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."

If some human councils sat early in the history of the church, close to the days of the apostles, to decide which books should be in the Bible, I believe God had the power to direct and control the outcome, even if the men in those councils had motives inconsistent with the will of God, the Author, Inspirerer and Preserver. The outcome would astound the hearts of even those men, so that to every generation, God’s Words are preserved, just as He promised.

Don’t leave the Divine Author and Preserver out of the equation.
+++++++++++++++

I am not.

To do as you say, these men would have some kind of authority to lead all other men in the name of Christ.

That, to me, would make them Prophets.

But then, I am told, by many who say God's word in only in the Bible, that there has been no Prophets since the time of the Apostles.

As a matter of simple grammer, the word "inseparable" refers to the word "role" NOT "union."

And as a matter of simple grammer, it STILL says union with Christ. Spin it however you will.

If the Church's teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary are wrong, then why did Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Zwengli and Wesley not disavow them?

Who said they didn't???? In The Works of Luther, Vol. 22, "[...] since His mother, Mary, the virgin, was known to be a plain carpenter's wife, no more respect was shown to her than to any ordinary woman.....For the greater the men of God and the larger the measure of the Spirit in them, the greater the diligence and attention they devote to the Son rather than to the mother." - Martin Luther

Reformers and Protestants revere Mary, but we do not elevate her to sinless status, or equality with God or a co-Savior as the Roman Catholic church does. There are many statements by Reformers who spoke against Mary worship and idolatry. There are also many who couldn't quite let go of the old ideas of Mary's perpetual virginity which is contrary to Scripture. I don't really care about what men may or may not have said. I care about what Scripture says. And Scripture is clear Mary was not a perpetual virgin or any any way to be worshipped or became sinless.

Question for you....Was Joseph required to live in perpetual celibacy even though he had a wife after Christ was born????? Where is your Scriptural support for this??? Notice Matthew 1:25 "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." That verse does not say "kept her a virgin forever"....it says "until" she gave birth. The Greek word we translate until is ἕως or heōs. An adverb which means: until, as long as, marking the continuance of an action up to the time of another action. There is nothing in this grammar that indicates anything less than TEMPORARY. Also note Matthew 13:55,56 where it is recorded Christ had brothers/sisters. If Mary were a perpetual virgin where did these other children come from? Was Joseph an adulterer? Were these children also sons of God like Christ Himself? OR, more likely, did Joseph know his wife in the traditional sense following Christ's birth and have children the same as any family does????? The only reason that view is rejected is because of the unbiblical view that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Does the phrase, "blessed art thou among women" leave open the possibility that ANY woman was more blessed?

Protestants don't reject the view that Mary was the most blessed of women. We believe she was unique in having been chosen by God to bear the Son of God. In that sense she was indeed a righteous woman. But Mary herself rejects the notion that she ever earned this position, or is deserving of worship. You forget the FIRST part of Luke 1:48 - ...."He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave". Note Mary referred to herself as being in a 'humble state'. Again the word for humble here is ταπείνωσιν or tapeinōsin which quite literally means a reference to one's own sinful condition. It conveys the idea of spiritual abasement and a recognition of one's own guilt before God. As regards to the word 'blessed' it is μακαριοῦσίν or makariousin. It literally means 'to be happy'. It does not mean to be exalted, nor does it mean to be revered, or worshipped. Makariousin is also found in James 5:11 "Behold we count them happy [Makariousin]...." which should illustrate the true meaning. [The NASV actually translates Makariousin as blessed, the KJV translates it happy in James 5:11]. So no, protestants don't EXCLUDE this verse, we translate it ACCURATELY.

And BTW: The above is EXACTLY how sola scriptura reconciles 2 Peter 3:16. There are many who 'distort' the Scriptures, a hem, and cough cough. And you left out v. 17 which says: "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,". And so I ask YOU a question again, how do you know who is distorting and who is not if you deviate away from sola scriptura????

Demonstrate your reading skills by reading the rest of the verse which says that scripture makes the man of God "thoroughly equipped" for "every good work." So, Paul is claiming before his death that there is already a body of scripture that is sufficient to make a man complete, finished, accomplished, what God made him to be.

No one is arguing that Scripture is not needed to be "thoroughly equipped."

The Protestant argument is that Scripture is sufficient (Sola Scriptura). This passage does not say that only Scripture is required.

See the difference?

I may say that gasoline is profitable so that the motoring man may be fully equipped for every good journey.

That doesn't mean i only need gasoline. I also need other things, like a car, a driver's license, a map, etc.

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.