Dan Chapa

Interpretation brings out the meaning of something. There has to be some original being interpreted and some level of faithfulness to represent that original. When interpreting the bible, you have to know what the bible says and try to represent what it says. Now bad interpretations are still interpretations. Much leeway can be given for those who are not experienced in the word of truth (Hebrews 5:14). A child might interpret scripture badly, but they are still interpreting scripture, so long as they are trying to represent what they read. But if someone simply disagrees with scripture, they are not interpreting scripture. For example, if someone “rationalizes” a biblical account of a miracle, they are not interpreting scripture. Because intent is involved, sometimes it’s hard to say if someone is interpreting the bible or not. For example, I recently read a homosexual argue Paul, in Romans 1:26-27, does not condemn all homosexual activity. When someone challenged this, the...

Steve Ray errors in his description of Sola Scriptura ( link ) thereby providing more evidence that only scripture is infallible.  Steve says: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura states that we should believe only what we find clearly taught in the Bible; the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found nowhere clearly taught in the Bible; so…??? Sola Scriptura does not say we should only believe what we find clearly taught I the Bible. We learn many things in many different ways, but Scripture is the only Word of God that we have today.  The Bible is perfect, Popes, Councils and Steve Ray make mistakes.  For good reasons to believe the bible see ( here ).  For good reasons to believe Popes error see ( here ). Thus we can conclude that the bible is the last man standing.

In Ineffabilus Deus, Pope Pius IX’s declaration of the Immaculate Conception (the idea that Mary was born without original sin), the Pope referred to sanctions issued by previous Popes, forbidding interpreting scripture or the fathers in a way other than clearly asserting the Immaculate Conception. 1   He then commissions a study by numbers scholars to get their opinion on the Immaculate Conception. 2      Of course, they are forbidden from giving him any other answer then the one he wants them to give.   There are a rot of problems with this approach, but one of them is that people’s opinions are inherently personal and ultimately can’t be outsourced.   ----------------------------------------------------------- 1   "And therefore, against all and everyone of those who shall continue to construe the said Constitutions and Decrees in a manner apt to frustrate the favor which is thereby given to the said doctrine, and to the feast and relative v...

Is it her people, her leadership, her beliefs?  The term catholic usually means universal, so one would think it's her 1 billion plus people spread throughout the world.  However, I recently pointed out that an overwhelming majority of Catholics use birth control.  ( link )  Does this mean the Catholic Church is OK with birth control?  Matthew Bellisario responded by pointing me to an earlier post he had written where he claimed all Christians up till the 1930's rejected birth control.  All Christians up until the 1930s interpreted this text as referring to Onan's punishment of death [Genesis 38 7:9] by his act of “coitus interruptus.” ( link ) I responded by quoting Jovinianus' alternative explanation in the 4th century ( link ). Matthew then made an interesting move; backing away from his claim of 'all Christians' to 'every Christian group'.  every Christian group before the 1930 interpreted this passage the way I am interp...

Jimmy Akin’s book the Father’s Know Best provides hundreds of quotations from the Church Fathers on various topics allegedly showing the link between the early church and modern Roman Catholicism. Of greatest interest to me were the 143 quotations from the Fathers in support of the Papacy. Reading the book gave me an opportunity to learn more about the Fathers. Below is a matrix of the results of my review. However, given my review I will risk providing some overall conclusions. I didn’t find anything in the Fathers that explicitly taught Papal infallibly or got into ex cathedra vs. non-ex cathedra statements by Popes. So right off the bat I would say the Fathers were not Roman Catholic. However, that doesn’t mean they were Southern Baptists either. Many times they were somewhere in-between. As such, I categorized each quotation from the Fathers Know Best on the Papacy in degrees of agreement. My categories were: 1. No objection 2. No biggie 3. Don’t like the wording, but OK ...

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2011/05/luther-calvin-hitler-stalin-and-mao.html To give credit to Matthew, he is just following Trent the way the Church tells him he should.  He's being consistent - while many Catholics downplay Trent in an attempt to be more ecumenical.

The formating wasn't great so here's a link to a google docs format: http://www.danchapa.blogspot.com/2011/05/review-of-fathers-know-best-on-pope_10.html Jimmy Akin’s book the Father’s Know Best provides hundreds of quotations from the Church Fathers on various topics allegedly showing the link between the early church and modern Roman Catholicism. Of greatest interest to me were the 143 quotations from the Fathers in support of the Papacy. Reading the book gave me an opportunity to learn more about the Fathers. Below is a matrix of the results of my review. However, given my review I will risk providing some overall conclusions. I didn’t find anything in the Fathers that explicitly taught Papal infallibly or got into ex cathedra vs. non-ex cathedra statements by Popes. So right off the bat I would say the Fathers were not Roman Catholic. However, that doesn’t mean they were Southern Baptists either. Many times they were somewhere in-between. As such, I categorized eac...

I claimed, and still do, that sola scriptura is not responsible for all the doctrinal disagreements between Protestants that my friend and CatholicNick had listed. Rather, I cited varying presuppositions, degree of education, study, spiritual maturity or the sinfulness of the individuals involved as other drivers of doctrinal disagreements. My friend disagreed and reasserted that sola scriptura is the reason. But I had offered an argument, regarding intra-Catholic disagreement regarding free will and predestination. He responded by saying: “The main problem here is the seeming assumption that these matters must be defined in an "either/or" fashion rather than "both/and." Catholic teaching on matters such as these is often both/and, for example, the Catechism addresses the relationship of freewill and predestination by stating: To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination"...

I had claimed, and still do, that Rome’s anathemas needlessly divide the body of Christ; far more than sola scriptura does. For example, Rome (not scripture) anathematizes those who think indulgences are worthless. So Rome causes divisions that scripture alone does not. This is not just in theory but in practice. Joseelcarpintero commented in a way that lumped me in with the unsaved false teachers in 1 John 2:19. And that’s not the only time people have tried to scare me into the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, Rome is not the only group to anathematize me. With everyone thinking they alone have found the one true way, the only thing I know to do is turn to Christ and put my trust in Him. Now consider the reverse. I don’t consider joseelcarpintero a false teacher. I don’t know him but I hope that he is trusting in Christ for his salvation. So which is causing division, sola scriptura or Rome’s anathemas? My friend tried to soften the blow of anathema by saying: “Anathema is ac...

A Roman Catholic friend of mine posted a list of teachings Protestants cannot agree upon due to sola scriptura. ( link )  Along with the list were these comments: “The following is a ‘open’ list of teachings (subject to further expansion) which Protestants cannot agree upon due to the doctrinal relativism caused by Sola Scriptura. Though many Protestants today would “solve” this problem by tossing a lot of these into the “non-essential” category, I believe the doctrinal issues I’ve mentioned have been clearly seen to cause division among Protestants… …As a Catholic, it is easy for me to treat this list as a “checklist” of sorts. All I have to do is go down each point and reference the matter in the Catechism. The Catechism is chock full of Bible citations, references to the Church Fathers and council documents, etc. wherein I can read the reasons behind why the Church teaches what it does on these matters.” ‘Division’ does not mean the same thing to Protestants and Catholics...

I recently discussed the Immaculate Conception with a Roman Catholic friend. I started with the obvious argument that the idea that Mary was sinless contradicts Paul’s teaching that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. He responded ‘Mary is an exception’, but his reasoning was based on official catholic teachings, not on the context of Romans 3. I needed to get past the official teachings of the Catholic Church since authority is somewhat of a discussion stopper. Perhaps Papal infallibility doesn’t hit the same impasse. I understand that not all Catholic doctrine is suspended on the Pope’s decisions. Certainly some Catholics held to the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception before the Vatican Council of 1870 officially declared the Pope infallible. I am not trying to use the Pope as a scapegoat or red herring or the sort. Rather, my purpose is to get at a baseline difference between Catholics and Protestants; epistemologically one that cannot be referr...

Not really, there are no passages teaching that doctrine. In fact, scripture gives us several examples of infallible oral teachings, including the Prophets, Christ’s earthly ministry, and even the Apostles. But sola scriptura is about the post-apostolic age! Well there are yet future examples as well, such as the two witnesses in Revelations and Christ Himself when He returns. Now don’t get me wrong, the bible declares itself to be authoritative and sufficient for salvation. The bible says “Scriptura”; it’s the “sola” part that it doesn’t say. So why then, do I believe in the Sola of Sola-Scripture? For the same reasons Luther gave at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason " I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe." Popes and councils have contra...

James White recently argued for presuppositional apologetics and against evidential apologetics. ( link ) He starts out with an analysis of Colossians 1:16-18, and Colossians 2:2-9, which focus on the Lordship of Christ. James White points out that the gospel is a radical claim, which unbelievers reject. What caught my attention was James White's denial that unbelievers can have 'true knowledge' and his objection to the approach of starting from common ground between believers and unbelievers to show the reasonableness of believing in the God of the Bible and other Christian doctrines.

Frank states: Because the list of canonical books is itself not found in Scripture—as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles—any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-Biblical theological knowledge. ( link ) Arminius responds: But by the very arguments by which the Scriptures are Divine, they are also [proved to be] Canonical, from the method and end of their composition, as containing the rule of our faith, charity, hope, and of the whole of our living. For they are given for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for correction, and for consolation; that is, that they may be the rule of truth and falsehood to our understanding, of good and evil to our affections, either to do and to omit, or to have and to want. ( Deut. xxvii, 26; Psalm cxix, 105,106; Rom. x, 8, 17; Matt. xxii, 37-40; 2 Tim. iii, 16; Rom. xv, 4. ) For as they are Divine because given by God, not because they are "received from men;" so they are ca...

This question is a bit of a problem for Catholic s, because their councils come along over a thousand years after the writing of scripture and require you to believe some things not explicitly taught in scripture and anesthetize dissenters. But does scripture explicitly teach what is necessary for salvation? Arminius said yes. Let’s look at his reasons why. Broadly, is argument is in three steps 1) God perfectly inspired all things we need to know for salvation to the prophets and apostles, 2) they faithfully communicated them, and 3) they wrote them down in scripture. ( link ) God perfectly inspired all things we need to know for salvation to the prophets and apostles Arminius argues that John 14:26, John 15:15, John 16:13, and John 17:8 teach Christ knew and revealed all things necessary for salvation to His Apostles and he fortifies his argument based on John 17:17-20 that this revelation was intended for the sanctification of the whole church. Based on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 ,...

Scripture is authoritative, meaning it is worthy of us believing its teachings and obeying its commands. Its authority comes from its Author: God, based on His truth, power and sovereignty. What the scripture teaches comes with all the authority of “thus saith the Lord”. Denying the authority of scripture is denying God’s authority, because the scripture is God’s Word. Catholics, in my opinion, indirectly undermine the authority of scripture, because: They teach errors, and claim exemption from the scrutiny of scripture. People are not allowed to look in scripture to find out if submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation. They subject scripture to another authority, the church. In practice they are not equivalent authorities. If you think scripture is telling you to do X and the church says do Y, you must do Y (and also unthink that the scripture said to do X). They use and teach the use of eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis). Instead of turning to scripture for the meanin...

Dave Armstrong provided some arguments against sola scriptura that I thought I would address. Initially he provided some definitions of sola scriptura , which I more or less agreed with. Here's his first issue regarding "victory conditions" in the sola scriptura debate. The Catholic needs to go further than that and establish, based on unassailable biblical evidence, examples of tradition or Church proclamations that were binding and obligatory upon all who heard and received them. Whether these were infallible is another more complex question, but a binding decree is already either expressly contrary to sola scriptura , or, at the very least, a thing that casts considerable doubt on the formal principle. I don't think what you suggest would disprove sola scriptura . Unquestionably, before the bible, there were oral teachings which were binding. Of course anything Christ said was binding. Before Moses, God taught His people in means other than writing. Fu...

I recently read Michael Patton's post on the canon of scripture , Dave Armstrong’s response , and Turretinfan’s debate with Matthew Bellisario on sola scriptura . Before I continue, let me make it clear that I agree with sola scriptura and reject the Catholic explanation of the rule of faith. Further, I think Michael and Turretinfan did a good job overall, and were more convincing than their Catholic opponents. Nevertheless, both Michael Patton and Turretinfan made maneuvers that surprised me and in my opinion weakened their defense of sola scriptura. Michael Patton, in responding to the Catholic argument that without the infallible declaration of the Church, there would be no way of knowing what books belong in the canon of Scripture , replies Protestants have a fallible canon of infallible books . Why does he make this surprising move? Michael realizes the question is one of epistemology - “How do you know?” But Michael rejects absolute certainty for relative certainty. T...