The Certainty of the Written Word of Truth The Lord Christ or the Pope of Rome?

Berean Beacon ^ | Richard Bennett and Robert J. Nicholson

[vladimir998]

Colors didn't come through. Here's the original:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ30.HTM

[Campion]

For those of you who don't know, Richard Bennett was born into a RC church and was a RC priest for 22 years!

Whoopie flippin' doo!!

Judas Iscariot was born into Judaism and walked, talked, and ate with the Messiah of Israel in-the-flesh for three whole years. Should we pay attention to his dumb ideas, too?

[bornacatholic]

An Outline of the Catholic Case Against Sola Scriptura

---

originally posted 06-06-96 on James White's Sola Scriptura mailing list

DEFINITION of SS given by Greg Krehbiel that I will use:

"Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice" -- hence, all "churches" and any "traditions" (today) are fallible.

COROLLARY (and necessary implication) of SS :

The only interpretation of Scripture that is binding on the Christian conscience is that of the individual exegete (assuming normal adult intelligence) since all "churches" and any "traditions" are fallible.

I. SS is UNBIBLICAL

(1) there is no direct teaching of SS in Scripture (OT or NT)

(a) although possibly implied by 2 Tim 3:15-17; 1 Cor 4:6; etc)

(b) denied by 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; etc)

(2) there is no statement that apostolic oral revelation would cease to be a rule of faith (was argued it has in fact "passed away")

(3) or at least SS is "non-biblical" since the NT is silent about the "passing away" of the apostolic oral revelation (cf. Matt 24:35; Acts 2:42; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 3:2; etc)

II. SS is UNHISTORICAL

(1) the early Church (1st century) functioned without the NT -- this is granted -- all special revelation was oral from Christ to His apostles to the early Christians -- no written besides OT

(2) even after NT was written the Church functioned without complete NT canon (various books were questioned or not known or not included in some canon lists in the early centuries)

(3) the Church Fathers denied SS -- this is challenged by such Protestant apologists as James White and William Webster

(4) the Church councils and early Creeds do not mention SS -- ("I [We] believe in one holy catholic apostolic Church" rather than "I believe in the one holy Scripture alone")

(5) Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (all "ancient" Churches that trace back through apostolic succession) deny SS today

III. SS is ILLOGICAL (or incoherent)

(1) Scripture alone does not teach "Scripture alone" (see I. above)

(2) Scripture alone can't tell us what "Scripture" is (NT canon)

(a) to argue from "fallible knowledge" and historical testimony directly to inspired Scripture is not possible by reason -- Protestants must simply accept this "by faith alone"

(b) to argue from "fallible knowledge" and historical testimony to an infallible Church founded by Christ and protected from error by the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promises -- which same Church ultimately decided the canon -- THEN to inspired Scripture is reasonable (Catholic solution)

(c) or Scripture is "a fallible collection of infallible books" (R.C. Sproul's "solution" to incoherency problem -- but how does he know these books are inspired if "fallible" canon?)

(3) Scripture alone can't resolve the differences in OT canon

(4) Scripture alone -- being an inanimate object -- can't make any infallible and binding decisions concerning either canon or any (mis)interpretation -- Scripture is simply assumed by definition to be "self-interpreting" and "self-authenticating" without need of any infallible Church -- this begs two important questions

(a) How do I know the Bible *IS* the Word of God?

(b) How do I know *MY* interpretation of Scripture is correct?

(5) Scripture alone can't function as the sole rule of faith for a Christian populace that was entirely illiterate and Bibles were inaccessible before the age of printing (ante 1450 AD)

IV. SS is INCONSISTENT

(1) the Church recognized the NT canon through "tradition" alone and every Protestant today is the beneficiary of that tradition

(2) to argue the "infallibility of God's special providence" (Eric Svendsen) allowed the Church to recognize the NT canon can't be limited to just the canon -- i.e. the same providence of God should protect the Church in general from officially teaching error since she is guided by the "Spirit of truth" (Jn 16:13)

(3) everyone has a "tradition" (although Protestants insist it is fallible) when interpreting Scripture so the question is which tradition should one use and why?

(4) also inconsistent to attack the beliefs of that very Catholic Church that gave us the Bible -- I would argue of course that the Catholic Church of 400 AD is the same Church of 1996 AD

V. SS is IMPROBABLE -- follows directly from II. 3) to 5) above

VI. SS is UNWORKABLE (and impractical)

(1) the fact of over 20,000 Protestant denominations and sects in contrast to the unity of faith (Eph 4:5) in the Catholic Church

(2) Scripture alone is not perspicuous enough (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) to resolve major doctrinal disputes or moral teachings

(3) how can the individual Christian know today who is right?

(4) SS implies nobody is bound to any interpretation but their own since all "churches" and any "traditions" are fallible

(5) each individual Christian is fallible but the historic Christian and Catholic solution is the Magisterium that teaches God's Word infallibly (e.g. in Ecumenical Councils) -- does it really work?

Much more could be said but this is simply a brief statement outlining the Catholic (or Orthodox) case.

All of these points are fully explored and documented in the massive book by Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone : A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Queenship Publishing, 1997).

[bornacatholic]

Mr. James Akin, former minister of the Presbyterian Church in America before he converted to the Catholic Church.

"The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura also began to trouble me as I wondered how it is that we can know for certain which books belong in the Bible. Certain books of the New Testament, such as the synoptic gospels, we can show to be reliable historical accounts of Jesus' life, but there were a number of New Testament books (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) whose authorship and canonical status were debated in the early Church. Eventually the Church decided in their favor and included them in the canon of inspired books, but I saw that I, a person two thousand years removed from their writing, had no possibility of proving these works were genuinely apostolic. I simply had to take the Church's word on it.

"This meant that for one very foundational doctrine--the doctrine of what Scripture is--I had to trust the Church since there was no way to show from within Scripture itself exactly what the books of the Bible should be. But I realized that by looking to the Church as an authentic and reliable witness to the canon, I was violating the principle of sola scriptura. The "Bible only" theory turned out to be self-refuting, since it cannot tell us which books belong in the Bible and which don't! What was more, my studies in Church history showed that the canon of the Bible was not finally fixed until about three hundred years after the last apostle died. If I was going to claim that the Church had done it's job and picked exactly the right books for the Bible, this meant that the Church had made an infallible decision three hundred years after the apostolic age, a realization which made it believable that the Church could make even later infallible decisions, and that the Church could make such decisions even today."

[bornacatholic]

DECREE of Pope Damasus I (r. 366-384).

"[2] It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave [Joshua], one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles; one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaias, one book; Jeremias [Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah], one book, along with Cinoth, that is, 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 list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

"Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament."

Sean Brooks asks...

Alert readers should note how this list includes as fully canonical the Deuterocanonical books which the founders of Protestantism erroneously purged from their editions of the Bible after 1517. Why should these books be rejected so late if Holy Church accepted and still accepts the Deuterocanonical books? It's one of the many and unresolvable weaknesses of "sola scriptura" that the Prots. cannot determine which books belong in the Canon using that theory.

[Alex Murphy]

19,635 words in a single post. I think that's a new record.

[bornacatholic]

M. Luther...."Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!"

Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch...reading the prophet Isaiah...[Philip] asked "do you understand what you are reading?" He replied "How can I unless someone guides me?" and he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him (Acts 8:30-31)

[bornacatholic]

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm

[Gamecock]

Does this include Koran kissing?

You might be suprised to know that a recent Pope also slobbered all over the ring of a homosexual loving Episcopalian Bishop. (But then again maybe we've come to expect such from Rome)

According to an actual Catholic website: Kissing the ring of a prelate indicates subordination to that prelate. The pope, ecclesiastically, was saying that he regards himself as subordinate to the heretic archbishop of Canterbury, the successor of those who under the aegis of English King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth, Cromwell, and others, destroyed Catholic churches and butchered Catholic priests.

[Gamecock]

He must have slept through a lot of his theology classes...

And yet the RC Church ordained him anyway.

[Gamecock]

Amazing how RCs will trot out Scripture when is is convenient, but ignore it when certain RC blasphemies examined under the same Scripture.

[Gamecock]

Any reason for posting the same 19,635 word, 36 page post TWICE on the same thread?

[Campion]

Amazing how Protestants claim Scripture as their "only authority" which "no mere man" can interpret for them, yet when Catholics defend their beliefs with Scripture, the Protestants say, "Oh, those verses don't mean that" as if you had any right whatsoever to make those pronouncements for anyone else!

The authority you deny to the Pope, you must in consistency deny to yourselves also. But you don't.

[COBOL2Java]

And yet the RC Church ordained him anyway.

I see you missed my sarcasm...

[wmfights]

Great post. I hope it doesn't get charged with being a toxic thread before I can read all of it.

[wmfights]

Do you think it's an effort to "kill" any discussion that might not fall in line with their beliefs? It seems to be the new trend, replacing the old "anti-catholic, it's a personal attack or this isn't fair" claims.

[Salvation]

I see you tried to put on your Catholic bashing robe again. It quickly got taken off, eh?

[Salvation]

You believe in Scripture, don't you?

Well

---

men wrote it too!

Very simple. Yes, with the inspiritation of the Holy Spirit.

So, why can't the one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church be led (as it is, BTW) by the Holy Spirit?

[markomalley]

You know, it's funny how 99% of the "Jack Chick" postings on FR are made by Catholics complaining about Protestants using Jack Chick. Yet most of us don't take Jack Chick any more seriously than you do. So why bring it up?

I bring up Jack Chick not because you all reference him. (I fully recognize that there are very few Protestant freepers who do bring him up). I bring him up for two reasons:
1) He is a caricature.
2) The accusations he makes are the logical end to the anti-Catholic accusations made here. He takes the "Two Babylons"/ "Babylon Mystery Religion" conspiracy theories and puts them in comic book form.

Hatred of all things Catholic is endemic and at the doctrinal core of most, if not all, Protestant religions (to include those who don't even call themselves Protestant anymore). While not all Protestants may subscribe to those doctrines, that core is there. I posted a thread several days ago where I captured these core doctrines, whether through Westminster, Savoy, Smalcald, or whatever source.

Jack Chick epitomizes those core beliefs beautifully and takes them to their logical conclusion, regardless of how ridiculous his comics appear.