Replies

)

Your position is effectively that of sola eccelsia, and which interprets 1Tim. 3:15 to support it, and your argument depends a certain rendering of sola Scriptura that allows nothing but the Bible to be used in interpretation.

In responding i would like to first say that if is to be attacked, it should have a reasonable definition. In so doing it is to be understood that what it is not is a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rev. 10:4) or that science, history cannot provide such. Nor that a historical Scriptural practice cannot be invoked in support of its continuance. (1Cor. 11:1-16) It is not a denial of the teaching office of the church, (Acts 15). Nor must it deny that God can “speak” to believers (especially during the offering:), or illuminate their mind in the meaning of the Scriptures, (2Tim. 2:7) while not affirming that every single part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded.

On the positive side, what SS most fundamentally holds to is that all teaching and purported revelation must be subject to demonstrable warrant from and consistency with the Scriptures, these being the only objective authority that is affirmed therein to be 100% inspired by God. (2Tim. 3:16) And that it is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and is formally sufficient to provide the truth needed for souls to be saved (so that one could read Acts 10:43-47 and believe and be saved) and to grow in holiness, though the instrumentation of believers was necessary to pen the Scriptures, and the Biblical church, as it administers the Scriptural truths, is necessary for the perfection of the saints, even as the Scriptures establish that the “body is not one member, but many. (1Cor. 12)

However, as the LORD Jesus showed in reproving those who gave unScriptural traditions the authority of Scripture, (Mk. 7:6-13) and by His Spirit commending noble truth-loving souls who examined the very apostles teaching by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) the stewards of the Scriptures are to be subject to it.

Both Protestants and Catholicism hold to the material sufficiency of Scripture (Rome rejecting any format sufficiency), but Protestantism holds that this provides for the church and its teaching office, and which is bound to provide sound Scriptural warrant for all doctrine, and to appeal by such to the hearts of truth-loving souls, and substantiate doctrine by the Scriptures as Jesus and the apostles did. (Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24: 27,45; Jn. 5:29; Acts 17:2; 18:28; 2Cor. 4:2; Heb. 1, etc.)

As a result, those those who in practice hold to the supremacy of Scripture agree with Rome in the historical foundational essentials, such as articulated in the Nicene Creed, while it is those who look to an ecclesiastical magisterium as supreme, as the LDS, WTS, et., and Rome does, that teach the most heretical doctrines and practices.

While Rome claims consistency with Scripture, her apologists deny that one can possess doctrinal certainly by them, but which her infallible magisterium assures. It is therefore even claimed that Roman Catholics need not search the Scriptures to prove the veracity of Romes' “infallibly defined truths.” “The attitude of the Catholic, therefore, is logical and necessary. Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII. The consistent believer. p. 35, 1904; Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

What Rome has done is to effectively exalt herself above the Scripture by her own self-proclaimed power. That is, she infallibly declares that she is conditionally infallible, according to her infallibly defined formula, and which makes her declaration of infallibility infallible, and by such she infallible defines that her interpretation of Mt. 16:13-19, which she invokes in support of her infallibility, is itself infallible. Thus according to her incontestable interpretation, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict, if she does say so herself. Thus the Roman Catholic position is effectively one of “sola ecclesia”, and historically Rome has damned all those who separated from her.

Therefore, despite certain Roman Catholic apologists appeal to Scripture, as if argumentation from it was the basis for their faith, and they might be persuaded by it, they have a apiori faith in the Roman Catholic magisterium, and require the same of others if they would know salvific truth for certain.

As for “church tradition”, this refers to an uncodified virtual bottomless less pit, which no one can tell beginning or end from, much less what is all consists of, though it is made equal to Scripture when Rome pronounces it so, while the term “tradition” also can be seen to have evolved in its meaning as time went on.

Furthermore, while Rome states that it is not permitted to any one to interpret the Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," Rome's doctrines are not all the result of unanimous consent of the fathers, as she can choose which of the many conflicting traditions they wish to pronounce infallible, and call it unanimous consent.

Because Rome clams to be infallible, she can not only autocratically define what the Bible says, but history as well. Thus Manning stated, “the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church?…I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.” (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228).

Part of Manning's reasoning, and that of Roman Catholic apologists, is that the channel of truth must be preserved, and that “historical evidence and Biblical criticism are human after all”, thus necessitating an infallible authority. However, the Jewish nation had no assuredly infallible magisterium, but God preserved the faith, albeit within a remnant (as usual) and this was ultimately (as regards the human instrumentality) accomplished through real prophets (who do not depend on lineage for their office) who reproved leaders and called God's people back to Biblical faith. And i think Luther, despite his faults, served in that unction and function.

The following is my response from another post to 14 objections and their texts, which the poster _i forget who) provided, paradoxically appealing to Scriptures in order to negate its supremacy, are to be examined.

1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura?

While you seem to hold to a very restrictive definition of the breadth of the term, yet by claiming that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God”, Paul places scripture as the supreme objective authority. While Scripture itself reveals that the “Word of God” can include things not written down (though it shows that when that term is used that its revelation was almost always subsequently written), once revelation is established as being from God, it becomes the standard by which further revelation is to be tested, which we can seen in the Scriptures**, and subjective revelation is tested by the objective. While Scripture was “tradition”, yet as the canon is established as only containing inspired writings, separating “wheat” from “chaff”, and is closed, to hold oral tradition as being equal with Scripture is to effectively add to the canon.

2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. Helpful.

It is amazing that an authority which is able to save damned souls, and is given “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” is held to be deficient, and its authority subject to a self-proclaimed authority. Rome itself holds that Scripture is materially sufficient, but rejects that it is subject to it, but teaches such unwarranted and unScriptural practices as praying to departed saints (dealt with later). However, if we begin in v. 14 we see that, having exhorting Timothy to continue in what Paul taught him, he invokes Scripture, as Paul's writings were Scripture, (2Pet. 3:16) the canon being yet open, and consistent with it. Moreover, preachers today may enjoin obedience to their preaching, conditional upon it being demonstrably Scriptural. And those who hold to SS are those most fervent defenders of the orthodox truths we both agree on, while again, Rome finds itself on the wrong side of the fence by promulgating doctrines that like cults, are the result of holding a church office as a higher authority than Scripture.

In contrast to the evidence to the supremacy of Scripture, nowhere does the Bible state that whatever the church may declare is infallible, , according to its structural and contextual formula, is therefore infallible. Nor does it otherwise establish sola ecclesia, which is effectively the Roman Catholic position, much less as manifested by her. Rather, the doctrinal teaching of the New Testament church is established by Scriptural substantiation and supernatural power, not self-proclamation. (Acts 15) As regards power, like as with Moses, the authority of the instruments of new doctrinal revelation in the New Testament were incontestably attested to by manifest supernatural power, as well as Scriptural probity and their own holiness. (Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10). While often scorned, the fact that the Bereans who examined the apostles teaching by the Scripture were commended by God (Acts 17:11) is one example among others which shows they were not above Scripture, and their infallibility did not truly rest upon self-pronouncement.

3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible?

Right after the word “Bible” or “Trinity” or other Biblically derived terms, while Rome has multitudes of terms such as “transubstantiation” or “indulgences” which she claims validity for.

4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of tradition condemned.

No, it was not simply corrupt tradition that Jesus condemned, but that which makes tradition corrupt, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” — presuming authority to teach that which Scripture does not warrant, and is contrary to it, this being what the Jewish magisterium did. (Mk. 7:6-9) And which was not infallible, though obedience to their authority was conditionally upheld. (Mt. 23:2)

5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"

See second paragraph under 2. Enjoining obedience to Scriptural teaching, which the manifestly God-ordained apostles are established as teaching, with an open canon, does not disestablish the supremacy of Scripture and establish a teaching office that is not demonstrably subject to prior Scriptural revelation, but promotes implicit trust in itself as if it were Scripture.

6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15 note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God.

The church would not exist except by faith in the truth, but using a verse which is evidenced elsewhere to mean the church is grounded in and supports the truth, Catholicism extrapolates a doctrine which effectively renders her to be a higher authority than Scripture, autocratically infallibly defining both the extent of revelation and its meaning, by which they confer infallibly to teaching which is not Scriptural, based upon her unwarranted proclamation that she is (conditionally) infallible.

7. Nowhere does Scripture reduce God's word down to Scripture ALONE. Instead the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is found in The Church: in Tradition (2 Th 2:15, 3:6) and in the Church teaching (1 Pet 1:25, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Mt 18:17). This supports the Church principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone'

By understanding that there is information that is outside the Bible, SS does not hold that all that the word of God may refer to is explicitly written therein, but holds that all such revelation is subject to it. And by appealing to Scripture to prove that the word of God encompasses more than what is precisely written, the poster has assigned the higher authority to Scripture.

8. The New Testament was compiled at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgments to Rome for the Pope's approval.

See #10. Which books reprove Rome, and do not establish her as the one true church. The LDS likewise appeals to their living prophet, and the historical argument claimed by Rome is specious. While the logic behind the poster's statement is that the compilers and stewards of Scripture make them the unique authoritative infallible interpreters of it, but this logic we should all be in Judaism, as unlike Rome, they were explicitly stated to be its stewards. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4)

9. Yet, the people HAD the Canon, the Word of God before the scriptures were compiled, and even before some were written

What you mean is before the canon of Scripture was compiled, but unless we are not dealing with space or time, one cannot materially have that which did not exist. The Old Testament canon did, without Rome's help, as is internally attested to in the New Testament.

10. Books that were revered in the 1st and 2nd centuries were left out of canon. Books like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. Why?

A question reiterated much. Because they failed to sufficiently manifest plenary Divine inspiration. And if they had this quality, no ecclesiastical decrees could render them obscure (a point reiterated much). Here it is important to realize that (despite da Vince Code nonsense) the Scriptures themselves were not the work of a formal church committee, charged with formulating doctrine, but were written by men, sovereignly chosen by God, and were realized as being the word of God due to their unique accompanying as well as enduring power, purity, predictive probity and complementary, but not contradictory, nature.

One should consider how the Old Testament writings came to be regarded as Scripture, and that it was so by the time of Jesus is evidenced by their referencing it as Scripture. God spoke to Abraham, and proved it was from Him, likewise with Moses. And once such was established, became the authority which further revelation would be consistent with**, often with supernatural attestation (but never the latter allowing anything that contradicted the former to be confirmed, nor by itself, which can be deceptive: Ex. 7:11; 8:7,18; 2Thes. 2:9-11), with principles of exegesis also being manifested. And while some of Scripture was once oral tradition, it is abundantly evidenced that "the word of God/the Lord" was written down.

While church decrees can be helpful, these cannot make a book inspired by God, nor deprive one from being so if it is indeed wholly inspired. Rather than owing its inspiration or the regard of it as such to conciliar decrees, it is their inherent qualities that have resulted in the “menu” of the manna from Heaven being on the “best seller” list of of souls whose hearts and lives most conform to it, and defeating its competition.

There are two ways basic to ensure the enduring perpetuation of a book being read. One is by mandate by earthly authority, and the other is by relying on freedom to choose to hear and read it. The 66 books of the Bible are a result of the latter, while the 7 extra book are much due to the former, though Roman Catholics (and institutionalized Protestants) tend to be Scripturally illiterate as whole, and are discouraged from acting as the noble Bereans, and or are not motivated from within. As quoted before, “Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense?”

While there is no conflict between Catholics and Protestants in regards to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, Rome itself was substantially divided* on the canonicity of the 7 books she includes, from before Jerome (who rejected them) up until the time Trent defined the Roman Catholic canon, which was the first “infallible” definition, over 1400 years after the last book was given. And in so doing, it arguably chose to follow a weaker tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired.

*The earliest and best authorities, including the translator of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, St. Jerome, opposed the Apocrypha. No council of the entire church during the first four centuries cast their vote in favor of them (until Hippo, 393, and Carthage, 397, under Augustine's influence) and they were strongly opposed by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome, and the Syrian church did not accept them until the 4th century. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries. John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado, Cardinal Cajetan and others doubted or rejected the canonicity of the apocryphal books.

**Ex. 17:14: 24:7; 34:1; 34:27; Dt. 10:2; 17:18,19; 27:8; 29:21; 30:10; 31:11,19,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,34,35; 23:6; 24:26; 1Ki. 2:3; 12:22; 2Ki. 14:6; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9;2Ch. 34:14,15,21; 35:12; Ezr 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 30:2; 36:2,28; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 2:5; 4:4,6,7,10; 11:10; 21:13,42; 22:29; 26:24,31,54,56; Mk. 1:2; 9:12,13; 14:21,47; 12:24; 14:49; Lk. 2:3; 3:4; 10:26; 19:46; 20:17; 22:37; 24:27,32,45,46; Jn. 5:39; 6:45; 12:14l 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 15:15; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 4:13; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:7; 1Pet. 1:16; 2Pet. 3:16 Mk. 7:3; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 10:35;

11. There were disputes over 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, yet they are in Scripture. Whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?

Actually the issue is not that the church does not teach with infallible authority, as it does if “church” is Biblically defined, and its teaching is demonstrably Scriptural (which establishes certain of Rome's teaching to be true), but the real issue is that of the basis for Rome's claim to be infallible, which is circular.

As for the rest of the question, it was not because of a decision by Rome that rendered this choice trustworthy and final, though at that stage the church had more integrity, but it would be the enduring manifestation of the power of such books, consistent with what has previously been established as Scripture, that established them.

12. How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)?

13. Or do Protestants have a fallible collection of infallible documents? And how do they know that Jude is infallible? And how do they know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not?

See #10 and11. Just as doctrines such as are expressed in the Nicene creed are held by those who hold to SS, while cults typically practice submission to man as above the Scriptures, so the 66 books of the Bible are upheld, while the now obscure extra ones which Rome finally officially affirmed are rejected. All of the solemn decrees of man cannot declare mud to be food, but that which gives life is known by its effects among those to eat it. And despite Rome's attempts to suppress the Bible in the vernacular at times (she did), the written Word of God cannot long be bound.

The question for Roman Catholic is, on what basis can one know for sure that Rome is infallible? And is there an infallible list of all infallible doctrines?

14. Eph. 4:11–15.

This is not at all contrary to SS, but instead the teaching office is affirmed by use of SS, as well as the subjection of all that is claimed to be from God to that objective authority which alone is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.

the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion.

Rome itself holds such a distinction, and thus allows for varying degrees of dissent. See last response here.

And as very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, and no infallible complete list exists of all that is such, “the Catholic Bible interpreter has...a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty.” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic apologist)

Holy Tradition is subordinate to Scripture and in no way contradicts it.

One need go no further than the tradition of praying to departed saints.

1. There are zero examples in Scripture, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where any believer prayed to (petitioned to pray) anyone else in heaven but the Lord.

2. There exists no place where exhortations, commands or instruction on prayer directed believers to pray to the departed. “i.e. “Our mother, who art in heaven...”)..

3. In no place is it shown that believers do not have direct access to Christ, or where any insufficiency exists in Christ that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man. (He. 2:17,18; 4:14-16; 7:25)

4. In no place are departed souls in heaven evidenced as interceding for the supplicants upon requests to them.

5. Supplications to beings in heaven besides God are instead condemned. (Jer 44:19)

6. Communication that took place between earthlings and heavenly beings besides God were in the context of personal visitation, on earth or as in a vision.

7. Believers are not crowned in heaven yet, (2Tim. 4:8; 1Pt. 5:4) and Mary as the Heavenly demi-goddess and object of faith and prayer is more akin to paganism's “queen of heaven” (Jer. 44:17-25) than anything we see attributed to mortal beings or even angels in Scripture. In which the ONLY heavenly object of prayer is the LORD, and we are directed to the LORD Jesus who is singularly exalted as our al sufficient and ceaseless and compassionate and worthy intercessor. (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16; 7:25)

Revelation 8:3 show[s] those in heaven sending the prayers to God. If God had received them directly there would be no need for the Angels to send them up to God.

This does not show the need for praying to such, nor does is establish that God does not directly receive individual prayers, any more than the Old Testament saints had to wait for the priest to offer up incense, (Lev 16:12,13; Lk. 1:9,10) this being emblematic of them, ( Psa. 141:2; Rev. 5:8) The angelic function here is understood as collectively offering the prayers with incense, representing the pleas of the saints, preparatory for judgment upon the earth which hated them.

The idea that souls need a heavenly intermediary between themselves and Christ being unsupported and contrary to the immediacy and sufficiency of Christ, therefore the argument for praying to saints in heaven is derived from analogy, that just as believers ask each other to pray for them on earth, so this must spiritually take place between saints in the heavenly and earthly realm. However, besides the utter lack of evidence as referred to in #4, and which is in contrast to God being abundantly affirmed as being so, this analogy would also sanction anything that human interdependence on earth requires, which assumes much.

Another attempt is Mat 27:47, when some Judaizers say that Jesus was calling for for Elias, which would be most typically to discredit him, or a reflecting of superstition. Incredibly, in another attempt, 1Tim. 2:1 is actually interpreted to be a request for the departed to to pray!

Meanwhile, Irenaeus wrote:

“Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Against Heresies, 2:32:5, 4:18:60

The idea of departed souls hearing and answering prayer, or any believer praying to them is not in Scripture, nor the need to, and the Bible evidences this as a practice among the pagans, which implicitly charges the Holy Spirit with neglect for not exampling or instructing that for believers. Thus the argument for it looks to tradition, though this nor the Assumption of Mary enjoyed the often invoked unanimous consent of the fathers, but its real basis is Rome’s declaration of its supreme authority to teach such, and which rests on her own declaration of infallibility, not upon the premise that her authority is dependent on demonstrable Scriptural warrant and concurring testimony. That is, according to our infallible interpenetration (of Scripture, history and tradition) we declare that we are infallible (within a certain infallibly stated formula) and so such an interpretation can be the only right one in any conflict.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

This would require the Eucharist to be born again, and requires Jesus to literally eat the fathers flesh, which example He sets forth a analogous to this command. (Jn. 6:57; cf. Mt. 4:4; Jn 4:34) Your interpretation depends upon rejection of the use of allegories. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html

Raygunfan: scripture alone led to divisions galore even in luther’s time, he even noticed it...and it continues to this day.

Catholics can actually disagree to a certain point with certain classes of Rome's teachings, while her unity is most universally that they belong to the Roman Catholic Institution, while doctrinally it is largely one of paper, as priests and laity often substantially dissent from even official teaching. And have divisions themselves, But as evangelicals (being a class that in practice hold to the supremacy of Scripture) most universally require belief in certain basic truths, with denial being heresy, while allowing a limited amount of disagreement in limited areas, so the dogmas of Rome's infallible Sacred Magisterium (infallible teaching of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium by the Pope, Solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, or the ordinary universal Magisterium) require an assent of faith (or “theological assent”), with the opposite being heresy, while the “ordinary assent” (or religious submission of will and intellect) which is required for non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium may allow for a limited amount of dissent, as such teachings may contain error and are subject to revision or even revocation, while those of the General Magisterium may include the possibility of significant error. Source..