Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII
By Dave Armstrong
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).
This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.
The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:
a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).
b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).
So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).
"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."
But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
the way I see it is that sola i.e. ONLY scripture is used by many to explain their position on Christian beliefs because they read a passage or excerpt and base their theology on their own individual interpretation of scripture.By taking scripture alone, in isolation, reading as an individual, the conclusions reached by Bob and Zuriel ARE possible. That I feel is due to Sola scriptura. I'm not saying sola told them that the trinity does not exist, but sola is the rule that allowed them to get to that conclusion.
Sola s means "I can read it on my own and come to my own conclusion" -- do you disagree with that simplistic statement
I hope that's clear enough to dispel any doubts that the Church teachs that Christ's sacrifice is what won us Salvation.
It's somewhat clear what your view is. You say Faith and Grace, no co-operation? Are you really saying By Grace alone, Thru Faith Alone, in Christ Alone? Not quite sure what your position is. Your position seems to be the minority one in that most Catholics use James 2 as hammer against protestants and argue Faith AND works all day long.....Unity?
James 2:24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Here is a good explanation of what is and is not sola scriptura.
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby
http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing.?
“The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby”
The Bible makes no such claim for itself. It states that everything in it is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, but it does not claim to be the only rule of faith.
You admit that the Bible does not contain all knowledge, admit that Jesus himself said there was more he needed to say, admit that the Bible need not be exhaustive and then give as examples of information not contained therein as what color St. Thomas’ eyes were and what they ate?
Do you, in good faith, compare the words and teachings of Jesus with the mundane details of the life of the Apostles?
You further admit that the Church has teaching authority under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yet fail to name or define the Church. The nebulous “Christian Church” as Protestants call it, is not authoritative as we can clearly see by the variety of differing sects within that church. Jesus prayed for unity, one faith, one baptism.
Now, there is a claim that all Protestants share core beliefs, but as we sometimes see here that is not the case.
You further admit that oral teaching was a means of communicating the faith. The Apostles did indeed use Scripture, but they used it to prove who Jesus was. Why did they need to do that? To buttress their own authority. It was that closeness to Jesus of the Apostles that allowed them to have credibility and it is that same claim of closeness that the church demonstrates through its “Apostolic Succession” which gives it credibility.
The Church does not fear consistency between the Old and New Testaments. In fact, I submit that the Church is much more in tune with the belief that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old and that doctrines with which Protestants are in disagreement with the Church can be found within that fulfillment.
You think that is the scriptures(God Breathed) that are at fault?
The remedy is Roman Tradition (certainly not God Breathed)?
1 Cor 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing.
I am not following you. What is your point?
Then why are there so many who deny the divinity of Christ by quoting scripture? Read Zuriel's post above -- he quotes adequately from scripture for his point of view and if one holds by sola scriptura then his point of view should be equally valid, right?
By taking scripture alone, in isolation, reading as an individual, the conclusions reached by Bob and Zuriel ARE possible.That I feel is due to Sola scriptura. I'm not saying sola told them that the trinity does not exist, but sola is the rule that allowed them to get to that conclusion.
if you wish to take sola scriptura as your rule, then their positions are equally valid as your interpretation since it is an individual's interpretation.
Scripture is infallible -- but sola scriptura is not -- as we see in the widely disparate beliefs between you and other sola scriptura folks who deny Christ's divinity.
Yet you say:
“Peter was given authority in the Kingdom, not in the Church on earth.”
Wow. Ok. This is despite the fact that Christ explicitly tells Peter, ‘Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound on Heaven?’
Sounds to me that Peter’s being given both, authority in the Kingdom, and authority in the Church on Earth, such that his authority in the Church on earth (bind on Earth), shall extend to heaven (bound in heaven).
Forgiving sins and binding and loosing is not limited to Peter or the apostles as your Church claims. He told you, I, and every believer the same thing when He taught us the Lords Prayer.
Father forgive/loose our sins as we forgive/loose the sins committed against us.
If we do not forgive/loose the sins committed by a brother on earth when they ask, that sin is bound on earth as well as in heaven and God cannot forgive/loose our sins against Him.
He explains this in Mathew 18 15-35. The first example involves one brother asking another to forgive him and how to handle it if that brother doesn't. The only role the local church has in this is as a referee. They are not required to forgive anyone because they were not sinned against.
They second example is when Peter asks Jesus how many times he/Peter has to forgive a brother who sins against him/Peter. Jesus tells Peter seven times seventy and goes on to explain the concept of binding and loosing. You and I have to forgive our earthly brothers before we can be forgiven by our heavenly Father.
What you won't find here or anywhere else is where a man can forgive sins committed against God for God as the Catholic Church practices.
Only you and I can, and must, forgive sins committed against us by a brother. Only God can forgive our sins against Him.
Please read the verses and show me where I am wrong. Thanks BVB
Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thingAnother person who holds to sola scriptura like Michael Servetus believes that Christ was not divine (as shown in this thread) and denies the Trinity!
“If we do not forgive/loose the sins committed by a brother on earth when they ask, that sin is bound on earth as well as in heaven and God cannot forgive/loose our sins against Him.”
You are correct that I can forgive sins committed against me. Peter, however, can forgive sins committed against other people.
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.