>Luke 2:29,...thus scripturally invalidates the protestant dogma that the Bible "is" the Word of God as opposed to "contains" the Word of God. You may " not see this as militating against Sola Scriptura," but trust me, your theological "leaders" certainly do.<
Actually, as the Bible reveals what this promise was, this is not a solid reference for proving that the Word of God includes revelation today that is outside the Bible. Texts such as Jn. 21:25 or Act 4:31 establish that better, though few texts exclude the possibility that Scripture, or what would be included in it, is what the Word of God refers to, and many texts explicitly make that clear. However, neither i, nor notable defenders of SS i am somewhat acquainted with, hold that no words of Christ, for instance, exist outside Scripture, nor that other sources may not provide truth.
MacArthur states, "It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture." "Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."
White states that "John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John." Nor is it [SS] "a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth", as long as it "does not add revelation or rule over Scripture." "The issue is not, and never has been, the validity of "tradition" as a subordinate authority."
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture in this way: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (1:6).
Moreover, I know of no notable commentators, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, Henry, Torrey, Wesley, etc., who hold that preaching the word cannot denote preaching the truth of the Bible, versus only speaking Scripture. And few today hold that God cannot "speak" to them. The key aspect of SS is that all is subject to Scripture, as the authority by which the veracity is judged.
>You simply haven't yet recognized the second and third order implications to Protestant theology and interpretation of disconnecting the phrase "Word of God" from the canon of scripture!<
It is not disconnected. While the Scriptures themselves establish that the phrase can sometimes refer to revelation not explicitly penned in Scripture, it is also evidenced that all such must conflate with it. And the canon being closed (the fullness of that body of revelation which is affirmed to be wholly inspired), nothing can be added to the Bible. If God reveals to you when the economy will crash, or how the exodus more preciously happened, then it must be tested by Scripture.
>For example, that favorite Protestant pastime of accusing Catholics of "disobeying, or contradicting, the Word of God" is meaningless without the prior assumption that nothing that isn't contained in the Bible can be the authoritative Word of God.<
Not so, nothing is equal in authority to it, and while "reverence for Mary" is Scriptural, it is not when it is "above that which is written", (1Cor. 4:6), and what is justly condemned is praying to anyone is Heaven other than God, as it lacks Scriptural warrant, and is contrary to the commands on who to pray to, and the revelation of who is our exalted and worthy intercessor. To teach contrary to Scripture is not preaching the word.
>Also, I find particularly humorous your assertion:
"[as]...Scripture is the only objective authority that is assuredly declared to be wholly inspired, (2Tim. 3:16) than that is what any revelation must be tested by."
One would think you never read Peter's admonition in 2 Peter 3:16 regarding those who "wrest" scripture to their own destruction! Your assertion...refuses to recognize "interpreting" God's revelation IS speaking for God!<
Indeed it is. And SS does not deny the authority of the teaching office. Nor again, the validity of "tradition" as a subordinate authority.
However, your error is in negating the commendation of the noble Bereans due to abuse of the Bible and failing to practice what SS requires, which is that is interpreting scripture by Scripture which exposes the wresting of texts. Rome itself can be shown to wrest Scriptures, even in invoking 2Pet. 1:19 for its purposes.
>It is seldom recognized that those who haughtily say "so-and-so doesn't speak for God!" are claiming exactly the same authority for themselves, albeit negatively rather than positively, that they would deny to the one they denounce.<
So does Rome, the difference is that one recognizes what he teaches only has authority insofar as it can be shown to be consistent with and substantiated by Scripture, which text Paul's preaching could pass, while the other relies upon a presumed authority to infallibility, based upon its own declaration to be so.
>That would be fine if they actually had an authoritative source for such denunciations, but as we see in the case of Marian devotion, these denunciations are strictly predicated of "interpretation" of Scripture, rather than "command" of Scripture.<
Indeed they are, as your position is. But do you really believe that only what is expressly explicitly commanded or not commanded in Scripture is authoritative? If so, then please find the command to pray to Mary.
While interpreting Scripture is not contrary to SS, but makes such subject to validation by Scripture, your interpretation rests upon unwarranted traditions of men being of equal authority with Scripture. Or do you presume that such exhortations as "wait thou only upon God", (Ps. 62:5), and (after establishing Jesus as the uniquely qualified intercessor), "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb. 4:16) who "ever liveth to make intercession for them." "Looking unto Jesus..." (Heb. 7:25; 12:2), and the utter absence of any command or example of anyone praying to anyone else in heaven but the Lord, yet allows sanction for praying to a Queen of heaven, which was only known among a pagans?
>No, instead we see "rules" grown out of men's interpretation of scripture...<
The issue is not whether interpretations can be valid, but the warranted nature of them, and the preeminence of Scripture as the authority by which interpretations and revelations are proved by is in fact, abundantly testified to by Scripture.
>such as
"...once revelation was established as wholly inspired and written, then it became the authority for obedience, and for testing revelation."
so they can accuse the innocent of "harvesting on the Sabbath." Truly, there is not one verse in your grocery list of citations that says what you claim above, apart from a Pharisaical interpretation motivated to find fault...<
Quite the contrary, as the authority of Scripture by which revelation is tested and teaching is substantiated is abundantly manifest, while reproof of those who presume authority to make unwarranted traditions of men is also evidenced. And that is what is truly Pharisaical.
While miracles were a primary means of attesting to the Divine authority of the apostles and early church when preaching the gospel to the Scripturally illiterate Gentiles (Rm. 15:18,19; Acts 14:1-13), though miracles were not restricted to such, when proving doctrine or preaching the gospel to those to whom the "oracles of God" were committed (Rm. 3:2), the Lord and His apostles used Scripture, with Jesus referencing or alluding the O.T. over 100 times, and Paul and others likewise, as in,
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
>How can one take serious the Biblical scholarship of one who claims:
"...it was this, and not Jewish traditions, which the apostles directed the disciples to look to..."
when it is clear the ONLY reason for most of the rules given to the gentiles in Acts 15 is in deference to the sensibilities formed by Jewish tradition.<
By "look to" i am referring to the primacy of Scripture, as in Rm. 15:4, versus Biblically unwarranted traditions, ala Rome and the Jews in Mk. 7:9-13. In addition, this primacy does not negate the authority or use of tradition simply because it is tradition, but the worthiness of it is proven by that which is affirmed to be wholly inspired.
There is nothing anti-SS in mandating rules of church discipline, as long as this is not made of equal authority with Scripture, and is justified by it. And if i recall correctly Rome recognizes Acts 15 as being a matter of church discipline.
Finally, while not offending the Jews was a primary cause for these proscriptions, it was not extraBiblical traditions which were the basis for them, but the Law itself, (Exo. 34:15-16; Num. 25:2; Lv. 17:3,11; 18) though the dietary aspects were abrogated under the New Covenant.
>Indeed, it seems the number of man-made interpretations with no other reason for being aside from the preservation of the Sola Scriptura dogma never ends!<
Actually, invalid interpretations are what abound when one declares themselves infallible, and allows a bottomless pit of uncodified church tradition to be equal with Scripture (or at least potentially according to some) while the criteria for valid interpretations under SS require interpretations to be demonstrably warranted, not decreed while though lacking such. And I could and would submit to Rome if her claims and doctrines at issue were sound.
>Empty conjecture about what "would become part of the body of Scripture" and postulates designed to create a conflict where there is none between Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition seem to be totally immune to Paul's 1Thes 5:21 injunction to test ALL things, not just the ones you dislike.<
It is convenient to understand "all" here as including Scripture, while limiting Rm. 3:23. However, the examples we have of judging Scripture is that of discerning its meaning, while judging preaching by it is also clearly sanctioned. (Acts 17:11). And you might notice that the context of 1Thes. 5:21 is that of prophesying, cf. 1Cor. 14:29.
>Is there no limit to the nonsensical prattling that can be embraced so long as it's goal is the rejection of the CHURCH Jesus left us, as opposed to the BOOK codified hundreds of years after Pentecost?<
Rather, what is unlimited are the specious attempts to justify teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and to the reject Biblically manifest truth, that by Scripture teaching was and is to be proved, a rejection which is ecclesiastically driven by the need to promote the autocratic authority of Rome, which was long in developing, and depends upon its own declaration for its infallibility.
>I'm sure you intended your closing sentence:
"Unlike the Jews, Rome's authority is based upon her own declarations of authority, not Biblical faith, upon which (and by extension, its Object) the body of Christ is founded and overcomes."
to be your coup de gras!
Unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked the fact, as is stated in 1 Tim 3:15, the "pillar and foundation of the truth" is the CHURCH, not "biblical faith," thus making your crescendo decidedly hollow. <
Nothing hollow at all, as this verse does nothing to negate the position that the Roman church (in particular) is not an infallibly authority over the Scriptures, while even the Jewish version of the Magisterium was manifestly not infallible.
[the] pillar [G4769 "stulos"; denoting support, or part of cf. Rev. 3:12; 10:1; Gal. 2:9]; and [G2532 "kai"; having a copulative, or cumulative force, as even, so, yea] ground [G1477 "hedraiōma"; denoting support or foundation] [of] the [G3588 "ho hē to"; which, the, this, etc.] truth. [G225 "alētheia"; truth].
"Hedraiōma" only occurs here in the Scripture, and depends on other texts for interpretation.
That the church both uniquely supports and upholds the truth, being the medium by which God communicates His truth to man, and defends it, is supported by Scripture. As is the fact that the church was birthed by faith, and overcomes by the same. Israel came into existence thru the faith of a man, and that is why the authenticity of a true Jew is not based upon correct genealogy, but Abrahamic type faith. (Rm. 2:28,29) Israel became the steward of the truth, while yet being subject to it, with prophets being instrumental in preserving the remnant.
The foundational truth upon which the church of the living God is founded is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, (Mt. 16:16), and that Christ, the object of said faith, is the foundation for the church is one of the most abundantly substantiated doctrines in the Bible. (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) And it is by faith that the souls which constitute the church become part of it, (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13), and only by faith in the Son of God can they and it overcome. (1Jn. 5:5)
The church is both a product of the truth and a steward of that which is given it, but like the Pharisees, when it presumes to add doctrines which are contrary to the truth of Scripture, then it must be reproved.
Overall, i find your responses have had little substance.
Here are some questions for discussion:
1. How does the RCC know it is infallible?
2. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible?
3. Can we know for sure that we are interpreting correctly the infallibly definitions of the Catholic church?
4. How much of the Bible has been infallibly defined?
5. Is there any complete infallible list of all infallibly defined doctrines?
Thank you.
4
Actually, as the Bible reveals what this promise was, this is not a solid reference for proving that the Word of God includes revelation today that is outside the Bible.
Does it, indeed?
So you would have us ignore the obvious conclusion sitting right before us: that is, that the Holy Spirit is teaching us through this scripture "The Word of God" CANNOT be synonymous with the canon of scripture, to reach across the table for the much more "solid" teaching that inclusion of this narrative actually "weakens" that idea?
Who are you, Janet Napolitano? Your interpretive system "works" because it totally ignores the actual text of the scripture?
Look, I understand you feel like you've been ill-served by the Catholic Church, and I'm not saying you haven't been, but is that justification for embracing absolutely ludicrous interpretations so long as they inveigh against the Catholic claim to authority?
Honestly, don't you think you should at least find out what Catholics have to say about Protestant claims before you present those claims like Moses coming down the mountain?
I mean look at what you're quoting, man:
"Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."
Don't you see what meaningless drivel this is? It's an utter tautology! "Tall people are taller than short people, because of their height!" "Everything you need to know is either explicit or implicit!" "The only directions you need are 'right or left!'"
For Pete's sake, you SS guys can't even agree on the role and doctrine of baptism. And if you believe Hebrews 6:2, where do you get off presuming to teach?
I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to refute every point of your blitzkrieg: but I could. I'm telling you as someone who has been in your shoes. If you will actually listen to what Catholics have to say about scripture instead of what Protestants have to say about Catholics, you will find it makes MORE sense, not less.
You certainly won't get any of that dopey "petra, petras" nonsense reformation "scholars" have been selling to get away from the clear and obvious meaning of Matt 16:18. Nonsense which by-the-way is thouroughly debunked by no less than D.A.Carson!
No, he doesn't endorse the obvious meaning, but he does put to rest the "little stone" theory, which is the lingustic equivalent of claiming "butterflies" have something to do with "flies" and "butter."