Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offen­sive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then begin­ning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscov­ered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scrip­ture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for heal­ing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institu­tion such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the suffi­ciency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradi­tion is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradi­tion and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

1. Compare: Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 19.
2. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p. 22.
3. Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 21 and no. 24.

[paladinan]

Paul wrote 2 Timothy TO a believer about and for BELIEVERS.

I agree. That's why I was so puzzled at your belief that 2 Timothy says or proves *anything* about the Bible's sufficiency to bring an unbeliever to Christ... especially since the text explicitly talks only about believers. I was pointing out that you (and others of like mind) are stretching 2 Timothy far beyond the breaking point, in an attempt to "shoehorn" it into your presupposition of "sola Scriptura". That horse simply won't run, friend.

Besides, that's not the main issue. The main issue is the adequacy of Scripture.

I was under the impression that the main issue was the adequacy of Scripture ALONE... yes? I have no objection to saying that Scripture is adequate for a great many important things; it's only when you add the word "ALONE" that I have a complaint... for reasons which I've mentioned repeatedly.

[ealgeone]

Verga: Document or retract.

Really?

Mary is assumed.

They have no support for this one either.

It sure does seem that Rome has spent a lot of time, effort, energy and money on propping up Mary.

A google search of: catholic church mary gets 48,000,000 hits.

A google search of: catholic church Jesus gets 38,400,000

A google search of: catholic church Peter gets 40,000,000 hits; Paul gets 54,600,000

A google search of: catholic church assumption gets 8,390,000 hists.

A google search of: catholic church mary saves gets 16,800,000 hits.

A google search of: catholic church Jesus saves gets 260,000; change that to Jesus is Savior gets 1,240,000; change that to Jesus is Lord gets 16,000,000.

Sure sounds like some misplaced priorities there.

[verga]

Typical prot, can’t provide facts, so go the Alinsky way.

[metmom]

If Roman Catholics want to criticize and attack sola Scriptura, they should at least agree on what they think the term means, don't you think?

That would help, but strawmen are so much easier to knock down.

What I find interesting is that they create what they want Prots to believe SS is instead of listening to us about what we really believe it to be even though they've been told time and again.

[ealgeone]

Typical prot, can’t provide facts, so go the Alinsky way.

Again with the names.

I give verifiable google searches and all you can do is cast dispersions. Very telling.

If you can't show support for your religion's beliefs that is not my problem. It sure seems when catholicism's teachings are brought to the light of day and measured against the Word, they wilt under the scruitiny.

Christianity can however support what it teaches in the Word.

[redleghunter]

Some more info:

Recently the Bible has come under attack by liberal scholars who claim that the New Testament canon was determined by the winners of a supposed struggle for dominance in the early centuries of Christianity. As the following evidence reveals, however, the canon is not arbitrary or authoritarian, but divinely authoritative. First, the entire New Testament canon was recorded early and thus was not subject to legendary contamination. Had any part of the canon been composed after AD 70 it would most certainly have mentioned the destruction of the very temple that had given the ancient Jews their theological and sociological identity. Additionally, because Matthew and Luke likely used Mark as a source and Luke composed his gospel prior to the writing of Acts, which was completed prior to Paul’s martyrdom in the mid–60s, Mark may have been composed as early as the AD 40s, just a few years after the events recorded. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reiterates a Christian creed that can be traced to within three to eight years of Christ’s crucifixion. By contrast, the Gnostic gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, are dated long after the close of the first century. The entire New Testament canon was recorded early and thus was not subject to contamination. . . .The authority of the New Testament is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of its authors. . . .And extra–biblical evidence confirms the New Testament canon.

Furthermore, the authority of the New Testament is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of its authors. John writes, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). Likewise, Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “did not follow cleverly invented stories” but “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). Moreover, the New Testament contains embarrassing details that no authoritarian association bent on dogmatic dominance would have adopted. For instance, the Gospels present the founding members of the movement as dissident disciples who not only doubted but denied their Master. The canon was not determined by men but discovered by the community of early believers based on principles of canonicity.

Finally, extra–biblical evidence confirms the New Testament canon and knows nothing of early competing canons. Secular historians—including Josephus (before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus (around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius (AD 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (AD 110)—confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome—all writing before AD 250—also shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. From such sources, we can piece together the highlights of the life of Christ independent of the New Testament canon. Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the centrality of the canonical Gospels and recorded their widespread use in important Christian centers including Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. As such, the canon was not determined by men but discovered by the community of early believers based on principles of canonicity.

For further study, see Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004).

Luke 1:1–2 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”

Source compliments of Dr. Gary...thanks.

[metmom]

Show us why the Scripture that the Holy Spirit inspired is not adequate, that God did not do a good enough job the first time around.

[metmom]

What do we need to know for salvation and maturity in Christ that is NOT found in Scripture?

[paladinan]

No, I think You misunderstand ...Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals ...

Rome does NOT say that, in the least. The Catholic Church says that many parts of Scripture are clear and easy enough to interpret and understand with minimal difficulty (which is why you won't find volumes of "official Church interpretations" of verses such as "Jesus wept", etc.), while other parts are obscure and difficult to penetrate. The Church, despite your preconceptions, doesn't micromanage Scriptural reading or interpretation; She merely sets guidelines and boundaries as to where people CANNOT go.

For example: the Catholic Church forbids any Catholic from promoting the view that we did not all (as humans) descend from two original parents (Adam and Eve). The Church also forbids any Catholic from promoting the view that they are free to promote whatever interpretation they please, without recourse to the teaching of the Church Who is entrusted with final authority in that matter.

In short, the Catholic Church's approach to its members handling Scripture is, "Check with the list of prohibitions, first... and if your idea isn't prohibited, then discuss it as freely as you like; just be alert to (and humble enough to be obedient to) any corrections from the Church, should you happen to veer into error and the Church points that out."

I understand that you're asking for a comprehensive, verse-by-verse interpretation via the Catholic Church; but you're asking for an imaginary thing (possibly because you're trying to score a rhetorical "gotcha" point).

so every priest, every bible study, every theologian is just giving his own personal interpretation of the Scriptures..

I can't speak for ill-informed or disobedient priests, bible study leaders, theologians, etc.--but all faithful and well-informed Catholics are free to give personal interpretations of Scripture, so long as they do not run afoul of anything that the Church has taught definitively on this-or-that matter. Far from the tyrannical monster you take the Church to be, She actually gives Her children a great deal of freedom and latitude; She merely insists that they stay on the "safe" side of the few guard-rails which She had to set up.

As a side-note: you (though you may not admit it) are the beneficiary of many of these Catholic "guard-rails"; the Catholic Church has fought and condemned heresies since Her institution by Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. The list is very long, and non-Catholic Christians (especially anti-Catholic Church Christians) are often heedless of the long list of doctrines which they inherited from the Church, and the long list of enemies to the Faith from which they were protected by the Church's tireless battles. Arianism (saying that Jesus was a creature, and not God), Donatism (which held that some sins could never be forgiven, even if the sinner was sincerely repentant), Marcionism (which held that the God of the Old Testament was a different God from the God of the New Testament), Pelagianism (which held that it is possible to "earn" salvation by good works alone), Docetism (which held that Jesus never became Man, but had an illusory body, such as the angels assume when speaking to men), and dozens (if not hundreds--they're sometimes difficult to count) more were all condemned and excluded from the Christian Church by the Magisterium. You, as I said before, inherited a great many of these, unawares... so you don't know enough to thank the Church for protecting you from them. Were it not for the Church, you would likely be a follower of Arianism (or some other ancient error), right now.

[Religion Moderator]

Questions are rarely "making it personal." If a Freeper asks "are you a heretic?" that is not making it personal but if he says "you are a heretic" that is making it personal (mind reading.)

That said, if he badgers you with the same question over-and-over that is making the thread "about" you and is "making it personal."

[paladinan]

There is no historical or testimonial evidence of the assumption of Mary...Some crackpot invents the story hundreds of years after the fact and then it gets repeated by more crackpots and you call this historical and testimonial evidence???

Just to clarify: you're calling St. John Chrysostom a "crackpot"?

That seems suspiciously as if your definition of "crackpot" is "anyone who disagrees with Iscool"...

[ealgeone]

>No, I think You misunderstand ...Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals ..<

. Rome does NOT say that, in the least.

You, uh, might want to check out the catechism. It differs with your understanding.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

[paladinan]

Still waiting on the post police to define “way so.”

:)

I have to admit, that one really cracked me up!

[ealgeone]

As a side-note: you (though you may not admit it) are the beneficiary of many of these Catholic "guard-rails"; the Catholic Church has fought and condemned heresies since Her institution by Christ, roughly 2000 years ago.

bogus claim that the rcc as we know it today has been around for 2000 years.

funny, the NT never mentions the papacy, indulgences, burning incense, cardinals, assumption of mary, her immaculate conception, praying to mary.....I could go on, but you get the idea.

The early Christian church does not resemble the rcc.

[BlueDragon]

Typical prot, can’t provide facts, so go the Alinsky way.

You are here again guilty (right down to the bone) of what you are accusing others of.

You first posted the demand "document or retract" addressed to comment #296 with yourself having highlighted;

Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals

and yourself remarking in reply to that portion;

Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.

Guess what? The assertion which you said was 'hogwash' was established to be true in comment #377. Rome says that only itself, which itself regards as "The Church^™, can interpret Scripture. Well, duh, that's not exactly news around here, is it? Yet you had said to RnMomof7, having mentioned that factual info (as for what the RCC claims as it's own prerogative) that it was "hogwash".

Elsie later added (for good measure?), if I understood him well enough, as he was engaging in a bit of play on words in regards to the Assumption of Mary, as a thing which is assumed, rather than is in any way documented factually, such as eye witness account, etc.

In fact, for many centuries it was acknowledged within the Church that the precise details of her death were not known, including if she was bodily "assumed" into heaven, or not.

Shall I ping (by which I mean bring citation from) Epiphanius?

There is really no need, as the RCC otherwise admits that there is no actual proof (no documented "fact" as it were) of such a thing as the Assumption of Mary having occurred.

Should we be forced to bring evidence (from RCC sources) for admission of that?

What then, if someone here were to do so?

Would YOU begin to retract your own comments?

Time and again those are proven wrong -- but there is rarely any acknowledgement forthcoming --- yet you demand retractions from others?

How small can you be?

Go back and retract the "hogwash" comment, and while you are at it (to save everyone a lot of time and trouble) just go ahead and admit there is no real and actual evidence for 'Mary' having been bodily Assumed into heaven.

Do you have enough integrity to do so --- you know -- to do as you demand others to do?

If so -- when will we here on FR begin to see much in the way of visible traces for it?

[CynicalBear]

I doubt a one time question can be construed as “badgering”. On the other hand questioning me about wearing a ring over 8 times would seem to fit.

[Religion Moderator]

When you are being asked the same question over and again on the same thread, send me a Freepmail with the links so we can follow-through.

[CynicalBear]

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

Catholics wouldn't want us to go against what scripture says would they? So could you show where the apostles wrote down what they said was the "tradition" they talked about? Surely if they said not to go beyond what was written they would have provided written proof of what they calle "tradition" right?

[verga]

Guess what? The assertion which you said was 'hogwash' was established to be true in comment #377. Rome says that only itself, which itself regards as "The Church™, can interpret Scripture.

In CONTEXT this was demonstrated to be false (prots won't admit it due to low reading comprehension, but it is still false). If you read from I believe it is paragraph 80 -94 (or 98 I don't have my CCC here in front of me)You will see that it is referring to defining dogma.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[verga]

I asked you three times in replies to your badgering of another Freeper.