun, daß der Mensch durch die Werke gerecht wird, nicht durch den Glauben allein.

Clearly he translated it here with the word "alone" in it.

"You can’t just add words that totally change the context."

I agree, but I don't think that you are taking into consideration what must be done when translating any given text. It's not possible to do a direct word for word translation from Koine Greek into modern English. When you are translating you have to decide whether you will use a formal translation or a paraphrastic translation. The context doesn't change when using the word "alone" in Rom 3:28.

"I thought you all subscribed to sola scriptura. So now you’re appealing to commentaries that you think supports sola fide? So we want to look at all ECF commentaries on all Catholic doctrine?"

Obviously you aren't reading what I said because I gave you the definition of Sola Scriptura already and you are not demonstrating that you understand what it means. Don't you want to have a meaningful conversation? If I accused Roman Catholics of worshipping the pope because it fits my understanding, wouldn't that be useless towards our conversation? The readers can see which one of us is trying to understand the other side in this.

"(Origen wasn’t a ECF)."

It's true that he is not considered an early church father, however his impact on church history is undeniable. Yes, he is way too allegorical, and I disagree with much of what he has wrote, but he's still very interesting.

"So you’re saying they are equal to scripture? If that’s your argument then here are all the ECF on Catholic doctrine. See you at mass tomorrow."

Your lack of respect and understanding is noted. You aren't even trying to address what I wrote about what the definition of Sola Scriptura is. This is a clear example of the Strawman fallacy. Why are you making such worthless arguments?

"If Rome has left the church then Jesus lied."

Not at all. Nowhere did Jesus say that the church is based on the bishop in Rome. Cities aren't important, doctrine and truth are.

"He lied on his promise that the Holy Spirit is with the church and the gates of hell would not prevail."

That has nothing to do with the church being centered on the bishop of Rome. Also, a gate is a form of defense, not offense. This text isn't saying that if the church fails somehow that it was because Hell overcame the church. It is saying that the church is on the offense, and that Hell will not be able to withstand the power of Christ's church. The church will have problems, but in the end, Christ will win.

"Infallible teachings of the early fathers."

Those are quotes taken from the early church fathers (and they also quote Origen in your links). These quotes aren't presented by Catholic Answers as being infallible. You need to be more careful on how you use the word infallible. Besides, CA has a bad history of taking the early church out of context.

"Didn’t know this. Origen is not consider a church father."

I'm glad that you know now. I already knew that he is not considered an early church father and why he isn't. However, you have listed links with his quotes in them, and I presented him as just one of many examples of how adding the word "alone" to Rom 3:28 predates Luther by over a millennia. Among those I listed was Thomas Aquinas (who isn't an early church father). Thus sufficiently dismantling your erroneous claim that Protestants added the word "alone" to Rom 3:28 2,000 years later.

So there you have it. You have presented ridiculous tropes, you have slandered Luther due to your prejudice, and demonstrated that you don't understand the other side at all. 

No wonder why I have no interest in joining Rome. 

Ed:

So since you place the ECF equal to Scripture then I will give you all the Catholic doctrines that those ECF taught. And since they are all catholic then I guess that you will be swimming the Tiber soon.

But in the meantime, stop adding words to scripture that aren’t there.

I don’t have to slander Luther. One only needs to read his masterpiece, “The Jews and their Lies” to figure him out. Or “bondage of the will” where he quotes “Sin boldly, but believe more boldly”. That’s demonic.

Lastly, If Luther was such a messiah, why aren’t all protestants Lutheran? Hmmmm

Me:

If this is the best that you have, you have effectively ended our conversation. The definition of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. There is no contradiction to listen to Christians who have come before us.

If you want to have a real conversation where you're not twisting my words, and other people's words, then let me know. But I'm not going to waste anymore time on you. You will go nowhere evangelizing for the Roman Catholic Church if you continue to push these strawman arguments.

Have a good day and God Bless.

Of course this man did not stop there, he continued on. I will be making a separate post with more of his baseless accusations and tropes. Sadly, many people who are zealous for their faith follow anything that sounds good to them without thinking critically. Protestants aren't exempt from this. We do it too. But my goal is to look at arguments critically, logically, and most importantly Biblically. 

I believe that Roman Catholics can do better than this, but sadly this is very common.