Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
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:
Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:
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.
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,
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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).
Could you lead us to the infallible Magisterium's commentary on the whole bible
So where is the discussion on the multiple answers already given in answer to those questions.
No verse in the Bible refers to the Bible as we know it, because the many scrolls which comprise the Bible were written centuries before the Bible was compiled.
Therefore, no reference to Scripture in the Bible can prove the sufficiency of the Bible, because “Scripture,” in the Bible, refers to either the Torah, the Old Testament, or the Book of Revelation.
I don’t think Protestants believe in the sufficiency of the Torah, the Septuagint, or Revelation.
Ironically, Ankerburg makes the common mistake of reading Luther’s tradition of Sola Scriptura into the verses he cites.
Wrong!!!!
Scripture does not *contain* divine revelation.
Scripture *IS* divine revelation.
The enemy's work always begins with *Did God REALLY say....?????*
The minute Satan can get someone to question the integrity of God's word or the integrity of God Himself, his battle is won.
Wrong again. Scripture tells us that, not history.
But you're not going to be a hypocrite here and appeal to the authority of Scripture to give the church its authority to give Scripture its authority, are you?
When do you believe that Christ established His church ?
Peter called Paul's writings Scripture. They were recognized as such that early on in church history, at the time those very letters were being written.
Nobody needed the RCC to come along and give its stamp of approval to what everyone already knew.
I don’t think Protestants believe in the sufficiency of the Torah, the Septuagint, or Revelation.
You think wrong then. We recognize them as God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired divine revelation
When did the spirit of all truth come?
I asked you to refer me to the magisteriums infallible commentary of the bible .. you do have one right ?
During Ptolemy II of Philadelphus’ reign (285-246 B.C.), 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the entire Hebrew bible into Greek. This canon of the OT, translated by Jews, contained the books that Luther pitched more 1,500 years later. This is the septaguint named for the number of Jewish translators.
The Alexandrian translation was completed by 125 B.C. It it contained the books that Luther got rid of.
Greek was the common language in use in the Mediterranean at the time. This translation was the one in use during Jesus’ time, and was the translation used by the new testament writers and Jesus himself.
The Greek OT scriptures, translated by Jews, remember, reached more people, as Hebrew was dying out in the wider Mediterranean. Jesus himself used the Alexandrian canon of the bible. We know this because the New Testament records direct quotes from Jesus himself.
The septuagint contains 46 books and the Hebrew canon contains only 39. The Hebrew canon was not settled until 100 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia, in Palestine. It was done in reaction to the Christian (Catholic) Church which was using the Alexandrian canon and gaining converts because the books not used by the Jamnia council were converting MORE Jews to Christianity because they supported (and still do) Catholic doctrine.
Luther used the later Hebrew canon without the Septuagint books. Martin Luther, along with the Jews in 100 A.D. in creating the Palestinian canon, actually discarded the books because they supported Catholic doctrines. Luther’s excuse was that the disputed Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained Hebrew copies of the disputed books, nullifying that excuse.
The Hebrew books that the original Alexandrian Jews had included were and are in fact legitimate.
Would you rather use a Martin Luther truncated OT, or an OT containing all 46 books, the one that was used by Jesus, the New Testament Writers, and the early Church? Martin wanted to get rid of even more books (James, Esther and Revelation) but he had no authority and he was talked out of it because it was absurd.
Martin Luther played fast and loose with the bible and thought he could get away with it. At one point he even added the word alone to Romans 3:28 strictly on his own authority, but the discrepancy was discovered quickly.
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.
This is a great discussion - but do let’s be polite ;- )
Let’s hear it for the Rock!
Daniel 2:34, 35
While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
You can get answers to all those questions at any 10-12 year old Evangelical Sunday school class. I can make arrangements.
Ohhh yes they did ..they had the Old Testament which speaks of Christ.. read Acts and the epistles and you will see that they quoted it over 200 times..
but another "uncomfortable truth" for Rome is peter called the letters of Paul SCRIPTURE and Paul quotes Luke as scripture
As we say in Texas..."good on you."
That is how I started as well.
Prove it.
>>Check the Aramaic.<<
The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament to be written in Greek. He did NOT inspire it to be written in Aramaic.
"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.
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:4)Perhaps you can explain to me why St. James says that STEADFASTNESS (not Scripture) will make one *perfect* (Gk. "teleois": a far stronger word than 2 Timothy 3:16-17 uses) and lacking in NOTHING? Should I start a movement called "sola stabilitas" (steadfastness alone)? I hardly think so... but I'd have a better case for it than you have for using 2 Timothy to prove "sola Scriptura"...
-— Could you lead us to the infallible Magisterium’s commentary on the whole bible-—
Does the Bible require this?
Does the Catholic Church claim this?
Did I?
No.
So why do you ask? This is a red herring.
I presented a simple claim.
The Bible does not, and cannot, refer to itself.
IOW, no passage in Scripture mentions which books constitute the Bible.
So what infallible Authority determined the canon of Scripture infallibly?
You? Luther? Neither claim infallibility.
Few Protestants understand this fatal logical flaw in Luther’s tradition of Sola Scriptura. And even fewer have the courage to address it directly, without obfuscation.
R.C. Sproul is the rare exception. He recognized the Protestant’s dilemma, calling the Bible “ a fallible collection of infallible books.”
His incoherent answer didn’t solve the problem, but he had the courage to address it.
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.
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.