Protestants and Sola Scriptura

Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?

It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?

If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.

Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.

Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.

But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.

Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.

The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."

Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."

St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."

Has it escaped your attention that much of the New Testament was written AFTER Paul was martyred? This is a FACT which is universally agreed upon.

Universally agreed upon by WHOM? Paul was martyred 64 A.D. so let’s check your ‘assertion’ out shall we??? Dates When New Testament Books Were Written with Source Citations.

Books written before:

Mark - Mark was most likely written sometime in the early 50's or late forties.

Luke - it could not have been completed any later than the early 60's or late 50's.

Acts - The books of Luke and Acts are one continous narrative, Acts is essentially volume 2 of the book of Luke. Since the book of Acts ends with Pauls's first stay in prison in Rome, with no date set for his trial, and the persecutions of Christians by Nero (A.D. 64) not having yet taken place, it could not have been written any later than A.D. 63.

Romans - Paul wrote the letter to the Romans during his three month stay in Greece in A.D. 57.

I Corinthians - Corthinthians was written by Paul while he was in Ephesus during his third missionary journey near the end of his stay in Ephesus in the year A.D. 55.

II Corinthians - The date this letter was written is approximately A.D. 55.

Galatians – Most likely date A.D. 48

Ephesians - These four letters were written by Paul while he was in prison in Rome during the years A.D. 60-62.

Phillippians - These four letters were written by Paul while he was in prison in Rome during the years A.D. 60-62.

Colossians - These four letters were written by Paul while he was in prison in Rome during the years A.D. 60-62.

I Thessalonians - Written during Paul's second mission journey while he was in Corinth, a short time after leaving Thessanolica -- A.D. 50 or 51.

II Thessalonians - Written during Paul's second mission journey while he was in Corinth, a short time after writing 1 Thessanolians -- A.D. 50 or 51.

Philemon - These four letters were written by Paul while he was in prison in Rome during the years A.D. 60-62.

Titus - Written between Paul's release from a Roman prison in A.D. 62 and his re-imprisonmet and martyrdom in A.D. 64.

I Timothy - Written between Paul's release from prison in A.D. 62 and his re-imprisonmet and martyrdom in A.D. 64.

II Timothy - Written from prison just before Paul was martyred in A.D. 64.

James - James was martyred in A.D. 62, and thus this letter had to have been written prior to then. It may have been written as early as the late 30's. However, some of the internal evidence, such as the references to "diaspora" tend to favor a later date rather than a earlier date.

Books written after:

Matthew - Common material in Matthew and Mark indicate that Matthew was written after Mark. Since Mark dates from AD 45-60 Matthew most likely was written after that. Internal evidence in Matthew indicates it was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

John - The Rylands fragment of the book of John was found in Egypt and dated to the year A.D. 135. As it would require several decades, for copying and circulation of this book, until it reached the Egyptian hinderland a date in the 90's makes sense. This agrees with the tradition dating of John by the early church, and the Apostle John's death in the late 90's.

1 Peter - Because of this letter's references to severe persecution, this letter is dated to just prior to Peter's death during the period oif Nero's persecution of Christians in A.d. 64-65.

II Peter - This letter's writter identifies himself as the writter of 1 Peter. Thus this letter is dated after 1 Peter and before Peter's martyrdom, giving it a date before A.D. 68, which is the latest date for Peter's execution.

I John - We do not know when these letters where written. Their content indicates a later date. With the latest date of John's death set at A.D. 98, it appears likely that these letters were written in the A.D. 90's.

II John – See above.

III John – See above.

Revelation - John states that he is writting Revelation while on the island of Patmos. His imprisonment there occurred near the end of his life, in the A.D. 90's. Thus a later date of A.D. 96-97 appears to be the most likely.

Questionable –

Hebrews - The author of Hebrews is unknown, although many suspect that it might be Paul. We know that Hebrews had to have been written prior to A.D. 95, because Clement of Rome cites Hebrews in his Epistle to the Corinthians. WE also know that Timothy was still alive when Hebrews was written. And it is likely that it was written prior to A.D. 70, because the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 would have been a powerful argument supporting Christ's sacrifice replacing the oferings in the temple. There is no evidence that eliminates an earlier date in the 40's. So a date anywhere within a range from A.D. 40 to 69 A.D. is possible.

Jude - We do not have a solid date for the writing of Jude. As a result there is a wide difference in opinions concerning when this book was written. Most historians agree that it was written during Jude's ministry in Palestine in the A.D. 60's to A.D. 80's.

There are 27 Books of the New Testament. We know that (see above) 17 were written before 64 A.D. and that 8 were written post 64 A.D. with 2 that could fall into either camp. Doing my math here equates to 63% of the New Testament was written before Paul’s martyrdom in 64 A.D. only 30% written after with 7% questionable. Even IF you put the questionable into the after column you would still only have 37% of the Books written post 64 A.D. Not sure where you get 'much' of it when its only 8 books out of 27 but whatever. Also not sure where you went to school that you can't do the %'s on this one to figure out that at best 37% does NOT EQUAL MUCH. Suffice it to say you’re ‘wrong’. And if you're WRONG on this, what ELSE are you wrong on?????

Oh, I see what you are saying about the woman bruising the serpent’s head. It is the catechism that says that that is the correct translation. So, what you are doing is begging the question. Your conclusion is that Mary is foreshadowed in this passage, and you use that conclusion as the premise for your argument.
Every other translation I have been able to find says that the “seed” of Eve will crush the serpent’s head. The Latin says “...her seed, the same will crush your head...” which seems to refer to the seed (Jesus Christ) as the one doing the head-bruising.

So, since your catechism contradicts every other translation out there (of the 12 I have checked so far), perhaps you have to explain Genesis 3:15, rather than your protestant friend to whom you addressed your challenge.

= = =

GREAT points.

= = =

Now now . . . we probably need to be slightly more compassionate . . . be gentle . . . so much truth thrown at them in one post can contribute to

—apoplexy . . .
—or hives . . .
—or frothing at the mouth or fingers . . .
—or abuse button sitting marathons . . .
—or endless loop genuflections . . .
—or incoherently spouted “HAIL GRACEFUL ONE, FULL OF GRAPES” . . .
—or thrashing around on the floor screaming “UNFAIR PROTTYS! UNFAIR PROTTYS! PROTTYS TRUTH TELLING IS UNFAIR!”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.